Bobby Cutts Murder Trial: Day Four

As much fun as trial watching is, the live feed for this trial by Newsnet5.com has been a big disappointment. Recently, Newsnet5.com put up the following statement on their web site:

Newsnet5.com is the ONLY Web site where you can find a livestream of the court proceedings.
At times, the audio may cut in and out. The video may even appear a bit blurry. We apologize, but the process of livestreaming a court proceeding is embarking on new online territory.

We are first to do many things at NewsChannel5 and newsnet5.com, and we hope that livestreaming the Cutts' case will solidify your commitment to visiting NewsChannel5 and watching Newsnet5.com.

Are these people serious? "...new online territory....we are first...." WTF? Did they just learn how to use their new laptop computers? Do the words “Court TV” ring any bells (ding ding ding!) in the minds of upper management at Newsnet5.com?

I’m sorry to burst your bubble Newsnet5.com, but Court TV (now taken over by CNN.Crime) was the pioneer and industry standard for providing live streaming trial coverage on the Internet, and not you. Court TV did it better than anyone else and I’m sure Fred Graham is quite sad to see what has taken its' place. When Court TV covered a trial, the picture and audio were always clear and stable. No wonky camera operators there either, who went wild in the courtroom with the zoom lens and erratic camera action. I have to say, I really miss the camera operators that covered the Spector trial. They always had a clear shot and knew when to change the view. It’s quite possible people watching this trial are becoming ill from motion sickness.

Bobby Cutts Murder Trial Day 4 – 2/7/08
donchais morning coverage
Camera pans the courtroom…

Cutts is smiling and doing a lot of conferring with his lawyers.

Patty Porter has not been in the courtroom since she testified. As a witness in the trial, she's not allowed to watch other testimony. However, Audrey, was also a witness and has been allowed to watch further testimony. (We have mistaken one of the other daughters for Patty Porter when the camera has panned the gallery.) Attorneys have to agree who will or will not be allowed in – I guess that the attorneys think that they may need to recall Patty and they don't want her to hear any other testimony.

The jury is brought in.
The State calls Christopher Garnett, an FBI agent with the violent crime response team. The team processes the scene and collects evidence. He is the crime scene manager.

Even thought Stark County Sheriff’s office had already processed Jessie’s home, the FBI reprocessed the home.

Garnett said that his team searched Cutts’ Chevy Silverado truck at the Greentown Fire Department that day. The truck was pulled into the fire department and they closed the doors and covered the truck with a tarp. Garnett used Luminol to try to detect blood. He said it needed to be dark to use Luminol. The test was negative for blood. An alternative light source test also came up negative for blood.

They released the truck back to Cutts after a thorough search.

Garnett was called to a scene where a volunteer had found bones and blood in a shallow grave. It turned out to be a German Shepherd.

He then returned and they did a similar inspection of Kelly Cutts' car that they had done on Cutts' truck. The tests on Kelly's car also came up negative for blood.

Items were collected from Jessie’s house and were taken to the crime lab on the 20th. A large piece of carpet from Jessie’s bedroom was taken as well as a bed rail. Agent Garnett identifies the evidence.

He also searched Cutts’ home. They collected hats, clothing, shoes, cellphones. They used Luminol in his bedroom. They also took some of the carpet at his home.

He identifies the evidence he is shown.

June 23rd he received a call that something was eminent and to have the team on alert. He was told Cutts was going to take LE to Jessie’s body. A team of 18 investigators went to the park where Jessie was found.

The first step was to take photographs, around 100. They put a canopy over the body and sketched the area. The team spread out and searched the perimeter.

Lisa Kohler, the ME arrived. Jessie’s body had not been touched at this point. Jessie’s body was rolled onto a sheet and they placed her in a body bag.

Items with the body were also collected; the comforter and a sheet that Jessie was wrapped in.

The ground beneath Jessie’s body and immediate area was searched for additional evidence. They found small bones and fingernails.

