Not test, just get a feel for it by walking through. Spacial perception and sound perception IN a a space are completely different than imagining via a 3D rendering.
Problem is, you cannot get the valid spacial or sound perception years after the original space was damaged, emptied, changed, and has no similar lighting or furnishings and has been partially torn up.
A persuasive attorney can make you believe things that are possible are not possible abd visa versa when it comes to that house and timing. So as a juror I would want to walk through the house simply because I wouldn’t want anyone TELLING me what was or wasn’t possible in those few minutes. That is going to be a big point. “He couldn’t have done this or that in that amount of time blah blah blah.” But if jurors would be able to walk the walk of the killer themselves then it would be a LOT easier for them to make up their minds without reasonable doubt. That’s the clincher - reasonable doubt. I’m worried about someone planting the seed “there had to have to have been someone helping him. He couldn’t have done it alone. He couldn’t have killed 4 people in that amount of time. Blah blah blah.”
But what if walking through an empty, dark, torn up space would make it look like it was harder than it was? The killer had night lights, neon signs and lights coming through from neighbours to help light his way.
The jurors would not be able to 'walk the walk' because some of the floorboards were torn out and some of the walls were torn open---and none of the furnishings were there. It would have looked so much different. It could have created doubt that might not have been there during the actual crime.
Yeh most us of us here are like yeh right! But I’m telling you, leaving the house up and allowing the jurors a walk through would have made a huge difference.
They would not see or hear anything that was similar to the crime scene though.
I know they wouldn’t have been able to measure things or do anything other than walk through, but a saavy juror would have paid attention to sounds. For example I can hear my daughters giggling 2 bedrooms down but my door is open. Things like that.
The jurors would not be able to hear anything like that. When you visit a crime scene you walk through together and silently.
Maybe a juror would ask a question about where exactly the ring camera was in relation to Xana’s bedroom etc. they could ask questions pay attention to sounds of other people in other rooms.
They are not allowed to do ask questions that would be considered making certain conclusions.
And there would not be any sounds of any people in the other rooms. You walk together in a group and cannot talk amongst yourselves.
Imagine they were there that night. Isn’t the defense already planning on planting doubt with the whole Dylan thing….
Probably---but having the jury tour an empty, torn up, building won't help prevent that seed of doubt growing.
If they went and saw it when it was furnished and lit up with night lights and neon signs on the entrance wall, they might have a better feeling of it.
I just think that it was really dumb to tear down the house before the completion of the trial. Dumb dumb dumb. Feelings be darned. We’ve got 4 dead kids. The community has been through hell. May as well keep the house up to make SURE you put the killer behind bars. Again JMO as someone who works with CADs. A LOT of people go completely blank with 3D renderings. That house is not an easy blueprint and we aren’t talking about 1 room and one dead person. We’ve got 4 dead people and there are MULTIPLE floors and points of entry.
The tour was not going to make that puzzle described above any easier. There would not be dead bodies on the floor or any exit signs.
But the trial will have exhibits which show all of those things in a 3-D model.
In addition to the that, we’ve got the dog and 2 survivors (one who heard things saw the killer but didn’t think anything of it or check on her friends or notice blood coming out of the rooms so must not have gone to bathroom in the morning so didn’t report anything for hours and one who heard absolutely nothing) and 2 sets of stairs and it goes on and on and on. It’s complex. Very complex.
the tour of the empty house would not help any of the above^^^^ controversy though. They will be no dog, no sounds in any of the other rooms, it would be daylight and not 4 am. It would be summer and not winter.
It would not answer any of the riddles you set forth above.
We think it’s easy. But the defense is going to be jerks with all this. This house would have been nice for the jurors to get some solid footing in their own minds to stand up to the BS
It would not have been a way to get any solid footing. The jurors would walk through, in a group, not be allowed to speak to each other about it. It would be the bailiff and likely the judge, leading the quiet tour of an empty, beat up unfurnished house.
It would not be at 4 am in the winter--it would be daylight in the summer. It would smell like chemicals and the floorboards and walls would be torn up in some areas.
None of the complex questions that are niggling at you could be answered by walking through that empty, torn up shell of a house. JMO
Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...
www.theintelligencer.com
Whether or not to allow a jury to view the scene will always be up to the judge who is presiding over the jury trial. When a jury view of the scene is allowed by the judge in a case, the judge himself or herself need not be present during the view. In a case in which a jury view of a scene is allowed, the parties in a case as well as their respective attorneys are allowed to be present.
However, those parties and attorneys are not permitted to engage in any commentary whatsoever during the course of the view of a scene. In short, even if a party wanted to narrate the jury's walk through of a house, for example, that party would not be allowed to do so. 
www.kxly.com
