Joyce Meyer to testify via recordings ***POLL ADDED***

[Kimberlyd125]

Then what's the problem with her testifying early through a recorded deposition?

 

[panthera]

I assume neither. She can't be unaware of the details of this case. As for what she might do in the future, who's to say?

In the big picture, I guess JM's testimony is not going to be terribly central to the case, whether it were in person or via recorded depo... IMO whatever her testimony and however she appears during the trial, it will not impeach or undo the very real evidence against Chris.

The good thing, imo, about the recorded deposition/testimony is there won't be a "live" presence in the courtroom to distract from what the jurors are there for. Unfortunately for JM, the defendant was one of her employees, however it was he and not her ministry which was responsible for the deaths of Sheri, Garrett and Gavin. Like her or not, he is the one on trial. MOO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The good thing, imo, about the recorded deposition/testimony is there won't be a "live" presence in the courtroom to distract from what the jurors are there for. Unfortunately for JM, the defendant was one of her employees, however it was he and not her ministry which was responsible for the deaths of Sheri, Garrett and Gavin. Like her or not, he is the one on trial. MOO

Very well said as always Panthera.

 

[Charlie09]

I assume neither. She can't be unaware of the details of this case. As for what she might do in the future, who's to say?

In the big picture, I guess JM's testimony is not going to be terribly central to the case, whether it were in person or via recorded depo... IMO whatever her testimony and however she appears during the trial, it will not impeach or undo the very real evidence against Chris.

I truly appreciate your answers. It does seem like she's being made into the bad guy for no reason except people aren't happy with her response, and may not know what has happened behind the scenes.

 

[CCup]

Joyce Meyer has rubbed me the wrong way since the beginning of this story. Sheri was once employed at Joyce Meyer Ministries and Chris still worked for her. IMO, I just thought at some point she could make a statement, something to the effect of "we are praying for or supporting the family and friends of Sheri, Garret, & Gavin." Not only his Chris and Sheri work for JMM, but they also had several close friends who still worked for JMM.

Also during the beginning process of the civil trial, JMM was quite uncooperative in responding to court orders regarding JMM policies and procedures. Again, this was a young mother and her 2 completely innocent children who were murdered, IMO, Joyce Meyer and her ministries should have been willing to cooperate with anything that was needed in this investigation.

And panthera, great point on Joyce possibly causing a distraction at the trial.

 

[Charlie09]

Joyce Meyer has rubbed me the wrong way since the beginning of this story. Sheri was once employed at Joyce Meyer Ministries and Chris still worked for her. IMO, I just thought at some point she could make a statement, something to the effect of "we are praying for or supporting the family and friends of Sheri, Garret, & Gavin." Not only his Chris and Sheri work for JMM, but they also had several close friends who still worked for JMM.

Also during the beginning process of the civil trial, JMM was quite uncooperative in responding to court orders regarding JMM policies and procedures. Again, this was a young mother and her 2 completely innocent children who were murdered, IMO, Joyce Meyer and her ministries should have been willing to cooperate with anything that was needed in this investigation.

And panthera, great point on Joyce possibly causing a distraction at the trial.

She is is a no win situation - anything she says or provides can be twisted by defense attorneys and or included in a civil lawsuit.

 

[CCup]

I can see your point on that also, Charlie09.

 

[who knew?]

Is it possible that the only reason for JM to testify is to verify 1) Chris was an employee of JMM 2) the work computer he was using was the one assigned to him at JMM 3) he was the one logged on to the computer when the threats were written, or in comparing writing patterns and incorrectly spelled words used in both threats and in JMM memos 4) timeline with regard to travel schedules and duties and 5) Sheri and Chris were in marriage counseling and/or were having problems. Remember Sheri went to JMM and told them Chris was having an affair and wanted a divorce.

While I do think she was well aware of Chris's affair, I don't think she encouraged it or discouraged it - I think she turned a blind eye to it. And we know her son knew about it. I believe some of us have a problem with JM for reasons having nothing to do with Chris. Some of us have talked in the past about JM - basically the fact that she has millions of dollars which she has earned from her ministry. While I have no problem with self-made millionaires, I do have a problem with people who IMO worship money more than God, and who take money from those who maybe can't afford it and who think they are buying their way into heaven. Once we form an opinion of a person like JM, it is hard to separate our personal feelings of her vs our opinions of JM and Chris Coleman. She, of course, is not at fault for the murders - all she can do is verify info from what I can see - and I guess she actually believed Chris until she saw the evidence that was beginning to accumulate. I still have no respect for her, but I really don't think she could have anticipated what happened.

