Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:42 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Lori wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Not that Clive needs my support here as he can well take care of his own self, but I have noticed that he does ask a lot of the hard questions about many of these cases. He can seem obstinate (indeed), but I've come (in the short time I've been here) to appreciate his methodology (if I may call it that). I think it is a clever tactic -- particularly in these type of cases because it helps to weed out any of the niggling doubts around the questions of guilt or innocence. Just my 2 cents, although I know it wasn't asked for!



Clive's questions help me to deal with the adversity that I have to overcome in my advocacy efforts for Jeff.

So, it's all good.

I consider Clive one of the good guys, certainly, he's just wrong about Jeff! :)


I'm on side with his innocence -- but I am also not a lawyer. Having said that, I'm aghast at the thought of people being criminalized for accidents -- even if they neglected to disclose everything out of fear (or that the disclosure contributed to a death). It's all about intent for this non-lawyer person. If someone was reckless (i.e. drunk or dangerous driving) then punishment is in order. Even if Harvard didn't do what he should have after the fact, I am not even convinced that manslaughter would be fair, although I understand the legal argument for it.


I don't believe that disclosure would have saved Chloe and I believe the state perpetrated fraud on the court by charging him with sexual assault, since the Standard of Proof was not met and that would have been a diagnosis by an expert in the field of child sexual assault. As you obviously know he had totally incompetent counsel. That this case got to the point that it did, where it is still, simply horrifies me.

I am not a doctor nor a lawyer, but I have been advocating for Jeffrey Havard for over a year. I speak to him, I have heard his anguish. I know that he thought she was fine or he would have taken her to the hospital immediately. He cooperated with the police, even requesting that they give him a polygraph but they denied him that because he was tried and convicted in the ER that night. It was an accident and he had no reason to hide it. That he feared speaking up at the hospital is sad and was a bad choice on his part, but he has already paid dearly for that.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:59 pm

MichaelB wrote:Has the Mississippi Bar Association been contacted? What about anti DP Catholic/Christian Organisations?

Is Jeffrey's case and the two day trial discussed amongst the legals in Mississippi? Regardless of which crime or no crime he committed you'd think there should be more outrage over the trial, the druggie attorney and $2500 he got for his defence.


Mississippi has no anti-DP organizations. Unbelieveable.

Not sure about the Bar, though I doubt it.

BTW, I asked Jeffrey about the cop/shower testi-lie and he said that he commented to the officer that he had not taken a shower (he thought the officer was trying to calm him down with small talk), he was being taken to the police station in a patrol car (Becky was also being taken to the police station), told it was for a statement (the general verbal one) and he asked the officer if they could go to the trailer so he could get shoes, since it was February and he had run out of the house barefoot.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:17 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:A word on the frenulum. The evidence at trial was that could not result from a blow to the back of the head and also that these injuries terrify parents because they bleed a lot. Assuming both these points to be true, if the tear did not happen at hospital or during resuscitation on the way there (and there are no reports of blood) then it is reasonable to surmise that Jeff's account is false in two more respects:

first as to the manner in which Chloe came to be injured and second as to the amount of blood he had to clean up.




The frenulum tear was in all probability caused during resuscitation, Clive.

You know, the 20 minute attempt to intubate?

It was thrown out on directed verdict during the trial.

If you know the evidence from trial, you should know that.

Also, if Jeff was not telling the truth about this now, too, as you believe it is reasonable to surmise, where was the blood in the home that you also surmise he cleaned up?

Thanks for this information. Do you have a trial file page reference? I would like to look at this. The blood in the home would have been cleaned up, which is what the bath and changing of bedclothes could have been about.


PDF 3, Pg. 390 - Murphy/Bath
PDF 3, Pg. 407 to 410 - Patterson/Injuries
PDF 4, Pg. 569 - Directed Verdict

Thanks Lori. I will look at this as soon as I have time.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:52 am

ljrobins wrote:Not that Clive needs my support here as he can well take care of his own self, but I have noticed that he does ask a lot of the hard questions about many of these cases. He can seem obstinate (indeed), but I've come (in the short time I've been here) to appreciate his methodology (if I may call it that). I think it is a clever tactic -- particularly in these type of cases because it helps to weed out any of the niggling doubts around the questions of guilt or innocence. Just my 2 cents, although I know it wasn't asked for!


Nah! He's just very slow! Pirc defense rather than the Sicilian I guess :)
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:43 am

geebee2 wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Not that Clive needs my support here as he can well take care of his own self, but I have noticed that he does ask a lot of the hard questions about many of these cases. He can seem obstinate (indeed), but I've come (in the short time I've been here) to appreciate his methodology (if I may call it that). I think it is a clever tactic -- particularly in these type of cases because it helps to weed out any of the niggling doubts around the questions of guilt or innocence. Just my 2 cents, although I know it wasn't asked for!


Nah! He's just very slow! Pirc defense rather than the Sicilian I guess :)

French actually, Fort Knox variation (true) if possible.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:59 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Not that Clive needs my support here as he can well take care of his own self, but I have noticed that he does ask a lot of the hard questions about many of these cases. He can seem obstinate (indeed), but I've come (in the short time I've been here) to appreciate his methodology (if I may call it that). I think it is a clever tactic -- particularly in these type of cases because it helps to weed out any of the niggling doubts around the questions of guilt or innocence. Just my 2 cents, although I know it wasn't asked for!


Nah! He's just very slow! Pirc defense rather than the Sicilian I guess :)

French actually, Fort Knox variation (true) if possible.


I did actually choose French as my first guess, then edited my post. I played the French to e4 as well.
Highly off-topic, but I have a book by Watson, I think... have you read it?
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:09 am

geebee2 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Not that Clive needs my support here as he can well take care of his own self, but I have noticed that he does ask a lot of the hard questions about many of these cases. He can seem obstinate (indeed), but I've come (in the short time I've been here) to appreciate his methodology (if I may call it that). I think it is a clever tactic -- particularly in these type of cases because it helps to weed out any of the niggling doubts around the questions of guilt or innocence. Just my 2 cents, although I know it wasn't asked for!


Nah! He's just very slow! Pirc defense rather than the Sicilian I guess :)

French actually, Fort Knox variation (true) if possible.


I did actually choose French as my first guess, then edited my post. I played the French to e4 as well.
Highly off-topic, but I have a book by Watson, I think... have you read it?

That and several others.

ETA Merlinovic is also a chess fiend, and acbytesla too.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:24 am

I looked at Lori's trial file references (not sure we are using the same page numbers - I am going on the printed numbers in the top right corner of each page, not the system number the computer is using).

On the bathing question I see Nurse Murphy testifies that she was told that 'Jeffrey was supposed to bath the baby and put her to bed' [p.390 lines 21-22] so there is no need to refer to her manuscript statement since this is in her testimony too (and she was both cross examined and re-examined about it and gave evidence helpful to the defence) and I am happy to take it as settled fact that this is what the nurse was told, which makes the negligence of Sermos all the more striking in not putting this to Rebecca Britt when she was on the stand. I would be very surprised if attorneys in the state of Mississippi did not have the same duty of confrontation as applies here in England and also, I suspect, throughout the common law world.

The duty obliges the advocate to put his client's case to any witness whose testimony is inconsistent with it. That presupposes he knows his client's case in the first place, which s/he also has a duty to ascertain in the course of preparation. So I wonder whether Jeff's instructions to his lawyers are preserved in any form, such as notes or formal, typed statements (such as the kind I used to prepare in all my criminal cases but which don;t seem universal over there)? It is a big problem that his attorney did not challenge the mother's testimony about the bath and now I see this witness's evidence, an even bigger mystery that he didn't. I don't think I have seen this point taken in the appeals but I could easily have missed it.

[In parenthesis, I just came across a funny passage on p.391 - Nurse Murphy wants to say what someone else told her in the treatment room, but before she does there is a hearsay objection which the judge sustains, she then resumes her evidence and gives the (non-damaging) hearsay evidence anyway with no further objection! WTF!]

She notes a bunch of injuries on p.395 including the torn frenulum which she says results from something being shoved into the mouth. Patterson I read before. In cross, she says the baby could only have torn her frenulum if she hit the toilet with her mouth.

I have now read the directed verdict and I am afraid it does not dispose of this issue for me. The judge merely rules there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of 'sexual battery of the child's mouth'. I am not suggesting there was. I am asking how the frenulum came to be torn, that's all. I see no evidence that this happened in the hospital. The suggestion was not put to either Murphy or Patterson. Patterson said it could only have happened as a result of the fall if the baby hit the toilet with her mouth, which is not what happened according to Jeff.

So, I remain skeptical on this point which, for me, is quite a critical one. There should not be any frontal injuries on Jeff's account (and this is not the only one). If it happened during intubation then some bleeding might have been noticed (a torn frenulum bleeds a lot although maybe not after someone's heart is stopped). At least there might be some evidence of it. The possibility has not been put to the relevant witnesses.

Again, thanks for the references. With respect, I don't think you have understood the limited significance of the directed verdict.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:23 am

Just another couple of points:

1 I saw no reference in closing submissions to whether Jeff was supposed to give the baby a bath or not, so this may not have played any part in the jury's thinking. In a re-trial with the sexual battery stripped out, it still might - despite the nurse's evidence. The lack of reference in submissions would explain why I have seen none (so far) in any of the appeal segments I have read.

2 likewise the frenulum was of no concern to anybody in closing argument. They had bigger fish to fry. Again. as above, it could be a point of interest in a re-trial for homicide of some variety.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:26 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I looked at Lori's trial file references (not sure we are using the same page numbers - I am going on the printed numbers in the top right corner of each page, not the system number the computer is using).

On the bathing question I see Nurse Murphy testifies that she was told that 'Jeffrey was supposed to bath the baby and put her to bed' [p.390 lines 21-22] so there is no need to refer to her manuscript statement since this is in her testimony too (and she was both cross examined and re-examined about it and gave evidence helpful to the defence) and I am happy to take it as settled fact that this is what the nurse was told, which makes the negligence of Sermos all the more striking in not putting this to Rebecca Britt when she was on the stand. I would be very surprised if attorneys in the state of Mississippi did not have the same duty of confrontation as applies here in England and also, I suspect, throughout the common law world.

The duty obliges the advocate to put his client's case to any witness whose testimony is inconsistent with it. That presupposes he knows his client's case in the first place, which s/he also has a duty to ascertain in the course of preparation. So I wonder whether Jeff's instructions to his lawyers are preserved in any form, such as notes or formal, typed statements (such as the kind I used to prepare in all my criminal cases but which don;t seem universal over there)? It is a big problem that his attorney did not challenge the mother's testimony about the bath and now I see this witness's evidence, an even bigger mystery that he didn't. I don't think I have seen this point taken in the appeals but I could easily have missed it.

[In parenthesis, I just came across a funny passage on p.391 - Nurse Murphy wants to say what someone else told her in the treatment room, but before she does there is a hearsay objection which the judge sustains, she then resumes her evidence and gives the (non-damaging) hearsay evidence anyway with no further objection! WTF!]

She notes a bunch of injuries on p.395 including the torn frenulum which she says results from something being shoved into the mouth. Patterson I read before. In cross, she says the baby could only have torn her frenulum if she hit the toilet with her mouth.

I have now read the directed verdict and I am afraid it does not dispose of this issue for me. The judge merely rules there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of 'sexual battery of the child's mouth'. I am not suggesting there was. I am asking how the frenulum came to be torn, that's all. I see no evidence that this happened in the hospital. The suggestion was not put to either Murphy or Patterson. Patterson said it could only have happened as a result of the fall if the baby hit the toilet with her mouth, which is not what happened according to Jeff.

So, I remain skeptical on this point which, for me, is quite a critical one. There should not be any frontal injuries on Jeff's account (and this is not the only one). If it happened during intubation then some bleeding might have been noticed (a torn frenulum bleeds a lot although maybe not after someone's heart is stopped). At least there might be some evidence of it. The possibility has not been put to the relevant witnesses.

Again, thanks for the references. With respect, I don't think you have understood the limited significance of the directed verdict.



No, I understood that the frenulum wasn't resolved by that verdict, just that it was moot.

Jeff believes that it is quite possible it happened during the fall, but there was not a lot of bleeding, like is common. He says there were a few drops of red that he thought that was the dark red medicine. He said as she fell and he jerked her back up by the ankle, tho it is a blur, he thinks he did the worse by doing that because she likely hit in the front at that point since the space between the tub and toilet was very small (he said from the time she wriggled from his grasp til he got hold of her, he said it was like a "trampoline" effect, a rebound, it was very quick).

Jeff gave Sermos tons of notes (someone was supposed to upload those statements for you) and you can see evidence of his notes on Rebecca's written statement. But Sermos did nothing and Sermos told Jeff before trial that Hayne thought he was guilty.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:33 am

Sermos, as you know, never talked to Hayne, so he was obviously going on Harper's word.

I cannot believe the Mississippi Supreme Court keeps asserting that Jeff had a proper defense.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:50 am

Lori wrote:No, I understood that the frenulum wasn't resolved by that verdict, just that it was moot.

Jeff believes that it is quite possible it happened during the fall, but there was not a lot of bleeding, like is common. He says there were a few drops of red that he thought that was the dark red medicine. He said as she fell and he jerked her back up by the ankle, tho it is a blur, he thinks he did the worse by doing that because she likely hit in the front at that point since the space between the tub and toilet was very small (he said from the time she wriggled from his grasp til he got hold of her, he said it was like a "trampoline" effect, a rebound, it was very quick).

Jeff gave Sermos tons of notes (someone was supposed to upload those statements for you) and you can see evidence of his notes on Rebecca's written statement. But Sermos did nothing and Sermos told Jeff before trial that Hayne thought he was guilty.

Hmm. So we have his instructions to his lawyer somewhere? Those would normally be privileged but if he was mounting a challenge to the adequacy of his representation involving a departure from instructions then I guess he would have had to waive privilege before now. First I've heard of the highlighted part. When did he first say she may have sustained injuries to her face as well as the back of her head?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:31 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:No, I understood that the frenulum wasn't resolved by that verdict, just that it was moot.

Jeff believes that it is quite possible it happened during the fall, but there was not a lot of bleeding, like is common. He says there were a few drops of red that he thought that was the dark red medicine. He said as she fell and he jerked her back up by the ankle, tho it is a blur, he thinks he did the worse by doing that because she likely hit in the front at that point since the space between the tub and toilet was very small (he said from the time she wriggled from his grasp til he got hold of her, he said it was like a "trampoline" effect, a rebound, it was very quick).

Jeff gave Sermos tons of notes (someone was supposed to upload those statements for you) and you can see evidence of his notes on Rebecca's written statement. But Sermos did nothing and Sermos told Jeff before trial that Hayne thought he was guilty.

Hmm. So we have his instructions to his lawyer somewhere? Those would normally be privileged but if he was mounting a challenge to the adequacy of his representation involving a departure from instructions then I guess he would have had to waive privilege before now. First I've heard of the highlighted part. When did he first say she may have sustained injuries to her face as well as the back of her head?


He said he told detectives she may have hit the front on the toilet when he disclosed the fall. Yet once again, that did not make it onto the videotaped statement, just like the request for a polygraph.

Sermos was court ordered to turn over his case file and notes, but he has never turned everything over, including the majority of Jeff's notes (this is according to the law clerk).
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:09 pm

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:No, I understood that the frenulum wasn't resolved by that verdict, just that it was moot.

Jeff believes that it is quite possible it happened during the fall, but there was not a lot of bleeding, like is common. He says there were a few drops of red that he thought that was the dark red medicine. He said as she fell and he jerked her back up by the ankle, tho it is a blur, he thinks he did the worse by doing that because she likely hit in the front at that point since the space between the tub and toilet was very small (he said from the time she wriggled from his grasp til he got hold of her, he said it was like a "trampoline" effect, a rebound, it was very quick).

Jeff gave Sermos tons of notes (someone was supposed to upload those statements for you) and you can see evidence of his notes on Rebecca's written statement. But Sermos did nothing and Sermos told Jeff before trial that Hayne thought he was guilty.

Hmm. So we have his instructions to his lawyer somewhere? Those would normally be privileged but if he was mounting a challenge to the adequacy of his representation involving a departure from instructions then I guess he would have had to waive privilege before now. First I've heard of the highlighted part. When did he first say she may have sustained injuries to her face as well as the back of her head?


He said he told detectives she may have hit the front on the toilet when he disclosed the fall. Yet once again, that did not make it onto the videotaped statement, just like the request for a polygraph.

Sermos was court ordered to turn over his case file and notes, but he has never turned everything over, including the majority of Jeff's notes (this is according to the law clerk).

