Interviews & MSM with/about friends, family, law enforcement etc...

[nosysw]

Well, I can't argue with you there. I sat on a federal jury and that is exactly what happened and we ended in a hung jury. In fact, hearing your story makes me wonder if we were on the same jury. It was that exact to my experience.


My problem here is assuming that just because a high number of local folks are Christians means that they will see a Heather as an adulteress and turn on her. I must say, it would be the opposite in my community. I'm almost certain of it.

Heather will not be the one on trial for murder!

Nope, different jury. Mine wasn't federal, and, thank goodness, it wasn't a hung jury. I guess it would have been a mistrial if we hadn't all come to an agreement, which luckily we did, because I would have totally gone to the judge and explained that several jurors were completely willing, and openly admitting, to disregarding his instructions. I'm so glad it didn't come to that. It was soooo stressful as it was.

I agree that Christians won't automatically turn in an innocent verdict because they think Heather deserved what she got. What I do worry about is that sympathy they might feel for the spurned wife will cause feelings resulting (subconsciously possibly) in reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, my experiences in the court room (limited as they are), and those of others I know, have shown me that an impartial jury tends to be more an ideal that a reality.

 

[Madeleine74]

Sympathy for a spurned wife? Sure.

Sympathy for a spurned wife who plots and then carries out murdering the other woman and disposing the body AND there's evidence showing said spurned wife was involved? Not so much...

 

[nosysw]

Sympathy for a spurned wife? Sure.

Sympathy for a spurned wife who plots and then carries out murdering the other woman and disposing the body? Not so much...

You may not feel sympathy for her at this point. I may not either. But some on here have said that some of the things she said are not much worse than what they would say if they found out their dh was cheating on them with a much younger woman. Not that they would murder her, but they might make statements which could be taken as motive or even intent. And lawyers are amazing at creating sympathy. That is their job and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they could create it with one person (or more) on a jury. Especially if they have been cheated on, know someone who has, etc. etc.

 

[Madeleine74]

What I do worry about is that sympathy they might feel for the spurned wife will cause feelings resulting (subconsciously possibly) in reasonable doubt.

You may not feel sympathy for her at this point. I may not either. But some on here have said that some of the things she said are not much worse than what they would say if they found out their dh was cheating on them with a much younger woman. Not that they would murder her, but they might make statements which could be taken as motive or even intent. And lawyers are amazing at creating sympathy. That is their job and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they could create it with one person (or more) on a jury. Especially if they have been cheated on, know someone who has, etc. etc.

It's not about what I feel. You said you were worried a jury might find reasonable doubt because of a spurned wife and a dead mistress. While many might feel sympathy for the fact that the wife was cheated on, I don't think the wife will get a pass from a jury if it's shown she was involved in the murder and helped commit the murder (or even did the murder). I don't believe juries will just dismiss that no matter how much sympathy they may feel for the spurned wife, that is IF they follow the rules the judge gives them and the law.

Feeling sorry for the perp is not a valid reason to acquit the person.

 

[nosysw]

It's not about what I feel. You said you were worried a jury might find reasonable doubt because of a spurned wife and a dead mistress. While many might feel sympathy for the fact that the wife was cheated on, I don't think the wife will get a pass from a jury if it's shown she was involved in the murder and helped commit the murder (or even did the murder). I don't believe juries will just dismiss that no matter how much sympathy they may feel for the spurned wife.

Well, first of all, I know what I said. And I stick by it. You are entitled to your opinion, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[rtjedarling]

If Heather's SM is shared in court, it's very possible that one or more jurors will not see it that way.

Others with Tammy logic? Sure there are, but surely the statistics are low, or there would be a lot more murdered adulterers, so hopefully, none will make it to the jury, although I'm sure the attorneys would love that.

 

[jenn7575]

Feeling sorry for the perp is not a valid reason to acquit the person.

This is very true...however... I was once on a jury where we had one such person who over identified with the defendant. Once that bias was established, it seemed that she was able to dismiss certain facts and minimize others. To the point that the rest of us were *almost* laughing about it. Any and every point that went against the defendant was either completely fabricated or exaggerated if you were to listen to this lady. And we ended in a hung jury. There is supposedly "mounds and mounds" of evidence, and I hope some of it is solid and indisputable. Because if they get some whackos on this jury like the one I had to deal with, there IS a chance that bias could play a role.

 

[nosysw]

This is very true...however... I was once on a jury where we had one such person who over identified with the defendant. Once that bias was established, it seemed that she was able to dismiss certain facts and minimize others. To the point that the rest of us were *almost* laughing about it. Any and every point that went against the defendant was either completely fabricated or exaggerated if you were to listen to this lady. And we ended in a hung jury. There is supposedly "mounds and mounds" of evidence, and I hope some of it is solid and indisputable. Because if they get some whackos on this jury like the one I had to deal with, there IS a chance that bias could play a role.

Exactly. From my experience, and those of others I know, there is one of those on far too many juries, sad to say.

