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

[Karmady]

I was gonna say that they could just go to accessory, but they will have to decide acc. to 1st or 2nd. Hmmmm. Bothersome, 'East, bothersome...

Hasn't the other defendant already been found guilty of Murder one? Wouldn't she automatically be an accessory to that degree? Even if they found her not guilty or hung on the murder charges?

 

[seattlechiquita]

I was gonna say that they could just go to accessory, but they will have to decide acc. to 1st or 2nd. Hmmmm. Bothersome, 'East, bothersome...

I thought accessory had no degree?

 

[Veracity]

I re-watched her testimony regarding her husband's today.
Ron Adamson who was hubby # 2 worked in the same law office as her divorce attorney who had been diagnosed with cancer so he retired. She didn't marry her divorce attorney.

IF I am not mistaken, I went to the court site and read the fillings. Please someone go behind me and check. I didn't know or find anything about an attorney who had cancer and retired. Only knew the name Ron Adamson as her counsel and there's a marriage license for them! I thought the way she spun it on the stand was interesting. Left an open ended question didn't it? So Mrs. Hayes your attorney, what was his name? retired WHEN? and WHO took over your case?

Also a tidbit - Ron Adamson was indicted for fraud in July 2011 for "allegedly accepted casino winnings from a client who was attempting to avoid paying child support" per the Farmington Daily News.

 

[otto]

Are they trying to be detectives and figure out how EXACTLY the murder happened?

Sheesh.

It is not that complicated.

They know Laura died.....or DO THEY?????????

As with some of us, I think the jury has to get beyond the Amanda Façade to see the real Amanda. For me, that happened by examining what she said and looking at the facts of the case. I think it takes time to see the contradictions, the inconsistencies, the manipulations, the strength of character, and the monster behind the façade.

 

[Chelly]

I know many of us are impatient for a verdict. We sleuthers have had the privilege of discussion, all day, every day of this trial. We know where we stand.

It is easy to forget that until late yesterday afternoon, the jury was forbidden to talk about this murder. Yesterday, they just barely had time to select a foreperson and request the apartment diagram when their day was over.

Today was the first day they could talk to each other about Amanda, Grant, Laura, the evidence and the actual murder. This is a M1 case. They jury wants to do a good job and be thorough. I believe they feel it is their duty to discuss and study most or all of the evidence. So, be prepared for them to go chronologically through the day of the murder as well as the days following. If I was a part of a group of twelve charged to make such a solemn decision, on a M1 charge, I would take it very seriously as well.

 

[Veracity]

Chelly,

You and I caught the same train!!! I think drugs played a part of Grant's life for quite some time. Has anyone found any arrest records for him for possession or dealing? His friends, Laura in her court docs, Shae on the stand, AND that cellmate all mentioned drugs where Grant Hayes was concerned.

Let me guess -- AMANDA was deaf,dumb, and blind about that too???

My opinion is NO WAY!!!

 

[aa9511]

I know many of us are impatient for a verdict. We sleuthers have had the privilege of discussion, all day, every day of this trial. We know where we stand.

It is easy to forget that until late yesterday afternoon, the jury was forbidden to talk about this murder. Yesterday, they just barely had time to select a foreperson and request the apartment diagram when their day was over.

Today was the first day they could talk to each other about Amanda, Grant, Laura, the evidence and the actual murder. This is a M1 case. They jury wants to do a good job and be thorough. I believe they feel it is their duty to discuss and study most or all of the evidence. So, be prepared for them to go chronologically through the day of the murder as well as the days following. If I was a part of a group of twelve charged to make such a solemn decision, on a M1 charge, I would take it very seriously as well.

Yes, I agree with all of that. But my issue with this time thing is that Grant's jury took 90 minutes to come to their decision. Probably less than that, if you factor in picking a foreperson, signing the form, etc.. So let's say 1 hour. And they also didn't discuss it before.

Where is there this huge difference b/w Grant and Amanda that I am missing?

So Grant was on tape at a couple more places. Amanda was also on tape buying bleach and dumping acid.

They don't know exactly what happened at the apartment, neither with Grant nor with Amanda.

They have Sha telling them she took the kids in the morning while BOTH Amanda and Grant were left inside the apartment.

They have Uhaul, etc., going to Amanda's sister's house.

They have pictures of Grant and Amanda smiling together.

THey have Karen's testimony.

They have them going out on the boat together.

All I am seeing is Grant and Amanda together, Grant and Amanda, Grant and Amanda.

So I am trying to understand this seeming discrepancy b/w Grant's jury and Amanda's jury.

Does it all come down to motive? (Grant had more motive and there is more evidence that he hated her?) That is the only conclusion I can come to. That this jury must think Amanda did not have as much motive as Grant, and therefore didn't participate as much (or at all?) as Grant did.

 

[borndem]

Let's see....tomorrow they're gonna open up with "Can we visit the apartment? We need to see everything in person. Signed: Foreperson"

And for tomorrow afternoon, they're gonna want to go to Texas to see the creek and the hogpen and the acid dump site. A 2--3 day trip. Will they have the nerve to ask about going to the VI? JMO.

 

[aa9511]

And for tomorrow afternoon, they're gonna want to go to Texas to see the creek and the hogpen and the acid dump site. A 2--3 day trip. Will they have the nerve to ask about going to the VI? JMO.

:floorlaugh:

 

[aa9511]

They need to go to VI to find this ex-boyfriend of Amanda's and see what the story is with him. They need to fit the pieces together, donchaknow?

 

[aa9511]

If indeed there are one or two or even three holdouts, I think it will go to mistrial.

I do not think the people who think it's M1 will back down.

I think it will be mistrial if that's the case.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Yes, I agree with all of that. But my issue with this time thing is that Grant's jury took 90 minutes to come to their decision. Probably less than that, if you factor in picking a foreperson, signing the form, etc.. So let's say 1 hour. And they also didn't discuss it before.

Where is there this huge difference b/w Grant and Amanda that I am missing?

So Grant was on tape at a couple more places. Amanda was also on tape buying bleach and dumping acid.

They don't know exactly what happened at the apartment, neither with Grant nor with Amanda.

They have Sha telling them she took the kids in the morning while BOTH Amanda and Grant were left inside the apartment.

They have Uhaul, etc., going to Amanda's sister's house.

They have pictures of Grant and Amanda smiling together.

THey have Karen's testimony.

They have them going out on the boat together.

All I am seeing is Grant and Amanda together, Grant and Amanda, Grant and Amanda.

So I am trying to understand this seeming discrepancy b/w Grant's jury and Amanda's jury.

Does it all come down to motive? (Grant had more motive and there is more evidence that he hated her?) That is the only conclusion I can come to. That this jury must think Amanda did not have as much motive as Grant, and therefore didn't participate as much (or at all?) as Grant did.

I agree with you completely. I am a bit scared someone in that jury is buying her crapola though.

 

[aa9511]

I agree with you completely. I am a bit scared someone in that jury is buying her crapola though.

Crapola indeed :facepalm:.

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by borndem
I was gonna say that they could just go to accessory, but they will have to decide acc. to 1st or 2nd. Hmmmm. Bothersome, 'East, bothersome...

I thought accessory had no degree?

I thought that was how the verdict sheet was written, but I could easily be mistaken. As for the Statute, you be the judge. Heyell, it's a bit confusing for me, but I am of advancing age...

Here 'tis.

From: http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-7.html

§ 14-7. Accessories after the fact; trial and punishment. If any person shall become an accessory after the fact to any felony, whether the same be a felony at common law or by virtue of any statute made, or to be made, such person shall be guilty of a crime, and may be indicted and convicted together with the principal felon, or after the conviction of the principal felon, or may be indicted and convicted for such crime whether the principal felon shall or shall not have been previously convicted, or shall or shall not be amenable to justice. Unless a different classification is expressly stated, that person shall be punished for an offense that is two classes lower than the felony the principal felon committed, except that an accessory after the fact to a Class A or Class B1 felony is a Class C felony, an accessory after the fact to a Class B2 felony is a Class D felony, an accessory after the fact to a Class H felony is a Class 1 misdemeanor, and an accessory after the fact to a Class I felony is a Class 2 misdemeanor. The offense of such person may be inquired of, tried, determined and punished by any court which shall have jurisdiction of the principal felon, in the same manner as if the act, by reason whereof such person shall have become an accessory, had been committed at the same place as the principal felony, although such act may have been committed without the limits of the State; and in case the principal felony shall have been committed within the body of any county, and the act by reason whereof any person shall have become accessory shall have been committed within the body of any other county, the offense of such person guilty of a felony as aforesaid may be inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either of said counties: Provided, that no person who shall be once duly tried for such felony shall be again indicted or tried for the same offense. (1797, c. 485, s. 1, P.R.; 1852, c. 58; R.C., c. 34, s. 54; Code, s. 978; Rev., s. 3289; C.S., s. 4177; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14; 1997-443, s. 19.25(p).)







Arrrrggggghhhhhh. My head hurts.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I thought that was how the verdict sheet was written, but I could easily be mistaken. As for the Statute, you be the judge. Heyell, it's a bit confusing for me, but I am of advancing age...

Here 'tis.

From: http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-7.html

Arrrrggggghhhhhh. My head hurts.

Snipped by yours truly. What I think the degree is is when it comes to sentencing. Accessory to A felony or B felony is C felony - in penalty. Or not. Don't believe me, I am just here for the free coffee. :scared:

 

[borndem]

IF I am not mistaken, I went to the court site and read the fillings. Please someone go behind me and check. I didn't know or find anything about an attorney who had cancer and retired. Only knew the name Ron Adamson as her counsel and there's a marriage license for them! I thought the way she spun it on the stand was interesting. Left an open ended question didn't it? So Mrs. Hayes your attorney, what was his name? retired WHEN? and WHO took over your case?

Also a tidbit - Ron Adamson was indicted for fraud in July 2011 for "allegedly accepted casino winnings from a client who was attempting to avoid paying child support" per the Farmington Daily News.

Way to dig, Veracity!! Thanks for the info!

 

[Melanie]

Chelly,

You and I caught the same train!!! I think drugs played a part of Grant's life for quite some time. Has anyone found any arrest records for him for possession or dealing? His friends, Laura in her court docs, Shae on the stand, AND that cellmate all mentioned drugs where Grant Hayes was concerned.

Let me guess -- AMANDA was deaf,dumb, and blind about that too???

My opinion is NO WAY!!!

Or as Amanda would say "in no way shape form or fashion" over and over and over again.

 

[borndem]

I know many of us are impatient for a verdict. We sleuthers have had the privilege of discussion, all day, every day of this trial. We know where we stand.

It is easy to forget that until late yesterday afternoon, the jury was forbidden to talk about this murder. Yesterday, they just barely had time to select a foreperson and request the apartment diagram when their day was over.

Today was the first day they could talk to each other about Amanda, Grant, Laura, the evidence and the actual murder. This is a M1 case. They jury wants to do a good job and be thorough. I believe they feel it is their duty to discuss and study most or all of the evidence. So, be prepared for them to go chronologically through the day of the murder as well as the days following. If I was a part of a group of twelve charged to make such a solemn decision, on a M1 charge, I would take it very seriously as well.

Good post, Chelly. That makes me feel better. I'm impatient -- and I have been on this case, like a lot of us, since the beginning of Grant's M1 case. They haven't, and this is Murder in the First Degree. A very big deal. And this jury doesn't get a mulligan.

