Anonymous wrote:This final prosecution statement is great. Blackwell is a great speaker. Much more charismatic and convincing than the defense as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???
Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.
Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???
Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?
Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.
The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.
He really is rambling a lot. The prosecution was much more focused.
Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???
Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?
Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.
The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?
Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.
The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.
How can you not get someone to testify it could be relevant?? There is a ton of research showing covid causes damage to heart and lungs particularly in the short term (months) following. At the time of the event, that was all just beginning to be studied so it’s no surprise the autopsy said no reason to be linked. But without a doubt based on what we know now it can be related. Heck, they say that athletes cannot return to practice for certain number of weeks after a case or unless passing a battery of tests because the residual effects on the heart make exercising/extreme exertions dangerous
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?
Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.
The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.
Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?