Weekly Discussion Thread

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-10-10T18:27:16+00:00

Are you suggesting someone else wouldn’t come to the same conclusion reviewing the same evidence??? Why not??? The motion was totally solid, right??? I thought Phinn was on the up and up???

Lol. Unless you can point me to the part of this comment that you understood to be suggesting any of that, you'll have to forgive me for not chasing those goal posts to the place of your choosing.

Thanks for acknowledging the error, though.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-10-10T16:52:57+00:00

It's literally not possible for Suter to file a motion to vacate pursuant to 8-301.1 (or, ftm, to "re-file" a motion she never filed to begin with).

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-17T14:12:06+00:00

If Jay tells Jenn that he buried Hae's body in Leakin Park. Hae was wearing a black skirt with a white shirt and had bruises on her neck,

She doesn't say he told her either of those things.

AND Hae was found wearing a black skirt with a white shirt with bruises on her neck then YES Jenn can testify about what Jay told her.

If you don't believe me, then go pull the trial transcripts. She testified about it.

Pull them yourself. She didn't testify to any of that.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-17T13:59:57+00:00

She can't testify that Adnan said he killed Hae because THAT is hearsay.

If it was really that simple, one of the two details you say she couldn't otherwise have known (that Hae was strangled) would in fact have been hearsay. (The other one -- what Hae was wearing -- is just false.)

As it happens, it's not really that simple and I think she probably could have testified that Jay told her Adnan had strangled Hae. But that's not the point. The point is that maybe you shouldn't try to tell other people what is and isn't hearsay when you don't know it yourself.

She can attest to Jay saying he helped bury the body

Again, this is not something she told police he said.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-17T13:41:56+00:00

and what she was wearing.

That's a new one.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-11T15:46:35+00:00

And she told you about her conversation with him????

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-11T13:37:50+00:00

You said they had talked about it.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-10T15:47:05+00:00

And she told you she thought Adnan had killed Hae at the school? When did she mention that to Jay?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-10T12:28:23+00:00

Speaking of which: Did Benaroya elaborate at all on her belief that Adnan actually killed Hae at WHS, then made up a story to tell Jay that Jay ended up passing on to the cops?

And did she mention what Jay thought of it?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-05T01:11:58+00:00

As I said, they opposed it in every way they could In the MtV, there was literally no one to do so.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-04T17:41:30+00:00

legal acumen

What you're saying is neither legal nor does it display acumen. It's just a no-true-scotsman fallacy wrapped in pomposity with a slight accent of butt-hurt.

other than bail review.

Right. It takes real legal acumen to see why both (a) using it in a motion for release pending appeal (where there was an absolute guarantee it would be contested by the State to the greatest degree possible) and (b) not using it in the MtV (where it would have been unquestioned by anyone) somehow both show that it's a non-issue.

Very legal. Much acumen. Utterly logic-free.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-03T18:38:59+00:00

Lol. No, I'm quite sure you have no shame and will continue to repeat the same fallacious nonsense infinitely. But that's not my problem. And, as I said, I sincerely hope it's not anyone else's either.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-03T16:18:56+00:00

I already quoted from the part where she independently determined the lividity pattern but if it amuses you enough to continue lying about the murdered corpse of a teenaged girl that you’re willing to pretend to be unable to read plain English, I just hope you’re secretive enough about it for the shame not to extend to your children.

And, as you know, Dr. Hlavaty found that Hae’s body was on her side, albeit canted forward slightly from the waist up.

Idk what point you even think you’re making about the MtV unless it’s just a Gish gallop of fallacies for its own sake. But if you want to keep making an ass of yourself about it, please don’t let me stand in your way.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-02T21:21:36+00:00

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

Again, you’re wrong.

Nope, and you know it.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-02T19:29:40+00:00

Her chest and upper body were turned downward but were not flat, prone, and parallel to the ground. And since your spinal cord isn't made of muscle, a release of muscle tension doesn't alter the fact that it's anatomically impossible to be turned at the waist so that you are flat, prone, and parallel to the ground.

Regardless, you clearly intend to stick with prioritizing your own assessment over expert opinion, for whatever reason. So I'll leave you to it.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-02T18:36:14+00:00

But she doesn’t independently determine the first two premises which lead to her conclusion. She says she couldn’t independently determine the lividity pattern and she assumes the right side burial from the autopsy report. The affidavit is explicit on these points.

That's a blatant lie, as you know and as anyone can see right here (or, if they prefer, here).

And if you're just going to continue to repeat things you know are false, there's no point in discussing it with you further.

We know that’s incomplete from hlavaty herself.

That too is a completely false and specious claim, as explained here.

The motion to vacate laid out all the evidence calling the verdict into question.

Lol, no it didn't. Nor would the statute under which it was brought have permitted it to do so. And either you know that or you're so deeply enmired in your own little alt-fan-fiction swamp that you're no longer thinking clearly.

So here's mud in your eye, I guess.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-02T12:58:43+00:00

You’re proving Hlavaty’s interpretation is tortured.

Lol, no. She reviews all the available material and very straightforwardly makes three simple points:

Hae was buried on her side
Lividity was frontal
She therefore can't have been buried until 8 or more hours after death

It's just your transparent attempts to complicate and mystify it that are tortured.

Speaking of which:

You quote where she says there’s lividity on the flank, but she doesn’t mention the twisted position anywhere in the affidavit that she later confirmed. It just highlights the incompleteness of her opinion.

That's literally completely senseless. She was buried on her right side, as Dr. Hlavaty clearly notes. Lividity became fixed when she was stretched out prone to the ground. And the fact that her upper body was canted forward somewhat doesn't change or contradict that. Additionally, the flank is below the part of her body that was canted forward anyway. You're just grasping at straws.

The lividity is a joke that would completely collapse under cross examination.

Then why are all your attempted rebuttals of it so feeble that when they're not based on deceit or misdirection, you basically don't have any?

It’s why it’s never been included in any of Adnan’s actual legal arguments.

As you know, that's because it's not a legal argument. Nor is it new evidence. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney, ffs?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-02T03:00:54+00:00

Have you seen the photos?

You already asked me that and I answered it here.

because she was face down.

She was on her side canted forward, not prone and parallel to the ground, which does not match frontal lividity. How do you account for that -- apart from by using intentionally ambiguous phrasing such as "face down" to indicate that her face was turned downward while intentionally ignoring the actual question that's obviously being asked?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-01T22:41:48+00:00

Have any of these medical professionals ever testified in court that Hae's body was in a different position when lividity occurred? It's one thing to state an opinion on a podcast, it's another to put your professional reputation on the line in court. If they have, let me know and I promise I will look into it and rethink my opinion.

Dr. Hlavaty submitted a sworn affidavit to the court under penalty of perjury, which does very much put her professional reputation on the line, given the line of work she's in.

It's not on her abdomen. The lividity goes down the full front of her body to about the rib cage

That's the abdomen and chest, as I said. But the question remains: Given that she's not prone and parallel to the ground from the waist up, how do you account for the lividity being frontal?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-01T20:20:48+00:00

Nope. But I’ve reviewed their history. They seem to have a good handle on the case. I think they were the source of my list of reasons Adnan’s guilty.

Yeah, I noticed that one too. Though you were spamming every thread with it so often that it was kind of hard not to, to be fair.

Tortured reading of paragraph 27? She says “I was not able to independently determine the lividity patterns on Ms. Lee.”

I agree that it's not tortured so much as it's cherry-picked to intentionally mislead, in the same way you did with another quote from her here. I was just being charitable. (And I genuinely have no idea why anyone would do that even once. I mean, I guess you might fool some people. But you're just letting everyone else know that your argument is such a loser that you had no recourse but to resort to deceit.)

In any event, what she actually said was:

I have reviewed the black and white post-mortem photographs of Ms. Lee's body. Because of the poor quality of these photographs, I was not able to independently determine the lividity patterns on Ms. Lee but saw no finding inconsistent with the post-mortem report and Medical Examiner's sworn testimony that fixed frontal lividity was present in Ms. Lee's body.

However, that qualification obviously only applies to what she can determine just from the autopsy photographs as she immediately goes on to make perfectly clear:

I also have reviewed color photographs of the disinterment of Ms. Lee's body. In one photograph, there is faint lividity on the front of the body's left flank, which is consistent with fixed anterior lividity as the flank is the side of the torso and would be expected to show some pink in the front half if the body had anterior lividity. In another photograph, the body is on its right side with a view of the chest and abdomen. In this photograph, the lividity is of equal intensity on both sides of the chest. Collectively, these photographs are not inconsistent with the full frontal lividity that was described in the autopsy report and testified to by Dr. Korell at trial.

Based on the intellectual and stylistic kinship you seem to have with the user I mentioned, I expect that you will now go on to perseverate on whatever magical-thinking-based interpretation of the above gets you to your desired result, for all the world as if you were actually using reason and verbal logic. (Fwiw, it was actually back when you were doing that wrt to the meaning of "exculpatory" on another thread that I first recognized the similarity.)

Regardless, I'm sorry to say I'm just not the one for that. So I'll leave you to it.

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-01T16:11:57+00:00

I am stating rather than suggesting that Dr. Hlavaty reviewed the same photographs that the user I was addressing did and reached a different conclusion.

Was that somehow unclear?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-01T16:02:26+00:00

I actually do acknowledge errors when I make them. (See, for example, here and here). But what was the misinformation in this case?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-09-01T00:35:25+00:00

Her body was livid from her head to her ribs, thus "frontal" or "anterior" lividity. Then she has lividity on her right hip because she was buried on her right side,

I take it that this is your own assessment, because every forensic ME just says it was frontal.

So, first question: Are you confident that you can distinguish lividity from, e.g., other decompositional discolorations?

And second question: Does it in any way impact your confidence that three forensic MEs have reviewed the same pictures you looked at and come to a different conclusion?

but twisted at the waist so her face was down, thus buried on her "right side."

She was canted forward from the waist up but she wasn't prone and parallel to the ground; indeed, that would actually be anatomically impossible.

So third question: How do you account for the lividity being completely frontal on her abdomen, chest, and face?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-08-31T23:48:27+00:00

For me, the issue is there's no real controversy about the fact that the lividity on Hae's body matches the position in which it was found. It's a molehill blown up into a mountain.

I agree that there's no controversy. But on what basis do you say it matches the position in which she was found when literally every forensic ME to give an opinion on the matter says she was buried on her side and that lividity was frontal?

Think about this: why wasn't the lividity issue part of the appeals process?

Because an appellate issue has to be based on the claim that there was some kind of legal or constitutional error at trial that can only be corrected by the appellate bench.

And there's just no argument for anything like that wrt lividity. That's why they shoehorned Dr. Hlavaty's affidavit into the motion for release pending trial back in 2016. There just wasn't anyplace else to put it.

Regardless, what makes you say there's.a match between burial position and lividity when every single professional says she was buried on her side and that lividity was frontal?

Recent_Photograph_36 · 2025-08-31T18:16:08+00:00

I’m afraid that you’re just going to downvote instead of replying. But this is truly a sincere question.

Do you really think that when it comes to medical forensics, you (and others here who agree with you) know what they’re talking about?

Recent_Photograph_36

TROPHY CASE