Tony Anderson Interview - WMPD June 22, 2007

[rugs]

Part 1

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/LI-lXzoFpIk&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/LI-lXzoFpIk&rel=0</a>


Part 2

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/6IwiQUZlVFY&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/6IwiQUZlVFY&rel=0</a>

[musicloverhoney]

Does anyone know why files of this type will not work for me?  I am assuming they are a form of video, but I can't get anything one most of them.  Thanks.

[Skystone]

Does anyone know why files of this type will not work for me?  I am assuming they are a form of video, but I can't get anything one most of them.  Thanks.

It may be the browser your using. I say this because I know the new google chrome browser has issues with it. That sucks because I've been using it lately. Some really old versions of IE browser and Netscape has issues with video...

Could be settings (options/security) in the browser you are using blocking it somehow.

Ather thing is if it's not the browser and/or it's settings....it usually is that your flash player needs updating. It's a seperate plugin that is in all browsers. (and they each have to be kept updated in turn..i.e. updating your flash player in one doesn't fix it for any other browser)

70-80% of everything video on the net, youtube, google vids, etc, depend on your flash player being as up to date as possible.

So advice try a different browser and check for flash player updates...
---

Lastly,  it could be it is being blocked by some anti-spyware software you may have installed or

possibly even a firewall blocking it.

Hope this helps

[Tank]

MLHoney,
Try another browser, as Sky suggested. I have found Firefox to be much more user friendly with regards to video playback, it is way more secure than IE, and requires fewer updates. Find the free download at Mozilla.com.

A few things stick out to me from Mr. Anderson's testimony...
1) He seems to think something was tied up to the tree root. I don't recall this theory from anywhere else. Did he testify to that way back in the day? For a latent-print specialist to recall such a minute detail from all those years ago, and yet he can't remember what type of camera he used?????

2) He believes the amount of blood detected by the luminol indicates that something "bled out" there? Haven't we already figured out that the blood remains were nowhere near the amount that would have been present if the ditch bank was the scene of the crime?

3) Would this "list" of people he compared the print to not be part of the evidence files? I don't recall that list being discussed.......

4) Would the discovery of such a print at a "crime scene" not warrant an attempt to make a "cast" of it in some fashion, rather than depend on a photo of it?

I must be getting old...his testimony reeks of rehearsal/coaching/bias/______________(fill in the blank)

[musicloverhoney]

Thanks both of you.  I can view them on my laptop, so I'm going to try to check for updates on my desktop.  I'll see how fishy this all is now that I can sit and watch. 

[whitelilly]

Can someone please explain something for me?

This is the first I have heard of this guy...somebody said he didn't testify at the trials.

Why is that? Whose case would he have damaged if he did...the prosecution or the defence?

Thanks

[The Wolf]

Anderson was the WMPD fingerprint guy in 1993.  He took the prints at the crime scene, none of which belonged to the WM3.  The lack of print evidence tying any of the WM3 to the crime scene was known to both juries.

[whitelilly]

Thanks Wolf.

[Tags:]

WM3 Blackboard > WM3 > WMPD Files > Topic: Tony Anderson Interview - WMPD June 22, 2007