Model of 1122 King as an Exhibit. Imperfect?
Defense did not object to the demolition of 1122 KIng Rd house, but now their expert has all kinds of issues with a model replica the state wants to use, because, well, because among other things, it isn't going to have furniture, and also shows associated topography, and it is going to take him a while to analyze all the data, (apparently 4 months is not enough time) and he is going to have to plan a day trip to go look at it, when it is created, and... from the filing today...
9. ... I have been informed that the model will not have any furniture, original materials or other objects that take up space in the normal layout of the residence. The absence of these features can influence the appearance of spatial relationships as they actually existed and were captured in original photos and video...
10. Finally, on March 14, 2025, I was provided with the data from which the model will be built. This data includes over 100 individual 3D scans that have been stitched together and include not only the residence, but the topography of the surrounding landscape. Assessing this data will take considerable time and then examining the finished product and verifying scale, dimension and completeness will take additional time on top of that...
11. Once the download has been completed the analysis will take approximately one or two days to assess the scan data. After my analysis of the scan data is complete, I will need to arrange a viewing of the exhibit and a description as to how the scan data was translated into the actual physical exhibit needs to be provided.
12. Traveling to examine the model created and documenting what may be needed to further assess it are things that are not built into my schedule at this time...
Methinks the defense doth protest too much. JMO
@SteveP Thx for post w your comments, quotes and link. Yep, you got it.
Expert: "it isn't going to have
furniture,"
No worries, pretty sure someone here can fix that right up w Barbie Malibu Dream House* furniture. If not, there's always Leggo. /s
Seriously, on CX is def going ask DM about furniture - missing from model- btwn her & the intruder, and later in closing, argue that DM could
not possibly have observed bushy eyebrows/projecting brow/mask, etc.
And on CX, point finger at model prompting Wit. to say a fast food bag is missing there so I can't get my bearings in the model? As
@Megnut posted (my paraphrasing), So What?
Expert: "absence... can influence the
appearance of spatial relationships as they actually existed"
But if DM's testimony is (basically) that while standing inside her room and close to the door (maybe w her hand on the door, the jamb, or doorknob), she saw the intruder passing by at the closest point, what---
one yard and at the furthest point, three or four yards away, approaching the exterior door, I'm missing the point about
absence influencing anything.
Even if the model was ridiculously
out of scale, on DX or redirect, prosecution can say to DM on the stand, I'm going to walk away one step at a time, and ask that you tell me when I'm at the same distance as the intruder was as he walked past you at your room door. Let the
jury see it w
their own eyes.
Seems prosecution will have a
counter-punch for every jab in ^ motion, pre-trial and/or at trial. imo.
__________________________________________
*
Check out the Barbie Malibu House Playset FXG57 feautring two-story dollhouse with play spaces and accessories. Explore more Barbie dolls and playsets at our Barbie shop today!
shop.mattel.com
LoL