This lawyer makes a fool of himself every time he speaks. I am sure the jury thinks his repetitive questions are absurd. It's sad that he is known to be one of the best lawyers in South Carolina. It would have been better if he just said no questions for this witness but his narcissism wouldn't allow it.
@@AndyPanda3 I agree. Just because your southern doesn't mean your not intelligent, charismatic and have high moral values. And I wish they would quit talking about shooting and stabbing hogs as if it's a normal family event. But I do find this case fascinating almost as many nuances as the Ahmaud Arbery case. Now she was an amazing lawyer.
@@vikzytoria 1) if it's not in your notes, you didn't do it. Doctor101. The detective's testimony about her telling him she noticed the mud and a bruise on the leg "but it wasn't stood on" shows she was at least forgetful during her testimony, but more to this point if it's in his notes from her it ought to be in her notes.
except what she said completely contradicts today's forensic examiner. She said head shot had to be over 3 feet because no stipling. He says under 3 feet, but no stipling. That's a problem. Respectfully, she looked the opposite: she stumbled and bumbled when presented with the text book.
I can't stand listening to this defense attorney anymore SMH, how many times does this pathologist have to answer his questions over and over. She has been doing this for over 20 plus years i do believe she knows what she is doing. It's like he is trying to school her and he is doing a lousy job at it.
Plus he takes a contact wound example and tries to have her say the same thing happened to Paul’s head! His was not a contact wound. He was shot from 3 feet away!
Brilliant woman. She is not going to be tripped up no matter how many different times or ways he asks the same question. I don't see the point of the questions he's asking.
I love how clever this doctor is. He tries to put words into her mouth, tries to make her say she knows how he was fou d but she doesn't fall for any of his crap. Tries to have her agree with a contact wound when it was not so. The problem for the defense is that this is a true expert who knows what she is talking about but he is just trying to put holes in her testimony without exactly knowing how to do that.
He is always apologizing to the court instead of being prepared. He just wants her to change her answers to suit his needs! And then he rudely tells her to just answer the question and then explain.
It’s seems the defense is Ill prepared in some major areas…im surprised that I haven’t been fully swayed one way or the other…I haven’t been 100% convinced he did it….too much of the evidence was able to be tampered with and none of these people seem trustworthy….both sides…except this woman she is very honest, knowledgeable and confident in her testimony. It never wavers….she explains any options available, all alternate explanations are given without fear of getting it wrong…she trust her own opinion and can’t be forced to hobble or back track….when you tell the truth you don’t have to remember what you say…you know what happened….
One thing is the Snapchat with his voice being identified by friends and a voice specialist. There is no explanation. I just am waiting to see how the defense asnswers this.
The defense attorney is either dull in the brain or acting dull. Any reasonable person who is not in the Medical field can understand what this Dr. Is saying.
You’re not paying attention / not using your common sense if you don’t already know that Alex Murdaugh did this to his wife and son… And planned this well in advance.
I so agree! I would be so ashamed to these family members that loved tem. Like with the sister in this case, how cam you know in your heart what you are doing. Dirty business, that obviously could affect a person morally. Your dealing with lower level folks all day.
@@chickapeas5646 Apparently all the Murdaugh men have been very used to dealing with low life people and dealing dirty for decades and decades! The dog kennel video Paul recorded with Alex’ voice just 5 minutes before the murder is what seals it for me! Along wirh Alex saying he wasn’t at the kennels, was at his parents house for way longer than he was, the changing of clothes AND just where are the khaki pants and blue button down Alex had on earlier that evening???? IF and that’s a very BIG IF he was innocent why wouldn’t he produce that clothing to be tested and that could go a long way in his favor! But seems he got rid of that outfit for some reason, for ONE reason!!!!
Not sure its good idea for the so called "Defense" to recall the pathologist to go over once again in painstaking detail the absolute slaughter conducted at the crime scene by their client; maybe there is some item I'm missing; maybe Alex is known for always killing his relatives using a 30 degree angle and they are hoping to show the victim was shot at at a 50 degree angle and ta da!!!, he's not guilty.
Maybe because the defense isn’t defending him from a position of him being the perpetrator… duh. He’s trying to understand how she came to the conclusion these shots were made from the directions she believes they were made. He’s trying to make it look like that the shots were probably done by two shooters and also try to dispute that the reason they were shot from such close range with no “defensive” wounds is because they had their guard down.
