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

[lorettalockhorn]

I haven't been able to open the link to the Arkansas paper. Did it state that Bacon was one of only 700 in the Nation? That was interesting to know although I don't think he took any prints, I think he sent everything to the Crime lab to do.


No, just this: Bacon, a certified latent print examiner, said it did, but added that his description referred only to the blood’s appearance because he could not touch such evidence.

Sorry about the Gazette link, I realize now that you have to login with your subscription information.

[lorettalockhorn]

That was an interesting point. The police had an expert(Bacon) at the scene but he delegated someone else to collect all prints.

I would think that any lab site or equipment that RPD has is rudimentary at best, especially compared to a lab that specializes in evidence of such a critical nature.

[jonikay]

As far as forensic technology, etc., what type of equipment does Russellville have? Does Pope County have a sort of Crime Lab?

[jonikay]

By the way, Arkansas has 8 certified latent print examiners as of June 28, 2006. 5 of them are in Little Rock.

[lorettalockhorn]

As far as forensic technology, etc., what type of equipment does Russellville have? Does Pope County have a sort of Crime Lab?

Not that I'm aware of. They have a new facility, but I don't remember reading about anything other than evidence storage. It seems like every newstory that I read about (in Arkansas), always mentions the State Crime Lab as being responsible for processing evidence.

The Courier should do a story.

[christina]

As far as forensic technology, etc., what type of equipment does Russellville have? Does Pope County have a sort of Crime Lab?

Neither has any as far as I know.

[hawgustusgloop]

Try this link to NWAnews.com
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/194376/

[christina]

By the way, Arkansas has 8 certified latent print examiners as of June 28, 2006. 5 of them are in Little Rock.

Was Bacon's name among them? Were any names on the list currently working for the State Crime Lab?

[lorettalockhorn]

By the way, Arkansas has 8 certified latent print examiners as of June 28, 2006. 5 of them are in Little Rock.

It's almost frightening that there is enough crime to keep eight examiners busy.

[lorettalockhorn]

Try this link to NWAnews.com
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/194376/

Thanks Hawg, I was just looking at their site to post. Great minds!

[jonikay]

I haven't been able to open the link to the Arkansas paper. Did it state that Bacon was one of only 700 in the Nation? That was interesting to know although I don't think he took any prints, I think he sent everything to the Crime lab to do.
Perhaps this is because Pope County simply doesn't have the technology that the Crime Lab does.

[christina]

I would think that any lab site or equipment that RPD has is rudimentary at best, especially compared to a lab that specializes in evidence of such a critical nature.

Why do you suppose Bacon had someone else collect the prints? This was obviously evidence of a critical nature as you pointed ou. It has been stated the RPD did not have much murder investigation experience. The chief, almost first to the crime scene, in an elite group of experts, has someone else do the collection.

[jonikay]

Was Bacon's name among them? Were any names on the list currently working for the State Crime Lab?
Bacon's name was among them. It didn't state where the examiners were working, just the city. This was the list of government officials certified in latent print examining. I just googled "certified latent print examiner" and this site was the first to pop up.

[christina]

Bacon's name was among them. It didn't state where the examiners were working, just the city. This was the list of government officials certified in latent print examining. I just googled "certified latent print examiner" and this site was the first to pop up.

Thank you. Bacon seems like a very upright guy. Not at all the type to exaggerate or embelish his resume.

[lorettalockhorn]

Why do you suppose Bacon had someone else collect the prints? This was obviously evidence of a critical nature as you pointed ou. It has been stated the RPD did not have much murder investigation experience. The chief, almost first to the crime scene, in an elite group of experts, has someone else do the collection.

Doesn't seem unusual to me at all. I hear all kinds of criminal calls on my scanner and assume that both the chief and the sheriff trust their officers/detectives to do their jobs. The protocol to be followed is the same for rookies as it is seasoned invetigators.

I'll edit that to say "assume". I've never heard a chief or sheriff get on the radio and decline to have investigators come to the scene of a death or fatal accident, for example.

[hawgustusgloop]

Why do you suppose Bacon had someone else collect the prints? This was obviously evidence of a critical nature as you pointed ou. It has been stated the RPD did not have much murder investigation experience. The chief, almost first to the crime scene, in an elite group of experts, has someone else do the collection.

Maybe it's kind of like how a CEO doesn't crunch all the numbers, take all the phone calls, and file all the paperwork. Maybe he felt like he needed to manage everything and be in charge, and just delegate the more labor-intensive aspects like evidence collection to the other officers?

[christina]

Maybe it's kind of like how a CEO doesn't crunch all the numbers, take all the phone calls, and file all the paperwork. Maybe he felt like he needed to manage everything and be in charge, and just delegate the more labor-intensive aspects like evidence collection to the other officers?

Good analogy with the CEO. I understand the importance of delegation. But with so few murders happening in this area, I would think a CEO would want to use their best resource. Yesterday, we saw that was Bacon.
Do you know if there are any other reports written by Bacon, maybe on the discovery list?

[christina]

Doesn't seem unusual to me at all. I hear all kinds of criminal calls on my scanner and assume that both the chief and the sheriff trust their officers/detectives to do their jobs. The protocol to be followed is the same for rookies as it is seasoned invetigators.

I'll edit that to say "assume". I've never heard a chief or sheriff get on the radio and decline to have investigators come to the scene of a death or fatal accident, for example.

Agreed, I am sure they trust their officers. Scanner listener, eh? Were you by any chance listening when the call came for this one?

[christina]

Bacon's name was among them. It didn't state where the examiners were working, just the city. This was the list of government officials certified in latent print examining. I just googled "certified latent print examiner" and this site was the first to pop up.

Speaking of Websters, isn't it funny to think that google is now a verb!?

[christina]

I would like to attend, but I doubt if I will be able to.
Maybe one day if I can get away.

I'll give you a ride JR. We can meet in front of the Pope County Courthouse- I'll be the one with the name tag that says "anonymous".:)

[jonikay]

Speaking of Websters, isn't it funny to think that google is now a verb!?
As it should be!

[JR2007]

I'll give you a ride JR. We can meet in front of the Pope County Courthouse- I'll be the one with the name tag that says "anonymous".:)
I believe I would recognize you. You were setting on the left side of the court room about 4 rows from the back. Taking notes on a black legal type folder with gold metal trim. Wearing sandals and a green top.

[jonikay]

I know christina mentioned that the prosecution has added another witness and thought the name was Sara Bailey (from Dover, graduated around 1999, though not sure). Perhaps she will be another witness, but the Courier article stated that the prosecution added Cole Hudson to their witness list. I know he is a native of Dover and I am pretty sure he graduated the same year as Kevin and Nona. Anyway, Cole is into the music scene as Nona was and they were both music majors. As the music major schedules go at ATU, they had to have attended several of the same classes. I wonder what he will testify about . . .

[jonikay]

Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

This is the rule for which the defense stated their claim that the palm print should not be used as evidence during the trial.
“The potential for prejudice, the potential for confusion... for wasting time is right out of a seminar on Rule 403,” Bristow declared.

[JR2007]

Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

This is the rule for which the defense stated their claim that the palm print should not be used as evidence during the trial.
“The potential for prejudice, the potential for confusion... for wasting time is right out of a seminar on Rule 403,” Bristow declared.

Judge Patterson said Rule 403 was like a rule generically used for any and all motions to suppress. I got the feeling from his statement that it is an over worked and abused rule.

[lorettalockhorn]

Judge Patterson said Rule 403 was like a rule generically used for any and all motions to suppress. I got the feeling from his statement that it is an over worked and abused 403

I posted a link (yesterday?) about Rule 403. The argument is probative vs. prejudicial. I think it's great that Patterson seems to think that the jury will be smart enough to weigh the evidence. But I won't be surprised if the jury gets instructions before they deliberate.

[jonikay]

I posted a link (yesterday?) about Rule 403. The argument is probative vs. prejudicial. I think it's great that Patterson seems to think that the jury will be smart enough to weigh the evidence. But I won't be surprised if the jury gets instructions before they deliberate.
Like, what sorts of instructions? Will the jury be able to fully decide for themselves if the print was put on the bulb before or after discovery? Also, the print itself wasn't tacky, it was blood on the bulb beside the print. That is confusing to me, but may it make a difference?

[lorettalockhorn]

Like, what sorts of instructions? Will the jury be able to fully decide for themselves if the print was put on the bulb before or after discovery? Also, the print itself wasn't tacky, it was blood on the bulb beside the print. That is confusing to me, but may it make a difference?

I just think it's possible that after all of the testimony is heard, that Patterson may tell them which parts can be considered, or that one bit of evidence doesn't necessarily prove another bit.

I wonder how in depth the trial coverage will be by the media?

[sololobo]

I know christina mentioned that the prosecution has added another witness and thought the name was Sara Bailey (from Dover, graduated around 1999, though not sure). Perhaps she will be another witness, but the Courier article stated that the prosecution added Cole Hudson to their witness list. I know he is a native of Dover and I am pretty sure he graduated the same year as Kevin and Nona. Anyway, Cole is into the music scene as Nona was and they were both music majors. As the music major schedules go at ATU, they had to have attended several of the same classes. I wonder what he will testify about . . .

If they had the same test that morning, perhaps he will describe the clothing she wore to the test. If they had the same test that afternoon at 14:00, perhaps he called Jones and told him she wasn't there. Jones first call to Nona, according to the PCS, was at 14:10.

[sololobo]

Thanks for posting Christine.

JR or Christine, was there any mention of the motion regarding KJ's past crimes? (Or however it was worded previously?) Or maybe I'm disremembering?

This is as good a definition that I found anywhere, of course there are a bazillion citations of specific cases all over the internet (PgDnX6, there is also a notes link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

The defense may have been referring to the alleged rape that occurred after the murder.

[sololobo]

Like, what sorts of instructions? Will the jury be able to fully decide for themselves if the print was put on the bulb before or after discovery? Also, the print itself wasn't tacky, it was blood on the bulb beside the print. That is confusing to me, but may it make a difference?

The palm may have pushed excess blood to the side of the print, making that area much thicker and longer to dry. I'm sure this print will raise many questions in the trial. Such as, was it a negative print (print in blood) or positive print (blood print)?

[christina]

I believe I would recognize you. You were setting on the left side of the court room about 4 rows from the back. Taking notes on a black legal type folder with gold metal trim. Wearing sandals and a green top.

You are a keen observer. Left side when facing towards the judge's bench?
I will guess now that you are a man whereas previously I thought you were a woman. You might be the one sitting all the way to the back, righthand side, very near the door.
But then again, I do not want to get in trouble again for revealing someone's identity!

[christina]

The palm may have pushed excess blood to the side of the print, making that area much thicker and longer to dry. I'm sure this print will raise many questions in the trial. Such as, was it a negative print (print in blood) or positive print (blood print)?

The testimony at the hearing was a bit confusing as to which blood the print was in. The prosecution has to focus on this as it links Jones to the scene. Now that they know a bit of where the defense will go with that, I wonder if they will put their major focus elsewhere.

[christina]

I know christina mentioned that the prosecution has added another witness and thought the name was Sara Bailey (from Dover, graduated around 1999, though not sure). Perhaps she will be another witness, but the Courier article stated that the prosecution added Cole Hudson to their witness list. I know he is a native of Dover and I am pretty sure he graduated the same year as Kevin and Nona. Anyway, Cole is into the music scene as Nona was and they were both music majors. As the music major schedules go at ATU, they had to have attended several of the same classes. I wonder what he will testify about . . .

I did not hear Cole Hudson's name. After reading the Courier article it makes more sense now. Sara Bailey's name must have been the one mentioned by the defense. They asked the prosecution instruct their witnesses to talk with them(defense).

[christina]

The palm may have pushed excess blood to the side of the print, making that area much thicker and longer to dry. I'm sure this print will raise many questions in the trial. Such as, was it a negative print (print in blood) or positive print (blood print)?

They never stated that. They did say it was raised which makes me think it was negative.

[JR2007]

I just think it's possible that after all of the testimony is heard, that Patterson may tell them which parts can be considered, or that one bit of evidence doesn't necessarily prove another bit.

I wonder how in depth the trial coverage will be by the media?

I think the coverage will be pretty good, as far as having plenty of media there. I'm hoping that their reports or in-depth, so we know and can talk about the questions and answers, here.

[JR2007]

The testimony at the hearing was a bit confusing as to which blood the print was in. The prosecution has to focus on this as it links Jones to the scene. Now that they know a bit of where the defense will go with that, I wonder if they will put their major focus elsewhere.
I believe the way it was described was that the print was in a thin film of blood and was dry. Beside it was a larger amt. of blood that was tacky looking, according to Chief Bacon.

[JR2007]

I did not hear Cole Hudson's name. After reading the Courier article it makes more sense now. Sara Bailey's name must have been the one mentioned by the defense. They asked the prosecution instruct their witnesses to talk with them(defense).

This was very hard to understand as they were standing close to the bench and talking fairly low. I took it that they wanted the judge to instruct the witness to talk to them, as you said, because they had been calling them and trying to contact them, but was unable to do so. My question is does the defense have the write to talk to a proscutions witness with out the PA there?

[jonikay]

So, was Sara Bailey's name mentioned at the trial? I didn't see her name in any of the articles I've read. Is she on a witness list already? Also, wouldn't any fingerprint be raised, whether it was a print in blood or a blood print? Did the defense run their own tests on the palm print?

[JR2007]

So, was Sara Bailey's name mentioned at the trial? I didn't see her name in any of the articles I've read. Is she on a witness list already? Also, wouldn't any fingerprint be raised, whether it was a print in blood or a blood print? Did the defense run their own tests on the palm print?
I can't tell you if Sara Bailey's name was mentioned, this may have been who they were talking about when the defense said they could not contact her.
I think what Solo was talking about was, were the prints made with blood on a hand touching the bulb or were they made by a had pressing into previously deposited blood. Makes a difference in timing. AMO

[jonikay]

I wonder what sort of tests can be ran to determine whether the print is positive or negative. It seems to me that if the print was made in blood, it would have been difficult to make a good print at the time of discovery because the blood would have been dry. Am I on the right track?

[lorettalockhorn]

If they had the same test that morning, perhaps he will describe the clothing she wore to the test. If they had the same test that afternoon at 14:00, perhaps he called Jones and told him she wasn't there. Jones first call to Nona, according to the PCS, was at 14:10.

I just wonder why he would call Nona at 2:10 if he knew that she had a test at 2:00. Maybe just to say hello or wish her well on her final; but why call instead of text?

Thanks for your observations this morning.

[lorettalockhorn]

So, was Sara Bailey's name mentioned at the trial? I didn't see her name in any of the articles I've read. Is she on a witness list already? Also, wouldn't any fingerprint be raised, whether it was a print in blood or a blood print? Did the defense run their own tests on the palm print?

Sara Bailey is on the original witness list with a Dover address, I guess that she has moved since then.

Don't know about a palm print test; the defense has the blood expert but wasn't there a comment to Bacon that he had had the opportunity to touch the blood to determine its tackiness? That led me to believe that they hadn't had or taken the same chance to test it.

Don't know if it has been mentioned, but there is an article in this morning's Courier that is not online yet.

[JR2007]

Sara Bailey is on the original witness list with a Dover address, I guess that she has moved since then.

Don't know about a palm print test; the defense has the blood expert but wasn't there a comment to Bacon that he had had the opportunity to touch the blood to determine its tackiness? That led me to believe that they hadn't had or taken the same chance to test it.

Don't know if it has been mentioned, but there is an article in this morning's Courier that is not online yet.

I think that she moved out of state.
The comment that Bacon made is that he did not have the advantage of being able to touch the blood. I assumed it was because he would have been tampering with evidence or maybe destroying evidence.

[sololobo]

I wonder what sort of tests can be ran to determine whether the print is positive or negative. It seems to me that if the print was made in blood, it would have been difficult to make a good print at the time of discovery because the blood would have been dry. Am I on the right track?

Exactly. If it is a print in blood, more than likely it was made soon after the murder. For it to have been made after discovery, the bulb probably would have had to be in contact with the wet, pooled blood.

More than likely, it was a blood print. It may be possible, in this case, with this particular bloody print, to compare it with a similiar print made with fresh blood and one made with pooled blood 7+ hours old.

[lorettalockhorn]

I think that she moved out of state.
The comment that Bacon made is that he did not have the advantage of being able to touch the blood. I assumed it was because he would have been tampering with evidence or maybe destroying evidence.

K, that makes sense. He didn't do the actual testing, the crime lab did.

[lorettalockhorn]

I did not hear Cole Hudson's name. After reading the Courier article it makes more sense now. Sara Bailey's name must have been the one mentioned by the defense. They asked the prosecution instruct their witnesses to talk with them(defense).


I thought the FBI agent was the one that hadn't returned the defense's calls. But you would think that Sara Bailey (who is probably not an FBI agent) would have informed the court of her address change knowing that she is a witness.

[jonikay]

I thought the FBI agent was the one that hadn't returned the defense's calls. But you would think that Sara Bailey (who is probably not an FBI agent) would have informed the court of her address change knowing that she is a witness.
Maybe she notified Gibbons, but didn't notify the defense. If I were a witness for the prosecution, I wouldn't want to talk directly to the defense. For sure. Is this customary? They don't want any surprises at all, do they?

[jonikay]

That would have required Cole to leave his own 2:00 final. He may have done that, but I doubt it. Plus, if that were the case, wouldn't that make him a witness for the defense and not the prosecution?

[lorettalockhorn]

That would have required Cole to leave his own 2:00 final. He may have done that, but I doubt it.

Yeah, I can see him calling Nona herself seconds before the test began wondering where she was, but why call Kevin? Especially if they weren't particularly good buds? (Not saying that they weren't, but I wonder.)

He might be able to at least describe the morning test clothes for a comparison to what had been removed before/during/after the murder.

[FKfanMoe]

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.

It supposedly is a " tacky" bloody print. IOW the blood had not fully dried. I haven't looked closely at the timeline but if it was tacky, then KJ either touched her then the lamp before he called his mother or the murder happened later than presumed. If the print was on the bulb, the bulb would have to be cold for anyone to touch it, much less leave a bloody print.

I noticed this was one of the topics the defense wanted the judge to rule on. Too bad they thought the " adverse" publicity in this area might make an unfair trial.

For the person who defended Kevin Jones, I would love to hear your reasons for doing so and why you think he is innocent of the crime. Is it personal knowledge or do you actually think KJ was set up or something. As for " drama", this board is hardly a soap opera. It's just an avenue for those interested in the case to talk about it. I'm open to the view that KJ is innocent of the murder, though in all honesty his actions that day are suspicious and he would have a motive to kill her.

Moe

[FKfanMoe]

This was very hard to understand as they were standing close to the bench and talking fairly low. I took it that they wanted the judge to instruct the witness to talk to them, as you said, because they had been calling them and trying to contact them, but was unable to do so. My question is does the defense have the write to talk to a proscutions witness with out the PA there?

If I understand this right, and I am no lawyer, the prosecution is supposed to release for the defense any and all evidence the defense may want to examine. If she told the prosecutors her new address, presumably that address should have been sent to the defense as well. Whether it was required or not I don't know.

I have hard that because of this trial, pretty much everthing else in Russellville as far as court cases are concerned has been held back.

Moe

[lorettalockhorn]

It supposedly is a " tacky" bloody print. IOW the blood had not fully dried. I haven't looked closely at the timeline but if it was tacky, then KJ either touched her then the lamp before he called his mother or the murder happened later than presumed. If the print was on the bulb, the bulb would have to be cold for anyone to touch it, much less leave a bloody print.

I noticed this was one of the topics the defense wanted the judge to rule on. Too bad they thought the " adverse" publicity in this area might make an unfair trial.

Moe

Slightly OT: It's interesting to me that the defense railed about the excessive media coverage and cited this board along with The Courier; yet there aren't that many people here who seem convinced of KJ's innocence. Wonder why more pro-defense types weren't directed to this site as they claim that pro-prosecution types were?

I've seen some good suppositions put up by some of the pro-defense types.

[FKfanMoe]

Perhaps this is because Pope County simply doesn't have the technology that the Crime Lab does.

Also that this is a murder investigation and that they needed to be very careful in collecting the evidence. The Russellville PD has had two prisoner deaths to deal with so the trail of custody evience needed to be carefully done. I'm not sure Russellvile actually has anything like a crime lab, actually. Technicaly speaking its a small college town and seems most of the crimes are property and drug crimes.

Moe

[hawgustusgloop]

>snip<
For the person who defended Kevin Jones, I would love to hear your reasons for doing so and why you think he is innocent of the crime. Is it personal knowledge or do you actually think KJ was set up or something. As for " drama", this board is hardly a soap opera. It's just an avenue for those interested in the case to talk about it. I'm open to the view that KJ is innocent of the murder, though in all honesty his actions that day are suspicious and he would have a motive to kill her.

Moe

Welcome back, Moe! Good post, and it is nice to see you posting here again. I would also love to know why K.Jo's defenders believe he is innocent. I have asked that question on this board several times myself. I haven't received many responses other than these two:

1. K.Jo hasn't been proven guilty yet, so he is innocent.
2. K.Jo is too smart to make the stupid mistakes Nona's killer made.

I hope you have better luck getting answers than I did! Especially from those posters who claim to want to discuss the case but only give cagey replies.

[lorettalockhorn]

Welcome back, Moe! Good post, and it is nice to see you posting here again. I would also love to know why K.Jo's defenders believe he is innocent. I have asked that question on this board several times myself. I haven't received many responses other than these two:

1. K.Jo hasn't been proven guilty yet, so he is innocent.
2. K.Jo is too smart to make the stupid mistakes Nona's killer made.

I hope you have better luck getting answers than I did! Especially from those posters who claim to want to discuss the case but only give cagey replies.

True. I also have gotten the impression that some may think that RPD framed him or bungled some evidence in order to make a defense impossible? Or that there is a conspiracy to avoid bringing the true killer to light.

[christina]

Maybe she notified Gibbons, but didn't notify the defense. If I were a witness for the prosecution, I wouldn't want to talk directly to the defense. For sure. Is this customary? They don't want any surprises at all, do they?

I wrote her name down after I heard it. I did not hear the name mentioned in the paper-Cole Hudson.
Both sides have rights to interview anyone on the witness list.

[christina]

Welcome back, Moe! Good post, and it is nice to see you posting here again. I would also love to know why K.Jo's defenders believe he is innocent. I have asked that question on this board several times myself. I haven't received many responses other than these two:

1. K.Jo hasn't been proven guilty yet, so he is innocent.
2. K.Jo is too smart to make the stupid mistakes Nona's killer made.

I hope you have better luck getting answers than I did! Especially from those posters who claim to want to discuss the case but only give cagey replies.

I am one of those that is going with number 1.

[hawgustusgloop]

True. I also have gotten the impression that some may think that RPD framed him or bungled some evidence in order to make a defense impossible? Or that there is a conspiracy to avoid bringing the true killer to light.

Yes, I forgot about the theory that he was framed. I think at one point someone even brought up the West Memphis Three. The problem is that police aren't likely to choose to frame a white kid from a well-respected family, who has no criminal record and the means to afford top-notch defense attorneys.

I also forgot about the conspiracy theory that K.Jo was being railroaded in order to protect Bubba, the mayor's son.

[lorettalockhorn]

I am one of those that is going with number 1.


I totally believe that he is innocent until proven guilty as is any defendant. But that is grounded in philosophy and the constitution, not in the facts of the case. I think that we all just glom onto bits of evidence that weigh toward feeling that he is either guilty or innocent. For me, the lack of alibi is huge. Maybe a timeline will become better established at trial.

I've been thinking a lot about your comment about the two Mothers at the hearing the other day, and it is true how crushing this must be for the two families and "what might have been", regardless of the outcome.

[JR2007]

I thought the FBI agent was the one that hadn't returned the defense's calls. But you would think that Sara Bailey (who is probably not an FBI agent) would have informed the court of her address change knowing that she is a witness.
I'm sure the PA has given her a subpoena and know how to get hold of her.

[christina]

I totally believe that he is innocent until proven guilty as is any defendant. But that is grounded in philosophy and the constitution, not in the facts of the case. I think that we all just glom onto bits of evidence that weigh toward feeling that he is either guilty or innocent. For me, the lack of alibi is huge. Maybe a timeline will become better established at trial.

I've been thinking a lot about your comment about the two Mothers at the hearing the other day, and it is true how crushing this must be for the two families and "what might have been", regardless of the outcome.

Thank you for providing thoughtful comments. I look forward to hearing/seeing all the evidence.

[JR2007]

That would have required Cole to leave his own 2:00 final. He may have done that, but I doubt it. Plus, if that were the case, wouldn't that make him a witness for the defense and not the prosecution?
IIRC Jones had already dropped out of school and was home. His final would have been a UofA not Tech.

[christina]

I'm sure the PA has given her a subpoena and know how to get hold of her.

JR-Didn't the defense say they had her address and phone number but she refused to talk to them?

[JR2007]

If I understand this right, and I am no lawyer, the prosecution is supposed to release for the defense any and all evidence the defense may want to examine. If she told the prosecutors her new address, presumably that address should have been sent to the defense as well. Whether it was required or not I don't know.

I have hard that because of this trial, pretty much everything else in Russellville as far as court cases are concerned has been held back.Moe

Yes the PA must release all witnesses and all testing results, whether test show anything or not, to the Defense, I assume the defense has to do the same in their DISCOVERY statement.

[lorettalockhorn]

Thank you for providing thoughtful comments. I look forward to hearing/seeing all the evidence.

There's got to be a lot that we don't know about. I just don't think that the PCS covers everything. I could be waaaaayyyyy wrong!

[christina]

If I understand this right, and I am no lawyer, the prosecution is supposed to release for the defense any and all evidence the defense may want to examine. If she told the prosecutors her new address, presumably that address should have been sent to the defense as well. Whether it was required or not I don't know.

I have hard that because of this trial, pretty much everthing else in Russellville as far as court cases are concerned has been held back.

Moe

I have not heard that. There are 4 deputy prosecutors, only one was in the courtroom with Gibbons. And the judge trying this has been called out of retirement. So I would imagine other cases can move ahead.

[lorettalockhorn]

Yes the PA must release all witnesses and all testing results, whether test show anything or not, to the Defense, I assume the defense has to do the same in their DISCOVERY statement.


I have no clue how reliable this site is, but for what it's worth:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d058.htm

I like this better:

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34

[christina]

There's got to be a lot that we don't know about. I just don't think that the PCS covers everything. I could be waaaaayyyyy wrong!

I imagine you are right. There was a definite feel from both sides at this last hearing that they didn't want too much said in open court. They were playing their cards close to their chests.

[JR2007]

JR-Didn't the defense say they had her address and phone number but she refused to talk to them?
I believe this is correct.

[jonikay]

IIRC Jones had already dropped out of school and was home. His final would have been a UofA not Tech.
JR-I was referring to a question solo posed stating that Cole and Nona may have had a final at the same time, not Kevin. I think I may be confused. Solo stated that Cole may have noticed that Nona was not at her 2:00 final and called Kevin. I, in response, stated that that would have required Cole to leave his own 2:00 final to call Kevin. Which I doubt anyone would have done after only a few minutes. It is normal for anyone to be late for a final when it is not expected that the test will last long, since a final lasts anywhere from an hour and a half to two and a half hours.

[christina]

I have no clue how reliable this site is, but for what it's worth:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d058.htm

Thanks- interesting reading.

[jonikay]

It supposedly is a " tacky" bloody print. IOW the blood had not fully dried. I haven't looked closely at the timeline but if it was tacky, then KJ either touched her then the lamp before he called his mother or the murder happened later than presumed. If the print was on the bulb, the bulb would have to be cold for anyone to touch it, much less leave a bloody print.

I noticed this was one of the topics the defense wanted the judge to rule on. Too bad they thought the " adverse" publicity in this area might make an unfair trial.

For the person who defended Kevin Jones, I would love to hear your reasons for doing so and why you think he is innocent of the crime. Is it personal knowledge or do you actually think KJ was set up or something. As for " drama", this board is hardly a soap opera. It's just an avenue for those interested in the case to talk about it. I'm open to the view that KJ is innocent of the murder, though in all honesty his actions that day are suspicious and he would have a motive to kill her.

Moe
IIRC, the palm print was not tacky, but blood right beside the print looked tacky in appearance. Although a bad choice of words, Bacon did not mean that the blood on the bulb was tacky, it just looked it. He also stated it looked the same 5 days later as it did when he saw it on the night of the murder.

[lorettalockhorn]

I believe this is correct.

Okay, that's my bad for commenting about the FBI agent. I misread The Courier article. (Unless the FBI agent is also refusing to speak to the defense in addition to S. Bailey.)

[JR2007]

I have no clue how reliable this site is, but for what it's worth:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d058.htm

I like this better:

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34

Thanks Loretta, was helpful.

[jonikay]

I am one of those that is going with number 1.
Now, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as far as a trial and conviction are concerned, but guys, somebody killed Nona, someone IS guilty. What is the difference in Kevin being innocent until proven guilty and a stranger? People give theories such as, as stranger could have done it, but doesn't the same rules apply to a supposed stranger that do to Kevin. If a stranger, or somebody other than Kevin, is capable of doing it, then so is Kevin. "Innocent until proven guilty" is nice, but someone, no matter what, is guilty.

[JR2007]

Okay, that's my bad for commenting about the FBI agent. I misread The Courier article. (Unless the FBI agent is also refusing to speak to the defense in addition to S. Bailey.)

Now that I've thought about it and reread some. There was something about the defense not being able to contact the FBI agent. Wasn't much said about it though. The Defense also said they couldn't get hold of Chief Bacon . Bacon said they didn't leave a number so he could contact them and he didn't go to any effort to find one. IIRC.

[lorettalockhorn]

Now that I've thought about it and reread some. There was something about the defense not being able to contact the FBI agent. Wasn't much said about it though. The Defense also said they couldn't get hold of Chief Bacon . Bacon said they didn't leave a number so he could contact them and he didn't go to any effort to find one. IIRC.

K, I do remember reading about that either in The Courier or on the board. I hope there aren't any more delays due to witnesses not being able to be reached. Do we really know that Sara Bailey is a witness for the prosecution, like we do the FBI agent and Bacon?

[christina]

Now, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as far as a trial and conviction are concerned, but guys, somebody killed Nona, someone IS guilty. What is the difference in Kevin being innocent until proven guilty and a stranger? People give theories such as, as stranger could have done it, but doesn't the same rules apply to a supposed stranger that do to Kevin. If a stranger, or somebody other than Kevin, is capable of doing it, then so is Kevin. "Innocent until proven guilty" is nice, but someone, no matter what, is guilty.

There is no doubt that someone committed this murder.

[christina]

K, I do remember reading about that either in The Courier or on the board. I hope there aren't any more delays due to witnesses not being able to be reached. Do we really know that Sara Bailey is a witness for the prosecution, like we do the FBI agent and Bacon?

Yes, she is a witness for the prosecution.

[lorettalockhorn]

Yes, she is a witness for the prosecution.

Thanks, I have the witness list, but it doesn't designate who is a witness for the State or the defense.

[jonikay]

Today's Courier article was useless as far as Nona's case is concerned. Apparently, because the "big trial" will be held in Ozark, the Courier is going to publish a series of articles about the city. Today's article talked about the courthouse, etc. and had several pictures of the city. No need to keep checking the Courier website to see if they've posted anything from today if you're only looking because of the case. Someone mentioned that someone from the Dover Times was in Ozark Friday. I am going to get a Dover Times first thing Wednesday morning to see if there is anything of interest. I posted several months back in regards to an article in the DT that was more in-depth than anything I had ever read about the case. This is where we first learned about what happened with the cell phone. Anyway, I'll be keeping up-to-date as far as that is concerned.

[lorettalockhorn]

Today's Courier article was useless as far as Nona's case is concerned. Apparently, because the "big trial" will be held in Ozark, the Courier is going to publish a series of articles about the city. Today's article talked about the courthouse, etc. and had several pictures of the city. No need to keep checking the Courier website to see if they've posted anything from today if you're only looking because of the case. Someone mentioned that someone from the Dover Times was in Ozark Friday. I am going to get a Dover Times first thing Wednesday morning to see if there is anything of interest. I posted several months back in regards to an article in the DT that was more in-depth than anything I had ever read about the case. This is where we first learned about what happened with the cell phone. Anyway, I'll be keeping up-to-date as far as that is concerned.

True, it just compares the two towns and gives some demographics which are probably only interesting to sociology types (although I suppose inferences could be made). Sorry if I got anyone's hopes up.

[hawgustusgloop]

Yes, she is a witness for the prosecution.

Are prosecution witnesses required to speak to the defense attorneys? I know the prosecutors are required to give the defense team copies of all of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but do the witnesses have the option of not talking to the defense attorneys?

[lorettalockhorn]

Are prosecution witnesses required to speak to the defense attorneys? I know the prosecutors are required to give the defense team copies of all of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but do the witnesses have the option of not talking to the defense attorneys?


From the second link that I posted above:

discovery

A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor.

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34

[sololobo]

Welcome back, Moe! Good post, and it is nice to see you posting here again. I would also love to know why K.Jo's defenders believe he is innocent. I have asked that question on this board several times myself. I haven't received many responses other than these two:

1. K.Jo hasn't been proven guilty yet, so he is innocent.
2. K.Jo is too smart to make the stupid mistakes Nona's killer made.

I hope you have better luck getting answers than I did! Especially from those posters who claim to want to discuss the case but only give cagey replies.

No one knows for sure if Jones is guilty or innocent. I think we might lean one way or the other in various degrees. According to the law, Jones is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty in the court of public opinion and he certainly hasn't been proven guilty on this board. Basically, other than the questionable bloody print, all I've heard from those who believe he is guilty is his actions, or should I say interpretations of his actions, after the murder are suspicious. Personally, I don't find them suspicious. I try to omit opinions about his actions and only consider his actual actions..... Also, he has no alibi. That is nothing unusual. None of us can account for all our actions all the time..... And he had a motive. What provable motive did he have? We don't know. The trial should provide the answers.

The simplest scenario I can imagine has Jones as the killer, but the "planted" condom wrapper complicates that idea immensely. There are many other possibilities and only the trial will enlighten us with more information. Until then, I straddle the fence, and consider both sides of this complex equation. And assume, as the law states, Jones is innocent until proven guilty.

[sololobo]

JR-I was referring to a question solo posed stating that Cole and Nona may have had a final at the same time, not Kevin. I think I may be confused. Solo stated that Cole may have noticed that Nona was not at her 2:00 final and called Kevin. I, in response, stated that that would have required Cole to leave his own 2:00 final to call Kevin. Which I doubt anyone would have done after only a few minutes. It is normal for anyone to be late for a final when it is not expected that the test will last long, since a final lasts anywhere from an hour and a half to two and a half hours.

When I was a youngster, passing notes in class was the norm. Now, text messaging is the craze for illicit during-class communications with one's peers:) Ain't technology great:) Perhaps he sent a text message?

[hawgustusgloop]

When I was a youngster, passing notes in class was the norm. Now, text messaging is the craze for illicit during-class communications with one's peers:) Ain't technology great:) Perhaps he sent a text message?

If Cole Hudson did try to contact K.Jo, what possible reasons would the prosecution have to call him as a witness?

[optimumprimal78]

The simplest scenario I can imagine has Jones as the killer, but the "planted" condom wrapper complicates that idea immensely. There are many other possibilities and only the trial will enlighten us with more information. Until then, I straddle the fence, and consider both sides of this complex equation. And assume, as the law states, Jones is innocent until proven guilty.

Has there been any mention of prints on the wrapper? As far as it being planted, I don't know. In the heat of passion anything can happen and it could be possible for someone to have left it on the counter.

[christina]

Has there been any mention of prints on the wrapper? As far as it being planted, I don't know. In the heat of passion anything can happen and it could be possible for someone to have left it on the counter.

From what I have read, the defense is the only one that tested the condom wrapper and their expert/lab retrieved dna(not prints) that was not Jones'.

This has been a red flag for me from the beginning. In the pcs it mentions the theory of the "planted" condom wrapper. They stated the FBI behavoir analyists(whose report we now know was not recorded in anyway) encouraged them in that direction as well. This, plus the fact they did not test the wrapper, leads me to think once things pointed towards Jones, the police stopped any depth of investigation.

[christina]

If Cole Hudson did try to contact K.Jo, what possible reasons would the prosecution have to call him as a witness?

One of many unanswered questions. I am curious about this as well.

[FDInLaw]

From what I have read, the defense is the only one that tested the condom wrapper and their expert/lab retrieved dna(not prints) that was not Jones'.

This has been a red flag for me from the beginning. In the pcs it mentions the theory of the "planted" condom wrapper. They stated the FBI behavoir analyists(whose report we now know was not recorded in anyway) encouraged them in that direction as well. This, plus the fact they did not test the wrapper, leads me to think once things pointed towards Jones, the police stopped any depth of investigation.
Surely the original investigators had the condom wrapper tested. If not, why hasn't the Defense and media had a field day with this?
:shrug:

[optimumprimal78]

I wonder why they don't have Bubba Turner on any interview list?

[christina]

Surely the original investigators had the condom wrapper tested. If not, why hasn't the Defense and media had a field day with this?
:shrug:

Good question. I have wondered why the press has missed some things as well. I have thought that maybe the prosecution and defense are not making a deal of some things so they don't show their hand til trial.

[JR2007]

Viola!!! Yes, I do agree!
What does a flower have to do with anything, unless you are calling Christina, viola.:D

[christina]

I wonder why they don't have Bubba Turner on any interview list?

My understanding is that was a complete rumor, no truth to it at all.

[FDInLaw]

>SNIP< This, plus the fact they did not test the wrapper, leads me to think once things pointed towards Jones, the police stopped any depth of investigation.


Do you know for a FACT that they did not test the wrapper? You're at risk of loosing intellectual integrity here by just assuming. MOO :cool:

[JR2007]

Surely the original investigators had the condom wrapper tested. If not, why hasn't the Defense and media had a field day with this?
:shrug:
I don't believe they did, isn't that the reason for the trial being moved to July, was to give the PA a change to test what the defense said they found on the wrapper. Unless the Crimelab did test it and found nothing then all of a sudden the defense gets the wrapper and finds something, I need a fish icon here.
:eek:

[FDInLaw]

I don't believe they did, isn't that the reason for the trial being moved to July, was to give the PA a change to test what the defense said they found on the wrapper. Unless the Crimelab did test it and found nothing then all of a sudden the defense gets the wrapper and finds something, I need a fish icon.
:eek:
Could there be more than one possible test? Where is Hotwire when we need him?!

[christina]

Do you know for a FACT that they did not test the wrapper? You're at risk of loosing intellectual integrity here by just assuming. MOO :cool:

Cool- I didn't know I had intellectual integrity here! Can I gain it back if I say I do not know as a fact? I am with JR, I thought that was one of the reasons the trial was continued.
What does MOO mean?

[FDInLaw]

Cool- I didn't know I had intellectual integrity here! Can I gain it back if I say I do not know as a fact? I am with JR, I thought that was one of the reasons the trial was continued.
What does MOO mean?

my opinion only (MOO)

[JR2007]

Could there be more than one possible test? Where is Hotwire when we need him?!

Maybe the PA only checked for finger prints and not tested any further.
MOO is Cow talk. It could be bull also.

[FDInLaw]

I don't believe they did, isn't that the reason for the trial being moved to July, was to give the PA a change to test what the defense said they found on the wrapper. Unless the Crimelab did test it and found nothing then all of a sudden the defense gets the wrapper and finds something, I need a fish icon here.
:eek:

Cool- I didn't know I had intellectual integrity here! Can I gain it back if I say I do not know as a fact? I am with JR, I thought that was one of the reasons the trial was continued.
What does MOO mean?

Yes, as previously pointed out, this was the reason the trial was delayed.
And here, all this time I thought the trial was moved because the defense found new evidence.

[FDInLaw]

You don't consider someone else's DNA at the crime scene as being new evidence or were you being sarcastic? Oh, I was not being sarcastic in the least.

[JR2007]

One week and counting
:rose: :rose: :rose:

[FDInLaw]

You don't consider someone else's DNA at the crime scene as being new evidence or were you being sarcastic? If you read my statement, I am saying that I do consider the DNA as new evidence. . . this is why I thought the trial was moved. . . however, I have yet to see it stated anywhere that the original investigation did not have the condom wrapper tested at all (as christina is suggesting).

[jonikay]

Take a look at this . . . (a little less than half way down the page)
http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_35_jan_07/newsletter.htm

There is a lot of stock being put into this condom wrapper and the fact that Kevin's DNA is not on the wrapper. I understand their side. The RPD, however, still state that this crime was not sex-related, so what does the condom have to do with the murder? (This is what the RPD's side is.) After all, Nona could have had sex with someone other than Kevin the night before (although rather late, considering she had a final the next morning) or directly after she returned home from her first final. Is it safe to say that the condom was not placed there the night before (not at a decent hour anyway) because KJ would have seen it? I still can't understand why KJ would have touched the silly greeting card and he didn't touch the condom. My question is (and I am not stating it as an adamant supporter of the KJ is guilty crowd, it is an honest question), if it was not a sex related crime and no other evidence seems to point to an outside person (therefore, the dna evidence may never find a match), how will the defense be able to show evidence that it related to the murder? It could have been dna from the person who stocked the shelf at the store with the condom and they may never know. Perhaps this is why they mention a lot about Jeremy Martin . . .

[jonikay]

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=13498&Search=dirksmeyer

from the Courier article of the aboe link:

"The trial for Kevin Jones, the Dover man accused of murdering girlfriend Nona DIRKSMEYER, has been delayed until July 9. Pope County Circuit Judge John Patterson granted 5th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney David Gibbons’ motion for a continuance Monday. Jones was scheduled to stand trial
Jan. 16.

According to documents filed with the court, Gibbons requested more time for the prosecution to evaulate test results from the defense’s experts. The reports were received by the prosecution on Jan. 5, but “contain[ed] only conclusions and does not address methodology, interpretive standards or quality control issues,” according to the prosecution’s continuance request.
See Wednesday's edition for complete coverage of court documents filed Monday."

FD, since the prosecution asked for more time to evaluate the evidence and condut their own testing, I believe it would be safe to say they did not conduct testing in the beginning.
The papers filed state that the prosecution wishes to evaluate the test results that the defense received. It doesn't say anything about testing the condom, although one could assume . . .

[jonikay]

This, no matter what the outcome, will change both families' lives forever . . .
The conviction date will be a sad day no matter what . . .
:rose: :rose:

[hawgustusgloop]

Take a look at this . . . (a little less than half way down the page)
http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_35_jan_07/newsletter.htm

There is a lot of stock being put into this condom wrapper and the fact that Kevin's DNA is not on the wrapper. I understand their side. The RPD, however, still state that this crime was not sex-related, so what does the condom have to do with the murder? (This is what the RPD's side is.) After all, Nona could have had sex with someone other than Kevin the night before (although rather late, considering she had a final the next morning) or directly after she returned home from her first final. Is it safe to say that the condom was not placed there the night before (not at a decent hour anyway) because KJ would have seen it? I still can't understand why KJ would have touched the silly greeting card and he didn't touch the condom. My question is (and I am not stating it as an adamant supporter of the KJ is guilty crowd, it is an honest question), if it was not a sex related crime and no other evidence seems to point to an outside person (therefore, the dna evidence may never find a match), how will the defense be able to show evidence that it related to the murder? It could have been dna from the person who stocked the shelf at the store with the condom and they may never know. Perhaps this is why they mention a lot about Jeremy Martin . . .

I don't think the DNA on the condom is necessarily significant. I think it was lemoncello that pointed out that the DNA could be ANYWHERE on the wrapper, even inside. I think it would be much more significant as a piece of evidence if it matched anyone who may have known Nona.

[hawgustusgloop]

If they had conducted their own testing, then why would they need to evaluate the defenses ' so closely.

Maybe they think what the defense found was just useless smoke and mirrors and wanted to get to the bottom of it? They probably hadn't seen the report from the DNA on the condom wrapper at that point.

[jonikay]

As the article you posted states, the dna evidence from Florida only had the results on it, not the way it was tested and the other things mentioned. I won;t repeat everything, since I know you've read it. Do you know the defense didn't test anyone else? I know that is an ongoing rumor, but I didn't know it was a fact. It may be relevant if it is. The RPD aren't going in the direction of the condom, that is not part of their agenda. They feel like they have enough to get him convicted without the condom wrapper. You know, just as the defense has filed motions of discovery for everything the prosecution has found, the prosecution has that same right and they are using it, in reference to the condom evidence.

[lorettalockhorn]

Take a look at this . . . (a little less than half way down the page)
http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_35_jan_07/newsletter.htm

There is a lot of stock being put into this condom wrapper and the fact that Kevin's DNA is not on the wrapper. I understand their side. The RPD, however, still state that this crime was not sex-related, so what does the condom have to do with the murder? (This is what the RPD's side is.) After all, Nona could have had sex with someone other than Kevin the night before (although rather late, considering she had a final the next morning) or directly after she returned home from her first final. Is it safe to say that the condom was not placed there the night before (not at a decent hour anyway) because KJ would have seen it? I still can't understand why KJ would have touched the silly greeting card and he didn't touch the condom. My question is (and I am not stating it as an adamant supporter of the KJ is guilty crowd, it is an honest question), if it was not a sex related crime and no other evidence seems to point to an outside person (therefore, the dna evidence may never find a match), how will the defense be able to show evidence that it related to the murder? It could have been dna from the person who stocked the shelf at the store with the condom and they may never know. Perhaps this is why they mention a lot about Jeremy Martin . . .

At this point, we assume that the wrapper rules Kevin out, but it doesn't rule anyone else in. I have such a difficult time imagining Nona having sex after KJ left her apartment that last night, or in between tests. And unless the apartment was generally messy, I have a hard time imagining that she left a condom wrapper on the kitchen counter for any period of time. Maybe her housekeeping habits played into LE thinking that the wrapper was planted.

[jonikay]

And still rather odd, although possibly not incriminating, that KJ messed around with a greeting card and left the condom wrapper to be. Also, as far as him not wanting to touch it in the case that it may have someone else's dna on it, we must not forget why he rubbed his hands all over Nona's blood . . . Like I said, this may not be incriminating, but it is very strange, IMO . . .

[lorettalockhorn]

As the article you posted states, the dna evidence from Florida only had the results on it, not the way it was tested and the other things mentioned. I won;t repeat everything, since I know you've read it. Do you know the defense didn't test anyone else? I know that is an ongoing rumor, but I didn't know it was a fact. It may be relevant if it is. The RPD aren't going in the direction of the condom, that is not part of their agenda. They feel like they have enough to get him convicted without the condom wrapper. You know, just as the defense has filed motions of discovery for everything the prosecution has found, the prosecution has that same right and they are using it, in reference to the condom evidence.


Agree. The prosecution wants to examine the scientific methodology and possibly compare the DNA to known offenders. The right to do so is covered by the rules of discovery.

I noticed that the link you provided stated that KJ may take the stand. Interesting.

[jonikay]

I'm sure Nona did have secrets and she was not a perfect person. Being sexually abused has lasting effects and I'm sure it did affect her every day life in one way or another. Maybe part of her life that it affected was the part that included Kevin. Maybe Kevin was manipulative and contributed to her issues. I am not saying that I think this is the case, but KJ sure isn't perfect either and it isn't fair to paint that picture. Everyone has secrets in their private relationships. Maybe this led to her murder and maybe it didn't. Nona could have been dating on the side. That is no crime. She could have been doing a lot of things that aren't considered "right." I think, and this is all just IMO, that the reason Nona's character isn't questioned much on the forum is because the forum is about the crime and no matter what she did behind closed doors, she didn't deserve to be murdered by anyone. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

[hawgustusgloop]

At this point, we assume that the wrapper rules Kevin out, but it doesn't rule anyone else in. I have such a difficult time imagining Nona having sex after KJ left her apartment that last night, or in between tests. And unless the apartment was generally messy, I have a hard time imagining that she left a condom wrapper on the kitchen counter for any period of time. Maybe her housekeeping habits played into LE thinking that the wrapper was planted.

