Sunday, April 30, 2006

Weekend update...hints of a motive...

Friday's testimony was short and as happened on Thursday witnesses did not want to be video taped, one agreed to be audio taped but not video taped.

As was hinted during Kina's testimony, Sister Margaret Ann Pahl was upset over Good Friday Mass being shortened, this was confirmed by one of the witnesses on Friday.

I'm not sure how that will play out, for anyone who is a Catholic or was a Catholic, disagreements between Nuns and Priests are not that uncommon. It's kind of hard to imagine a Priest getting upset over a Nun taking issue with that, even if it turns out to be Father Robinson who shortened the Mass.

The testimony about the blood in the sink seems strange given there was no photographic evidence. It would be interesting to find out who told that particular housekeeper to 'keep her mouth shut'on the blood in the sink.

Lots of questions still remain and despite 13's coverage on Friday giving the impression that Father Robinson is guilty or that this case has anything to do with sexual abuse cases... I'm going to keep the speculation to a minimum and promote the basics. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and hope that Sister Margaret Ann Pahl's murder is solved and if the real killer turns out to be Father Robinson that he is punished to the full extent of the law.

I probably won't watch 13's interviews on this case anymore though, especially if they are not even going to attempt to be unbiased. I'll stick with WTOL or NBC24 or Fox36

It's been reported that the prosecution will end the presentation of this case earlier than expected, so perhaps the trial won't take the 30 days initially stated.


Anonymous said...

What I don't understand is how David Yonke can be covering the trial while he is also writing a book about the case. Isn't the title of that book, which he revealed on Court TV, rather indicative of what his view is of the case? (Sin, Shame and Secrets ... or maybe it was Shame, Sin and Secrets).

And how does he decide what, of he info he uncovers, belongs to his employer, the Blade, and what belongs to him to use in his book? Seems like a conflict of interest.

I haven't seen 13's, 24's, or 36's interviews. But I have seen 11's. I don't bias in those. I can't stand the interviews on Court TV. Nancy Grace needs a bottle of Valium and a long vacation. Some on Court TV seem okay, though.

What I'd like to see locally is genuine commentary on how the two sides are doing in the case daily -- from attorneys who work as defense attorneys and prosecutors. I don't see any value in one lawyer making bland comments about people he's probably having beers with right after the broadcast. There's no real insight being offered. If local stations have to go outside the area to get people for law-based commentary that's truly probing and enlightening, fine. Do it.

Anonymous said...

Oops. Should have previewed that. I meant "And how does he decide what, of the info he uncovers," and "I don't see bias in those."

Did you see the layout of the hospital on that drawing the Court TV reporter used to describe who was where the morning of the murder? I thought that was very interesting and gave a whole different picture than I'd previously had in mind. It makes those footsteps seem less likely to have been the priest's.

Lisa Renee said...

Hence the very reason for me doing this so that people and myself had one spot where information could be found.

I can't claim to understand David Yonke covering the trial after he has a book ready to go on this murder either. It seems like a conflict of interest to me too.

I don't watch Court Tv's commentary, I just use the Court Tv "extra" feature so all I view is the direct video of testimony. It's as close as I can get to being in the court room.

It's free for the first 30 days for anyone interested in it and it does give you a chance to watch testimony later or again if you want to. You can't use it however if you have dial up internet, they don't recommend it. You can cancel within that first 30 days and avoid paying the monthly 5.99 fee.

I like it because it gives me a chance to see for myself rather than having someone else select what they thought was the important part of that days testimony.

(Nor do I receive anything from Court TV to suggest it)

Lisa Renee said...

I did see the map, I have lots of questions concerning this case beyond just the footsteps.

The motive, and if the prosecution is concentrating so much on the letter opener, it's not something Father Robinson would have carried around with him. That would have meant for him to have used it to murder Sister it would have been premediated. Also where are the scissors? Why didn't anyone notice that her cross and watch were missing? Who told the housekeeper to be quiet about the blood in the sink? Who's DNA is under sister's fingernails? Was that the real murderer or some kind of blunder when the evidence was collected? Then on the whole topic of DNA, given that wasn't even used at the time of the murder why was no DNA of Father Robinson found if he was truly the one who killed her? He had no crystal ball into the future to know that science would progress to be able to trace that.

