Trial begins for Charlottesville murder suspect James Fields Jr.

[Bud Plug]

I remember you saying that Heather Heyer was not struck by that car. Even this alt right website are now seem to accept that the car was responsible for it, however, the only case that they claim that the defence are trying to portray is that it was "Not Intentional". Again you are very confused!!

As usual, you are incapable of correctly stating my position. That's what makes you the troll you are. What I have said is that I have seen no evidence that proves that Heyer was struck by the car. To the contrary, the multiple videos that are publicly available show that it was identifiable people other than Heyer who were struck by the car. Assuming that Heyer was not directly struck by the car, I've seen no evidence at all that even indirectly physically connects her injuries to the collision. Finally, given the crowd, and the panic of the crowd, there are, reasonably, alternative ways Heyer could have been injured in the context of the collision but not as a direct result of the collision. To make short work of your "point", you simply cannot produce evidence to the contrary. If you could, you would have. Your line of retreat is, perpetually, "but I bet the police/DA do!", which is pure speculation on your part (and displays a shocking neo-fascist deference to law enforcement!).

p.s. A smart defense counsel wouldn't question jury members about "causation issues". That argument is best sprung right after the prosecution closes its case. Don't assume you know the full defense that will be advanced. Defense counsel don't have to announce their strategy (and shouldn't).

 

[Bud Plug]

To Bud plugged, at first Oagre was a troll, as he did not agree with his constant defence of these right wing individuals.. When I started posting certain Threads about extreme right wing violence etc., he comes to the defence of these individuals. Then he is the one constantly alleging that I am now a troll, as I do not buy his Conspiracy Theories. But then he is the only one that seems to defend James Fields. Some of the other right wingers have even stated that Fields deserves the death penalty if found guilty. All of us agree, except Bud plugged. Really, Bud plugged is as confused as hell.

My comment to Oagre was based on his behaviour. He asked me to identify the evidence that might support the argument that Fields reacted out of fear, rather than a premeditated intent to kill. I provided that to him, but rather than dispute those facts (which would have been difficult), or point to other facts (which he didn't have), he instead posted a misstatement of my position (and of the facts). That is classic trolling technique.

 

[Frankfooter]

What I have said is that I have seen no evidence that proves that Heyer was struck by the car.

Which of course doesn't matter.
Heyer died as a result of Fields driving his car into the crowd, whether Heyer was hit by the car or killed by someone else hit by the car, it was Fields' actions that caused her death.

 

[bver_hunter]

As usual, you are incapable of correctly stating my position. That's what makes you the troll you are. What I have said is that I have seen no evidence that proves that Heyer was struck by the car. To the contrary, the multiple videos that are publicly available shows that it was identifiable people other than Heyer who were struck by the car. Assuming that Heyer was not directly struck by the car, I've seen no evidence at all that even indirectly physically connects her injuries to the collision. Finally, given the crowd, and the panic of the crowd, there are, reasonably, alternative ways Heyer could have been injured in the context of the collision but not as a direct result of the collision. To make short work of your "point", you simply cannot produce evidence to the contrary. If you could, you would have. You line of retreat is, perpetually, "but I bet the police/DA do!", which is pure speculation on your part.

p.s. A smart defense counsel wouldn't question jury members about "causation issues". That argument is best sprung right after the prosecution closes its case. Don't assume you know the full defense that will be advanced. Defense counsel don't have to announce their strategy (and shouldn't).

Typical King of Trolls who do not buy the reason as to why the Second Degree Murder Charges were upgraded to First Degree Murder after the initial evidence was viewed by the Judge. Especially, when the defence are not disputing the case of Heather Heyer's death as a result of the car being driven into the crowd by James Fields:

"Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense agree that James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters last year at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesvile, Virginia, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, 32."

"But in their opening statements in Fields' trial Thursday, they disagreed about why he did it.
"This case isn't about what he did," prosecuting attorney Nina-Alice Antony said in her opening statement. "It's about what his intent was when he did it."

"An attorney for Fields said he acted in self-defense.
"Ms. Antony is correct. This is not a whodunit case," said defense attorney John Hill in his own opening statement. "This is not about who drove that car."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/us/charlottesville-james-fields-trial-opening-statements/index.html

Yet you go on and on about how Heather Heyer was killed. Give it up King of Trollers. You never provide any evidence but just keep on speculating. Why did you not try and make a case about how Heather Heyer died, otherwise it may get lost in this case??