That is a great point! I would be interested to know if Nona's apartment was usually a big mess, spotless from ceiling to floor, or somewhere in between. If she kept her place pretty tidy, I would think a condom wrapper on the counter would not go unnoticed.

[lorettalockhorn]

Just because she was in beauty pageants, etc. doesn't make her a perfect person. That seems to be the picture you want to paint of her. The fact still remains she was a human, and at one point in her life it sounds like she was a very troubled one. On the surface it appeared she had healed, but you never know. We don't know what she did and didn't do behind closed doors. It has been established she was sexually abused as a child, and that kind of abuse is never "gotten over". It affects your every day life in one way or another, including acting out. Maybe she wanted everyone to think she had things all together, but maybe she had secrets, too. AJMO

Please don't try to put words into my mouth; I didn't know Nona, I've admitted that I can only go by impressions. What I do know, is that she was a good student, so I have a hard time imagining that since Kevin kept her up late and then they spoke even later, she would probably need some time after her first test to rest and/or prepare for the second test at 2:00. I simply don't picture higher echelon students as having time on such a busy day to schedule in a date with a paramour.

The only pictures that I've seen of Nona showed that she was careful in her appearance. Until I read or hear to the contrary, I'll assume that her apartment was tidy as well.

I'll also assume that since I don't recognize the name of a psychiatrist (or any other therapist type) on the witness list, that her abuse or resultant behavior has zero to do with the murder.

[lorettalockhorn]

And still rather odd, although possibly not incriminating, that KJ messed around with a greeting card and left the condom wrapper to be. Also, as far as him not wanting to touch it in the case that it may have someone else's dna on it, we must not forget why he rubbed his hands all over Nona's blood . . . Like I said, this may not be incriminating, but it is very strange, IMO . . .

Agree. I'm still wondering why he touched anything at all.

[hawgustusgloop]

Agree. I'm still wondering why he touched anything at all.

I have wondered why he would touch the greeting card, too. I had wondered if Nona had just VERY recently received that card or had JUST set it out on the counter from her purse or something the day she was murdered. If K.Jo did murder Nona, maybe he looked at (and necessarily touched) the card earlier before he would have committed the crime, and therefore had to touch it later in case there were any witnesses there earlier in the day who saw the card was out or saw Nona set the card on the counter. After all, K.Jo's story seems to be that K.Jo was not at Nona's from late the night before her murder until the discovery of her body the next evening. So, he would have to explain why his prints would be on anything that was brought into the apartment during the time he was supposedly not there.

[lorettalockhorn]

I don't think the DNA on the condom is necessarily significant. I think it was lemoncello that pointed out that the DNA could be ANYWHERE on the wrapper, even inside. I think it would be much more significant as a piece of evidence if it matched anyone who may have known Nona.

ITA It will be interesting to see at trial, what and who was tested for what.

[optimumprimal78]

I wonder why they don't have Bubba Turner on any interview list?

My understanding is that was a complete rumor, no truth to it at all.

If there was any possibility of a relationship, or that they have been associated, shouldn't he have at least been interviewed like others were (RW, CH, etc.) as to his whereabouts or if he knew where she was that day?

[christina]

As the article you posted states, the dna evidence from Florida only had the results on it, not the way it was tested and the other things mentioned. I won;t repeat everything, since I know you've read it. Do you know the defense didn't test anyone else? I know that is an ongoing rumor, but I didn't know it was a fact. It may be relevant if it is. The RPD aren't going in the direction of the condom, that is not part of their agenda. They feel like they have enough to get him convicted without the condom wrapper. You know, just as the defense has filed motions of discovery for everything the prosecution has found, the prosecution has that same right and they are using it, in reference to the condom evidence.


Can the defense dna test anyone other than their client? I can't imagine that they can. I think only the prosecution can compel any kind of testing, such as fingerprint or dna.

[christina]

If there was any possibility of a relationship, or that they have been associated, shouldn't he have at least been interviewed like others were (RW, CH, etc.) as to his whereabouts or if he knew where she was that day?

I am not aware there was any sort of relationship between the two.

[hawgustusgloop]

Can the defense dna test anyone other than their client? I can't imagine that they can. I think only the prosecution can compel any kind of testing, such as fingerprint or dna.

I am not sure what they have the power to do, but they may not want to go that route anyway, because unless they are sure of who the killer might be, it limits their options of casting suspicion on other specific people. For instance, if the defense obtained a sample of Jeremy Martin's DNA for example, ran it against the sample from the condom wrapper, and found they didn't match, the defense would have to reveal the results of the test to the prosecution and would not be quite as able to suggest that perhaps Mr. Martin (or whoever else) committed the crime.

[christina]

Please don't try to put words into my mouth; I didn't know Nona, I've admitted that I can only go by impressions. What I do know, is that she was a good student, so I have a hard time imagining that since Kevin kept her up late and then they spoke even later, she would probably need some time after her first test to rest and/or prepare for the second test at 2:00. I simply don't picture higher echelon students as having time on such a busy day to schedule in a date with a paramour.

The only pictures that I've seen of Nona showed that she was careful in her appearance. Until I read or hear to the contrary, I'll assume that her apartment was tidy as well.

I'll also assume that since I don't recognize the name of a psychiatrist (or any other therapist type) on the witness list, that her abuse or resultant behavior has zero to do with the murder.

Why do you say Kevin kept her up? Also, do we know who called who in the early morning?

I like it that you assume tidy looking people must have tidy homes!!!!!

Agreed. When I first brought this up last week, I was wondering if the police took into account the abuse from her background and if they felt it had any possible bearing. Are you able to recognize names by profession from the witness list?

[hawgustusgloop]

Why do you say Kevin kept her up? Also, do we know who called who in the early morning?

I like it that you assume tidy looking people must have tidy homes!!!!!

Agreed. When I first brought this up last week, I was wondering if the police took into account the abuse from her background and if they felt it had any possible bearing. Are you able to recognize names by profession from the witness list?

I don't know about all that other stuff, but K.Jo claimed that it was he who called Nona around 1:30 a.m.

From the Probable Cause Statement:

"Kevin Jones was interviewed on December 15th and stated that Jones had last seen Nona at her apartment at approximately 00:3 0 on the 15th when he left her apartment and went to Jones’ parent’s home north of Dover to spend the night. He further stated that he called Nona at approximately 01:30 and talked for a few minutes before going to bed."

[Amy]

I don't think the DNA on the condom is necessarily significant. I think it was lemoncello that pointed out that the DNA could be ANYWHERE on the wrapper, even inside. I think it would be much more significant as a piece of evidence if it matched anyone who may have known Nona.

I don't hear about other things--fingerprints, matching DNA in other places, that are unknown--that, IMO would point to an unknown person to have killed Nona. It would seem that this unknown person would have left SOMETHING behind, other than the condom wrapper. IMO

[christina]

Take a look at this . . . (a little less than half way down the page)
http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_35_jan_07/newsletter.htm

There is a lot of stock being put into this condom wrapper and the fact that Kevin's DNA is not on the wrapper. I understand their side. The RPD, however, still state that this crime was not sex-related, so what does the condom have to do with the murder? (This is what the RPD's side is.) After all, Nona could have had sex with someone other than Kevin the night before (although rather late, considering she had a final the next morning) or directly after she returned home from her first final. Is it safe to say that the condom was not placed there the night before (not at a decent hour anyway) because KJ would have seen it? I still can't understand why KJ would have touched the silly greeting card and he didn't touch the condom. My question is (and I am not stating it as an adamant supporter of the KJ is guilty crowd, it is an honest question), if it was not a sex related crime and no other evidence seems to point to an outside person (therefore, the dna evidence may never find a match), how will the defense be able to show evidence that it related to the murder? It could have been dna from the person who stocked the shelf at the store with the condom and they may never know. Perhaps this is why they mention a lot about Jeremy Martin . . .

The defense does not need to prove anything. It is the prosecution's job to prove Jones committed the crime beyond any reasonable doubt.
A condom at a murder scene with someone's dna other than the victim's or the defendent's can be seen as reasonable doubt. Especially when you put together that the defendent and victim were together until midnight, and spoke on the phone in the early morning hours.
The condom wrapper has to be explained somehow. The jury will have to decided which is more reasonable- the defendent obtained a condom with someone else's dna on it and placed it at the crime scene, or the owner of that dna was in the apartment and placed it themselves?

[christina]

I don't know about all that other stuff, but K.Jo claimed that it was he who called Nona around 1:30 a.m.

From the Probable Cause Statement:

"Kevin Jones was interviewed on December 15th and stated that Jones had last seen Nona at her apartment at approximately 00:3 0 on the 15th when he left her apartment and went to Jones’ parent’s home north of Dover to spend the night. He further stated that he called Nona at approximately 01:30 and talked for a few minutes before going to bed."

Thanks. Maybe I need to keep the probable cause statement handy. I forget what and how it states stuff!

[hawgustusgloop]

Thanks. Maybe I need to keep the probable cause statement handy. I forget what and how it states stuff!

I know exactly what you mean! Now I just remember that it's near the bottom of Page 5 of this thread, since I've had to go back and search for it a few times.

[christina]

Take into consideration the prints on "the business end" of the lamp, and that makes reasonable doubt even more prominent.

Forgot about that. It would make sense that those were the prints Gibbons talked about not being suitable to get from the new print analysis on the base and rod of the lamp. He said that in this last hearing when asked if by the defense if there were new discovery items.

[christina]

I know exactly what you mean! Now I just remember that it's near the bottom of Page 5 of this thread, since I've had to go back and search for it a few times.

I am going to get it and keep it in a word document! Wouldn't it be ironic if neither side pays attention to the pcs during trial and here we have analized it to death?

[FDInLaw]

I don't hear about other things--fingerprints, matching DNA in other places, that are unknown--that, IMO would point to an unknown person to have killed Nona. It would seem that this unknown person would have left SOMETHING behind, other than the condom wrapper. IMO

Wherein I agree that the DNA on the condom wrapper is probably the Defense's best shot at establishing reasonable doubt, I have to agree with you here. If there is some other mystery person that is responsible for this crime, why is there no other sign of them? The condom wrapper left in plain sight near the body was either a major mistake or an intentional decoy. My Opinion Only.

[jonikay]

The defense does not need to prove anything. It is the prosecution's job to prove Jones committed the crime beyond any reasonable doubt.
A condom at a murder scene with someone's dna other than the victim's or the defendent's can be seen as reasonable doubt. Especially when you put together that the defendent and victim were together until midnight, and spoke on the phone in the early morning hours.
The condom wrapper has to be explained somehow. The jury will have to decided which is more reasonable- the defendent obtained a condom with someone else's dna on it and placed it at the crime scene, or the owner of that dna was in the apartment and placed it themselves?
The defense has plenty to prove, otherwise the Jones' family money towards this is a mega-waste. The defense has to prove to a jury that Kevin didn't commit the crime. If the defense has nothing to prove, then KJ is up that creek. You know, the one without a paddle . . .

[christina]

I am not sure what they have the power to do, but they may not want to go that route anyway, because unless they are sure of who the killer might be, it limits their options of casting suspicion on other specific people. For instance, if the defense obtained a sample of Jeremy Martin's DNA for example, ran it against the sample from the condom wrapper, and found they didn't match, the defense would have to reveal the results of the test to the prosecution and would not be quite as able to suggest that perhaps Mr. Martin (or whoever else) committed the crime.

I think the 4th Ammendment adresses search and seizures. Taking DNA and fingerprints is considered a search/seizure, which means you need a warrant. Defense lawyers cannot get warrants. I believe only prosecutors and cops can get warrants.
I say it again- hopefully the police did some fingerprint and dna testing from people other than Jones. If they did though, wouldn't they have had to turn it over to the defense before the trial? That is why I do not think they did. And when they started looking at Jones as their main suspect, they ceased to look anywhere else and had to explain why a condom wrapper was present.

[christina]

The defense has plenty to prove, otherwise the Jones' family money towards this is a mega-waste. The defense has to prove to a jury that Kevin didn't commit the crime. If the defense has nothing to prove, then KJ is up that creek. You know, the one without a paddle . . .

I think I understand what you are saying/meaning here. But the fact remains, the defense does not have to prove anything. The burden is totally on the prosecution.
As for money spent being a waste, you must not have children.

[FDInLaw]

Take into consideration the prints on "the business end" of the lamp, and that makes reasonable doubt even more prominent.
This was discussed at length the other day. In my mind "business end" refers to where there is normal traffic. . . like where the switch is. Am I the only one that has come to this conclusion? Prints made in Nona's blood the day of the murder have got to be far more important that those that could have easily been made days, months before. JMO

[jonikay]

I think I understand what you are saying/meaning here. But the fact remains, the defense does not have to prove anything. The burden is totally on the prosecution.
As for money spent being a waste, you must not have children.
IF the defense feels that they do not need to prove anything, the money is a waste. The defense better prove that Jones' bloody print was made at the time of discovery, otherwise he is toast. If they don't need to prove anything, he will be convicted. Whether I have children or not is not relevant to the fact that Kevin is in grave trouble if the defense doesn't prove anything.

[christina]

IF the defense feels that they do not need to prove anything, the money is a waste. The defense better prove that Jones' bloody print was made at the time of discovery, otherwise he is toast. If they don't need to prove anything, he will be convicted. Whether I have children or not is not relevant to the fact that Kevin is in grave trouble if the defense doesn't prove anything.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this point.

[christina]

This was discussed at length the other day. In my mind "business end" refers to where there is normal traffic. . . like where the switch is. Am I the only one that has come to this conclusion? Prints made in Nona's blood the day of the murder have got to be far more important that those that could have easily been made days, months before. JMO

Whoever wrote "business end" will have to expalin what they meant. Just as Bacon explained what he meant when he wrote "tacky".
Good point though, prints made, or dna left, the day of the murder need to be considered as far more important.

[lorettalockhorn]

Why do you say Kevin kept her up? Also, do we know who called who in the early morning?

I like it that you assume tidy looking people must have tidy homes!!!!!

Agreed. When I first brought this up last week, I was wondering if the police took into account the abuse from her background and if they felt it had any possible bearing. Are you able to recognize names by profession from the witness list?


I say that Kevin kept her up because he was at her house, not the other way around. She couldn't end the evening until he left. I don't know who called the other, just that they spoke. That's exactly what I said in the post that you quoted. I don't necessarily assume that Nona had a tidy home, but I do think that it is something that LE would have considered. For instance, was there other trash lying around the apartment.

Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Re: my comment about psych types: yes, I know many of the therapists in the area from handling casework. Solo posted a link the other day which stated that Nona was seeing a psychiatrist at the time of her death, I don't recognize the name of any psychiatrist or other therapist on the witness list.

[jonikay]

Yes, I agree, christina. All the defense has to prove is reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt being something that the defense must prove . . . by means of utilizing experts, witness statements, etc. Reasonable doubt must be proved by the defense . . .

[lorettalockhorn]

I am not sure what they have the power to do, but they may not want to go that route anyway, because unless they are sure of who the killer might be, it limits their options of casting suspicion on other specific people. For instance, if the defense obtained a sample of Jeremy Martin's DNA for example, ran it against the sample from the condom wrapper, and found they didn't match, the defense would have to reveal the results of the test to the prosecution and would not be quite as able to suggest that perhaps Mr. Martin (or whoever else) committed the crime.

The defense cannot compel someone to give DNA samples and I cannot imagine anyone volunteering them. However, if I was on the prosecution's short list of suspects, I might provide a sample in order to clear myself and help strengthen their case.

The defense might collect a DNA sample from their own suspect by a cigarette butt or a drink cup thrown away for example, but I don't see why they would bother with trying to nail down a suspect at this point. They are better off with the jury thinking that there are many suspects, rather than narrowing it down for the prosecution.

[christina]

I say that Kevin kept her up because he was at her house, not the other way around. She couldn't end the evening until he left. I don't know who called the other, just that they spoke. That's exactly what I said in the post that you quoted. I don't necessarily assume that Nona had a tidy home, but I do think that it is something that LE would have considered. For instance, was there other trash lying around the apartment.

Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Re: my comment about psych types: yes, I know many of the therapists in the area from handling casework. Solo posted a link the other day which stated that Nona was seeing a psychiatrist at the time of her death, I don't recognize the name of any psychiatrist or other therapist on the witness list.

I had no intention of even trying to put words in your mouth. Sometimes I think it is hard when reading things to hear the intended meaning, like when emphasis is placed on words. That is why I asked you for clarification. Thank you for answering my question, your explanation makes sense, he was a guest at her home.
My comment about tidy vs messy homes- I was making fun of myself. I will try to find/read lobolobo's link about the therapist.

[christina]

I am not understanding what you mean? Would you explain a little further?

I posted this on the 29th- it was what I remembered from the hearing-

Other things asked for today by the defense from the prosecution;
*any new dna tests- Gibbons said they sent the vertical blinds out for further testing
*any new fingerprint testing-Gibbons said he sent the base of the lamp and rod of the lamp for new print analysis but none were suitable
*any new witnesses- Gibbons said yes, and named a woman but I'm not sure of the name, I think it was Sara Bailey who the defense said lives out of state now
*any new scientific testing- Gibbons said no
*the defense asked that Gibbons instruct witnesses to talk to the defense when called. It was brought out that the defense tried several times to get in touch with Chief Bacon but he did not return the calls. Bacon asserted the defense did not leave a number. (That seems unlikely to me though.) They also stated that of the 90 people on the jury list, they have only received 60 surveys.

Gibbons said he has arial photos of the Dover area and additional photos of the exterior of Ms Dirksmeyers apartment

[lorettalockhorn]

I had no intention of even trying to put words in your mouth. Sometimes I think it is hard when reading things to hear the intended meaning, like when emphasis is placed on words. That is why I asked you for clarification. Thank you for answering my question, your explanation makes sense, he was a guest at her home.
My comment about tidy vs messy homes- I was making fun of myself. I will try to find/read lobolobo's link about the therapist.

Well, thank you. I certainly didn't understand the vehemence of your post. The 1:30am phone call is mentioned in the PCS. And believe me, I don't assume that tidy looking people are necessarily tidy. My own Professor Pigpen is a good example; he may go through eighteen paper towels a day, but they may not end up in the trash basket.

I have never meant to indicate that I know anything about Nona's housekeeping skills or perfection in any way, shape, form or fashion. And I certainly didn't "get" your intent i.e. the humor in your post.

[JR2007]

This was discussed at length the other day. In my mind "business end" refers to where there is normal traffic. . . like where the switch is. Am I the only one that has come to this conclusion? Prints made in Nona's blood the day of the murder have got to be far more important that those that could have easily been made days, months before. JMO

We discussed this all here the other day and I had come up with something and forgot to mention it then, but Nona had moved into the apartment only months before, so whoever helped her move would have left finger prints on the lamp, unless she bought it after the move, then it could have the finger prints of the person who packed it in a carton. Finger prints on things in a persons home doesn't mean a thing unless that person denies ever being there. Unless you are a recluse every home will have many prints that would be hard to Identify, especially if the person who might be of help in identifying who had be in her home, is dead.

[jonikay]

That's true, JR. I'm thinking the same thing and I mentioned that about the condom. All things come into contact with a bunch of people before being bought or placed in someone's home, etc. And I also found this, and many other sites stating the same thing:
"How long do fingerprints last on evidence? Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water."

So, the assumption that a fingerprint cannot stay on a murder weapon during/throughout a murder is scientifically not true. After researching this on the internet, I found nothing that states that fingerprints can be shaken or knocked off of a murder weapon during a murder.

I found the qoute at http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html and I found it to be one of the most respectable sites for fingerprint FAQ's. The site also states this: "The answers on this page come from several sources, including Certified Latent Print Examiners at crime labs in America and Fellows of The Fingerprint Society. Insofar as possible, content conforms with guidelines of the IAI, and the FBI Laboratory sponsored Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST)."

[JR2007]

Thanks, Jonikay this was good info.:beer:

[jonikay]

Since you :beer: me, It's only fair to :beer: right back at ya!

[christina]

Well, thank you. I certainly didn't understand the vehemence of your post. The 1:30am phone call is mentioned in the PCS. And believe me, I don't assume that tidy looking people are necessarily tidy. My own Professor Pigpen is a good example; he may go through eighteen paper towels a day, but they may not end up in the trash basket.

I have never meant to indicate that I know anything about Nona's housekeeping skills or perfection in any way, shape, form or fashion. And I certainly didn't "get" your intent i.e. the humor in your post.

Please believe me when I say I do not speak/write with vehemence about this. Please try not to read anything into my questions/comments, take them at face value. If you have a question or think I am being rude, ask me for clarification and I will do my best to give it.
I am the second to admit, my family being the first, that my sense of humor is rarely understood by others!

[christina]

That's true, JR. I'm thinking the same thing and I mentioned that about the condom. All things come into contact with a bunch of people before being bought or placed in someone's home, etc. And I also found this, and many other sites stating the same thing:
"How long do fingerprints last on evidence? Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water."

So, the assumption that a fingerprint cannot stay on a murder weapon during/throughout a murder is scientifically not true. After researching this on the internet, I found nothing that states that fingerprints can be shaken or knocked off of a murder weapon during a murder.

I found the qoute at http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html and I found it to be one of the most respectable sites for fingerprint FAQ's. The site also states this: "The answers on this page come from several sources, including Certified Latent Print Examiners at crime labs in America and Fellows of The Fingerprint Society. Insofar as possible, content conforms with guidelines of the IAI, and the FBI Laboratory sponsored Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST)."

I appreciate research like this, thanks. It makes sense when you think about it. I am wondering if the prints were smeared on the lamp post and base and that is what rendered them not "suitable" according to Gibbons at the hearing. Also, if this site is correct, prints would have been able to be retrieved from the condom wrapper and compared with Jones.

[christina]

Interesting article about condom use in sexual assault. It says that this "Article Originally Apperared in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, May 1996"
http://www.crimeandclues.com/condoms.htm

[hawgustusgloop]

This was discussed at length the other day. In my mind "business end" refers to where there is normal traffic. . . like where the switch is. Am I the only one that has come to this conclusion? Prints made in Nona's blood the day of the murder have got to be far more important that those that could have easily been made days, months before. JMO

In my mind and IMO, the phrase "business end" was purposely chosen by the defense because of its ambiguity. How confusing!!!

[christina]

In my mind and IMO, the phrase "business end" was purposely chosen by the defense because of its ambiguity. How confusing!!!

Please remind me where that term was first used?

[lorettalockhorn]

Thanks JR and Jonikay for your posts. I would think that there would be prints all over Nona's apartment and that where they were and whom they belonged to would be very important. What was examined is somewhat a mystery to me at this point.

Christina, I try to use my words very carefully; if you take exception to KJ's statement to LE about having made the call and his admission to staying late at Nona's, that is simply not my problem. Sorry that I don't get your brand of humor, maybe using the smilies would give me a clue that you are joking.

With regard to assuming, we all make assumptions and inferences from the very limited information that is available. What is wrong with that at this point?

Aside: I have assumed that the "business end" of the lamp is the end that did the business of killing Nona.

[lorettalockhorn]

Please remind me where that term was first used?

The first that I recall is attorney Johnson's comment in The Courier article of the 14th (from the hearing the day before).

[christina]

Thanks JR and Jonikay for your posts. I would think that there would be prints all over Nona's apartment and that where they were and whom they belonged to would be very important. What was examined is somewhat a mystery to me at this point.

Christine, I try to use my words very carefully; if you take exception to KJ's statement to LE about having made the call and his admission to staying late at Nona's, that is simply not my problem. Sorry that I don't get your brand of humor, maybe using the smilies would give me a clue that you are joking.

With regard to assuming, we all make assumptions and inferences from the very limited information that is available. What is wrong with that at this point?

Aside: I have assumed that the "business end" of the lamp is the end that did the business of killing Nona.

You are either simply not reading my posts or are unable to comprehend them. I am totally lost as to how your bolded statement above can be applied to any of my posts. As for assumptions and inferrences, again, I understand we do that, have never stated we shouldn't and have given you what I believe to be clear information concerning me in my previous post.
Its hard to do but you have tried my patience to its limit. You have accused two people in as many days of "putting words in your mouth", me being one of them. The common denominator is you.

[lorettalockhorn]

You are either simply not reading my posts or are unable to comprehend them. I am totally lost as to how your bolded statement above can be applied to any of my posts. As for assumptions and inferrences, again, I understand we do that, have never stated we shouldn't and have given you what I believe to be clear information concerning me in my previous post.
Its hard to do but you have tried my patience to its limit. You have accused two people in as many days of "putting words in your mouth", me being one of them. The common denominator is you.

I do read your posts when they are directed at me. You took exception to me stating that Kevin kept Nona up late by challenging my reasoning and I simply stated my reasons for thinking that way.

You may want to put me on ignore, as it is obvious that I try your patience. And for the record; you bolded the statement above, I didn't.

My remark in general about assumptions and inferences was made in general, not to you or anyone else in particular. Sorry that you misunderstood me.

[JR2007]

6 DAYS AND COUNTING.
JUSTICE FOR ALL
:rose: :rose: :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

I do read your posts when they are directed at me. You took exception to me stating that Kevin kept Nona up late by challenging my reasoning and I simply stated my reasons for thinking that way.

You may want to put me on ignore, as it is obvious that I try your patience. And for the record; you bolded the statement above, I didn't.

My remark in general about assumptions and inferences was made in general, not to you or anyone else in particular. Sorry that you misunderstood me.

I hope that not everyone considered this to be extremely or even moderately rude; it wasn't meant to be. I have read every post in this thread(not that I remember them; thank goodness we have a great search function), but do pay special attention to those directed to me. I wouldn't think that that is unusual for any of us. Maybe it is.

I don't mind explaining myself or owning my comments. Of course there are some things that I just feel at this point; some of the limited information available to us speaks to me more than other bits.

[mandysunshine]

Hi, this is my first post here but I have been lurking for quite awhile. This post may be of no relevance and if it isn't then I'm sorry. I haven't seen this mentioned before though.

With regard to the police searching around Nona's apartment for the stick, cellphone battery, etc. On the night of Dec. 15th, I and my sister-in-law were out driving my kiddos around looking at Christmas lights. We drove past Nona's apartment building and saw the investigation. At that point we had no idea what was going on. As for the search, they had huge stadium floodlights mounted on poles out there that lit up the whole place like daylight. I realize that lights that harsh would cause a lot of shadows but they weren't just out there poking around with flashlights. That's the picture I get in my mind when people talk about them searching around the apartment.

[JR2007]

Hi, this is my first post here but I have been lurking for quite awhile. This post may be of no relevance and if it isn't then I'm sorry. I haven't seen this mentioned before though.

With regard to the police searching around Nona's apartment for the stick, cellphone battery, etc. On the night of Dec. 15th, I and my sister-in-law were out driving my kiddos around looking at Christmas lights. We drove past Nona's apartment building and saw the investigation. At that point we had no idea what was going on. As for the search, they had huge stadium floodlights mounted on poles out there that lit up the whole place like daylight. I realize that lights that harsh would cause a lot of shadows but they weren't just out there poking around with flashlights. That's the picture I get in my mind when people talk about them searching around the apartment.

Hello and welcome to the board. Thanks for the info.:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Hi, this is my first post here but I have been lurking for quite awhile. This post may be of no relevance and if it isn't then I'm sorry. I haven't seen this mentioned before though.

With regard to the police searching around Nona's apartment for the stick, cellphone battery, etc. On the night of Dec. 15th, I and my sister-in-law were out driving my kiddos around looking at Christmas lights. We drove past Nona's apartment building and saw the investigation. At that point we had no idea what was going on. As for the search, they had huge stadium floodlights mounted on poles out there that lit up the whole place like daylight. I realize that lights that harsh would cause a lot of shadows but they weren't just out there poking around with flashlights. That's the picture I get in my mind when people talk about them searching around the apartment.Thanks for adding these details!

Welcome to the board! :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

6 DAYS AND COUNTING.
JUSTICE FOR ALL
:rose: :rose: :rose:
:rose: It will be so nice to have this all over with. Praying that Nona's loved ones will find some peace. :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

Hi, this is my first post here but I have been lurking for quite awhile. This post may be of no relevance and if it isn't then I'm sorry. I haven't seen this mentioned before though.

With regard to the police searching around Nona's apartment for the stick, cellphone battery, etc. On the night of Dec. 15th, I and my sister-in-law were out driving my kiddos around looking at Christmas lights. We drove past Nona's apartment building and saw the investigation. At that point we had no idea what was going on. As for the search, they had huge stadium floodlights mounted on poles out there that lit up the whole place like daylight. I realize that lights that harsh would cause a lot of shadows but they weren't just out there poking around with flashlights. That's the picture I get in my mind when people talk about them searching around the apartment.

:seeya: Good to know, thanks. Surely the search for the missing items went on far beyond that night.

[jonikay]

On Pat Lynch's (Lynch at Large - radio "icon" and political columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) blog site:

"The Russellville Courier is one of the best papers in the state, except when reporters who are called as witnesses in hearings for the Kevin Jones trial go on to write stories about the hearings about the Kevin Jones trial."

[hawgustusgloop]

OK, check out this blast from the past:

Very interesting article in the Russellville newspaper. The police in Russellville were asked to once again review all persons of interest AND resubmit lie dectector tests by the Arkansas State Police. All but one person of interest was once again eliminated. The prosecter received the report at 6 pm last night and would review the report closely before the suspect is formally named.

Looks like they are moving closer to making an arrest.

http://www.couriernews.com/story.asp?ID=10541

Russellville Police request charges filed
in apparent homicide

For the past month, Russellville police investigators have continued to pursue any and all leads provided to them by various sources in the apparent homicide of Arkansas Tech University sophomore Nona Dirksmeyer.
On Tuesday, all the work and effort put into the investigation was handed over to the 5th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.
Russellville Police Chief James Bacon released a statement Tuesday regarding the reports.
“At the request of the prosecuting attorney, to further support our initial statement of suspects being conclusively eliminated, we have re-evaluated each person of interest,” Bacon said in the released statement. “Subsequently, we requested the Arkansas State Police to administer additional polygraph examinations, and yet again we can say that all but one suspect has been conclusively eliminated.”
Investigators have spent several hundred hours working on the case and preparing the file that is currently contained within three 3-inch binders, Bacon said.
“We have requested the filing of formal charges against one person for 1st Degree Murder,” Bacon said, “but at the request of David Gibbons, until formal charges are filed, the name will not be released. Because additional reports are forthcoming in the case, and the prosecutor may request additional information, the investigation is continuing, and the file will not be released for public or media review.”
Bacon maintained he still cannot estimate a time frame of when an arrest will take place, but implied with the volume of documents submitted for review, the prosecutor would need a reasonable amount of time to review the entire file.
Gibbons received the lengthy report at about 6 p.m. Tuesday from the lead investigator in the case, Russellville Police Detective Mark Frost. Gibbons said he plans to review the report in its entirety, leaving no pages unturned.
“It’s definitely well-prepared, there’s no question about that,” Gibbons said. “And I really would like to have time to review it.”
The Russellville Police Department will not have any further comment on the investigation or the status of filing formal charges at this time, according to the release.
On Dec. 15, 2005, the body of Nona Dirksmeyer was discovered at 1006 S. Inglewood, Apartment No. 12, in Russellville by her boyfriend and two other acquaintances. The 2004 graduate of Dover High School was believed to have been the victim of a homicide early in the investigation. Dirksmeyer also competed in the Miss Arkansas Pageant this past June.

This article makes it seem like the police were required to be so thorough that they essentially conducted the investigation twice, coming up with the same conclusion both times. Any thoughts?

