GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #8

[JusticeJunkie]

What would be the point of the boys tailoring their testimony? They were not on trial and neither was their dead friend. I found their testimonies believable precisely because they did not sound sugar coated. They didn't try and make Jordan sound totally innocent. They admitted he was jawing, they admitted he was swearing at Dunn when Dunn was not. They admitted Jordan was yelling. Leland admitted Jordan did put his hand on the handle. It sounded very truthful and Strolla could not even impeach them because it's in line with their original statement to the cops. It's also in line with witness testimony. They all sounded as truthful as they could be. Nothing sounded over rehearsed or self serving. It was their truth.

The only one who benefits from sugar coating is Dunn. It keeps him out of jail. And if you ask me, he laid it on a little thick. I was trying to de-escalate the situation (by re-engaging the boy, asking are you talking to me? That's de-escalating?) I was very polite, I was just asking for a common courtesy and it almost got me killed, I was in mortal terror (where have we heard that one before) blah blah blah. His testimony was totally self serving. It was straight out of the I was the victim here! handbook.

Did you believe Stornes was telling the truth about why he was out past his curfew?
He thought it was only 6:30?

If there was a weapon in the SUV, all of the young men had a reason to lie.

I know Stormes watched part of the trial. I can't find a timeline, or the police interview of the friends to wonder if they had a chance to speak about one another's account or not.

Because they admitted several negatives about Jordon, doesn't mean they told the whole truth.
Dunn did that much, himself. He admitted to conversing with the boys, but stopped short of admitting murder.
It is possible Jordon's friends told only part of the truth as has been suspected of Dunn.

Stormes faced no consequences for breaking his curfew, and the 911 caller who mentioned "stashed", also faced no consequences for breaking the law.
I would think the state would want to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.

I am not saying the friends definitely lied, but to say they had absolutely zero motive is disingenuous , IMO.

 

[ElleElle]

I wish the juror who spoke out would have given us a better idea of how the guilty votes were split (between 1st, 2nd and manslaughter).

I'm also curious as to the sex, age, etc., of the 3 who believed Jordan's killing was self defense.

Hopefully other jurors will open up now that one has.

I remember our jury foreman being the only one interviewed and what he told the press was totally out of left field and left me flabergasted. He announced we'd agree that we'd never convict anyone on circumstantial evidence alone. That was so untrue it wasn't even funny.

BBM ~ I think we may be surprised. I think MD may have charmed the pants off some women. :moo:

If I were on a jury on a case such as this, i'd be mentally fried and burnt out, I would need time off before showing my face.

Some people just can't be swayed. I have an aunt like this, and she will not budge an inch, so we never bother to have her change her views.

 

[gxm]

JVM commenting new developments that Dunn could walk free???!!! Hoping this is media hype.

He was just found guilty of three counts of attempted murder. How could he possibly walk free?

 

[gxm]

Did you believe Stornes was telling the truth about why he was out past his curfew?
He thought it was only 6:30?

If there was a weapon in the SUV, all of the young men had a reason to lie.

I know Stormes watched part of the trial. I can't find a timeline, or the police interview of the friends to wonder if they had a chance to speak about one another's account or not.

Because they admitted several negatives about Jordon, doesn't mean they told the whole truth.
Dunn did that much, himself. He admitted to conversing with the boys, but stopped short of admitting murder.
It is possible Jordon's friends told only part of the truth as has been suspected of Dunn.

Stormes faced no consequences for breaking his curfew, and the 911 caller who mentioned "stashed", also faced no consequences for breaking the law.
I would think the state would want to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.

I am not saying the friends definitely lied, but to say they had absolutely zero motive is disingenuous , IMO.

They don't have a reason to lie because there was no weapon in the Durango. Not one witness from the clerks in the store, to the witnesses in the Gate parking lot, to the witnesses in the adjacent parking lot, to Dunn's own GF saw or mentioned a weapon (other than Dunn's) in their testimony.

Further, Dunn's actions before, during and after the shooting are consistent with hostility, anger and recklessness, not fear. Dunn's very behavior is completely inconsistent with his testimony and screams consciousness of guilt.

