GUILTY Jennifer Blagg - Re-trial of Michael Blagg 20 February 2018

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]Interesting testimony this morning from neighbors of [/FONT]#MichaelBlagg[FONT=&quot]; video of his first law enforcement interview yet to come.

https://twitter.com/gabyreport
[/FONT]

 

[Niner]

[FONT=&amp]Interesting testimony this morning from neighbors of [/FONT]#MichaelBlagg[FONT=&amp]; video of his first law enforcement interview yet to come.

https://twitter.com/gabyreport
[/FONT]

Can't wait for the next article on this "interesting testimony"!!

 

[RosalindaA]

MsFacetious, always good to hear another opinion. I tried to find the Forensic Files episode but haven't had any luck so far. I believe that LE found blood (presumably Jennifer's) in the family van so that again would point to Blagg's guilt. Of course the random unconnected serial killer or child abductor is always a possibility but I think it's a pretty small one here. Chiefly, why would a random killer go to the bother and risk of concealing Jennifer's body whilst also carrying out the abduction of Abby?

I think, like others, the fact that Abby's body was not found with Jennifer's could also point to the fact that she was shown more respect and not thrown in the dumpster, so more likely to be someone who knew her. I think it possible that she witnessed the murder of Jennifer or of her body being moved/all the blood and that was why she was killed as well. Abby was 6 years old, I think, at the time so old enough to be a credible witness.

As for the Bruinsma notes, I would be inclined to let the jury know about it and let the prosecution show how weak it is as evidence. Unless of course he can actually be connected to any of the other missing people cases he had noted, which would make it stronger. As far as I know he hasn't?

And I still believe it's wrong to overturn a whole trial and verdict because, God forbid, there should be a woman who has experienced partner abuse/violence was on the jury. Should every person who has experienced this be barred from trials involving accused spouses? We are all "informed" by our personal experience but that doesn't mean we can't judge each case on its own merits. The accused should be on trial, not the jurors.

 

[Tortoise]

Report on this morning's witness evidence:

http://www.9news.com/article/news/l...orning-of-jennifer-blaggs-murder/73-524514116

 

[RosalindaA]

Found this old documentary with the original investigators, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkPkAnX3H9Q
WARNING, I'm not certain but there is footage of the discovery of Jennifer's body at the landfill which I think may NOT be a reconstruction. Really horribly sad image.

Of course you always have to take tv docs with a pinch of salt, a lot can be done with editing and what you include and exclude but the blood evidence inside Jennifer's car and the use of the GPS co-ordinates to track whose dumpster (Blagg's company dumpster) the rubbish that poor Jennifer was found in, came from, is pretty damning. And the fact that Jennifer's blood was found in large quantities in the bedroom, then no trail until it is then found in her van (the only family vehicle large enough to transport a body in according to the doc). No random killer is going to bother to wrap her body up when she is dead and then go and dump her body in her own van at the landfill where her husband's company just happens to put their rubbish too.

More info about why the issue is significant in this case. IMO it is irrelevant as most men look at although you could say that it shows an anomaly of character for a Christian preacher to have quite such a large store. But good evidence here that it was provoking a rift within the marriage.

I also agreed with the detectives that the fact that Blagg called 911 after seeing the blood in the master bedroom without first searching his house for his wife and child is very significant. Ok shock and all that, but big pool of blood, do I go for the phone or do I see if my family are lying injured elsewhere? With him it's almost an afterthought to go and check Abby's bedroom. He already knew they were not in the house.

The detectives certainly did target him and hunted him down relentlessly, but I think in this case, there was no evidence of anyone else in the house and they followed the evidence they had and they were proved correct by the location of Jennifer. There's also some interrogation footage and info on the "suicide attempt" which occurred when LE started closing in on him. And the sickly sweet answerphone msgs. Worth watching.

 

[Niner]

Hey!

snipped by me....
Of course the random unconnected serial killer or child abductor is always a possibility but I think it's a pretty small one here. Chiefly, why would a random killer go to the bother and risk of concealing Jennifer's body whilst also carrying out the abduction of Abby?

Agree - why take Jennifer's body out of the house - a random killer would leave her where she was killed. One point against Blagg.

And totally agree with you on that one juror - overturning a whole trial just because of her.... :gaah:

Oh, and thank you for that note about Blagg NOT searching the house before he called 911 - I must have forgotten that one!

I believe ALL roads point to Blagg!

From the article you posted Tortoise. Jennifer was killed by gun. No one heard a shot go off early that morning. Wonder if the gun had a silencer, which was never found? :dunno:

 

[Tortoise]

She was shot through a pillow, and they know that because of fibres on the bullet they recovered from her brain. Also I suppose because the only blood was from underneath her, there was no spatter around the walls etc. Jennifer's two pillows were missing.

Would two pillows muffle the sound of the gun being fired?

 

[Tortoise]

Full report on yesterday's trial testimony in attached article. Apparently that day was their trash collection day. Good day to choose if you're planning a murder and disposal of a gun IMO.

just a few snippets:

The jurors returned back from the lunch break on Thursday to video testimony from the witnesses who are no longer alive.

The prosecution was allowed to show videos of the testimony these witnesses gave in Mesa County in 2004, with the caveat that the jury was specifically instructed not to infer anything from the fact there’s been another trial.

[Blagg] told the deputy that having a missing child was harder than you could imagine — and that he couldn’t imagine a life without his wife.

“I love my daughter Abby to pieces,” Michael Blagg said in the interview. “But they always say your wife comes first.”

Blagg echoed this same statement when the investigator asked him why he called 911 on Nov. 13, 2001, before he checked Abby’s room to see if she was there.

The prosecution is expected to continue playing the five-and-a-half hour interview with Michael Blagg when court resumes on Friday morning. 9NEWS has a reporter in the courtroom and will post updates to 9NEWS.com during breaks.

http://www.9news.com/article/news/l...cebc&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[Tortoise]

His current picture

 

[Niner]

This is the only tweet in 3 hours....

Gabrielle Porter
‏ @gabyreport
3h3 hours ago

#MichaelBlagg jurors see video of defendant's 1st interview with @SheriffMesaColo in 2001, hear from neighbors about memories of the day Jennifer and Abby disappeared. https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_82c58974-1ddf-11e8-8b9c-10604b9f6eda.html … @DailySentinelGJ


Thanks a bunch for the article!

 

[Henry2326]

This is the only tweet in 3 hours....

Gabrielle Porter
‏ @gabyreport
3h3 hours ago

#MichaelBlagg jurors see video of defendant's 1st interview with @SheriffMesaColo in 2001, hear from neighbors about memories of the day Jennifer and Abby disappeared. https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_82c58974-1ddf-11e8-8b9c-10604b9f6eda.html … @DailySentinelGJ


Thanks a bunch for the article!

The one clear premise researched adnosium is that eye witness evidence is poor at best.

Sent from my P00I using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Today's trial report linked. This judge is getting on my nerves

Just a few of the more interesting bits -

Tammy Eret lived in the house right next to Jennifer, Michael and Abby Blagg, but said she thought they had moved out months before the home became the site of one of Mesa County’s most notorious crime scenes.

She testified Friday morning that the family’s blinds and garage door were always closed. Eret said she never saw anyone outside, and had never met Jennifer Blagg, though she would wave at the 34-year-old’s husband and daughter in passing.


Eret was the first witness called to the stand on Friday. Her testimony was bookended by portions of a five-and-a-half hour video Blagg conducted with investigators shortly after he reported his wife and daughter missing.

In the video, Blagg tells police that when he came home from work the afternoon of Nov. 13, 2001, he was carrying Christmas presents that he wanted to put into the closet before Abby noticed.

Eret says when she spotted him outside his home moments before he called 911, he wasn’t carrying anything.

Before Eret was called to the stand, Blagg’s public defenders said they were against portions of her testimony alleging that the Blaggs were a reclusive family who always kept the blinds closed, arguing that this was meant to make the jury infer they were “creepy” or odd.

Judge Tamara Russell agreed, and wouldn’t let the jury hear this particular section of testimony.

He [Weyler] detailed how on Nov. 26, 2001, he ran into Blagg in the lobby of the sheriff’s office. Blagg asked him if they had identified the blood found on the mattress yet. Weyler said he said no, that they were still looking for a DNA profile. Weyler says Blagg then told him they should check his wife’s retainer case.

“It struck me as funny he mentioned the retainer case and not the retainer,” Weyler said.

When Jennifer Blagg’s body was found, her retainer was still in her mouth. She wore it every night when she slept, and prosecutors say this is evidence that she was killed in the middle of the night.

http://www.9news.com/article/news/l...aggs-house-the-day-of-the-murder/73-524917834

 

[Tortoise]

After Blagg described to investigators the training he received, the investigator tells him that someone reported seeing the Blaggs’ minivan returning to the house at 3:30 p.m., which he said is a problem because the blood on the Blaggs’ mattress makes it appear that Jennifer was shot while in bed.

“That doesn’t fit with robbery,” the investigator can be heard saying. “Even if your wife had come home (this afternoon)…. there wouldn’t be any blood in the bedroom, it would be someplace else in the house.”

https://www.gjsentinel.com/breaking...1e8-ad14-fb11665d9502.html?platform=hootsuite

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]Jurors have just finished watching the video of [/FONT]#MichaelBlagg[FONT=&quot]'s first interview with law enforcement following the disappearance of his wife&daughter in 2001; cross examination has begun and the gloves are off. Check .[/FONT]@DailySentinelGJ[FONT=&quot] tomorrow for a story.

https://twitter.com/gabyreport
[/FONT]

 

[Tortoise]

Fang noted that investigators never tested Blagg for gunshot residue the day his family disappeared, despite taking time during an interview to examine him under a black light for blood or other bodily fluids.