[jonikay]

OK, check out this blast from the past:



This article makes it seem like the police were required to be so thorough that they essentially conducted the investigation twice, coming up with the same conclusion both times. Any thoughts?
Sounds to me like they did everything they thought they needed to in order to charge the right person. Of course, I'm sure that there are discrepancies, etc. but I don't doubt that they have all confidence that Kevin Jones killed Nona. I'm not saying it won't back fire on them, but they feel like they have absolutely everything they need with no stones left unturned in their opinion. I heard that Gibbons (through an article somewhere) is very thorough and although it sometimes takes him a long time to charge someone, he wants to be sure of his case. The link doesn't work by the way, which is odd to me because I can't find hardly anything relevant to the case by searching the Courier archives. I mentioned before that I think there is some fishy business going on as far as that is concerned. I wonder if the archives on the case articles are not there for a reason . . .

[FDInLaw]

OK, check out this blast from the past:



This article makes it seem like the police were required to be so thorough that they essentially conducted the investigation twice, coming up with the same conclusion both times. Any thoughts?
Great catch! :)

[hawgustusgloop]

On Pat Lynch's (Lynch at Large - radio "icon" and political columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) blog site:

"The Russellville Courier is one of the best papers in the state, except when reporters who are called as witnesses in hearings for the Kevin Jones trial go on to write stories about the hearings about the Kevin Jones trial."

Wow. I think it's odd, too, that Janie Ginocchio is still writing about this case, but, as lorettalockhorn said, the paper is wise to keep her in her current capacity due to the lawsuit pending against them.

At least the Courier isn't being like KFSM, and only posting AP reports about the trial on their site 3 days after the fact. They are usually all over even the tiniest bit of news out that way. I was just over there reading a lengthy article about some Islamic private school being denied a permit for not having a good drawing of their plan, of all things. KFSM seemed to report on Nona's case quite a bit before K.Jo was arrested. I can't imagine WHY they aren't covering this.

[jonikay]

You can look at Courier online to find that Neil Ronquist is moving . . . oh, heck, I'll just give you the link . . .
http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15244

Does this mean Paxton Media Group isn't worried about the lawsuit, so they are giving him a better job within the company, or does this mean they are worried so they're moving him somewhere else?

[lorettalockhorn]

Wow. I think it's odd, too, that Janie Ginocchio is still writing about this case, but, as lorettalockhorn said, the paper is wise to keep her in her current capacity due to the lawsuit pending against them.

At least the Courier isn't being like KFSM, and only posting AP reports about the trial on their site 3 days after the fact. They are usually all over even the tiniest bit of news out that way. I was just over there reading a lengthy article about some Islamic private school being denied a permit for not having a good drawing of their plan, of all things. KFSM seemed to report on Nona's case quite a bit before K.Jo was arrested. I can't imagine WHY they aren't covering this.


You know, I'm all for them showing her support, but somehow it does seem like she has inserted herself into this case and maybe should have another assignment. I still won't be surprised if she's gone from The Courier once the lawsuit is settled/over.

Jonikay, it seems to me like Paxton is always moving people around within the organization, so it didn't strike me as particularly odd that Ronquist is moving on.

[sololobo]

Sounds to me like they did everything they thought they needed to in order to charge the right person. Of course, I'm sure that there are discrepancies, etc. but I don't doubt that they have all confidence that Kevin Jones killed Nona. I'm not saying it won't back fire on them, but they feel like they have absolutely everything they need with no stones left unturned in their opinion. I heard that Gibbons (through an article somewhere) is very thorough and although it sometimes takes him a long time to charge someone, he wants to be sure of his case. The link doesn't work by the way, which is odd to me because I can't find hardly anything relevant to the case by searching the Courier archives. I mentioned before that I think there is some fishy business going on as far as that is concerned. I wonder if the archives on the case articles are not there for a reason . . .

Try this link, jonikay. When searching the Courier's archives, select "News" and type in Dirksmeyer. It should pull up everything relating to the murder.

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=10095&Search=nona%20dirksmeyer

[jonikay]

Thanks, solo. But, I have to say I have tried this a million times and it always brings up something different. I've even typed in the dates of the articles and nothing. Maybe I did something wrong. I wouldn't say that I'm computer savvy, but I know my way around the internet. I don't know what's up, but I kind of feel like an id. I am a bit confused because I tried this same thing last week and nothing.

[christina]

While reading through them to find the one posted by hawgustusgloop, I found this one I must have missed. Published June 21, 2006.
for the whole article go to

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11884&Search=Frost

Here is an excerpt-
He said if police didn't work together at every level of the investigation, the prosecution may run into trouble proving the case. Police tend to be very territorial and withhold information from each other, he said.
He pointed out this was the first murder case Det. Mark FROST, the lead investigator of the case with the Russellville Police Department, had worked.
Police departments needed to talk to experts and to veteran detectives in different towns and different states, Owen said.
"You need people who know what the ... they're doing," he said.
FROST said in an interview earlier this year that no consultant was hired, but the police did work with other law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Arkansas State Police.
"A good investigation is only as good as their (police's) sources are," he said, noting good, church-going folks were unlikely to know what was going on in the streets. "You've got to rub elbows with scumbags. You've got to put a lot of effort into a crime case."
Investigators have to be careful because even strong evidence might not result in a conviction. Owen said he had seen cases with only circumstantial evidence get convictions while cases with strong evidence got acquittals. Any mistake could jeopardize the case, he said.
He said strong evidence would be needed to convict Jones because the crime scene was compromised when he, a friend and his mother discovered the body.
Because Jones was Nona's boyfriend of about five years and had been visiting her, his fingerprints could be expected to be in her apartment, Owen said.
He said the prosecutor would need fingerprints, scratches on a suspect, DNA under the victim's fingernails and/or blood splattered, not smeared, clothing.
"He needs that kind of evidence," Owens said.
He said it was a smart move for the defendant and his family not to speak. It gave the police less to work with and nothing to disprove.
Because Jones submitted to a polygraph examination and police interviews, Owen said it looked like he and his family were cooperating with the investigation.
In the meantime, Owen wants to keep tabs on Nona's case, hoping to see it solved.

[sololobo]

OK, check out this blast from the past:



This article makes it seem like the police were required to be so thorough that they essentially conducted the investigation twice, coming up with the same conclusion both times. Any thoughts?

When I was in school, I turned in a math problem assignment. The teacher gave it back to me and told me to do it again. I came up with the same answer and she gave me a F. Hopefully, my teacher and the DA were not thinking along the same lines:)

Personally, I believe Gibbons was not comfortable with the bloody print evidence. I believe he took so long to bring charges trying to build a case that excluded the bloody print, just in case it turned out to be "tacky" evidence.

[FDInLaw]

While reading through them to find the one posted by hawgustusgloop, I found this one I must have missed. Published June 21, 2006.
for the whole article go to

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11884&Search=Frost

Here is an excerpt-
He said if police didn't work together at every level of the investigation, the prosecution may run into trouble proving the case. Police tend to be very territorial and withhold information from each other, he said.
He pointed out this was the first murder case Det. Mark FROST, the lead investigator of the case with the Russellville Police Department, had worked.
Police departments needed to talk to experts and to veteran detectives in different towns and different states, Owen said.
"You need people who know what the ... they're doing," he said.
FROST said in an interview earlier this year that no consultant was hired, but the police did work with other law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Arkansas State Police.
"A good investigation is only as good as their (police's) sources are," he said, noting good, church-going folks were unlikely to know what was going on in the streets. "You've got to rub elbows with scumbags. You've got to put a lot of effort into a crime case."
Investigators have to be careful because even strong evidence might not result in a conviction. Owen said he had seen cases with only circumstantial evidence get convictions while cases with strong evidence got acquittals. Any mistake could jeopardize the case, he said.
He said strong evidence would be needed to convict Jones because the crime scene was compromised when he, a friend and his mother discovered the body.
Because Jones was Nona's boyfriend of about five years and had been visiting her, his fingerprints could be expected to be in her apartment, Owen said.
He said the prosecutor would need fingerprints, scratches on a suspect, DNA under the victim's fingernails and/or blood splattered, not smeared, clothing.
"He needs that kind of evidence," Owens said.
He said it was a smart move for the defendant and his family not to speak. It gave the police less to work with and nothing to disprove.
Because Jones submitted to a polygraph examination and police interviews, Owen said it looked like he and his family were cooperating with the investigation.
In the meantime, Owen wants to keep tabs on Nona's case, hoping to see it solved.
From the article it sounds like Glenn Owen did not have any first-hand knowledge of this case (though experienced with many others). What he states regarding police is just a general thought. I don't see how he would have known how well the RPD were working with other authorities. Just my observation. I remember when this first article came out, I sorta wondered if this was Gentilben. Remember how bent out of shape Gentilben was that the police had not asked for his opinion? Gosh, that was forever ago.

I do agree with Glenn's statements about the difficulties the arise when the primary suspect not only knew the victim but discovered the body. If guilty, one of the smartest things Kevin did was to insure he "found" the body IMO.

JMO

[sololobo]

Hi, this is my first post here but I have been lurking for quite awhile. This post may be of no relevance and if it isn't then I'm sorry. I haven't seen this mentioned before though.

With regard to the police searching around Nona's apartment for the stick, cellphone battery, etc. On the night of Dec. 15th, I and my sister-in-law were out driving my kiddos around looking at Christmas lights. We drove past Nona's apartment building and saw the investigation. At that point we had no idea what was going on. As for the search, they had huge stadium floodlights mounted on poles out there that lit up the whole place like daylight. I realize that lights that harsh would cause a lot of shadows but they weren't just out there poking around with flashlights. That's the picture I get in my mind when people talk about them searching around the apartment.

Hi mandysunshine and welcome aboard:)

Could you tell if they were searching the woods behind the apartment complex?

[lorettalockhorn]

Thanks, solo. But, I have to say I have tried this a million times and it always brings up something different. I've even typed in the dates of the articles and nothing. Maybe I did something wrong. I wouldn't say that I'm computer savvy, but I know my way around the internet. I don't know what's up, but I kind of feel like an id. I am a bit confused because I tried this same thing last week and nothing.

Jonikay, sometimes the archives work for me and sometimes they don't. I just figured that I was searching while they were purging their server or something. Like Solo says, the best way to find information seems to be just looking for Dirksmeyer in general.

You've been doing some great research for us!

[lorettalockhorn]

From the article it sounds like Glenn Owen did not have any first-hand knowledge of this case (though experienced with many others). What he states regarding police is just a general thought. I don't see how he would have known how well the RPD were working with other authorities. Just my observation. I remember when this first article came out, I sorta wondered if this was Gentilben. Remember how bent out of shape Gentilben was that the police had not asked for his opinion? Gosh, that was forever ago.

I do agree with Glenn's statements about the difficulties the arise when the primary suspect not only knew the victim but discovered the body. If guilty, one of the smartest things Kevin did was to insure he "found" the body IMO.

JMO

Wow, that does seem like forever ago! I thought that the guy made some good generalized observations. The thing that always stuck with me about his comments is in reference to the lack of defensive wounds (I've never read that KJ had any). If Nona was struck from behind/taken by surprise, I wouldn't expect to see that. It will be interesting to me to learn at trial, which wound came first and whether the wounds were from the front or behind and if Nona was found face up or face down.

[hawgustusgloop]

When I was in school, I turned in a math problem assignment. The teacher gave it back to me and told me to do it again. I came up with the same answer and she gave me a F. Hopefully, my teacher and the DA were not thinking along the same lines:)

Personally, I believe Gibbons was not comfortable with the bloody print evidence. I believe he took so long to bring charges trying to build a case that excluded the bloody print, just in case it turned out to be "tacky" evidence.

You could be right about the print evidence being a point of discomfort for Gibbons, resulting in a delay in arresting K.Jo. However, I think he wanted to wait until the reports were in to be sure, since he only gets one chance to try someone for a specific crime. The final report from the medical examiner IIRC was dated March 16. Maybe Gibbons was waiting on that. I thought I read that sometime in the week before K.Jo was arrested, that Gibbons went to Washington D.C. to consult with the FBI. I wonder if he was waiting on this report before consulting with them.

The evidence at the scene was severely contaminated by K.Jo upon the "discovery" of Nona's body. It seems like a difficult case to prove, so maybe Gibbons wanted the expert opinions of the FBI before proceeding.

[hawgustusgloop]

From the article it sounds like Glenn Owen did not have any first-hand knowledge of this case (though experienced with many others). What he states regarding police is just a general thought. I don't see how he would have known how well the RPD were working with other authorities. Just my observation. I remember when this first article came out, I sorta wondered if this was Gentilben. Remember how bent out of shape Gentilben was that the police had not asked for his opinion? Gosh, that was forever ago.

I do agree with Glenn's statements about the difficulties the arise when the primary suspect not only knew the victim but discovered the body. If guilty, one of the smartest things Kevin did was to insure he "found" the body IMO.

JMO

I remember that, too. If you read that whole article, it makes Glenn Owen look like a fruitcake armchair detective like us, IMO. I wonder if it weren't HE who contacted the Courier, rather than the other way around.

[FDInLaw]

I remember that, too. If you read that whole article, it makes Glenn Owen look like a fruitcake armchair detective like us, IMO. I wonder if it weren't HE who contacted the Courier, rather than the other way around.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, the article does paint him out to be quite a character, but it sure sounds like Glenn has some practical experience under his belt (I personally can not claim a fraction of that!).

[lorettalockhorn]

You could be right about the print evidence being a point of discomfort for Gibbons, resulting in a delay in arresting K.Jo. However, I think he wanted to wait until the reports were in to be sure, since he only gets one chance to try someone for a specific crime. The final report from the medical examiner IIRC was dated March 16. Maybe Gibbons was waiting on that. I thought I read that sometime in the week before K.Jo was arrested, that Gibbons went to Washington D.C. to consult with the FBI. I wonder if he was waiting on this report before consulting with them.

The evidence at the scene was severely contaminated by K.Jo upon the "discovery" of Nona's body. It seems like a difficult case to prove, so maybe Gibbons wanted the expert opinions of the FBI before proceeding.

It has occurred to me that Gibbons also wanted to wait for the ME's report to rule out the sexual assault angle.

[christina]

When I was in school, I turned in a math problem assignment. The teacher gave it back to me and told me to do it again. I came up with the same answer and she gave me a F. Hopefully, my teacher and the DA were not thinking along the same lines:)

Personally, I believe Gibbons was not comfortable with the bloody print evidence. I believe he took so long to bring charges trying to build a case that excluded the bloody print, just in case it turned out to be "tacky" evidence.

I like your sense of humor!

[christina]

OK, check out this blast from the past:



This article makes it seem like the police were required to be so thorough that they essentially conducted the investigation twice, coming up with the same conclusion both times. Any thoughts?

Looked up the date on that article, it was January 18th.
I have been trying to put together a bit of a timeline, any one else want to add to it-please do!!-
Murder on December 15th,

Nona's body was sent to the medical examiner's office and an autopsy was performed on Dec. 19, 2005. A final report was issued March 16.

"During the funeral we knew he was a suspect, and we requested for him not to sit with the family. Members of the Russellville Police Department visited us the night before the funeral (Dec. 21) and said that Kevin (Jones) was a suspect,"

During a Dec. 22 press conference, Russellville Police Chief James Bacon said all but one person of interest had been eliminated as a suspect.
Bacon later said formal charges had been requested for one person, but Gibbons requested that person’s name not be released until formal charges were filed.

Article from ]December 23[/U]-James Bacon answered“Over the past week, the Russellville Police Department has worked tirelessly to locate and interview more than 50 different people."
Gibbons received the lengthy report at about 6 p.m. Tuesday, January 18.
Jones surrendered at 11 a.m. Friday March 31.
Kevin Jones, arrested and charged last Friday with Dirksmeyer's murder, was released from the Pope County Detention Center on Tuesday April 3

Frost interview with Courier May 15, "FROST said although he has heard rumors about the public believing the RPD centered its investigation on Jones, he clarified there were at least six "persons of interest" in the beginning."

Story Date: Friday, May 26-"recently(May 18), the attorneys of Kevin Jones have requested a gag order be placed on any official connected with the case, or otherwise have the case dismissed altogether"

Thursday May 24-Gibbons response to the gag motion-"in a formal response filed Thursday afternoon in the Pope County Circuit Clerk's Office that all actions taken from his office and from the Russellville Police Department were legitimate."

