FL - Adam Kaufman on trial for the murder of wife Eleanora Kaufman, 33

New Posts

Verdict read and Seth is crying and Adam trying hard not to cry ,court tv beeped out so much stuff so he didnt hear names of the jury members.

From watching the after verdict stuff it looks like Adam is close to his brother and Lina's mom. He has more relaxed and comfortable emotional exchanges with those two . Very awkard looking while hugging Seth's wife.
 
I missed the reading of the verdict, hopefully they will re-play it.

Some very touching moments, though, after that. Both lawyers seem to have tears in their eyes.

I do believe the jury got it right.
 
The jury foreman is going to be on in 20 mins on In Session.

Then at 1 central time, I believe Adam and some other family members will be on, also.


The foreman hugged Adam after the trial and said "I'm sorry for your loss. I not only believe you are not guilty, I believe you are innocent."
 
I am excited to hear what the jury foreman has to say about the pets question they sent out.

I thought Adam was getting convicted because of that question. I am hoping they have a logical reason for asking. Or at least one riddled with reasonable doubt.

Off topic the Penn state guys trial should have been moved. They have one person on the jury who is enrolled in Penn state currently on the jury who works for the same dept the accused worked for and more penn state jury connections. I can only wonder if they refused to move it so Penn state has more influence over the trial. I am kinda mad about it actually.
 
Soulmagent said:
I am excited to hear what the jury foreman has to say about the pets question they sent out.

I thought Adam was getting convicted because of that question. I am hoping they have a logical reason for asking. Or at least one riddled with reasonable doubt.

Off topic the Penn state guys trial should have been moved. They have one person on the jury who is enrolled in Penn state currently on the jury who works for the same dept the accused worked for and more penn state jury connections. I can only wonder if they refused to move it so Penn state has more influence over the trial. I am kinda mad about it actually.
Click to expand...


Is there a place here for discussion about Sandusky's trial? I looked yesterday and couldn't find it.
 
Just wanted to say again how HAPPY I am to be here..... I am so sick of some of the other forums, or perhaps I should say lynch mobs, that don't weigh the evidence but prefer to speculate and postulate their own theories at naseum until they have convinced everyone else there that their opinion is the right one.
 
Not that this matters now but I was searching strangulation and found this:

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/strangulation_article.pdf

It says only 1/3 of strangulation cases have a broken hyoid. A young person's hyoid has not yet fused and so may not be broken. The state should have pointed that out they did a sloppy job IMO of explaining how Lina could have been strangled. The evidence for this death was there, they just didnt do a good enough job proving it.

To me its pretty cut and dry that she was dead way before the fire/paramedics/cops got there and the injuries were already present. The 1st fireman said she was hung/strangulated/choked etc. He knew it was a murder right then. Too bad for the state.
 
I am so happy today, just watching the jury foreman.....They got the verdict so right. What great lawyers he had but I believe he was innocent, NEVER GUILTY! Justice for Adam after waiting for 5 years!
 
OMG - I am watching InSession and this Jury Foreman thinks he's a freakin' medical expert. The pets question was because he thought the aniimals may be carrying a virus she caught!! He also criticized the CPR!!! What a fool!

We need professional Jurors.
 
OwlGirl said:
OMG - I am watching InSession and this Jury Foreman thinks he's a freakin' medical expert. The pets question was because he thought the aniimals may be carrying a virus she caught!! He also criticized the CPR!!! What a fool!

We need professional Jurors.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with the overall verdict..... errr, umm,, he does scare me a little :waitasec:
 
Shelby1 said:
Is there a place here for discussion about Sandusky's trial? I looked yesterday and couldn't find it.
Click to expand...


This is the only one I found.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169558&highlight=Sandusky

I do feel the jury put thought into the case ,after hearing him explain his pets question it makes more sence. I wont say the is way off with the dog mycardia(sp) thing until I research it .I also thought the CPR instructions where not correct so I see what he means there. Interesting about them having sent in Lina's day planner as evidence. All the doctors appointments she had never mentioned.
 
OwlGirl said:
OMG - I am watching InSession and this Jury Foreman thinks he's a freakin' medical expert. The pets question was because he thought the aniimals may be carrying a virus she caught!! He also criticized the CPR!!! What a fool!

We need professional Jurors.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just from what he said on IS, he was adding evidence to the case to base their decision on. For all his 'we folllowed the judge's instruction' crap, he just admitted he/they didn't.

Adam saying Lina can finally rest in peace.....I disagree.
 
fifteen89 said:
I agree. Just from what he said on IS, he was adding evidence to the case to base their decision on. For all his 'we folllowed the judge's instruction' crap, he just admitted he/they didn't.

