What is the theory on how she was set on fire? I am assuming she was incapacitated in the car (deep burns in seated position). Then lit up (without being aware of). Why was she incapacitated?
looking for her car keys.
What is the theory on how she was set on fire? I am assuming she was incapacitated in the car (deep burns in seated position). Then lit up (without being aware of). Why was she incapacitated?
Thank you!!
I find this ridiculous to be honest! The State doesn't believe their own witnesses (first responders) who testified that they heard Jessica say "ERIC"... why bring them in, in the first place? I'd actually be really annoyed and feel insulted if the state called me in as a witness, then publicly announced that I wasn't credible, that I didn't hear what I testified to hearing! It's a fact, SOME people HEAR better than others.
I, along with many others, really appreciate you posting tweets. You went above and beyond with your time and effort.
Excuse me? I am being real here! Those first responders, spoke to Jessica Chambers. *We know of her condition* She gave them the name "Eric". I'm sorry, I cannot ignore that. You may choose to do so, if you wish, but I cannot.Have any of those first responders responded to a victim who had burns on 98% of their bodies and soot coming out of their nose and mouth? Let's be real here.
Excuse me? I am being real here! Those first responders, spoke to Jessica Chambers. *We know of her condition* She gave them the name "Eric". I'm sorry, I cannot ignore that. You may choose to do so, if you wish, but I cannot.
Excuse me? I am being real here! Those first responders, spoke to Jessica Chambers. *We know of her condition* She gave them the name "Eric". I'm sorry, I cannot ignore that. You may choose to do so, if you wish, but I cannot.
Excuse me? I am being real here! Those first responders, spoke to Jessica Chambers. *We know of her condition* She gave them the name "Eric". I'm sorry, I cannot ignore that. You may choose to do so, if you wish, but I cannot.
I'd like to start by saying I knew nothing about this case until the first day of trial. Someone in a thread I follow posted about it. So I listened to it on Lawnews. Having said all that I'm not sure I would convict based on the evidence I heard. The things that bother me is the fact she gave a first name on several occasions. When asked, she did not know a last name. She also used the word "they" which means more than one person. Yes, I know she was severely injured but I can't disregard what SHE said. Yes, he (QT) lied about things regarding the events of that day. I find it suspect but not sure the State proved their case.Excuse me? I am being real here! Those first responders, spoke to Jessica Chambers. *We know of her condition* She gave them the name "Eric". I'm sorry, I cannot ignore that. You may choose to do so, if you wish, but I cannot.
I'd like to start by saying I knew nothing about this case until the first day of trial. Someone in a thread I follow posted about it. So I listened to it on Lawnews. Having said all that I'm not sure I would convict based on the evidence I heard. The things that bother me is the fact she gave a first name on several occasions. When asked, she did not know a last name. She also used the word "they" which means more than one person. Yes, I know she was severely injured but I can't disregard what SHE said. Yes, he (QT) lied about things regarding the events of that day. I find it suspect but not sure the State proved their case.
I have since learned of his other murder charge in Louisiana. Based on that, it's possible he could have murdered JC but that's JMO. The jury may or may not know this fact (rumors/facts/news spread fast in small communities) but even so they can not convict him of this murder (JC) based on such knowledge.
I wish they would have asked her "Eric did this to you?" and she could or would have nodded as an affirmative.
IMPO I feel the jury will take JC's "dying declaration of the name Eric" to heart.
I don't have a lot of time invested in this case like the rest of you so please don't take offense at my words/thoughts.
Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk
I'd like to start by saying I knew nothing about this case until the first day of trial. Someone in a thread I follow posted about it. So I listened to it on Lawnews. Having said all that I'm not sure I would convict based on the evidence I heard. The things that bother me is the fact she gave a first name on several occasions. When asked, she did not know a last name. She also used the word "they" which means more than one person. Yes, I know she was severely injured but I can't disregard what SHE said. Yes, he (QT) lied about things regarding the events of that day. I find it suspect but not sure the State proved their case.
I have since learned of his other murder charge in Louisiana. Based on that, it's possible he could have murdered JC but that's JMO. The jury may or may not know this fact (rumors/facts/news spread fast in small communities) but even so they can not convict him of this murder (JC) based on such knowledge.
I wish they would have asked her "Eric did this to you?" and she could or would have nodded as an affirmative.
IMPO I feel the jury will take JC's "dying declaration of the name Eric" to heart.
I don't have a lot of time invested in this case like the rest of you so please don't take offense at my words/thoughts.
Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk