Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,996
- Reaction score
- 280,144
Thank you @Hope4More - putting those in my notes! 
GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #3
- Thread starter Cryptic
- Start date
- Status
Bond hearing, & thinking ahead, as may relate to trial.
The State only needed to rebut/provide counter evidence (the defense has burden of proof) on one of the 4 prongs of criteria related to permitting release on bond. One of the 4 criteria is the likelihood of the defendant obstructing justice while on bond, including by trying to influence or intimidate witnesses. The State's evidence against GM on this was overwhelming, and would have alone easily sufficed to deny GM bail.
Leaving aside GM's immediate brandishing of his LE creds with LE immediately upon their arrival on scene, and his calls to (ex) DA Jackie, the list below is what GM did to hide/get evidence destroyed, and to influence (tamper) with witnesses.
The witness tampering raises interesting questions, especially about what might actually have happened before GM & TM jumped into their truck that day.
GM (TM also, but to a lesser extent, for whatever reason) was obviously desperate to have SM evidence destroyed. Why was that, if as his defense attys asserted, nothing on his SM was evidence GM had racial bias at all, much less of a kind that would indicate potential for hate-driven violence?
1. Tampering with evidence.
May 16 2020. GM jail call with wife Lee, daughter Lindsey is with Lee.
GM to Lee. "She has got to stop."
(L: She will).
"She's got to get rid of that stuff. Make it disappear. Make it go away. If not, it's liable to really screw us up."
(L: what stuff).
GM: "her posts on FB. (..) Remember all that c-rap we saw on her phone when we had it?"
(L: it's too late, they already have all that).
GM: No, there's still people out there trying to get it. There's still stuff they haven't got. She needs to close down those accounts and get rid of that stuff.
---
GB also tells Lee on this call that his accounts need to be shut down, and that he can't remember the passwords to all of them, but is trying. Lee tells him he's still "wide open" on SM, and that she is too.
On their next call, May 18, GM asks Lee if she's had his accounts "killed." She tells him that someone (identified only as"he") has taken GM's phones away for them.
2. Witness influencing/tampering.
*GM & Roddy speak by phone on April 23 & 28, and on May 1 & 4.
*GM instructs Lee on jailhouse call, May 12: "when he answers the call, tell him flat out not to say anything." ("He" isn't identified).
--------
Of timeline interest especially, imo. Info is from affidavits done by the defense, not the State. The conversations had were from before the affidavits were taken.
*GM spoke with M Albaneze several times at unspecified times after the killing. Albaneze made the first 911 call that day, as he stood across the street from E's house.
In one conversation, GM told Albaneze "his version" of the killing; subsequent conversations with Albaneze followed. One point specifically asserted by Albaneze in the defense affidavit was that he did not speak to GM that day prior to AA being shot. (Hmm).
*GM spoke with Diego Perez "several times" after the shooting. In one conversation, GM told Perez that TM had done nothing wrong, and that he had been fighting for his life. (Perez is who English sent his surveillance video to in real time,after Perez volunteered to protect E's property).
More will come out at trial, presumably, and I know these are flimsy reeds, but based on the info we already knew about timelines & these 2 witnesses, what I hear is GM & Albaneze possibly getting their stories straight about when & how GM was alerted to AA being on E's property that day. And the difference I hear with the known GM-Perez conversation is GM distancing himself from the killing & justifying to Perez why TM killed AA, maybe perhaps Perez had seen for himself, including on Feb 11, just how quickly TM reached for his gun.
June 25, 2020. GM sends postcard 1 of 2 to Zachary Lankford, entirely in code (this kind and code: "AV BRFD XCD") Lots of unreadable words on the card. And...Lankford is the TM "character witness" mentioned several times above, the one who "joked" with TM about yah, racoons.
The State only needed to rebut/provide counter evidence (the defense has burden of proof) on one of the 4 prongs of criteria related to permitting release on bond. One of the 4 criteria is the likelihood of the defendant obstructing justice while on bond, including by trying to influence or intimidate witnesses. The State's evidence against GM on this was overwhelming, and would have alone easily sufficed to deny GM bail.
