Per Stellas post above, number 16... WOW...
I wonder what the possibilities are that Coleman didn't know that Barlow (the neighbor across the street) was an officer when he first approached him about the so-called threatening letters in the mailbox?
This article...
>>Jurors watched a tape of Coleman being questioned by the Columbia police detective. Detective Justin Barlow asked Coleman if he and his wife Sheri had fought the night before the murders, and Coleman said, "she fell asleep in my arms on the couch..." and then started to cry as he said, "If only I'd been there," talking about the morning of the murders.<<
I hope in the closing arguments that the Prosecutor plays that little portion of the video, the one that has Chris saying, "If only I'd been there..." and then looks at the jury, gets their attention, points to Chris, and says, "That man, the one over there, the one in the video I just showed you, the one that just said, 'If only I'd been there...'" -- members of the jury, it is BECAUSE HE WAS THERE that Sheri, Gavin and Garrett are dead! There is no "if only I'd been there" -- HE WAS THERE -- he murdered them.
Reiterating, from the same article:
>>It was revealed during testimony that Sheri had two black eyes. Dr. Baden said it was not from strangulation, but direct trauma.<<
Not one black eye, two and from blunt trauma.
Reiterating the important point that Stella made, from the article which states of Barlow's video and the Coleman interogation:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=256341
>>The tape shows him driving forward out of his driveway at 5:43 a.m.
In the taped interview, Coleman told investigators he remembered slowing as he backed out of the driveway to wait for a dark colored car to pass that he didn't recognize. No car was seen on the tape shown to the jury.<<
COLEMAN OVERTLY LIED TO CREATE SUSPICION, CAUGHT ON VIDEOS: Chris said he went out backward, there was an unrecognized car passing by, he slowed for the car. The truth, he went out forward, he did not slow for any unrecognized car because there was no car at all.
This article, a different one says:
>>Coleman mentions Tara Lintz as a friend, but only says they talked a lot.<<
COLEMAN OVERTLY LIED TO AVOID SUSPICION, CAUGHT ON VIDEOS: Coleman said he was friends with Tara, but only that they talked alot. The videos will show they also showed videos alot, that they texted alot, and Tara will say they were intimate
Per the police interview...
>>Police then asked Coleman about marks on his arms. He said they were from an ambulance gurney.<<
COLEMAN OVERTLY LIED TO AVOID SUSPICION, CAUGHT BY THE EYE'S OF A WITNESS: The police chaplain "saw" marks on Chris' arms when he was placed in the ambulance, he asked about them. Chris "then" banged his arms on the gurney. The marks were THERE before the banging on the gurney. Would we call these a "sign of a struggle."
In this article, Chris cops that some of the injuries were from days before..
>>Bivens then re-asked Coleman about the marks on his arms, which he said some came from punching a hospital gurney, and others days before.<<
This article:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_27a4bf92-70cb-11e0-b267-001a4bcf6878.html
COLEMAN OVERTLY LIED TO AVOID SUSPICION, CAUGHT BY THE EYE'S OF A WITNESS, VIDEO AND RECEIPTS: The above article mentions Chris saying Tara and he were only friends and talked only, it then goes into a littany of proofs that he was not just talking, but video'ing with Tara, that he went to Hawaii with her, that he was using his credit card to pay her bills. Chris said they got together a couple of times but that he wouldn't call it an affair, and that the behavior began in March or February. There is absolute proof that it began in November.
Oh...and this statement from the article:
>>Barlow said Coleman was sending Lintz "naked pictures" of himself. And that Joyce Meyer's husband, Dave, told them the ministry told him to stop the affair.<<
If it is true that Barlow "knew" that Dave had said, "stop the affair" and this wasn't just a move to try to get Chris to confess, CHRIS KNEW that he was playing with fire with his job. What employee, when warned to stop breaking a work rule is not at risk of losing their job. The onus of their behavior is "on them." If you don't want your job here because you are not allowed to have known affairs when working here, then quit your job. My husband's ex-employer put his foot down on employees having affairs with other employees, this ex-employer was NOT a minister, and not a man of integrity, but this was a company rule.
