LaineyJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2021
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 12,359
Ah, ok, thanks for explaining. I only got to listen for a few minutes when she was back on the stand. I did hear her listing off a bunch of stuff.The expert was an expert. This was a matter of defense grandstanding after putting on a shabby showing throughout the trial. ( To be fair, the defense had absolutely no defense...nothing to show to convince the jury RABA is innocent.)
Defense wanted Judge to strike the injection testimony from the trial. It was a last ditch effort by defense to convince jury that the pathologist was wrong about the injection wound. Actually defense's efforts to get testimony struck backfired. Judge ruled to have the pathologist/medical examiner called back to the stand to help clear up the misumderstanding. The pathologist is a certified medical examiner who apparently functions in the role of pathologist. She passed all the pathologist exams but is not certified. She also looked good on the stand second time explaining her long list of qualifications. In the end, I thought the defense looked loopy. It is up to the jury to believe whether the wound was an insect bite or toxic injection. The wound is all moot anyway because RABA ultimately stabbed the poor baby to death, just as he did the mother.
And when she was asked whether she stands by her earlier idea about a puncture/injection wound and she said yes. She sounded sure and confident.
Can’t imagine this jury will take long at all.