GUILTY TX - Kari Baker, 31, found dead in her Hewitt home, 7 April 2006

[DEPUTYDAWG]

From the centraltexasnow "blog":



12:35-- Matt Baker's attorneys ask the judge for funds to hire a legal expert. Baker's lawyers say they were told to contact the expert because he might have valuable insight.

The State prosecutor believes that due to the expert's ties with the news media, it would be improper to involve him in the case.

The defense wants the expert to refute testimony. The expert is from Pennsylvania, thus the lawyers' request today.

Judge says he will not approve an expert who is out there talking to the news media. The request is denied.



Trial adjourns until Tuesday at 8:30 a.m.
-------------------

WECHT, right?

LOL...really? The defense didn't think about hiring him sooner, as in before the trial? And before he was in the media commenting about the case? Good call by the Judge, IMO.

The State is doing a fine job between witness testimony and then playing Matt's own videos, also IMO. He has no credibility, it's shot over repetitive lies about the GF. Duh. Not a smart guy, is he?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Day 3: Matt Baker murder trial

By Erin Quinn | Friday, January 15, 2010, 08:31 AM

12:36 p.m. — Apparently, a witness for the prosecution was not available to testify this afternoon. Again, Strother dismissed the jurors until 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. Monday is a national holiday. Outside of the presence of the jury, defense lawyer, Harold Danford says that he the defense had originally said they would not call an expert witness. He tells the court that an expert contacted them, but needs money to bring him here. “At this time, we’re making a request to provide money to get Mr. Webb (sp?) down here.” This expert, Danford says, was on KXXV, Channel 25. The expert’s name is Cyril Webb. Prosecutor Susan Shafer says that, since he has provided interviews to the media, that it is improper. Strother says, “So, y’all are relying on the news media to determine who your experts are going to be? …And you are now designating this person as an expert? …And you want this expert to do what?” Danford says that he wants “a defense in this case” and to refute testimony that hasn’t been provided yet. Danford says that he might not need Webb at all. The state’s expert, he says, is the Lubbock medical examiner. Shafer points out the several times that the defense have said that they have no expert. Webb, Danford says, is in Pennsylvania. Strother says: “So, he hasn’t even been here at all? And he’s been analyzing evidence in this case for a TV station?” Danford says he didn’t know. He says that he has talked with Webb over the phone for about an hour and believes that he is “well-qualified.” Strother says, that, at this point, the motion is denied. “I don’t think it’s timely,” Strother says, and that he doesn’t want to bring in a person who is testifying for the news media. He says that he will consider another expert that is brought to him. “I will allow you the opportunity to ask me again,” Strother says. Guy James Gray says that the state’s witness, the Lubbock medical examiner, will not call them back. Long says that the medical examiner has been on the expert list since September. Strother says: “Mr. Gray and Mr. Danford, I think y’all could have anticipated, at that time, that you’d need an expert.” Strother states, again, that their request is denied. Again, testimony will pick up again until 8:30 a.m. Tuesday.

http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/conte.../live_blog_matt_baker_murder_tr.html#comments

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Miss Quinn needs to correct her article; it's Wecht, not Webb :twocents: She's not normally a crime reporter on a national level, LOL. Maybe we at WS could help her out

Ahhhh, so the Judge also sees an issue, or lack of planning, on the defense's timeliness of this request, for a defense, LOL

And Wecht contacted the defense team, telling them he could help them out? Wow, searching for jobs. I used the really respect him, up until a few years ago.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Miss Quinn needs to correct her article; it's Wecht, not Webb :twocents: She's not normally a crime reporter on a national level, LOL. Maybe we at WS could help her out

Ahhhh, so the Judge also sees an issue, or lack of planning, on the defense's timeliness of this request, for a defense, LOL

And Wecht contacted the defense team, telling them he could help them out? Wow, searching for jobs. I used the really respect him, up until a few years ago.