Leaving aside GM's immediate brandishing of his LE creds with LE immediately upon their arrival on scene, and his calls to (ex) DA Jackie, the list below is what GM did to hide/get evidence destroyed, and to influence (tamper) with witnesses.
The witness tampering raises interesting questions, especially about what might actually have happened before GM & TM jumped into their truck that day.
GM (TM also, but to a lesser extent, for whatever reason) was obviously desperate to have SM evidence destroyed. Why was that, if as his defense attys asserted, nothing on his SM was evidence GM had racial bias at all, much less of a kind that would indicate potential for hate-driven violence?
1. Tampering with evidence.
May 16 2020. GM jail call with wife Lee, daughter Lindsey is with Lee.
GM to Lee. "She has got to stop."
(L: She will).
"She's got to get rid of that stuff. Make it disappear. Make it go away. If not, it's liable to really screw us up."
(L: what stuff).
GM: "her posts on FB. (..) Remember all that c-rap we saw on her phone when we had it?"
(L: it's too late, they already have all that).
GM: No, there's still people out there trying to get it. There's still stuff they haven't got. She needs to close down those accounts and get rid of that stuff.
---
GB also tells Lee on this call that his accounts need to be shut down, and that he can't remember the passwords to all of them, but is trying. Lee tells him he's still "wide open" on SM, and that she is too.
On their next call, May 18, GM asks Lee if she's had his accounts "killed." She tells him that someone (identified only as"he") has taken GM's phones away for them.
2. Witness influencing/tampering.
*GM & Roddy speak by phone on April 23 & 28, and on May 1 & 4.
*GM instructs Lee on jailhouse call, May 12: "when he answers the call, tell him flat out not to say anything." ("He" isn't identified).
--------
Of timeline interest especially, imo. Info is from affidavits done by the defense, not the State. The conversations had were from before the affidavits were taken.
*GM spoke with M Albaneze several times at unspecified times after the killing. Albaneze made the first 911 call that day, as he stood across the street from E's house.
In one conversation, GM told Albaneze "his version" of the killing; subsequent conversations with Albaneze followed. One point specifically asserted by Albaneze in the defense affidavit was that he did not speak to GM that day prior to AA being shot. (Hmm).
*GM spoke with Diego Perez "several times" after the shooting. In one conversation, GM told Perez that TM had done nothing wrong, and that he had been fighting for his life. (Perez is who English sent his surveillance video to in real time,after Perez volunteered to protect E's property).
More will come out at trial, presumably, and I know these are flimsy reeds, but based on the info we already knew about timelines & these 2 witnesses, what I hear is GM & Albaneze possibly getting their stories straight about when & how GM was alerted to AA being on E's property that day. And the difference I hear with the known GM-Perez conversation is GM distancing himself from the killing & justifying to Perez why TM killed AA, maybe perhaps Perez had seen for himself, including on Feb 11, just how quickly TM reached for his gun.
June 25, 2020. GM sends postcard 1 of 2 to Zachary Lankford, entirely in code (this kind and code: "AV BRFD XCD") Lots of unreadable words on the card. And...Lankford is the TM "character witness" mentioned several times above, the one who "joked" with TM about yah, racoons.
Last edited:
Last about the bond hearings, relating to the SM evidence the State introduced about GM's alleged "world view" aka, racial views.
It will be very interesting to see what a judge allows in at trial, even if there is more GM SM the State has/will find. This judge stated several times that he was reluctant to allow very much of it in. GM's attys argued forcibly that the GM SM evidence presented proved nothing, and that using it to infer potential criminality by GM was dangerous.
I actually agree with the defense on this. What the State referred to as a hate group (produced the meme GM had on his FB page) is a small group that advocates preservation of confederate monuments.
One can have lots of opinions about that cause, but the fact is, the group doesn't actively or explicitly advocate for anything other than monument preservation. There is nothing illegal about that cause, nor is support of it legal evidence, even indirectly, of potential vigilantism or violence.
