GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #11

[arkansasmimi]

B. The United States Supreme Court Wrongly Decided Patane.
The Founding Fathers created the Constitution with a number of protections from an
overreaching and oppressive government. Among them are well-known protections against
searches and seizures without warrants, the right to a speedy trial, and protections against selfincrimination.
Those protections were not adopted with an enforcement mechanism. Thus, the
judicial system adopted measures that would provide them with enforcement. For searches and
seizures the judicial system adopted the exclusionary rule for violations of the Fourth
Amendment to deter government abuses. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S.
385 (1920); see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In Silverthorne, the Court held that if
it permitted the government to use evidence it obtained illegally it “reduce[d] the Fourth
Amendment to a form of words.” Id. To ensure there were no abuses of the right to speedy trial,
courts adopted a rule providing for an absolute bar to prosecution if not brought to trial within
twelve months. See Burmingham v. State, 346 Ark. 78, 57 S.W.3d 118 (2001). Most
importantly for this issue, the judicial system adopted a prophylactic measure to prevent abuses
of the right to counsel and self-incrimination most commonly referred to as Miranda. In a
plurality decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it would not apply the “fruit of the
poisonous tree” doctrine found in Wong Sun to violations of the Fifth Amendment. United States
v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). The decision was wrong and should not be extended to the
Arkansas Constitution.
This Court must answer this question, “May the police violate a person’s constitutional
rights, and then exploit that violation to obtain evidence that they otherwise would not have
secured?” This Court should answer no. The decision in Patane rested on flawed logic and it
would constitute a fallacy of the highest degree if this Court answers “yes” to the aforementioned

 

[arkansasmimi]

question simply because a plurality of the Supreme Court did. “In closing their eyes to the
consequences of giving an evidentiary advantage to those who ignore Miranda, the plurality adds
an important inducement for interrogators to ignore the rule in that case.” Patane, 542 U.S. at
646 (Souter, J., dissenting). Justice Souter went on to conclude, “There is no way to read this
case except as an unjustifiable invitation to law enforcement officers to flout Miranda when there
may be physical evidence to be gained.” Id. at 647.
Failing to extend the exclusionary rule to derivative evidence will create incentives for
officers to violate the rights of the accused to secure convictions. Law enforcement should never
be put in a better position due to the violation of a suspect’s rights than they were absent the
violation. Studies have actually suggested that law enforcement officers are often not following
the tenets of Miranda. See Richard A. Leo, Questioning the Relevance of Miranda in the Twenty
First Century, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1000, 1010 (2001) (“In some jurisdictions police are
systematically trained to violate Miranda by questioning ‘outside Miranda’” Charles D.
Weisselberg, In the Stationhouse After Dickerson, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1121, 1123-54 (2001)
(noting the trend in California for officers to question suspects without regard to Miranda
warnings). Some scholars suggest that that one reason for the trend is that the government has
recognized that the Miranda violations will often yield stronger evidence than compliance with
the law. See Steven D. Clymer, Are Police Free To Disregard Miranda, 112 Yale L.J. 447, 502-
03 (2002). In adopting the exclusionary rule for the Fourth Amendment the Supreme Court
wanted to make sure the protections were not just words; thus, if this Court wants to make sure
the Fifth Amendment and Miranda are not merely words it will exclude all evidence obtained as
a direct result of law enforcement violating a suspect’s rights

 

[arkansasmimi]

II. THE PHONE RECORDING SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE
ARKANSAS RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
A. The Questioning Of Arron Lewis Was Illegal Under The Arkansas Rules Of
Criminal Procedure.
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 4.5 states, “No law enforcement officer shall
question an arrested person if the person has indicated in any manner that he does not wish to be
questioned, or that he wishes to consult counsel before submitting to any questioning.” Here,
this Court found that Lewis unequivocally noted that he wished to consult counsel before
submitting to questioning. Thus, the questioning of Lewis in this case violated Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 4.5.
B. Arkansas Rule Of Criminal Procedure 16.2 Dictates That The Recording
Should Be Suppressed.
The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure do not have exclusionary rules built into each
and every rule; rather, all requests for suppression based on a violation are evaluated in
accordance with the factors in Rule 16.2(e). Here, the violation should be termed “substantial”
and this Court should suppress the recording “as a result of other evidence obtained in a manner
described in subdivision one, two, and three.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2(a)(4).
There are seven factors at issue under Rule 16.2(e). First, the importance of the particular
interest violated. This weighs heavily in support of suppression. Few rights could be more
important than the right against self-incrimination and right to counsel, which are both protected
by Rule 4.5. Second, the extent of deviation from lawful conduct. The extent was absolute. The
rule said not to question if a suspect indicates a desire to speak to counsel and law enforcement
questioned Lewis after he indicated a desire to speak to counsel. Thus, factor two also heavily