 

[Bud Plug]

Typical King of Trolls who do not buy the reason as to why the Second Degree Murder Charges were upgraded to First Degree Murder after the initial evidence was viewed by the Judge. Especially, when the defence are not disputing the case of Heather Heyer's death as a result of the car being driven into the crowd by James Fields:

"Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense agree that James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters last year at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesvile, Virginia, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, 32."

"But in their opening statements in Fields' trial Thursday, they disagreed about why he did it.
"This case isn't about what he did," prosecuting attorney Nina-Alice Antony said in her opening statement. "It's about what his intent was when he did it."

"An attorney for Fields said he acted in self-defense.
"Ms. Antony is correct. This is not a whodunit case," said defense attorney John Hill in his own opening statement. "This is not about who drove that car."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/us/charlottesville-james-fields-trial-opening-statements/index.html

Yet you go on and on about how Heather Heyer was killed. Give it up King of Trollers. You never provide any evidence but just keep on speculating. Why did you not try and make a case about how Heather Heyer died, otherwise it may get lost in this case??

Ok, this will be my last attempt to screw your head on straight for you (for a while):

1. The defense have not "announced" their strategy, nor does the accused have to file any pleadings in response to the indictment. In short, they are not obliged to disclose any of their defenses in advance of the trial (or even in the midst of the trial, apart from any specific pre-trial or in-trial motions they might bring).

2. Some people have "deduced" that the defense will advance a theory that Fields had no intent to kill, but rather reacted out of fear, resulting in the accident. They have deduced this from certain questions posed to certain prospective jurors. While I think this is a likely defense, based on publicly available information about the incident, the defense is not obliged to advance any defense discussed with potential jurors, nor are they prevented from advancing defenses that were never even hinted at in the questioning of jurors. If you have concluded that you now know, for certain, all of the defenses that may be advanced by the defense at the end of the trial, you are simply 100% wrong in reaching that conclusion.

3. As to opening statements, see 2 above. The crown has to prove its case, regardless of what is said in opening statements. However, I note that you've misapplied quotations to make it seem that counsel actually agreed in opening that there were no causation issues that would be raised. The first quote you recite in your post was not what was said at trial, rather it was the opinion of the CNN reporter. However, if you read the actual quotes that follow, all Fields counsel actually conceded was that Fields was driving the car - nothing else. Neither counsel directly addressed causation in their comments (as quoted). If defense counsel is actually pocketing potential causation arguments, the way he phrased his statement was actually pretty slick lawyering.

This post is not so much an argument with you (because you have no idea what you are talking about), but is a public service to you. Hopefully, some glimmer of understanding will be ignited in you.

 

[bver_hunter]

Ok, this will be my last attempt to screw your head on straight for you (for a while):

1. The defense have not "announced" their strategy, nor does the accused have to file any pleadings in response to the indictment. In short, they are not obliged to disclose any of their defenses in advance of the trial (or even in the midst of the trial, apart from any specific pre-trial or in-trial motions they might bring).

Again a load of garbled nonsense from you. If the Defence have already agreed in court that the car caused the death of Heather Heyer, it is not falsely portrayed by CNN as an opinion. But you are desperately picking at straws.

2. Some people have "deduced" that the defense will advance a theory that Fields had no intent to kill, but rather reacted out of fear, resulting in the accident. They have deduced this from certain questions posed to certain prospective jurors. While I think this is a likely defense, based on publicly available information about the incident, the defense is not obliged to advance any defense discussed with potential jurors, nor are they prevented from advancing defenses that were never even hinted at in the questioning of jurors. If you have concluded that you now know, for certain, all of the defenses that may be advanced by the defense at the end of the trial, you are simply 100% wrong in reaching that conclusion.

Yes, this is the most likely defence from Fields' Attorney. The case is not about "How" Heyer was killed, but "Why", and whether there was any intent. But take a look at this and judge whether Fields' motives were just trying to "escape" from the scene or was there some "premeditated" intent:

"Charlottesville suspect shared posts showing car driving into protesters before attack":

This is based on the Instagram Posts that Fields shared prior to ploughing his car into the pedestrians, that resulted in Heather Heyer's death:

Both memes show a car driving through a crowd of people described as protesters. The public post carried the caption, "You have the right to protest, but I'm late for work."
The one shared privately was accompanied by a message from Fields that said, "When I see protesters blocking."

The prosecution said in its opening statement Thursday it would present the posts from May 2017 as evidence during the trial. They were shared publicly in court documents Friday, but haven't been presented to the jury.