IMO, whatever SM evidence gets introduced at trial, if any, likely won't be the State's strongest in any case. The State hasn't charged either GM or TM with a hate crime (can't, right, GA doesn't have such on the books, iirc).
As concerns what can & must be proven by the State at trial, how much does AA's race matter? To turn one of GM's atty's argument at the bond hearing upside down. Would the choices GM & TM made that day be any less incriminating, reckless, or unlawful had AA been White? Would they be any less guilty of murder?
It will be very interesting to see what a judge allows in at trial, even if there is more GM SM the State has/will find. This judge stated several times that he was reluctant to allow very much of it in. GM's attys argued forcibly that the GM SM evidence presented proved nothing, and that using it to infer potential criminality by GM was dangerous.
I actually agree with the defense on this. What the State referred to as a hate group (produced the meme GM had on his FB page) is a small group that advocates preservation of confederate monuments.
One can have lots of opinions about that cause, but the fact is, the group doesn't actively or explicitly advocate for anything other than monument preservation. There is nothing illegal about that cause, nor is support of it legal evidence, even indirectly, of potential vigilantism or violence.
IMO, whatever SM evidence gets introduced at trial, if any, likely won't be the State's strongest in any case. The State hasn't charged either GM or TM with a hate crime (can't, right, GA doesn't have such on the books, iirc).
As concerns what can & must be proven by the State at trial, how much does AA's race matter? To turn one of GM's atty's argument at the bond hearing upside down. Would the choices GM & TM made that day be any less incriminating, reckless, or unlawful had AA been White? Would they be any less guilty of murder?
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,728
I've been away from this thread for some time, so coming back in and reading backwards on the thread. Here are the two days of court from this week from 11 alive (as per upthread, was said to be of better quality than other sources).
From Nov 12
Ahmaud Arbery case | Bond hearing for father, son charged with murder
From Nov 13
I haven't watched them yet, so if there are more than these 2 from 11Alive, let me know and I'll do an ETA.
Also, I cannot find a media thread for this case. Usually it's on the first post of a thread, but it's not for this case. Can someone point me to such? TIA
Last edited:
zencompass
Hope springs eternal
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 5,946
- Reaction score
- 41,538
Here is the link to the media thread:
GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, Brunswick, 23 Feb 2020 *MEDIA, MAPS &TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*
branmuffin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 37,133
Like I said before: disgusting individuals.
I can't believe bone fragments were still being found months after the murder. We have a right to view the investigation with a jaundiced eye.
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,728
Part way through day one of the bond hearing. Grates my nerves for the repeated use of the word "altercation" for his killing. The prosecution asks a witness if she saw when Arbery was gunned down in the street, and she answers "I did not see the altercation". No lady, wake up. I want to slap some sense into some (but I would not, as that is simple assault darn it) of these who are so dismissive of the magnitude of someone being hunted and shot down. MOO
al·ter·ca·tion
/ˌôltərˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: altercation; plural noun: altercations
a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public.
"I had an altercation with the conductor"
al·ter·ca·tion
/ˌôltərˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: altercation; plural noun: altercations
a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public.
"I had an altercation with the conductor"
branmuffin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 37,133
There was no altercation. There was a hunt. And they neutralized their target.
kaen
Trying to be a good human.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- 48,049
I would say that a white male on that property and in that neighborhood probably would not have been hunted down the way Mr. Arbery was. Their views on race is central to what happened to this man who was running through that neighborhood. The comments to friends and the enticing people to cover up and get rid of SM says it all. I think it is part of the bonding out. Both of these men would do what it takes to cover up their actions. They are safest in the jail as are many of the people of color in their neighborhood.
My *personal opinion* is that race was why AA was essentially "targeted" from the first time a Black person was seen on surveillance tape inside E's property in November 2019, on through why he was chased down & killed.
But that's a personal opinion, and differs from what I think can be most effectively argued by a prosecutor at trial, especially if a judge excludes much or most of the MM's SM evidence.
