TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #12

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Jury asking if criminal responsibility applies to call counts including first-degree murder

Wow, that could be indicator that the jury is finding him responsible, just deciding how far to take it. Of course we dont know what the jury is thinking at this time, but I would guess that its not a good sign for GT.
 
Leland Price talking to families:
2rz58bp.jpg


Mr Newsom affectionately comorting his wife, as always:
2qiw60w.jpg
 
Wow, that could be indicator that the jury is finding him responsible, just deciding how far to take it. Of course we dont know what the jury is thinking at this time, but I would guess that its not a good sign for GT.

You must have put this at the same time I was asking the above question! LOL
 
Any guesses on what the jury is thinking and why they asked this question?

IMO, they are in favor of holding someone responsible based on criminal responsibility. Of course that is my non expert opinion. lol.
 
Good morning y'all. I'm here waiting with you. I don't think that the family should have to read the impact statements either prior to the verdict. It looks like just submitting a written copy for review would be sufficient.
 
Me too!!! I think he is worried with those jury?'s. I think it is sinking in that he may go down for murder!! Which he deserves!

Yes he does, but I'm still concerned that it may not go that way. :sick:
 
Yes he does, but I'm still concerned that it may not go that way. :sick:

They are at least talking about and considering it. They apparently did not go to the jury room and say "wow, this guy didnt do anything."
 
Thank goodness, eh? Actually either he did do stuff but got lucky with no fingerprints or DNA, or, more likely, he "really didn't do anything," which in an of itself is facilitation in my opinion. You have to work hard to do nothing under those circumstances, nowhamsayin'? You'd have to stay out of the way. Surely that is facilitation. To sit in that house passive while all this was going on isn't really believable if you ask me, but if that's what happened, he should still go down for a long, long time. It certainly looks like they may be looking for his crime. Based on what was read yesterday, I believe I could have found one. However, if they don't, I'm still hoping for bigtime jury nullification. If there isn't a law already, there certainly should be a law against what he did.
 
Yolorado, even if he just acted as a guard or look-out, thats enough to be "participation". My guess is that he probably just got lucky on the DNA. I dont think his involvement in the rapes was the same as the others, but thats really irrelevant. I really liked how the Prosecution pointed out that GT was placing the blame for a lot of this on Boyd, but Boyd's dna didnt show up either. Those mistakes happen when you dont think through your lies.
 
Yolorado, even if he just acted as a guard or look-out, thats enough to be "participation". My guess is that he probably just got lucky on the DNA. I dont think his involvement in the rapes was the same as the others, but thats really irrelevant. I really liked how the Prosecution pointed out that GT was placing the blame for a lot of this on Boyd, but Boyd's dna didnt show up either. Those mistakes happen when you dont think through your lies.

Good am prairie... agree w bold!! TK sure drove that point home yesterday!

:parrot:
 
"Jury Must Decide if Thomas Responsible for Others' Crimes" :confused: is the title of this recent article which suggests he played no role nor had any participation himself. But that conclusion is drawn solely from lack of physical evidence--as TK so eloquently illustrated yesterday, using the defendant's own logic--there can clearly be involvement in the absence of any physical evidence based upon circumstantial evidence alone. Full article at link.

The way prosecutors see it, torture-slayings suspect George Thomas’ guilt shows in his inertia.

“If Mr. Thomas is an innocent bystander, why did he stay around?” prosecutor Takisha Fitzgerald argued Monday. “Why wasn’t he worried about getting raped and murdered?...”

The core issue for jurors in Thomas’ case is what rates under the law criminal responsibility for crimes committed by others.

Defense attorney Tom Dillard argued Monday that Thomas’ admitted presence at the Chipman Street house during the fatal crime spree and his failure to intervene is not enough.

“You’ve been given a bunch of hypotheticals,” he said. “We’re here about facts. (Thomas) had knowledge — that’s it.”

Prosecutor Leland Price argued that Thomas could have walked away from the crimes when he saw the blindfolded and bound couple being led inside and, later, Newsom being led to his death.

“He’s got a decision to make as they’re being led into that house,” Price told jurors. “Is he going to leave or continue his participation in this crime? He chose to stay.”

Dillard countered that Thomas wanted to leave but, unable to do so, lost himself in a marijuana-fueled haze and attitude of “none of my business.”

“He tried to get out,” Dillard argued. “He didn’t have a car. He didn’t have a phone. … These young people did not in any way deserve what happened, absolutely not. Those that caused it have been tried. You’re here to decide not on emotion but on the evidence and the law George Thomas’ fate.”


GT "tried to get out..." omg guess GT musta been trying to smoke his way out
smiley_emoticons_joint.gif
:rolleyes:


http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/dec/07/jurors-must-decide-if-thomas-responsible-others-cr/
 
Are we there yet? Sorry, I'm not very good at waiting. Do have a question. I was not able to follow every single minute. I have read here and there and in some of what I read there were comments of this "fine" group of thugs going out to get some "gloves". Do any of you have any memories of "gloves" being mentioned? If so, could GT have been the one to have worn them? Were gloves found at the scene?
 
Agree Kiki. If his story is true, and he didnt go with them to kill Chris, he could have left then. But he stayed to watch over the girl. why didnt he leave when slim and cobbins went to see Daphne?
 
