Replies

The reason I say the autopsy results aren't relevant to Ortiz's case (Norton being the lawyer), is based on an assumption that Ortiz was more or less just a witness. He didn't fire a weapon, so there is no issue to be resolved by studying ballistic and autopsy evidence.

-- And getting a promise to be given the records isn't the same as giving them. --

Understood, but the state essentially promised the judge, for what that is worth.

Separately, have you ever encountered the writings at amyirenewhite.wordpress.com? Could be mostly noise, could be a pack of fabrications, or could be good (but not proved) evidence. Watch for the name "Jason Matthew Barnum."

51 posted on 07/17/2015 5:14:41 PM PDT by Cboldt

He didn't fire a weapon, so there is no issue to be resolved by studying ballistic and autopsy evidence.

Depending on the charges they cook up, that may or may not be relevant. If any Bandito fired a fatal shot, they may charge them all with murder. So he may need to be able to put up evidence that none of the shots came from a Bandito gun.

52 posted on 07/17/2015 5:44:34 PM PDT by PAR35

57 posted on 07/17/2015 6:12:17 PM PDT by Prolixus (Why does Waco make me think of Benghazi?)

Interesting heads up. Thanks.

63 posted on 07/17/2015 8:39:37 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media. #2ndAmendmentMatters)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794