 

[arkansasmimi]

supports suppression. Third, the extent to which the violation was willful. The evidence does
not indicate whether Officer Roy purposefully withheld knowledge of the fact that Lewis
invoked his right or not. Although, considering the numerous other constitutional violations and
misrepresentations that occurred in this case, it is difficult to give law enforcement the benefit of
the doubt. Fourth, the extent to which privacy was invaded. This factor is obviously more
appropriate to violations of searches as opposed to questioning. This factor neither supports
suppression or supports admissibility.
Factor five, the extent to which exclusion will tend to prevent violations of these rules.
Excluding the fruits of illegal actions will absolutely tend to prevent future violations, which is
evident based on the fact the exclusionary rule exists in the first place. Admissibility of the fruits
of violations will encourage law enforcement to conduct illegal interrogations regularly because
they will know they will not be placed in a worse position than they would have if they had
complied with the law. Of course the decision calculus would support always violating the rights
of a suspect if you can possibly obtain admissible evidence, but never be in a worse position than
before. The deterrent effect makes factor five weigh in favor of suppression.
Factor six, whether the evidence would have been discovered absent the violation weighs
completely in favor of suppression because the evidence would not have been discovered absent
the illegal interrogation. Finally, the extent to which the violation prejudices Arron Lewis’
ability defend himself in the proceedings in which such evidence is sought to be offered in
evidence. The recording is one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the case. This weighs
heavily in favor of suppression

The overall analysis weighs almost entirely in favor of suppression. The Arkansas Rules
of Criminal Procedure set forth its own determining factors for suppression and this Court should
determine that this violation was substantial; thus, suppression of the recording is mandated.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Arron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court to suppress
the alleged phone recording of Beverly Carter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=R9EZ0XAX7729VH0YOEB7GWFFSRLPYO

 

[arkansasmimi]

I don't understand why the trunk was not opened at the scene of the wreck. What if BC had been in there alive? He was being watched and followed, and I understand not under arrest. I mean, now we know she was in the trunk. Did they ever say if the hair was from a live or deceased person? I have a feeling BC was in the trunk both alive and dead. Unless we are to believe AL's affidavit.

So far they haven't said anything about that or anything about her COD. There were other hairs but were not able to connect them to BC. Right now its all kinda like wow. I truly am shocked at some of this stuff being testified about. I am like you, if they had someone under surv and the car wrecked with guy you say fits the description from witness on the Missing Person Report why would you wait??? They stated they had no proof at that time (time did search warrant affidavit for car and house) that a crime had been committed. So why not open the trunk to see if she in there? And NOW they have on record that the info on the Accident Report isnt factual. Major mess ups.

I agree with EVERYONE that AL and CL are scum. But I dont understand about everyone mad at the Judge and an appointed Def attorney. Who from all so far looks like he is doing his job and someone else didnt. I am a supporter of Law Enforcement but this is all on them, so far none of this is on AL (the suppression stuff) I understand thats not a popular thing to say and I hate saying it, but its the truth.

I just posted the new filing about the recording of BC. I havent read all of it but made me think about back during the George Zimmerman trial the State wanted to say it was Trayvon Martin and Def said it was George Zimmerman. Both parents testified it was their son (GZ/parent and TM/Parent). This was prior to the new Daubert thing for experts. They had experts come on trying to say how they could prove who it was. Its a different standard now, was Frye Standard or something like that. That whole trial is on youtube . I watched it livestream.