It's kind of the same thing with Chris's parents. Let's face it, most of us would try to protect our child although I don't think I could in a case like this one. We look at Ron Coleman and see a "man of God" who has asked for donations for his son's defense. He has convinced his church members to believe in him and in his son - and apparently they do. But, in a prior thread, it was written that he had advanced a lot of money - can't remember the amount but I'm thinking it was well over the $100,000 mark. I don't know about you all, but I don't know many ministers who have that kind of money and when I see one who does, I doubt their motivations. And I don't trust them.

So while a lot of us have a problem with JM and the Coleman parents, and while we don't understand them or have respect for them, we do realize it is Chris on trial and not JM or RC. We just don't have the patience for, what some may call, the games that are being played.

Don't know if that makes sense, but it might explain why we don't want to give JM a break.

 

[Melanie]

So is the bitterness because she's a televangelist, or that she's not all knowing? Has there been even an inkling that Coleman told Meyer's about anything, or that she knew about the affair?

I don't see it that way. Anyone who can show up for work everyday can show up and testify. She's not disabled, and I can't see a reason why she can't testify in person. Each and every one of would be asked to if we were connected to such a high profile case.

Televangelist or not - why can't she show up? Is it because the state doesn't want to pay for the expense?

MOO

Mel

 

[Charlie09]

I don't see it that way. Anyone who can show up for work everyday can show up and testify. She's not disabled, and I can't see a reason why she can't testify in person. Each and every one of would be asked to if we were connected to such a high profile case.

Televangelist or not - why can't she show up? Is it because the state doesn't want to pay for the expense?

MOO

Mel

But you aren't privy to everything the judge is privy to who made the decision. I just don't see her as the bad guy here - Chris Coleman is the accused and he's the one who needs to answer the charges. Joyce Meyers has given her testimony - that's really all that matters.

 

[Charlie09]

Is it possible that the only reason for JM to testify is to verify 1) Chris was an employee of JMM 2) the work computer he was using was the one assigned to him at JMM 3) he was the one logged on to the computer when the threats were written, or in comparing writing patterns and incorrectly spelled words used in both threats and in JMM memos 4) timeline with regard to travel schedules and duties and 5) Sheri and Chris were in marriage counseling and/or were having problems. Remember Sheri went to JMM and told them Chris was having an affair and wanted a divorce.

While I do think she was well aware of Chris's affair, I don't think she encouraged it or discouraged it - I think she turned a blind eye to it. And we know her son knew about it. I believe some of us have a problem with JM for reasons having nothing to do with Chris. Some of us have talked in the past about JM - basically the fact that she has millions of dollars which she has earned from her ministry. While I have no problem with self-made millionaires, I do have a problem with people who IMO worship money more than God, and who take money from those who maybe can't afford it and who think they are buying their way into heaven. Once we form an opinion of a person like JM, it is hard to separate our personal feelings of her vs our opinions of JM and Chris Coleman. She, of course, is not at fault for the murders - all she can do is verify info from what I can see - and I guess she actually believed Chris until she saw the evidence that was beginning to accumulate. I still have no respect for her, but I really don't think she could have anticipated what happened.

It's kind of the same thing with Chris's parents. Let's face it, most of us would try to protect our child although I don't think I could in a case like this one. We look at Ron Coleman and see a "man of God" who has asked for donations for his son's defense. He has convinced his church members to believe in him and in his son - and apparently they do. But, in a prior thread, it was written that he had advanced a lot of money - can't remember the amount but I'm thinking it was well over the $100,000 mark. I don't know about you all, but I don't know many ministers who have that kind of money and when I see one who does, I doubt their motivations. And I don't trust them.

So while a lot of us have a problem with JM and the Coleman parents, and while we don't understand them or have respect for them, we do realize it is Chris on trial and not JM or RC. We just don't have the patience for, what some may call, the games that are being played.

Don't know if that makes sense, but it might explain why we don't want to give JM a break.

Sounds like unresolved issues with faith - and taking it out on a public figure. Which is fine, but that doesn't make her a party to anything that happened.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I don't see it that way. Anyone who can show up for work everyday can show up and testify. She's not disabled, and I can't see a reason why she can't testify in person. Each and every one of would be asked to if we were connected to such a high profile case.

Televangelist or not - why can't she show up? Is it because the state doesn't want to pay for the expense?

MOO

Mel

I feel she should have to testify in court also. I have seen witnesses wheeled into court in wheelchairs, for goodness sake.

I do not agree with preferential treatment for anyone. That is just me, I guess.

JMO

 

[CCup]

WhoKnew, you made some great points. Like I said before Joyce Meyer has rubbed me the wrong way since before this case, but for me its not necessarily the money issue.

