Poll: Was Shannan Gilbert Murdered?

[hawkshaw]

Now that is a great reply. A lot of BS, but really good. You almost sound like a judge. I am still working on proving the man and woman I thought was my mom and dad were actually who I believed they were. I wasn't there when it 'happened'. I'll try to answer your post. Thanx, I appreciate the opportunity.

 

[hawkshaw]

Hey, Tuge, how about this for starters? Ed Walsh is responsible for many judges being on the bench. John Powell put Gail Prudenti on the bench. I REST MY CASE.

 

[hawkshaw]

You just too smart to be on this board posting what you posted on the Manners case for you not to be an insider.

 

[Theforeigner]

I thought this was the : Poll: Was Shannan Gilbert Murdered? thread !!!

So WHY are you guys discussing a case that has nothing to do with Shannon Gilberts and/or the LISK case?

 

[hawkshaw]

How the conversation led to this: we were talking about Gilgo. It led to a poster talking about the latest guy that has been arrested after his DNA was found on two dead working girls. I came in and said maybe one day the DNA evidence thing is going to get a kick in the behind. Something we cannot imagine happening will happen.

I then went into the Jessica M murder and said a kid named Chris is sitting in jail because his DNA was found in/on a dead girl. He was questioned by the police and when he asked if he was with the girl he denied it. He was 19 and she was 14 going on 41. The conversation branched out when I mentioned there was a second set of DNA on/in the body and the cops never checked to ID it.

We now know the kid sitting in jail did have sex with the victim, but what about the other sample?

This TUGELA character writes what could have been an appellate court opinion when he answered my post. I must have hit a nerve because someone took a lot of time to look at the case so they could diminish my argument.

I once read a case where a fellow had his conviction over-turned in a Appellate Court. I had an idea who 'read' the case to present it to the judge. I called him and I detected a giggle. He tells me I am right, he did it. He also told me that when his supervisor handed him the case he was to affirm the conviction !!! And that is a fact. He would have no part of it and he followed his conscience and did the right thing.

There is very little justice in the appellate courts. They have their own quotas to keep. You can't have too many reversals because it looks bad for the other busted valises posing as judges.

Most of those jokers never bother to read the Briefs submitted to them. All you have to do is to read the Brief, look at the opinion and you know they didn't read anything because they already made up their minds which way they are going to rule. In the Tankleff Case I was told by a prominent reporter the decision to reverse was made before the Brief was filed.

In my son in law's case I read the reply from the DA on his appeal. It was 66 pages long. In the first 30+ pages I counted 125 outright lies, improper inclusion of alleged facts, outright distortions, etc., I stopped counting at 125! OK, I have a bias, but 125!!! If I was only 10% right and the court read the Reply brief from the DA they would have thrown the whole damned case out. What they did do was throw out 2/3 of the convictions and wrote a decision that was not only logically incorrect, it was factually and legally incorrect.

Those BOZOs that call themselves appellate judges denied one charge to be vacated and addressed the meat of the reply: two cases of Molineux evidence that was clearly inflammatory, and highly prejudicial by saying in the last 7 words in the decision: "The defendant's other contentions ( Molineux) are without merit."

A well known liberal lawyer once said: "Judges are *advertiser censored* and appellate judges are Madams." He later became a judge.

Try and sell your BS to someone else that doesn't know better.

 

[hawkshaw]

Like I said, I showed the appeal to several prominent lawyers. One is a world class lawyer who once watched the judiciary. He read it and said it was a decent appeal and it should suffice, BUT don't expect a fair shake from the court - and he laughed. One fellow was a hanging judge who had since been retired. He read the Brief and told me it could have been better written, but the Molineux issue was more than enough to get a reversal. He added, don't expect to get a fair shake from the appellate court. In the 2nd Department it is more likely than any other Department in NYS.

 

[Emre E]

I then went into the Jessica M murder and said a kid named Chris is sitting in jail because his DNA was found in/on a dead girl. He was questioned by the police and when he asked if he was with the girl he denied it. He was 19 and she was 14 going on 41. The conversation branched out when I mentioned there was a second set of DNA on/in the body and the cops never checked to ID it.

