MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, Panola County, Dec 2014 #3 *MISTRIAL*

[Madeleine74]

Exactly. There was one crime scene. He did something to her while she was in her car and that car was parked in the area next to his mom's, and then he drove her to Heron Rd and up that incline. She didn't drive herself there. Everything that happened to JC happened while she was in her car, so that was the "crime scene."

With a purposefully set gasoline fire in a small car that was on fire for 5 to 15 min, what would one expect to be preserved inside the vehicle? JC's body was also evidence, and her burns were evidence of a criminal act, not an electrical short that started a car fire. She was incapacitated, probably passed out, when QT doused her with gas and lit her on fire. We know this because there was a period of time (5 to 10 min) where she was alone in her car and she didn't leave the car. The passenger seat was reclined backwards, as QT described. That means no one would have seen her sitting in the car.

 

[heidisams]

I think it's inappropriate to place blame on a first responder. Extremely inappropriate.

I think the bottom line is QT is the only one to blame... However, I do agree that the "Eric" issue is what caused this verdict. As far as the first responder's testimony, many have discussed the power of persuasion and how that may have influenced them, even the prosecutor brought up all the buzz going around the scene that JC was saying "Eric" set her on fire... I happen to believe this could've affected what they heard, or what they thought they were hearing... I don't think that's blaming them. That's saying they're human. Humans do make errors...

All jmo.

 

[MSCJgrad]

Dear Mitzery,
Unsolicited advice, coming right up. First, my deepest and most sincere sympathies to you and your family. There are no words, but I wanted to say that I experienced something similar in 2013 when my father was diagnosed at stage 4. The main regret of myself and my family is that we did not document more when we had the chance. Document his childhood, his younger years, and his greatest memories that could be otherwise forgotten. Document his thoughts and wishes for you, his children (if any), and grandchildren (if any, or for those to come). As I am praying for a swift and complete recovery, I still wanted to pass this along to you. Sending good vibes your way, and take care of yourself, as well as him.

I speak from my heart when I say this. This thread has been my my coping mechanism. My husband has the same type of brain cancer as the late Sen Ted Kennedy and currently John McCain.

This thread has been my coping mechanism. I chuckle when I think on the 8th of choosing whether I need to take my husband (on our 34th wedding anniversary) to ER or serve the dinner I made to celebrate our anniversary or finish watching the CNN Special on Jessica.

OK,I finished watching the CNN Special put dinner in frigerator and took my husband to ER. We finished up at the hospital around 2am the 9th.

Again I am chuckling at myself! Early next morning the 9th I post my synopsis (posts #12 & #32 of the 2nd thread.)I was frustrated at CNN because of their editing I had so many questions. I was hoping that another poster had watched the CNN Special and could clarify.

Then darn when I watched it on CNN again Tuesday they had edited out every single talking point I needed clarification on.

I am going to have Home Health from the hospital help me out hopefully this week. As you can see both my husband and I have kept our sense of humor. I am always teasing him about how much fun we're having.

I know now there are many reading this that are dealing with issues. You are in my prayers too.

Thanks for being here my virtual support group. No one else in the 'real world' gets why I use my Websleuths community to cope. I know everyone reading this gets the same questioning look from friends and family. :wink:

 

[William N]

so what are you saying that he will go free if not convicted of this?

What I'm saying is 10 year sentences don't turn out to be 10 years in practice in most cases.

 

[Betty P]

The LA prosecutor decided to allow Jessica's case to go first as he/she felt that MS had a better chance of getting a conviction with the evidence they had. Tellis should be on his way back to LA now to start his 10 years for fraud.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

Thanks for that information. I read up on the other case and it sounds like they have a good chance of convicting him of that terrible murder. I hope that's some consolation for Jessica's friends and family.

 

[heidisams]

Has anyone heard today of any post-trial interviews from jurors, attys, family members, etc?.... I'm most curious to hear from a juror and what went on in that deliberation room yesterday....

All jmo.

 

[TTF14]

Has anyone heard today of any post-trial interviews from jurors, attys, family members, etc?.... I'm most curious to hear from a juror and what went on in that deliberation room yesterday....

