GUILTY NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #8

[Prancy]

When I heard the defense say no one heard the saw I had to wonder WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SOME NEIGHBORS on the STAND to say WE WERE HOME and HEARD NOTHING? I thought the DEFENSE's job was to not JUST hope the prosecutors don't put enough on the table. They were charged with DEFENDING her. I immediately thought of that question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound!

Let's hope the jury is not THAT gullible!

Probably, because if they had heard something they would have testified for the state. And since they didn't, it's possible they didn't hear anything, weren't at home or were risky witnesses. You have to be careful with a witness, because they could say one thing to help you, but then say something else that could hurt you. I'm just speculating, but since the state didn't talk about saw noise and neighbors, maybe the defense felt like leaving it alone would be the safest. I'm just speculating.

 

[Boodles]

I just realized something. For me the defense always falls a part when they get to TX. BUT - I realized last night, those boys (men) didn't testify in this trial did they? They only testified in Grants, right? I think that could be problematic. The prosecutors only showed her sister - who has health problems, and the niece.

Or am I wrong and the boys/men did testify?

No, they didn't testify at this trial. Why do you think that's problematic?

 

[Karmady]

When I heard the defense say no one heard the saw I had to wonder WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SOME NEIGHBORS on the STAND to say WE WERE HOME and HEARD NOTHING? I thought the DEFENSE's job was to not JUST hope the prosecutors don't put enough on the table. They were charged with DEFENDING her. I immediately thought of that question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound!

Let's hope the jury is not THAT gullible!

The State would have had to disclose its witnesses ahead of time, so the defense would have known if they planned to call a neighbor to testify about anything. If the State didn't disclose a neighbor, the defense wouldn't need to put on anything and would likely have chosen not to unless a neighbor right next door was home and heard nothing. Conversely, if that same witness was home and heard something, the State would definitely have put them on, imo. So it is, imo, a flaw in the State's case. And from what I heard of the defense closing yesterday, that's the focus. The dismembering happened elsewhere and Amanda didn't know anything about it.

I haven't watched the full trial, though, or the other defendant's trial, so I don't know what evidence there was of the location being the bathroom other than the bleach and a reference here to plastic sheeting. The complete absence of blood in a thorough luminol treatment of the bathroom was pretty persuasive to me as an uninformed listener, though.

all jmo

 

[aa9511]

Agree with all above. Amanda's defense seemed to present both scenarios: Grant went to Kinston to dismember body. If Grant dismembered body in the bathroom, they have an excuse for that, too: Why, little miss Amanda didn't know nothin' 'bout what was going on in that bathroom! :banghead:

Yes, it is just so obvious.

Suddenly Amanda finds out at Karen's house. And that coincidentally lines up with Karen saying both of them went on the boat, and that coincidentally lines up with the video of her dumping acid.

If Karen hadn't said about the boat and the brainstorming, and there was no video of the acid-dumping....we already know what Amanda's story would be....I never knew anything about Laura being dead. Until the police came and arrested me, I had no idea, Grant did everything and I didn't know.

It's so obvious it could hit the jury in their b-hinds.

 

[Veracity]

The defense never has to prove the charges against a client. It is the state's burden 100% to prove each element of a crime to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's in the Constitution of the U.S.

Fully agree BUT in order to get that REASONABLE DOUBT a DEFENSE TEAM has to dissect the PROSECUTION CASE and PUT ON A DEFENSE. That includes alternative witnesses to rebut the Prosecution's case.

The Defense floated a lot of air balls in my opinion. They used tricks of the trade to confuse or send the jury off to ponder something entirely tangent to the case.

They hired a private investigator to do what? Wouldn't it have made sense for him to knock on some doors and find someone to collaborate Amanda's account since SHE was the one AT THE APARTMENT! The DEFENSE is the one who says GRANT took their only vehicle and kept disappearing.

Common sense says if the DEFENSE could get their next door neighbor - if they had one - to say NO NOISE. Then THAT is would help refute the PROSECUTOR's case against their client.

 

[SurfieTX]

Admittedly, I have never been on a jury and do not know the "process," if there even is one. IMHO, humans are curious by nature and with a case like this, I would think that each scenario has to be honestly entertained as much as possible, and the evidence reviewed based on each.

Grant did not testify. He gave no "story." Amanda did. The jurors now have the burden of weighing each scenario presented, agree that's how it most likely happened and then decide on the charges. There is so much info and opinions to wade through, and that's why I think it is taking a while.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

I must be the only one here not worried.
Maybe I should be!
I probably am so sure because of what I personally know that it doesn't occur to me that a jury sees and learns so much less. I think though, they have seen enough to put her away.
Hopefully she gets the same as Grant, because she is just as responsible for Laura being gone as he was, no matter how many of the "murder chores" she had on her list.


PS- Thank You Martha for the tip about the new movie!
I had not even seen it advertised. I want to see that for sure.
Ian McShane is in it also, I would watch him recite shampoo directions! :giggle:

I am not worried about the verdict. I tend to think the jury is as smart as the rest of us except for some men who still fall for the maiden in distress bs and that bunch in Florida. There is always that possibility. I didn't even like the jury in Arias trial not being able to give that monster the death penalty. But there isn't a darned thing I can do about it except hope that if justice isn't served at trial that the guilty get hit by a mack truck crossing the street from the courthouse, amen.

PS OT Myself, I prefer the ginger in those movies. Nick is a wonderful actor because I still don't like him from the zombie movie,thinking himself all that and with the 'I got wood' T shirt too boot.