 

[daisy7]

I just don't understand why some peeps think the boys were lying, yet believe everything MD said? If anyone would benefit from lying, it was MD. The boys came back to the Gate quickly, yet MD hightailed it to the hotel and then drove to his house 2+ hours away the next morning. Really, who was trying to hide or lie? IMO

 

[ElleElle]

I am watching the trial from Day 1 - Opening and the prosecutor sounds like he is at a funeral. moo.

 

[magpie]

I am watching the trial from Day 1 - Opening and the prosecutor sounds like he is at a funeral. moo.

I haven't found a copy of either Opening Statement that wasn't so "buzzy sounding" that I could tolerate to hear it. Even my external speakers don't make it easy to listen to. Maybe I turned it off before they fixed the sound?

 

[Mare10]

I am watching the trial from Day 1 - Opening and the prosecutor sounds like he is at a funeral. moo.

l

Yes Elle, he did sound like he was at a funeral. And this is a sad and horrid out come on so many levels. You have no idea!

 

[Mare10]

A travesty. However, this is Florida, oh like I said a travesty!

 

[JusticeJunkie]

They don't have a reason to lie because there was no weapon in the Durango. Not one witness from the clerks in the store, to the witnesses in the Gate parking lot, to the witnesses in the adjacent parking lot, to Dunn's own GF saw or mentioned a weapon (other than Dunn's) in their testimony.

Further, Dunn's actions before, during and after the shooting are consistent with hostility, anger and recklessness, not fear. Dunn's very behavior is completely inconsistent with his testimony and screams consciousness of guilt.

In my opinion, Stornes lied about thinking it was only 6:30, and in my opinion, he did that to try to save his own skin. Unnecessarily, as it turned out, since the state ignored it.
If he would lie to save his own skin, in my opinion, he would lie to protect Jordon and his other friends.
Why would his statement to his parole officer be protected unless it was something negative for the state?
Putting an opinion in bold makes it no more true than any other opinion.

 

[Mare10]

In my opinion, Stornes lied about thinking it was only 6:30, and in my opinion, he did that to try to save his own skin. Unnecessarily, as it turned out, since the state ignored it.
If he would lie to save his own skin, in my opinion, he would lie to protect Jordon and his other friends.
Why would his statement to his parole officer be protected unless it was something negative for the state?
Putting an opinion in bold makes it no more true than any other opinion.

Not an opinion, there was NO weapon found anywhere. No Gun, no caps.

 

[MeeBee]

Did you believe Stornes was telling the truth about why he was out past his curfew?
He thought it was only 6:30?

If there was a weapon in the SUV, all of the young men had a reason to lie.

I know Stormes watched part of the trial. I can't find a timeline, or the police interview of the friends to wonder if they had a chance to speak about one another's account or not.

Because they admitted several negatives about Jordon, doesn't mean they told the whole truth.
Dunn did that much, himself. He admitted to conversing with the boys, but stopped short of admitting murder.
It is possible Jordon's friends told only part of the truth as has been suspected of Dunn.

Stormes faced no consequences for breaking his curfew, and the 911 caller who mentioned "stashed", also faced no consequences for breaking the law.
I would think the state would want to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety.

I am not saying the friends definitely lied, but to say they had absolutely zero motive is disingenuous , IMO.

I don't know if Stornes was lying about that. He also wasn't on trial for violating parole so it's a minor issue, as far as I'm concerned.

If there was a weapon, the weapon that only Dunn claims to have seen, the weapon that the boys never fired, then sure, maybe the boys would have a reason to lie. Believing they did hinges on nothing more than Michael Dunn's word. And Dunn was shown to have, ahem, credibility issues. None of the witnesses who saw the events unfold heard or saw any of what Dunn heard or saw. Theoretically, they could have has a gun. Common sense and reasonable deducting should tell one that they did not. But common sense isn't really all that common. I'm gonna need a little more than insinuations that there was a gun or that the state was providing kick backs to its witnesses. Chris Leblanc never changed his sorry, and really wasn't in all that much trouble. He said it looked like they could be stashing a gun. That's what he said on the call. He never said he saw a weapon. That has never changed.

I disagree Dunn admitted his shortcomings that night on the stand. He changed everything to make his part in the altercation not sound so bad. Even changing " music" to "rap crap." He made himself sound saintly. I'm sure he wasn't as sweet when talking to the boys as he'd like to make out.

