Witness Shocker

[MrsMush99]

This was on the front page of the NY Post today. Apparently another bouncer saw Imette leave with Littlejohn. Link to story: Link (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65549.htm)

[MrsMush99]

Apparently this witness is an ex-con also. Might explain why he didn't come forward right away. From the link above.

March 18, 2006 -- Unlicensed ex-con bouncer Tim Catella was working at The Falls bar the night Imette St. Guillen was raped and murdered - and he'll tell a grand jury she left with the prime suspect in the case, it was reported yesterday.

[Romigirl]

Wow, I just realized that the owners of The Falls, the Dorrian family, were the same owners of "Dorrian's Red Hand" bar, the location in which Jennifer Levin met up with Robert Chambers, the "Preppy Murderer", the night she was murdered, August 26, 1986.

[strach304]

Romigirl, we have that info in a bunch of posts here and ctv crime library also has the story about the preppy murder. The Dorians thought they had problems over the last one, in this case their lying prevented Imette from being found not to mention how bad it screwed up the investigation right from the get go, a tip had LE searching the bar's basement as the crime scene instead of a house in Queens, etc. I really hope Imette's mother sues them to hell and back once the criminal case is tied up.

[aussiegran]

Romigirl, we have that info in a bunch of posts here and ctv crime library also has the story about the preppy murder. The Dorians thought they had problems over the last one, in this case their lying prevented Imette from being found not to mention how bad it screwed up the investigation right from the get go, a tip had LE searching the bar's basement as the crime scene instead of a house in Queens, etc. I really hope Imette's mother sues them to hell and back once the criminal case is tied up.I hope they sue the pants off them too strach -it wont bring their daughter back but it might put these a**holes out of business and stop them from hiring the criminals and puting people at risk.

[txsvicki]

Is this the same bouncer who left in the cab and originally said that Imette was still standing on the street and littlejohn was sitting there in has van talking to her? What a bunch of liars. Where the heck is the cab driver. I noticed in the article it says that he saw littlejohn "walk out" with Imette. Nothing more is said. That doesn't mean that they left the bar together in the van.

[marly56]

Is this the same bouncer who left in the cab and originally said that Imette was still standing on the street and littlejohn was sitting there in has van talking to her? What a bunch of liars. Where the heck is the cab driver. I noticed in the article it says that he saw littlejohn "walk out" with Imette. Nothing more is said. That doesn't mean that they left the bar together in the van.
honestly! with all these conflicting accounts ,how will this ever go to trial, or how will the grand jury handle a case like this? by hearing so many ''stories'', i wonder if this could ''throw'' the case in some way! could these unreliable witnesses create a possibility for littlejohn to make a plea deal? are they ''not'' telling the truth because of some weird kind of coverup? was this other bouncer involved with the murder? did dorian,s lawyers get hold of these guys and coach them how ''not'' to tell the truth,so as to create so much confusion that there would be a mistrial? or a plea deal? ...they had plenty of time to get the story straight,even the wrong story. i thought early on that it did not make sense that dorian did not come forward right away. if the dorians REALLY wanted to clear themselves and their business, quite naturally they would point out that littlejohn was the last one to be seen with imette. this would have enabled them to be done with it! the only thing they would have been faced with would have been having poor judgement in hiring ..even if they were charged and held responsible for ''not protecting or securing'' their patrons, this would be a much lessor crime than covering-up for a guy that is the main suspect[s] in a sadistic bloody murder. the following night when imette was found ,the ''other bouncer'' AND the dorians knew...we all knew who the victim was and also the sheer horror in the way she died. the story was all over the news!..even the homeless people knew..there must be something far worst that is hidden about THE FALLS.

[fran]

I honestly think the Dorians et al didn't say anything at first because of what happened with the 'Preppy Murder Case.' That's probably why he contacted an attorney first before coming forth with the truth. He knew from experience what he was into.

I'm not excusing what they did, JMHO of why.

That being said, I can't believe they would withhold such vital information. Like some say, they may have been able to save her life had they come forward with what they knew at the beginning. Unbelieveable, IMHO.

I too hope Imette's family sues the pants off these people and puts them completely out of business. They don't deserve to own a business where other people's lives are at stake. From what I've seen though, I don't think it'll take a lawsuit to put the Falls out of business. It looks like lack of business will do it for them.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't put as much stock in the 'eye witnesses' as I would the forensic evidence. I mean, think about it, especially to a jury, there is no reason, none, nada, of why his blood is on the tie that bound Imette, other than the fact he is the perp.

