GUILTY NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #8

[Myvice]

They would have still found out! They would have been investigated! They were pretty dumb and desperate! moo

I will definitely agree with that!!!

 

[Boodles]

If they hang on M1, then they go to M2, and then from there move down... I don't see how they could go below M2. But with Grant, there was no doubt left on the table. There was here (not for those of us that know and have been following along, but there was doubt left out there for the jury), so who knows. I didn't expect to hear a verdict before lunch but had hoped for something before 5pm... fingers crossed Laura gets more justice today.

But they're charged with first deciding the M's. So if they can't decide on the M's, how can they proceed to the A's? I thought the only way to get to the A's was to find NG's on the M's.

 

[Myvice]

"Lucky Me" hubs n I r leaving for the casino for a short getaway. Can u come too? I need all the luck I can get LOL.

 

[jmt707]

You have to remember though that no one would have known they were broke if they didn't get caught. They could always say they gave her all the money they had to go away and now they're broke.

But don't you think that when things just didn't seem right - like LA not packing her apartment or saying goodbye to her co-worker or friends - it would all unravel? Then their finances would be front and center. I guess they never thought very far into their schemes to see how they might play out.

 

[luckyme]

"Lucky Me" hubs n I r leaving for the casino for a short getaway. Can u come too? I need all the luck I can get LOL.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Myvice]

But don't you think that when things just didn't seem right - like LA not packing her apartment or saying goodbye to her co-worker or friends - it would all unravel? Then their finances would be front and center. I guess they never thought very far into their schemes to see how they might play out.

Most definitely agree. They were definitely desperate and obviously didn't plan for the future or they wouldn't have been broke in the first place. MOO

 

[Veracity]

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking about no testimony from neighbors hearing it. Now I'm worried!

But like others have said, it was during the day so maybe no one was home.

CRAAAAPPPPP!!:scared:

When I heard the defense say no one heard the saw I had to wonder WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SOME NEIGHBORS on the STAND to say WE WERE HOME and HEARD NOTHING? I thought the DEFENSE's job was to not JUST hope the prosecutors don't put enough on the table. They were charged with DEFENDING her. I immediately thought of that question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound!

Let's hope the jury is not THAT gullible!

 

[geevee]

But they're charged with first deciding the M's. So if they can't decide on the M's, how can they proceed to the A's? I thought the only way to get to the A's was to find NG's on the M's.

Yes, the only way to get to accessory is to find NG on either murder count.

 

[Nymeria]

I must be the only one here not worried.
Maybe I should be!
I probably am so sure because of what I personally know that it doesn't occur to me that a jury sees and learns so much less. I think though, they have seen enough to put her away.
Hopefully she gets the same as Grant, because she is just as responsible for Laura being gone as he was, no matter how many of the "murder chores" she had on her list.


PS- Thank You Martha Morris for the tip about the new movie!
I had not even seen it advertised. I want to see that for sure.
Ian McShane is in it also, I would watch him recite shampoo directions! :giggle:

 

[atthelake]

Oh, they are getting professional and sophisticated now!

Earlier today on WRAL was

and now it is

:giggle:

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

:lol: Peeps on Twitter debating whether they like the handwritten "Deliberating" sign better than the typed one! :lol:

:floorlaugh:

 

[Madeleine74]

When I heard the defense say no one heard the saw I had to wonder WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SOME NEIGHBORS on the STAND to say WE WERE HOME and HEARD NOTHING? I thought the DEFENSE's job was to not JUST hope the prosecutors don't put enough on the table. They were charged with DEFENDING her. I immediately thought of that question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound!

Let's hope the jury is not THAT gullible!

The defense never has to prove the charges against a client. It is the state's burden 100% to prove each element of a crime to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's in the Constitution of the U.S.

 

[Truth Detector]

But don't you think that when things just didn't seem right - like LA not packing her apartment or saying goodbye to her co-worker or friends - it would all unravel? Then their finances would be front and center. I guess they never thought very far into their schemes to see how they might play out.

Criminals, especially pre-meditating murderers, are 'always' smarter than the 'idiot' detectives.

Or so they all seem to think.

Personally, I like it that way.

Nowadays they're even bragging about their exploits on youtube and social media!

LE's jobs have never been easier.

 

[geevee]

Deliberation Clock:

Monday: 1 hour 15 minutes

Tuesday: 3 hours, lunch break...

 

[aa9511]

Honestly, I don't think it makes a difference. I think they are overthinking things. Surely they must know a saw will make some noise. What difference does it make really? :waitasec: It's not like there was any testimony about how loud or quiet the saw was.

:dunno:

Yes I fully agree, it does not make a difference. Let's just hypothesize for a minute that Grant cut her up at some other location. Does that mean that Amanda's story is true. NO. A big, fat NO.

What about all of the other things Amanda did? What about taking her body all the way to Texas? What about sister Karen's house? What about the acid?

No way.

I think they are over-thinking it, too.

 

[Chelly]

I must be the only one here not worried.
Maybe I should be!
I probably am so sure because of what I personally know that it doesn't occur to me that a jury sees and learns so much less. I think though, they have seen enough to put her away.
Hopefully she gets the same as Grant, because she is just as responsible for Laura being gone as he was, no matter how many of the "murder chores" she had on her list.

:

You are not only one not worried.

 

[geevee]

You are not only one not worried.

I'm not worried either, it's obvious she was at a minimum an accessory, I think they'll spend their time deliberating how much of a hand she had in Laura's death. To me, that is also rather clear and proven.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

But don't you think that when things just didn't seem right - like LA not packing her apartment or saying goodbye to her co-worker or friends - it would all unravel? Then their finances would be front and center. I guess they never thought very far into their schemes to see how they might play out.

Granted most times the missing person didn't just walk away from everything and start a new life but it does happen. If Laura's friends hadn't been as pesky as they were to LE, that Laura was excited about her new business, getting her boys back and building a life for the three of them then LE would have nothing suspicious to start an investigation. And with nothing to persuade them that a crime may have been committed I don't believe they would have grounds to demand to see bank statements from the Hayes.

 

[Veracity]

I just realized something. For me the defense always falls a part when they get to TX. BUT - I realized last night, those boys (men) didn't testify in this trial did they? They only testified in Grants, right? I think that could be problematic. The prosecutors only showed her sister - who has health problems, and the niece.

Or am I wrong and the boys/men did testify?

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

Yes I fully agree, it does not make a difference. Let's just hypothesize for a minute that Grant cut her up at some other location. Does that mean that Amanda's story is true. NO. A big, fat NO.

What about all of the other things Amanda did? What about taking her body all the way to Texas? What about sister Karen's house? What about the acid?

No way.

I think they are over-thinking it, too.

Agree with all above. Amanda's defense seemed to present both scenarios: Grant went to Kinston to dismember body. If Grant dismembered body in the bathroom, they have an excuse for that, too: Why, little miss Amanda didn't know nothin' 'bout what was going on in that bathroom! :banghead: