Replies

There are many reasons why certian things were not introduced into evidence or why certain people were not called to testify for the defense. There were numerous pre-trial hearings that were closed to public and media where it is presumed there were arguments by both sides of what could be admitted and presented. It could very well be that the judge was very careful about allowing any testimony that would point at the parents. In fact, the way he sustained objections made by Dusek during Feldman's cross of the parents and other witnesses, it was very apparent he was allowing very little, if any, testimony get in that would have pointed any finger the parent's direction. We do not know that the defense did not want to call this person as a witness.

It could very well be that the judge was very careful about allowing any testimony that would point at the parents. In fact, the way he sustained objections made by Dusek during Feldman's cross of the parents and other witnesses, it was very apparent he was allowing very little, if any, testimony get in that would have pointed any finger the parent's direction. We do not know that the defense did not want to call this person as a witness.

Yes, and see, this is a problem.

From what little I know about criminal trials, the defense *must* be allowed to present alternative theories for how the crime occured, so long as they're not unreasonable. Mudd seems to have refused to allow this. If he did, that creates yet one more basis for the appeal of a conviction.

I disagree with you Green. The journal was available as evidence. If it had contained entries that could be construed as pointing a finger at Damon, it could be used as evidence to lay the foundation for questioning the parents on this issue.

The reason the judge didn't allow the defense to pursue this line of questioning is because he had laid no foundation for it. The defense cannot use third party culpability as a defense or make accusations of specific persons without supporting evidence.

The diary/journal would have been the perfect piece of evidence for this purpose AND WOULD HAVE BEEN USED, if the rumurs about it were true. The defense was provided a photocopy in discovery. They didn't use it, or call DHP, because he's a loon and a liar.

I am willing to bet that if the VD's sue after the trial is over, DHP's lawyer will provide voluminous amounts of evidence and medical records to show his client is mentally ill and not responsible for his defamatory and libelous statements about the diary.