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

[MissSallyAnnie]

Both Sha and Amanda discussed the bleach sensitivity on the stand in this trial.

I believe Sha testified to the fact that Amanda and she were allergic to bleach - they used vinegar to clean. I was upset that BH didn't ask Amanda about bleach on her cross exam, it stood out for me. But, I will have to go back now and check, because perhaps Amanda did testify about the bleach allergy. My mind is so boggled over this trial, my memory could be wrong.

When BH was asking Amanda about her quick little trip to Target, Amanda says that Grant just happened to call and ask her to pick up bleach. At that point, BH should have grilled her about the bleach- "aren't you allergic to bleach?" or at least mentioned it in her closing. I think BH only said there was no phone call from Grant in the phone records.

I'm second guessing the pros again:banghead: If we get a guilty verdict on M1, I'll be singing their praises again! I'm very two faced:floorlaugh:

 

[aa9511]

Ok well at this rate I don't see a verdict coming anytime soon.

 

[Prancy]

Amanda testified she was shopping and Grant asked her to buy bleach and she said some was already there, but he said it wasn't so she bought some, but that she didn't like to use it because it bothered her. I'm not sure that her being allergic or bothered by the bleach hurts her. To me, it could mean that she would not choose to use bleach and that Grant did or perhaps she did it because she had no other choice in the clean up. Desperate messures to clean up so to speak.

I appreciate the information on the plastic, but how would you get plastic to stay up on the walls. Nails, tape? Wouldn't there be nail holes or paint peeled from tape being applied? It's just a very big project in that space for two people with limited intellectual abilities, IMO.

 

[Nymeria]

A few hours, a few days.

Well shuck my corn!
I must have missed you saying that. Would have bugged you with questions a lot more if I had known :giggle:

 

[JusticeFever]

Jury is ready for lunch. They have decided they do not need the testimony for now.

I don't like this at all. Should there be a conviction, the defense could use this as an appellate issue.....testimony was asked for by the Jury but not available upon request,

 

[Skittles]

Lunch until 2:00 pm.

Jury decided they don't need Sha's testimony for now. Judge said to let him know by end of day if they want it.

 

[NCB]

I'm beginning to think that my buzzy-fuzzy verdict feeling was actually just my morning coffee...

 

[geevee]

Prancy, he bought plastic sheeting and tarps. I believe they prepped the bathroom by covering the walls and ceiling (ceiling sadly was not tested), with plastic. All that plastic was never recovered.

Then they had bleach, Magic Erasers, etc. They saturated the walls and floor, IMO, with bleach. Finding no blood anywhere goes to show they sterilized it.

I thought during Grant's trial that there was testimony of a small amount of blood found on the inside door jamb of the bathroom linen closet, am I misremembering?

 

[aa9511]

I wonder if Grant isn't wishing he had this Jury......
I just don't know what they could be hung on.
I am not saying it should be a slam dunk, but it's pretty obvious what happened that nite.
What is tripping them up?

Yeah, he could have said Amanda killed her, then she "made me" cover up for her. She came up with the idea of the dismemberment. She made me go get the saw, etc.. She came up with the disposal idea. It would have been just as ridiculous as Amanda's story. Would the jury still take this much time to "think it over"?

It wouldn't have tried to get him off, but he could have tried for M2 under those circumstances, maybe? IDK.

The reason I'm saying that is I'm tring to determine if he had given that story, would his jury have taken so much time to go through everything and come to conclusion that his story is ridiculous?

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

No, Dex is not like Joe Carroll.
Dexter only killed people who DESERVED it. Murderers, Child Molesters, Drunk Drivers who killed people, other serial killers, etc.

His dad was a cop who discovered when he was young that he was going to be a serial killer (the thrill) and taught him to curb it and use it for good.
He gave him rules to follow, aka the code.

http://dexter.wikia.com/wiki/The_Code_of_Harry

PS- That is why people love Dexter so much, he was a killer BUT he took out the ones who were deserving.

ETA-
1st Rule of the Code : Never get caught
2nd Rule of the Code : Never kill an Innocent
There are other rules like:

Never make a scene.
Fake emotion and normality to fit in.
When taking a psychology personality test, always answer the question with the opposite of what you feel.
Never get emotionally involved.

Excellent synopsis, thank you! Yes, never kill an innocent!

 

[JusticeFever]

Ok well at this rate I don't see a verdict coming anytime soon.

Boggles. I saw more reasonable doubt in the Cooper and Young case than this one.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't like this at all. Should there be a conviction, the defense could use this as an appellate issue.....testimony was asked for by the Jury but not available upon request,

That is not an appellate issue. Court transcripts are not magically done, they are a manual process. One trial can take many months afterwards to produce a transcript. The judge said he can get a transcript done for the jury tonight by the court reporter who took that testimony, but if they go that route they will have to listen to the entire testimony of Sha Gadat, from first question to last question, which is about 2 hrs. If the jury then declines their original request (which they've done so far) that's the end of it. Not every request by a jury gets fulfilled. And it does not become an appellate issue.

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

They did take notes. This jury was very very engaged and very attentive, taking notes, staring at the defendant when she testified. Several we're leaning far forward in their chairs, singularly focused. I thought one of them might topple over for leaning so far forward.

But it does feel like their attention to detail is a PITA. But that's probably because I'm positive in my own mind that she's guilty of M1.

Did they use invisible ink?

 

[potboiler]

Very good point but the reason Grant and Amanda gave the heirloom to Karen was to cover needing a U-Haul to transport Laura and the coolers 1,200 miles to Texas to dispose of her body.

I know-I wish there was more emphasis on the inconsistencies of Amanda's
statements BEFORE they went to Texas. She HAD to know.

 

[geevee]

How long of a break did they take, anyone take note? I had to run a short errand and missed when they came back.

 

[Chelly]

I thought during Grant's trial that there was testimony of a small amount of blood found on the inside door jamb of the bathroom linen closet, am I misremembering?

You are correct. That was the only place that got missed during the wipe down.

 

[Nymeria]

I thought during Grant's trial that there was testimony of a small amount of blood found on the inside door jamb of the bathroom linen closet, am I misremembering?

I don't recall it in Grants, but it came up in this trial.
It was during the techs testimony, the one who took the swabs.
I think the lady who looks like JA's twin Aunt & Mom?

 

[aa9511]

That is not an appellate issue. Court transcripts are not magically done, they are a manual process. One trial can take many months afterwards to produce a transcript. The judge said he can get a transcript done for the jury tonight by the court reporter who took that testimony, but if they go that route they will have to listen to the entire testimony of Sha Gadat, from first question to last question, which is about 2 hrs. If the jury then declines their original request (which they've done so far) that's the end of it. Not every request by a jury gets fulfilled. And it does not become an appellate issue.

I think the jury thought what most people think - that they would request it, someone would go get the stack of papers from, you know, "the stack," and they would take it back to the jury room and be able to look over it together and find specific parts they wanted to look at.

 

[Prancy]

If I had to think of points that might have appealed to the jury on an emotional level, my thoughts go to the first letter Patsy Grant read that was from Amanda. It was about the children, expecially Lilly. I wonder if they reacted that way. I think I read that some said the jury was glaring at the defendant. That surprises me, since I thought the letters were painful in that you hear the words of a mother with an infant she never got to know and likely never will know.

 

[aa9511]

Did they use invisible ink?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: