- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 2,851
- Reaction score
- 24,819
Yes @Tortoise exactly…. and IMO one other possible point on that zipper. And the victim’s possible inability to free himself from the case.I don't think it matters that they didn't test the blood in the suitcase, or test the bat.
It's not disputed that he was in the case or that she hit him with that bat, and he was injured and bleeding. What further would it prove if it was or wasn't his blood? That he didn't die in there? It's not as if SB claims she was bleeding in the case or that he struck himself with the bat. I imagine the bat would have mixed DNA on it anyway, from its previous use in sport and from people who lived in the house just handling it innocently.
And of course a zipper without a pull on it is going to be more difficult to use. Everybody who's ever tried to use one in that condition knows that.
Personally if I was on the jury I would think the attorney was a jerk for going on the offensive about things that don't make a difference to their case. I can see why they want the zipper to have been easy to open but it's just not arguable. JMO
I am not sure the exact nature of that case and zipper…… and if the pull was missing you are correct. Almost possible to move the closer. And IIUC often the zipper mechanism is designed so that when the pull or clasp is placed closed and in a downward position there is a small tine or cam that locks the zipper in place. So that it doesn’t loosen. Depending on the nature of that suitcase maybe this point will come into evidence.
And as to the defense attorney now apparently saying it was ‘justified’ to have left the victim entombed in the case (latter my words), not sure how that position squares with it not being intentional per his client? MOO