IMO, GM's attys made a GA jury-appealing case about his potential state of mind that day. He had no record of excessive force throughout his LE career, never fired his gun, had never been written up for inappropriate behavior/conduct of any kind. He had solid, credible LE related character witnesses. And, it wasn't GM who fired on & killed AA that day. The defense argued GM didn't even pull out his gun (meaning there isn't any evidence to prove he did, if he did).
The State can make a good case that GM was overly eager to play cop in the neighborhood. But iirc, he targeted White suspects for the neighborhood break-ins, before E's first surveillance tape showed a Black trespasser.
Actually, I'm not sure GM * wouldn't* have chased down a White guy he had seen on the surveillance tapes, and then running by that day. My sense of him is that he was looking to play LE hero, savior of the neighborhood, and that he felt entitled to do so, and to take the law in his own hand. It certainly didn't occur to him/he didn't choose to call 911 when he saw AA. He ran into his house to get TM & his gun, but not his phone.
The State has a better case to make about TM's "world-view," but IMO the at least equally compelling (legally) part of the evidence is how readily TM reached for his gun and how willing he seemed to use it.
I never read anyone else here post about hearing what I know I heard on the murder video, which was TM screaming at AA to stop running (expletives) with what IMO was clearly great rage. Jurors are almost certainly going to disagree about aspects of what each sees on the video. What I see and hear, in context, is TM being enraged that AA won't submit to his orders, that he pointed the shotgun by the side of the truck to intimidate/force AA to stop running, and that when AA didn't, he killed him largely out of rage.
I also have always heard GM's yell of "Travis" as TM shot AA not as an expression of concern for TM, much less for AA, but as irritation with TM for getting the scene wrong.
Roddy's eagerness to join in, his violent attacks on AA, his taping of the chase, and his belief that the tape was exculpatory, not damning, IMO all clearly reflect a certain worldview. It's his actions alone, though, that will likely convict him.
As for the entire family's willingness & haste to hide/destroy SM evidence. Matching up dates:
1. Lindsay posted the photo of a just killed AA on Snapshot the same day or the next day as he was killed, iirc. I believe GM posted about the killing on SM within the same time frame, in essence telling Travis- good work.
2. Barnhill didn't recuse himself until April 7, after being pressured by AA's mother putting the pieces together and her persistence. Whether it was response to Lindsey's photo, Barnhill's recusal, AA's mother beginning to make bigger waves, the MM's other SM postings, or some combination, GM decided to "leak" Roddy's video to quell criticism/scrutiny coming from WITHIN the neighborhood. The story of AA's murder hadn't hit the media yet, and didn't until the video went out on May 5.
3. No one was arrested until May 7, when both MMs were. At the time of their arrest, iirc, Lindsey's photo was still posted.
4. As we all know, the video unleashed a storm of intense blowback & rage. Lindsey added another immediate layer of revulsion & rage by giving an interview to the Sun on May 15, in which she made twisted statements about the photo, her father & brother, and more.
5. It was on the next day, May 16, that GM first spoke to Leigh (on a jailhouse call) about SM, and his first instruction was to have Lindsey get rid of her SM, because it "was liable to screw us up."
6. All that to say- IMO, it seems GM had no problem with what anyone in his family had put out /shared on SM, even after his arrest, until Lindsey's interview brought attention to what an enraged public - and LE? might find on their SM.
Last edited:
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,728
In many neighborhoods that I have lived in, and when driving around to look at new housing developments to move to in my younger years - I have at least 15 times walked around homes when they were being built, before it was in the phase where it was locked up, out of curiosity of floor plans and seeing how homes were built.
As with all the other folks that were shown on English's property walking around, I agree.
MOO we are seeing so very many similarities to another high profile case that happened in Florida years back. And I pray that the outcome is different in this case and that the sun will shine on this case to expose this disgusting underbelly that is pervasive in some communities, and they will be wiped off our streets sending a strong message it will no longer be tolerated. (I was floored that the woman who is renting them her home was offering to put up a home for bond for them... just gobsmacked that she would support even more than giving free rent which she has done for the past 3 months up until now and potentially in the future. I do hope this is not an indication of the future jury pool)
If, from what I see so far, that these men are let off.... I'll just SMDH in disbelief of that community. MOO.
