1345 users online (265 members and 1080 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 90
  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    I think they wanted to keep Vic's wife off the stand for a few reasons.

    One, someone tells you to throw an illegal weapon into the swamp because it might 'have a body on it'? Kind of immoral and irresponsible action and she would have to defend it, on the stand.

    Two, she was hubby's alibi. And I don't think they state wanted the defense to get the chance to attack his alibi by asking all kinds of scandalous questions, about past crimes, etc.

    So they might have been hiding some things, but not necessarily hiding anything about the discarded weapon.
    But the defense could have called her too and done just that. I know the possibility is that if she was called she could have testified against ZA also...after all the defense couldn't hand out immunity and she might not have been inclined to help. I think the defense probably had a hard time finding witnesses who would help.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    784

    post trial discussion of evidence

    Since she is in Indiana would Ms. Dinsmore have had to answer to a subpoena if she did not choose to?

    ETA- I think Indiana - correct me if it is somewhere else

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    All posts by me reflect my opinion only and are not a statement of facts unless a source is provided. I am doing the best I can with the information available and my opinion is subject to change without notice.
    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. ~Author Unknown

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    North of Boston
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    I had a response all typed out and poof - computer connection goes poof

    Anyway ... I am so glad you are interested in this discussion on the evidence !

    I have a lot of questions about the evidence that was introduced, and evidence that was not introduced.


    Ah ... the "pink panties" ... IIRC, they did not even belong to Holly, so if they did not belong to her they would not have her DNA on them ... so why even introduce them ? And IIRC, they did not even state if anyone else's DNA was on them ... makes no sense to even introduce them IMO.

    Ah ... "the gun" ... I will have to go back and re-watch Dinsmore's testimony on "the gun" but are we supposed to believe Dinsmore's (a "buddy" of the A's) that his wife threw the gun in a creek when he told her he thought it "had a body on it" ? I guess you could say Dinsmore testified to what he saw, but if she threw this particular gun - which the State passed off as THE murder weapon - then I wanted to hear it straight from her. JMO but WHY didn't the State put the person who disposed of the gun on the stand? Makes no sense, unless someone is hiding something ?

    Ah ... "the bucket" ... JMO but I wanted to see that "bucket" that was found where the remains were found -- not that I don't believe there was a bucket - there was but I wanted to see exactly what the ginseng hunter found.

    There's more ... but got to go !

    seeya: and
    BBM;
    I know I missed a lot of actual trial time but I thought Karen ID'd the panties as Holly's. There was a long discussion about it in the thread, no?
    And I remember the testimony when the witness was holding them uip for the Jury, was that the DNA on it was a "mix" but not specified who's, just that it wasn't Holly's. I can see that. Whoever handled the laundry that day and likely she kept a change in her backpack.

    ETA Booth holding them up;
    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908769742856605702

    JMO
    Last edited by Steleheart; 09-25-2017 at 09:43 PM.
    All new members and guests;

    To Websleuths!

    A Must Read - Websleuths (WS) Etiquette & Information

    Also - WS Lingo

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Harmony2 View Post
    dog.gone.cute
    time stamp 1:15 on the following video... do you know where that road leads to?

    http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/...ight-on-murder
    Isn't that country corner road?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    All posts by me reflect my opinion only and are not a statement of facts unless a source is provided. I am doing the best I can with the information available and my opinion is subject to change without notice.
    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. ~Author Unknown

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Steleheart View Post
    BBM;
    I know I missed a lot of actual trial time but I thought Karen ID'd the panties as Holly's. There was a long discussion about it in the thread, no?
    And I remember the testimony when the witness was holding them uip for the Jury, was that the DNA on it was a "mix" but not specified who's, just that it wasn't Holly's. I can see that. Whoever handled the laundry that day and likely she kept a change in her backpack.

    ETA Booth holding them up;
    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908769742856605702

    JMO
    That's what I think happened.

    Karen said they looked like Holly's. I knew what my daughters underwear looked like because I did most of the laundry. I am sure Karen probably knew what Holly's looked like too.

    And like many 19 yr olds, my daughter often kept a change of clothing in her backpack. 19 yr olds have busy schedules and are on the go.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,335
    Quote Originally Posted by TrixieBelden13 View Post
    But the defense could have called her too and done just that. I know the possibility is that if she was called she could have testified against ZA also...after all the defense couldn't hand out immunity and she might not have been inclined to help. I think the defense probably had a hard time finding witnesses who would help.
    The defense is not going to call her because they were trying to make Vic out to be a possible alternate suspect. So putting his wife on would be potentially dangerous if she tried to incriminate ZA by throwing in a bombshell or 2.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    The defense is not going to call her because they were trying to make Vic out to be a possible alternate suspect. So putting his wife on would be potentially dangerous if she tried to incriminate ZA by throwing in a bombshell or 2.
    Agree. Could have turned into a mess. It must have been very hard to try to figure out how to avoid land mines with the witnesses already involved.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun
    Posts
    1,963
    Mr. Dinsmore had testified that some people had tried to attack his daughter prior to Holly's disappearance. First implying that it was ZA, et al. Then, saying it was the Pearcy folks, if I recall correctly. With his drug addiction, Mr. Dinsmore implied that he didn't cut ties with this group b/c he needed the drugs. He also testified that he felt they were trying to set him up with the evidence scattered on either side of his property. For a man not involved, he was certainly interacting with these guys a lot. I write this b/c I am trying to figure out how they go to see him and the evidence around his home just appearing. It truly does connect him.

