Nona Dirksmeyer, 2005 Miss Arkansas pageant contestant found dead in her apartment

[JR2007]

Hey Hotwired, I see you back there, got any interesting info.
:biggrin:

[hOTwIREd]

Hey Hotwired, I see you back there, got any interesting info.
:biggrin:

Hello JR2007,

Living in England, and not being au fait with the case, I have been trawling through the posts here to bring myself up to speed!

Hopefully I will have caught up in a day or two.

It is a fascinating case.

PS I hope you do not mind me using a quote from you for my bit 'under the line' of my posts.

[hOTwIREd]

lol - I thought your post was from this morning (12:22 am or thereabout) - now I have realised that it is am -the next day (just got in from work).

[JR2007]

Hello JR2007,

Living in England, and not being au fait with the case, I have been trawling through the posts here to bring myself up to speed!

Hopefully I will have caught up in a day or two.

It is a fascinating case.

PS I hope you do not mind me using a quote from you for my bit 'under the line' of my posts.

When nothing is happening on here, I like to go back and start reading the old post. It helps to clear up some of my own questions. It also brings new ones to light.

[hOTwIREd]

When nothing is happening on here, I like to go back and start reading the old post. It helps to clear up some of my own questions. It also brings new ones to light.

We do that in investigations at work. when we think we have exhausted all avenues, we go back through the evidence and find a fresh perspective.

[JR2007]

Hi Susie! You and Christina may be right but I'd hold off on any celebrations at this point in time. And that goes for both sides, defense and prosecution. With the gag order in effect, this latest hearing was the first opportunity the defense had to really get anything about their case and their defense strategy out to the public. IMO, using this opportunity to start casting out information that could cause doubt is a good strategy, one, I'm sure the defense hopes, will get to the potential jury pool and start people thinking and doubting and scratching their chins saying hmmmmm. Alibis and hard forensic evidence are going to be the keys in this case, IMO. I think it may have been a big mistake for the defense to put JM on their list of witnesses. He may just be the key to providing motive or at least leading the prosecution to develop the jealous boyfriend motive. That was risky, IMO.

We'll just have to wait and see. But, regardless of whether anyone posting here thinks Kevin is guilty or innocent, I think this forum has been a great team of posters working together for one goal, Justice of Nona! That's a real tribute to the level of commitment, cooperation and respect you guys have shown to each other and to Nona. I'm very happy to be here and I'm with each and everyone of you ~ JUSTICE FOR NONA:rose:

Well said Brooke

[sololobo]

The only hard physical evidence, known to me implicating Jones, is the bloody print on the alleged murder weapon. If it was "tacky" at 7:20 pm as stated by Chief Bacon, I assume it was done after Jones and company found the body. I want to know what Bacon meant by "tacky". Everything else I know of, implicating Jones, is speculation.

WARNING! The below contains speculation. Read at your own risk. :)

The killer more than likely removed the battery from Nona's phone to destroy incriminating evidence. Did she have a camera phone? Could photos have been deleted from the phone? I recall someone saying the last access of her PC was of a picture of another beauty pageant queen. Did the killer conduct a photo search of her PC to see if Nona had uploaded any photos from her phone? I hope her PC has been thoroughly examined by experts.

[FDInLaw]

I feel they have reasonable evidence to support their claim. This is too serious, afterall a man's life is at stake, to be making wild accusations and crazy innuendos to try to sway opinions. I don't think they would make statements lightly without something to back it up. JMO

You really don't like the thought that there is reasnonable evidence that points to other suspects do you?
I don't like seeing accusations made that are not backed up with evidence. With all the moaning about "innocent until proven guilty" we get here for discussing Kevin, I would think you would understand. There is evidence that Kevin lied to the police. . . cell phone records and conflicting witness accounts. What evidence has been produced that establishes that JM lied? NONE! If and when the defense can actually produce some evidence, I'll conceder it then. Until then I'm not going to fall for what might just be the latest round of smoke and mirrors.

Other extremely ironic thing, with all the whining about the Courier reporting about the rape allegations . . . I wonder if they contacted JM before printing this story? Do you think they cared if his Mom woke up to read the article? Did the Courier wait until the claim was substantiated? If you read down all the complaints against the Courier in the lawsuit filed by the Whitesides you will find that they acted in kind with this Jeremy kid. I'm not seeing a bias here.

You state that I really don't like the thought of there being reasonable evidence for other suspects. . . this isn't true in the slightest. My irritation is with the fact that there has yet to be any reasonable evidence produced!

[christina]

This is not moaning, it is a presumption that protects us all. It is the basis of the legal system in our country.
Did the police and prosecutor charge the person they think most likely committed this crime, yes. But I will wait until he is proven guilty.
As for comparing the Courier's coverage of the Whiteside situation with Jeremy Martin, come on, even you can see that is a stretch.

[FDInLaw]

"libel-


A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical courtIn law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

Just a thought, but if KJ is cleared of charges, do you think this might give him the right to sue someone on here for libel? This sort of is a public form of media. His reputation certainly could be considered to have been damaged by it, especially if he's cleared of charges.
This is a great point to make, I for one will not be shocked in the slightest if there are libel suits filed. All sorts of false claims have been made, as to whether Kevin is a victim of this is still to be determined. I for one have never intentionally lied to hurt anyone's reputation on this board or elsewhere (if you believe different, I challenge you to prove it).

[hawgustusgloop]

The only hard physical evidence, known to me implicating Jones, is the bloody print on the alleged murder weapon. If it was "tacky" at 7:20 pm as stated by Chief Bacon, I assume it was done after Jones and company found the body. I want to know what Bacon meant by "tacky". Everything else I know of, implicating Jones, is speculation.

WARNING! The below contains speculation. Read at your own risk. :)

The killer more than likely removed the battery from Nona's phone to destroy incriminating evidence. Did she have a camera phone? Could photos have been deleted from the phone? I recall someone saying the last access of her PC was of a picture of another beauty pageant queen. Did the killer conduct a photo search of her PC to see if Nona had uploaded any photos from her phone? I hope her PC has been thoroughly examined by experts.

Wow! This is the first speculation about someone accessing the photos on her computer that makes some sense!

Also, did the police not check the phone for fingerprint or DNA evidence before the phone was released to Nona's stepfather? Or was the issue that the defense never got the opportunity to examine it? The article I read (I think it was in the print edition of the Dem Gaz) made it seem like the phone wasn't tested for fingerprints at all, even though it is highly probable that the killer manipulated Nona's phone. Surely that can't be true, can it?

[hawgustusgloop]

Errrr. . . me no like the AR Dem Gaz . . . you have to have a subscription to read the article! :cuss:

Me no like either....we had a subscription awhile back but had to cancel because they kept bringing us wet papers......sometimes even when it wasn't raining. And IMO it is harder to cancel the Dem Gaz than it is to cancel AOL!!!

[christina]

Thank you for the greeting-Good Afternoon to you Brooklyn.
How is the weather in New York? It feels like 100% humidity here and I have yard work to do!
I was responding to FDInLaw's comment regarding- moaning about innocent until prove guilty. I agree with Ms. Q's points on the comparison between the Whiteside articles and the mention of Jeremy Martin in a article. The Courier did not dredge up a story on Martin, he was mentioned in a public legal proceeding. Whereas she was shown a rape report, told no charges were filed, and asked not to print it. She went even further by naming the parents and other guests at the party. Thus she faces a libel suit now.

As for people on this blog facing libel suits, I can't imagine it as we are all anonymous- aren't we?

[christina]

The inference was made at the hearing that the crime lab had not done a fingerprint nor dna test on the cell phone found by the victim's body. I cna not remember what was said exactly though.
Again we will not know all the evidence until the trial but the hearing showed me there is a definite chink in the police work done.

[hawgustusgloop]

The inference was made at the hearing that the crime lab had not done a fingerprint nor dna test on the cell phone found by the victim's body. I cna not remember what was said exactly though.
Again we will not know all the evidence until the trial but the hearing showed me there is a definite chink in the police work done.

Well, if they failed to check the phone for fingerprints, that is a gross oversight at best. I hope they tested it and we just don't know about it.

Also, is it public knowledge where specifically Nona's phone was located? If it was near her body, how close was it? If not, where was it located in the apartment? Was the battery in the apartment, or has it not been found?
I guess I should go back and :read: .

[sololobo]

The battery was never found.

"The Medical Examiner has opined that the approximate time of Nona’s death was from approximately lO:OO to approximately 12:30. The last known contact Nona had with a person other than her killer occurred at 10:25 when she finished a phone conversation with a professor. During that 3 to 4 minute conversation, Nona confirmed to the professor that she was at her apartment. At 11:04, Nona received a text message which was apparently opened but not responded to by Nona. At 12:5 8 she received a text-message but it was neither opened nor responded to." Probable Cause Statement

At 11:04 the battery was on the phone. I have some questions about the 12:58 text message. Did her phone download this text message at 12:58 or was it received at the service provider at this time? Did investigators get this info from her service provider? Or did the phone receive this message if and after power was restored to the phone during the investigation?

[lorettalockhorn]

The only hard physical evidence, known to me implicating Jones, is the bloody print on the alleged murder weapon. If it was "tacky" at 7:20 pm as stated by Chief Bacon, I assume it was done after Jones and company found the body. I want to know what Bacon meant by "tacky". Everything else I know of, implicating Jones, is speculation.

WARNING! The below contains speculation. Read at your own risk. :)

The killer more than likely removed the battery from Nona's phone to destroy incriminating evidence. Did she have a camera phone? Could photos have been deleted from the phone? I recall someone saying the last access of her PC was of a picture of another beauty pageant queen. Did the killer conduct a photo search of her PC to see if Nona had uploaded any photos from her phone? I hope her PC has been thoroughly examined by experts.

It seems that Bacon's meaning of the word "tacky" is going to be very important. One of the items in evidence is the window blind (or a section of it); I'm assuming that it is damaging to the defense.

Let us hope that the PC was examined properly, unlike the phone was. Re: the battery, we have to assume that the killer took it since Nona was unable to get rid of it (if time of death is correct), otherwise that would mean that someone stole the battery without reporting the crime. OR would KJ have been able to remove it while his mother was on the phone with 911? It is unfathomable to me that LE wouldn't check the phone for fingerprints and/or DNA. I guess the list of trial exhibits will be given piecemeal, as the trial progresses?

[lorettalockhorn]

What evidence has been produced that establishes that JM lied? NONE! If and when the defense can actually produce some evidence, I'll conceder it then. Until then I'm not going to fall for what might just be the latest round of smoke and mirrors.

Other extremely ironic thing, with all the whining about the Courier reporting about the rape allegations . . . I wonder if they contacted JM before printing this story? Do you think they cared if his Mom woke up to read the article? Did the Courier wait until the claim was substantiated? If you read down all the complaints against the Courier in the lawsuit filed by the Whitesides you will find that they acted in kind with this Jeremy kid. I'm not seeing a bias here.

Re: the libel lawsuit, I find it interesting that RW feels that he has been defamed; others were mentioned in an unfavorable light. Simmons admitted to having sex with an underage drinker, Chelsea admitted to giving alcohol to an underage drinker and was made to look like a liar; she either lied to the cousin or to the police, which would make me doubt her credibility at the murder trial. Yet, Simmons and Huckaby haven't file suit and neither have Martin or any other witnesses or people connected to the case.
I'm just not getting it that The Courier did anything irresponsible. As far as that "no press" thing goes, I've always understood that to be a courtesy, not a law. If LE didn't want the report published, it should have been in a separate "still under investigation" file where the press had no access.

[christina]

Agreed, Bacon's testimony at the next hearing will be interesting to watch. The prosecutor and defense lawyer went round and round on the term. The problem came in Bacon's report. He said the blood on the light bulb was dry except for one part which had the appearance of tacky. The fact he made a distinction is what the defense was preying on. Why write(or state)that if all the blood on the light bulb was dry.
The defense contended that experts agree that blood on a light bulb will be dry within a short period of time. If the killer left the print then it would have been dry. Since that "tacky" part is hwere Mr. Jones print is, he had to have left it when he found the victim. This was the defense's contention.
The prosecutor rebutted that Mr. Jones, more than once in his interview insisted he did not touch the light when he found the victim.

I never heard anyone say exactly where the phone was found, just that it was in the apartment.
Something else that was interesting at the hearing- when the defense lawyer mentioned time of death, he turned to the prosecutor for confirmation. The prosecutor stumbled a minute, gave two answers then ended with between 11 and 12.

[lorettalockhorn]

As for people on this blog facing libel suits, I can't imagine it as we are all anonymous- aren't we?

I've seen very few posts here where people were stating anything libelous or outrageous as fact; those that were seem to be gone. Either banned or under the gag order?

Unless someone cites another source, I assume that they are stating opinion, since that's how I operate. (I think I've used my quota of the word "assume" for the day!)

[lorettalockhorn]

Something else that was interesting at the hearing- when the defense lawyer mentioned time of death, he turned to the prosecutor for confirmation. The prosecutor stumbled a minute, gave two answers then ended with between 11 and 12.

Is it the norm for a murder that is unwitnessed to have a precise time of death assigned? According to the PCS, the ME set time of death between ten and twelve, Frost used the 11:04 text message which was opened as the time of death, I guess based on the assumption that Nona was the one who read the message.

[FDInLaw]

Is it the norm for a murder that is unwitnessed to have a precise time of death assigned? According to the PCS, the ME set time of death between ten and twelve, Frost used the 11:04 text message which was opened as the time of death, I guess based on the assumption that Nona was the one who read the message.
I think it is safest to assume that the murder happened sometime after 10:25 a.m. (when Nona spoke on the phone with a professor). There's no way to know for certain that Nona was the one to open her cell phone (at least that I know of unless viewing the text message required a password). I wonder if the phone was opened by the murderer and possibly the thing that set him off? Obviously, who that call was from is important. For instance, if the call was from Nona's Mom it's unlikely that it would have caused a violent rage.

MOO

[FDInLaw]

Hello JR2007,

Living in England, and not being au fait with the case, I have been trawling through the posts here to bring myself up to speed!

Hopefully I will have caught up in a day or two.

It is a fascinating case.

PS I hope you do not mind me using a quote from you for my bit 'under the line' of my posts. I love the quote you use!

(Please check your private messages!)

:seeya:

[christina]

Agreed, all of the discussion is just our personal opinions.
The thing that was odd about the time of death discussion at the hearing was that the defense appeared to try to lock the prosecution to a more specific time. The prosecutor stumbled on his answer and gave two times before settling on one. This drew attention to it.
I am just sharing nuances as I saw them.

[lorettalockhorn]

Agreed, all of the discussion is just our personal opinions.
The thing that was odd about the time of death discussion at the hearing was that the defense appeared to try to lock the prosecution to a more specific time. The prosecutor stumbled on his answer and gave two times before settling on one. This drew attention to it.
I am just sharing nuances as I saw them.

Isn't time of death something that should be deferred to the medical examiner, it being his area of expertise? I only see the discussion during the hearing as the defense asking for the prosecuter's best guess, since it is beyond his scope.

Thanks for the first hand account.

[hawgustusgloop]

Isn't time of death something that should be deferred to the medical examiner, it being his area of expertise? I only see the discussion during the hearing as the defense asking for the prosecuter's best guess, since it is beyond his scope.

Thanks for the first hand account.

Maybe the defense was trying to gauge what the possible theory of the prosecution will be during the trial? Like if the prosecutor is going to allege that Nona was killed shortly after that 11:04 text message the way it is surmised in the PCS? Maybe they were trying to nail down a time from the prosecutor so they would know exactly what they are up against as it pertains to K.Jo's alibi? Maybe the prosecutor was sensitive to this, and therefore hesitant and careful in his response? Just a guess.

[christina]

That is what it appeared was happening- a little dance between defense and prosecution.

[christina]

Annonymous, but I believe some have been named publicly.

I was being "cheeky"- a nod to the British among us

[FDInLaw]

Are you feeling guilty for some reason? It was just a general question.

But, since you brought it up, would you consider calling someone a sociopath character damaging? Afterall, that is not a known fact. If I recall correctly I believe you did call KJ that. Or, am I mistaken? That was just what popped into my head first, but there is actually a long list of things that I can think of.
Wasn't DTBH the one that used "sociopath"? I'll do a search and see if I ever used it.

