GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #7

[Loio]

For some reason I vaguely remember the judge saying they could take notes but like you said Pua, the transcripts were not evidence.

 

[Maisiebelle]

I've said this before, I feel like these days we are conditioned to focus on DNA (or lack of) evidence. If only that hair (from the jeans) had been admitted. I believe we would have a guilty verdict by now.

 

[heartgoesout]

Asking for the testimony on the maggot timeline I think is very telling. When was she killed and did he have time to do it. And how?

 

[DeDee]

I can understand one holdout juror but three jurors is like having a mountain to climb up and over. With one holdout, it's possible to convince them with arguments based on evidence. Three jurors is a bit tougher to sway.

Some testimony may be too difficult to understand for the layperson such as the DNA and the maggot formation. Do we have any information on the jurors such as their age, gender, where they work, etc? This trial lasted too long with wide breaks taken in between testimony. How essential were each of the 75 witnesses?

It may be best to take the hung jury and retry the case. I would rather have that opportunity than have a not guilty verdict from this jury.

However, I pray this jury will revisit the testimony and come back with a charge of guilty for Charli. I could care less if he is found guilty of arson as long as he is convicted of her and her precious baby's murder.

 

[Tssiemer]

I'm out. This is ridiculous. That family should not be forced to endure another trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heartgoesout]

It indeed is hard to swallow.

 

[Mamamerced]

I can understand one holdout juror but three jurors is like having a mountain to climb up and over. With one holdout, it's possible to convince them with arguments based on evidence. Three jurors is a bit tougher to sway.

Some testimony may be too difficult to understand for the layperson such as the DNA and the maggot formation. Do we have any information on the jurors such as their age, gender, where they work, etc? This trial lasted too long with wide breaks taken in between testimony. How essential were each of the 75 witnesses?

It may be best to take the hung jury and retry the case. I would rather have that opportunity than have a not guilty verdict from this jury.

However, I pray this jury will revisit the testimony and come back with a charge of guilty for Charli. I could care less if he is found guilty of arson as long as he is convicted of her and her precious baby's murder.

Where did you read 3 jurors were holdouts?
The jury said they took 3 votes. Is that what you meant?

 

[PeterTosh]

The State is askng the Jury to find him guilty. The defense is asking did the State prove it? The defense is not saying he didnt do it rather, did the State prove it. GUILTY AS CHARGED

 

[heartgoesout]

Who, what, when, where, and why and how?
The state proved he was in the area at the time of her death.
The state proved Charli is deceased.
The state proved her time of death based on the maggots.
The state maybe proved she was killed at Paraquats.
The state proved he had a motive with an unwanted child and he is a liar.
The state proved maybe a serrated knife was used to dismember.
Help me out here as to what the jury or a few or one of them is struggling with. I guess I could have been there too with a motive but they still don't have him ties to that scene. Too much CSI shows. They want that DNA evidence.

 

[Loio]

Maybe they're trying to figure out if he had time to commit arson as well. It's a tight timeline but it should be because he was committing crimes. What criminal takes their time? Anyone???

 

[Mamamerced]

Maybe they're trying to figure out if he had time to commit arson as well. It's a tight timeline but it should be because he was committing crimes. What criminal takes their time? Anyone???

That may well be the crux of the division.
And it's so minor in the big picture.

 

[Jewels53]

I can understand one holdout juror but three jurors is like having a mountain to climb up and over. With one holdout, it's possible to convince them with arguments based on evidence. Three jurors is a bit tougher to sway.

Some testimony may be too difficult to understand for the layperson such as the DNA and the maggot formation. Do we have any information on the jurors such as their age, gender, where they work, etc? This trial lasted too long with wide breaks taken in between testimony. How essential were each of the 75 witnesses?

It may be best to take the hung jury and retry the case. I would rather have that opportunity than have a not guilty verdict from this jury.

However, I pray this jury will revisit the testimony and come back with a charge of guilty for Charli. I could care less if he is found guilty of arson as long as he is convicted of her and her precious baby's murder.

I think the 3 hold out came from the Dalia Dippolito Trial is I am not mistaken. Which it ended in a mistrial.

 

[heartgoesout]

I can imagine sentencing a person to prison is a daunting task. Something is holding some of them back. They don't have knowledge of that hair.
The timeline is super tight and no DNA.
They can be guilty on murder and not the arson right?

 

[Mamamerced]

Good question, HGO. I always assumed they were separate charges but not sure now given the jury's wording regarding division on verdict.

 

[puakenikeni]

Sorry to go backwards in the conversation, but I had this post written last night and fell asleep without posting. Re the juror notes, I want to correct myself, I misremembered partly.

