So why didnt I include all of the gory details about the autopsy photos and describe them in depth? Because I thought it was unnecessary. No one -- not even the defendant -- is disputing the horrible way that the woman died. The photos *had* to be shown to the jury to authenticate her death and lay the foundation for the former ME to describe a few, small observations that may be important later. But I see my job as more to describe and inform, and less to shock and disturb. It seemed much more interesting (for me) to compare how and why some witnesses had different or fleeting memories after 17 years.
Posted on: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:42:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015