[Amy]

Re: the libel lawsuit, I find it interesting that RW feels that he has been defamed; others were mentioned in an unfavorable light. Simmons admitted to having sex with an underage drinker, Chelsea admitted to giving alcohol to an underage drinker and was made to look like a liar; she either lied to the cousin or to the police, which would make me doubt her credibility at the murder trial. Yet, Simmons and Huckaby haven't file suit and neither have Martin or any other witnesses or people connected to the case.
I'm just not getting it that The Courier did anything irresponsible. As far as that "no press" thing goes, I've always understood that to be a courtesy, not a law. If LE didn't want the report published, it should have been in a separate "still under investigation" file where the press had no access.


Exactly--why would any LE give access to a reporter the info about an alleged rape, then tell the reporter it's not for releasing? Better to wait to give that info to the reporter at a time that s/he is able to prinit it. Perhaps someone in LE was eager to have this info leaked? And, for what purpose?

As for the earlier post from one who mentioned this type of story would normally not be headline news--well, guess the criminal activity in that area is more than here where I live. A rape would be front page news here. And, let's face it, an alleged rape in the presense of a person charged with murder, combines to make an interesting read. As has been pointed out--it sells papers. Well, that is an objective of a news company--to sell papers.

[lorettalockhorn]

Maybe the defense was trying to gauge what the possible theory of the prosecution will be during the trial? Like if the prosecutor is going to allege that Nona was killed shortly after that 11:04 text message the way it is surmised in the PCS? Maybe they were trying to nail down a time from the prosecutor so they would know exactly what they are up against as it pertains to K.Jo's alibi? Maybe the prosecutor was sensitive to this, and therefore hesitant and careful in his response? Just a guess.

Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine!

Different things strike different people as important. I for one don't find it significant that the prosecutor didn't want to testify for or second guess his expert witness.

If I was the defense, I would work first and foremost on clearing up Kevin's alibi and what appears at this time, to be obvious lies. I can see where that 25 minutes would be important, though.

[lorettalockhorn]

I believe it was inferred by the Courier that RW somehow participated in the act. As far as CH and JS those were admissions, so I am assuming fact. What would they have to sue for?

Also, I believe Janie should have stuck to facts even in reporting the rape. She inferred a lot in that story with the mention of RW and KJ. I believe she saw their names and got a little too big for her britches, just another way for her to put her name and stories out there.

Yes, IIRC according to the cousin, CH told her that RW was a participant. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[FDInLaw]

Yes, Margie is Chelsea's mom - but I don't think Chelsea would kill Nona over the relationship they had. I honestly don't think it was Chelsea. It bothers me that Chelsea says the things she does about Kevin, but really, if she thinks Kevin is innocent she is doing what Nona would have wanted her to do - defend him.

What is scary, is if Kevin Jones is the murderer, is how well he is able to convince those close to him that he is innocent. He would have to be a sociopath OR his family and friends know and are covering for him. Well, I found this one, and I've got to say I still stand by this statement. :seeya:

[lorettalockhorn]

Wasn't DTBH the one that used "sociopath"? I'll do a search and see if I ever used it.

I just re-read that post where he went off on einfuhlung. OT: It seemed that einfuhlung had insider information about The Courier.

[lorettalockhorn]

I believe that is what the cousin said CH said, but I believe CH denied ever saying it. I can't imagine why she would have considering they were her friends. That's why the Courier should have stuck to the main story and not brought the participants of the party into it, or at the very least, should clearly have reported on BOTH sides of the story from the very beginning.


Yes, The Courier reported that CH gave a different version to LE than what the cousin did.

I don't know the alleged victim or her cousin either one, I will say that from things that I have read in the past regarding CH's drinking habits, that I just don't find her to be very credible or sensible for that matter, since she admitted giving the alchol to the girl. (You would think that she would want to encourage KJ to stay away from drinking parties too, so that his bond is not revoked.) This crowd seems awfully immature to this mother hen.

[FDInLaw]

So, it wasn't you that posted this one?
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by FDInLaw http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8806338#post8806338)
Kg**, you make a good point. . . why would Kevin knowingly put his own Mother through that! It's extremely heartless. . . but then so is murder. In my mind, whom better to have there than a person that will never believe you did it. Sure sounds like something a sociopath would do. Someone with no feeling or remorse. MOO :cool:[QUOTE]






Did I say I didn't post this? I dug up one I did post and then ate dinner and spent some time with my family only to come back to this post that sure seems like an accusation. I'm truly confused. So, it's not okay for me to speculate about Kevin having a possible social disorder based on him bring his mother to the crime scene, but it's okay for you to speculate about Nona's step-dad being the murderer based on some behavior you found odd. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.

:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

Ahhh, careful there lassie. You wouldn't want to lose your favorite status whilest passing the buck.....
What? :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Did I say I didn't post this? I dug up one I did post and then ate dinner and spent some time with my family only to come back to this post that sure seems like an accusation. I'm truly confused. So, it's not okay for me to speculate about Kevin having a possible social disorder based on him bring his mother to the crime scene, but it's okay for you to speculate about Nona's step-dad being the murderer based on some behavior you found odd. I honestly do not understand where you are coming from.

:shrug:

I'm a little confused too. But since it's Beat a Dead Horse Day, let me say for the umpteenth time that Kevin's having showed up at Nona's with his Mom in tow, is a Huge Part of why I think that he's guilty. He needed an audience and who better? (I came to that personal conclusion before I read it in The Courier, BTW.)

[christina]

I understand and I think that is what many based their opinion on as well. Again, as a parnet, my focus is on justice for all. That means keeping an open mind.

[sololobo]

The battery was never found.

"The Medical Examiner has opined that the approximate time of Nona’s death was from approximately lO:OO to approximately 12:30. The last known contact Nona had with a person other than her killer occurred at 10:25 when she finished a phone conversation with a professor. During that 3 to 4 minute conversation, Nona confirmed to the professor that she was at her apartment. At 11:04, Nona received a text message which was apparently opened but not responded to by Nona. At 12:5 8 she received a text-message but it was neither opened nor responded to." Probable Cause Statement

At 11:04 the battery was on the phone. I have some questions about the 12:58 text message. Did her phone download this text message at 12:58 or was it received at the service provider at this time? Did investigators get this info from her service provider? Or did the phone receive this message if and after power was restored to the phone during the investigation?

If Nona's phone received a text message at 12:58, the battery was still on the phone. Assuming the killer took the battery, this would indicate he was still at her apartment at 12:58. At the very least, this time would put Jones two minutes away from being seen by the witness at the service station. This would tend to exonerate Jones. However, it may be an unfortunate choice of words in the PCS, hence the questions in my previous post.

[sololobo]

As for people on this blog facing libel suits, I can't imagine it as we are all anonymous- aren't we?

Hopefully everyone is remaining anonymous on this board. For safety's sake, we must assume, no matter who he is, the killer reads this board.........

Paranoia, without it life would be so boring:)

[christina]

Interesting points about how the itiming of textx into the cell phone. I am curious to hear the ways information, both text and calls, are extracted from the cell phone. It seems that both the prosecution and the defense have "experts" on that.

[FDInLaw]

If Nona's phone received a text message at 12:58, the battery was still on the phone. Assuming the killer took the battery, this would indicate he was still at her apartment at 12:58. At the very least, this time would put Jones two minutes away from being seen by the witness at the service station. This would tend to exonerate Jones. However, it may be an unfortunate choice of words in the PCS, hence the questions in my previous post.
Huh? Does your computer have to be on to receive e-mail? I'm not sure what you are saying here is correct. If it is, Kevin needs to find some new lawyers.
MOO

[sololobo]

Yes, your computer must be on to download an email from the service provider. A text message to a cell phone is routed from the sender to a central server which sends it to the receiver's cell phone's SIM card. If the phone is off, it stores the message until the phone is turned on and then sends it.

[FDInLaw]

Interesting points about how the itiming of textx into the cell phone. I am curious to hear the ways information, both text and calls, are extracted from the cell phone. It seems that both the prosecution and the defense have "experts" on that.
This will be an interesting thing to follow during the trial. As it stands, I am an idiot when it comes to all this tech stuff. I look forward to hearing what the experts have to say. If it is true that the battery was still in the phone, what kind of alibi does Kevin have for the afternoon? The possibility that the murderer returned to the scene of the crime to stage it seems even more plausible IMO. If the battery was not taken during the time of death, the murderer must have returned. MOO

[FDInLaw]

FD, please show me where I threatened you. I seem to be totally lost, but your extreme level of paranoia is quite interesting. I never threatened you on the board NOR in a PM. I am not dumb enough to do that because I know your ironic clout for getting people removed on here.

This statement refers to a newspaper link I found right here on this site. It doesn't name anyone in my statement, nor was it directed toward anyone. If you are paranoid, feeling guilty, or scared, that's your deal. Don't bring it on me.
Do you ever get tired of creating drama? This conversation should stay in PMs.

[christina]

Why take the battery out and not the whole phone? The battery was not mentioned as having been recovered so it stands to reason whoever took it could have had the entire cell phone disappear as well.

[sololobo]

Cell phone locations are constantly tracked by cell towers to facilitate incoming calls whether in use or not. The killer may have known this due to recent news articles about lost persons being found from the signal their cell phones were transmitting and didn't want to risk being tracked. Removing the battery would delete any info on the RAM memory of the phone but not effect the SIM card. The killer probably removed the battery to erase incriminating evidence from the RAM memory or mistakingly thought removing the battery would erase everything on the phone.

Even if the text message was received by the phone at 12:58, this would not completely exonorate Jones. As observed by lorettalockhorn in a previous post, he may have removed the battery after discovering the body.

This is all wild speculation. More than likely the PCS was not worded correctly.

[sololobo]

This is a good question many have asked. Why would the killer not take the whole phone. sololobo, anythoughts further? I think you might have mentioned that GPS could track the phone, if it had been done this way, is that right? But, what if he/she had taken the battery out of the phone and took the phone with him/her as well-- together but in separate pieces? Would it have tracked then?

Not GPS but similiar:) Taking both in parts would have worked perfectly and is what I would have done if I was the killer. But only the battery is missing and there must be a reason. Perhaps there was something purposely left on the phone to incriminate someone else? "Why are you leading me on?" could fall under that category.

[christina]

Agreed, the probable cause statement was poorly written. I had to read through several times to understand what was being stated. And now the police chief is going to be questioned on his statement of just what "tacky" is.
It goes to show the importance of saying/stating clearly what you mean.

[hawgustusgloop]

I thought you didn't live in AR anymore. How in the world did you manage to receive wet papers from the post office? I don't think the paper boys deliver to the Dallas suburbs, do they?

Thus the use of the phrase "awhile back." Not that it matters.

[sololobo]

Agreed, the probable cause statement was poorly written. I had to read through several times to understand what was being stated. And now the police chief is going to be questioned on his statement of just what "tacky" is.
It goes to show the importance of saying/stating clearly what you mean.

I was convinced Jones did it because of his bloody print on the murder weapon. Then I heard a rumor, which proved to be true, the print was tacky, not dry. I had to pause and reconsider my opinion. There is not enough info available at the moment to make a informed decision and there will not be until the trial. All I can do is speculate.

This outcome of this trial may rest on mundane facts concerning locked doors, timelines, missing sticks, mystery cars, alibis, cell phone usage and etc. Hard physical evidence may not exist. It should be an interesting trial.

[JR2007]

I was convinced Jones did it because of his bloody print on the murder weapon. Then I heard a rumor, which proved to be true, the print was tacky, not dry. I had to pause and reconsider my opinion. There is not enough info available at the moment to make a informed decision and there will not be until the trial. All I can do is speculate.

This outcome of this trial may rest on mundane facts concerning locked doors, timelines, missing sticks, mystery cars, alibis, cell phone usage and etc. Hard physical evidence may not exist. It should be an interesting trial.

Tacky, means different things to different people. Any liquid loses it moisture over time. When painting the instructions will say dry to the touch in one hour. This doesn't mean the paint is dry, by any mean. Oil based paint uses volatile chemicals which evaporate very quickly yet they aren't consider dry until 24 hours have passed, under home painting conditions. Blood is water based, which evaporates much slower then vilatile liquids do, depending on the humidity and temperature, and a few other factors. Like you said it will be an interesting trial.

[FDInLaw]

Agreed, the probable cause statement was poorly written. I had to read through several times to understand what was being stated. And now the police chief is going to be questioned on his statement of just what "tacky" is.
It goes to show the importance of saying/stating clearly what you mean.

ITA, it was poorly written.

[hawgustusgloop]

Tacky, means different things to different people. Any liquid loses it moisture over time. When painting the instructions will say dry to the touch in one hour. This doesn't mean the paint is dry, by any mean. Oil based paint uses volatile chemicals which evaporate very quickly yet they aren't consider dry until 24 hours have passed, under home painting conditions. Blood is water based, which evaporates much slower then vilatile liquids do, depending on the humidity and temperature, and a few other factors. Like you said it will be an interesting trial.

Yes, the word "tacky" isn't really a quantifiably exact description. I don't think the investigator stuck his finger in the bloody print and said, "This feels kind of tacky." I wonder what the basis was for the description? Was it just appearance as seen by the naked eye? Did the process of collecting the evidence reveal it to be "tacky"? I think the testimony of the investigator on this matter will be extremely important to the jurors.

Also, there has been info about the drying time of blood specifically on a LIGHT BULB. Does this information pertain to a bulb that is on or off, or does it matter?

[christina]

Correct about the definition of tacky. The police chief wrote that some of the blood on the lightbulb was dry and some appeared tacky. Jones print was found in the part that was tacky. That is why so long a period was used during the recent hearing on the subject. And now they are calling the police chief(currently working in another state) back here for another hearing. The defense said they have experts that prove blood put on the lightbulb would have been dry when the police arrived, thus Jones print was not put there at the time of the murder. The prosecution said they have an expert that says the blood could have been tacky. The defense lawyer said he was familiar with their expert and looked forward to questioning him. It was quite a tit for a tat.
The next hearing will determine if Jones print on the lightbulb will even be allowed at the trial. Definitely a must see/hear/read.

[lorettalockhorn]

I was convinced Jones did it because of his bloody print on the murder weapon. Then I heard a rumor, which proved to be true, the print was tacky, not dry. I had to pause and reconsider my opinion. There is not enough info available at the moment to make a informed decision and there will not be until the trial. All I can do is speculate.

This outcome of this trial may rest on mundane facts concerning locked doors, timelines, missing sticks, mystery cars, alibis, cell phone usage and etc. Hard physical evidence may not exist. It should be an interesting trial.


Agree with your earlier statement that the PCS was poorly worded and/or proofread. For instance, Frost refers to the sliding door's locking mechanism, when maybe a better phrase would have been latching mechanism or device. Also, in a list of evidence, he refers to "arrest" photos, when he may have meant "arvest" photos; perhaps a typo.
I so appreciate your input on the SIM card and cell phone technology, but of course still have questions. For instance, the PCS refers to the "u alive" message that was retrieved by crime lab; we are probably in the dark about what other information was gathered, i.e. the 12:58 message; if one was recovered, does that mean that the other was also? I feel that the jury is going to have to learn much about how cellular technology works.
There is simply a lot of information that we don't know about and no doubt the significance of some of the evidence may change.
At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released.

[JR2007]

Yes, the word "tacky" isn't really a quantifiably exact description. I don't think the investigator stuck his finger in the bloody print and said, "This feels kind of tacky." I wonder what the basis was for the description? Was it just appearance as seen by the naked eye? Did the process of collecting the evidence reveal it to be "tacky"? I think the testimony of the investigator on this matter will be extremely important to the jurors.

Also, there has been info about the drying time of blood specifically on a LIGHT BULB. Does this information pertain to a bulb that is on or off, or does it matter?

Yes it does matter if it was on or off. I'm sure the bulb was off. You can't pick up one of these lights and go anywhere without the plug being pulled from the socket.

[JR2007]

Agree with your earlier statement that the PCS was poorly worded and/or proofread. For instance, Frost refers to the sliding door's locking mechanism, when maybe a better phrase would have been latching mechanism or device. Also, in a list of evidence, he refers to "arrest" photos, when he may have meant "arvest" photos; perhaps a typo.
I so appreciate your input on the SIM card and cell phone technology, but of course still have questions. For instance, the PCS refers to the "u alive" message that was retrieved by crime lab; we are probably in the dark about what other information was gathered, i.e. the 12:58 message; if one was recovered, does that mean that the other was also? I feel that the jury is going to have to learn much about how cellular technology works.
There is simply a lot of information that we don't know about and no doubt the significance of some of the evidence may change.
At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released.

