Sievers Sidebar #5

[IQuestion]

FOX4

What to expect in upcoming Mark Sievers trial

"“Let’s say that they come back to Mr. Rodgers and say look we’ll drop that down to 10 years or 15 years or even 20 years if you will testify against mark Sievers,” says Pamella Seay.

NIN Always great to read your information. In your opinion, has Pamella Seay been fairly accurate on her observations? She said there will be lots of hearsay and objections. I've got a handle on the "objection" part after watching JRR's trial. But having a difficult time trying to imagine how witnesses will be able to share the conversations they had with Dr. Sievers? How will the words/opinion/desires/wishes/complaints/fears etc, of the deceased, ever be conveyed to a jury?
"hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.

 

[SeesSeas]

NIN Always great to read your information. In your opinion, has Pamella Seay been fairly accurate on her observations? She said there will be lots of hearsay and objections. I've got a handle on the "objection" part after watching JRR's trial. But having a difficult time trying to imagine how witnesses will be able to share the conversations they had with Dr. Sievers? How will the words/opinion/desires/wishes/complaints/fears etc, of the deceased, ever be conveyed to a jury?
"hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.

There are numerous hearsay exceptions. One of the hearsay exceptions is this:
Declarant is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
The 2019 Florida Statutes
Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE
90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.—
(1) DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY.—“Unavailability as a witness” means that the declarant:
(a) Is exempted by a ruling of a court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;
(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(c) Has suffered a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement so as to destroy the declarant’s effectiveness as a witness during the trial;
(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(e) Is absent from the hearing, and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.
[...]

 

[IQuestion]

There are numerous hearsay exceptions. One of the hearsay exceptions is this:
Declarant is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
The 2019 Florida Statutes
Chapter 90
EVIDENCE CODE
90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.—
(1) DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY.—“Unavailability as a witness” means that the declarant:
(a) Is exempted by a ruling of a court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;
(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(c) Has suffered a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement so as to destroy the declarant’s effectiveness as a witness during the trial;
(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(e) Is absent from the hearing, and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.
[...]

Thank you SEESSEAS!!! Your research is just exactly what I needed to know and understand. Whew, I feel a lot better about witnesses being able to speak in front of a jury without being interrupted by the defense constantly saying, "Objection, hearsay."

 

[No it's not]

Thank you SEESSEAS!!! Your research is just exactly what I needed to know and understand. Whew, I feel a lot better about witnesses being able to speak in front of a jury without being interrupted by the defense constantly saying, "Objection, hearsay."

Hi IQ (..funny..),

There will be tons of objections still IMO. Hearsay is so much more than he said /she said or gossip like talk. Lots of things fall under the Hearsay rule/ exemption rule.

If someone says for example.."I told the officer already.. bla bla bla", not admissible in court. However, if the same person just states "bla bla bla", it's a statement they are making in court. Admissible! IMO

So again, many objections will be of technical nature, like in "I told the officer bla bla bla"..etc.

ALL IMO

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

NIN Always great to read your information. In your opinion, has Pamella Seay been fairly accurate on her observations? She said there will be lots of hearsay and objections. I've got a handle on the "objection" part after watching JRR's trial. But having a difficult time trying to imagine how witnesses will be able to share the conversations they had with Dr. Sievers? How will the words/opinion/desires/wishes/complaints/fears etc, of the deceased, ever be conveyed to a jury?
"hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.

Simplified, all the folks talking how good of a person/father/husband/lover/office manager MS is/was dealing with Dr Sievers, will be called for the defense. And all folks talking how bad of a person/father/husband/lover/office manager MS is/was dealing with Dr Sievers, will be called for the prosecution.
Lots of objections on both sides. The question is, whose statements are bolstered by in court presented evidence, and whose are not. Which ones will be objected as hearsay will be sustained and therefore will not be admissible in court and which ones will be overruled.

If you have seen pigs rolling in the mud, this will be worse..IMO

ALL IMO

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Not sure if this had been posted already, MS ex-parte motion to appoint an electronic evidence expert, 10-25-19:

MS electronic evidence expert XParte 10 25 19.tiff

 

[Oregonmama]

Not sure if this had been posted already, MS ex-parte motion to appoint an electronic evidence expert, 10-25-19:

MS electronic evidence expert XParte 10 25 19.tiff

Looks like a new partner joined the firm

 

[IQuestion]

Simplified, all the folks talking how good of a person/father/husband/lover/office manager MS is/was dealing with Dr Sievers, will be called for the defense. And all folks talking how bad of a person/father/husband/lover/office manager MS is/was dealing with Dr Sievers, will be called for the prosecution.
Lots of objections on both sides. The question is, whose statements are bolstered by in court presented evidence, and whose are not. Which ones will be objected as hearsay will be sustained and therefore will not be admissible in court and which ones will be overruled.