Mahre combatted the point.



"At the time you were interviewing Mr. Blagg, did you have any reason to believe he had shot her in the face?" she asked.

"I did not," Weyler responded.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/defense-questions-police-competence/article_15497676-1eb1-11e8-800f-10604b9f7e7c.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

[MsFacetious]

The issue with the juror is not that she was a victim of domestic violence. It's that she did not disclose that she was. This makes it appear as if she lied to get on the jury.

If she had revealed it from the beginning and still been on the jury, then the verdict would not have been overturned.

Like I said ONE juror can hang a jury. The only fair option once you find out a juror has misrepresented themselves on a critical issue, is a retrial.

If she had lied about having a DUI it wouldn't have likely been an issue. It's only because it was on a central issue to the case that it occurred.

 

[Tortoise]

more to read at link

GOLDEN — Some tension arose during the first week of testimony in Michael Blagg's murder retrial last week, as attorneys navigated an unfamiliar judge with a distinct style of courtroom management as well as technological issues that stem from handling a case nearly 17 years in the making.


Since prosecutors began calling witnesses on Tuesday, Russell has been on the lookout for ways to streamline the case, asking Mahre and Hand to fast-forward through portions of a recorded interview between Blagg and Mesa County sheriff's investigators where Blagg is seen sitting in silence, and to try to cut down the number of photographs they plan to show jurors in coming weeks.

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/blagg-retrial-hits-a-few-rough-patches

 

[YESorNO]

Don't know if this YTube has been posted before:

Downloading the Devil SHOCKING Crime Documentary (1:03:30 hr)

Published on Oct 25, 2016

[video=youtube;BsYRmsdKNxg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsYRmsdKNxg[/video]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RosalindaA]

The issue with the juror is not that she was a victim of domestic violence. It's that she did not disclose that she was. This makes it appear as if she lied to get on the jury.

If she had revealed it from the beginning and still been on the jury, then the verdict would not have been overturned.

Like I said ONE juror can hang a jury. The only fair option once you find out a juror has misrepresented themselves on a critical issue, is a retrial.

If she had lied about having a DUI it wouldn't have likely been an issue. It's only because it was on a central issue to the case that it occurred.

Respectfully, I did say I understood that it was a procedural issue in the US system that the juror in question had not disclosed her history. Therefore it prompted a look at whether this could have affected the verdict against Blagg.

But my question is, is if she had disclosed her history, would the defence have objected to her sitting on the jury? From the little I have seen on this process, I think the answer would have been yes they would? And that is the critical point. But would another pristine person had any trouble (like the other eleven) convicting him? Unlikely IMO. We shall see as no doubt this time, any woman who has had as much as a mild argument over the breakfast table with the husband will have been debarred!

I believe in the UK you are just asked if you have a personal relationship to the defendant which would obviously be a problem. Happy to be corrected on this, I've never been on a jury and never known anyone who has, not much major crime in my area. So pretty much you get a random mix of people all with their own baggage, prejudices, views and opinions and levels of ability to weigh the evidence and keep awake.

Are the jurors in a partner violence case ever asked if they have hit their own partner? Are they asked if they have a sister, mother, daughter, friend who has experienced partner violence? Would they be excluded? How would you ever find twelve people (plus alternates!), partner violence is so endemic in society. I think the figure is 35% of all women have experienced this so IMO it is probably well over 50/60 % in reality.

I, like many women have experienced controlling behaviour, and a degree of violence and threat of violence from a male partner. Even if I could see video of Blagg assaulting his wife and daughter on another occasion and police had been called to their house before etc, etc, without enough OTHER evidence that connects him to the specific crime of murder, I wouldn't convict him. It would certainly be a strong "predictor" of behaviour and so would carry a certain amount of weight, but no more than that.

Prior victims of a crime should not be excluded from sitting on juries, they have greater knowledge and experience of the issues and it is disrespectful of them to think that they are now incapable of dispassionate thought. Absolutely they should excuse themselves if they think they cannot do this.

And I think I would probably allow objections if a rape trial had less than 4 female members. And if there were an all-white jury and a black defendant, I wouldn't be happy with that or vice versa. But in general random selection of twelve people evens that out by itself. That's why juries were invented. All that random experience thrown together aids justice, doesn't hinder it. Just my opinion, that's all.

 

[RosalindaA]

Oh and thanks Tortoise for that lovely close-up of Mr. Blagg. I'll be printing it out and putting it on my wall as my new pin-up....NOT!!!:laugh:Love the expression, "you think I'm innocent, don't you, come on, of course I am...give me a break..."