Mistrial, Hung Jury - Raven Abaroa Murder in the 1st

[FallingStars]

the most important thing in all this is that Raven can no longer hurt another person.

A-bloody-men to that! (It will never be perfect. You can't fix the loss of a life ... you can prevent harm from coming to others, so far as you are able, though).

 

[ncsu95]

Gosh, isn't that the truth. There were so many people on here that thought he was innocent that the mods were having to monitor every word. I don't think I've seen a mod in this Abaroa thread not once. Unless one removed some of my cursing earlier today when they first announce the hung jury.

:seeya:

I went from probably guilty to innocent back to probably guilty to pissed off at the whole process. That was a heck of a trial.

 

[ncsu95]

The Brad Cooper trial. :scared: I saw a few old names in my 'ignore file' from that one. That was a rough one, I got put in time out. :banghead:lease::jail:

That trial probably set the record for timeouts. And being on timeout (unfairly I thought) was beyond frustrating since I couldn't respond to stuff for those few days. I'll never get involved in a trial again like I did in that one.

 

[terminatrixator]

I wanted to thank all the people that were following the trial. Hopefully I'll get to see you all when they retry Raven Samuel Peters Abaroa.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Janet's family & friends and all those who testified, Judge Orlando Hudson, Prosecution team of Charlene Coggins-Franks & Luke Bumm and all the jurors.

It was a long trial.

Raven has spent 1190 days in jail so far.

 

[ncsu95]

Originally Posted by gracielee
The Brad Cooper trial. :scared: I saw a few old names in my 'ignore file' from that one. That was a rough one, I got put in time out.



I had to "take a vacation" from that one for a while on here, because I nearly got a life sentence on that forum... There was a little band of folks who did their best to get folks going, going, gone.... Whew. It was tough. But that man did it, of that I am confident. Another case of who else would want her dead. He had about 8,000 reasons a month to want Nancy dead. At least that's how he saw it...

Yes, the ignore button was/is a brilliant idea...

And some of us who were close buds in that one have also been on this forum for Janet, just as we were there then for Nancy. And for Michelle. <smh>

I probably ended up on your ignore list. The interesting thing is that I actually ended up becoming Facebook friends with some people on the other side of the fence in that trial (including NCEast). I still can't let that trial go though. I'm still bothered by what I saw in that trial (not the verdict, but the process).

 

[NCEast]

I probably ended up on your ignore list. The interesting thing is that I actually ended up becoming Facebook friends with some people on the other side of the fence in that trial (including NCEast). I still can't let that trial go though. I'm still bothered by what I saw in that trial (not the verdict, but the process).

You didn't end up on mine. As a matter of fact, you are the very person who absolutely made me, in the very nicest of ways, to look at the other side and to respect the opinions of others. I was so wrapped up in the 'he's guilty' mindset that it was difficult to read any of the not guilty posts. I will always be appreciative to you for calming me down and making me think.

 

[NCEast]

Feel better NCEast. Try to think southing thoughts if they can make it through the pain.
I give a pretty darn good massage if I do say so myself. Sending you a cyber one.

Thank you so much JJ. I can almost feel that wonderful massage!

 

[NCEast]

Yes, I'm watching it now. What do you think?

I think MP looks simply awful. Prison life didn't appeal to him whatsoever and it shows in every white hair and every facial wrinkle. I hope and pray the state decides to retry him because we know he murdered Kathleen and Eliz. Rad. There is no doubt in my mind. I feel deeply sorry for the 2 daughters of Eliz Rad. who have called MP 'dad' all of these years. They will never see him for what he really is. I don't care for his brother either but he's a little easier to take than MP is. I have a feeling since Dwayne Deaver's testimony was so crucial in the original trial, and then the bad facts came out about him and the NC crime lab and his subsequent firing, they may choose not to retry Peterson, plus his age now--he's old, so they may just let him roam around the park. I'll be happy when the ruling is made.

 

[NCEast]

Yes, I'm watching it now. What do you think?

I forgot to mention the owl theory is so darn stupid. I think the microscope man was paid off to plant the owl feathers. Boy, I am thinking the worst about a lot of people today.

 

[NCEast]

Whooooooooooooo Whooooooooooooo (that is an owl noise if you can't tell) killed her??

An owl? Really? I remember hearing that long ago, and laughing. I even think they're reaching with this blood spatter hope.
Michael did it IMO, and is where he should be.

OMG - it's "OUR" judge!! Didn't know that.

Yes, sadly, he ruled that the first verdict should be overturned and then somebody higher than he said his ruling was wrong. So it's all in a state of wait and see right now and MP is out free and walking among us.

 

[NCEast]

Was the jury foreperson interviewed. Someone said he would be on at 6. I am in BC so I can't get all of your streaming news. Would love to see that interview thoughg

I haven't seen any of the jurors being interviewed yet. Maybe next week we'll hear from one or two.

 

[NCEast]

I have relaxed, watched some senseless tv, and my migraine is better. So I'm calling it a night. See yall tomorrow...

 

[jackleg]

HA the retrial will not cost "a couple million more dollars".

State has the advantage in retrials.

not retrials where the defense knows the evidence and can plan their defense accordingly.

cheating wife gets killed by guy she is secretly hooking up with. sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

 

[jackleg]

The problem in getting rid of the problem juror was that there was not an alternate left

here's the real problem. THERE WAS NO "PROBLEM JUROR". that juror had the right to say "i don't buy it, i'm not sending him to prison forever off this weak evidence" -- yet you guys seem to think somehow someone was denied justice.

the only person with any right to complain is the juror who was forced to return to deliberations 3 times to be screamed at by his peers

 

[jackleg]

I highly wonder if we have yet another CSI affect going on here...a person who does not know what circumstantial evidence is and what the difference between that and direct evidence. Too many lay ppl do not know this and yet we expect them to serve on juries.

you've gotta be kidding. there is clearly a second man involved, and as the cops in Raleigh/Durham always say, "it's gotta be a man close to the victim". even if we ignore the biological evidence on the scene that wasn't linked to the defendant, there's the huge red flag of her carrying on a secret affair with her ex behind raven's back that he didn't know about until last week.

the fact that the prosecution didn't bother to do damage control on that, for me, is enough for reasonable doubt right there.

you ladies might feel okay sending someone to jair for life off that weak evidence, but let's get real -- they had EIGHT YEARS to come up with a case, and all they had was a really flimsy set of circumstances and random forensics thrown in that pointed to NO ONE. AFTER 8 YEARS OF INVESTIGATING!!!

I know I catch a lot of crap here, but these are real lives we are talking about. I have NO problem convicting people when there is evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And, to the people who think I'm some sort of sadist who loves seeing women die and their killers get away with it.... I have experience that not many here have:

I was on DP jury that sent a man to death here in NC back around 2000. I'm certainly not ignorant about court and how the proceedings work. I did learn one thing from that trial,. though. I always thought it would be simple to convict a for sure murderer, and it is.... But, I never realized how hard it is on a lay person like me to put someone to death, no matter how much they beat the hell out of the poor woman, no matter how gruesome the pictures are.

I've done my time on juries before, and I'm certainly not the type to vote not guilty without a video tape of the crime and solid DNA evidence and a confession. However, I refuse to be belittled just because I'd acquit someone just because his wire got killed and he happened to be broke at the time and a parade of her friends said he was a *advertiser censored*.

Anyways, I take cases like this personally cause it's guys my age living in my area. It is very important to note, however, that if during the retrial, they produce good evidence and show that this other bf had an alibi, i'd feel much better with a conviction.