@@alexsosa5727 I must have missed more than I thought... do they have the actual guns? I would really live to see how these horrific murders allegedly occurred play by play. Like a computerized reenactment.
The figurative nail in the coffin for me is the video. Logically it makes sense they were killed within a minute of that video being filmed, as their phones locked for the last time and Paul never got the chance to send the video to Rogan. And since Alex was heard in the background of that video, he was present at the time of the murders. To argue that he didn’t commit the murders, you’d have to believe one of the following: 1) Alex witnessed it but didn’t get killed himself and didn’t call the police right away. OR 2) Alex left the kennels right before they got killed, and managed to get away in the less than 60 seconds from when the video was taken/they were likely killed, and manage to not hear or see the murders or anything like that. Neither of those scenarios makes much sense to me.
@@T.Rex33 I have my own theory on it, which is that he was trying to throw off law enforcement by using two guns. He’s proven to be a very deceptive person and I could easily see him trying to come up with ways to throw off the police (a major one being using two different guns to give the impression of two killers). I think he killed Paul first (neutralize the biggest threat), then Maggie. Considering Maggie had more gunshot wounds and was found in the grass instead of by the kennel cages like Paul, it makes me think that while he switched guns (which would’ve only taken a few seconds anyway), Maggie attempted to flee, and since it’s a bit harder to hit a moving target he had to shoot her a few extra times to take her down. It would also explain why she was found further out from the kennels.
Since when does an attorney get to give an opening statement prior to cross-examining a witness? Not sure why there was not an objection to all of this testimony by the defense attorney.
Yeh I was actually wondering the same thing- his statements were inappropriate for a cross and the defense should have objected because it made Harpootlian seem extremely confident and in charge…. So I guess the point goes to the Defense on that one!
I'm going back and watching it again to make sure I saw what I saw the first 2 times. This is so uncomfortable to watch. I have nightmares about choking this bad on the witness stand. It amazes me how many people can't see it.
He keeps harping on the same thing. Because he read about shotgun wounds in a book, he now thinks he is an expert. He actually is getting rude at this point, in my opinion.
@@SuperZytoon Has either Defense or Prosecution brought forward testimony from firearms experts? My apology for asking; l have not been watching before last week.
Why would the defense want to spend an hour and a half talking about how two people were brutally murdered? It's not the how they need to be worried about, it's the who. This just makes him look even more guilty.
32 minutes into the cross examination and I still don't see where the defense is trying to go except for making her repeat her testimony. I'm taking a good nap though, he is like a sleeping pill. 1:16 My God he still doesn't understand how the pellet patterns work. She has explained it so clearly but all he wants is for her to agree with him that that was a contact wound from above. He is only making a fool of himself.
She definitely gets nervous when the defense questions her. She’s much more at ease with the state. She’s getting testy with the defense and I don’t blame her! The defense has been obviously just grasping at straws and are plain a-holes to the witnesses. Not only that, their stupid questions are making the trial much longer that it had to be. They want the jury to get bored and frustrated!
To sum up the state’s case, they have proven that Paul and Maggie was last known to be alive at 8:40 PM and at 9:10, Paul no longer answered his phone. That Alex was proven to be at the Kennel after 8:40 PM, despite his previous denials of that fact and the nap story, it is at least clear and convincing that Alex was the killer. The case comes closer to beyond a reasonable doubt when you consider the timeline established about Alex’s alleged whereabouts at the time of the killing and that he called 911 within 20 seconds of coming back to the scene of the crime with different clothes. It is not surprising that Alex was able to hide the murder weapon and bloody clothes given his ability to hide his opioid addiction for 20 years!
Boy he has a lot of nerve to object about repetition of questions when that’s all he did! The prosecutor was trying to clear up the muddle the defense lawyer made of his own questions…smh!
I wonder if PM’s shoulder was in a slightly raised position (arms down by his side still) with his head slightly tucked down and to the left behind the shoulder in a semi-defensive pose. That would explain the injury and the defects. Can anyone comment on this theory? Thanks!
This guy is arguing with an expert. He is upsetting her because he is calling her lively hood into question just for the sake of an argument in favor of his side.
