Remember that British guy who murdered his wife and young daughter?? Can't recall his name right now. And so many more.....
Was it Neil Entwistle?
Remember that British guy who murdered his wife and young daughter?? Can't recall his name right now. And so many more.....
Remember that British guy who murdered his wife and young daughter?? Can't recall his name right now. And so many more.....
Just don't leave here! I find this trial so disjointed at times it is nice to hear from those that have followed from the start.
Do you know what Gracie is going to testify to or about?
The point is that JY claimed to swallow the ring, the ring was not seen or found until HE produced it the next morning, his female friend, as a result of his antics, had to reschedule her flight to the next day, and he kept up this ruse (if, in fact it was a ruse). His behavior and history of behavior was such that those who knew him believed he swallowed that ring. He was certainly capable of it. I mean, a guy who will undo his pants and pee on your LR carpet, then come running out butt nekkid and sit among a group of people in your LR is not someone who has good boundaries. Jerkwad.
Was it Neil Entwistle?
So did those of us whose video feed cut out at the end miss something or not? I thought they simply were taking a lunch break?
Was it Neil Entwistle?
GM, fran. Same here with me.I lost the trial and got weather and noon news. I thought they dismissed for lunch.
fran
Sociopath comes to mind. I am curious what does dining at a country restaurant have to do with proof of innocence?
Neil Entwistle(We can add Justin Adams, Doug Stewart, William Inman, possibly Dale Smith and Kevin Duck too and there are still so, so many more intimate partner homicides.)
IMHO, IF this witness had not previously testified as to the 'planning' part of her last conversation with the defendant, the def att is going to go after that. But to me, it's a simple POSSIBLE explanation.
She said that in hindsight, it was weird. Well, she MAY have voiced her concern of this fact to friends and family when discussing this case, and she may not have said anything to the pros prior to her testimony. Thus, it was never brought up because the pros didn't even know about it.
The saying goes that an attorney won't ask a question that he doesn't already know the answer to.
After the mistrial, the pros most likely sat this state's witness down and asked her if there was ANYTHING she could recall that she hadn't testified to, that could HELP with the pros. IMHO, that would be a simple explanation on why her testimony MAY have changed, a bit. It's not really changed, she just elaborated more.
Like often times when LE asks for the public's help, they say 'if you remember anything about that night, even something you don't think could be relative to the crime, please call us.'
JMHO
fran
Okay, Fran, now you have lost me, thanks a lot, lol.
Are you talking about Shelly?
![]()
BBM: And to think, all these friends kept inviting him back to all their parties.. Does not say much for them does it... Hasn't he been described as, "the life of the party"?
IMO, a fun group of VERY old friends who when drinking, all get involved in strange behaviors to many of us. Does not a murder make...
Hello everyone...
Gracie was on the stand for a proffer about her testimony after the jury left for lunch. She was hit by a truck when she was 7yo. I guess the def. wants to show that she isn't a reliable witness due to the head injury. Judge said he will allow her testify. That's all I got out of it. Since I didn't know who she is, it was kind of confusing.
Gracie was on the stand for a proffer about her testimony after the jury left for lunch. She was hit by a truck when she was 7yo. I guess the def. wants to show that she isn't a reliable witness due to the head injury. Judge said he will allow her testify. That's all I got out of it. Since I didn't know who she is, it was kind of confusing.
Yes I was Cammy. She talked about how that evening before JY left on his business trip, he gave her, verbally, his plans for the night. She said at the time she didn't think much of it. But after MY's murder, she thought about it and wondered why he told her his plans, all laid out? Because she said he was NOT a planner and was, 'more of a seat-of-the-pants sorta' guy.'
But I THOUGHT I saw someone say that she MAY NOT have said that in her original testimony. That's the thing in retrials, both side's attorneys use previous testimony to compare current testimony. Make sure they match.
I was saying, hypothetically, IF she didn't state this info on her original testimony, that is how it POSSIBLY happened she may have changed her testimony this time, just a little. Not really changed, but added.
HTH,
fran
![]()