Adam saying Lina can finally rest in peace.....I disagree.
Click to expand...

He didnt add evidence the evidence he had lead him to a thought about the pets. The vet stickers were admitted as evidence . it was not testified about.
 
He might not have been the best at explaining things or points of veiw ( I lack at that myself) but you cannot accuse them of not paying attention. They even knew the dogs name from hearing it once in open court and later when they saw the pet bed in the photos and then the vet appointment ,and doctor appointments.

I know if those planners were on websleuths and the photos with the pet bed some one would have been aking "did the dog make Lena sick" because we try to figure out what we are looking at.
So do jurors.
 
Soulmagent said:
He didnt add evidence the evidence he had lead him to a thought about the pets. The vet stickers were admitted as evidence . it was not testified about.
Click to expand...

So the pet diseases/deaths were testified to? IMconstitutionally protectedO that = adding evidence. You are free to think otherwise.
 
Shelby1 said:
I missed the reading of the verdict, hopefully they will re-play it.

Some very touching moments, though, after that. Both lawyers seem to have tears in their eyes.

I do believe the jury got it right.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said! I am watching it this morning on IS and crying my eyes out on what this family went through. I am so happy they can all go home and sleep a good night instead of worry!

What a great jury to go through all the evidence and not do a shoddy job like another case I watched.

Adam should have NEVER been charged!
 
I was most amazed to hear about Lina's planner which was put into evidence, but not really discussed in testimony. Kudos to the jurors that they went through it to notice all those medical appointments. One doctor was a nutritionist and another was a forensic pathologist/gynecologist.

All during the trial I and some others hear mentioned that Lina had health issues and was not addressing them. I wonder why the defense didn't bring these details up during the trial?

The foreman is a mediator and knows some about law. While the dog thing is way out there to some degree, he did lead the jury to pore over the evidence.

That makes me feel better about the outcome.
 
dizzychick said:
Not that this matters now but I was searching strangulation and found this:

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/strangulation_article.pdf

It says only 1/3 of strangulation cases have a broken hyoid. A young person's hyoid has not yet fused and so may not be broken. The state should have pointed that out they did a sloppy job IMO of explaining how Lina could have been strangled. The evidence for this death was there, they just didnt do a good enough job proving it.

To me its pretty cut and dry that she was dead way before the fire/paramedics/cops got there and the injuries were already present. The 1st fireman said she was hung/strangulated/choked etc. He knew it was a murder right then. Too bad for the state.
Click to expand...

He might of knew it to be a murder right there in his mind but I personaly dont think it crossed his mind or he would have never taken the bed cover off the bed. I am not sure of EMT protocol on crime scene but I can promise it does not involve taking the bed covers.

I think he make it up later quite honestly.MOOOO
 
fifteen89 said:
So the pet diseases/deaths were testified to? IMconstitutionally protectedO that = adding evidence. You are free to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

I guess the first part is a question so I will answer.

No they where not testified to which is what lead to the jury aking about them. They have evidence of 6 vet appointments submitted as evidence in a planner and that lead them to the question they asked. As the evidence pointed to the dog being sick they sought out confirmation of their conclusion on the dog being sick. (they didnt have to as the conclusion was based on the evidence)

They were not allowed to have the question answered. I think the judges answer to the question might have been the wrong answer as maybe she didnt know about that evidence being submitted it still could not have been answered but a different reason should have been given.
If the parties did not want the jury to weight that evidence in the planner they would have covered sections of make legal copies of the parts they wanted so as far as follow the instructions for them .


This part.

'' You may consider all of the evidence ,part ,of the evidence'' etc.etc.

I wish we had a copy of the jury instructions.


Disclaimer:
Some parts of this post are my opinion only ,other parts of it are just how it is.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
I was most amazed to hear about Lina's planner which was put into evidence, but not really discussed in testimony. Kudos to the jurors that they went through it to notice all those medical appointments. One doctor was a nutritionist and another was a forensic pathologist/gynecologist.

All during the trial I and some others hear mentioned that Lina had health issues and was not addressing them. I wonder why the defense didn't bring these details up during the trial?

The foreman is a mediator and knows some about law. While the dog thing is way out there to some degree, he did lead the jury to pore over the evidence.

That makes me feel better about the outcome.
Click to expand...


I was quite surprised to learn about the planner too! I missed it if it was ever mentioned during the trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 200 more.
Total: 3,542 (members: 201, guests: 3,341)

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
3,341
Total visitors
3,542
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,814
Messages
17,959,387
Members
228,613
Latest member
boymom0304
Back
Top