GUILTY GA - Rusty Sneiderman shot to death at Dunwoody preschool, 18 Nov 2010 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MD MOMMY said:
I watched the HN trial and am now having a hard time finding playback anywhere. Does anyone know where I can watch again? IIRC, AS said she was told something happend to RS. I'm not confident the word accident was how she explained it. I could be wrong and would love to check it out. AS testimony was just plain freaky during that trial. I honestly laughed at half her testimony, it was like she was possessed half the time.
Click to expand...

Lol! I totally agree...she did seem possessed....too funny! I too would like to watch the HN trial as I had to work and missed it.
 
Mama-cita said:
She was told only that there had been an accident. IMO that could mean anything from he slipped and fell and broke his arm, to a fender bender to ??? She didn't even know if he'd been critically injured or what the extent of it was. If I was told my spouse had an "accident" I'd be blowing up his cellphone with calls. Andrea didn't do that. To me that in itself is highly suspect. She called Hemy 6 times though so that speaks even more loudly...
Click to expand...

Yes, and remember, she was only told there was an accident, BUT when she pulled up to Dunwoody Prep, she "fell out" of her car in hysterics. Really?
 
Rusty friend,

Whenever I have doubts about this case, I go back to the indictment.

http://www.wsbtv.com/documents/2012/aug/02/andrea-sneiderman-indictment/

Hemy knew two things that allowed him to lay in wait for Rusty. First, he knew how to get to the house via a little-known path that ran behind the house. Second, he knew when Resty would be dropping his son off at daycare.

What are the odds that these were "little tidbits" of information given off-the-cuff given to a boss?

This particular part of the indictment gives me the hope that Hemy has e-mails on his side where Andrea imparted this vital information. If not, it means that Hemy will testify at the trial and has been cooperating with the prosecutors.

He sat through the trial and acted the lover when he listened to her testiphony. I'm sure that listening to her jump-started his reality check. About 6 months of proper medication and therapy has given him an opportunity to look at his situation (LWOP) and the fact that she ended up with all the cookies.

Don't be surprised at trial (whenever that occurs) to have Hemi's doctors testify as to his current mental state, complete with proper diagnoses to counter-act defense claims that it was all in HIS mind!

I've been watching trials since OJ and have been severely disappointed at times, but mostly, I've seen intelligent juries get it right more often than not.
 
panthera said:
Thank you for clarifying. I would be demanding to know what type of accident and how seriously he had been injured.

I wouldn't be calling my boss except to say there had been an "accident" and I would not be coming to work that day. Six times? No way.

MOO
Click to expand...

And she was so arrogant when questioned about this on the stand. DT asked why she didn't call Rusty, she cut him right off and BARKED at him something like: BECAUSE IF HE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT HE WOULDN'T ANSWER HIS PHONE!!!

Now how in the heck would she know how bad of an accident he'd been in? Plenty of people have (minor) car accidents and call their spouses from their vehicles, etc., as Panthera said. The whole thing does not pass the sniff test.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
Rusty friend,

Whenever I have doubts about this case, I go back to the indictment.

http://www.wsbtv.com/documents/2012/aug/02/andrea-sneiderman-indictment/

Hemy knew two things that allowed him to lay in wait for Rusty. First, he knew how to get to the house via a little-known path that ran behind the house. Second, he knew when Resty would be dropping his son off at daycare.

What are the odds that these were "little tidbits" of information given off-the-cuff given to a boss?

This particular part of the indictment gives me the hope that Hemy has e-mails on his side where Andrea imparted this vital information. If not, it means that Hemy will testify at the trial and has been cooperating with the prosecutors.

He sat through the trial and acted the lover when he listened to her testiphony. I'm sure that listening to her jump-started his reality check. About 6 months of proper medication and therapy has given him an opportunity to look at his situation (LWOP) and the fact that she ended up with all the cookies.

Don't be surprised at trial (whenever that occurs) to have Hemi's doctors testify as to his current mental state, complete with proper diagnoses to counter-act defense claims that it was all in HIS mind!

I've been watching trials since OJ and have been severely disappointed at times, but mostly, I've seen intelligent juries get it right more often than not.
Click to expand...

BBM

Whenever I watch the trials (and have only watched 3 or 4), I think as a lay juror, considering IMO if defendant is innocent or proven guilty by the evidence. Because that's the way it works. Often disappointed that jury is denied so much information on which they could make an educated correct verdict and this is the advantage we have watching from home, we are not sequestered. This is where judicial system falls on it's face, IMO.

Also, I always try to think like Pros and DT. In other words, I mentally pretend I am either and try to think of arguments against the other side.

(1) I can imagine DT will argue that what with their over 1,000 e-mails and texts and day to day "especially friendly" working relationship, that AS probably could have imparted this information routinely as part of say, a lunch-time conversation. I.e., "I usually drop the kids off but have been running late and so Rusty is doing it, well he's not working anyway," kind of thing. Plus, she was apparently yakking about her kids all of the time, she sent him some huge amount of photos of her daughter's birthday party, etc. DT can claim they talked about their respective houses and all of the details just normally, you know. In that context a path behind the house would not be "secret".

