GUILTY KS - Vashti Seacat, 34, found slain in house fire, Kingman, 30 April 2011 - #1

[Steely Dan]

I only recently started following this case so I'm sorry I can't answer your first question. But, I must admit I had the same thought as I was watching today (rather listening, as Brett Seacat is stealthily concealing what he looks like lol). I think it will forever be called "the Juan effect." I think the prosecutor did well, but I'm having Juan withdrawal.

BBM

Did I ask you if you had Juan withdrawal! :giggle:

 

[joypath]

I agree this is interesting trying to match up what I've heard to what I 'picture' the scene looks like. Here is something else. I hadn't considered. By 'under the body' I assumed this meant under the torso but perhaps it meant any part of her body, her hand or her arm which would burn sooner than her trunk. Which might expose the gun to the effects and intensity of the fire sooner than the protectiveness of a human torso. Hope that makes sense.

PS I still don't know if the lady supposedly shot herself once or twice? This is besides the gun discharging because of the intense heat/fire. And I can't see how two shots to the head is a suicide.

BBM

:twocents::twocents: IIRC, the weapon was found under her leg, definitely NOT under her torso.
From the testimony of the ME (coroner in this State) who IS a board certified anatomical, clinical and forensic pathologist, there was a single thru and thru GSW in the area of the brain stem. The other "bullet wounds" were created by involuntary discharge from the fire heat.

 

[LinasK]

After listening to Seacat's attorney, I gotta say that Jodi Arias' attorneys really fought for her. OTOH, the Arias trial was the only trial I have ever watched and I just tuned into the Seacat trial today (for some reason I thought it started Tues.) and it is over already. I need to find another trial and watch it from the beginning.

George Zimmerman's trial starts Monday...

 

[Snoods]

I watched a tiny bit of this trial on HLN today, and this guy sounds just like another Jodi Arias. He killed her because she was going to divorce him, and he trashed the victim by saying she committed suicide and burned the house down!!! Who does that? I think only a killer who wants to hide evidence, not a suicide victim. Unbelievable.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Exactly! Okay, I'm not denying there are awful mothers out there that would harm their children, but Vashti has been described by everyone that knew her as a loving, doting, caring mother! There is NO WAY a mother like that would decide to shoot herself and set her house on fire, possibly burning her children alive. NO WAY. This guy is so ridiculous.

 

[Snoods]

BBM

Did I ask you if you had Juan withdrawal! :giggle:

Ahhh, thank you for my Juan fix! Can I get an "You don't get to ask the questions, I do" please? I promise this will be the last time! Really, I can quit anytime I want to!

 

[Steely Dan]

Ahhh, thank you for my Juan fix! Can I get an "You don't get to ask the questions, I do" please? I promise this will be the last time! Really, I can quit anytime I want to!

BBM

If you were in my group I'd give you a timeout. :snooty:

 

[Snoods]

Brett is Superman. He races up the stairs and down the hall to the master bedroom in 8 seconds.

A good sneeze takes me 4 or 5 seconds and I haven't even hit the first step on the staircase yet.

He's so fast he soars above all that nasty 'ol fire stuff with nary a singed toe hair!:aktion1:

 

[lisa01]

Exactly! Okay, I'm not denying there are awful mothers out there that would harm their children, but Vashti has been described by everyone that knew her as a loving, doting, caring mother! There is NO WAY a mother like that would decide to shoot herself and set her house on fire, possibly burning her children alive. NO WAY. This guy is so ridiculous.

What shows me that his story doesn't add up is why would she take the time to write a suicide note telling one of her sons to be good big brother and telling the other to not lose his smile if she was going to set the house on fire knowing the kids would be in the house and would possibly die.

If your planning to burn the house down with the kids in it knowing that they would probably die then you wouldn't write in the suicide note telling one to be a good big brother and the other to not lose his smile.

 

[lisa01]

I kid you not, an acquittal is a likely, very likely possibility. Or a hung jury. And I don't like the prospect of either.

After the short cross of Seacat by the Prosecution I wouldn't be surprised if there was a hung jury or acquittal. After listening to him on direct I found so many inconsistencies that he could have been confronted on by cross....but I didn't see any of that.

I just do not understand what the prosecutor was doing and why the short cross.

 

[Steely Dan]

What shows me that his story doesn't add up is why would she take the time to write a suicide note telling one of her sons to be good big brother and telling the other to not lose his smile if she was going to set the house on fire knowing the kids would be in the house and would possibly die.

