Elizabeth Johnson Trial - Day 1 - Opening Statements, Thursday, Sept 20

New Posts

This defense lawyer has got tuff thing to do, as so many of them do -- to defend an unlikeable client. I wonder if she's been truthful with him? Does he know where Gabriel is? Ummm. Prolly not -- and I'm sure he didn't ask...

And poor pitiful Elizabeth... doesn't she look so, so sad.
icon8.gif
 
wonders said:
How can Gabe's where abouts not be considered in this case? I don't understand.
Click to expand...



I don't either and wonder if further down the line she will be charged with making him disappear? As far as I can see she needs to be locked up and have the key thrown away and never see freedom again.
 
I wish I could review the Prosecutor's opening statement somewhere . . . I would try to pseudo-transcribe that too.
 
Dang.... it's over already until Monday. Pffft. In other news, I think my job interview went pretty well :)
 
I hate to say this, but I think MV has a really good chance of getting EJ either off, or convicted of lesser counts.

If he gets the jury to question every piece of evidence as to whether it actually PROVES the elements of the crime, or is just an unpleasant part of the story, I think it would be hard to get convictions.

Sadly, JMHO
 
And I think the fact that EJ looks more pathetic than TPS did at her trial (with all her gestures & smirks) will get more sympathy from this jury. They may not like her or what she did, but they may feel a little sorry for her. I'm sure from the defense side, MV will show TPS as a dominating force who twisted EJ around her little finger - and I think the jury would agree.

Again, sadly, JMHO
 
artsy1 said:
I hate to say this, but I think MV has a really good chance of getting EJ either off, or convicted of lesser counts.

If he gets the jury to question every piece of evidence as to whether it actually PROVES the elements of the crime, or is just an unpleasant part of the story, I think it would be hard to get convictions.

Sadly, JMHO
Click to expand...

Do you mean like the other case we don't like to discuss who told everyone that her baby was left with the nanny and the nanny kidnapped the baby?

In this case she will claim baby Gabriel was given to some couple in a park and this couple took the baby?

Wait wasn't that another story made up by the other case we don't like to discuss? A woman approached her and grabbed her baby?

I hope we have 12 jurors who will use common sense!
 
~n/t~ said:
Do you mean like the other case we don't like to discuss who told everyone that her baby was left with the nanny and the nanny kidnapped the baby?

In this case she will claim baby Gabriel was given to some couple in a park and this couple took the baby?

Wait wasn't that another story made up by the other case we don't like to discuss? A woman approached her and grabbed her baby?

I hope we have 12 jurors who will use common sense!
Click to expand...



Common sense is one thing, but, like MV said, you have to prove that the evidence supports the underlying facts of the charges.

I hate what EJ did, but just because my emotions make me say that, doesn't mean that the underlying facts of the charges are proven.

All it takes is one juror to not make a connection between the facts and the evidence based on the legal description of the charges, and it's for naught....
 
wenwe4 said:
Defense Atty up saying his opening will be very short . .. jurors may not like EJ, he is asking them to focus on the elements charged. Not much of a dispute . . .defense agrees with much if not all of the evidence presented . . . no dispute about the fights, EJ wanted to give Gabriel up for adoption and Logan didn't, no dispute TPS wanted to adopt and forged documents to adopt. No dispute about the timeline of events . . . Dec 18 - 19 2009, EJ left AZ and took Gabriel to Texas. She was entitled to take Gabriel anywhere she wanted . . . no violation of any orders on those dates. On 12/20/09 there was an order entered EJ was ordered to return Gabriel to Logan. EJ was in Texas on that date and failed to give Gabriel to Logan - no dispute. 12/26/09 last date EJ was with Gabriel @ hotel in Texas. There will be no resolution of where Gabriel is in this case. Gabriel's whereabouts . . . 800 lb Gorilla in this case will not be resolved. Just not allowed to speculate about that issue .. . cannot be any partof this case.

12/27/09 - EJ was @ Tornado (?) bus station . she bought 1 bus ticket . . . Gabriel was not with her . . . no dispute about the text EJ sent to Logan saying she killed Gabriel sent 11:53 am. There was a telephone conversation recorded by Logan that gave detail to Logan . . . no dispute from defense. Bus left after texts sent and phone calls made. . . EJ starts her journey to Florida. EJ found in Miami Beach FL . . . . no evidence of baby Gabriel. EJ spoke to police . . . says she didn't kill Gabriel . . . gave him to a couple in a park in San Antonio TX . . . not an issue in this case.

Other pieces of evidence in this case. . . . was she a good mom? other pieces evidence . . was she a good girlfriend to Logan ? Did she say mean things? Did she lie to Logan . . . this case isn't about whether you like EJ or not . . . doesn't matter to the defense atty. Focus on crimes charged as the jurors jobs. Asking jurors not to be distracted . .. . there will be lots of distractions. There will be emotions in this case . . .this isn't about emotions or speculations. Tells jurors they have a duty not to be emotional in this case. Lawyers will complete story . . . witnesses will testify along those lines. Defense is not concerned about those issues or witnesses . . . only one thing elements/evidence in this crime. There may be no questions at all to the witnesses or very few questions. Do not speculate about current status or whereabouts of Gabriel Johnson. Not a case whether you like EJ . .. . when he comes back in closing . . .which will be much longer than opening statements. focus on elements on crimes charged . . . walk thru each element of each crime. each element of each crime. Nothing more or less than that.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for transcribing.

bbm

My understanding is she did was not entitled to take Gabriel anytime she wanted. There were court orders.
 
And since he's already said publicly that his defense has to do with what EJ did in AZ and not TX, then he's right - she had every right to take Gabriel to TX with her. The fact that she didn't bring him back for Logan's visitation on Dec 20 occured in TX, not AZ.
 
And EJ not bringing him back is the crime - the crime which occurred in Texas, not Arizona.
 
artsy1 said:
Common sense is one thing, but, like MV said, you have to prove that the evidence supports the underlying facts of the charges.

I hate what EJ did, but just because my emotions make me say that, doesn't mean that the underlying facts of the charges are proven.

All it takes is one juror to not make a connection between the facts and the evidence based on the legal description of the charges, and it's for naught....
Click to expand...

Yeah all it takes is one stupid juror to believe the fairy tale story by the defense

:moo:
 
I haven't heard a fairy tale story yet. In fact, MV has said they agree with most if not all of what the prosecution happened.

But in a courtroom, the law is the standard, and that's why the juror has to determine whether the evidence just shows EJ is a b*tch or whether it meets the legal definition of the crimes charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 2,779 (members: 179, guests: 2,600)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,600
Total visitors
2,779
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,351
Messages
18,003,381
Members
229,373
Latest member
NomDePlumme
Back
Top