NO, that is not what Dr. Coyne said, "He said it COULD be consistent." and as Ross pointed out, it could have been multiple attackers, and Dr. Coyne agreed!
(I hate it when someone tries to convince me, "that is what you said".....and I know darned well it is something I would never do or say!)
I didn't like this part of the process...where they cite cases, names, numbers and then take something that was ruled on 27 years ago and make it relevant for today. You "court people" talk a different language. I think I should change my moniker to
LegallyBLANK![]()
In closing statements, when they start quoting older cases, one after the other, it sounds like they're
trying to create substance that they don't have; trying to pad their own skeletal case, trying to seem like they did their research, when they can't find more up to date examples that work. Then, they speak faster and faster so you can't catch every thing they say, or get the chance to consider the irrelevancy of it. Finally, they make it so tedious and boring, that your eyes roll into the back of your head, and some jurors may be prone to think, yeah, whatever, this guy has so much info and details supporting his case, that he must be right-- when, in fact, they zero in on one statement made by the witness, and try to make a blanket out of it, instead of presenting the entire facts.
I'm going to have to review Coyne's testimony, because the only time I remember he referred to the same hammer being used was when he was talking about the big wound on the right side of Teresa's head. THAT wound, he believed, was made by 3 blows with the same hammer. Coyne said there was a MINIMUM of 17 wounds. He said the possibility of several attackers existed. He spoke about ball peen hammers, claw hammers, flat ended hammers, and other varieties.
It seems defense attorneys employ the same tactics as their clients: diversion, enhancement, confusion, misdirection, omission, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,.....
Last edited: