Mark Sievers Trial General Discussion Thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

FelicityLemon said:
I think defense is bringing back witnesses that should have been examined the first time, in order to try and beef up the illusion that they actually have witnesses for the defense.
Click to expand...
During the prosecution case in chief, defense is not permitted to ask witnesses any questions that are outside the scope of the direct examination.
If the defense has questions 'outside the scope', they must call that person as a defense witness.
 
SeesSeas said:
During the prosecution case in chief, defense is not permitted to ask witnesses any questions that are outside the scope of the direct examination.
If the defense has questions 'outside the scope', they must call that person as a defense witness.
Click to expand...

MM said earlier this week that many of the witnesses would be recalls, because he couldn’t ask questions that were out of the scope of state’s examination. He said something like “it’s not my case to lead so I’m unable to admit evidence during cross, since it’s out of the scope.”
I’m very curious what other exhibits will be submitted today, that we haven’t seen so far.
 
FelicityLemon said:
Funny thought: she could be going back and forth between watching the lawyers' comments on CourtTV and comments on Websleuths because it's all real-time observations that may help either the defense or prosecution. She immediately passes on the info to hubs. The State should have been doing this, it could be useful to know what non-lawyers (most jurors) could be thinking at the time.
Click to expand...


Ok... here ya go .play a little reverse psychology.. DON"T PUT MARK ON THE STAND :-)
 
No it's not said:
Now, CWW will be a big one to put on the stand by the defense. Played (w)right, the prosecution will successfully rebut IMO, especially if defense is questioning (again) CWW's truthfulness of what he testified or the reasons he is testifying, i.e. the plea deal.
Of course he first tried to protect himself, JR and MS and was untruthful. However, his testimony now is supported by the admitted evidence.
The plea deal - once the evidence was staking up, CWW took the deal offered to him by the State and MS was arrested shortly after.(!) JR could have done the same thing, but he has a pretty good lawyer, who knew there would be appeal issue(s) coning up during the trial. So JR will not testify now, because he will be appealing. IMO

Why are they putting Dr P on the stand ? That is going to be interesting. I hope the defense will address the timing and the content of Dr P's phone call to Mark just before calling 911. Prosecution will have a field day. IMO

ALL IMO

-Nin
Click to expand...

This is where Mark comes into play. He picked Dr P to be the one to find Teresa. He did want anyone else going to the house even though other ppl Like Bonnie or Sandra could have. Having Dr P on the stand will get quite intimate in re to trying to expose something... JMO
 
FelicityLemon said:
I think defense is bringing back witnesses that should have been examined the first time, in order to try and beef up the illusion that they actually have witnesses for the defense.

Defense is giving me the impression of school child writing in very big letters and skipping lines in order to fulfill a teacher's minimum page requirement for a book report.
Click to expand...
@FelicityLemon So good to "see" you again! BBM ~ I know what you mean! Me thinks the defense is now using all the NOTES Sievers has been taking from his legal pad.:)
 
Scalex said:
I think some jurors would find her behavior bizarre. She behaved like an arm chair detective and put herself at major risk if she felt at the time he was guilty of being involved. That makes her look crazy, not credible. And it’s not that I don’t think she is credible, but her statements don’t make her look good IMO. The state must agree or they would have called her as a witness.
Click to expand...

CK did not go to FL with the mindset he was guilty of anything, she went to support her long-time friend. His bizarre behavior and own words raised her suspicions.

As a juror, I'd be seriously interested to hear he told Carrie:
That Teresa was bludgeoned 17 times.
That she was hit from behind and couldn't fight back, so there would be no DNA.
That there were no fingerprints found, anywhere.

He also showed her a note he claimed was Teresa's writing of do's/don'ts bullet points for their jaunt to CT. First point being - *do not turn off alarm* - yet he had that note and not LE?

I'd have been off the scale suspicious at how he could know anything about the number of blows, no fingerprints and DNA. Wouldn't you?? You don't need to be Sherlock to understand there's no way he should have known anything about evidence, esp days after the murder.

Yes she observed and noted so much more, you think that makes her look crazy?
She didn't go down to FL scared of her friend, but she sure came back that way. The jury wouldn't have been told chapter and verse of everything she observed or knew, but in their place I would totally appreciate a witness as detailed and astute as her.

You clearly see her in a negative light and that totally puzzles me.
 
beach said:
I have a good idea why. Several reasons actually but it is best I not go into those details until after the trial. I will expound after a verdict is rendered.
Click to expand...

It's become clearer by the day.

To get to how MS and CK had their discussion in the car, would have entailed the lead up to how that came about and that's a whole lot of information not been touched on, right? I'm sickened.
Next to hearing the verdict we all hope for, I look forward most to hearing from you.
 
