View Single Post
Old 14th August 2018, 04:42 AM   #183
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The reason even Murtagh and Blackburn never presented to a court those supposed over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items
Murtagh and Blackburn DID PRESENT OVER 1,100 pieces of inculpatory evidence at trial. The evidence was introduced via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. That evidence is what convicted inmate. that evidence also was only 60% of the evidence available to use against inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and 60 percent of the evidence which Byn keeps harping on about is because they were inadmissible under American law.
Byn is not HARPING she is POINTING OUT THE FACTS AGAIN. That is not the same thing, but since you keep posting the same nonsense that has been PROVEN WRONG the only choice I have is to repeat the same FACTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. The prosecution has to decide what evidence they will present at trial. The evidence that was not used was not inadmissible in the courts. The true issue is that if the prosecution had presented every evidentiary item the trial would have lasted months longer than it did. You need to stop posting all the bs; seriously it is long past time you stopped being a troll.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Even bad judges Like Dupree
Judge Dupree was not a bad judge. He was an honest, hardworking, well respected jurist. During the trial he made every effort to keep Bernie Segal from totally alienating the jurors. The inculpatory nature of the evidence presented was sufficient to get inmate convicted as was appropriate. These days the addition of the highly inculpatory DNA test results would put inmate UNDER the jail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Fox would have put their foot down about it.
Judge Fox is also a well respected jurist. HOWEVER, he was not involved in the case until AFTER Judge Dupree passed away.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was like all that crap from Kassab about invented sexual assaults on the two little girls without a shred of medical or any other evidence,
it was not crap, it was an honest, personal opinion about what COULD have occurred. HOWEVER, what has Freddy's reasonable concern/belief have to do with anything we are discussing. His personal theory was not REPEAT WAS NOT presented to the jury. THE THEORY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH INMATE'S CONVICTION.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or even the amphetamine psychosis theory,
Again, this was a theory developed by Joe McG and he had a right to his beliefs. BUT THIS THEORY WAS NOT IN ANY WAY PART OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED INMATE. Joe McG didn't even "voice" that opinion until years after the trial and the first publishing of Fatal Vision. It was in an epilogue for a reprint.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the urine stain supposedly coming from Kim, instead of Kristen which actually happened
No henri, Kristen was not the one that wet the master bed. PERIOD! IT WAS MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT URINE STAIN TO HAVE COME FROM KRISTEN. The only 2 people who could have made that urine stain was Kimberley or Colette. PERIOD.

try and grasp the following FACTS:

Type A blood contains Antigen A and Anti-B antibodies
Type AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B (no antibodies)
Type O blood contains Antigen H and anti-A and Anti-B antibodies
Type B blood contains Antigen B and Anti-A antibodies

The urine stain was tested and Antigen A was found. Thus the only 2 possible makers of the urine stain were Kimmie and Colette. PERIOD. There was no evidence that Colette had evacuated her bladder but there was plenty of evidence that Kimmie had wet herself (including urine on her nightgown and panties that she was found in).

there is absolutely no evidence that Kristen ever left her bed that night. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
which I don't remember ever being presented to a court by the prosecution.
So what? The prosecution does not have to, nor do they present every piece of evidence collected at a crime scene. The way it works is that the prosecution determines what is the strongest evidence or the evidence that will contradict the story told by the defendant etc. and they create their case.

if the defense thinks that something should be brought in that the prosecution did not present then they are to bring it up during their portion of the trial.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top