NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #9

[aa9511]

I understand what the Foreman was saying about how they didn't want to have a hung jury and then not know what the next jury will do, possibly acquit her. That would have been horrible indeed.

 

[Jewels53]

Link to interview!

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9439669

 

[Ann-Tx]

Prosecutor says Houston police crucial part of N.C. dismemberment conviction

By Carol Christian | February 20, 2014 | Updated: February 20, 2014 5:03pm

The Houston Chronicle - Houston, TX


Without the help of Texas investigators, North Carolina prosecutors say they might never have cracked the case of a woman whose dismembered body was dumped in Oyster Creek near Richmond.

Amanda Hayes, 41, was found guilty of second-degree murder Feb. 19 in the death of Laura Jean Ackerson in July 2011 and was sentenced to 13 to 16 years in prison. The four-week trial began Jan. 21 in Wake County Superior Court in Raleigh, N.C.

Boz Zellinger, a prosecutor in the case, said he was impressed by the work of Fort Bend County officials, the Richmond Fire Department and the Houston Police Department dive team.

Read more:

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/f...ys-Houston-police-crucial-part-of-5252938.php

 

[Ann-Tx]

This is an older article dated 2/7/14 by The Houston Chronicle - Houston, TX:


Fort Bend photos, experts take center stage in N.C. dismemberment trial

By Carol Christian | February 7, 2014 | Updated: February 7, 2014 5:07pm
Houston Chronicle - Houston, TX

Photos that are now evidence in a North Carolina murder trial came from a Fort Bend County surveillance camera intended to stop illegal dumping.

Read more and view photos:

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/f...ake-center-stage-in-5214237.php#photo-5842931

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

Two of the jurors wanted acquittal? Please tell me he means acquittal of 2nd degree murder? Acquittal would mean not guilty of any of the charges. And that would stun me. Stun. Me.

One undecided? With all due respect, did they sleep through this trial? How did this person get on the jury? I think one of the first mandatory questions during jury selection should be "Do you have trouble making decisions?" I'm guessing this is the juror who wanted that escort out of the courthouse. Unless, of course, they couldn't decide if they wanted an escort out of the courthouse.

At the very least, their were nine who considered her guilty of premeditated murder, including this foreman. And of course, the thousands of others who watched this trial.

I'm imagining the jury deliberations were somewhat like the SNL live sketch "Coffee Talk" now, because he was verklempt. I actually did a double take when he said that, seemed a little, what can I say? Uh, probably something I won't say, I'd like to stick around. But...

Oy Vey! Mashuganna!

 

[geevee]

The foreman spoke, as did Jason Ackerson. There will be more on later editions.

Foreman said its a compromise verdict because they didn't want to end up a hung jury. Initial vote was 9 guilty of first degree murder, 2 Innocent, 1 undecided. Finally, 1 of the innocents said there was no other reasonable explanation (than murder).

More will follow. WTVD, TWC 1111.

I am biting my tongue.

Innocent of even accessory after the fact? Holy cow, they certainly saw the evidence a lot differently than we did.

 

[Madeleine74]

Sounded like one of the 'not guilties' eventually came around to 'guilty' and then the remaining holdouts were 1 "not guilty" and 1 "undecided?"

But whoa. Basically 1 "not guilty" pushed the entire conviction down to the lesser, in essence. The "undecided" probably would have gone with the others had there been all 11 deciding the same thing.

 

[AnonymousD]

I'm not sure if she meant that Amanda had lost custody in favor of Patsy Grant or if Amanda's parental rights were terminated. There is some difference, but even if her rights have not been terminated, by the time Amanda is out of prison, it's unlikely her custody would go to Amanda again.

Some of the Jurors are speaking out on WTVD tonight at 6:00.

There is a major difference is losing custody & terminating parental rights.

No parental rights = that biological parent has no more legal claim to the child, no more than a stranger you pass walking down the sidewalk. No visitation. No contact. No nothing. In NC, if the remaining parent with rights passes away, then that parents legal Will will be the final word on who the child's guardian will be. If rights were not terminated, then the other bio parent automatically gains custody of the child when parent with sole custody passes away. This is a final action, it will not be reversed.

Losing custody = The other parent (or guardian) has custodial rights to the child. You have lost your right to be decision making when it comes to your child. This can be changed.


