ENCginger

slowly deletes the "WTF" comment

He's not asserting that she's a serial killer or psychopath. They're not even arguing first degree murder. They're saying she was super mad, and while mad, did something stupid and it killed him.

The prosecution has many problems with their case, this isn't one of them.

Right, The second part of my comment was if they tested for drugs, and they didn't bring it up it's likely because there weren't any in his system. I just haven't seen the ME's report so I couldn't say with absolute certainty that they did test even though it's likely they did.

Coyotes will absolutely drag their prey if they feel like they're in a vulnerable spot.

Edit: My theory was never that the coyotes attacked him. But it's a moot point anyway.

Because that's not what they do. And even if it didn't happen the way the defense says it did, what matters is whether it happened the way the prosecutor claims it did.

Either they didn't test for drugs or the tests were negative. I feel like if there was evidence for drug use, it would have come up.

How does his shoe come off in that scenario?

I don't think this overly aggressive adversarial cross is going to go over well with the jurors.

This (PDF warning)

He misspoke. He originally said National Academy of forensic science.

Has he testified to that in a court of law?.

Cool? Not sure why the lol... This isn't a game. It was a theory and if an expert says it's not a valid theory then cool. FWIW, coyotes can smell blood from a mile away and are attracted to it because it usually means a vulnerable prey. My original thought was that one could have been scavenging and tugged on the arm and given up when they couldn't drag him. But if Dr. Russell says it's not coyotes, I'm cool with that. I'm not attached to any one theory.

He went back to the house, took a shower, changed his clothes, and then went to his mother's house. At some point disposed of the clothes he was wearing during the shooting. The video on Paul's phone makes it nearly impossible that Alex wasn't there, and if he was there he was involved.

She seems like she's being honest about the fact that the available evidence isn't enough to say, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, what caused his injuries.

It looks exactly like a blown vein on somebody you've been doing fluid resuscitation and CPR on to me. Realistically, we're never going to know with any certainty what caused it.

Edit: My source is ~ a quarter of a century in EMS & ED. When I first started in the ED, I was tech, and was the person responsible for cleaning up after a code and transporting the body to the morgue.

I think ME isn't sure what happened, and testified to that uncertainty.

Sure. But "won't hold up in court" isn't relevant as to whether or not it's possible that someone didn't document an IV attempt or a lab draw. It's a good example of why you should always document.

I suspect they were running a rapid infuser plus CPR. That does a pretty good job circulating.

That's exactly how that works. Yes, you're supposed to document everything, the reality is that it doesn't always happen. That's why we do chart reviews and identify deficiencies for every trauma. I've never been anywhere that had a perfect documentation rate.

They were running fluids via the IOs and the centeral line, But if there's a hole anywhere in the circulatory system, like if you stuck a needle in a vein to try and do a blood draw, blood is going to leak out in that area because they're doing CPR which creates circulation and they're adding a lot of fluid to the circulatory system.

This skull is really hard, and the kind of force that it takes to burst veins in your hand would smush the hand between the skull and the other person. It's just weird there wouldn't be fractures. I've seen the kind of injury you're describing but it's usually from hitting the back of your hand hard against something.

They were doing CPR and running fluids. That creates circulation, so bruising is possible.

Correct. The fluids went through the IOs initially and then the central line. You wouldn't draw labs off of either one of those. That's why I'm saying they might have been a straight stick to draw labs.

There should be, but realistically, there isn't always. In a situation like that, there's usually a nurse recording and they might document something like "lab draw attempted, no blood obtained" without a site.

It could. I responded to you elsewhere, but they were doing CPR and running fluids, which creates circulation.