MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, Panola County, Dec 2014 #3 *MISTRIAL*

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Harmony 2, Oct 14, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. There was one crime scene. He did something to her while she was in her car and that car was parked in the area next to his mom's, and then he drove her to Heron Rd and up that incline. She didn't drive herself there. Everything that happened to JC happened while she was in her car, so that was the "crime scene."

    With a purposefully set gasoline fire in a small car that was on fire for 5 to 15 min, what would one expect to be preserved inside the vehicle? JC's body was also evidence, and her burns were evidence of a criminal act, not an electrical short that started a car fire. She was incapacitated, probably passed out, when QT doused her with gas and lit her on fire. We know this because there was a period of time (5 to 10 min) where she was alone in her car and she didn't leave the car. The passenger seat was reclined backwards, as QT described. That means no one would have seen her sitting in the car.
     


  2. heidisams

    heidisams Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think the bottom line is QT is the only one to blame... However, I do agree that the "Eric" issue is what caused this verdict. As far as the first responder's testimony, many have discussed the power of persuasion and how that may have influenced them, even the prosecutor brought up all the buzz going around the scene that JC was saying "Eric" set her on fire... I happen to believe this could've affected what they heard, or what they thought they were hearing... I don't think that's blaming them. That's saying they're human. Humans do make errors...

    All jmo.
     
  3. MSCJgrad

    MSCJgrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Dear Mitzery,
    Unsolicited advice, coming right up. First, my deepest and most sincere sympathies to you and your family. There are no words, but I wanted to say that I experienced something similar in 2013 when my father was diagnosed at stage 4. The main regret of myself and my family is that we did not document more when we had the chance. Document his childhood, his younger years, and his greatest memories that could be otherwise forgotten. Document his thoughts and wishes for you, his children (if any), and grandchildren (if any, or for those to come). As I am praying for a swift and complete recovery, I still wanted to pass this along to you. Sending good vibes your way, and take care of yourself, as well as him.

     
  4. William N

    William N Member

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What I'm saying is 10 year sentences don't turn out to be 10 years in practice in most cases.
     
  5. Betty P

    Betty P Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,411
    Likes Received:
    62,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for that information. I read up on the other case and it sounds like they have a good chance of convicting him of that terrible murder. I hope that's some consolation for Jessica's friends and family.
     
  6. heidisams

    heidisams Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Has anyone heard today of any post-trial interviews from jurors, attys, family members, etc?.... I'm most curious to hear from a juror and what went on in that deliberation room yesterday....

    All jmo.
     
  7. TTF14

    TTF14 Spaceship Headlight Pattern Expert

    Messages:
    12,745
    Likes Received:
    51,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was wondering the same thing!!!
     
  8. minor4th

    minor4th Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    8,028
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What was the date on that? I think there have been more recent developments.
     
  9. minor4th

    minor4th Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    8,028
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Sure.
     
  10. mrsNKY

    mrsNKY Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Trophy Points:
    93
    IMO all of the fault a few of you had falls on the jurors. I don't think so. I think many failed Jessica in this case. Beginning with providing an unshakable probable cause, poor choice in jury selection and a judge who made some grave errors in handling this case.

    In regards to the embarrassing display apparently by family and friends, I personally would not act that way however; maybe they were celebrating that he was not railroaded in their eyes. Not the first time I have seen it and won't be the last, unfortunately. It's not unusual at aĺl.

    I could not have convicted him. Is he guilty? Probably. Was it enough that I can look over conflicting evidence absolutely not! All of the pieces should have fit into what the D.A. wanted to present. You should never ignore evidence that is presented. They should have had their ducks in a row. They prosecution didn't prove its case plain and simple enough for these folks. I can't and would not say, as some of you do, that the jury was not smart enough. We don't know that. Did the foreman not comprehend the ballot instructions? Probably, but it in no way mean we should say the whole jury.

    I just don't think the jury was uneducated, and we should say that about them. We really have no idea what was going on there. Either way, the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room. Both attorneys should have been informed of what happened and then explain to the jury why either they should continue deliberations or he should have challenged the findings and let them mark the correct square.

    Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
     
  11. swedie

    swedie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,472
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree EM. Priority is to take care of the victim/patient first, then preserve the crime scene. It's very typical for the defense to try and raise reasonable doubt, and one way of doing that is to try and make claims LE did sloppy work or missed something important during their investigation. MOO.
     
  12. heidisams

    heidisams Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    BBM

    What was presented that the State ignored?... Basically the defense's position revolved around the soddi defense. Specifically, Eric....I don't know how many other ways Dr. Hickerson could've explained that Jessica's condition at the time wouldn't have allowed for coherent thought or speech...

    All jmo.
     
  13. katydid23

    katydid23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    60,223
    Likes Received:
    155,281
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Suspect in Jessica Chambers Murder Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Use of Credit Card, Will Serve at Least 10 Years in Prison
    BY GREG HANLON•@GREGHANLON

    MAY 13, 2016
     
  14. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    170,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :eek:fftopic:

    I couldn't have said it better! I had to cope with my husband's prostate cancer diagnoses in Sept of 2015 and then his death in June of 2016. I came here too - could not believe the GREAT support I got here - :loveyou: That's why I like it here! :) And yes, on the questioning looks from friends and family when I mention my "imaginary" friends! LOL!

    back on topic:

    Just using this portion of your posts for jumping off the "he drove" - did LE check the front driver's seat - how far away it was from the steering wheel?? Don't recall how tall QT is or JC.

    and a Google Alert from this morning:

    Attorneys discuss strategies for the next step in Jessica Chambers murder trial
    http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...next-jessica-chambers-murder-trial/772747001/

    Panola County District Attorney John Champion says the accused, Quinton Verdell Tellis, will face trial again.

    "I firmly believe in my case. I have no trepidation, no concerns about going forward with it again, and we’ll have to see what happens," he said. "As far as a bounce back strategy, we’ll go forward with the exact same strategy we did with the grand jury and in the first trial."
    [.....]
    Tellis has also been charged with murder in the death of a Monroe, Louisiana, woman. Champion said he'll be speaking with prosecutors there this week to decide on a strategy for going forward.
    [.....]
    "When I met with them
    (JC's parents), they were upbeat about where we were at that time, but certainly disappointed not to have a guilty verdict. I’ll ask them for suggestions. They might have ideas from the layperson’s standpoint on what we can do to strengthen the case."
    [.....]
    "We’re going to wait a couple of weeks until we can sit down as a team and kinda go back over everything and have some time for reflection," Champion said.

    As far as whether the case will definitely see a courtroom round two, Peterson said the decision to consider any deviation from the current plan to go forward will be up to Tellis.
    [.....]
    Champion said the case could go back to trial in the summer, but it's too early to tell.

    "We've got to get with the judge and the defense lawyers to see what their schedules are like," Champion said.


    regarding what I put in red - he should read here at WS if he wants some suggestions. I've seen some pretty good ones here suggested for retrial!

    Sorry for the long post... :pcguru:
     
  15. Orange Tabby

    Orange Tabby Member

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    SBM

    I am puzzled by your statement, “the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room.” When did that happen? I’d be interested to learn about this; it might help me understand the bizarre behavior of this jury.

    Here’s what I saw happen:

    At 2:40 p.m. ET on Monday, after the jury entered the courtroom claiming to have a verdict, the judge asked the foreman if all jurors agreed on the verdict and the foreman replied yes. Another juror said “we all didn’t agree” and the jury was sent back to continue deliberations, but only after the judge told them that the decision must be unanimous.

    All the attorneys were present when this happened and after the jury left the courtroom for further deliberations the judge asked the attorneys to meet with him in chambers.

    Later, the jury once again entered the courtroom claiming to have a verdict. At 3:02 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge again asked the foreman if the verdict was unanimous and the foreman again said yes. The other 11 jurors were silent. The verdict form was passed from foreman to clerk to judge. The judge looked at it and passed it to the clerk to be read and she announced the not guilty verdict. The prosecution asked that the jury be polled and at least seven members of the jury said that their finding was guilty. The judge again told them that their verdict must be unanimous. The jury was re-read at least part of the jury instructions and then told by the judge to continue deliberations. The attorneys then approached the bench.

    At 3:50 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge read to the jury an additional instruction. It said all 12 must agree in order to reach a guilty verdict, all 12 must agree in order to reach a not guilty verdict. If the jury cannot reach a verdict, they should inform the judge in writing.

    At 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge told the jury that he understood that they had a report “reduced to writing” to give him. This report said that they could not reach a unanimous verdict and the judge declared a mistrial.

    Speaking for myself, I think questioning the educational background of a group of 12 people who could do what this jury did is not unreasonable. They may all be good people, honest and kind. They may all be well-intentioned. But having been told explicitly multiple times that the decision had to be unanimous, for the entire jury to sit there silently when the foreman made the same mistake a second time (he not once but twice said that their "verdict" was unanimous when it was not) is so incredibly odd to me that I wonder what else beyond a lack of a basic education can explain it. This need not be considered an insult; very few kids control what schools they go to, and some schools are much worse than others. Some people with little education become wildly successful and admired. But this is true: some people are not well educated.

    Tellis defense attorney Alton Peterson, in a video posted by local CBS news affiliate WREG in Memphis, said, “I think we all realized about the same time that there was confusion in the jury box.” When a defense attorney who gets a good result from a jury still feels comfortable calling the jury confused, you know something is extremely strange. (His partner Darla Palmer said after the mistrial was declared that "I characterize it as a victory.")

    District Attorney John Champion said, "We felt like it was probably a misinterpretation of a jury instruction, so we added to one of the jury instructions to make it more simplistic." This, according to Therese Apel in The Clarion-Ledger. I understand this to mean that the judge and attorneys decided they had to really dumb it all down for this jury to begin to comprehend a simple rule.

    There are various possibilities, but consider this one: at least one member of the jury understood what it means to have a unanimous verdict and at least one member of the jury, including the foreman, did not. If this was the case, then the jury couldn’t even hold discussions fruitful enough for the entire panel to agree on the correct rule governing what constitutes a valid verdict.

