Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt9

[OrdinaryLife]

I'm still curious as to when CC was threatened before. When did this happen?? Anyone???

 

[who knew?]

I'm still curious as to when CC was threatened before. When did this happen?? Anyone???

I think she is referring to all the notes CC sent to himself - I don't believe he was ever TRULY threatened by anyone else.

ETA - anybody else know of something?

 

[OrdinaryLife]

I think she is referring to all the notes CC sent to himself - I don't believe he was ever TRULY threatened by anyone else.

The way I read it, according to the post I quoted, was that CC had been threatened prior to the recent letters he stated he/family received. Perhaps I'm mistaken since it hasn't been cleared up with more information. Oh, well....

 

[who knew?]

The way I read it, according to the post I quoted, was that CC had been threatened prior to the recent letters he stated he/family received. Perhaps I'm mistaken since it hasn't been cleared up with more information. Oh, well....

Imagine that.....
I'm quite sure CC wasn't IMPORTANT enough to be threatened for anything related to his work. Can't see why JM's "butler" would be threatened. Maybe some of his "daliances" had Significant Others who weren't as into the naked pictures as CC was and they may have threatened him? Sorry - that's absolutely the only thing I can think of - one of his girlfriend's husbands, boyfriends.......Who knows??? But I doubt he would have told anyone about those for obvious reasons.
No - the only threats he received were sent by him. JMVHO!

 

[daisy.faithfull]

BTW, the thing about praying and not being healed means you have some unresolved sin is just hogwash!!! Paul himself, author of most of the New Testament, was not healed of his affliction. The book of Job covers this topic and anyone in the church who believes this needs be enlightened cuz it is pure hogwash!

Okay, off my soapbox now. LOL

Thank you everyone who has helped me to understand these attitudes by sharing their personal experiences! I guess that I am just trying to see if I can find something that could work for the defense if they tried to use some kind of insanity defense related to CC's background being raised as he was.

I can see some of these attitudes preventing the Coleman's from seeking psych help when he was a child, especially in such a small town as the C's are so visible.

I guess I'm also looking to see if its possible that CC would have been shamed if he did in fact exhibit symptoms of mental illness growing up. That kind of stuff can be so toxic IMO. How much that could be used in an insanity plea, I really don't know because it seems to me that the defense is going to be grasping at straws no matter what they do.

I wish that SC and CC would have been in marriage counseling longer. If CC does try to use an insanity plea, the psychologist could testify that from what they saw CC was not insane.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I think he is Jewish.

Thank you, if they were a follower of Ronald C., JMM, or another related organization I would think that it would be difficult for them to defend CC with an insanity defense related to CC's religious upbringing.

OT: This is the first time I noticed your avatar, so it just "clicked" that your a Chicago Blues fan! I'm out here in AZ so I'm a Coyotes fan! (No jokes please, I love 'em win or lose!)

 

[CountryGirl]

The key word is unsuccessfully. There also are not a handful of cases where an Insanity defense worked out either.

The defense has no case so all they can do is to go after the evidence and the experts.

What's that old saying about this situation?

The Rule of Law:
1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like he**.

 

[Kimster]

Daisy, it really depends on how he was raised. As Blackwatch shared, there are some who do think that mental illness can be "prayed out". Its not Biblical, though. But, there are a lot of churches who teach stuff that is not in the Bible.

SO, we need someone from Grace Church to answer that specifically, IMO. If CC were attending my church, he wouldn't be able to use that defense.

 

[Bluenotes]

Thank you, if they were a follower of Ronald C., JMM, or another related organization I would think that it would be difficult for them to defend CC with an insanity defense related to CC's religious upbringing.

OT: This is the first time I noticed your avatar, so it just "clicked" that your a Chicago Blues fan! I'm out here in AZ so I'm a Coyotes fan! (No jokes please, I love 'em win or lose!)

St. Louis Blues
I just put the avatar on tonight.

btw, I like your avatar too...Rebel Girl!

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm pretty sure he was....this guy was sitting in the second row(two rows ahead of us and to the right) in the row with the CC supporters and he was sitting with a pretty burly looking guy...kinda big with long dark curly hair. The girl sitting next to me who was from Sparta said that he was indeed the youth pastor from the church. I asked her if that his name was DD and she said yes.

Thank you rollinon86, its so awesome that you were able to go. I'm jealous!

 

[Fairy1]

From Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois:

SECTION 7. INDICTMENT AND PRELIMINARY HEARING
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in
which the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment other than
in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases
arising in the militia when in actual service in time of war
or public danger. The General Assembly by law may abolish the
grand jury or further limit its use.

No person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable
by death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary unless either
the initial charge has been brought by indictment of a grand
jury or the person has been given a prompt preliminary
hearing to establish probable cause.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Definition of probable cause:

In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.

http://www.probablecause.org/

This information confirms that the sworn testimony of Cheif Edwards in the preliminary hearing was considerably more than his personal account or opinion of the case.