Monday July 3-"Although Pope County Judge John Patterson denied a request to dismiss the case, the judge upheld attorney demands to keep most of the people involved in the case quiet. The agreed gag order signed Monday morning forbids attorneys, attorney employees, agents, consultants, some 55 witnesses the state expects to question at the trial, court personnel and law enforcement officers from making any public comment regarding the case "

In a second formal request filed in Pope County Circuit Court Sept. 18 compelling the district prosecuting attorney’s office to supply additional evidence, the attorneys accuse the office of refusing to hand over interviews and forensic evidence collected from third-party individuals

[christina]

You could be right about the print evidence being a point of discomfort for Gibbons, resulting in a delay in arresting K.Jo. However, I think he wanted to wait until the reports were in to be sure, since he only gets one chance to try someone for a specific crime. The final report from the medical examiner IIRC was dated March 16. Maybe Gibbons was waiting on that. I thought I read that sometime in the week before K.Jo was arrested, that Gibbons went to Washington D.C. to consult with the FBI. I wonder if he was waiting on this report before consulting with them.

The evidence at the scene was severely contaminated by K.Jo upon the "discovery" of Nona's body. It seems like a difficult case to prove, so maybe Gibbons wanted the expert opinions of the FBI before proceeding.

I have been reading through all the Courier archives on this case and can not find where Gibbons says he went to Washington to meet with the FBI. He states the FBI Behavorial Unit in Arkansas helped him but no mention of any others. Can you post where that information came from? Thanks!

[hawgustusgloop]

You are correct about last week--he visited with the FBI in D.C.

Tomorrow (Friday) is the day.

I guess I don't have a link to confirm he went to Washington, since I gave up on the Courier archives months ago. I did find this gem of a post from dtbh, which was made in response to someone saying she had heard a rumor Gibbons was out of town the week before consulting with the FBI. Whether or not you choose to believe him or her is your decision, of course. Keep in mind, however, that this post was made on this thread the night before K.Jo's arrest. So, I guess the Washington part will remain a rumor unless I can dig up an article.

[christina]

I guess I don't have a link to confirm he went to Washington, since I gave up on the Courier archives months ago. I did find this gem of a post from dtbh, which was made in response to someone saying she had heard a rumor Gibbons was out of town the week before consulting with the FBI. Whether or not you choose to believe him or her is your decision, of course. Keep in mind, however, that this post was made on this thread the night before K.Jo's arrest. So, I guess the Washington part will remain a rumor unless I can dig up an article.

Sorry you are having trouble with the Courier archives. I was able to look through and read them all today. Select news in the drop down window, then type in Dirksmeyer. I also typed in Gibbons and Frost.

I have only heard about the Washington FBI thing on this board. So I was looking for that in the archives and could not find it.

[hOTwIREd]

Looked up the date on that article, it was January 18th.
I have been trying to put together a bit of a timeline, any one else want to add to it-please do!!-
Murder on December 15th,

Nona's body was sent to the medical examiner's office and an autopsy was performed on Dec. 19, 2005. A final report was issued March 16.

"During the funeral we knew he was a suspect, and we requested for him not to sit with the family. Members of the Russellville Police Department visited us the night before the funeral (Dec. 21) and said that Kevin (Jones) was a suspect,"

During a Dec. 22 press conference, Russellville Police Chief James Bacon said all but one person of interest had been eliminated as a suspect.
Bacon later said formal charges had been requested for one person, but Gibbons requested that person’s name not be released until formal charges were filed.

Article from ]December 23[/U]-James Bacon answered“Over the past week, the Russellville Police Department has worked tirelessly to locate and interview more than 50 different people."
Gibbons received the lengthy report at about 6 p.m. Tuesday, January 18.
Jones surrendered at 11 a.m. Friday March 31.
Kevin Jones, arrested and charged last Friday with Dirksmeyer's murder, was released from the Pope County Detention Center on Tuesday April 3

Frost interview with Courier May 15, "FROST said although he has heard rumors about the public believing the RPD centered its investigation on Jones, he clarified there were at least six "persons of interest" in the beginning."

Story Date: Friday, May 26-"recently(May 18), the attorneys of Kevin Jones have requested a gag order be placed on any official connected with the case, or otherwise have the case dismissed altogether"

Thursday May 24-Gibbons response to the gag motion-"in a formal response filed Thursday afternoon in the Pope County Circuit Clerk's Office that all actions taken from his office and from the Russellville Police Department were legitimate."

Monday July 3-"Although Pope County Judge John Patterson denied a request to dismiss the case, the judge upheld attorney demands to keep most of the people involved in the case quiet. The agreed gag order signed Monday morning forbids attorneys, attorney employees, agents, consultants, some 55 witnesses the state expects to question at the trial, court personnel and law enforcement officers from making any public comment regarding the case "

In a second formal request filed in Pope County Circuit Court Sept. 18 compelling the district prosecuting attorney’s office to supply additional evidence, the attorneys accuse the office of refusing to hand over interviews and forensic evidence collected from third-party individuals


Thank you very much for the timeline Christina.

I have been creating my own timeline/list of evidence to help me get my mind around the case - having only come across it a few weeks ago.

With 3400 plus posts on this thread alone it has been hard going.

[FDInLaw]

Considering that you can't source any of your statements, I'm just going to laugh at that one.

You clearly have no problem with using things said by anonymous people claiming to be investigators as evidence, and you also claim to have inside information.

Well, maybe I have inside information too. Maybe every single person here has inside information. It's the internet. Anyone can pretend to have "inside information."

Substantiate your claims, and maybe you, and the other anonymous posters, will be taken seriously.

I started writing here for two reasons. One, I think this case has been poorely investigated from second-one. (IMO) I will again, quote Gibbons; he said "the police muddled this one but good, when they said there was only one person of interest on the 23rd day of December." Now, my source is Mr. Gibbons. What I can't tell you is who he said this to, because they asked me not to mention this to anyone. (IMO). Yea, I'm mentioning this to everyone, which brings me to the second reason I'm on this board, which is: I drink too much.

On or about, the 20th day of March, Mr. Gibbons stated that there was more than one person still seriously being looked at, and he had just gotten back from Washington D.C., checking out FBI crime lab evidence. (IMO). So, Oxford, my concern here is, was Kevin charged because the evidence shows he did the crime? (IMO) or, because the evidence shows he was at the scene, at least after the event and political pressure was such that someone had to be charged? (IMO) If the latter is the case, just possibly there was political pressure not to charge another person of interest, which left only Kevin. (IMO)

My point being here, we don't care if you or any other member here, believes a word I have written. What I was hoping was to open up this site and find that something we had said had encouraged someone, anyone, to post a bit of information that we, or any other investigator did not have at the time. (IMO) As you can see, from reading the message boards, all I get is your comments about anonymous people on the net. (IMO) I will continue to read in hopes that someone out there that knows something, might just write it down here. (IMO)

Source your Gibbons quotations, so everybody can verify that what you are saying is true.

If you can't, then I don't know what to tell you. I could start saying that I have information that Gibbons said exactly the opposite of what you stated, and it has the same weight to it.

That's my main problem with this. There's an obviously deliberate attempt to sway opinion in another direction on this, without it being backed up.

Bumping. . . .

[lorettalockhorn]

Y'all have probably seen this all over the place! I'm so thankful to live where we can meet to argue this case or any other issue.

http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org/images/American%20Flag%20&%20Cross.JPG

[lorettalockhorn]

Hawg and FD, I searched for that information too and those two posts were stored in my google desktop, but I didn't find anything else on the internet. Some of those long gone posters were something else! WEHT them?

Love the timeline! I have one from then 'til now that I've been adding to and also one for the day of Nona's death so that I can check things off as addressed at trial.

[christina]

Bumping. . . .

Interesting reading. Is gentleben the one you were thinking might have been the man from the article I posted?-Owen?

My problem with this is after reading all the Courier archives on the case- Gibbons gave several interviews but no where mentioned FBI in Washington, he only mentions the FBI in Arkansas. The pcs statement refers to a FBI behavorial unit. In an article Gibbons did also but names the unit in Little Rock.
I am beginning to think this was a rumor that has grown into fact.

[hawgustusgloop]

Interesting reading. Is gentleben the one you were thinking might have been the man from the article I posted?-Owen?

My problem with this is after reading all the Courier archives on the case- Gibbons gave several interviews but no where mentioned FBI in Washington, he only mentions the FBI in Arkansas. The pcs statement refers to a FBI behavorial unit. In an article Gibbons did also but names the unit in Little Rock.
I am beginning to think this was a rumor that has grown into fact.

It could be just a rumor, and I can definitely appreciate trying to clear things up and separate fact from fiction. I am not trying to sound like an idiot here, but does it matter if he consulted with the FBI in Washington or Little Rock? What would the difference be? I am really asking a serious question and not trying to be sarcastic or rhetorical. It actually makes more sense to consult with the FBI in Arkansas if they have people in that office qualified to give the input Gibbons may have sought, and I always thought the FBI headquarters was in Quantico, VA (but for all I know that could practically be in Washington D.C.).

[JR2007]

Thank you very much for the timeline Christina.

I have been creating my own timeline/list of evidence to help me get my mind around the case - having only come across it a few weeks ago.

With 3400 plus posts on this thread alone it has been hard going.
Here is a site I like to go to when searching for information. It is in chronological order, some what.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217195&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217195

[JR2007]

Hotwired, On another note.
I just wanted to let you know how much I hated to see Tony Blair step down. He has always impressed me with his intelligence. I believe history will treat him well. As for Brown, time will tell, but first impressions are not so good.:)

[lorettalockhorn]

It could be just a rumor, and I can definitely appreciate trying to clear things up and separate fact from fiction. I am not trying to sound like an idiot here, but does it matter if he consulted with the FBI in Washington or Little Rock? What would the difference be? I am really asking a serious question and not trying to be sarcastic or rhetorical. It actually makes more sense to consult with the FBI in Arkansas if they have people in that office qualified to give the input Gibbons may have sought, and I always thought the FBI headquarters was in Quantico, VA (but for all I know that could practically be in Washington D.C.).

Hawg, it doesn't matter to me, but I think that maybe at this point, there are some who doubt that the FBI was consulted at all since there doesn't appear to be a written report. Maybe the agent will testify, but isn't on the witness list that we have seen?

From what I can tell, the BAU has two divisions and case referrals are made from a NCAVC (National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime) coordinator that operates out of each field office. From the FBI site: "BAU services are provided during on-site case consultations, telephone conference calls, and/or consultations held at the BAU with case investigators."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htm#bau

[JR2007]

5 days and counting.
:rose: :rose: :rose:
justice for all

[hOTwIREd]

Here is a site I like to go to when searching for information. It is in chronological order, some what.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217195&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217195

Cheers for that - just what I need.

[christina]

It could be just a rumor, and I can definitely appreciate trying to clear things up and separate fact from fiction. I am not trying to sound like an idiot here, but does it matter if he consulted with the FBI in Washington or Little Rock? What would the difference be? I am really asking a serious question and not trying to be sarcastic or rhetorical. It actually makes more sense to consult with the FBI in Arkansas if they have people in that office qualified to give the input Gibbons may have sought, and I always thought the FBI headquarters was in Quantico, VA (but for all I know that could practically be in Washington D.C.).

Good point. I agree and don't think it really matters. I just got focussed in on the minutia of it. Perception could be in this CSI world we live in that the federal group might be "better than" the state group. But again, specialists in behavoir for the FBI will all be trained the same I bet.

[christina]

Hawg, it doesn't matter to me, but I think that maybe at this point, there are some who doubt that the FBI was consulted at all since there doesn't appear to be a written report. Maybe the agent will testify, but isn't on the witness list that we have seen?

From what I can tell, the BAU has two divisions and case referrals are made from a NCAVC (National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime) coordinator that operates out of each field office. From the FBI site: "BAU services are provided during on-site case consultations, telephone conference calls, and/or consultations held at the BAU with case investigators."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htm#bau

It does cause me pause that they made the effort, wisely, to consult the BAU, but did not record it in any way. Also, such a professional group as this(FBI BAU) did not have a record of the conversation either. A call would have been easy to tape and then transcribe.
I like loose ends tied up- makes me the intense person I am?!?

[christina]

Hotwired, On another note.
I just wanted to let you know how much I hated to see Tony Blair step down. He has always impressed me with his intelligence. I believe history will treat him well. As for Brown, time will tell, but first impressions are not so good.:)

Here, here- I agree!

[christina]

Here is a site I like to go to when searching for information. It is in chronological order, some what.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217195&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217195

Thanks for that link, good reading. It appears the timeline I started is in line with this one.

[christina]

Hawg and FD, I searched for that information too and those two posts were stored in my google desktop, but I didn't find anything else on the internet. Some of those long gone posters were something else! WEHT them?

Love the timeline! I have one from then 'til now that I've been adding to and also one for the day of Nona's death so that I can check things off as addressed at trial.

Is there anything you can add to that timeline? You have been following this from the beginning and have so much more information/links.
Good idea about writing stuff down to mark off during the trial, think I'll do that.
My family has given up on me these past weeks. When they walk by me on the computer they just ask "Work or Dirksmeyer blog?". I wish the courtroom had wireless internet and I could bring my laptop in. Maybe I need to ask someone about that?!?!

[FDInLaw]

Interesting reading. Is gentleben the one you were thinking might have been the man from the article I posted?-Owen?

My problem with this is after reading all the Courier archives on the case- Gibbons gave several interviews but no where mentioned FBI in Washington, he only mentions the FBI in Arkansas. The pcs statement refers to a FBI behavorial unit. In an article Gibbons did also but names the unit in Little Rock.
I am beginning to think this was a rumor that has grown into fact. Yes, Gentilben is the one I thought was Glenn Owen. After my own detective work I don't believe that they are the same person now though.

One thing to note, many of us have a copy of the Response to the Motion for Discovery that the Prosecution filed before the gag order. Since the gag order the Prosecution has probably added to this list. We should not view it as complete IMO. There are things we probably don't know yet. The Washington D.C. stuff will surely be cleared up during the trial. MOO

[hawgustusgloop]

OK I realize this is kind of out there, but I think it may be worth exploring. Many of the posters here have said many times that there is a LOT we don't know about this case yet, and that a lot of things will come out at the trial. So, what are some of the things we don't know about yet that will likely emerge during the trial?

A few that immediately came to mind:

*What is K.Jo's specific alibi for all times on December 15, up until the discovery of Nona's body?

*Were there extensive searches performed on K.Jo's home and/or vehicle, and what, if anything, did those searches produce?

*What was in the 11:04 text message, and whom was it from? What about all those other text messages the defense talked about?

[lorettalockhorn]

Is there anything you can add to that timeline? You have been following this from the beginning and have so much more information/links.
Good idea about writing stuff down to mark off during the trial, think I'll do that.
My family has given up on me these past weeks. When they walk by me on the computer they just ask "Work or Dirksmeyer blog?". I wish the courtroom had wireless internet and I could bring my laptop in. Maybe I need to ask someone about that?!?!

Christina, my timeline is similar to yours; wish that I had it in a word document to make it easier to read after all this time. I made crib notes in hopes of having some Qs answered at some point in the investigation or trial.

12/21/05 Courier article Frost states that RPD is the sole investigator

12/22/05 Courier article re: the 911 call; Mrs. Jones told the operator that Nona had texted Kevin at 9am. (How/why did she know that? [And how did I forget that? Thanks for the reminder, Solo])

2/02/06 Courier article statement that the FBI has been helping with the investigation since early on

2/22/06 Courier article no truth to rumors about suspects related to officials (Bubba Turner?)

3/16/06 Gibbons rumored to have visited FBI in D.C. (I added this today LOL)

4/03/06 KJ released I made notes about the provisions of bond re: alcohol/drug use and testing; the Diperts were unhappy about the 10-90 bond. The article was very similar to wording and structure of the PCS.