Normally, someone who lies about knowing a victim while his DNA (I mean semen) is on the victim is a straight killer in my eye. But looking at the specifics of this case, a second DNA (I infer semen) going unchecked is misconduct. The duty of DA/LE is not getting convictions, it is to get the truth.

Connecting it to Shannan... there's a man two times caught in a lie. Straight killer in my eye. A dead hooker's mom is going to accuse me of calling her and telling stuff about me taking care of wayward girls, I would go crazy, I would get my phone records instantly and sue Mari back. Why can't Mr. Hackett do that? Because he knows he's a liar.

 

[hawkshaw]

A couple of years ago in either Indiana or Illinois a man was exonerated of a rape/murder. He would do a ton of years in jail. DNA finally came into play and the real killer was found, arrested, and convicted. The State's Attorney said, not so fast because there could be another explanation why the other man's DNA was on/in the dead woman. SHE EVEN HAD THE GALL to say that maybe the man who has now been identified was passing by the corpse and said why not, let me have a tumble with her. I mean she wasn't decomposed yet.

That story is a matter of record.

Who knows, maybe the killer was the Pope - anything is possible.

My information is the victim in the JM case had two sets of semen on/in her body. The cops never identified the second sample probably because the had their victim.

I was a detective in homicide for 10 years. We saw a lot of murders and a lot of suspects/witnesses/informants. On two occasions a witness offered to give us other homicides in other jurisdictions. The two were in Suffolk County. We called and they could care less what we had to offer. They said, "we got someone in jail for that one." END of STORY.

With all of the failings we had in the NYPD, I think I could safely say that when we got information that an innocent man was in jail, one that we put there, we jumped all over the new information. Even then it was almost impossible to over-turn a conviction.

 

[hawkshaw]

' YOU DON'T HAVE ME GOOD ENOUGH'. In all the years in the business and questioning all sorts of witnesses/suspects, murder, white collar, organized crime - smart, dumb, or in between has a suspect EVER 'spontaneously' uttered those words: " You don't have me good enough." NEVER! Because it implies guilt whether the suspect is guilty or not. Yeah, I did it but a fat chance you have of proving it.

CL told an inmate he killed JM. Maybe that is possible BUT to say he RAPED a girl is an invitation to a very long and uncomfortable stay in jail.

Even the appellate court couldn't find evidence of a rape. If it wasn't rape then what possible reason would he kill her for? Tugela will like to explain that by saying the reasons he killed her may have stemmed from unknown reasons.

The prosecution theory was he killed her because he raped her. Now the appellate court said that didn't seem to be true. So why didn't the court order another trial? Because the feckless judges don't have the guts to do so in such a high profile case.

Just love the way Tugela explained away the lawyer's statement that he gave years after the murder when asked by a former cop if he knew anything about the murder. Tugela said NOT seeing something is not the same as seeing something. The lawyer did see SOMETHING, the something he saw was NOTHING! If memory serves me right the lawyer did go back to the scene after word spread about the victim, and he had a good recollection that where the body was later found there was NOTHING there when he passed by it as he does almost everyday of his life when he went out for his daily runs.

CL MAY have hid behind the 711 when the manager first said he saw JM in his store. Then he changes it after a re-visit by detectives. Which is it TUGELA. Is it she was there on the night of the murder, or was she there the night before the night she was murdered.

 

[Tugela]

As you well know, proving a motive is not a requirement. The prosecution suggested a plausible motive, which was not disproven. The reason that particular part of the conviction was overturned was because it was not proven either. That does not mean that it did not happen. I will tell you what is implausible however, that a 14 year old would call up some guy to come and have sex with her in between parties, which is what you seem to believe. We know she wanted to see him, apparently urgently, we don't know WHY. She had to have sex with him RIGHT NOW, before she took off to another party? Really?? They had sex, but while there is no evidence of forcible rape on the victim, there apparently was evidence of injury on the accused. So, rape can't be proven, but it can't be excluded either. I don't think rape as such was motive, but more likely some disagreement that lead to assault and her death. As I said, you do not need to prove a motive, suggesting a plausible motive will suffice.

Regarding the lawyer, seeing nothing is not evidence unless you were specifically looking for something and did not see it. And since he would not have specifically been looking for a body at that spot (one hopes), his testimony is useless. One might ask, if he is a lawyer, and was aware of the case, why did he not come forward at the time and report what he had "not" seen? I would guess that he understands the distinction as well.

You must have been one hell of a cop!!

 

[hawkshaw]

1. Why didn't the lawyer come forward at the time the body was found? The first thing he would have to know was what time the body was found and how the cops were going to go with the case. It would mean nothing to him at that time. When he was asked by my friend several years ago my friend was startled to hear him say the kid didn't do it. Why didn't he come forward then? He said no one asked him. He was asked to prepare an affidavit. He had to check with his wife, first. He had no 'dog' in this fight and the only thing that could come from it was grief - which he got.

You might not believe it, Tugela, but the people are more afraid of the cops than they are of the criminals. In my case when I called a pizza parlor owner to verify if a witness worked at his place the night of a crime the guy bounced off the walls in anger. He said the witness lied to me because he knew I would never find him ( the owner ). But I did and I was confused because I did, in fact, find him in less than 10 minutes after I became aware he was in the game. He thought I couldn't find him because the pizza parlor burned down a year after the burglary, and didn't open another store at another place for a year later. He confirmed for me the witness COULDN'T HAVE LEFT at Midnight because he closes each night at 930PM. AND on that particular night he was CLOSED as he always is on Sundays.

After spending more than 15 minutes on the phone with him cursing the witness he would wind up saying: Look, I live and have to work in this Town and I don't need these people harassing me. He wasn't talking about the burglars, HE was talking about the Effing Cops. The next day when I went to his place to interview him personally - HE DISAPPEARED. Do you think the lawyer didn't know better?

The lawyer went to the scene right after he learned of the body and he KNEW he would have seen it even if he wasn't looking for it !

2. SHE called HIM, and not the other way around. I am guessing she had a party planned and needed a ride out from her house to where she could be picked up. Hey, nice guy, CL, why not RETURN THE FAVOR. She gets her ride and he gets laid.

3. SHE was highly promiscuous. Everybody knew that and that was NOT allowed at trial. They wanted to protect this young lady's reputation. Most nights she sneaked out of the house and went partying and returned at daybreak.

4. Where did her friend Wendy C go. She went to France, presumably to refine her resume. It is rumored her dad was a cop? Kind of expensive schooling for a cop ( if that was true) wasn't it? She came back and went to Maine.

5. Your SCPD Homicide detectives are notorious for lying. At around the same time of this murder they got caught lying in the Negus murder. Not one cop, but two cops, and a few ADA's too boot. Then Marty Tankleff was their victim of their LIES, and only God knows how many more have fallen victim to their criminal conduct?

6. Was I a good cop? I think I was passable, but ONE thing I know, to the best of my ability is I NEVER knowingly put an innocent man in jail.

 

[mysteryattic]

Just wondering what members think about the person of interest mentioned on the Dark Minds episode.

 

[hawkshaw]

Just wondering what members think about the person of interest mentioned on the Dark Minds episode.

What person is that? I saw part of the show and I thought it wasn't worth watching to the end.

 

[hawkshaw]

If you folks like to play detective I suggest you go back to Post#795 and click on the last word of that post: "Here" Read the appellate court decision affirming the trial court decision, in part while dismissing other parts. Pay particular attention to the timelines the judges cite in their opinion. Trust me you don't have to have been a detective (I was ) to understand what is wrong here. All you need to do is to be able to ask questions.

If you come to understand what happened here you might also understand how the Court had the decision even before they read the Briefs.

OK, BY NOW YOU SHOULD BE ASKING: Why does HAWKSHAW continue writing about things that seem to have NO connection to LISK. I am telling you it has more to do with LISK than you might think. If you understand the system you might understand why the LISK investigation seems to be going no where.

 

[Emre E]

If you folks like to play detective I suggest you go back to Post#795 and click on the last word of that post: "Here" Read the appellate court decision affirming the trial court decision, in part while dismissing other parts. Pay particular attention to the timelines the judges cite in their opinion. Trust me you don't have to have been a detective (I was ) to understand what is wrong here. All you need to do is to be able to ask questions.

If you come to understand what happened here you might also understand how the Court had the decision even before they read the Briefs.

OK, BY NOW YOU SHOULD BE ASKING: Why does HAWKSHAW continue writing about things that seem to have NO connection to LISK. I am telling you it has more to do with LISK than you might think. If you understand the system you might understand why the LISK investigation seems to be going no where.

I read the appellate court decision. It's really nothing more than the recap of the trial. I didn't see a reference to a second set of DNA in that. I wonder if that was ever put in records.

The following paragraph is contradictory in itself.

There is overwhelming evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt. Most obviously, there is the evidence of his lies to the police and his attempt to create a false alibi, noted above. Furthermore, there is evidence which tends to show that the defendant altered his appearance after the homicide, that he inexplicably learned, within only a few minutes, of the discovery of the body on the edge of Scott's Cove on Sunday morning, that he was seen vacuuming his car on the following Monday, and that, after his arrest, he spontaneously stated, among other things, "you don't have me good enough".

It tells of a person who cleans his car to get rid of the murder evidence/altering his appearance, but why he waited till the body is found to do that is not clear. It also suggests the defendant was caught off guard when the body was found, in reality the body is somewhere that could easily be discovered, just dumped open, so why would he be surprised with the discovery? I can't say CL is innocent with that, but this paragraph is apparently in line with his "reason to lie".

If there's a second set of DNA, the court did not need that much BS. They could simply order an analysis. Or if it was just a defense claim, the court could order LE to provide official affirmation that there's no second set of DNA. I don't know if there is a second DNA but that being present and being possibly that of a confidential informant would change the whole picture.

 

[twocuriouscats]

Just wondering what members think about the person of interest mentioned on the Dark Minds episode.

Hello mysteryattic and welcome to w/s! There is a thread for the Dark Minds episode...if you have any insight feel free to share!
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?241530-Dark-Minds-Episode-on-the-LISK-airing-4-23

 

[hawkshaw]

EMRE: In the opinion you pretty much have the judges agreeing that JM called CL, at his home at about 11:45PM. It is unclear if he was home to take the call. Then there is another call to CL's home at 12:15 from JM looking for CL. This means that CL was NOT with JM at that time. We do know he did eventually meet up with CL. I am assuming JM called CL because she wanted a ride from her home that she regularly snuck out of most every night. JM was very sexually active, and she was only 14 years old. I'm thinking JM told CL that it would be well worth his while if he gave her a ride.

OK, we know he is not with her at 12:15. Lets give the DA the benefit of the doubt and say he got there at 12 20AM. The alibi he wanted to be used was for his girlfriend to place them together at 1:00AM. If he killed her later one has to assume he would have extended the time line to 200AM. The ME puts the TOD at around 200AM. That is their information, not mine.

We then have to assume that CL picks up JM, drive off to a place to have sex. After he finishes he kills her. He then drives her to the water's edge and disposes of her body. We assume that because that is what the court assumed in their decision. I think that by using the prosecution's theory CL killed JM in the car. She was strangled and had heavy damage done to her head. Nothing was said about her bleeding from that wound. Nothing was said about the cops finding blood in the car even considering CL was cleaning his car one day after he allegedly killed her.

The body is found at around 9:00AM later that morning by a passerby. The passerby had no trouble seeing the body, BUT, according to TUGELA the attorney of a stellar reputation didn't see the body at 730 when he jogged by on that morning and most mornings at the same time.

WHEN the body is found the ME will say JM had liver mortis on her back. It means that for a period of time the dead body was on its back. She was found FACE DOWN at the death site. The ME opined the body was moved sometime after the murder and was placed face down.

Liver mortis doesn't begin no earlier than 20 minutes after the person is dead. The longer the body remains on its back the more purple splotching of the inert blood going to the lowest point/gravity. We don't know how far into liver mortis the body was subjected to. I have to assume it was enough for the ME to comment on it. ARE YOU STARTING TO GET THE PICTURE?

Going with the DA's scenario, and now the appellate court's scenario, giving more than a reasonable time for the crime to be committed: CL picks her up no earlier that 1220. Has sex in the car with her. He then kills her for no reason because we now know it probably wasn't rape, drives off with her body and dumps it face down. The body had to be on its back for at least 20 minutes, more likely longer and certainly a lot longer if there was significant blood pooling. He somehow accomplished all of this in a span of 40 minutes.
-
Why I ridicule Moe, Larry, and Shemp (The Three Stooges) is they go on to say that it was implausible that CL would drop off JM at the 711, and some unknown stranger(s) M L & S, without any evidence assume JM didn't know these killers. They go on to say that if this happened it would have to have happened in a span of 1HR 15MINS. They would say that scenario is highly improbable, while they have no problem with CL accomplishing all of this in 40 minutes.

The thing about this is not many citizens will believe an appellate court will decide which way the case is going to go even before they see the arguments. What they really do is to decide the case backwards - find the appellant guilty and then work the facts around to support their decision.

 

[Emre E]

EMRE: In the opinion you pretty much have the judges agreeing that JM called CL, at his home at about 11:45PM. It is unclear if he was home to take the call. Then there is another call to CL's home at 12:15 from JM looking for CL. This means that CL was NOT with JM at that time. We do know he did eventually meet up with CL. I am assuming JM called CL because she wanted a ride from her home that she regularly snuck out of most every night. JM was very sexually active, and she was only 14 years old. I'm thinking JM told CL that it would be well worth his while if he gave her a ride.

OK, we know he is not with her at 12:15. Lets give the DA the benefit of the doubt and say he got there at 12 20AM. The alibi he wanted to be used was for his girlfriend to place them together at 1:00AM. If he killed her later one has to assume he would have extended the time line to 200AM. The ME puts the TOD at around 200AM. That is their information, not mine.

We then have to assume that CL picks up JM, drive off to a place to have sex. After he finishes he kills her. He then drives her to the water's edge and disposes of her body. We assume that because that is what the court assumed in their decision. I think that by using the prosecution's theory CL killed JM in the car. She was strangled and had heavy damage done to her head. Nothing was said about her bleeding from that wound. Nothing was said about the cops finding blood in the car even considering CL was cleaning his car one day after he allegedly killed her.

The body is found at around 9:00AM later that morning by a passerby. The passerby had no trouble seeing the body, BUT, according to TUGELA the attorney of a stellar reputation didn't see the body at 730 when he jogged by on that morning and most mornings at the same time.

WHEN the body is found the ME will say JM had liver mortis on her back. It means that for a period of time the dead body was on its back. She was found FACE DOWN at the death site. The ME opined the body was moved sometime after the murder and was placed face down.

Liver mortis doesn't begin no earlier than 20 minutes after the person is dead. The longer the body remains on its back the more purple splotching of the inert blood going to the lowest point/gravity. We don't know how far into liver mortis the body was subjected to. I have to assume it was enough for the ME to comment on it. ARE YOU STARTING TO GET THE PICTURE?

Going with the DA's scenario, and now the appellate court's scenario, giving more than a reasonable time for the crime to be committed: CL picks her up no earlier that 1220. Has sex in the car with her. He then kills her for no reason because we now know it probably wasn't rape, drives off with her body and dumps it face down. The body had to be on its back for at least 20 minutes, more likely longer and certainly a lot longer if there was significant blood pooling. He somehow accomplished all of this in a span of 40 minutes.
-
Why I ridicule Moe, Larry, and Shemp (The Three Stooges) is they go on to say that it was implausible that CL would drop off JM at the 711, and some unknown stranger(s) M L & S, without any evidence assume JM didn't know these killers. They go on to say that if this happened it would have to have happened in a span of 1HR 15MINS. They would say that scenario is highly improbable, while they have no problem with CL accomplishing all of this in 40 minutes.

The thing about this is not many citizens will believe an appellate court will decide which way the case is going to go even before they see the arguments. What they really do is to decide the case backwards - find the appellant guilty and then work the facts around to support their decision.

I remember reading something in the news reports or court documents perhaps, the ME giving a TOD with a precision of 10 minutes. For a body of a person killed sometime early in the day and discovered in the morning, that's unreliably accurate. I know it is inappropriate to fling accusations lavishly, but seems like the TOD estimate is kind of an effort to back up the prosecution's theory.

EDIT: Is it possible that potential POI you are mentioning, who also happens to be a CI is a sex offender? I don't know if there are rules about that but every time LE hires a sex offender as CI, they plant a grenade in their own a...s and it requires massive efforts to keep it from going off.

 

[hawkshaw]

And they will do everything to protect the informant if they were into dirty business with him. When anyone such as a judge, DA, or a cop says it 'appears' then you know they are full o' manure. What do you mean it appears? There was a local news woman at the scene and from what she observed she said there was NO way the body was there for an extended period of time. The body didn't look wet.

I am sure by now you have GOOGLED Liver Mortis ( Lividity ) and have corroborated what I wrote above. When the body is in a position for an extended period of time after death the blood goes to the lowest point, AND it doesn't go to the other side if the body is turned in the other direction. What flows to the new resting site is the blood that didn't yet make it to the first parts of the body.

He cleaned his car a day after the body was found. If he killed her he knew what he did and he would have not waited a day. In any event he didn't do too good a job of it because the cops said they found fibers. She had some serious head injuries. The ME said she died from strangulation and head trauma. You mean to say there was no blood in the car? Maybe there was no bleeding. You don't get rid of blood residue so easy.

We know an older drug gave her his mother's necklace and he wanted it back. We believe he threatened her life if she didn't give it back. I believe she met that person at the party she went to after she left CL.

You don't have to be a super detective to figure this out. All you need is some common sense and an open mind.

CL will be coming up for parole very soon. He will NOT get out if he doesn't admit he killed JM. The TUGELAS will jump all over that if it happens.

The DA's case was built on the premise CL raped and killed JM. The Court said there was no proof of a rape. I guess their consciences got the best of them and threw out the felony murder and rape charge thinking they were doing this guy a favor. BIG DEAL he still got 25 to Life. They should have thrown out the whole conviction and if they wanted to play safe they should have ordered a new trial.

At least 4 jurors heard CL allegedly had inappropriate sex with another female. The jurors were interviewed by the judge and they assured him it played no role in their vote to convict. Yeah, tell me another story. These SOBs do this all the time.

There was recently a SCPD cop wrongful death case in federal court. The judge calls a mistrial even before he picks a jury because it was learned a newspaper with the story was seen in the main jury room. 4 people tell the judge they heard something inflammatory about the defendant and the judge passes it off as NO BIG DEAL. The appellate court goes right along with this BS.

Do you really want these cops to investigate the Gilgo Case?

 

[hawkshaw]

And they will do everything to protect the informant if they were into dirty business with him. When anyone such as a judge, DA, or a cop says it 'appears' then you know they are full o' manure. What do you mean it appears? There was a local news woman at the scene and from what she observed she said there was NO way the body was there for an extended period of time. The body didn't look wet.

I am sure by now you have GOOGLED Liver Mortis ( Lividity ) and have corroborated what I wrote above. When the body is in a position for an extended period of time after death the blood goes to the lowest point, AND it doesn't go to the other side if the body is turned in the other direction. What flows to the new resting site is the blood that didn't yet make it to the first parts of the body.

He cleaned his car a day after the body was found. If he killed her he knew what he did and he would have not waited a day. In any event he didn't do too good a job of it because the cops said they found fibers. She had some serious head injuries. The ME said she died from strangulation and head trauma. You mean to say there was no blood in the car? Maybe there was no bleeding. You don't get rid of blood residue so easy.

We know an older drug gave her his mother's necklace and he wanted it back. We believe he threatened her life if she didn't give it back. I believe she met that person at the party she went to after she left CL.

You don't have to be a super detective to figure this out. All you need is some common sense and an open mind.

CL will be coming up for parole very soon. He will NOT get out if he doesn't admit he killed JM. The TUGELAS will jump all over that if it happens.

The DA's case was built on the premise CL raped and killed JM. The Court said there was no proof of a rape. I guess their consciences got the best of them and threw out the felony murder and rape charge thinking they were doing this guy a favor. BIG DEAL he still got 25 to Life. They should have thrown out the whole conviction and if they wanted to play safe they should have ordered a new trial.

At least 4 jurors heard CL allegedly had inappropriate sex with another female. The jurors were interviewed by the judge and they assured him it played no role in their vote to convict. Yeah, tell me another story. These SOBs do this all the time.

There was recently a SCPD cop wrongful death case in federal court. The judge calls a mistrial even before he picks a jury because it was learned a newspaper with the story was seen in the main jury room. 4 people tell the judge they heard something inflammatory about the defendant and the judge passes it off as NO BIG DEAL. The appellate court goes right along with this BS.

Do you really want these cops to investigate the Gilgo Case?