They do get to keep the notes in deliberation, but may not share them
or use them to convince other jurors s -- no saying "I have this in my notes so your memory is wrong." Jurors must always prioritize their memory and recollection over their notes if they do not match.

They can't make any notes outside of the court, or take them home, and after reaching verdict, the court destroys all the notes.

It is in this long doc with complete Hawai'i jury instructions for all criminal offenses.

http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/docs4/crimjuryinstruct.pdf
(pg 24-27 I think)

It's kind of a fascinating read what they expect of jurors in terms of
memory.

I found a fairly recent Hawaii case yesterday where the defense appealed a denied mistrial because there were gaps in the deliberation time due to a couple delays caused by administrative staff, the Christmas holidays, sick jurors, and this one juror they empaneled even though she was going on a cruise to Mexico and the time was super tight.

They thought it was covered by alternates just in case, but they had already used all three before they got to the cruise date. What a mess. And that trial was planned to be less than two weeks.

This trial was way too long and I do think the judge should have reined in Apo from the get-go -- how could they follow a lot of that mess?

 

[Kapua]

Maybe they're trying to figure out if he had time to commit arson as well. It's a tight timeline but it should be because he was committing crimes. What criminal takes their time? Anyone???

This is the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Remember we all struggled to make sense of the timeline.

And the only way that *I* could make sense of it was to assume that Charli's cell phone was left in the mud that on Feb. 9 when he killed her (hence the muddy green cell phone case in SC's car, which we never heard any more about). Because that last ping puts Charli's PHONE in the Nua'ailua Bay area at 9:49. But if you assume that SC left the phone behind and the battery ran down, he had plenty of time to do all of the dirty work.

 

[puakenikeni]

Good question, HGO. I always assumed they were separate charges but not sure now given the jury's wording regarding division on verdict.

Yes, I also thought the wording indicated a possible problem with the two.

They are definitely two separate counts, if you look at the judiciary record page online. I believe they can reach different verdicts (although I'm not sure if there is some rule about lesser included charges (the arson)).

BUT it is possible that they cannot reach a verdict on one and be hung on the other. I would think it is all or nothing.

 

[puakenikeni]

This is the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Remember we all struggled to make sense of the timeline.

And the only way that *I* could make sense of it was to assume that Charli's cell phone was left in the mud that on Feb. 9 when he killed her (hence the muddy green cell phone case in SC's car, which we never heard any more about). Because that last ping puts Charli's PHONE in the Nua'ailua Bay area at 9:49. But if you assume that SC left the phone behind and the battery ran down, he had plenty of time to do all of the dirty work.

The ping was 10:56 or basically 11:00 PM.

Was the arson smoke at 12:30 or was it earlier?
He left Haiku at earliest 8:45 and went to Paraquat's, went into thick jungle at pathless night, killed her, and then on to Nahiku and Hana and either back the same way to Peahi or around through Kaupo--all in under 4 hours.

I think there is time if he did little or nothing with the body (after the murder) that night.

I think it is hard to relate to how someone plans a murder and does not plan to take care of the evidence right away. That part took me a long time to accept. That is where they need to buy into the maggot timeline and the covering and uncovering.

Rivera played it safe in closing by not committing to a theory of just how it happened. However, there's all this testimony and evidence yet no coherent narrative of the timeline, no story that puts all the pieces (no reference to dismemberment intended) together coherently.

 

[heartgoesout]

Of course I wasn't in the court room and haven't heard all testimony but I don't think the arson was proved. I remember thinking the scrapper guy or the mechanic could have set fire to the vehicle once they were done doing whatever it is they did. I think he burned the vehicle but was it proved?

I am starting to forget details as well. I asked this before, Did Rivera ever give a story that could be followed by the average person on what happened based on the evidence? A clear visual story that made sense? That the jury walked away with a thought process of what happened, or like me do they or some still have an eyes up to the left hmmm face?
I have been following from the beginning and to be honest I still don't feel like I know what happened. That's not to say I don't think he's guilty as sin.

I don't want to blame anyone, Rivera, Apo, I like all of you am so frustrated right now.

 

[Mamamerced]

Yes, I also thought the wording indicated a possible problem with the two.

They are definitely two separate counts, if you look at the judiciary record page online. I believe they can reach different verdicts (although I'm not sure if there is some rule about lesser included charges (the arson)).

BUT it is possible that they cannot reach a verdict on one and be hung on the other. I would think it is all or nothing.

"We are unable to reach a decision on both convictions.
We are too divided"

Sounds like separate verdicts......both hung. Brooke thinks the indecision on the arson charge due to tight timeline might be affecting the murder charge decision.
Let's hope Apo-Antics do not prevail.