TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #6

[SuziQ]

Judge saying he's noticing additional buttons being worn. Reminder is this allowed for immediate family only.

 

[Muffet]

Lunch already? This morning has flown.

Now I gotta try to do some real work for an hour. :angel:

 

[lizzybeth]

Thank you again to everyone that is posting. I can listen to the trial but can't always watch. Sometimes it's a little difficult to understand what they're talking about when you can't see. You guys always ask the good questions too (with great answers) so I don't have to.

 

[Indianagirl]

Judge saying he's noticing additional buttons being worn. Reminder is this allowed for immediate family only.

I am so sick and tired of all these stimpulations on the victims' families and friends. Enough already! They didn't choose to be apart of any of this, the defendants did! I thought Judge B. was great in Cobbin's trial, but he has really disappointed me in this trial....Although, perhaps he is making sure every i is dotted and t crossed....to prevent Davidson's defense from seeking a new trial, during appeals once he is convicted!

 

[PrairieWind]

IndianaGirl, you bring up a good point for disucssion. The judge is being hard on the victims' families. But its not because he has any animosity. The judge wants to protect the conviction (that will ultimately be arrived at) from appeal by the defense. If the gallery has lots of buttons or other visual items that the jury can see, the defense could raise that on appeal saying it tainted the jury. The same for the alleged confrontation between the Newsoms and defense counsel. I'm sure the judge has no love for the defense attorneys, but he needs to rule in the defense's favor as much as possible to limit the number of issues on appeal. Davidson will be convicted. The gun testimony alone I think links him (in the jury's mind) to Chris's murder, along with his having chris's shoes, etc.

 

[Muffet]

I can understand the buttons, but I can't see any excuse for chewing out the families for calling Trant a "jerk" in the hallways during break. It was out of earshot of the jury, and the judge could have just as easily said something in private. He did not need to publicly berate them, imo. :sheesh:

ETA: I know you didn't say this, Prairie, but I also think the "They're just doing their job" excuse he gave them is BS in this case. They can do their job arguing the facts, as Cobbins' lawyers did. These creeps are taking it far beyond that into inventing a story they know isn't true that trashes the victims. To try to convince the jury that Channon Christian prostituted herself to this foul beast for drugs is flat-out beyond the pale.

That is what made the family and public so angry - not the simple fact that the creeps are defending him as their jobs require.

 

[PrairieWind]

I was a little surprised the judge would make a public statement like that as well. But I can say from my experiences that if the judge thought there was a serious exchange between them, he would have called all into his chambers to discuss it. So the fact that he didnt, tells me he didnt think it was a big deal. He should have just told the defense attorney to ignore it and stay away from victims families during breaks.

I hear you on the "doing their job" statements. I mean, they are in fact doing their jobs, but they dont have to take that tactic. I just dont think its a very effective strategy. No one on the jury is going to believe that Channon had voluntary sex with those dirt-bags. The prosecution in closing arguments should point out to the jury all the dirty tricks by the defense and point out that the reason they are doing that is because they have no real defense. Their client is guilty and all they can do is try to tear down the victims to make the crime seem less heinous.

 

[yolorado]

I am so sick and tired of all these stimpulations on the victims' families and friends. Enough already! They didn't choose to be apart of any of this, the defendants did! I thought Judge B. was great in Cobbin's trial, but he has really disappointed me in this trial....Although, perhaps he is making sure every i is dotted and t crossed....to prevent Davidson's defense from seeking a new trial, during appeals once he is convicted!

He looks really ragged during this trial too, like it's all getting to him. No way he should have gone off on the Newsomes like he did in open court, espeically when he may have only one side to the story of what happened.

 

[dgfred]

Probably can feel the tension and animosity for the defendent in the courtroom like a blanket... and wanted to nip any negative factors for the jury in the bud.

 

[Muffet]

I was a little surprised the judge would make a public statement like that as well. But I can say from my experiences that if the judge thought there was a serious exchange between them, he would have called all into his chambers to discuss it. So the fact that he didnt, tells me he didnt think it was a big deal. He should have just told the defense attorney to ignore it and stay away from victims families during breaks.

I hear you on the "doing their job" statements. I mean, they are in fact doing their jobs, but they dont have to take that tactic. I just dont think its a very effective strategy. No one on the jury is going to believe that Channon had voluntary sex with those dirt-bags. The prosecution in closing arguments should point out to the jury all the dirty tricks by the defense and point out that the reason they are doing that is because they have no real defense. Their client is guilty and all they can do is try to tear down the victims to make the crime seem less heinous.

ITA, Prairie. And judging from what I've seen of TK, I bet she will sock it to them in closing.

 

[SuziQ]

Court in session.

 

[yolorado]

I can understand the buttons, but I can't see any excuse for chewing out the families for calling Trant a "jerk" in the hallways during break. It was out of earshot of the jury, and the judge could have just as easily said something in private. He did not need to publicly berate them, imo. :sheesh:

ETA: I know you didn't say this, Prairie, but I also think the "They're just doing their job" excuse he gave them is BS in this case. They can do their job arguing the facts, as Cobbins' lawyers did. These creeps are taking it far beyond that into inventing a story they know isn't true that trashes the victims. To try to convince the jury that Channon Christian prostituted herself to this foul beast for drugs is flat-out beyond the pale.

That is what made the family and public so angry - not the simple fact that the creeps are defending him as their jobs require.

We always hear how great our justice system is, then we see stuff like this trial and it just confirms that it's not THAT great. The defense gets all the marbles. There's no balance of the defendant's rights with those of the victims and society. Part of 'the job' should be understanding the resulting, righteous indignation.

 

[SuziQ]

Next witness. Linda....oh geeze the sound is horrible!

 

[SuziQ]

Back to having my speakers on full blast again.

 

[SuziQ]

She's a smarty pants. Lots of credentials.

 

[SuziQ]

Microanalysis.

 

[SuziQ]

Makes fiber matches, similar charactaristics, comparing torn fabrics, etc.

TBI crime lab.

 

[SuziQ]

Compared floral fabric from Channon's autopsy.

 

[SuziQ]

Id ing Floral fabric from rrtracks.

 

[SuziQ]

Floral fabric from kitchen.