(2) I am hinging a lot of hope that if (when) LE retrieves "lost" electronic communications they will be able to get content of those. But I am also remembering that in the ones they were able to retrieve, AS was so vague and I would say playful...never came out and used incriminating words or terms. The only one I recall was when she talked about having BETRAYED ... and I don't recall her saying RUSTY.

As for HN and his mental state before, during or in the future, I am fearful her DT will use that to argue he can't be trusted. After all he has been convicted. Who is going to forget the images of Barry White and Olivia Newton-John he put out there? But I have read somewhere that he HAS decided to testify and I don't remember which link of the hundreds....must be one of the later ones after AS posted bond.

It will be interesting to me if AS decides to come clean about the affair but at this moment I am doubting it as her DT has already stated for the record that she is one hundred percent innocent. DT strategy should be interesting in the light of her own damning demeanor at HN trial.
 
I think the most damning things against AS is her telling people Rusty was shot before she was told. Do you think she is going to say that she must have been told by the daycare people, perhaps they just don't remember it right because of the emergency and panic at the time?
 
CarolinaMoon said:
Rusty friend,

Whenever I have doubts about this case, I go back to the indictment.

http://www.wsbtv.com/documents/2012/aug/02/andrea-sneiderman-indictment/

Hemy knew two things that allowed him to lay in wait for Rusty. First, he knew how to get to the house via a little-known path that ran behind the house. Second, he knew when Resty would be dropping his son off at daycare.
What are the odds that these were "little tidbits" of information given off-the-cuff given to a boss?

This particular part of the indictment gives me the hope that Hemy has e-mails on his side where Andrea imparted this vital information. If not, it means that Hemy will testify at the trial and has been cooperating with the prosecutors.

He sat through the trial and acted the lover when he listened to her testiphony. I'm sure that listening to her jump-started his reality check. About 6 months of proper medication and therapy has given him an opportunity to look at his situation (LWOP) and the fact that she ended up with all the cookies.

Don't be surprised at trial (whenever that occurs) to have Hemi's doctors testify as to his current mental state, complete with proper diagnoses to counter-act defense claims that it was all in HIS mind!

I've been watching trials since OJ and have been severely disappointed at times, but mostly, I've seen intelligent juries get it right more often than not.
Click to expand...


Andrea claims during the trial that Hemy knew this because he was "stalking" her.

She wants us to believe that.....right......you don't call your stalker 10 times a day, you don't have him come to your home in the evening and your husband is not home, You don't go with the stalker on business trips.

That's only common sense.
 
robinparten said:
I think the most damning things against AS is her telling people Rusty was shot before she was told. Do you think she is going to say that she must have been told by the daycare people, perhaps they just don't remember it right because of the emergency and panic at the time?
Click to expand...


I'm sure the daycare workers will testify that they did not tell her.
Andrea was adamant on the stand during trial, that she did not know what had happened to Rusty.

She'll just claim that her father in law and these two friends are mistaken.
 
The daycare worker DID testify in the HN trial. She said she did NOT tell Andrea what had happened and said she delibertly did not tell anything because she didn't want to tramatize Andrea as she was about to get in her car and drive to the daycare.
 
dragonfly said:
The daycare worker DID testify in the HN trial. She said she did NOT tell Andrea what had happened and said she delibertly did not tell anything because she didn't want to tramatize Andrea as she was about to get in her car and drive to the daycare.
Click to expand...


What's great is that both pros. and defense asked these witnesses several times if they were absolutely sure of what they told AS or, in the case of her saying he'd been shot, were they absolutely sure of what she said. All unequivocally said YES and qualified their answers by specific recollections of what they were doing or thinking at that time.

So she is the ONLY one who stands by her lie.

One thing I noticed about her demeanor (her defense) was she is trying to put out there that she had a friendly, innocent relationship with HM (even though he told her he loved her), and that she had NO IDEA he was obsessed with her, let alone that he would do anything to her husband....I noticed this because she emphasized "how would I know he was stalking me....why would I think that someone who was my friend, my boss (blah blah blah) would kill my husband!!!???" In other words, she only realized he had been stalking her AFTER he killed her husband.

If she sticks to her innocent no-affair story, she's going to have to expect the jury to believe that she was pure as the driven snow, never gave HN ANY idea of returning his affection, was dining, dancing, drinking and grinding away just as a close friend and co-worker AND is fundamentally stupid, brain-dead enough not to recognize the facts in front of her face. I don't think they will buy that at all.