I went to the trial of a famous case here in California just last spring. Believe me, the DNA evidence can be so compelling, it leaves no doubt he's the perp. In this case, it will probably be the 'hook' for these jurors.

JMHO
fran

PS.....Sorry, do you all remember the 'hook?' It was brought up during the SP trial.........It's the one thing that 'hooks' each jurors mind in deciding the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. IMHO, in this case, it's probably going to be the DNA.........fran

[marly56]

I honestly think the Dorians et al didn't say anything at first because of what happened with the 'Preppy Murder Case.' That's probably why he contacted an attorney first before coming forth with the truth. He knew from experience what he was into.

I'm not excusing what they did, JMHO of why.

That being said, I can't believe they would withhold such vital information. Like some say, they may have been able to save her life had they come forward with what they knew at the beginning. Unbelieveable, IMHO.

I too hope Imette's family sues the pants off these people and puts them completely out of business. They don't deserve to own a business where other people's lives are at stake. From what I've seen though, I don't think it'll take a lawsuit to put the Falls out of business. It looks like lack of business will do it for them.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't put as much stock in the 'eye witnesses' as I would the forensic evidence. I mean, think about it, especially to a jury, there is no reason, none, nada, of why his blood is on the tie that bound Imette, other than the fact he is the perp.

I went to the trial of a famous case here in California just last spring. Believe me, the DNA evidence can be so compelling, it leaves no doubt he's the perp. In this case, it will probably be the 'hook' for these jurors.

JMHO
fran

PS.....Sorry, do you all remember the 'hook?' It was brought up during the SP trial.........It's the one thing that 'hooks' each jurors mind in deciding the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. IMHO, in this case, it's probably going to be the DNA.........fran hi fran, my doubts about a jury deliberation are as follows: littlejohn,s lawyer seems to really believe that littlejohn is not guilty of this crime ..his lawyer is even going so far as to insinuate that his client is being framed , by questioning the evidence and why it took so long for forensics to determine it was littlejohn,s dna. his lawyer is saying ''why did it take over a week ,when it usually only takes 72 hours to decipher dna ''? his lawyer also has stated that he suspects because this is such a high profile case that LE had made a rush to judgement ..this is how his lawyer will aproach the grand jury. his lawyer has also stated that he believes the reason there was such a time lapse in the dna discovery was because LE came up with little solid evidence [the carpet fibers] and all the conflicting witness accounts, so his arguements will be that there is NOT a case. i too want to know why it took so long for the dna , also i would like to know why the carpet fibers found are not strong evidence, and mostly ..i am curious HOW a witness could possibly see jewelry from such a distance when it was so cold that night and imette was wearing a hoodie and a jacket.

[fran]

marley:
This lawyer is not using anything different in his client's defense than what is used every day in courtrooms across this land.

Rush to judgement.
Planted evidence.
Why did it take so long for the dna?
Why was the dna id'd so quickly?
My client is being set-up by LE.
Put down the witnesses as unreliable
Blame the victim

These are standard operation procedure during trial. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. Attack the law, attack the evidence, attack the witness. These are three things they teach those studying to be a lawyer.

They tried to use this same cra# during the Avila case (Samantha Runnion, rape/murder). But it didn't work.

The prosecutor knows how to present the dna evidence so that there's no doubt in the jury's mind that it is authentic, it is the suspects, and he did the crime.

Just as the SP investigators had over 40 reasons that pointed to SP as the perp, IMO, all of the 'circumstantial' evidence in this case adds up. When the 'circumstances' reach a certain point, it's not 'coincidental' anymore, but murder. You add a little DNA to the mix, it again says,'murder.'

Littlejohn is just upset because he thought he'd been careful and not left any evidence behind. But he was wrong and it's going to cost him big. IMHO

I honestly don't know what all they have on this guy and neither does anyone else, including his attorney. The prosecutor isn't obligated to turn over all the evidence until 30 days before trial (at least in California). All this guy knows so far is what they have in order to indict. Believe me when I say the pros will hold a lot of evidence back and only give it to the defense when he has to under the law. Don't show your hand!

