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

 

[Lilibet]

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

My post was agreeing with the response by @I am not Sherlock H. to your comment, in which they were clarifying that even if she was an active alcoholic in a “living hell”, it didn’t excuse her actions. I don’t think you were excusing her or giving her a pass, but for some of us who are sensitive to the subject, it needed a response. My apologies for offending you.

The sentence in your original comment that sparked the responses:
“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.”

I

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

Yesterday at 10:10 AM

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. Chances are she's on this dorm with so many vulnerable women, many of whom don't have English as a first language or who she can feel superior over. Plus she's made friends in there and I don't think she had any on the outside.

Her jail records (which various youtubers go through line by line) show someone who is very involved in the dorm, frequently getting written up as helpful for doing cleaning. She also...

• I am not Sherlock H.

• 

 

[Izzylizzy]

Today.

 

[steeltowngirl]

It seems like Owens's MO is to file a motion that is incomplete in order to get something filed, and then amend the motion later after being called out on it for it being incomplete or not making sense.

Late today, he filed an amended motion for suppression of the two hour interrogation video. I asked ChatGPT to find the differences for me between his first motion and today's amended motion. Here's what it gave me:

• In Section 3, Text Two specifies that Deputy Rodriguez "realized a death had occurred" upon arrival, while Text One simply states she "realized a death had occurred."
• In Section 5, Text One states the defendant "stayed outside of her apartment for approximately 14 hours," while Text Two mentions she stayed for "several hours until the investigation was completed."
• In Section 6, Text Two uses "told" instead of "asked" in the context of the defendant getting into the vehicle.
• In Section 7, Text Two mentions that the defendant told the detective her phone was "on the kitchen counter," whereas Text One does not include this detail.
• In Section 10, Text Two specifies the defendant called "on her cell phone," while Text One simply states she called using her ex-husband's phone.
• Text Two adds a new detail in Section 12: "Upon information and belief, a judge had signed a search warrant for the defendant’s phone, just nine (9) minutes before she arrived at the sheriff’s department."
• In Section 13, Text Two notes that Detective Lowen "wore his firearm on his waist during this entire event," a detail not present in Text One.

Text One = the originally filed motion from last week
Text Two = the amended motion filed today

Again, I am not a lawyer but I'm wondering what Owens is getting at with these amendments. The state's issues with the original motion were that "the Defendant has not cited even a single case that authorizes the Court to grant her the relief she is requesting. The State is left in the dark about what specific issue or issues the Defendant is claiming and what legal authority there might be for the Court to grant the relief she requests. State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The Court should strike the motion as legally insufficient."

The amended motion filed by Owens today doesn't add any case law or legal authority under which to ask for this motion to be granted. He doesn't seem to be very good at this, IMO!

Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

Just catching up here. Wanted to say I commend you. This was an excellent use of ChatGPT. I have been hoping to understand some practical ways of using the new AI tools, and your use for competing statement comparison was brilliant. I’m going to try it myself.

I appreciate the tip, and your posts. Thank you!

jmo

 

[legalmomma]

Boone motion to suppress denied- order at link

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[legalmomma]

Order on Hair, Makeup and Shackles:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[arielilane]

Negotiations were made by Owens when he first considered taking the case. I distinctly recall he stated that he worked hard on this but 'terms could not be agreed'. That was when he told SB he wouldn't take her case.

IMO SB won't accept anything short of walking out of court free which as we know isn't going to happen. I also think that SB very much enjoys living on the dorm in Jail and isn't looking to change that situation in a hurry.

Well said. It's dorm life for SB, aka, dorm mom. jmo

 

[arielilane]

SB’s request for hair and makeup ... denied.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

SB’s request for hair and makeup ... denied.

What a shame, I forgot this was a trial and not a prom. jmo.

 

[wtiger]

let's be honest!...she's a bunny boiling mental idiot....and that's giving her the benefit of lot's of doubt!

the other view makes her a stone cold killer

 

[arielilane]

#SarahBoone's former attorney, Frank Bankowitz, tells #CourtTV the defense motion to suppress the police interrogation video was denied.Bankowitz also says the accused suitcase killer HAS to testify and that he was planning a battered spouse defense when he was on the case.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1842211215671746921

 

[steeltowngirl]

On Friday, Judge Kraynick granted Boone’s motion to appear at the trial without any shackles or restraints but denied the motion to have the interrogation tapes suppressed. In his order, Judge Kraynick said he found several of Boone’s statements regarding the timeline of events lacked credibility, and that the Miranda warning was read in compliance with both Federal and Florida law.

Judge: Sarah Boone's statements lack credibility

Sarah Boone took the stand to say she felt coerced when detectives questioned her after her boyfriend was found dead in a suitcase.

www.courttv.com