GUILTY GA - Antonio Santiago, 13 mos, Brunswick, 21 March 2013 - #3

[jjenny]

That's right. And the courts do not take children away from their parents permanently due to poverty. They are provided with resources to make sure their kids have food (food stamps, WIC and in cases of child custody, support when that is available).

So this lady didn't lose custody because of poverty.

As far as living 10 minutes away, do you have any firsthand info about the case?

And yes, it appears this woman was cleared by the police. She is not on trial. Those two teens are. And I tend to trust the police. Their agenda is to catch the bad guys, not to frame innocent people.

But I am seeing there are some questions in this case:

1. The GSR on dad's hands.
2. The mom's identification of a totally different suspect at first.
3. The mom's inability to recall whether she was shot first or her son.
4. The mom asking about life insurance proceeds on, what was it, the very day her small baby's head was blown off? She's not in the hospital being sedated, she's asking about money?
5. The fact that her daughter was taken away from her and never returned.
6. The strangeness of the story. Why did they let the only witness to the crime go? Why did they aim for her leg but aimed for the baby's head? Since the baby wasn't a viable witness to the robbery, why shoot him at all?

I can't say any of this means these two are not guilty or that the parents are in any way involved but I can certainly see why there are questions. The innocence project proves that sometimes well-meaning police get the wrong suspects and sometimes well-meaning prosecutors help convict the wrong defendants.

It happens. I just want to know more about this case.

She didn't ID the "totally different suspect" at first. Where in the world are you getting this idea?
GSR has already been explained numerous times. He had a very tiny amount that was most likely obtained by transference when he touched the mother.
Strangeness of the story? Really? That same suspect is accused of shooting a pastor 10 days prior to the baby's murder. With very similar MO. Pastor didn't give money to the suspect and was shot in response.
So what is strange about the story? To me it looks like exact same MO. Suspects asks for money, if he doesn't get it, he shoots. Luckily the pastor wasn't killed. Mother herself was shot, luckily she wasn't killed.

 

[vlpate]

While googling for more information I came across this article (I was unable to actually watch SW's testimony yesterday), where SW pointed at Elkins as the shooter, but on cross she picked Lang out of a group of photos.

Also, she told investigators during her taped interview that Elkins never asked for her purse, he just kept asking for money - on the stand she said he asked for her purse many times which brings me back to why didn't she just give him her purse?

Then this:
"Brunswick police searched that pond and found a .22-caliber revolver. They have not said whether that was the gun used to kill the toddler.

Late in the day, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation firearms examiner testified that both Antonio and his mother were hit with .22-caliber bullets, they were from different manufacturers, and he could not rule out that two different guns were involved."

They have no evidence linking the gun found in the pond to the murder of Antonio? No evidence that the bullet in SW's knee was shot from the same gun that killed Antonio? No one finds this a titch odd? I realize the bullets could have been laying around and not from the same box, but still, what evidence links that gun and the bullet that killed the baby?

One other thing from her testimony - she was "hit" in the ear, not "shot" as she has always claimed. This might be common knowledge, but I'm hearing it for the first time. I never believed she was shot in the ear, but everyone else went along with it, including MSM.

It's one thing not to want to question the mother's role, if any, in a case, but to ignore pretty glaring inconsistencies is quite another, IMO.

 

[vlpate]

From all indications, she lived alone. I havent heard if her parents are still alive, but she reached out to her daughter and got her hand bit for her effort. I don't think there was anyone else to do it but her.

The baby's father was around - but that wasn't my point. I think it makes sense that she would call in order to get the money together for the arrangements, but the autopsy was being performed and he was cremated, there was no hurry that morning. It's odd to me, but I've never walked in those shoes, thank goodness.

 

[jjenny]

What is her role? I don't see any plausible theory under which she would have a role.
This blaming the victim thing is getting old. She isn't the one on trial.
People often have some inconsistencies, in fact, if she was repeating everything exactly one would have to worry.
This whole thing is getting extremely frustrating to me.
This is supposed to be victim friendly site. She isn't accused of anything. She is the victim here.
:banghead:

 

[momrids6]

Since we are all sleuthing and I don't profess to know everything about this case, by a long shot, what would I find if I googled as regards the quoted text? At least point me in the right direction :scared:

Other people on trial in this case ( after the fact) have records

 

[noZme]

The boy with the gun (shooter- Elkins- defendant) was identified by the preacher & man helping him. Elkins' friend testified he hid a gun under the couch in her apartment. Elkins' mother & sister went to the friend's apartment & retrieved the gun (they knew to look under the sofa). A man (uncle?) was awakened by noises of turning the love seat over, came into the room, unloaded the gun before Elkin's mother & sister left with it. Another guy testified he drove them out to the pond, they got out of the car, he heard a splash. Each & every relative & friend lied to police about what they knew until threatened to be taken in on outstanding warrants. The women agreed to show where they disposed of the gun & a searcher found it right there using an underwater metal detector. Same caliber as used in shootings (recovered slugs).

