Monday, May 08, 2006

Monday's notes...

Some notes I made in watching this morning's testimony:

It appears the Prosecution is trying to imply that the former Chief Detective on the case helped to protect Father Robinson from being charged because of his being Catholic and his relationship with the diocese at the time of the murder.

A blonde pubic hair found at the crime scene which I do not believe the prosecution mentioned before was discussed. Testing showed that Father Robinson could not be the person that the public hair came from.

More on the fingernail clippings, the Prosecution has suggested the DNA evidence could have come from anyone who had contact with Sister on the day of the murder. Yet that does and did raise the possibility that it was also from the murderer. Either way, the testing shows it was from a male and the items tested that had a large enough sample ruled out Father Robinson or any biological relatives of him.

Valid questions to remain as to how the fingernail clippings were collected, it's important to remember at the time of the murder DNA was not available. Considering though when the tests were ordered later, the decision to use all of the nails rather than trying to do individual testing and consuming all of the sample does raise some interesting questions.

As an additional update: WTOL just reported that Dr. Kathy Reichs is expected to testify this afternoon. Court resumes at 1:00 p.m.

Second update 1:55 p.m.:

Dr. Reichs testified, notes from that testimony:

Dr. Reich's testified that there is photographic evidence that the penetration wound in the jaw wound was changed possibly after the letter opener was put in which to her suggests that it was not a fit prior. She showed the jury blown up photos of before the letter opener was inserted and after the letter opener was inserted.

There is also some question as to differences in how that particular wound was created. This stems from written reports from the initial time of the murder versus the experts called to testify for the prosecution.

It appears the main focus of having her present is to point out that this evidence was potentially compromised. The prosecution focused on why she did not physically examine the mandible. She stated under testimony and under cross that after the letter opener and the casting had been done that there would have been no way for her to determine details on the original "defect" (bone trauma/wound).

Third update; 3:26:

13ABC is reporting:

The defense has rested in the Robinson case. There will not be any testimony tomorrow. Closing arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

However, what I heard the Judge say was there could be possibly one more witness on Wednesday then closing statements.

NBC24 has their report on today's testimony.

WTOL has theirs.

David Yonke of the Toledo Blade provides his report on today.

Fox 36 did not have an update yet, will add the link to them later.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where are you seeing the testimony? All I'm getting on Court TV is the bar fire stuff. Not at all interesting to me.

What's this about a blond pubic hair? Where was it found? Given all the poor evidence gathering we've heard about, I'm somewhat amazed they found that hair (or was it found on the evidence in this latest go-'round of testing?).

One thing that jumps out at me about a blond pubic hair being found is that the woman in the 2004 Blade story said she saw a long-haired blond guy coming out of a nun's office or bathroom that morning, and the composite sketch was done.

Lisa Renee said...

I have been following the case thru the Court TV extra which gives you the live video, our local ABC station 13 also has a link to a live video feed on their website. Right now they haven't resumed from lunch yet.

It was stated the pubic hair was found in the sacristy on a door panel if I understood that correctly.

Anonymous said...

I haven't figured out how to access the live feed from Court TV Extra, even though I signed up for it. Not too savvy, am I?

I don't understand how the police managed to find a pubic hair, but they neglected to gather trace evidence and didn't take fingerprints from obvious surfaces.

I think the witness mentioned by the judge is a possible rebuttal witness. But if I recall correctly, the prosecution put on another witness after they supposedly rested.

I was shocked the defense rested so quickly. I wonder if that was a good strategy. They didn't even put on a character witness, did they? Either they think the prosecution has such a weak case, it's not worth responding to because it'll open up other lines of questioning -- or they don't have much to say other than "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

I think Kathy helped destroy the notion of it fits "like a key in a lock."

Maybe that's all the defense needs if the whole arrest was based on the notion the letter opener was the priest's and he had exclusive control of it. If the jury believes it's not the weapon, or there's a reasonable doubt it is, that's that.

My guess is that the closing arguments will be very interesting.

Also, do you have details on Konop's illness? Did they talk about that in the courtroom?

Lisa Renee said...

Once you sign up you enter your email address and your log in then if they are not covering the trial or the feature you want right click on the video screen and select stop. Then click on the Father Robinson Trial information where it says "More" it will take you to the link of the video they have then you can play it in the window there or select larger screen.

:-)

I was surprised they ended today too. I'm not sure if it is a rebuttal witness or not, all the Judge said is "there could possibly be one more witness then closing arguments".

I think Mr. Konop just has a very bad cold/upper respiratory type virus. It's been going around here, I don't think it's serious.

My concern, they may have proven it wasn't the letter opener but they didn't prove it wasn't Father Robinson. The jury could decide he could have killed Sister with the missing pair of scissors. Did the Defense do enough to prove reasonable doubt? It's possible but to be honest this could go either way. It depends on who the jury found most credible.

Anonymous said...

It's not the job of the defense to prove he didn't kill her under all potential scenarios, and there's been no effort to put scissors in his hands. I don't think the jury can go off in that direction. For one thing, if they don't buy into the letter opener, then they can't then settle on an imaginary/imagined weapon. Or at least shouldn't.

If the community's range of opinion is any measurement of what the jury is thinking, I'd guess it'll be a hung jury.

Lisa Renee said...

You could be very right and I could be wrong as to my concern.

Anonymous said...

I just went into Court TV Extra and found what you guided me toward, but there's no video from today. How long do they usually take to post it?

Or am I still looking in the wrong place?

I noticed in Yonke's article he points out Reichs didn't examine the actual evidence, but he didn't mention her reason: she said she was testifying about the way the evidence was tested, not the evidence itself.

Also, on the Court TV site they have a story about Reichs saying the evidence might have been contaminated, but they don't call her an expert witness in the headline, or Dr. Reichs. They call her "Novelist."

Grrrrr....

Lisa Renee said...

Sometimes it takes them a while and sometimes they are fast. Same with 13, sometimes they list the video rather quickly on their site.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why Court TV chose to cover witness impact statements from the bar fire fatalities rather than an on-going trial that people have been watching for several weeks.

At first I thought maybe they're just not getting the ratings they expected from the Robinsion trial, but then I thought, nah, because witness impact statements are not going to pull in many viewers. Their coverage went on and on.

Did you see something about someone looking at the altar cloth and not seeing the imprint of the medallion? I think it was someone at Ohio State. There was some mention of that on Court TV's message boards, but of course no news reports that I've seen have mentioned that.

Nor have I seen it reported that Sister Pahl's purse was found in a drawer in the sacristy. According to the person who posted that, the police didn't find it. A nun did.

And I didn't know about the enhanced audio tape till I saw a short bit of commentary on Court TV (not the site). Beth said it was the moment when the priest was left alone by the cop who was interrogating him -- when he was whispering. She said it sounded like he said something like, "Sister, come back, tell them I didn't do this."

Lisa Renee said...

I really had to think about it anoyn and I don't recall hearing anything about Sister's purse being found either.

I'm not sure what Father Robinson said, it was hard for me to decipher but that is a possible statement.