GUILTY MA - Colleen Ritzer, 24, brutally murdered, Danvers, 22 Oct 2013 #1

[jacct]

Rupa Shenoy ‏@RupaShenoy 50s50 seconds ago Salem, MA
Video now showing #PhilipChism exiting gym, wearing glasses, doubling back. He just seems to be walking around a lot.

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 57s57 seconds ago
DHS cameras capture #PhilipChism back in school, he heads to third floor again

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
He's wearing 2 drawstring type backpacks

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 3m3 minutes ago
Just after 430 pm, there is no more surveillance footage of #PhilipChism in Danvers High Sullivan says

Rupa Shenoy ‏@RupaShenoy 3m3 minutes ago Salem, MA
Defense now questioning Sgt Sullivan.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
Regan is now asking Sullivan about #PhilipChism moving through the school.

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 2m2 minutes ago
Regan puts up diagram of DHS

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 2m2 minutes ago
Regan asking Sullivan about #PhilipChism path through high school. She's using a laser pointer

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago
Defense will try to show that his movements and paths he took didn't make sense.

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
Regan is retracing all #PhilipChism steps. Sullivan intermittently replies yes and correct

 

[jacct]

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 45s46 seconds ago
#PhilipChism was in the woods with recycling bin for 25 mins

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 39s40 seconds ago
Regan still retracing #PhilipChism steps at DHS that day. ADA says she can use prosecution schematic if she wants

Todd Kazakiewich ‏@ToddKazakiewich 56s57 seconds ago
Defense Attorney Denise Regan is using cross to clarify Chism's movements (which seemed abundantly clear in video IMO)

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 54s55 seconds ago
Peggie Ritzer just walked out of courtroom after an exchange in which ADA offers to let defense atty use computer diagrams.

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 2m2 minutes ago
Sullivan, when questioned, says he doesn't know exact times #PhilipChism was different places in school without notes

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
While he might not immediately know times Sullivan seems to know #PhilipChism path that day and school locations very clearly

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 57s58 seconds ago
Sullivan says Ritzer was not carrying anything when she went into bathroom at end of the day

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
After a brief sidebar, we're going to adjourn for the day, and the week

Rupa Shenoy ‏@RupaShenoy 36s37 seconds ago Salem, MA
Judge says we're going to recess. Says trial is ahead of schedule and compliments jury on punctuality. Resumes 9 am Monday.

 

[Greggy]

I need the help of a commentator who knows the evidence concerning Miss Ritzer's murder better than I do. When was the murder kit containing the box cutter, knife, and clothes brought to school? Did he bring the murder kit to school in the morning or beforehand which means he planned the murder well in advance; or did he go home after school in anger and then bring the murder kit to school to commit the crimes? Thank you for your help.

 

[jacct]

I need the help of a commentator who knows the evidence concerning Miss Ritzer's murder better than I do. When was the murder kit containing the box cutter, knife, and clothes brought to school? Did he bring the murder kit to school in the morning or beforehand which means he planned the murder well in advance; or did he go home after school in anger and then bring the murder kit to school to commit the crimes? Thank you for your help.

Unfortunately all we have to go on are the tweets from today. Video was shown to the jury that Chism came to school the day of the murder with 3 backpacks. One he put in his locker and two he took to math class. I assume the second backpack had clothes because the video shows he went into class in a red sweatshirt but followed the teacher to the bathroom wearing a blue hoodie. Later he gets the second backpack out of his locker and changes pants to shorts and different shoes and socks. The bloody clothes he changed out of were found in the woods. So my take is he brought the extra clothes, box cutter, gloves, and mask to school that day.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Good point perhaps... I was thinking deposition but also witnessed statements used against them as I saw in Caylee trial . I was going to correct my statement above but you already quoted it so I will correct it here what I meant.

Yes, statements from a deposition can be used in a similar matter, although what you're thinking of from Caylee's trial is likely "impeachment" rather than refreshing a witness's recollection. Previous statements made by a witness, verbal or written, to LE or at a deposition can be brought up when a person contradicts what they've said previously. They will be shown what they previously said and questioned about that contradiction.

What happened here is a little bit different. Often, because so much time has passed, a witness can't remember every single detail from a statement. You see this a lot with LE and their reports. If they can't recall specific details that they are being asked about, the attorney doing the questioning will then verify they wrote a statement or report, ask them if reviewing it would refresh their recollection, and then give the witness the statement or report to read. That statement or report is not published to the jury unless it is later admitted into evidence. The witness cannot read aloud from this report, but merely review it to help them remember. The writing is then returned to the attorney and questioning continues, with the witness being "refreshed" and now able to recall the details that they previously couldn't.