It's my belief that the mistakes that were made on the pcs was due to the OCR program someone used to copy and place this document on a computer. Mine at home does some weird things with spellings at times.

[hawgustusgloop]

Yes it does matter if it was on or off. I'm sure the bulb was off. You can't pick up one of these lights and go anywhere without the plug being pulled from the socket.

I think the bulb in Nona's apartment was surely off, too. I was just wondering if the information used by the defense about the time it takes for blood to dry specifically on a light bulb in general referred to one that was on or off, or if it makes a difference.

[christina]

JR2007- Can you describe the lamp-I missed what type it was?
lorettalockhorn- I believe it was the grammar/vernacular/descriptions that were poor in the pcs. Did you find that as well as spell check? Also, your statement-
"At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released."

is disheartening. It is up to us to not let the discussions devolve- so let's committ to that now.

[christina]

There are 18 people viewing this thread at this moment, 8 members and 10 guests.

How do you know this?

[christina]

I think the bulb in Nona's apartment was surely off, too. I was just wondering if the information used by the defense about the time it takes for blood to dry specifically on a light bulb in general referred to one that was on or off, or if it makes a difference.


In the hearing the defense lawyer referred to extensive tests done on both. He stated that "it is common knowledge in the scientific world" about the conclusions of drying time. The prosecutor said his expert has written a book about something along this line. Does anyone remember who their expert is? I guess they would be on the witness list. Maybe we can research their book.

[hawgustusgloop]

JR2007- Can you describe the lamp-I missed what type it was?
lorettalockhorn- I believe it was the grammar/vernacular/descriptions that were poor in the pcs. Did you find that as well as spell check? Also, your statement-
"At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released."

is disheartening. It is up to us to not let the discussions devolve- so let's committ to that now.

About the lamp...I don't know if it was explicitly described well in any documents or news sources, but if you choose to believe lemoncello, I believe she suggested that it was one of those cheap halogen-type floor lamps. I will try to dig up that post if I can find it.

[hawgustusgloop]

so...
i was thinking...
lots of arguement back anf forth
about the lightbulb
on the lamp...
what kind of bulb has everyone
been thinking it is...
incandescent?
what if its halogen
which many floor lamps
college kids have
are...
since its smaller
it might have been less
likel to break on impact...
k0j may have placed
his hand over the top
of the lamp, leaving
a partial palm print on
the small bulb...
which may not have been visible...
just a thought...

This was it, IF you choose to believe it.

[JR2007]

JR2007- Can you describe the lamp-I missed what type it was?
lorettalockhorn- I believe it was the grammar/vernacular/descriptions that were poor in the pcs. Did you find that as well as spell check? Also, your statement-
"At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released."

is disheartening. It is up to us to not let the discussions devolve- so let's committ to that now.

I don't know if it was ever discussed whether it was an incandescent or halogen bulb. The type of fixture described could be either. It was a base with 2 sections of tubing going up to the bulb. IIRC

[sololobo]

Agree with your earlier statement that the PCS was poorly worded and/or proofread. For instance, Frost refers to the sliding door's locking mechanism, when maybe a better phrase would have been latching mechanism or device. Also, in a list of evidence, he refers to "arrest" photos, when he may have meant "arvest" photos; perhaps a typo.
I so appreciate your input on the SIM card and cell phone technology, but of course still have questions. For instance, the PCS refers to the "u alive" message that was retrieved by crime lab; we are probably in the dark about what other information was gathered, i.e. the 12:58 message; if one was recovered, does that mean that the other was also? I feel that the jury is going to have to learn much about how cellular technology works.
There is simply a lot of information that we don't know about and no doubt the significance of some of the evidence may change.
At this point, however, I hate to think how our discussions will devolve when that information is released.

In the next paragraph of the PCS, cell phone records of Nina's and Jones' were obtained and the first call from Jones was at 14:10 and several more afterwards. Also, it stated the phone was sent to the state crime lab for SIM card analysis and the crime lab determined the text message at 16:28 read "u alive". These statements prompted my original questions:

"At 11:04 the battery was on the phone. I have some questions about the 12:58 text message. Did her phone download this text message at 12:58 or was it received at the service provider at this time? Did investigators get this info from her service provider? Or did the phone receive this message if and after power was restored to the phone during the investigation?"

It is most likely power was restored to the phone at some point in the initial investigation and it received all the text messages at that time. But I want to know for sure the timing of the messages sent to the phone.

[sololobo]

One other thing to consider about the accuracy of the PCS is the call Jones claimed to have made between 11:00 and 12:00.

"Jones stated in his interview that he first tried to call Nona around 11:00 or 12:OO on the 15th and that Nona’s phone rang and went straight to voice mail. Affiant obtained the cell phone records for Nona’s phone and Jones’ phone and both sets of records show that the first call to Nona’s phone by Jones (after the very early morning call) was at 14:10."

This implies they only checked Jones' cell phone but surely they checked for a incoming call from Jones' home phone. Perhaps this is why the defense tried to tie down a exact time for the murder?

If Jones is telling the truth about the early call and the battery was missing from Nona's phone, his call would immediately go to voice mail as he stated. This would mean the battery was probably missing at 12:58 and that text message was not sent to the phone at that time.

[lorettalockhorn]

One other thing to consider about the accuracy of the PCS is the call Jones claimed to have made between 11:00 and 12:00.

"Jones stated in his interview that he first tried to call Nona around 11:00 or 12:OO on the 15th and that Nona’s phone rang and went straight to voice mail. Affiant obtained the cell phone records for Nona’s phone and Jones’ phone and both sets of records show that the first call to Nona’s phone by Jones (after the very early morning call) was at 14:10."

This implies they only checked Jones' cell phone but surely they checked for a incoming call from Jones' home phone. Perhaps this is why the defense tried to tie down a exact time for the murder?

If Jones is telling the truth about the early call and the battery was missing from Nona's phone, his call would immediately go to voice mail as he stated. This would mean the battery was probably missing at 12:58 and that text message was not sent to the phone at that time.

Thanks for answering that question that I wasn't sure how to ask!
Some of us had mused before about LE checking all phone records including landlines. If not, I'll be surprised. (Again.) I did notice that Nona had a residential phone number listed back then and assumed that KJ would have access to landlines at home, work, etc.

[JR2007]

One other thing to consider about the accuracy of the PCS is the call Jones claimed to have made between 11:00 and 12:00.

"Jones stated in his interview that he first tried to call Nona around 11:00 or 12:OO on the 15th and that Nona’s phone rang and went straight to voice mail. Affiant obtained the cell phone records for Nona’s phone and Jones’ phone and both sets of records show that the first call to Nona’s phone by Jones (after the very early morning call) was at 14:10."

This implies they only checked Jones' cell phone but surely they checked for a incoming call from Jones' home phone. Perhaps this is why the defense tried to tie down a exact time for the murder?

If Jones is telling the truth about the early call and the battery was missing from Nona's phone, his call would immediately go to voice mail as he stated. This would mean the battery was probably missing at 12:58 and that text message was not sent to the phone at that time.

One thing I'm not clear on about the defense trying to pin down the time for the murder. An exact time is impossible to get, and the defense already has all the same evidence that the prosecution has, which came from the coroner, so why try to get the prosecution to set a time.

[lorettalockhorn]

One thing I'm not clear on about the defense trying to pin down the time for the murder. An exact time is impossible to get, and the defense already has all the same evidence that the prosecution has, which came from the coroner, so why try to get the prosecution to set a time.


Yeah, I wasn't sure myself why defense was trying to pin down the time of death from Gibbons. The medical examiner is the one whose training makes him able to make the best estimate of that information and I'll assume that defense has a copy of the autopsy and has had the results examined. (And if Gibbons was hesitant to ask, that just tells me that he is relying on expert testimony at trial.) I may be missing the boat on how that tied in to the hearing at hand, perhaps the defense should have requested the medical examiner to testify that day.

[FDInLaw]

This may have been posted already, but I just heard that the hearing will take place Friday, June 29th.

[christina]

I called the prosecutor's office just now and the hearing is the 29th of this month as FD said. Odd thing though, they were surprised I knew about it because the judges office had just released it only to the lawyers involved.

[christina]

Lorettalockhorn, JR2007, sololobo and SusieQ- I am impressed with your deductive reasoning- and your memories. I like reading your thoughts /ideas on the whole cell phone. Frustrating that we don't know all the evidence right now! I am going to have to take notes during the trial!

Thanks for the reminder hawgustusgloop

[FDInLaw]

So they were the same person? And, her daughter is not dead? Is there even a daughter? What the heck is going on here? I am very confused. :confused: I like and respected both, but now I just feel like I have been duped.
Join the club. There are a lot of really shocked and even hurt people today. There are several threads discussing this.

[JR2007]

FD here is a link you might be interested in. If you read down some after opening the link, you will see how hard it is to delete all the information from a cell phone. I sent this link to a friend of mine and they forwarded to someone who knows about these things. They said the information is correct, but has some bearing on the type of phone it is. Very few people would know how to do this or would ever do it. It's sounds like a computer, when a person erases something on their computer, it is not really gone, only the directions to it are gone. So the computer can't find it, without special programs that hackers or others can use. Thought you would be interested.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124157/article.html

[christina]

FDInLaw and SusieQ- what are you guys talking about?

[FDInLaw]

FD here is a link you might be interested in. If you read down some after opening the link, you will see how hard it is to delete all the information from a cell phone. I sent this link to a friend of mine and they forwarded to someone who knows about these things. They said the information is correct, but has some bearing on the type of phone it is. Very few people would know how to do this or would ever do it. It's sounds like a computer, when a person erases something on their computer, it is not really gone, only the directions to it are gone. So the computer can't find it, without special programs that hackers or others can use. Thought you would be interested. Do you need a nap again? You forgot the link!

Thanks a bunch, JR! :seeya:

[JR2007]

Do you need a nap again? You forgot the link!

Thanks a bunch, JR! :seeya:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124157/article.html:o
Just making sure you all are awake. You must have been asleep. go back and look again.

[FDInLaw]

FDInLaw and SusieQ- what are you guys talking about?

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=443

[FDInLaw]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124157/article.html:o
Just making sure you all are awake. You must have been asleep. go back and look again.

Funny, when I quoted you it didn't show up! :tongue:

[christina]

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=443

This is a bummer

[FDInLaw]

This is a bummer Yeah, I'm sure you had a lot of love for her. :rolleyes:

[christina]

Basically someone would have to be a bit cell phone savvy to delete all information. And it seems that whoever took the battery had only half the knowledge needed!
When the phone was returned to police- did it have the sim card in it? Do I remember correctly that the step father said he deleted the card? If so I can see where the defense will have a hey day with him on the stand.

[christina]

Yeah, I'm sure you had a lot of love for her. :rolleyes:

This is an uncalled for rude remark. I was genuine in stating that the situation is a bummer.

[FDInLaw]

Well excuse the HECK outta me for asking!!! I did NOT know about it and have every right to bring it up! I am not married to my computer NOR are these forums my job such as they are yours. I am so glad you can be everywhere at once on here, I cannot. You do play your roles well, though, I must say. I notice while you were quick to start the link for her, e-mail everyone about her tragedy, and copy the link to this forum, you neglected to direct the info that this faux pas had come up, so thank you for that.
YIKES! I was merely trying to relate with your shock. . . you are so easily offened.

[FDInLaw]

This is an uncalled for rude remark. I was genuine in stating that the situation is a bummer. I'm sorry. I'm glad you are not the begrudging type. I recall you and Merrick had quite an exchange awhile back. The fact that you have moved on is a sign of true character.

[hawgustusgloop]

Why don't y'all take the catfight to PM's? It is a hassle to my eyeballs to read it.

[FDInLaw]

Why don't y'all take the catfight to PM's? It is a hassle to my eyeballs to read it.
Sorry, thanks for the reminder.

On topic. . . have you had a chance to look at the link JR posted? Any thoughts?

[FDInLaw]

FD here is a link you might be interested in. If you read down some after opening the link, you will see how hard it is to delete all the information from a cell phone. I sent this link to a friend of mine and they forwarded to someone who knows about these things. They said the information is correct, but has some bearing on the type of phone it is. Very few people would know how to do this or would ever do it. It's sounds like a computer, when a person erases something on their computer, it is not really gone, only the directions to it are gone. So the computer can't find it, without special programs that hackers or others can use. Thought you would be interested.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124157/article.htmlBumping around the drama. :patriot:

[hawgustusgloop]

Sorry, thanks for the reminder.

On topic. . . have you had a chance to look at the link JR posted? Any thoughts?

I wish we knew exactly what kind of phone Nona had!

[FDInLaw]

I wish we knew exactly what kind of phone Nona had!
I know! That would answer a lot of questions.

[christina]

anyone for a comment on my thoughts- after the pcworld article it seems pretty clear someone would have had to know what they were doing to erase the sim card and phone. If my memory serves correctly- the step dad did before he turned it back over to police.
Since the defense did not get a chance to download all the information themselves with more sensitive equipment- that is probably why they have the step dad on their witness list!

[lorettalockhorn]

I wish we knew exactly what kind of phone Nona had!

Me too, Hawg. But I would still need for Solo to interpret for me!

[christina]

I know! That would answer a lot of questions.

Can you give an example of what questions it would answer?

[FDInLaw]

Can you give an example of what questions it would answer?


It's my understanding that cell phones differ to some extent. Some are easier to erase data from than others. Knowing the make and model would help determine this.

[hawgustusgloop]

Me too, Hawg. But I would still need for Solo to interpret for me!

Oh, I would definitely need some Sololobo help to understand that, too! I have a feeling that the jurors are going to learn a lot more than they ever wanted to know about cell phone technology at the trial.

On an unrelated note, does anyone have any guess as to what K.Jo's defense might cost? I am pretty sure his fancy new attorney Bristow does not come cheap.

[optimumprimal78]

Oh, I would definitely need some Sololobo help to understand that, too! I have a feeling that the jurors are going to learn a lot more than they ever wanted to know about cell phone technology at the trial.

On an unrelated note, does anyone have any guess as to what K.Jo's defense might cost? I am pretty sure his fancy new attorney Bristow does not come cheap.

I just wonder how he (or more than likely his parents) is paying for it. They sold their store after this all started and now they keep adding high priced lawyers. Can someone say "in debt"?

[christina]

I just wonder how he (or more than likely his parents) is paying for it. They sold their store after this all started and now they keep adding high priced lawyers. Can someone say "in debt"?


I would imagine a parent would not count the cost of helping a child they believed wrongly accused.

[lorettalockhorn]

I just wonder how he (or more than likely his parents) is paying for it. They sold their store after this all started and now they keep adding high priced lawyers. Can someone say "in debt"?

I was told that they Joneses sold other business interests beside the Eat Here and Get Gas around or about the time that Kev's troubles assailed them. Can anyone confirm?

[christina]

I was told that they Joneses sold other business interests beside the Eat Here and Get Gas around or about the time that Kev's troubles assailed them. Can anyone confirm?


How is this pertinent to the discussion?

[hawgustusgloop]

I would imagine a parent would not count the cost of helping a child they believed wrongly accused.

Or one that they know is guilty and that needs a really good defense to save them from a life in prison.

I have no reason to think K.Jo's parents think he is guilty, but since there were some IMO ridiculous accusations about Nona's stepfather, I guess anything is worth considering.

[lorettalockhorn]

So, I thought that the discussion was at this point; how the Joneses were paying for the boy's defense. And since querying their finances has been brought up, I thought that I would throw in that I have heard that they sold business holdings other than the service station.

[christina]

Or one that they know is guilty and that needs a really good defense to save them from a life in prison.

I have no reason to think K.Jo's parents think he is guilty, but since there were some IMO ridiculous accusations about Nona's stepfather, I guess anything is worth considering.

One thing I do appreciate about your posts hawgustusgloop is that you make no bones about your belief that Jones is guilty. Even down to your signature. At least we all know where you stand. And I appreciate you couch your comments with the mantra "in my opinion". I do think we all agree on here that the majority of what is said is just opinion.

I made no accusations about the step father, just reasonably questioned his behavoir in regards to the cell phone. The fact can not be gotten around that that behavoir will play a role, maybe even crucial role, in this trial.

[hawgustusgloop]

So, I thought that the discussion was at this point; how the Joneses were paying for the boy's defense. And since querying their finances has been brought up, I thought that I would throw in that I have heard that they sold business holdings other than the service station.

