It was their explanation of what they said happened.
I don't think it was based on fact but supposition. The evidence from the vehicle showed she accelerated up to 24 mph. It didn't show she hit him or anything at 24 mph. Where does this 30 feet come from? Have you a link?
Ah ok so not factual but their opinion.
How did the prosecution explain the head injuries? I cannot remember that.
Trooper Paul said in his testimony that perhaps his head hit the curb on the side of the street.
It will be on one of the CBS Boston YouTube videos of when he was testifying. I was on the road that day when I was listening so I'm guessing it was June 14th??
He was testifying as if it was what happened. It was his explanation as an expert that the prosecution put on the stand as fact.
That he hit his head on the curb, and then also said he went sailing 30ft after that and somehow those taillight pieces flew with him and all over the place. Make that make sense.
Yeah, and then magically went flying into the yard with those pieces attached to him way up into the yard.
Ok. So he could also have just fallen and hit his head without being hit by a car then.
Perhaps it was a windy night as well as snow LOL.
His opinion is not based on any evidence AFAICS but the BAC was based on an actual blood sample. So there is a difference because one is opinion and one is factual.
That is not what the CW said happened though. Now you see why they made the reasonable doubt themselves. They are the ones that have to prove their theory of what happened.
But that's not how they testified. There's the difference. They both testified as factual.
Yes because his injuries were apparently not consistent with being hit by a vehicle? Is that right? What are his injuries consistent with? Blunt force trauma, a fall, a physical assault, being run over or hit by a snow plough ?
They are consistent with what the defense has said happened. That his head injuries were from blunt force trauma and the injuries on his arm with an animal. The CW's entire case was built around her backing into him at 24mph, which is defintely NOT what happened. This by itself is reasonable doubt because they did not prove that she hit him with her car, backing up at 24 mph and sent him flying 30 ft. That was their case to prove that it happened that way and they failed.
His opinion was not based on any evidence you say yet this is the expert the prosecution presented to bolster their case. Why would they do that for an opinion and not being somebody in that could be it on facts?