 

[AnonymousD]

I am truly shocked they didn't return a verdict today. Does anyone know specifics for this jury? how any men? how many women? Age range. Etc.

Copied from one of SurfieTX posts:

Juror No. 1: White female. Exercises with a family law attorney. Parents got divorced when she lived in the Bahamas when she was 5.....and her mother lived in Scotland. She went to boarding school in England when she was 11. At 16 she moved to NC.

Juror No. 2: White male. Worked at a store Grant visited after the murder. ?Foreman?

Juror No. 3: White male. Bruins fan. Was a snowmobile racer in the past.

Juror No. 4: Black female.

Juror No. 5: White female.

Juror No. 6: White male. Redskins and Hurricane fan.

Juror No. 7: White female, worked for state attorney general's office; however, J#7 said she can be unbiased. UNCW accounting grad, now works with children at YMCA. Parents divorced when she was 4. She lived with mom, her brother lived with mom. "Caught blurb on TV about" Ackerson murder; didn't know Grant Hayes was convicted. Watches ABC-11 in the morning; for weather and traffic. "I hear about murders, but I'm just trying to get ready for work" Mother is a construction lawyer; J#7: "I could hear her talking about it when I was little, but it was boring." (Prior juror defense peremptory challenge).

Juror No. 8: White female. Oncology nurse attached to Rex Hospital. Asked if she's ever met a pathological liar; she answers yes, husband of former coworker who served in Afghanistan. Testifies that friend who was married to pathological liar had 2 wives at the same time; "he was very charismatic ..." "He was just a homeboy from Tennessee." Juror No. 8 says friend's ex-husband concealed second marriage for 14 years. When she was younger, Juror No. 8 was a paralegal specializing in medical cases in Charleston, S.C

Juror No. 9: Latino female who is a paralegal who helps those with immigration issues. Doesn't "really look at news sites or TV." She looks at Internet daily on her Yahoo email page, doesn't watch TV crime dramas (Second juror excused. First juror excused defense peremptory challenge)

Juror No. 10: White female. Has NO knowledge of Grant or Amanda Hayes, Grant's trial or anything related to Laura Ackerson's death. Sister is a probation officer in Wake County; has one friend who is member of Raleigh PD, friend who quit RPD in 2010. Peace College graduate, has been married for 4 months; husband has been Raleigh firefighter for 12 years. Birth father gave up custody of her and her brother after divorce; her stepfather formally adopted them. Doesn't have cable TV; she predominately watches Netflix for entertainment. Ex-husband cheated on her and stole money from their joint bank accounts (Dismissed a third time Dismissed by the Judge. First juror dismissed defense peremptory challenge).

Juror No. 11: Black female. Admits she is a fan of "Murder She Wrote." Says she enjoys "Murder She Wrote" because she likes mysteries; says she can keep open mind in this trial. Read stories about Grant's case but mis-remembered some of the details. Divorced because her ex-husband had an affair for indeterminate time.

Juror No. 12: Middle-aged white female. She has two children - 17 y/o who lives with her, 14 y/o who lives with child's father Bachelors degree in psychology: however, "I must've missed the day we talked about sociopaths." She was threatened by anonymous female caller from a blocked number a few years ago; filed police report but suspect never found. (State dismissed with peremptory challenge first no. 12)

 

[borndem]

Chelly,

You and I caught the same train!!! I think drugs played a part of Grant's life for quite some time. Has anyone found any arrest records for him for possession or dealing? His friends, Laura in her court docs, Shae on the stand, AND that cellmate all mentioned drugs where Grant Hayes was concerned.

Let me guess -- AMANDA was deaf,dumb, and blind about that too???

My opinion is NO WAY!!!

The only record in NC as an over-16 y/o, that is - is the M1 conviction he received in Sept, 2013, for the cruel murder of LA.

Here 'tis:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

And I agree with you, Veracity -- NO WAY!!!