Peter Tragos

And they're saying, see, look, this can happen.

The problem is the report on that person had broken bones, internal damage, exactly what you would expect for somebody that got hit by a car.

And the ME, who was not hired by either side,

could not determine that he died as a result of a car accident or that it was a homicide.

It was undetermined.

And she did not see evidence that this was a result of a car accident.

No experts did, really.

Yeah, and I think that really goes to the investigation and the way that this case was presented.

There was holes everywhere.

No matter where you want to look, if you want to compare the experts, if you want to compare the medicine, if you want to compare the car data, if you want to compare the credibility of witnesses, because that was a really big thing.

If you noticed, juror number one, the foreperson said, after the first witness, I was like, oh, wow.

And he still kept an open mind.

But so much of these trials is the jury looking at each individual witness and judging their credibility.

Are they telling the truth?

Are they being honest?

Do they have something to gain or lose by this testimony?

Does it make sense in the context of the rest of the testimony?

And I just think that their credibility was hurt throughout the trial by the cross-examination and the other evidence presented by the defense.

Yeah, I think they started with an EMS person who I actually like.

I thought he was a good witness.