He can "argue" with her all day long and it's not going to change her testimony. He would love to trip her up but that doesn't happen with someone as brilliant as she is.
@@craigh1790 I'm a Medical Professional. Her assessment won't change when she has facts. He can ask they same question a million ways and the facts stay the same.
I know this is off track, but can anyone explain what the woman with the shawl, lap blanket, and Darth Vader mask is doing? Is she the court reporter? Just curious.
WOW...an attorney who knows absolutely nothing about wounds etc. is literally arguing with a woman who does this daily and has performed thousands of autopsies ??!! What is the damn purpose of all of this waste of time on the head wound anyway ? Is the defense trying to push that Paul shot his mom then killed himself ? I'm just confused as to what all of this bs is supposed to prove. It's like he is trying to get her to change her findings and say that the exit wound could be a contact entry wound.
Just because she is dr doesnt mean she cant make mistakes, people of high positions and education get done for crimes aswell, Dr Harold Shipman for example
This guy is horrible. It is obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about. Is he trying to confuse the jury. What is the point of keeping up the ,"brain blown out" line of repetitive questioning ...gas
Alex normally shakes his head yes when listening to ppl for what ever reason not meaning yes I agree but I caught him shaking no when speaking of distance and angle of shot
Her theory of the shot from behind that went up through her body under breast into neck and head doesn’t make much sense. The trajectory of it. If she bent over the only way for the bullet to travel directly into the head would be if the shooter was very short or kneeling down. Otherwise the shot would not have gone straight up. The only way that would be possible is if she was falling over to the ground head first. That’s the only way the trajectory would make sense.
shotgun trajectory the way she explained it does not make sense...it had to take a 90 degree angle to exit out the top right back side of the head; it makes more sense that the skull wound was the entrance wound
Been following this whole trial as it’s released on RUclips… all this defense attorney does is chronically attempt to put words in the witnesses mouths… I mean constantly. When he’s n not comparing apples to oranges that is. If this is the best the defense has for strategy, ( or tactics) I don’t have much hope for the defendant!
Remember that Paul’s 300 blackout was missing or stolen. Could be very well that whoever stole it came back to steal more guns but got spooked when they saw Maggie and Paul so they ended up killing them because they either could ID them or because they were just straight up ruthless.
I like the way this defense questions the witness. Definitely more interesting than the prosecutions line of questioning which was very technical and boring and definitely did not give a clear picture imo. I wish they had a video depiction of their theory of how the shots happened. I think it would be a significant find to determine these facts to exclude two shooters vs a single shooter. This witness certainly got flustered with questioning. I do like her though and I believe she believes her theory of the GSWs are correct.
She is much smarter than the lawyer.
How many times can this poor woman answer the same question the same way? He’s trying to change her answer
Constantly. With every witness. It’s literally his only tactic. 🙄
Yes!!...he's a doof!!
He’s a cockwomble!
And then he has the nerve to object to the DA for repetitive questions! He infuriates me!
Pomposity
This lawyer makes a fool of himself every time he speaks. I am sure the jury thinks his repetitive questions are absurd. It's sad that he is known to be one of the best lawyers in South Carolina. It would have been better if he just said no questions for this witness but his narcissism wouldn't allow it.
@@AndyPanda3 I agree. Just because your southern doesn't mean your not intelligent, charismatic and have high moral values.
And I wish they would quit talking about shooting and stabbing hogs as if it's a normal family event. But I do find this case fascinating almost as many nuances as the Ahmaud Arbery case. Now she was an amazing lawyer.
Sure does. All three of 'em. Jury already has their number.
To be fair he’s just representing his client to the best of his ability. You may not think so but both the defense lawyers are actually very good.
Dr is very good at telling her findings. Her best statement was, “That doesn’t change the truth!” Brilliant!
@@AndyPanda3 107:25
She looked utterly incompetent. I'm sorry. I see something completely different.
@@AndyPanda3 you’re welcome
@@qrevere5546 How? I've watched dozens of pathologists and she's very clear and concise and her explanations are anatomically correct.
@@vikzytoria 1) if it's not in your notes, you didn't do it. Doctor101. The detective's testimony about her telling him she noticed the mud and a bruise on the leg "but it wasn't stood on" shows she was at least forgetful during her testimony, but more to this point if it's in his notes from her it ought to be in her notes.
