Searchfortruth
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 5,971
- Reaction score
- 8
BBM. I'm sure the defense will use the lack of cause of death to question Dr. G's finding of homicide, as the manner of death. And Dr. G, being the professional that she is, will explain how ME's can come to that conclusion, when no cause of death can be determined (usually because the body is skeletonized). Duct tape over the face of a two year old, found in multiple trash bags in the woods, not reported missing by mother, is acceptable evidence to rule a homicide.Since they haven't entered anything into evidence that would support a drowning theory, isn't it rather to late for that??
I think what he was trying to do/prove is that Dr. G couldn't state for fact, how she died. IT could have been suffercation, it could have been drowning. IF he could get her to state an alternative, then he would have used that against her. Poke holes in her statements. Make it seem like she was trying to "be mean" to ICA. <eye roll> Which is why Dr. G came back at him about what the tape on the head actually means.
I believe CM tried to ask Dr G if she ruled the death a homicide, based on what LE had told her, and I thought of this. There was a case of Dr. G's where the homicide detectives thought a son had stabbed his father. LE was in on the autopsy, because they were pretty sure this was the case. Dr. G found out, during the toxicology tests, that the father went into psychosis, stabbing himself to death, from an overdose of a certain medication. Now, even though she had LE breathing down her neck, she went with her own examination and findings. The 15 year old son was not charged, thanks to Dr. G.
My point is, that if the defense tries to say the ME went with LE's opinion as to manner of death, there have been plenty of cases where she can prove them wrong.