GUILTY NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #5

[SurfieTX]

Good afternoon, maties! I will be watching this afternoon with the exception of having to do a quick errand a little later.

 

[SurfieTX]

Do y'all think that Amanda will testify? I'm 50/50. Part of me says what does she have to lose and the other part of me thinks that she is not capable of showing any emotion other than smiling/manipulating/flirting. I've yet to see her shed one tear.

 

[borndem]

Laura's attorney costs was to be paid by Grant Hayes until the court decided otherwise.

Excuse me but that should be amended to read the costs are to be paid by Amanda Hayes until...

That's why attorneys want their fees paid in full before the trial. Where'd the money come from? Are we paying it?

I may be mis-remembering, but was Rosemary Godwin court-appointed for AH before Godwin went into private practice?

 

[Patchouliluvr]

Yes, you are correct on what the judge said. I also remember, as you do, that the reference on obliterating Laura in Dr. c's report included both GH & AH. Dr. C may not have interviewed Amanda (can't remember) but at the very least she made home visits where both GH & AH were present & interacting with the children.

I hate that is not allowed. I do remember DR Galloway made several references as to AH's relationship with GH and LA and it showed animosity towards LA. That AH wanted to be the boys mommy as LA was not fit. Not exactly as I said but the gist of it. Obliterating her was the solution. :banghead:

 

[Patchouliluvr]

Do y'all think that Amanda will testify? I'm 50/50. Part of me says what does she have to lose and the other part of me thinks that she is not capable of showing any emotion other than smiling/manipulating/flirting. I've yet to see her shed one tear.

I don't. I hope tho. I think she does not come off likable and jury would scrutinize( and us) her every action. Obviously her acting skills are poor except in her award winning acid dumping cameo.

 

[Boodles]

If she doesn't testify, that pesky little "acting in concert" notion is gonna bite her in the rear.

She's had lots of time to concoct her story. I think she'd have a hard time pulling it off, but she may testify. If she does, I hope Boz does the cross.

I'm 50/50, too.

 

[Boodles]

Whoa! She is gonna testify I think. Look at all those peeps in the gallery. That means something! I think I saw Sha, too.

 

[borndem]

This is too bad. That's an important concept and really made an impression, IMO, in the last trial. AH wanted Laura gone and out of her hair forever. It was exactly their motive to "obliterate" her.

obliterate - 1. To do away with completely so as to leave no trace. 2. To wipe out, rub off, or erase

bbm

Well, I guess they blew that one... I'll give them an "E" for effort. Both of them. JMHO

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

If she doesn't testify, that pesky little "acting in concert" notion is gonna bite her in the rear.

She's had lots of time to concoct her story. I think she'd have a hard time pulling it off, but she may testify. If she does, I hope Boz does the cross.

I'm 50/50, too.

I doubt she testifies. IMO when she feels stressed her eyes bug out and she looks catonic. If the State can get beneath her perfect, stepford facade it could be interesting.

 

[Boodles]

There has been no one except Mr. Ackerson in the gallery. Now there is a whole row of people sitting together toward AH's side. And AH looked back at them and smiled before they started. Like a cheering section...

Something's up, IMO.

 

[Patchouliluvr]

There has been no one except Mr. Ackerson in the gallery. Now there is a whole row of people sitting together toward AH's side. And AH looked back at them and smiled before they started. Like a cheering section...

Something's up, IMO.

I haven't seen a galley shot, but what could be up. Any speculations, Class anyone? :scared:

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

At the rate of questioning this witness could be on the stand for a few days. I wonder if she charges by the hour?

 

[otto]

What I'm hearing is that although there was a psychologist that completed a custody assessment, she recommended a custody arrangement that required a high level of cooperation between the parents ... and at the same time she completely missed the fact that Grant and Amanda had absolutely no ability to cooperate. We know that now because when faced with the requirement to cooperate, they refused and committed murder. It seems to me that in these types of situations, the psychologist needs to make a decision for one parent or the other to be the primary caregiver.

 

[otto]

So she knew that Grant, Amanda and his parents wanted to "erase" Laura from the children's lives. Knowing that, how could she recommend joint custody?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Yep, erase doesn't change the message about Grant and Amanda's attitude towards Laura.

Otto, ITA with what you said.

 

[Boodles]

Yes, her recommendation was eff'd up considering that GH and AH (and the grandparents even!) wanted Laura out of the picture.

 

[otto]

Defense lawyer is barking up the wrong tree. He wants to argue anti-social personality disorder with a custody evaluator ... wrong argument in the wrong context.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

She's a forensic psychologist who works to decide parenting plans and doesn't know the DSM 4 (or 5, which is the latest edition)?

IMHO, Laura's attorney knew her better than this lady.

 

[otto]

She's not an expert in personality disorders, so what does this have to do with anything? Is the suspect supposedly suffering from this? Has anyone suggested that the victim is suffering from antisocial personality disorder?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

No, she isn't an expert, but she should be able to recognize a mentally disordered person such as Grand and/or Laura, if they indeed are.

In this case, I think Gaskins is implying a diagnosis for Grant, to take the heat off Amanda.