Legally Bland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 8,776
- Reaction score
- 43,254
I don't see much in that other then the jurors disagreed with the defence.Talbott defense doubles down on rape versus consensual sex angle in appeal
William Talbott II, who was found guilty two weeks ago of murdering a young Canadian couple on an overnight road trip to Seattle, has asked for a new trial.
In an appeal filed this week, Talbott’s attorneys pointed to a story published on Sunday in the Everett Herald, in which three jurors explain why they didn’t come around to the defense’s position.
[.....]
It was the first time in U.S. history that someone found using genetic genealogy had sat trial. The method wasn’t contested, nor was it considered in the appeal. Rather, the defense attorneys focused on the jurors’ reasons for why they found Talbott guilty.
Points made in the appeal:
too long to post! you'll have to read the article!
The defense did not dispute that Talbott and Van Cuylenborg had sexual contact in 1987. Rather, the defense said that they had sex, and someone else did the killing.
But Talbott's attorneys have insisted this was not rape. In court, one of the defense attorneys said the presence of the young woman’s fluids mixed with Talbott's semen indicated consensual sex.
One of the jurors found that explanation flabbergasting, according to the Herald. (It has been well documented that some women will not resist rape to appease their attacker.)
[.....]
t simply did not compute for them that Van Cuylenborg, on a short trip with her boyfriend, and on her period, would “consent to unprotected sex with a random stranger, then encounter another random stranger, who killed her with a gun and happened to leave behind no DNA.”
His sentencing date is 7/24.
I meant to quote this from the Herald article on the jurors but must have forgotten:
Even if this goes to a retrial the evidence will be stronger.Afterward, in a private debriefing with attorneys, the jury was informed of a major piece of evidence the state hadn’t been able to present at trial. Zip ties found in the couple’s van had tested as a possible match for Talbott’s DNA. In recent months, the state crime lab had obtained new equipment that was better at testing mixed samples of DNA. Results came back in the middle of the trial, and, out of caution, prosecutors did not put that evidence before the jury.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/jurors-share-why-they-found-talbott-guilty-of-double-murder/