Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

New testimony in 'spray tan' murder case

Details

  • Description

    Legal panel weighs in on trial

  • Duration 4:45
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

That's happening.

Did not die a natural causes.

That there was no homicide that there was no murder she got an actual chords.

Probably recognize that -- right.

Right now there's -- testimony in the so called spray -- murder trial you were just hearing.

From Fox News contributor and famous forensic pathologist doctor Michael -- testifying today.

That Leah Kaufman was not a victim of murder her husband Adam -- on your screen now.

Is charged with strangling her her body was found on the floor of their bathroom back in 2007.

At first often said.

His wife died after suffering an allergic reaction to a spray -- that's how this case first came on our radar.

Then the defense claims she had a heart -- -- where we now as a defense takes up this case.

Let's bring out our -- -- beat Jenkins a former prosecutor and Dimon well and a criminal defense attorneys have faith you're listening to that as a prosecutor.

Doctor -- when this famous friends if the dogs out there.

What does that mean for the prosecution's case -- -- its heart.

The prosecutors in this case they know it's not about what they believe happening it's about what they can proof.

-- any time he.

Eight decided to -- but the prosecutor's theory and bring forth.

These expert who's offering significant testimony about the way they believe.

The victim in this case died at the jury is any kind of increasing credibility to that that's a real problem for the prosecution -- -- -- hair.

Yeah I think they're showing a plausible factual scenario they're showing that there admit is another theory to it that the prosecutions not showing and as long as -- jury could harness that and and digest that I think that might be enough for an acquittal.

And history -- your opinion as a defense attorney because the defense made that argument about the spray -- in public.

Before this case went to trial the jury to jury problem -- they -- -- present for that whether or not they heard about that is another story but.

We may give the defense making that argument -- back at the beginning of this case and now just completely abandoning -- I don't think the defense really did their homework on spray -- because those of us who have had sprayed ten know it's mostly shorter and it.

I didn't I didn't hear you may insist -- can't -- John and I never -- are you just plead the -- thank.

It's tonight I think a lot of good defense and I'm sure that's why they backed away from it but I'm sure they want to put something up there in the public to sort of backtrack on the possibility of homicide.

But again this is the battle of the experts who is -- and -- -- and if you believe one expert especially Michael Baden and obviously it's going to be helpful to the defense.

I also think the difference is now going with this -- because he had been victim's mother now test track.

About.

Certain physical ailments that her daughter was suffering from and I feel good now he's an expert is sort of backing that up -- -- and that testimony and it's all consisting.

And they're hoping that that will create a reasonable doubt in the jury see what motive.

Is -- that the prosecution has effectively argued for its -- picture what the motive potentially could be.

For this man to kill his wife.

No in and that's a problem you don't have to have noted in criminal cases but it's always good -- because jurors -- -- know what if this man who doesn't have a criminal record and who by all accounts is a law abiding citizen committed these horrible crime why.

The best the issue with -- -- really -- prosecution has to rest their case on their chief medical examiner.

And well and that medical examiner Jon took eighteen months he said he was extremely thorough before saying this is a homicide he did everything entertain every single possibility.

And he says in his professional opinion without a doubt after all that research this is a murder.

I think in eighteen months what did you think absolutely that's it is yet -- eighteen months of prudence that's -- that's a long -- -- is that it have you both seen cases like that -- medical examiner would take that long it would -- is the first time I've heard I I have done many homicide cases miles -- don't take eighteen months -- month or two but not eighteen -- look at go to other could have Michael Jackson case.

Ten to eighteen months to rule at home so they're actually -- I'll unexplainable Indies chasing what the defense is an expert I don't -- he is really able to address according to the chief medical examiner.

The the injuries have been able to -- on her neck where results -- apply significant pressure for -- least two -- to constant maintenance and so that really goes against what he's seeing the terms of how she got injuries back eating her but but also the are the experts and defense are showing that it's possible and she fell onto the magazine -- in the magazine -- cause those injuries to the -- so.

I think it's reasonable doubt -- we all have our expert opinions is not right after watching CSI online order -- the juries hanging on every little -- finds out there.

An eight heavy burden studio and trying to go back to LA any -- -- -- my -- -- -- -- -- -- next time -- they're attempting to have you with.

Load More