GUILTY KY - Savannah Spurlock, 22, left 'The Other Bar' with 2 men, Richmond, 4 Jan 2019 #7 *Arrest*

[girlhasnoname]

Savannah Spurlock's family is turning a tragedy into advocacy for other missing persons

I really admire this family! Blessings to them.

 

[MsBetsy]

To branch off of this a bit, I was surprised to learn a week or two ago that DNA is NOT DE. I was watching some cold case or forensic files or some such thing, the State got their conviction but a defense appeal was agreed with and it was retried if I recall correctly. The problem? The State throughout the trial I believe or at least at some points told the jury DNA is direct evidence and it is actually not considered that.

Thankfully, the man was convicted again but it was interesting, as was the fact a new trial was granted because of it. I guess that goes to show that even State attorneys did not realize they had it wrong as I doubt they wanted to go through two trials or see two paid for.

I found it interesting anyhow.

Jmo.

That's a good example.
Even the experts make mistakes.
Inferences can be made about DNA because the suspect may have left it at another time.
They may need other circumstantial evidence to prove it, unless it's mixed with the victims blood or something like that.
Either way, it's not considered DE so I guess we can see why it's important to get it right. Imo

 

[ilovechili]

That's a good example.
Even the experts make mistakes.
Inferences can be made about DNA because the suspect may have left it at another time.
They may need other circumstantial evidence to prove it, unless it's mixed with the victims blood or something like that.
Either way, it's not considered DE so I guess we can see why it's important to get it right. Imo

Yes, I agree with the way you look at it. Even knowing that though, I was still surprised to think about the fact of course it is not direct evidence (although I tend to think in certain situations maybe it could be but that is another conversation). I also was surprised that was enough for a retrial although if the jury follows rules regarding direct evidence versus circumstantial evidence, I guess I can see it.

It also could be in a place that means nothing necessarily in a crime without tying it to the crime, date and place. So as you said basically a direct witness, video, etc. And eyewitnesses as we know can be notoriously incorrect at times but it is someone who actually witnessed the crime.

It does show that most elements of all cases are actually mostly circumstantial evidence.

I found that show really interesting but darned if I could tell you what case it was about And it was lawyers and professionals who made the mistake calling it DE.

Jmo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am appalled that any prosecutor could make this mistake.

I could possibly understand if they felt a certain piece of CE pointed directly toward their guilt, but calling it DE evidence is shocking since they certainly know the total difference between the two types.

Even some video footage can be open for interpretation. Example: the DA says this is the defendant on the footage which may have been taken at night, but even jurors may disagree feeling it doesn't look exactly like the one on trial. Etc.

Jmho

 

[ilovechili]

I am appalled that any prosecutor could make this mistake.

I could possibly understand if they felt a certain piece of CE pointed directly toward their guilt, but calling it DE evidence is shocking since they certainly know the total difference between the two types.

Even some video footage can be open for interpretation. Example: the DA says this is the defendant on the footage which may have been taken at night, but even jurors may disagree feeling it doesn't look exactly like the one on trial. Etc.

Jmho

I agree. I have similar thoughts. I figure it was not even just a prosecutor but probably the team, there certainly is not just one generally preparing for a murder trial. You know what I mean, if the trial lasted days, someone should have realized and said something to the prosecutor, etc. It really did not detail everything but maybe it was just the closing argument or something, I understood it to be throughout the case though. I also do not know what year the case was, DNA has come in and changed rapidly through the years as we know.

And District Attorneys are elected, who knows but I agree, this is why this show stood out to me, I thought what???

I wish to h*** I remembered the case... I often have the TV on in the background more than watch it...

ETA: But towards the end of the show when I heard about appeal and the reason for it and DNA, I started paying attention...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I agree. I have similar thoughts. I figure it was not even just a prosecutor but probably the team, there certainly is not just one generally preparing for a murder trial. You know what I mean, if the trial lasted days, someone should have realized and said something to the prosecutor, etc. It really did not detail everything but maybe it was just the closing argument or something, I understood it to be throughout the case though. I also do not know what year the case was, DNA has come in and changed rapidly through the years as we know.

And District Attorneys are elected, who knows but I agree, this is why this show stood out to me, I thought what???

I wish to h*** I remembered the case... I often have the TV on in the background more than watch it...

ETA: But towards the end of the show when I heard about appeal and the reason for it and DNA, I started paying attention...

Imo, There really are no good excuses for doing so. Often elected DAs were prosecutors themselves at one time.

That is one of the things they first learn in law school. Even a new prosecutor would know not to do this, and label something as direct evidence when it's clearly CE. They all know better, imo.

I'm still shocked this gross error was done.

But I know strange things can happen. I saw a case about where the prosecutor mentioned in closing about the jury not hearing from the defendant.

Of course they won an appeal, and was convicted again at the end of the retrial.

But all should know that is a big no no when no defendant has to ever testify proving their innocence.

I think some can be overzealous, and consumed with passion at times, and it not only causes the case to be overturned, but thousands of dollars have been wasted or perhaps millions for the initial trial, and then having to have a retrial.

Or even worse yet if the error was so egregious the appellate court dismisses it outright with prejudice where it cant ever be retried.

They must always remember at all times they are the first line of defense in order to bring justice for all of the victims they are there to represent.

They all should be aware of how important their roles are ...each, and everytime. The victims deserve no less than the best to represent them.

I'm like you. I'm admittedly a true crime junkie, and I watch or listen while I'm doing chores in our home, and sometimes it's hard to remember the case by name. Yet I do remember the main facts of each case.

NTSY posting, like always.

Jmho

 

[ilovechili]

Imo, There really are no good excuses for doing so. Often elected DAs were prosecutors themselves at one time.

That is one of the things they first learn in law school. Even a new prosecutor would know not to do this, and label something as direct evidence when it's clearly CE. They all know better, imo.

I'm still shocked this gross error was done.

But I know strange things can happen. I saw a case about where the prosecutor mentioned in closing about the jury not hearing from the defendant.

Of course they won an appeal, and was convicted again at the end of the retrial.

But all should know that is a big no no when no defendant has to ever testify proving their innocence.

I think some can be overzealous, and consumed with passion at times, and it not only causes the case to be overturned, but thousands of dollars have been wasted or perhaps millions for the initial trial, and then having to have a retrial.

Or even worse yet if the error was so egregious the appellate court dismisses it outright with prejudice where it cant ever be retried.

They must always remember at all times they are the first line of defense in order to bring justice for all of the victims they are there to represent.

They all should be aware of how important their roles are ...each, and everytime. The victims deserve no less than the best to represent them.

I'm like you. I'm admittedly a true crime junkie, and I watch or listen while I'm doing chores in our home, and sometimes it's hard to remember the case by name. Yet I do remember the main facts of each case.

NTSY posting, like always.

Jmho

I so wish I could remember more details, I would give the info here and go watch it again. I watch basically three networks for such things, ID, HLN and Oxygen. I am pretty sure it was in the last two weeks and I want to say last week. It was most likely one of the first two. I have even searched for it on the web based on the reason for the appeal and haven't found it.

I was half arse watching and listening and the guy was convicted so I tuned out, happy that he was convicted, and then all of a sudden they came out with the twist of the appeal and a retrial and why my attention came back to it.

The only thing I could possibly say that would excuse it would be if DNA was fairly new--they do show some old cases on some of the shows but even then it is their job to keep up with laws and advances, etc. you are so correct. I wish I even knew the state and county.

The last thing I can say about what I recall is it was a man and I believe it was a woman that was killed but that unfortunately does not narrow down the cases much that it could be...

NTSY too

ETA: I wonder how much DNA they have in this case. It will certainly be a CE case. I hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

Jmo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OT:

In fact I watched part 1 and 2 about WACO on HLN yesterday.

Omg, I had forgotten all that happened before the FBI rammed the compound with tanks.

I didn't remember the hostage negotiators were so livid with agents of the FBI surrounding the compound. Everytime they made progress the hotdog gungho FBI agents swarming the compound made it far far worse.

In fact when it was engulfed in flames one of the negotiators walked up to the head FBi agent, and said his job was over, and now it's a crime scene like they wanted all along.

I think it's good to be enlightened about horrific historical cases so it will never be repeated.

Jmho

 

[ilovechili]

OT:

In fact I watched part 1 and 2 about WACO on HLN yesterday.

Omg, I had forgotten all that happened before the FBI rammed the compound with tanks.

I didn't remember the hostage negotiators were so livid with agents of the FBI surrounding the compound. Everytime they made progress the hotdog gungho FBI agents swarming the compound made it far far worse.

In fact when it was engulfed in flames one of the negotiators walked up to the head FBi agent, and said his job was over, and now it's a crime scene like they wanted all along.

I think it's good to be enlightened about horrific historical cases so it will never be repeated.

Jmho

Great points. I am always pro prosecution, pro LE and pro agents, etc. However, I am not so naive as to not know some get into their jobs and positions from who they know and dollars, power, position and politics may come into play. Anywhere those things come into play can attract corruption and those looking for such positions.

I have known good attorneys and bad. We all can probably name doctors we liked and those we would never go to again. Dentists as well. Restaurants also.

I think people have a need to feel our LE is perfect, our feds are all over it, our government, our surgeons, etc.; we want to feel safe and believe they are like superheroes and they have morals and the right priorities and some do. But some are just people and we know how people can vary as to priorities, morals and ways.

I always say I would probably rather have someone who pulled Cs or Bs through college... Than straight As. As a doctor, surgeon, dentist, etc. That is another conversation altogether...

As you say though, live and learn, I am guessing in the case I watched, that county never made that mistake again--ever. If they did, then there is a real problem...

This case here looked as if there would never be any closure and conviction and here we are looking at a likely one.

RIP Savannah and I hope justice results.

Jmo.

Jmo

 

[ilovechili]

Just bumping for Savannah.

 

[Seattle1]

To branch off of this a bit, I was surprised to learn a week or two ago that DNA is NOT DE. I was watching some cold case or forensic files or some such thing, the State got their conviction but a defense appeal was agreed with and it was retried if I recall correctly. The problem? The State throughout the trial I believe or at least at some points told the jury DNA is direct evidence and it is actually not considered that.

Thankfully, the man was convicted again but it was interesting, as was the fact a new trial was granted because of it. I guess that goes to show that even State attorneys did not realize they had it wrong as I doubt they wanted to go through two trials or see two paid for.

I found it interesting anyhow.

Jmo.

I recall watching something similar about a murder trial, and the Defendant convicted.

The State made similar error during summation misrepresenting to the jury DNA was direct evidence.

However, during appeal -- the court reversed the Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct committed during summation, because the defense failed to object when the prosecutor repeatedly misrepresented to the jury critical DNA evidence as proof of Defendants guilt!

The Defendant still got a new trial --but it wasn't because of the prosecutor's error, but because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result.

During retrial - the Defendant was found guilty again.

In your example, I wonder why the Defense did not object to State's error?

Do you think we watched the same, and you remembered it incorrectly?

 

[ilovechili]

I recall watching something similar about a murder trial, and the Defendant convicted.

The State made similar error during summation misrepresenting to the jury DNA was direct evidence.

However, during appeal -- the court reversed the Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct committed during summation, because the defense failed to object when the prosecutor repeatedly misrepresented to the jury critical DNA evidence as proof of Defendants guilt!

The Defendant still got a new trial --but it wasn't because of the prosecutor's error, but because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result.

During retrial - the Defendant was found guilty again.

In your example, I wonder why the Defense did not object to State's error?

Do you think we watched the same, and you remembered it incorrectly?

It very well could be because as I said above, I was not really watching it or listening to it intently and it was fairly recently. I do believe it was due to a statement in a closing argument.

I know there was a retrial and that he was found guilty.

I can't remember the names and the case and I said I think that I could have it wrong as far as how it came about, but I just know it was a bit eye opening about DNA.

Now, granted, I can see where DNA would not always be direct evidence but I was still a bit surprised to hear it is generally CE/circumstantial evidence.

I shouldn't have been because it makes sense. However, I think we are all so focused on is there DNA in every case that we think of it quite often as the lynch pin.

Do you remember the case? I was just kind of half listening and when I heard he was convicted I stopped paying any attention at all. I then caught something about an appeal. The last few minutes (10 tops with a commercial) were devoted to that twist. And yes, he was found guilty again upon retrial, thank goodness.

Sounds correct. So the defense did not do their job either?

It was interesting, I will say that. If it comes on again, I will pay more attention.

 

[glasgow51]

Bump

 

[ardean]

No new developments? I'm hoping they get a full confession.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No new developments? I'm hoping they get a full confession.

I don't think thats going to happen either. Imo like so many other defendants and DTs they will place blame on imaginary others.

