GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd be surprised if Defense doesn't question Ada and ask leading questions in an effort to get her testimonial support for their client's statements.

As the judge mentioned, the Defense can (inadvertently) open the door to a broader redirect so they will be very, very careful.
 
Italy said:
I'd be surprised if Defense doesn't question Ada and ask leading questions in an effort to get her testimonial support for their client's statements.

As the judge mentioned, the Defense can (inadvertently) open the door to a broader redirect so they will be very, very careful.
Click to expand...

I think they will open the door. You can't control how a child responds. Their thought processes are scattered.

It irks me that this *advertiser censored* is putting his children through this. But then again, what can I expect from a deceiver like this one? :jail:
 
Going back to Rachel's cross, I don't understand how the defense could bring up her 2012 ER visit for delusions and psychosis. Isn't that information protected under HIPAA? I found that very disturbing. And I don't understand how the defense could bring that up? Statements by the ER physician would have been hearsay? I am very confused by that. Any explanation you all have would help. TIA
 
Are they losing the jury in this Toxicology 101 demonstration?
 
Zuri said:
Going back to Rachel's cross, I don't understand how the defense could bring up her 2012 ER visit for delusions and psychosis. Isn't that information protected under HIPAA? I found that very disturbing. And I don't understand how the defense could bring that up? Statements by the ER physician would have been hearsay? I am very confused by that. Any explanation you all have would help. TIA
Click to expand...

I believe that was an attempt to impeach Rachel. They had the ER records and her denial of delusions and psychosis were contrary to the records. It was stupid IMO and I'm not sure what effect it had on the jury. As for the hearsay? That's a good question.... that was a bizarre exchange IMO and I was surprised the state did not address it on re-direct.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
The judge, imho, is not biased, but going by law. We may not like it, but, if he makes the wrong decision, it would come up in an appeal. I'd rather have limited testimony than none at all, and, in the end, he did allow the Justice Center interview in.
Click to expand...

I have noticed this judge going an 'extra' step IMO in helping the defense overcome objections. IMO he has been biased towards the defense as long as I have watched this trial unfold. I agree that I'd rather not have room for an appeal but the court already heard from Ada and if memory serves that court did not find testimony to be tainted. From what I understood Ada's testimony has not changed since then so what has gotten tainted? Besides isn't that what cross is for although I agree with a child it probably isn't deliberate but just a desire to please adults.

I will be happy with the taped testimony coming in though I am unsure if the drawing Alexis helped her with (by jotting down things Ada was saying) is in that earlier recording?
 
CUCKOOHEAD said:
I have noticed this judge going an 'extra' step IMO in helping the defense overcome objections. IMO he has been biased towards the defense as long as I have watched this trial unfold. I agree that I'd rather not have room for an appeal but the court already heard from Ada and if memory serves that court did not find testimony to be tainted. From what I understood Ada's testimony has not changed since then so what has gotten tainted? Besides isn't that what cross is for although I agree with a child it probably isn't deliberate but just a desire to please adults.

I will be happy with the taped testimony coming in though I am unsure if the drawing Alexis helped her with (by jotting down things Ada was saying) is in that earlier recording?
Click to expand...

The drawing was done with Alexis, so it won't come in.
 
The specific problem addressed was the things Ada added to her recollection after that CJC interview. Usually a memory over time becomes less reliable, not more reliable or more clear.
 
Zuri said:
Going back to Rachel's cross, I don't understand how the defense could bring up her 2012 ER visit for delusions and psychosis. Isn't that information protected under HIPAA? I found that very disturbing. And I don't understand how the defense could bring that up? Statements by the ER physician would have been hearsay? I am very confused by that. Any explanation you all have would help. TIA
Click to expand...

I am also confused. IMO, defense brought up the ER visit to make Rachel look crazy. DA did not even read the real dx. I used to code medical records. Delusions can be drug induced. I would think if the DA wanted to bring in that ER visit, they would have the ER doc. testify. The questioning made me mad.

Zuri, you are a nurse aren't you? So you would know what I am talking about.
 
Ina Cognito said:
I believe that was an attempt to impeach Rachel. They had the ER records and her denial of delusions and psychosis were contrary to the records. It was stupid IMO and I'm not sure what effect it had on the jury. As for the hearsay? That's a good question.... that was a bizarre exchange IMO and I was surprised the state did not address it on re-direct.
Click to expand...

How did they have access to her records? Unless released by her, no one else should have access. That information is protected by law. This thought is scary. What I basically understood from that exchange, is that any time for any reason, you visit your physician, psychologist, ER etc, that info can be obtained and used against you.

I am probably missing something. I find this frightening and hope this is not a normal occurrence.
 
The def was seeking to exclude the CJC interview as well. The judge denied that because her memories/addition to, did not begin to change until after that interview.
 
Zuri said:
Going back to Rachel's cross, I don't understand how the defense could bring up her 2012 ER visit for delusions and psychosis. Isn't that information protected under HIPAA? I found that very disturbing. And I don't understand how the defense could bring that up? Statements by the ER physician would have been hearsay? I am very confused by that. Any explanation you all have would help. TIA
Click to expand...

I also thought this was out of limits since Rachel was a witness. I don't understand how the judge can prevent testimony about MacNeill from being entered as 'too prejudicial' which I agreed with although it sure goes to character and yet allow the defense to drag a witness's mental health through the mud which is what the defense did in my opinion when they suggested Rachel suffered from delusions and psychosis.

I still have a big issue with this judge saying out loud in front of the jury that she (Rachel) could be impeached if she has... and then both sides approached the bench. IMO that was tainting. Tainting the jury. JMO.
 
Zuri said:
How did they have access to her records? Unless released by her, no one else should have access. That information is protected by law. This thought is scary. What I basically understood from that exchange, is that any time for any reason, you visit your physician, psychologist, ER etc, that info can be obtained and used against you.

I am probably missing something. I find this frightening and hope this is not a normal occurrence.
Click to expand...

Did Rachel have her own medical insurance or was she somehow covered under Martin's? If she was covered under Martin's then he would have access to her medical files and since it has been made clear that he cares more about saving his own rear end instead of the well being of his children, then I could see him giving that information to his defense team to use against Rachel.

MOO
 
I just got back here. Brother stopped in for a visit. Doesn't sound like I missed much?
 
While I agree that Alexis may have influenced Ada, the truth is that children often recall troubling events as time progresses. A young child has a built-in protection against very troubling recollections which may return over time as the child (and psyche) matures.

Case in point is Elizabeth Smart's young sister. She was unable to describe the man who kidnapped her sister until several months after the event occurred.

While the judge cited a great deal of prior case law, I think he seriously erred in his conclusion. If Ada's direct testimony is inaccurate, it should be impugned during the trial thru cross.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 1,852 (members: 163, guests: 1,689)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
1,689
Total visitors
1,852
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,663
Messages
18,190,559
Members
233,489
Latest member
Shayput1996
Back
Top