Gun & crimes seem tied to defendant to me.

 

[Cherry]

What is her role? I don't see any plausible theory under which she would have a role.
This blaming the victim thing is getting old. She isn't the one on trial.
People often have some inconsistencies, in fact, if she was repeating everything exactly one would have to worry.
This whole thing is getting extremely frustrating to me.
This is supposed to be victim friendly site. She isn't accused of anything. She is the victim here.
:banghead:

Trials are about the truth, I'n America. And sometimes the real killer is exposed at trial even when still in poi status or possibly a main suspect, like sneiderman.

With no forensic link at all to the bullets or gun (s) I still am left with her orchestrating these events. There r too many things truly not fitting in this case. The bullet points if all her statemnts to LE, the poss self inflicted wounds, the extensive medical knowledge and excuses, the rather remarkable amt of people either dead or dying around her....the list goes,on.

It's just may be one trial where the truth is actually uncovered. Today immcallin it also for the defense....and I Hv reasonable doubt, that the mother isn't innocent in this case. Jmo

 

[jjenny]

Those are absurd claims. What are remarkable amounts of people dying? Her older son died, but that story is obviously completely different and she was never suspected or charged with anything in connection to his death. The person who killed the son is known. It was ruled self defense. There are no similarities between death of the older son and murder of the baby whatsoever.

 

[katydid23]

While googling for more information I came across this article (I was unable to actually watch SW's testimony yesterday), where SW pointed at Elkins as the shooter, but on cross she picked Lang out of a group of photos.

Also, she told investigators during her taped interview that Elkins never asked for her purse, he just kept asking for money - on the stand she said he asked for her purse many times which brings me back to why didn't she just give him her purse?

Then this:
"Brunswick police searched that pond and found a .22-caliber revolver. They have not said whether that was the gun used to kill the toddler.

Late in the day, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation firearms examiner testified that both Antonio and his mother were hit with .22-caliber bullets, they were from different manufacturers, and he could not rule out that two different guns were involved."

They have no evidence linking the gun found in the pond to the murder of Antonio? No evidence that the bullet in SW's knee was shot from the same gun that killed Antonio? No one finds this a titch odd? I realize the bullets could have been laying around and not from the same box, but still, what evidence links that gun and the bullet that killed the baby?

One other thing from her testimony - she was "hit" in the ear, not "shot" as she has always claimed. This might be common knowledge, but I'm hearing it for the first time. I never believed she was shot in the ear, but everyone else went along with it, including MSM.

It's one thing not to want to question the mother's role, if any, in a case, but to ignore pretty glaring inconsistencies is quite another, IMO.

What 'glaring inconsistencies' are you referring to?

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

This case is one of the most tragic cases I have read in a long time.

Please remember if you feel a post is bashing the victim to alert on the post and not comment on the thread. You can do this by hitting the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of the post.

It's important to be able to talk about the evidence. We can't close our eyes to facts in any case. And we can have opinions based on those facts. As long as the opinion does not violate our TOS and is posted in a respectful and decent manner then everything will run smoothly.

Thank you for your participation in this thread. You have interesting ideas and opinions. I look forward to coming back to here to read again.

Take Care,
Tricia

 

[momrids6]

Trials are about the truth, I'n America. And sometimes the real killer is exposed at trial even when still in poi status or possibly a main suspect, like sneiderman.

With no forensic link at all to the bullets or gun (s) I still am left with her orchestrating these events. There r too many things truly not fitting in this case. The bullet points if all her statemnts to LE, the poss self inflicted wounds, the extensive medical knowledge and excuses, the rather remarkable amt of people either dead or dying around her....the list goes,on.

It's just may be one trial where the truth is actually uncovered. Today immcallin it also for the defense....and I Hv reasonable doubt, that the mother isn't innocent in this case. Jmo

Truth is, the vast majority of trials and convictions are based on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials.

Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused.

In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue.

For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime.

But this view is incorrect.

In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]).

Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

 

[katydid23]

Trials are about the truth, I'n America. And sometimes the real killer is exposed at trial even when still in poi status or possibly a main suspect, like sneiderman.

With no forensic link at all to the bullets or gun (s) I still am left with her orchestrating these events. There r too many things truly not fitting in this case. The bullet points if all her statemnts to LE, the poss self inflicted wounds, the extensive medical knowledge and excuses, the rather remarkable amt of people either dead or dying around her....the list goes,on.