All jmo.

I was wondering the same thing!!!

 

[minor4th]

interesting:

http://people.com/crime/jessica-chambers-suspect-quinton-tellis-pleads-guilty-to-credit-card-crime/

CRIME

Suspect in Jessica Chambers Murder Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Use of Credit Card, Will Serve at Least 10 Years in Prison


Tellis used the credit card of Meing-Chen Hsiao, 34, a former Taiwanese exchange student who was found dead in August, 2015 with multiple stab wounds, defensive wounds and slicing wounds in her upper back. Johnson says Tellis put approximately $2,300 in charges on the card.

Tellis’s attorney, Randall Donnell, tells PEOPLE: “Given the evidence and circumstances of the case, we worked out a plea agreement that was satisfacton to all parties.”


Tellis is the prime suspect in Hsaio’s death. Johnson says that he feels “very confident that he did it,” but he says the case is almost entirely circumstantial and he will not prosecute it unless Tellis is found not guilty in Chambers’s death.
“They have a much stronger case over there,” he says. “Ours is almost an entirely circumstantial case – there was a 10-day delay before we found the body.” Johnson added there’s no DNA evidence connecting him to the crime.

What was the date on that? I think there have been more recent developments.

 

[minor4th]

If they choose to retry they can use testimony from this trial to impeach if necessary, correct?

Sure.

 

[mrsNKY]

IMO all of the fault a few of you had falls on the jurors. I don't think so. I think many failed Jessica in this case. Beginning with providing an unshakable probable cause, poor choice in jury selection and a judge who made some grave errors in handling this case.

In regards to the embarrassing display apparently by family and friends, I personally would not act that way however; maybe they were celebrating that he was not railroaded in their eyes. Not the first time I have seen it and won't be the last, unfortunately. It's not unusual at aĺl.

I could not have convicted him. Is he guilty? Probably. Was it enough that I can look over conflicting evidence absolutely not! All of the pieces should have fit into what the D.A. wanted to present. You should never ignore evidence that is presented. They should have had their ducks in a row. They prosecution didn't prove its case plain and simple enough for these folks. I can't and would not say, as some of you do, that the jury was not smart enough. We don't know that. Did the foreman not comprehend the ballot instructions? Probably, but it in no way mean we should say the whole jury.

I just don't think the jury was uneducated, and we should say that about them. We really have no idea what was going on there. Either way, the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room. Both attorneys should have been informed of what happened and then explain to the jury why either they should continue deliberations or he should have challenged the findings and let them mark the correct square.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[swedie]

The CAR was the crime scene....and it was burned on purpose most likely to DESTROY evidence. Everything was consumed in the fire so there really was nothing left to use. Also....first responders are trained to focus on their Patient and do what's necessary in the early moments to treat injuries. The crime scene is secondary when there is a critical patient. It was also necessary to put out the fire so I'm not sure what people mean about not doing a good job investigating the crime scene. There really wasn't much anyone could do about burned up evidence. Other than those car keys and her clothes there wasn't anything else there that was relevant to the case.

I agree EM. Priority is to take care of the victim/patient first, then preserve the crime scene. It's very typical for the defense to try and raise reasonable doubt, and one way of doing that is to try and make claims LE did sloppy work or missed something important during their investigation. MOO.

 

[heidisams]

IMO all of the fault a few of you had falls on the jurors. I don't think so. I think many failed Jessica in this case. Beginning with providing an unshakable probable cause, poor choice in jury selection and a judge who made some grave errors in handling this case.

In regards to the embarrassing display apparently by family and friends, I personally would not act that way however; maybe they were celebrating that he was not railroaded in their eyes. Not the first time I have seen it and won't be the last, unfortunately. It's not unusual at aĺl.

I could not have convicted him. Is he guilty? Probably. Was it enough that I can look over conflicting evidence absolutely not! All of the pieces should have fit into what the D.A. wanted to present. You should never ignore evidence that is presented. They should have had their ducks in a row. They prosecution didn't prove its case plain and simple enough for these folks. I can't and would not say, as some of you do, that the jury was not smart enough. We don't know that. Did the foreman not comprehend the ballot instructions? Probably, but it in no way mean we should say the whole jury.

