Author Topic: Lindzee Folgate (Physician Assistant at Altamonte Family Practice), 6/28/13  (Read 9572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
NM, why do you think it was silly?

As de la Rionda said, the answer it called for was 'pure speculation'. I wonder why he didn't object to it.

If I were a juror, her answer would have no influence on me, and I would be a little annoyed at the time wasted in asking and answering the question. It's theatrics, not substance.

I was much more impressed by her answer about epidural and subdural hematomas. I think that destroyed the prosecution's efforts to minimize the injuries, at least in my mind.

That's the second time the defense has made one of the prosecution's fact witnesses into their own expert witness. CST Smith similarly destroyed the 'contact DNA' argument. I never took that seriously, mainly because some real journalists interviewed real forensic experts who said much the same things as Smith. But using her saved the defense some bucks on their own expert, which is important on their budget.

I did think the prosecution might get some mileage out of minimizing the injuries, as I said long ago on the thread for speculating about their case.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Thanks, NM.

Her standing as a medical professional has no sway for your? I'd agree with you if O'Mara had asked that question of any other witness, but surely the answer--however speculative--of a medical professional carries more weight?

And I wonder too why you're taking the final question in a vacuum. Doesn't it build off the earlier testimony about hematomas as being a possible unseen danger?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Her standing as a medical professional has no sway for your?

Of course it does, when it's relevant. This isn't about her. It's about the question, which is speculative regardless of whom it's put to. And, as I said, in my view that makes it theatrics, not substance.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Of course it does, when it's relevant. This isn't about her. It's about the question, which is speculative regardless of whom it's put to. And, as I said, in my view that makes it theatrics, not substance.

But that was my question. A medical professional (who brought up the hematoma thing herself, didn't she? I don't remember O'Mara asking her about them until she'd brought it up) is in a better position to judge whether or not GZ was in fear of his life.


So it's a little theatrical? A good deal of what goes on at trial is. That doesn't necessarily make it bad.


 

Site Meter
click
tracking