Last edited:
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,728
I'm still on the first day of the bond hearing. At 7:28:00 they are talking about "boomerang mail" where someone sends something and it is returned to another person in jail (?they put on a wrong return person purposefully at the top left to a bad address?)
I've never heard of such before. What was in that, if it is known?
ETA: link is
Last edited:
That term is new to me too. I've watched all of the bond hearing so know the State didn't bring up that jail rule infraction (I think by GM) again. I think that's because the State needed to introduce the evidence via testimony by FBI agents or jail staff about their investigation into the infraction, but the State hadn't asked any of them to testify at the hearing.
If the boomeranging letter was sent around the same time as the postcard from GM to Zachary Lankford (June 25, 2020), it may be relevant that the MM's & Roddy were all indicted on 9 counts, including malice murder, on June 24, 2020.
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,996
- Reaction score
- 280,144
Missed writing this up from the bond hearing, about Larry English & the alleged $2k theft from his boat.
TM's attorney challenged GBI Deal's prelim hearing testimony, during which Deal testified that English, when interviewed by the GBI, said nothing had been stolen from the property.
TM's attorney retorted that either it was a poorly conducted interview or that English had lied. His proof? Citing a 911 call transcript, that E had told LE of a $2k theft from his boat. The call by E was made on Nov 17, after E's surveillance camera had captured that white couple in his property.
TA's attorney also referred to 3 other 911 calls by L. The full audio for the other 3 calls is available on YT. I've listened to all 3. To put it charitably, TA's attorney grossly mis-stated what E said on the calls. I also very much doubt he will repeat at trial his speculative assertions about how only AA could have been the thief.
1. This much is objectively true: Larry English either lied to LE at some point, or parsed his words so carefully they can be endlessly spun. He not once but twice told LE of (felony) theft from his boat (on Nov 17 & Dec 1 calls). And he either told Deal nothing had been stolen, or perhaps that things were stolen, but he couldn't be sure if they were stolen from the boat before he moved it.
Thing is, if he told Deal the latter, that was untrue, because on the Nov 18 call he tells LE he moved the boat that same day (but told LE of the theft the day before, on Nov 17). The other possibility is nothing was ever stolen. Who knows.
2. What's relevant to the case against the MMs is not whether anything was stolen from E, or if true, when or what it was. What matters is whether or not the MMs had reason to believe that such a theft had occurred. What matters just as much is what they based that belief upon.
a. It was impossible for the MMs to have had "first hand" knowledge of such a theft at all, much less of AA committing that felony.
b. English didn't know who the thief was, because according to him, his surveillance camera wasn't operative when the theft happened. Anyone, including workmen, could have stolen from the boat, at any time over a period of at least several days.
Also relevant- English never suggested to/told LE that he believed the unidentified Black trespasser was the thief. (If anything, if you listen carefully to the Dec 1 call, he seemed to be perhaps be pointing the finger at that white couple he caught on camera Nov 17, the day before he moved his boat).
c. TM's attorney seemed to suggest that English also told someone in SShores of the theft. The most likely candidate, if true, would be Perez, not either of the MMs. If so, it's theoretically possible that English told Perez he suspected the Black trespasser as thief.
d. So, the best possible argument the MMs have to try to justify their armed pursuit of AA is that Perez told them that English had told him that he believed the Black trespasser had stolen stuff from his boat, but no, he hadn't caught the trespasser on camera because it had been broken/turned off.
That, and/or as GM told LE after the murder, he just had a "gut feeling" that AA was the one responsible for all the neighborhood break ins.
----
(Snippets of on-scene body cam video were shown at the bond hearing, including one of GM inserting himself, unasked, into a conversation between LE and the coroner.
The coroner asked LE if (AA) was "from around here." GM jumped in.
