NH NH - Elizabeth Marriott, 19, Durham, 9 Oct 2012 - # 3 *S. Mazzaglia guilty*

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Geevee, why does your name have a plus sign in the active viewers list below?

like so- geevee+

Does it mean you are extra special geevee now?
Like Diet Coke Plus?

It means Geevee is one of your WS
"Friends"...

:seeya:

 

[Chelly]

Going to archives now, but could someone tell me if the defense atty has questioned The Lady in Red yet about the actual murder...thanks.

 

[geevee]

Going to archives now, but could someone tell me if the defense atty has questioned The Lady in Red yet about the actual murder...thanks.

No, he hasn't gotten within a mile of it yet. :facepalm:

 

[Nymeria]

Going to archives now, but could someone tell me if the defense atty has questioned The Lady in Red yet about the actual murder...thanks.

Not yet Chell.
Spent a day and a half so far asking about everything else under the sun though.

 

[Chelly]

OK, is it just me....or is she starting to sound like JA!?!

:scared:

YES! I was thinking that too, very much like JA. At times she appears to act like she knows more that the def atty. As she is questioned by Barth, she strikes me as very confident and mature for a woman so young. I don't see her playing a slave or submissive role; maybe I am just reading her wrong.

 

[Nymeria]

YES! I was thinking that too, very much like JA. At times she appears to act like she knows more that the def atty. As she is questioned by Barth, she strikes me as very confident and mature for a woman so young. I don't see her playing a slave or submissive role; maybe I am just reading her wrong.

*BBM*
Nope, you are dead on lady! (IMO )

 

[HauntsForHope]

If you missed it, the description of the murder by km can be viewed on the WAT arrchive.
Day 6 Part 1. The strip poker game starts around 8:00 and the murder occurs at 44:50.

The clean up and cover up are described in Day 6 Part 2 of the WAT archive.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/seth-mazzaglia-video-archive/

BTW, WS in the news again this morning. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/7/citizen-crime-sleuths.html

 

[HauntsForHope]

Arrrrrgggghhhh. Been trying to watch trial and follow WS while setting up new router and new laptop. Will check out WAT for archives to see what I'm missing.
Need to be in good technical share for Monday's Hulsey Trial.

The trial for Anthony Holly's alleged killer, Bryan Hulsey, has been postponed several times, making it the oldest capital murder case in the county.

Holly was gunned down on Feb. 19, 2007, as he provided backup during a traffic stop. Police said they had taken one suspect out of the vehicle and were removing a second suspect when the suspect pulled a handgun from his waistband and fired at the officers, striking Holly.
http://www.kpho.com/story/24698691/after-7-years-trial-of-slain-glendale-officer-begins


A jury has been seated in the Bryan Hulsey murder trial. Opening statements will begin Monday 9 June at 10:30a in Phoenix.
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4AnthonyHolly

 

[gajonka]

*BBM*
Nope, you are dead on lady! (IMO )

Quite possibly the year's second most anticipated cross examination.

Would like to ask more about what the mega-sleuths are thinking here-

On direct, we have the most innocent, uninvolved, virtuous, little house on the prairie type victim... of a hard hitting, raunchy, sadistic, pornographic level of control. Her testimony begins, and there is cause to be concerned for her well-being, even under the protected, controlled setting of the courtroom. A poor, helpless, damaged victim.

On cross, we have a hyper-intelligent, un-emotional, cool as ice - not even a flinch - accepting the defense attorney's challenges and without even hesitation - she takes each one and with her response, beats him over the head with it repeatedly, efficiently and dynamically forcing his stumble. As testimony advances - her IQ rises, and we begin to detect a complex, brilliant aptitude emanate from her.

Curiosity is killing me _ I need to know what you think!! (checking now, but with this new testimony,,,)

Plus, she has been exposed to archons, and Tarot, her range of intellect wide, and far reaching.

And my favorite do far,
"Everything you told her - it was all lies," counsel asks
"I told her facts that were untrue."

I know, I know, how can one even begin to look in her direction - look at what is sitting at the defense table!! Case closed!! That is what I thought... until I I began to realize I was observing an individual who appears to practice multi-dimensional personality choice...

She is impressively advanced- and while I still give the defendant the chair if available for his actions, I am less certain ABOUT ACCEPTING THE IMNUNITY DEAL WITH Kat.

pLEASE SHARE your thoughts... on edge... thanks

The G

 

[gajonka]

I am waiting for her to say "That is SO debasing....I like it" :snooty:

Is sound gone?

Good One! (smile)

 

[Nymeria]

Gajonka, have you watched Roberta Gerkins testimony yet?

I came in late so I am coming up on it in my catch-up viewing, but I hear she was a real *treat* on the stand herself!

 

[gajonka]

I brought over that post because I wanted to have it here also; I just found it unbelievable that Lizzie didn't struggle, that she only got her hands up as far as her chest, not if he was strangling for close to 10 minutes, I just don't buy that either.

I also think Seth has to be called to the stand, his attorney can't testify for him and get in Seth's whole story.

Agree across the board - this offers an actual depiction of a natural response to what happens when the neck is assaulted: (One minute video from No Country For Old Men, stay til the end, actual act not shown, but the final shot delivers an image that represents the level of struggle one would display.
http://youtu.be/xLiA6SVri6w
Yes, the freeze account is horrible. What it does is remove the graphic image visualized by the listener,(sorry about stating the obvi, here), and inserts an image that is intended to yield this type of response: "Oh, okay, well that's nice, at least she did not struggle...she was in no pain, that's nice, whew, what a relief!"

