Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: All; darbymcgill

These kids are getting screwed, big time.

I'm late to the game, but Looking over the ID transcript,,


This is why someone NOT involved in the investigation is
supposed to admister the ID procedure.

Look how the Main investigator gets HIS answer from the
AV:

Image 26
Victim:
He was in the Living Room

Sgt:
He was in the Living Room?

Victim:
Sitting down.

Sgt:
Do you recognize him? I'M SORRY, YOU SAID HE WAS IN THE LIVING ROOM?

Victim:
I meant the Master Bedroom

The Lead Investigator (Sgt) led the AV right into his answer. Otherwise, she'd look confused and her story would conflict. He's keeping her on track.

That's why the Policy says to use someone NOT INVOLVED in the investigation to admister the ID process.


38 posted on 05/12/2006 12:03:38 AM PDT by OakOak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: OakOak

It is not in the transcript, but I would be willing to bet she was cued in after her first 90% ID that 90% was not good enough, so she 100% IDed the second and third.

On the news of yesterday:

1. The arrest of the cabby is as bad as you and many other said.

2. There is certainly no tissue involved or the state DNA lab is worthless. One thing that might cause someone to reign in Nifong is that if he goes with this every defense attorney in the state will henceforth claim even prosecutors in this state do not believe in the state lab, so why should you?


43 posted on 05/12/2006 12:32:46 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson