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

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848812885235142773

 

[arielilane]

@cathyrusson

She was so drunk she didn't remember everything when she woke up but she's testifying very clearly to moment by moment.... #SarahBoone


2:12 PM · Oct 22, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848789532361290234

 

[acehard]

She has no emotions, no tears, nothing after being shown the photo of JT? wow. moo

I felt bad for the TV. It got some beating

 

[aafromaa]

As usual, I’m behind I agree with some of you who have pointed out that defense motions seem to have little impact other than to delay things. But it helps me to keep reminding myself of how much worse it would have been if she defended herself.

 

[Megnut]

Once again, I'm fascinated by the psychology of display.

There's no emotion. She does seem energized by her stories, probably because she has a captive audience. And mistakes listening for believing.

I have not heard a single word of ownership or regret for staying in the relationship, exposing her son to it, exposing her vulnerable dogs to it.

I'm not sure she's making herself out to be a sympathetic character for the jury.

Question remains: did she zip him in so she could teach him a lesson but leaving him in there to die was unintentional? Or did she kill him in self-defense for prior bad acts?

Jurors might need serious help understanding the charges and the defense for how to evaluate them. I trust the State will do just that, in their closing.

Mostly I think SB has established why she had such depraved indifference to JT, in that she didn't care if he could or couldn't breathe.

Which is, by my count, Murder 2.

JMO

 

[MTW2011]

Sorry I’m still catching up but I was curious - besides the State following previous case law, does anyone have another reason for why they’re fighting this overt act stuff hard?

Seems to me that even if defense got that in, it’s not as if her story would then make sense, that her actions would then be so excusable she’d be acquitted, right? I can’t imagine that is a concern driving their arguments but maybe it is. JMOO

 

[MTW2011]

I wonder if Owens was even surprised at the Judge’s ruling regarding the overt act. I didn’t think the Judge was going to allow it

 

[jepop]

Set my alarm for 4am and just tuned in here. Is she still on direct? Imo state would have prepped in the event Judge decided to allow for BSS, so I feel they will have access to reports of SB's encounters with LE relating to any previous instances when she hurt JT. But would these be admissible for the State to raise under cross? Has the D opened that door with BSS in and of itself, or would any prior violent acts by SB towards JT brought to the attention of LE, only be admissible if brought in on direct?.

Also think the State will have a rebuttal BSS expert ready to go if/when the D calls one. Moo

Apart from all of the above, I don't buy and I don't think the jury will buy SB's version of events on the night or that she acted in self defense owing to BSS, even sans an expert to clear it up for them. Plus, jury charging will make clear I assume exactly what the jury will need to be convinced of in order to find for a BSS defense. Immediate danger imo is an impossible sell.

Lastly, the State is going to tear her apart on cross re her casual 'on-the-go' lies, contradictions, fabrications. She lies constantly to make her version fit and seems to think nothing of it. Does she thinks the State won't notice.? I believe her credibility, honesty integrity, sincerity as a witness is about to be conclusively demolished for good measure by the State. Moo

 

[arielilane]

Court is back on the record.

 

[acehard]

Back from break

 

[Megnut]

(Is Sarah wearing her prison issue shirt under her blazer?)

 

[Izzylizzy]

Once again, I'm fascinated by the psychology of display.

There's no emotion. She does seem energized by her stories, probably because she has a captive audience. And mistakes listening for believing.

I have not heard a single word of ownership or regret for staying in the relationship, exposing her son to it, exposing her vulnerable dogs to it.

I'm not sure she's making herself out to be a sympathetic character for the jury.

Question remains: did she zip him in so she could teach him a lesson but leaving him in there to die was unintentional? Or did she kill him in self-defense for prior bad acts?

Jurors might need serious help understanding the charges and the defense for how to evaluate them. I trust the State will do just that, in their closing.

Mostly I think SB has established why she had such depraved indifference to JT, in that she didn't care if he could or couldn't breathe.

Which is, by my count, Murder 2.

JMO

Will she throw "he told me if I left him he'd kill me and my son" against the wall to see if it sticks?

 

[arielilane]

Not convinced injuries done by JT. Defendant a messy drunk. moo

 

[Luna20]

She is going to have to retell the new incidents while in cross. How will she remember?

She is very controlled while talking in her meek voice.

It’s boring at this point. He is leading her step by step.

 

[aafromaa]

Sorry I’m still catching up but I was curious - besides the State following previous case law, does anyone have another reason for why they’re fighting this overt act stuff hard?

Seems to me that even if defense got that in, it’s not as if her story would then make sense, that her actions would then be so excusable she’d be acquitted, right? I can’t imagine that is a concern driving their arguments but maybe it is. JMOO

I’ve wondered about that from when it was brought up in previous motions and I think it has to do with the defense of self-defense - what did JT do that evening that caused SB to fear for her life - goes back to imminent threat - but I thought the whole reason to bring in BSS was to demonstrate that a battered spouse often thinks of it as an ongoing imminent threat so I’m still struggling with the overt act part of it. But it seems for some reason the state thinks and also seems to be supported by the judge that if an overt act is not demonstrated then the defense cannot bring in the BSS experts. I’m behind too so I don’t know whether this has been addressed in her testimony yet or not.

Maybe someone who has been watching in real time could tell us if SB has said what that overt act was and whether or not the judge ruled on it

 

[jepop]

I'm sick of all this one sided testimony. It reminds me so much of the ballerina trial where the victim never had the opportunity to tell his side of the story. And of course, her side of the story was mainly lies that could be proved but it wasn't allowed in. Not sure I can last much longer listening to this BS.

So you probably answered my question here: any known prior violent acts of SB towards JT will be inadmissible/unable to be raised on cross unless door accidentally opened by D on direct? That sucks big time given the casual and obvious lying capacity of SB and what that says about her credibility and integrity! Moo

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I hope you're right.

The state didn't introduce any psychologists or psychiatrists to talk about BSS or Sarah's behavior because "overt act" hadn't been established. Now the state has rested, so they won't get an opportunity to introduce their experts to defend against the BSS. Tricky.

IANAL…. but depending on what the defense presents and what their experts say, can’t the prosecution call rebuttal witnesses? MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Hopefully Peter@ LYK does a video later.
I'll keep checking.

 

[Luna20]

The judge is taking every opportunity for no mistrial, but it doesn’t matter. Even if she is found innocent she will want to sue the state, attorney, jail and anyone she has had contact with for trauma.

Not sure if the judge has considered that but it is highly likely. She would claim every single person harmed her and she is no longer able to function.

 

[jepop]

I’ve wondered about that from when it was brought up in previous motions and I think it has to do with the defense of self-defense - what did JT do that evening that caused SB to fear for her life - goes back to imminent threat - but I thought the whole reason to bring in BSS was to demonstrate that a battered spouse often thinks of it as an ongoing imminent threat so I’m still struggling with the overt act part of it. But it seems for some reason the state thinks and also seems to be supported by the judge that if an overt act is not demonstrated then the defense cannot bring in the BSS experts. I’m behind too so I don’t know whether this has been addressed in her testimony yet or not.

Maybe someone who has been watching in real time could tell us if SB has said what that overt act was and whether or not the judge ruled on it

The judge ruled there was an overt act and I believe it was JT getting his fingers out if the case and saying something that SB says she felt threatened by. This is all based only on SB's testimony up to that point in time. Details are on this thread a few pages back. Moo

ETA IOWs SB testified the 'overt act' happened but there is no accompanying, supportive video. She made two recordings, 11 minutes apart, and the ',overt act' happened in- between recordings. Imo the jury will be instructed at charging and make up their own minds on this, taking into consideration the totality of evidence which jmo doesn't bear well for SB. She locked him up in that suitcase and left him there as he pleaded for air, and any sane adult individual would know such an act would result in death. Jmo