If you have seen pigs rolling in the mud, this will be worse..IMO

ALL IMO

-Nin

Missed this article: It appears Super Dad had lots of free time on his hands. Frankly, who has that kind of free time???
"Records show "Mark has numerous photos, videos and facetime chats on his phone download that show he has had numerous extra marital affairs with multiple women." With 2 children & home school responsibilities, mowing the lawn on a double-sized lot, keeping up a swimming pool, cleaning a large house, cooking most of the meals, running the back office of a medical practice, doctor & dental appointments for the kids, keeping the household budget, etc, etc, etc.... while my spouse worked full time as a self-employed physician.....
or else he really didn't do any of the aforementioned very well for a really long time. Ironically, his most obvious organizational skills appear to be the way he stacked and counted his cash. (A picture is worth a thousand words.)
A deeper look at the suspects in Sievers murder
edited to ask: If women do not want to testify in court, obviously embarrassing, can they be forced to appear? Are they considered "hostile witnesses? Or will the defense just "concede", Yeah our client is a hound dog, but that doesn't make him the criminal mastermind of a murder. (?)

 

[MsArk]

Surely Law and Order or a local affiliate will stream MS’s trial also.

 

[No it's not]

Looks like a new partner joined the firm

Diligent litigation attorney focusing on criminal law, family law and civil litigation partners up with compassionate real estate, business law and construction lawyer..MS is in good hands..

ALL IMO

-Nin

 

[MsArk]

DBM

 

[No it's not]

Missed this article: It appears Super Dad had lots of free time on his hands. Frankly, who has that kind of free time???
"Records show "Mark has numerous photos, videos and facetime chats on his phone download that show he has had numerous extra marital affairs with multiple women." With 2 children & home school responsibilities, mowing the lawn on a double-sized lot, keeping up a swimming pool, cleaning a large house, cooking most of the meals, running the back office of a medical practice, doctor & dental appointments for the kids, keeping the household budget, etc, etc, etc.... while my spouse worked full time as a self-employed physician.....
or else he really didn't do any of the aforementioned very well for a really long time. Ironically, his most obvious organizational skills appear to be the way he stacked and counted his cash. (A picture is worth a thousand words.)
A deeper look at the suspects in Sievers murder
edited to ask: If women do not want to testify in court, obviously embarrassing, can they be forced to appear? Are they considered "hostile witnesses? Or will the defense just "concede", Yeah our client is a hound dog, but that doesn't make him the criminal mastermind of a murder. (?)

The prosecution will stick to establishing motive IMO, whatever witnesses they call. I am sure some ladies already had to give embarrassing statements under oath to LE..Not sure, if they need to go so far to designate a witness "hostile". I can see some of the general witnesses helping either side depending on one's point of view and on which evidence will be admitted in court.

Not saying this is the case here, but can you imagine being principal of a high school for example and then having to be subpoenaed as a witness..tse tse tse

Oh, my laundry is ready..

ALL IMO

-Nin

 

[IQuestion]

The prosecution will stick to establishing motive IMO, whatever witnesses they call. I am sure some ladies already had to give embarrassing statements under oath to LE..Not sure, if they need to go so far to designate a witness "hostile". I can see some of the general witnesses helping either side depending on one's point of view and on which evidence will be admitted in court.

Not saying this is the case here, but can you imagine being principal of a high school for example and then having to be subpoenaed as a witness..tse tse tse???

Oh, my laundry is ready..

ALL IMO

-Nin

I'm terrible with abreviations and can only surmise what "tse" means: Tokyo Stock Exchange? Total Solar Eclipse? or The Special Event?
If MS told one of his gf's he was a recent widower (ala Scott Petersen) or had been given an ultimatum by a gf to file for divorce by July 2015....that would be significant information and worthy of consideration. Otherwise, parading a long line of paramours will only reinforce MS is a roguish, lazy scamp... and not necessarily a man who is capable of master minding a murder.
Hmmm, just had a thought about the "burner phones".... his attorney's will no doubt say he used those phones for his gf's... a possibility...but why did the need to send one to CWW, too?

 

[No it's not]

I'm terrible with abreviations and can only surmise what "tse" means: Tokyo Stock Exchange? Total Solar Eclipse? or The Special Event?
If MS told one of his gf's he was a recent widower (ala Scott Petersen) or had been given an ultimatum by a gf to file for divorce by July 2015....that would be significant information and worthy of consideration. Otherwise, parading a long line of paramours will only reinforce MS is a roguish, lazy scamp... and not necessarily a man who is capable of master minding a murder.
Hmmm, just had a thought about the "burner phones".... his attorney's will no doubt say he used those phones for his gf's... a possibility...but why did the need to send one to CWW, too?

IQ,

Tse..tse..tse... just a verbalized sound effect like in "shaking my head"..

I agree with you on the paramours. However, it also be interesting to see, if anything transpired
like "My darling (gf)I have to cancel our anniversary/ meeting blablabla on Mo/Tue/Wed (29/30/01 of June 2015) because I want to stay in CT longer with my girls."

