Upcoming Trial - 2012

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The way that I understand and could be totally wrong is:

If a witness who testified in the first trial testifies to something completely different in the second trial testimony from first trial can be read into evidence and the witness can be impeached. Where upon may raise issues to the witnesses credibility. JMO

She can be reminded of what she told Spivey when it was fresh on her mind.
The jury can decide if her recent memory is more credible than a mistake she made 4 years later
 
Apparently investigators stopped at gas stations along the supposed route and asked if anyone recognized Jason. One woman with some questionable background claimed she recognized him. When asked to describe him, she said that he was the same height as she. She is 5' tall. Many people watching the trial feed assumed that she must have been standing on something to make that statement, but she was standing on the same floor that Jason was standing on. She should have been able to state that he was head and shoulders taller. What she recalled was that she had an altercation with someone and that he then tipped her $5. It couldn't have been Jason if that person was 5' tall ... simply impossible.

For police to try to slide that one by the jury is like them trying to slide the 3 allele DNA match by the jury. They're presenting information, but it isn't evidence of guilt.

Now that they've said the trial will last 5-6 weeks instead of 11 days, we can only imagine what other information they're hoping to slide by the jury.

Yes, I watched the DNA re: the rock testimony..not very convincing.
The trip was close to 340 miles, but , Otto, what I found really
compelling, was the gas argument the defense lawyers used
at the end of their case.IMO
 
Missed the sworn testimony?
The Fishers said they only asked for visitaion.
Jay shocked them with primary custody.

BTW, domestic lawyers at $500/hr is, well :floorlaugh:

You know how much Klinkosum is making? $85/hr.

I don't know who Klinkosum is, but I do know what a good lawyer costs.

It doesn't really matter what was said publicly as we know that the discussions regarding custody were negotiated behind closed doors and that information has never been made public.
 
The way that I understand and could be totally wrong is:

If a witness who testified in the first trial testifies to something completely different in the second trial testimony from first trial can be read into evidence and the witness can be impeached. Where upon may raise issues to the witnesses credibility. JMO

Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.
 
I don't know who Klinkosum is, but I do know what a good lawyer costs.

It doesn't really matter what was said publicly as we know that the discussions regarding custody were negotiated behind closed doors and that information has never been made public.

Klinkosum is Jay's lawyer.
He's good, right? Works for the top criminal firm in Raleigh.
I thought you followed this case:waitasec:
 
Thank you! What interests me more is whether Jason's testimony could be entered.

I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO
 
Otto....the facts are.

4 years earlier
, Gracie told Spivey she positively recognized JY and his white SUV. At that time, she told him he was tall, had blondish hair and wore bluejeans.

She pointed him out in court 4 years later

Exactly! Her statements at the time of the incident need to be pointed out as far more credible than her recollection of something like *height* 4 years later. :great:
 
Otto....the facts are.

4 years earlier
, Gracie told Spivey she positively recognized JY and his white SUV. At that time, she told him he was tall, had blondish hair and wore bluejeans.

She pointed him out in court 4 years later

Today we know that when the witness used the word "tall", she meant the same height as she: five feet tall. It's unfortunate that investigators didn't clarify what "tall" meant four years ago, as that question could have eliminated the witness altogether.
 
Klinkosum is Jay's lawyer.
He's good, right? Works for the top criminal firm in Raleigh.
I thought you followed this case:waitasec:

I have followed the case, but I don't have any reason to know the names of various lawyers in the case. I'm more interested in the facts and evidence.
 
I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO

It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.
 
Today we know that when the witness used the word "tall", she meant the same height as she: five feet tall. It's unfortunate that investigators didn't clarify what "tall" meant four years ago, as that question could have eliminated the witness altogether.

Like I said... the jury will be told what she told Spivey vs what she said 4 years later.
They can decide where to put the weight.
Add that to the circumstances....cursed her, paid $20 , pumped $15 and did not go back for his $5 change. Lets not forget the white SUV she remembered and confirmed when she saw a pic of his Explorer.

Finally, the hotel camera was tampered with (again) an hour later.....hmmm.The hotel happened to be about an hour away,
 
I think we are all interested in that.
Was it a big shock when he took the stand?
IMO

I sure was.

I do not think he will do it again...yet on second thought what information did he actually give the prosecution? The twig and cigar...he pretty much admitted to all the other stuff.

Strange case indeed.
 
I have followed the case, but I don't have any reason to know the names of various lawyers in the case. I'm more interested in the facts and evidence.

Knowing the names of the lawyers was just basic info for most people that followed the case.
I paid attention to those details, as well as the evidence.
 
It's certainly extremely rare for a guilty person to that the stand and leave themselves open to answering all the questions that the investigators claimed he was unavailable to answer. There he was, sworn to tell the truth and prepared to answer every question that anyone had ... and still a jury could not find him guilty.

I see.
Thank you, Otto, looks like Mon morning we will start to see what is different in this trial than the last.
Nice "meeting" you finally.
I have read here forever and have found you to be a very informed poster.
:)
 
Hello Cammy I am kind of new here, but I am here for this trial too! I really can't wait! :seeya:

Greetings, Lynx, and :welcome: !!!!




We're glad to have another member to bea part of this trial forum. It's gonna be tuff, I think, but we'll just have to see where it goes.

Glad you're here!
 
I sure was.

I do not think he will do it again...yet on second thought what information did he actually give the prosecution? The twig and cigar...he pretty much admitted to all the other stuff.

Strange case indeed.

The last Jury may have wanted some kind of confirmation from the witness that could not be found that was at the gas station that morning as well.
Now , what is this with a twig and cigar?
I am not there yet.
IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
400
Total visitors
614

Forum statistics

Threads
606,730
Messages
18,209,667
Members
233,947
Latest member
scyna0895
Back
Top