The law clerk at his current outfit? How do you know about the highlighted bit?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Clive, I have been thinking about your position on this case. I am curious what criteria you use to decide whether or not to take possible behavior into account. In Jeff's case, you looked at the case and concluded that Jeff lost his temper for a crying baby and lashed out. There is no evidence to suggest this, you base it on Jeff's life along with his plans for the evening.

You took into account that Jeff was abused and most likely looked at statistics showing he had a greater chance of becoming an abuser. There is no evidence or past history to suggest that Jeff was an abuser. Any talk of it would be speculation.

You speculated that Jeff planned an evening and the baby was in the way of his plans. There is no evidence of this at all. You view it a a likely scenario.

Now skip to the Nyki Kish case. If you base your conclusions on the expected or likely behavior of Nyki and her friends on the night of the tragedy, you may not see the whole picture. In fact, it will most likely cause you to misjudge the case, as they have in Canada.

So, I am asking you what has caused you to add so much speculation when analyzing Jeff's case, while looking past those possible details in another case.

We can do the same comparison with Amanda and Raffaele. I chose Nyki because you have provided the most comprehensive analysis to date (http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/NicoleKishOverview.html)on that case.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:01 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive, I have been thinking about your position on this case. I am curious what criteria you use to decide whether or not to take possible behavior into account. In Jeff's case, you looked at the case and concluded that Jeff lost his temper for a crying baby and lashed out. There is no evidence to suggest this, you base it on Jeff's life along with his plans for the evening.

You took into account that Jeff was abused and most likely looked at statistics showing he had a greater chance of becoming an abuser. There is no evidence or past history to suggest that Jeff was an abuser. Any talk of it would be speculation.

You speculated that Jeff planned an evening and the baby was in the way of his plans. There is no evidence of this at all. You view it a a likely scenario.

Now skip to the Nyki Kish case. If you base your conclusions on the expected or likely behavior of Nyki and her friends on the night of the tragedy, you may not see the whole picture. In fact, it will most likely cause you to misjudge the case, as they have in Canada.

So, I am asking you what has caused you to add so much speculation when analyzing Jeff's case, while looking past those possible details in another case.

We can do the same comparison with Amanda and Raffaele. I chose Nyki because you have provided the most comprehensive analysis to date (http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/NicoleKishOverview.html)on that case.

My opinions are coloured by my professional experience in both cases. Street fights or bar fights are frequently an incomprehensible mess. I know this from representing accused persons and seeing one or two myself. It is usually incredibly difficult to untangle what's going on. It doesn't suddenly get easier just because someone dies. When I read Nordheimer it seemed too neat and the crass findings about 'one knife' (even a double DNA knife) played too big a part in his reasoning.

The first things that came to my notice in Jeff's case (which i very quickly dismissed as a sexual battery case) tied up again with my own experiences as a lawyer in a poor part of London. Young man, not the father of a very sickly and thus unhappy child, living in relatively poor circumstances (I thought, although I may have been mistaken about that, as many other things) sends his girlfriend out not once, but twice, on a night when this tragedy happened, bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all, then lies about what happened even to the point when it should have been obvious that accurate information might (for all he knew) have made a difference.

So, I start with a bias (to some) or a hunch (to me) and hope to stay as open-minded as possible in the ensuing discussion to see whether anything causes me to abandon it. I have made it completely clear that the main thrust of the argument in Jeff's case is won - he should be re-tried - but I have some difficulty going along with the official IA position that it was a tragic accident and that he is innocent (by which I mean wholly innocent).

The hunch thing is all the two cases have in common. To me they are completely different types of case.

ETA and I only found out very recently both about his own history of abuse and of his plans that evening, which included watching a movie with his relatively new girlfriend and making some kind of dip. For that, Chloe would need to be asleep.

And edited yet further to add - there is speculation and speculation, isn't there? For some a cartwheel means something - to me it's nothing at all. Likewise the super string party in Darlie Routier's case. OTOH, speculation about Guede's past conduct, not all of which is proved, seems very relevant to the overall assessment of that case. There is not that much to speculate about in Nyki's case. Even now I don't really know that much about her. But there are patterns in child abuse and I'm afraid Jeff fits my probably imperfect understanding of what those are. Still, that only reinforces a pre-existing view (and not that much). It's not the basis for it.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:01 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive, I have been thinking about your position on this case. I am curious what criteria you use to decide whether or not to take possible behavior into account. In Jeff's case, you looked at the case and concluded that Jeff lost his temper for a crying baby and lashed out. There is no evidence to suggest this, you base it on Jeff's life along with his plans for the evening.

You took into account that Jeff was abused and most likely looked at statistics showing he had a greater chance of becoming an abuser. There is no evidence or past history to suggest that Jeff was an abuser. Any talk of it would be speculation.

You speculated that Jeff planned an evening and the baby was in the way of his plans. There is no evidence of this at all. You view it a a likely scenario.

Now skip to the Nyki Kish case. If you base your conclusions on the expected or likely behavior of Nyki and her friends on the night of the tragedy, you may not see the whole picture. In fact, it will most likely cause you to misjudge the case, as they have in Canada.

So, I am asking you what has caused you to add so much speculation when analyzing Jeff's case, while looking past those possible details in another case.

We can do the same comparison with Amanda and Raffaele. I chose Nyki because you have provided the most comprehensive analysis to date (http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/NicoleKishOverview.html)on that case.

My opinions are coloured by my professional experience in both cases. Street fights or bar fights are frequently an incomprehensible mess. I know this from representing accused persons and seeing one or two myself. It is usually incredibly difficult to untangle what's going on. It doesn't suddenly get easier just because someone dies. When I read Nordheimer it seemed too neat and the crass findings about 'one knife' (even a double DNA knife) played too big a part in his reasoning.

The first things that came to my notice in Jeff's case (which i very quickly dismissed as a sexual battery case) tied up again with my own experiences as a lawyer in a poor part of London. Young man, not the father of a very sickly and thus unhappy child, living in relatively poor circumstances (I thought, although I may have been mistaken about that, as many other things) sends his girlfriend out not once, but twice, on a night when this tragedy happened, bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all, then lies about what happened even to the point when it should have been obvious that accurate information might (for all he knew) have made a difference.

So, I start with a bias (to some) or a hunch (to me) and hope to stay as open-minded as possible in the ensuing discussion to see whether anything causes me to abandon it. I have made it completely clear that the main thrust of the argument in Jeff's case is won - he should be re-tried - but I have some difficulty going along with the official IA position that it was a tragic accident and that he is innocent (by which I mean wholly innocent).

The hunch thing is all the two cases have in common. To me they are completely different types of case.

ETA and I only found out very recently both about his own history of abuse and of his plans that evening, which included watching a movie with his relatively new girlfriend and making some kind of dip. For that, Chloe would need to be asleep.

And edited yet further to add - there is speculation and speculation, isn't there? For some a cartwheel means something - to me it's nothing at all. Likewise the super string party in Darlie Routier's case. OTOH, speculation about Guede's past conduct, not all of which is proved, seems very relevant to the overall assessment of that case. There is not that much to speculate about in Nyki's case. Even now I don't really know that much about her. But there are patterns in child abuse and I'm afraid Jeff fits my probably imperfect understanding of what those are. Still, that only reinforces a pre-existing view (and not that much). It's not the basis for it.


Thanks Clive, I don't agree with your assessment but I understand how you have gotten to where you are now with Jeff's case.

You are in agreement that there was no sexual assault. So even with not believing in complete innocence, would you still be in agreement with a reduced sentence, most likely resulting in release on time served?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:07 pm

Dudes!!! He deserves a new trial. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL!!!!!
This time with a lawyer who stays awake and lays off the blow. This time with the prosecutor complying with Brady. This time with the defense having expert witnesses and consultants.
Only after that, can we begin to conduct an intelligent discussion of whether he is guilty of anything - including walking on the grass on his way into the police station. At this point, all we have is the kind of evidence that North Korean authorities would produce if they were required to justify executing someone for dissing the latest Kim-Il-whatshisname.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:18 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Thanks Clive, I don't agree with your assessment but I understand how you have gotten to where you are now with Jeff's case.

You are in agreement that there was no sexual assault. So even with not believing in complete innocence, would you still be in agreement with a reduced sentence, most likely resulting in release on time served?

Yes, I think so.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:23 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Dudes!!! He deserves a new trial. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL!!!!!
This time with a lawyer who stays awake and lays off the blow. This time with the prosecutor complying with Brady. This time with the defense having expert witnesses and consultants.
Only after that, can we begin to conduct an intelligent discussion of whether he is guilty of anything - including walking on the grass on his way into the police station. At this point, all we have is the kind of evidence that North Korean authorities would produce if they were required to justify executing someone for dissing the latest Kim-Il-whatshisname.

Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby lane99 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:06 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:17 pm

lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:49 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Dudes!!! He deserves a new trial. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL!!!!!
This time with a lawyer who stays awake and lays off the blow. This time with the prosecutor complying with Brady. This time with the defense having expert witnesses and consultants.
Only after that, can we begin to conduct an intelligent discussion of whether he is guilty of anything - including walking on the grass on his way into the police station. At this point, all we have is the kind of evidence that North Korean authorities would produce if they were required to justify executing someone for dissing the latest Kim-Il-whatshisname.

Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.



Of course it is ok to discuss these things but a lot of what we discuss as "evidence" was never really subject to a reasonable adversary process and we all know that testimony can look a lot different after it goes through that particular meat grinder. Peterson had experts and so we are better able to assess the forensic evidence; he also had an excellent trial lawyer who was apparently awake during most of the proceedings. Kish obviously deserves a new trial at a minimum - it is another case where it is really hard to determine what happened with any degree of certainty. No new trial in the Arias case because of double jeopardy. Amanda should be acquitted - we have enough evidence to determine that she wasn't involved - again, she had competent lawyers and she had her own experts. The problem was Brady violations (I guess there is no Brady doctrine in Italy), the use of findings in another case in her case (American lawyers would laugh this one out of court if it were tried here), a botched forensic investigation and a system biased in favor of the prosecution. Havard stands out here - the lawyers in the other cases were not remotely comparable to his lawyer (I often call this the Sominex Syndrome), the need for experts on the defense side was compelling in a case with no eyewitness testimony, no motive, and therefore only forensic expert testimony.
So - yes - I agree that it is appropriate to discuss the "facts" of the case but bear in mind that the "facts" may look a lot different after a truly fair trial and that a lot of the "facts" assumed today may melt away when subjected to the adversary process. Speculation about what these "facts" may or may not suggest is likely to turn out to be pointless whereas the arguments for a new trial are truly compelling. This was such a blatant violation of due process that it undermines the integrity and credibility of not only our legal system, but also our entire society. Shame on Mississippi!!
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby lane99 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:07 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:43 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


You think he struck the infant where? If an adult sized hand struck the infant in the face, there would be injuries to show that. The surface area would be much larger than the irritation we see around the mouth in the autopsy photos. Also, how would this account for the injury on the back of the infant's head?

The hemorrhage that killed the infant was consistent with a short fall. A strike from a hand most likely not cause that type of injury.

If you believe Jeffrey did injure the infant, and you believe the mouth injuries happened before arriving at the hospital, why didn't the infant's mother notice the facial injuries when she checked on her before going back out to the store? She is gone a short time, returns to check on her baby and she doesn't notice those facial injuries? Doesn't seem likely to me.

For your theory to be true, Jeffrey Havard, with absolutely no medical background whatsoever, would have had to dream up a scenario, while in custody, in a very short time frame, before knowing the extent of the infant's injuries, that matched up perfectly with the injuries the infant suffered.

Jeffrey had no idea the infant had a bruise on the back of her head. Did he just get lucky that his story matched the injuries on the infant and also matched with the scene where the injury took place?

Really? You think that is possible? This is the same abused poverty stricken guy that you suspect smacked a baby around so he could watch a movie rental in peace. Next you make the giant leap to suggest that Jeffrey somehow crafted a story that miraculously matched the injuries he knew nothing about.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:46 pm

lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.

On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:50 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.

On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.


" He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later"

Clive, he told the police he dropped the infant very early on, before he knew any of the details. He was in custody the entire time.

The infant could not have lost conscience "forever" as you say because her mother checked on her and she appeared to be okay. The mother noticed no injuries. Do you think Jeff decided to abuse the infant again after he bathed her? How do you account for the mother checking on her?

Your theory needs work Clive.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:55 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


You think he struck the infant where? If an adult sized hand struck the infant in the face, there would be injuries to show that. The surface area would be much larger than the irritation we see around the mouth in the autopsy photos. Also, how would this account for the injury on the back of the infant's head?

What about a push in the face that jerks the head back and knocks it against a hard surface?

The hemorrhage that killed the infant was consistent with a short fall. A strike from a hand most likely not cause that type of injury.

Because everybody has focused on the sexual battery there really hasn't been much attention paid to whether the injuries fit his story better than some other.

If you believe Jeffrey did injure the infant, and you believe the mouth injuries happened before arriving at the hospital, why didn't the infant's mother notice the facial injuries when she checked on her before going back out to the store? She is gone a short time, returns to check on her baby and she doesn't notice those facial injuries? Doesn't seem likely to me.

First, he cleaned her up, second it was dark in her room and the mother would only want to see she was asleep. Fine if she switched on the light and examined her closely but I don't think she did. If the frenulum and nose bleed had stopped those two would not be outwardly visible. Bruising might not show up in low light, especially if you're not looking for it.

For your theory to be true, Jeffrey Havard, with absolutely no medical background whatsoever, would have had to dream up a scenario, while in custody, in a very short time frame, before knowing the extent of the infant's injuries, that matched up perfectly with the injuries the infant suffered.

Begging the question: does it match up perfectly?

Jeffrey had no idea the infant had a bruise on the back of her head. Did he just get lucky that his story matched the injuries on the infant and also matched with the scene where the injury took place?

How do you know he had no idea?

Really? You think that is possible? This is the same abused poverty stricken guy that you suspect smacked a baby around so he could watch a movie rental in peace. Next you make the giant leap to suggest that Jeffrey somehow crafted a story that miraculously matched the injuries he knew nothing about.

Yes, I think it is possible. To an irreducible extent we only have his word and, since we know he lied, we have to treat it with great caution.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:01 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.

On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.


" He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later"

Clive, he told the police he dropped the infant very early on, before he knew any of the details. He was in custody the entire time.

The infant could not have lost conscience "forever" as you say because her mother checked on her and she appeared to be okay. The mother noticed no injuries. Do you think Jeff decided to abuse the infant again after he bathed her? How do you account for the mother checking on her?

Your theory needs work Clive.

The mother did not wake her. She recalled hearing a strange click but she did not investigate. With a sickly child like that, sleep is a blessing to a worn out parent. I expect she tip-toed out of the room.

On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:24 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.

On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.


" He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later"

Clive, he told the police he dropped the infant very early on, before he knew any of the details. He was in custody the entire time.

The infant could not have lost conscience "forever" as you say because her mother checked on her and she appeared to be okay. The mother noticed no injuries. Do you think Jeff decided to abuse the infant again after he bathed her? How do you account for the mother checking on her?

Your theory needs work Clive.

The mother did not wake her. She recalled hearing a strange click but she did not investigate. With a sickly child like that, sleep is a blessing to a worn out parent. I expect she tip-toed out of the room.

On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here.


The infant had a 6 centimeter bruise on the back of her head. A bruise that would be consistent with her head hitting the bowl of the toilet (see photo of bathroom).

You believe the infant was dead when the mother checked on her or "unconscious forever" as you put it, and the infant's color was fine, and the injuries were not detectable when her mother checked on her. This is a stretch for sure.

Was the child breathing? Every time I checked on my children when they were infants, I checked to see if they were breathing. That required getting close enough to hear them. There is no possible way I would have ever missed an injury on any of my children's faces when checking on them.


You wrote: "On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here"

Do you require any proof to consider this scenario or is it not required? I can write a dozen different ways the infant died. It won't make any of them true. In order to convict, you need proof. There is nothing to suggest that Jeff did any of the things you theorize about. A good attorney would have shredded the prosecution during trial. If Jeffrey had money, none of us would have ever heard of him. Instead, the prosecution presented Jeffrey to the jury as a vile creature that should die, and his attorney just sat there doing nothing. The prosecution crafted their story about sexual assault much like you have crafted your story about Jeffrey lashing out in a fit of anger. No proof, just speculation.

It is not logical to conclude that Jeff crafted the scenario he did while sitting in a jail cell without knowing anything about the injuries. He was truthful when he was interrogated and his story fits the evidence available.

It would have been nice if the police investigated the bathroom but they did not do that.

