CO - James Holmes Trial Discussion - Begins April 27, 2015 # 5

[corundogs]

EEKKKKK!!

Defense asking for first witness to be excused!

Wonder why - doesn't seem any different than other issues!

Prosecution objects to dismissal.

Witness is an investigator for DA's office.

 

[Maisiebelle]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 17 seconds ago

This would be first juror dismissed from Aurora #theatershooting. Prosecution objects to dismissal. Witness is an employee of DA office

 

[kai]

It sounds IMO that the defense is objecting to the witness more so than the actual juror relationship with the witness.

 

[Maisiebelle]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 43 seconds ago

Dan King says Eliassen has done extensive interviews with eyewitnesses. He's an employee of the DA's office.

_______________________________________

Defence isn't happy. They want this juror excused. They don't seem willing to back down....

 

[bexlex]

It sounds IMO that the defense is objecting to the witness more so than the actual juror relationship with the witness.

agreed!

 

[Maisiebelle]

EEKKKKK!!

Defense asking for first witness to be excused!

Wonder why - doesn't seem any different than other issues!

Prosecution objects to dismissal.

Witness is an investigator for DA's office.

Maybe the defence has just decided they don't like this juror and would like the chance to get rid of her?

 

[corundogs]

Is Aurora that small a place that people know everyone?!

Population is about 350,000.

With so many people involved, I can see why this has become an issue. They all went through the list of witnesses, and there were no family, close friends, co-workers, etc. But I can see when someone shows up, and you see their face, they are like "OOPS! I know him!"

I don't see why knowing a witness is unacceptable. I mean, if you can answer all of the same questions that you answered when you got on the jury...and they believed you then, why they don't believe you now???

 

[kai]

Judge wants to ask the juror if she knows who the witness is employed by. Defense says they agree to not object to the "note" that the witness was going to testify about the authenticity of. Bringing back in the juror.

 

[corundogs]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 43 seconds ago

Dan King says Eliassen has done extensive interviews with eyewitnesses. He's an employee of the DA's office.

_______________________________________

Defence isn't happy. They want this juror excused. They don't seem willing to back down....

agreed!

Maybe the defence has just decided they don't like this juror and would like the chance to get rid of her?

I wonder if we have heard from her before, with some sort of question like this before? Interesting, if that is the case!

 

[Maisiebelle]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 37 seconds ago

Judge seems inclined to keep the juror for now, but will ask juror if she knows how Eliassen is employed

Juror asked by judge if she knows where this witness works. She thinks law enforcement of some kind.

 

[kai]

Judge is saying without objection to the "note" that the witness is not necessary. Witness not going to be called at this time.

 

[Maisiebelle]

Population is about 350,000.

With so many people involved, I can see why this has become an issue. They all went through the list of witnesses, and there were no family, close friends, co-workers, etc. But I can see when someone shows up, and you see their face, they are like "OOPS! I know him!"

I don't see why knowing a witness is unacceptable. I mean, if you can answer all of the same questions that you answered when you got on the jury...and they believed you then, why they don't believe you now???

The judge asks if it would cause issues after the trial. He wants to know if the juror would have a hard time explaining or justifying their verdict to the person they know.

 

[corundogs]

The judge asks if it would cause issues after the trial. He wants to know if the juror would have a hard time explaining or justifying their verdict to the person they know.

Right. I get all that. But if they answer they can...and seem confident in their answers...why would it be an issue? If they don't believe the answer to that question...why did they believe them with all of the other, more important questions, like can you give JH the DP?

 

[Maisiebelle]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 2 minutes ago

Prosecutor Jacob Edson is questioning Levy about a purchase by JH on June 21, 2012

Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ 18 seconds ago

JH walked into shop and made the purchase

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 9 seconds ago

Levy: JH walked in to buy pair of Icon black Superduty motorcycle boots, $120 plus tax.

 

[Maisiebelle]

Right. I get all that. But if they answer they can...and seem confident in their answers...why would it be an issue? If they don't believe the answer to that question...why did they believe them with all of the other, more important questions, like can you give JH the DP?

I can't work out why there is an issue. Other than the defence using it as an excuse to get rid of this juror.

 

[Maisiebelle]

I do find myself wondering why JH left such a paper trail. He didn't try to hide any of his purchases by paying cash....

 

[atthelake]

Did anyone catch what date those boots were purchased for my timeline addition as I missed it.

TIA

ETA: Thanks for above June 21st crosspost! Got it!

 

[Maisiebelle]

Larry Ryckman ‏@larryryckman 19 seconds ago

Next witness: Roger Erikson, who taught motorcycle riding classes.

 

[Maisiebelle]

I think i've broken the site! My posts keep coming up twice!

 

[corundogs]

Did JH take a MC class?? Was he planning on stealing a Police Motorcycle? (LOL! My question is rhetorical, of course!)