There's nothing wrong with the video
All right, no one is in trouble, at least concerning the video. The judge ruled that the video was not a recreation of events. He said it was not a re-enactment because there were no actors and the facts of the video were the facts. He also said there was no false evidence testified to; although, he said there were inconsistencies with the testimony of McNeil and Hartley. He said that should be a matter for cross-examination and in his opinion, that would be more of the benefit of the defendant. He also said the dog handler can retake the stand and counsels can ask him more questions. I better get a good nights sleep the night before the dog handler comes back.
Hartley is still on the stand. Jurors returned around 10:15. She continued explaining her evidence. She said she collected yellow paint chips off Emily Anderson's sweatshirt. She also collected several paint chip samples from the John Deere front-end loader taken from the Anderson farm. The paint chips were tested at the SBI lab. Hartley did not say if they were a match.
She's still on the stand. The defense began its questioning. C-ya around lunchtime.
Hartley is still on the stand. Jurors returned around 10:15. She continued explaining her evidence. She said she collected yellow paint chips off Emily Anderson's sweatshirt. She also collected several paint chip samples from the John Deere front-end loader taken from the Anderson farm. The paint chips were tested at the SBI lab. Hartley did not say if they were a match.
She's still on the stand. The defense began its questioning. C-ya around lunchtime.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
11:07 AM
5 Comments:
I'm not following what the prosecution is attempting to do here. Hartley testified there were fingerprints inside the tool box - but she didn't say who they belonged to. She said there were yellow paint chips on Emily - but she didn't say if they were from the tractor.
What gives?
Why not complete the picture for the jury. This is the hard evidence I have been talking about all along. If the prosecution has it, then tell the jury. But why the half pictures?
Are they afraid to point out the fingerprints are from an unknown person, so they leave that part out? Are they afraid to show the paint chips aren't related, so they leave that part out too?
If there is a connection to the crime, show it and stop playing games. Do they think this is a TV show and they will make all the connections in the last few minutes right after the commercial break?
I don't know what to make of it. This is their big chance to finally show something substantial, yet they are not doing it. Bizarre!
I think they are afraid to tie it all together because then the handling of the evidence comes in...ooops.
"Free Ebook: The greatest viral marketing idea of all time"
This has got to be the most screwed presentation of evidence I've ever heard of. I think what we are going to find out as this trial goes along is the Sheriff's Office and the DA's office did a very poor job investigating this case. Even if the guy committed the crime the appeals courts are going to have a field day with all the stuff this Judge has allowed.
Yep...I see an appeals and the courts slapping hands for this screwed up mess the DA 's office created. Look boys (DA) get off the high horse and give the jury something to sink their teeth into or get off the pot!
I cannot for the life of me figure out why no one is asking about the fingerprints or the paint chips-The rape kit should have been sent in whether there was any sign of sexual assault or not. I think the Sheriffs Office maybe became convinced they had all they needed to arrest and convict this man and just did not follow up on things they should have. It seems like the DA is hoping the defendant will become annoyed with all this and stand up in court and scream out he did it--kind of like on TV.
Post a Comment
<< Home