Wrinkles
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,037
- Reaction score
- 7
The trial begins today. The following are the prefacing articles I could find:
"Coleman Trial Starts Monday:" Chris Hayes, Investigator; KPLR 11 St. Louis; video at this link. Says that complete coverage will be at Fox2
>>A public defender tells FOX2, that jurors in the Chris Coleman murder case are more likely to convict, because of how they were picked.<<
then...
>>Here's part of what O'Gara would usually say, "I want you to imagine you've found Chris Coleman guilty. You've convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt, for killing his wife and killing his two young sons." Then he would ask whether that potential juror could not only consider the "death penalty" but also "life in prison without parole."<<
and, here is a little different wording of what we have heard...
>>One of the jurors that appeared most likely to be against the death penalty told the court someone recently murdered her son. She told attorneys "Even if they catch my son's killer, I might not want to see him executed."<<
I "might not" is different from I "would not." I can hardly believe someone who has recently lost a son to murder could bare the burden of sitting on a murder case jury
Read more at the above article...
From StlToday.com, Coleman's murder trial begins today:"
>>Follow our complete coverage of the case every day at stltoday.com/coleman. We will have updates from the trial, photo galleries, courtroom sketches from Post-Dispatch artist Dan Martin, a timeline of the case, videos from KMOV (Channel 4) and Twitter feeds.<<
The link at the above webpage (stltoday.com/coleman) did not work for me, this link did:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/coleman/
Bill McClellan at STLToday.com writes another article, "Coleman's defense needs novel plan."
>>In reality, though, the defense likes to have an alternative theory. In addition to trying to poke holes in the state's case, the defense wants to address the obvious question if it didn't happen the way the state says it did, how did it happen?<<
and
>>But at a hearing in June 2009, Columbia, Ill., Police Chief Joe Edwards testified that experts had traced those threats to Coleman's laptop computer.
Because a stranger would not have access to Coleman's computer, the defense faces a choice. It can either mount an all-out attack on those computer experts, or it can adopt an alternative theory that accepts the fact that the threats came from Coleman's computer.<<
Seems there is a number of things missed, but this timeline is helpful in refreshing a memory.
This bit is particularly disgusting...
>>March 3: Court documents indicate that Dr. Michael Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, put the time of death at no later than 3 a.m. almost three hours before Coleman left for the gym. Also revealed: Coleman considered a vasectomy reversal to have children with Lintz, and they had been looking at real estate listings and registering at wedding websites.<<
Looking at real estate listings, what, to buy? Oh...maybe because they knew the house was not long ago placed in Chris' name only? (Nov. 8) Now just how did that happen? Will a forgery of those documents be proven? Were any of Sheri's friends told by Sheri that Chris and she were removing her name from the house paperwork for some reason?
Then there is another from McClellan, "McClellan: Guilty plea could be Coleman's best move ":
>>Reitz will likely stress three things in the penalty phase. The motive was base lust and greed. There was premeditation. The computer threats speak to that. Coleman planned this for months. Every night when he tucked those boys in, he could have decided to stop. And finally, there is the nature of the crime itself. The last thing those boys saw was the face of their killer, and Reitz will surely add that it wasn't the pensive face the jury has seen, but a face contorted with determination and effort. It is not easy to strangle a person, even a child.
Clarence Darrow would have a hard time making the case for mercy at that point.<<
If all of the above articles are not enough reading before we hear more news, don't miss the article posted earlier, "Son's murder charge hits Coleman family hard":
>>Ronald Coleman says he cries about it every day. Connie Coleman does the same.<<
Hmmm... I might have understood tears at the courthouse the other day.
Brother Brad tells his children Uncle Chris is working in Waterloo. I suppose the truth might be a little tough for children to hear, but working?
"Coleman Trial Starts Monday:" Chris Hayes, Investigator; KPLR 11 St. Louis; video at this link. Says that complete coverage will be at Fox2
>>A public defender tells FOX2, that jurors in the Chris Coleman murder case are more likely to convict, because of how they were picked.<<
then...
>>Here's part of what O'Gara would usually say, "I want you to imagine you've found Chris Coleman guilty. You've convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt, for killing his wife and killing his two young sons." Then he would ask whether that potential juror could not only consider the "death penalty" but also "life in prison without parole."<<
and, here is a little different wording of what we have heard...
>>One of the jurors that appeared most likely to be against the death penalty told the court someone recently murdered her son. She told attorneys "Even if they catch my son's killer, I might not want to see him executed."<<
I "might not" is different from I "would not." I can hardly believe someone who has recently lost a son to murder could bare the burden of sitting on a murder case jury
Read more at the above article...
From StlToday.com, Coleman's murder trial begins today:"
>>Follow our complete coverage of the case every day at stltoday.com/coleman. We will have updates from the trial, photo galleries, courtroom sketches from Post-Dispatch artist Dan Martin, a timeline of the case, videos from KMOV (Channel 4) and Twitter feeds.<<
The link at the above webpage (stltoday.com/coleman) did not work for me, this link did:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/coleman/
Bill McClellan at STLToday.com writes another article, "Coleman's defense needs novel plan."
>>In reality, though, the defense likes to have an alternative theory. In addition to trying to poke holes in the state's case, the defense wants to address the obvious question if it didn't happen the way the state says it did, how did it happen?<<
and
>>But at a hearing in June 2009, Columbia, Ill., Police Chief Joe Edwards testified that experts had traced those threats to Coleman's laptop computer.
Because a stranger would not have access to Coleman's computer, the defense faces a choice. It can either mount an all-out attack on those computer experts, or it can adopt an alternative theory that accepts the fact that the threats came from Coleman's computer.<<
Seems there is a number of things missed, but this timeline is helpful in refreshing a memory.
This bit is particularly disgusting...
>>March 3: Court documents indicate that Dr. Michael Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, put the time of death at no later than 3 a.m. almost three hours before Coleman left for the gym. Also revealed: Coleman considered a vasectomy reversal to have children with Lintz, and they had been looking at real estate listings and registering at wedding websites.<<
Looking at real estate listings, what, to buy? Oh...maybe because they knew the house was not long ago placed in Chris' name only? (Nov. 8) Now just how did that happen? Will a forgery of those documents be proven? Were any of Sheri's friends told by Sheri that Chris and she were removing her name from the house paperwork for some reason?
Then there is another from McClellan, "McClellan: Guilty plea could be Coleman's best move ":
>>Reitz will likely stress three things in the penalty phase. The motive was base lust and greed. There was premeditation. The computer threats speak to that. Coleman planned this for months. Every night when he tucked those boys in, he could have decided to stop. And finally, there is the nature of the crime itself. The last thing those boys saw was the face of their killer, and Reitz will surely add that it wasn't the pensive face the jury has seen, but a face contorted with determination and effort. It is not easy to strangle a person, even a child.
Clarence Darrow would have a hard time making the case for mercy at that point.<<
If all of the above articles are not enough reading before we hear more news, don't miss the article posted earlier, "Son's murder charge hits Coleman family hard":
>>Ronald Coleman says he cries about it every day. Connie Coleman does the same.<<
Hmmm... I might have understood tears at the courthouse the other day.
Brother Brad tells his children Uncle Chris is working in Waterloo. I suppose the truth might be a little tough for children to hear, but working?
