- The prosecutor needs to be dismissed from the court room.
- The defense attorney does not deserve to be admonished. He had to point out his disgust with the behavior of the prosecutor in order for the judge to actually do something about it. The judge should have called the attorneys to the bench before the defense attorney had to point out the behavior.
- The prosecutor's behavior was deliberate to 'effect' the legitimacy of the arguments of the defense. The trial is really in question.
- It seems to be there is a prejudice by the court in favor of the State.
- I don't see how the forensics can hold up in appeal. There has to be physical evidence that points to the actions of a murderer. The chloroform witness used new technology without that technology being approved by an authority that can validate it's accuracy. The State had plenty of time to commit any new technology to a recognized authority such as the FBI to validate it's use in a capital crime. At this point any manipulation of the fact the State never validated a new technology above any suspicion of inaccuracy is not admissible in appeal, because, all that could be and should be viewed as 'tayloring' the evidence to fit the crime. I have the same view of the 'movie' that included tape over the skull. That is evidence taylored to fit the crime. The physical evidence should be obvious.
-I don't believe this case was handled this poorly. There are lies after lies after lies documented that contradicts each other by their own witnesses. The witnesses should have been held in perjury before the trial.
- I don't see how the forensics can hold up in appeal. There has to be physical evidence that points to the actions of a murderer. The chloroform witness used new technology without that technology being approved by an authority that can validate it's accuracy. The State had plenty of time to commit any new technology to a recognized authority such as the FBI to validate it's use in a capital crime. At this point any manipulation of the fact the State never validated a new technology above any suspicion of inaccuracy is not admissible in appeal, because, all that could be and should be viewed as 'tayloring' the evidence to fit the crime. I have the same view of the 'movie' that included tape over the skull. That is evidence taylored to fit the crime. The physical evidence should be obvious.
-I don't believe this case was handled this poorly. There are lies after lies after lies documented that contradicts each other by their own witnesses. The witnesses should have been held in perjury before the trial.
