814 users online (144 members and 670 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 91
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,758
    I am not surprised cousin N didn't show up in person to the trial.

    She had to know there was very unflattering testimony about her. Who wants so sit there on camera for those kinds of public accusations?

    If she was in the courtroom, the jury would really question why no one called her to the stand. And I think she was potentially dangerous for both sides. JMO
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    I am not surprised cousin N didn't show up in person to the trial.

    She had to know there was very unflattering testimony about her. Who wants so sit there on camera for those kinds of public accusations?

    If she was in the courtroom, the jury would really question why no one called her to the stand.

    And I think she was potentially dangerous for both sides. JMO


    1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

    Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

    - Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
    - Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
    - Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

    In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

    2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

    So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

    3rd BBM: I totally agree !

    I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  3. #48
    Emi's Avatar
    Emi is offline CSKA sofia fan!!! Amanda Knox supporter!! Justice for Sierra LaMar!! :)
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    2,889
    As far as I know she is out of state and her subpoena didn't reach to her in time

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Emi View Post
    As far as I know she is out of state and her subpoena didn't reach to her in time

    Hi Emi

    Yes, I read something about that.

    But IMO that is a poor excuse for an attorney/staff not to timely get their subpoenas issued and served.

    The State and the Defense did not want her on the stand, IMO for obvious reasons.

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post


    1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

    Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

    - Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
    - Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
    - Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

    In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

    2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

    So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

    3rd BBM: I totally agree !

    I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to

    I don't believe 100% of what Jason Autry testified to. I think you certainly can cherry pick. Most people never tell 100% truth. I think he told enough to satisfy the prosecution.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

  6. #51
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,269
    Trials are all about strategy and finding the best way to utilize time to present and rebut their case. Trials are not intended to be an accounting and showing of every little thing done or every single person spoken to in the course of an investigation.

    The goal for the state is to convince a jury the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any and every possible doubt someone can ever imagine, which is never the standard).

    By necessity and practicality that means determining what is needed to be shown and what might be of additional benefit to be shown from a strategic standpoint, and avoiding redundancy if possible.

    The jury, the ultimate triers of fact and the ultimate determiners of what was true in this case, are instructed it's up to them to determine who to believe in whole or in part or not at all, what weight they assign it, and the laws about considering direct and circumstantial evidence. The evidence that was brought in and the witnesses that testified were enough to prove the charges to the very people that mattered, as proven by their unanimous verdict.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by terpstra1 View Post
    I don't believe 100% of what Jason Autry testified to. I think you certainly can cherry pick. Most people never tell 100% truth. I think he told enough to satisfy the prosecution.


    BBM: IMO, he told enough of a "story" to satisfy his "immunity deal" ...

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  8. #53
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,269
    Did Autry tell the whole truth? Well, the major pieces, yes. As for the little details? Probably some were correct and truthful and some might not have been.

    When I look at a case I look at the major pieces to see if they line up and if there's corroboration of those major pieces. In this case:

    - cell phone activity
    - cell phone locations
    - statements by the accused to others
    - witnesses to things that happened and/or hearing or overhearing statements
    - who was together
    - where they were
    - evidence found, where it was found


    This case clearly showed 4 people together at various points that day who were with the victim. The victim's phone showed movement. Other, tangential people, were in the picture that day (Dinsmore, etc). The gun was eventually located through a witness cooperating, that gun was examined and determined it matched the caliber, and the gun was identified by more than 1 person as being "the gun from that day that SA had and traded."

    Statements the defendant made in his incarceration, to people he never knew before and would never see again, who had nothing to gain. Statements the defendant made to people close to him. There were so many pieces that helped prove the person on trial was involved and culpable.

    Because of the law of criminal responsibility/acting in concert, it didn't matter which one of them pulled the trigger. It didn't matter which one of them was the one who first showed up at the Bobo house. They all were involved. The jury understood the law and applied it correctly.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    796
    I am not understanding the importance of NB not testifying. I don't see how her testimony could have harmed the state's case. Not saying I believe this - but hypothetically say the defense showed a connection between Holly and ZA - even say she bought pills from ZA or through NB - which I don't believe - but even if she did that does not lessen the guilt of the 4 accused - it does not justify gang rape or murder - even if the victim puts themselves in harms way it does not justify those unspeakably horrible crimes.


    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

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,758
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post


    1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

    Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

    - Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
    - Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
    - Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

    In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

    2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

    So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

    3rd BBM: I totally agree !

    I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to

    It was not a matter of her being a stripper. I am sure she would have had no problem if that was all that was said about her.

    There was talk that she promised Zach a 3 some with her and Holly, and that she was a drug addict and may have traded sex for drugs and was doing so with Zach, her cousin's killer.

    That would be a lot to sit through and answer to.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Trials are all about strategy and finding the best way to utilize time to present and rebut their case. Trials are not intended to be an accounting and showing of every little thing done or every single person spoken to in the course of an investigation.

    The goal for the state is to convince a jury the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any and every possible doubt someone can ever imagine, which is never the standard).

    By necessity and practicality that means determining what is needed to be shown and what might be of additional benefit to be shown from a strategic standpoint, and avoiding redundancy if possible.

    The jury, the ultimate triers of fact and the ultimate determiners of what was true in this case, are instructed it's up to them to determine who to believe in whole or in part or not at all, what weight they assign it, and the laws about considering direct and circumstantial evidence. The evidence that was brought in and the witnesses that testified were enough to prove the charges to the very people that mattered, as proven by their unanimous verdict.

    BBM: Obviously, we do not agree.

    I have followed this case very closely from day one and for the past 6+ years.

    Please refer to my previous posts as to why I disagree with the verdict.


    And respectfully, I know about trial strategy, I understand BARD, etc etc etc. I not only follow trials, I have taken criminal law classes.

    I received a Certificate in Paralegal Studies as well as an "Honor's Certificate" in Paralegal Studies from LSU in 2014.

    [I chose not to get verified here at WS because I do not have the time.]

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,758
    I don't believe either side wanted her on the stand. I think she was too unpredictable for both.

    She was dangerous for the State because of what she might have said about Clint and his possible connection with any drug usage or connections to the defendants, over time. They are the same age in the same rural area.

    She was dangerous for the defense because she knew way too much about Zach and friends. JMO
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    It was not a matter of her being a stripper. I am sure she would have had no problem if that was all that was said about her.

    There was talk that she promised Zach a 3 some with her and Holly, and that she was a drug addict and may have traded sex for drugs and was doing so with Zach, her cousin's killer.

    That would be a lot to sit through and answer to.

    BBM: Yes, that it was JA testified to on the stand ... and yes, I could see where that would be a problem.

    JMO but I do not think these questions would be a problem for a stripper ...

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Pamelateach5 View Post
    I'm a newbie, so forgive me, if this post is not in the right place. I want to ask how far off the road was Holly's remains found, and is the terrain hard to get over?

    Hello and

    The link below has some photos from day 3 of the trial ... I think there are some photos that may answer your question.

    http://www.newschannel5.com/news/pho...rder-trial#id0
    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,758
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    BBM: Yes, that it was JA testified to on the stand ... and yes, I could see where that would be a problem.

    JMO but I do not think these questions would be a problem for a stripper ...

    ReaLLY? At the trial for her dead, murdered cousin, it wouldn't be a problem that she offered her cousin up sexually to the murderer?

    I can't imagine it wouldn't be a problem, stripper or not.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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

Tags for this Thread