Was it ever established, if MS and the kids planned in advance to stay in CT while TS left by herself? Or was it an ad hoc decision? I do not recall at this time.

Lots of reasons MS can come up with regarding the burner phones. I am sure we are all considering some without wanting to tip off the defense.

ALL IMO

-Nin

 

[Oregonmama]

I read a lot of online reviews for Mark's lawyer. Mark will be well represented at trial unfortunately.

 

[MsJosie]

I read a lot of online reviews for Mark's lawyer. Mark will be well represented at trial unfortunately.

Thanks for reading about MS counsel. It is one less thing for ineffective counsel, he ha a great lawyer.....it will make the prosecution stay on top of everything....I believe 100% he will be convicted and spend his life in prison.

 

[Oregonmama]

Thanks for reading about MS counsel. It is one less thing for ineffective counsel, he ha a great lawyer.....it will make the prosecution stay on top of everything....I believe 100% he will be convicted and spend his life in prison.

I have no doubt he will be convicted but the State will have to be thorough and precise when they present their case.

 

[MsJosie]

I have no doubt he will be convicted but the State will have to be thorough and precise when they present their case.

You are so right.

 

[IQuestion]

There has been (some) discussion about NOT ONE WITNESS in JRR's defense. Not one witness called to discredit either Cww's or TaySho's testimony, other than the defense pointing out inconsistencies from their previous statements, either. I guess the closest anyone came to discrediting Cww's character and reinforcing "grifter abilities", was Jerry Lubinski. I'm referring to: Talking JL into getting a new GPS claiming he is forgetful and needed the information on it. (But the jury was supposed to trust CWW's impeccable recall of events on the witness stand.) Also getting JL to buy Cww "new tools" because someone stole them... Oh, brother! I have been thinking the jury clearly saw Cww was a manipulator and to some extent also capable of manipulating (a much younger criminal) Jrr into driving him to Florida. (Ya' know he passes out while driving...Oh brother.) He didn't want to pass out on his long drive to Florida to commit a murder...go figure!
This was my first time following a case from beginning-to-trial-to-conviction.... and kept wondering about the jury's perception. Ironically, all of us should finally be able to hear Jrr speak.... imagining at some point he will ask the judge for leniency in his sentencing? Or will his defense team do all the talking for him? IDK
So while the "older criminal" manipulating a "younger criminal" seems to have played an important part in the jury's ultimate decision, I don't think it will work in MS's trial. Cww & MS are about the same age, look alike, were life long friends and both extremely "odd." Odd in the sense that neither were "reliable or successful breadwinners" for their families. Something has kept those two tied together....I wonder what?
Was it a mistake that Jimmy Rodgers did not take the stand?
PS. I think I just figured out MS's defense.... Only problem is MS still won't be able to explain away the sudden need for burner phones. Hmmm, I wonder when the VERY LAST CALL was made from the burner phones?? And his excuse for suddenly not needing one to communicate with Cww?? (Skeptic eyeroll.) Sorry for the long post...Nite.

 

[Oregonmama]

There has been (some) discussion about NOT ONE WITNESS in JRR's defense. Not one witness called to discredit either Cww's or TaySho's testimony, other than the defense pointing out inconsistencies from their previous statements, either. I guess the closest anyone came to discrediting Cww's character and reinforcing "grifter abilities", was Jerry Lubinski. I'm referring to: Talking JL into getting a new GPS claiming he is forgetful and needed the information on it. (But the jury was supposed to trust CWW's impeccable recall of events on the witness stand.) Also getting JL to buy Cww "new tools" because someone stole them... Oh, brother! I have been thinking the jury clearly saw Cww was a manipulator and to some extent also capable of manipulating (a much younger criminal) Jrr into driving him to Florida. (Ya' know he passes out while driving...Oh brother.) He didn't want to pass out on his long drive to Florida to commit a murder...go figure!
This was my first time following a case from beginning-to-trial-to-conviction.... and kept wondering about the jury's perception. Ironically, all of us should finally be able to hear Jrr speak.... imagining at some point he will ask the judge for leniency in his sentencing? Or will his defense team do all the talking for him? IDK
So while the "older criminal" manipulating a "younger criminal" seems to have played an important part in the jury's ultimate decision, I don't think it will work in MS's trial. Cww & MS are about the same age, look alike, were life long friends and both extremely "odd." Odd in the sense that neither were "reliable or successful breadwinners" for their families. Something has kept those two tied together....I wonder what?
Was it a mistake that Jimmy Rodgers did not take the stand?
PS. I think I just figured out MS's defense.... Only problem is MS still won't be able to explain away the sudden need for burner phones. Hmmm, I wonder when the VERY LAST CALL was made from the burner phones?? And his excuse for suddenly not needing one to communicate with Cww?? (Skeptic eyeroll.) Sorry for the long post...Nite.

I strongly believe they both have secrets regarding each other and that is what holds them together.