If your planning to burn the house down with the kids in it knowing that they would probably die then you wouldn't write in the suicide note telling one to be a good big brother and the other to not lose his smile.

With all due respect, that's the least that doesn't add up. You do make an interesting point, but there is so much more that makes this case push the hinky meter to maximum levels. That's just another brick in the wall.

 

[Snoods]

What shows me that his story doesn't add up is why would she take the time to write a suicide note telling one of her sons to be good big brother and telling the other to not lose his smile if she was going to set the house on fire knowing the kids would be in the house and would possibly die.

If your planning to burn the house down with the kids in it knowing that they would probably die then you wouldn't write in the suicide note telling one to be a good big brother and the other to not lose his smile.

I'm coming into this trial fashionably late so apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum, but what reason is the defense giving as to why Vashti felt she needed to "take care of the house" by burning it down as stated in her *rolling eyes* suicide note? What the heck does that even mean? Why wouldn't she assume the suicide note would get burned up on the fire? Why wouldn't she want the kids to have a home to stay in? It's just so preposterous what BS is trying to claim. Okay, all moms out there. Suicide note. The last thing you would say to your children would never be "don't forget to smile!" and "be a good bro" all of which of course is contingent upon your children not being burned alive. This guy is such an arrogant insert your own adjective here.

Again, if all this has already been discussed a million times my apololgies!

 

[katydid23]

After the short cross of Seacat by the Prosecution I wouldn't be surprised if there was a hung jury or acquittal. After listening to him on direct I found so many inconsistencies that he could have been confronted on by cross....but I didn't see any of that.

I just do not understand what the prosecutor was doing and why the short cross.

I AGREE. After listening to this guy's BS I was waiting for the prosecutor to get up there and tear into him. And it was so tame. I wish Juan Martinez was given a chance to 'spar' with him for a bit. :jail: I am worried about the outcome. I hope it is a smart jury.

 

[Melanie]

Hi sleuthers:seeya:! Looks like many of our friends have already signed off for the weekend but I'm calling out for HELP! I'm watching NG & she says a witness claims he heard a gun shot about an hour before the police/fire dept arrived??? The clip she played of a neighbor's testimony didn't cover that. She's fairly good at, hmm, embellishing? shall we call it?! Do any of you know of any such statement as a fact in this trial? That, alone, might put my mind at ease somewhat! Sorry Shelbi1, but I'm afraid I share that uneasy feeling with you. I feel the prosecutor went far too easy on this guy!:banghead: Or maybe my expectations are far too high after the marvelous "Juan"derman?:blushing:

BBM - as you know, I agree with you. The burden of proof is on the State. I was really kinda floored that she was so easy on him.

I didn't see or hear the clip, but am not surprised. All the time it took to get the kids and dogs out of the house, and buckled into a car that he didn't even have a key to, just brings distance between the shot and the 911 call. That story was SO ridiculous I was practically banging my head on my desk.

I wish I knew it to be fact, but I just don't know. It seems everything in this trial is being embellished.

MOO

Mel

 

[Melanie]

I AGREE. After listening to this guy's BS I was waiting for the prosecutor to get up there and tear into him. And it was so tame. I wish Juan Martinez was given a chance to 'spar' with him for a bit. :jail: I am worried about the outcome. I hope it is a smart jury.

Did the State prove its case? At this point I really don't know.It's obvious to me what this <unusual person> did, but if there's a hint of reasonable doubt (suicide) - then he's gonna walk.

Wow - can you tell I'm losing faith? :scared:

MOO

Mel

 

[Melanie]

I'm coming into this trial fashionably late so apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum, but what reason is the defense giving as to why Vashti felt she needed to "take care of the house" by burning it down as stated in her *rolling eyes* suicide note? What the heck does that even mean? Why wouldn't she assume the suicide note would get burned up on the fire? Why wouldn't she want the kids to have a home to stay in? It's just so preposterous what BS is trying to claim. Okay, all moms out there. Suicide note. The last thing you would say to your children would never be "don't forget to smile!" and "be a good bro" all of which of course is contingent upon your children not being burned alive. This guy is such an arrogant insert your own adjective here.

Again, if all this has already been discussed a million times my apololgies!

Oh, no - from coming in late, I think you're spot on. A mother, unless despondent, depressed, or mentally ill, would ever do this. And many mothers with these traits take their children with them - they don't leave them behind.

