NC vs. Raven Abaroa ~ the Trial 3

[L L & S]

From the vigil..... Scott has his sunglasses on his head.

~~photo from the memorial website. Notice all the lavender ribbons.... I love that most all of the witnesses are still wearing the ribbons. I have mine sitting here on my desk. They were made by volunteers out here in CA, in IL, in Washington state, and even a sweetheart from Canada pitched in. (There were a lot of people who pitched in to help us go to Durham all those years ago.) All posters from the early days of this case. Even though the big media didn't ever catch on to this case, there were a lot of people right here who took Janet and her family into their hearts.

 

[terminatrixator]

This is the most confusing prosecution of a case. I see them putting evidence in, but not really sure what it is. What's on the PDA, what's on Janet's hard drive from Martin Marrietta besides emails with an ex-boyfriend?

 

[mrshopkins524]

Are they going to call another witness? I thought they said that they only had one more witness (which I would assume would be the guy who was just on the stand). If so, then this prosecution team really sucks and we will be lucky if they win this case.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Are the jurors just supposed to quickly look over all of this evidence?? Aren't they allowed to take it back with them when they deliberate? This is imporant stuff - they can't just glance at it!

 

[mrshopkins524]

I think they can ask for it during deliberations.

 

[gracielee]

Typical (I hope) def team tactics for sanction against PT (denied at this time), mistrial - denied, etc., etc. More throwing it against the wall & seeing what sticks -- nuttin' so far, honey.

Hi, Glee :seeya:!!

:seeya: Hi borndem! So glad that mistrial motion failed. :scared: Been trying to follow this one on the local news when I couldn't watch online. Good to see everyone again. :seeya: Also been keeping up with the latest Raleigh murder, the North Hills one. :banghead: It seems they never end. lease:

 

[borndem]

If you are missing the sound, it sounds like a mistrial is inevitable and the DT is arguing for the charges to be chucked in a way that they can't be retried. That's mostly speculation as to why it sounds like a kitchen sink argument.

ETA: Anytime you have to preface a state's argument by introducing something as being on page 21,225 of Discovery, that can't be good.

ITA, johnfear. 21K+ pages --- ooh, that make my eyes want to fall out of my head; but it's typical; there is no such thing, IMO, as brevity in law...:truce:

 

[geevee]

This is the most confusing prosecution of a case. I see them putting evidence in, but not really sure what it is. What's on the PDA, what's on Janet's hard drive from Martin Marrietta besides emails with an ex-boyfriend?

I thought I remembered in opening the prosecution saying the testimony would be a little confusing and out of order because of witness scheduling conflicts but goodness, at least explain to the jury what the evidence actually is when the witness is on the stand.

 

[terminatrixator]

I thought I remembered in opening the prosecution saying the testimony would be a little confusing and out of order because of witness scheduling conflicts but goodness, at least explain to the jury what the evidence actually is when the witness is on the stand.

I agree, it makes my brain hurt!

 

[gracielee]

I think they can ask for it during deliberations.

I'm trying to remember, IIRC isn't it N.C. where they can't take evidence into the jury room? Was it the Jason Young trial where we questioned that?

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I spent only a few minutes googling Jason Young last night, and got the basics. Was this trial in NC too? It has SO many comparisons.

Trix, the jury doesn't even know about th e-mails, right? That was discussed before they came in.
I want to know WHAT EXACTLY they found on this computer and PD. And the jury NEEDS to know. Please tell me they aren't done. Why didn't the state enter this evidence as each wit was on the stand, rather than giving them a bundle when it's all done?
Uggggg - this is frustrating, and must be horrible for Janet's family.

 

[mrshopkins524]

I don't know. If so, that stinks. That is all the more reason that the prosecution should explain it more THOROUGHLY during the witness testimony. Good grief.

 

[gracielee]

I spent only a few minutes googling Jason Young last night, and got the basics. Was this trial in NC too? It has SO many comparisons.

Trix, the jury doesn't even know about th e-mails, right? That was discussed before they came in.
I want to know WHAT EXACTLY they found on this computer and PD. And the jury NEEDS to know. Please tell me they aren't done. Why didn't the state enter this evidence as each wit was on the stand, rather than giving them a bundle when it's all done?
Uggggg - this is frustrating, and must be horrible for Janet's family.

Yes, Jason Young was in Raleigh, Abaroa in Durham, different counties so different prosecution teams. But Raleigh & Durham are only a few miles apart and share an airport.

 

[gracielee]

I don't know. If so, that stinks. That is all the more reason that the prosecution should explain it more THOROUGHLY during the witness testimony. Good grief.

IIRC, the jury can view the evidence during deliberations, but it has to be viewed in the courtroom, without the cameras on, and without deliberations as they are viewing it. Seems to me that limits their ability to deliberate individual pieces of evidence. JMO.

 

[borndem]

I have the stomach flu today.

That's awful, trix -- stay away from work -- don't give them your germs. Go over there & breath on The Raven...

(now that wan't very nice, was it?!)

 

[L L & S]

That's awful, trix -- stay away from work -- don't give them your germs. Go over there & breath on The Raven...

(now that wan't very nice, was it?!)

No, but it made me giggle none-the-less!!

 

[borndem]

Item 453is pocket PC and charger.
454 Western digital hard drive.
Image files - hard drive image. Image of MM computer. Contains examiner's base line image of WOS.
2nd hanging folder - papers. This is states 455. Durham LE search consent form. Date - May 3, 2005. Return May 5, 2005 - dates LE had the hard drive, I think.

Defense cross now

And he stated that he made a copy for the DT and for PT.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I heard the judge say something but couldn't understand him - anyone catch it?

 

[Just the Fax]

Looks like it is totally up to the jury to decide if they see anything exculpatory or damning in the reams of paper they are reviewing. Without a state witness or any explanation, there must not be anything incriminating.

 

[gracielee]

Looks like it is totally up to the jury to decide if they see anything exculpatory or damning in the reams of paper they are reviewing. Without a state witness or any explanation, there must not be anything incriminating.

Fax, have you also been keeping up with the Mario McNeill trial? :seeya: