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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know how everyone else feels, but I have a bad feeling about this jury. I think we may have 1 or 2 rogue jurors. I get the impression that they are doing a Gaskin with the evidence and trying to investigate rather than deliberate. If this is what's happening it will only confuse them more, they will get bogged down by the "what if's". There's really only 2 things they have to decide for M1, did AH assist GH with the murder & if not, did AH know LA was dead & in her bathroom. The evidence points to AH knowing exactly what happened that day, listen to her own words, she describes the struggle in detail, even describes them falling over the chair & LA kicking a wall. How did she know that if her back was to them & she kept walking. She wouldn't know from sound alone, she had to have seen everything if you believe it happened the way she described it.
 
I think there might be a couple people who cannot wrap their head around this qualifying as a Murder 1 (or even possibly Murder 2) crime. Some people, despite what the law says and despite a judge's instructions, might believe a person can only be guilty of murder if they 'pull the trigger,' so to speak, or hire someone to do the murder for them. I don't know if anyone on this jury thinks that way, but it's not impossible. "Acting in Concert" in combination with the charge of murder 1 might be confusing.

Here we don't know exactly who did what and in my mind they are equally culpable, and that's what the law says too, but these charges have some subtle shades of gray within.

Lay people are the ones who are tasked with interpreting the sometimes esoteric language of the law without detailed guidance. Lawyers spend years studying and exploring the nuances of the laws but then a group of 12 non-lawyers are stuck in a room, trying to figure it out.
 
What do you suppose the jurors are dreaming about tonight? They are putting together that the person that testified, and the person that didn't look back while very smelly body parts were being fed to the alligators ... the same person. It takes time to put the picture together,<modsnip>.

We shouldn't be impatient with the jury. If they need until Friday or Monday for everyone to get it, that's okay. If they don't get it on Monday, then it's a mistrial. I did not watch the Grant Hayes trial so when I started watching the Amanda Hayes trial, it took me a few days to realize the game.
 
04009margaret said:
I don't know how everyone else feels, but I have a bad feeling about this jury. I think we may have 1 or 2 rogue jurors. I get the impression that they are doing a Gaskin with the evidence and trying to investigate rather than deliberate. If this is what's happening it will only confuse them more, they will get bogged down by the "what if's". There's really only 2 things they have to decide for M1, did AH assist GH with the murder & if not, did AH know LA was dead & in her bathroom. The evidence points to AH knowing exactly what happened that day, listen to her own words, she describes the struggle in detail, even describes them falling over the chair & LA kicking a wall. How did she know that if her back was to them & she kept walking. She wouldn't know from sound alone, she had to have seen everything if you believe it happened the way she described it.
Click to expand...

When did a day of jury deliberations translate to jury failure?

Impatience has no place in law.
 
I'm with the peeps who agree this case is more complex than Grant's. There have been many factors pointed out.

They do have to decipher Amanda's personality. Unlike Grant, she testilied and, if you believe her, she was dumb as rocks concerning the murder and nothing else. They also have to grasp the instructions about the credibility issue. They have to root out the fact from the fiction. Enough fiction detected, they may choose not to believe anything she said and totally toss her testiphony.

That done, they also need to use that diagram of the apartment to figure out the moves and the possibility Amanda could have been deaf, dumb, and blind while cowering in the back bedroom. They have to agree that the time Sha had the boys was when the dismemberment and clean-up took place. IMHO, the call to Sha to keep the boys two more hours marked the end of the dismemberment and the beginning of the clean-up.

Then, there is an issue of all the different charges. Even I, who have followed what seems to be a gazillion trials over the years, have a hard time with that.

Patience, dear friends, patience.

I'll be here all day.

GOOD MORNING!
 
hayes-trial.jpg


Senior Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, citing state judicial procedure rules, called the jury back into the courtroom Tuesday afternoon and had the saw and its box, which contained the blades, inspected by the jurors.

The jury foreman told the judge that jurors wanted to hear how much noise the saw produced, but Stephens ruled such a demonstration would be new evidence and inadmissible.
Click to expand...

http://www.kinston.com/news/local/d...hird-day-in-amanda-hayes-trial-1.279767?tc=cr
 
Truth Detector said:
Example of a Rover (Washburn) Travel Guitar:

travelguitar_zpsd9ca8698.jpg


This one's 24" long.

Probably just slightly less than Grant's bunk is wide.
Click to expand...


Wow! The perfect size for the 5'5" Grant "My dog has fleas" Hayes!
 
Madeleine74 said:
I think there might be a couple people who cannot wrap their head around this qualifying as a Murder 1 (or even possibly Murder 2) crime. Some people, despite what the law says and despite a judge's instructions, might believe a person can only be guilty of murder if they 'pull the trigger,' so to speak, or hire someone to do the murder for them. I don't know if anyone on this jury thinks that way, but it's not impossible. "Acting in Concert" in combination with the charge of murder 1 might be confusing.

Here we don't know exactly who did what and in my mind they are equally culpable, and that's what the law says too, but these charges have some subtle shades of gray within.

Lay people are the ones who are tasked with interpreting the sometimes esoteric language of the law without detailed guidance. Lawyers spend years studying and exploring the nuances of the laws but then a group of 12 non-lawyers are stuck in a room, trying to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Good points, Madeleine -- Another thing that is frustrating to me when the judge is giving the jury instructions -- the judge cannot give examples of what "malice," for instance, mean. He/she cannot say, "It's like when someone......," etc. Or "Acting in concert might be when....." and examples could really help so much, IMO, and apparently the statutes won't allow it. Or if the jury submits a note asking to explain what _________ is -- the judge really can't elaborate any more than has already been said. "Malice" (which is not a big factor here) is a particularly pesky adjective for jurors -- they can't get beyond ill-will and spite, but it's more than that legally.

And "Acting in concert" is not an everyday term, even in the courtroom. Oh, well.
 
IIRC, there are 2 paralegals on the jury. They should be able to help with some of the terminology and issues.
 
Anyone have a stream up?
Neither WAT nor WRAL seem to be going yet (for me).

Morning all, btw.
Been up all night watching Olympics, I hope they can get this done today, I may not be able to stay awake till 5 :eek:
 
Morning all :)

NCEast, were you awakened by some serious thunderstorms this morning? It rattled the windows in our house!
 
Sounds like Boz & BH chit chatting.... It is live on WAT also

ETA- or maybe not them....it looked like 2 people sitting at Pros. table....I dunno :dunno:

2nd ETA- LOL, they finally cut the sound.
 
Wow, it's dark and raining on top of the snow today. I didn't realize how late it was!
 
Good Morning WS Friends,
Ready for another day of verdict watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 1,826 (members: 164, guests: 1,662)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
1,662
Total visitors
1,826
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,971
Messages
18,196,124
Members
233,683
Latest member
MarthaMaude
Back
Top