GUILTY VA - Nicole Lovell, 13, Blacksburg, 27 January 2016 #7 Accused Pleads "No Contest"

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone heard any updates on the accuseds? Or their families or the case? Nathalie remains the oddest murderer/accomplice I've ever read about. ( incredibly heartless for a young girl with such a bright future to do to an innocent child)
 
BUF said:
Nicole Lovell case: Motion seeks to exclude Keepers' statements

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_1c14b7c9-d66f-588b-9899-ecda72d035e9.html
Click to expand...

Thank you BUF!

Olin’s motion argues that Keepers was exhausted, hungry and intimidated by being held without communication, and that she did not understand the waiver of rights that she signed.
Click to expand...

Oh! Poor baby! She was exhausted, hungry and intimidated. Really? Seriously? At least you weren't DEAD like Nicole.....
 
She is a NASA dad's daughter attending a popular college, so I doubt they'll ever prove she has some kind of mental retardation, which is what it would take to not understand what "anything you say can be used against you" means, as if she has never seen a crime procedural on TV even once in her life.

Bootsctr said:
Thank you BUF!



Oh! Poor baby! She was exhausted, hungry and intimidated. Really? Seriously? At least you weren't DEAD like Nicole.....
Click to expand...
 
Vail said:
She is a NASA dad's daughter attending a popular college, so I doubt they'll ever prove she has some kind of mental retardation, which is what it would take to not understand what "anything you say can be used against you" means, as if she has never seen a crime procedural on TV even once in her life.
Click to expand...

Based on the article, that is her lawyer's argument - they questioned her for 15 hours before she was read her rights.
 
Ralph said:
Based on the article, that is her lawyer's argument - they questioned her for 15 hours before she was read her rights.
Click to expand...

I was under the assumption that LE isn't required to read someone their rights unless an arrest is being made. For example, if LE showed up at her boyfriend's house and asked if she would be willing to come down to the station to answer a few questions, she doesn't have to be read her rights because she's not being detained and could leave at any time. I could be wrong, but I've always assumed that's why so many people talk to LE rather than requesting a lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am hoping to locate someone in the Roanoke area that will be possibly attending the trial. I sure hope to attend.
 
cujenn81 said:
I was under the assumption that LE isn't required to read someone their rights unless an arrest is being made. For example, if LE showed up at her boyfriend's house and asked if she would be willing to come down to the station to answer a few questions, she doesn't have to be read her rights because she's not being detained and could leave at any time. I could be wrong, but I've always assumed that's why so many people talk to LE rather than requesting a lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I was under the same assumption as well. Rolling my eyes hard at the innocent anxiety ridden role NK is going to play. IMO ...... she pukes me.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 
BUF said:
Those gluten free meals again, really?...

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/N...-wear-regular-clothes-in-court-409826945.html

Natalie Keepers' attorney files new motions asking for gluten-free meals, permission to wear regular clothes in court
Click to expand...

If I had to wager, I'd say the gluten meals will go through; the throwing out of her statements will not. Unflipping believeable. This case pisses me off, and I haven't even been around here in months, lol. Bunch of whiney, entitled disgusting human beings these two.
 
Per Montgomery County court records here are the dates scheduled;

DE
02/08/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
02/09/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
03/06/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/07/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/08/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/09/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/10/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/11/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/12/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/13/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/14/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/15/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial

NK
01/17/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
01/18/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
01/19/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
01/20/2017 9:00AM Motion - Other Pre-Trial
03/27/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/28/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/29/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/30/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
03/31/2017 9:00AM Jury Trial
 
As Natalie Keepers prepares for four days of motions hearings this month, her attorney wants a judge to throw out incriminating statements she made to police during the investigation of Nicole Lovell’s death.
......
The motion asks that jurors not hear statements Keepers made to police about her connection to David Eisenhauer, who is accused of luring Lovell away from her apartment and stabbing her to death. Nor would jurors hear Keepers’ confession to police that she helped Eisenhauer hide the teen’s body in Surry County, N.C., off Route 89 south of Galax, just over the state line.
......
Defense attorney Kris Olin also contends that any evidence found because of Keeper’s statements should be inadmissible.
......

At the Jan. 17 motions hearing, the debate could involve when police began interrogating Keepers.

More at link...

http://www.galaxgazette.com/content/court-hear-motions-lovell-murder-case
 
cujenn81 said:
I was under the assumption that LE isn't required to read someone their rights unless an arrest is being made. For example, if LE showed up at her boyfriend's house and asked if she would be willing to come down to the station to answer a few questions, she doesn't have to be read her rights because she's not being detained and could leave at any time. I could be wrong, but I've always assumed that's why so many people talk to LE rather than requesting a lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think you're correct. The argument probably will come down to did NK think she was in custody. Generally those arguments don't end well for a defendant. LE doesn't want to arrest someone until they have as much info as they can get, simply because once a person is arrested, they frequently do quit talking.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Night-owl said:
I think you're correct. The argument probably will come down to did NK think she was in custody. Generally those arguments don't end well for a defendant. LE doesn't want to arrest someone until they have as much info as they can get, simply because once a person is arrested, they frequently do quit talking.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I think defense will be trying "anything," especially in a case that overwhelmingly points to her guilt, and this is part of that "anything."

I don't think they will win this argument.

jmopinion.
 
Inthedetails said:
I totally agree.

I think defense will be trying "anything," especially in a case that overwhelmingly points to her guilt, and this is part of that "anything."

I don't think they will win this argument.

jmopinion.
Click to expand...

Me either. I remember reading somewhere that she nearly insisted they continue on with their interview. Not only that, LE told her that her parents had hired an attorney (after he showed up at the police station) while they were driving out to the location where they dumped Nicole's body. They asked her if she still wanted to continue on or go back to the police station, and she told them she wanted to continue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 176 more.
Total: 4,428 (members: 177, guests: 4,251)

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
4,251
Total visitors
4,428
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,579
Members
228,786
Latest member
not_just_a_phase
Back
Top