On AL case, since they didnt get the passcode they wont have the orig recording. I call bs on that though, because they dont need it to get into the phone. Again something I learned from that GZ trial. They have gadgits to get in. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

:fireworks2: Happy New Years Eve Everyone, may it be a Safe one for you and your loved ones. May 2016 bring you good health and peace where ever you are in life. :websleuther: :gathering: :fireworks:

 

[111addict]

This is absolutely JMHO, with regard to AL's current attorney. A defense attorney should use every relief the law provides to ensure a fair trial for their client. There is a lot that can be respected about an attorney that can provide the best possible defense for their client, while at the same time being ethical, having a conscience, maintaining at least an ounce of moral fiber, and projecting at least their own good character. An example is the attorney that AL fired. He refused to allow the circus that AL was trying to orchestrate. He would not let AL use videos that would tarnish the memory of the victim. If the videos exist, this attorney knew what they were about, and so does the sleezeball now representing him. I am not angry with him. I simply have no respect for him. He will lose this case badly, even though his arrogance has led him to believe he can make a bigger name for himself by feeding on this injustice to BC and her family. He is disgusting, has no scruples, and it will backfire on him. He will learn the hard way that you can be a top notch, well sought attorney, and still be a decent person.

I know at some point in desperation, AL's team will declare that he cannot get a fair trial, due to public knowledge. AL has single handedly brought that on himself. There are many that actually know nothing about the case, or very little, though. Jury selection will just be a more in depth process. My husband knows nothing about the case, other than the fact that I follow it, and that on occasion I make comments like, "I want to barf about this sicko in the case I am following." If he were called to be a juror, he would absolutely be impartial. I doubt he is the only one.

On the fence about the judge. It is understandable that he would want to do everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I don't envy his position, and would not want to preside over this case. I do think he needs to look within himself and remember there is a real victim here, and she can't speak for herself anymore. All of her rights were taken. Her family can't even provide the people that will determine the fate of the person who admitted to burying her with the facts (yes, facts.... who gives a hoot if they were found while at the scene, or while a vehicle was in custody, or if the psycho, narcissist couldn't keep his big mouth shut and incriminated himself, etc). The laws were formed so innocent people would not be found guilty, not to provide a bunch of loopholes for wanna be dream team attorneys and their murderer, sicko clients to utilize.

It is time for the judge to end this mockery AL has made of our system time and time again. As a top 2% taxpayer, it disgusts me that CL is sitting in prison with breast implants that were more than likely paid for by my tax dollars, when AL sued for the same kind of BS he is claiming now. He is costing the taxpayers so much with his constant complaints and lawsuits. AL is very young, and undoubtedly will be in prison for the rest of his life. Unless the appropriate steps are taken, he will play his ridiculous games forever. With his attitude, hopefully a little prison justice will occur and save a lot of money and give the justice to the Carter family that the judicial system seems to be failing to cooperate with.

 

[mpnola]

^^^ Oh, thank you. You have said so much of what I have been wanting to say, but couldn't put it into the correct words. All of that. Exactly.

We follow cases, so they seem big to us. Most of the world is clueless. Don't believe me? Go to the grocery store or wherever and ask 20 people if they know who she is (or any big case in your town!) and what they know. I bet 15 wont know who she is, 4 might know who she is and know she had been kidnapped and murdered and that's it and MAYBE 1 might actually know anything else. Just because we are knee deep in this doesn't mean everyone is. As a matter of fact, everyone in my world thinks it is morbid that I follow cases and know any details, at all.

It is time for the justice system to start holding criminals accountable. Stop putting the rest of us in such extreme danger by allowing this behavior over and over and over again. Thanks again for the thoughtful post.

Edited to add-- his attorney is a known bottom feeder. I havent seen him do anything spectacular other than what any attorney would do, yet, but I'm anticipating nastiness. The strange thing is that it was all thrown out so easily that it makes me question a lot! Is there a reason that he is so "successful"? Is it possible he has some sort of agreement or relationship with certain judges? I have just started thinking this week about the power judges have with little to no oversight. They are elected political officials and there is potential for abuse, like any other elected position, right? I am NOT accusing anyone of anything, it just hit me this week when thinking about how 1 judge could sign a warrant and then another could say it is worthless that things are obviously not cut and dry and are, actually, very open to interpretation and favoritism. Just thoughts from the week.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Thankful I live in the USA. Where the the WHOLE U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is for ALL CITIZENS. Following cases over the years and researching the cases sited, I have learned and understood more. But iirc way back in JR High Civics class we studied the U.S. Constitution. Its there for a reason. Our Judicial System is far from perfect, none is but WE Live in the Greatest Country in the World and I am Thankful for those that fought and continue to fight for these Rights we ALL are afforded here. I would say jmho, but that is a FACT.