IF the pros in this case brings it to the GJ, I'm confidant that he feels he has enough to convict. IF not, he wouldn't have gone for an indictment. That was the problem during the OJ trial. LA, LE, charged OJ before they'd gathered all the evidence. Cochran knew that, which is why he went for the speedy trial route. That's one of the reasons there were so many mistakes during OJ's trial, they didn't have their ducks-in-a-row and mistakes were made with their haste. There are other reasons that case was lost, but I won't get into that here.

I believe LE knew they had their man by the circumstances that had presented itself and it wasn't until they had the DNA evidence that they knew they had enough to convict. We'll see....

JMHO
fran

[marly56]

marley:
This lawyer is not using anything different in his client's defense than what is used every day in courtrooms across this land.

Rush to judgement.
Planted evidence.
Why did it take so long for the dna?
Why was the dna id'd so quickly?
My client is being set-up by LE.
Put down the witnesses as unreliable
Blame the victim

These are standard operation procedure during trial. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. Attack the law, attack the evidence, attack the witness. These are three things they teach those studying to be a lawyer.

They tried to use this same cra# during the Avila case (Samantha Runnion, rape/murder). But it didn't work.

The prosecutor knows how to present the dna evidence so that there's no doubt in the jury's mind that it is authentic, it is the suspects, and he did the crime.

Just as the SP investigators had over 40 reasons that pointed to SP as the perp, IMO, all of the 'circumstantial' evidence in this case adds up. When the 'circumstances' reach a certain point, it's not 'coincidental' anymore, but murder. You add a little DNA to the mix, it again says,'murder.'

Littlejohn is just upset because he thought he'd been careful and not left any evidence behind. But he was wrong and it's going to cost him big. IMHO

I honestly don't know what all they have on this guy and neither does anyone else, including his attorney. The prosecutor isn't obligated to turn over all the evidence until 30 days before trial (at least in California). All this guy knows so far is what they have in order to indict. Believe me when I say the pros will hold a lot of evidence back and only give it to the defense when he has to under the law. Don't show your hand!

IF the pros in this case brings it to the GJ, I'm confidant that he feels he has enough to convict. IF not, he wouldn't have gone for an indictment. That was the problem during the OJ trial. LA, LE, charged OJ before they'd gathered all the evidence. Cochran knew that, which is why he went for the speedy trial route. That's one of the reasons there were so many mistakes during OJ's trial, they didn't have their ducks-in-a-row and mistakes were made with their haste. There are other reasons that case was lost, but I won't get into that here.

I believe LE knew they had their man by the circumstances that had presented itself and it wasn't until they had the DNA evidence that they knew they had enough to convict. We'll see....

JMHO
fran
thank-you for your post Fran!

[fran]

YW, marly. :D

FWIW, this lawyer doesn't necessarily think this guy is innocent. It's don't ask, don't tell type of thing. It's this lawyers job to represent the def to the best of his ability as if he were innocent. He doesn't want to hear if he's guilty, because that would interfer with his representing him. For instance, if he knew he was guilty (because the def confessed to him) then the lawyer couldn't put him on the stand knowing he's going to commit purjury.

Do you honestly think MG thinks SP is innocent? I don't, IMHO. But he was paid to defend him and that's what he did. Fortunately, he lost.IMHO


About the delay in the DNA evidence (72 hrs vs 1 week), during Avila's trial one piece of DNA evidence wasn't found for several months and two other technicians had actually gone over the perp's car and had missed it. Of course the defense tried to say it was planted. But the pros explained the delay and how it was finally found and detected. It was from a tear-drop from the victim and it was found on the counsel of the car. (it might have been in a crack or something). What backed up the finding of the victim's DNA, was a finger print found on the 'inside' portion of the handle of the car. There's more, but in the end, that piece of DNA was just part of the big picture.

In this case, the DNA evidence is just a part of the puzzle. Powerful though. But it will be used to back-up other circumstantial evidence that will back up still other circumstantial evidence that will all be used to convict.


JMHO
fran

[panthera]

When Darryl Littlejohn's attorney was being interviewed on several cable news programs last week, he was asked if his client was innocent. He never replied as such, but rephrased to state that his client told him he was or more directly, to Rita Cosby(3/14/06), he said "I am going to represent my client to the best of my ability, and hold the DA to their burden of proof."