I can just see her arguing with the prosecutor by saying: If I thought this person was stalking me, would I SEND HIM PHOTOGRAPHS OF MY OWN DAUGHTER'S BIRTHDAY? INVITE HIM TO MY HOME? SHAKE HANDS WITH HIM AT MY HUSBAND'S SHIVA??? I hope she does every bit of that and more....
 
noor said:
I'm sure the daycare workers will testify that they did not tell her.
Andrea was adamant on the stand during trial, that she did not know what had happened to Rusty.

She'll just claim that her father in law and these two friends are mistaken.
Click to expand...


The day care worker and the police at the murder scene testified that they did not tell Andrea Rusty had been shot.

Also, claiming that Don Sneiderman, Shayna Citron and the co-worker are all mistaken as to when Andrea told them Rusty was shot is probably not a defense a jury will buy. Why? Because there are phone records showing the calls and testimony from the recipients as to the contents of the calls. That's all the jury will need to convict unless Andrea can present an alternative plausible explanation. So far, I think this is the single worst evidence against Andrea. However, I think there is a an alternate plausible explanation.

Even though some of you may prefer I post my legal analysis here, I am planning a comprehensive blog post setting forth what may be Andrea and her lawyers' plausible explanations addressing this and other evidence against her. For various reasons, it makes more sense for me to post a thorough legal analysis on my blog instead of posting piecemeal here.
 
I would love to be a fly on the wall when she meets with her attorneys. I wonder if they will have a come-to-Jesus meeting with her and tell her she has to 'fess up to the affair. She currently seems to be in the "deny deny deny" camp but I wonder if her attorneys will advise her to stop that and admit to the affair in order ti maintain some credibility. I can't even imagine how they will handle her knowing Rusty was shot before she should have.
 
SpeakerDave said:
The day care worker and the police at the murder scene testified that they did not tell Andrea Rusty had been shot.

Also, claiming that Don Sneiderman, Shayna Citron and the co-worker are all mistaken as to when Andrea told them Rusty was shot is probably not a defense a jury will buy. Why? Because there are phone records showing the calls and testimony from the recipients as to the contents of the calls. That's all the jury will need to convict unless Andrea can present an alternative plausible explanation. So far, I think this is the single worst evidence against Andrea. However, I think there is a an alternate plausible explanation.

Even though some of you may prefer I post my legal analysis here, I am planning a comprehensive blog post setting forth what may be Andrea and her lawyers' plausible explanations addressing this and other evidence against her. For various reasons, it makes more sense for me to post a thorough legal analysis on my blog instead of posting piecemeal here.
Click to expand...


Can you post the link to your blog?

Thanks!
 
SThere was a media only thread created and I put lots of stuff there, but I cannot find it going back to the main thread. Can someone shw where it is for jkink and myself again? Thanks!
 
SpeakerDave said:
The day care worker and the police at the murder scene testified that they did not tell Andrea Rusty had been shot.

Also, claiming that Don Sneiderman, Shayna Citron and the co-worker are all mistaken as to when Andrea told them Rusty was shot is probably not a defense a jury will buy. Why? Because there are phone records showing the calls and testimony from the recipients as to the contents of the calls. That's all the jury will need to convict unless Andrea can present an alternative plausible explanation. So far, I think this is the single worst evidence against Andrea. However, I think there is a an alternate plausible explanation.
Even though some of you may prefer I post my legal analysis here, I am planning a comprehensive blog post setting forth what may be Andrea and her lawyers' plausible explanations addressing this and other evidence against her. For various reasons, it makes more sense for me to post a thorough legal analysis on my blog instead of posting piecemeal here.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing the alternate plausible explanation!

I really am.

Thank you.
 
SpeakerDave said:
The day care worker and the police at the murder scene testified that they did not tell Andrea Rusty had been shot.

Also, claiming that Don Sneiderman, Shayna Citron and the co-worker are all mistaken as to when Andrea told them Rusty was shot is probably not a defense a jury will buy. Why? Because there are phone records showing the calls and testimony from the recipients as to the contents of the calls. That's all the jury will need to convict unless Andrea can present an alternative plausible explanation. So far, I think this is the single worst evidence against Andrea. However, I think there is a an alternate plausible explanation.

Even though some of you may prefer I post my legal analysis here, I am planning a comprehensive blog post setting forth what may be Andrea and her lawyers' plausible explanations addressing this and other evidence against her. For various reasons, it makes more sense for me to post a thorough legal analysis on my blog instead of posting piecemeal here.
Click to expand...

Well then, I am off to google the legal term for plausible....vs. reasoable doubt!

As usual, fat fingers on a nook so excuse typos.
 
Shout out to SoonerFan. Are you home from the hospital? We are praying for you as heard a downturn yesterday and have not seen you here or at Drews thread today. :grouphug:
 
Due to juror subjectivity, a plausible explanation may or may not create reasonable doubt because "plausible" does not equal "believable." For example, it is plausible that all the witnesses are mistaken about when Andrea told them that Rusty had been shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 333 (members: 84, guests: 249)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
249
Total visitors
333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,353
Messages
18,238,129
Members
234,351
Latest member
nh_lopez
Back
Top