Make sense?

 

[gxm]

It has always been my understanding that he brought the murder kit to school that morning. But even if he'd gone home to put together a murder kit, there would have been plenty of time to cool off. IMO, just the act of compiling the kit shows clear premeditation. Such a terrible crime and I hope they throw away the key on this one.

 

[gxm]

Philip Chism, charged with killing teacher, faces separate attempted murder charge

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/justice/massachusetts-philip-chism/

 

[Mindmatters]

bbm

I think this is reason for the blood pool under her. The long stick was stuck in her, when pulled out blood came gushing out.

Terrible. So so terrible.

Oh my God, there are no words...the thought that your supposition is possible is just too much to wrap my mind around.

 

[coastal]

Many thanks for posting the tweets, jacct!

 

[atthelake]

Many thanks for posting the tweets, jacct!

Ditto !!!

 

[Skigirl]

I need the help of a commentator who knows the evidence concerning Miss Ritzer's murder better than I do. When was the murder kit containing the box cutter, knife, and clothes brought to school? Did he bring the murder kit to school in the morning or beforehand which means he planned the murder well in advance; or did he go home after school in anger and then bring the murder kit to school to commit the crimes? Thank you for your help.

The prosecutor, in opening statements, said he went to school that morning with a "terrible purpose" and a box cutter, gloves, mask, etc. I don't think there has been any actual evidence of when those items were for sure brought to school, so I suppose it's possible that they actually were brought in earlier and kept in his locker, but he did not have time to go home that afternoon to get them.

 

[atthelake]

Todd Kazakiewich ‏@ToddKazakiewich 3m3 minutes ago

Video shows #PhilipChism (wearing ski mask) pulling recycling bin w/ Colleen Ritzer's body, right past man w/ dog outside

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 3m3 minutes ago
#PhilipChism picked up on a field house camera clearly wheeling recycling bin in parking lot

Rupa Shenoy ‏@RupaShenoy 2m2 minutes ago Salem, MA
#PhilipChism shown on video making his way casually back from woods, without recycling bin.

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 2m2 minutes ago
#PhilipChism enters DHS again goes to the third floor

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
Video shows him returning to his locker, then he goes to boys room on floor 3

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
He leaves boys room now in a black shirt

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
#PhilipChism exits third floor stairwell, he's got a white and blue Nike backpack on now

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 50s50 seconds ago
#PhilipChism goes back in second floor girls room

Jill Harmacinski ‏@EagleTribJill 1m1 minute ago
Video shows #PhilipChism now in black shorts and barefoot going down a stairwell and leaving building

Wow .. a lot of clothing changes. I have a house full of guests or I would go through and put it all together to show all the changes.. but he had quite a bit. Does anyone else have the time to do so?

 

[AnaTeresa]

Tritto! Thank you for all your hard work, jacct!

 

[Skigirl]

Yes, statements from a deposition can be used in a similar matter, although what you're thinking of from Caylee's trial is likely "impeachment" rather than refreshing a witness's recollection. Previous statements made by a witness, verbal or written, to LE or at a deposition can be brought up when a person contradicts what they've said previously. They will be shown what they previously said and questioned about that contradiction.

What happened here is a little bit different. Often, because so much time has passed, a witness can't remember every single detail from a statement. You see this a lot with LE and their reports. If they can't recall specific details that they are being asked about, the attorney doing the questioning will then verify they wrote a statement or report, ask them if reviewing it would refresh their recollection, and then give the witness the statement or report to read. That statement or report is not published to the jury unless it is later admitted into evidence. The witness cannot read aloud from this report, but merely review it to help them remember. The writing is then returned to the attorney and questioning continues, with the witness being "refreshed" and now able to recall the details that they previously couldn't.

Make sense?

Your explanation makes a lot of sense, but it makes no sense at all to allow witnesses to do that from my perspective as someone who used to study human memory. Their recollections aren't refreshed by reading prior things they said, they are just able to be more consistent with their earlier statements because they trust that what they said when their memories were fresher are the true things that happened. Memory is largely reconstructive, and by allowing them to read what they previously said, you are actually impacting the memory they claim now to have. I would bet someone has done that exact experiment where they've shown a research participant an earlier statement that they have supposedly said but is actually quite different from what they actually said, and then asked them to go back and recall details of some event. I would bet a billion dollars that their newly "refreshed" memory would be less accurate.

Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter what they actually remember on the day of the trial in some sense, what really does matter is what they remembered at the time that the crime occurred, but it's a misnomer to say that their memories are being refreshed.

 

[Skigirl]

Wow .. a lot of clothing changes. I have a house full of guests or I would go through and put it all together to show all the changes.. but he had quite a bit. Does anyone else have the time to do so?

Good idea! I don't have time now, but I agree, it's a large number. It would be great for the prosecution to bring in all of the different outfits and show the jurors just how many different items of clothing he had on that day. It surely shows that he was planning to do something out of the ordinary.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Your explanation makes a lot of sense, but it makes no sense at all to allow witnesses to do that from my perspective as someone who used to study human memory. Their recollections aren't refreshed by reading prior things they said, they are just able to be more consistent with their earlier statements because they trust that what they said when their memories were fresher are the true things that happened. Memory is largely reconstructive, and by allowing them to read what they previously said, you are actually impacting the memory they claim now to have. I would bet someone has done that exact experiment where they've shown a research participant an earlier statement that they have supposedly said but is actually quite different from what they actually said, and then asked them to go back and recall details of some event. I would bet a billion dollars that their newly "refreshed" memory would be less accurate.

Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter what they actually remember on the day of the trial in some sense, what really does matter is what they remembered at the time that the crime occurred, but it's a misnomer to say that their memories are being refreshed.

I agree! I do see the practicality, because trials often occur quite some time after the crime and you really do need the jury to know what the witness saw and reported at that time. Most times I have seen this used, it's for LE refreshing themselves with their report on things like how far the evidence was found from the body, positioning, things like that - minute details when they can remember everything else. It's not to recall an entire event.

Here's a good article detailing how this rule of evidence is used. I can see your point about accuracy, but I also don't see any other way around it with our current evidentiary rules. It's basically a function of getting the contents of that written statement or report conveyed to the jury, rather than what the witness remembers today.

http://trialtheater.com/trial-skills/direct-examination/what-to-do-when-your-witness-forgets/

 

[atthelake]

Yes, statements from a deposition can be used in a similar matter, although what you're thinking of from Caylee's trial is likely "impeachment" rather than refreshing a witness's recollection. Previous statements made by a witness, verbal or written, to LE or at a deposition can be brought up when a person contradicts what they've said previously. They will be shown what they previously said and questioned about that contradiction.

What happened here is a little bit different. Often, because so much time has passed, a witness can't remember every single detail from a statement. You see this a lot with LE and their reports. If they can't recall specific details that they are being asked about, the attorney doing the questioning will then verify they wrote a statement or report, ask them if reviewing it would refresh their recollection, and then give the witness the statement or report to read. That statement or report is not published to the jury unless it is later admitted into evidence. The witness cannot read aloud from this report, but merely review it to help them remember. The writing is then returned to the attorney and questioning continues, with the witness being "refreshed" and now able to recall the details that they previously couldn't.

Make sense?

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I'm coming in late to the case and I must say this is a great group of posters and moderator :blowkiss:

 

[MsJosie]

Philip Chism, charged with killing teacher, faces separate attempted murder charge

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/justice/massachusetts-philip-chism/

So there will be another trial after this, in the assault and attempted murder of the detention lady. Wow!

 

[gxm]

So there will be another trial after this, in the assault and attempted murder of the detention lady. Wow!

And the similarity between the attacks is bone-chilling! This teenage killer already has a modus operandi.

 

[atthelake]

Unfortunately all we have to go on are the tweets from today. Video was shown to the jury that Chism came to school the day of the murder with 3 backpacks. One he put in his locker and two he took to math class. I assume the second backpack had clothes because the video shows he went into class in a red sweatshirt but followed the teacher to the bathroom wearing a blue hoodie. Later he gets the second backpack out of his locker and changes pants to shorts and different shoes and socks. The bloody clothes he changed out of were found in the woods. So my take is he brought the extra clothes, box cutter, gloves, and mask to school that day.

I'm behind an hour.. so excuse me if this is discussed afterwards I'm having a problem keeping up.. I wonder if the prosecution has videos of him the days before showing he did not bring extra backpacks... Premeditated ..