We must not allow a person to be put to death because we think something may have happened. We must look at the evidence available. The evidence fits Jeffrey's story.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:36 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.


" He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later"

Clive, he told the police he dropped the infant very early on, before he knew any of the details. He was in custody the entire time.

The infant could not have lost conscience "forever" as you say because her mother checked on her and she appeared to be okay. The mother noticed no injuries. Do you think Jeff decided to abuse the infant again after he bathed her? How do you account for the mother checking on her?

Your theory needs work Clive.

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:The mother did not wake her. She recalled hearing a strange click but she did not investigate. With a sickly child like that, sleep is a blessing to a worn out parent. I expect she tip-toed out of the room.

On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here.


The infant had a 6 centimeter bruise on the back of her head. A bruise that would be consistent with her head hitting the bowl of the toilet (see photo of bathroom).

You believe the infant was dead when the mother checked on her or "unconscious forever" as you put it, and the infant's color was fine, and the injuries were not detectable when her mother checked on her. This is a stretch for sure.

Was the child breathing? Every time I checked on my children when they were infants, I checked to see if they were breathing. That required getting close enough to hear them. There is no possible way I would have ever missed an injury on any of my children's faces when checking on them.


You wrote: "On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here"

Do you require any proof to consider this scenario or is it not required? I can write a dozen different ways the infant died. It won't make any of them true. In order to convict, you need proof. There is nothing to suggest that Jeff did any of the things you theorize about. A good attorney would have shredded the prosecution during trial. If Jeffrey had money, none of us would have ever heard of him. Instead, the prosecution presented Jeffrey to the jury as a vile creature that should die, and his attorney just sat there doing nothing. The prosecution crafted their story about sexual assault much like you have crafted your story about Jeffrey lashing out in a fit of anger. No proof, just speculation.

It is not logical to conclude that Jeff crafted the scenario he did while sitting in a jail cell without knowing anything about the injuries. He was truthful when he was interrogated and his story fits the evidence available.

It would have been nice if the police investigated the bathroom but they did not do that.

We must not allow a person to be put to death because we think something may have happened. We must look at the evidence available. The evidence fits Jeffrey's story.

With your last paragraph you are dragging me into a position I have expressly eschewed. I said upthread what I would need to know if prosecuting this case. Are the actual injuries consistent with his story and could early intervention have made a difference? Yes to the first and no to the second and I agree there is no case. I haven't seen anything definitive on either.

I am not sure why you are stressing the mother's check up. How exactly does that help him or support his story?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:50 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:With your last paragraph you are dragging me into a position I have expressly eschewed. I said upthread what I would need to know if prosecuting this case. Are the actual injuries consistent with his story and could early intervention have made a difference? Yes to the first and no to the second and I agree there is no case. I haven't seen anything definitive on either.

I am not sure why you are stressing the mother's check up. How exactly does that help him or support his story?


I believe the mother's check up shows that the facial injuries were not caused by Jeffrey. They were caused either by the frantic mother's attempt to resuscitate or at the hospital where the scene would have been just as frantic.

This leaves the bruise on the back of the head that is consistent with a fall.

When it comes to deciding whether earlier treatment would have made a difference:

I mentioned upthread that my daughter fell off of our bed when she was an infant. It was on my watch. Her mother was at work. I picked her up, I checked her and she appeared fine. I put her to bed. I was panicked because I was a new father so I checked on her repeatedly until her mother came home. Of course I told my wife what happened. Thankfully our daughter had no injuries.

I did not rush her to the hospital or seek medical attention of any kind. If she had sustained a head injury and died, It could have been argued that preventative measures could have saved her. If that was the case, should I have been charged with a crime?

This question stands alone, regardless of the fact that Jeffrey neglected to tell the mother. If you fail to seek medical attention for an infant that has sustained a fall on your watch (because you think they are okay), and the infant later dies from a non visible injury, should you be charged with a crime?

This appears to be our only divide. We are at odds over whether or not Jeffrey is completely innocent. I would be thrilled to see a reduced charge at this point. He would be released on time served, instead of being put to death.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:42 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.



I know if I read further that Bruce has already addressed this, but there is NO dispute that she was sick. According to EVERYONE she was sick (including the autopsy report).

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe she spit up while Jeff was watching her.

So cut it out. You keep ignoring things which ARE fact. Which kind of blows your impartiality.

Now, I will read on.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:07 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Dudes!!! He deserves a new trial. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL!!!!!
This time with a lawyer who stays awake and lays off the blow. This time with the prosecutor complying with Brady. This time with the defense having expert witnesses and consultants.
Only after that, can we begin to conduct an intelligent discussion of whether he is guilty of anything - including walking on the grass on his way into the police station. At this point, all we have is the kind of evidence that North Korean authorities would produce if they were required to justify executing someone for dissing the latest Kim-Il-whatshisname.

Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.



Of course it is ok to discuss these things but a lot of what we discuss as "evidence" was never really subject to a reasonable adversary process and we all know that testimony can look a lot different after it goes through that particular meat grinder. Peterson had experts and so we are better able to assess the forensic evidence; he also had an excellent trial lawyer who was apparently awake during most of the proceedings. Kish obviously deserves a new trial at a minimum - it is another case where it is really hard to determine what happened with any degree of certainty. No new trial in the Arias case because of double jeopardy. Amanda should be acquitted - we have enough evidence to determine that she wasn't involved - again, she had competent lawyers and she had her own experts. The problem was Brady violations (I guess there is no Brady doctrine in Italy), the use of findings in another case in her case (American lawyers would laugh this one out of court if it were tried here), a botched forensic investigation and a system biased in favor of the prosecution. Havard stands out here - the lawyers in the other cases were not remotely comparable to his lawyer (I often call this the Sominex Syndrome), the need for experts on the defense side was compelling in a case with no eyewitness testimony, no motive, and therefore only forensic expert testimony.
So - yes - I agree that it is appropriate to discuss the "facts" of the case but bear in mind that the "facts" may look a lot different after a truly fair trial and that a lot of the "facts" assumed today may melt away when subjected to the adversary process. Speculation about what these "facts" may or may not suggest is likely to turn out to be pointless whereas the arguments for a new trial are truly compelling. This was such a blatant violation of due process that it undermines the integrity and credibility of not only our legal system, but also our entire society. Shame on Mississippi!!


Yes, shame on Mississippi.
I am going to be writing another letter to Hood as a "concerned citizen", but it won't be quite as vanilla as the last one.
On the 22nd Jeff's attorney's are filing their response to the state and the successor petition.
I think if it is actually READ by some of the naysayers, it might give them pause.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:33 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.


Not having thought ahead as to how it would fit into an alibi, it would just be a coincidence then in your view that the bathing subsequently did provide him with a rather plausible explanation for how he could have accidentally dropped the baby?

Note: question asked on the basis that we would all be in agreement that a wet, wriggling baby coming out of the bath is more slippery and liable to be dropped than it otherwise might be.

On my theory, or conjecture, one thing led to another: he hit her, she vomited and bled and maybe lost consciousness (forever) so he needed to clean her up. He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later, after hoping against hope that the head injury would not be diagnosed. I don't see any improbable coincidence.


" He may have thought of the drop only when on the spot much later"

Clive, he told the police he dropped the infant very early on, before he knew any of the details. He was in custody the entire time.

The infant could not have lost conscience "forever" as you say because her mother checked on her and she appeared to be okay. The mother noticed no injuries. Do you think Jeff decided to abuse the infant again after he bathed her? How do you account for the mother checking on her?

Your theory needs work Clive.

The mother did not wake her. She recalled hearing a strange click but she did not investigate. With a sickly child like that, sleep is a blessing to a worn out parent. I expect she tip-toed out of the room.

On your first point, if he lashed out at her and knocked her head against something hard, say the wall or a door frame, and she lost consciousness, then he would not need to be told when she later died that a head injury caused it. TBH I forget whether he came up with the drop story before being told how she died but I don't see a problem with him figuring a head injury. He may even have checked and seen the bruise himself after he did it. I see no great problem here.


The mother said Chloe opened her eyes, made a sound and went back to sleep. Another theory blown.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:02 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:With your last paragraph you are dragging me into a position I have expressly eschewed. I said upthread what I would need to know if prosecuting this case. Are the actual injuries consistent with his story and could early intervention have made a difference? Yes to the first and no to the second and I agree there is no case. I haven't seen anything definitive on either.

I am not sure why you are stressing the mother's check up. How exactly does that help him or support his story?


I believe the mother's check up shows that the facial injuries were not caused by Jeffrey. They were caused either by the frantic mother's attempt to resuscitate or at the hospital where the scene would have been just as frantic.

This leaves the bruise on the back of the head that is consistent with a fall.

When it comes to deciding whether earlier treatment would have made a difference:

I mentioned upthread that my daughter fell off of our bed when she was an infant. It was on my watch. Her mother was at work. I picked her up, I checked her and she appeared fine. I put her to bed. I was panicked because I was a new father so I checked on her repeatedly until her mother came home. Of course I told my wife what happened. Thankfully our daughter had no injuries.

I did not rush her to the hospital or seek medical attention of any kind. If she had sustained a head injury and died, It could have been argued that preventative measures could have saved her. If that was the case, should I have been charged with a crime?

This question stands alone, regardless of the fact that Jeffrey neglected to tell the mother. If you fail to seek medical attention for an infant that has sustained a fall on your watch (because you think they are okay), and the infant later dies from a non visible injury, should you be charged with a crime?

This appears to be our only divide. We are at odds over whether or not Jeffrey is completely innocent. I would be thrilled to see a reduced charge at this point. He would be released on time served, instead of being put to death.

The answer to the highlighted question is: possibly yes, in some jurisdictions, if a reasonable man, knowing what you knew, would have sought help. You have loaded the question somewhat, equating a fall from the bed onto a (carpeted?) floor with a claimed fall onto the rim of a toilet bowl. Jeff's description of his own reaction is that he thought he killed her, he freaked out, blood came from her nose, she made a sort of gasp and he shook her. Which of those things happened in your case? You also take it as fact that he was unaware of her head injury. As he didn't take the stand we don't know what the answer would be to the obvious question: did look at her head to see what damage had been done.

I will have to look up the mother's testimony but my recollection is that the baby's room was dark and she did not make a minute inspection. However, if that's wrong and she says she took a good look then I accept your point so far as any visible facial injuries are concerned.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:06 pm

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.



I know if I read further that Bruce has already addressed this, but there is NO dispute that she was sick. According to EVERYONE she was sick (including the autopsy report).

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe she spit up while Jeff was watching her.

So cut it out. You keep ignoring things which ARE fact. Which kind of blows your impartiality.

Now, I will read on.

By 'sick' do you mean unwell? I am not disputing it. I regard the fact she was unwell as a relevant part of the story, as I have already explained.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:12 pm

Lori wrote:
The mother said Chloe opened her eyes, made a sound and went back to sleep. Another theory blown.

What theory is that? A better point (against me) is that the mother certainly will have had a chance for a good look at the child after she went blue and on the way to the hospital yet nowhere in her evidence does she mention any facial injury. That does not settle what happened though. The torn frenulum and bleeding nose would not have been visible. Even bruises can be hard to see, depending on lighting and perhaps also the observer's state of mind.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:30 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.


Objection! As far as I know, we agreed not to discuss the bolded case, due to it's notoriety. A minor point : Jodi didn't have any (forensic) experts either, and the state's experts had no idea what they were talking about, or in the case of the medical examiner, claimed his own report had mistakes ( which he failed to notice until a juror question on surrebuttal day ).
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:38 pm

geebee2 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.


Objection! As far as I know, we agreed not to discuss the bolded case, due to it's notoriety. A minor point : Jodi didn't have any (forensic) experts either.

That was for different reasons. She wasn't challenging the blood evidence, for example. She had plenty of expert evidence on other matters. Jeff's lawyers made a half-hearted application for funding and when pointed in the direction of Hayne instead, didn't even bother to interview him. I agree with Erasmus that the defence must have access to its own experts.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:53 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
The mother said Chloe opened her eyes, made a sound and went back to sleep. Another theory blown.

What theory is that? A better point (against me) is that the mother certainly will have had a chance for a good look at the child after she went blue and on the way to the hospital yet nowhere in her evidence does she mention any facial injury. That does not settle what happened though. The torn frenulum and bleeding nose would not have been visible. Even bruises can be hard to see, depending on lighting and perhaps also the observer's state of mind.



It's in her trial testimony, Clive. Page #347.

The theory that you gave upfeed that Jeff made Chloe ¨unconsious forever¨.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:08 am

Bruce there's a problem downloading docs from http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org atm.


Sorry, services are temporarily unavailable.


Homestead services have been temporarily interrupted. We would like to assure you that we are making every effort to restore service as quickly as possible. We know how much this inconveniences you and very much appreciate your patience.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:15 am

MichaelB wrote:Bruce there's a problem downloading docs from http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org atm.


Sorry, services are temporarily unavailable.


Homestead services have been temporarily interrupted. We would like to assure you that we are making every effort to restore service as quickly as possible. We know how much this inconveniences you and very much appreciate your patience.



It's been down for a while, Michael, Bruce told me it was down about 6 hours ago.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:23 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...bathes the child for the first and only time because, he says, she was sick which I do not find easy to believe at all...


Do I understand then you suspect he bathed the child in order to provide the pretext for having inadvertently dropped her as she was wet and slippery coming out of the bath?

I ask this question on the understanding that it is stipulated by all sides that he did in fact actually bath the child, and that this point is not in dispute.

My preferred theory is that he struck her then bathed her to clean her up so the mother would come home to find an apparently freshly cleaned, sleeping baby.



I know if I read further that Bruce has already addressed this, but there is NO dispute that she was sick. According to EVERYONE she was sick (including the autopsy report).

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe she spit up while Jeff was watching her.

So cut it out. You keep ignoring things which ARE fact. Which kind of blows your impartiality.

Now, I will read on.

By 'sick' do you mean unwell? I am not disputing it. I regard the fact she was unwell as a relevant part of the story, as I have already explained.



Then why do you keep going back to your ¨preferred theory¨ that Jeff bashed her head and, oh, her face as well, which caused her to vomit?
You think that Jeff harmed a baby that even the mother admitted he loved, before her testi-lies (hope Michael doesn't have a patent on that term), because he wanted to watch a movie and eat rotel dip?
The medication Chloe was on had side effects, one of which was vomiting.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:31 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
The mother said Chloe opened her eyes, made a sound and went back to sleep. Another theory blown.

What theory is that? A better point (against me) is that the mother certainly will have had a chance for a good look at the child after she went blue and on the way to the hospital yet nowhere in her evidence does she mention any facial injury. That does not settle what happened though. The torn frenulum and bleeding nose would not have been visible. Even bruises can be hard to see, depending on lighting and perhaps also the observer's state of mind.



It's in her trial testimony, Clive. Page #347.

The theory that you gave upfeed that Jeff made Chloe ¨unconsious forever¨.

I am not a medical man but I don't believe her opening her eyes necessarily proves she was conscious. Rather than you and me discussing something one of us certainly does not understand (I refer to myself) is there any expert evidence or material on the pro-innocence side which focuses on and explains all the head injuries?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:38 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:I know if I read further that Bruce has already addressed this, but there is NO dispute that she was sick. According to EVERYONE she was sick (including the autopsy report).

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe she spit up while Jeff was watching her.

So cut it out. You keep ignoring things which ARE fact. Which kind of blows your impartiality.

Now, I will read on.

By 'sick' do you mean unwell? I am not disputing it. I regard the fact she was unwell as a relevant part of the story, as I have already explained.



Then why do you keep going back to your ¨preferred theory¨ that Jeff bashed her head and, oh, her face as well, which caused her to vomit?
You think that Jeff harmed a baby that even the mother admitted he loved, before her testi-lies (hope Michael doesn't have a patent on that term), because he wanted to watch a movie and eat rotel dip?
The medication Chloe was on had side effects, one of which was vomiting.

Vomiting is a consequence of head injury in infants:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=188786
Head injury in infants and toddlers can be difficult to diagnose because symptoms are often nonspecific. Vomiting, fever, irritability, and lethargy are common symptoms of a variety of conditions seen in children, including head trauma. When caretakers do not give a history of injury and the victim is preverbal, an abusive head injury can be mistakenly diagnosed as a less-serious condition.

What was her vomiting pattern? Did she throw up every night? I thought she had an ear infection. Would that cause vomiting or just miserableness?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:54 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Dudes!!! He deserves a new trial. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL. HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL!!!!!
This time with a lawyer who stays awake and lays off the blow. This time with the prosecutor complying with Brady. This time with the defense having expert witnesses and consultants.
Only after that, can we begin to conduct an intelligent discussion of whether he is guilty of anything - including walking on the grass on his way into the police station. At this point, all we have is the kind of evidence that North Korean authorities would produce if they were required to justify executing someone for dissing the latest Kim-Il-whatshisname.