 

[Boodles]

I wish the State had presented a clear cut scenario of what happened. But they presented multiple scenarios which may have occurred. For example, there is ambiguity about "the agreement" - was it Laura's handwriting or not? They implied both, but clearly implied that something was definitely funky about the agreement.

Then they said it was premeditated and Laura was lured there by Amanda. But later BH said Laura recorded everything and maybe they decided that after talking, Laura did a "gotcha" with the recording, that they then decided to kill her.

I wish there was just one clear scenario for these jurors to ponder. Ambiguity is a pain in the rear, IMO.

But it is what it is. And I'm glad the State was ethical and didn't make stuff up, like the defense did IMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Fully agree BUT in order to get that REASONABLE DOUBT a DEFENSE TEAM has to dissect the PROSECUTION CASE and PUT ON A DEFENSE. That includes alternative witnesses to rebut the Prosecution's case.

Defense teams usually want to put on a defense, but if a defense team believes the state has not proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt they can rest without doing anything more than that and go right to closing arguments. It's a bold move, but criminal cases have gone that way from time to time. None I remember here in this area though.

 

[aa9511]

Question: Did the defense put in that bit about the saw would have made cut marks in the bathroom after going through the hard bone, during the trial? Or did they just stick it in there for closings?

 

[Boodles]

snipped
I haven't watched the full trial, though, or the other defendant's trial, so I don't know what evidence there was of the location being the bathroom other than the bleach and a reference here to plastic sheeting. The complete absence of blood in a thorough luminol treatment of the bathroom was pretty persuasive to me as an uninformed listener, though.

all jmo

Bbm. Persuasive toward which way of thinking?

 

[Madeleine74]

The murder was premeditated because there was enough time (which can be mere seconds, really) between the thought "kill Laura" and action of killing Laura. When someone is being stabbed and strangled there is enough time where premeditation can occur.

Different than pre-planning a crime, which is not an element that has to be proved by anyone. And neither does the state have to know or prove the exact sequence of events of how a crime went down. That is unknowable unless you have a confession by a perp and that confession is truthful and accurate. It's nice if you can find out, but it's rare.

 

[MissSallyAnnie]

I am not worried about the verdict. I tend to think the jury is as smart as the rest of us except for some men who still fall for the maiden in distress bs and that bunch in Florida. There is always that possibility. I didn't even like the jury in Arias trial not being able to give that monster the death penalty. But there isn't a darned thing I can do about it except hope that if justice isn't served at trial that the guilty get hit by a mack truck crossing the street from the courthouse, amen.

PS OT Myself, I prefer the ginger in those movies. Nick is a wonderful actor because I still don't like him from the zombie movie,thinking himself all that and with the 'I got wood' T shirt too boot.

You mean some men would fall for this?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61+bRk77-cL._SL1500_.jpg

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

If the Hayes apartment is one of those fancy townhouses and they had the corner unit and the people living in the unit next door were at work then there would be no witnesses to the noise. Even in fancy apts I think the bathrooms in one unit back up to the bathrooms in the unit next door so that both can share the communal drains and save money when building.

So the next door neighbors, if there were any, weren't home when the saw was in use.

 

[borndem]

I apologize in advance for the gore, but this type of saw is significantly louder when striking a rigid, solid object (wood, bone, etc.) than if used on soft tissue.

The rapidly moving blade will have a tendency to 'jump' unless held firmly in place against a stationary solid object, including for example the victim's osseous matter.

Assuming her bones would have been held against the floor and/or the sides or walls of a tub enclosure the vibrations/sounds would have been conducted by those objects as well.

Check with a carpenter, plumber, construction worker or homeowner who cuts through items as thin as drywall, gypsum, or sheet rock. It sounds like the whole house is coming down.

Think of carving fowl or poultry with an electric knife, especially cutting through a bone or joint. As small as that is compared to the saws in question, these things cannot -- and were not -- done quietly, and probably not alone.

100% agree, Detector -- We have the very same brand of saw -- it's a Skil reciprocating saw -- electric. It's not super-heavy, but it does have some weight.

It would be very, very difficult to keep the saw where you wanted it to go when cutting through a femur, especially. First you have to get through the skin & fat, then the muscle. There is a lot of mass in your upper thigh. Think about it. You really could do a much better and quicker job of it if someone held the leg still (sorry about these words) so that one could hold it in place. Same for the rest of the body. And body matter spray? All over the place.

No way GH would let AH sit around while he sweated through the dismemberment. He's too worthless to do anything by himself. Plus he knew she wanted poor LA gone -- prolly more than he did -- "Get over here and help me." (I can just hear him...)

 

[ShadyLady]

Tick tock.

They could have begun cutting in bathroom (turn music loud), then decided to roll her up in rug and shower curtain instead. But, I don't think it matters how they did it. They did it and there are too many things that Amanda knew from the start. "It wasn't suppose to happen THAT way". So there was a plan, just not that one.

 

[Truth Detector]

A bit more speculation....

On the murder charge, what if at least one juror is thinking, "We don't even know for certain -- due to decomposition -- precisely how she died."?

If we don't know exactly how she died, how can we be so convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that AH did the deed? What, in minute detail, even WAS the deed?

On the accessory charge, the only defense is that GH made her do it. IMO, she'll be convicted on that count in short order.

 

[SurfieTX]

MMc has a hilarious tweet with a photo. Go check it out.

 

[Madeleine74]

If we don't know exactly how she died, how can we be so convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that AH did the deed? What, in minute detail, even WAS the deed?

Did you watch the testimony of the M.E. and pathologist?

 

[ShadyLady]

Prosecution argued that even if she took the kids to bedroom so Grant could do the deed, they were in collusion. Both equally guilty.