I would also like to say that I did not hear correctly yesterday. At appx. 19:50 on the video, the female speaking to JS on behalf of AH states that "AH has lost custody of her infant child." So, she does still have parental rights to Lily.

http://www.wral.com/news/video/13331969/

 

[carynative]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Also, I'm sure he attracts a lot of unwanted attention with his "feminine" looks.....:floorlaugh:

yes, those nice LONG fingernails of his....very feminine! :floorlaugh:

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

Prosecutor says Houston police crucial part of N.C. dismemberment conviction

By Carol Christian | February 20, 2014 | Updated: February 20, 2014 5:03pm

The Houston Chronicle - Houston, TX


Without the help of Texas investigators, North Carolina prosecutors say they might never have cracked the case of a woman whose dismembered body was dumped in Oyster Creek near Richmond.

Amanda Hayes, 41, was found guilty of second-degree murder Feb. 19 in the death of Laura Jean Ackerson in July 2011 and was sentenced to 13 to 16 years in prison. The four-week trial began Jan. 21 in Wake County Superior Court in Raleigh, N.C.

Boz Zellinger, a prosecutor in the case, said he was impressed by the work of Fort Bend County officials, the Richmond Fire Department and the Houston Police Department dive team.

Read more:

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/f...ys-Houston-police-crucial-part-of-5252938.php

Thank you for the article link. So horrifying what these two did. But I would have to disagree with my friend, Boz, on one statement in the above article:

"Amanda Hayes did herself no favors by testifying because prosecutors easily found holes in her story, Zellinger said."

It seems not only did she get to use the witness stand as her children's theater stage, apparently there were some on that jury that believe in fairytales. And some who don't recognize, um, "holes".

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Madeleine74]

I guess Amanda did a better acting job than some of us thought. Or, as the saying usually attributed to Barnum & Bailey goes (but was actually said by someone else), "there's a sucker born every minute."

And once again, common sense isn't so common afterall. Certainly not for 1/4 of that jury. Sad.

 

[AnonymousD]

Sounded like one of the 'not guilties' eventually came around to 'guilty' and then the remaining holdouts were 1 "not guilty" and 1 "undecided?"

But whoa. Basically 1 "not guilty" pushed the entire conviction down to the lesser, in essence. The "undecided" probably would have gone with the others had there been all 11 deciding the same thing.

But if you were one of the "not guilties" and the 1 "undecided" changed to say M2? If you truly believed "not guilty" or "undecided", why would you decide to convict?*&

**please know I'm not agreeing with "not guilty" or "undecided"! I believe the ones who have followed the case know I believe AH is guilty of M1, imo. However, I'm just hung up on if you thought someone wasn't guilty or you weren't sure if they were guilty, how do you then change & say she is?

 

[Jewels53]

I am thankful we at least got a M2 out of this jury, From the jury foreman it could of easily been a hung jury and we never know what the outcome would be there either.

I don't know how I would have voted just having heard the evidence the jury heard. We as WS members are at an advantage and have so much more information available to us.

jmo

 

[aa9511]

Two of the jurors wanted acquittal? Please tell me he means acquittal of 2nd degree murder? Acquittal would mean not guilty of any of the charges. And that would stun me. Stun. Me.

One undecided? With all due respect, did they sleep through this trial? How did this person get on the jury? I think one of the first mandatory questions during jury selection should be "Do you have trouble making decisions?" I'm guessing this is the juror who wanted that escort out of the courthouse. Unless, of course, they couldn't decide if they wanted an escort out of the courthouse.

At the very least, their were nine who considered her guilty of premeditated murder, including this foreman. And of course, the thousands of others who watched this trial.

I'm imagining the jury deliberations were somewhat like the SNL live sketch "Coffee Talk" now, because he was verklempt. I actually did a double take when he said that, seemed a little, what can I say? Uh, probably something I won't say, I'd like to stick around. But...

Oy Vey! Mashuganna!

Can I ditto all of this post?

I don't even know what "verklempt" means!

I too am just stunned at how it was at two extremes - so many for Murder in the 1st degree, and then all the way over on the way OTHER side - 2 for acquittal. And they watched the same trial. Or did they??

