**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

[oceanblueeyes]

imo....Easy. Push the back of the heel down flat and wear the shoes like mules/slip ons.

I dont think it would be easy.

He wore two sizes larger. Even if he did that he would still have a part of his heel hanging off the backside, imo.

 

[Just the Fax]

I just watched the Saacks closing from trial #1.
He did a super job explaining the mystery 10 shoes, including acting in concert.
Hard to believe that jury hung.

 

[fromageball]

And to add just another piece - how would a random stranger KNOW what size shoes would be worn by the resident/owner/husband/significant other.

I can just see the murderer going through the closet checking out shoe sizes and making the adjustment. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.:banghead:

Why would the stranger need to know the shoe size of the resident? They grab a pair of shoes inside and make some prints with them to throw off the investigation.

That makes a lot more sense to me than saying that JY wore his own shoes as well as the Franklins. Going to go out on a limb here, but I think if JY wanted to throw off the investigation, he would not have worn his own shoes at all.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I just watched the Saacks closing from trial #1.
He did a super job explaining the mystery 10 shoes, including acting in concert.
Hard to believe that jury hung.

How did he explain them? So did he admit that someone else could have been wearing these shoes and not JY? I am not sure that is a good thing to admit for there was no evidence entered that JY acted in concert with anyone else. The entire trial was based on JY solely plotting, planning and carrying it out. That was the State's theory.

Did the State/LE ever look for another suspect?

thanks

 

[fifteen89]

JTF, there was no evidence that the size 10 shoes were not worn nor that the foot was not entirely in the shoe. Therefore, your theory is no more true than his foot being completely in the shoe. I always put a Red Flag when such alternate theories are required to explain a coincidence.

Oh, there's Red Flags all over the place.....waaaaaaaaay too many coincidences and ridiculous explanations to not be G. imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Why would the stranger need to know the shoe size of the resident? They grab a pair of shoes inside and make some prints with them to throw off the investigation.

That makes a lot more sense to me than saying that JY wore his own shoes as well as the Franklins. Going to go out on a limb here, but I think if JY wanted to throw off the investigation, he would not have worn his own shoes at all.

That makes sense to me too. He would have left all sorts of size 10 footprints only. Isnt that what the other guy did that killed his parents?

IMO

 

[fifteen89]

Well the law is click it or ticket. I assume they were out of the car when the officer got there. If I was asked if we were wearing seat belts and I had tried to cause harm to my wife/husband due to causing an accident, I wouldn't say I asked my wife to remove her seat belt just before the crash.

And your wife probably wouldn't contradict you in front of the officer. Especially not if you're the mentally and emotionally abusive husband like Jason was to Michelle. (which I'm sure you are not!)

 

[cody100]

Oh, there's Red Flags all over the place.....waaaaaaaaay too many coincidences and ridiculous explanations to not be G. imo

To be fair, there are red flags on both sides. I just pointed out one of them. It may come down as to has the most unexplained red flags. MOO

 

[fifteen89]

I dont think it would be easy.

He wore two sizes larger. Even if he did that he would still have a part of his heel hanging off the backside, imo.

Easy as pie. Why would he care if 'a part of his heel was hanging off the backside'? He was intent on one thing and one thing only. imo

 

[fifteen89]

To be fair, there are red flags on both sides. I just pointed out one of them. It may come down as to has the most unexplained red flags. MOO

I know the answer to that one!! Definitely G. imo

 

[Wolfpack]

Easy as pie. Why would he care if 'a part of his heel was hanging off the backside'? He was intent on one thing and one thing only. imo

If you're wearing a shoe, that doesn't fit your foot, with the heel hanging out the back, won't those be difficult to stay on during commission of a murder? If I wear shoes that don't fit, I have to curl my toes up and shuffle my feet. Would those leave the crystal clear print found? Which others have used here as evidence of staging?

 

[Tipstaff]

By taking the shoes out of the owner's closet because he couldn't exactly leave in blood soaked shoes of his own?

I wasn't not exactly referring to this specific murder...but in this case
..
In the heat of a brutal murder with a small child walking in on the murder, and giving adult tylenol to the child and taking the diaper and making sure the dog is not in the room and not alerting the neighborhood or biting the murderer, and walking past the purse and not emptying the contents all over the place and making sure you take the wedding rings...........and on and on.

Actually the more I lay this out the more I realize JY planned and planned his wife's murder.

 

[the couger]

Agreed, I don't think the jury will dismiss them, I just think their opinion on hush puppy prints will be more important when they decide whether or not JY was at the crime scene. It doesn't matter if he had help or not, imo, since they can convict as long as they think he was there.

I agree and this is where the credibility of the two women will come in. If they believe others were at the scene and it could NOT be JY, he will be found NG. If on the other hand, they believe Gracie, they will have to find him G.
I think other evidence will be discussed but the car in front of the home, viewed by two wittinesses is going, IMO, be the deciding factor.
Good morning everyone.. :seeya:

 

[fromageball]

I don't recall that they did, but you can clearly see the red marks on the foot.

I don't think the PT ever theorized that JY acted alone or "in concert" (they didn't get "locked" into one), so they didn't lead the jury towards either one in the case - they left it open to each jury member to decide on his/her own, which was a smart strategy.

I don't think that was a good strategy because it leaves the case open to reasonable doubt.

If I were a juror in this case I would not be happy that the prosecution has thrown a bunch of stuff at me about how the defendant could have done it, and then wants to "let me decide" on what I think happened. I'm going to decide that I don't know what happened, which for me translates to reasonable doubt.

That is why I would vote NG in this case.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Easy as pie. Why would he care if 'a part of his heel was hanging off the backside'? He was intent on one thing and one thing only. imo

I respecfully disagree, fifteen.

If I got a size 5 shoe and pushed the back down my size 7 feet would still be hanging off the back of the shoe and if I stepped in blood it would show not only the smaller size shoe but part of my heel that was hanging off the back as I stepped putting my full weight on the shoes..

IMO

 

[Just the Fax]

I know that river wreck has been beat to death, but the most telling evidence is the route he took to get to the Igles Starbucks.
4 miles vs 7 miles . He knew Brevard roads like the back of his hand.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wasn't not exactly referring to this specific murder...but in this case
..
In the heat of a brutal murder with a small child walking in on the murder, and giving adult tylenol to the child and taking the diaper and making sure the dog is not in the room and not alerting the neighborhood or biting the murderer, and walking past the purse and not emptying the contents all over the place and making sure you take the wedding rings...........and on and on.

Actually the more I lay this out the more I realize JY planned and planned his wife's murder.

The dog not biting or alerting anyone doesnt bother me. I remember in the Greone case they had two large dogs in their home that night. One was a PitBull yet they did not try to attack Joesph Duncan. He said they ran to another room and got up under a table, whimpering.

IMO

 

[BritsKate]

I'm a size 8 and my daughter is a size 6. I was just able bend the back of her shoe, get my foot in, and walk around (though a bit uncomfortable).

The height of the sole (about 2-2.5 inches) kept my heel from touching the ground. I'd actually have to rock back on my heels for them to come into contact with the floor - and with my luck would probably fall over doing so. FWIW

 

[LOMom]

The dog not biting or alerting anyone doesnt bother me. I remember in the Greone case they had two large dogs in their home that night. One was a PitBull yet they did not try to attack Joesph Duncan. He said they ran to another room and got up under a table, whimpering.

IMO

Interesting that the killer in that case also wore shoes that were not his size in order to throw off investigators. Seems that wearing shoes that are not your size at a crime scene is not all that uncommon.

 

[Stella5]

Is it just me that has a variety of size shoes in my closet? I have anywhere from 6 1/2 to up to a 9, yes a 9 (cheapo sandals I bought in Hilton Head)! My feet are actually two different sizes (7 & 7 1/2), only by 1/2 size but it makes buying shoes so much fun!!! In my experience the more expensive the shoe, the truer to size it runs. Cheaper shoes run bigger, kinda like expensive designer clothes running smaller just to make me feel bad. My Nike's are 7's, Reeboks are 8's and my Skeechers are an 8 1/2! And they all fit perfectly. The husband has huge, ugly feet and he also has different sizes... his Cole-Hahn's are 12s, yet Allen-Edmonds are 12 1/2s; but his New Balances are 11s... go figure. It is possible for the same feet to fit into different sized shoes, IMO & IME.