Saturday, October 17, 2009

Forensic Report From the Examining Physician

I share with you now a facsimile copy of the forensic report by the examining physician in the Kevin Driscoll case. This concerns the main line of evidence by which the prosecution argues for conviction, namely, the bruises on the body of the plaintiff, Melissa Leahy-Rossow. From the description given in this report, it seems evident that the bruises were approximately 2-3 days old (yellow discoloration and faint edges) and therefore could not have been inflicted by Kevin Driscoll at the time alleged.

The following PDF has a size of 1.2 megabytes:

www.4shared.com/file/141631789/7cac6b9c/forensic_report.html?

Please study this information carefully, and reflect upon it conscientiously. Seek the most plausible conclusion regarding the nature of the case and the truth or falsity of the charges against Mr. Driscoll.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have read the report and come to the conclusion that, unless this woman is a mutant, with the healing power of Wolverine, there is NO way that the bruises inflicted on her body, could be caused during the timeperiod she states in her testimony.
Which means, that there is quite possibly a rapist walking around out there, while Kevin Driscoll is held in custody...
Or she has taken a fall, in drunken stupor, and inflicted the bitemark by other means, to back up her story...
When forensics start using phrases like curious, something is wrong with the general picture...

6:40 AM  
Anonymous JD said...

All I can say is what the Hell??? Why would the District Attorney not question this women. (Videos, Reports and her lies) and this man is still on trial. This is what the world is coming to??

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's more to this than simply the likelihood of Kevin Driscoll's innocence. There's also the fact that no presumption of innocence is premature until a trial verdict is reached. Kevin Driscoll remains innocent until proven otherwise, and deserves to be treated as such.

Keeping a man under house arrest, announcing his name to the world so that he may be publicly reviled and lose his job, and taking actions that effectively strip him of his home and other assets is not how innocent men should be treated. These actions amount to a predetermination of guilt before trial and severe punishment by stealth.

The justifiable reasons for denying an innocent man his liberty prior to trial usually include an assessment that he poses a risk to the public, or that he is a material flight risk. That he is being kept under house arrest, rather than in prison, is an admission by the prosecutor that she thinks neither eventuality likely with Driscoll.

In their conduct, we expect public servants to be served by their consciences before they pursue unconscionable law with vigor. The Nuremberg trials established that 'following orders' is not a sufficient defense.

I expect the same principle can be applied to prosecutors who try to excuse their actions with 'it's my job to enforce the law as it is written'.

7:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yellow and brown bruises that are less than 12 hours old? That seems pretty far out there. I have never seen a new bruise that is Yellow or brown. This DA is a idiot.

11:38 AM  
Blogger Angela said...

You know what is funny, is the bruises and "bite" mark, is the evidence the DA is claiming to have against Kevin.

It is scary to me the games this DA's office is playing with a man's life.

9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home