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

New Posts

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...

I agree - the pet thing was such that it should be thrown out!!

The legal system does not have this type of ridiculous stuff covered.
 
OwlGirl said:
I agree - the pet thing was such that it should be thrown out!!

The legal system does not have this type of ridiculous stuff covered.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm mistaken, but the pet questions came from all of the vet visits that were written in the planner, right? So why would it be thrown out? The planner was evidence, no?
 
pentaxx said:
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.
Click to expand...
i am new as well, haven't posted but have read and been happy that the people here are reasonable.
 
As far as the marks/bruises on Lina's neck, some may have been caused by the fall on the magazines in the rack and others may have been caused by her giving the universal sign that she could not breathe, clutching one's one throat. Our of fear and panic she may have actually grabbed and pinched at her own throat, as her hear was terminally failing.
 
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...
the foreperson IS a professional juror! LOL he is a court certified mediator in the state of florida. the prosecution clearly made a mistake by not striking him from the jury. just another example of how inept they were. and i say this as an ex prosecutor.

i do agree that a juror shouldn't be playing sherlock holmes in the jury room. its not their job to figure out what happened. its their job to see if the evidence in front of them outweighs reasonable doubt.

also, since he has probably heard lots of medical testimony as a mediator (i would guess in civil cases) , he would know that myocarditis was inaccurately defined in court . i noticed it. Dr. Baden (probably because he was attempting to make it more easy to understand) testified that all "itis" ending medical terms are infections. this is not true. "itis" means inflammation. while often, the itises are CAUSED by infections, not always. for example, arthritis is inflammation of the arthro, or joint. myocarditis could have an origin outside of infection.

i knew when i heard that question (definition of myocarditis) that there must be a person who had medical knowledge on the jury, since i knew that it had been somewhat inaccurately defined and told my husband (who is a civil trial attorney) the same.

btw- i am an ICU nurse and an attorney who practiced both as a prosecutor and defense attorney, who is now a stay at home ma who homeschools my three girls. i get my court kicks from watching trials, and appreciate the reasonable tone of the people here .
 
OwlGirl said:
I agree - the pet thing was such that it should be thrown out!!

The legal system does not have this type of ridiculous stuff covered.
Click to expand...

I did not know about the planner when I wrote this.

Listening to Jennings (the forman), he went way too far in trying to solve the case, however. And his analysis of the CPR was not current information. CPR no longer uses breath; just heart pumping. He stated that 30 presses was too much. He is not an expert.

I think we give citizens way too much responsibility when we make them jurors. I feel it needs to become a career. It is too important a duty to expect uneducated (as far as law, etc is concerned) people to have to determine.

Jury work has become a gamble for defendents and the State!!
 
fifteen89 said:
So the pet diseases/deaths were testified to? IMconstitutionally protectedO that = adding evidence. You are free to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

while they weren't testified to, the journal was admitted into evidence- and thus, unless otherwise instructed by the judge- anything in it can be considered by the jury. (rules of evidence)
 
I understand the confusion of the pet question when it was put forward. The foreperson explained it and now I understand it. Im not understanding where the problem with this is still coming from. They had evidence we did not know about with the day planner that makes me even further confident in their vedict. And the poster who said had we seen the day planner we would have asked the same questions and disscused is so right. The jury did a good job!

Eta: thank goodness that jury went through all the evidence!
 
OwlGirl said:
I did not know about the planner when I wrote this.

Listening to Jennings (the forman), he went way too far in trying to solve the case, however. And his analysis of the CPR was not current information. CPR no longer uses breath; just heart pumping. He stated that 30 presses was too much. He is not an expert.

I think we give citizens way too much responsibility when we make them jurors. I feel it needs to become a career. It is too important a duty to expect uneducated (as far as law, etc is concerned) people to have to determine.

Jury work has become a gamble for defendents and the State!!
Click to expand...
i understand why you would think this , particularly when watching high profile cases- but my experience has been that juries usually get it right. the founding fathers wanted to be sure that our peers were hearing our cases. a professional juror would be no different than trial by judge- which the founding fathers did not want when drafting our constitution. a professional juror would most likely behave just as this foreperson did, which i wouldn't want (if i were still practicing).

its not perfect, but our system of justice is still the best in the world. :) just my opinion...
 
medlaw said:
i understand why you would think this , particularly when watching high profile cases- but my experience has been that juries usually get it right. the founding fathers wanted to be sure that our peers were hearing our cases. a professional juror would be no different than trial by judge- which the founding fathers did not want when drafting our constitution. a professional juror would most likely behave just as this foreperson did, which i wouldn't want (if i were still practicing).

its not perfect, but our system of justice is still the best in the world. :) just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Totally agreed and thank you for the great posts!
 
