I think Roddie is 150% part of this murder and I'm almost willing to do a ! It won't help but him, but damn. So maybe he IS this stupid? Is there no collective brain cells with his family getting together? I also don't understand.
GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #3
- Thread starter Cryptic
- Start date
- Status
I think Roddie is 150% part of this murder and I'm almost willing to do a ! It won't help but him, but damn. So maybe he IS this stupid? Is there no collective brain cells with his family getting together? I also don't understand.
momrids6
JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,110
- Reaction score
- 11,329
A jury full of st simons, sea island, and jekyll seniors wont convict. As I stated earlier, jurors are picked from registered voters
Last edited:
momrids6
JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 8,110
- Reaction score
- 11,329
Me too - definitely toast! And this defense attorney Gough - I think his name is??!!
He isnt a great guy like he thinks he is; Terminated Brunswick Circuit public defender Kevin Gough lashes out at former boss
Though I agree that the lawyer should go as demonstrated by the "he passed his own lie detector test" "argument", calling his client a dim wit may not be a sign of incompetence.
Rather, it could not only be factual, but also be beneficial to his defense. I am betting that Rs defense if going to be based on the spin of:
- Jury, Your honor, my client is not very sophisticated-at all. He was roped into his limited participation by a former LEO.
- He knew that GM had been re-deputized by a serving police officer. He thought he was assisting an LEO to make a legal arrest. Therefore, he is innocent. But... if you feel he is guilty, Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide is more appropriate.... .
As to whether or not such a defense could work, I don't know. But, I imagine a competent attorney could make a better presentation of it.
Last edited:
Smelly Squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- Reaction score
- 16,990
Does anbody have a transcript of the preliminary hearing?
TIA.
TIA.
Chronology of the pursuit, from prelim hearing testimony:
1. The MMs first confronted AA on Burford, between the intersection of Satilla & Burford and Roddy's house. This confrontation was captured on Roddy's home surveillance video.
2. The video apparently matches what TM and GM both told LE on Feb 23 (though there isn't audio to confirm that the MMs ordered AA to stop, that they wanted to "talk" with them). TM drove his truck forward and backward at least several times, trying to force AA to stop. AA repeatedly evaded them/the truck, then ran further down Burford, away from Satilla, because the MMs were blocking him from that route.
3. AA ran past Roddy's house. Roddy called out to the MMs- "do you got him?" According to Roddy, the MMs didn't respond, but he ran inside to get his keys to join in anyway. (No evidence he also grabbed a gun, but based on Dial's testimony, imo the GBI thinks he did but can't prove it).
R's home camera captures R going down his driveway, but not the 2nd (alleged) confrontation between the MM's and AA.
4. Further down Burford, the MMs again try to force AA to stop running. GM told LE he exited the truck at this point to confront AA directly. AA evaded him, turning to run back towards Satilla.
GM yelled to TM to back the truck up. Meanwhile, Roddy pulled straight out from his driveway onto Burford to block AA. AA ran around R's truck, still heading towards Satilla.
5. TM told GM he wanted to circle around (Burford onto Zellwood) and cut AA off by approaching him from the opposite direction. (How the MMs would know which road AA chose to take without being in communication with R or someone else is unclear).
GM climbed in the back of TM's truck and they drove further down Burford, away from AA and Roddy.
6. Roddy, alone, went in pursuit of AA, trying several times "to stop him" on Burford. I believe this was when Roddy hit AA with his truck.
7. When AA reached the intersection of Holmes and Satilla, Roddy "overshot" onto Satilla, which blocked AA from that route, a direct exit from the neighborhood. Instead, Roddy forced AA onto Holmes. Roddy began filming with his cell phone at this point.
8. The portion of video we haven't seen begins with AA stopping in the middle of the road (Holmes). Dial believes AA likely stopped because he sees the MMs driving towards him. AA then turns around and runs back towards Roddy (towards Satilla).
The next part of the sequence isn't on video: Roddy has put his cellphone down on the front seat. The phone kept recording, but with audio only. Roddy is heard to say the only words he spoke while recording: "I'm going to go on." (Curious, eh? Said to whom? To the MMs? Why say that to himself, the only words he speaks throughout?)
Whatever else happened in the interlude between the 2 stretches when R held up his cellphone to film, during that time AA ran past R's truck, R turned around towards Satilla, and the MM's drove around R and in front of AA.
8. Roddy began filming again then, the video we've seen of R going around a curve on Holmes, AA running in front of him, the MM's parked in the middle of the road, TM out of the truck, pointing his shotgun at AA.
(IMO, one likely reason AA chose to run towards the MMs rather than turning back once again and trying to evade Roddy once again is that Satilla Drive and the way out was just ahead, if he could make it past the MMs).
Noting: the MM's first confrontation with AA is on videotape. Given what Dial DIDN'T testify to, it seems most likely no guns were being pointed at AA yet.
There's no evidence about guns or no guns during the 2nd confrontation on Burford (not on video), but it seems extremely unlikely that GM would have exited the truck to confront AA without pointing a gun at him.
And if GM did point a gun at AA during this 2nd confrontation, when AA saw TM's truck again on Holmes, with GM standing up in the back of the truck, he'd have known GM had a gun and was willing to point it at him, whether GM actually was at that time or not.
1. The MMs first confronted AA on Burford, between the intersection of Satilla & Burford and Roddy's house. This confrontation was captured on Roddy's home surveillance video.
2. The video apparently matches what TM and GM both told LE on Feb 23 (though there isn't audio to confirm that the MMs ordered AA to stop, that they wanted to "talk" with them). TM drove his truck forward and backward at least several times, trying to force AA to stop. AA repeatedly evaded them/the truck, then ran further down Burford, away from Satilla, because the MMs were blocking him from that route.
3. AA ran past Roddy's house. Roddy called out to the MMs- "do you got him?" According to Roddy, the MMs didn't respond, but he ran inside to get his keys to join in anyway. (No evidence he also grabbed a gun, but based on Dial's testimony, imo the GBI thinks he did but can't prove it).
R's home camera captures R going down his driveway, but not the 2nd (alleged) confrontation between the MM's and AA.
4. Further down Burford, the MMs again try to force AA to stop running. GM told LE he exited the truck at this point to confront AA directly. AA evaded him, turning to run back towards Satilla.
GM yelled to TM to back the truck up. Meanwhile, Roddy pulled straight out from his driveway onto Burford to block AA. AA ran around R's truck, still heading towards Satilla.
5. TM told GM he wanted to circle around (Burford onto Zellwood) and cut AA off by approaching him from the opposite direction. (How the MMs would know which road AA chose to take without being in communication with R or someone else is unclear).
GM climbed in the back of TM's truck and they drove further down Burford, away from AA and Roddy.
6. Roddy, alone, went in pursuit of AA, trying several times "to stop him" on Burford. I believe this was when Roddy hit AA with his truck.
7. When AA reached the intersection of Holmes and Satilla, Roddy "overshot" onto Satilla, which blocked AA from that route, a direct exit from the neighborhood. Instead, Roddy forced AA onto Holmes. Roddy began filming with his cell phone at this point.
8. The portion of video we haven't seen begins with AA stopping in the middle of the road (Holmes). Dial believes AA likely stopped because he sees the MMs driving towards him. AA then turns around and runs back towards Roddy (towards Satilla).
The next part of the sequence isn't on video: Roddy has put his cellphone down on the front seat. The phone kept recording, but with audio only. Roddy is heard to say the only words he spoke while recording: "I'm going to go on." (Curious, eh? Said to whom? To the MMs? Why say that to himself, the only words he speaks throughout?)
Whatever else happened in the interlude between the 2 stretches when R held up his cellphone to film, during that time AA ran past R's truck, R turned around towards Satilla, and the MM's drove around R and in front of AA.
8. Roddy began filming again then, the video we've seen of R going around a curve on Holmes, AA running in front of him, the MM's parked in the middle of the road, TM out of the truck, pointing his shotgun at AA.
(IMO, one likely reason AA chose to run towards the MMs rather than turning back once again and trying to evade Roddy once again is that Satilla Drive and the way out was just ahead, if he could make it past the MMs).
Noting: the MM's first confrontation with AA is on videotape. Given what Dial DIDN'T testify to, it seems most likely no guns were being pointed at AA yet.
There's no evidence about guns or no guns during the 2nd confrontation on Burford (not on video), but it seems extremely unlikely that GM would have exited the truck to confront AA without pointing a gun at him.
And if GM did point a gun at AA during this 2nd confrontation, when AA saw TM's truck again on Holmes, with GM standing up in the back of the truck, he'd have known GM had a gun and was willing to point it at him, whether GM actually was at that time or not.
Last edited:
This sequence alone shows that criminal charges are warranted against R.
