Can you think of a possible scenario might multiple sharp force injuries might be presented as accidental?
Mollie Tibbetts autopsy finds that she died by 'multiple sharp force injuries' - CNN
On that topic, I’m hopeful the autopsy was able to reveal which of the sharp force injuries would be considered fatal as that’s significant to proving intent. For example an arm wound is not likely to cause death, as opposed to a throat or stomach wound. Otherwise even if it’s determined the totality of the injuries caused eventual death, for example by blood loss, I think LE was quite brilliant to have extracted CR’s tale about dragging and carrying her to the cornfield, then covering her up with stalks. Because if at that point she was mortally wounded and unconscious, he still intentionally caused her death by inflicting the injuries and then leaving her there.
As far as pleading guilty, I don’t think enough time has passed yet. I’m quite certain the State but especially the defence would be required to wait until all the discovery has been obtained by both parties, to ensure the evidence does indeed support his guilt and thereby eliminate the risk of later appeal. The Case Conference isn’t scheduled until December, an indication that the process slowly plods along.
I think that the Fit-Bit and phone(s)/On Star tracking data will be key to accurately determining time and place of death. This has the potential to be a landmark case in that regard. I agree with most all that you say above.
"
Can you think of a possible scenario where multiple sharp force injuries might be presented as accidental?"
Please don't go up in arms about my answer to this, but this was actually given as a defence to a multiple wound stabbing in New Orleans, as to why it was accidental:
"I fell down a bunch of times with the knife in my hand, and he must have been under me in the dark." (or words to that effect - I'm not making this up, but I did not hear it first hand...)
So, let's stop looking at the confession as if it is gospel. It says only what LE chose to share with the court and the public, and
nothing more!
A key rule, repeated to me by many attorneys in prep for my testimony in open court, as an expert witness or in deposition as the same was: "Never answer a question asked by opposing counsel with anything more than what is absolutely necessary!
Don't elaborate, don't run on, don't give extraneous information, don't try to be the smartest guy in the room. (In other words, the exact opposite to the way I behave on WS!).
You are there to give answers to specific questions, not give out information. (Sometimes I did not follow this sage advice, once with hilarious and very successful result in front of a Jury)
LE's internal Miranda mantra, to themselves when filling out a Warrant application is: Once you write it down, it is real. Anything you write can and will be used by opposing counsel to impeach, humiliate, and discredit you, in open court. The briefer the better. The less specific the better. The more vague the better. Better for you to have plenty of wriggle room when the opposing counsel tries to pin you down to HIS narrative in open court, in front of a Jury.
And yeah, you can't out and out lie; you gotta tell the truth, but not necessarily all of it, or all at once!
Let's set aside the synopsis of CR's confession as contained in the arrest warrant, for the magnificent construct of ambiguity that it is.
Please allow me spin another narrative that answers the question originally presented above.
I know that somewhen, I heard Rick Rahm say that CR tackled MT as he ran up on her, which makes perfect sense. How else would you take down a running person? Aside from sweeping her legs from under her, or by clothesline-ing her. Now we are solidly in the "blocked out" area of the crime's time line.
Now suppose that CR had an open knife in his hand as he overtook MT. (If this was the case, it would go a long way to validate premeditation and intent). The rest of my narrative is obvious.
CR took MT down in a tackle, he had the knife in his hand as they fell, though he did not mean to, he stabbed her as they fell. (Now, here is where the story gets stupid). CR then tried to stand up, with the knife still in his hand, MT fighting kicked his feet out from under him, causing him to fall down, and accidently stab MT again (this may have had to have happened several times in a row to account for all the stab wounds).
OR, the first "accidental" stab wound was fatal, and CR later committed abuse of a corpse (at the "hog farm"?) when he repeatedly stabbed her dead body in anger, because he broke his new toy before he got to play with it!
There you go, a plausible alternative scenario that fits into the blocked out zone, and which supports a Murder Two conviction instead of Murder One.
This is the kind of narrative that could plant reasonable doubt in a Jury's mind. The defence only needs to convince a single juror to cause a hung jury, and a possible plea deal for Murder Two and 50 years instead of a second trial. Or, if the defense can plant enough reasonable doubt, in enough jurors minds, then perhaps a Murder Two charge with the first trial, and fifty years instead of life.
Do I think that will happen? No I don't, but anything is possible. And the Jury, not WS'ers will decide.
Time will tell...
JIMHIOO