Defense attorneys for Fields tried to stop the Instagram posts from being admitted into evidence, arguing they could unfairly prejudice the jury against Fields. But prosecutors said the posts were relevant and indicative of Fields' "intent, motive and state of mind," before he drove his car into counterprotesters on August 12, 2017.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/us/charlottesville-james-fields-trial/index.html

The posts -- shared in court documents posted to the city's website Friday -- are similar to each other. One was sent in a private message on May 12 while the other was a public post shared four days later, according to court filings:

http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=63713

Yes, so you keep can keep on making excuses for James Fields' motives!!

3. As to opening statements, see 2 above. The crown has to prove its case, regardless of what is said in opening statements. However, I note that you've misapplied quotations to make it seem that counsel actually agreed in opening that there were no causation issues that would be raised. The first quote you recite in your post was not what was said at trial, rather it was the opinion of the CNN reporter. However, if you read the actual quotes that follow, all Fields counsel actually conceded was that Fields was driving the car - nothing else. Neither counsel directly addressed causation in their comments (as quoted). If defense counsel is actually pocketing potential causation arguments, the way he phrased his statement was actually pretty slick lawyering.

This post is not so much an argument with you (because you have no idea what you are talking about), but is a public service to you. Hopefully, some glimmer of understanding will be ignited in you.

You are saying that it was "Just an Opinion" by a CNN reporter. Just shows how you cannot comprehend what was mentioned in court as "OPENING STATEMENTS". Maybe this other reporter has an identical opinion:

Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense agree that James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters last year at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesvile, Virginia. Heather Heyer, 32, was killed in the incident.

But in their opening statements in Fields' trial Thursday, they disagreed about why he did it.

https://wtvr.com/2018/11/29/james-fields-opening-statements/

Hope your head has been "screwed" in and this WAS really your LAST ATTEMPT to make lame excuses for James Fields and what was part of the Opening Proceedings in Court. TRY AND COMPREHEND THAT!!

 

[mandrill]

It's difficult to see what Fields' defence really is.

If it's self defence, it's stupid. Self defence has to be reasonable. Driving into a crowd of unarmed people because you think maybe one of them has a gun isn't reasonable. Reversing your car (or getting out of it) and waiting until the guy with the gun goes away is reasonable. But we essentially know that there was never any gun. If there was, it would have been commented on by now. And Fields is a desperate, stupid little shitfucker killer. And this is probably the best he can think of.

He can argue that the State hasn't proved it was pre meditated. But all those nasty little Instagram posts will convict him AND get him the electric chair, which he very richly deserves.

In any event, the Instagram posts are icing on the State's cake. A person is presumed to intend the consequences of their actions and if you drive into a crowd of people who you hate, it's presumed to be premeditated and deliberate. So Fields has to take the stand and lie his filthy little rightie mouth off to try and get out of the First Degree rap. And that lets the State cross examine him about all his nasty little hate group connections. And that will get him the chair as well.

You could well say Fields is toast. But he is also "toasted"... or soon will be.

 

[bver_hunter]

It's difficult to see what Fields' defence really is.

If it's self defence, it's stupid. Self defence has to be reasonable. Driving into a crowd of unarmed people because you think maybe one of them has a gun isn't reasonable. Reversing your car (or getting out of it) and waiting until the guy with the gun goes away is reasonable. But we essentially know that there was never any gun. If there was, it would have been commented on by now. And Fields is a desperate, stupid little shitfucker killer. And this is probably the best he can think of.

He can argue that the State hasn't proved it was pre meditated. But all those nasty little Instagram posts will convict him AND get him the electric chair, which he very richly deserves.

In any event, the Instagram posts are icing on the State's cake. A person is presumed to intend the consequences of their actions and if you drive into a crowd of people who you hate, it's presumed to be premeditated and deliberate. So Fields has to take the stand and lie his filthy little rightie mouth off to try and get out of the First Degree rap. And that lets the State cross examine him about all his nasty little hate group connections. And that will get him the chair as well.

You could well say Fields is toast. But he is also "toasted"... or soon will be.

It was clear all along what Fields' real intentions were. There were alt right websites that doctored a number of the videos and posted them on the internet to make him look innocent. Obviously, the FBI got to the bottom of it and uncovered his real intentions. That is why the defence's only case was that he did it in self defence, is now going to be a steep uphill battle for them.

 

[Frankfooter]

It was clear all along what Fields' real intentions were. There were alt right websites that doctored a number of the videos and posted them on the internet to make him look innocent. Obviously, the FBI got to the bottom of it and uncovered his real intentions. That is why the defence's only case was that he did it in self defence, is now going to be a steep uphill battle for them.

It didn't take the FBI.
The guy is such a dickhead he posted his intent on Instagram for all the world to see.

 

[bver_hunter]

Heather Heyer's Injuries:

Fire captain Nick Barrell got the call for a “pedestrian struck” on 4th and Water Street. He said bystanders were performing CPR on Heyer. Barrell described her as a “salvageable patient” with good coloring.

As first responders continued to evaluate her injuries, her state quickly changed. Heyer had a large contusion across her chest and legs. An officer was trying to apply tourniquets to Heyer’s legs. Barrell said Heyer’s color began to fade and she was pulse-less.

Barrell classified Heyer’s injuries as a “multi-system trauma.” He said the chances of surviving that kind of trauma outside of a hospital are almost zero percent.

The local Assistant Chief Medical Examiner testified Monday and said Heather Heyer’s official cause of death was blunt force injury to her torso. Her thoracic aorta was snapped in half, which is the largest artery in the body.

Heyer also had a fracture in her distal right femur, rib fractures, bruises on both lungs and liver lacerations. Abrasions on her body ranged from ¼ inch to 6 inches, the examiner said.

Two more witnesses who were injured by the car also took the stand.

https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Examiner-blunt-force-trauma-caused-Heyers-death-501806761.html

Those making excuses that there as no evidence that the car was responsible for her death, hopefully will be brought to their senses!!

 

[mandrill]

Heather Heyer's Injuries:

Fire captain Nick Barrell got the call for a “pedestrian struck” on 4th and Water Street. He said bystanders were performing CPR on Heyer. Barrell described her as a “salvageable patient” with good coloring.

As first responders continued to evaluate her injuries, her state quickly changed. Heyer had a large contusion across her chest and legs. An officer was trying to apply tourniquets to Heyer’s legs. Barrell said Heyer’s color began to fade and she was pulse-less.

Barrell classified Heyer’s injuries as a “multi-system trauma.” He said the chances of surviving that kind of trauma outside of a hospital are almost zero percent.

The local Assistant Chief Medical Examiner testified Monday and said Heather Heyer’s official cause of death was blunt force injury to her torso. Her thoracic aorta was snapped in half, which is the largest artery in the body.

Heyer also had a fracture in her distal right femur, rib fractures, bruises on both lungs and liver lacerations. Abrasions on her body ranged from ¼ inch to 6 inches, the examiner said.

Two more witnesses who were injured by the car also took the stand.

https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Examiner-blunt-force-trauma-caused-Heyers-death-501806761.html

Those making excuses that there as no evidence that the car was responsible for her death, hopefully will be brought to their senses!!

Absolutely disgusting!!!

Where is Bud Plug to defend that piece of human garbage now?!

 

[Bud Plug]

Absolutely disgusting!!!

Where is Bud Plug to defend that piece of human garbage now?!

Anyone testify about exactly how she received these injuries yet? I haven't read about it.

The injuries appear to be primarily to her chest. How was she struck so high up on her body? The front of the vehicle would have contacted her no higher than her waist if she was standing at the time of impact, and lower still if she were standing on the sidewalk and the vehicle was on the road.

Also, the reporting in the linked article is confused. Was she a "salvageable patient"? What happened to change that assessment? Was the initial assessment just incorrect? How much weight should be given to the evidence of a witness who was that incorrect in assessing her injuries?

A contusion (bruise) to her chest is hardly surprising given the finding of blunt force trauma.

Will the DA be calling a witness to address this hole in the evidence? On the testimony reported, people who were directly struck by the vehicle seem to have received less serious injuries than Heyer. Given the laws of physics regarding the sequential reduction of force in the course of a chain reaction, how will this be explained? It is interesting that the reporting differentiated other witnesses as having been directly struck by the vehicle. Does that mean the DA accepts that Heyer was not directly struck by the vehicle (as I have been suggesting, all along, is born out by the videos)? It's also worth noting that one of the other witnesses specifically testified that she was "pushed out of the way of the car". Is that what happened to Heyer as well?

The factual issue here is not whether there was a car collision, or that Heyer suffered sufficient injuries to have died, it's the relationship of one to the other.

 

[oldjones]

…
The injuries appear to be primarily to her chest. How was she struck so high up on her body? The front of the vehicle would have contacted her no higher than her waist if she was standing at the time of impact, and lower still if she were standing on the sidewalk and the vehicle was on the road.
…

On that factual point, from the post just above:

As first responders continued to evaluate her injuries, her state quickly changed. Heyer had a large contusion across her chest and legs. An officer was trying to apply tourniquets to Heyer’s legs. Barrell said Heyer’s color began to fade and she was pulse-less.

When I did first aid, we were taught tourniquets were for serious bleeding endangering life. Sounds like her most obvious injuries matched your assumption about where they would be on her body. I believe it's common for people struck by a car's nose to be thrown onto the hood and windshield, which would account for the upper body injury to the heart vessels that caused her death.

 

[mandrill]

Anyone testify about exactly how she received these injuries yet? I haven't read about it.

The injuries appear to be primarily to her chest. How was she struck so high up on her body? The front of the vehicle would have contacted her no higher than her waist if she was standing at the time of impact, and lower still if she were standing on the sidewalk and the vehicle was on the road.

Also, the reporting in the linked article is confused. Was she a "salvageable patient"? What happened to change that assessment? Was the initial assessment just incorrect? How much weight should be given to the evidence of a witness who was that incorrect in assessing her injuries?

A contusion (bruise) to her chest is hardly surprising given the finding of blunt force trauma.

Will the DA be calling a witness to address this hole in the evidence? On the testimony reported, people who were directly struck by the vehicle seem to have received less serious injuries than Heyer. Given the laws of physics regarding the sequential reduction of force in the course of a chain reaction, how will this be explained? It is interesting that the reporting differentiated other witnesses as having been directly struck by the vehicle. Does that mean the DA accepts that Heyer was not directly struck by the vehicle (as I have been suggesting, all along, is born out by the videos)? It's also worth noting that one of the other witnesses specifically testified that she was "pushed out of the way of the car". Is that what happened to Heyer as well?

The factual issue here is not whether there was a car collision, or that Heyer suffered sufficient injuries to have died, it's the relationship of one to the other.

I just shake my head at you.

She's standing there in perfectly good health. Then she is struck by a car. She dies of the massive impact injuries. Bud Plug still argues that she didn't die from being struck by the car.

Bud, go get professional help. You've crossed the line from just creepy and nasty to being sad and ill.

If you were a real lawyer, instead of a pretend lawyer, you would be on your way to a discipline hearing right now.

 

[Bud Plug]

I just shake my head at you.

She's standing there in perfectly good health. Then she is struck by a car. She dies of the massive impact injuries. Bud Plug still argues that she didn't die from being struck by the car.

Bud, go get professional help. You've crossed the line from just creepy and nasty to being sad and ill.

If you were a real lawyer, instead of a pretend lawyer, you would be on your way to a discipline hearing right now.

Hey stupid, stop claiming that she was struck by a car if you can't produce a shred of evidence that she was. If there is any evidence of it, I haven't seen it and neither have you (in fact, you haven't even tried to find it). The reporting has been on the extent of her injuries, not the cause of them. Even the reporting from the trial (which admittedly can often be inaccurate), seems to be acknowledging a distinction between those who were directly struck by the vehicle and Heyer. It takes no imagination at all to come up with a plausible scenario how she could have been fatally injured in the chaos of the collision or its aftermath without ever having been struck by the car or impacted by people or objects that were struck by the car (e.g. the Who concert in Cincinatti, as just one example). Sheesh, you are pretty thick for a supposed lawyer!

Real lawyers don't form conclusions without evidence, which makes me wonder about you. Lawyers end up in disciplinary hearings for making claims that are not reasonably supported by evidence, not the other way around. Seems like you need an ethics refresher.

I'll be happy to drop the issue once the DA produces credible witnesses or credible evidence explaining the chain of causation between the collision and Heyer's death. If you were a competent lawyer, you'll know full well that this will be required in order to properly prove the murder charges. Stop trying to mislead those who don't know any better.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I just shake my head at you.

She's standing there in perfectly good health. Then she is struck by a car. She dies of the massive impact injuries. Bud Plug still argues that she didn't die from being struck by the car.

Bud, go get professional help. You've crossed the line from just creepy and nasty to being sad and ill.

If you were a real lawyer, instead of a pretend lawyer, you would be on your way to a discipline hearing right now

I dont particularly agree with Bud Plug on this topic, but as a general rule I'd say he's 100X smarter then you'll ever be

 

[Bud Plug]

On that factual point, from the post just above: When I did first aid, we were taught tourniquets were for serious bleeding endangering life. Sounds like her most obvious injuries matched your assumption about where they would be on her body. I believe it's common for people struck by a car's nose to be thrown onto the hood and windshield, which would account for the upper body injury to the heart vessels that caused her death.

I would not argue,as a matter of physics, that a person could be struck by the front of a car and thrown to the hood in the process (of course, I would expect some sort of head injury if this happened, at the very least). However, the videos show that she was not one of the people struck by the front of the car. My dissatisfaction with the reporting on this case is that the police have never explained how, without being directly struck by the vehicle, Heyer received her injuries. It appears that many people (like Oagre) are just prepared to assume that, given her proximity to the collision, her injuries directly resulted from the crash. That's not the way the law works, and assumption is certainly not the standard of proof in a murder trial. What's your view on whether someone should be put to death based on an assumption?

 

[oldjones]

I would not argue,as a matter of physics, that a person could be struck by the front of a car and thrown to the hood in the process (of course, I would expect some sort of head injury if this happened, at the very least). However, the videos show that she was not one of the people struck by the front of the car. My dissatisfaction with the reporting on this case is that the police have never explained how, without being directly struck by the vehicle, Heyer received her injuries. It appears that many people (like Oagre) are just prepared to assume that, given her proximity to the collision, her injuries directly resulted from the crash. That's not the way the law works, and assumption is certainly not the standard of proof in a murder trial. What's your view on whether someone should be put to death based on an assumption?

My view is that the trial will determine what happened, and whether the accused was responsible to that degree, not some uncertain videos.

My only interest was to offer evidence you saiod was lacking

 

[Bud Plug]

My view is that the trial will determine what happened, and whether the accused was responsible to that degree, not some uncertain videos.

My only interest was to offer evidence you saiod was lacking

I am quite happy to discuss this case objectively with anyone approaching the matter with an open mind. I have spent a lot of time (certainly more than would be justifiable!) looking at videos of the crash, the events leading up to it, the aftermath, interviews of people at the scene, and reviewing what documentary and forensic findings the police/DA have chosen to make public. The short summary of it (on this point) is that Heyer was not struck by the front of the vehicle. Objectively, the collision took place at less than 28 mph (it has been estimated at 25 mph). A number of others were struck by the car, however the videos show where the collision lands these people and none of them were buffeted/tossed into Heyer (who was on the sidewalk to the side of the collision. Many people perceived the imminent crash and attempted to run out of the way. Some people also pushed others to safety (as one of the witnesses testified). None of these others were fatally wounded. Some who were direcly involved in the collision were not even seriously injured. In the aftermath of the collision, there was a rush by a large number of protesters to attack the vehicle. They smashed in windows and lights and generally struck the vehicle before Fields reversed the car to leave the scene of the accident. Initially, first responders thought that Heyer was not critically injured. The intial responders were not doctors or nurses. I have never seen even one interview of someone who survived the collision and was in a position to observe Heyer when she was injured and could see what happened to her.

People die as a result of chaos in crowds. Depending on exactly how Heyer died, there is a question of remoteness of causation that must be considered when murder is the charge.

Of course, the trial will determine the outcome for practical purposes, but thinking people with a knowledge of the law shouldn't just defer to the notion that "police/DA wouldn't have laid and proceeded with the charges if they didn't have all the evidence they would need". The opposite occurs, with alarming frequency.

As I've said, I'll happily drop the question I've been asking for several months now if credible evidence to address the causation of her death is finally brought forward. Of course, if that happens I'll also wonder why it took them so long to do so, and probably conclude that they didn't think they needed to, as the media had already accepted the narrative without need of the proof.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bud is still here defending neo-Nazi terrorism.
Amazing.

Maybe this will shut him up, there is DNA evidence with Heyer's blood on Fields' windshield.

Kristin Van Itallie, with the Virginia Department of Forensic Science said she examined samples of blood collected from the scene of the crash and on Fields’ vehicle. She said two of those blood samples were identical to DNA collected from a swab of Heyer’s cheek.

In his own testimony last week, a Charlottesville police detective described collecting the blood evidence. He said a sample taken from the windshield of Fields’ car appeared to be Heyer’s, based on the DNA tests.

https://www.oneidadispatch.com/char...cle_4e3f321c-b5f1-59ae-9f9b-e3f97db68ebc.html