If they prove it, and he gets convicted, i'll be the first to cheer at his life behind bars. Something just feels really odd about this, and I hate to see everyone acting like the holdout is some kind of monster. He's probably the most human of all. He/she couldn't put the man away for life because the state left doubts. Now the state gets to try again, minus the element of surprise from the evidence they kid about the ex

Either way, it will be a good retrial... and if he is convicted, I will be right there with the rest of you. accepting the verdict that the jury handed down and wishing Raven the best in NC's finest penal institutions for the rest of his life

 

[ndrew]

you've gotta be kidding. there is clearly a second man involved, and as the cops in Raleigh/Durham always say, "it's gotta be a man close to the victim". even if we ignore the biological evidence on the scene that wasn't linked to the defendant, there's the huge red flag of her carrying on a secret affair with her ex behind raven's back that he didn't know about until last week.

the fact that the prosecution didn't bother to do damage control on that, for me, is enough for reasonable doubt right there.

you ladies might feel okay sending someone to jair for life off that weak evidence, but let's get real -- they had EIGHT YEARS to come up with a case, and all they had was a really flimsy set of circumstances and random forensics thrown in that pointed to NO ONE. AFTER 8 YEARS OF INVESTIGATING!!!

I know I catch a lot of crap here, but these are real lives we are talking about. I have NO problem convicting people when there is evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I was on DP jury that sent a man to death here in NC back around 2000. I'm certainly not ignorant about court and how the proceedings work. I did learn one thing from that trial,. though. I always thought it would be simple to convict a for sure murderer, and it is.... But, I never realized how hard it is on a lay person like me to put someone to death, no matter how much they beat the hell out of the poor woman, no matter how gruesome the pictures are.

I've done my time on juries before, and I'm certainly not the type to vote not guilty without a video tape of the crime and solid DNA evidence and a confession. However, I refuse to be belittled just because I'd acquit someone just because his wire got killed and he happened to be broke at the time and a parade of her friends said he was a *advertiser censored*.

Anyways.

Sorry I am a little confused. What did you mean there is a second man involved? please explain.

 

[ndrew]

here's the real problem. THERE WAS NO "PROBLEM JUROR". that juror had the right to say "i don't buy it, i'm not sending him to prison forever off this weak evidence" -- yet you guys seem to think somehow someone was denied justice.

the only person with any right to complain is the juror who was forced to return to deliberations 3 times to be screamed at by his peers

Was there reports of screaming from the deliberation room? Wow!

 

[jackleg]

Sorry I am a little confused. What did you mean there is a second man involved? please explain.

http://www.wral.com/defense-begins-case-with-newly-discovered-emails-of-janet-abaroa/12468938/

Defense attorneys for a man on trial for allegedly killing his wife in their Durham home eight years ago called their first witness Tuesday morning to testify about flirtatious emails between the wife and her former boyfriend in the weeks prior to her death.

Jason McCullough, a digital forensics examiner, testified that he recovered about two dozen fragments of email messages recovered from the hard drive of Janet Marie Christiansen Abaroa's work computer that were part of an ongoing email exchange with another man.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/20/12466483/0520defensemotion.pdf

This didn't come out until around 5/21, after the trial was almost over. Say what you want, but the existence of this mystery man she was talking to in secret HAS to at least MATTER, right???

 

[jackleg]

Was there reports of screaming from the deliberation room? Wow!

There's no need to try to be "smart" -- it's obvious the only reason to send a holdout back into the room with 11 angry jurors who wanted guilt was so that they could try to browbeat him/her and/or guilt him/her into changing opinions.


As for the screaming - you're right - I can't be SURE anyone screamed. Maybe once the jurors get interviewed, they will let us know the atmosphere, but generally there are raised voices, berating of the holdout, and crying.

But, you are right. I spoke without evidence. When the evidence comes out one way or another, I will repost.

 

[ndrew]

http://www.wral.com/defense-begins-case-with-newly-discovered-emails-of-janet-abaroa/12468938/



http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/20/12466483/0520defensemotion.pdf

This didn't come out until around 5/21, after the trial was almost over. Say what you want, but the existence of this mystery man she was talking to in secret HAS to at least MATTER, right???

Oh that second man - Scott Hall (I think that was his name). Well the state did bring him in and he was on the stand and questioned by the state and the DT. Do you think he had something to do with the murder of Janet? Not sure how you think it should "matter" - the jury heard him testify and 11 of them did not think it "mattered".