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

[rollinon86]

"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=||||

If it was considered "hearsay", could you please explain to all of us why the defense attornies(both were there) did NOT object to the testimony considering the seriousness of the charges against their client??

 

[CountryGirl1977]

"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=||||

excuse me if i am jumpin in here. but all the things that were stated on the day of the preliminary hearing was things that were seen and taken into evidence,on the day this poor family was found murdered in there own home.The only thing that is hearsay is from the girlfriend in FL. Until there is proof of what she said about them looking for places to live in Mo, the marriage date, etc, then yes i would agree that is hearsay. If there is evidence of things she stated then i have not seen them yet. So how does that make the EVIDENCE "HEARSAY?"

 

[fmrchesterguy]

"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=||||

And this wasn't the criminal trial, so hearsay is fine. The purpose was for the prosecution to outline the evidence they have to the judge, and hearsay was sufficient (obviously, since Mr. Coleman still resides in Waterloo) for the judge.

 

[southernillinoisman]

Good evening all (and especially to my good online pal Analytical...how are you my friend?):

Sorry to be lurking so much...I've been quite busy and had very little to add to the conversation. I do want to say that I spoke with friends at JMM again this evening and they say that there is no "no-divorce" policy of the type that has been discussed (i.e. that a person cannot be divorced and work there.) Instead, there are rules about "moral conduct" such as that a person cannot be involved in adultery, *advertiser censored* or other unbibilical behaviors and remain employed. Those with marital problems are encouraged to seek counseling (as it sounds like Sheri and Chris had done in the past) and, per biblical standards, divorce is allowable in cases of adultery, spousal abandonment and abuse. I think, perhaps, that the officer on the stand in the preliminary hearing was not clear enough about JMM's divorce policy. What would've been correct to say is that "Chris Coleman would not have been allowed to remain as an employee of JMM if he had divorced Sheri under these circumstances."

Also, Chris was forced to resign for violating "moral conduct" rules (or, to be more clear, carrying on an adulterous affair while on the job.)

 

[cleo612]

Wow.. just wow.

***shaking my head in utter disbelief...

ETA: Some things are just better left unsaid.

 

[rollinon86]

Good evening all (and especially to my good online pal Analytical...how are you my friend?):

Sorry to be lurking so much...I've been quite busy and had very little to add to the conversation. I do want to say that I spoke with friends at JMM again this evening and they say that there is no "no-divorce" policy of the type that has been discussed (i.e. that a person cannot be divorced and work there.) Instead, there are rules about "moral conduct" such as that a person cannot be involved in adultery, *advertiser censored* or other unbibilical behaviors and remain employed. Those with marital problems are encouraged to seek counseling (as it sounds like Sheri and Chris had done in the past) and, per biblical standards, divorce is allowable in cases of adultery, spousal abandonment and abuse. I think, perhaps, that the officer on the stand in the preliminary hearing was not clear enough about JMM's divorce policy. What would've been correct to say is that "Chris Coleman would not have been allowed to remain as an employee of JMM if he had divorced Sheri under these circumstances."

Also, Chris was forced to resign for violating "moral conduct" rules (or, to be more clear, carrying on an adulterous affair while on the job.)

Thank you southernillinoisman!

 

[AfterSunset]

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.

Thank you so much for this information..it sure helps to understand things better. I admire you all so much...
I can only hope that a reasonable person sits in each chair on the jury...

I honestly have read and re-read these posts and I can't find anything that points in any direction except straight to CC.
JMHO
MOO

 

[Knox]

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.

Thanks Pres101, can you give me a link to RC's story?

 

[analytical]

And this wasn't the criminal trial, so hearsay is fine. The purpose was for the prosecution to outline the evidence they have to the judge, and hearsay was sufficient (obviously, since Mr. Coleman still resides in Waterloo) for the judge.

Thanks, formerchesterguy, you're the only one who seems to understand the concept of hearsay!! ...well, partially understand it. It has nothing to do with Coleman.

 

[analytical]

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

possibly .. the defense has their evidence to present at trial .. it will be interesting to see what they offer up

and having a girlfriend is not motive to wipe out an entire family

 

[analytical]

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.

it is still defined as "hearsay" ... why do you have such a hard time with that ... if someone else posted it, you would accept it as fact ... if I present it, you fall over backwards trying to impeach me.

I know the section you quoted .. you didn't establish anything new by posting it.

I said before the reason for a preliminary hearing .. regardless of state or jurisdiction.

Your argument is with me .. not with the information.

...and you know that

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I think since he was painting in large areas on the walls etc., there would have to be significant backspray in the immediate area without ventilation or anywhere else for the spray to go.

