FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

In addition, she has been sober* in jail for almost 5 years, but has still managed to run through many (eight?) attorneys, skillfully playing the manipulative game of delay. She is dangerous whether drunk or sober.

*I realize that she is still an alcoholic even if sober. My Dad was what is known as a “dry drunk,” still using the same manipulative tactics he used when he was drinking. Whatever personality disorder(s) SB has were present when she killed her bf, drunk or not. None of this gives SB a “hall pass” for murder.

JMO

Nobody has ever suggested that SB gets a pass for murder or that her alcoholism is any excuse for murder.

 

[cujenn81]

Owens has filed *another* amended motion today to suppress the two hour interrogation. This time, he included some case law and citations! Only took him an initial filing and then two amended filings to get that included. Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

My notes/observations from today's hearing:

The judge has watched the entire two hour interrogation video prior to today's hearing. The female detective (CK) who interviewed Sarah is in the courtroom to testify. Owens asks CK if she agrees she didn't read out the last line on the Miranda card when reading the rights to Sarah. The state objects. The judge says to Owens, "Of the case law you provided to me, none of it stands for the proposition. Miranda identifies the four things that need to be addressed. Not one of the cases talks about the issue of not reading that language at the bottom of the card... So how is it relevant for today?" Owens gives up on questioning CK for awhile and debates the judge on this issue. Owens, seeming to be grasping at straws here, argues it means Sarah was coerced into being interrogated and CK's intent was to deceive Sarah into talking.

Owens goes back to questioning CK. She says she's had the same physical Miranda card, issued by the department, for a few years and it does not contain the last question that Owens is referring to ("With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"). CK says there are multiple version of Miranda cards that the department uses and the one she has doesn't have that question on it. Owens continues with questions and the state repeatedly objects on the grounds of relevance and the judge rules many of the objections as sustained.

The judge finally says that the question "With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?" are not part of Miranda. Case law about Miranda list what's required and that question is not part of it, so what's Owens even going on about? Owens admits this but continues arguing that CK failed to do her job by not asking if Sarah *wanted* to talk after being read the rights and "the court should consider" that. Owens seems like he's floundering here, IMO.

CK is dismissed. Then Owens calls Sarah up to testify! She says she was worried, confused, hungover, etc. when being questioned by CK which Owens seems to want to imply those factors may have influenced her agreement to talk to CK. The state objects as none of that was in his written motion to suppress. The judge isn't happy with Owens playing "20 questions" with Sarah. The state comes up to cross examine Sarah and gets her to admit that she was under the influence of alcohol (still, from the night before) when she was interviewed by CK. The state argues that Sarah's memory isn't reliable as she was under the influence of alcohol and as such, she can't be a reliable witness in this hearing.

The judge will review everything and provide his decision in a written motion by the end of day tomorrow.

Regarding the motion for Sarah to have her makeup done, hair styled, clothing provided, and no restraints for the trial, the judge says Owens can coordinate with the jail staff to drop off clothing for Sarah to wear on the trial days but she will be wearing leg restraints. Owens says he has "two females on the team" who can do Sarah's hair and makeup. The judge initially says Owens's staff can do Sarah's hair and makeup in the court room after Sarah is brought in but before court is called to order, but then court staff says Sarah would be brought back to the jail at the end of the day with makeup on which would be contraband so having makeup put on in the court room isn't going to happen.

They move on. The judge wants to talk about Owens's witness list that included staff from the state attorney's office, and the state's subsequent motion to prevent these people from testifying due to state laws protecting them. Owens wants to have them testify about Sarah and Jorge's past arrest history and whether or not Sarah requested DV charges against Jorge be dropped, which the state then says is protected information they cannot provide in testimony. The judge says he'll provide a written decision on this by tomorrow, too.

I loved the state’s response to the defense’s request for the makeup allowance. Paraphrasing… the prosecutor said he didn’t have a dog in the fight and had no case law to cite but that he’s NEVER seen it done. He definitely made it known by the tone of his voice that he thought her request was absurd.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Yes there is plenty of evidence and testimony to the fact that she was a chronic alcohol user prior to being in jail.

My point, as per my original post, is that SB is probably enjoying being on remand in jail in the dormitory with many other women where she appears to be thriving. And hence maybe why she's not in a hurry to go to big girl prison for the long haul. I suggest you read my post again.

Thank you and I did read the prior post. And specifically this statement at the intro of it:

“Sure is! However, the chaotic and painful life of living in full time alcoholism in a violent relationship (even if it was her perpetrating violence) is a living hell.”

My point and response was in large part to that, and any actions SB had conducted in leading to the death of her partner. MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Thank you and I did read the prior post. And specifically this statement at the intro of it:

“Sure is! However, the chaotic and painful life of living in full time alcoholism in a violent relationship (even if it was her perpetrating violence) is a living hell.”

My point and response was in large part to that, and any actions SB had conducted in leading to the death of her partner. MOO

I suspect that SB's bizarre stance is she's quite merrily going to stay in jail dorm with her routine, control, friends until she forces the state to admit they were wrong and set her free. As has already happened, nearly 5 years are gone by.

She probably hopes that evidence will be scrapped on technicalities and the case scrapped or something magical. If not that, she maybe imagines a jury will see what a wonderful person she is and find in her favour because battered spouse.

I think she's got the sort of personality that doesn't care about anything except winning and she's holding out for the win. In jail dorm. In her mind.

I wonder what the other women must think when they come in temporarily and then get their court hearings and move on but she's just permanently there? No wonder she's squirreling things left behind in other women's lockers, it must happen so frequently.

 

[Megnut]

Like many of you, I think SB is married to drama. IMO if the judge told her she was free to leave, no charges, no nothing, she'd argue with him.

Here's the thing about arguing. For people with a really low threshold for maturity, arguing is a way to force engagement. This whole case has become her newest partner. She's grown addicted to it. The injustice collecting, the celebrity status (largely only in her head) (not in a good way anywhere else), the smug self-righteousness, even the canned soft spokenness.

Hair and makeup. She thinks she's on stage.

Well, Honey. Show's almost over. Next up: prison.

JMO