Deputydawg,
Yeppers, I think it is none other than the controversial Cyril Wecht himself solicitation business. Note, Gray asked for funds to get him down here. Also note that BOTH blog reporters used Webb. I think Gray probably said Webb. I bet he didn't even know his name. He talked for an hour, but knew the cost to get him here! I think this is what was on the bold colored post it note we saw being passed at the defense table.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Linda ROCKS!!! I missed part of her testimony, but caught most of it.. She is a ROCK!! I loved her comments on what she felt the statements in Karis Bible meant.. HOPE.. Go Linda!!! I felt the same way when the lawyers were asking about the Bible jourmals the first day of trail.. I knew exactly what Kari was saying, the hope and knowledge she would be with Kassidy one day...

I have not figured out what the channel KXXV was referring to.. It was during the news commercials for Greys and PP, they kept mentioning the contiuning trial, I beleive they even said something abut a "bombshell in todays testimony" and KNOW they said "new information of conflicting intrest of one of the witnesses" Maybe it was their attempt to sensaualaize.(sp?)

We found your answer! Cyril Wecht I have not found that 11pm news clip, but we have the answer now. Defense wants to buy an expert from behind door number 2........Bob Barker said no! (I am being silly here - the Price is Right game show and all!)

I didn't have a mother growing up, but now after seeing Kari's mom I know that the illusion-vision of what a mom would have been like, does in fact exist. I was really impressed by her.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Deputydawg,
Yeppers, I think it is none other than the controversial Cyril Wecht himself solicitation business. Note, Gray asked for funds to get him down here. Also note that BOTH blog reporters used Webb. I think Gray probably said Webb. I bet he didn't even know his name. He talked for an hour, but knew the cost to get him here! I think this is what was on the bold colored post it note we saw being passed at the defense table.

Okay, just so not impressed by his defense team.

 

[mia g]

Okay, just so not impressed by his defense team.

Me either and I am a little afraid this will keep the Dulins tied up for years on years of trails etc.. I am afraid(with my very limited legal knowledge) that what appears to me as shoddy defense(maybe defense just accepts the fact MBAKER is guilty) but w/e the reason I fear it will be used as grounds for appeal.

I do like the judge and had a good laugh with the court when he told Gray "I wouldnt go there" when he started questioning about Karis weight..

It seems to often though Gray is at a lose on what questions to ask... to almost like he has already accepted defeat.. anyone else seeing this??

 

[A_News_Junkie]

REPLACEMENT I HAD POSTED LINK THAT WAS HERE THIS AM: Something new - coverage from today's events in court:
http://www.centraltexasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=11825245

AP: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1427851.html

 

[A_News_Junkie]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6818217.html

 

[JusticeInWaco]

Day 3: Matt Baker murder trial

By Erin Quinn | Friday, January 15, 2010, 08:31 AM

12:36 p.m. — Apparently, a witness for the prosecution was not available to testify this afternoon. Again, Strother dismissed the jurors until 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. Monday is a national holiday. Outside of the presence of the jury, defense lawyer, Harold Danford says that he the defense had originally said they would not call an expert witness. He tells the court that an expert contacted them, but needs money to bring him here. “At this time, we’re making a request to provide money to get Mr. Webb (sp?) down here.” This expert, Danford says, was on KXXV, Channel 25. The expert’s name is Cyril Webb. Prosecutor Susan Shafer says that, since he has provided interviews to the media, that it is improper. Strother says, “So, y’all are relying on the news media to determine who your experts are going to be? …And you are now designating this person as an expert? …And you want this expert to do what?” Danford says that he wants “a defense in this case” and to refute testimony that hasn’t been provided yet. Danford says that he might not need Webb at all. The state’s expert, he says, is the Lubbock medical examiner. Shafer points out the several times that the defense have said that they have no expert. Webb, Danford says, is in Pennsylvania. Strother says: “So, he hasn’t even been here at all? And he’s been analyzing evidence in this case for a TV station?” Danford says he didn’t know. He says that he has talked with Webb over the phone for about an hour and believes that he is “well-qualified.” Strother says, that, at this point, the motion is denied. “I don’t think it’s timely,” Strother says, and that he doesn’t want to bring in a person who is testifying for the news media. He says that he will consider another expert that is brought to him. “I will allow you the opportunity to ask me again,” Strother says. Guy James Gray says that the state’s witness, the Lubbock medical examiner, will not call them back. Long says that the medical examiner has been on the expert list since September. Strother says: “Mr. Gray and Mr. Danford, I think y’all could have anticipated, at that time, that you’d need an expert.” Strother states, again, that their request is denied. Again, testimony will pick up again until 8:30 a.m. Tuesday.

http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/conte.../live_blog_matt_baker_murder_tr.html#comments

I tell you.........this was TRULY comical to watch. This was all Danford's doing. Gray knew this wasn't going to go well, but I guess Danford was determined to do SOMETHING besides be the SOL one having to sit closest to Baker. As Danford started talking, Gray slowly started slinking back, over towards the wall, slumped down a little like he was trying to be invisible or become one with the wall or something. Danford shot him a dirty look and a gesture of "get up here with me." At first Danford said the expert contacted him. Said that a couple times. The Judge asked him directly if the expert called HIM. Finally, after a "hmmm" and "ahhhh" Danford admitted that he called the expert after seeing him on the news. That did NOT sit well with the Judge. The Judge quizzed him on why he wanted the expert. Danford said, "So we can have a defense." @@ The Judge asked him if he wasn't aware that he would need a defense before today. He asked asked him what evidence he wanted the expert to refute. Danford said he wasn't sure but he expected to need to refute what the upcoming ME from Lubbock was going to say next week. Judge asked, "You are wanting the county to pay for an expert to refute evidence that hasn't been given yet?" He went on to ask how could Danford be confident that he was a qualified and good expert. Danford said because he talked to him for about an hour on the phone this week. @@

It goes on. Just too comical. Sad. But comical.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Me either and I am a little afraid this will keep the Dulins tied up for years on years of trails etc.. I am afraid(with my very limited legal knowledge) that what appears to me as shoddy defense(maybe defense just accepts the fact MBAKER is guilty) but w/e the reason I fear it will be used as grounds for appeal.

I do like the judge and had a good laugh with the court when he told Gray "I wouldnt go there" when he started questioning about Karis weight..

It seems to often though Gray is at a lose on what questions to ask... to almost like he has already accepted defeat.. anyone else seeing this??

I don't see that he is not getting a good defense. I have actually wanted to punch Grey for some of the negative connotation tactics he has been trying. He is trying to smear Kari as Matt has, but IMHO her reputation appears to be standing on its own.

If we look back at this article: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2010/01/09/01092010wacbakermotion.html?imw=Y

It appears that the defense has had to change course from their original game plan and what appears to be Mr. Gray's deep felt belief........
...QUOTE:
"Sitting a murder defendant down with the news media is unusual enough. However, Gray said Baker also is willing to take a law enforcement- administered polygraph test, appear on the record before a grand jury or talk to any police officer or prosecutor."

“I won’t defend a guy who won’t talk,” Gray said. “If we ever get into the courthouse either civilly or criminally, he will be on the witness stand or get another lawyer.”

Me again - Seems Gray is doing the best he can with the lies he must have been told. I am guessing this (above) and maybe Matt not having come clean with his attorney till the last moment about the affair and who knows what else; might have been behind his request to be removed for a serious breech of confidence. Grey is no rookie - look up his history! Guy James Gray.
IMHO Matt has blown his own defense. An attorney can't fabricate evidence to clear him obviously and they can only work with with their client gives them. So, really what more can he do than be aggressive with the smear campaign that Matt started the day Kari died?

Of course, other than cited sources and quotes......all this is JMHO, etc, etc, etc

Toast - IMHO:angel:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Justice in WACO - I would have paid darn good money to have seen that. CentralTexasNow cut the feed way early (and I think they start us about 15 min late each day) so I think I now know why and that this was perhaps not a technical problem.

See - Matt is getting a defense, these men are even grasping at straws to find someone who can make this appear less damning!

Here Mr Gray is a straw for you! ======

IMHO, etc.etc.etc

 

[A_News_Junkie]

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/81714377.html

Video report that gives a snippet into what a strong woman Mrs Dulin must be.
Her testimony was very compelling, so if I find more I will post it.