And a Judge job is to be impartial and rule from the bench on LAW not on soul searching feelings. As Judge Wright stated in his Order, He didn't take it lightly in having to Suppress Evidence. Testimony proved that it the Law was not followed by those employed to uphold the laws. I hate that as much as anyone. Laws have to be followed so that a charge has the evidence to back up and presented to get a solid conviction.

U.S. Constitution
Bill of Rights
First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] (see explanation)
Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] (see explanation)
Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] (see explanation)
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see explanation)
Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see explanation)
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] (see explanation)
Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] (see explanation)
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] (see explanation)
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] (see explanation)
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People (1791)] (see explanation)


U.S. Constitution
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


U.S. Constitution
Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


U.S. Constitution
Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

 

[arkansasmimi]

Personally in cases I follow, I want to look at the facts and evidence and what cant be presented in court. That is my take on following cases. By sheer nature all these case are horrible. Nothing good from any of them. I am on the side of the Law and I expect those sworn to uphold it to do that. Nothing less. I have great respect for them. I am thankful if I am in need they are only a call away. I dont want to have any good ole boy justice for me or anyone else. Not the way Justice System is suppose to work. Innocent until proven guilty in court of law. Do the investigation by the law as that if evidence holds up a conviction is got.

 

[arkansasmimi]

This is absolutely JMHO, with regard to AL's current attorney. A defense attorney should use every relief the law provides to ensure a fair trial for their client. There is a lot that can be respected about an attorney that can provide the best possible defense for their client, while at the same time being ethical, having a conscience, maintaining at least an ounce of moral fiber, and projecting at least their own good character. An example is the attorney that AL fired. He refused to allow the circus that AL was trying to orchestrate. He would not let AL use videos that would tarnish the memory of the victim. If the videos exist, this attorney knew what they were about, and so does the sleezeball now representing him. I am not angry with him. I simply have no respect for him. He will lose this case badly, even though his arrogance has led him to believe he can make a bigger name for himself by feeding on this injustice to BC and her family. He is disgusting, has no scruples, and it will backfire on him. He will learn the hard way that you can be a top notch, well sought attorney, and still be a decent person.

I know at some point in desperation, AL's team will declare that he cannot get a fair trial, due to public knowledge. AL has single handedly brought that on himself. There are many that actually know nothing about the case, or very little, though. Jury selection will just be a more in depth process. My husband knows nothing about the case, other than the fact that I follow it, and that on occasion I make comments like, "I want to barf about this sicko in the case I am following." If he were called to be a juror, he would absolutely be impartial. I doubt he is the only one.

On the fence about the judge. It is understandable that he would want to do everything possible to avoid a mistrial. I don't envy his position, and would not want to preside over this case. I do think he needs to look within himself and remember there is a real victim here, and she can't speak for herself anymore. All of her rights were taken. Her family can't even provide the people that will determine the fate of the person who admitted to burying her with the facts (yes, facts.... who gives a hoot if they were found while at the scene, or while a vehicle was in custody, or if the psycho, narcissist couldn't keep his big mouth shut and incriminated himself, etc). The laws were formed so innocent people would not be found guilty, not to provide a bunch of loopholes for wanna be dream team attorneys and their murderer, sicko clients to utilize.

It is time for the judge to end this mockery AL has made of our system time and time again. As a top 2% taxpayer, it disgusts me that CL is sitting in prison with breast implants that were more than likely paid for by my tax dollars, when AL sued for the same kind of BS he is claiming now. He is costing the taxpayers so much with his constant complaints and lawsuits. AL is very young, and undoubtedly will be in prison for the rest of his life. Unless the appropriate steps are taken, he will play his ridiculous games forever. With his attitude, hopefully a little prison justice will occur and save a lot of money and give the justice to the Carter family that the judicial system seems to be failing to cooperate with.

