Archive for Friday, August 7, 2009
Defense rests with blood stain expert in Jaeger trial
Paulette Sutton, a bloodstain analysis expert, testified Friday for the defense on blood patterns on a comforter photographed at the apartment of the ex-grilfriend of Matthew Jaeger. The defense rested Friday in the kidnapping and aggravated battery trial.
August 7, 2009, 2:18 p.m. Updated August 7, 2009, 7:02 p.m.
Advertisement
Jaeger defense rests after testimony
After a full day of testimony, the defense in the trial for Matthew Jaeger rested Friday. Closing statements in the case are expected to be made sometime Monday. Enlarge video
Matthew Jaeger: Guilty Verdict
More coverage of the trial of a former Kansas University student accused of beating and kidnapping his ex-girlfriend.
A forensic investigator testified Friday afternoon that the blood stains at the apartment of Matthew Jaeger’s ex-girlfriend supported Jaeger’s version of what happened the night Jaeger is accused of attacking her.
“I would have to conclude there’s no evidence in the blood of a struggle,” said Paulette Sutton, a Memphis-based investigator and blood stain expert.
On the eighth day of testimony, jurors heard from defense witnesses Sutton and Los Angeles-based medical investigator James Kent, who said the woman’s injury more likely was caused by a fall on a bed rail instead of a kick or punch.
Prosecutors allege that Jaeger, 24, a former Kansas University student, broke into the woman’s northern Lawrence apartment and found his ex-girlfriend with another man, Dylan Jones, on the night of Oct. 9, 2007.
Then, they say, after chasing Jones away, Jaeger re-entered the apartment and attacked his ex-girlfriend, who is now 23. They claim he severely mutilated her pelvic region and dragged her from her apartment into a car driven by his friend, Evan Carroll. Police later stopped the car and the men said they were trying to take her to the hospital.
But Jaeger, who now lives in suburban Chicago, testified Thursday that he never went into her apartment a second time and that his ex-girlfriend told him she fell getting out of bed onto a bed rail during the commotion.
Jaeger faces charges of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated burglary and making a criminal threat.
Defense attorneys on Friday presented their case that the woman’s injuries could have occurred from a fall on the railing and that Jaeger did not force her from the apartment.
Kent’s testimony at times resembled a physics lesson as he drew his calculations on the board for jurors explaining that he ruled out a punch or kick for causing the woman’s injuries to her groin. He said that Jaeger would have had to generate force equivalent to either a Tae kwon do expert or an Olympic boxer.
According to earlier testimony in the trial from police, the woman’s bed was broken before the incident, including a side railing emerging apart from the mattress.
Kent said that the size of the wounds in her pelvic region appear to support a fall on the railing, according to photographs he has seen of the bed.
“Within the limits of the possibility I have to work with, the fall on the bed rail is the most probable cause of the injury,” Kent said.
He also testified that Jaeger didn’t have enough time to strangle his ex-girlfriend.
“I don’t see any physical or document evidence that would appropriately support that she was ever choked into unconsciousness,” he said.
Last week, the victim testified that Jaeger choked her until she was unconscious. She said she woke up later with injuries. Doctors who treated her at Lawrence Memorial Hospital have testified that the injuries to the exterior of her pelvic region were consistent with blunt force trauma, rather than a “straddle injury” or fall on a bar.
Also on Friday, Jaeger’s older sister, Veronica Jaeger, testified that her brother’s ex-girlfriend called her about a month after the incident and told her Jaeger insisted on taking her to the hospital that night and “in no way indicated that she was forced against her will.”
Jaeger’s sister also said the woman told her she still cared for her brother “and still loved him.”
The defense rested its case after Sutton, the blood stain expert, testified that the stains at the woman’s apartment did not support a struggle occurring there.
She also said the evidence was more in line with Jaeger’s testimony about only entering the apartment once and helping her to the car, rather than what his friend, Evan Carroll, said about Jaeger going back into the apartment after he had already chased away Jones, the man his ex-girlfriend was with that night.
The blood stains led from the apartment complex parking lot, up the exterior building steps and into the woman’s apartment back to her bedroom.
“Did you find anywhere in the forensic evidence signs of a struggle?” defense attorney Pedro Irigonegaray asked.
“No, sir,” Sutton said.
Prosecutors Nola Wright and Jason Hart, both Kansas assistant attorneys general, plan to call rebuttal witnesses in the case beginning at 9 a.m. Monday. Chief Douglas County District Judge Robert Fairchild said closing arguments likely would be later Monday.
More like this
- Jurors complete first day of deliberations, will resume at 9 a.m. Tuesday 83 comments / August 10, 2009
- Jaeger denies ever hurting ex-girlfriend, says he was just trying to protect her 109 comments / August 6, 2009
- Images show blood on defendant 129 comments / July 31, 2009
- Surgeon says she's 'never seen anything as extensive' as Jaeger's ex-girlfriend's injuries 82 comments / August 5, 2009
- Driver in Jaeger case says defendant broke victim's window, entered apartment 111 comments / August 3, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Part-time CNA needed immediately to help our elderly clients in ...
- LMH Employment Opportunities
- Cleaning Technician- 5 eves. per wk, 3 hrs per night; ...
- Research Assistant KU Requires bachelor's degree in biochemistry, chemistry, molecular ...