But look at the Casey anthony case - the jurors did not even review the case. It was shameful what they did. Wouldn't professionals take it more seriously?
 
OwlGirl said:
But look at the Casey anthony case - the jurors did not even review the case. It was shameful what they did. Wouldn't professionals take it more seriously?
Click to expand...

Its really hard when that happens, I was sick and had to totally step back from everything. It happens, guilty people get off and innocent people go to prison, I think that would happen with professionals too. Only I would think the odds of corruption in the system would be far greater with professional jurors. JMO.
 
Very rare for me but I believe he is not guilty and I feel that justice was served. I was on the fence at first and then I began to lean towards reasonable doubt because my goodness what a horrible investigation and then as the trial progressed I went towards not guilty. Good for him that he had a great defense team. May the wife rest in peace now.
 
OwlGirl said:
But look at the Casey anthony case - the jurors did not even review the case. It was shameful what they did. Wouldn't professionals take it more seriously?
Click to expand...

Sometimes the guilty do walk free, as in that case...It tore my heart apart that Caylee Marie received no justice...but that's another thread...:maddening:

At least these jurors asked to review some evidence and asked a couple of questions..I've been watching on and off...

This defense team was aggressive and that aggressiveness came with their belief AK was innocent..as his attorney's stated today on IS..I agree there should not have been quite a celebration in the courtroom but the family also believed AK was innocent...

As always, attack the evidence, attack the investigation but I must admit I feel as if Aventura PD didn't investigate properly. Could have been confusion when they walked into the house, could have been the evidence just wasn't there..

I also feel the other part is Lina's mother who stood by AK, her SIL as if she knew he was innocent. I also believe that played a huge part in the jurors deliberation...how could Lina's mother stand by her husband if in fact he was guilty. I don't know either way, I wasn't there but I surely feel APD didn't do their due diligence and one can't create evidence if it's not there...

I don't know what gave Lina those marks on her neck or why the ME ruled mechanical strangulation and ruled this a homicide...if it was or if it was just not there...

I will admit his defense attorneys were much stronger than the prosecution and that could be why the jurors ruled N/G...:fence:

I do hope Lina will now rest in peace :rose:
 
Im just listening to the day planner evidence and all the Dr.'s appointments that were made! How many times did we wonder why she wasnt seeing a Dr. about health concerns? And she was! I think Lina's mom was telling the truth and was not under threat of losing the grandkids.

Now off to follow the Sandusky trial...now that jury make up is making me nervous!!! Hope they are as good and thorough as this jury was. I might have to revisit my opinion on the jury system if he gets off :wink: (just kidding, mostly)
 
OwlGirl said:
But look at the Casey anthony case - the jurors did not even review the case. It was shameful what they did. Wouldn't professionals take it more seriously?
Click to expand...

don't know if you saw any of the interviews with the casey anthony jurors, but they did review the case. they took it seriously. they had doubts. ultimately, those doubts were the fault of the prosecutors- who should have done a better job with GEORGE (imho). i feel that casey murdered her daughter as well, btw- but the prosecution in the case was flawed.

lord knows, no reason to start talking about that one- we'd take all day! LOL :)
 
Does anyone know what trial IS will cover next? I don't think the Sandusky trial will be televised.
 
Soulmagent said:
Great post.

I just wanted to let you know in closing it was stated the first responder was let in by an older woman. That is what stirred the post about the subject and why we were confused.

I did missed part of testimony of the first responders but I hate when the S.A says things in closing that deviates so dramaticly from what the witness said. Unless I miss understood what the S.A was saying in closing.:waitasec:

How to you get the trials uninterupted? I used not to even get Tru TV then I expanded my cable package for it. I wish they had pay per veiw trials ,I would so do that.
Click to expand...

But do we know who the older lady was? Just curious....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 226 more.
Total: 3,598 (members: 227, guests: 3,371)

Online statistics

Members online
227
Guests online
3,371
Total visitors
3,598
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,733
Messages
17,958,060
Members
228,595
Latest member
Rangelmcguire
Back
Top