Here is my question and I guess this is where I tend to want to "blame" Joyce and her ministries...Why didn't Joyce Meyer Ministry investigate the death threats? I think that they (the Columbia P-D for that matter) were negligent in NOT investigating the threats on the very day they were reported to them. Maybe we will never know the answer to why they weren't investigated, but a part of me believes that if those death threats were investigated when they were reported, they maybe Sheri, Garret, & Gavin could still be alive today. JMO

 

[CCmakes3]

Sounds like unresolved issues with faith - and taking it out on a public figure. Which is fine, but that doesn't make her a party to anything that happened.

I certainly don't think Joyce is a party to anything that happened. I don't even fault her for looking the other way about the affair, or giving Chris $10,000 the day after the murders (which probably went straight to his defense fund, judging from the size of the headstones and the fact that his dad performed the funeral). I just think it's a little insensitive for her to say that she still prays for him when she's never said anything about praying for Sheri's family. MOO. Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing her of being involved in the crime somehow. She certainly could be praying for him to repent, which is laudable, but I don't see how a woman of God could fail to offer prayers for the murdered as well.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

A woman of God says many prayers. Just because she has not made the public aware of everyone she prays for does not mean the killer is the only one she prays for.

If anybody thinks she has not said MANY PRAYERS for the victims, I would think again. I'm sure she has.

 

[Kimster]

A woman of God says many prayers. Just because she has not made the public aware of everyone she prays for does not mean the killer is the only one she prays for.

If anybody thinks she has not said MANY PRAYERS for the victims, I would think again. I'm sure she has.

Praying for the dead is probably not a part of her belief system. Praying for their families would be and I hope she has done that. It would be nice to hear that from her because I'm sure the concerns expressed here aren't the only ones out there about her compassion.

I'd like to know how this works when someone gives this kind of testimony. How can she be cross-examined, for example?

 

[who knew?]

Kimster, I assumed the defense was in attendance at the depo - but I may be wrong. I'll try to find out.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello All,

Interesting thread... First, the choice, "Should Joyce Meyer be required to testify in person?" and Second, the choice, "Yes, she should testify in person just like anyone else." I'm wondering if people are "required" to testify "in person" or if this is just a matter that they are required to do their part to assist when called upon to do so.

JM is human, she knew Sheri and the children, she knew Chris -- she trusted Chris (my guess is that she regrets that, but had no reason to distrust him until she did). I can believe that she has a million feelings about this whole thing, not the least of which might be a tremendously broken heart for Sheri and the children. Then, after aching for or along with aching for the victims, somewhere in time (as with all of us), I'm sure she would consider that she had a snake in her midst and she never caught it. My guess is that she, like any of us would, suffers hugely with "if only's." "If only I had seen, known...caught it, it was right in front of my eyes..." I've got news, there have been many things right in front of my eyes and I never caught them either, hindsight is 20/20. Aside from that, I don't believe that she has stood anywhere and said, "I am God, all seeing all knowing" -- she is human, she knows it and we know it.

I'm thinking that JM is in a position of being "damned if you do, damned if you don't." No win. And I too have wondered, "What was she supposed to do, what can she do now, that would have been acceptable to everyone -- that could be acceptable to everyone?" My guess is "nothing," I can't see that any specific set of "somethings" she could do would please everyone and make them say, "Now that JM, she is an okay kinda person." People have their feelings about tel-evangelists, I have mine, but as far as I can see JM was just another one of Chris' victims. She was a victim, used by Chris. The cop across the street from the family was a victim, used by Chris.

If JM shows at the trial, is she an attention seeker? Is she someone turning it into a greater media circus than it is and/or will be? Has she said, "I don't want to be there, but I will do whatever is needed to help?" I believe the latter might be true, and it might be what I would say, or I might say like one juror did, "I don't want anything to do with this, I don't want to be here." (and not because we wouldn't want to do what we could for Sheri and the children and those who loved them.) My guess is that JM has many mixed feelings about what she may or may not be able to do to help, and she certainly has "counsel" advising her (any wise person would seek counsel in the situation). She may have said, "Let me go...I want to go and help" and the judge might have said, "I think the best thing you can do is" or her attorney might have said something similar. There is just a whole lot that none of us know, and the press will post of what she says only what they wish or have room for in their article. Even if she wanted to go "on the record" and spew her guts on the whole matter, she probably has counsel saying, "No no no no no." There is wisdom in holding your tongue (I don't have much where that is concerned, unfortunately

There are times that I have said, and I certainly do feel, "Keep your hands off of that one except what you must do, this is God's turf, let him handle it." If I stepped out of line and blew something up, it would only be one more "if only"... Worse, if I felt that the situation should sway one way or another, and I spoke out of turn and the opposite of what I had hoped for occurred, I would be tormented for life -- if only...

Finally... We have no idea what JM would or would not do if she had the liberty to do it in this situation. Might she have gone by the grave site and seen those stones and thrown up like I would? I was afraid to say anything about those stones, I didn't know if Sheri's family made any choices in those stones, i.e. had Sheri one day said, "I won't be in my grave, just put a few small stones on it if you have to, spend the money on something else." I've told my family similar. Without knowing Sheri's feelings about her grave, who can say what JM should do, or her family? What I "think I see" in those stones is that Chris had something to do with them, and not Sheri's family. What I "think I see" is a man spitting on the grave of his wife and children who he murdered.

Might JM have a heart to build a memorial to Sheri and the children? Perhaps. None of us know that, and you can almost bet she has been advised to keep her mouth shut about how she feels. How would you like to be seething with anger (as we all are), or overflowing with heartache (as we all are) and not be able to spew and vent to everyone about it?

All I can see is that JM is in a no win situation where this matter is concerned. We are all losers -- CC made sure of that. I kinda guess that if the Judge had said, "you will be here lady, I don't care what your schedule 'is'" -- that she would be. Would I fight to not be in court and have to testify there? Oh you bet I would, I have watched what happens in court. Would it have anything to do with whether I wanted justice for Sheri and the children, no -- that is a given -- but would my "being there" make the difference of whether they got it, or would my being there damage their getting it.

Altogether, I'm feeling that the judge would have her there if he wanted her there, and she would be there. I believe there is more to this than meets the eye and I can't find a way to criticize the situation, not at this point in time at least. I want justice for Sheri and the children. I don't hate Chris, I hate what he has done -- it was pure unadulterated wickedness. I feel that CC is a threat to all of society and always will be. I believe that he deserves the death penalty, yesterday... I don't want him to have a slow or fast painful death. I don't want him to suffer for years in prison. I just want him to lay down, take an injection and go away.

Chris is the guilty person in this, I see him as the one on trial -- I hold no one else responsible for what they did or did not do. I don't blame anyone else for not going and snatching Sheri and the children away from him when they thought they might be at risk (and there were many who might have thought so), I blame CC for doing what he did.

 

[who knew?]

It's ambiguous - at first I thought this meant the defense was in attendance, but I'm not sure. If they weren't able to cross examine her, and some of her testimony was used, I'd think the possibility of the defense asking for a mistrial would be high.
Maybe some lawyers can weigh in on this.

http://www.bnd.com/2011/04/07/1661379/joyce-dan-meyer-give-depositions.html

The Meyers were asked to testify by Monroe County State's Attorney Kris Reitz, but Joyce Meyer asked that her trial testimony be given by way of a videotaped deposition that may be shown to the jury in Coleman's murder trial. Meyer had a previous scheduled conference on the day Reitz asked her to appear to offer live testimony, said her lawyer, Mike King.

Reitz and defense attorneys John O'Gara, Jim Stern and Bill Margulis agreed.

and

Dan Meyer, 31, the chief executive officer of Joyce Meyer Ministries, who was close friends with Chris Coleman, had similar comments to his mother's upon leaving the courthouse. He stated he was asked by the prosecutor and defense not to discuss the case any further.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello WhoKnew...

I'm not sure what is ambiguous? Am I missing something? The article says, "Reitz and Coleman's lawyers questioned Joyce Meyer." (so prosecution and defense questioned her.)

In the article, we can see that JM and her son were willing to step forward before the trial to offer testimony and to answer questions. The prosecution and defense agreed.

The article says:

>>Joyce Meyer asked that her trial testimony be given by way of a videotaped deposition that may be shown to the jury in Coleman's murder trial. Meyer had a previous scheduled conference on the day Reitz asked her to appear to offer live testimony, said her lawyer, Mike King.<< (previously scheduled...)

>>Reitz and defense attorneys John O'Gara, Jim Stern and Bill Margulis agreed.<<
(all were in agreement to permit the video taped testimony)

As an aside after having read that article, I found this part of the article interesting:

>>When asked whether she was praying for Coleman, Meyer replied: "Certainly."<<

JM was asked what I consider to be a very dumb question. She didn't offer an "I'm praying for Chris," she responded. Succinctly. I wonder what might she have responded that could work for everyone? "No" or "Maybe" or "What do you think?" or "No comment?" Or "Yeah, but I'm praying for Sheri and the children's families far more?" Or "Yeah, wanna know what I am praying for him?" Or "I'll tell you what I am praying for him if you tell me what you are."

I'm praying for Chris, you can bet I am. I am praying that he has one small moment of clarity and stops this trial by a confession. Praying for Chris would not necessarily mean being on "his side" or not wanting justice for Sheri and the children. Actually, in a small way I am on Chris' side. I'd like to see him do one right thing at this point, confess and offer to be taken by death immediately.