GUILTY NC - Jameson 'Jamie' Hahn, 29, stabbed to death, Raleigh, 22 April 201

[Tedanddix]

I think this is Arbour attempting to create some sort of doubt. I'm not sure why they won't play that interview though. Who knows what kind of crazy stuff JB may have said. He could've said he and NH had been involved(more than platonically) at some point in the past or that NH knew what he was going to do? I do wish we knew, but to me it still doesn't make me doubt that the attack was premeditated.

 

[Prancy]

Well that's just it. I thought they played the interview in the courtroom for the jury or did they only play certain parts.

 

[Tedanddix]

Well that's just it. I thought they played the interview in the courtroom for the jury or did they only play certain parts.

I think there was a previous interview conducted on the 23rd, if I heard that correctly. I think he also made issue of them not playing the whole interview though too.

 

[Boodles]

There were 3 interviews with Broyhill. Only one has been admitted (4/26) and it was played for the court and transcripts given to the jury. Arbour is referring to another which took place on the 23rd.

I think there's a lot more to this case than what we've heard. I can't stand Arbour, but at this point I don't think he's blowing smoke. There's more here than meets the eye, IMO.

 

[Prancy]

Okay, so if there were things that the defense wanted to get in and they were blocked by objection, then why didn't they make an offer of proof of what it is, so that on appeal, the appeals court can properly rule on it? I guess it's still not too late to do it....as long as that witness is on the stand.

 

[Tedanddix]

I think there was a previous interview conducted on the 23rd, if I heard that correctly. I think he also made issue of them not playing the whole interview though too.

What do you mean more than meets the eye? As in someone else was involved? I'd really like to know what makes you think that. I heard a lot of details about the case before the trial through friends, and nothing ever made me think there might be more to the story.

Can someone fill me in on the love triangle reference from today's cross? That's the only thing I can think. Maybe JB claimed to have some sort of relationship with NH. Still doesn't convince me this wasn't a planned murder, even if they had.

 

[Boodles]

I want to hear the interview from 4/23. It sounds like there's a lot of stuff in it being kept out of court. Why?

And why can't the defense introduce that interview when it presents its case? And yeah, they don't want JB to testify apparently. Can't blame them.

 

[Boodles]

"Love triangle" reference was one of many, many references to questions asked by Detective Morse to the defendant, trying to determine why the crime occurred. He asked questions about all the familiar motives: anger about layoff, embezzlement, possible love triangle, etc. The defense said something to the effect "did you ask him questions related to a possible love triangle?" Det: yes. Def: and did he answer those questions? Det: yes.

That's all it was.

 

[Tedanddix]

I want to hear the interview from 4/23. It sounds like there's a lot of stuff in it being kept out of court. Why?

And why can't the defense introduce that interview when it presents its case? And yeah, they don't want JB to testify apparently. Can't blame them.

What kind of stuff do you think is in there? I wouldn't be surprised in JB had told a pretty elaborate lie or used it as an opportunity to victim-blame NH and JH. Or to try to spread lies about them. Given JB's history of not telling the truth, it seems likely. I think the defense wants the jury to think there's some sort of bombshell information in that other interview, but I highly doubt any of it is true if there is.

 

[Boodles]

What kind of stuff do you think is in there? I wouldn't be surprised in JB had told a pretty elaborate lie or used it as an opportunity to victim-blame NH and JH. Or to try to spread lies about them. Given JB's history of not telling the truth, it seems likely. I think the defense wants the jury to think there's some sort of bombshell information in that other interview, but I highly doubt any of it is true if there is.

Without hearing the interview, it's hard to say, and I'd only be speculating. There has to be a reason the prosecution doesn't want to allow the first two interviews, while the defense is hell bent on including their content.

It has felt, to me, that there's been something unspoken underlying this case from the start, for lots of reasons, IMO, not just the interview issue.

If there is, I don't think it has any bearing upon whether this was premeditated. I don't have doubts about that.

 

[Prancy]

I'm trying to figure out what we have learned from the cross since yesterday. The only thing I can gather is that the detective did a thorough job with the investigation.

 

[borndem]

Okay, so if there were things that the defense wanted to get in and they were blocked by objection, then why didn't they make an offer of proof of what it is, so that on appeal, the appeals court can properly rule on it? I guess it's still not too late to do it....as long as that witness is on the stand.

Yes!! Why didn't they? I was thinking the same thing. Surely Arbour would have done it if there really were anything else. And it would help to set up a point for appeal, just like you said. His bag o' tricks is empty, methinks.

Maybe he will bring it up while Morse is on the stand...

 

[Prancy]

Even if he forgot to make the offer of proof, certainly, someone reminded him of doing that on the lunch break. I think he'll ask to do it. Perhaps, after the cross ends.

 

[Boodles]

Will this ever end? Poor jury.

 

[borndem]

Amanda Lamb (WRAL) follows
trialjunkie ‏@trialjunkie 5m5 minutes ago

I really dislike that #Broyhilltrial defense lawyer is doing a narration and the witness is just agreeing or not.Not the way this should be

 

[Tedanddix]

Okay. This is starting to make a bit of sense. I think in the other interview JB must've been much more emotional. Arbour knows the interview from the 26th made him sound cold and calculating. Want jurors to think that was just due to meds and suggest that he was totally off his rocker the night of(and the day after) the murder. Is that what everyone else is gathering?

 

[Boodles]

Okay. This is starting to make a bit of sense. I think in the other interview JB must've been much more emotional. Arbour knows the interview from the 26th made him sound cold and calculating. Want jurors to think that was just due to meds and suggest that he was totally off his rocker the night of(and the day after) the murder. Is that what everyone else is gathering?

(Bolded by me.) Not to me! As a matter of fact, he has droned along rehashing every bit of minutia to the point no one's probably listening, except you, apparently! He never makes a point. I think the defense attorney has mental issues, and probably significant performance issues at work. (I'm not joking.) It's really quite unfortunate, and I wouldn't be surprised if this def atty is asked to retire after this trial. This is ridiculous, bizarre and wasting everyone's time. IMO.

 

[Prancy]

Well.....I didn't get that, but your contention makes sense. I'm just not sure how this line of questions takes you there.

 

[Tedanddix]

Well.....I didn't get that, but your contention makes sense. I'm just not sure how this line of questions takes you there.

I'm not saying it's logical or effective, but it seems he wants to make the jury think that a. There is important info they don't know and b. he wants them to discount JB's tone/demeanor from the 4/26 interview. Basically, he wants the other interview to make them feel like they don't have enough info and to make them distrust the prosecution.

That's really the only thing that makes sense to me, but I haven't been able to watch all day, so I wouldn't bet on me being on the right track.

And Boodles, I agree with you on all of that. This guy is a nut case. Frankly, I'm shocked he has a job anywhere doing anything. I just hope and pray that he hasn't planted any seeds of doubt into even one mind on that jury.

 

[Prancy]

Well, it appears to me that he has reiterated that this detective did a very thorough investigation.