The trial of nurse Raynella Dossett-Leath is addicting. Today the jury questioned one of the investigating officers and, again, they asked “what inquiring minds want to know” (as opposed to what the lawyers want them to know). A CNN Open Court commentator acknowledged what I suggested yesterday, namely, that jury questions give the lawyers “a clue” as to what they’re thinking.

One question had to do with whether the victim was right or left handed. The answer was that the officer “had heard” he was right handed (a rather vague response, IMHO). Then the CNN commentators opined that a right-handed man would not have shot himself over the left eye. Huh?

How many mysteries you’ve read hinge on which side of the body stab wounds appeared in and whether the assailant was attacking from the front or rear—thus proving to the Sherlocks that the killer was either right or left handed?

I’ve read so many that it seems like a cliché to me: if the wounds are on the left side of the body and the assailant was in front of the victim, then the assailant was probably right handed.

So, a man who holds a gun up in front of his face is going to angle the barrel toward the left side if he’s right handed. (Of course, the trajectory of the bullet has to match this theory, too.)

PS: I suspect that at least one juror has already condemned the defendant. Yesterday someone asked if the drugs (found in the tissue during the autopsy) could be put in food and not be tasted—in other words, could the defendant have spiked her husband’s scrambled eggs? Today someone asked if gunshot residue would be present on someone’s hands if they were wearing gloves—in other words, just because the defendant had no GSR on her doesn’t mean she’s necessarily innocent. Since most of the Open Court commentators already think she’s guilty and at least one juror seems to, too, I think the defense has an uphill battle. (And I can’t imagine that a jury in a rural community would not be aware this defendant is also under indictment for another crime.) The defense  lawyer is going to have to put on a stunning case and then a closing argument as eloquent as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. He’s going to have to show that the drugs came from somewhere other than the hospital where the defendant worked. He’s going to have to demonstrate that whatever the victim ate for breakfast could not mask the taste of the drugs. More difficult is the issue of “no gloves were found.” He’s been trying to convince the jury that the police investigation was sloppy and incomplete; how is he going to suggest that it was at least thorough enough to have found GSR-covered gloves if they existed?