- Tax Prep Help Wanted Full-time, Temporary Position for the 2009 ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Pie Lady makes holidays sweeter November 26, 2009 · 1 comment
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009 · 4 comments
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 120 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 61 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 76 comments
- On the street: Which do you prefer, white meat or dark meat? November 26, 2009 · 5 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 142 comments
- Enough exams November 26, 2009 · 1 comment
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 13 comments
- Blog: Tasering Your Preteen: Can You Imagine? November 24, 2009 · 69 comments
- 6News video: SLT opponents gather for forum June 15, 2008
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Pale veggies pack plenty of nutrition December 17, 2008
- KU gobbles up Grizzlies November 26, 2009
- KU says student didn't follow proper lab procedures before exposure to toxic chemical November 25, 2009
- School district may have to tap contingency fund November 24, 2009
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- Collins shares wealth November 26, 2009
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009
- Kansas ranks 24th in nation when it comes to health November 24, 2009
7 August 2009
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GreatAmericanZero (Anonymous) says…
Kent ia absolutely wrong about Jaeger not having enough time to “choke her out.” In mixed martial arts it's called a rear naked choke and once executed ( which is very easy to do) your opponent will go unconscious within 30 seconds. I would gladly volunteer to let someone perform this on me in front of the jury and go unconscious to show how quickly this can be done and to show the jury that this PAID expert witness obviously is not familiar with this extremely effective technique. ( Hi Susan ;) )
7 August 2009
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
momof2ku (Anonymous) says…
I'm sure falling on bed railings happens all the time!
Give me a break!
7 August 2009
at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
“Within the limits of the possibility I have to work with” exactly what does that mean, and who set the limits, Jaeger's lawyer?
7 August 2009
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
mom, of course it does! Just like women walk into doorways all the time. or their boyfriend's fist. You know, us gals are clumsy and all.
Following this on twitter has rendered me useless today. I am so freaking nervous for this lady!
7 August 2009
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
peach_plum_pear (Anonymous) says…
Kent's testimony makes no sense! He said (as quoted in the twitter updates for #jaegertrial) that Jaeger couldn't kick with enough force to cause her injuries, but still maintains that a fall on a bed rail could? Come on! Her bed would have had to be a story or so high for her to fall that hard and hurt herself that bad. I sure hope the jurors are smart enough to spot the inconsistencies in the defenses' explanation of this incident.
7 August 2009
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Jonathan:
please *put back the twitter update* lines in these articles. that worked much better, was certainly more convenient!
***
so, we have new york, and now we have L.A. is the next expert, probably on now, from chicago?
yes, Alm, the number of women suffering potentially lethal bleed-out injuries from straddle falls on bed rails is severly underreported in this country.
it is a media conspiracy.
7 August 2009
at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Wonder what all these ex-spurt witnesses are costing daddy ?
On another note the LPD arrested a guy for attempted murder , the one that was shooting at folks , alot , that lived down the street from me , thanks LPD.
Any news in the LJW about it , not !
7 August 2009
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SofaKing (Anonymous) says…
Veronica Jaeger is a lame choice. As if the victim would confide in HER. Does anyone with the last name Jaeger have ANY credibility at this point?
7 August 2009
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kugrad (Anonymous) says…
Let me get this straight…The injuries are not consistent with being kicked repeatedly or punched, as not enough force could be applied, but she could have fallen on a bedrail and that would have greater force? Yeah, that happens all the time. I just hate it when I slip and fall on a bedrail with greater force than being repeatedly kicked and punched by an adult male marital arts student.
I have a friend who fell of a 2nd story construction site and got a straddle injury when he landed on a sawhorse (ouch). He didn't need 11 days in the hospital. I don't see how one can fall on a bedrail with enough force. This all-the-defense-money-can-buy crap is really annoying. Sure, the defendant has every right to a fair trial, but this is still a bunch of bought and paid for BS.
I hope this guy gets what he has coming to him.
7 August 2009
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
“Within the limits of the possibility I have to work with”
Translation: There isn't a lot of information, so if I were to guess, I'd say she could have fallen on a bed rail.
He's qualifying “limits” because he only has notations and some photos. He's being paid to toss out guesses in an attempt to confuse the jury. Here's the problem: the doctor who actually treated her said this was extensive damage; but Dr. PaidTestimony never examined the victim.
These tactics will fail because of the indisputable stuff: He threatened her, he choked her, and he tried to keep the cop at the traffic stop from noticing she was bleeding (“We're just going out for pizza, dude”).
Any ladies here ever accidently do the “straddle” on a bike, ala “Funniest Home Videos”? Did you require numerous surgeries? Did you bleed all over everything? NO.
7 August 2009
at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
There isn't even any indication that his sister lives in Lawrence. What about her makes her a good witness? Is she the victim's BFF? They need to try to produce ONE neutral witness outside of flown-in, paid experts and the perp's family. The prosecution has ER doctors and local cops for witnesses. They even got Jaeger's martial arts instructor to demonstrate Jaeger's one skill: choking.
7 August 2009
at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
Please review the website of said “expert”. He clearly is in it for the money at $400 per hour of testimony and $275 per hour to review documents.
http://www.jurispro.com/JamesKent
7 August 2009
at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
Jonathan: if you could give more insight to his sister, that would be helpful. Did she also live in Lawrence? Thanks-
7 August 2009
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Paid experts for court hearings are a dime a dozen.
7 August 2009
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
new york for hire “expert” legal-ob
L.A. for hire “expert” legal trauma-dr.
a perfect example of what is wrong with our country
7 August 2009
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
running out of battery power not good. Please someone ask some questions to make this testimony go bye bye.
7 August 2009
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
The expert testified there was no struggle. The victim already said she was unconscious! So, doesn't that attest to the victims statements then? Even more so than the defense b/c the defense claims she *was* struggling with the other guy.
7 August 2009
at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
institches (Anonymous) says…
Does any body think about how all this started? Jaeger just “happened” to be worried about his ex-girlfriend,in the middle of the night, she coincidentally was someone else, who was chased off. So he helped her by choking the daylights out of her, dragging her to the car..(how helpful), were they even travelling towards the hospital? There are not holes in his testimony, there are craters. How appropriate that this poor victim was injured in her most private area- somewhere he was never going to get close to again. If he could not have her, I guess he was going to make sure no one else would. I cannot imagine the emotional damage done also.
7 August 2009
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BorderRat (Anonymous) says…
A very good attorney friend of mine once referred to the whole expert witness thing as “their whore against mine.”