 

[mia g]

I didnt actually mean his attornies werent good.. I guess I worded it wrong. I felt like they were at a loss to a degree.. I felt it was probably as stated due to their defendant, who cant keep his story straight. Shoddy was the wrong word to use, it just seems to me that sometimes Gray is confused.. and well I dont know how to wrod it exactly right.. but I figure it IS because of all we have mentioned, it would (I am guessing) be hard to defend a very guilty murderer.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I didnt actually mean his attornies werent good.. I guess I worded it wrong. I felt like they were at a loss to a degree.. I felt it was probably as stated due to their defendant, who cant keep his story straight. Shoddy was the wrong word to use, it just seems to me that sometimes Gray is confused.. and well I dont know how to wrod it exactly right.. but I figure it IS because of all we have mentioned, it would (I am guessing) be hard to defend a very guilty murderer.

I see - yes, he must be at a total loss - he has nothing and his client seems like a big nothing too! (IMHO, etc....)


Here is another video report from today, btw:
http://ww2.kwtx.com/global/video/fl...g=News&undefined&activePane=info&rnd=48549291

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I was just reading back on Justice in Waco's blog and found this post that is simply amazing. This poster - June 30, 2008 2:28 PM (time is below post) hit the nail on the head about the "Eraser Killer" and seemed to be speaking right to Vanessa's heart to do the right thing. The parallels to the Amber Frey are amazing. This is from June, 2008. I wonder if Vanessa read this and if that is why we are going to hear from her.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6489449106311175918&postID=353786002139540076&isPopup=true

 

[JusticeInWaco]

I have a question about Matt moving Kari off the bed. I thought it was his own decision to do that (because he thought it would be easier to do CPR on the floor). But in the inquest documents somewhere (I don't remember the page #), Matt states that the 911 operator told him to move Kari off the bed... did anyone else notice this discrepancy?

Another interesting thing to note: When listening to the tail end of the 911 call, Matt is supposedly giving CPR and he says something to the 911 operator like, Oh, they're here. I gotta go open the front door to let them in. YET those first 2-3 first responders ALL said that Matt was standing outside in the yard when they pulled up. One of them even said he was like 10ish feet away from the front door in the yard. So unless Matt is Flash Lightning or the owner of a non-existent teleporter from his bedroom to the middle of his front yard, HE WAS NOT IN THE BEDROOM GIVING KARI CPR LIKE HE WAS PRETENDING WITH THE 911 OPERATOR. Why? Because he KNEW she was LONG DEAD. No hope for revival. And, well, he didn't want any hope for revival.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Another interesting thing to note: When listening to the tail end of the 911 call, Matt is supposedly giving CPR and he says something to the 911 operator like, Oh, they're here. I gotta go open the front door to let them in. YET those first 2-3 first responders ALL said that Matt was standing outside in the yard when they pulled up. One of them even said he was like 10ish feet away from the front door in the yard. So unless Matt is Flash Lightning or the owner of a non-existent teleporter from his bedroom to the middle of his front yard, HE WAS NOT IN THE BEDROOM GIVING KARI CPR LIKE HE WAS PRETENDING WITH THE 911 OPERATOR. Why? Because he KNEW she was LONG DEAD. No hope for revival. And, well, he didn't want any hope for revival.

YES!!!!!!!!! BTW -- Here are some links about the 911 call.

Complete call: http://www.centraltexasnow.com/glob...g=Search Results&activePane=info&rnd=95301430

Legal expert analysis (brief):http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Glob...d=4464288&topVideoCatNo=175475&autoStart=true

 

[A_News_Junkie]

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2010/01/16/01162010wacbakerday3.html

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/81714377.html


http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11830098

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I am once again going back over some of the previous stuff and just re-watched this interview with the guy who wrote the Texas Monthly article.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMOFq4KmO0[/ame]

I think it will be interesting to see if he writes anything on this when this is over.
Here is a repeat of my post when I linked the article (but I don't think I have linked this interview)
I read that entire article and even took notes as there were so many contradictions in it from what the police reports and the 20/20 show. That article, for those interested is at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2008-03-01/feature You have to register, but it is free and the read is well worth it if you are looking for details on the case. It is worth it just to see how arrogant this man is and how he thinks he is smarter than the average Joe as he contradicts himself a bunch. The term, Ideation of Grandeur comes to mind!