Replies

Ray, I don't challenge any of Dr. Lee's phenomenal knowledge and expertise in his area. I don't know if you read the same part as was transcribed to me. It was terrible and even the CourtTV reporters made comment as to such. They said he was unprepared, kept saying "it wasn't my job", He admitted he had viewed none of the actual evidence, he made jokes about inappropriate things. I can't remember by heart but I will write it down and post it to you. They reported that he was several times flustered. Had to admit that his take was only supposition and could not really be proven. On and On. It shocked me. I did not respect his testimony in the Simpson case. Yes, he can be likeable and he is obviously a teacher and so probably does use cards and demonstrates his points. However in the Simpson case, his bottom line was that little demonstration which said Nothing of value. He clearly tries to endear himself with the Jury. That's fine too. I just felt in the Simpson case that I would have had a tremendous amount of respect for him if he had just refused to testify. He really didn't add any specific medical or crimonology substance by his statements. It was just speaking to a Jury that was prepared to buy anything anyway and saying Something is not right means What?. As to his broken English. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that a man as intelligent as him and who has been in the USA for such a long time, really should speak better English. It is often difficult to listen to him. Some of my words such as stupid were not meant in reference to his intelligence. Perhaps the broken English is part of the SCHTICK, I don't know. I am sure he's done a great job in many cases. But you know Ray, when a mortal man is constantly put on a pedestal and puffed up all the time - is it not possible for that mortal man to become a little full of himself?? I think it is. I do know, and appreciate, that Cyril Wecht was been hired by the Defense in a big case, flew across the Country to examine the evidence, refused to testify because he did not agree with what was expected for him to say, and flew all the way back and refused the fee. NEVER at any time, have I ever suggested that anybody working in these cases should not be paid. I don't know where you got that impression. I usually appreciate your posts Ray, but I was sincerely shocked at your postto me a couple of days ago. I wasn't quite sure why you chose me to lash out at, the thread was full of the same thing from others. Perhaps I just stepped on your last nerve, I don't know. In any event, let's just forget it. Lynn

Ray, I gotta tell ya, CO can trash Geragos to her heart's content, and it could never be as bad as what I think of him, that knee-padded, slimy, Clinton-loving, shifty-eyed, traveling-medicine-show #####!!

Yeah, I know he's got a job to do, and yeah I know he makes lots of money, but I still find him abhorrent.

Where'd he get his law license? Schwegmann's??

The above is my opinion! I have no personal knowledge of Geragos, thank heaven! And I wasn't in Schwegmann's when he musta got his license dere! (Did he pick up some Hubig's pies on the way out?)

You can like him, Ray, and I don't hold it against you cause you da man.

CO, I'm betting that whatever Lee might testify in Scott's trial (if he does), the truth will still come out. Hope Scott's ready for that!

Ok CO, Now I have about 50 articles about MP trial and blondee sent me that "yellow" piece she found.

Dr Lee is a member of a "DEFENSE TEAM" and is at that trial to give his "OPINION" only, regardng one major point and one major point only:Judging from your vast knowledge of forensics and blood behavior and inspecting the blood evidence remaining at the alledged crime scene scene: Is it likely that Katleen Peterson was beaten to death "in the manner" the prosecution theorizes and if so how likely? Be prepared to support your opinion to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, if nedessary. IMHO that or something very akin to it is his charge.

Dr. Lee's answer. "It is possible but very very improbable b/c..............." He said the rest was not his job b/c that was exactly the right answer. If he knew the answer, as I suspect to some questions he did he still would not have answered. He is far too smart to let a two bit DA trap him into testifing about information outside of his charge by the head of the defense,unless,in his opinion, it would change the proper outcome of the trial.

Yes opinion is exactly what experts provide and only opinion,and the DA knew this, anything else the DA asked was to obfuscate, and it appears it worked in some cases Court TV included(ray is not surprised by this b/c it makes for viewer interest and they must have both sides view to survive).

AS usual Dr.Lee hit a home run with his testimony. In some cases in court testimony, it's not only what is said that counts but what is not said. Remember, trial is a war and all wars have two sides. IMHO the verdict will reflect Dr Lee's wisdom, IF not the appeal will.

FWIW:FYI
Dr.Lee testifies for the prosecution 95% of the time.

Only when he sees extenuating circumstances does he testify for the the defense. In regards to O.J. I could not understand the O.J. testimony b/c I could not follow it. The other day I heard Dr.Lee say that Blood thinner found in the blood on the gate proved it did not come from the body but another vessel and as a result the case was lacking integrity to convict. Note: he did not say OJ was innocent.

"I wasn't quite sure why you chose me to lash out at, the thread was full of the same thing from others. Perhaps I just stepped on your last nerve, I don't know. In any event, let's just forget it. Lynn"

It wasn't you I was challenging so much as that post itself.If you had put "IMO" at the beinning or the end or otherwise qualified your statements, I would not have said one word except maybe give an alternate opinion, but probably not even that b/c well just because I was't posting right then I don't think, I don't really remember.

I will stand corrected,but IMO you or anyone else has ever seen me ridicule an opinion. I may argue the other side and try to change their mind but that is it. A person has a right to their opinion whatever it may be and I take that very seriously.

Likewise when someone uses our blessed "Freedom of speech" to assail and degredate unfoundedly, without qualification. I will challenge them with all energy and resources at my disposal. Some may find that overbearing....TOUGH

Remember, we can think anything we want about somebody and we can say that we think that way about them. We do not get the right to say what we think is true unless we can back it up in court AND public forum. THERE ARE LAWS.

Now that this has happened, I know there is neither a vicious nor defamating bone in your body and I will challenge anyone who says differently without qualification. HONEST LUV...;-)

As far as I am concerned,my friend, It's finished business "IMHO"...;=)