Tough, tough ending for the prosecution. The last things the jury heard were Dr. Russell unequivocally testify an opinion that the arm injuries were doing bites and inconsistent with an SUV-pedestrian strike, PO Barros unequivocally testify that the taillight “absolutely” did not match the way the MSP claim it was found, Loughran unequivocally testify there was no body on the lawn when he plowed after 12:30, Dr. Wolfe unequivocally testify that the SUV damage was not consistent with a pedestrian strike, Dr. Lopasata unequivocally testify and contradict every medical theory of the DA’s case (on pedestrian strike, no hypothermia, animal bites present, a ridge/pattern injury on head not consistent with striking lawn), and Dr. Rentschler unequivocally testify that kinetics and physics demonstrate his strong opinion that there was no SUV-pedestrian strike. None of these witnesses were impeached on anything meaningful other than Barros and the photograph, which was successfully rehabilitated. Reasonable doubt is everywhere, particularly where the DA case is tethered to experts saddled with academic dishonesty and competence issues.

That was a watershed moment of this trial. Dr. Lopasata's powerful testimony and her being unscathed on cross portends disaster for the prosecution. She was credible and the cross actually bolstered her testimony. That is now 3 forensic pathologists who have testified and all of them do not see injuries consistent with a car accident. None of them have excluded dog bites as the cause of arm injuries. 2 have concluded they are from a dog (1 was forced to say animal). The M.E. at autopsy could not provide a manner of death. 1 witness excluded hypothermia as a cure of death. It is confirmed that x rays how no tissue damage, bruises or broken arm bones. How does a prosecutor overcome the burden of proof and eliminate reasonable doubt given this evidence and 2 PHD engineers who also entirely contradict their theory of the case?