SeesSeas said:
During the prosecution case in chief, defense is not permitted to ask witnesses any questions that are outside the scope of the direct examination.
If the defense has questions 'outside the scope', they must call that person as a defense witness.
Click to expand...

Correct, but CourtTv lawyers discussed how to handle that during cross and eliminate the need to recall a witness for some (stupid) reason that actually doesn't help the defense case. Seriously, having the crime scene witness back and testify to ... wtf? not a damn thing that helped the defense and it only served to waste court time and possibly tick off the judge and jury. Mummert questions:
"What is this?" The view from the laundry room into the kitchen.
"What is this with cylindrical opening?" The washing machine. Mummert again:"Oh mumblemumble".
"What is this?" A dog dish.
"What is this?" A dog dish.
"What is this?" The doorway to the pantry.
Then later, he asked her about the shredded document "Is it signed" No.

Good grief.

I wish I could remember exactly what was said about working the cross to avoid re-calling a witness. I know that depending on how a witness answers the same question on cross, the lawyer could take that nugget and potentially expand from there to where they want. We've seen it a million times in court dramas (Law & Order for example), but this was a real life lawyer who said it today.

Sometimes, when worded differently or with attitude, even asking the same question on cross examination can elicit a similar answer but with added emotion, words, thoughts, emphasis, etc. That's what can be expanded. People will sometimes blurt out more than they intend when angered or frustrated.

I'm sure I'll hear it again today (I have it on TV all day while I work on puter), so I'll post it when I hear it. It was really good.
 
Last edited:
FelicityLemon said:
Funny thought: she could be going back and forth between watching the lawyers' comments on CourtTV and comments on Websleuths because it's all real-time observations that may help either the defense or prosecution. She immediately passes on the info to hubs. The State should have been doing this, it could be useful to know what non-lawyers (most jurors) could be thinking at the time.
Click to expand...

Hopefully she’ll read : how unprofessional and desperate she appears on CTV camera. Talking, making faces,twisting around,texting in this judge’s courtroom is disrespectful as she tries to help the loser side.

MOO
 
Kakidoll said:
Ok... here ya go .play a little reverse psychology.. DON"T PUT MARK ON THE STAND :)
Click to expand...

OMG I hope they DON'T put Mark Sievers on the stand!

tenor.gif
 
ScotAng said:
CK did not go to FL with the mindset he was guilty of anything, she went to support her long-time friend. His bizarre behavior and own words raised her suspicions.

As a juror, I'd be seriously interested to hear he told Carrie:
That Teresa was bludgeoned 17 times.
That she was hit from behind and couldn't fight back, so there would be no DNA.
That there were no fingerprints found, anywhere.

He also showed her a note he claimed was Teresa's writing of do's/don'ts bullet points for their jaunt to CT. First point being - *do not turn off alarm* - yet he had that note and not LE?

I'd have been off the scale suspicious at how he could know anything about the number of blows, no fingerprints and DNA. Wouldn't you?? You don't need to be Sherlock to understand there's no way he should have known anything about evidence, esp days after the murder.

Yes she observed and noted so much more, you think that makes her look crazy?
She didn't go down to FL scared of her friend, but she sure came back that way. The jury wouldn't have been told chapter and verse of everything she observed or knew, but in their place I would totally appreciate a witness as detailed and astute as her.

You clearly see her in a negative light and that totally puzzles me.
Click to expand...

ScotAng: thank you for this.
As always, well thought and very clearly laid out facts.

Not only would I think it normal that CK's compassion turned to curiosity then morphing into suspicion, I would say in that respect, she was like most of here on Websleuths. I think most of us imagine we would do the same.

I'd forgotten so much of this, thanks again . :D
 
ScotAng said:
CK did not go to FL with the mindset he was guilty of anything, she went to support her long-time friend. His bizarre behavior and own words raised her suspicions.

As a juror, I'd be seriously interested to hear he told Carrie:
That Teresa was bludgeoned 17 times.
That she was hit from behind and couldn't fight back, so there would be no DNA.
That there were no fingerprints found, anywhere.

He also showed her a note he claimed was Teresa's writing of do's/don'ts bullet points for their jaunt to CT. First point being - *do not turn off alarm* - yet he had that note and not LE?

I'd have been off the scale suspicious at how he could know anything about the number of blows, no fingerprints and DNA. Wouldn't you?? You don't need to be Sherlock to understand there's no way he should have known anything about evidence, esp days after the murder.

Yes she observed and noted so much more, you think that makes her look crazy?
She didn't go down to FL scared of her friend, but she sure came back that way. The jury wouldn't have been told chapter and verse of everything she observed or knew, but in their place I would totally appreciate a witness as detailed and astute as her.

You clearly see her in a negative light and that totally puzzles me.
Click to expand...

Carrie-Kain-interview-with-detectives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 538 (members: 104, guests: 434)

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
434
Total visitors
538
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,253
Messages
18,236,879
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top