Agree on how Seth will testify which will let the jury decide which nut has less cracks. Interesting, though, with the massive shift offered by Kat between direct and cross, it may in itself represent sufficient evidence to offset accountability - the poster strikes a chord above when she writes:
"Kat held her down,: or "I believe Kat held her down,"

Geniuses at work, you two, thanks!

The
G

 

[gajonka]

Please remind me again why both of these persons were not tried?
Wellm I giess that answers itself, given the details,

Check out the difference in voice inflection - and pitch,,, between Direct and Cross. Oh, man.

 

[gajonka]

Gajonka, have you watched Roberta Gerkins testimony yet?

I came in late so I am coming up on it in my catch-up viewing, but I hear she was a real *treat* on the stand herself!

Thanks, Nymeria - I viewed direct but , having a look at cross right now (smile).

She irritatted me on direct - had a good set of opportunities to bury def, but couldn't/wouldn't do it ( now, I know why) - she also appears to think she is on NBC, or in the Lifetime Movie of the week - and its a bit irritating... but Im going back to check her out!

TY,

G

 

[gajonka]

Gajonka, have you watched Roberta Gerkins testimony yet?

I came in late so I am coming up on it in my catch-up viewing, but I hear she was a real *treat* on the stand herself!

... "The MYOPIC VISION..." oh boy, here we go... wonder what Paul's deal is..

 

[soyesterday]

I'm feeling really anxious about her testimony. I think there are bits of truth mixed in, but she is lying about a lot of things IMO.
I just hope the jury doesn't disregard everything she says.

Ughhh...me too!!!

 

[Xara]

Quite possibly the year's second most anticipated cross examination.

Would like to ask more about what the mega-sleuths are thinking here-

On direct, we have the most innocent, uninvolved, virtuous, little house on the prairie type victim... of a hard hitting, raunchy, sadistic, pornographic level of control. Her testimony begins, and there is cause to be concerned for her well-being, even under the protected, controlled setting of the courtroom. A poor, helpless, damaged victim.

On cross, we have a hyper-intelligent, un-emotional, cool as ice - not even a flinch - accepting the defense attorney's challenges and without even hesitation - she takes each one and with her response, beats him over the head with it repeatedly, efficiently and dynamically forcing his stumble. As testimony advances - her IQ rises, and we begin to detect a complex, brilliant aptitude emanate from her.

Curiosity is killing me _ I need to know what you think!! (checking now, but with this new testimony,,,)

Plus, she has been exposed to archons, and Tarot, her range of intellect wide, and far reaching.

And my favorite do far,
"Everything you told her - it was all lies," counsel asks
"I told her facts that were untrue."

I know, I know, how can one even begin to look in her direction - look at what is sitting at the defense table!! Case closed!! That is what I thought... until I I began to realize I was observing an individual who appears to practice multi-dimensional personality choice...

She is impressively advanced- and while I still give the defendant the chair if available for his actions, I am less certain ABOUT ACCEPTING THE IMNUNITY DEAL WITH Kat.

pLEASE SHARE your thoughts... on edge... thanks

The G

I think you described her and her testimony perfectly.
I wish I could read her immunity agreement and what it includes. Is there a link somewhere, anyone?

All in all, I think she is holding up pretty well so far. Although it is obvious she is lying about much.

In my mind it doesn't really matter how bad she looks though. He is still just as responsible, if not more so. I just hope the jury can see their way to give him murder1, knowing what a sweetheart deal she got.

One thing bothering me is that 5 page letter he wrote her, telling her what to say. A lot of what he wrote is woven into her story. It's like she took that letter and twisted it to make herself less culpable.

The only part I think she is being totally truthful about is the disposal. And it's absolutely chilling the way she so matter of factly describes it.

 

[Xara]

Please remind me again why both of these persons were not tried?
Wellm I giess that answers itself, given the details,

Check out the difference in voice inflection - and pitch,,, between Direct and Cross. Oh, man.

IMO they needed her testimony to be able to charge for murder.
RG's testimony wouldn't have been enough to convict both, not for murder1 anyway.

Yes, she is a different person on cross....I especially noticed it after lunch on Friday.

The def needs to move on from all the Facebook crap lMO.
Lizzi's name hasn't been mentioned in far too long. If I didn't know better, I'd think KM was the one on trial.

 

[gajonka]

IMO they needed her testimony to be able to charge for murder.
RG's testimony wouldn't have been enough to convict both, not for murder1 anyway.

Yes, she is a different person on cross....I especially noticed it after lunch on Friday.

The def needs to move on from all the Facebook crap lMO.
Lizzi's name hasn't been mentioned in far too long. If I didn't know better, I'd think KM was the one on trial.

So True!

 

[geevee]

I think you described her and her testimony perfectly.
I wish I could read her immunity agreement and what it includes. Is there a link somewhere, anyone?

All in all, I think she is holding up pretty well so far. Although it is obvious she is lying about much.

In my mind it doesn't really matter how bad she looks though. He is still just as responsible, if not more so. I just hope the jury can see their way to give him murder1, knowing what a sweetheart deal she got.

One thing bothering me is that 5 page letter he wrote her, telling her what to say. A lot of what he wrote is woven into her story. It's like she took that letter and twisted it to make herself less culpable.

The only part I think she is being totally truthful about is the disposal. And it's absolutely chilling the way she so matter of factly describes it.

I'm bothered by that letter too, he told her all the areas of detail and evidence they needed to include in their stories to sound believeable but relieve themselves of a murder charge (which of course only worked for her). I think gajonka was on the money about her demeanor and testimony as well (btw, long time no see gajonka, how and where ya been? Great insight as usual ), she is quite the sly one. Let's hope tomorrow isn't wasted on even more FB posts and personas.