7 August 2009
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fluffhead (Anonymous) says…
This is a little off topic, but still relevant. So I've known the vicitm for quite some time and had met Matt through her. Anyways I was in Chicago over the weekend for a wedding and I got to talking with a girl who was from Deerfield. I asked her if she knew or had heard of Jaeger and she said yeah she knew who he was. Apparently they go to the same synagogue and just a couple of months ago she said Matt was carrying the Tora. She said that her and everyone else were furious over it. Everybody in Deerfield knows what he did and are disgusted by him. She heard that daddy paid around $20,000 so that Matt could carry it. Obviously nothing too groundbreaking here, but it's just another example of the amount of money his dad is willng to shell out for him. And yes, every bad word that has been said about Matt is totally true. That guy is nuts.
7 August 2009
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
akt2 (Anonymous) says…
The female physicians that treated and operated on the victim know more about the female pelvic region than the male experts that are testifying will ever know. So do the female jurors.
7 August 2009
at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kujayhawk (Anonymous) says…
How does this Kent person sleep at night?
7 August 2009
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1029 (Anonymous) says…
“Within the limits of the possibility I have to work with, the fall on the bed rail is the most probable cause of the injury,” said Dr. James Kent
Translation: Kent is not being paid by the Jaegers to even consider the “possibility” that innocent good-samaritan Jaeger could have done this. So even though he's probably sure that Jaeger did do this, the instructions that came along with his paycheck say that he can't even consider that possibility. The “possibilities” that he can take into consideration are limited. Thus, you get the “within the limits of possibility that I have to work with” quote.
Clever.
7 August 2009
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
firestone321 (Anonymous) says…
Maybe some of you out there more informed about the legal process that I am can help out here, but in most cases aren't these “expert witnesses” deposed before hand so that all sides know what their testimony is going to be??
7 August 2009
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WhiteDog (Anonymous) says…
I'm confused about the whole bed rail thing. Did she have a bunkbed or something?
7 August 2009
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
Victim apparently called the sister and stated Jaeger tried to take her to the hospital!!(?) No phone records submitted, only the sister's word….and then today's off the record but in view of the jury victim reaction to the information.
The prosecutor looked around at victim as if to she had never heard of this phone call before. The victim started sobbing and shaking her head as the Jaeger sister testified. Jury members were glancing over at the victim too. Several of the jurors looked over when there were breaks in the testimony. On cross x, state kept it short and asked little but did establish that was the only contact made by victim.
RE: forensic expert Dr. James Kent….not as believable as the tweets made you react. Cross on him took away quite a bit of the validity of his scientific calculations and conclusions he drew. The prosecutor got down on the floor in a couple of different positions and asked if he had calculated the trauma if in these positions. No, he had not.
Graphic photos were shown again today, one showing the trauma to the labia. In this photo the expert surmised the injury was not possible by use of shoe, fist, but consistent with the bed rail. The expert had to admit under cross examination that different positions would effect the injury, that he had not calculated those possibilities.
Ease up on the prosecutors, they are doing their job. It just is impossible to sate your curiosity.
The jurors were interesting to me today. Some were looking over at the victim. There were furrowed brows on a couple. A couple of others leaned forward in their seats taking it all in. They are definitely involved and alert.
7 August 2009
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says…
Firestone, in criminal cases, expert witnesses are not deposed (usually). Any written reports by experts are generally handed over and the names of the experts need to be disclosed in advance.
7 August 2009
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
number1jayhawker (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone else think Jaeger looks like a young Phil Mickelson?
I have faith that his guy will get his in the end, no pun intended.
7 August 2009
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Judgesmails (Anonymous) says…
If this psycho walks -then the entire jury should hang…
Put him away for life !!
7 August 2009
at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheEleventhStephanie (Anonymous) says…
Smitty, so the jurors at least look like normal,sane people? I hope so..
7 August 2009
at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
Ok, here is my take on the parents and family. It could be that it is not so much that they are defending him as defending their family name and social standing. If he is convicted so is their family's reputation and parenting. Evidently their social standing has suffered already. Also there may be something along the line of a trust or irrevocable trust in his name that they are afraid the victim may come after. They wouldn't want their family money going to “that woman”. So you see they HAVE to stand behind him and try to prove him innocent so they can all be innocent.
7 August 2009
at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
roggy (Anonymous) says…
This young woman was in the hospital for 11 days! She didn't fall on a bed rail - give me a break! That is laughable.
7 August 2009
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
LadyJ, someone said he's adopted. If that's true, adopted children cannot be written out of wills. (at least in the state of Missouri) So, you may be onto something.
7 August 2009
at 5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
firestone321 (Anonymous) says…
ebyrdstarr, so does the prosecution get the “expert witness” reports in discovery, or is discovery only for the defense?
7 August 2009
at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
alm77 (Anonymous) says… “LadyJ, someone said he's adopted. If that's true, adopted children cannot be written out of wills. (at least in the state of Missouri)”
I know of no such rule in any State. In any case leaving an adopted child in a will and bequeathing them $100 would leave them in the will but confer only minimum benefit.
smitty (Anonymous) says… “The jurors were interesting to me today. Some were looking over at the victim. There were furrowed brows on a couple. A couple of others leaned forward in their seats taking it all in. They are definitely involved and alert.”
Anyone else think smitty is doing a better job of reporting that the LJW?
Judgesmails (Anonymous) says… “If this psycho walks -then the entire jury should hang…”
If the jury finds unanimously the defendant is not guilty and you are looking to blame someone, blame the prosecutors for failing to prove guilt.
7 August 2009
at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says…
Discovery does go both ways, but the obligations are a little different.
7 August 2009
at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
The EleventhStephanie, by watching them, I have faith. Five women and seven men of all ages from young adults to middle aged to greyer if not elderly. I'm getting sensitive about describing elderly it seems.
They have gone through some horrendous testimony, graphic photos, long detailed and seemingly unimportant or disconnected testimonies, credential details on each expert, yet still can lean forward to express high concentration on today's events. Alert and attentive, involved.
7 August 2009
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
icky
7 August 2009
at 6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Somebody spending a lot of money on witnesses…..
7 August 2009
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
The JW is busting their collective ass to get this story out in as much detail as possible.
Let me repeat, there is so much going on in that room it is impossible to know what high points to write up and what to pass on.
7 August 2009
at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KcSlumper (Anonymous) says…
The picture above (paula) showing the comforter…is it a picture of victim's bed? do they have other pic's? Is the bed rail broken?
7 August 2009
at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
Sig, when my childhood best friend became a meth addict, her parents tried to figure out what they could do to give her kids their money, but not her. She is their only child and were told it wasn't possible because she was adopted. I don't know the details, but that's what they were told. I was just wondering how that all played into it, or if it did at all.
7 August 2009
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wowzers (Anonymous) says…
Sigmound,
Have you ever heard of negligence? When he is convicted, it leads to a greater certainty that the old man can be held liable in a civil court for negligence. I am not an attorney, but believe me, there is a way to go after the old fart.
7 August 2009
at 6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for your continued coverage, Smitty.
7 August 2009
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
“LJWJKealing: Kent says for Jaeger to cause injury with kick, he had to generate more velocity than an expert Taekwondo artist's sidekick. #jaegertrial about 7 hours ago from TweetDeck”
You mean to say that Kent is saying that if you get kicked in the crotch you aren't going to get “injured” unless it is from an “expert Taekwondo artist”?
That is just plain crazy!
7 August 2009
at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
Smitty,
Thank you for your posts. I'm glad there's more than just the torch and pitchfork crowd here.
“Kent’s testimony took up most of the morning and included him explaining to the jury in great detail the mathematical formulas he used to draw his conclusions, specifically that the injuries weren’t consistent with a kick or a punch and were consistent with falling on a bed rail.”
We all knew that math and science education in Kansas sucked. No matter how much you hate Jaeger, Sir Newton doesn't lie.
7 August 2009
at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
An irrevocable trust cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiary. If Matthew would allow it to be changed a judge could rule he was trying to hide money or keep money from the victim and award her money anyway. The only way to make sure she can't sue for money is to have him found innocent. As for the sister, would you want to known as the sister, or parent, of someone who would do something like this. Their reputation rides on this.
7 August 2009
at 6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Remember that she was drunk too. She might of fell but, who knows what really took place? All these witnesses will lead the jury back to one persons statements, the victim herself. And she said he choked her and she passed out. After that, if she did fall on a bed railing, it' still Agg. Battery.
But not the higher of the five levels of Agg. Battery.
Agg. Burglary, Agg. Battery!
In the kidnapping charge, the jury will be referred back to the witnesses who saw the women being dragged down the stairs!
Kidnapping?
We'll see!
7 August 2009
at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
To bad there isn't a loophole so that this could be classified as a hate crime. That would add more time. Oh well.
7 August 2009
at 7:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
The jury really has to stay in track or you could get dragged off by the lawyers in a smoke screen. A good one of course!
7 August 2009
at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
wowzers (Anonymous) says… “Sigmound, Have you ever heard of negligence? When he is convicted, it leads to a greater certainty that the old man can be held liable in a civil court for negligence. I am not an attorney, but believe me, there is a way to go after the old fart.”
Really, you're not an attorney? Anyway …..
The question, “Can I sue X for Y?” can almost always be answered, “Yes.” The question, “Can I sue X for Y and win?” is much more problematic. Although I have heard of the tort of negligence bringing an action against parents for the intentional criminal acts of their adult children is problematic at the very best. Still if you can cite a case in Kansas with those facts I'll give you 100 Interweb points!
alm77 (Anonymous) says… “Sig, when my childhood best friend became a meth addict, her parents tried to figure out what they could do to give her kids their money, but not her.”
Not giving an adopted child anything but a token amount is really trivial. Giving an adopted child's minor children an inheritance without access to the money by their parent's is only slightly more difficult. Once the kids become adults it again becomes trivial.
7 August 2009
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madman (Anonymous) says…
Ladyj.
I think evenif he is proven innocent here she can still sue In civil court for damages and be awarded money. Like in the Simpson trial he was not guilt of murder but the family sued in civil court (which is less strict on proof) and they were awarded for damages (money)
7 August 2009
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
LadyJ (Anonymous) says… “The only way to make sure she can't sue for money is to have him found innocent.”
Nope, she could still sue and win even if he is found not guilty. OJ was found not guilty of the criminal charges and then liable with the same facts in a civil case resulting in his being liable. The difference was the standards of proof between civil and criminal cases.
And if you were drafting a trust for your children, and you could afford very expensive attorneys, wouldn't you hire one that would protect the money from civil judgments? I would.
7 August 2009
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
Thanks rooster. So you can go to a website for expert witnesses and just type in what kind of witness you need and up pops names of people you can hire. Well gee, which way do you think they would lean. Wonder how many experts they went through till they found one that would support them.
7 August 2009
at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
firestone321 (Anonymous) says…
madman, being awarded damages and actually receiving them are 2 different things. Fred Goldman was awarded damages from OJ Simpson but I don't think he has ever collected
7 August 2009
at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
And Fred Goldman is a very good example of what's wrong with the legal system.
7 August 2009
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
We all knew that math and science education in Kansas sucked. No matter how much you hate Jaeger, Sir Newton doesn't lie.
–uh, Kent was not from Kansas. or are you putting down the jurors?
***
the last line of the updated story says that rebuttal witnesses will be called by the prosecution on Monday.
one can hope that the prosecution has been 'laying back in the weeds' as a strategy.
anybody know who the rebuttal witnesses are for monday?
wonder if they call the victim herself to refute Jaeger's sister's phone call story.