Cross~

On the 18th Jessie’s home was processed by other agents. Garnett was called to examine Cutts’ truck. We go through the procedures again. So, no blood was found? No.

Then they searched Cutts’ home. A cadaver dog was used.

They also searched Kelly’s car. Nothing was found.

Dr. Kohler examined the body at the scene.

Could you determine how long the body had been there? No, that’s not my area of expertise.

No further questions. The jury has questions for Agent Garnett.

Did you find bloodstains from items taken from Jessie’s house? Presumptive tests showed possible blood, but that would have to be confirmed by the lab

Blood or DNA on the fingernails you found under the body? The Lab would have to do those tests.

Witness excused.

State calls Jay Spencer a criminalist with the crime lab. He processes crime scenes and has toxicology background.

He investigated Jessie’s home. He knew that Jessie was missing and that Blake was left alone in the house. The walked through the home where LE pointed out what they have found.

They photographed the scene then looked for fingerprints and any other evidence.

Exterior and interior photos of Jessie’s home are shown to the court.

Spencer identifies the items that were spilled out of Jessie’s purse.

They moved on to Jessie’s bedroom. The mattress was off the frame, the open bottle of bleach and the stain on the rug, the knocked over nightstand and lamp.

They examined the bleach stain and they cut the carpet out and it was still wet from the bleach. The sub-floor was also wet with bleach. They also searched for blood. No blood was found.

They examined Blake’s bedroom looking for evidence.

He identifies the bleach bottle and confirms it has a child-proof cap!

Spencer also examined Cutts’ truck to see if there was any evidence from the house.

Did you return to the scene on June 19th? Yes, we went back to collect DNA standards from Jessie’s home.

Spencer identifies part of the bed frame and carpeting that was removed.

Sidebar called by the defense. Judge Brown calls for a 20-minute break.

Cross~

You run the forensic tests at the lab? Correct.

You do DNA testing? No, DNA is a separate section of the crime lab.

You go to a crime scene and collect evidence? Yes.

A latent fingerprint is not visible by eye until you dust it.

No prints were found in Jessie’s home on the bleach bottle, Jessie’s wallet.

You said the carpet was still wet with bleach? Yes it was.

The carpet was tested by another criminalist at the scene.

No blood was detected in the carpet? No, there wasn’t.

Other sections of the carpet were cut out looking for DNA. Semen stains were found on the carpet.

The stain on the bed rail was laundry bleach.

On June 19th the second time you went to the house to collect evidence, did you go back any other time? I don’t recall that I went back again.

No further questions. The jury has a few questions.

Was it strange to find no prints on the doors and appliances in an occupied home? I’m not necessarily taking about there are not prints at all, there may have been smudges.

Was the seal on the water bottle broken? The one from Blake’s room, I believe that it was open.

Were Cutts’ uniform work gloves ever examined for blood or body fluids? No they were not.

Was there any bleach left in the bottle. No, there wasn’t.

Spencer excused.

State calls Michael Short, another criminalist at the crime lab. He specializes in firearms, fingerprints and crime scene investigations.

He examined the bleach bottle and tested it for fingerprints and sampled for DNA evidence. There was a faint smear on the bottle. The presumptive test was positive for blood, but that has to be further tested to determine if it is actually blood.

There were no latent impressions of value on the bottle. There wasn’t enough to make a comparison.

He did the same test on the water bottle. The top of the bottle was swabbed for DNA. No latent impressions as with the bleach bottle.

Cross~

You were called to investigate the scene and collect evidence. Yes I was.

The second time you went to collect DNA were there any detectives there? Yes there was one member of the sheriff’s department.

I collected the evidence and transported it to the lab.

Did you collect Cutts’ duty gloves? I don’t know for a fact.

Jay Spencer cataloged the items collected.

So you just did the testing? Yes, I did.

Were you told whose prints you would be comparing the latent print to? No one in particular at time, there were no listed suspects at that time.

No further questions. No jury questions.