It's just may be one trial where the truth is actually uncovered. Today immcallin it also for the defense....and I Hv reasonable doubt, that the mother isn't innocent in this case. Jmo

What remarkable list of people dying around her? Her oldest son died in an altercation years ago. Then she was the victim of an armed robbery gone wrong. That is not that remarkable when you live in a poor neighborhood. There are very many mothers who have lost more than one child to the street violence surrounding them.

And who said her wounds were self inflicted? Did she have a gun? was there one found on scene? Was she seen with one?

What exactly is she guilty of? Do you believe she shot her baby in the face for the 2000 left over from the Gerber insurance fund?

Do you think Elkins is innocent and has no involvement?

 

[katydid23]

It astounds me that people are seriously accusing this poor woman of shooting her baby in the face. IMO, there is ZERO evidence to support that claim. Sure, she is mentally ill and so some things sound a bit hinky. But nothing to the level of making her a cold blooded killer. It makes me very sad that people are falling for these sleazy defense tactics. :cry:

 

[Melanie]

It astounds me that people are seriously accusing this poor woman of shooting her baby in the face. IMO, there is ZERO evidence to support that claim. Sure, she is mentally ill and so some things sound a bit hinky. But nothing to the level of making her a cold blooded killer. It makes me very sad that people are falling for these sleazy defense tactics. :cry:

I'm just now getting into this trial, but don't believe she had anything to do with it. IMHO, with her mental illness, and physical injuries, she could have looked like an easy target. I still need to watch more witness testimony, but she does appear to me to be a victim and I am sorry she has lost 2 children to violence.

Again, JMHO.

Mel

 

[Hickory Born]

Dr Drew is discussing this case. Her ( SW's) brother does not agree with anything AG has to say. AG is not a credible witness- incarcerated on now on 2 separate charges, 2 different counties. bad blood.My niece at this time, is not in her correct mind.

I lived with my sister for numerous years- with kids- what she is saying is not true. They were fed well. Father & grandmother had more to give treats, etc. Losing sight, mother, now father- off track.


All paraphrased...from show.

I questioned earlier in these posts. Why didn't Gough ask the daughter if SHE had any mental illnesses. The prosecutor needed to ask this and also question her as to her hating her mother.

 

[lowens1975]

It astounds me that people are seriously accusing this poor woman of shooting her baby in the face. IMO, there is ZERO evidence to support that claim. Sure, she is mentally ill and so some things sound a bit hinky. But nothing to the level of making her a cold blooded killer. It makes me very sad that people are falling for these sleazy defense tactics. :cry:

The very fact that Elkins robbed and shot a pastor and another man who witnessed the whole thing just one week prior to him do the very same thing to her tells me this is a chosen lifestyle for his client. If it waddles and quacks, it must be a duck.

 

[jjenny]

It astounds me that people are seriously accusing this poor woman of shooting her baby in the face. IMO, there is ZERO evidence to support that claim. Sure, she is mentally ill and so some things sound a bit hinky. But nothing to the level of making her a cold blooded killer. It makes me very sad that people are falling for these sleazy defense tactics. :cry:

Me too. Reading some of these posts, one would think that mother was on trial.
She has issues. People with issues are more likely to become victims of crimes.

 

[jjenny]

I questioned earlier in these posts. Why didn't Gough ask the daughter if SHE had any mental illnesses. The prosecutor needed to ask this and also question her as to her hating her mother.

He isn't interested in knowing what issues the daughter has, since she is a "defense" witness.
Daughter was let out of jail to testify.

 

[sloane7777]

you know if I didnt know what was going on and I started watching this trial a day or two ago, I would ask who is on trial??????? it 's SW that is actually on trial here I dont care how they try to present it ! its absurd!

 

[lowens1975]

"Elkins was placed in a holding cell before I issued a warrant for his arrest," Nohilly testified. "I turned the warrant over to officer Cody Blades as we were standing in an interview room, and Blades served the warrant.

"As we were walking out of the station, in the hall that leads to the parking lot, Elkins looked over at us and he said, 'Ya'll ain't got no **** on me. Ya'll ain't got no gun; ya'll ain't got no prints; all ya'll got is a ****ing acquittal,'" Nohilly testified.

He continued: "We didn't respond. Another investigator smiled and he [Elkins] said, 'Oh, ya'll got a gun?'"
---------------
Peppers said that when a gun is fired it forms microscopic entities, or particles, when it plumes from the barrel of a gun. The residue from shooting a gun is considered primary transfer and can fall on anything, she said.
Secondary transfer takes place when someone picks up an item on which primary residue has been deposited.
Pepper said it was "possible" that Santiago's positive results came from his contact with West immediately after she was shot.


http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/26/60567.htm

And, according to news reports, there were a total of 6, thats SIX, microscopic GSR particles found between SW and LS. Five on Sherry and one on Louis.