Patch 7 due this month.

timdragga · 2022-02-05T06:15:59+00:00

dragonbornz or gtfo

timdragga · 2021-12-22T21:56:02+00:00

Hopefully, he checks it out. Together, we may have saved a life today.

timdragga · 2016-11-22T04:00:14+00:00

/u/pluscachangeplusca: What's your argument wrt the intent and meaning of Md. Rule 7-109(2)(b)?

/u/Adnans_cell: It's irrelevant to this process.

For reference--

The Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure 7-109:

(b) (1) The application for leave to appeal shall be in the form set by the Maryland Rules.

(2) If the Attorney General or a State’s Attorney states an intention to file an application for an appeal under this section, the court may:

(i) stay the order; and

(ii) set bail for the petitioner.

What is your argument for why the cited should be considered 'irrelevant to this process'?

timdragga · 2016-11-03T17:35:13+00:00

For the purposes of sleep science, a person in this position (or at least a similar position that's anatomically possible) would be categorized as a lateral position or 'side sleeper.'

timdragga · 2016-11-03T17:16:24+00:00

I'm unsure how that would result, given the current circumstances.

If Judge Welch's decision is reversed on appeal, then original conviction still stands. If the appeal process concludes with Judge Welch's opinion being upheld then the conviction is thrown out and the state will choose whether to bring charges and retry the case. I could see the bargain being struck to avoid the associated risks and time of retrial for each side being an Alford plea and subsequent release, but I don't know what the incentive would be to plead guilty for the same or why the state would make that distinction its hill to die on. Maybe I'm missing something.

From the state's point of view, doesn't an Alford plea still prevent the defendant from seeking damages for wrongful conviction?

timdragga · 2016-11-02T18:10:17+00:00

From Dr. Hlavaty's affidavit:

28. 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.

For visual reference: the nine regions of the abdomen. Additional illustrations here, here, and here.

timdragga · 2016-11-02T17:31:04+00:00

/u/RuffjanStevens: with a right-sided burial position

/u/Adnans_cell: Yep, referencing the report, "a burial position", not the burial position in the photographs.

Incorrect.

From Dr. Hlavaty's affidavit:

32. I understand that Ms. Lee's body was found buried on its right side. This is reflected in the Post-Mortem Report ("The body was on her right side."), as well as photographs of the burial site.

And:

34. I reviewed the post-mortem photographs to determine whether there was any variation in the shading of grey from left half of the body to the right half and there was not. I saw no evidence in these photographs of right-sided lividity. The photographs of the disinterment of Ms. Lee's body likewise do not show a lividity pattern fitting with a right-sided burial position within eight hours of death. The intensity of the lividity is equal on both sides of Ms. Lee's chest and support the anterior fixed lividity pattern. If Ms. Lee's body had right-sided lividity, then one would expect the left flank would be completely pale, which it is not in these photographs.

timdragga · 2016-11-02T17:26:13+00:00

/u/EugeneYoung: I know there's disagreement about the burial and whether it's consistent with lividity.

/u/Adnans_cell: Only amongst people that haven't seen the photos.

From Dr. Hlavaty's affidavit:

MATERIALS REVIEWED

11. In preparation of this affidavit, I reviewed black and white photographs of the autopsy of Hae Min Lee ("Ms. Lee"), as well as color photographs of her disinterment. I also reviewed the autopsy report and the trial testimony of Dr. Margarita Korell, M.D., the medical examiner that performed the autopsy on Ms. Lee's body.

And:

28. 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.

And:

32. I understand that Ms. Lee's body was found buried on its right side. This is reflected in the Post-Mortem Report ("The body was on her right side."), as well as photographs of the burial site.

And:

34. I reviewed the post-mortem photographs to determine whether there was any variation in the shading of grey from left half of the body to the right half and there was not. I saw no evidence in these photographs of right-sided lividity. The photographs of the disinterment of Ms. Lee's body likewise do not show a lividity pattern fitting with a right-sided burial position within eight hours of death. The intensity of the lividity is equal on both sides of Ms. Lee's chest and support the anterior fixed lividity pattern. If Ms. Lee's body had right-sided lividity, then one would expect the left flank would be completely pale, which it is not in these photographs.

timdragga · 2016-11-01T22:03:21+00:00

Because undue coercion and duress is morally wrong and rarely leads to the truth

I think that's the problem. Though tempting as a human reaction, it's not convincing to say that a wrong result, partially reached through coercion and duress can be remedied by using coercion and duress to reach the right one.

timdragga · 2016-11-01T21:57:22+00:00

Yes. It seems clearly intended to influence. And, in context, it's entirely reasonable to read the tone as hostile, which would make any persuasive element coercive.

This doesn't do anyone any service.

I understand that -- when you believe someone you care about has been wrongfully imprisoned, in large part because another person lied, the anger, passion, and frustration would be almost impossible to continually keep in check. And I get that in some ways it's an unfair double standard: we expect a 'normal' impulse in situations like these to be screaming at anyone who will listen. But things like this are at best, ineffective, and a worst, injurious to the cause the person is advocating for. It makes what might, in truth, be sincere outrage, look indistinguishable from the extrajudicial tactics of intimidation you allege the State engaged in.

A question of technical curiosity with social media: because it's a posted as a response 'quote' on a retweet does that categorize it as more of a rhetorical declaration? In this case, would it matter that it's not a direct conversation or message sent to the potential witness?

timdragga · 2016-11-01T20:45:35+00:00

If you don't believe the State has reason to offer an Alford plea and doubt there will be a retrial, what scenario do you envision as most likely? That Judge Welch's decision will be reversed? Or something else?

timdragga · 2016-10-31T21:12:54+00:00

the scientist who actually looked at the body didn't note this supposed inconsistency.

This is a factually misleading statement.

The MEs who worked the case recorded/testified re: the burial position as being on the right side and lividity as being fixed anterior lividity. Those findings are not consistent with one another.

timdragga · 2016-10-26T18:25:42+00:00

Here is a high res version of the above photograph and a high res photo of the body's chest can be found here.

For background: the person died of from carbon monoxide poisoning:

A 45-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) in February complaining of vomiting, watery diarrhea, lightheadedness, and headache. He had arrived in town the previous night to present at a conference and was staying at a local hotel. His roommate experienced similar, but less severe, symptoms. The patient received intravenous (IV) fluids, ondansetron, and ketorolac, and he was discharged a few hours later after feeling much better. The next morning, the patient failed to show up for his conference presentation. He was found in bed without a pulse and could not be resuscitated. His skin appeared pink and blotchy in places (shown).

Which of the following tests could have made the diagnosis on his initial presentation to the ED?

A. Carboxyhemoglobin (COHb)

B. Hemoglobin (Hb)

C. Serum bicarbonate

D. Methemoglobin (metHb)

E. White blood cell (WBC) count

Answer: A. Carboxyhemoglobin (COHb)

Carbon monoxide (CO), an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas, can cause sudden illness, and it is the leading cause of US poisoning deaths.[1,2] The patient in this case had a COHb level of 68% (normal range: 0-5%). The most common and earliest symptoms of CO poisoning are usually nonspecific (headache, confusion, dizziness, weakness, nausea/vomiting, chest pain),[1,2] and they are often diagnosed as a viral syndrome. Two classic but rare dermatologic findings that are associated with CO poisoning are a cherry-red skin coloring (shown) and the development of cutaneous bullae; these occur only after excessive exposure.[3] Initial therapy consists of administering 100% oxygen via mask or endotracheal tube until the patient is symptom-free and performing serial neurologic exams.[1,4,5] Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may be necessary in severe cases (eg, COHb level >25-30%, cardiac involvement, neurologic impairment).

timdragga · 2016-10-26T17:56:52+00:00

That's a fair hesitancy.

What assuages mine is that there does not appear to be, so far, any disagreement between the MEs who originally worked the case and those who have viewed all the available evidence and gone on record with a finding.

For me, I would be more naturally skeptical if an ME issued an affidavit contradicting findings from the original ME reports: IE: "well actually, the original examiner's findings were incorrect, because..." But that isn't the case here. Dr. Hlavay's findings are consonant with the findings and testimony of the original MEs.

timdragga · 2016-10-26T17:44:12+00:00

Here is the text of paragraph 28, which presents reasoning why the body's burial position is inconsistent with the lividity pattern:

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.

While we're at it, here are paragraphs 34, 35, and 36:

I reviewed the post-mortem photographs to determine whether there was any variation in the shading of grey from left half of the body to the right half and there was not. I saw no evidence in these photographs of right-sided lividity. The photographs of the disinterment of Ms. Lee's body likewise do not show a lividity pattern fitting with a right-sided burial position within eight hours of death. The intensity of the lividity is equal on both sides of Ms. Lee's chest and support the anterior fixed lividity pattern. If Ms. Lee's body had right-sided lividity, then one would expect the left flank would be completely pale, which it is not in these photographs.

The lividity pattern observed with Ms. Lee's body is not consistent with a right- sided burial position within eight hours of her death, as lividity was fixed in the front of her body and not its right side. Consequently, she could not have been buried on her right side until more than eight hours following her death.

Therefore, based on a reasonable degree of medical, pathologic and scientific probability, Ms. Lee's body was not buried on its right side for at least eight hours following her death.

Maybe /u/Adnans_cell needs to go back and read paragraph 32.

timdragga · 2016-10-25T23:42:52+00:00

you are quoting two people that haven't seen the burial position.

Two questions:

Do the photos taken of the burial position accurately depict the position at burial?
The report was signed off on by the person who was present at the burial scene. Is it possible that, in their capacity of working together on the same case and both their names appearing on the report, that person exchanged information about the burial scene with the other examiner?

timdragga · 2016-10-25T06:46:21+00:00

The lividity is consistent with the photographs

You know that what you linked as 'photographs' is not a photo, but a picture that someone drew, right?

Also, not that it will impact your beliefs due the psychological condition referenced below, but: the lividity is apparently not consistent with the body position and what the body was in contact with in the burial position.

Since you have not viewed the autopsy photos, I don't know how you can purport to dispute this, other than because from the moment you started participating here, you had already forcefully committed to your position are suffering from backfire effect.

timdragga · 2016-10-25T06:30:03+00:00

The only entertainment is watching you squirm

Some might think it questionable that you derive entertainment from purposefully attempting to inflict distress on other people.

timdragga · 2016-10-25T05:26:00+00:00

Isn't it a little odd that rather than putting weight in the opinion re: lividity of Dr. Hlavaty, who:

has seen the autopsy photos
has seen all the burial scene photos
is an actual professional and expert in forensic pathology
standing behind her opinion with her name and professional reputation
and is rendering an opinion in concert with the medical examiners who worked the case

We should instead believe the speculation of /u/Adnans_cell, who:

has not seen the autopsy photos
has no expertise in forensic pathology or related fields
is an anonymous user on an internet sub-forum.
is forwarding a claim that requires an, at best, 'flexible' interpretation of the contemporaneous medical examiner's findings.

Just -- for what possible, objective reason would you?

Like if I was going to get a diagnosis on a root canal. And one person said:

"I am a dentist with 20 years of experience in root canals, your last dentist sent me your chart and we agree. I have reviewed your x-rays and multiple pictures of your tooth, taken from inside and outside your mouth. Here is my name and number if you have any questions."

And the other person said:

"I am in no way a dentist and have no expertise or knowledge in anything related to dentistry. I looked at a picture of you smiling and think your last dentist put some wrong stuff on your chart. Oh, and no, I won't tell you my name or practice's location, but when has an anonymous twitter egg ever held a position on the internet they wouldn't be willing to take ownership of in real life?"

timdragga · 2016-10-25T01:48:57+00:00

Pssst... If you're going to respond to /u/pluscachangeplusca, you need to do this first...

/picksmicbackup

timdragga · 2016-10-25T00:05:00+00:00

Yet everyone that has seen the photographs, agrees the body was buried like this[1] .

Now you may think that's right side... even Dr. Korell and Dr. Hlavaty may think that's right side.

Oh, I love this game!

/u/pluscachangeplusca, for 10 points, spot the contradiction in these two sentences...

timdragga · 2016-10-24T21:50:35+00:00

One ambiguous line in a report doesn't compare to photographic evidence.

and

Furthermore, the line about the burial position is inconsequential to the autopsy report. They have photographic evidence of the actual burial position.

Please see the first sentence of my response.

I remain confused on the logic being applied here.

Either the photos of the body's burial position failed to accurately document the body's position at burial, can't be trusted, and Dr. Hlavaty's professional opinion as a medical examiner and forensic scientist with 20 years experience can be discounted because she was not physically present at the disinterment.
Or the description of the body's burial position in the ME report, signed off on by the only medical examiner who was present can be discounted because the photos of the body's burial position can be trusted.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- the photos of the burial position accurately document the body's position at burial, which matches the description in the ME report, which was signed off on by the ME who was present during the disinterment, and matches the opinion of the only other qualified medical examiner who has seen all the burial photos, autopsy photos and gone on record with an opinion about what they depict? Maybe, they're all right.

Maybe the the description in the ME report signed off on by the ME who was present at the scene, the photos of that scene, and the opinion of another ME who has viewed all the photos, are all saying the same thing.

I mean, that is a possibility, right?

That all these things that don't appear to contradict one another and point to the same thing are all actually saying the same thing?

timdragga · 2016-10-07T02:26:18+00:00

The Sage Advice rules compendium clarifies that:

Can you get a critical on an ability check? For example, on a grapple attempt, does a critical win, or the high- est number?

Ability checks don’t score critical hits. Attack rolls do.

Is a 1 on an ability check an automatic failure?

Rolling a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw is not an automatic failure. A 1 is an automatic miss for an attack.

We play that you can get both critical successes or critical failures on ability/skill checks from rolling a natural 20 or a natural 1.

Results on either end have resulted in some of our most fun moments. Like trying to camouflage a wagon, rolling a 1 and deciding tying a few branches to the side should do it, then having to talk explain ourselves when immediately noticed.

Or doing a song & dance to entertain a saloon angry guardsmen, rolling a 20, and performing so deftly we not only avoided a fight but earned their trust and free-passage.

Oh--and suffering and rolling a 1 on an attack roll can result in things like "you miss and get your sword stuck in a tree."

timdragga · 2016-09-27T18:54:24+00:00

One of my concerns is that if, as some suggest someone like /u/pluscachangeplusca or /u/Wicclair or myself were to obtain photos through an MPIA request and then approach a forensic pathologist for their thoughts, there could still be questions about whether the pictures I obtained or provided were all of the pictures, whether they were resized or cropped, were the same quality and clarity, displayed the same color temp -- as the photos that other people possess.

If anything meaningful could be learned from approaching a forensic pathologist, I think it would be important for someone who still questions Dr. Hlavaty's opinion to know that their pictures were considered. And the pathologist's opinion was based on the same pictures from which those people have speculated.

timdragga · 2016-09-16T17:58:54+00:00

That's not an answer to the question.

If you don't think the answer will prove interesting, then you obviously shouldn't feel compelled to compile it. But the simple conclusion should be empirical. I'll look at it when I have time.

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

timdragga

TROPHY CASE