RBBM, the only way any video (if they do indeed exist) could be used would be that AL give the passcode and the contents be removed from the Arkansas Crime Lab. And if AL was going to use anything he would have had to share with the State Pros. Judge Wright stated that at the June 1 Pretrial Hearing, the one where he gave AL 1 week to decide if he wished to be appointed an Attorney. Because CL was being represented by the Pulaski County Public Defenders Office, they wouldn't be able to represent AL also, conflict of interest. AL filed his Motion and Judge Wright went to the State Public Defenders Office and that is where the current public appointed attorney is from.

Same thing would have happened if you or I were in that spot. Because thats the law. JMHO

 

[mpnola]

I think the point is being missed. No one is suggesting vigilante justice. No one is suggesting that people don't have rights. What is being stated (and not "emotionally"- just because an opinion is different doesn't make it any more emotional and less logical or legal) is that there are serious holes in the system that allow for too many games.

How was the original warrant secured? It was signed by a judge, right? Ok. So, then at what point is anyone suggesting that rights and laws aren't followed. Why did that judge think it was sufficient and then another one thinks it is not? It is irresponsible to act like this judge is the end all, be all when there is another judge and his order is being ignored. Unless it is being suggested that the first judge has no regard for amendments and the constitution, then no one else is, either. It is actually quite ridiculous that when people suggest some accountability and reduction of games by people who committed (and yeah, he admitted to many crimes in this case) crimes that we don't care about the constitution. That is such an exaggeration of what is being stated that it defies logic.

 

[NWLady]

It's really sad when you think about it. Especially given that AL has ADMITTED himself to his participation in the crime (examples - by the affidavit on his FB page, by comments/statements he has made to the media, things he has said to the investigators, and the list goes on). But yet, who are the laws protecting here? Not Beverly, not Beverly's family, but the laws are protecting AL! Yes, that's the way it is - we understand that, BUT we are still free to voice our opinions about it, as it is very frustrating.

We all know why the Constitution and the laws are in effect; however, there are some of us who don't agree and for good reason....this case being one of those reasons. I will still remain confident that this worthless (AL) will not be free on the streets for a longgggg time and karma does have a way... Can you imagine being a prisoner in the same facility he is housed in and having to listen to him holler, complain, being uncooperative, throwing his tantrums, etc?? I'm sure he doesn't have a lot, if any, friends, so what comes around, goes around....

 

[mpnola]

And trust me--- they can use what is on the phone without a "passcode". The prosecutors dont have to disclose the info to the defense if they dont open it. They have no desire to get a warrant to obtain that information and open that can of worms. That tells me they have enough without weeding through his nasty set-up. He sets things up to be able to explain later. Its part of his game. If they wanted that info, they can have it. Guaranteed. They dont need any passcode from Arron.

 

[arkansasmimi]

And trust me--- they can use what is on the phone without a "passcode". The prosecutors dont have to disclose the info to the defense if they dont open it. They have no desire to get a warrant to obtain that information and open that can of worms. That tells me they have enough without weeding through his nasty set-up. He sets things up to be able to explain later. Its part of his game. If they wanted that info, they can have it. Guaranteed. They dont need any passcode from Arron.

I have said from the get go that they could get into the phone without his password. I know for a fact. Google cellebrite device, trayvon martin phone. Cellebrite devise bypasses the passcode. They got stuff on that phone with hidden folders on phone. IF the State is going to use any information they obtained from that phone, YES they do have to turn it over to the Def. (Brady Rule iirc) AND we have no way of knowing what they got warrants for or not for because we havent heard. Yet.

Question is did they in this case. IF so then the Def should have that info. IF they didnt get into it why not? Especially with wanting to be able to present as evidence, which as to be authenticated. Just as Experts have to go thru and be declared able to testify as an expert. ( Daubert)

State has guy subpoena that works with the AG office that does internet stuff. I thinking this may be who gonna present something. Looks like he works in the Cyber Crimes unit.