Absolutely pertinent to the discussion about the cost of K.Jo's defense.

[christina]

So, I thought that the discussion was at this point; how the Joneses were paying for the boy's defense. And since querying their finances has been brought up, I thought that I would throw in that I have heard that they sold business holdings other than the service station.


Then I will leave you two to this discussion.

[optimumprimal78]

How is this pertinent to the discussion?



It is very important to answer the question of how they are able to afford 3 high profile, high priced lawyers. Why would you not want to discuss it if it is of some interest to the case?

[lorettalockhorn]

No, this discussion doesn't belong here, now you are just picking the whole family apart. Have some decency about yourselves.

Where does the discussion belong, pray tell? What is off limits according to your agenda?

[sololobo]

anyone for a comment on my thoughts- after the pcworld article it seems pretty clear someone would have had to know what they were doing to erase the sim card and phone. If my memory serves correctly- the step dad did before he turned it back over to police.
Since the defense did not get a chance to download all the information themselves with more sensitive equipment- that is probably why they have the step dad on their witness list!

Located in the deep dark recesses of those three pound owner's manuals that come with cell phones, are instructions to delete info for that particular cell phone. The info Dipert deleted was, more than likely, easy to delete. Addresses, phone numbers, text messages, etc. Being a teenager, Nona's SIM card was probably bulging with info and Dipert probably deleted some of it just to make it easier to find his own info. I doubt anything sinister in his actions.

A easy way to delete the info on RAM memory is to remove the power source for a time. RAM memory is volitile meaning it must have a power supply. Most phones have a power down feature that shows the battery is dead and the phone is not usable but there is still a small amount of charge protecting the RAM. Also they have a trace charge independent of the battery to protect the RAM if you have to remove the battery for any reason. This doesn't last long. If you don't care what you are deleting, removing the battery for a time will erase the RAM effectively.

The SIM card is similiar to a PC's hard drive as FD pointed out. It is a non-volitale memory. It is not affected by power loss and info on it must be over-written several times to be completely erased. (Standards for government computers dictate six over-writes to destroy sensitive info.) Dipert's mere use of the phone would be over-writing deleted info.

[FDInLaw]

Located in the deep dark recesses of those three pound owner's manuals that come with cell phones, are instructions to delete info for that particular cell phone. The info Dipert deleted was, more than likely, easy to delete. Addresses, phone numbers, text messages, etc. Being a teenager, Nona's SIM card was probably bulging with info and Dipert probably deleted some of it just to make it easier to find his own info. I doubt anything sinister in his actions.

A easy way to delete the info on RAM memory is to remove the power source for a time. RAM memory is volitile meaning it must have a power supply. Most phones have a power down feature that shows the battery is dead and the phone is not usable but there is still a small amount of charge protecting the RAM. Also they have a trace charge independent of the battery to protect the RAM if you have to remove the battery for any reason. This doesn't last long. If you don't care what you are deleting, removing the battery for a time will erase the RAM effectively.

The SIM card is similiar to a PC's hard drive as FD pointed out. It is a non-volitale memory. It is not affected by power loss and info on it must be over-written several times to be completely erased. (Standards for government computers dictate six over-writes to destroy sensitive info.) Dipert's mere use of the phone would be over-writing deleted info. So, are you saying the if Duane Dipert did use the phone for personal use, that use would have unintentionally deleted some memory? I'm not sure I understand. Personally, if I acquired a used phone I would delete everything before using it. Isn't this the normal thing to do? The step-father had the phone released to him by the police, shouldn't it have been a safe assumption that the police were finished with it? Unfortunately they were not, but how was the step-father to know that? I agree with you, sololobo. I don't see anything sinister here, a stupid mistake YES, but sinister NO. MOO

[JR2007]

So, why do you think the cell phone info was deleted?

My son gave me his old phone, when he bought another one. I took it since I liked it better then the one I had. What was the first thing I did. I deleted all his personal stuff, I didn't need it. I assumed he saved it to his new phone. All I had to do to make it my phone was to change the SIM card from my old phone to the new one.

[optimumprimal78]

I thought rumors didn't belong here. Thought everything was supposed to be backed up.


That is what a message board is for. If you have a question or if there is something that you have heard then you say something about it. People discuss it and see how it relates.

[optimumprimal78]

I suppose if you like putting KJ's family through the ringer and tearing them to shreds, I guess it's ok, but that is typically what is done here.

I'm not tearing anyone to shreds. If it is typical of what is done on here then that must include yourself because you have posted on here a lot more than I have. Everything I have said has had some sort of validity to what is going on. I just asked a question that I hoped might turn into a side conversation about the lawyers and the need for 1 more "high-profiled" lawyer on the case but since it bothered people so much I will drop it because I don't want there to be any other side conversations.

[FDInLaw]

I'm not tearing anyone to shreds. If it is typical of what is done on here then that must include yourself because you have posted on here a lot more than I have. Everything I have said has had some sort of validity to what is going on. I just asked a question that I hoped might turn into a side conversation about the lawyers and the need for 1 more "high-profiled" lawyer on the case but since it bothered people so much I will drop it because I don't want there to be any other side conversations.
This board it tame compared with the pageant board. A rarely have the nerve to read what's posted over there. IMO it didn't seem like you were trying to start trouble, OP. I think emotions have been running high the last few days and that's all. It's been hard to make a comment about anything without getting snipped at. Hopefully everyone had a good night's sleep and we can all have a fresh start today. :seeya:

[christina]

The three lawyers for Jones are probably minimally receiving $100-200/hour for their work. Whereas the prosecution is paid by tax dollars. The deputy prosecutor who will most likely be trying this case does private practice full time and is a very high profile, highly paid lawyer, when paid without tax dollars. A few years back he successfully defended a young father against a murder conviction of his infant. I am confident whatever that defendent and his family paid for his services were well worth it.

[christina]

This board it tame compared with the pageant board. A rarely have the nerve to read what's posted over there. IMO it didn't seem like you were trying to start trouble, OP. I think emotions have been running high the last few days and that's all. It's been hard to make a comment about anything without getting snipped at. Hopefully everyone had a good night's sleep and we can all have a fresh start today. :seeya:

Is the pagent board mainly about this case or are there other issues?

[FDInLaw]

Is the pagent board mainly about this case or are there other issues?
The pageant board is for discussing AR beauty pageant stuff. Since Nona was in the pageant system, her murder has been discussed there as well. Usually things get so nasty that the threads end up being deleted.

[FDInLaw]

The three lawyers for Jones are probably minimally receiving $100-200/hour for their work. Whereas the prosecution is paid by tax dollars. The deputy prosecutor who will most likely be trying this case does private practice full time and is a very high profile, highly paid lawyer, when paid without tax dollars. A few years back he successfully defended a young father against a murder conviction of his infant. I am confident whatever that defendent and his family paid for his services were well worth it.

Since you were at the hearing, can you tell us more about the actual lawyers and their style? Do any of them fit the loud and obnoxious stereo type that some associate with that profession? During the OJ trial, for instance, the lawyers really made an entertaining show of it all. What can we expect during this trial?

[hawgustusgloop]

I suppose if you like putting KJ's family through the ringer and tearing them to shreds, I guess it's ok, but that is typically what is done here.

WE are not the ones putting K.Jo's family through the ringer and tearing them to shreds IMO.

[hawgustusgloop]

Located in the deep dark recesses of those three pound owner's manuals that come with cell phones, are instructions to delete info for that particular cell phone. The info Dipert deleted was, more than likely, easy to delete. Addresses, phone numbers, text messages, etc. Being a teenager, Nona's SIM card was probably bulging with info and Dipert probably deleted some of it just to make it easier to find his own info. I doubt anything sinister in his actions.

A easy way to delete the info on RAM memory is to remove the power source for a time. RAM memory is volitile meaning it must have a power supply. Most phones have a power down feature that shows the battery is dead and the phone is not usable but there is still a small amount of charge protecting the RAM. Also they have a trace charge independent of the battery to protect the RAM if you have to remove the battery for any reason. This doesn't last long. If you don't care what you are deleting, removing the battery for a time will erase the RAM effectively.

The SIM card is similiar to a PC's hard drive as FD pointed out. It is a non-volitale memory. It is not affected by power loss and info on it must be over-written several times to be completely erased. (Standards for government computers dictate six over-writes to destroy sensitive info.) Dipert's mere use of the phone would be over-writing deleted info.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I have had a hard time thinking that Nona's stepfather would erase data on her phone to intentionally destroy evidence. Why would he try to hurt the case? Wouldn't he want the person who was truly guilty to be convicted, whether it was K.Jo or not? Maybe his phone broke and, rather than buy a new one, decided to see if the police were finished with Nona's phone. The police should have kept it, of course, but that is not the stepfather's fault.

[christina]

Since you were at the hearing, can you tell us more about the actual lawyers and their style? Do any of them fit the loud and obnoxious stereo type that some associate with that profession? During the OJ trial, for instance, the lawyers really made an entertaining show of it all. What can we expect during this trial?

Asking me an opinion of lawyers-That is an open door to lots of comments and jokes?!?!?!

Ok, here goes- prosecution- Gibbons is typical Arkansas, big and lumbering, does not come across as sharp always, slow in his answers sometimes. His deputy- Phillips is VERY sharp, quick, comes across as well prepared, his experience as a defense attorney will help him guess at the other side. He is well groomed, unlike Gibbons, and I would guess more affable to the jury. Phillips is a good cross examiner, good at follow up questions, but can get very intense.

Defense, the lead-Johnson(?) had a pleasant but serious look about him, all his questions and comments were measured, obviously thought out. I could not picture him ever losing control in front of the jury, very southern genteman type. Second lawyer-Robbins, a little more like Phillips without as much experience. He shaves his head and has a goatee which could put jurors off. Third one(forget his name-argued the blood eveidence), did not have a very good courtroom presence but was super intelligent, obviously knew case law and quoted much without having to look at his notes.

Just re-read this and feel like I was doing color commentary for Court TV?!?!

[christina]

This makes a lot of sense to me. I have had a hard time thinking that Nona's stepfather would erase data on her phone to intentionally destroy evidence. Why would he try to hurt the case? Wouldn't he want the person who was truly guilty to be convicted, whether it was K.Jo or not? Maybe his phone broke and, rather than buy a new one, decided to see if the police were finished with Nona's phone. The police should have kept it, of course, but that is not the stepfather's fault.

Remember, the family knew who the police were going to charge at this point. The step father was in hate mode towards Jones. I heard from people around town that he was acting like that way. If(please read that as IF) there was any evidence left on the phone that might lead away from Jones, I can easily see why he would destrong it.

[hawgustusgloop]

The three lawyers for Jones are probably minimally receiving $100-200/hour for their work. Whereas the prosecution is paid by tax dollars. The deputy prosecutor who will most likely be trying this case does private practice full time and is a very high profile, highly paid lawyer, when paid without tax dollars. A few years back he successfully defended a young father against a murder conviction of his infant. I am confident whatever that defendent and his family paid for his services were well worth it.

I agree that the major $$$$$$$$$$ spent on the lawyers is worth it. The stakes are very high for K.Jo, and it looks like his attorneys are doing a fantastic job (from the articles that have been out lately) of making it look like there could be reasonable doubt in this case.

To those of you who believe K.Jo did not murder Nona, why? I am not talking reasonable doubt, whether or not he will be found guilty at trial, etc. I just mean, what is it about him or the situation that makes you believe he did not do it? He seemed too distraught over her death to have harmed her? You saw him lying in a hammock in his backyard between 11 a.m. and noon on the day of Nona's death? Do you have a reason to believe it was another specific person who was never arrested? Just think he's a great kid who is incapable of murder? Seriously, why? I am not asking this in a hostile way, I really want to understand.

[FDInLaw]

Asking me an opinion of lawyers-That is an open door to lots of comments and jokes?!?!?!

Ok, here goes- prosecution- Gibbons is typical Arkansas, big and lumbering, does not come across as sharp always, slow in his answers sometimes. His deputy- Phillips is VERY sharp, quick, comes across as well prepared, his experience as a defense attorney will help him guess at the other side. He is well groomed, unlike Gibbons, and I would guess more affable to the jury. Phillips is a good cross examiner, good at follow up questions, but can get very intense.

Defense, the lead-Johnson(?) had a pleasant but serious look about him, all his questions and comments were measured, obviously thought out. I could not picture him ever losing control in front of the jury, very southern genteman type. Second lawyer-Robbins, a little more like Phillips without as much experience. He shaves his head and has a goatee which could put jurors off. Third one(forget his name-argued the blood eveidence), did not have a very good courtroom presence but was super intelligent, obviously knew case law and quoted much without having to look at his notes.

Just re-read this and feel like I was doing color commentary for Court TV?!?!
Thanks for the first hand report, christina! :seeya:

Why did the third DA have a poor courtroom presence? Was he too soft-spoken?

[hawgustusgloop]

You certainly aren't helping them out, now, are you by speculating about the worth of the attorneys? The citizens foot the bill for the prosecution. They (JOnes family)are doing this all on their own, the best they can. I really don't feel those tacky speculations have a place here. It's supposed to be about the actual crime.



No, I certainly am not helping them out, and I don't want to. I don't think I'll be contributing to the K.Jo Defense Fund or baking them any casseroles. I don't feel the speculations are tacky. I feel like it is all really sad. If K.Jo did commit this crime, he is allowing his family to dig themselves into tremendous debt (I imagine) to try to save him from jail. Yes, it is their choice, but it is sad. IMO if he did it, they are just more victims. And as far as hurting them by posting here, they must be masochists if they are reading this stuff. It is a sad situation that they did not ask to be in, for sure, but I think it speaks volumes about the strength of the prosecution's case when a family spends a huge amount of cash they may or may not have on attorneys. It looks like they are desperately trying to save their baby boy.

[christina]

Thanks for the first hand report, christina! :seeya:

Why did the third DA have a poor courtroom presence? Was he too soft-spoken?

He was not put together looking, you know how some people have a "presence"? Well he didn't. I don't want to put someone down for their looks so I am trying to be nice here.

[optimumprimal78]

So what would you like to talk about since everything is being beat to death? BTW, I am in no Kevin is Guilty camp. I have seen the kid in town and I have always been cordial to him. I do feel that anything is fair to talk about if it regards the case. I just want to see if justice makes sure that the correct person/persons are tried in this case.

[hawgustusgloop]

Good question, Hawg. Why WOULD he try to hurt the case?

You see, I just can't get past this: Oh, my phone is broke. I need a new one, but rather than BUY a new one, I'll just run over to the police department and see if they are through with that major piece of evidence found at the murder scene of my step daughter. No big deal. No body will mind, and I won't have to buy a new one. It's not going to bother anyone to see me using my deceasesed step-daughters phone, and I'm sure that piece of evidence won't be needed at the trial of the person charged with murder.

This is ridiculous and absurd to me. How could it not be common sense that it would not be needed through the trial?

You know these are all just my thoughts on the subject and are NOT implications of anything.

If you all want to let this particular sleeping dog lie and the discussion of the monies for the attorneys, then I will back off it, too. But, if you'd rather pound it to death about how absurd these thoughs are to you, then do that, too, but that makes if fair game for rebuttal.

You seem to be forgetting that he didn't steal the phone. He didn't sneak in under the cloak of night and stick it under his jacket. He asked for it back, and they gave it to him. He had absolutely no duty or responsibility to know how long the phone was needed by the police. All the police had to do was say no. Instead, they gave it to him to use as he pleased. Not his fault.

[christina]

He was not put together looking, you know how some people have a "presence"? Well he didn't. I don't want to put someone down for their looks so I am trying to be nice here.

He was not soft soken, he was politley assertive.
The ones to watch will be Phillips, Johnson(?) and Robbins

[FDInLaw]

You seem to be forgetting that he didn't steal the phone. He didn't sneak in under the cloak of night and stick it under his jacket. He asked for it back, and they gave it to him. He had absolutely no duty or responsibility to know how long the phone was needed by the police. All the police had to do was say no. Instead, they gave it to him to use as he pleased. Not his fault.
ITA. I don't understand why this is a hard concept to grasp. . . when something is returned it ceases to be state evidence and becomes personal property. Trying to incriminate someone for doing something that a normal person would do with their own personal property is a bit silly IMO. The cell phone should have never been return, that fact that this is something we have to discuss is absurd. During the trial I'm sure the RPD will take a beating on this one. MOO

[christina]

I agree that the major $$$$$$$$$$ spent on the lawyers is worth it. The stakes are very high for K.Jo, and it looks like his attorneys are doing a fantastic job (from the articles that have been out lately) of making it look like there could be reasonable doubt in this case.