Witness is excused, but he may be recalled.

State calls Jennifer Creed, she works at the crime lab. She is a serology and trace evidence expert. Does biological analysis of saliva, hair and fiber and DNA.

She tested clothing, carpeting, bed clothes for fiber evidence. She also tested the vacuum bags of trace evidence.

When she processed the carpet, no materials matched to blood.

She identifies the carpet removed from Jessie’s house. She examined the carpet by eye first looking for any stains. Then tested with chemicals.

None of the carpet and padding materials matched to blood.

She did find twelve semen stains on the carpet. She cut those stains out and sent them to a co-worker for further tests.

Did you test the comforter? Yes, there was a positive presumptive test done on one area that appeared to be blood. The decomposed bodily material made the comforter impossible to identify anything due to degradation.

Did you detect anything else besides bodily fluids on the comforter? There were bleach stains.

They show a picture of Jessie’s camisole top. On Jessie’s shirt, there was damage on the right side, but again, because of degradation she can’t tell how it was damaged. They also couldn’t find anything on the Capri pants Jessie was wearing.

Nothing further.

Cross~

You examined the carpet? Yes.

Particularly the bleached area? Yes.

A significant amount of bleach would essentially eliminate all traces of blood.

Were you able to identify any of the semen stains to a specific person? The semen stains were tested by another person.

You never found blood anywhere on the carpet? Correct.

How long would DNA remain? Under certain circumstances it could remain for many, many years.

No further questions by counsel. The jury has a question.

Judge Brown asked a jury question about bleach destroying blood stains. She said that it's common knowledge that bleach destroys blood. In fact, she said that it's safe to assume that law enforcement would know that.

Defense Attorney Mack returned to the stand to ask if Creed knew about specific training that police officers received as it relates to bleach masking blood. She said she did not.

The witness is excused.

This is the end of the morning coverage. During the lunch hour, donchais pointed out to me that on Newsnet5.com links, the courtroom camera caught an image of Cutts removing his glasses and wiping his eyes when the crime scene photos were being introduced into evidence and shown to the jury up on the screens. Scroll down the page on this link to where it has a link that says Crime Scene Photos. The image is the sixth one in the series.
Afternoon session.

All rise!

I can see where the camera operator is doing things to the computer screen where on the live streaming. WTF is this? He couldn't do this during the lunch hour, or get the settings right before court started for the day? This is terrible with the feed going out and seeing the commands covering the live feed. And, I can't believe the camera/computer operator can't get the picture to go full screen. This is just sad. You would think Newsnet5.com would have trained personnel handling this.

Mr. Short is back on the stand and still under oath.

Direct examination.
Other items you had tested for fingerprints, a hamburger bag.

Witness identifies the open clear plastic bag containing two moldy sandwich buns. That’s the items tested for fingerprints.

No fingerprints of value on the bag.

No further questions.

Defense Cross.

Are the buns more molded than when he first examined? Yes.

No further questions. Redirect? No.

Jury questions? None. Witness totally excused.

Next witness.

Camera crap going on again.

Next witness is criminalist Michelle Foster.

Foster is employed as a criminalist at Stark County lab for 20 years. She specializes in the area of biological evidence. She has a bachelors in forensic chemistry and has completed numerous courses and workshops. She’s taken courses covering the basic principles of DNA typing, PCR, profiling methods and various other courses. She’s required to continually update her training and continuing education. She also teaches local law enforcement in the collection of evidence. She’s considered an expert and has testified many times.

Prosecution is offering her as an expert. No objection.

DNA is very unique. There are various sources that DNA can be obtained from.

Q: Upon touching a object, can you obtain DNA?

A: We call that touch DNA. Handling an object, you might leave enough skin cells.

The camera feed stops for me here.

Q: Is it possible for one source of DNA to overwhelm a smaller sample of DNA?

A: That would be possible.

Q: In regards to DNA samples that you find on things that you test, is there any way to tell when the DNA was deposited?