***
probably just my own prejudices, but paulette the blood spatter 'expert' sounds like white trash. sorry, just saying.
7 August 2009
at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aletheia (Anonymous) says…
firestone, I don't think Fred Goldman has collected much, but the beauty of the civil trial was that OJ couldn't either.
As for the expert witness testimony, I understand that he showed several mathmatical formulas comparing a kick or punch to a fall on the bed railing. But did those formulas account for adrenaline and the subsequent velocity that can occur when being kicked or punched? Also, did he take into account his weight, pounds of force that could be exerted while raging into the pelvic region of a petite female?? And, finally, it appears that the expert witness is saying “a” kick, as if to indicate “one.” Did his calculations include the external damage that can be caused by several kicks and/or punches, compared to one “fall” on the bed rail?? If anyone knows, please enlighten me, because I'm beyond frustrated with the paid performance given by the defense's witnesses.
7 August 2009
at 8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
riverdrifter (Anonymous) says…
I believe it was either Mark Twain or Will Rogers who defined an expert as “a fool away from home.”
7 August 2009
at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
parrothead8 (Anonymous) says…
@compmd
You say that, “We all knew that math and science education in Kansas sucked. No matter how much you hate Jaeger, Sir Newton doesn't lie.”
I know you don't mean that the mathematical formulas cannot be argued with…nobody can be that naive. Are you saying that because an expert witness took into account one set of numbers, what he says must be taken as gospel?
A great philosopher once said, “Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts, schmacts.” Yes, the timeless Homer Simpson said that. The truth is, I can use the same fact to prove two different things…and so can an expert witness. If the other side had paid him more, he would have made his measurements mean something else.
I think Benjamin Disraeli said it best: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
7 August 2009
at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
misplacedcheesehead (Anonymous) says…
What??? Jaeger carried the Torah? I'm going to cry and vomit. This guy isn't fit to carry out the trash!!
7 August 2009
at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
oh darn Parrothead,
you beat me to the Benjamin Disraeli quote!
Kent’s testimony at times resembled a physics lesson as he drew his calculations on the board for jurors explaining that he ruled out a punch or kick for
causing the woman’s injuries to her groin. He said that Jaeger would have had to generate force equivalent to either a Tae kwon do expert or an Olympic
boxer.
rather fits that passage!
wonder if the Jaeger expert witnesses are spending the weekend in our little village on the plains, here in flyover country?
it must be very hard for them to stay here so long, though PedroI may keep them around in case they need to be called to rebut the prosecution.
***
don't quite know what the poster meant Cheesehead that papa Jaeger gave $20,000 so little Jaeger could tote the Torah. I'm guessing was a reference to paying off a synagogue leader for Jaeger to be able to have some cerimonial participation.
however, that statement also starts to sound like antisemitism.
8 August 2009
at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
If there was ever a case which should have been plead out, this was it.
8 August 2009
at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mrus3671 (Anonymous) says…
Aletheia ~
“As for the expert witness testimony, I understand that he showed several mathmatical formulas comparing a kick or punch to a fall on the bed railing. But did those formulas account for adrenaline and the subsequent velocity that can occur when being kicked or punched? Also, did he take into account his weight, pounds of force that could be exerted while raging into the pelvic region of a petite female?? And, finally, it appears that the expert witness is saying “a” kick, as if to indicate “one.” Did his calculations include the external damage that can be caused by several kicks and/or punches, compared to one “fall” on the bed rail?? If anyone knows, please enlighten me, because I'm beyond frustrated with the paid performance given by the defense's witnesses. ”
The Dr Kent did us his suggested weight at the time of the incident. He broke their body down into % and repeatedly stated on the stand that there was no other way than her falling on the bed rail. When asked if he had calculated any other way he would disregard that with the response that there was not and he didn't take the time to calculate it because it was impossible. Not sure if he forgot that you have to prove your hypothesis.
Scientific Method
1 Ask a question
2 Do background research
3 Construct your hypothesis
4 Test your hypothesis with an experiment and all variables
5 Analyze the data and draw conclusions
6 Communicate your results
Steps may need to be repeated for new information….
Amazing he thought he could tell everyone that he just felt that she couldn't have been laying any other way except his calculation….since he wasn't there and didn't know you'd think he'd calculate it in multiple ways to prove his conclusion. By the way he also stated on the stand that he didn't write a report because he wasn't asked too. Doesn't seem very professional to me and very arrogant in his conclusions!!!! Hoping the Jury see's throught the BS!!!
8 August 2009
at 7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Plenty of available cash can find expert testimony(?) from miles and miles and miles away.
A good way to create doubt is to present speculation as to what “could” have happened. The expert witness info must be considered speculation because it only presents other “possible” scenarios. The LMH people were the first to see the results of the violence so cannot write them off as not knowing what they are talking about.
However I would go with the victims testimony as to who
issued the violence against her body. She was there and knew Jaeger as well as anybody. Better than the parents.
8 August 2009
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
muddfoot55 (Anonymous) says…
If a bed rail was involved, it was while it was in Jaeger's hand. End of story!
8 August 2009
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
Where is Dylan Jones? Did this guy just disappear? I would think the defense would call him as a witness. If not, why?
8 August 2009
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aletheia (Anonymous) says…
mrus, thanks for your response. So, in short, this is what happened …Pedro hires the expert witness to prepare testimony and is instructed to find “one” calculation to support the bed rail theory. The expert does as instructed, gives his testimony on his single calculation, takes his money, and goes home. (Not a bad way to make a living if you can live with the fact that you may be assisting the release of a no good, POS.) Basically, if you have deep pockets, you can buy reasonable doubt. This strategy ensures that the defendent gets a fair trial. Doesn't the victim deserves a fair trial, too?
The Scales of Justice, which symbolize the measure of a case's support and opposition, can be tipped in the defendent's favor, particulary if they can buy support. It seems that “fairness” is truly impossible and nothing more than rhetoric.