I don't think it's disingenuous to think the boys weren't lying. I think it's logic. They could have been. But when I put it all together I don't see a single shred of evidence that they are. The only reason to belief they'd have motive is if you believe they had a weapon. Again, common sense and plain old evidence says they didn't. So, no, I don't think they were lying.

 

[Mare10]

These boys went to the Mall on Black Friday, like so many others. They didn't go with a rifle or gun or any other weapon. these were boys coming home from the mall. That's it folks. And yes, words were exchanged. I challenge most of you who have teens, are you 100 percent sure they would not mouth off??? Are you sure, I'm not. But...do they deserve to be killed for that???? NO they do not. These kids were coming home from the damn Mall, in their own town.

 

[Mare10]

Ron Davis will be on CNN at 8am est. Just and FYI

 

[LambChop]

In my opinion, Stornes lied about thinking it was only 6:30, and in my opinion, he did that to try to save his own skin. Unnecessarily, as it turned out, since the state ignored it.
If he would lie to save his own skin, in my opinion, he would lie to protect Jordon and his other friends.
Why would his statement to his parole officer be protected unless it was something negative for the state?
Putting an opinion in bold makes it no more true than any other opinion.

Tommy Stornes wasn't even evolved in the altercation and was unaware of what was happening outside the store because he was inside buying gum and cigarettes. Police separated them right away and interviewed them separately without telling them JD had died. If they were going to lie they would have never admitted that JD was upset that the music was turned off and stated so in no uncertain terms.

What is really sad is that the passengers of the SUV had a rap song playing with the words "killer" or "kill" in it and it is possible with MD's bad hearing he thought that was coming from Jordan. Why would anyone not believe them? Are they less credible because they are kids? Eye witnesses back their story up so why would anyone not believe them??? The witness with the best accounting of what happened was the man leaving the store just as MD was going for his gun. He gave a different story to LE about what MD said while going for his gun which would lead anyone to believe MD was angry not fearful. Big difference. His statement was given long before MD gave his and while it was fresh in the man's mind. jmo

 

[LaLaw2000]

BBM ~ I think we may be surprised. I think MD may have charmed the pants off some women. :moo:
If I were on a jury on a case such as this, i'd be mentally fried and burnt out, I would need time off before showing my face.

Some people just can't be swayed. I have an aunt like this, and she will not budge an inch, so we never bother to have her change her views.

BBM:

Say what??????

:floorlaugh:...................nah

 

[Linda7NJ]

I just don't understand why some peeps think the boys were lying, yet believe everything MD said? If anyone would benefit from lying, it was MD. The boys came back to the Gate quickly, yet MD hightailed it to the hotel and then drove to his house 2+ hours away the next morning. Really, who was trying to hide or lie? IMO

You just have to do a little soul searching and the answer becomes blatantly obvious. Anyone that would believe Dunn scares me. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LambChop]

BBM:

Say what??????

:floorlaugh:...................nah

Well, if you watch his testimony on the stand it appears he is focused on just one of the jurors. It really is hard to tell but his eyes shift to one spot at all times when he wants to make a point, such as saying it was "a waking nightmare". If he is not, it sure appears that he is. jmo

 

[magpie]

BBM ~ I think we may be surprised. I think MD may have charmed the pants off some women. :moo:

If I were on a jury on a case such as this, i'd be mentally fried and burnt out, I would need time off before showing my face.

Some people just can't be swayed. I have an aunt like this, and she will not budge an inch, so we never bother to have her change her views.

I find it hard to imagine Michael Dunn could charm the pants off of a circus monkey, much less a real live woman. IMHO he is just YUCK from head to toe... and that includes his Truman Capote voice. :facepalm: Apologies to Truman Capote, may he rest in peace.

:floorlaugh:

 

[magpie]

Well, if you watch his testimony on the stand it appears he is focused on just one of the jurors. It really is hard to tell but his eyes shift to one spot at all times when he wants to make a point, such as saying it was "a waking nightmare". If he is not, it sure appears that he is. jmo

It creeped me out the way he was eyeballing the jury after he stopped speaking. I thought surely this, what I would call "staring down" of the jury members, would bode badly for Dunn. Maybe he is just creepier to me than to many others. I never even considered he might be targeting a woman on the jury. Yuck.