To those of you who believe K.Jo did not murder Nona, why? I am not talking reasonable doubt, whether or not he will be found guilty at trial, etc. I just mean, what is it about him or the situation that makes you believe he did not do it? He seemed too distraught over her death to have harmed her? You saw him lying in a hammock in his backyard between 11 a.m. and noon on the day of Nona's death? Do you have a reason to believe it was another specific person who was never arrested? Just think he's a great kid who is incapable of murder? Seriously, why? I am not asking this in a hostile way, I really want to understand.

As I stated before, I firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, that is my only explanation. I do not know Jones, saw him for the first time at the hearing. I did not know the victim at all. I have heard about both families from living in town.

[christina]

ITA. I don't understand why this is a hard concept to grasp. . . when something is returned it ceases to be state evidence and becomes personal property. Trying to incriminate someone for doing something that a normal person would do with their own personal property is a bit silly IMO. The cell phone should have never been return, that fact that this is something we have to discuss is absurd. During the trial I'm sure the RPD will take a beating on this one. MOO

Agreed, the RPD will take a beating. But I can also see the jury thinking it odd that the step father of the victim asked for it back. (And from what I have heard, he is hot headed and will probably not do well as a witness.) Also, I have not read that he asked for anything else from the crime scene. I would imagine there were many personal items a loved one would have wanted. I think it is personal opinion that a "normal" person would have done that. And the arguement that he wanted that particular phone for personal use is weak. Cell phones are a dime a dozen.

[christina]

"I just wonder how he (or more than likely his parents) is paying for it. They sold their store after this all started and now they keep adding high priced lawyers. Can someone say "in debt"?"

This was not tacky and was well said? Hmm... Pretty dang high on the tacky-ometer in my book. Nothing about that statement was well said.

"I was told that they Joneses sold other business interests beside the Eat Here and Get Gas around or about the time that Kev's troubles assailed them. Can anyone confirm?" This was not meant in a tacky, condescending light? Once again, I guess our definitions of "tacky" are diffferent.

With your feelings, I don't expect you to contribute to the "defense fund" as you put it. Decent would be nice.

If you had a son you felt sure was not guilty of a murder, you would not want the best attorneys for him? You would not do everything you could to protect him? You would not do whatever it took? If roles were reversed. you don't think Nona's family would do the same? If it were my son, and I knew in my heart he was innocent, I would do the same EVEN if it meant dying for my son. Loyalty is a strong bond, and I would never want any one to underestimate my loyalty to my family.

Nona's faimily obviously reads this sight. Why would Kevin's not? I mean since you are not tearing KJ an his family to shreds and all, all based on how you feel and your opinions? Oh, I;m willing to admit there is evidence in there, too, but not as much as you make it out to be, and not as much as you want to ignore.

We'll have to wait til the June 29th hearing to find out the official definition of tacky!
Ok, my attempt at humor- I did have a good night's sleep FD!!!

[FDInLaw]

We'll have to wait til the June 29th hearing to find out the official definition of tacky!
Ok, my attempt at humor- I did have a good night's sleep FD!!! He, he, he! Humor is always welcome! :)

[optimumprimal78]

"I just wonder how he (or more than likely his parents) is paying for it. They sold their store after this all started and now they keep adding high priced lawyers. Can someone say "in debt"?"

This was not tacky and was well said? Hmm... Pretty dang high on the tacky-ometer in my book. Nothing about that statement was well said.

"I was told that they Joneses sold other business interests beside the Eat Here and Get Gas around or about the time that Kev's troubles assailed them. Can anyone confirm?" This was not meant in a tacky, condescending light? Once again, I guess our definitions of "tacky" are diffferent.

With your feelings, I don't expect you to contribute to the "defense fund" as you put it. Decent would be nice.

If you had a son you felt sure was not guilty of a murder, you would not want the best attorneys for him? You would not do everything you could to protect him? You would not do whatever it took? If roles were reversed. you don't think Nona's family would do the same? If it were my son, and I knew in my heart he was innocent, I would do the same EVEN if it meant dying for my son. Loyalty is a strong bond, and I would never want any one to underestimate my loyalty to my family.

Nona's faimily obviously reads this sight. Why would Kevin's not? I mean since you are not tearing KJ an his family to shreds and all, all based on how you feel and your opinions? Oh, I;m willing to admit there is evidence in there, too, but not as much as you make it out to be, and not as much as you want to ignore.

Ok my comment can be misconstrued as tacky. Fine. I apologize because it wasn't meant that way. But it was meant to be taken as tongue and cheek. The statement was supposed meant to be me pondering how they are able to continually get these attorneys. They probably had those stores as investments (as a few people who have owned local stores have done) and yet this happens and they have to sell their investment. That is all. The second comment I do not find tacky because it was just trying to get some clarification on if they had sold their other ventures. It was an honest question. No harm. No foul. I choose not to make rash judgments because as I said I just keep up with this case because I have known who the parties involved were from being around the area plus I don't know all of the facts so I try to keep up to date. You on the other hand seem to like to point out what is a no-no.

Look at what I put in bold. I AGREE with you in that if it were my child I would do everything possible to protect him. HOWEVER, (and think about this) I would NOT allow him to be in any place in which he might have a chance for problems to occur. This includes: parties, hanging out with friends that have had problems in the past, etc. I would tell him that while this is going on he would need to keep somewhat of a low profile. I guess my version of parenting would just be different.

[hawgustusgloop]

Agreed, the RPD will take a beating. But I can also see the jury thinking it odd that the step father of the victim asked for it back. (And from what I have heard, he is hot headed and will probably not do well as a witness.) Also, I have not read that he asked for anything else from the crime scene. I would imagine there were many personal items a loved one would have wanted. I think it is personal opinion that a "normal" person would have done that. And the arguement that he wanted that particular phone for personal use is weak. Cell phones are a dime a dozen.

Cell phones are not a dime a dozen. I broke a phone once, and since it was in the middle of the contract and I didn't have insurance on it, it cost me $129 bucks to replace it, and that was with a refurbished model.

[hawgustusgloop]

We'll have to wait til the June 29th hearing to find out the official definition of tacky!
Ok, my attempt at humor- I did have a good night's sleep FD!!!

OK, that is pretty funny.:lol:

[optimumprimal78]

How does what his parents are spending for attorneys or what they are doing to get it have anything to do with what is directly involved in the case?

Ethically, I'd like to believe an attorney would not take a case without believing his client to be innocent, would not take it for just money or fame. Honestly, I know that is not always true, but I'd be willling to be bet that at least one of those men believes in his heart that boy is innocent. It speaks volumes that these 3 highly thought of attorneys took the case. I don't know much about how the other attorneys operate, nor do I know if they are ethical in the ways I mentioned or not, I'd at least be willing to bet that if they weren't ethical that they wouldn't take a case without having a high possibility of winning.

No no we are dropping the subject of the attorneys and how they are obtained. Next subject.

[FDInLaw]

Agreed, the RPD will take a beating. But I can also see the jury thinking it odd that the step father of the victim asked for it back. (And from what I have heard, he is hot headed and will probably not do well as a witness.) Also, I have not read that he asked for anything else from the crime scene. I would imagine there were many personal items a loved one would have wanted. I think it is personal opinion that a "normal" person would have done that. And the arguement that he wanted that particular phone for personal use is weak. Cell phones are a dime a dozen.
I think you are right. The jury might find Duane Dipert's actions odd. The question is, were his actions sinister or just odd? When my cell phone breaks I think; "Gee, maybe I can get a new one with all the latest features!" The thought of asking for the phone would have never crossed my mind. But, not everyone is like me. There are thrifty folks out there that will do what they can to avoid buying something new. Maybe Duane Dipert falls into this category? Just a thought. I'm not going to pretend to know what went on in his head.

[hawgustusgloop]

How does what his parents are spending for attorneys or what they are doing to get it have anything to do with what is directly involved in the case?

Ethically, I'd like to believe an attorney would not take a case without believing his client to be innocent, would not take it for just money or fame. Honestly, I know that is not always true, but I'd be willling to be bet that at least one of those men believes in his heart that boy is innocent. It speaks volumes that these 3 highly thought of attorneys took the case. I don't know much about how the other attorneys operate, nor do I know if they are ethical in the ways I mentioned or not, I'd at least be willing to bet that if they weren't ethical that they wouldn't take a case without having a high possibility of winning.

Actually, it is interesting that you bring this up. Someone close to me went to (a very small) college with the daughter of Bill Bristow, and based on what they knew about her, him, and their family, was quite surprised that he was involved in defending an accused murderer. Apparently their family has a very good reputation for being of high moral and ethical character, from what I understood from the conversation. The impression I got was that Mr. Bristow would not likely defend someone who he is convinced is guilty, so maybe he truly believes K.Jo is innocent.

[FDInLaw]

I would guess for the exact same reasoning it is hard to grasp that KJ would travel with his mother to an outing. If you guys don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up, either official or cheekily. Good grief, girl. . . did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? No need to get snippy.

I am looking forward to the trial and hopefully finding out if Kevin normally attended his Mother's office party. We can speculate all we want, but if this was a normal thing for him to do that settles it. It might seem odd, but if this is something he had done before it makes his actions that night less suspicious IMO.

[hawgustusgloop]

No, I am not forgetting. My point is why, WHY WOULD HE ASK for the phone back without some sort of ulterior motive. It was most definitely a major, embarassing blunder on the RPD's part. He had no responsibility to know? That some major side stepping there. That phone was found at the murder scene of his step daughter. If he wanted justice and fairness, he had EVERY responsibility to know where that phone should be and exactly HOW LONG it should remain there. Obviously, it didn't implicate KJ as much as you would like every one to believe.

Maybe he broke his phone. There is no reason for him to know that the police needed that phone. He might not be as familiar with criminal procedure as you'd have liked him to be, but that is the worst of his offense as it pertains to the phone. If they released it to him when he asked, then he had every reason to believe they were finished with it. And as far as "it didn't implicate KJ as much as you would like every one to believe," I don't even know what that means. How do you know how much it implicates him if the data was missing? How do you know what I would like everyone to believe? I hope everyone here believes whatever he or she wants to.

[optimumprimal78]

But why not? You pretend to know what went on in KJ's all the time.

What's with all of the accusations today? Is there something that is bothering you?

[hawgustusgloop]

I would guess for the exact same reasoning it is hard to grasp that KJ would travel with his mother to an outing. If you guys don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up, either official or cheekily.

I am glad you chose to bring up this subject. I have given a lot of thought to how unusual it would be for K.Jo to go to a Christmas party with his mom, and I have come to the conclusion that it probably wasn't that odd in the context of their relationship. If you choose to believe the very opinionated poster dtbh (and I do), K.Jo's mom treated him like a 5-year-old, driving him crazy by babying him. So, maybe she wanted him to go to the party because she usually fixed dinner for him, and knew she wouldn't be there to do it. If he went to the party, he could eat there, and K.Jo wouldn't be left at home to (GASP!) try to fix himself something to eat. I, of course, have never met them, so I don't really know, but if dtbh is to be believed, this would definitely make sense as to why K.Jo would have gone to the party with his mom. All my opinion, well more like a guess, only.

[hawgustusgloop]

I'm willing to bet the step dad never asked the police department for his murdered step daughter's cell phone that was part of evidence before, so this in turn could be construed as odd?

This makes no logical sense.

[FDInLaw]

But why not? You pretend to know what went on in KJ's all the time.

Your snippy remarks have gotten tiresome the last few days. I'll read your posts tomorrow.

:seeya:

[optimumprimal78]

My whole thinking about the phone was that the information from the sim was retrieved and since that is what is essentially the brain of the cell phone they wouldn't need anything else. They probably assumed that they could just give it back to the family. I don't know just an assumption.

[hawgustusgloop]

"There is no reason for him to know that the police needed that phone. "
:lol: That's too funny! I'm not at all familiar with criminal justice, and I for dang sure wouldn't have asked for that phone. But, there again, I'm not thrifty either, quite the opposite in fact, so I again wouldn't have asked for it. But, FD, the thrifty factor is something I can relate to better. Thrifty folks do some odd things sometime.

As for the statement, I forgot "maybe". Yes, you are correct I do know your opinions on the matter, but I do not know what you want everyone to think. So, I apologize. I know you certainly have your mind made up and believe the way you feel. I know my mind is made up in that it is not made up, and know what I feel.

OK, let's say your personal vehicle was somehow involved in a crime, maybe someone stole it, used it to commit another crime, etc. The police take it for a few days to process it. After about 3 days, you need it to go somewhere and are getting annoyed. You call the police. They have not arrested anyone yet for the crime (you are not a suspect). They say, yes, we are finished. Come get your car. You pick up the car. What do you do with it? You use it. You don't say, well, why don't y'all hang on to it in case the defense team needs it later. You don't sit there are argue with the police that they are making a mistake by giving it back to you. They are supposed to know whether or not they can release it. They are supposed to be the experts. Not you.

Maybe he needed a phone. He asked if they were finished with it, and they let him have it. So, he used the phone.

[FDInLaw]

My whole thinking about the phone was that the information from the sim was retrieved and since that is what is essentially the brain of the cell phone they wouldn't need anything else. They probably assumed that they could just give it back to the family. I don't know just an assumption. I wonder what sorts of tests the defense could/would have done that the crime lab did not. I realize it is their right to have an opportunity to do this, but I do wonder if anything was really lost. (I haven't been thinking clearly lately, maybe I need to go back and read the Courier articles again. Do they state anything about this?)

[hawgustusgloop]

This post was made earlier in the day, but I just wanted to come back and address it. I lean toward feeling KJ is innocent, but I don't think he absolutely is not capable of murder. I think most human beings are capable of murder if put in the correct situation, but the correct situation is different for everyone. I don't think we can make each other understand why we think so differenlty without being open to other views. I think this has occurred many times on this forum, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. There's not much chance you will make me understand why you think he explicitly did it without having any doubts in your mind, and neither will I likely get you to understand the way I think. We have all told why we think he did or didn't do it. I haven't closed all doors on the possiblilty he did do it. We just all see things differently. It seems a good number on here have closed the door on any possibilities he didn't do it.

I ask that you please not characterize my own opinion on whether or not I believe K.Jo committed this crime and whether or not my mind is completely made up. From the limited information we have available, I lean toward thinking K.Jo most likely did murder Nona. However, my mind is not completely made up for sure. I am very aware that there is a lot of evidence and information we, the general public, are not privy to. If someone showed me a videotape of K.Jo playing basketball with some friends undeniably from 11:00 to noon on the day Nona was murdered, I would say, "Good for K.Jo. He didn't do it. He deserves to be acquitted and to go on with his life. He should sue over this nonsense." All of the things that have come to light in the press after the last hearing don't really convince me any more of K.Jo's innocence, they only make it look somewhat more likely that he won't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, my mind is not completely made up. I have been open to any ideas about why he is not guilty. I have said before it is sad to think that Nona would have been murdered by someone who she loved and trusted. I have not decided 100% in my mind that he is guilty without seeing all of the evidence. That is the reason I asked the question, to try to understand why others thought he was innocent.

[lorettalockhorn]

I ask that you please not characterize my own opinion on whether or not I believe K.Jo committed this crime and whether or not my mind is completely made up. From the limited information we have available, I lean toward thinking K.Jo most likely did murder Nona. However, my mind is not completely made up for sure. I am very aware that there is a lot of evidence and information we, the general public, are not privy to. If someone showed me a videotape of K.Jo playing basketball with some friends undeniably from 11:00 to noon on the day Nona was murdered, I would say, "Good for K.Jo. He didn't do it. He deserves to be acquitted and to go on with his life. He should sue over this nonsense." All of the things that have come to light in the press after the last hearing don't really convince me any more of K.Jo's innocence, they only make it look somewhat more likely that he won't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, my mind is not completely made up. I have been open to any ideas about why he is not guilty. I have said before it is sad to think that Nona would have been murdered by someone who she loved and trusted. I have not decided 100% in my mind that he is guilty without seeing all of the evidence. That is the reason I asked the question, to try to understand why others thought he was innocent.

Interestingly, that is pretty much how I feel about the case at this point. I want justice for Nona and her family. That DOES NOT include Kevin being wrongfully convicted.