8 August 2009
at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
somebodynew (Anonymous) says…
50year - the reason the defense doesn't call him is because with this system, they had their shot at him. They get to cross exam him when the prosecution had him on the stand.
Now, granted, they could still call him again, but I don't think they want to go there. They leave it to the paid “experts” (spelled whores) to bring in the shadow of doubt.
8 August 2009
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
This may be difficult for the jury. If he's found not guilty, there may be a chance for the victim to take him down in civil court. Remember O.J.?
8 August 2009
at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sunlover (Anonymous) says…
Jonathan, George & Janet - thank you for the constant updates on the trial. The twitter play-by-play trial updates have been great. Much appreciated!
and Smitty - thank you for your observation updates as well!
8 August 2009
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SofaKing (Anonymous) says…
Definition of jaeger: to kick/punch a woman in the pelvic region.
How to use jaeger in a sentence:
“My boyfriend was mad so he threw me to the ground and jaegered me.”
8 August 2009
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
thank you smitty
thank you ljworld for staying on top of this as well as you have.
8 August 2009
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
I was wondering what folks in Deerfield thought of this mess. I am glad they know the skinny on this creep.
Expert witness, or no, I am having hard time believing she could have fallen on the bedrail with enough force to have caused those injuries. I am pretty confident that the jurors have the good sense to believe the same.
8 August 2009
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
irnmadn88 (Anonymous) says…
It was immediately clear to me that while sitting to eventually not be selected for this jury, that the strategy for the defense was to play out the legal string and try to poke a hole in the case in order to create reasonable doubt. Irigonegaray even went as far to use an analogy to illustrate this intent during the selection process. Paid witnesses for the defense are there to “spin” the evidence to this end.
Without knowing what evidence was not allowed to be introduced and what the judge's instructions will be before deliberation, we will have to let due process take its course.
8 August 2009
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
volunteer (Anonymous) says…
I know a jury member and hope to get an account of deliberations after the trial.
One person posted these experts are a dime a dozen while another writes the pay is hundreds of dollars an hour.
I believe the second statement to be true. And if we were as highly educated, credentialed and experienced in biology, physics. and testifying as the “ex-spurts,” we might get paid that high salary also.
8 August 2009
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fluffhead (Anonymous) says…
The fact that Veronica Jaeger would testify and makes up lies like that is despicable. Especially when she has seen the way Matt treats women, including their mother. God that family just makes me sick. Veronica why was Matt sent away for a while?
And to Bearded gnome. I'm not sure what was anti- semeitic about what I said? Do you think Matt got to carry the Torah because he's such a honorable man? I just mentioned it because it just shows how far his dad will go to try to make Matt look good guy and not bat$hit crazy like he really is.
8 August 2009
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheEleventhStephanie (Anonymous) says…
I want to know what he does to his mother, Fluffhead.
8 August 2009
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
irnmadn88 (Anonymous) says… “It was immediately clear to me that while sitting to eventually not be selected for this jury, that the strategy for the defense was to play out the legal string and try to poke a hole in the case in order to create reasonable doubt.”
Which is exactly what a every defense attorney can and should try to do for their client, especially if they are guilty.
aletheia (Anonymous) says… “Doesn't the victim deserves a fair trial, too? The Scales of Justice, which symbolize the measure of a case's support and opposition, can be tipped in the defendent's favor, particulary if they can buy support.”
Strangely enough the victim isn't on trial, so doesn't get a fair or unfair one. In fact the victim is not a party to the case, just a witness like all the other witnesses. However, and more to the point I think you were trying to make, the State of Kansas deserves a fair trial and that is what those high paid prosecutors are supposed to provide with their high paid expert witnesses and highly paid investigators and highly paid police and their highly paid legal staffs. That is one reason why the average rate of conviction by prosecutors is really high, around 95%.
merrill (Anonymous) says… “Plenty of available cash can find expert testimony(?) from miles and miles and miles away.”
Once again merrill demonstrates his prejudice for those that don't live in Lawrence or make more money than he does. Every single problem can be traced to those who don't live here or who make more money than he does. Strange because almost everyone involved in this case (attorneys, judge, witnesses, police officers, court reporters, jurors, defendant, and LJW bloggers) makes more than he does but he only picks on defense experts. I guess if I had his life I might be bitter and jealous of everyone else in the entire world too.
8 August 2009
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
I have not seen affection or closeness and very little eye contact exhibited in the court room by either parent even though all of the Jaeger family & support system have embraced each other and the attorneys frequently.
Note….sister got hugs, smiles(almost laughter), a warm, exuberant greeting to the court room viewing area after she was dismissed from her testimony. Iri and 2nd chair displayed joyous behavior as they asked the judge if she was dismissed, too. And that too, the jury witnessed but……
It could be that the court room setting will not allow for the display but that does not account for the breaks where Matthew just wanders aimlessly with the same expression as you see in the photos. I have not witnessed any reaction or emotion by Jaeger but I haven't been present for that much time. He does raise his eyebrows in a look toward is attorneys occasionally.
All this guessing about the observations would not be allowed in the court process though!
8 August 2009
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
irnmadn88 (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund and the Justice System?
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but Sigmund, it was one of your posts to this website which Irigonegary chose to use to illustrate his case… something along the lines of your willingness to commit perjury in order to be on the jury…
8 August 2009
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
StirrrThePot (Anonymous) says…
“Let me get this straight…The injuries are not consistent with being kicked repeatedly or punched, as not enough force could be applied, but she could have fallen on a bedrail and that would have greater force?”
Apparently so…and don't forget, falling on a bed rail can also be severe enough to require surgery and an 11-day hospital stay. Who knew?
8 August 2009
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aletheia (Anonymous) says…
From sigmund - “Strangely enough the victim isn't on trial …”
In a perfect world that would be true, but unfortunately, in cases of rape and abuse, the defense and their witnesses, typically do just that — they put the victim on trial — either blatantly or by innuendo.
