Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.

I really hope you are right.

Comments on the CW attorney are disheartening. This is a big case. They have had tons of time.

Has the commonwealth attorney himself been there. I thought he was quite accomplished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

It doesn't feel like enough to me. I'm not sure they established as a fact in the case that CB had a blood clotting disorder that would have led her to bleed out if she engaged in knife play. Listening solely to the testimony, it sounded like she had to be careful as a kid doe to some unknown condition, but it was managed well enough in adulthood and she participated in many sports and they did not establish that she wore any protective gear or took precautions as an adult. I don't think it's absolutely essential to the CW's case, but it's like, why bring it up if they weren't going to establish it very clearly.

Anonymous wrote:Defense is objecting to things like the photograph with markings to preserve the issue for appeal. Generally on appeal the issue or error has to have been raised contemporaneously to be considered so defense is just doing their job.

I am a little surprised the CW didn’t bring the doctor in or a medical expert to review records. I can understand wanting to stay focused on a cohesive narrative and I think the CW has done a pretty good job of that so far but it seems like it would have been worth it to at least briefly go over those. I guess they got there overall. The dad did say there was a “treatment” that she got, instead of an ongoing medication and it was given by doctors, not the parents. I would assume this was an injection. Overall it seems like it might have been worth it to establish this but I guess I would say I found the dad’s testimony credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not sexist or superficial to comment on the prosecutor’s attire when it is that unprofessional. It’s disrespectful to the court and jury. She was wearing culottes today with a baggy sweater. It doesn’t have anything to do with the facts of the but it does not aspire confidence or that the state is taking this case seriously

Can someone post a link and time stamp? I watched some footage today but the prosecutor was off screen for all of it.

Anonymous wrote:About 10 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial (large east coast city but not DC). It was pretty straightforward, the state wanted first degree murder and the defendant was arguing that it was self defense, and I think there was also an option for us to pick second degree murder ("heat of passion" or whatever) if we thought that was more appropriate? Spoiler alert, we didn't, we picked first degree murder.

Anyways, my point is, I remember the forensic testimony and I remember taking notes because I felt like I was getting clues to solve a mystery- I was like "oh! the lady said that the stab wounds were at an X degree angle, that means they were pointed downwards, that seems like he was kneeling or on the ground when he was stabbed- that can't be self defense!!" and I felt so proud of myself for being so clever, and wondering why on earth the prosecution was leaving it up to me to connect all of these dots from the testimony.

But, I was wrong. The closing statement tied it all together and pointed out very clearly all of these things that I thought I was supposed to put together on my own. They know that juries are often filled with many not very intelligent people. In this case too, I am sure that during closing arguments, the prosecution will be very clear as to what all of the testimony is pointing towards- they will explain the blood splatter on the shoes as being important, they will explain the blood clotting disorder piece and why it's important, they will explain it all.