This pathologist is speaking for the victims. The ones that was supposed to be silenced in death. So much Respect for her!
She’s inconsistent. And annoying.
This attorney is doing a poor job at trying to discredit this expert. She knows her profession.
except what she said completely contradicts today's forensic examiner. She said head shot had to be over 3 feet because no stipling. He says under 3 feet, but no stipling. That's a problem. Respectfully, she looked the opposite: she stumbled and bumbled when presented with the text book.
What a gigantic waste of time. Alex is guilty as homemade sin.
"Objection, your Honor....asked and answered!" Good grief!!
I can't stand listening to this defense attorney anymore SMH, how many times does this pathologist have to answer his questions over and over. She has been doing this for over 20 plus years i do believe she knows what she is doing. It's like he is trying to school her and he is doing a lousy job at it.
Must have been the way old school lawyers did it. Maybe no effort just reputation
@@lindyhateseveryone Yes perhaps
This defense attorney is trying to force the Doctor to agree with information that is not in her specialty.
Hes trying to confuse the jury..also hes read a couple of chapters and thinks he knows what hes talking about...
She's a professor and a pathologist she knows all manner of death. Which speciality do you mean?
Plus he takes a contact wound example and tries to have her say the same thing happened to Paul’s head! His was not a contact wound. He was shot from 3 feet away!
Brilliant woman. She is not going to be tripped up no matter how many different times or ways he asks the same question. I don't see the point of the questions he's asking.
I assume this Attorney is having difficulty understanding anatomy 🤔
That's what is taught in law school. Beat 'em down with the same questions said in a different way.
Good old boy strategy. Act as thick as cement. Bore the jury so they fall asleep so he can claim a mistrial. What a pain!
THIS LADY IS GIVING ME LIFE! LOVE HER!!! YASSSSS
Giving you life?
Repeat, repeat, repeat. That’s all he knows how to do.
I love how clever this doctor is. He tries to put words into her mouth, tries to make her say she knows how he was fou d but she doesn't fall for any of his crap. Tries to have her agree with a contact wound when it was not so. The problem for the defense is that this is a true expert who knows what she is talking about but he is just trying to put holes in her testimony without exactly knowing how to do that.
He is always apologizing to the court instead of being prepared. He just wants her to change her answers to suit his needs! And then he rudely tells her to just answer the question and then explain.
It’s seems the defense is Ill prepared in some major areas…im surprised that I haven’t been fully swayed one way or the other…I haven’t been 100% convinced he did it….too much of the evidence was able to be tampered with and none of these people seem trustworthy….both sides…except this woman she is very honest, knowledgeable and confident in her testimony. It never wavers….she explains any options available, all alternate explanations are given without fear of getting it wrong…she trust her own opinion and can’t be forced to hobble or back track….when you tell the truth you don’t have to remember what you say…you know what happened….
One thing is the Snapchat with his voice being identified by friends and a voice specialist. There is no explanation. I just am waiting to see how the defense asnswers this.
How do the other people seem dishonest to you?
I am in agreement with you. Regarding not being convinced that he acted alone or that he was even involved. Too many holes in this so far.
The defense attorney is either dull in the brain or acting dull. Any reasonable person who is not in the Medical field can understand what this Dr. Is saying.
You’re not paying attention / not using your common sense if you don’t already know that Alex Murdaugh did this to his wife and son… And planned this well in advance.
This man just spent 45 minutes trying to explain a wound that he is 100% ignorant about. That was the most tiresome examination ever. Poor Dr.
It’s hard to defend somebody when the evidence points toward them
I think I could never be a defender. If I realized the person did this, I could never defend them knowing I am trying to set a murderer free.
I so agree! I would be so ashamed to these family members that loved tem. Like with the sister in this case, how cam you know in your heart what you are doing. Dirty business, that obviously could affect a person morally. Your dealing with lower level folks all day.
Majority of evidence is speculation including some of the pathologist conclusions.
@@chickapeas5646 Apparently all the Murdaugh men have been very used to dealing with low life people and dealing dirty for decades and decades! The dog kennel video Paul recorded with Alex’ voice just 5 minutes before the murder is what seals it for me! Along wirh Alex saying he wasn’t at the kennels, was at his parents house for way longer than he was, the changing of clothes AND just where are the khaki pants and blue button down Alex had on earlier that evening???? IF and that’s a very BIG IF he was innocent why wouldn’t he produce that clothing to be tested and that could go a long way in his favor! But seems he got rid of that outfit for some reason, for ONE reason!!!!