So far in this case, the victim has had to have widespread coverage and pictures shared of her injuries and discussion of her genitalia. However necessary this may be to reach a verdict, it is very humiliating to endure.
In addition throughout the trial, the defense has continually questioned her relationship with Jaeger prior to the attack and tried to circumvent her own “eyewitness” testimony by using the bed rail theory. What good does it do for the defense to present details of their relationship prior to this attack? What does one have to do with the other? It's not like they cancel each other out. So what's the point? And, injury by bed rail? Seriously? Once more their victimizing this girl by implying that she's lying. And, she's the eyewitness who endured these injuries!
Last but not least, we get to hear a very well-rehearsed Jaeger say, “…and I was concerned [about her safety], due to her past and knowing her risky behavior…”
You can't tell me the defense has not strategized to find ways to damage her character and credibility. Hence, putting the victim on trial.
Also, the State does provide a paid service by providing witnesses, legal support and prosecution, etc. But the amount spent is within the confines of their budget for the trial. I hardly think the State of Kansas will expend the same amount of funds as the Jaeger family will. With that said, some people can (and do) buy their way out of a guilty verdict.
8 August 2009
at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
A couple random thoughts on all this …
1 - The coverage is compelling. I love the timely updates, and immediate feedback from commenters. Trials ought to be live-streamed so the public can watch without having to pack the courtroom. The US Supreme Court also ought to be live-streamed every second it is in session, and there is no defensible reason not to let us all in the room via easiliy available technology. Open courts are the best courts, and technology allows all courts to be open courts. Surely a Wise Latina would pursue such a change.
2 - If I fell on a bed rail hard enough to mangle my crotch, there would be signs of a struggle … or at least signs of a whole lot of thrashing around in pain, cussing, crying and hurling anything I rolled into. If I was choked-out and beaten, it seems it would be a tidier scene. Just sayin'.
3 - Expert witnesses, almost exclusively, are flat-out whores. These seem no exception.
4 - It wouldn't surprise me if the Vic really called the sister; it confuses me, but does not surprise me. Why not? Well, let's see … if you had spent more than about three minutes around the guy, and didn't bolt in disgust, then you must have some kind of attraction to a certain kind of guy. It still confuses me, but I've seen it many times, and the research on abusive relationships would bear it out. Some folks just keep coming back for more abuse, in defiance of all reason and self-interest. That never makes the abuse their fault, but it makes them, somehow, a part of the ongoing process. This could start a whole 'nother debate, and I concede in advance that everybody who disagrees with me is right, and I am a know-nothing idiot; that said, having the beat-ee contact the beat-er, after the beat-ing, is not at all uncommon, and not only is it not inconsistent with the beat-ing having happened, it is in fact very consistent with the cycle of an abusive relationship. If other people hadn't seen part of what was happening and reported it, or if she hadn't needed all the medical care, their relationship might still be sailing along from beating to beating.
5 - Wow! I managed to use a triple negative up there!
8 August 2009
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Must have been that bed-rail that pulled her by the hair, kicking and screaming, down the stairs.
None of the expert witnesses have explained any of that.
8 August 2009
at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Oh BC,
Jaeger had to drag her down by the hair *to rescue her from that dastardly bedrail* don't you know!
***
@ralphralph,
your post is right on and I agree with it except in one point regarding the victim calling jaeger later.
by that time she was in intense rehab that is physical. but also I think she was probably getting good mental health support.
and the cycle you describe is quite well understood by mental health professionals. I'm quite certain that whoever would have been working with her would have helped her in making certain that that abusive relationship was at a complete end. that counselor/therapist would certainly have talked with her about such issues.
that's why I felt so strongly that Jaeger's sister's testimony is total biosolids.
didn't happen. are there phone records? … doubt it, 'cuz didn't happen.
but Ralphralph you're right, even if she did, *so what!*
Sadly, people who deal with sexual violence on a daily basis, assisting the victims, see a lot of this, much more than winds up in the paper. they do the right things, here in Lawrence I know this for a fact. but they also suffer from this violence, and seem to become jaded. I think most of us would if every day at work you're coping withthis kind of violence.
[btw, I was a victim of domestic violence myself—yes women do it too]
***
fluffhead,
how well do you know that Jaeger's actually toting the Torah? you see this yourself?
I'm not saying you were being antisemitic, but whoever started the story, who knows their motivation.
if Jaeger opens the Torah, he'll see some interesting laws in there:
no premarital sex;
“thou shalt not murder.”
“thou shalt not commit false witness.”
so, if he's toting the Torah, maybe he opens it and reads it. one can hope.
8 August 2009
at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
Didn't the “blood stain expert” just help make the prosecution's case? IF she was unconscious, she would NOT be struggling. IF she was out cold, she would just lay there. The stain IS consistent with the prosecution's claim.
8 August 2009
at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
bearded_gnome,
I was not taking a swipe at the jury. I was taking a swipe at the torch and pitchfork crowd on this blog.
parrothead8 says:
“I know you don't mean that the mathematical formulas cannot be argued with”
Yeah, I am saying that simple, well understood mathematics (and thus physics) cannot be argued with. I am an engineer, thus exceptionally well educated on the subject. A person who attempts to argue against established mathematical truth or accepted scientific fact with philosophy is saying “I don't know what you're talking about, but I disagree and this guy said something that sounds good when I'm high.” If you fell off a building, you would fall at 9.8m/s^2. No matter what you may philosophize, that is how it is.
Oh, and I'm not insulting philosophy, I'm actually quite well read in the subject.
LJW bloggers, where everyone thinks they have a PhD or JD, and where everyone believes that anyone charged with a crime should be hanged from the county gallows or burned at the stake. Jesus people, look at yourselves.
