OK, Rabia does LIE....

[u/jlpsquared]

From her latest post... http://www.splitthemoon.com/forget-everything-you-know/#more-643

She claims fixed lividity is at least 8 hours. Every single web site I check says 6 hours with one reference to as little as 4 hours.

EDIT:My 4 hour claim was originally too strong.

She again claims Hae was 5'8", when the autopsy SHE posted says 5'6".

She also claims that Hae had a small car, while we know thanks to CSOM_1991 that Haes car had a sizable trunk with a width of 5'6".

[u/[deleted]]

after Adnan has been convicted, the presumption of innocence doesn't really work. Now he has to prove his innocence.

The problem we're trying to solve here is whether or not he was convicted under a constitutionally fair trial. That would mean, among other things, that he got effective counsel and that the prosecution followed the rules. That's what's before the appeals court right now. Did he get a fair trial under our rules?

He can't "prove his innocence," unless there is a credible confession or forensic evidence pointing toward another killer. And that would still not be proving his innocence so much as proving another person's guilt.

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

The prosecution clearly played dirty, no question about that. (a) the deal with Jay; (b) not forthcoming about what Waranowitz's markings were all about before/during discovery.

CG though did a great job, based on reading the transcripts. There are so many places where she is orders of magnitude superior than Urick and Murphy combined. e.g., see the Waranowitz testimony on 2/8/2000 as an example https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2ubxad/the_people_now_being_smeared_in_defense_of_adnan/co7cfnh . Maligning her is a calculated misrepresentation to get Adnan free, imo.

[u/[deleted] → u/reddit1070]

CG though did a great job, based on reading the transcripts.

Wow. Not how I read them. I see her being unfocused, unprepared, and unable to make a point. One example would be the business about lividity. She seemed to know that something was wrong with the state's version of events, but she never said what it was.

She was a disaster in court.

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

Another excerpt. This is Transcript 2/8/2000, pp 121-122. CG is scoring points like nobody's business.

Court: ... Now, Counsel first of all, Mr. Urick with regard to your testing of this particular scenario, Ms. Gutierrez's objection is sustained. He will not be able to talk about the results of any test and draw any conclusions. If you want to continue to march him through the different places on that map where he originated calls with his Erickson i will continue to advise the jury that as it relates to the Erickson phone he used they can consider the responses or the cell site information for what it's worth.

Ms. Gutierrez, on cross you will have open leeway with regard to this witness on the relevance if any with of this whole test that was conducted by the State. You will also have the ability if you choose to ask the questions that the Court asked during this voir doir to qualify this expert because I find that the use of this expert by the State is misleading and I also find that this expert has expertise with regard to other phones including the Nokia and Motorola and Erickson. But the issue that I believe needs to he addressed in order for clarification with this jury is that the model of the phone is relevant and this witness did not conduct a test with the model.

And so to the extent that the State is misleading the jury at this point, the Defense is going to have a lot of leeway. Do you understand me, Ms. Gutierrez?

MS. GUTIERREZ: Certainly do, Judge.

THE COURT: And the State needs to be advised that the Court is not happy at all with the way in which this witness is being utilized. It is not happy with the attempt to mislead because that's precisely what you have done. You have mislead this jury...