I am going to guess that those 2 and possibly the 1 undecided were heavily picked by the defense team for the specific reason that they thought they would be most likely to buy Amanda's story or have some kind of sympathy for Amanda - for one reason or another.

 

[aa9511]

I guess Amanda did a better acting job than some of us thought. Or, as the saying usually attributed to Barnum & Bailey goes (but was actually said by someone else), "there's a sucker born every minute."

And once again, common sense isn't so common afterall. Certainly not for 1/4 of that jury. Sad.

ITA. What happened is she got extremely lucky during jury selection. :banghead:

 

[aa9511]

But if you were one of the "not guilties" and the 1 "undecided" changed to say M2? If you truly believed "not guilty" or "undecided", why would you decide to convict?*&

**please know I'm not agreeing with "not guilty" or "undecided"! I believe the ones who have followed the case know I believe AH is guilty of M1, imo. However, I'm just hung up on if you thought someone wasn't guilty or you weren't sure if they were guilty, how do you then change & say she is?

From the way I remember the interview, Foreman said that the ones who wanted acquital "eventually" saw that she knew about Laura's death before they got to Texas - in other words, they "eventually" got that she was lying. I don't know about the 'undecided.' So to me it sounds like the 2 for acquittal saw that she wasn't Not guilty. But I guess they couldn't get to the point that it was pre-meditated, or, they said basically, we don't want her to spend the rest of her life in prison. And so they compromised on M2.

I am thinking that the 2 for acquitall eventually saw that she was lying, but they still think Grant did something and then involved Amanda in it after it had already happened. And that she helped Grant out of panic, you know, was scared and didn't want to go to prison, etc..

I don't know about the 'undecided,' that is certainly very strange.

 

[Madeleine74]

AH can make friends with these 2 at her new home at NCCI and try to get some loans for the canteen:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/19638144#19638144

 

[Prancy]

I think the Jury foreman who spoke probably meant that there were two who wanted not guilty, not necessarily thought she was innocent, since the jury doesn't find a defendant innocent. Innocent is not on the verdict form. Only guilty or not guilty. There is a difference. They could believe the defendant actually committed the crime, but feel the state did not prove the elements to their satisfaction, so they have to find the defendant not guilty.

I think Amanda was truthful in some of her testimony. It's at the point where she claimed Laura tripped, that her story gets hinky. She has problems from there on. But, I do think that those jurors who wanted not guilty may have thought she lied about not knowing of the death immediately, however, they believed she was afraid of Grant and covered up and helped him under duress. That would be my guess.

 

[Boodles]

I think the Jury foreman who spoke probably meant that there were two who wanted not guilty, not necessarily thought she was innocent, since the jury doesn't find a defendant innocent. Innocent is not on the verdict form. Only guilty or not guilty. There is a difference. They could believe the defendant actually committed the crime, but feel the state did not prove the elements to their satisfaction, so they have to find the defendant not guilty.

I think Amanda was truthful in some of her testimony. It's at the point where she claimed Laura tripped, that her story gets hinky. She has problems from there on. But, I do think that those jurors who wanted not guilty may have thought she lied about not knowing of the death immediately, however, they believed she was afraid of Grant and covered up and helped him under duress. That would be my guess.

bbm. The foreman did use the words "innocent" and "acquitted" though, IIRC. Eventually the "innocents" were persuaded up.

Gaskins' said in his closing that she would get life for M1. I don't think that's allowed, as they're not to consider the sentence when deliberating, but it probably had significant bearing on the outcome. And that was just one of the liberties the defense took during the trial.

I waver between saying, "well at least she got murder," and wishing they had hung. I just can't believe 2 people could actually accept her bizarre and twisted explanation of events. She was caught in lies (eg, the machete in the car returning to a Raleigh).

Oh well. What's done is done.

 

[borndem]

I think it was on or after 12/1/12. Still doesn't fit for this one, which really stinks. Just doesn't seem right. People pull more time for having pot than murder.

Grrrrrr -- You are so right, Crazytown!! That makes me so angry.... I mean 3 pounds of pot (or whatever) is a lot of pot -- but it's not heroin or meth or a HUMAN BEING, dammmmit. Ohhhh, now I am riled up. Take a breath. Anyway, thanks for bringing that up.

It is just plain wrong.