what is more surprising is that I would like to move on to other aspects of the case. I can stipulate that the bullet passed through the dura mater and perhaps part of the brain, but the gunshot was first and travis was not immediately incapacitated. I am surprised that you never answer my question when I asked. "Do you believe that Kevin Horn truly never remembered ever speaking to Flores about the case. A case that is the most important and biggest case he has ever worked on. Do you believe that Flores is "mistaken" when he says three times he had conversations with Horn where he was told that travis would not have been immediately incapacitated and that the gunshot was first? Do you believe that if Flores had inadvertantly said "we believe the gunshot was first" as he did in the 48 hour special, that the prosecution wouldn't have put out a clarification immediately upon such a huge mistake? Who was the "we" he was referring to? Can you answer any of those questions without making excuses that would not be acceptable for defense witnesses?
You clearly believe that there is something nefarious going on, when there isn't. I'm not sure why you choose to believe this, because there's no evidence that this is the case - only opinion. Nor is there any reason why it
would be the case. It would serve the prosecution equally well to say that he was shot first, still capable of meaningful movement, and then stabbed and slashed at the throat.
It's also unrealistic to suppose that theories about how crimes occur remain static, from day one. As anyone in law enforcement will tell you, they most certainly don't.
As for Flores statements, in the early days of this particular case, the focus was simply on establishing cruelty - equally achieved
whatever the actual sequence. He simply stated what he personally believed at that time to be correct. Again (as he said) the actual sequence was not important at that time.
In preparing for trial, however, facts and evidence necessarily fall under closer scrutiny, including the expert opinion of the
actual medical examiner, who has no reason whatsover to lie. And if Dr. Horn says he didn't speak to Flores about it, then yes, I believe Dr. Horn. Nor is there any reason to doubt his conclusions about the sequencing and the incapacitating effect of the gunshot wound to the head. It's an
expert opinion, based on what's known - by experts - to happen when a bullet enters and stops where it did. And indeed, defense's failure to bring a rebuttal medical examiner to the stand speaks in
support of his conclusions.
As for the peripheries, whatever was said in a 2008 TV show, by someone not qualified to speak on medical matters, etc., but thought
at that time to be the case - is irrelevant and not evidence. And quite frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest that Police Depts should monitor and counter TV entertainment shows about their cases.
From the public's perspective, TV crime shows often illustrate what I said earlier - how theories of crimes evolve over time as cases progress, evidence is examined more closely and new information comes to light, etc.
