GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #5

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I may just be paranoid but I would swear on my Halloween candy it looks like Nardi is on Websleuths right now! LOL.
 
I like how each juror goes under the radar and each one has truthfully said that they are asked at work how long they will be on jury duty.
 
May be a dumb question, I apologize. But. Are the jurors sequestered?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
...changing the channel here..hope no-one minds, but this just struck me--I hope it isn't redundant because I missed
a discussion about this, but... the hand wounds look like he garrotted her. I've been garroting my knee with various sizes of cord & I can so duplicate the markings--of course, no telling from the pics what color & texture they had. We do know that he lied about it several times. The first time was Monday morning at work (!), correct?**My question, now, concerns whether that could be responsible for the other evidence...

(A related matter, and I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't remember how it shook out...)
So, we know by the evidence that the parts found were hers ( teeth, hair, etc. --I don't want to elaborate--); we know she is dead, because she could not live without certain found parts--like the lower jaw; we know she met with horrible and deliberate violence to her and baby Joshua.

So, do they still need to find a body in order to convict? Or, is finding their bodies more to give her rest and closure to her family & dear ones?

**Correction: it was Tuesday
 
Hey Napili, my goodness, garroting your knee? OK, that is dedication. :) Do we have a link to see images of his hand injuries?

They do not need to have a body or even any parts of one, but they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in some way. Very lucky they found the jawbone. Otherwise there can be reluctance to call it a murder for sure. For example Mo is still a missing person, even though presumed dead. So, he screwed up immensely by not making it so that could never be found. It is difficult to convict on circumstantial evidence (which means no eyewitness(es), when the CE does not include a body, yes. But the evidence as a whole is pretty great, IMO.

At this point, the trial almost over, if they did find a body it would delay everything, but of course I wish they would.
If you follow Kim, it would help her to have more, so yes, it's really for the family.
 
Napili said:
...changing the channel here..hope no-one minds, but this just struck me--I hope it isn't redundant because I missed
a discussion about this, but... the hand wounds look like he garrotted her. I've been garroting my knee with various sizes of cord & I can so duplicate the markings--of course, no telling from the pics what color & texture they had. We do know that he lied about it several times. The first time was Monday morning at work (!), correct? My question, now, concerns whether that could be responsible for the other evidence...

(A related matter, and I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't remember how it shook out...)
So, we know by the evidence that the parts found were hers ( teeth, hair, etc. --I don't want to elaborate--); we know she is dead, because she could not live without certain found parts--like the lower jaw; we know she met with horrible and deliberate violence to her and baby Joshua.

So, do they still need to find a body in order to convict? Or, is finding their bodies more to give her rest and closure to her family & dear ones?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct about the hand injuries. I believe that he subdued her in some way - originally I was thinking drugged, but strangled, smothered, or knocked cold and tied up are also possibilities, IMHO.

As for a body, it is not necessary to have a body to convict. There have been several no-body convictions; a while back I mentioned Hans Reiser. He was convicted of first degree murder and after his conviction, plead guilty to second degree murder and then led the authorities to his ex-wife Nina's body. Interesting case. Hans was a brilliant programmer. There was another case in California. Glyn Scharf was convicted of killing his ex-wife Jan. Her body was never found. Not only was there no body, there was no evidence of how or where she was killed. The most incriminating evidence they had was two pieces of Jan's jewelry that she always wore were found in a plastic film canister buried in the yard of one of Glyn's ex-girlfriends, a woman that Jan had never met.
 
I was mistaken about it being Monday when he lied at the bakery to his coworkers about his hands. It was Tuesday. I went back to day one, part two on "court chatter" on YouTube--at about 11 minutes in. Very interesting that he says his hand injuries were from helping a friend fix the power window on his Honda*. He said THE CABLE WRAPPED AROUND HIS HANDS (!). It's a thick wire cable that raises & lowers the window--no doubt, he really did work on a friend's Honda some time in the past; once again using a familiar experience to contrive an easy lie? I'm still looking for a picture showing the hand injuries, but wanted to share this...

* mea culpa: I mistook the Honda in this lie with another Corolla lie, and made a point of it.... I need to be more precise & less impressionable, Lol.
 
Napili said:
I was mistaken about it being Monday when he lied at the bakery to his coworkers about his hands. I went back to day one, part two on "court chatter" on YouTube--at about 11 minutes in. Very interesting that he says his hand injuries were from helping a friend fix the power window on his Honda*. He said THE CABLE WRAPPED AROUND HIS HANDS (!). It's a thick wire cable that raises & lowers the window--no doubt, he really did work on a friend's Honda some time in the past; once again using a familiar experience to contrive an easy lie. I'm still looking for a picture showing the hand injurys, but wanted to share this...

* mea culpa: I mistook the Honda in this lie with another Corolla lie, and made a point of it.... I need to be more precise & less impressionable, Lol.
Click to expand...

He told 3 stories about the injuries to his hands: The one he told his co-workers (cable wrapped around his hands), the one he told the police (it happened at work, I'm a baker), and the one he told CK (injured working on a friend's truck).
 
Kapua said:
He told 3 stories about the injuries to his hands: The one he told his co-workers (cable wrapped around his hands), the one he told the police (it happened at work, I'm a baker), and the one he told CK (injured working on a friend's truck).
Click to expand...
Going with the "truth as building block of lie" premise:
what jumps out at me here is only one of the three lies contains a solid detail of the injury causation; the cable wrapping story offers a real physical object that messes up his hand.

Work is vague; baking is generalized; working on "a" truck leaves it vague as to what sort of mishap.
Working with a cable is tangible, real, as Napili points out above.
Interesting that two of the lies on how he got hurt involve fixing something. Charli and the baby are a problem in his life and he decided to "fix it." Fixing things can get him hurt and he accepts that.

Also, at work he bakes, which involves chopping and slicing when he does fruit pies, and then they bake at a high temperature. This gets him nicked and burned, but it's all in a day's work. Kind of a theme there? His made up truck problems and repair also involves battery cables and a bungee cord.

Napili, I think you're on to something there big time.

It's a messed up thing to envision, but all the choices are. Kapua, my resistance to him drugging her has been that if she doesn't want to go with him and they are not out together hanging out, it's hard to get someone to drink a spiked beverage, especially a pregnant woman who has just come from a dinner party.

I think, but could certainly be wrong, that he wanted to confront her and tell her that she should have done what he wanted and had the abortion, and any other anger he had at her for "tricking" and "trapping" him.

I can't imagine stabbing anyone, and not multiple times, but even more I can't imagine frantically stabbing someone who is unconscious. It seems to be a crime where the attacker feeds off fear and shock and resistance or an attempt to escape. Something other than a passive victim. And stranglers get off on exerting the power and creating the fear as well.
 
Napili said:
...changing the channel here..hope no-one minds, but this just struck me--I hope it isn't redundant because I missed
a discussion about this, but... the hand wounds look like he garrotted her. I've been garroting my knee with various sizes of cord & I can so duplicate the markings--of course, no telling from the pics what color & texture they had. We do know that he lied about it several times. The first time was Monday morning at work (!), correct?**My question, now, concerns whether that could be responsible for the other evidence...

(A related matter, and I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't remember how it shook out...)
So, we know by the evidence that the parts found were hers ( teeth, hair, etc. --I don't want to elaborate--); we know she is dead, because she could not live without certain found parts--like the lower jaw; we know she met with horrible and deliberate violence to her and baby Joshua.

So, do they still need to find a body in order to convict? Or, is finding their bodies more to give her rest and closure to her family & dear ones?

**Correction: it was Tuesday
Click to expand...

Wow! We need pictures of your knee and garroting marks, Napili. You are quite the detective and I'll bet you are right.
 
Kapua said:
He told 3 stories about the injuries to his hands: The one he told his co-workers (cable wrapped around his hands), the one he told the police (it happened at work, I'm a baker), and the one he told CK (injured working on a friend's truck).
Click to expand...


So the cable is the zipties he bound and dragged her with. The burns is lighting her car on fire and the working on the friends truck is taking stuff off her truck.


Having owned and lived on a sailboat on more than one occasion a line or rope has slipped with my hand or fingers caught in it. Perhaps it be the line holding the boat to the dock with a hard surge or to the sail with a heavy wind.
 
Mamamerced said:
Wow! We need pictures of your knee and garroting marks, Napili. You are quite the detective and I'll bet you are right.
Click to expand...

:giggle:My knee is fine -- I was well armored in jeans--
But the hands -- They would match exactly given a prepared wire cable -- maybe prepared in that handles have been added (premeditation?...and what was he doing while he took time after work to Facebook? Sheesh!)--like fastened to the end of a 4"-5" x 1/2" to 1" or so long cylinder or or something like that...? Does anyone recognize that as a common object on or around cars? Or easily rigged, I suppose! ...it looks so easy in the movies, but the backs of your hands get engaged as you wrap them for torque (if that's the right word :)) and you can't let up and she's fighting for her life and .... Man! Now I have to make up all these excuses...

The girlfriend was told he squished one hand in the hood (of a friend's truck) and the other injured in a battery terminal.

The baker was told it was an automatic window cable from a friend's Honda (that bound his hands together? This was unclear).

LE was told it happened at at the bakery -- burns, evidently.
(To recap Pua's summary)

Why, for heaven's sake did he feel the need to change the story and every time it was told??

Maybe they're burns, maybe they're cable marks. Maybe both. Maybe one hand ( my guess is left) was cable caused (not likely a battery terminal injury, no) but the right could indeed have been a hood falling (as he disconnect the wires to the skull lights or the fastenings to the grille?) or a burning car burn, at that...

My thinking is that the closest to the truth of all the stories is what he told CK that morning. If it was really a smash from a hood on both hands, he could have said so & left it at that, but he was too spent not to separate it into two incidences--one for each hand. I still doubt the hood story, though it's possible, but am sure that the left hand was other.
 
PeterTosh said:
What does that have to do with what he was doing Monday afternoon/Evening?????
Click to expand...

Me: I was mistaken about it being Monday when he lied at the bakery to his coworkers about his hands. It was Tuesday.
You: What was he doing on Monday after work?

I may have misunderstood your asking about Monday after work, because I don't see what your question has to do with my remark. ... Were you looking for an implication, questioning it, or just asking for a timeline?

Thanks --
 
Napili said:
Me: I was mistaken about it being Monday when he lied at the bakery to his coworkers about his hands. It was Tuesday.
You: What was he doing on Monday after work?

I may have misunderstood your asking about Monday after work, because I don't see what your question has to do with my remark. ... Were you looking for an implication, questioning it, or just asking for a timeline?

Thanks --
Click to expand...

I just wondered what he was doing after work? Did he go back to Paraquats
 
Whats illuminating is that he did not tell his coworkers that he burned himself there at work. Perhaps because they would have called him on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 3,155 (members: 116, guests: 3,039)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
3,039
Total visitors
3,155
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,414
Messages
17,986,842
Members
229,131
Latest member
Migrant
Back
Top