A: No, we can’t really put a time on when DNA was left behind.

Q: How do you test to determine if there is DNA?

A: DNA itself is a very specialized process.

She describes the DNA extraction process and polymer chain reaction, PCR.

Several envelopes are offered for Ms. Foster to identify. She identifies DNA swab kits that were collected from Audrey Davis, Patricia Porter, Jane Davis and Blake Davis. She was able to obtain DNA profiles from all of these samples. She also testifies that she collected DNA samples from Bobby Cutts and Myisha Ferrell.

She identifies samples taken from Jessie's body to obtain DNA for Jessie and her unborn child. The samples were from a rib bone and a tooth. The camera shows Cutts and his attorney.

The bleach bottle is brought into the courtroom. She identifies now other various items. Swabbing collected from bleach bottle, and then my feed cuts out. Groan.

Foster compared the DNA to Jessie and others: Blake, Kaylin and Bobby Cutts, and all they could tell that it was a commingled DNA sample that traced back to Jessie Davis. And then I lose coverage again. Black screen.

There is a minor source of in this DNA, but Bobby Cutts is not the source of the minor DNA or the major DNA.

Swabs were taken from the underside of the bleach handle. We don’t know if the DNA came from the cap or the handle since a single swab was used to swab both areas.

From the mouth of the water bottle that was found on the west side of the bed, Jessie Davis is the source of the DNA from the mouth of the water bottle.

Some tests were done on the bed rail. FBI placed some markings on the bed rail and the criminalist placed some markings on the bed rail, too.

Dry plant material was collected off the bed rail and there were items/material that were collected from the bed rail.

The collection areas on the bed rail are numbered 1,2,3,4. Foster tested those areas for the possible blood. She did get a presumptive positive that there might be blood.

We did DNA typing on those areas. Positive presumptive means that there is a possible indication that there might be blood.

The tests for saliva or semen were negative. In this case, attempted on the dry clamp material, that came back negative, so then she proceeded with DNA.

Results of those collection area were the same DNA profile that the DNA from the bed rail was that of Jessie Davis.

The collection areas 2,3,4 a mattress would sit on those particular areas. There was some white residue on the wheel area and the outer side of the rail and the wheel assembly. The white material was scraped and turned over to another criminalist to see if it could be identified.

Foster received other items. State’s exhibit #23. She received a bed skirt with a red and gold striped pattern that matched the other linens on the bed. Foster found no trace evidence of any kind on the bed skirt. Back to the bed rail.

Any way to determine when that DNA was deposited there? No way.

Anyway to determine when that bleach was deposited? No.

A throw pillow was tested for trace evidence. Looking for blood, semen and saliva. There are a number of “numbers” on the pillow. There was no semen present and no blood present.

Got a presumptive test for saliva on one stain, and she did get a profile. The DNA from a male, Blake Davis is the source of the DNA from collection stain #10. The initial test was inconclusive so Foster went further and tested for DNA.

Carpet was received by the lab and tested. Performed DNA testing on semen stains collected from the carpet. Small excised pieces of carpet are presented. DNA on stain #1, was a DNA mixture and semen was from Bobby Cutts. Second source did not have enough DNA to make a comparison.

Stain #2, is also a mixture. Male DNA could be distinguished and Cutts was the major contributing source. Jessie Davis was a possible minor source. The odds were 1 in 76,570 individuals.

Stain #12 similar to stain #2. Foster could say Bobby Cutts was the source of the semen from stain #12, and the minor DNA profile Jessie Davis was a possible source.

Compared the minor DNA source to other Jessie Davis relatives and they were ruled out as possible sources.

In sample numbers 3 to 11, Foster obtained various amounts of DNA from these collections.

Kaylin Davis and Bobby Cutts Jr., neither were the source of the semen.

On stains #3-11, Michael McLoury, (sp?) appears to be the major DNA contributor. (This is the individual who rented the home before Jessie Davis.) On each stain we got a variety of results. McLoury is a possible source on 3 & #10 On stains #4-9 & #11, he is a solid source for those stains. There are no unknown stains.

