Is it about the truth or is it about securing a conviction?

(Wiki commons)


Dr. Frasch mentioned there being two empty champagne bottles on the kitchen counter when he had left that final morning. 


In a lengthy interview with police on the day of his wife's death, he recalled that she had been drinking the day before and had opened a second bottle of champagne when they had gotten home that night and had continued to drink right up until about 4 AM. Seemingly misunderstanding him, investigators asked him if she had consumed two bottles of champagne between midnight and 4 AM. 


"Right," Dr. Frasch said, affirming that it had been two bottles.


The time frame had been slipped under the radar (it had been a long and exhausting day for Dr. Frasch) and now it seemed as if he had said his wife had consumed two bottles of champagne in that short time. The toxicology report came back saying she had no alcohol in her system and at the trial, the prosecutor put the question to the medical examiner, if Samira had consumed two bottles of champagne in those early morning hours, would there still have been alcohol in her system when her body was found at 11 AM? 


Well, yes, under those conditions, there would have been. 


Little details like this are a concerning indicator that the objective of a court case isn't about figuring out what really happened, it's about putting someone away for it. The Frasch family had both alcoholic and non-alcoholic champagne in their home due to Samira's recent pregnancy. There were many reasons why the toxicology report might have come back saying Samira didn't have alcohol in her system but since none of them strengthened her case, the prosecutor didn't pursue them.


Travesty of Justice: The Dr. Adam Frasch Case goes into this in greater detail.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What's going on now? The fight for Hyrah and Skynnah

Scapegoat

Trial