GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #4

[Harmony 2]

Is Jean Casarez in the audience?

 

[bsk]

Is the defense's "Dr Lee" Dr Henry Lee or some other Dr Lee?

 

[Dmacky]

Yes, I think other inmates knew about this. But I don't think any of them helped in the letter exchange matter. I have an idea who did it, but I will refrain from saying it.

Norwegian ~ I love to read your posts! The suspense is killing me LOL

 

[Chelly]

So, the defense didn't bother to figure out what questions to ask this witness?

Dr P is providing different testimony than at deposition, i.e he enhanced it.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

He is still on direct. The defense is trying to suppress some testimony, saying it was outside what he provided in discovery. He is testifying outside the jury's presence so the judge can render a decision.

Sounds like the State provided the notice and went on to say that if allowed it may go to impeachment of the defense counsel? Is Spencer denying receiving it? Plus be detrimental to the State's case.

 

[scorekeeper]

Defense was talking a mile a minute

Pros appeared to be fired up!

 

[Isabelle]

Sounds to me like Dr. Perper did not have the opportunity to review the prior labs on Michele before the preliminary.

Defense should have to bring in an expert to contest Dr. Perper's opinion, since Defense is not qualified as an expert to argue with Dr. Perper's findings.

BTW what was the argument about the sodium levels. They should have been lowered because of dilution. The only way the sodium levels would remain stable or increase is if the water taken in was salt water and in that case the sodium on either side of the membrane would prevent a shift via osmosis.

 

[GaveltoGavel]

Is Jean Casarez in the audience?

Yes. First time I have spotted her is today.

 

[Isabelle]

Dr P is providing different testimony than at deposition, i.e he enhanced it.

I could see where that can happen, when over time there is opportunity to think more about different processes. Why not just have the witness read his testimony at deposition and end it at that, with no further questions? Not knowing what he said at deposition, I'm not sure what he would have enhanced, except to explain the physiological processes for jury understanding. Or, did he say at deposition that Michele's cause of death is undetermined as originally reported?

 

[bsk]

Sounds like the State provided the notice and went on to say that if allowed it may go to impeachment of the defense counsel? Is Spencer denying receiving it? Plus be detrimental to the State's case.

That's what the prosecution is arguing - it's not the witnesses fault that the defense didn't ask questions at the preliminary hearing that they could have.

State also argues that anything the defense is claiming should be a matter for cross and not cause for suppression. If the defense wins this objection they had better be sure their experts don't vary from anything said earlier.

They're done arguing and the judge is mulling it over.

 

[Isabelle]

I did hear the defense attorney take a "dig" at Dr. Perper when he said that his testimony is generally not accepted by others in the community. He got that in real quick.

 

[bsk]

Sounds to me like Dr. Perper did not have the opportunity to review the prior labs on Michele before the preliminary.

Defense should have to bring in an expert to contest Dr. Perper's opinion, since Defense is not qualified as an expert to argue with Dr. Perper's findings.

BTW what was the argument about the sodium levels. They should have been lowered because of dilution. The only way the sodium levels would remain stable or increase is if the water taken in was salt water and in that case the sodium on either side of the membrane would prevent a shift via osmosis.

BBM - IANAL (nor a doctor) so someone better able to keep up with all that will have to explain it.

 

[bsk]

He's a typical for-hire expert witness.

Unlike the experts the defense will offer? :waitasec:

 

[atthelake]

Yes, I think other inmates knew about this. But I don't think any of them helped in the letter exchange matter. I have an idea who did it, but I will refrain from saying it.

G*ve u* a h*nt on wh* you th*nk it is w*thout t*ping a search*hable name lol

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[digitalwindows]

It is my understanding that they are arguing about the 2003 blood labs being added to the good Dr.'s evaluation .

 

[Chelly]

Unlike the experts the defense will offer? :waitasec:

all paid witness slant their testimony. That's what they get paid to do. In all fairness, it is often better to ignore all expert witness testimony.

 

[digitalwindows]

Dr P is providing different testimony than at deposition, i.e he enhanced it.

It seems that the defense was not aware of Dr. Perper a using MM's 2003 labs. But the prosecution is arguing that it was added because the defense's Dr. Lei gave the pros a report that was using it as a baseline.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

It is my understanding that they are arguing about the 2003 blood labs being added to the good Dr.'s evaluation .

From 2003? Didn't both sides get notice back then on these findings?

 

[websurfer]

I declare a Mistrial as in some other cases
:twocents:

 

[Isabelle]

It seems that the defense was not aware of Dr. Perper a using MM's 2003 labs. But the prosecution is arguing that it as added because the defense's Dr
. Lei gave the pros a report that was using it as a baseline.

Interesting too that Dr. Perper did mention that the 2003 labs and pre op labs were very much the same, but I don't think the Defense listened to that part. Anyone in the medical profession would want all information available on a person so that they will know the baseline. This can have a major impact on decision making.