8 August 2009
at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
compmd,
my suspicion is that the basis for Kent's “calculations” isn't so clear and definite as the rate of an object falling, given all the variables involved.
and of course there's good reason to be suspicious of a hired-gun defense expert.
and as to the general sentiment on here. my impression is that in this situation, it reflects rather well the reaction on the “lawrence street” so to speak.
there's good reason to believe the victim in what has been disclosed to the public. there's excellent reason to doubt the defendant based on what's been published.
and, as to the “torch and pitchfork ref, I do recall the unprecedented amount of police officer presence in the courtrooms for the early hearings. so, PD officers are also very interested in seeing that justice is done here.
I agree that the process needs to work. sadly, there have been too many occasions locally when justice has failed.
8 August 2009
at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aletheia (Anonymous) says…
compmd says — “Yeah, I am saying that simple, well understood mathematics (and thus physics) cannot be argued with.”
Well, yes, in fact it can, depending on the number of variables that are considered in said equation. As an engineer, if you are given a problem to resolve based on math calculations, there may be several formulas used to achieve the same end. Sometimes, there may be only one, but it always depends on the variables used.
Quotes from the LJWorld -
“Within the limits of the possibility I have to work with, the fall on the bed rail is the most probable cause of the injury,” Kent said.
and …”Kent’s testimony at times resembled a physics lesson as he drew his calculations on the board for jurors explaining that he ruled out a punch or kick for causing the woman’s injuries to her groin. He said that Jaeger would have had to generate force equivalent to either a Tae kwon do expert or an Olympic boxer.”
As a juror, my first question would be (based on Kent's quote), “what were the limits of possibility he had to work with?” Also, Kent explained that he ruled out *a* punch or kick. Does he mean “one” by saying “a” punch or kick? I would also want to know how the fall occurred. Was she running and tripped on the bed rail, jumping up and down on the bed, did she get smacked with the bed rail or was she shoved and fell on it?
I'm not an engineer or a physic's guru, but I would have to assume that different variables would be used in order to come up with the appropriate, or as in this situation, the “required” equation to create reasonable doubt (as paid for by the defense).
As for the force necessary for “a” kick to cause the same injury — similar to a Tae kwon do expert or Olympic boxer — I would hope that they used a comparitive analysis of a 200+ lb, enraged, intoxicated, possibly drugged male, who's adrenalin was probably off the charts. This, in my humble opinion, should have been included as variable. Was it? I don't know. But, if it wasn't, it should've been.
Maybe I'm wrong and if so, I'm sure you'll correct me.
9 August 2009
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
bg,
I fully understand that Kent's calculations are not as simple as my falling object example, but ultimately the mathematics describing each are traceable back to common formulas and concepts. If they are not, then Kent has some explaining to do.
Of course you're right that the hired expert will likely describe things in a light favorable to the party he was hired by, but that does NOT give him the ability to lie on the stand; several folks here seem to have the idea in their mind that expert witnesses can simply lie with impunity.
The feeling on the street is that Jaeger should hang, preferably from his scrotum. However, that has come about before any finding of guilt, and remains after an interesting defense has been proposed that could very well convince jurors that there is reasonable doubt as to Jaeger's culpability for the crimes he is on trial for. That's what I mean by torch and pitchfork crowd. Lawrence has become a city of “mob justice,” where if you were to take away the relative order given by police and the court system, we'd have complete anarchy.
Heck, I am interested in this case. First of all, its the opportunity to see two of Kansas' top lawyers do battle with each other. Second, the state's case *does* have holes in it that are well established. How those play out and the lawyering involved by both sides to work it to their advantage would be most interesting. You have seen me on the LJW long enough to know that I am dismayed by the lack of justice meted out by the courts in this county and ignorance of the law. I would very much like to see justice in the eyes of the law in this trial.
aletheia,
Uniqueness in mathematics is a funny thing. For the phenomena we understand, there are quite few unique mathematical representations of them. Often when one thinks they have found an alternate method to find a solution, they have just rewritten something established in another form.
I agree that not knowing the limits in which Kent had to work with would be frustrating as a juror. However, limits are also imposed on jurors defining what they may use in their decision making process. For all we know, the limits Kent referenced may be immaterial, especially if the state didn't question him about them. That doesn't mean I'm not curious as well. :)
You'd be amazed at what can be done with very well understood math with regards to analysis and simulation of impacts and structures. The human body counts as a structure, as do sections thereof. If you know the material properties of what you are analyzing and set up forces and constraints, you can simulate punching a person. Similarly, you could substitute a bed rail for a fist. Nastran is a great program, it is used all over the place, and I'm sure it would help say one way or the other if Kent is full of it or not.
10 August 2009
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xfactor (Anonymous) says…
bg,
There exists an alternative method to test the theory of bed rail vs. kicking. Get on your hands and knees and find a 200 pound male, have him repeatedly kick your crotch like he is punting a football. Maybe have him do this for about 30 seconds and see if he was able to generate enough energy to cause blunt force trauma. After this is done, you probably won't need to test yourself on a bed rail nor will you need to break out your calculator.
10 August 2009
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xfactor (Anonymous) says…
Watched closing arguements this morning. Prosecution did an excellent job. First off was a photo of Jaeger taken the night of the alleged offense showing his build 2 years ago which was significantly heavier built than the version appearing in court. Then Jaeger's phone calls were played bascially threatening the alleged victim just before he drove to her apartment.
Prosecution then showed photos of the bed and infamous bed rail. Too bad for the defense that the bed rail is flush up against the box springs so it isn't possible to straddle it unless the mattress and box springs were removed. The distance from the top of the mattress to the top of the railing looked to be less than 8 inches, so even if you could somehow have straddled the bed rail the fall would be so short that there wouldn't have been much of an impact. Also, the rail wasn't far off the floor so if you did fall off the bed your knee or leg would hit the floor, absorbing most of the impact, before your crotch would touch the rail.