GUILTY FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020 #3

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

It is an absolute outrage that the Defence are referring their entire defence to a random book by a woman who is no longer alive.

There are hundreds of thousands if not thousands of millions of books written by psychologists hypothesising all sorts of theories. Nobody refers to them in courts of law as they're not considered to be of a scientific, medical, and lawful standard to use. The state should ask for this whole case to be re-tried. It's a mis-trial for the state IMO.

 

[jepop]

Why does it have to be so hard? Peed off with the state too.! ,,SB messed the court around for four years yes, but state had those four years to prep a tight adaptable case with predictable contingencies surely?

Because moo SB is actually remarkably consistent in her inconsistency and compulsive lying. Really she is predictable. The content of the major deception changed but in all other ways she was the same on the stand as she was in the cop shop when being interviewed. The state had four years to grasp and learn how to use her predictability to advantage.

Imo all pros needed to do was ask the right questions on that cross and let her deceptions speak for themselves. State had four years to come up with a plan, role play scenarios.

I think the jury will convict as long as state make clear the charges, but, and maybe I'm being too harsh, imo state neither deserve it and definately haven't earned it.

Maybe hubris is in action. Did prosecutors get all cocky amongst themselves re a slam dunk, assume bss would be rejected by court, become so inflexible and set in their ways they let this fool Owens fluster them into dropping about 50 IQ points a piece?

Agree with a number of others posting here that the focus on alcoholism is offensive, the ignoring of the victim just plain wrong. State strategy, such as it is, appears timid, cowardly,.. when it could have been robust and confident. I think they were afraid to acknowledge JT as victim through their cross of SB, in reaction to D's BSS strategy. Gutless imo. They should have tackled that head on and earned the respect of the jury by giving a voice to JT.

All above is just my own ranty opinion and conjecture.

Also finding I can only take this trial in small doses. Yesterday was too exhausting. Grateful to be posting amongst the like-minded.

 

[Seattle1]

At this point if she loses it’s a guaranteed appeal. Right?

No guaranteed appeal! For any appeal, defense would have to prove there was an error in the application of the law, procedural error, unfair trial, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and I don't think there would be agreement the Judge was in error here. MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Wait Owens is bringing other women into this now... why aren't the state objecting?

How many women have murdered their partner in a suitcase?

 

[arielilane]

I missed some of the trial; however, I dont recall evidence presented that SB was battered by JT.

It was only stated JT abused her. Right? Apparently, they would batter each other?

Of course there are photos of bruised SB, but that is not necessarily evidence that JT battered her.

She's is a drunk and injuries could have been caused from self, falls, etc.

Matter of opinion

 

[Kittybunny]

There’s nothing about this case I don’t hate. Nothing.

Sarah Boone filmed herself doing the crime she’s on trial for. That’s it. That’s the ball game. She did what she did and it cannot be denied or undone. There is no justification for what she did. It’s clear that Jorge Torres was helpless. The only violence that matters with respect to the charges against Sarah Boone is the violence that ended with Torres’s death that night. We have no proof that JT harmed her in anyway that night and we have abundant proof that she assaulted him and left him to die a horrible death inside of a suitcase in her apartment.

I deeply dislike the way that DV and alcoholism is handled by all parties in this trial. Unpopular opinion I know but the state is particularly offensive in how they talk about both of those things. The state flips between hinting at SB being the abuser in the relationship and not vice versa to affirming abuse of SB by JT but blaming SB for putting up with it for so long. I don’t understand why state decided yesterday that they were going to try to get the defense witness to agree with them that SB is a narcissist except that narcissistic disorders are essentially shorthand for untreatable and inherent evilness to the laity.

I also don’t understand why state is emphasizing alcoholism so much in their arguments. It seems as though they crafted their argument regarding the alcoholism based off of the police interviews with SB and never adjusted or didn’t want to adjust their strategy when the new defense team firmed their strategy up. I am offended by things the state is suggesting like there’s something wrong with the defense psychologist’s assessment of SB because of SB’s alcoholism. Why did state repeatedly imply yesterday that SB seeking professional help when drunk is proof of SB’s wrongdoing or that she wasn’t traumatized or depressed? I had a loved one who was an alcoholic who committed suicide at age 30. My partner and I are raising one of her children. All of us would have preferred that she sought professional help at any point in this but especially the night that she drank and then killed herself. The prosecution comes off condescending constantly. Whatever any of us does or doesn’t believe about SB specifically is one thing but the state doesn’t seem to have tailored what they were doing yesterday on cross to fit SB, they seemed to think just pointing out she’s an alcoholic and sought professional help for her depression when drunk is wrong and bad. I am also an alcoholic, albeit sober for years now, but maybe that’s clouding my judgement of the trial? I’m getting ticked off at both sides.

I’m still baffled that the prosecution chose to follow up SB’s testimony regarding the abuse she suffered by talking once more about how SB drinks, especially since SB acknowledged that repeatedly already because her defense team pointed it out over and over again while she was on the stand. Everyone is aware that she abuses alcohol. What is the state trying to prove beyond she initially lied about her alcohol consumption? Anyone who knows an alcoholic knows that alcoholics tend to lie about their consumption of it. It’s clear that SB lied about her consumption initially. Had SB continued overtly lying about being drunk at this point then the state’s emphasis on it would make sense. State should have adjusted their strategy when it became clear SB wasn’t denying being drunk anymore. What they needed to do is lay into SB about her claim that JT made her drink alcohol. It’s absurd that SB is making that argument and it matters a great deal that this specifically gets called out. SB gets violent when drunk so much so that she killed her fiancé. SB claims that it’s not her own fault she drinks when it’s clear that she’s an alcoholic and drinks voluntarily. SB denying she has a drinking problem independent of JT is a safety concern because she’s likely to resume drinking when she’s released from prison and we already established she killed someone while drunk. That’s an easy argument to make and we’re probably going to hear it from the judge during sentencing when he throws the entire book at this woman. Prosecution should have pounced on this themselves already though.

All prosecution has to do is stick to what is irrefutable - Sarah Boone murdered Jorge Torres in an especially gruesome and horrific way. He was helpless in that suitcase. Nothing about her behavior that night suggests she feared for her life. Good god, the woman kept saying she feared for her life because Jorge’s family would come after her and that’s obviously not true. Imagine being the detectives in this case and having this woman characterize her deceased fiancés family as a pack of violent thugs who are all racist against white people only to be met with a small, demure, obviously heart broken set of parents who have said that they’re sad for SB too. SB lied about being a victim or a potential victim of JT’s entire family, why should anyone believe her about being in fear for her life at the hands of Jorge? Bring that up!

I don’t know, maybe the rebuttal will be better than the case the prosecution has made as of yesterday. I can only deal with this one in small doses at the end of the day, it’s a distressing case all around and I detest the fact there’s a lack of compassion for what happened to Jorge on display by either side. Alcoholism is a brutal disease but nevertheless Boone’s actions are her own. She recorded herself killing Jorge. She is guilty. Prosecution is making this harder than it should be.

Edit: I am only now catching up on today’s events and holy cow. This is the worst day by far. Has there been a massive migration of all of Florida’s competent attorneys or is Sarah Boone some kind of miasma that poisons the brains of anyone that has to deal with her?

Bravo. Awesome post. I wish the State/Prosecutor saw this. And you wrote this BEFORE today's debacle!

Condolences on the loss of your loved one, and greetings from one recovering alcoholic to another.

 

[Megnut]

Is the State working FOR the Defense?

He's choosing to affirm BSS.

But hoping to sever BSS from her actions that day.

Owens objects. Here we go.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I missed some of the trial; however, I dont recall evidence presented that SB was battered by JT.

It was only stated JT abused her. Right? Apparently, they would batter each other?

Of course there are photos of bruised SB, but that is not necessarily evidence that JT battered her.

She's is a drunk and injuries could have been caused from self, falls, etc.

Matter of opinion

100% thinking same thing

There has been no evidence, no convictions, no witnesses to say that JT harmed SB

We've had plenty of evidence that SB starts fights and is violent when drunk - for which she has been charged with injuring JT, although the case was dropped.

 

[jepop]

Can’t the state say they were ambushed by the BSS? They didn’t have time to prep for that.

Actually don't agree, responsible prosecutors should have been well prepped for that possibility. The D's psych witness yesterday was engaged years ago by one of SB,'s previous attorneys. Jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Why does it have to be so hard? Peed off with the state too.! ,,SB messed the court around for four years yes, but state had those four years to prep a tight adaptable case with predictable contingencies surely?

Because moo SB is actually remarkably consistent in her inconsistency and compulsive lying. Really she is predictable. The content of the major deception changed but in all other ways she was the same on the stand as she was in the cop shop when being interviewed. The state had four years to grasp and learn how to use her predictability to advantage.

Imo all pros needed to do was ask the right questions on that cross and let her deceptions speak for themselves. State had four years to come up with a plan, role play scenarios.

I think the jury will convict as long as state make clear the charges, but, and maybe I'm being too harsh, imo state neither deserve it and definately haven't earned it.

Maybe hubris is in action. Did prosecutors get all cocky amongst themselves re a slam dunk, assume bss would be rejected by court, become so inflexible and set in their ways they let this fool Owens fluster them into dropping about 50 IQ points a piece?

Agree with a number of others posting here that the focus on alcoholism is offensive, the ignoring of the victim just plain wrong. State strategy, such as it is, appears timid, cowardly,.. when it could have been robust and confident. I think they were afraid to acknowledge JT as victim through their cross of SB, in reaction to D's BSS strategy. Gutless imo. They should have tackled that head on and earned the respect of the jury by giving a voice to JT.

All above is just my own ranty opinion and conjecture.

Also finding I can only take this trial in small doses. Yesterday was too exhausting. Grateful to be posting amongst the like-minded.

I agree that the State seemed a bit confident that Owens late entry to the game would be no contest, and admittance of the suitcase video would speak for the charges.

The defense adding self defense BSS to the mix raised the game for the State-- mostly as a matter of law where meeting the legal requirement means a mere "a scintilla of evidence."

That is why we are still here and why SB legally had to testify in her defense.

Granted, it's counter productive to becoming proficient at proving a liar, gaslighter, manipulator, to be all of the above when the same don't typically testify! MOO

 

[arielilane]

This is so confusing and perhaps that's what defense wanted to present.
This poor witness.
The trial is exhausting.
Is anyone really fighting for Justice for Jorge Torres?

 

[Megnut]

State gets on the record that every action a person with BSS does is NOT because of BSS and not every action is justified.

ETA to add the crucial NOT

 

[acehard]

Actually don't agree, responsible prosecutors should have been well prepped for that possibility. The D's psych witness yesterday was engaged years ago by one of SB,'s previous attorneys. Jmo

Exactly. It's a not a new thing Owen came up with.

 

[Seattle1]

Can’t the state say they were ambushed by the BSS? They didn’t have time to prep for that.

Not at all. The defense had to jump through legal hoops to use this defense including where SB legally had to testify in her own defense.

 

[acehard]

IMO State was overconfident because they have the recording of the crime. Hope it works.

 

[Seattle1]

State gets on the record that every action a person with BSS does is because of BSS and not every action is justified.

Finally, common sense comes into play: you can't be the aggressor, and then claim self defense for the murder.

 

[arielilane]

Afternoon break until 3:05 pm ET

 

[Megnut]

Afternoon break.

I need a massage.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Actually don't agree, responsible prosecutors should have been well prepped for that possibility. The D's psych witness yesterday was engaged years ago by one of SB,'s previous attorneys. Jmo

BSS is *not* a diagnosable mental health matter as per defined by the (vast and constantly updated) DSM-V TR

Therefore, it literally can't be diagnosed.

Also a State Prosecutor cannot be expected to hear about it in a court of law.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

IMO State should have pushed back harder against the introduction of BS into the courtroom.