I just don't think the jury was uneducated, and we should say that about them. We really have no idea what was going on there. Either way, the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room. Both attorneys should have been informed of what happened and then explain to the jury why either they should continue deliberations or he should have challenged the findings and let them mark the correct square.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

BBM

What was presented that the State ignored?... Basically the defense's position revolved around the soddi defense. Specifically, Eric....I don't know how many other ways Dr. Hickerson could've explained that Jessica's condition at the time wouldn't have allowed for coherent thought or speech...

All jmo.

 

[katydid23]

What was the date on that? I think there have been more recent developments.

Suspect in Jessica Chambers Murder Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Use of Credit Card, Will Serve at Least 10 Years in Prison
BY GREG HANLON•@GREGHANLON

MAY 13, 2016

 

[Niner]

fftopic:

snipped by me....
I know now there are many reading this that are dealing with issues. You are in my prayers too.

Thanks for being here my virtual support group. No one else in the 'real world' gets why I use my Websleuths community to cope. I know everyone reading this gets the same questioning look from friends and family.

I couldn't have said it better! I had to cope with my husband's prostate cancer diagnoses in Sept of 2015 and then his death in June of 2016. I came here too - could not believe the GREAT support I got here - :loveyou: That's why I like it here! And yes, on the questioning looks from friends and family when I mention my "imaginary" friends! LOL!

back on topic:

snipped by me....
There was one crime scene. He did something to her while she was in her car and that car was parked in the area next to his mom's, and then he drove her to Heron Rd and up that incline. She didn't drive herself there. Everything that happened to JC happened while she was in her car, so that was the "crime scene."

Just using this portion of your posts for jumping off the "he drove" - did LE check the front driver's seat - how far away it was from the steering wheel?? Don't recall how tall QT is or JC.

and a Google Alert from this morning:

Attorneys discuss strategies for the next step in Jessica Chambers murder trial
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...next-jessica-chambers-murder-trial/772747001/

Panola County District Attorney John Champion says the accused, Quinton Verdell Tellis, will face trial again.

"I firmly believe in my case. I have no trepidation, no concerns about going forward with it again, and we’ll have to see what happens," he said. "As far as a bounce back strategy, we’ll go forward with the exact same strategy we did with the grand jury and in the first trial."
[.....]
Tellis has also been charged with murder in the death of a Monroe, Louisiana, woman. Champion said he'll be speaking with prosecutors there this week to decide on a strategy for going forward.
[.....]
"When I met with them (JC's parents), they were upbeat about where we were at that time, but certainly disappointed not to have a guilty verdict. I’ll ask them for suggestions. They might have ideas from the layperson’s standpoint on what we can do to strengthen the case."
[.....]
"We’re going to wait a couple of weeks until we can sit down as a team and kinda go back over everything and have some time for reflection," Champion said.

As far as whether the case will definitely see a courtroom round two, Peterson said the decision to consider any deviation from the current plan to go forward will be up to Tellis.
[.....]
Champion said the case could go back to trial in the summer, but it's too early to tell.

"We've got to get with the judge and the defense lawyers to see what their schedules are like," Champion said.

regarding what I put in red - he should read here at WS if he wants some suggestions. I've seen some pretty good ones here suggested for retrial!

Sorry for the long post... cguru:

 

[Orange Tabby]

I just don't think the jury was uneducated, and we should say that about them. We really have no idea what was going on there. Either way, the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room. Both attorneys should have been informed of what happened and then explain to the jury why either they should continue deliberations or he should have challenged the findings and let them mark the correct square.

SBM

I am puzzled by your statement, “the judge looked at the charge sheet and without a word, sent them back to the deliberation room.” When did that happen? I’d be interested to learn about this; it might help me understand the bizarre behavior of this jury.

Here’s what I saw happen:

At 2:40 p.m. ET on Monday, after the jury entered the courtroom claiming to have a verdict, the judge asked the foreman if all jurors agreed on the verdict and the foreman replied yes. Another juror said “we all didn’t agree” and the jury was sent back to continue deliberations, but only after the judge told them that the decision must be unanimous.

All the attorneys were present when this happened and after the jury left the courtroom for further deliberations the judge asked the attorneys to meet with him in chambers.

Later, the jury once again entered the courtroom claiming to have a verdict. At 3:02 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge again asked the foreman if the verdict was unanimous and the foreman again said yes. The other 11 jurors were silent. The verdict form was passed from foreman to clerk to judge. The judge looked at it and passed it to the clerk to be read and she announced the not guilty verdict. The prosecution asked that the jury be polled and at least seven members of the jury said that their finding was guilty. The judge again told them that their verdict must be unanimous. The jury was re-read at least part of the jury instructions and then told by the judge to continue deliberations. The attorneys then approached the bench.

At 3:50 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge read to the jury an additional instruction. It said all 12 must agree in order to reach a guilty verdict, all 12 must agree in order to reach a not guilty verdict. If the jury cannot reach a verdict, they should inform the judge in writing.

At 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, the judge told the jury that he understood that they had a report “reduced to writing” to give him. This report said that they could not reach a unanimous verdict and the judge declared a mistrial.

Speaking for myself, I think questioning the educational background of a group of 12 people who could do what this jury did is not unreasonable. They may all be good people, honest and kind. They may all be well-intentioned. But having been told explicitly multiple times that the decision had to be unanimous, for the entire jury to sit there silently when the foreman made the same mistake a second time (he not once but twice said that their "verdict" was unanimous when it was not) is so incredibly odd to me that I wonder what else beyond a lack of a basic education can explain it. This need not be considered an insult; very few kids control what schools they go to, and some schools are much worse than others. Some people with little education become wildly successful and admired. But this is true: some people are not well educated.

Tellis defense attorney Alton Peterson, in a video posted by local CBS news affiliate WREG in Memphis, said, “I think we all realized about the same time that there was confusion in the jury box.” When a defense attorney who gets a good result from a jury still feels comfortable calling the jury confused, you know something is extremely strange. (His partner Darla Palmer said after the mistrial was declared that "I characterize it as a victory.")

District Attorney John Champion said, "We felt like it was probably a misinterpretation of a jury instruction, so we added to one of the jury instructions to make it more simplistic." This, according to Therese Apel in The Clarion-Ledger. I understand this to mean that the judge and attorneys decided they had to really dumb it all down for this jury to begin to comprehend a simple rule.

There are various possibilities, but consider this one: at least one member of the jury understood what it means to have a unanimous verdict and at least one member of the jury, including the foreman, did not. If this was the case, then the jury couldn’t even hold discussions fruitful enough for the entire panel to agree on the correct rule governing what constitutes a valid verdict.

Another possibility is that the jury instructions only explicitly said that the verdict must be unanimous for a guilty verdict and the jurors concluded, quite erroneously, that no unanimity was required for a not guilty verdict. If that is what they thought, this does clearly point to a gap in education, since a basic understanding of civics and history would mean that a person would know about the unanimity requirement for a not guilty verdict. Even setting that aside, after the jury was specifically told that a verdict (not merely a guilty verdict) had to be unanimous, they were unable to understand this simple point and 20 minutes later tried a second time to offer a non-unanimous finding of not guilty. If this is how they applied themselves to something so simple, I am in agreement with those who have said that it is hard to believe that they could understand some of the complex evidence in the case and analyze what it meant.

Links:

Jury twice tries to offer a non-unanimous verdict, plus judge’s final jury instruction:

[video=youtube;bVdK9P-gE5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdK9P-gE5g[/video]

Jury announces it cannot reach a verdict:

[video=youtube;H78GfyL65M8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H78GfyL65M8[/video]

[Both videos above are archives of original live coverage by the LawNewz Network.]