"The victim? He makes frequent trips to (through?) the neighborhood, and is caught on video every 3rd or 4th night breaking into places, and nobody has been able to catch him....")
Begins about 1:01:00
TM's attorney challenged GBI Deal's prelim hearing testimony, during which Deal testified that English, when interviewed by the GBI, said nothing had been stolen from the property.
TM's attorney retorted that either it was a poorly conducted interview or that English had lied. His proof? Citing a 911 call transcript, that E had told LE of a $2k theft from his boat. The call by E was made on Nov 17, after E's surveillance camera had captured that white couple in his property.
TA's attorney also referred to 3 other 911 calls by L. The full audio for the other 3 calls is available on YT. I've listened to all 3. To put it charitably, TA's attorney grossly mis-stated what E said on the calls. I also very much doubt he will repeat at trial his speculative assertions about how only AA could have been the thief.
1. This much is objectively true: Larry English either lied to LE at some point, or parsed his words so carefully they can be endlessly spun. He not once but twice told LE of (felony) theft from his boat (on Nov 17 & Dec 1 calls). And he either told Deal nothing had been stolen, or perhaps that things were stolen, but he couldn't be sure if they were stolen from the boat before he moved it.
Thing is, if he told Deal the latter, that was untrue, because on the Nov 18 call he tells LE he moved the boat that same day (but told LE of the theft the day before, on Nov 17). The other possibility is nothing was ever stolen. Who knows.
2. What's relevant to the case against the MMs is not whether anything was stolen from E, or if true, when or what it was. What matters is whether or not the MMs had reason to believe that such a theft had occurred. What matters just as much is what they based that belief upon.
a. It was impossible for the MMs to have had "first hand" knowledge of such a theft at all, much less of AA committing that felony.
b. English didn't know who the thief was, because according to him, his surveillance camera wasn't operative when the theft happened. Anyone, including workmen, could have stolen from the boat, at any time over a period of at least several days.
Also relevant- English never suggested to/told LE that he believed the unidentified Black trespasser was the thief. (If anything, if you listen carefully to the Dec 1 call, he seemed to be perhaps be pointing the finger at that white couple he caught on camera Nov 17, the day before he moved his boat).
c. TM's attorney seemed to suggest that English also told someone in SShores of the theft. The most likely candidate, if true, would be Perez, not either of the MMs. If so, it's theoretically possible that English told Perez he suspected the Black trespasser as thief.
d. So, the best possible argument the MMs have to try to justify their armed pursuit of AA is that Perez told them that English had told him that he believed the Black trespasser had stolen stuff from his boat, but no, he hadn't caught the trespasser on camera because it had been broken/turned off.
That, and/or as GM told LE after the murder, he just had a "gut feeling" that AA was the one responsible for all the neighborhood break ins.
----
(Snippets of on-scene body cam video were shown at the bond hearing, including one of GM inserting himself, unasked, into a conversation between LE and the coroner.
The coroner asked LE if (AA) was "from around here." GM jumped in.
"The victim? He makes frequent trips to (through?) the neighborhood, and is caught on video every 3rd or 4th night breaking into places, and nobody has been able to catch him....")
Begins about 1:01:00
Last edited:
I haven't caught up on this thread and the hearing detail yet, but here's an article with a shot of the encoded letter and some info about the other mail: Man accused in Ahmaud Arbery’s death tried to send encoded message from jail, records show
While I agree completely that race of the "trespasser" (none of those charged were owners or agents of the owner and thus had no ability to determine whether or not AA had trespassed) played a key role in the crime, I also think it is foolish for the State to claim that a group seeking to preserve historical Confederate monuments is a "hate group".
Very well said. I hope the State thinks twice about this and withdraws the claim. I am surprised that they even considered using it.
There is evidently alot of far more tangible and far more direct evidence showing that one or more of the defendants had racist views.
In short, there is no need get creative with the definition of "hate group" for the State to have a strong case.
Last edited:
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 83,996
- Reaction score
- 280,144
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator -
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 103
- Guests online
- 3,673
- Total visitors
- 3,776