[FDInLaw]

Interestingly, that is pretty much how I feel about the case at this point. I want justice for Nona and her family. That DOES NOT include Kevin being wrongfully convicted. ITA! :patriot:

[lorettalockhorn]

No no we are dropping the subject of the attorneys and how they are obtained. Next subject.

Wonder who sits first chair on the defense team; Bristow signed on last, right? But of the three, he has the highest profile (and I'm sure he doesn't come cheap). Both of our attorneys spoke highly of him.

[JR2007]

I ask that you please not characterize my own opinion on whether or not I believe K.Jo committed this crime and whether or not my mind is completely made up. From the limited information we have available, I lean toward thinking K.Jo most likely did murder Nona. However, my mind is not completely made up for sure. I am very aware that there is a lot of evidence and information we, the general public, are not privy to. If someone showed me a videotape of K.Jo playing basketball with some friends undeniably from 11:00 to noon on the day Nona was murdered, I would say, "Good for K.Jo. He didn't do it. He deserves to be acquitted and to go on with his life. He should sue over this nonsense." All of the things that have come to light in the press after the last hearing don't really convince me any more of K.Jo's innocence, they only make it look somewhat more likely that he won't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, my mind is not completely made up. I have been open to any ideas about why he is not guilty. I have said before it is sad to think that Nona would have been murdered by someone who she loved and trusted. I have not decided 100% in my mind that he is guilty without seeing all of the evidence. That is the reason I asked the question, to try to understand why others thought he was innocent.
This gets an amen from me too. Evidence, Alibis, and character will be what it boils down to.

[lorettalockhorn]

Remember, the family knew who the police were going to charge at this point. The step father was in hate mode towards Jones. I heard from people around town that he was acting like that way. If(please read that as IF) there was any evidence left on the phone that might lead away from Jones, I can easily see why he would destrong it.


Interesting. I hadn't heard that rumor before.

The mishandling of the phone is a debacle that RPD should be embarassed about, for sure. I would think that if Dipert was a serious suspect that Frost would never have allowed him to use the phone. I don't doubt for a minute that each man in Nona's life was asked to provide an alibi on the day of the murder.

If I understood one of Solo's posts from today; the information on the phone was not necessarily purposely erased; it would happen during the course of being used.

[christina]

I wonder what sorts of tests the defense could/would have done that the crime lab did not. I realize it is their right to have an opportunity to do this, but I do wonder if anything was really lost. (I haven't been thinking clearly lately, maybe I need to go back and read the Courier articles again. Do they state anything about this?)

At the hearing, the defense brought up that there were more tests that could have been done to retrieve mroe information. They said that in their interview with the crime lab technician, the techinicain admitted there were more sensitive tests and the crime lab did nto perform them. This might be an example of the RPD thinking they had their man and need go further. Giving the phone back to a family member of the victim is another example.

[christina]

I ask that you please not characterize my own opinion on whether or not I believe K.Jo committed this crime and whether or not my mind is completely made up. From the limited information we have available, I lean toward thinking K.Jo most likely did murder Nona. However, my mind is not completely made up for sure. I am very aware that there is a lot of evidence and information we, the general public, are not privy to. If someone showed me a videotape of K.Jo playing basketball with some friends undeniably from 11:00 to noon on the day Nona was murdered, I would say, "Good for K.Jo. He didn't do it. He deserves to be acquitted and to go on with his life. He should sue over this nonsense." All of the things that have come to light in the press after the last hearing don't really convince me any more of K.Jo's innocence, they only make it look somewhat more likely that he won't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, my mind is not completely made up. I have been open to any ideas about why he is not guilty. I have said before it is sad to think that Nona would have been murdered by someone who she loved and trusted. I have not decided 100% in my mind that he is guilty without seeing all of the evidence. That is the reason I asked the question, to try to understand why others thought he was innocent.

While I appreciate you articultaitng this, it appears insincere considering yoru posts and your signature. As I said earlier, I like that you have taken and stand and do not pretend.

[christina]

Interesting. I hadn't heard that rumor before.

The mishandling of the phone is a debacle that RPD should be embarassed about, for sure. I would think that if Dipert was a serious suspect that Frost would never have allowed him to use the phone. I don't doubt for a minute that each man in Nona's life was asked to provide an alibi on the day of the murder.

If I understood one of Solo's posts from today; the information on the phone was not necessarily purposely erased; it would happen during the course of being used.

Frost is also the officer with the poor judgement to return a piece of evidence before the defense had a chance at it. I am fairly confident he will be embarrassed in front of the jury. We will know how many interviews with others took place at trial.

[christina]

Wonder who sits first chair on the defense team; Bristow signed on last, right? But of the three, he has the highest profile (and I'm sure he doesn't come cheap). Both of our attorneys spoke highly of him.

At the hearing it was pretty clear Johnson was going to be first chair.

[hawgustusgloop]

On the off chance of being "snippy" again, I must say how I feel. This is just me, but considering some of the conversations I've seen and some of the comments I've read, I can honestly say that I don't feel that is a sincere, heartfelt seniment, coming from hawg, FD, loretta or several others on here. But, of course, that's JMO, and as FD so famously and often states, "I'll stand behind it." or is it "by it"?

What reason could we all possibly have for lying about our opinions? I honestly have not read much of anything on this board or anywhere else to make me think K.Jo did not commit this crime. I cannot help that. Why is it so hard to believe that I would change my mind immediately if I were shown something that would undoubtedly exonerate K.Jo?

And why do y'all keep bringing up my signature? Don't you want justice for K.Jo? Aren't you Jonesin4Justice?

[lorettalockhorn]

On the off chance of being "snippy" again, I must say how I feel. This is just me, but considering some of the conversations I've seen and some of the comments I've read, I can honestly say that I don't feel that is a sincere, heartfelt seniment, coming from hawg, FD, loretta or several others on here. But, of course, that's JMO, and as FD so famously and often states, "I'll stand behind it." or is it "by it"?

What, are you psychic now? LMAO

[lorettalockhorn]

Ok, I gotta say it. I just can't keep my smart mouth shut, but Frost and the RPD's embarrassment regarding handling of things should not only come during the trial. It should have occurred quite a while back, like oh say.... the beginning. :lol:


I have harshly criticized Frost on this thread. Perhaps you found those posts to be insincere and discounted them. :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Frost is also the officer with the poor judgement to return a piece of evidence before the defense had a chance at it. I am fairly confident he will be embarrassed in front of the jury. We will know how many interviews with others took place at trial.

Yes, I'm fully aware of Frost.

So tell us more about the rumors that you brought up this morning.

[lorettalockhorn]

Oh, no LMAO 10 times over! Not psychic at all. Just speaking of the way you come off. Like I told hawg, I cannot say with any certaintly how you feel, but what you feel and what you said you feel agreeing to hawg seems to be totally different from what you feel in most, if not all of your others statements. So, I can certainly speak of how you come off to me.

Why do you even care? Can you not just post about the case and refrain from bashing other posters?

[lorettalockhorn]

Hey, I'm not bashing you at all. Just saying how you come off to me. Why do you care? But since you feel you are being bashed, you can bash but don't want to be bashed? Hmm... two way street. Maybe if you'd stick to your own advice, I would follow suit. Since you have been around way longer than me.

But, just for the record. I have made many, posts about the case, not as many as some, but many. But, even when I do the "Kevin guilty" camp doesn't want to hear it because it goes against everything you believe.

I think there needs to be some standing up against the "Kevin guilty" camp on here, in light of past conversations on here and the lights the "Kevin guilty" camp has cast on here outside of the evidence and facts. Or, do you prefer "Kevin bashers"?

I didn't say anything about you bashing me in particular; you seem to have a hard time understanding me; I'll work on that. I've seen you bash plenty of posters and attack their sincerity in this thread. I'm just wondering why you don't seem to be able to refrain from attacking others and stick to the case itself. Can you not argue for Kev's innocence without the animosity?

[christina]

Yes, I'm fully aware of Frost.

So tell us more about the rumors that you brought up this morning.

That's all I really can say, they are rumors-my definition being that I was not a firsthand witness, I was told by others. I was told the step father expressed his hatred of Jones in front of others. I was also told Jones father acted angrily, I believe threw something even, at the police station after his son had been charged/arrested.

[christina]

What reason could we all possibly have for lying about our opinions? I honestly have not read much of anything on this board or anywhere else to make me think K.Jo did not commit this crime. I cannot help that. Why is it so hard to believe that I would change my mind immediately if I were shown something that would undoubtedly exonerate K.Jo?

And why do y'all keep bringing up my signature? Don't you want justice for K.Jo? Aren't you Jonesin4Justice?

I am sincerely hoping you are making that last statment tongue in cheek.

[sophiafox]

now I remember why.

Can some tell me when the trial starts... I think this is getting way to drawn out and causing everyone to get up tight. The trial needs to start and get over with.:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

now I remember why.

Can some tell me when the trial starts... I think this is getting way to drawn out and causing everyone to get up tight. The trial needs to start and get over with.:seeya:
Hey! Long time no see! The trial starts July 9th and there is a hearing June 29th. It has been a long haul and it sure will be nice when the trial is final here.

:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

That's all I really can say, they are rumors-my definition being that I was not a firsthand witness, I was told by others. I was told the step father expressed his hatred of Jones in front of others. I was also told Jones father acted angrily, I believe threw something even, at the police station after his son had been charged/arrested.
I can confirm that Kevin's Dad did throw a chair at a wall down at the police station. The Courier did an article on this but it was not posted online. I have it saved somewhere but it is in a form that I can not post here. IIRC Hiram went down the to the police station because Kevin had not shown up at Nona's viewing. When he wasn't allowed to see him he lost his temper. I don't condone physical violence, but must say that would have been a difficult situation for any father. If any of you would like to see the article send a PM my way and I'll figure out some way to get it to you.

[sophiafox]

I am super happy this is going to get started. I really hope (without pointing fingers, woman who has no morals or restraint) gets outted of what she really is a long with justice for Nona.

To bad I am working days now and will have to follow this in the news.

Hey Courttv how about having trials on your website so people can watch them online of course not real time but like ABC does with their programing. It could really help people who study trials and jurys and attornies and what works and what doesnt. Its a thought!

I will be checking in more often now so everyone play nice and lets get down to business and let the jury speak. Of course I do like juicy gossip! :o


Hey! Long time no see! The trial starts July 9th and there is a hearing June 29th. It has been a long haul and it sure will be nice when the trial is final here.

:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

I am super happy this is going to get started. I really hope (without pointing fingers, woman who has no morals or restraint) gets outted of what she really is a long with justice for Nona.

To bad I am working days now and will have to follow this in the news.

Hey Courttv how about having trials on your website so people can watch them online of course not real time but like ABC does with their programing. It could really help people who study trials and jurys and attornies and what works and what doesnt. Its a thought!

I will be checking in more often now so everyone play nice and lets get down to business and let the jury speak. Of course I do like juicy gossip! :oIt's good to have you back. Do help us keep on track!

Here's to the trial finally starting soon! :beer:

[sophiafox]

When I said woman who has no morals or restraint... I was talking about "c" and since I do not know if she is writing on this board I was not pointing it toward anyone on this board. I apologize if I hurt feelings.


I am super happy this is going to get started. I really hope (without pointing fingers, woman who has no morals or restraint) gets outted of what she really is a long with justice for Nona.

To bad I am working days now and will have to follow this in the news.

Hey Courttv how about having trials on your website so people can watch them online of course not real time but like ABC does with their programing. It could really help people who study trials and jurys and attornies and what works and what doesnt. Its a thought!

I will be checking in more often now so everyone play nice and lets get down to business and let the jury speak. Of course I do like juicy gossip! :o

[FDInLaw]

When I said woman who has no morals or restraint... I was talking about "c" and since I do not know if she is writing on this board I was not pointing it toward anyone on this board. I apologize if I hurt feelings.
I have no idea who you are referring to and am glad you clarified that it was no one here. JMO but it might be wise to avoid such statements since they only generate confusion. Besides, aren't you suppose to help us stay on track here?!

:seeya:

[hawgustusgloop]

The Missing Stick

Suppose you arrive at the door with others; the vics car is there but no answer at the door. There would be no reason to panic or be alarmed at that point; perhaps she just went shopping and left with someone else. There would be no reason to use a key, even if you had one, to get in - just because there was no answer, especially if you had people with you. That would show you anticipate a problem. No answer ususally means - no one is home. However, should there be a way to peer in the back sliding door and see a body lying on the floor, then you have your reason. The perp knew the victim kept a stick in the door, so it had to be removed - in order to enter through the back UPON SEEING A BODY. Since he knew the stick was always kept there - he would not have forced the door open - assuming the stick was in place and entry could not be done through that door. However, the door was forced open even when locked (with no stick there) - Jones did it and RPD did it. The question: How did Jones know he could force open that door if there was always a stick kept there ? How did he know unless he removed it earlier? IMO the person who did this knew he had to get back in and have a reason to go in. Who else would think to remove the stick and take it with them..........who else would care ?

I know I have bumped this post before, but since there are some new posters since the last time, I thought I would bring it to the fore again because I think it is just great logic. What do y'all think?

[lorettalockhorn]

When I said woman who has no morals or restraint... I was talking about "c" and since I do not know if she is writing on this board I was not pointing it toward anyone on this board. I apologize if I hurt feelings.


Not hurt feelings here, just confusion. I'm not aware of any women at the crux of the case, aside from Nona. I guess this would be a good time for me to do some backreading.

[lorettalockhorn]

The Missing Stick



I know I have bumped this post before, but since there are some new posters since the last time, I thought I would bring it to the fore again because I think it is just great logic. What do y'all think?

Hawg, I always thought that was a good post from Whodunit. I suppose that at some time in the past that Nona or Nona and Kevin had accidentally locked themselves out of the apartment (with no stick in the door and no keys) and used that method of getting back inside.

I've also always thought that as the day of the murder wore on and Nona's body wasn't discovered, that KJ became more and more anxious and contrived the plan for the three of them to find her. (Was it the killer himself who left the blinds open, leaving behind bloody evidence in hopes that she would be found right away?)

Very interested to learn if Mrs. Jones invited Kevin to the Christmas party or if he made the suggestion. Also who decided whose car they would travel in, since he didn't have his key to Nona's apartment.

[JR2007]

Here is a link to the Courier Demo. article in today's paper. Sorry if someone has already posted this, I have read all the latest post.
http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15133

[hawgustusgloop]

Here is a link to the Courier Demo. article in today's paper. Sorry if someone has already posted this, I have read all the latest post.
http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15133

Did y'all check out the by-line on that article?

[FDInLaw]

Did y'all check out the by-line on that article?
No, I didn't catch that Janie wrote it. Good eye!

[christina]

I have no idea who you are referring to and am glad you clarified that it was no one here. JMO but it might be wise to avoid such statements since they only generate confusion. Besides, aren't you suppose to help us stay on track here?!

:seeya:

Good comment here FD, especially since my name begins with C!!

[christina]

No, I didn't catch that Janie wrote it. Good eye!

I'm not sure what I think about the Courier continuing to allow her to write about this subject. But, I am not the editor so I don't have to have an opinion!

The article did mention the name of the prosecutions "expert" on the bloody fingerprint- Bevel. I am searching for information on him.

[christina]

http://www.tombevel.com/

[lorettalockhorn]

Did y'all check out the by-line on that article?

Sure did; I think that she is still working for The Courier and still reporting on this story buffers The Courier's support of her re: the libel lawsuit. When it's over, I won't be surprised if she leaves for a new job.

JR, thanks for posting the link, they really updated early today.

[FDInLaw]

Good comment here FD, especially since my name begins with C!!
Oh, I'm sure she was not talking about you. Things have gotten heated at times on this board, but I've got say I have seen a maturity at times in the way you handle difficult discussions and genuinely respect you for that. This is an extremely hard subject to discuss and one that involves a lot of hurting people. A forgiving heart and understanding spirit really helps the conversation here.
:patriot:

[lorettalockhorn]

http://www.tombevel.com/

Found these two articles also:

http://www.willcountysao.com/press_room/2007_03/20070327.htm

http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/CammBoney_Blog/2006/02/camm_trial_bevel_testimony_feb.html

[hawgustusgloop]

This excerpt from today's Russellville Courier article linked above really gave me pause:

In a document filed June 13, defense attorneys requested “all the evidence prosecution [sic] anticipated will be used against the Defendant pertaining to character and to that of other crimes [or] wrongful conduct ... so that the Court may determine the admissibility of such proffered evidence prior to trial.”

What might they have on K.Jo? Any ideas? I don't know the guy at all, but I always thought that until the murder charge he was considered pretty much a model citizen.

[optimumprimal78]

Do any of you think that there might be a possibility for the defense to ask for another extension to this case to prolong having to go to court?

[lorettalockhorn]

This excerpt from today's Russellville Courier article linked above really gave me pause:

In a document filed June 13, defense attorneys requested “all the evidence prosecution [sic] anticipated will be used against the Defendant pertaining to character and to that of other crimes [or] wrongful conduct ... so that the Court may determine the admissibility of such proffered evidence prior to trial.”

What might they have on K.Jo? Any ideas? I don't know the guy at all, but I always thought that until the murder charge he was considered pretty much a model citizen.

I wondered if that was a reference to KJ's being at a drinking party? The alleged rape scene? I think that people may infer that he has been drinking which would be against the conditions of his bail/bond. I've never heard of his involvement in any other crime.

Optimum, I hope there are no more delays.

[Mishell1383]

he's also been allegedly known to use exctasy. He probably was a normal model citizen until he murdered Nona (imo) That would make one crack up for sure. Unless he has no conscience. Than maybe he has been a menace to society the whole time, we just didn't hear about it until.....

[FDInLaw]

Do any of you think that there might be a possibility for the defense to ask for another extension to this case to prolong having to go to court? Oh, I sure hope not! Let's get this over with! :(

[christina]

Did I miss something? I don't remember the defense ever asking for a delay.
As for the defense asking the prosecution for any other information, that seemed like it was normal procedure during the hearing. I think the lawyer started by saying he wanted to get this it on the record in fornt of the judge. It might come from past history when the prosecution was slow in getting discovery(right term?) to the defense, and of course the now infamous cell phone debacle.
I can't imagine any delay would happen unless the prosecution does have something they have not given the defense yet.

[christina]

Oh, I'm sure she was not talking about you. Things have gotten heated at times on this board, but I've got say I have seen a maturity at times in the way you handle difficult discussions and genuinely respect you for that. This is an extremely hard subject to discuss and one that involves a lot of hurting people. A forgiving heart and understanding spirit really helps the conversation here.
:patriot:

That is a generous thing to say, thank you.

[optimumprimal78]

I have actually heard the things about ecstasy before but I also know that he is around people who have done other things (pot, drinking, etc.). I wonder if this is what they are talking about when discussing his character.

I hope they get on with the case. Wasn't it real close to the the trial last time when the asked for a delay? That is why I was asking.

Also, I had forgotten about Jeremy Martin. Can someone refresh my mind? When did he change his story?

[FDInLaw]

I have actually heard the things about ecstasy before but I also know that he is around people who have done other things (pot, drinking, etc.). I wonder if this is what they are talking about when discussing his character.

I hope they get on with the case. Wasn't it real close to the the trial last time when the asked for a delay? That is why I was asking.

Also, I had forgotten about Jeremy Martin. Can someone refresh my mind? When did he change his story? At this point I don't think the defense has established why they believe JM lied. Guess we are just expected to just take their word for it?

:confused:

[christina]

At this point I don't think the defense has established why they believe JM lied. Guess we are just expected to just take their word for it?

:confused:

At the hearing they (defense)asked if there had been any follow up interviews with Martin by the prosecution. So the inference was that more information is out there. But, like many things, we will not know until the trial.
The defense lawyer was reading off a list as he was asking the prosecution for these items-reports. More than once the prosecutor said he would "check into it". The impression was either the prosection did have more information they had not turned over to the defense yet, or the prosectutor simply didn't know.

[lorettalockhorn]

I have actually heard the things about ecstasy before but I also know that he is around people who have done other things (pot, drinking, etc.). I wonder if this is what they are talking about when discussing his character.

I hope they get on with the case. Wasn't it real close to the the trial last time when the asked for a delay? That is why I was asking.

Also, I had forgotten about Jeremy Martin. Can someone refresh my mind? When did he change his story?

I don't think that I've read about any other trouble with the law, whether for a minor infraction or worse. Surely, there is nothing that can be proven since the arrest, or his bail would have been revoked.

I'm not sure how he can be made out to be a drug fiend without a police record to back it up; the witness would be pretty much impugning her/himself to say that she/he had seen drug use, especially if those drugs were illicit. Any prescription drug use could probably be explained away.

I'm clueless about JM's role in this (probably due to the gag order).

[sololobo]

Bumping to the forefront. sololob, I'd like to read your reply to this.

Deleting data does not destroy it. It makes it "invisible" and frees up that space to be overwritten. It is possible to retrieve deleted data if it hasn't been overwritten. Once overwritten, sometimes its possible to retrieve bits and pieces of the deleted data. The more it is overwritten, the less possible chance of retrieving anything. The six overwrites standard for government sensitive info is overkill but they can't take any chances. If you delete data and then add data, you can be overwriting what you deleted.

Also, cell phones routinely overwrite old transitory data with new data to preserve available memory, such as old text messages, while preserving addresses, etc. Use of the phone can overwrite both deleted data and data the phone maker deems less important.

[optimumprimal78]

I don't think that I've read about any other trouble with the law, whether for a minor infraction or worse. Surely, there is nothing that can be proven since the arrest, or his bail would have been revoked.

I'm not sure how he can be made out to be a drug fiend without a police record to back it up; the witness would be pretty much impugning her/himself to say that she/he had seen drug use, especially if those drugs were illicit. Any prescription drug use could probably be explained away.

I'm clueless about JM's role in this (probably due to the gag order).

There isn't much to do in Dover and, like I said, he is/has been known to associate with people who does other drugs (CH, RW). I do feel that the timing of his testings not have been so relaxed. From what I understand the were done mid to late week. Kind of gives a person enough time to get alcohol out of ones system if that was the case.

[Mishell1383]

There isn't much to do in Dover and, like I said, he is/has been known to associate with people who does other drugs (CH, RW). I do feel that the timing of his testings not have been so relaxed. From what I understand the were done mid to late week. Kind of gives a person enough time to get alcohol out of ones system if that was the case.
My thoughts EXACTLY!

[lorettalockhorn]

There isn't much to do in Dover and, like I said, he is/has been known to associate with people who does other drugs (CH, RW). I do feel that the timing of his testings not have been so relaxed. From what I understand the were done mid to late week. Kind of gives a person enough time to get alcohol out of ones system if that was the case.


He reports to the PCDC on Friday afternoons according to what I've read in the informational thread. I've never understood why testing wasn't specified as random. Another error on the part of the State, IMO.

[optimumprimal78]

I wasn't sure if it was Friday or not. Most people his age do their partying on the weekend and if all you do is drink alcohol it doesn't take long to flush that out of your system. It would have been better if it was done on a bi-weekly basis. Say Saturday and Monday.

[hawgustusgloop]

Does anyone know what K.Jo has been up to in between court appearances? Like, does he work, does he spend most of his time at home, do you see him out and about a lot, is he attending church regularly, etc.? How has he been spending what could possibly be his last few weeks of freedom?

[FDInLaw]

http://www.atkinschronicle.com/dt1.htm


http://www.atkinschronicle.com/dt2.htm

[JR2007]

Below is a bit from todays Courier about what the defense asked for. This makes no sense to me at all, since everyone at the discovery signed statements to the fact the KJ did not go near or touch the Lamp.:confused:

A defense motion filed in January asked that the prosecution be prohibited from “arguing, asserting, or even suggesting the print was made at any time prior to the discovery of the body.”

[FDInLaw]

Below is a bit from todays Courier about what the defense asked for. This makes no sense to me at all, since everyone at the discovery signed statements to the fact the KJ did not go near or touch the Lamp.:confused:

A defense motion filed in January asked that the prosecution be prohibited from “arguing, asserting, or even suggesting the print was made at any time prior to the discovery of the body.”

IMO this is not going to be granted by the judge. If Bacon really intended to communicate that the blood was still wet, why on earth did this end up in the PCS in the first place? I really wonder if the defense is just trying to run with some confusing wording. If this is the case, the matter should be cleared up at the next hearing. This is pure speculation on my part. We'll see what happens next week.

[hawgustusgloop]

IMO this is not going to be granted by the judge. If Bacon really intended to communicate that the blood was still wet, why on earth did this end up in the PCS in the first place? I really wonder if the defense is just trying to run with some confusing wording. If this is the case, the matter should be cleared up at the next hearing. This is pure speculation on my part. We'll see what happens next week.

If I had to guess, and I am not even remotely knowledgeable about this stuff, I would think the judge would probably let it in, and let the investigators and experts fight it out on the stand to let the jury decide for themselves.

ETA: I like your new signature, FDInLaw!

[lorettalockhorn]

If I had to guess, and I am not even remotely knowledgeable about this stuff, I would think the judge would probably let it in, and let the investigators and experts fight it out on the stand to let the jury decide for themselves.

ETA: I like your new signature, FDInLaw!

I guess it will depend on what case law each side can cite. Since the print was in blood, it's going to be hard to explain away; hope that the jury is allowed to know about it since it got there somehow, some time.

Ditto on the siggy. I need one!

[JR2007]

IMO this is not going to be granted by the judge. If Bacon really intended to communicate that the blood was still wet, why on earth did this end up in the PCS in the first place? I really wonder if the defense is just trying to run with some confusing wording. If this is the case, the matter should be cleared up at the next hearing. This is pure speculation on my part. We'll see what happens next week.
One thing I did notice is that the Defense expert said that the blood would be dry in 30 to 45 mins. The time from the discovery to when Bacon made his statement is 51 mins. So according to that line of thinking the blood would have been dry, not tacky under either scenario. Ditto on the sig.

[lorettalockhorn]

One thing I did notice is that the Defense expert said that the blood would be dry in 30 to 45 mins. The time from the discovery to when Bacon made his statement is 51 mins. So according to that line of thinking the blood would have been dry, not tacky under either scenario. Ditto on the sig.

Yea! Good call on the timing, I couldn't remember if the discover was at 6:30 or 6:45. That makes Bacon's definition of tacky more important than ever (to me anyway). I would think that there would be an official meaning for the word; whether it's "sticky" or something else.

[christina]

The argument put forth by the defense at the hearing was that if the murder took place between 11 and 12 and the body was not discovered until 6:30 or so, then there is no way blood on the light bulb could be tacky and have been placed there at the time of the murder. They said they have scientific proof that blood on a light bulb dries between 30-45 minutes. The prosecution argued that Jones was asked several times if he touched the light when he found the victim and each time Jones answered that he did not.
The defense did not respond to that statement.

[sololobo]

Jones does have excellent attorneys, some of the best in the state. But Mr. Gibbons is one of the best prosecuting attorneys in the state, something our community can be proud of. This is not David vs Goliath, its Goliath vs Goliath.

This being said, Jones' bloody print on the murder weapon should have elicited an immediate arrest. What more would a prosecutor need, Moses descending the mountain with eleven commandments, the last proclaiming "Jones did it!"? Mr. Gibbons took over three months to file charges. Might we infer from this he may be somewhat uncomfortable with the bloody print evidence?

[FDInLaw]

Jones does have excellent attorneys, some of the best in the state. But Mr. Gibbons is one of the best prosecuting attorneys in the state, something our community can be proud of. This is not David vs Goliath, its Goliath vs Goliath.

This being said, Jones' bloody print on the murder weapon should have elicited an immediate arrest. What more would a prosecutor need, Moses descending the mountain with eleven commandments, the last proclaiming "Jones did it!"? Mr. Gibbons took over three months to file charges. Might we infer from this he may be somewhat uncomfortable with the bloody print evidence?
ITA. I've heard good things about Gibbons and certainly don't plan to discount him.

Regarding your other thought; I sorta disagree. There are a number of possible contributing factors as to why the arrest took three months. Not only were the labs slow at processing the evidence, but I'm sure the investigators clocked a lot of hours doing interviews, etc. There was also a behavioral analysis done that involved the FBI. The following is from the PCS (note the date); "In addition, on March 22,2006, Affiant consulted with members of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit and discussed the evidence collected in this case to include video taped statements of Kevin Jones, crime scene photos and autopsy findings. It was also the opinion of the members of the FBI Behavioral Science team that the actions of Jones at the crime scene were a deliberate attempt to destroy the crime scene and to provide an explanation for the presence of any incriminating trace evidence." IMO it's not safe to assume that any one thing held up the arrest. Gibbons has a reputation for being thorough, and now we'll see if this pays off during the trial.

[JR2007]

Jones does have excellent attorneys, some of the best in the state. But Mr. Gibbons is one of the best prosecuting attorneys in the state, something our community can be proud of. This is not David vs Goliath, its Goliath vs Goliath.

This being said, Jones' bloody print on the murder weapon should have elicited an immediate arrest. What more would a prosecutor need, Moses descending the mountain with eleven commandments, the last proclaiming "Jones did it!"? Mr. Gibbons took over three months to file charges. Might we infer from this he may be somewhat uncomfortable with the bloody print evidence?

Solo, I too agree with most of what you say, but I think the Prosecutors knew where to find their man and didn't see any reason to have the media swamp them as soon as an arrest was made. I don't think they say him as a threat to anyone else either. This way they could continue to do their job in relative calm. Besides it cost to keep someone in lock up:) . The Prosecution may have also been hoping to make the defendant sweat it out and possibly make some type of mistake. AMO

[lorettalockhorn]

Solo, I too agree with most of what you say, but I think the Prosecutors knew where to find their man and didn't see any reason to have the media swamp them as soon as an arrest was made. I don't think they say him as a threat to anyone else either. This way they could continue to do their job in relative calm. Besides it cost to keep someone in lock up:) . The Prosecution may have also been hoping to make the defendant sweat it out and possibly make some type of mistake. AMO

Good morning :seeya:

Drying time debate aside, I can't get away from the fact that KJ's print is in blood on the bulb and is very damning (at least in my mind). I have wondered if at some point the State wasn't waiting for KJ to turn himself in. Also, despite the fact that it looks like LE bobbled some of the evidence and protocol, I think the investigation took time, especially in light of the fact that they had several suspects at the outset.
I have plenty of faith in the prosecutions abilities; there are no slouches on either side of this case.

[Brainstorm]

ITA. I've heard good things about Gibbons and certainly don't plan to discount him.

Regarding your other thought; I sorta disagree. There are a number of possible contributing factors as to why the arrest took three months. Not only were the labs slow at processing the evidence, but I'm sure the investigators clocked a lot of hours doing interviews, etc. There was also a behavioral analysis done that involved the FBI. The following is from the PCS (note the date); "In addition, on March 22,2006, Affiant consulted with members of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit and discussed the evidence collected in this case to include video taped statements of Kevin Jones, crime scene photos and autopsy findings. It was also the opinion of the members of the FBI Behavioral Science team that the actions of Jones at the crime scene were a deliberate attempt to destroy the crime scene and to provide an explanation for the presence of any incriminating trace evidence." IMO it's not safe to assume that any one thing held up the arrest. Gibbons has a reputation for being thorough, and now we'll see if this pays off during the trial.

Solo, I too agree with most of what you say, but I think the Prosecutors knew where to find their man and didn't see any reason to have the media swamp them as soon as an arrest was made. I don't think they say him as a threat to anyone else either. This way they could continue to do their job in relative calm. Besides it cost to keep someone in lock up:) . The Prosecution may have also been hoping to make the defendant sweat it out and possibly make some type of mistake. AMO

Just checking in and I DO HOPE & PRAY there will be no more delays.
I have confidence in the prosecutor.IMO, the truth will prevail.
jmhho

[hawgustusgloop]

ITA. I've heard good things about Gibbons and certainly don't plan to discount him.

Regarding your other thought; I sorta disagree. There are a number of possible contributing factors as to why the arrest took three months. Not only were the labs slow at processing the evidence, but I'm sure the investigators clocked a lot of hours doing interviews, etc. There was also a behavioral analysis done that involved the FBI. The following is from the PCS (note the date); "In addition, on March 22,2006, Affiant consulted with members of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit and discussed the evidence collected in this case to include video taped statements of Kevin Jones, crime scene photos and autopsy findings. It was also the opinion of the members of the FBI Behavioral Science team that the actions of Jones at the crime scene were a deliberate attempt to destroy the crime scene and to provide an explanation for the presence of any incriminating trace evidence." IMO it's not safe to assume that any one thing held up the arrest. Gibbons has a reputation for being thorough, and now we'll see if this pays off during the trial.

