Thursday, May 04, 2006

The Prosecution rests...

13ABC covers the details that even those of us who normally watch missed because two of the witnesses did not want to be audio or video recorded.

David Yonke of the Toledo Blade provides his views on how testimony today went.

I'm not sure how today's testimony will be taken by the jury. I think it might have been more believable had Richard Kerner been told at the time that his now ex-wife saw Father Robinson. It would also be a bit more credible if there were statements from that time period that stated what was said but? Now it is up to the Defense and then the jury.


Anonymous said...

Did it bother you that the doctor who testified said the nun was already "cold and clammy" are that she was starting to stiffen when he arrived in the chapel about 8:15? I don't know how this time line works to have rigor begin so soon.

Also, that stare he says the priest gave him, though we don't know what priest, could have just been the priest wondering about this man who was running away from the chapel at a time when people are in there screaming.

I thought the ex-cop's testimony regarding Grace was a bit odd. His memory seemed to be either spotty or convenient. I wonder how it is he remembers things better with the passage of time. Could be possible, I suppose, but it doesn't match my life experience.

Any ideas why Art Marx wasn't called on by the prosecution?

Anonymous said...

Typo correction: "are that" should be "and that" in the first paragraph above.

Lisa Renee said...

I believe there were several other witnesses that were not called or the media didn't cover them all and they were ones who didn't want audio/video. I haven't heard any explanation for those not called except of course the ones written on the witness list as not being able to testify due to health reasons or were deceased.

That did strike me as odd because I thought it took longer for a body to stiffen. I also thought the same thing, about "the look", and also couldn't help wondering if the Doctor stated he'd always remember that look why he wouldn't be able to identify Father Robinson if he saw Father Robinson.

I have a horrible memory, I'm only 46 but I'd have a hard time going into details from when I was 20.

I don't think it was enough to convict Father Robinson but as has been said many times before, we don't know for sure either way. What the jury is going to remember or think is important is probably going to be different that us. We also have the benefit of being able to look at testimony again. T

Anonymous said...

You're right: if the doc will always remember the stare, he should remember the face. And he saw photos of the priest from that time. Interesting. That went right by me.

The doctor did say "maybe" rigor was already starting, but he didn't qualify what he said about the cold and clammy. I wonder how long it takes for body temp to drop. I also wonder what the autopsy said re time of death.

He said her skin was dusky. I didn't know skin turned dusky, unless I have the wrong notion of what that means. I think of dusky as darkening.

I knew they didn't call everyone on the witness list, but I thought they'd call a cop who was part of the original investigation (Marx). I heard, but don't know if it's true, that the defense added him to their list.

Lisa Renee said...


No list of witnesses but states some of them.

Anonymous said...

Aha, found it. If you click on the evidence link at this url, you can see photos of the evidence:

I'm having trouble understanding how the letter opener could have enough blood on it to make stains so much bigger than the opener, and yet still follow the shape of it. Is there supposedly some sort of wicking in the fabric? It just looks odd to me. Yes, I can see similarities, but I'd need to see another object on the same sort of fabric do a similar spread of the stain outward from the object, while also maintaining the shape.

The medallion stain is really confusing to me. Is the prosecution saying that at some point just the medallion had blood on it and made that faint transfer of part of the medallion? If so, huh?

Maybe seeing this stuff in real life would leave a different impression, but if I were on the jury, I would be scratching my head at this point if the evidence really looks like what the photos show.

I don't even think the alleged upside down cross looks like a cross. It looks like a T. (See the photo of the shape with and without the template to see what I mean.)

And the template (WHERE did that cross come from?) is off in its measurements, not equal lengths on each side to the center. I swear that thing was created to use a visual aid, which makes it useless.

Lisa Renee said...

Good find! I like your persistance. I also agree with you on the template, they are trying to imply he used a crucifix but it couldn't have been the one in the chapel. That's where I think that one witness who saw him with the "gym bag or black bag" comes in. The Prosecution is going to try to say that Father Robinson carried both a crucifix and the letter opener with him. Which would mean this was planned, predmeditated.

I still think the majority of the "blood transfer evidence" could have come from pooling blood on the floor given both altar cloths were moved around and we already know the blood was cleaned up before the police came.

I also think the original assistant coroner's statement that the weapon used to make the marks on her face was sharper than the one made to stab her raises more questions about the letter opener being used. It's been testified it was not sharp.

Hopefully more of that will be addressed this week.