Good am lone... I've followed all the trials but don't recall ever hearing anything re gloves :confused: Not sure friend, maybe I missed it?

ETA Correction lone I did not follow the Boyd trial, that would explain perhaps how I had not heard of gloves previously. Thank you friend.


:parrot:
 
Ok lone you're absolutely right, found this eg about gloves... "authorities still cannot identify the source of DNA found on at least one of two gloves found in a car linked to Eric Boyd, an associate of Davidson..." Also in the following article,

During the Cobbins trial, defense attorneys argued that it was Eric Boyd who killed Chris Newsom.

Boyd was convicted in federal court in October 2008 as accessory after the fact to murder, but never charged with the slayings. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Judge Baumgartner said he isn't blaming the state, but he asked prosecutors why more tests were done over two-and-a-half years after the murders.

Price said it was mainly to find more evidence against Boyd, in hopes of bringing more charges against him.

Four pieces of new evidence were tested by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). Many of the findings were inconclusive, but they pointed out a possible dilemma in the case.

DNA of an unknown person has been detected.

The evidence tested includes a four to five inch white cloth strip with a knot in the end and Christian's panties. Both were found in a garbage bag in the Chipman Street house where Christian's body was found.

A pair of dirty gloves found in a Pontiac Sunbird was also tested. The Sunbird was linked to Boyd during the weekend of the murders.

On Friday, Judge Baumgartner questioned the relevance of the gloves
, but agreed with the defense that the white cloth strip needed more tests.

Also explains there was a question initially re whether Daphine (LD's former gf) played any role in the crimes or may have borrowed gloves eg. She was never charged and as we know became State's witness (full article at link).

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=11153132
 
Here are the sections from the instructions the jury was given yesterday:

Criminal Responsibility
Under the doctrine of criminal responsibility a defendant is criminally
responsible as a party to the offenses charged in the Presentment – first degree felony
murder, premeditated first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, especially
aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and theft, as well as their lesser-included offenses
– if the offenses were committed by the defendant's own conduct, by the conduct of
another for which the defendant is criminally responsible, or by both. Each party to
the offense may be charged with the commission of the offense.

The defendant is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct
of another if, acting with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense,
or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, the defendant solicits, directs,
aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense.


A defendant who is criminally responsible for an offense may be found guilty
not only of that offense, but also for any other offense or offenses committed by
another, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the other offense or offenses
committed were natural and probable consequences of the original offense for which
the defendant is found criminally responsible, and that the elements of the other
offense or offenses that accompanied the original offense have been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

In deciding the criminal responsibility of the defendant, the jury may also take
into consideration any evidence offered that the defendant attempted to thwart or
withdraw from any of the offenses that followed from the original offense.

A person cannot be held criminally responsible for the conduct of another if
that person has knowledge of the other’s crime yet fails to act, prevent the crime,
render aid, or report the crime. A person’s presence at the scene of a crime, along with
an association with the perpetrator of that crime, does not make one criminally
responsible.

Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual's presence and
companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of an
offense are circumstances from which his participation or criminal intent in the crime
may be inferred. No particular act of the defendant need be shown, and the defendant
need not have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally
responsible. To be criminally responsible for the acts of another, the defendant must in
some way associate himself with the venture, act with knowledge that an offense is to
be committed, and share in the criminal intent of the principal.


Further, you are instructed that a defendant may be guilty of facilitation of a
felony if, knowing that another intends to commit a specific offense, but without the
intent required for criminal responsibility as set forth above, the person knowingly
furnishes substantial assistance in the commission of the offense. Facilitation of
specific felonies will be explained in these instructions.

FACILITATION OF A FELONY
Any person who commits the offense of facilitation of a felony is guilty of a
crime. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant knew that another person intended to commit the
specific felony, but did not have the intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense or to benefit in the proceeds or results of
the offense;
and
(2) that the defendant furnished substantial assistance to that person in
the commission of the felony;
and
(3) that the defendant furnished such assistance knowingly.

"Intent", as used above, means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the
nature of the conduct and to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious
objective or desire to engage in the conduct and cause the result.

"Knowingly", as used above, means that a person acts knowingly when the
person is aware of the particular nature of the conduct and that the particular
circumstances exist and that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. The
requirement of "knowingly" is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted
“intentionally.”


Facilitation of a Felony is a lesser included offense of Counts 1 thru 44 and 46
of the Presentment as explained herein. The definition of facilitation of a felony
provided here should be referred to where indicated in these instructions.


-- If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of FIRST DEGREE
FELONY MURDER, [muffet - can be found guilty of this guilty either by committing the act directly or by being criminal responsible for it - the verdict is rendered the same] as charged in the presentment, then your verdict must be not
guilty as to this offense and then you shall proceed to determine his guilt or innocence
of FACILITATION OF FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER

-- If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of FACILITATION
OF FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER, as charged in the presentment, then your
verdict must be not guilty as to this offense and then you shall proceed to determine his
guilt or innocence of SECOND DEGREE MURDER
[...]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
2,392
Total visitors
2,496

Forum statistics

Threads
590,002
Messages
17,928,877
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top