Why don’t you have Alex stand up and show them how it did it, no guessing then.
He's really squirming. Has he found his conscious 🤔? May I ask, is Maggie and Alex's other child alive?
@@nancychandler3673 yes, his name is Buster and he's in the courtroom almost directly behind his father, a few rows back, bright red hair.
@@riprock31 Thank you.
Brilliant 👏
Hahaha
He is not worth a hoot as an attorney. He must be clocking hours for his word puree.
One of the absolute worst defense teams I've ever seen.
Feel very sorry for this jury.
That defense lawyer is annoying
Not sure its good idea for the so called "Defense" to recall the pathologist to go over once again in painstaking detail the absolute slaughter conducted at the crime scene by their client; maybe there is some item I'm missing; maybe Alex is known for always killing his relatives using a 30 degree angle and they are hoping to show the victim was shot at at a 50 degree angle and ta da!!!, he's not guilty.
Maybe that's not a good play on the defense'a part ,this lady knows her stuff and they can't make any thing she says irrelevant
He is trying to trip her up and get her to say something different to what she said earlier so he can claim she’s not a credible expert.
@@jenniferhayes1577 yea , well that is not working for him , she’s a lot smarter than he is !
Maybe because the defense isn’t defending him from a position of him being the perpetrator… duh. He’s trying to understand how she came to the conclusion these shots were made from the directions she believes they were made. He’s trying to make it look like that the shots were probably done by two shooters and also try to dispute that the reason they were shot from such close range with no “defensive” wounds is because they had their guard down.
@@alexsosa5727 I must have missed more than I thought... do they have the actual guns? I would really live to see how these horrific murders allegedly occurred play by play. Like a computerized reenactment.
The figurative nail in the coffin for me is the video. Logically it makes sense they were killed within a minute of that video being filmed, as their phones locked for the last time and Paul never got the chance to send the video to Rogan. And since Alex was heard in the background of that video, he was present at the time of the murders. To argue that he didn’t commit the murders, you’d have to believe one of the following: 1) Alex witnessed it but didn’t get killed himself and didn’t call the police right away. OR 2) Alex left the kennels right before they got killed, and managed to get away in the less than 60 seconds from when the video was taken/they were likely killed, and manage to not hear or see the murders or anything like that.
Neither of those scenarios makes much sense to me.
OR he was there to distract them while someone/someones he conspired with could then ambush them. They leave with the evidence.
Has anyone explained the theory on why 2 guns were used?
@@T.Rex33 I have my own theory on it, which is that he was trying to throw off law enforcement by using two guns. He’s proven to be a very deceptive person and I could easily see him trying to come up with ways to throw off the police (a major one being using two different guns to give the impression of two killers). I think he killed Paul first (neutralize the biggest threat), then Maggie. Considering Maggie had more gunshot wounds and was found in the grass instead of by the kennel cages like Paul, it makes me think that while he switched guns (which would’ve only taken a few seconds anyway), Maggie attempted to flee, and since it’s a bit harder to hit a moving target he had to shoot her a few extra times to take her down. It would also explain why she was found further out from the kennels.
This defense attorney must have stepped right out of To Kill a mockingbird.
Doesn't matter which direction those damn pellets traveled, this attorney is a loon.
Defense - tweedle dee and tweedle dum.
Since when does an attorney get to give an opening statement prior to cross-examining a witness? Not sure why there was not an objection to all of this testimony by the defense attorney.
Yeh I was actually wondering the same thing- his statements were inappropriate for a cross and the defense should have objected because it made Harpootlian seem extremely confident and in charge…. So I guess the point goes to the Defense on that one!
@@novascotiaskater1868 I think you meant that the State should have objected. Harpootlian is the defense.
I'm going back and watching it again to make sure I saw what I saw the first 2 times. This is so uncomfortable to watch. I have nightmares about choking this bad on the witness stand. It amazes me how many people can't see it.
OMG wish the judge wouldake this attorney stop!! The forensic scientist tries to tell him but he wont listen!!!!
Is there some kind of chain saw buzzing noise in the building? IT is extremely annoying
Omg what is this attorney’s point with these types of questions? He was shot and he died!!
He keeps harping on the same thing. Because he read about shotgun wounds in a book, he now thinks he is an expert. He actually is getting rude at this point, in my opinion.
@@SuperZytoon Has either Defense or Prosecution brought forward testimony from firearms experts? My apology for asking; l have not been watching before last week.
@@lindahoganson8721 great question. I may have missed it but I would say that it wasn't covered.
Why would the defense want to spend an hour and a half talking about how two people were brutally murdered? It's not the how they need to be worried about, it's the who. This just makes him look even more guilty.
1:01:02 - Is this guy actually trying to suggest Paul killed himself?
This is not necessary to exploit this line of so-called evidence… twisting the questions to make her answer and creating a false conclusion.
That poor Dr. to have to put up with someone who has no where near the knowledge or experience that she does.
32 minutes into the cross examination and I still don't see where the defense is trying to go except for making her repeat her testimony. I'm taking a good nap though, he is like a sleeping pill.
1:16 My God he still doesn't understand how the pellet patterns work. She has explained it so clearly but all he wants is for her to agree with him that that was a contact wound from above. He is only making a fool of himself.
What did the court reporter whisper to Dr. Riemer at 1:03:50?
She definitely gets nervous when the defense questions her. She’s much more at ease with the state. She’s getting testy with the defense and I don’t blame her! The defense has been obviously just grasping at straws and are plain a-holes to the witnesses.
Not only that, their stupid questions are making the trial much longer that it had to be. They want the jury to get bored and frustrated!
To sum up the state’s case, they have proven that Paul and Maggie was last known to be alive at 8:40 PM and at 9:10, Paul no longer answered his phone. That Alex was proven to be at the Kennel after 8:40 PM, despite his previous denials of that fact and the nap story, it is at least clear and convincing that Alex was the killer. The case comes closer to beyond a reasonable doubt when you consider the timeline established about Alex’s alleged whereabouts at the time of the killing and that he called 911 within 20 seconds of coming back to the scene of the crime with different clothes. It is not surprising that Alex was able to hide the murder weapon and bloody clothes given his ability to hide his opioid addiction for 20 years!
This old geezer lawyer has definitely lost his fast ball.
He needs a drink.
He's so bad and too old to be still doing this.
Maybe that us part of the plan. If he is found guilty appeal based on havIng an incompetent lawyer.
Always drunk🍷🥃🥂🍻🍹🍾🧉🍺
I'd vote guilty just because this defense attorney is driving me crazy with this lengthy, seemingly meaningless, questioning of the pathologist.
This entire questioning is to get sympathy fir poor Ole good old boy Alex! He knows what happened, he was there.
For some reason I still cant help feel sorta sorry for him.
Boy he has a lot of nerve to object about repetition of questions when that’s all he did! The prosecutor was trying to clear up the muddle the defense lawyer made of his own questions…smh!
This lawyer is so relaxed, never in a rush.
Always rooting around for something
Relaxed is an interesting descriptive word for this old "poot."
Getting paid by the hour.
@@bjohnson1149 😆
I would say he’s a bumbling fool!
Did you see an exit wound??? Seriously she said that already!
People said during this trial what a great team of lawyers Alex had. They made asses of themselves every time they stood up.😂
What a horrible piece of work that lawyer is! He’ll never work again after this comedy show! 😅
To me this defense team are master manipulators just like Alex is.
Justice will come to all, whether in this life or the next.
I wonder if PM’s shoulder was in a slightly raised position (arms down by his side still) with his head slightly tucked down and to the left behind the shoulder in a semi-defensive pose. That would explain the injury and the defects. Can anyone comment on this theory? Thanks!
This guy is arguing with an expert. He is upsetting her because he is calling her lively hood into question just for the sake of an argument in favor of his side.
That is the job of an attorney at trial. To call into question the opinion and even credentials and competency of adverse expert witnesses.
He can "argue" with her all day long and it's not going to change her testimony. He would love to trip her up but that doesn't happen with someone as brilliant as she is.
@@craigh1790 I'm a Medical Professional. Her assessment won't change when she has facts. He can ask they same question a million ways and the facts stay the same.
I know this is off track, but can anyone explain what the woman with the shawl, lap blanket, and Darth Vader mask is doing? Is she the court reporter? Just curious.
WOW...an attorney who knows absolutely nothing about wounds etc. is literally arguing with a woman who does this daily and has performed thousands of autopsies ??!! What is the damn purpose of all of this waste of time on the head wound anyway ? Is the defense trying to push that Paul shot his mom then killed himself ? I'm just confused as to what all of this bs is supposed to prove. It's like he is trying to get her to change her findings and say that the exit wound could be a contact entry wound.
You know alot aboit what he is trying to prove or suggest
Just because she is dr doesnt mean she cant make mistakes, people of high positions and education get done for crimes aswell, Dr Harold Shipman for example
Alex is a real piece of work!! Every emotion displayed please to be forced!!!! If GUILTY was person it would be him!!!!
She’s great
One prosecutor said this is common sense and it was
This guy is horrible. It is obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about. Is he trying to confuse the jury. What is the point of keeping up the ,"brain blown out" line of repetitive questioning ...gas
His first name suits him well.
They were brutally murdered, what's the defense point
This poor young man. This will be how Paul is rememberd, his brain being blown out by his own father. Just seems morbid to his memory.
No matter what you think. There can be no reasonable doubt..I dont see how the state has enough
❤😂🎉 soon enough this all has to be repeated!! Stay tuned up!!
Alex normally shakes his head yes when listening to ppl for what ever reason not meaning yes I agree but I caught him shaking no when speaking of distance and angle of shot
finally locals are sitting behind prosecution to stand up for justice for maggie and paul
Thank you for pointing that out. I never knew that about seating during a trial. I'm not the most observant person! :)
Hello everyone thanks for following me.
25:18 oooph, X-ray shows brain blown out.
It seems a “vengeance” shooter would be more likely to shoot in the face. I probably watch too many films.
Her theory of the shot from behind that went up through her body under breast into neck and head doesn’t make much sense. The trajectory of it. If she bent over the only way for the bullet to travel directly into the head would be if the shooter was very short or kneeling down. Otherwise the shot would not have gone straight up. The only way that would be possible is if she was falling over to the ground head first. That’s the only way the trajectory would make sense.
That's what she said yesterday. She was most likely bending or falling down for the bullet to go from under her left breast towards her neck/head.
If she's bending with her head down, the bullet goes toward the head.
I don’t see how the questions he’s asking her is gonna prove Alex didn’t kill them
They didn’t x ray the body’s lol
What is your point, Harpootlian?
One procu
Alex can barely hold it together listening to the testimony of the witness. How anyone can say he doesn't have any emotion is beyond me.
shotgun trajectory the way she explained it does not make sense...it had to take a 90 degree angle to exit out the top right back side of the head; it makes more sense that the skull wound was the entrance wound
Been following this whole trial as it’s released on RUclips… all this defense attorney does is chronically attempt to put words in the witnesses mouths… I mean constantly. When he’s n not comparing apples to oranges that is. If this is the best the defense has for strategy, ( or tactics) I don’t have much hope for the defendant!
The "gas"is caused by the heating of the wetness-- water vaporizing of it within the brain,expansion.Which cools and disappear when released.
Remember that Paul’s 300 blackout was missing or stolen. Could be very well that whoever stole it came back to steal more guns but got spooked when they saw Maggie and Paul so they ended up killing them because they either could ID them or because they were just straight up ruthless.
Did they store guns in the kennel? I didn’t hear where the guns were stored.
@@angeliquebelluomini7797 from the sounds of it Paul had guns here and there. He was very haphazard with his guns.
I like the way this defense questions the witness. Definitely more interesting than the prosecutions line of questioning which was very technical and boring and definitely did not give a clear picture imo. I wish they had a video depiction of their theory of how the shots happened. I think it would be a significant find to determine these facts to exclude two shooters vs a single shooter.
This witness certainly got flustered with questioning. I do like her though and I believe she believes her theory of the GSWs are correct.
Totally agree with you on all points.
Agree however I can’t agree with her conclusion of the shoulder/head shot.
The defense talks to those on the stand like they are about 7 yrs old. Super low IQ & slow.
Pathetic defense lawyer..Completely pathetic. His strategy is to confuse anyone watching the trial.