R did not join the chase on impulse and make a token effort to stop AA. Nor did R join the chase only after being asked to provide assistance by GM.
Rather, R strongly suggests that he had made prior coordination with the MMs by asking "do you got him?" (R would have needed to know which person was "him").
R joins the chase with out being solicited by the MMs. Likewise, R makes repeated efforts to trap AA- even after it becomes clear that AA is not forcing a confrontation, but is simply trying to leave the area.
Rs actions forced AA back towards the MMs. The GBI stated that the charges against R were also based on social media exchanges. I wonder if R knew that the MMs would be armed- and still chose to actively participate?
Last edited:
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,263
- Reaction score
- 65,876
I knew that Gough was familiar to me. I followed the baby Antonio Santiago case. Just as slimy as I remember him.
Matic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 409
- Reaction score
- 1,312
I'm curious if picking jurors from registered voters is a state by state thing. Or felony murder thing?
I've been picked for jury duty twice in SC and have never voted in my life nor have I ever registered to vote.
Matic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 409
- Reaction score
- 1,312
How exactly did we get back to the serial# on the missing gun? It was cited several threads ago that the gun DID have a serial#, but the younger MM could find no paperwork to be able to provide the serial#.
Did I miss something?
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,263
- Reaction score
- 65,876
SAVANNAH, Ga. — Some Georgia lawmakers are calling to quickly scrap the state's 19th-century citizen arrest law that was cited in one prosecutor's controversial justification of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.
Democratic state Rep. Carl Gilliard on Friday said the law adopted in 1863 is an antiquated relic from the time of the Wild West.
Citizen arrest law in Georgia may be scrapped after Arbery death | 11alive.com
Democratic state Rep. Carl Gilliard on Friday said the law adopted in 1863 is an antiquated relic from the time of the Wild West.
Citizen arrest law in Georgia may be scrapped after Arbery death | 11alive.com
CrimeDawg123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 22,475
This strikes me as somewhat hilarious.
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,263
- Reaction score
- 65,876
ATLANTA — A bipartisan group of Georgia House representatives say they will introduce legislation to repeal the state's citizen's arrest law.
[snip]
Gilliard is joined in a group that includes Atlanta Democrat Roger Bruce, St. Simon's Island Republican Don Hogan, East Point Democrat William Boddie and Cuthbert Republican Gerald Greene in formulating the legislation.
“Our citizen’s arrest law was created in 1863, and this law is clearly outdated as it was formed in the fashion of the Wild West," Gilliard said. "When individuals lose their lives at the hands of civilians that become judge and jury, we must use the power of the pen to move Georgia forward.”
Georgia House reps announce plan to repeal citizen's arrest law
[snip]
Gilliard is joined in a group that includes Atlanta Democrat Roger Bruce, St. Simon's Island Republican Don Hogan, East Point Democrat William Boddie and Cuthbert Republican Gerald Greene in formulating the legislation.
“Our citizen’s arrest law was created in 1863, and this law is clearly outdated as it was formed in the fashion of the Wild West," Gilliard said. "When individuals lose their lives at the hands of civilians that become judge and jury, we must use the power of the pen to move Georgia forward.”
Georgia House reps announce plan to repeal citizen's arrest law
Nadi
Former member.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 795
I hope the defense does not try to twist the timing of this to their advantage. Whether or not the current law is antiquated, the Killers did not even come close to meeting the criteria for a citizen's arrest. The prosecutor (Barnhill) either investigated the shooting thoroughly and then blatantly disregarded the actual law or didn't investigate at all, took the killers word for everything and decided not to proceed. Either way, it was a massive coverup and collusion between the police force and the DA's office.
all IMO of course.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,789
- Reaction score
- 115,248
Please don't discuss politics or gun control. These types of issues simply derail every thread they crop in and will never be agreed upon or resolved through discussion at Websleuths.
I think just the opposite. Rather, on average, they would make good jurors for the prosecution.
The residents of the islands are wealthy with a mix of retirees, seasonal transplants, year round transplants, and wealthy locals. A good number are not from the area and will not have rural south Georgia attitudes about, well anything.
Likewise, the majority will be academically astute. As a result, they will readily understand what the law requires regarding a citizens arrest and what the Georgia Supreme court has added to the written law via judicial decisions.
Then, mix the academic understanding with non local cultural beliefs about race, trespassing, weapons, and one could have very good jurors for the prosecution.
