You don't have to be successful with an action for a motive to be the reason for the action. The discussion centered around why a perpetrator would remove a victim's clothing. It very well could be SA, and I've never suggested it isn't. I only asserted that there are alternative hypotheses to why a perp would do that.
Motive. The FBI analysts suggested this was a sexually motivated attack, and the evidence is the way the girls were found, Libby undressed, Abby redressed in her friend's clothes. Blood evidence suggests that the redressing happened before the physical attack.
IMO No. So many people were looking and all night long.
Yea working through lunch yesterday probably wasn’t the best idea. I had this thought about those needing to have food available to take medication or for illnesses like diabetes or low blood sugar.
Is this...a violation of the gag order?
No, because this was during the course of official proceedings. The gag order applied to statements that would be disseminated by the media.
In court as a juror, yes. On a true crime discussion board, not so much. The jurors do not know the information we know. If they did, they would be dismissed! The court wants people who have no knowledge, so they can only learn in court. In court, it is a blank slate with a presumption of innocence. We have lots of information through documents and previous hearings. We are all here, with open ears and minds. If something drastically changes, then we can change our minds. But we also have both logic and previous facts of the case to base our current opinions on. We don't have to listen to a whole trial before coming to some conclusions on a discussion forum. If that was the case, there would be no discussion. Just "wait for the trial".
Just guessing here, is this an animal hair? Hair from a furry coat? A child grabbing at the ground and animal hair is caught up in her hand or under her nails? Did an animal walk over them leaving a hair behind?
The defense submitting an exhaustive list of any and all potential witneses is not manipulating the trial process, it's part of the process that prevents a juror from being seated that might be acquainted with a potential witness. The rule is it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
It was a joke because of that juror that claimed vehemently that he 'did not like the colour green', IMO
LOL! Thanks!
Just going off my own experience with jury selection, but I'm trying to understand the context that this would have been brought up.
I will wait until The MS or another media outlet reports on the details, but I imagine it was something like 'would you convict an accused... even if you knew that the hair that was found in AW's hand did not belong to him?'