(I could go on but I promised I wouldn't go to much into speculation but those are questions I keep asking myself as this goes on.)

Anonymous said...

I've been trying to resist signing up because I could easily imagine myself watching the testimony from start to finish. I could also envision a month of my life disappearing in this way. But now I'm hooked and I want to see the unfiltered information. Thanks for the nudge.

I wish you could see the Court TV reporter's explanation of the floor plan. It's valuable when it comes to visualizing the area discussed in the testimony. Of course, it may have been covered in court and I missed it. She got permission from the clerk of courts to use the graphic; apparently it's part of the trial.

On edit: I see you've posted while I've been composing. I'm glad you saw the graphic.

Anonymous said...

I have all the same questions you have, and I don't see that as speculation.

At first the priest was charged with aggravated murder, indicating it was premeditated -- then that was changed to murder, so now I guess they're saying it wasn't premeditated. That makes it hard for us on the sidelines to understand why police think he was walking around with a letter opener.

Lisa Renee said...

To be honest given the breaks and the sidebar discussions there really isn't hours upon hours of testimony. Extra gives you just the direct testimony. I was afraid I wasn't going to be able to watch it all but so far there hasn't really been a "full" day of testimony. So at this point you can watch it without having to decide between sleep or the trial.

Granted I'm not an attorney but I would have thought concentrating on the missing scissors as a murder weapon would make more sense if they didn't believe it was premeditated. Yet they went to all of the trouble of bringing in experts to testify about not being able to rule out the letter opener.

It also made me wonder about the defense making the scissors an issue, that to me wouldn't disprove it being Father Robinson, only that it would disprove the letter opener being used.


Anonymous said...

My take on that is that the arrest came right after Father Robinsion said he had "sole control" of the letter opener. The prosecution decided that put what they think is the murder weapon in his hands, so to speak. We haven't heard if the missing scissors have/had any characteristics in common with the letter opener, but maybe they did. Maybe even one of those medallions??? Whatever.

The prosecution makes much of the theory that the letter opener was "unique" but I'll bet the ranch it isn't. It was a souvenir item. I would guess it was produced in great numbers and there were probably many items with the same decoration on them. I recall a cop telling me once that they would get the description of something -- a lime green VW with a red stripe, for example -- and think they were on the trail of something unique, only to discover that once they started looking for that lime green VW with the red stripe that there were many such cars (the very thing they didn't expect). It makes me wonder if the police stopped looking when they found the letter opener because they were sure they had the killer and that was the item he owned that they thought could have been the weapon. If so, they wouldn't have kept looking. Just like they didn't keep testing, investigating all those years -- waiting until *after* the priest was arrested to conduct several tests that would seem to me to be rather vital prior to making an arrest.

As you suggest, the prosecution is trying to poo-poo the notion the weapon could have been scissors, while the defense is suggesting it could have been scissors.

With people knowing the scissors are missing, it takes those out of the priest's "sole control" (others apparently saw them outside his control and/or used them), so it behooves the defense to focus on them as the potential weapon, and it behooves the prosecution to scoff at that notion. At least that's how things look to me at this point.

Anonymous said...

"What I'd like to see locally is genuine commentary on how the two sides are doing in the case daily -- from attorneys who work as defense attorneys and prosecutors. I don't see any value in one lawyer making bland comments about people he's probably having beers with right after the broadcast."

I would absolutely agree with this. The problem is that the local news - particularly Fox36 - aren't giving commentators enough time to give any insight. Merle Dech (and ohmygod he is sooo hot) is doing excellent commentary but they need to give him a chance to offer some insight. When they don't cut him off he provides unbiased and interesting commentary. And he is very cute.


Anonymous said...

Is anyone aware of an alert system via email to let one know when a verdict is reached?

Sam said...

Is anyone aware of an email alert system to let one know when a verdict has been reached?