The Def has filed a new Motion yesterday about the recording wanting it Suppressed. I am confused on how they can use it since was in the interview that shouldnt have happened. And it would seem that it would have to be authenticated as being BC. (I have no doubt it isnt, I heard it and it sounds like the voice on the recording CCjr posted of his Mother) But, again, if they got into the phone they would have it. Again, as I said earlier that same thing happened in the GZ case and it was a mess. JMHO

 

[NWLady]

Also, I'm quite sure prosecutors/state have Beverly's phone records. Even if they don't have her actual phone, they would still have her phone records that would include calls incoming and outgoing and the records would include the same for her text messages.

Too bad AL didn't stick to his original plan of representing himself. Wonder why he changed his mind? After all, he is a 7-time felon so it isn't his first rodeo, obviously.

 

[111addict]

I, too, wondered why one judge would not uphold the warrant signed by another. I think when I wrote the judge should look within himself, it was misinterpreted. A judge should not rule by emotion. There is no emotion involved in not upholding the decision of another judge. Most decisions can be made based solely on the law. Unfortunately, some are subjective.

 

[NWLady]

I will continue to remain confident and pray that there will be Justice For Beverly. I feel so sorry for Beverly's family, friends and co-workers. I commend the family for continuing to remain strong. May the strength, reassurance and encouragement continue. I cannot even imagine how difficult this must be for all of them.

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/loc...ing-its-really-pretty-gut-wrenching/78089470/

BBM: Carl said, "I want every single piece of evidence used but even if they throw out half of it, he's going away for a long time."

Bringing my own post forward just as a reminder.

 

[arkansasmimi]

And this is strange. If you go read the Pros Motions, the Accident Report and media report dont have to take my words on this....

Surv started at 7am on Sunday 9/28/2014
per accident report, Officer Clay Almond was dispatched at 955am
per accident report, Mems (ambulance) notified at 1005am
per accident report, Mems arrived at 1010am
per accident report, Sgt Clay Almond arrived at 1010am
per accident report, Sgt Clay Almond states upon his arrival Mems was treating the driver, Arron Lewis for shoulder/neck injuries.
***same accident report that has unfactual information on it... owner per Sgt Shane Hastings said AL had no say in the veh being towed, it was ordered by Sgt Mike Blain. Yet report states was owner request and that it was towed to address in Cabot AR, when it was actually sent to the PCSO Crime Scene Bay in basement of PCSO on Woodrow in Little Rock AR.... per Sgt Mike Blain, Sgt Shane Hastings, and Crime Lab guy David Harris.

NOW per Sgt Mark Swagerty supplemental report (which i uploaded these documents) he spoke with AL while he was in the ambulance. In court testimony he said he reached and grabbed phone and then the ambulance had to leave.

Per Pros Motion to Reconsider... 6) A vehicle storage report was filled out at 10:15 a.m. on 9/28/14 describing items that
were found in the passenger compartment of the Ford Fusion at the crash site.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=96CVC43Z1X2YHF5OO0P1H33RQDQ7BZ

Per Pros Motion to Reconsider ...8) Before the inventory search was continued at the PCSO crime scene bay a search warrant
was obtained from Judge Wayne Gruber at 11:58 a.m. on 9/28/14 to search the vehicle

955 am to 1015 am is 20 minutes!!!! Tell me they werent moving :thinking: 2 hours and 3 mins from time of wreck dispatched til the search warrant was obtained by Judge Gruber.

JMHO :thinking:

 

[arkansasmimi]

Originally Posted by NWLady View Post
I will continue to remain confident and pray that there will be Justice For Beverly. I feel so sorry for Beverly's family, friends and co-workers. I commend the family for continuing to remain strong. May the strength, reassurance and encouragement continue. I cannot even imagine how difficult this must be for all of them.

http://www.thv11.com/story/news/loca...hing/78089470/

BBM: Carl said, "I want every single piece of evidence used but even if they throw out half of it, he's going away for a long time."

Bringing my own post forward just as a reminder.

I hope for the family that holds true. But we havent gotten past what will be admitted as evidence and what wont yet. Possible still if CL doesnt meet with the Def that she may not be allowed to testify. No way of predicting what the out come will be and if he will be found guilty or not until the verdict is read. Seen some shocks come back following cases. JMHO