The Out-Lawyer's Blog

So far today (3PM) Nina’s prospective employer has confirmed what the jury had already heard, to wit: that just before her disappearance, she had landed a new job, one by all appearances she intended to start on September 21, paying $50K.  Her first pre-employment appointment was September 7, a date she missed. She made a point to accommodate her work schedule to the needs of her children.

This was not the picture of a mother about to abandon everything and skip out.

The jury also heard testimony about Nina’s credit cards and banking activity.  Nina owed money.  There was no activity of any kind (surprise) after her disappearance.

Comment:  The DA is now “gilding the Lilly”, having addressed these points earlier in the trial.  The purpose is to leave no room for a juror to believe that Nina skipped town, leaving hubby and kids and debts and new job behind.

If the earlier announced witness schedule is adhered to, the DA’s case will wrap up on Tuesday in just three more sessions.  To date, the forensic evidence has been enough to hold the jury’s attention and keep a strong suspicion alive.  But to make the sale – convincing this jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the DA will need more. 

If you are rooting for the prosecution, you’ll want to know the outcome of every DNA or chemical test. In a perfect world, the prosecution would call a forensic crime scene reconstruction expert to pull it all together and articulate one or more scenarios.  If it were my case, I’d attempt it; putting the puzzle together should not depend completely on final argument.

I’ve already identified the question of “corpse disposal” as the gaping hole in the DA’s case.  Any jury that becomes convinced that Hans wanted Nina out of the way, that he was capable to killing her, and clever enough to hide it, will make some allowances on the body question.  Therefore, once the jury develops a mental picture of Hans as a sort of evil genius, the gap could be closed partially by suggestion. But not entirely.  In this context, for example, if the white powder in the doorway of the Exeter house, in Hans’ CRX and in the cement bags under the house are identified as coming from a common source, that ‘coincidence” alone could help fill the gap.  If the white powder in the doorway or car is identified as lye?  Watch the jurors eyes; they will all look at the defendant and he will look away, suddenly uncomfortable.

I’m dying to know if Mr. Reiser still has the chutzpa to take the witness stand and attempt to answer all these questions.  The defense must be having second thoughts…

Stay tuned…