Can you tell when they were deposited? No. No way of knowing where they were left.

Semen stains how long do they last? I’ve processed stains that were several years old, and as long as there is still material there you can collect it and process it.

More exhibits are presented.

Two Aquafina bottles. One is full and one is half empty. DNA testing was performed on those bottles. Swabbings were taken from the exterior and the mouth area of the open bottle.

DNA profile was obtained and Blake Davis is the source of the DNA of the open bottle. DNA was taken from the mouth area once the top is taken off.

Cookies collected had DNA on them traceable back to Blake Davis.

The comforter. Foster tested for DNA on pieces of the comforter. She only tested pieces labeled area #1 and area #2. Attempted to recover DNA from those samples. There was no DNA that was foreign to Jessie Davis.

There was decomposed material present on the comforter when she examined it. She would have been surprised to find other DNA on that comforter, since Jessie's decomposing body, her DNA could easily overwhelm a much smaller sample.

She examined the nail clippings retrieved from Jessie’s body. One fingernail was more intact and she described it as unremarkable. Attempted to get DNA from that one, and then performed a combined collection of the other remaining degraded fingernails. Nothing other than her own DNA was recovered from her fingernails.

Decomposition of the body would hinder her attempt to find other DNA on the fingernails.

DNA profile was obtained from the fetal bones. She established paternity on the fetus bones. Comparison on all of the profiles, Bobby Cutts could not be excluded as the father of the child. 13,160,000 times more likely to be the father of the fetus than a random selected male.

The crime lab property room is only accessible by crime lab personnel. It’s a locked key card access room. None of the items appear to have been tampered with.

She clarifies that Michael McLoury (sp?) was the tenant in the apartment before Jessie Davis.

Defense Cross.

Foster states she testified over one hundred times.

Defense asks her to clarify why she sometimes says semen, blood, or DNA. It’s because of the level of material that is collected.

The Defense now tries to confuse the witness or, she really doesn’t even know the questions that she’s asking. She’s trying to imply that the DNA found there was just left from touching.

DNA can be left behind for long periods of time no matter the source? Yes.

These questions are so lame. To me Carolyn Renke doesn’t appear to know squat about DNA. I'm wondering if she specializes in forensic testimony but it doesn't sound like it.

Jessie Davis was the primary source of the DNA on the bleach bottle, and that Bobby’s DNA was not detected on that bleach bottle.

Blake is a possible minor source of the bleach bottle.

Renke goes over the same exact thing the prosecution did on direct regarding the stain on the bleach bottle.

Could not determine if that stain was blood. Not enough material there.

This is the most lame cross I’ve ever seen.

Now crossing on the testing for sections of the carpet. She did not see the carpet with the tape lines on it. They were applied after she viewed it at the crime lab.

Verifies again that some of the semen stains were from Bobby Cutts, but wants the witness to explain on how she knows the DNA in the mixtures was Jessie’s DNA. Explains that the male DNA is separated from the other DNA. There’s enough male DNA there to determine the type of DNA.

All the DNA typing that they do is based on samples being excluded or included. If they could not exclude then they determine how common is that DNA, using percentages. If the numbers were not stated, it’s because they were beyond the standard of 280 billion. It’s the statistics of how common or rare the DNA samples are.

In my opinion, the defense attorney is trying to now put words in the witness’s mouth.

Now asking about the fingernail clippings. I’m totally unimpressed with this Defense atty. and her questions. In the case of the single fingernail, no DNA was found that was foreign to Jessie. The rest of the fingers just gave them a profile of a female DNA.

Did get a positive presumptive for blood under the unremarkable fingernail. Because there was a limited sample, she then went to DNA testing. She could not say specifically on the nine other fingernails.

Now going to cross her on the items that were taken from Mr. Cutts house.

Going to show an exhibit, but the prosecution objects. Sidebar.

I wonder if this objection will be sustained. I don’t know if she already testified to items that were taken from Cutts house yet or not. Don’t think so.

Objection is sustained.

Defense asks her questions again, and at the second question, there is another objection. It appears that the defense is trying to get a portion of their case presented in the prosecution’s case.

Did you test gloves that were found in Mr. Cutts home? No.

Cross is finished.

(Later in talking to donchais, she tells me that it appears no one ever collected Cutts's work issue gloves. I'm thinking this could work both ways. The prosecution could say, they never found them, and then again, Cutts could have had more than one pair.)

Redirect

Ms. Foster, when we use the term overwhelming, you don’t find any other DNA? Correct.

It could prevent us from finding any other source of DNA. With a mixture, we do find a mixture.

Just because there’s nothing found doesn’t mean there isn't’ any there? Or that what’s there is so small that we can not detect it.


Re-Cross

Another possibility is that there’s no DNA there? Yes.
The only DNA you found is what you reported? Yes.

No more questions by counsel. The jury has a question!

Ms. Foster, on the bleach bottle, you found DNA from Jessie. If someone was wearing gloves could you still pick up DNA from Jessie?

Basically, yes.

No more questions for this witness and she is excused.

3:30 pm, and I’ve got sound back in the courtroom.

Next witness:

Regina Wolf.
Ms. Wolf works for Allstate insurance company. 18.5 years. She's a supervisor.

At what office? Hudson Ohio.

Did you know Jessie Marie Davis? I was her supervisor.

Was there a unit she was in? I was the supervisor of the good student discount team. She was with my team from October of 2006.

Before she came to work for you, what type of employee was she?

Did she have any problems not showing up for work? No.

Regarding time off, or late arrivals: We’re supposed to call a time keeper, and let them know they were not coming in that day.

Do employees have to clock in? It’s done by the phone vial the timekeeper. They can go doctor appointments, and they can stay longer to make up the time.

Did you see Jessie's on Wednesday June 13th? Yes I did.

Was there anything different? No there wasn’t.

Did she talk about her son Blake or...you said that....disregard question.

You saw her on June thirteenth. Did you speak to her before either of you left?

She had a conversation with Jessie towards the end of the day.

Objection.

Based on your conversation, was there anything that led you to believe you would not see her at work the next day?

No, I did not.

Did you see her at work the next day? No i did not.

When she didn't come in the next day: I didn’t think much of her not being in at work. Couple mornings she had been in late and I forgot to check the timekeeper.

Did you do anything else in relation to Jessie that day?

When I arrived on the 15th, and asked if anyone had heard from Jessie, and no one had, I immediately called her emergency number. But who ever answered, it was a child. It wasn’t an adult who had answered. I then checked with the timekeeper. Later that day she was contacted by Jessie's sister.

She didn’t know if anyone from the Stark County sheriff's office contacted Allstate. Jessie's salary was approximately 25,000 annually.

No cross examination by the defense.

Opportunity to ask questions of this witness.

Jury has question!

What day and time was it that someone answered Jessie’s phone? 8:10 am Friday morning.

When you called her cell phone you got the answering machine correct? Yes.

Prior to making that call, you had called her cell phone. Yes.

Witness excused, and the next witness is called.

Kim Hopwood. Employed with Stark County Child Support Enforcement. She is an attorney that enforces all orders for child support.

Do you maintain records of support in this county? The original order was initiated in Summet County and was transferred to Stark Co. Blake Davis paternity was established in Summet County, and because Blake now resides in another county, that county now has jurisdiction in charge of records regarding Bobby Cutts (children).

The documents regarding support of children is 411.22 a month for Blake. Order paid to Jessie Davis.

How long in place? Established June 25th, 2005.

When was paternity established? April 2oth, 2005. It was requested 12/30/2004.

Why was there a 7 month delay from request to enforcement? Government backlog; way behind in their work load.

Request for modification, can be by any parent. There were multiple requests for modifications in regards to Blake.