Yes, of course he does, but that doesn't make discussion pointless. Scott Peterson's trial was arguably unfair and there were questionable aspects of the Jodi Arias trial too. Nyki Kish did not have her own experts and the police destroyed lost evidence and Amanda's case was and remains a travesty ... but we discuss all of them.



Of course it is ok to discuss these things but a lot of what we discuss as "evidence" was never really subject to a reasonable adversary process and we all know that testimony can look a lot different after it goes through that particular meat grinder. Peterson had experts and so we are better able to assess the forensic evidence; he also had an excellent trial lawyer who was apparently awake during most of the proceedings. Kish obviously deserves a new trial at a minimum - it is another case where it is really hard to determine what happened with any degree of certainty. No new trial in the Arias case because of double jeopardy. Amanda should be acquitted - we have enough evidence to determine that she wasn't involved - again, she had competent lawyers and she had her own experts. The problem was Brady violations (I guess there is no Brady doctrine in Italy), the use of findings in another case in her case (American lawyers would laugh this one out of court if it were tried here), a botched forensic investigation and a system biased in favor of the prosecution. Havard stands out here - the lawyers in the other cases were not remotely comparable to his lawyer (I often call this the Sominex Syndrome), the need for experts on the defense side was compelling in a case with no eyewitness testimony, no motive, and therefore only forensic expert testimony.
So - yes - I agree that it is appropriate to discuss the "facts" of the case but bear in mind that the "facts" may look a lot different after a truly fair trial and that a lot of the "facts" assumed today may melt away when subjected to the adversary process. Speculation about what these "facts" may or may not suggest is likely to turn out to be pointless whereas the arguments for a new trial are truly compelling. This was such a blatant violation of due process that it undermines the integrity and credibility of not only our legal system, but also our entire society. Shame on Mississippi!!

Point taken but I am not the one asserting as fact things which have not been properly tested, such as, most importantly, that Jeffery is 'innocent' (meaning, I take it, wholly innocent with all that implies) or that, as if it were an ascertained fact, he dropped the baby in the manner he described. I have said more than once, but don't consider it necessary to repeat it in every post, that my opinions are provisional, as they pretty much are in all these cases since I am not conducting them professionally and don't have access to the information (and client's instructions!) I would have if I were.

That might seem like giving myself an out but it's just the way it is. I don't mind (much) being presented with material that challenges my provisional opinions and that's what I expect (demand?) of Jeff's ardent supporters on this thread. Actually, I would hope the discussion would be useful for focusing minds on problems that lie ahead further down the road should he succeed in vacating the current verdict, which is the task in hand that we all agree on.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:06 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
The mother said Chloe opened her eyes, made a sound and went back to sleep. Another theory blown.

What theory is that? A better point (against me) is that the mother certainly will have had a chance for a good look at the child after she went blue and on the way to the hospital yet nowhere in her evidence does she mention any facial injury. That does not settle what happened though. The torn frenulum and bleeding nose would not have been visible. Even bruises can be hard to see, depending on lighting and perhaps also the observer's state of mind.



It's in her trial testimony, Clive. Page #347.

The theory that you gave upfeed that Jeff made Chloe ¨unconsious forever¨.

I am not a medical man but I don't believe her opening her eyes necessarily proves she was conscious. Rather than you and me discussing something one of us certainly does not understand (I refer to myself) is there any expert evidence or material on the pro-innocence side which focuses on and explains all the head injuries?


Since Jeffrey's trial counsel did no independent investigation (when even a dictionary could have helped them), and improperly requested an expert (which was denied by the court), there is only Hayne, Lauridson and Baden, whose opinions are each individually available on freejeffreyhavard.org (see the left side index under "The Experts").

The discussion of additional expert opinions would be better left until the response to the state, which will be filed on Nov. 22.

It can't be both ways, Clive, that the mother saw her open her eyes and heard her breathe the first time she checked on her, then found her blue and unresponsive the second time, implies that her health deteriorated greatly somewhere in between. If I saw my daughter, as infant, open her eyes and breathe, I would believe her conscious but sleeping, as Becky obviously did.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:14 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:I know if I read further that Bruce has already addressed this, but there is NO dispute that she was sick. According to EVERYONE she was sick (including the autopsy report).

It is not unreasonable, then, to believe she spit up while Jeff was watching her.

So cut it out. You keep ignoring things which ARE fact. Which kind of blows your impartiality.

Now, I will read on.

By 'sick' do you mean unwell? I am not disputing it. I regard the fact she was unwell as a relevant part of the story, as I have already explained.



Then why do you keep going back to your ¨preferred theory¨ that Jeff bashed her head and, oh, her face as well, which caused her to vomit?
You think that Jeff harmed a baby that even the mother admitted he loved, before her testi-lies (hope Michael doesn't have a patent on that term), because he wanted to watch a movie and eat rotel dip?
The medication Chloe was on had side effects, one of which was vomiting.

Vomiting is a consequence of head injury in infants:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=188786
Head injury in infants and toddlers can be difficult to diagnose because symptoms are often nonspecific. Vomiting, fever, irritability, and lethargy are common symptoms of a variety of conditions seen in children, including head trauma. When caretakers do not give a history of injury and the victim is preverbal, an abusive head injury can be mistakenly diagnosed as a less-serious condition.

What was her vomiting pattern? Did she throw up every night? I thought she had an ear infection. Would that cause vomiting or just miserableness?


The side effects of the medication she was on, Trimethropim, include nausea and vomiting.
Her vomiting pattern was never brought up as a contention in court, in fact .in the prosecution's closing, Harper stated that she was a perfectly healthy baby. A fact that he, and everyone medically involved at trial knew to be untrue.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:19 am

Lori wrote:Since Jeffrey's trial counsel did no independent investigation (when even a dictionary could have helped them), and improperly requested an expert (which was denied by the court), there is only Hayne, Lauridson and Baden, whose opinions are each individually available on freejeffreyhavard.org (see the left side index under "The Experts").

The discussion of additional expert opinions would be better left until the response to the state, which will be filed on Nov. 22.

It can't be both ways, Clive, that the mother saw her open her eyes and heard her breathe the first time she checked on her, then found her blue and unresponsive the second time, implies that her health deteriorated greatly somewhere in between. If I saw my daughter, as infant, open her eyes and breathe, I would believe her conscious but sleeping, as Becky obviously did.

I agree with the highlighted part and propose to leave this discussion now. I hope it has been useful (it has for me). I will continue to follow the case and hope for a good outcome for Jeff.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:30 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:Since Jeffrey's trial counsel did no independent investigation (when even a dictionary could have helped them), and improperly requested an expert (which was denied by the court), there is only Hayne, Lauridson and Baden, whose opinions are each individually available on freejeffreyhavard.org (see the left side index under "The Experts").

The discussion of additional expert opinions would be better left until the response to the state, which will be filed on Nov. 22.

It can't be both ways, Clive, that the mother saw her open her eyes and heard her breathe the first time she checked on her, then found her blue and unresponsive the second time, implies that her health deteriorated greatly somewhere in between. If I saw my daughter, as infant, open her eyes and breathe, I would believe her conscious but sleeping, as Becky obviously did.

I agree with the highlighted part and propose to leave this discussion now. I hope it has been useful (it has for me). I will continue to follow the case and hope for a good outcome for Jeff.


I'm buggin out as well and feel the same. I have a different opinion than you about what happened but think the mother should consult a priest because this isn't a beyond all doubt case and it'll be on her conscious.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:54 pm

Well, I am certainly sorry you two are leaving the discussion a week before we really can dig in with more information.

But, as I told you, Clive, you have helped me see the adversarial process, which I have not been subjected to before.

And Michael, that you find doubt is a victory to me, considering our first encounter! :)

Thank you both.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:16 pm

Lori wrote:Well, I am certainly sorry you two are leaving the discussion a week before we really can dig in with more information.

But, as I told you, Clive, you have helped me see the adversarial process, which I have not been subjected to before.

And Michael, that you find doubt is a victory to me, considering our first encounter! :)

Thank you both.

Oh I will still follow, don't worry about that. And thank you Lori. You have been very helpful in explaining the case.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby ClintNine » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:50 pm

I think there are good indications for a new trial.

Several points concern me:

An infant of six months is not bathed in a bath tub but rather in a small plastic basin in the kitchen sink - where you can stand and safely handle the baby.

Why would the mother allow Jeffrey to bathe her child? Did she first say he did then didn't ? Was she credible?

The meth lab where mother and baby were living: was the mom a meth addict? Was her daughter exposed in utero and basically a crack baby - very sick and always crying? And was Jeff also into the drug scene? If any of this is true, how would either of them be equipped to care for this baby? But also supports Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Very sad case- mother was irresponsible bringing a baby into that life.

And the defendant seems to have tried to help in one way but maybe he isn't saying everything - eg about the conflicts between them, his own involvement in drugs or potentially conflicts with Rebecca's brother as they may have related to their care of Chloe.

Why did Rebecca think he was guilty?
ClintNine
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:07 am

ClintNine wrote:I think there are good indications for a new trial.

Several points concern me:

An infant of six months is not bathed in a bath tub but rather in a small plastic basin in the kitchen sink - where you can stand and safely handle the baby.

Why would the mother allow Jeffrey to bathe her child? Did she first say he did then didn't ? Was she credible?

The meth lab where mother and baby were living: was the mom a meth addict? Was her daughter exposed in utero and basically a crack baby - very sick and always crying? And was Jeff also into the drug scene? If any of this is true, how would either of them be equipped to care for this baby? But also supports Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Very sad case- mother was irresponsible bringing a baby into that life.

And the defendant seems to have tried to help in one way but maybe he isn't saying everything - eg about the conflicts between them, his own involvement in drugs or potentially conflicts with Rebecca's brother as they may have related to their care of Chloe.

Why did Rebecca think he was guilty?



I can ease your mind.

Chloe was always bathed in a baby bath inside the big tub. If you look at the photos provided here, you can see the baby bath propped against the bathroom wall.

It was prearranged that Jeff would bathe Chloe while Rebecca went to the store (see snippet of statements above; Murphy - Nurse, Watson - Mother of Rebecca) where Rebecca told both of them that in the ER. At the time, she did not know what was going on with her child, so that supports Jeff's account of the events that night..

Also, the mother was absolutely not credible. She gave a videotaped statement at the police station the next day. This statement was not made available to the Defense, before during or after trial. Jeff was convicted in 2002, the tape was discovered by appellate counsel in 2009. She said Jeff loved Chloe, helped Rebecca all the time. He played with her, made bottles, etc. Her trial testimony was starkly different. Jeff had not bonded with Chloe, he didn't have much to do with her, etc.

Rebecca and Chloe did not live in a meth. lab. She lived in a house where drugs were sold. Jeff offered his home to them to help her get out of a situation that was unsafe for Rebecca and Chloe.

What made you think that they were using drugs and that "supports shaken baby syndrome"? The original medical examiner, has changed his mind about the cause of death as per an interview with the Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion Ledger and a deposition given to Jeff's attorney's. Also, other experts have now looked at the case and given opinions. No Shaken Baby Syndrome (which is a myth, btw)and no sexual assault.

You mention conflicts with Rebecca, (they had been together 3 months and living together 3 weeks, so I would say no to conflict), not so unusual to ask, though.

But you also mention conflicts with Rebecca's brother. Very unusual question and not part of the equation as it would not relate to the care of Chloe. But I would sure like to know where you got that from.

Rebecca was told by the people that are supposed to tell you the truth (the Sheriff, the District Attorney) that her baby was raped and shaken to death by Jeff Havard. There was absolutely no evidence of sexual assault. SBS (while SBS was the crime du jour, Chloe did not die of SBS, again, SBS is a myth). Chloe died, well there are many reasons Chloe died, but it was precipitated by a short fall, again, just as Jeff has always maintained. Hayne found the bruise on the back of her head and noted it in autopsy, but failed to investigate as to the cause (which is the third part of the "SBS" triad that was never met, no other injuries or explanation), and simply ignored it by calling the death "SBS".

But I digress, Rebecca was told that Jeff committed the crime of a monster. She had 10 months for that to fester in her mind. She had been lied to by the people that are supposed to seek the truth and know of what they speak. That was probably all it took, along with, I am sure, coaching by the prosecutor, for her to get up on that stand, put her hand on a bible and lie through her teeth.

Jeff's reply and successor petition were filed on the 22nd and 25th of this month, The documents won't be posted until after the holiday.

Jeffrey's account of what happened has never changed, except that he omitted admitting the drop at the emergency room. He was thrown in a cell on a closed cellblock for over 2 days, with the detectives never attempting to get his statement.

Jeff received paperwork showing that Chloe died of a head injury. He immediately called for detectives to tell them about the fall. He did this to cooperate, since he had been told that Chloe died of a vicious rape. He did this without an attorney and he asked for a polygraph, but was refused.

Jeff Havard was tried and convicted in the ER that night, by staff that was untrained and unqualified to say that a sexual assault was suspected, due to the fact that she was already dead when she was brought into that ER and anal dilation is a natural occurrence upon death.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:57 am

There's been new court docs and expert opinion made public in the last few days I think we should talk about.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:41 pm

Motion For Relief From Judgment Or For Leave To File Successive Petition For Post-Conviction Relief;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/85-1_-_Ex_A_MSSC_Motion.pdf
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:00 pm

Case sensitive Opinion of Dr. Janice Ophoven;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_C_- ... ith_CV.pdf
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:24 pm

Lori wrote:Case sensitive Opinion of Dr. Janice Ophoven;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_C_- ... ith_CV.pdf





WOW!
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:21 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Lori wrote:Case sensitive Opinion of Dr. Janice Ophoven;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_C_- ... ith_CV.pdf





WOW!

Seconded.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:21 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Lori wrote:Case sensitive Opinion of Dr. Janice Ophoven;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_C_- ... ith_CV.pdf





WOW!



I think it's enough to open the door for Jeff to have a hearing, but we have more.

I'll post one from the Biomechanical Engineer, Dr. Chris Van Ee, which is his opinion of the likelihood that Jeff's account makes more sense than the Prosecution's "theory".
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:26 pm

Opinion of Biomechanical engineer, Dr. Chris Van Ee;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_E_- ... ith_CV.pdf
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:08 am

The Two Declarations of Steven Hayne (2009 and 2013);
*Note: Hayne now says he was unaware that he was testifying in a Capital Murder trial regarding Jeff Havard and that he met the 3 part triad of SBS because there was "no other presenting history", even though the autopsy notes the bruise on the back of Chloe's head. It also notes Sepsis and Cephalohematoma, which should have raised some serious doubts as to "no other presenting history".

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/Hayne_Declaration.pdf

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_A_- ... idavit.pdf
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:41 am

I will read the engineer's thing when time permits. Thanks for the link Lori. On the report by Ophoven (I love her CV! It's almost as long as the report! :) ) I have a couple of things. She explains the frenulum, which has been bothering me, but makes no mention of the copious blood a frenulum tear produces. Jeff does not describe any injury involving a lot of blood and nor do the medical staff involved in resuscitation. Does this suggest Jeff lied about the amount of blood involved? Or does it mean that the frenulum can tear without bleeding much (contrary to the evidence so far)?

Also, as an aside, it strikes me as very odd to read in a report like this the expert's opinion on whether Jeff received a fair trial. If I had seen this report in draft I would have suggested some rewording, not saying that the trial was unfair, which is properly a matter for a judge to decide, but that the jury was presented with incorrect, incomplete and misleading evidence. A minor quibble maybe but we legal types don't like people invading our turf :)
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:06 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I will read the engineer's thing when time permits. Thanks for the link Lori. On the report by Ophoven (I love her CV! It's almost as long as the report! :) ) I have a couple of things. She explains the frenulum, which has been bothering me, but makes no mention of the copious blood a frenulum tear produces. Jeff does not describe any injury involving a lot of blood and nor do the medical staff involved in resuscitation. Does this suggest Jeff lied about the amount of blood involved? Or does it mean that the frenulum can tear without bleeding much (contrary to the evidence so far)?