 

[cluciano63]

No one is attacking Heather here, Imo...just allowing that there are some people put there who might. Reading comments on news articles, social media, etc I have seen some saying "nothing would have happened if she had not gone with a married man" for example. Some people DO think that way. Juries are always a scary unknown. They include the lunatic neighbor next door, etc...
Jmo

 

[Tawny]

It's just really hard for me ( a southern born, and I mean deep south, Bible-believing Christian married woman) to believe that others like me would think that murder is an answer to adultery. It just doesn't work that way.

BBM

The Bible says differently, if someone is deep enough into it

 

[magnolia]

This is not about bring held legally responsible. Of course, the age of responsibility is and will remain 18. Heather did not, however, commit a crime. This is not a case of someone trying to not be held responsible for a criminal act. It's about the type of judgement, or lack thereof, that a young 20 year old has.

Actually, this is not a case about the type of judgement, or lack thereof, that a young 20 yr. old has. It is a murder case. Neither Sidney or Heather should be put on trial for their decision to have a relationship. I don't assign blame to either one. They were both consenting adults. IMO

 

[CarmonCayman]

Seems like some are pretty close to victim blaming.

Heather was an adult conducting her life how she saw fit with other consenting adults and she was murdered. Whomever is responsible committed murder and nothing heather did warranted her to be murdered.

Period and end of story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

I don't feel it's blaming Heather in the least to consider that there may be a potential juror or two somewhere out there who would feel TM was justified in her insane actions.

No one HERE is saying she was justified.

 

[magnolia]

Seems like some are pretty close to victim blaming.

Heather was an adult conducting her life how she saw fit with other consenting adults and she was murdered. Whomever is responsible committed murder and nothing heather did warranted her to be murdered.

Period and end of story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM

Respectfully, I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

 

[SStarr33]

Thanks

Don't think I said anything about any client dropping their attorney mid-case. Respectfully, your spouse is just one of the many thousands of attorneys in the US.

Yup, attorneys are a dime a dozen, no doubt about that.

Anyways, clients dropping mid-case or upon being appointed/retained---miniscule difference in my experience. It has never happened upon the commencement of the trial, in my personal experience. So, I'm not sure what you are getting at there.

But maybe you know more about it than me. With your personal experience, what percentage of time do you see it happening?

 

[SStarr33]

No...but one such person could make it a hung jury. Maybe they would not say why they are unconvinced but Jmo the prosecution just needs to try to be very careful in jury selection. All of SC seems super religious (to me, anyway) and it would not shock me to imagine that some people would lean toward siding with the wife, conveniently ignoring the murder. Again, jmo.

How could anyone ignore murder?

 

[SStarr33]

Nope, different jury. Mine wasn't federal, and, thank goodness, it wasn't a hung jury. I guess it would have been a mistrial if we hadn't all come to an agreement, which luckily we did, because I would have totally gone to the judge and explained that several jurors were completely willing, and openly admitting, to disregarding his instructions. I'm so glad it didn't come to that. It was soooo stressful as it was.

I agree that Christians won't automatically turn in an innocent verdict because they think Heather deserved what she got. What I do worry about is that sympathy they might feel for the spurned wife will cause feelings resulting (subconsciously possibly) in reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, my experiences in the court room (limited as they are), and those of others I know, have shown me that an impartial jury tends to be more an ideal that a reality.

Good points, but don't you think that TM will have to take the stand to get that sympathy?

 

[CarmonCayman]

I don't see how anything heather did or said or posted has anything to do with her being murdered. It's helpful in building a case against those who murdered her but I can't see how the defense could use it.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this pretty young lady pursued my husband, here look at the postings in her social media. So I killed her, so you see I am innocent. Now can I go back to my outdoor kitchen bigger than all your all houses. Mick and the stones are due for supper.

Just does not work for me as a defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quill]

BBM

The Bible says differently, if someone is deep enough into it

That would actually be Old Testament. As a Christian, the New Testament tells me that Jesus died for our sins so that the penalty for sin is no longer death, but eternal life for those who accept him. New covenant. John 3:16.

As always these are my opinions and in this case, my personal beliefs and convictions.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't see how anything heather did or said or posted has anything to do with her being murdered. It's helpful in building a case against those who murdered her but I can't see how the defense could use it.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this pretty young lady pursued my husband, here look at the postings in her social media. So I killed her, so you see I am innocent. Now can I go back to my outdoor kitchen bigger than all your all houses. Mick and the stones are due for supper.

Just does not work for me as a defense

It could work for the prosecution to show what was happening in a timeline and how TM could have (and apparently did) see HE's social media and what HE was saying. Some of those entries paint a picture that would have made it clear to TM that SM was involved in an affair and who it was with.

Those entries were publicly available so anyone (like TM) could see them. That would demonstrate a pattern, an escalation, and show how the obsession TM had for HE progressed through time.

It's not going to make HE look like "a young child," but I think the prosecution will present it the way it needs to be presented and not try and pull the wool over the juries eyes. Addressing reality upfront is often a useful thing to do.

The defense could use those to try and paint a negative picture of HE to the jury. The victims often get painted in a poor light by the defense and this would serve their purposes.

None of it is a valid excuse for murder. It might be a reason or a part of the reason, but murder is murder.