Tahah being charged with 1st Degree murder!

[blondemoments]

Originally Posted by banyon

What were they supposed to do, Call Ms. Cleo ahead of the trial

hmmm, you who Ms. Cleo is...and I thought you didn't watch commercials.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by blondemoments

I don't know if that is tampering or not, but...

if they replaced the bolt and fired the gun to get the rifling, (and unless I'm mistaken) you would still need to match up the indention from the original firing pin which would be in the bolt that is missing.

oh boy, I can't wait to get jumped on because what the heck would a girl know about guns.

You’re correct about needing the original bolt and pin to match it with the shell casing. But why would you need to? From everything that I’ve read the spent casings were not found at the crime scene but in the defendant’s dwelling and/or trash. If a spent case was found at the scene you would want to link it to the defendant’s weapon but that’s not the case here.

The friends of the defendant are charging that ballistics on the bullet weren’t done and I’m wondering if it was possible. We know a new bolt could be fitted to test fire the weapon for a sample bullet. I’ve ask if fitting a new bolt would be allowed under rules of evidence and Spike believes it would be. It was said that the bullet that was recovered from the victim was in two large fragments. The next question to ask is if there is enough rifling intact on those fragments to find the necessary number of points to match it with a test bullet.

If I was a defense attorney I would want to know if a test could have been done at all. If it could have and wasn’t I probably wouldn’t want it done now. A positive match could sink the appeal. I would attempt to argue negligence on the part of the prosecutor for failing to attempt to gather all of the evidence. If a test could not have been done it takes the issue off of the table.

[Flying Dutchman]

I would attempt to argue negligence on the part of the prosecutor for failing to attempt to gather all of the evidence.

The state was not required to do any testing because of the confession. If he remained quiet then they would have to do testing to put the bullet with the gun, the gun with him, and him at the scene. If any testing was to be done it had to be done by the defense since they were the ones contesting it after the fact.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

The state was not required to do any testing because of the confession. If he remained quiet then they would have to do testing to put the bullet with the gun, the gun with him, and him at the scene. If any testing was to be done it had to be done by the defense since they were the ones contesting it after the fact.

If that’s the only point I missed out of the whole post I’m not doing too bad.

[Flying Dutchman]

Nope.......not to bad at all.

[Tigre]

Originally Posted by WILD BILL

I was just wondering about one thing that hasn't been brought up so far here on the forum. I watched the video when it was played in court. When Tahah confessed on the video tape he had "accidentaly" shot into the back of Jones house he specifically said exactly where he had been standing in Jones back yard when he "made the shot". Even drew a map for the officer. If Tahah was making up his confession he shouldnt of known the path of the bullet, through the glass, and into Jones. Would he? I mean that was a pretty good guess if he was making it up! There is alot of back yard there and he could of told the Officer he was anywhere in the back yard.

When he tried to recant his confession in court, Tahah said he saw the broken window, blinds, and so on with his binoculars. He could easily know about these details because hes had access to all the evidence including photos before the trial started.

Isn't there an old saying, "The guilty fleeth when no man cometh." But the innocent lay still as lions". (or something like that)

God Bless the United States jury system!!

How would he have known that he could see the back of her house with binoculars if he hadn't seen it for himself? To my knowledge they had no picutures of the backyard except of the ones of the door and the ones of the backyard that they took after he got up and testified.

I agree he could have put himself anywhere in that back yard but he didn't.

I don't have all the answers. Maybe he did do it......I'm resting at that!

[Monster]

Originally Posted by Tee

Lie detectors are easy to fool, if A) you are a pathological liar, B) you know how to employ countermeasures.

Tee, I'm sorry, but that's a lie. I think.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Monster

Tee, I'm sorry, but that's a lie. I think.

The pathological liars believe thier own BS so they think they are telling the truth. So the pollygraph picks nothing up.

And the machine can be fooled if you know how to do it.

That's why they are not admitted into evidence.

[Monster]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

The pathological liars believe thier own BS so they think they are telling the truth. So the pollygraph picks nothing up.

And the machine can be fooled if you know how to do it.

That's why they are not admitted into evidence.

I was kidding. Probably in poor taste (as usual).

[wordsmythe]

Dry British humour or not it was a valid chance to support Tee's point.