The other children? Taylor 300 month ordered June 19th, 2006. Kelly Cutts vs Bobby regarding Brianna: support was for 496.12 per month on December 31st, 2007.

Does Ohio have guidelines for how these numbers are calculated? The numbers are reached like a tax return. There are various criteria. Largely dependent on the incomes of both parents. She calculates support orders all day long.

Are you aware that Jessie Davis was pregnant at the time of her death? Yes.

Any idea yet what the support would have been for her unborn child? 365.35 for child Chloe. That amount is based on Cutts and Davis's income levels. The more money the parents earned, the better the standard of living for the child.

If you were provided information that his gross income was 5,000 a month verses the $4800 a month would it increase the support for Chloe? It increased it to about 471.00 a month.
So there would have been about 100.00 difference in the amount he would have to pay. That would have been in addition to what he was already paying for Blake.

Cross.

$365. That’s not an order. That’s just an amount that you would have calculated if there was an order for Chole? Yes.

A new child would adjust the exiting orders? Yes.

A new child would not change the order for the children by other women. It’s all handled by the calculating tables. Child support doesn’t make any allowances for other debts, and child support services only takes into account the primary income.

Cutts is now saying something to his attorney. Ranke goes back to ask the witness another question.

Another thing that affects the order is the amount of parenting time? Correct.

Cross is complete.

ReDirect.

Daycare would dramatically affect the amount of the order? Yes.

Re Cross

I know we are talking about an order that has never been in place. If you don’t have daycare costs, you wouldn’t automatically increase the amount? Correct.

In regard to the idea of the orders in effect, orders are sometimes suspended, because of the amount of income the person has changes and the orders can be changed regarding any change in circumstance.

Re-re Direct.
With regards to Blake's’ order and his mother being dead. If Cutts was not arrested, he would have been the custodial parent and there would have been no need to pay? Correct.

No more questions, no jury questions and the witness is excused.

Counsel is asked to all approach for a side bar.

Court ends for the day!

Sprocket Commentary. I am continually amazed watching this trial at the lack of enthusiasm that’s being projected from the defense team. Ranke comes across as a slightly less annoying Linda Kenny Baden and Mack appears to be a twice baked potato. All mush on the inside. Is this how most trials go in little towns all across the US? Not once has the defense really gone after any prosecution witness. Their whole presentation is like a wilted flower dying at the defense table. Many witnesses haven’t even been crossed! WTF is up with that? Are they just going through the motions? Do they believe Cutts is guilty? Are they actually getting paid?

The prosecution team does come across as highly professional and actually prepared. They even dress nicer. (Note to Ranke: “Cut” the sports attire look. It doesn’t serve you or your client.) Listening to the DNA testimony by the criminalists, I was quite surprised how quickly it was presented to the jury. It didn’t take long at all. Maybe it’s because we do things differently out here in Cali, and the only trials I’ve really followed recently are Blake and Spector, where the defense takes almost as long in their cross examinations as the prosecution does in their direct. It seems every time the defense does cross examination, they simply have the witness repeat the prosecution’s case.

Why didn’t the defense at least try to go after the character of Cutts’s many paramours? Interesting how they were all slender white women with long hair, even Kelly Cutts Schaub. Now, if this was a high profile case, the defense would have thoroughly investigated each and every one of their backgrounds for whatever dirt they could dig up as ammunition. Surprisingly, that didn’t happen here. That’s probably because Cutts is close to bankruptcy at this point and there was no money for investigators or time. Cutts has numerous personal loans and his house just went through foreclosure. It’s doubtful Cutts has any money stashed in a savings account anywhere. Let’s pray that this case doesn’t get turned over on appeal for ineffective counsel. I’m wondering, if Cutts’s attorney’s are court appointed, can he later claim ineffective counsel? Anyone out there know the law in Ohio? Send T&T an e-mail if you know.

Newsnet5.com latest story

Newsnet5.com Blog, Day Four

CNN.Crime