Also, I think the medical examiner's final report was dated March 16, 2006, three months after the murder.

[FDInLaw]

Also, I think the medical examiner's final report was dated March 16, 2006, three months after the murder. Good catch! :beer:

[christina]

ITA. I've heard good things about Gibbons and certainly don't plan to discount him.

Regarding your other thought; I sorta disagree. There are a number of possible contributing factors as to why the arrest took three months. Not only were the labs slow at processing the evidence, but I'm sure the investigators clocked a lot of hours doing interviews, etc. There was also a behavioral analysis done that involved the FBI. The following is from the PCS (note the date); "In addition, on March 22,2006, Affiant consulted with members of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit and discussed the evidence collected in this case to include video taped statements of Kevin Jones, crime scene photos and autopsy findings. It was also the opinion of the members of the FBI Behavioral Science team that the actions of Jones at the crime scene were a deliberate attempt to destroy the crime scene and to provide an explanation for the presence of any incriminating trace evidence." IMO it's not safe to assume that any one thing held up the arrest. Gibbons has a reputation for being thorough, and now we'll see if this pays off during the trial.

This was also brought out by Jones lawyers at the change of venue hearing. The probable cause statment was made public but apparantly contained false statements. The defense said there was no report from the FBI behavoir unit. The prosecution has never produced it. And the defense lawyer asked them for it again in front of the judge and agian they did not have one.
This is not good for the prosecution and probably helped the judge make the decision for the change of venue.

[FDInLaw]

This was also brought out by Jones lawyers at the change of venue hearing. The probable cause statment was made public but apparantly contained false statements. The defense said there was no report from the FBI behavoir unit. The prosecution has never produced it. And the defense lawyer asked them for it again in front of the judge and agian they did not have one.
This is not good for the prosecution and probably helped the judge make the decision for the change of venue. These are serious accusations! I wonder why none of this made the papers?

:confused:

[christina]

These are serious accusations! I wonder why none of this made the papers?

:confused:

Agreed, your guess is as good as mine. The editor and a reporter were sitting up very close to where the arguments took place, how they did not hear that is odd. There was a lot of information put out that morning. It was hard to follow and keep up. Some stuck out to me immediately and some I am remembering as we discuss them here. Do you have a copy of the discovery stuff- is the FBI report in there?

[lorettalockhorn]

This was also brought out by Jones lawyers at the change of venue hearing. The probable cause statment was made public but apparantly contained false statements. The defense said there was no report from the FBI behavoir unit. The prosecution has never produced it. And the defense lawyer asked them for it again in front of the judge and agian they did not have one.
This is not good for the prosecution and probably helped the judge make the decision for the change of venue.

Wonder why The Courier didn't report that false statements are contained in the PCS or that the defense has requested the report? Drat! Getting all the information is like pulling hens' teeth. Gonna have to read again and make sure that I didn't miss something.

[JR2007]

Wonder why The Courier didn't report that false statements are contained in the PCS or that the defense has requested the report? Drat! Getting all the information is like pulling hens' teeth. Gonna have to read again and make sure that I didn't miss something.
Hens don't have teeth:biggrin:

[FDInLaw]

aa. Disposition of Evidence prepared by ASP Agent Stacie Rhoads dated 1-6-06
- attached
bb. Miranda rights fonn signed by defendant - 12-21 .. 054:26 pm - attached
cc. Unsigned Miranda rights form - 12-15-05 (read to defendant by Det. Virden
on DVD) - attached
dd. Notes written by defendant on 12-15-05 (includes friends of victim, victim's
classes and timeline of defendant) - attached
ee. Crime Scene Sketch drawn by defendant - 12-15-05 - attached
ff Ryan Whiteside rights fonn dated 12-15-05 - attached
gg. Transcribed statement of Ryan Whiteside - 19 pages - 12-15-05 - attached
hh. Transcribed statement of Janice Jones -19 pages - 12-15-05 - attached
ii. Summary of Interview of Al Frazier - 2-8-06 - 1 page - attached
jj. Nine (9) photos taken 12-15-05 (10:01 to 10:06)- attached
kk. Statement of AI Frazier-12-16 ... 05 -4 pages - attached
ll. Statement of Bobby Maross - 12-16-05 - 9 pages - attached
tnm. Statement of Vicky Kiehl-12-16"()5 -12 pages - attached
nn. Statement of Holly Gale -12-16-05 - 8 pages - attached
oo. Statement of Scott Pearson - 12-16-05 - 7 pages - attached
Miranda rights fonn of James York III - 12-16-05 - attached
qq. Statement of Sara Busch - 12-20-05 - 20 pages - attached
rr. Statement of Tony Sigle - 12-20-05 - 6 pages - attached
ss. Statement of Andrew Featherston - 12-28-05 - 2 pages - attached
tt. Statement of Jason Kennedy-12-29-05 - 4 pages - attached
uu. Statement ofNonna Tate Jones - 1-9-06 - 2 pages - attached
vv. Statement of Kelly Edwards - 3 ... 2 ... 06 - 3 pages - attached
ww. Statement of Kelly Edwards - 1-6-06 - 18 pages - attached
xx. Statement of Laura Brown - 12-20-05 - 7 pages - attached
yy. Statement of Laura Brown - 2-6-06 - 3 pages - attached
zz. Report of Cause of Death - 12-19-05 - attached
aaa. Report of Autopsy - 3-16-06 - attached
bbb. Evidence Submission Sheet stamped Received 12-29-05 (including all items listed thereon) - attached
ccc. Evidence Submission Sheet stamped Received 12-21-05 (including all items
listed thereon) - attached
ddd. Evidence Submission Sheet stamped Received 1-17-06 (including all items
listed thereon) - attached
eee. Evidence Submission Sheet stamped Received 1-23-06 (including all items
listed thereon) - attached
fff. Crime Lab Report - 12-27-05 - attached
ggg. Crime Lab Report - 2-6-06 – attached
hhh. Crime Lab Report - 2-9-06 - attached (CD referred to is CD listed as item
"0"
iii. Crime Lab Report - 2-15-06 - attached (Terry Rolf)
jjj. Crime Lab Report - 2-15-06 - attached (Chantelle Taylor)
kkk. Eleven (11) Arvest photos taken 12-15-05 - attached
lll. Affidavit for Search Warrant and Search Warrant - 1-18-06 - attached
mmm. Return (including all items listed thereon) - attached
nnn. Statement of Chris Chappell - 1-11-06 - 5 pages - attached
ooo. Application for Order for Cell Site Infonnation - attached
ppp. Order for Cell Site Information - attached
qqq. CelI Site Information - attached
rrr. Cell phone records 479 .. 264-7352 - 2 pages
sss. Cell phone records 479-747-1600 - 3 pages
ttt. Cingular bills for 479-264-7352 for 12/14/05 to 1/13/06
uuu. E-mails trom Victim to Jeremy Martin - attached
vvv. Tenant list - attached
www. Infonnation trom Jones computer - provided by defense coW1Sel
xxx. Consent to Search Fonn signed by defendant - 1-6-05 - attached
yyy. Receipt for Evidence - 1 .. 6-05 - 2 pages - attached
zzz. Crime Scene Photos taken by Coroner - 57 pictures
III.
The State of Arkansas will provide information regarding computers
belonging to defendant as soon as it becomes available as the investigation of these items is ongoing and the State is not currently in possession of the complete results of the investigation of the computer(s).
IV.
The State of Arkansas agrees to treat this response as continuing and will provide any additional information obtained concerning this case to defendant.

"Of the terrible doubt of appearances,
of the uncertainty of all, that we may be deluded,
That may-be reliance and hope are but speculations after all,
That may-be identity beyond the grave is a beautiful fable only." Old Walt


Just bumping for the info ~ FD

[FDInLaw]

Hens don't have teeth:biggrin:
Well, I don't know about that. . . :chicken:

[lorettalockhorn]

Hens don't have teeth:biggrin:

Goose! (Sorry, no goose smiley.) That's why they're so hard to pull. :chicken:

[christina]

Hens don't have teeth:biggrin:

They have claws?!?! Ok, so I'm not a comedian

[christina]

Just bumping for the info ~ FD

Thank you for getting this. I did not see the FBI mentioned. But, I do not know the identity of many of the people listed. I am going to try to get an exact list of what the defense asked for at the hearing. The judges office should have the transcript. Who wants to kick in if it costs?!?!?
Again, not a comedian-I obviously need to keep my day job.

[lorettalockhorn]

Just bumping for the info ~ FD

Thanks for posting. This item: IV.
The State of Arkansas agrees to treat this response as continuing and will provide any additional information obtained concerning this case to defendant.
I guess would suffice as a request that has been made but not reported. However, it seems like an important matter for The Courier to omit.

[hawgustusgloop]

Thank you for getting this. I did not see the FBI mentioned. But, I do not know the identity of many of the people listed. I am going to try to get an exact list of what the defense asked for at the hearing. The judges office should have the transcript. Who wants to kick in if it costs?!?!?
Again, not a comedian-I obviously need to keep my day job.

I know that at least two of the women listed are music professors at Tech.

[FDInLaw]

Agreed, your guess is as good as mine. The editor and a reporter were sitting up very close to where the arguments took place, how they did not hear that is odd. There was a lot of information put out that morning. It was hard to follow and keep up. Some stuck out to me immediately and some I am remembering as we discuss them here. Do you have a copy of the discovery stuff- is the FBI report in there? There is someone from the FBI in Little Rock listed as a witness (I can't post that part though). PM me for details.

Maybe there is no official "report" but the RPD did in fact consult the FBI?

:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

They have claws?!?! Ok, so I'm not a comedian

Awwww. . . You're not that bad! :D

At least no one has called you a "fruitcake"!

[FDInLaw]

Goose! (Sorry, no goose smiley.) That's why they're so hard to pull. :chicken:
Side note: I love YOUR new sig! Mark Twain is so cool! :seeya:

[christina]

There is someone from the FBI in Little Rock listed as a witness (I can't post that part though). PM me for details.

Maybe there is no official "report" but the RPD did in fact consult the FBI?

:shrug:

These are the kinds of things that do not bode well for the RPD. If they did in fact orally consult the FBI, they should have gotten something in writing so it could be passed to the defense. If they are exaggerating, or out right lying about consulting the FBI- that is not good at all. Either way, it should not have been put in the probable cause statement. They appeared to have enough to arrest Jones without that.
Seeing the skills of the defense lawyers, I can see how easy it will be to put the investigators on the hot seat.

[christina]

Awwww. . . You're not that bad! :D

At least no one has called you a "fruitcake"!

Not here and not today anyway.

[christina]

Thanks for posting. This item: IV.
The State of Arkansas agrees to treat this response as continuing and will provide any additional information obtained concerning this case to defendant.
I guess would suffice as a request that has been made but not reported. However, it seems like an important matter for The Courier to omit.

Good point. Why wouldn't the paper/reporter be at the courthouse following up on this?

[christina]

You already know that I am friends of the Whitesides and that is what brought me to this post in the first place. To follow up on the alleged rape, the complaintant was seen recently attending another party with a group inlcuding the boy she accused.

[FDInLaw]

These are the kinds of things that do not bode well for the RPD. If they did in fact orally consult the FBI, they should have gotten something in writing so it could be passed to the defense. If they are exaggerating, or out right lying about consulting the FBI- that is not good at all. Either way, it should not have been put in the probable cause statement. They appeared to have enough to arrest Jones without that.
Seeing the skills of the defense lawyers, I can see how easy it will be to put the investigators on the hot seat.This will show what a simpleton I am, if the findings were reported in the PCS, and a witness is to be called to back it up, why is this not enough?

[FDInLaw]

You already know that I am friends of the Whitesides and that is what brought me to this post in the first place. To follow up on the alleged rape, the complaintant was seen recently attending another party with a group inlcuding the boy she accused. There is a thread here on Nona's forum for discussing the alleged rape. I'll bump it for you.

[lorettalockhorn]

There is someone from the FBI in Little Rock listed as a witness (I can't post that part though). PM me for details.

Maybe there is no official "report" but the RPD did in fact consult the FBI?

:shrug:

No doubt the prosecution will provide that information to the defense, whether it is in report form or as an expert witness, etc. If there is an FBI agent on the witness list, wouldn't the defense know that? Haven't they queried everyone on the list?

[optimumprimal78]

She is not the sharpest person in the world is she?

Christina, you mentioning the Whitesides kind of made me think. I understand about wanting to back up friends but if you were RW (or his parents) would you not be a little cautious about being around certain situations after an accusation like that? Have they said anything about how they feel in regards to what he does in his spare time? I'm just curious.

[hawgustusgloop]

You already know that I am friends of the Whitesides and that is what brought me to this post in the first place. To follow up on the alleged rape, the complaintant was seen recently attending another party with a group inlcuding the boy she accused.

So, whom do you know that was once again hanging out at such a party to witness this? Hmmmm........ None of these kids seems to learn anything.

[FDInLaw]

No doubt the prosecution will provide that information to the defense, whether it is in report form or as an expert witness, etc. If there is an FBI agent on the witness list, wouldn't the defense know that? Haven't they queried everyone on the list? With all the issues the defense raised at the hearing, I suspect that either the prosecution has some serious problems OR the defense is just creating drama and doing their own little publicity stunt. If the former is true, it sure overshadows there being a few "Justice For Nona" bumper stickers around town. In time we will know. This next hearing should be a good indicator. All MOO.

[christina]

No doubt the prosecution will provide that information to the defense, whether it is in report form or as an expert witness, etc. If there is an FBI agent on the witness list, wouldn't the defense know that? Haven't they queried everyone on the list?

I think the prosecution has to provide everything to the defense. The defense said they asked for this report from the beginning and asked again this last hearing. If they don't have the report, how can they query the person?

[christina]

With all the issues the defense raised at the hearing, I suspect that either the prosecution has some serious problems OR the defense is just creating drama and doing their own little publicity stunt. If the former is true, it sure overshadows there being a few "Justice For Nona" bumper stickers around town. In time we will know. This next hearing should be a good indicator. All MOO.

I agree and hope to be present at the next hearing. There are rumors flying that the prosecution has problems right now.

[christina]

She is not the sharpest person in the world is she?

Christina, you mentioning the Whitesides kind of made me think. I understand about wanting to back up friends but if you were RW (or his parents) would you not be a little cautious about being around certain situations after an accusation like that? Have they said anything about how they feel in regards to what he does in his spare time? I'm just curious.

I know Dennis and Patty Whieside to be upstanding people. Yes, if I were related I would request certain behavoirs. However, these are not youngsters or even teenagers, these are adult children. As you know, you can only request things from them, they make their own decisions.

[christina]

So, whom do you know that was once again hanging out at such a party to witness this? Hmmmm........ None of these kids seems to learn anything.

If you are inferring it was Ryan Whiteside I heard this from, you would be wrong. And I was not told what type of party it was, referring to your "such a party" comment. The point was that this young lady whose accusation caused problems, is publically hanging out with the young man she accused of raping her.

[FDInLaw]

I know Dennis and Patty Whieside to be upstanding people. Yes, if I were related I would request certain behavoirs. However, these are not youngsters or even teenagers, these are adult children. As you know, you can only request things from them, they make their own decisions. I've wondered this question for some time (and maybe it was answered), was the party in question in Dennis and Patty's home? If this is the case, certainly they could "request" that it not happen again. MOO

[optimumprimal78]

I've wondered this question for some time (and maybe it was answered), was the party in question in Dennis and Patty's home? If this is the case, certainly they could "request" that it not happen again. MOO

If you are referring to the house that the rape supposedly took place in, then I am not sure who actually owned it. I was under the impression that they paid for it (rent?).

I realize that RW and the others want to still be KJ's friends and show their support, but I guess it just concerns me that any of them would want to allow themselves to be placed in any sort of negative situation when there has already been a lot of speculation and questions regarding their choices in life.

[lorettalockhorn]

I think the prosecution has to provide everything to the defense. The defense said they asked for this report from the beginning and asked again this last hearing. If they don't have the report, how can they query the person?

I would imagine that they have investigated (for lack of a better word) and are well aware of whom each witness is and have a pretty good idea of what their testimonies will be. If the FBI man is on the witness list, can they not simply contact him or depose him? Or is that not allowed if he is a prosecution witness? I honestly can't remember.

With the trial date so near, I would think that all evidence would be available to both sides. That is the purpose of discovery, to allow each side to be prepared.

Maybe I'm naive, but I find it very hard to believe that the prosecution or LE is lying about anything.