Citing the French Revolution

Testimony this morning moved from videos of suicides to autopsies of people guillotined during the French Revolution as Leestma was grilled intensely by prosecutor Alan Jackson. At issue was how long it would take after spinal cord severance for a victim like Clarkson to suffer extensive ridigity of her arms and legs. “You’re providing memories I don’t have,” Leestma protested at one point. When Jackson asked if a dying person could exhale blood as long as five seconds after suffering a fatal shot, Leestma said, “On TV maybe, in the slow-motion cuts…but not in reality.” Jackson asked Leetsma to cite published medical authorities supporting his position. He cited physicians who studied the bodies of people guillotined during the French Revolution, who reported observing some spasms hours after decapitation. . At one juncture, Jackson panted very rapidly and shallowly to make a point. It was necessary to describe his demonstration for the record being prepared by a court stenographer. Judge Fidler likened it to “an exhausted Chihuahua,” to the delight of the jury. .

Comments

[A.O.]

What stuck in my mind to-day is Dr. Leestma as aways Jackson suck everything he could get. What was shown was the photo of Lana. Both her legs straight out and slumped. (get to the point) Dr. DeMaio stated her legs were under the chair. Her legs are just too long (physics) knee to ankle bone would prevent this. My understanding is the instant after the shot, there may just be a slight movement if any. To get her legs out would require a strong jerk or buck, therefore when shot , her legs did not move from the original position. ( the chair was standard height) Yes/no ?

[JW]

The good Dr. stated that her legs were NOT extended when the shot was fired....BUT...that she SLUMPED downwards and demonstrated how her dress was crumpled and how her legs became extended....HE DID not say her legs were under the chair. I wonder at times which trial some are watching...is not the same I see that is for sure. I would surely hate to be on trial and expect fairnes...some of you are so pro prosecution that you wear blinders and make a decision before you have heard all there is to hear. Even Nili Hudson admitted this...she would only listen to the prosecution and not even hear the rest of the story. Good grief! Not a credible witness for sure...

[JW]

"Chihuahua"..yep...Judge got it right in describing Alan Jackson....that is just what he reminds me of...a YIPPY one...

[JJ]

GREETINGS AGAIN:
JUST STOPPED BY TO READ THE COMMENTS, TO: JW...FAR BE IT I AM WEARING BLINDFOLDS, I LISTEN ATTENTATIVELY, "ALL THE EVIDENCE",DO YOU NOT WANT JUSTICE DONE IN THIS CASE"??? YOU MUST BE PRO DEFENSE.???

I AM A PERSON OF INTEGRITY, AND WOULD NEVER WANT AN INNOCENT MAN TO BE ACCUSED!!!! THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AGAINST MR. SPECTOR. HE CONSTANTLY THREATENED WOMEN WITH GUNS, AND FINALLY IT WENT TOO FAR, WHEN MS. LANA CLARKSON WAS KILLED.

AND AS FAR AS THE PROSECUTOR BEING A WHIMP-HE IS DOING HIS JOB!!
WE ARE ALL WATCHING THE SAME TRIAL...BUT YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO SPECTOR'S PATTERN OF THREATENING PEOPLE.

JW THE DRIVER SAW THE BLOOD ON SPECTOR'S HAND AND SPECTOR HOLDING IT. LO AND BEHOLD THE GUN IS ON THE FLOOR BY MS. CLARKSON. SPECTOR NEVER CALLED 911!!!!!!!!!!!THE DRIVER DID.

BE PATIENT-LET JUSTICE TAKE OFF THE BLINDFOLD AND INTELLIGENT JURY COME UP WITH THE CORRECT VERDICT. KEEP THE FAITH. LET US NOT HAVE ANOTHER OJ TRIAL, LORD HAVE MERCY ON JOHNNY COCHRAN.....REMEMBER "THE COLUMBIAN NECKLACE"?? BUT ALL WILL HAVE A FINAL JUDGEMENT, NO ATTORNEYS THERE-THE SHROUD HAS NO POCKETS, YOU STAND ALONE.

THINK OF MS. CLARKSONS FAMILY. SAY A PRAYER FOR THEM WHATEVER RELIGION YOU BLONG TO. GOD BLESS AMERICA...PEACE.JJ

[JW]

JJ
..I AM NOT PRO DEFENSE OR PROSECUTION! I have nothing vested in this and nothing to lose. You on the other hand seem to be very pro prosecution...I have read your other posts. That is your option of course. I am simply pointing out the facts and quite frankly what I hear and what is posted here is very different at times. The trial isn't over...yet you and others have declared him guilty from the beginning. Is this your Lady Justice? I really wonder what would have happened FIVE DAYS prior to Feb. 3rd when Ms. Clarkson was with the married man in a hotel room...in despair crying for two hours and him telling her she needed help. He was a very reluctant witness which makes him credible to me. She had her purse with her then he so testified. If a gun had been in his room HE could be the one on trial. Spector's past history is not pretty...no doubt about that (and I am not a fan of his) but..neither is hers. Her most recent history in months leading up to her death points to depression, despair and talking about ending it all. His history is from years ago. Did it occur to any one that perhaps Spector knew the limo driver had called 911? I look at all angles as a jurist is supposed to do and listen to ALL the evidence....I don't just jump immediately and believe what the prosecutor says...look at the Duke Prosecutor...no doubt there were many claiming the LaCrosse players guilty. There is always a first time for everything and YOU JJ could just be wrong on this!! Perhaps you should remember this as my creator says clearly "Judge not that Ye not be judged...for how you judge another is how HE will judge you!" I see too many innocent people being released from prison today because of follks jumping to conclusions and over ambitious prosecutors. And I wouldn't necessarily exclude Alan Jackson from that. I hear how he questions....he testifies. My prayer is that the jury gets it right either in justice for Ms. Clarkson or for Mr. Spector.