    My wondering about the evidence is this--- Was the evidence scattered by SA and DA? Placed in one area and blew around? Is it possible that it blew out of the back of the pick-up truck and ZA, et al didn't notice. Was going to Mr. Dinsmore's work part of "plan" to make sure the former sex offender was caught up in the situation if the topic ever arose? Were they angry at him for any reason?

    My other thinking is about that blanket. Why would they have had it at the barn/corn crib if they weren't going to kill her? Of course, I would love to know where it is and whose it was. I wonder if it was SA's even though mom testified that she never saw a blanket like that.
    Last edited by kaen; 09-26-2017 at 09:02 AM.
    Violence diminishes our humanity. ~Coretta Scott King

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,703
    I believe Mr Dinsmore testified that he was out of morphine. In saying that he was prescribed morphine due to a back surgery, IMO a Doctor only prescribes morphine for a limited number of weeks or months. With the morphine addictions they had developed, probably dating back to Zach's Grandmother's cancer terminal pain management the supply had or was drying up.

    Therefor I don't believe they (Zack) was looking to set up a meth franchise but actually a new morphine connection. Someone with nursing home connections could be just what the Dr. ordered.

    JMO

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,075
    People with chronic pain can be prescribed morphine. I personally know several people that take different forms of it.

    Those pink panties...so much talk about them being Holly's but, other than her Mom saying they were hers, no proof. And since there's thousands of pairs of each panties made, I have no idea how anyone can see a pair, and know who they belong to. Even if they were Victoria Secret, well, when I've taken my daughter to buy them, there's hundreds of the same pair in one store! No DNA was found to match Holly. Nothing was stated about who else's DNA was tested against them. No idea if any of the A group were even tested.... just bizarre.

    JMO
    Fibromyalgia Fog at it's finest! Temporary loss of vocabulary may occur at any time.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by jggordo View Post
    I believe Mr Dinsmore testified that he was out of morphine. In saying that he was prescribed morphine due to a back surgery, IMO a Doctor only prescribes morphine for a limited number of weeks or months. With the morphine addictions they had developed, probably dating back to Zach's Grandmother's cancer terminal pain management the supply had or was drying up.

    Therefor I don't believe they (Zack) was looking to set up a meth franchise but actually a new morphine connection. Someone with nursing home connections could be just what the Dr. ordered.

    JMO
    Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

    Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
    Fibromyalgia Fog at it's finest! Temporary loss of vocabulary may occur at any time.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,075
    I had to take a mental and physical break from this case. I do remember reading past media reports that I could find. Some links no longer work. There was discussion that an article that either Holly or Clint knew this A gang, and had been to one of their homes in the weeks or days before Holly disappeared. Does anyone else remember seeing that?
    Fibromyalgia Fog at it's finest! Temporary loss of vocabulary may occur at any time.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Hope4 View Post
    People with chronic pain can be prescribed morphine. I personally know several people that take different forms of it.

    Those pink panties...so much talk about them being Holly's but, other than her Mom saying they were hers, no proof. And since there's thousands of pairs of each panties made, I have no idea how anyone can see a pair, and know who they belong to. Even if they were Victoria Secret, well, when I've taken my daughter to buy them, there's hundreds of the same pair in one store! No DNA was found to match Holly. Nothing was stated about who else's DNA was tested against them. No idea if any of the A group were even tested.... just bizarre.

    JMO
    I am confused about those pink underwear too - and I haven't re-listened to the various testimony about them - but if KB said Holly had a pair like that - and that pair was missing from Holly's belongings, not in a drawer, etc then I tend to believe they were in her backpack


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    All posts by me reflect my opinion only and are not a statement of facts unless a source is provided. I am doing the best I can with the information available and my opinion is subject to change without notice.
    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. ~Author Unknown

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Queen City
    Posts
    1,666
    The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

    IMO

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by lstiff View Post
    The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

    IMO
    She was carrying a small purse and a larger purse:

    "Hodge showed the jury an inhaler, a small purse, a cloth strap (believed to be from the purse), a camera, keys with an 'H' keychain, a tube of ChapStick, a pack of gum, and a small purse filled with writing utensils and lipstick. A larger purse was also found covered in leaves. Hodge said the purse was almost buried in the ground."

    http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/...-to-take-stand

    So let's go with her mother did the laundry and she packed them in the larger purse for her. They have had Karen's DNA sample since 2011, why didn't they find Karen's DNA on them? Surely they would know if the DNA found on them belonged to her.

    Or, since they supposedly came from Holly's purse (or backpack if someone can find information that she was carrying one, since I haven't been able to find that information), wouldn't you think Holly's DNA would be on them from the numerous skin cells that she must have sloughed from her hands in the purse from the action of taking things in and out of it everyday?

    If she had been wearing them, even for an hour, her DNA would have been on them.

    And if she was carrying them, why weren't they found with the rest of the stuff from her purse instead of being found in a separate location?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 09-12-2016, 04:48 PM
  2. Evidence that was not discussed during the trial
    By Kimster in forum Allison Baden-Clay of Australia
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 09:26 PM
  3. Post verdict discussion of evidence
    By sunshine05 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 08:07 PM