They most certainly wouldn't burn the house down with the children a few feet away...unless she intended to kill them (but the suicide note indicates otherwise).

This is an act of a madman -- someone without any parental or spousal emotions, or is devoid of human emotion at all (except when it comes to his dogs).

When he said "why would I risk killing myself to recover a body" kind of summed it up for me. Unhuman - alien. Not a husband, parent, or friend. Not even someone who could refer to the body as his wife.

MOO

Mel

 

[Steely Dan]

The points made above are good points, but if I was a juror these are things that would I need to convict him.

The 911 call.
Nothing else.

I'm kidding of course, but it's really close. That 911 call is the worst acting I've seen since Keanu Reeves' last movie, which I didn't see. I don't need to in order to make the point.

Let's see what the rest is.

She "committed suicide" three days after filing for divorce from him.
She asked a co-worker if they thought he'd burn the house down with her in it?
He had gasoline on his pants.
The marriage counselor said she was dead and it was his fault.
His Keanu Reeves like performance in the interrogation room.
The fake suicide letter.
The fact that he put a GPS on her car so he knew where she was at all times.
The suicide note that would have burned up.
Stuff I've probably forgotten, but that's enough.

I'm a big James Bond fan and have read all the Ian Fleming books. In Goldfinger, Auric Goldfinger says this to James; "The first meeting is happenstance, the second meeting is coincidence, the third meeting is an act of an enemy." To me that's an analogy for building a circumstantial case. If you have three solid circumstantial pieces of evidence the they're probably guilty. JMO

 

[peacesells]

Did the State prove its case? At this point I really don't know.It's obvious to me what this <unusual person> did, but if there's a hint of reasonable doubt (suicide) - then he's gonna walk.

Wow - can you tell I'm losing faith? :scared:

MOO

Mel

I agree. The state could have done so much better than this. The cross was all over the place. I didn't get much out of it. It's very rare that prosecutors get to examine the defendant because they rarely ever take the stand so I felt like she could have done so much more. The only thing I feel like did her a favor was the way BS was beating around the bush and refusing to answer questions directly. It just makes him look smug and arrogant. However, the theory that she would burn the house down after she commits suicide is a hard one to believe, especially since (I think) the majority of the jury in this case are females. It's hard to think a mom would do that.

However, let's stay positive that justice will be served sometime next week.

 

[Steely Dan]

I agree. The state could have done so much better than this. The cross was all over the place. I didn't get much out of it. It's very rare that prosecutors get to examine the defendant because they rarely ever take the stand so I felt like she could have done so much more. The only thing I feel like did her a favor was the way BS was beating around the bush and refusing to answer questions directly. It just makes him look smug and arrogant. However, the theory that she would burn the house down after she commits suicide is a hard one to believe, especially since (I think) the majority of the jury in this case are females. It's hard to think a mom would do that.

However, let's stay positive that justice will be served sometime next week.

After seeing JM go after witness' I think we'll all be disappointed from now on unless another case he's on is televised. If he's not the best he's damn close. I would assume, and hope, that tapes of his cross style are shown in law schools.

I don't think you have to be as terse. It works for him, but the questions he asks and how he keeps things out of order so the witness can't lie very easily. When I first started watching the JA trial I didn't understand why he was asking the questions he was asking. Then at the end he ties it up into a bow and you see exactly what he was doing. He was locking in statements that he could use later against the witness. "Well it's your fog!"

 

[Bravo]

If this is a smart and sensible Jury I am confident we will see a conviction. Trials happen every day and of short duration. Many of the high profile Trials we follow are not your typical Trial. Juan has his style which I admire. Other Prosecuters have theirs. The facts are there. Closing will tie it all up. IMO.

 

[Jane Jetson]

What shows me that his story doesn't add up is why would she take the time to write a suicide note telling one of her sons to be good big brother and telling the other to not lose his smile if she was going to set the house on fire knowing the kids would be in the house and would possibly die.

If your planning to burn the house down with the kids in it knowing that they would probably die then you wouldn't write in the suicide note telling one to be a good big brother and the other to not lose his smile.

I thought they said something on HLN about his writing the note by - and this sounds so weird, I wonder if I might have just been hallucinating at the time - that he projected her writing onto some surface at work and traced her writing, I guess so he'd get an exact duplicate. Weird.