Pooty Poot and Jimbo were on TV this morning, when pushed about “the real murderer” and wh”s paying them they just shucked and jived. Hope they enjoy their last 15 minutes of fame.
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
Having seen some of the dualling post-opinion interviews, I must reiterate my call for the defense team to bow out and let Alex represent himself.
Sadly, as committed to his client as Mr. Harpootlian is, he seems to have learned NOTHING from the now-reversed conviction where he and Jim Griffin ASSUMED the jury will discount Creighton Waters’ crazy theories on the time of death and on motive.
Even more sadly, cases are now won or lost, not in courtrooms but in public opinion; and seeing the majority of comments on the post-reversal stories, Creighton Waters is already winning the retrial.
For those deluded by, and extolling, Creighton Waters, listen carefully to what he he said in his presser after the opinion reversing the conviction but sparing HIM overt criticism.
You will understand that Creighton Waters ABANDONED the sacred prosecutorial duty to explore exculpatory evidence with the same zeal as inculpatory evidence.
He did NOT do that.
Indeed, he BRAGGED about doing THE OPPOSITE.
He said in so many words “aggressive” and “concern for double jeopardy.”
TRANSLATION: if you, as a prosecutor, obey your duty to include exculpatory evidence and the criminal defendant gets acquitted, the State cannot appeal because of double jeopardy. But if you as a prosecutor “aggressively” include irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, and it causes a wrongful conviction, the criminal defendant can appeal and if “the system works” he gets a new trial as just happened.
Right? NO, no, no! WRONG, wrong, wrong!
“The system” trusts the prosecutors to err on the side of caution, not on the side of conviction at any price.
Lives get destroyed because of wrongful convictions, even if later reversed.
The public confidence in the legal system gets rightly shaken. And most significantly, the REAL perpetrator gets to avoid accountability (for five years now and going) or forever.
If Alan Wilson were truly non-political about this, he should have announced a reopened neutral investigation and invited all with new information to contribute.?
So, Creighton Waters now vindictively brandishes the death penalty?
He’s in over his head.
Now that the Catholic Church has declared its opposition to the death penalty to be a core belief, Prancing Creighton Waters (“PCW”) cannot exclude jurors opposed to the death penalty if they are Catholic.
Instead of itching to execute the innocent, Alan Wilson should show some zeal in improving murder investigations.
To expiate for his Frankenstein creation, FITS should do a whole show or a whole story on the scientific failures of the investigation into Paul and Maggie’s shootings.
Here is more about ballistics which is augmented by this (link to video deleted for publishability).
It shows SLED, presumably in the early morning of 8 June 2021, supposedly collecting evidence from around and inside the house at Moselle.
Many mistakes appear in that short clip:
1. The spent bullets collected from around the exterior seven-step stoop are BASICALLY rubbed together by the evidence gatherer thus HOPELESSLY contaminating the subsequent tool-mark microscopic examination and analysis if such analysis were a science to begin with.
2. The evidence gatherers arrived without simple plastic or paper bags in which to put each bullet separately with an identification of the precise location it was found.
3. They then resort to a quick and dirty non-solution of putting a bullet in each finger of a “new glove” again without precise location identification and after the bullets had scarred each other from being basically rubbed together.
4. The exterior door handle is not dusted for fingerprints nor swabbed for DNA.
5. Once inside the house, no effort or attention is paid to any food or drink containers with residue or unconsumed content. That should be basic in any murder investigation even where the victims had been visibly shot: had they been poisoned or attempted to be poisoned before the shootings? Were they under the influence of anything they had consumed before being confronted by their shooter(s)? That may not necessarily have been the case here; but these are basics of any investigation started on a blank slate.
6. They are heard commenting to each other that the autopsies already started. They should have carefully looked for evidence of unconsummated or recently-consummated food and drink to supply to the autopsy performer.
Or course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.
Of course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.
8 comments
Pooty Poot and Jimbo were on TV this morning, when pushed about “the real murderer” and wh”s paying them they just shucked and jived. Hope they enjoy their last 15 minutes of fame.
They still haven’t found the real murder like they said they intended too initially. Hmmm
A big untouchable trust fund from lawsuits dad & grand-dad litigated vs. the Railroad. Dick & Jim don’t live off of fresh air & sunshine.
Lol
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
Having seen some of the dualling post-opinion interviews, I must reiterate my call for the defense team to bow out and let Alex represent himself.
Sadly, as committed to his client as Mr. Harpootlian is, he seems to have learned NOTHING from the now-reversed conviction where he and Jim Griffin ASSUMED the jury will discount Creighton Waters’ crazy theories on the time of death and on motive.
Even more sadly, cases are now won or lost, not in courtrooms but in public opinion; and seeing the majority of comments on the post-reversal stories, Creighton Waters is already winning the retrial.
For those deluded by, and extolling, Creighton Waters, listen carefully to what he he said in his presser after the opinion reversing the conviction but sparing HIM overt criticism.
You will understand that Creighton Waters ABANDONED the sacred prosecutorial duty to explore exculpatory evidence with the same zeal as inculpatory evidence.
He did NOT do that.
Indeed, he BRAGGED about doing THE OPPOSITE.
He said in so many words “aggressive” and “concern for double jeopardy.”
TRANSLATION: if you, as a prosecutor, obey your duty to include exculpatory evidence and the criminal defendant gets acquitted, the State cannot appeal because of double jeopardy. But if you as a prosecutor “aggressively” include irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, and it causes a wrongful conviction, the criminal defendant can appeal and if “the system works” he gets a new trial as just happened.
Right? NO, no, no! WRONG, wrong, wrong!
“The system” trusts the prosecutors to err on the side of caution, not on the side of conviction at any price.
Lives get destroyed because of wrongful convictions, even if later reversed.
The public confidence in the legal system gets rightly shaken. And most significantly, the REAL perpetrator gets to avoid accountability (for five years now and going) or forever.
If Alan Wilson were truly non-political about this, he should have announced a reopened neutral investigation and invited all with new information to contribute.?
So, Creighton Waters now vindictively brandishes the death penalty?
He’s in over his head.
Now that the Catholic Church has declared its opposition to the death penalty to be a core belief, Prancing Creighton Waters (“PCW”) cannot exclude jurors opposed to the death penalty if they are Catholic.
Instead of itching to execute the innocent, Alan Wilson should show some zeal in improving murder investigations.
To expiate for his Frankenstein creation, FITS should do a whole show or a whole story on the scientific failures of the investigation into Paul and Maggie’s shootings.
Here is more about ballistics which is augmented by this (link to video deleted for publishability).
It shows SLED, presumably in the early morning of 8 June 2021, supposedly collecting evidence from around and inside the house at Moselle.
Many mistakes appear in that short clip:
1. The spent bullets collected from around the exterior seven-step stoop are BASICALLY rubbed together by the evidence gatherer thus HOPELESSLY contaminating the subsequent tool-mark microscopic examination and analysis if such analysis were a science to begin with.
2. The evidence gatherers arrived without simple plastic or paper bags in which to put each bullet separately with an identification of the precise location it was found.
3. They then resort to a quick and dirty non-solution of putting a bullet in each finger of a “new glove” again without precise location identification and after the bullets had scarred each other from being basically rubbed together.
4. The exterior door handle is not dusted for fingerprints nor swabbed for DNA.
5. Once inside the house, no effort or attention is paid to any food or drink containers with residue or unconsumed content. That should be basic in any murder investigation even where the victims had been visibly shot: had they been poisoned or attempted to be poisoned before the shootings? Were they under the influence of anything they had consumed before being confronted by their shooter(s)? That may not necessarily have been the case here; but these are basics of any investigation started on a blank slate.
6. They are heard commenting to each other that the autopsies already started. They should have carefully looked for evidence of unconsummated or recently-consummated food and drink to supply to the autopsy performer.
Or course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.
Of course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.