Mark Sievers Livestream Trial Thread -Days 5-8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scalex said:
Lol I don’t think there’s any way they will have a verdict today, too many counts and lesser included for them all to agree on. These jurors have been very serious when reporting to the judge, I think they will take their time and want to go through all the evidence. But it would be nice. They haven’t been able to speak to each other about the case at all, so I don’t think it will be quick.
Click to expand...

Henry Segura trial!
Only six but they got it handled!
 
Oregonmama said:
@AZlawyer What do you think re the PI videotaping ppl?
Click to expand...

I've only read the tweets posted here, but from that little bit of information I don't really see what the big deal is. Unless there's a "no videotaping in court hallways" rule in this particular court? But if so, there would be no need to question the guy as to why he was taping.

One tweet mentioned retrial--I don't know what the investigator said about that exactly, but IMO it would be a pretty smart decision to document if some witness who would potentially be called at a second trial had an opportunity to watch part of the first trial. Normally witnesses are excluded from the courtroom during other testimony, so if a witness at the second trial had a chance to "preview" the other testimony by watching the first trial, that should be brought up on cross.
 
AZlawyer said:
I've only read the tweets posted here, but from that little bit of information I don't really see what the big deal is. Unless there's a "no videotaping in court hallways" rule in this particular court? But if so, there would be no need to question the guy as to why he was taping.

One tweet mentioned retrial--I don't know what the investigator said about that exactly, but IMO it would be a pretty smart decision to document if some witness who would potentially be called at a second trial had an opportunity to watch part of the first trial. Normally witnesses are excluded from the courtroom during other testimony, so if a witness at the second trial had a chance to "preview" the other testimony by watching the first trial, that should be brought up on cross.
Click to expand...

That’s kind of interesting because Dr Petrites and Ms. Van Waus both watched the remainder of the JRR trial, before testifying in this one. I’ve never heard anyone say that a “preview” was or wasn’t allowed. Hmm
 
Scalex said:
That’s kind of interesting because Dr Petrites and Ms. Van Waus both watched the remainder of the JRR trial, before testifying in this one. I’ve never heard anyone say that a “preview” was or wasn’t allowed. Hmm
Click to expand...

It's "allowed" unless someone asks for the judge to exclude them, but IMO it could still be brought up to cast some doubt on their testimony.
 
AZlawyer said:
I've only read the tweets posted here, but from that little bit of information I don't really see what the big deal is. Unless there's a "no videotaping in court hallways" rule in this particular court? But if so, there would be no need to question the guy as to why he was taping.

One tweet mentioned retrial--I don't know what the investigator said about that exactly, but IMO it would be a pretty smart decision to document if some witness who would potentially be called at a second trial had an opportunity to watch part of the first trial. Normally witnesses are excluded from the courtroom during other testimony, so if a witness at the second trial had a chance to "preview" the other testimony by watching the first trial, that should be brought up on cross.
Click to expand...

The judge stated that there is no videotaping at all in the courthouse except with permission as per the chief judges (I think). He also stated that this did not pass his smell test. The investigator first tried to hand it off as a threat issue based on an unknown guy at the def. attorney's office. Then, admitted that they were trying to get witness reactions and that everybody does it (has people watching witnesses exit after they testify). It was confusing and seemed sneaky rather than open and above board. The obfuscation is what I think caused the judge to throw this man out of the courthouse.
 
LEVERAGE (TV Series)
The Juror #6 Job
"Leverage" The Juror #6 Job (TV Episode 2009) - Plot Summary - IMDb

That's just a link to the summary, not to the actual video. I recommend watching it if you can find it!

This is a fascinating episode about a trial, jury manipulation, human nature, reading human nature and understanding behavior as well as deep, invasive investigation into each juror's life to know more about how they think and might interpret the information in the trial. Invasive includes the use of videotaping the jurors in lives away from the courtroom, digging up all kinds of information from their past and present; it's fiction, but fascinating and on the verge of reality.

It's fictional *cough*, of course but it's so interesting, creepy and frightening. I'm not a conspiracy nut by any definition. A version of this goes on - always has - in a much more legal, low-key, non-tech way and always has. The most basic form would be voir dire and how and why lawyers choose which jurors are empaneled or dismissed.

I think a private detective having a videographer service at the courthouse is pushing the fictional realm of that TV show into real life. Not the act of taking videos or stills, but the reason behind it and what they'll be used for. Identification of course, but why. The beginning of a file for each individual of interest? Getting ready for a possible appeal trial, retrial, other? Okay, maybe I'm being a tiny bit overcautious (paranoid), but it's possible... if I thought of it, so have others.

Who hired the private detective?
 
Last edited:
AZlawyer said:
It's "allowed" unless someone asks for the judge to exclude them, but IMO it could still be brought up to cast some doubt on their testimony.
Click to expand...

Defense asked Dr. Petrite if he had watched the JRR trial and he said yes. Defense tried to link that info to coming forward with the tapes late in the game.
 
FelicityLemon said:
LEVERAGE (TV Series)

Who hired the private detective?
Click to expand...


He said he was not paid for by Mummert. Correct?

He also said he was not hired by anyone in any other case in matter.

So, that is a great question.

Insurance Company?
Newspaper?
M. Siever's family?
T. Siever's family?
 
Last edited:
Oregonmama said:
@AZlawyer What do you think re the PI videotaping ppl?
Click to expand...

...you know with Peterson in the “staircase murder” they ( his ppl) started filming the documentary right after his arrest.
Creepy but this has reminded me of that case. Maybe because there are daughters left behind. I felt like the judge was getting ready to accuse M of orchestrating this entire. Interesting how “wifey M “ kept her head down !

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 402 (members: 153, guests: 249)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
249
Total visitors
402
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,546
Messages
18,241,084
Members
234,397
Latest member
Napqueenxoxo
Back
Top