Also, as an aside, it strikes me as very odd to read in a report like this the expert's opinion on whether Jeff received a fair trial. If I had seen this report in draft I would have suggested some rewording, not saying that the trial was unfair, which is properly a matter for a judge to decide, but that the jury was presented with incorrect, incomplete and misleading evidence. A minor quibble maybe but we legal types don't like people invading our turf :)



The frenulum tear was possibly torn during resuscitation efforts at the hospital.
Jeff's account has remained consistent for 13 years, other than his initial failure to disclose the drop. He said he noticed a drop of red by her nose and 2 spots on her cheek and her medicine was red (I will have to check, 2 spots is what I recall), so there is no reason to believe he lied other than initially out of fear. The main thing to keep in mind is that we have no idea how badly the frenulum was torn, it is not addressed. There were not large amounts of blood found on the sheet where Jeff laid her. I can't answer that for certain. I can say that Rebecca noted no facial injuries at all during her CPR attempts, which supports Jeff's account and the hospital didn't note any untill revival had been attempted. In any event, it has never been explained in a satisfactory manner, leading me to believe it was the resuscitation efforts, just like the fact that improper intubation blew that child up with air, which was likely a factor in the anali dilation.

I am sorry if you find this answer unsatisfactory, I am just learning about the new medical evidence myself.

What should be of a bigger concern, since the frenulum tear was thrown out on directed verdict, is the fact that Hayne noted the birth trauma (which occurs on .02 to 2.5 % of live births and is considered unusual at best, if the Cephlahematoma is still present at 3 months, much less 6 months), sepsis and the bruise to the back of her head, yet said he met the third part of the SBS triad due to "no presenting history", which was obviously not true.

As far as Dr. Ophoven's opinion, what she is trying to point out, and does very well, imo, is that the investigation and trial were irreparably infected by the misdiagnosis of the ER staff and that without an expert to counter the State, Jeff had absolutely no chance of any other outcome but conviction. I mean, truly, there was no investigation, he was tried and convicted in the ER. The Investigators didn't even check the bathroom to see if Jeff's account was plausible. The State took the word of unqualified, untendered witnesses in the ER. As a medical professional in the field of child injury and abuse, I imagine the medical types don't like legal types invading their turf, either.

She did state that the failure to provide a medical expert doomed Jeff Havard, just as much as the incomplete, incorrect and misleading evidence that the Prosecutor elicited. Especially in a capital murder trial.

"Infected" is the correct word, I think.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:26 am

Autopsy report by Steven Hayne:

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/10-4.pdf
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:28 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I will read the engineer's thing when time permits. Thanks for the link Lori. On the report by Ophoven (I love her CV! It's almost as long as the report! :) ) I have a couple of things. She explains the frenulum, which has been bothering me, but makes no mention of the copious blood a frenulum tear produces. Jeff does not describe any injury involving a lot of blood and nor do the medical staff involved in resuscitation. Does this suggest Jeff lied about the amount of blood involved? Or does it mean that the frenulum can tear without bleeding much (contrary to the evidence so far)?

Also, as an aside, it strikes me as very odd to read in a report like this the expert's opinion on whether Jeff received a fair trial. If I had seen this report in draft I would have suggested some rewording, not saying that the trial was unfair, which is properly a matter for a judge to decide, but that the jury was presented with incorrect, incomplete and misleading evidence. A minor quibble maybe but we legal types don't like people invading our turf :)



The frenulum tear was possibly torn during resuscitation efforts at the hospital.

And possibly it wasn't. In either case, where is the bleeding associated with such tears. The medical staff did not report it so if they tore it they did so without causing bleeding and if Jeff did it then he lied about how much blood there was as well as about what happened overall. Maybe he sent Becky back out so he could clean it up.

Jeff's account has remained consistent for 13 years, other than his initial failure to disclose the drop. He said he noticed a drop of red by her nose and 2 spots on her cheek and her medicine was red (I will have to check, 2 spots is what I recall), so there is no reason to believe he lied other than initially out of fear. The main thing to keep in mind is that we have no idea how badly the frenulum was torn, it is not addressed. There were not large amounts of blood found on the sheet where Jeff laid her. I can't answer that for certain. I can say that Rebecca noted no facial injuries at all during her CPR attempts, which supports Jeff's account and the hospital didn't note any untill revival had been attempted. In any event, it has never been explained in a satisfactory manner, leading me to believe it was the resuscitation efforts, just like the fact that improper intubation blew that child up with air, which was likely a factor in the anali dilation.

I am sorry if you find this answer unsatisfactory, I am just learning about the new medical evidence myself.

The evidence at trial, which Ophoven has very thoroughly reviewed and commented open, was that a torn frenulum bleeds profusely, scaring the shit out of parents. The Dr thinks it could have happened when she was dropped or as a result of intubation but she does not comment on the lack of observed bleeding. The question therefore remains open.

What should be of a bigger concern, since the frenulum tear was thrown out on directed verdict, is the fact that Hayne noted the birth trauma (which occurs on .02 to 2.5 % of live births and is considered unusual at best, if the Cephlahematoma is still present at 3 months, much less 6 months), sepsis and the bruise to the back of her head, yet said he met the third part of the SBS triad due to "no presenting history", which was obviously not true.

You keep saying this but it is misleading. What was 'thrown out' was the suggestion that there had been sexual activity involving the child's mouth. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing what happened to the blood associated with a frenulum tear.

As far as Dr. Ophoven's opinion, what she is trying to point out, and does very well, imo, is that the investigation and trial were irreparably infected by the misdiagnosis of the ER staff and that without an expert to counter the State, Jeff had absolutely no chance of any other outcome but conviction. I mean, truly, there was no investigation, he was tried and convicted in the ER. The Investigators didn't even check the bathroom to see if Jeff's account was plausible. The State took the word of unqualified, untendered witnesses in the ER. As a medical professional in the field of child injury and abuse, I imagine the medical types don't like legal types invading their turf, either.

I agree 100%

She did state that the failure to provide a medical expert doomed Jeff Havard, just as much as the incomplete, incorrect and misleading evidence that the Prosecutor elicited. Especially in a capital murder trial.

"Infected" is the correct word, I think.

I saw that and commented above that I think she strays outside her province in pronouncing on the fairness of the trial etc. That's not a big deal to me btw. It's just something that would piss off some judges (the bad ones).
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:11 am

Lori wrote:Opinion of Biomechanical engineer, Dr. Chris Van Ee;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_E_- ... ith_CV.pdf

In paragraph 15 he talks about the rarity of these serious/fatal head injuries due, among other things, to falls often being oblique, as distinct from square onto a hard flat surface. Dr Ophoven records Jeff's account as being that she hit the lid with her leg and made contact with the tank with her head. Do we know which surface of the tank that was? Horizontal or vertical? I assume tank = cistern btw but please correct if that's wrong. He does not address other possibilities e.g. that the injuries could have resulted from a blow. Only shaking or a fall are considered.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:24 pm

Declaration of Dr. Michael Baden - 2013;

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/69-1_ ... ration.pdf



Additional information regarding Dr. Baden and Clarion Ledger article by Jerry Mitchell;

Dr. Michael Baden is a physician and board-certified forensic pathologist. Dr. Baden is the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City and is currently the chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police. Dr. Baden is well respected worldwide for his work in this field.

At The Clarion-Ledger's request, Dr. Baden agreed to review the evidence in the Jeffrey Havard case. Dr. Baden's findings decisively refute the prosecution's case against Jeffrey. Jeffrey's conviction was secured on the basis that a sexual assault occurred which then led to murder. The cause of death was never determined in court but Dr. Steven Hayne listed the cause of death as consistent with shaken baby syndrome in his autopsy report.

According to Dr. Baden, there is absolutely no proof that any sexual assault ever took place and no scientific evidence to support a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.

The ER staff immediately jumped to conclusions when examining Chloe on the night of her death. The staff erroneously determined that a sexual assault had taken place based on the observation that Chloe's anus was dilated. According to Baden, it is common for the anus to dilate in a coma or after death.

According to Baden, the injuries detailed in the autopsy were consistent with injuries caused by head trauma from Chloe being accidentally dropped, hitting her head on the toilet just as Jeffrey had described.

Baden concluded that Chloe "was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop."

Baden also disagreed with the finding of shaken baby syndrome. Baden stated: "There is no autopsy or scientific evidence to support a diagnosis that Chloe died of shaken baby syndrome."

Baden has stated that he will testify on Jeffrey's behalf if he is granted a new trial.

The entire article written by Jerry Mitchell detailing Dr. Baden's findings can be read below.


January 30, 2012: Testimony in death row inmate's trial contradicted

by Jerry Mitchell

http://www.clarionledger.com

JEFFREY HAVARD REMAINS ON DEATH ROW — convicted of a crime that one expert says may not have happened.

In 2002, he told deputies he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt after giving her a bath and that the 26-pound baby hit her head. He denied sexually abusing her.

If the Mississippi Supreme Court rejects his post-conviction plea, the 33-year-old inmate will move one step closer to execution.

The baby's mother, Rebecca Britt, told The Clarion-Ledger, "I feel like I should be able to go in there and kill him - save the taxpayers' money."

But after examining the autopsy report at The Clarion-Ledger's request, world-renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City said he doesn't believe a sexual assault or a homicide took place.

The allegation of sexual abuse arose after Britt found her baby wasn't breathing on Feb. 21, 2002. She and Havard rushed Chloe to Natchez Community Hospital.

Chloe was lifeless and blue when she arrived, according to medical records. Her pupils were fixed and dilated.

A nurse noticed the baby's anus was dilated to the size of a quarter, and law enforcement was contacted.

Under questioning, Havard told deputies Chloe had slipped from his arms and hit her head on a toilet tank. He said he thought she was going to be OK and was afraid to tell Britt when she returned.

At trial, two doctors testified the anus was not normal and was indicative of sexual penetration, with one mentioning bleeding. Both testified they observed a tear of the anus, but pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne said he found no tears in his autopsy.

He testified Chloe had bruises to the back of her scalp, forehead and nose; a torn frenulum under her tongue; and suffered a brain hemorrhage. There were also bruises to the front of her left and right thighs, he said.

The pathologist testified the death was a homicide, consistent with shaken baby syndrome.

He also testified there was also a 1-inch anal bruise "consistent with penetration of the rectum with an object."

The Adams County jury convicted Havard and sentenced him to death.

In his appeal to the state Supreme Court, his attorneys shared medical literature that read: "Postmortem anal dilation in infants is a commonly recognized artifact that does not signify sexual abuse."

In their 7-2 decision, justices, however, sided with the state's lawyers, saying, "Chloe's dilated anal sphincter was discovered while Chloe was in the emergency room and still alive."

Since then, Hayne has acknowledged in a sworn statement that dilated anal sphincters also may be seen "on a person prior to death without significant brain function."

The anal contusion Chloe had "could have a variety of causes, and is not sufficient in and of itself to determine that a sexual assault occurred," he said.

He said the autopsy alone can't prove sexual abuse.

A rape kit conducted at the time found no evidence of semen.

Baden said the anus can dilate in a coma or after death, and the anal abrasion could be due to innocent causes, such as constipation, diarrhea or rubbing up against a diaper. A small amount of blood can occur naturally for other reasons, he said, adding any significant amount of blood would have been noted in the autopsy.

The injuries detailed in the autopsy "are entirely consistent with injuries caused by a head impact from the baby accidentally being dropped and striking her head on the toilet tank as (Havard) described," Baden said.

On the basis of the report, he said he believes the baby "was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop."

Baden disagreed, also, with the finding of shaken baby syndrome. "There is no autopsy or scientific evidence to support a diagnosis that Chloe died of shaken baby syndrome," Baden said.

At trial, Britt testified Havard "didn't spend much time with her (Chloe). I mean, other than being at the house after day care, he didn't really go out of his way to do things with her."

Jurors, however, didn't hear her earlier statement to deputies in which she said of Havard's relationship with Chloe: "He loved her."

She also said it wasn't unusual for Havard to give Chloe a bath. "He's always doing bottles for me or cleaning up while I'm taking care of her," she said.

Havard maintains his attorneys at trial failed to adequately represent him. For instance, they didn't call day care workers, who gave written statements they saw no evidence Chloe had ever been mistreated or abused.

District Attorney Ronnie Harper remains convinced Havard is guilty, saying proof of sexual assault was overwhelming. "I had doctors crying on the witness stand," he said.

He said he's "never seen a guy look more guilty" than Havard did in his videotaped statement.

Havard's attorney, Graham Carner of Jackson, wrote that his client invited Britt and Chloe to live with him in his mobile home near Natchez after he saw "drug dealing and other dangerous conditions at Rebecca's prior residence. ... In the following weeks, Jeffrey, in many ways, cared for Chloe as if she was his own child."

In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger, Britt disputed she had been living where there was drug dealing, saying she had been living with a single man but didn't want her baby around the drinking.

She said she wasn't living with her brother, Billy, whom she acknowledged was arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine.

She has no doubt Havard abused her baby, she said. "He was the only one there. He claimed there was no sexual abuse. Why was her anus the size of a quarter?"

In her 2002 statement, Britt told deputies Havard had taken a bath after the baby.

But when asked about this by The Clarion-Ledger, she insisted she knew nothing about this. "I was told that," she said.

Havard's sister, Paige Sullivan, recalled her brother comforting Chloe when she cried. "He would hold the baby and sing to her," she said. "He even fell asleep with her on his chest."

She believes he is innocent of any sexual abuse and shudders to think he is still behind bars. "We know he dropped the baby," she said. "We're not saying he is totally innocent, but he's been in there for 10 years. It's very heartbreaking.






Home Page
Dr. Michael Baden is a physician and board-certified forensic pathologist. Dr. Baden is the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City and is currently the chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police. Dr. Baden is well respected worldwide for his work in this field.

At The Clarion-Ledger's request, Dr. Baden agreed to review the evidence in the Jeffrey Havard case. Dr. Baden's findings decisively refute the prosecution's case against Jeffrey. Jeffrey's conviction was secured on the basis that a sexual assault occurred which then led to murder. The cause of death was never determined in court but Dr. Steven Hayne listed the cause of death as consistent with shaken baby syndrome in his autopsy report.

Click here to view Dr. Baden's declaration

According to Dr. Baden, there is absolutely no proof that any sexual assault ever took place and no scientific evidence to support a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.

The ER staff immediately jumped to conclusions when examining Chloe on the night of her death. The staff erroneously determined that a sexual assault had taken place based on the observation that Chloe's anus was dilated. According to Baden, it is common for the anus to dilate in a coma or after death.

According to Baden, the injuries detailed in the autopsy were consistent with injuries caused by head trauma from Chloe being accidentally dropped, hitting her head on the toilet just as Jeffrey had described.

Baden concluded that Chloe "was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop."

Baden also disagreed with the finding of shaken baby syndrome. Baden stated: "There is no autopsy or scientific evidence to support a diagnosis that Chloe died of shaken baby syndrome."

Baden has stated that he will testify on Jeffrey's behalf if he is granted a new trial.

The entire article written by Jerry Mitchell detailing Dr. Baden's findings can be read below.


January 30, 2012: Testimony in death row inmate's trial contradicted

by Jerry Mitchell

http://www.clarionledger.com

JEFFREY HAVARD REMAINS ON DEATH ROW — convicted of a crime that one expert says may not have happened.

In 2002, he told deputies he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt after giving her a bath and that the 26-pound baby hit her head. He denied sexually abusing her.

If the Mississippi Supreme Court rejects his post-conviction plea, the 33-year-old inmate will move one step closer to execution.

The baby's mother, Rebecca Britt, told The Clarion-Ledger, "I feel like I should be able to go in there and kill him - save the taxpayers' money."

But after examining the autopsy report at The Clarion-Ledger's request, world-renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City said he doesn't believe a sexual assault or a homicide took place.

The allegation of sexual abuse arose after Britt found her baby wasn't breathing on Feb. 21, 2002. She and Havard rushed Chloe to Natchez Community Hospital.

Chloe was lifeless and blue when she arrived, according to medical records. Her pupils were fixed and dilated.

A nurse noticed the baby's anus was dilated to the size of a quarter, and law enforcement was contacted.

Under questioning, Havard told deputies Chloe had slipped from his arms and hit her head on a toilet tank. He said he thought she was going to be OK and was afraid to tell Britt when she returned.

At trial, two doctors testified the anus was not normal and was indicative of sexual penetration, with one mentioning bleeding. Both testified they observed a tear of the anus, but pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne said he found no tears in his autopsy.

He testified Chloe had bruises to the back of her scalp, forehead and nose; a torn frenulum under her tongue; and suffered a brain hemorrhage. There were also bruises to the front of her left and right thighs, he said.

The pathologist testified the death was a homicide, consistent with shaken baby syndrome.

He also testified there was also a 1-inch anal bruise "consistent with penetration of the rectum with an object."

The Adams County jury convicted Havard and sentenced him to death.

In his appeal to the state Supreme Court, his attorneys shared medical literature that read: "Postmortem anal dilation in infants is a commonly recognized artifact that does not signify sexual abuse."

In their 7-2 decision, justices, however, sided with the state's lawyers, saying, "Chloe's dilated anal sphincter was discovered while Chloe was in the emergency room and still alive."

Since then, Hayne has acknowledged in a sworn statement that dilated anal sphincters also may be seen "on a person prior to death without significant brain function."

The anal contusion Chloe had "could have a variety of causes, and is not sufficient in and of itself to determine that a sexual assault occurred," he said.

He said the autopsy alone can't prove sexual abuse.

A rape kit conducted at the time found no evidence of semen.

Baden said the anus can dilate in a coma or after death, and the anal abrasion could be due to innocent causes, such as constipation, diarrhea or rubbing up against a diaper. A small amount of blood can occur naturally for other reasons, he said, adding any significant amount of blood would have been noted in the autopsy.

The injuries detailed in the autopsy "are entirely consistent with injuries caused by a head impact from the baby accidentally being dropped and striking her head on the toilet tank as (Havard) described," Baden said.

On the basis of the report, he said he believes the baby "was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop."

Baden disagreed, also, with the finding of shaken baby syndrome. "There is no autopsy or scientific evidence to support a diagnosis that Chloe died of shaken baby syndrome," Baden said.

At trial, Britt testified Havard "didn't spend much time with her (Chloe). I mean, other than being at the house after day care, he didn't really go out of his way to do things with her."

Jurors, however, didn't hear her earlier statement to deputies in which she said of Havard's relationship with Chloe: "He loved her."

She also said it wasn't unusual for Havard to give Chloe a bath. "He's always doing bottles for me or cleaning up while I'm taking care of her," she said.

Havard maintains his attorneys at trial failed to adequately represent him. For instance, they didn't call day care workers, who gave written statements they saw no evidence Chloe had ever been mistreated or abused.

District Attorney Ronnie Harper remains convinced Havard is guilty, saying proof of sexual assault was overwhelming. "I had doctors crying on the witness stand," he said.

He said he's "never seen a guy look more guilty" than Havard did in his videotaped statement.

Havard's attorney, Graham Carner of Jackson, wrote that his client invited Britt and Chloe to live with him in his mobile home near Natchez after he saw "drug dealing and other dangerous conditions at Rebecca's prior residence. ... In the following weeks, Jeffrey, in many ways, cared for Chloe as if she was his own child."

In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger, Britt disputed she had been living where there was drug dealing, saying she had been living with a single man but didn't want her baby around the drinking.

She said she wasn't living with her brother, Billy, whom she acknowledged was arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine.

She has no doubt Havard abused her baby, she said. "He was the only one there. He claimed there was no sexual abuse. Why was her anus the size of a quarter?"

In her 2002 statement, Britt told deputies Havard had taken a bath after the baby.

But when asked about this by The Clarion-Ledger, she insisted she knew nothing about this. "I was told that," she said.

Havard's sister, Paige Sullivan, recalled her brother comforting Chloe when she cried. "He would hold the baby and sing to her," she said. "He even fell asleep with her on his chest."

She believes he is innocent of any sexual abuse and shudders to think he is still behind bars. "We know he dropped the baby," she said. "We're not saying he is totally innocent, but he's been in there for 10 years. It's very heartbreaking.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:34 pm

Report of Dr.James Lauridson, Forensic Pathologist;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/DrJamesLauridson.html
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:29 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I will read the engineer's thing when time permits. Thanks for the link Lori. On the report by Ophoven (I love her CV! It's almost as long as the report! :) ) I have a couple of things. She explains the frenulum, which has been bothering me, but makes no mention of the copious blood a frenulum tear produces. Jeff does not describe any injury involving a lot of blood and nor do the medical staff involved in resuscitation. Does this suggest Jeff lied about the amount of blood involved? Or does it mean that the frenulum can tear without bleeding much (contrary to the evidence so far)?

Also, as an aside, it strikes me as very odd to read in a report like this the expert's opinion on whether Jeff received a fair trial. If I had seen this report in draft I would have suggested some rewording, not saying that the trial was unfair, which is properly a matter for a judge to decide, but that the jury was presented with incorrect, incomplete and misleading evidence. A minor quibble maybe but we legal types don't like people invading our turf :)


Clive, I am honestly surprised to see you working backwards from guilt. There is no sign of any clean up. Blood does not just wipe of off fabric. Jeff didn't wash anything. Why are you ignoring the trauma that most definitely occurred at the hospital while attempting to resuscitate? Resuscitation is traumatic to the body 100% of the time. It is never a gentle process. Even if there was a small tear from the fall it could have easily been further aggravated at the hospital. How can you make the leap that the frenulum must have bled profusely at home so Jeff must be lying? Why didn't the mother notice blood on the sheets, clothing, etc? Why didn't investigators notice any attempted blood clean up? Jeff cleaned nothing. He threw the dirty sheet on the floor by the washer. I'm thinking he would have started that washing machine if he was looking to clean up blood.

Please tell me how Jeff cleaned up the blood you claim had to be there?

Your comments about this expert discussing the fairness of the trial are silly Clive. Anyone that looks at this case objectively can see that Jeff did not have a proper defense. He had no independent expert analysis for the defense. Do you really need to be an attorney to see that?

Keep in mind that these experts are working pro bono. They have nothing to gain here. They are looking at the evidence and presenting their professional opinion. Even Hayne has changed his opinion. Jeff now has experts stacked in his favor.

There are currently NO experts that think Jeff sexually assaulted and shook Chloe to death. If the prosecution had to take this case back to court, they would have no case at all. This conviction must not stand. It should never be too late to prove innocence.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:41 pm

Clive, you wrote: "And possibly it wasn't. In either case, where is the bleeding associated with such tears. The medical staff did not report it so if they tore it they did so without causing bleeding and if Jeff did it then he lied about how much blood there was as well as about what happened overall. Maybe he sent Becky back out so he could clean it up."

"Possibly" should not lead to a conviction. There is no proof that Jeff caused the injury. There is no evidence of a clean up. The ER would most likely not note every detail of a resuscitation effort and may not have even known they caused or aggravated the frenulum. It took almost 20 minutes to intubate. I have no doubt that the doctor was under pressure at that time. When you are trying to intubate, the last thing you care about are superficial injuries.

You mentioned before that Jeff possibly hit the infant in the mouth causing the injury. There are no signs on Chloe's face suggesting that an adult hand struck the infant.

At some point you need to stop speculating about what might have happened. We can all come up with dozens of theories if we do that. Let's look at the facts of the case that are available today. If we do that, Jeff deserves freedom. There is currently no case against him. look at it as a lawyer Clive. If you were prosecuting the case today, with all of the evidence available, do you really think you could achieve a guilty verdict with a death sentence?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:58 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:Opinion of Biomechanical engineer, Dr. Chris Van Ee;

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Ex_E_- ... ith_CV.pdf

In paragraph 15 he talks about the rarity of these serious/fatal head injuries due, among other things, to falls often being oblique, as distinct from square onto a hard flat surface. Dr Ophoven records Jeff's account as being that she hit the lid with her leg and made contact with the tank with her head. Do we know which surface of the tank that was? Horizontal or vertical? I assume tank = cistern btw but please correct if that's wrong. He does not address other possibilities e.g. that the injuries could have resulted from a blow. Only shaking or a fall are considered.


The prosecution's theory was that the baby was shaken to death. That is why that is addressed.

Jeff claims the infant slipped from his arms and hit the toilet. That is why that is addressed.

There is no evidence to suggest that the baby was struck on the head. The prosecution never suggested it or presented any evidence whatsoever regarding the possibility.

Would you like the new experts to speculate beyond the evidence available to come up with alternate theories for the prosecution?

The evidence supports Jeff's claims. The evidence does not support the prosecution's claims. We have 6 experts to back up Jeff's claims. We have 0 experts to support the prosecution's theory.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:24 am

With the new experts on board there's no reason why a new jury wouldn't have reasonable doubt about the sexual abuse. I still think photos of other babies that weren't sexually abused but looked similar to how Chloe did will need to be shown (if that's allowed) just to hammer home the point because you can't underestimate how seriously people will take the word of the hospital staff saying they saw. They'll be asking themselves "how could they all be wrong..... why wouldn't I believe them since they were there" but if they not only hear from Jeffrey's experts and can see photos showing how easily they could have been mistaken since they weren't specialists in infant abuse then their testimony should be rejected.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:42 am

The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:46 am

Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:36 am

If you take the time to read the autopsy report you will find there is absolutely no injury to the child's brain. NONE. No bruising of the brain, no skull fracture. No broken ribs or bruising that would be indicative of abuse. No sexual assault. No evidence at all that Jeff abused that child in any way. There IS, however, an absolute indication that Chloe was predisposed to bleeding on the brain due to a birth trauma, among other things, that was highly unusual at her age. Clive, you continue to say that it is possible that Jeff lied about this or Jeff lied about that. However, Jeff's explanation of an accidental drop is much more plausible than the prosecution's "theory" that Jeff sexually assaulted her and then shook her to death to quiet her (or as you continue to state, bashed her head against something), according to the expert opinions that I have posted here. These experts came to their conclusions based on birth records, pediatric records, notes of the ER staff and the autopsy report. FIVE independent medical experts (I am not counting Hayne) all come to the same conclusions. Yet, now you are disputing them as well.

You also continue to state that Jeff "sent" Rebecca out to cover his crime, even though Rebecca herself says in her statement that she forgot to return the movies and needed more money from Jeff and that SHE insisted that he hurry up and give her the money because she wanted to go and get back. When asked if anyone from the video store would recognize her, she stated that she wasn't sure but that the clerk that checked her out the night BEFORE might. I believe Jen posted the transcription of Rebecca's videotape here for all to see. If I am mistaken then I will be glad to post it myself.

There is also a misconception that it made no sense that they were renting movies when a satellite dish had just been installed, but if you read his statement, it was the DVD player that had been purchased that very week. His grandmother still has the receipt.

Jeff made a terrible error by not telling Rebecca that he accidently dropped Chloe. That was his one lie, by omission, out of fear. He was taken to the police station and told that the baby had died and "son, she's been raped". He didn't know how that was possible because HE didn't rape her so he shut up. I believe I have stated before that he was put in a cell on a closed cellblock and NO ONE attempted to get a statement from him for 2 days. As soon as he was given a report that said Chloe died of a head injury, he had to make a ruckus in order for someone to contact Detective Manley so Jeff could give him a statement about the cause of the head injury. The detectives never spoke to him prior to that other than an initial "general verbal statement", while they were busily gathering written statements from everyone ELSE, b/c they didn't CARE what he had to say, their minds were made up even though the autopsy said nothing about even a suspicion of sexual assault.

Another thing, if you look at Ophoven's opinion regarding the traumatic birth, Rebecca's videotape transcript and her trial testimony, while you may not consider it relevant, Rebecca told multiple lies.

You made a comment to geebee on the James Stone feed that he should learn the facts before coming to conclusions. That is truly advice we ALL should heed.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:54 am

Lori

Is there a chance maybe of you addressing the points I actually make? I read Ophoven and the engineer and commented. You seem to have ignored what I said and launched a rant in my direction. Where, for example, have I said anything about a brain injury? :confused:
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:28 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?



Her clothes were recovered without blood on them. The nurse who undressed her testified that her clothes were clean and no blood stained clothing was recovered at the home. Nor did the sheets have scary amounts of blood on them as you previously stated happens with frenulum tears.

Jeff washed nothing and that is fact, but you've been told that by Bruce multiple times.

Whether you like the fact that Dr, Ophoven states Jeff's trial was infected by the unqualified testimony of the ER Staff, you have said yourself he did not receive a fair trial. She is of the same opinion you are. Perhaps it is the death sentence and the obvious misconduct by the prosecution to which she objects.

Jeff admits he accidently dropped her and she hit her head on the toilet. That the expert opinion of Ophoven states Chloe was predisposed to brain bleeds and that there were no other injuries to support intentional abuse should resolve the intentional abuse allegation that you will not sway from.

I must have missed something. Where did anyone turn it around by saying the drop did not cause a contusion to the back of her head but the injuries to the front?

You accuse Jeff Havard of intentional abuse as if you know something about him that no one else is aware of. I'd like to know exactly what that is?

I am quite sure (by your own statements) that you have not delved into this case and base your speculation on the bits and pieces you have read, not all of the information available publicly and certainly not all of the information that certain supporters have available to them that has not been made available to the public at the request of Jeff's attorney's.

You also made a comment earlier that I was misleading. I was not. The directed verdict arose from testimony that it was possible that the frenulum tear could have been caused by things other than sexual abuse to the mouth. It was not allowed to be presented to the jury. Period.

The prosecution never raised any theory other than sexual assault accompanied by SBS.

Your constant refusal to believe anything other than Jeff telling lie after lie and that for some reason, that day, he all of a sudden became so enraged with a baby that he killed her is the error here.

No one that is a supporter of Jeff has presented any falsehoods here.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:32 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Lori

Is there a chance maybe of you addressing the points I actually make? I read Ophoven and the engineer and commented. You seem to have ignored what I said and launched a rant in my direction. Where, for example, have I said anything about a brain injury? :confused:



I did not rant and you missed my point completely.

Had Jeff smashed her head against something so hard as to kill her, you would not agree that the brain would be injured?

Is there any chance that you actually read the case in depth, as you say you like to do, before condemning the man for committing intentional abuse?
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:45 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Lori

Is there a chance maybe of you addressing the points I actually make? I read Ophoven and the engineer and commented. You seem to have ignored what I said and launched a rant in my direction. Where, for example, have I said anything about a brain injury? :confused:



I did not rant and you missed my point completely.

Had Jeff smashed her head against something so hard as to kill her, you would not agree that the brain would be injured?

Is there any chance that you actually read the case in depth, as you say you like to do, before condemning the man for committing intentional abuse?

Well, if you had condensed the point as you have now I might have got it. Who is claiming he 'smashed' her head against anything? If he struck her or otherwise deliberately harmed her he did so with enough force to produce the injuries and symptoms noticed at the hospital. No more, no less. I hate the over used expression but you do keep erecting straw men to argue with.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:02 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?



Her clothes were recovered without blood on them. The nurse who undressed her testified that her clothes were clean and no blood stained clothing was recovered at the home. Nor did the sheets have scary amounts of blood on them as you previously stated happens with frenulum tears.

Jeff washed nothing and that is fact, but you've been told that by Bruce multiple times.

First of all, I have stated nothing about frenulum tears except what came out in the evidence. Evidence which was not challenged and which Ophoven passes over without comment. I have said nothing about sheets at all.

Whether you like the fact that Dr, Ophoven states Jeff's trial was infected by the unqualified testimony of the ER Staff, you have said yourself he did not receive a fair trial. She is of the same opinion you are. Perhaps it is the death sentence and the obvious misconduct by the prosecution to which she objects.

It may be a small point but it is none of her business, speaking as a medical expert, to pronounce on the fairness of the trial as distinct from the accuracy or completeness of the evidence. I am better qualified to opine on such matters than she is and this part of her report is worthless.

Jeff admits he accidently dropped her and she hit her head on the toilet. That the expert opinion of Ophoven states Chloe was predisposed to brain bleeds and that there were no other injuries to support intentional abuse should resolve the intentional abuse allegation that you will not sway from.

If her opinion said the injuries could not have resulted from intentional abuse it might, but it doesn't.

I must have missed something. Where did anyone turn it around by saying the drop did not cause a contusion to the back of her head but the injuries to the front?

I think she says in her report that the injury to the back of the head may have occurred during resuscitation.

You accuse Jeff Havard of intentional abuse as if you know something about him that no one else is aware of. I'd like to know exactly what that is?

I claim no exclusive knowledge.

I am quite sure (by your own statements) that you have not delved into this case and base your speculation on the bits and pieces you have read, not all of the information available publicly and certainly not all of the information that certain supporters have available to them that has not been made available to the public at the request of Jeff's attorney's.

Correct. I have not read everything. I am here to learn.

You also made a comment earlier that I was misleading. I was not. The directed verdict arose from testimony that it was possible that the frenulum tear could have been caused by things other than sexual abuse to the mouth. It was not allowed to be presented to the jury. Period.

I disagree. The directed verdict is specifically concerned with an allegation of oral sexual penetration.

The prosecution never raised any theory other than sexual assault accompanied by SBS.

I know.

Your constant refusal to believe anything other than Jeff telling lie after lie and that for some reason, that day, he all of a sudden became so enraged with a baby that he killed her is the error here.

Quite possibly. I am willing to be shown wrong. Maybe you have some evidence you can refer to that says the injuries cannot have resulted from deliberate assault. It's not in Ophoven.