Sure, there might be some ironies amongst the residents such as: "I would never confront a trespasser- my HOAs private security does that". Or, "I would never make a judgement based on race- but I am wary of strangers. In this neighborhood, black people are very strange." But, jurors, like all humans, can have their contradictions.
In short, though there maybe some good defense jurors on the islands, on average, they are not god jurors for the defense.
branmuffin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 4,166
- Reaction score
- 37,109
I'm not sure what the other poster is suggesting but in my opinion, a missing weapon that no one can identify, except for it's make, creates a narrative supplied by the suspects.
They stated in their earlier encounter with AA that he reached for his waistband suggesting he may have had a weapon, you know, the one stolen from an unlocked truck owned by TM. That little seed could bloom into a claim of full blown exigent circumstance when and if AA ended up dead full of buck shot on the same street a couple of months later. JMO
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,263
- Reaction score
- 65,876
Major Georgia corporations including Coca-Cola, Delta and Home Depot are calling on lawmakers to pass hate crime legislation in the wake of Ahmaud Arbery's death.
The letter sent to state lawmakers on Monday was signed by 70 business leaders and urged elected officials to adopt a "comprehensive, specific and clear" hate crime law when they return to the legislative session next week.
[snip]
Monday's letter, also signed by executives from BlackRock, Georgia-Pacific, UPS and Georgia Power, said that in order to maintain the state's reputation as one of the best places in the country to do business, it "must also be in the business of advancing policies that support the positive change and social impact our communities need in order to build a more just and inclusive world."
Major Georgia companies including Coca-Cola, Delta call for hate crime legislation in wake of Ahmaud Arbery's death
Legal analysis on the anticipated argument from defense re self defense during citizens arrest hoping for lawful immunity (ie. Barnhill's theory on the case) in the video
The letter sent to state lawmakers on Monday was signed by 70 business leaders and urged elected officials to adopt a "comprehensive, specific and clear" hate crime law when they return to the legislative session next week.
[snip]
Monday's letter, also signed by executives from BlackRock, Georgia-Pacific, UPS and Georgia Power, said that in order to maintain the state's reputation as one of the best places in the country to do business, it "must also be in the business of advancing policies that support the positive change and social impact our communities need in order to build a more just and inclusive world."
Major Georgia companies including Coca-Cola, Delta call for hate crime legislation in wake of Ahmaud Arbery's death
Legal analysis on the anticipated argument from defense re self defense during citizens arrest hoping for lawful immunity (ie. Barnhill's theory on the case) in the video
Actually, what TM told the 911 dispatcher on Feb 11 was that he saw the UBM reach into his pocket, not his waistband. TM even specified it was the left pocket.
It was GM who first said the UBM reached into his waistband, and that he, GM had been there to see it. Both of those statements were lies.
On Mr. English and the theft-no theft of $2,500 worth of fishing gear, aka a felony burglary.
Mr. English has repeatedly asserted that never once has he or did he ever accuse AA of theft. That's meaningless hair splitting, because of course he couldn't accuse by name a man whose name he didn't know.
It is true that English never reported to LE a felony burglary of $2,500 worth of fishing gear. WHY he didn't bother to report such a significant theft is curious. English has given inconsistent reasons why he didn't, but the reason he's most often provided is that he didn't because he didn't know where the theft had occurred, as he moved the boat at some point off his construction site on Satilla to where he lives, 2 hours from the Satilla Shores hood.
The varying accounts English has provided to the media aside, here's what Agent Dial had to say on the matter during the preliminary hearing (begins at about 2:16.00).
1. English said he had told one resident in the hood of a theft from the boat. He described the items as "fishing tackle and a cooler."
2. English said that he noticed that the items were missing while he, English, was on the site.
3. English said that he thought the items had been stolen by HVAAC workers there at the construction site.
4. English ALSO said he "couldn't be sure" when and where the items were taken.
5. TM's attorney, questioning Dial, asked whether or not he was aware English had told (presumably that one person) back in October or November 2019 that "I had a suspect in my house last night, and I had some things stolen."
Dial replied NO.
6. TM's attorney then asked if Dial knew whether or not English had told TM of the theft. (No, because TM refused to be interviewed by the GBI. And that all TM told LE on Feb 23 was that a lot of burglaries had happened in the hood over the prior 6-7 months).
7. When asked if he knew whether or not English had told GM of the alleged theft, Dial replied with what he said GM had told LE on Feb 23: that he (GM) knew nothing had been taken from E's construction site on February 11, and that he didn't know if anything had been taken before that, but he didn't think so.
-----
Noting.....That one person English says he told of the alleged theft had to be Perez, and likely in October, after the first time an UBM appeared on E's motion sensor videos, and when E accepted Perez's offer to zip right on over if it happened again.
IMO it seems very obvious English has been less than forthcoming about the alleged theft of fishing gear from his boat. If he noticed items were missing while he was on site and suspected on-site workers of stealing, he couldn't have been unsure or confused about where the alleged theft happened.
And if he suspected on-site workers of theft, why would he allegedly tell anyone in the hood he thought a trespasser seen "the night before" had stolen from him? Especially since while still on site, his boat was in clear view of a motion sensor camera, which surely would have captured a burglar thieving $2,500 of fishing gear from the boat?
I'm beginning to think it's possible the reason English didn't report a theft of $2,500 worth of gear to LE is that a theft of $2,500 worth of fishing gear never happened. Perhaps a HVAAC worker borrowed a cooler from the boat, and English lost track of a few packages of hooks and lures. Perhaps English and/or the hood posse spun that nothing into a larger and larger until it was felony burglary tale.......
There are many possibilities why after the fact of AA's murder Mr. English can't seem to give a straightforward account of that alleged theft. Perhaps one or more of those possibilities helps explain his willingness to voluntarily be interviewed by attorneys for the accused?
Mr. English has repeatedly asserted that never once has he or did he ever accuse AA of theft. That's meaningless hair splitting, because of course he couldn't accuse by name a man whose name he didn't know.
It is true that English never reported to LE a felony burglary of $2,500 worth of fishing gear. WHY he didn't bother to report such a significant theft is curious. English has given inconsistent reasons why he didn't, but the reason he's most often provided is that he didn't because he didn't know where the theft had occurred, as he moved the boat at some point off his construction site on Satilla to where he lives, 2 hours from the Satilla Shores hood.
The varying accounts English has provided to the media aside, here's what Agent Dial had to say on the matter during the preliminary hearing (begins at about 2:16.00).
1. English said he had told one resident in the hood of a theft from the boat. He described the items as "fishing tackle and a cooler."
2. English said that he noticed that the items were missing while he, English, was on the site.
3. English said that he thought the items had been stolen by HVAAC workers there at the construction site.
4. English ALSO said he "couldn't be sure" when and where the items were taken.
5. TM's attorney, questioning Dial, asked whether or not he was aware English had told (presumably that one person) back in October or November 2019 that "I had a suspect in my house last night, and I had some things stolen."
Dial replied NO.
6. TM's attorney then asked if Dial knew whether or not English had told TM of the theft. (No, because TM refused to be interviewed by the GBI. And that all TM told LE on Feb 23 was that a lot of burglaries had happened in the hood over the prior 6-7 months).
7. When asked if he knew whether or not English had told GM of the alleged theft, Dial replied with what he said GM had told LE on Feb 23: that he (GM) knew nothing had been taken from E's construction site on February 11, and that he didn't know if anything had been taken before that, but he didn't think so.
-----
Noting.....That one person English says he told of the alleged theft had to be Perez, and likely in October, after the first time an UBM appeared on E's motion sensor videos, and when E accepted Perez's offer to zip right on over if it happened again.
IMO it seems very obvious English has been less than forthcoming about the alleged theft of fishing gear from his boat. If he noticed items were missing while he was on site and suspected on-site workers of stealing, he couldn't have been unsure or confused about where the alleged theft happened.
And if he suspected on-site workers of theft, why would he allegedly tell anyone in the hood he thought a trespasser seen "the night before" had stolen from him? Especially since while still on site, his boat was in clear view of a motion sensor camera, which surely would have captured a burglar thieving $2,500 of fishing gear from the boat?
I'm beginning to think it's possible the reason English didn't report a theft of $2,500 worth of gear to LE is that a theft of $2,500 worth of fishing gear never happened. Perhaps a HVAAC worker borrowed a cooler from the boat, and English lost track of a few packages of hooks and lures. Perhaps English and/or the hood posse spun that nothing into a larger and larger until it was felony burglary tale.......
There are many possibilities why after the fact of AA's murder Mr. English can't seem to give a straightforward account of that alleged theft. Perhaps one or more of those possibilities helps explain his willingness to voluntarily be interviewed by attorneys for the accused?
Last edited:
- Status