    Another possibility is that the jury instructions only explicitly said that the verdict must be unanimous for a guilty verdict and the jurors concluded, quite erroneously, that no unanimity was required for a not guilty verdict. If that is what they thought, this does clearly point to a gap in education, since a basic understanding of civics and history would mean that a person would know about the unanimity requirement for a not guilty verdict. Even setting that aside, after the jury was specifically told that a verdict (not merely a guilty verdict) had to be unanimous, they were unable to understand this simple point and 20 minutes later tried a second time to offer a non-unanimous finding of not guilty. If this is how they applied themselves to something so simple, I am in agreement with those who have said that it is hard to believe that they could understand some of the complex evidence in the case and analyze what it meant.

    Links:

    Jury twice tries to offer a non-unanimous verdict, plus judge’s final jury instruction:

    [video=youtube;bVdK9P-gE5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdK9P-gE5g[/video]

    Jury announces it cannot reach a verdict:

    [video=youtube;H78GfyL65M8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H78GfyL65M8[/video]

    [Both videos above are archives of original live coverage by the LawNewz Network.]

    Alton Peterson on jury confusion:
    http://wreg.com/2017/10/16/verdict-watch-jury-resumes-deliberations-in-jessica-chambers-murder/

    Darla Palmer says the mistrial is a victory:
    http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/very_unusual_mistrial_in_missi.html

    John Champion on writing a new instruction for the jury:
    http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ppears-confused-cant-agree-verdict/767413001/
     
  16. Maradentro

    Maradentro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Prosecution needs to spend more time focusing on the pronunciation of "Eric" by someone with JC's injuries. IMO she was trying to say Tellis. It is very common for L to be pronounced as R in Japanese and other Asian languages. They need more testimony from linguistic experts. It is virtually impossible for someone with her injuries to pronounce the letter S and the letter L. Tellis would almost assuredly sound like "Derek" or "Eric." She probably referred to him as Tellis not Quinton and imo that is what she was trying to say.

    Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk
     
  17. rbarber17

    rbarber17 Incorrigible User

    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    63
    TTF14,

    Not to quibble here, but I've simply got to get this off my chest, especially if the DA intends to re-try this case without making any "improvements" in his presentation of the facts. And let me make it clear that I do believe QT is guilty. But if the prosecution hopes to make 12 new jurors render a guilty verdict, then IMO they'll need to either abandon the DNA link (impossible now, since it has already been introduced in this trial, so could be re-introduced by the next defense) or find a better explanation of how it ties QT to the keys.

    At best, I think the testing does not fully exonerate QT, but neither does it implicate him. The "...stronger case because they have DNA..." mentioned as one of the reasons LA had allowed MS to extradite QT to stand trial for JW's murder before standing trial in LA for another murder, is simply not true, at least based on my understanding of what was presented during the trial.

    Katherine Rodgers, the expert who testified about the DNA testing of JW's keys and other items did not, in fact, state her lab had found QT's DNA on those keys. I believe instead it was the MBI investigator, and DA Champion, and possibly others who asserted that they had found it. Now that assertion would certainly be useful when trying to pursuade a suspect to open up and share more information while being interrogated, and perhaps even during a DA's opening statement in an effort to sway jurors toward a certain mindset. But when the actual DNA evidence was presented, it did not support that contention.

    What the DNA expert testified was the lab performed two different tests:
    (1) The first testing, autosomal, was suitible for detecting DNA from the entire population, male and female. The only thing it cannot discriminate between is identical twins. QT's DNA was EXCLUDED by autosomal analysis of the DNA mixture from multiple contributors by that testing. On cross-exam, it was confirmed that a mixture of four individuals was detected. JW could not be excluded, but QT was excluded.
    (2) The second testing, Y chromosome analysis, was suitible for detecting DNA from only about half the population, since it looks only at the "Y" chromosome or male portion of DNA components. Females do not have a "Y" chromosome, so by default are excluded by that test. In that second test, a mixture of four male individuals was detected, and of those four QT's DNA sample COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.

    So to summarize the state's evidence: the first DNA test excluded QT, and the second DNA test did not exclude QT. Now I would submit that is a far cry from saying QT's DNA was found. Instead of such a positive, the testing only offered one negative result and one indeterminate result. JMO

    Regards,
    Clouseau
     
  18. rbarber17

    rbarber17 Incorrigible User

    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    63
    William N,

    I agree. In a federal prison they do normally serve the full sentence, but most defintely NOT in a state prison. By the time his murder trials are over in MS and LA, assuming he is not convicted in either, he might have already qualified for parole in LA for that credit card sentence. Not saying that he would get it, but he could.

    JMO,
    Clouseau
     
  19. Openminded

    Openminded Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I doubt a second jury (or any future jury beyond that if they keep trying him) will find him guilty.

    No matter what experts are brought in to explain away "Eric/Derrick" there will always be a question in the minds of some and that doubt will be reflected in any future verdict IMO.
     
  20. rbarber17

    rbarber17 Incorrigible User

    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Maradentro,

    My suggestion would be to ask the jurors to recall their childhood, when they probably tried to speak while holding their tongues: "My father works in a shipyard..."

    Regards,
    Clouseau
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice