CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #19

[citygirl]

I wish they'd given us audio of the hearings over the past week that we've missed. I feel sure they will have addressed what they will be allowed to say in closings about Riccobene, and by extension DK. Since they haven't introduced any evidence of his culpability, I wonder if the judge will have revised his earlier ruling because it was last left that their PI was going to report on his attempts to locate her.

This being the same man that left his calling card with Knowles' mother?

 

[HelenK]

Let's get on with it.

Amen to that.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oops. See I was so excited to have our own posters giving us updates that I mistakenly put OSs instead of CA!

Sorry bout that! Lol!

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

This being the same man that left his calling card with Knowles' mother?

Indeed.

 

[citygirl]

I wonder what is the plan for the juror that has to leave somewhere June 1?

I think it's May 30th. Guessing he will hear closing arguments then bid everyone an adieu?
Alternate will take his place in deliberations.
Were I that alternate I would be psyched.
MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder what is the plan for the juror that has to leave somewhere June 1?

What's the procedure, can they swap out a juror who can't stay during deliberations, or do they take them off before just to be on the safe side?

I think it's possible the jury could have the case by Weds afternoon and return a verdict on Thurs 30th. Ever hopeful.

 

[citygirl]

What's the procedure, can they swap out a juror who can't stay during deliberations, or do they take them off before just to be on the safe side?

I think it's possible the jury could have the case by Weds afternoon and return a verdict on Thurs 30th. Ever hopeful.

You do? I hope you are right.I think it will take longer .

 

[Tortoise]

You do? I hope you are right.I think it will take longer .

Dunno, I'm not predicting just saying it's possible. I suppose it comes down to whether there are differences of opinion.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I was 72 when this case started. Felt young and vibrant. Now I’m 73 and feel very old. Can hardly move.

I feel ya Meemaw!

I turned 72 on Christmas day, but I feel I should be at least 73 now or older. Lol! For so long this was a trial with no end in sight.

Thank goodness we're finally in a holding pattern waiting for CAs to begin.

It's been surreal at times.

Jmo

 

[geevee]

Seems like it could get a little messy if the judge doesn't dismiss the juror before deliberations begin, if it stretches beyond the 30th, he has to go, an alternate comes in and they have to begin deliberations anew.

If they have a conviction before/by the 30th, he still needs to leave and then an alternate takes his place and decides aggravation/penalty without having been included in the guilt portion - don't know if that could be a basis for appeal but I think for things to go cleanly, judge should dismiss him before the jury gets the case.

Mooo

 

[wary]

Seems like it could get a little messy if the judge doesn't dismiss the juror before deliberations begin, if it stretches beyond the 30th, he has to go, an alternate comes in and they have to begin deliberations anew.

If they have a conviction before/by the 30th, he still needs to leave and then an alternate takes his place and decides aggravation/penalty without having been included in the guilt portion - don't know if that could be a basis for appeal but I think for things to go cleanly, judge should dismiss him before the jury gets the case.

Mooo

I agree. Based on what I’ve heard in the past, I don’t think it would be a valid basis for appeal—but I really dislike the short deadline for deliberations before they’d have to start over.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I agree. Based on what I’ve heard in the past, I don’t think it would be a valid basis for appeal—but I really dislike the short deadline for deliberations before they’d have to start over.

You are right of course. It wouldnt be an appellate issue.

Remember the jury foreman himself was tossed from deliberations in Scott Peterson's trial for refusing to deliberate. He was replaced, and shortly after the guilty verdict was rendered.

SP has lost every appeal thus far since he has been on death row.

Imo

 

[citygirl]

Seems like it could get a little messy if the judge doesn't dismiss the juror before deliberations begin, if it stretches beyond the 30th, he has to go, an alternate comes in and they have to begin deliberations anew.

If they have a conviction before/by the 30th, he still needs to leave and then an alternate takes his place and decides aggravation/penalty without having been included in the guilt portion - don't know if that could be a basis for appeal but I think for things to go cleanly, judge should dismiss him before the jury gets the case.

Mooo

I'm pretty sure the judge addressed that. He said he would be dismissed before deliberations began. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

You are right of course. It wouldnt be an appellate issue.

Remember the jury foreman himself was tossed from deliberations in Scott Peterson's trial for refusing to deliberate. He was replaced, and shortly after the guilty verdict was rendered.

SP has lost every appeal thus far since he has been on death row.

Imo

I don't remember that! Why wouldn't he deliberate?

 

[KALI]

Did judge say this in front of jurors?

I vote the funniest line came from the judge yesterday -

...therefore the requests, the motion for mistrial is denied, the motion to recuse Mr Imes or any other prosecutors is denied, the motion to strike Mr Liscio's testimony is denied. And if I didn't cover any of the other requests, those are denied as well

The one he missed would be dismissal of all the charges then

 

[Bernina]

Did judge say this in front of jurors?

Nooooooo! It was in part 2 yesterday. It was "interesting to say the least!

 

[MsFacetious]

OMG IT'S ALMOST OVER PEOPLE!
They should dismiss the juror that has to leave on the 30th. Deliberations could easily go a week and even if they don't, no reason for the jurors to feel rushed or need to start over.

<modsnip: off topic>

It's been a long while since I've posted here. I remember joining WS back in the day, when the family was still missing. I am totally intrigued by this case. Happy to see that it has made its way to trial and that someone is being held accountable. I must say, while I have not posted in a long time, I've been keeping up with the trial updates and I am not wholeheartedly convinced that the PT has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I know, its not a popular opinion but like I said, based on the evidence presented, I remain uncertain. I'll be honest, I don't like Chase Merritt's character, period end of story. Do I hope that he is found guilty BARD, sure. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a...duck. And while I do believe in coincidences, the coincidences in this case, are a bit much. JMO

I agree with you, unpopular opinion or not.

I would agree about the jury and the truck IF they hadn't asked 2 weeks ago to see the truck in person. So for some of them, the truck is important enough to them to ask to see it.

I hope when the trial is over that the jurors will speak publicly at some point. It will be interesting to hear what was and wasn't important to them in their decision making.

We may be very surprised. I sure was when an alternate told us they would have acquitted a defendant, but the GPS alibi he had was irrelevant to them. Okay then...

 

[Sillybilly]

Please continue discussion at Thread #20.

This thread is now closed.