I don't know. I may have to play around with that. I am not sure why I don't make a mess -I never have. A while back, I did do some work on my dining room table (on newspaper) and didn't get the spray back or any real overspray.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

BBM

This made me smile cuz when I did one itty bitty spray paint project, I got it on my arms and feet!!! I'm such a silly girl! :crazy:

LOL. I am not sure why I am not messy at it. The only time I get it on me, is I am doing something where I dab it off with a cloth, if I don't remember to wear gloves, I end up a scrubbin.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I was watching the video the Chip&Co posted from Fox 2-KTVI. By the way, thank you Overburnz for your posts and contributions.

In the video the News Anchors are asking Defense Attorney Chet Pleban what he thought about all the evidence in this case. (Note: Pleban is not involved with this case) He brought up that the misspelled word was brought up publicly by SC and that CC would have known she made LE aware of the misspelling. He also said, for each expert the Prosecution has to show CC’s handwriting is on the wall, he can find 10 to dispute it. As for the threat coming from his computer, that is too big of a thing for someone being in security to miss. He said the defense could try the angle that CC was set up.

I for one do believe CC is guilty. And I know I keep pushing the not premeditated issue ( at least not premeditated before May 4th) but I do have a reason for it. If the Pros hits the jury with this angle, that will give the def a lot to work with, like all the above said by Pleban. The defense could hurt the jury’s confidence in the Pros. Keep in mind, they will try to find jurors who don’t know anything about this case in which half will probably not be the sharpest tools in the shed, since this case is so highly publicized in Ill. If the Pros goes at it as if the evidence prior to May 4th did not show he was planning murder then the defense will not have much if anything to work with and will not win the confidence of the jury by putting doubt in their minds. The facts that need to be stressed in front of the jury is that CC told TL on May 4th that he was serving SC with a divorce on the 5th and TOD and all the cover up work he did after the murders. Just MO

I see what he is saying, but, I still think CC never thought his story would be doubted. He had set up the threats, he worked for JM and he thought that the Columbia PD would buy it all. He didn't plan on the MCS and also that the Columbia PD is smarter than him.

 

[analytical]

I see what he is saying, but, I still think CC never thought his story would be doubted. He had set up the threats, he worked for JM and he thought that the Columbia PD would buy it all. He didn't plan on the MCS and also that the Columbia PD is smarter than him.

It would be more accurate to state it is your belief that CC set up the threats.

All of you post your ASSUMPTIONS as if they are FACT!

It is the majority of the posters' THEORY .. it has NEVER been established as fact!

And this wide-held belief seems to stem from a deeply entrenched hatred of men ... most of you seem to have a "story" to tell of a past husband etc. who "done you dirty" and that seems to color your opinion as to ALL men.

CC having a g/f was not motive for him to wipe out his entire family.

 

[rollinon86]

It would be more accurate to state it is your belief that CC set up the threats.

All of you post your ASSUMPTIONS as if they are FACT!

It is the majority of the posters' THEORY .. it has NEVER been established as fact!

And this wide-held belief seems to stem from a deeply entrenched hatred of men ... most of you seem to have a "story" to tell of a past husband etc. who "done you dirty" and that seems to color your opinion as to ALL men.

CC having a g/f was not motive for him to wipe out his entire family.

I know .. to most of you it is ... but I believe that belief is LUDICROUS, at best.

What IS fact is that at least one threat to JMM was initiated from CC's laptop computer and his air card. Please remember that ALL evidence need not be presented at a prelimary hearing to prove probable cause. They may well have evidence of more activity by CC that we are not yet aware of.

ETA: MUCH more evidence.

 

[rollinon86]

Here is an link that may be of interest regarding hearsay evidence since it seems to have come into question this evening:


What Happens At A Preliminary Hearing

Note this particular section:

"The rules of evidence are relaxed at preliminary hearings. Hearsay is allowed. "

 

[Ginny]

I think I have a possible defence for CC. They can claim that he's suffering from mutiple personality disorder. One of his personalities, wrote the threat letters and planned the murders. So yes, his phyiscal being did commit the crime but the "real" CC didn't have any knowledge or control over it.

Okay time to turn the sarcasm off.

 

[overburnz]

I didnt like the KMOV layout of pictures of Sheri and her boys so I went ahead and made a tribute page for her. I also grabbed some from Sheri and her boys website that is down right now. Feel free to link to them.

Photos of Sheri, Garett, and Gavin

 

[analytical]

What IS fact is that at least one threat to JMM was initiated from CC's laptop computer and his air card. Please remember that ALL evidence need not be presented at a prelimary hearing to prove probable cause. They may well have evidence of more activity by CC that we are not yet aware of.

ETA: MUCH more evidence.

I never said nor implied nor wrote nor gave any poster any reasons to believe that all evidence has to be provided at a prelim.

I do know a little about what I am posting about.

So I'm curious how you drew this conclusion?