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

[analytical]

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

Overburns, IIRC, the photos were released at the time of the filing of the wrongful death lawsuit and are said to have been provided by Sheri's family (the photos).

 

[Bluenotes]

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

Your use of hearsay makes it seem like Chief Edwards just gave a statement of what he heard from the ladies at the beauty salon, like it's all gossip and rumors. Edwards and the SA just gave a brief summary of the evidence they have. He read what his witnesses have said they will testify to in court under oath. The defense attorneys did not object, why do you?

 

[MCDRAW]

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

Maybe not. But it sure makes him look guilty. See if he had never cheated, people may still be thinking it was someone else. Because Sheri and Chris had such a great marriage. But now we know they didn't have a great marriage because he had a girlfriend. There enters doubt. I'm just wondering how do you think someone entered their home and killed Sheri and the boys while Chris was at home, (he admited being home durng TOD) and he wasn't attacked and he never knew someone killed his family? I really need to know the answer to this or even your theory because I can not get past time of death. I had hope he was innocent until then.

 

[MCDRAW]

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 have four brothers. I have been married to the same man for 24 years. Never been divorced. I say this to assure you that my thought process has nothing to do with a hatred of men. I agree with you. I don't think he killed his family for the girlfriend. I don't know what his motive was or could have been. But I do know that he put himself in that house at the time of their deaths. He said he was home and there is video of him leaving at 5:43.
One of my brothers is a drug addict. The first time things started to come up missing around the house. We asked him did he take them. He said No. We believed him, thinking things may have been misplaced. Until one day we found the pawn tickets. Evidence doesn't lie.

 

[Bluenotes]

Hearsay - Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness.

Since it was not the witnesses giving their personal testimony at the hearing, then yes, it would fall under this definition, however since the witnesses have signed a statement which gives their account and this is what Edwards was relaying to the judge it is not the same as gossip and rumor. Try signing a statement and then changing your story in court. Good luck with that.

If I had wanted to be an attorney, I would have gone to law school. Economics is my specialty and interest. I did take and score really well on the LSAT, but changed my mind after talking with my uncle who is an attorney.

Edit: I seem to be responding to a post that was removed, the last part doesn't make a lot of sense now, but the last part was in answer to why I don't do my own legal research.

 

[overtheriver]

Analytical,

I'm certainly not meaning to be disrespectful of your opinions or facts? but I don't understand why you won't just say what you know. The rest of the people have, as I've seen since I first started reading this board. I know of many people who knew/know CC and SC and their sons and I alongs with them, had held out hope and prayed that it WASN'T him. Now with all the evidence, not gossip, how can it not be him? If you would tell what you know, perhaps you would give some others hope. Otherwise, the evidence is mounting against CC. Thank you and I hope you don't take offense with my questions? Maybe I'm just not following your thinking?

 

[waterlooinspector]

poster knew both Sheri and Tara and claims Sheri was a friend but not a best friend .. interesting reading...not complimentary of TL

http://www.topix.com/forum/state/fl/T9EKQ2D7R8RSUJ89V/p5#lastPost

ETA: see post by "Reply to ASL"

FWIW, I'd raised the same question about Tara. If she has a degree from USF, why has she chosen a job not in keeping with her degree. She is listed as a 2000 graduate on the alumni site, but w/out being a member, one cannot determine what she earned her degree in.
---------------
http://usfalumni.net/s/861/internal.aspx?sid=861&gid=1&pgid=6

link shows "Tara Lintz" class of 2000

Degree in "Hospitality Management"???...sorry, I could not resist

 

[who knew?]

Hearsay - Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness.

Since it was not the witnesses giving their personal testimony at the hearing, then yes, it would fall under this definition, however since the witnesses have signed a statement which gives their account and this is what Edwards was relaying to the judge it is not the same as gossip and rumor. Try signing a statement and then changing your story in court. Good luck with that.

If I had wanted to be an attorney, I would have gone to law school. Economics is my specialty and interest. I did take and score really well on the LSAT, but changed my mind after talking with my uncle who is an attorney.

Edit: I seem to be responding to a post that was removed, the last part doesn't make a lot of sense now, but the last part was in answer to why I don't do my own legal research.

Economics, finance - those were my college majors years ago - and they actually have a LOT to do with this murder (IMO, of course). MM may be a partial motive, money a bigger part, and selfishness - the biggest part of the motive.

 

[Bluenotes]

Economics, finance - those were my college majors years ago - and they actually have a LOT to do with this murder (IMO, of course). MM may be a partial motive, money a bigger part, and selfishness - the biggest part of the motive.

Economics, as in game theory, applies to a lot of criminal cases ie. the prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Carpe Pacem]

Maybe someone who knows how could make a poll as to his guilt or innocence? The choices could be: Innocent? Guilty? Framed? Unsure?

I'm a reader, seldom a poster, but really appreciate the use of logic and incisive thought I see on this site. Bigtime thanks to all of you for your input!

 

[waterlooinspector]

Hearsay - Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness.

Since it was not the witnesses giving their personal testimony at the hearing, then yes, it would fall under this definition, however since the witnesses have signed a statement which gives their account and this is what Edwards was relaying to the judge it is not the same as gossip and rumor. Try signing a statement and then changing your story in court. Good luck with that.

If I had wanted to be an attorney, I would have gone to law school. Economics is my specialty and interest. I did take and score really well on the LSAT, but changed my mind after talking with my uncle who is an attorney.