In this case they are going to go with the tired old defence game of blaming the murdered victim themselves.

They never seem to learn it only winds up highly ticking jurors off instead.

Just look at how many on various social media sites constantly vilified poor Savannah, when all along she lay buried in a shallow grave, DS, the killer, put her in.

Jmho

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Great points. I am always pro prosecution, pro LE and pro agents, etc. However, I am not so naive as to not know some get into their jobs and positions from who they know and dollars, power, position and politics may come into play. Anywhere those things come into play can attract corruption and those looking for such positions.

I have known good attorneys and bad. We all can probably name doctors we liked and those we would never go to again. Dentists as well. Restaurants also.

I think people have a need to feel our LE is perfect, our feds are all over it, our government, our surgeons, etc.; we want to feel safe and believe they are like superheroes and they have morals and the right priorities and some do. But some are just people and we know how people can vary as to priorities, morals and ways.

I always say I would probably rather have someone who pulled Cs or Bs through college... Than straight As. As a doctor, surgeon, dentist, etc. That is another conversation altogether...

As you say though, live and learn, I am guessing in the case I watched, that county never made that mistake again--ever. If they did, then there is a real problem...

This case here looked as if there would never be any closure and conviction and here we are looking at a likely one.

RIP Savannah and I hope justice results.

Jmo.

Jmo

Morning all!

What I have realized more, and more, lately is our boots on the ground, police officers are our true heroes including our field FBI agents.

We see them immediately come into assist in missing or kidnapping cases whether the victims are adults or wee young children.

The FBI field agents are the best in the world when it comes to collecting, and testing crime scene evidence.

Who are NOT heroes, but are very dangerous people to all of us are the highest up in the FBI food chain who are powerful who make decision that affect all of us, which are not based on honesty, but agenda driven instead.

Its those higher ups which wound up being the reason why 25 little terrified children, and parents were burned to death in WACO.

The same ones who thought it was perfectly acceptable to murder a mother when holding her small child in her arms at Ruby Ridge.

The scariest part is it's logical to believe the FBI powerful department heads have more darkly held secrets, and have been able for years to cover them up from the American people that pays their salaries.

Sunshine is always the best disinfectant for all of us to really be protected.

It can show the ones who pretends to protect us all may have been the very ones we needed protection FROM.

Thank goodness they are being weeded out now, one by one, but ALL involved must also be exposed.

Jmho

 

[ilovechili]

I don't think thats going to happen either. Imo like so many other defendants and DTs they will place blame on imaginary others.

In this case they are going to go with the tired old defence game of blaming the murdered victim themselves.

They never seem to learn it only winds up highly ticking jurors off instead.

Just look at how many on various social media sites constantly vilified poor Savannah, when all along she lay buried in a shallow grave, DS, the killer, put her in.

Jmho

He will not confess. He lied and hid things for months on end. Jmo.

He probably will blame the victim as you say or the defense will. As a juror it would backfire with me and I think you are right that it does with many.

She is a VICTIM. A murdered victim.

Imo.

 

[cvaldez1975]

Morning all!

What I have realized more, and more, lately is our boots on the ground, police officers are our true heroes including our field FBI agents.

We see them immediately come into assist in missing or kidnapping cases whether the victims are adults or wee young children.

The FBI field agents are the best in the world when it comes to collecting, and testing crime scene evidence.

Who are NOT heroes, but are very dangerous people to all of us are the highest up in the FBI food chain who are powerful who make decision that affect all of us, which are not based on honesty, but agenda driven instead.

Its those higher ups which wound up being the reason why 25 little terrified children, and parents were burned to death in WACO.

The same ones who thought it was perfectly acceptable to murder a mother when holding her small child in her arms at Ruby Ridge.

The scariest part is it's logical to believe the FBI powerful department heads have more darkly held secrets, and have been able for years to cover them up from the American people that pays their salaries.

Sunshine is always the best disinfectant for all of us to really be protected.

It can show the ones who pretends to protect us all may have been the very ones we needed protection FROM.

Thank goodness they are being weeded out now, one by one, but ALL involved must also be exposed.

Jmho

It’s all the ones on the top. No matter which way one leans, “the top” ain’t for us.

 

[glasgow51]

Thoughts and prayers for the family

 

[stephlovescheese]

Thoughts and prayers for the family

I searched MSM this morning for any updates...nothing. She's been on my mind lately too.