Alton Peterson on jury confusion:
http://wreg.com/2017/10/16/verdict-watch-jury-resumes-deliberations-in-jessica-chambers-murder/

Darla Palmer says the mistrial is a victory:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/very_unusual_mistrial_in_missi.html

John Champion on writing a new instruction for the jury:
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ppears-confused-cant-agree-verdict/767413001/

 

[Maradentro]

Prosecution needs to spend more time focusing on the pronunciation of "Eric" by someone with JC's injuries. IMO she was trying to say Tellis. It is very common for L to be pronounced as R in Japanese and other Asian languages. They need more testimony from linguistic experts. It is virtually impossible for someone with her injuries to pronounce the letter S and the letter L. Tellis would almost assuredly sound like "Derek" or "Eric." She probably referred to him as Tellis not Quinton and imo that is what she was trying to say.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[rbarber17]

His DNA was not found in Jessica. It was found on her keys.

TTF14,

Not to quibble here, but I've simply got to get this off my chest, especially if the DA intends to re-try this case without making any "improvements" in his presentation of the facts. And let me make it clear that I do believe QT is guilty. But if the prosecution hopes to make 12 new jurors render a guilty verdict, then IMO they'll need to either abandon the DNA link (impossible now, since it has already been introduced in this trial, so could be re-introduced by the next defense) or find a better explanation of how it ties QT to the keys.

At best, I think the testing does not fully exonerate QT, but neither does it implicate him. The "...stronger case because they have DNA..." mentioned as one of the reasons LA had allowed MS to extradite QT to stand trial for JW's murder before standing trial in LA for another murder, is simply not true, at least based on my understanding of what was presented during the trial.

Katherine Rodgers, the expert who testified about the DNA testing of JW's keys and other items did not, in fact, state her lab had found QT's DNA on those keys. I believe instead it was the MBI investigator, and DA Champion, and possibly others who asserted that they had found it. Now that assertion would certainly be useful when trying to pursuade a suspect to open up and share more information while being interrogated, and perhaps even during a DA's opening statement in an effort to sway jurors toward a certain mindset. But when the actual DNA evidence was presented, it did not support that contention.

What the DNA expert testified was the lab performed two different tests:
(1) The first testing, autosomal, was suitible for detecting DNA from the entire population, male and female. The only thing it cannot discriminate between is identical twins. QT's DNA was EXCLUDED by autosomal analysis of the DNA mixture from multiple contributors by that testing. On cross-exam, it was confirmed that a mixture of four individuals was detected. JW could not be excluded, but QT was excluded.
(2) The second testing, Y chromosome analysis, was suitible for detecting DNA from only about half the population, since it looks only at the "Y" chromosome or male portion of DNA components. Females do not have a "Y" chromosome, so by default are excluded by that test. In that second test, a mixture of four male individuals was detected, and of those four QT's DNA sample COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.

So to summarize the state's evidence: the first DNA test excluded QT, and the second DNA test did not exclude QT. Now I would submit that is a far cry from saying QT's DNA was found. Instead of such a positive, the testing only offered one negative result and one indeterminate result. JMO

Regards,
Clouseau

 

[rbarber17]

What I'm saying is 10 year sentences don't turn out to be 10 years in practice in most cases.

William N,

I agree. In a federal prison they do normally serve the full sentence, but most defintely NOT in a state prison. By the time his murder trials are over in MS and LA, assuming he is not convicted in either, he might have already qualified for parole in LA for that credit card sentence. Not saying that he would get it, but he could.

JMO,
Clouseau

 

[Openminded]

I doubt a second jury (or any future jury beyond that if they keep trying him) will find him guilty.

No matter what experts are brought in to explain away "Eric/Derrick" there will always be a question in the minds of some and that doubt will be reflected in any future verdict IMO.

 

[rbarber17]

Prosecution needs to spend more time focusing on the pronunciation of "Eric" by someone with JC's injuries. IMO she was trying to say Tellis. It is very common for L to be pronounced as R in Japanese and other Asian languages. They need more testimony from linguistic experts. It is virtually impossible for someone with her injuries to pronounce the letter S and the letter L. Tellis would almost assuredly sound like "Derek" or "Eric." She probably referred to him as Tellis not Quinton and imo that is what she was trying to say.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

Maradentro,

My suggestion would be to ask the jurors to recall their childhood, when they probably tried to speak while holding their tongues: "My father works in a shipyard..."

Regards,
Clouseau