FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020 #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #121
Owen is arguing (trying to argue) that they were forced to reveal their defense for BSS, the overt act (JT's hand coming out if the suitcase).

Demanding the State provide a statement of particulars, what SB did to elicit 2nd degree charges, so they can present their defense.

Is this for real??????

Jmo
 
  • #122
It could only be relevant in terms of SB's character if the prosecution have raised it?

SB wrote to the Judge to complain that her ex husband was no longer paying her alimony in a lengthy letter that is filed, so it's in the public arena. It indicates that SB is nothing but a money grabbing immoral and unethical person with a distorted perception of reality IMO, as she is residing in jail for nearly five years and is not looking after her child. JMO. Perhaps her ex husband owes her the money regardless of any circumstances?
Conveniently we don't know that the ex husband hasn't taking legal steps to ask the court for relief. Owens didn't know ...

Jmo
 
  • #123
Owens is currently telling Judge Kraynick he doesn't understand what the prosecution are accusing SB of and what they think she did that caused JT's death. Owens states that his defence needs to 'tweak' things in line with what the prosecution are alleging.

Prosecution are responding that they don't understand what Owen's doesn't understand. They state they have all heard SB's account re 'fun and games' day [and that now she's changed her story - I paraphrase].

Prosecution going into a great deal of detail and state to the Judge that SB is going to need to testify.
 
  • #124
State responds in force! Their case has been evident from the start. The video, the violence, no overt action, murder. Evinced, depraved mind.

Powerful.
 
  • #125
Owen is arguing (trying to argue) that they were forced to reveal their defense for BSS, the overt act (JT's hand coming out if the suitcase).

Demanding the State provide a statement of particulars, what SB did to elicit 2nd degree charges, so they can present their defense.

Is this for real??????

Jmo

IANAL but seems to me Owens is not practising law but attempted deception of the law. He should be scrutinised for his conduct in this case IMO. JMO. I hope there is a regulatory body of ethics.
 
  • #126
Judge taking a short recess before addressing the motion from this morning.
 
  • #127
But Owens is still talking.

I need a prayer shawl to recover under. JMO
 
  • #128
Owens has informed the Judge that he refuses to declare whether he will or will not be calling any 'witnesses' identified by the defence (per private investigator Billy Lane working with SB) or whether he or SB will want to call them and depose them or not.

I assume that the defence is supposed to have notified a list of witnesses in advance? Judge is considering this during break.
 
  • #129
I only point this out, not because it's important to me, but because it's important to SB, SB scored some eyeliner today.
 
  • #130
I thought I was going to appreciate SB having counsel so that the trial could progress but this is a mess. IMO Owens is pushing mounds of discovery because he has absolutely no idea how he is going to proceed.

I had envisioned, when SB was her own defense, her asking herself questions, then answering them, maybe running back and forth between defense table and witness stand, with maybe some cartwheels for Arieffect... but now I'm forced to re-imagine it with Owens questioning her, and it may be a battle of who can use more words to say less. (Secretly I don't think he will call her, I think he's stuffing cards up his sleeves for later.)

This is exhausting. He came late to the gate and expects concessions.

(Different than SB and her Poptart demands.)

JMO
 
  • #131
Owens seems to be conducting this defence on the hop. His current premise being that 'SB has changed her story and therefore the Prosecution should change theirs and notify the Judge and Jury of their new position and after they've done that, we'll decide how to proceed...'.

Prosecution are like, 'no, same story our end'. Pretty much killed it stone dead.
 
  • #132
Maybe I too don't understand how Hide-n-Seek is played, in particular as a two-person game. But I'm pretty sure it's over pretty quickly if the Seeker hides the Hider.

How is that Hide-n-Seek?

Hide-n-ThatWasQuickIFoundYouExactlyWhereIHidYou.

(I wouldn't be surprised if that was the ruse SB used however. Not actual Hide-n-Seek with hiding and seeking but SB telling JT it would be fun to play, hiding, getting found, then telling him to hide in the suitcase, then quickly zipping him in. It's not a game, SB, if it's aTRICK, especially one designed to trap another person. You know what's another word for 'trap another person'? Kidnapping. Restrained against one's will.)

Trap-n-LeaveWithoutAir is no game, it was never a game, but to SB everything is a game.

Including two bags of chips and a Poptart. Something for nothing.

JMO

Judge says people clothes. She says skiry. He says pants. She says skirt. He says ankle unit. Along comes trial, she wears skirt, IMO with an air of victory. She thinks she beat the judge. Like I said, with her, IMO it's all a game. Where the rules are in her head and only in her head, no logic to them. In that candyland of nonsense, she always wins.
You have made the hide & seek ruse finally make sense to me! I think your description of how JT got himself into that suitcase is 100% dead-on. I think she pretended to be uncharacteristically loving, happy, (un-shrewish!) and victim JT fell for it.

He was probably laughing as she pulled the zipper shut.
 
  • #133
Owens seems to be conducting this defence on the hop. His current premise being that 'SB has changed her story and therefore the Prosecution should change theirs and notify the Judge and Jury of their new position and after they've done that, we'll decide how to proceed...'.

Prosecution are like, 'no, same story our end'. Pretty much killed it stone dead.
IMO, he needs (for the purposes of the judge's favor) to say/have SB testify, but I don't see him putting her on the stand. The State will obliterate her. I think after tge State's case, he will say he has elicited the overt act through cross examination somewhere, won't have SB testify against herself, and wants his expert to come in and present SB's new narrative. Sleight of hand. I don't trust him.

JMO
 
  • #134
Judge is moving the Richardson hearing to tomorrow. Regarding the 119 pages. Defense must provide the State a condensed version of discovery before 9 am tomorrow.
 
  • #135
IMO, he needs (for the purposes of the judge's favor) to say/have SB testify, but I don't see him putting her on the stand. The State will obliterate her. I think after tge State's case, he will say he has elicited the overt act through cross examination somewhere, won't have SB testify against herself, and wants his expert to come in and present SB's new narrative. Sleight of hand. I don't trust him.

JMO

I don't believe anyone in their right mind would allow SB to testify. However, I'm starting to suspect that Owens is not in his right mind. So, this could be interesting. JMO MOO
 
  • #136
Another juror down.

SB's request for snacks is denied. On the grounds that she is being served in the same way as all other inmates attending for trial.
 
  • #137
I think I got this --

Late disclosure of witnesses, Defense can not call them prior to or unless the State can depose them, Defense must pay for any expedited transcripts.

Defense whined about three late disclosures from the State. One substitute analyst bc the the previous analyst is unavailable and two 911 dispatchers. State agreed to the same terms.
 
  • #138
Oh, Sarah, slam. No special snackies for you.
 
  • #139
Order for snacks is DENIED! Guess the popcorn eating will have to be done by all of us and not by Sarah.
 
  • #140
State is requesting a special hearing regarding new discovery from the Defense. 119 pages.

Judge moved immediately to a Richardson hearing --

The issue. State got new discovery from the Defense that is different than previously provided, and they object. Judge: Of the discovery I need to address whether it was trivial or substantial. Defense having trouble articulating what's in the discovery and why it's different. He is not happy.

The judge scheduled the Richardson hearing on the discovery issue to happen tomorrow at 9:00am. I'm not clear if this means that opening statements must wait until after that or if there's still a possibility of having opening statements later this afternoon after the jury is seated. Anyone know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,419
Total visitors
2,499

Forum statistics

Threads
632,163
Messages
18,622,945
Members
243,041
Latest member
sawyerteam
Back
Top