Hiya All,
Brian, I am not sure why the prosecution would offer a plea deal at this point? The jury has been exposed to the worst of things so far, I can't imagine that the defense will have an expert go over the bodies in detail. I don't think that would be good for Chris.
On the other hand, perhaps the defense has found someone who would swear in and say that rigor and the fixing of the blood can happen to 3 different people at lightning speed and that it happens all the time. At that point the defense will pound down the "Well the other doctors told you that they could not accurately calculate the time of death, right? So you now have 3 doctors who have said that -- you cannot possibly, with a good conscience, convict this poor innocent man who told you his family was alive when he left. You MUST believe him, it is your DUTY to believe him. He is innocent until proven guilty and if there is the slightest chance that his family was killed while he was gone you MUST consider him innocent." (ummm hello, but I don't)
Now just wouldn't it be interesting if the defense brought in three forensic pathologists to state that or something similar or even more compelling, i.e. they have studies proven that it has happened.
If I was a juror, I'd say "Thank you, now let's move on because I know who did this."
Oh BTW, did anyone see this article?
>>On further questioning from prosecutors, Dr. Nanduri says based on liver temperature alone, the crime could have happened six to eight hours before the core temperatures were taken, around 11:10 on May 5. Using the one degree per hour formula, that fits within Michael Baden's window. However, Dr. Nanduri said the range of that formula can go as high as 2.5 degrees per hour - which could give Coleman an alibi. Bottom line, defense attorneys were pointing out, the science is too uncertain.<<
Baden said it wasn't even close in terms of the deaths occurring when Chris was gone. But that is only one scientist and the science is uncertain. Do I believe that it is in this case, nopers, nopey nope nope.
Some science can be uncertain -- so why don't we throw it all out? We don't. We don't have certain science about way too many things that we know to be true.
Maybe during court a computer techie hired by the defense will create a
seewhatImean@gmail.com account on Chris Hayes computer and send 5 emails from the account to the judge and 4 other reporters in 10 minutes.
And then, let's see what else would they like to debunk... They have had all sorts of time to toss out a flock of googled text across the web with things like dont' wont' and "U have PAID" kind of things, as well as "oppurtunity." Further the one expert could not say for certainty whether Chris wrote "U have PAID" in paint. Right?
So, of course there is reasonable doubt now? WRONG. There is no way that Chris did not murder his family -- remember those scratches and the gurney?