 

[johnrodz]

Sorry if this is a repost. A video of CC at work. (not the robot one) This is the first time I have seen it, but I may have missed it if were posted before.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcoeECXBL7I&feature=related"]YouTube - Joyce Meyer firmando Libros[/ame]

I just had a revelation!!! It was TL's ex, he secretly still loves TL and he set up CC. No, he would have hopefully just killed CC. Well it was a revelation while it lasted however short it was..

 

[rollinon86]

all of the prelim testimony was hearsay ... the purpose of a prelim is to provide enough evidence to hold someone over for trial

none of the witnesses to this testimony gave their account... it was not sworn testimony under oath

an "account" was given by Chief Edwards

he was wrong when he stated JMM has a "no divorce" policy, for one

Even IF one would consider it to be an "account" due to the fact it was not given directly by each "witness", it was still a recounting of findings and reports given by MCS investigators, the medical examiner, witness reports of on scene police officers, Illinois State Police handwriting expert, witness report by the neighbor(off duty cop), Police Chaplain and others. All these reports have been filed by their issuing department and made available to the Columbia police department and the statements by the Police Chief at the hearing can be easily verified by viewing the "official" reports and statements. Unless one would assume that the Columbia Police Chief was pulling these statements out of his arse and that this was an improper proceeding that could be contested as such, it was certainly enough to present probable cause to hold him until the trial. If it were an improper proceeding, I would have assumed that the defense lawyer would have objected to it as such.

Do you have an actual copy of the employee policy manual by any chance, analytical? Just hearing how the "no divorce" policy reads without actual documentation WOULD be hearsay IMO. It would be great to see these policies in black and white, including the divorce policy AND also the moral conduct policy that JMM has already charged that CC violated as well since that one caused his agreed upon by both parties resignation.

 

[CountryGirl1977]

Even IF one would consider it to be an "account" due to the fact it was not given directly by each "witness", it was still a recounting of findings and reports given by MCS investigators, the medical examiner, witness reports of on scene police officers, Illinois State Police handwriting expert, witness report by the neighbor(off duty cop), Police Chaplain and others. All these reports have been filed by their issuing department and made available to the Columbia police department and the statements by the Police Chief at the hearing can be easily verified by viewing the "official" reports and statements. Unless one would assume that the Columbia Police Chief was pulling these statements out of his arse and that this was an improper proceeding that could be contested as such, it was certainly enough to present probable cause to hold him until the trial. If it were an improper proceeding, I would have assumed that the defense lawyer would have objected to it as such.

Do you have an actual copy of the employee policy manual by any chance, analytical? Just hearing how the "no divorce" policy reads without actual documentation WOULD be hearsay IMO. It would be great to see these policies in black and white, including the divorce policy AND also the moral conduct policy that JMM has already charged that CC violated as well since that one caused his agreed upon by both parties resignation.

You Go With Your Bad Self... That is what the "R.I.P'S" Do Best... hehe:clap:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

St. Louis Blues
I just put the avatar on tonight.

btw, I like your avatar too...Rebel Girl!

Sorry! I really did know that, I don't know what I was thinking. Bikini Kill rules! :rocker:

 

[analytical]

"hearsay" is not a difficult concept to understand:

"hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her."

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=858&bold=||||

 

[pres101]

facts or rather the absence thereof and hearsay testimony presented at a preliminary hearing

I still believe Coleman was framed .. he had been threatened before

Do you think Cc was framed because of his work at JMM?

 

[Bluenotes]

Preliminary Hearing - Synonymous with "preliminary examination"; the hearing given a person charged with a crime by a judge to determine whether he should be held for trial. The judge reviews the evidence presented by the State to see if there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to make the person to go to trial on the matter. A preliminary hearing is open to the public unless the defendant requests that it be closed. The accused person must be present at this.

Probable Cause - Reasonable belief that the matter is true. More likely than not that the person is responsible for the crime.

Reasonable Doubt - An accused person is entitled to acquittal if, in the minds of the jury, guilt has not been proven beyond a "reasonable doubt." A reasonable doubt is one that is based on reason and common sense. Beyond a reasonable doubt means one is firmly convinced of the charge - it does NOT mean all or every possible doubt.

http://www.madco-sa.org/legal-terms.html

 

[pres101]

facts or rather the absence thereof and hearsay testimony presented at a preliminary hearing

I still believe Coleman was framed .. he had been threatened before

Just a wild guess here but Sheri does come from an Italian family.

Is this all Mafia connected? That was RC's story on day two of this ordeal.

 

[Bluenotes]

"hearsay" is not a difficult concept to understand:

"hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her."

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=858&bold=||||

Chief Edwards was relaying sworn testimony..big difference between that and just saying "Someone told me this."

What happens when one of the witnesses gives a conflicting testimony in court? The attorney brings up the same testimony Edwards has and asks them why they have now changed their story.

Edit: I should have written statement rather than testimony as it becomes testimony under oath. I did have to appear in court once as a witness against a former co-worker. I had to sign a statement before the trial which gave my account. One of the first questions I was asked by the attorney was "Is this your signature on this paper?