Photos shown indicate the child safety locks were NOT engaged. LE says no one changed it....
Photos shown indicate the child safety locks were NOT engaged. LE says no one changed it....
I'm surprised at the number in inconsistencies in the witness testimony considering it's the second time around. You would think that would have all been ironed out by now.
Um, if they got together after the last trial to get their stories more in line they'd be lying. That's collaboration. They're being honest, thus the inconsistencies. Plus, if they testify differently this time around they could be impeached.
obviously.... that's not what I'm suggesting. I just felt they could better explain the differences since they already know they exist. Such as why one witness claims there's a rear window control button on the front passenger console, where one doesn't exist.
Do the safety locks have to be pushed down (and disengaged) in order to open the door? Is that door pictured open?
Good Question, if the doors are open it stand to reason the locks obviously can not be engaged.
Unless it works in a way I am not familiar with.
Well, you could open it from the outside. But yes, they're not on. The boys misunderstood. We deduced last time that what Brunson was talking about was a locking function on Durangos. When the car is turned on the back doors lock and they can only be unlocked by the driver or from the outside, making them similar to child locks (something to this effect). Thus, Jordan could not have opened the door. He also never said Jordan tried to get out but the child locks were on. He said he saw Jordan put his hand on the handle.
I remember that we wondered why no Durango expert was called. Let's hope we see one who explains just that to the jury.
If Dunn were to testify AGAIN that Jordan opened the door and got out to attack him, it would be recognized as one of his MANY lies on the stand.