That makes much more sense than a guy with injuries inconsistent with being hit by a vehicle. It also makes the creating false evidence in the making of the video, a crime in itself, make more sense, too Then add the not doing anything to actually investigate what happened as the the deleted phone info and conveniently non existent phones.
Do you believe she hit him with the car at all though ? It seems like you don't think she did.
Where is the evidence he went in the house?
Where is the evidence from witnesses he went in the house? Who let him in and what time? When did this fight happen and he get put out in the snow to die of hypothermia? It's all very well to think this, like I think she hit him when she did the UTurn at 24 mph, but there has to be evidence. He only had that one large straight blunt force trauma injury on the back of his head that caused the bleeding on the brain and behind his eyes. So how did that injury happen, if it happened in the house? His DNA was on the back of the car not in the house. He was on the front lawn, not in the house.
Did the defence ask them all that on the stand?
Yes I have. So drunk at that point she didnt remember anything, maybe not even remembering dropping him off. She was still drunk at 9 a.m.when she was finally tested.
I do not. He has no injuries consistent with being hit by a vehicle. None.
Meaning she didn't drink after she left the Waterfall. They counted she had 9 drinks. She didn't need any more as she was already way over by the time she left the Waterfall and was still over 9 hours later.
How do you think he suffered the horizontal blunt force trauma wound on the back of his head?
They proved that they lied about it.
And the prosecution's own expert very expert answer was "it just does".
I know that is what a lot of people think but i dont know that there is any evidence for that. If you think that, what is your evidence for it and for his head injury and how did he get on the front lawn?
Why is it impossible that she wasn't rage drinking at his house while getting more and more mad and leaving those messages? Everybody I know that acts like that is usually still drinking while at it.
How do we know there is no evidence of that since they did not even look inside for any proof he was in there or not? You know, like any investigation, especially in the death of a cop, should do? How can we know there is no proof he went inside?
That said he went up three flights of stairs/steps didn't it? Not sure what they mean by "flights". Is that 3 floor levels or three small flights or 3 steps?
There is no testimony she continued drinking back at the house. Also her BAC would not have reduced as it did if she continued drinking. You cannot just make facts up based on how people you know act. She was worrying why she couldnt get hold of him. I think she suspected she had hit him. I don't believe it was deliberate but were the actions of a drunken driver.
Based on the witnesses saying he did not go in the house. Is your position that everyone in the house was lying ?
That's what the prosecution's expert said. The defense's expert disputed that. Guess what, I do not believe much of anything any of the prosecutions experts said after Trooper Paul and then the manufactured video and the lack of proper documentation of the evidence that was presented. Also where did that clear glass come from that they supposedly found laying on her bumper that did not match that other glass that was supposedly found on it?