Edit: I seem to be responding to a post that was removed, the last part doesn't make a lot of sense now, but the last part was in answer to why I don't do my own legal research.

trying to catch up here.....

Chief Edwards was correct concerning a "no divorce policy". JM had such a policy, but it evidently did not apply in every situation regarding every single divorce. There were exceptions. Did Chief Edwards elaborate totally on that policy? From what we have read in news reports...no.

To put it quite bluntly, if CC divorced and married MM without a biblical reason (and the only thing I can think of is that Sheri was having an affair), he would have been dismissed from his job.

Back to my point.....JMM DOES and still has a "no divorce" policy.

 

[Bluenotes]

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.)

trying to catch up here.....

Chief Edwards was correct concerning a "no divorce policy". JM had such a policy, but it evidently did not apply in every situation regarding every single divorce. There were exceptions. Did Chief Edwards elaborate totally on that policy? From what we have read in news reports...no.

To put it quite bluntly, if CC divorced and married MM without a biblical reason (and the only thing I can think of is that Sheri was having an affair), he would have been dismissed from his job.

Back to my point.....JMM DOES and still has a "no divorce" policy.

I agree. Southernillinoisman posted the quote above last night. It seems to me that JMM didn't have a no-divorce policy in all cases, but in CC's case, he would have been fired if he divorced SC.

 

[who knew?]

Maybe someone who knows how could make a poll as to his guilt or innocence? The choices could be: Innocent? Guilty? Framed? Unsure?

I'm a reader, seldom a poster, but really appreciate the use of logic and incisive thought I see on this site. Bigtime thanks to all of you for your input!

I don't know how to do that - we've had a sort of unofficial poll going - but using your criteria, I'd say 1 person would vote framed, a couple may be undecided, and, IMO, the rest of us would vote guilty. That's just an estimate, but I'm taking it from the posts on this thread.

In the beginning, a lot of us thought he MIGHT be innocent, but more exactly, we were HOPING he was innocent. However, as the evidence came out, that hope flew out the window for me.

 

[Sal]

It's my "opinion" that every evil deed, no matter what it is, begins with selfishness. I want something and this is what I have to do in order to get it! Strange punani could be a part but not all of it. But the bottom line, IMOHO of course (and I do get to have mine too) is that there is no motive at all, EVER, in a sitch like the Coleman family being wiped out, that is good enough. So, in my opinion whatever the he** screwed thinking processes brought CC (or anyone else) to the conclusion that killing was the right thing to do, all of the lame azzed reasons/excuses/motive began with selfishness. I don't ever want or have to puzzle thru psychobabble of any sort that wants to say the perp was weaned from the breast too soon or whatever. SELFISHNESS!

 

[Kimster]

Maybe someone who knows how could make a poll as to his guilt or innocence? The choices could be: Innocent? Guilty? Framed? Unsure?

I'm a reader, seldom a poster, but really appreciate the use of logic and incisive thought I see on this site. Bigtime thanks to all of you for your input!

IIRC, the poll must be created by the creator of the thread.

Mods, can we start a separate thread in this forum for a poll?

 

[Kimster]

Hmmmm. I requested a mod...haven't seen any yet. Let's try this:

(They are pretty good about showing up when the boxing gloves are on, eh?)

If that doesn't work, then we'll just have to wait patiently!

 

[Sal]

Oh the self restraint it takes to not really put those gloves on!

 

[Melly53]

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.

respectfully snipped

I think that people are giving CC more credit than he deserves, regarding what he did or did not know about "security". He didn't get a degree in criminal justice nor was he trained in computer forensics as far as we know. He was a dog handler in the military with no more training than most street cops get. He was not a trained investigator or detective. His "security" business was installing video surveillance equipment IIRC. From what I have seen he was really nothing more than JM's personal bodyguard and servant. IMO

What I find interesting is that only the first threat was sent by email while the other two were placed in their mailbox. Perhaps after sending the first threat by email CC realized his mistake and probably deleted it from his computer thinking that would be enough and probably never thought about it also being traced thru his air card.

I think CC assumed that because of his position in JMM and being the son of a preacher that LE would not look at him as closely as they did. IMO he was counting on that. It makes me wonder if he knew about the Matt Baker case in Texas since his "social position" seemed to work for him, for a while at least.

Baker was a minister in Waco, TX who now stands accused of murdering his wife, Kari in 2006. He claims that his wife committed suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills while he was at the video store for 40 minutes yet when LE discovered her body she was cold and visible lividity had already set in. He was indicted for her murder just a few months ago after failing to be indicted the first time he was arrested. They were finally able to indict him because his now ex-girlfriend with whom he was having an affair during his marriage recently came forward with information. Very interesting case for comparison IMO.

 

[Sal]

Interesting cases to compare indeed!! I, too, have wondered if CC knew about the Baker case.

Two things CC did excel in were getting coffee for JM and opening books for JM to sign. Shoot, guy like that had to get hired for his absolute brilliance! A shining star!

And if CC did know about the Baker murder in TX he sure didn't have the brains to come up with a new and improved model of murder did he? Same kinda stupid fool!

 

[analytical]

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

Do you happen to know who the cat Sheri is posing with belonged to? I read where CC preferred cats to dogs.

You can find some nice photos on the guest pages book to add to your collection, if you're so inclined. One photo, if it's still there, is of Sheri as an adult with her father.