No one that is a supporter of Jeff has presented any falsehoods here.

Who says otherwise?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:19 am

Paragraph 43 of Ophoven - see her comments. There she says the torn frenulum may have occurred during resuscitation, likewise the discolouration (bruising?) at the back of the head. Crucially, she says here that it may not be possible anymore to distinguish between injuries present on arrival and those occurring during resuscitation. This poses a problem for whichever party bears the burden of proof. Since Ophoven is willing to countenance the possibility that the frenulum was injured during intubation then, absent weightier and/or more persuasive evidence to the contrary effect, I have to accept that this is what may have happened.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:54 am

MichaelB wrote:With the new experts on board there's no reason why a new jury wouldn't have reasonable doubt about the sexual abuse. I still think photos of other babies that weren't sexually abused but looked similar to how Chloe did will need to be shown (if that's allowed) just to hammer home the point because you can't underestimate how seriously people will take the word of the hospital staff saying they saw. They'll be asking themselves "how could they all be wrong..... why wouldn't I believe them since they were there" but if they not only hear from Jeffrey's experts and can see photos showing how easily they could have been mistaken since they weren't specialists in infant abuse then their testimony should be rejected.



I agree with you about the photographs, except there is no case at all for sexual abuse, because the testimony of the ER staff is out. It would have been out at the original trial but Jeff's lawyers were too incompetent to object to their testimony.

However, his lawyers are always receptive to suggestions, and who knows what Mississippi will try to do?

The law clerk keeps a file with the things we come up with, so I will send an email to them.

But I honestly think sexual assault is out. In fact, I think the whole case is out.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:40 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.


(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?



Her clothes were recovered without blood on them. The nurse who undressed her testified that her clothes were clean and no blood stained clothing was recovered at the home. Nor did the sheets have scary amounts of blood on them as you previously stated happens with frenulum tears.

Jeff washed nothing and that is fact, but you've been told that by Bruce multiple times.

First of all, I have stated nothing about frenulum tears except what came out in the evidence. Evidence which was not challenged and which Ophoven passes over without comment. I have said nothing about sheets at all.


Whether you like the fact that Dr, Ophoven states Jeff's trial was infected by the unqualified testimony of the ER Staff, you have said yourself he did not receive a fair trial. She is of the same opinion you are. Perhaps it is the death sentence and the obvious misconduct by the prosecution to which she objects.

It may be a small point but it is none of her business, speaking as a medical expert, to pronounce on the fairness of the trial as distinct from the accuracy or completeness of the evidence. I am better qualified to opine on such matters than she is and this part of her report is worthless.


Jeff admits he accidently dropped her and she hit her head on the toilet. That the expert opinion of Ophoven states Chloe was predisposed to brain bleeds and that there were no other injuries to support intentional abuse should resolve the intentional abuse allegation that you will not sway from.

If her opinion said the injuries could not have resulted from intentional abuse it might, but it doesn't.


I must have missed something. Where did anyone turn it around by saying the drop did not cause a contusion to the back of her head but the injuries to the front?

I think she says in her report that the injury to the back of the head may have occurred during resuscitation.


You accuse Jeff Havard of intentional abuse as if you know something about him that no one else is aware of. I'd like to know exactly what that is?

I claim no exclusive knowledge.
See your comment on this feed, Nov. 19, 2012 @ 3:48 am, where you give your "theory" with no evidence to support it one way or the other.

I am quite sure (by your own statements) that you have not delved into this case and base your speculation on the bits and pieces you have read, not all of the information available publicly and certainly not all of the information that certain supporters have available to them that has not been made available to the public at the request of Jeff's attorney's.

Correct. I have not read everything. I am here to learn.
I wish I believed that.

You also made a comment earlier that I was misleading. I was not. The directed verdict arose from testimony that it was possible that the frenulum tear could have been caused by things other than sexual abuse to the mouth. It was not allowed to be presented to the jury. Period.

I disagree. The directed verdict is specifically concerned with an allegation of oral sexual penetration.
Dr. Patterson was asked if the torn frenulum could have occurred by an accidental drop to which she replied, "Absolutely". Thus the directed verdict. How that makes my comment misleading, I have no clue.

The prosecution never raised any theory other than sexual assault accompanied by SBS.

I know.
Then you misunderstood Bruce's response, I think.

Your constant refusal to believe anything other than Jeff telling lie after lie and that for some reason, that day, he all of a sudden became so enraged with a baby that he killed her is the error here.

Quite possibly. I am willing to be shown wrong. Maybe you have some evidence you can refer to that says the injuries cannot have resulted from deliberate assault. It's not in Ophoven.
There was no camera in the bathroom, Clive. We now have an expert witness that quite clearly opines that Chloe was predisposed to bleeding on the brain for several reasons. Dr. Ophoven breaks down the reasons piece by piece. Maybe you have some evidence you can refer to that says the injuries can only have resulted from intentional assault. Your opinion of him being "low class"? Your opinion that Chloe being fussy was ruining his big plan for the evening to watch a movie and eat rotel dip? The fact that he lived in a trailer? I would give you my opinion of you pointing to those three things, but I was brought up to be more polite than that and, frankly, to be show more compassion to people less fortunate than I. He has no prior history of violence and his account is plausible. That's all I need to keep from throwing out unfounded accusations.

No one that is a supporter of Jeff has presented any falsehoods here.

Who says otherwise?

False dichotomy? Straw man theories? Why don't you just say outright that unless you have a videotape of the incident, your mind is made up? Numerous experts have given opinions favorable to Jeff. I never tried to divert the conversation from the issues at hand. I merely tried to explain, as a layperson, what I understood. I found that insulting and will leave others to respond to you in the future.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:43 pm

I obviously didn't post my comment correctly, Clive, so you will have to read through your post. I didn't address most of those issues intentionally, for the reasons stated at the end of that post.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:18 pm

Lori wrote:I obviously didn't post my comment correctly, Clive, so you will have to read through your post. I didn't address most of those issues intentionally, for the reasons stated at the end of that post.

As you wish. I disagree with you, that's all. I have no intention to be insulting and don't believe I have been. If you want to advocate for Jeff you need to handle disagreement better. A video tape would certainly help now you mention it. Without it, we have his word and the state's theory, neither of which should be viewed uncritically IMO.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:25 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Paragraph 43 of Ophoven - see her comments. There she says the torn frenulum may have occurred during resuscitation, likewise the discolouration (bruising?) at the back of the head. Crucially, she says here that it may not be possible anymore to distinguish between injuries present on arrival and those occurring during resuscitation. This poses a problem for whichever party bears the burden of proof. Since Ophoven is willing to countenance the possibility that the frenulum was injured during intubation then, absent weightier and/or more persuasive evidence to the contrary effect, I have to accept that this is what may have happened.


The burden of proof is on the prosecution Clive. If Jeff is granted a new trial, the new prosecution will have to prove that Jeff is guilty. What evidence do they have?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:05 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?


There is no blood clean up problem Clive. There was no clean up. The clothing did not show the evidence that you think must be there because you have concluded that the frenulum must have bled at home. The fact that there was no evidence of major bleeding shows to me that the injury occurred at the hospital during resuscitation. Once again, resuscitation is not a gentle process. It is not realistic to think that the ER staff would have been concerned with superficial injuries. The infant's clothing had no blood. That means Jeff did not clean up anything and did not lie about bleeding. There was no excessive bleeding at the trailer. You are attempting to create evidence against Jeff that doesn't exist. The frenulum may have had a minor injury from the fall that was further aggravated at the hospital.

Its not an oddity that one expert suggested an injury may have happened another way. Just because one expert suggests that the bruise on the head could have been caused at the hospital does not mean that it had to have happened that way. As an example, multiple experts gave differing accounts of how Meredith Kercher was killed. From the front, from behind, etc. None of it proved guilt, it simply showed that the murder could have occurred various ways, by one attacker. Its not odd that expert opinions vary from time to time.

I do not present a false dichotomy in my posts. I simply state that theories need to be supported by the evidence. Stating that it is possible that Jeff struck the child does not mean he did. You have been told by multiple experts that the infant's injuries are consistent with a short fall and that there was no sexual assault. Your response is, yeah but Jeff could have struck the child, so he should not be considered completely innocent. I'm sorry Clive, you need more than that to justify a conviction.

I could theorize that Rebecca struck the child while checking on her. There is no proof of that, just as there is no proof that Jeff struck the child. It's possible that Rebecca struck the child. She was in the room alone with the infant. Without proof, the claim has no credibility.

You wrote: "I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains."

You accept the fact that he prosecution's case is busted.

You have read multiple experts telling you that the infant's injuries are consistent with Jeff's claims.

There are currently no experts that support the prosecution's claims.

Your conclusion is: Well, it's still possible Jeff caused the injuries.

Please answer 2 questions.

1. Do you think Jeff deserves a new trial?

2. What evidence could the prosecution present at the new trial that would convince you to convict Jeff of murder?

Injustice Anywhere works on the premise of actual Innocence.

Injustice Anywhere considers actual innocence to mean that a defendant is innocent of the charges against them because they did not commit the crime they were charged with.

Did Jeff commit the crime of which he is accused? Did Jeff sexually assault and shake that infant to death? These are the charges that put him on death row. If you agree that Jeff did not commit the crime that he was accused of, then you should support IA's advocacy efforts to correct Jeff's wrongful conviction.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:22 pm

Clive,

Do you realize that I could take the same position you are taking here, in the Nyki Kish case? There are many possibilities in that case. But there is no proof to support those possibilities so they should not be used to convict. Nyki's case is one that will forever have unknowns. Unknowns should not be viewed as incriminating.

I could take your position here in many cases Clive. Guilt must be proven, it can never be accepted to force a defendant to prove innocence. There were no witnesses so it is impossible for Jeff to prove that he did not strike the infant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove that he did, and there is no proof to back up the accusations.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:27 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Paragraph 43 of Ophoven - see her comments. There she says the torn frenulum may have occurred during resuscitation, likewise the discolouration (bruising?) at the back of the head. Crucially, she says here that it may not be possible anymore to distinguish between injuries present on arrival and those occurring during resuscitation. This poses a problem for whichever party bears the burden of proof. Since Ophoven is willing to countenance the possibility that the frenulum was injured during intubation then, absent weightier and/or more persuasive evidence to the contrary effect, I have to accept that this is what may have happened.


The burden of proof is on the prosecution Clive. If Jeff is granted a new trial, the new prosecution will have to prove that Jeff is guilty. What evidence do they have?

Is it? At a new trial maybe. Right now, under your system, the burden is on him to show actual innocence. I say that conscious that it is probably a wild over-simplification of the impenetrably complicated appeals systems over there but it's approximately true.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:03 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?


There is no blood clean up problem Clive. There was no clean up. The clothing did not show the evidence that you think must be there because you have concluded that the frenulum must have bled at home. The fact that there was no evidence of major bleeding shows to me that the injury occurred at the hospital during resuscitation. Once again, resuscitation is not a gentle process. It is not realistic to think that the ER staff would have been concerned with superficial injuries. The infant's clothing had no blood. That means Jeff did not clean up anything and did not lie about bleeding. There was no excessive bleeding at the trailer. You are attempting to create evidence against Jeff that doesn't exist. The frenulum may have had a minor injury from the fall that was further aggravated at the hospital.

Well, I have already acknowledged that Ophoven considers it possible the frenulum tore at the hospital but I would still like to ask her about the bleeding that would produce and why no one mentions it since I find it a little mysterious that nobody refers to it. Part of the case against Jeff was that he caused that injury in the course of a sexual penetration. It was thus a live point at trial. I don't remember reading any medical witness being confronted with the suggestion that intubation may have caused the injury. I am not in a position to contradict you about the clothes, sheets etc. I am nevertheless not completely satisfied on this point (whether the frenulum tear was at home).

Its not an oddity that one expert suggested an injury may have happened another way. Just because one expert suggests that the bruise on the head could have been caused at the hospital does not mean that it had to have happened that way. As an example, multiple experts gave differing accounts of how Meredith Kercher was killed. From the front, from behind, etc. None of it proved guilt, it simply showed that the murder could have occurred various ways, by one attacker. Its not odd that expert opinions vary from time to time.

The oddity I was referring to was that hitherto I had assumed it as a given that Chloe's fatal injury came from a blow to the back of the head. On reading Ophoven it seems mystery surrounds the question. Just what part of her head/face came into contact with the tank?

I do not present a false dichotomy in my posts. I simply state that theories need to be supported by the evidence. Stating that it is possible that Jeff struck the child does not mean he did. You have been told by multiple experts that the infant's injuries are consistent with a short fall and that there was no sexual assault. Your response is, yeah but Jeff could have struck the child, so he should not be considered completely innocent. I'm sorry Clive, you need more than that to justify a conviction.

I do have more though. He lied about it. That's enough by itself to justify rejecting his account. It may not be enough to prove guilt BRD due to the way the investigation focused on sexual assault rather than on the nature of the injuries presented (which it may no longer be possible to identify per Ophoven).

I could theorize that Rebecca struck the child while checking on her. There is no proof of that, just as there is no proof that Jeff struck the child. It's possible that Rebecca struck the child. She was in the room alone with the infant. Without proof, the claim has no credibility.

You could not reasonably theorise any such thing. We know the injuries happened while the child was alone with Jeff.

You wrote: "I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains."

You accept the fact that he prosecution's case is busted.

You have read multiple experts telling you that the infant's injuries are consistent with Jeff's claims.

Please refer me to one expert who says this. Nobody knows which injuries he caused and which happened at the hospital.

There are currently no experts that support the prosecution's claims.

Your conclusion is: Well, it's still possible Jeff caused the injuries.

That's right. The expert evidence was that there was anal dilation resulting from sexual penetration and that accordingly it could be inferred (reasonably enough) that all her injuries resulted from violent assault. The focus was I'll-directed. There has been little focus on the head injuries in a non-sexual context.

Please answer 2 questions.

1. Do you think Jeff deserves a new trial?

2. What evidence could the prosecution present at the new trial that would convince you to convict Jeff of murder?

1 certainly
2 maybe impossible now due to the difficulty already mentioned. There is still a shot at manslaughter though.

Injustice Anywhere works on the premise of actual Innocence.

Injustice Anywhere considers actual innocence to mean that a defendant is innocent of the charges against them because they did not commit the crime they were charged with.

Did Jeff commit the crime of which he is accused? Did Jeff sexually assault and shake that infant to death? These are the charges that put him on death row. If you agree that Jeff did not commit the crime that he was accused of, then you should support IA's advocacy efforts to correct Jeff's wrongful conviction.

Murder includes lesser offences against the person, such as manslaughter, assault and battery etc. in my jurisdiction you can be indicted for murder and convicted of a lesser offence that is necessarily included in the definition of murder. The same obtains in some, probably most, US jurisdictions (Arizona for example - I looked into it in the Jodi Arias case). Manslaughter is a pretty serious crime of which he would be guilty even if he dropped her as he claims, if it could be proved that earlier medical intervention could have saved her. AFAIK no medical expert has addressed this question yet but it seems a reasonable possibility. Is this what you mean by actual innocence?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:09 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Bruce! Silly? Me? I am shocked! :shocked:

Actually, having read many experts' reports, I am pretty sure I have never seen one that ventured into such terrain. To me, it lessens the weight of the report by undermining the impression of objectivity these things should convey.

I reply to all your posts as follows: you (and Jeff's other supporters here) are guilty of two errors:

(1) you constantly present a false dichotomy: either things are exactly as the prosecution theorised or Jeff is entirely innocent. I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains.

(2) you don't read my posts properly, possibly due to the grip exerted by the first error. I have said what it would take for me to support a fresh prosecution should a re-trial be ordered, namely:
a) expert evidence that the known injuries were not consistent with the claimed fall and/or
b) expert evidence that early medical intervention might have saved her

On the blood clean up problem, I don't imagine a vast quantity of blood splashed all over the trailer. There can just be blood running down the child's face and clothes without getting anywhere else. If her clothes were recovered and had no blood on them (without being washed) then I will concede the point has less force. Were they?

What's your answer to the problem I posed? The evidence is that a torn frenulum bleeds a lot and she had one. Nobody present at resuscitation reports copious bleeding from the mouth. Don't you think they would have noticed? If it didn't happen there then it happened in the trailer and Jeff lied about it and cleaned it up. The only other possibility is that torn frenulums don't bleed much but that's not the evidence we have. Dr Overton passes over that part of the trial evidence without comment, suggesting she accepts it.

Another oddity is the suggestion that the bruise to the back of the head resulted from resuscitation. Hitherto I had understood the child struck the back of its head on the tank and the frontal injuries were from resuscitation but now it's the other way round. I am bothered by the fact there are injuries on the front and back of the head. Setting the false dichotomy aside, how do you explain them?


There is no blood clean up problem Clive. There was no clean up. The clothing did not show the evidence that you think must be there because you have concluded that the frenulum must have bled at home. The fact that there was no evidence of major bleeding shows to me that the injury occurred at the hospital during resuscitation. Once again, resuscitation is not a gentle process. It is not realistic to think that the ER staff would have been concerned with superficial injuries. The infant's clothing had no blood. That means Jeff did not clean up anything and did not lie about bleeding. There was no excessive bleeding at the trailer. You are attempting to create evidence against Jeff that doesn't exist. The frenulum may have had a minor injury from the fall that was further aggravated at the hospital.

Its not an oddity that one expert suggested an injury may have happened another way. Just because one expert suggests that the bruise on the head could have been caused at the hospital does not mean that it had to have happened that way. As an example, multiple experts gave differing accounts of how Meredith Kercher was killed. From the front, from behind, etc. None of it proved guilt, it simply showed that the murder could have occurred various ways, by one attacker. Its not odd that expert opinions vary from time to time.

I do not present a false dichotomy in my posts. I simply state that theories need to be supported by the evidence. Stating that it is possible that Jeff struck the child does not mean he did. You have been told by multiple experts that the infant's injuries are consistent with a short fall and that there was no sexual assault. Your response is, yeah but Jeff could have struck the child, so he should not be considered completely innocent. I'm sorry Clive, you need more than that to justify a conviction.

I could theorize that Rebecca struck the child while checking on her. There is no proof of that, just as there is no proof that Jeff struck the child. It's possible that Rebecca struck the child. She was in the room alone with the infant. Without proof, the claim has no credibility.

You wrote: "I accept the prosecution theory is busted but not that complete innocence (the supposed IA standard) follows. The possibility that Chloe received her injuries at Jeff's hands remains."

You accept the fact that he prosecution's case is busted.

You have read multiple experts telling you that the infant's injuries are consistent with Jeff's claims.

There are currently no experts that support the prosecution's claims.

Your conclusion is: Well, it's still possible Jeff caused the injuries.

Please answer 2 questions.

1. Do you think Jeff deserves a new trial?

2. What evidence could the prosecution present at the new trial that would convince you to convict Jeff of murder?

Injustice Anywhere works on the premise of actual Innocence.

Injustice Anywhere considers actual innocence to mean that a defendant is innocent of the charges against them because they did not commit the crime they were charged with.

Did Jeff commit the crime of which he is accused? Did Jeff sexually assault and shake that infant to death? These are the charges that put him on death row. If you agree that Jeff did not commit the crime that he was accused of, then you should support IA's advocacy efforts to correct Jeff's wrongful conviction.

I just tapped out a long reply to this and encountered a crash when I hit send. I will just give the short version:

1 yes
2 evidence that the injuries presented at the hospital were inconsistent with his account. Reading Ophoven it appears it may no longer be possible to distinguish those injuries from the further injuries received in resuscitation which may mean a murder conviction cannot be obtained.

Re: actual innocence - would you think him 'actually innocent' if he were guilty of manslaughter due to not seeking medical help that could have saved her?

ETA now I see the long reply made it too. Weird.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

Do you realize that I could take the same position you are taking here, in the Nyki Kish case? There are many possibilities in that case. But there is no proof to support those possibilities so they should not be used to convict. Nyki's case is one that will forever have unknowns. Unknowns should not be viewed as incriminating.

I could take your position here in many cases Clive. Guilt must be proven, it can never be accepted to force a defendant to prove innocence. There were no witnesses so it is impossible for Jeff to prove that he did not strike the infant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove that he did, and there is no proof to back up the accusations.

I'm going to sound like Mach discussing calunnia. He lied about what happened. To the mother and even at the hospital, where the medical staff thought initially there was a blockage in the airway and thus directed their attention to the wrong thing. He had no way of knowing his concealment of what happened likely made no difference at that point but he concealed it nonetheless. That suggests he may have had more to worry about than a fall. If the investigation had not been skewed by the false consensus of sexual assault the focus might have been on her head injuries to see whether they were consistent with his story.

Nyki Kish did not lie and the forensic evidence proves her innocence (no transfer). The two cases are different.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:16 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:I obviously didn't post my comment correctly, Clive, so you will have to read through your post. I didn't address most of those issues intentionally, for the reasons stated at the end of that post.

As you wish. I disagree with you, that's all. I have no intention to be insulting and don't believe I have been. If you want to advocate for Jeff you need to handle disagreement better. A video tape would certainly help now you mention it. Without it, we have his word and the state's theory, neither of which should be viewed uncritically IMO.


You absolutely were insulting with your "straw man" and false dichotomy" comments and you are being insulting still.

You speak to my advocacy? You tell me how I handle disagreement? I have no problem debating with someone who is reasonable, which, in this case, you are not. You don't know me or my background but you apparently think it is acceptable to criticize me as well, which is ridiculous. I work very hard to bring awareness to the injustice that has been done to Jeff as well as many others and your insults do not change that fact.

You do more than disagree with me, you arrive on this feed, as a member of the IA Advisory Board and CREATE negative scenarios about Jeff Havard, an IA featured case. You accuse him of things that you have absolutely no basis in fact for doing (which is exactly what the prosecution did with their misconduct in order to gain a death sentence for Jeff). You assert your opinion that he is telling lies about basically everything when you admittedly don't know the case and you are unnecessarily adversarial . You insult the man for his upbringing over which he had no control. He had no control over the fact that his mother did not protect him from a monster and you go so far as to use that against him by saying that the fact that he suffered abuse makes him more likely to abuse and murder a child.

Jeff Havard is a human being, not a statistic and there is no indication in his life history at all that he is capable of harming anyone, much less a child.

You have done everything you can to make advocacy efforts on this forum for Jeff more difficult than need be. You ignore every piece of evidence in his favor, set standards by which you will concede your opinion may be incorrect but when those standards are met, you choose to come up with additional requirements that would allow you to concede the very same point.

I have never been insulting or disrespectful to you and I expected the same courtesy. But I will say that you seem to have a truly appalling case of tunnel vision in regards to Jeff Havard and have evidently forgotten the presumption of innocence. And here, in this forum, where we are all supposed to have one goal, even if we disagree, I find this all very disturbing.

You made this a personal issue, Clive, not I.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:09 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:I obviously didn't post my comment correctly, Clive, so you will have to read through your post. I didn't address most of those issues intentionally, for the reasons stated at the end of that post.

As you wish. I disagree with you, that's all. I have no intention to be insulting and don't believe I have been. If you want to advocate for Jeff you need to handle disagreement better. A video tape would certainly help now you mention it. Without it, we have his word and the state's theory, neither of which should be viewed uncritically IMO.


You absolutely were insulting with your "straw man" and false dichotomy" comments and you are being insulting still.

You speak to my advocacy? You tell me how I handle disagreement? I have no problem debating with someone who is reasonable, which, in this case, you are not. You don't know me or my background but you apparently think it is acceptable to criticize me as well, which is ridiculous. I work very hard to bring awareness to the injustice that has been done to Jeff as well as many others and your insults do not change that fact.

You do more than disagree with me, you arrive on this feed, as a member of the IA Advisory Board and CREATE negative scenarios about Jeff Havard, an IA featured case. You accuse him of things that you have absolutely no basis in fact for doing (which is exactly what the prosecution did with their misconduct in order to gain a death sentence for Jeff). You assert your opinion that he is telling lies about basically everything when you admittedly don't know the case and you are unnecessarily adversarial . You insult the man for his upbringing over which he had no control. He had no control over the fact that his mother did not protect him from a monster and you go so far as to use that against him by saying that the fact that he suffered abuse makes him more likely to abuse and murder a child.

Jeff Havard is a human being, not a statistic and there is no indication in his life history at all that he is capable of harming anyone, much less a child.

You have done everything you can to make advocacy efforts on this forum for Jeff more difficult than need be. You ignore every piece of evidence in his favor, set standards by which you will concede your opinion may be incorrect but when those standards are met, you choose to come up with additional requirements that would allow you to concede the very same point.

I have never been insulting or disrespectful to you and I expected the same courtesy. But I will say that you seem to have a truly appalling case of tunnel vision in regards to Jeff Havard and have evidently forgotten the presumption of innocence. And here, in this forum, where we are all supposed to have one goal, even if we disagree, I find this all very disturbing.

You made this a personal issue, Clive, not I.

Lori

It is not insulting to suggest that someone has erected a straw man in argument. If you choose to be insulted, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. The false dichotomy thing likewise. The forum is for discussion and disagreement is permitted. It would not be worth posting here otherwise. I admit to profiling Jeff and to being influenced by a perception of certain circumstances which may not withstand scrutiny (like whether he was supposed to give her a bath). I also admit to not having read every scrap of paper too. On the other hand, I reject the charge of making advocacy efforts more difficult. How do you figure that? I support IA's efforts to get Jeff a re-trial. If and when he does I trust the discussion here will have thrown up some points of value. And 'unnecessarily adversarial'? I have merely expressed disagreement with the party line. You should check out some of the other threads if you want to see what uncivil disagreement looks like.

Clive
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:31 am

Clive wrote: "Manslaughter is a pretty serious crime of which he would be guilty even if he dropped her as he claims, if it could be proved that earlier medical intervention could have saved her. AFAIK no medical expert has addressed this question yet but it seems a reasonable possibility. Is this what you mean by actual innocence?"

Jeff is innocent of the crimes he is accused of. Jeff did not sexually assault the infant and he did not shake the infant to death. Therefore he has been wrongfully convicted. His case more than meets the standards that IA set out to achieve when we began. We are new evolving group and as we continue to develop we will certainly reevaluate what we do from time to time.

There seems to be a hang up on actual innocence when it comes to this case and I understand your position. I think the argument of whether the case meets the actual innocence requirement has confused the argument here a bit. You have been debating the case on multiple levels with regard to IA's involvement. They really should be two different conversations. We can debate the facts of this case in one debate, and we can debate whether this case meets the requirements of IA in another debate. Mixing the two confuses the argument here, and I think it has caused unnecessary tension.

As an example, I could be charged with manslaughter for killing a person with my car in an accident. The fact that is was an accident does not always prevent charges. If we ignore the new evidence (which we should not do) that suggests Chloe had a preexisting medical condition that could have been aggravated by the fall, I can see that Jeff could be charged with manslaughter because the death was caused while the infant was in his care. For me, I would disagree with that assessment but, due to the fact that Jeff's life is currently in jeopardy, I would accept it because Jeff would most likely be released on time served. The West Memphis Three accepted a deal because one of them was facing the death penalty. Once you are in that position, a lessor charge, even if it is not warranted, beats the alternative.

You agree that Jeff deserves a new trial. That's good enough for me. A new trial will not involve the death penalty. A new prosecutor will be faced with making a case based on the current evidence, and will never be able to build a death penalty case, and will have a difficult time (in my opinion) of building a manslaughter case as well. The evidence currently available supports an acquittal.

On another note, you are very critical of Jeff for what you call lies. Jeff did not openly lie to anyone. Jeff neglected to mention the fall. It was a horrible mistake but I feel that silence on a matter is not quite the same as lying. Its not a major point, just an opinion on how words are used to describe an action or non action. I think we are all in agreement that Jeff made a mistake by not telling the mother about the fall. I think it was very possible that Jeff thought Chloe's problems were the result of her illness and not the fall. Chloe was a sick baby. When Jeff heard that head trauma was involved he told the investigators what happened. Up until that point, I think it's quite possible that Jeff thought the problems were related to the illness. He was not a father, he had no real experience with infant health. He knew the infant was on medication and he knew she had been sick.

Same goes for the infant spitting up. Jeff was not used to seeing baby vomit. For those that are not parents, spit up is gross. If you are a parent and see that regularly, then wiping it up and moving on seems like a good option. If you are not accustomed to seeing baby vomit, then you may be more likely to do a more extensive clean up. Of course experienced parents know better, because spit up is a common occurrence and changing and bathing an infant every time it happened would become quite tedious. This would be viewed differently by a non experienced person that was trying to properly take care of his girlfriend's infant. Jeff's actions were not incriminating. He was doing what he thought was best for the infant. I have no doubt that he now wishes that he would have simply wiped up the spit up instead of taking the extra steps to clean up Chloe. If he had been more experienced with spit up, we would not be here talking about this case today.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:41 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

Do you realize that I could take the same position you are taking here, in the Nyki Kish case? There are many possibilities in that case. But there is no proof to support those possibilities so they should not be used to convict. Nyki's case is one that will forever have unknowns. Unknowns should not be viewed as incriminating.

I could take your position here in many cases Clive. Guilt must be proven, it can never be accepted to force a defendant to prove innocence. There were no witnesses so it is impossible for Jeff to prove that he did not strike the infant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove that he did, and there is no proof to back up the accusations.

I'm going to sound like Mach discussing calunnia. He lied about what happened. To the mother and even at the hospital, where the medical staff thought initially there was a blockage in the airway and thus directed their attention to the wrong thing. He had no way of knowing his concealment of what happened likely made no difference at that point but he concealed it nonetheless. That suggests he may have had more to worry about than a fall. If the investigation had not been skewed by the false consensus of sexual assault the focus might have been on her head injuries to see whether they were consistent with his story.

Nyki Kish did not lie and the forensic evidence proves her innocence (no transfer). The two cases are different.


I addressed the accusation of lying in the post above. Of course every case is different and I am not suggesting otherwise. But there are always unknowns in every case. It seems to me that you are applying different standards when reviewing the different cases.

As an example, you believe that Nyki could not have caused the fatal wound because there was no transfer. You and I agree completely on that. But then you look at the frenulum in Jeff's case and instead of looking at the lack of blood evidence to support the theory that the injury occurred at home, you suggest that Jeff may have cleaned up the blood. There is no evidence to support that. Why not look at the evidence available (as you did in Nyki's case) and draw your conclusions from that? Chloe's clothing had no blood to suggest the frenulum tear was caused at home and there is no evidence of a clean up. Why are you trying so hard to attribute that injury to Jeff when the evidence does not support it? You seem to be using different standards with regard to the cases. That's all I was suggesting.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:55 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

Do you realize that I could take the same position you are taking here, in the Nyki Kish case? There are many possibilities in that case. But there is no proof to support those possibilities so they should not be used to convict. Nyki's case is one that will forever have unknowns. Unknowns should not be viewed as incriminating.

I could take your position here in many cases Clive. Guilt must be proven, it can never be accepted to force a defendant to prove innocence. There were no witnesses so it is impossible for Jeff to prove that he did not strike the infant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove that he did, and there is no proof to back up the accusations.

I'm going to sound like Mach discussing calunnia. He lied about what happened. To the mother and even at the hospital, where the medical staff thought initially there was a blockage in the airway and thus directed their attention to the wrong thing. He had no way of knowing his concealment of what happened likely made no difference at that point but he concealed it nonetheless. That suggests he may have had more to worry about than a fall. If the investigation had not been skewed by the false consensus of sexual assault the focus might have been on her head injuries to see whether they were consistent with his story.

Nyki Kish did not lie and the forensic evidence proves her innocence (no transfer). The two cases are different.


I addressed the accusation of lying in the post above. Of course every case is different and I am not suggesting otherwise. But there are always unknowns in every case. It seems to me that you are applying different standards when reviewing the different cases.

As an example, you believe that Nyki could not have caused the fatal wound because there was no transfer. You and I agree completely on that. But then you look at the frenulum in Jeff's case and instead of looking at the lack of blood evidence to support the theory that the injury occurred at home, you suggest that Jeff may have cleaned up the blood. There is no evidence to support that. Why not look at the evidence available (as you did in Nyki's case) and draw your conclusions from that? Chloe's clothing had no blood to suggest the frenulum tear was caused at home and there is no evidence of a clean up. Why are you trying so hard to attribute that injury to Jeff when the evidence does not support it? You seem to be using different standards with regard to the cases. That's all I was suggesting.

Take another case: Casey Anthony. Like Jeff, nobody but her knows what really happened and a jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally harmed her child. I don't know what the evidence really was in her case but I guess it was mainly a bunch of circumstantial stuff about her behaviour afterwards, the state of the body etc. Suppose she had been convicted. Would IA have taken up her case using the equivalence between an absence of clear evidence of guilt and a positive case for innocence?

The thing is, whatever the experts in this case say, they can never rule out the possibility that his lies went further than his supporters wish to believe, just as there is no way of knowing what happened in the Casey Anthony case.
Clive Wismayer
 

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Havard Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest