DT (continuing on here in the interest of saving time).
As I just stated, the autopsy report will be entered into evidence by the prosecution. Both sides will use it. Both sides will have examined it before the trial begins.
Okay. My mistake. I am no court of law expert. I thought it didn't matter.
Edit: Okay. If the autopsy report includes "did not die of asphyxiation" or "died of a hearth attack", then the judge shouldn't allow the full report in court. Is that much better?
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 31, 2020 7:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
I have no idea why he thinks he knows more than you do about evidence at a murder trial. Hell, I’d check myself before contradicting you on that subject.
DT (continuing on here in the interest of saving time).
As I just stated, the autopsy report will be entered into evidence by the prosecution. Both sides will use it. Both sides will have examined it before the trial begins.
Okay. My mistake. I am no court of law expert. I thought it didn't matter.
You need to watch trials, DT or at least join the true crime community and get up to snuff on this stuff so you understand how the process works.
Right now...you are mixing up two statements you made here and my responses to them. It's very frustrating trying to communicate with you when you do that.
I have no idea why he thinks he knows more than you do about evidence at a murder trial. Hell, I’d check myself before contradicting you on that subject.
You said, "I don't think it matters whether he was asphyxiated or had a heart attack for purposes of a third-degree murder charge."
The judge is not supposed to allow things that are irrelevant. So can you please clarify your comment?
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 31, 2020 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Because you don't know what you're talking about, DT.
Res Ipsa said, "I don't think it matters whether he was asphyxiated or had a heart attack for purposes of a third-degree murder charge." Is he correct?
I think there is reason to believe that an ongoing cover-up has been attempted. I doubt it will succeed. Look, you cannot kneel on someone's neck for an extended period of time and not have a fatal result. To then claim there was no evidence of asphyxiation is blatant dishonesty.
If the victim and the murderer both worked at the same place for a number of years in security, was there bad blood between them?
I have no idea why he thinks he knows more than you do about evidence at a murder trial. Hell, I’d check myself before contradicting you on that subject.
I follow a number of cases, watch the trials, hang out in the true crime community, and I follow a criminal defense attorney on youtube who posts virtually every single day about cases. I started following trials going back to OJ.
Right now...you are mixing up two statements you made here and my responses to them. It's very frustrating trying to communicate with you when you do that.
Well, I am sorry. I am no court of law expert. Like I said I thought it didn't matter because I believed Res Ipsa. Now he won't clarify. I mean it can't be both ways.
Right now...you are mixing up two statements you made here and my responses to them. It's very frustrating trying to communicate with you when you do that.
Well, I am sorry. I am no court of law expert. Like I said I thought it didn't matter because I believed Res Ipsa. Now he won't clarify. I mean it can't be both ways.
You losing track of the specific exchanges has nothing to do with being an expert.