1123 users online (226 members and 897 guests)  

Websleuths News

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    CM w?
    Eric Edwards - OCSO - July 2008 in Ocso homicide corporal - are you one of the lead detectives in this case State vs KC...I assisted in it yes a great deal
    CM-Do you know a Linda Tinellie? (sic)
    EE- yes I do
    LDB-0bject - approach! 3:33 EST Sidebar

    Proud member of the AFKBPOFPOPL

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Orange County

    Corporal Eric Edwards testimony (OCSO Homicide)



    He is employed by OCSO. In 7/08 he was in the homicide unit as a corporal. He is one of the lead detectives in this case - he assisted a great deal.

    He knows Linda Tinnelli. Who is she?

    OBJECTION - relevance -

    SIDEBAR #12 (3:32-3:39)

    Jury sent out at 3:39

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    EE testimony (missed a few minutes)....wanted to capture their conversations with Ms. Tinnelli - did she decline to do that? don't recall - she was somewhat ...she didn't say no but was willing to entertain other ideas but not her favorite - wanted to talk to her husband before she ....

    did you meet with her a 3rd time - wear a concealed wire on her person - talk to her @ Lowes about this...possible but window of opportunity never presented itself...

    any questions on the profer Ms. LDB? I do not.

    Jb & CM whisper to each other

    CM are you aware of any voice mail messages left on Ms Tinelli phone? Mrs. Anthony did I believe but I don't think it was GA...I don't have a transcript....did you have a transcript of that day? I believe Sgt Allen recorded that date I don't know about a transcript....

    HHBP allright Mr. Mason what material fact does this evidence tend to prove or disprove what relevancy does this have to theory of defense? how much time do I have- as much as you need to take

    I asked him to establish a material fact and it doesn't

    Part 2 of question - what relevancy as to theory of defense- multiple levels the dysfunctionality and what happened after the accidental drowning.

    the wearing of the wire ...to get incriminating statements from the parents...

    HHBP - since next witness is out there were they able to do it?
    CM - no sir they asked but she declined

    LDB - without asking what their motivation would be is irrelevant as relating to kc guilt or innocence - not obtained so only thing left is the motivation - not for this jury to consider @ this juncture.

    CM - interesting based upon speculation....yet murder weapon was duct tape we are supposed to speculate on that
    LDB - objection
    HHBP - objections about arguments is needless waste of time - no jury here and I know what is going on...

    neither side want conclude remarks

    FL Supreme court - 2006 decision said it is within the trial court descretion what is relevant evidence - requirement for admissablity is relevancy - evidence code - evidence tended to prove or disprove a material fact....quite clear of the profer of the LE - it does go to prove a fact ....second does not go to the theory of the defense....at this time DT theory at the time accidental drowning and the after behavior is what DT expouses to certain things....therefore not relevant and will be sustained under 98vs401 and (doesn't) ?goes to theory of defense

    hereby excused detective I am sorry...HHBP

    Do you still intend to call the next witness? CM = we will call briefly Tinelli ...is it for a different purpose or the purpose of the profer? on the ducttape - I just want to make sure we don't send these folks out on POP tart route....I would rather bring it up now than to have jury come in and have them back out ....I have no idea who this witness is and what she might testify about....we will be at ease...CM out to make sure she is ready

    Proud member of the AFKBPOFPOPL

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Orange County

    Corporal Eric Edwards


    He met Linda Tinelli through the investigation. She was brought to his attention by Lauri Kree (sp) that was a volunteer for TES about the time of December when they visited TES. While he wsa there he received a phone call from Lauri Kree and she told him that Linda Tinelli was a volunteer at the Kid Finders' Tent.

    John Allen and he interviewed her. He thinks she was in charge of maintaining the volunteer sheet.

    He showed her a photo of an image of duct tape. He believes that Lauri told him that Linda brought to her attention that GA had brought duct tape to the tent.

    He showed a photo or video capture of a missing flyer with tape.

    She didn't specifically say that was the tape, but described a strong tape.

    After the remains were found, did you contact Ms. Tinnelli? Needs his memory refreshed. There was another time he and John Allen contacted her again due to correspondence with the A's.

    He went to her home around 3/09. Did you discuss placing a bug on the lamp in her living room? The A's were asking to meet with her and he believes she had visited the A's and told them that she had met with OCSO and she had been receiving communications from them and he wanted to capture her conversation with them. Did she decline? He doesn't recall. He does recall that she wanted to get her husband's permission and she thought that might have been too intrusive. She didn't say no. It was never done.

    He contacted her a third time at Lowe's. He and John Allen - they may asked her if she would wear a wire on her person so that she could capture conversations with the A's. She did not do that. The window of opportunity never made itself available.

    End of proffer.

    No questions by LDB on the proffer.

    CM - Are you aware of any voice mails on her phone. Ms. Tinnelli allowed him to listen to a voice mail left by CA. He would like to review a transcript before commenting further. John Allen had a transcript he believes.

    HHJBP - what material facts does this evidence tend to prove or disprove or what relevance does this have to the theory of the defense?

    CM - how much time do I have. This reveals that the focus of the investigation was directed at ICA. Can't establish material fact without the recording.

    HHJBP - what relevance?

    CM - The theory of defense deals with the dysfunctionality and the circumstances of what happened after the drowning and who did what.

    HHJBP - Were they able to get the incriminating statements?

    CM - No sir.

    HHJBP - State?

    LDB - It is obvious that this line of questioning is designed to invite the jury to speculate on the motives of law enforcement because their motivation would be irrelevant because they don't deal with the guilt or innocence of ICA. No evidence was obtained and therefore, the only thing left is the motivation and that is not relevant or material for the jury to consider.

    CM - It is interesting based on speculations when we are asked to speculate as to the murder weapon being duct tape.

    HHJBP - I think I have enough experience to understand what goes to an argument. In Wright v State it is the trial court's discretion to determine what is relevant. It is quite evident by the proffer that this evidence does not go to proving a material fact. The second possibility is its admissibility under the theory of the defense. The theory advanced at this time is that the victim died of an accidental drowning and the different behavior of the defendant after this event was caused by certain events - this does not go toward this theory. The objection is SUSTAINED and IS NOT ADMISSIBLE or for the theory of defense.

    No further questions of the detective.

    Witness excused (3:57)

    CM still wishes to call Ms. Tinnelli.

    HHJB - doesn't want to send the jury back out on the POP TART ROUTE

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    We will be at ease while Madam court reporter takes a look @ Mr. Ashton's machine...it appears she magically fixed the problem...court reporter is ready....realtime is working for both sides....

    LDB the only evidence to be elicited from next witness is @ some unknown date and place he saw GA with some kind of duct tape .....we objected to that previous...if she could say there was a particular brand of duct tape I would not object -

    HHBP but she can say it's duct tape...

    LDB - that doesn't establish any relevance.
    HHBP - not same kind of brand of duct tape or the date she saw it....you are saying they some gun or knife at some point..

    LDB - unless we can tie it into a relative time frame...
    HHBP - she going to say during a tent event while searching? yes... most time witnesses can't tell you a serial number or what type of gun it was most time they just tell you someone stuck a gun in their face and robbed them @ gun point - it is admissable - lets return the jury

    Proud member of the AFKBPOFPOPL

Similar Threads

  1. Corporal Yuri Melich's testimony
    By Chiquita71 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 04:40 PM
  2. Michael Vincent testimony (OCSO crime scene unit)
    By mombomb in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-27-2011, 10:30 AM
  3. Ryan Eberlin testimony (OCSO)
    By wenwe4 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-24-2011, 03:31 PM
  4. Ronald Murdock testimony (OCSO CSI supervisor)
    By wenwe4 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 03:26 PM
  5. Alina Burroughs testimony (CSI with OCSO)
    By Patience in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 02:04 PM