Is anyone else wondering what the hello these lawyers... on BOTH sides... are trying to pull in this case?? :waitasec:
We've heard from Henry Lee... and we have to wonder "why?" What did his testimony add to this case AT ALL? Do people remember the theatrical *advertiser censored* he made of himself in the Michael Peterson trial? Yes... even Henry Lee is now a high priced call girl. Guess we can't call them prostitutes considering what they make... you know, like exotic dancer versus stripper.
I was really waiting for him to pour ketchup on his stomach and chest and take the role of Gus like he took the role of Kathleen Peterson.
The
facts about WHO was holding the gun that went off, WHO was shot dead, and WHERE the victim fell and died have NEVER been in dispute since before the trial began. Now the defense wants us to hear ramblings from Michael Baden who made an *advertiser censored* of himself a couple of months ago in the manslaughter case of Seymour Schuss, suggesting that perhaps (victim)Mr. Rosenburg had an aneurism coincidentally at exactly the same moment he was knocked to the ground by Schuss and struck his head on concrete. Had that testimony come from a fully qualified forensic pathologist no one had ever heard of, it would have drawn audible laughter from the jury box. But because Baden has some unnatural reputation as GOD of forensic pathology, his testimony actually caused one juror hold out and the jury hung... once again proving that "justice" is for sale. :furious:
Now the defense for Jayson Williams has put Baden on the stand to weave more tales for sale. And they have at least the intent of putting on Cyril Wecht as well! Having lived the biggest part of my life in and around Allegheny county, I know exactly what Cyril Wecht is all about. It would take a book to cover all the cases in which he has made an *advertiser censored* of himself. Yesterday someone in the hearing read a quote from his report in the Williams case that went something like (paraphrased) "The DNA on the gun is not consistent with the gun having been wiped down and an attempt made to put Mr. Cristofi's prints on it." :waitasec: Guess what genius! Fully twelve people, present at the scene, would beg to differ. Even if his statement is scientifically accurate (which is kind of scary considering the number of cases that hinge on DNA with NO eyewitness), it is completely irrelevant since we KNOW that did indeed happen. :banghead:
And since when have forensic pathologists become crime scene specialists? Is anyone going to point out that they are NOT? We know Gus is dead. We know Jayson Williams was the man holding the gun when the blast from it blew a hole in Gus that was not survivable.
What we need to know, and of course the jurors need to know, is whether the gun malfunctioned or the shooter malfunctioned. I can't see any way for Williams to avoid the charges of reckless behavior or obstructing justice. We need to see where the line is drawn between intentionally reckless and just stupidly reckless. We don't need Henry Lee, Michael Baden, or Cyril Wecht to render any bought-and-paid-for opinion to determine that.