4/07/06 Courier article mentions the BAU

5/11/06 Prosecution's motion for discovery (answered circa 12/10 or 12/19)

7/03/06 Gag order approved

9/18/06 Defense motion to compel evidence

12/10/06 Defense response to discovery, witness list, trial date set (I have a ? here, but not sure why)

1/05/07 Prosecution receives defense test results, request for continuance

1/08/07 Continuance granted

2/27/07 Kennedy recuses, Patterson named special judge

5/11/07 Motion for change of venue and evidence hearing

6/13/07 Change of venue granted, Patterson hears cell phone and blood evidence Defense motion on cell phone denied

6/29/07 Defense motion on blood evidence denied


My other dates are the same as yours; my notes are slightly different.

[lorettalockhorn]

OK I realize this is kind of out there, but I think it may be worth exploring. Many of the posters here have said many times that there is a LOT we don't know about this case yet, and that a lot of things will come out at the trial. So, what are some of the things we don't know about yet that will likely emerge during the trial?

A few that immediately came to mind:

*What is K.Jo's specific alibi for all times on December 15, up until the discovery of Nona's body?

*Were there extensive searches performed on K.Jo's home and/or vehicle, and what, if anything, did those searches produce?

*What was in the 11:04 text message, and whom was it from? What about all those other text messages the defense talked about?

Agree on KJ's alibi. Are there calls from landlines or cash register transactions to substantiate his claims about calling Nona and when he arrived at work?

Agree on the search issue and the text messages.

Who was fingerprinted and/or DNA tested besides Kevin? Why? OR why not?

What are the results of the information gathered from the computers of KJ, Nona and anyone else's tested? Were there any fingerprints on Nona's keyboard to indicate who accessed the pageant website?

Can whoever does KJ's laundry verify that no clothes are missing from his wardrobe?

[lorettalockhorn]

It does cause me pause that they made the effort, wisely, to consult the BAU, but did not record it in any way. Also, such a professional group as this(FBI BAU) did not have a record of the conversation either. A call would have been easy to tape and then transcribe.
I like loose ends tied up- makes me the intense person I am?!?

I hear you. I'm clueless as to why there is no written report. But we don't know that the agent isn't going to testify; we've probably only seen the short list of witnesses. He/she might be on a list along with a shrink type and no telling who else.

[hOTwIREd]

OK I realize this is kind of out there, but I think it may be worth exploring. Many of the posters here have said many times that there is a LOT we don't know about this case yet, and that a lot of things will come out at the trial. So, what are some of the things we don't know about yet that will likely emerge during the trial?

A few that immediately came to mind:

*What is K.Jo's specific alibi for all times on December 15, up until the discovery of Nona's body?

*Were there extensive searches performed on K.Jo's home and/or vehicle, and what, if anything, did those searches produce?

*What was in the 11:04 text message, and whom was it from? What about all those other text messages the defense talked about?

Good post - I would imagine all three questions you have put are ones that have been answered (or at least looked into) during the investigation - I know that some officer would have been tasked to investigate/handle each of those points from my experience of major incident briefings.

I am pretty certain that they will be answered/revealed during the court proceedings.

There would be other questions that are pertinent that, because we do not know all the lines of investigation, and what the examinations have revealed, cannot even be guessed at.

Results of any screening program ('DNA' or Fingerprints) would be interesting to know.

The palm mark on the lamp - when was the lamp purchased? Was it present at the appartment when the principle suspects were last 'legitimately present', the results of any testing for the 'tackyness' that was mentioned. was the testing (blood rate drying etc) performed in the apartment, or in a laboratory (personally, i think the condition of the blood, and it being described as tacky could end up being a sticking point with the jury. I doubt there are many forensic scientists in Europe that would put their reputations on the line as a blood drying expert. The officer who described it thus could have a hard time in court as well. The real point about that palm mark is that it is in blood - I know that if I find a fingerprint of a suspect in the victim's blood at a scene they have a lot of explaining to do. Has the palm marik on the lamp been identified as being in the victim's blood? (I still have some reading, and absorbing to do...)

Of course, what you have done is get my brain off on another 'lead' - just as I was pulling the time line together lol

[JR2007]

Enjoy you 4th of July celebrations, everyone, and don't burn the Bar-B-que.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
No offense to you Hotwired.:D

[christina]

Agree on KJ's alibi. Are there calls from landlines or cash register transactions to substantiate his claims about calling Nona and when he arrived at work?

Agree on the search issue and the text messages.

Who was fingerprinted and/or DNA tested besides Kevin? Why? OR why not?

What are the results of the information gathered from the computers of KJ, Nona and anyone else's tested? Were there any fingerprints on Nona's keyboard to indicate who accessed the pageant website?

Can whoever does KJ's laundry verify that no clothes are missing from his wardrobe?

All good questions from both of you guys. I wonder if they will all get answered though at the trial. I bet we will walk away with some stuff never answered. I think it was said here before, only two people really know what happened that night and one is not with us any longer. If the other doesn't tell us, we'll never really know in full.

[sololobo]

"I'll be honest, when I first get to a scene, I formulate ideas and theories," he said, noting he must always remain objective. "But to sit here and tell you I didn't think this (crime scene) was staged or that something wasn't right would be a lie, because I did." Det. Frost

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11603&Search=dirksmeyer

"Based on his training and experience and consultation with the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, it is Affiant’s belief that the condom wrapper was placed on the counter to make it appear as if rape was the motive for the attack." PCS statement

I don't believe a single condom wrapper would lead Det. Frost nor the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit to conclude the crime scene was staged. Nor do I believe the killer, if he wished to make it appear rape was the motive, would simply place a condom wrapper at the scene. There must have been more to indicate the crime scene was staged.

Since Nona was not raped, perhaps it would be more accurate to say the crime scene was staged to make it appear to be an attempted rape that ended up with the intended victim dead before the killer could rape her.

What appeared staged at the crime scene other than the condom wrapper? What at the crime scene made it appear to be staged rather than an actual attempted rape? If the crime scene was staged, how elaborate was the staging and how long would it take the killer to stage it after the murder? Could this time factor be the reason the defense wanted Gibbons to give a more definite time of the murder?

If there is more evidence of a contrived crime scene other than the condom wrapper, the first question that must be addressed by the DA at the trial is what at the crime scene made it definitely appear to be a staged attempted rape rather than an actual attempted rape? A single condom wrapper is not going to convince a jury.

The second question the DA must answer is, assuming there are more contrived indications of an attempted rape, how long would it have taken the killer to stage the appearance of an attempted rape? The defense will probably focus quite a bit of attention on this.

[JR2007]

4 Days and counting.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[christina]

"I'll be honest, when I first get to a scene, I formulate ideas and theories," he said, noting he must always remain objective. "But to sit here and tell you I didn't think this (crime scene) was staged or that something wasn't right would be a lie, because I did." Det. Frost

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11603&Search=dirksmeyer

"Based on his training and experience and consultation with the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, it is Affiant’s belief that the condom wrapper was placed on the counter to make it appear as if rape was the motive for the attack." PCS statement

I don't believe a single condom wrapper would lead Det. Frost nor the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit to conclude the crime scene was staged. Nor do I believe the killer, if he wished to make it appear rape was the motive, would simply place a condom wrapper at the scene. There must have been more to indicate the crime scene was staged.

Since Nona was not raped, perhaps it would be more accurate to say the crime scene was staged to make it appear to be an attempted rape that ended up with the intended victim dead before the killer could rape her.

What appeared staged at the crime scene other than the condom wrapper? What at the crime scene made it appear to be staged rather than an actual attempted rape? If the crime scene was staged, how elaborate was the staging and how long would it take the killer to stage it after the murder? Could this time factor be the reason the defense wanted Gibbons to give a more definite time of the murder?

If there is more evidence of a contrived crime scene other than the condom wrapper, the first question that must be addressed by the DA at the trial is what at the crime scene made it definitely appear to be a staged attempted rape rather than an actual attempted rape? A single condom wrapper is not going to convince a jury.

The second question the DA must answer is, assuming there are more contrived indications of an attempted rape, how long would it have taken the killer to stage the appearance of an attempted rape? The defense will probably focus quite a bit of attention on this.

Good questions. Wasn't it in that same series of interview articles Frost said this was his first murder scene.?

[FDInLaw]

Enjoy you 4th of July celebrations, everyone, and don't burn the Bar-B-que.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
No offense to you Hotwired.:D Don't feel too bad for Hotwired. I've heard they get more public holidays than we do! :)

With the holiday and all it feels like this should be Monday. :( Sure glad the trial is just several days away though. It's been a long haul for many. Praying that the jury's verdict is just and corresponds with the truth.

:rose:

[hawgustusgloop]

*Who in fact failed lied detector tests? (Even though not admissible in court)

*What were the other six suspects alibis?

*What other finger printing and DNA testing was done, if any other than KJ?

*Any testing done on vehicle/any clothing of KJ or any other suspect?

*Was FBI consulted about behaviors of other suspects or KJ only?

Yes! Good questions. Also:

*What is the deal with Jeremy Martin, and what did the defense mean when they said he lied about the nature of his and Nona's relationship? Why would he lie?

*Whom was the "Why are you leading me on" message from, and does it have anything to do with the case at all?

*What reason did K.Jo give the police for being SO worried about not hearing from Nona after just a few hours?

*Why would Nona's computer have been accessed after her murder?

*Where do the prosecutors think the condom wrapper came from, and when do they think it was placed at the scene?

*Do prosecutors think K.Jo murdered Nona, did whatever covering up, and showed up at the gas station by 1:00, or do they think he returned later to set up the scene?

*Once and for all, what is the "business end" of the darn lamp?

[optimumprimal78]

Yes! Good questions. Also:

*What is the deal with Jeremy Martin, and what did the defense mean when they said he lied about the nature of his and Nona's relationship? Why would he lie?

Perhaps he was a guy that she was seeing on the side and figured if he didn't say anything about being romantically involved he wouldn't be accused of the crime.

*Whom was the "Why are you leading me on" message from, and does it have anything to do with the case at all?

If it has anything to do with the case it might have been from someone they questioned (perhaps JM or JY).

*What reason did K.Jo give the police for being SO worried about not hearing from Nona after just a few hours?

That is strange especially when he knew that she had tests all day. Unless he had some reason to be worried he wouldn't normally be that way. Was he like this when they were so far apart (him in Fayetteville and her in Russellville)? Perhaps he was paranoid about a potential relationship he thought she might be having.

*Why would Nona's computer have been accessed after her murder?

Perhaps the killer was wanting to check to see if she was getting emails from some random guy that he was suspicious of. It wouldn't necessarily be that hard to get into her email if she was like a lot of people and have their passwords saved (by checking the box under "remember password" that most email services have).

*Where do the prosecutors think the condom wrapper came from, and when do they think it was placed at the scene?

My question is why, of all places, would someone put the condom wrapper on the counter unless they wanted it to be seen? I know that things can happen when the heat of passion is involved but for the most part you don't have a condom/condom wrapper in the kitchen at any point.

*Do prosecutors think K.Jo murdered Nona, did whatever covering up, and showed up at the gas station by 1:00, or do they think he returned later to set up the scene?

Depends on when he got off work. If he did get to work at 1:00, and got off at 5:00, then that would give him around an hour to go do whatever it was he did and then have around 30 minutes (15 each coming and going) to travel. Was it ever said if he was late or not that day (I thought he was but I might be mistaken)?

*Once and for all, what is the "business end" of the darn lamp?

IMO the business end is the base part of the lamp that actually was part of the lethal strike.



I just bolded the things that came to my mind. They might make sense or they might not. I was in a hurry.

[hawgustusgloop]

Whoa! I just clicked on this forum, and it said there were 6 members and 30 guests viewing it.........is that true?

If so, Hi, everybody!

[lorettalockhorn]

Whoa! I just clicked on this forum, and it said there were 6 members and 30 guests viewing it.........is that true?

If so, Hi, everybody!

tehee You skeered them away. It's only fifteen now. :seeya:

[JR2007]

I just bolded the things that came to my mind. They might make sense or they might not. I was in a hurry.
*Do prosecutors think K.Jo murdered Nona, did whatever covering up, and showed up at the gas station by 1:00, or do they think he returned later to set up the scene?

Depends on when he got off work. If he did get to work at 1:00, and got off at 5:00, then that would give him around an hour to go do whatever it was he did and then have around 30 minutes (15 each coming and going) to travel. Was it ever said if he was late or not that day (I thought he was but I might be mistaken)?

Opti, you may be making the same mistake I did about KJ going to work. He showed up at the station at 1:00 PM, but did he stay and work or hang around for a little while then leave?:shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Good questions. Wasn't it in that same series of interview articles Frost said this was his first murder scene.?

It seems to me like most of the information that Frost gave about his involvement with Nona's murder was in the 5/15 and 5/16 Courier articles. I don't specifically remember his commenting about this being his first murder scene, but I can't imagine that the protocol would be different for the first or hundredth murder.

[lorettalockhorn]

Opti, you may be making the same mistake I did about KJ going to work. He showed up at the station at 1:00 PM, but did he stay and work or hang around for a little while then leave?:shrug:

Oh, that reminds me of another question: How long had KJ planned to accompany Mrs. Jones to the Christmas party? Was it last minute? Did he invite himself?

I think that Kevin did his cover-up immediately after the murder. He could have been wearing sweats or a windsuit; something that he could turn inside out to hide the blood, and then jogged or walked back to his car parked nearby Nona's apartment. After he got home, he burned or buried his clothes along with the stick from the sliding door.

Of course, if he does his own laundry, it would be convenient; no one might have noticed that he had wardrobe items missing.

[lorettalockhorn]

I doubt the protocol would be any different, but I would think the investiagator would be much more trained, well prepared, have a more keen eye, and general all around the murder scene investigative experience by the hundredth murder. JMO

Frost commented that the detectives were under the watchful eye of Chief Bacon who had previous experience in a high crime area before coming on board in Russellville (even though he didn't interfere). There were other agencies involved as well.

[lorettalockhorn]

Frost commented that the detectives were under the watchful eye of Chief Bacon who had previous experience in a high crime area before coming on board in Russellville (even though he didn't interfere). There were other agencies involved as well.

It also occurs to me that a newbie would work diligently to be thorough and efficient, even if for some reason he was working unsupervised.

[JR2007]

Oh, that reminds me of another question: How long had KJ planned to accompany Mrs. Jones to the Christmas party? Was it last minute? Did he invite himself?

This is just hearsay from someone, that this was the first time he accompanied his mother to any party.

[Mishell1383]

Oh, that reminds me of another question: How long had KJ planned to accompany Mrs. Jones to the Christmas party? Was it last minute? Did he invite himself?

I think that Kevin did his cover-up immediately after the murder. He could have been wearing sweats or a windsuit; something that he could turn inside out to hide the blood, and then jogged or walked back to his car parked nearby Nona's apartment. After he got home, he burned or buried his clothes along with the stick from the sliding door.

Of course, if he does his own laundry, it would be convenient; no one might have noticed that he had wardrobe items missing.
imo.. this is EXACTLY how the turn of events unfolded It just all makes sense. And IIRC this was a first year going to the party for KJ. He wasn't a yearly guest, correct? it wasn't tradition for him to accompany mommy? All seems wayyyy to planned out for me. imo

[jonikay]

RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR***
Since I believe it is ok to let rumors out on this forum, I am about to give everybody one . . . I have never relied on this rumor as being true, although I don't necessarily rely on it to be false. I heard this rumor way back when, before KJ was convicted, from a close relative of a police official . . . take this as you will, but I heard from this person that police found KJ's clothes a few days after the murder at the local salvation army. Apparently, he had dumped his clothes there thinking no one would find them, but according to this person, the police searched up and down to find the clothes. I like to think of it as a good theory as to what could have happened to KJ's clothes, since we are on the topic of it. I also like to think that the RPD and the Gibbons clan are holding a lot of information in . . . this possibly being a bit of it . . .

[jonikay]

I mean CHARGED, jeez. Do you seriously think I know something you don't? Moving on.

[lorettalockhorn]

RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR***
Since I believe it is ok to let rumors out on this forum, I am about to give everybody one . . . I have never relied on this rumor as being true, although I don't necessarily rely on it to be false. I heard this rumor way back when, before KJ was convicted, from a close relative of a police official . . . take this as you will, but I heard from this person that police found KJ's clothes a few days after the murder at the local salvation army. Apparently, he had dumped his clothes there thinking no one would find them, but according to this person, the police searched up and down to find the clothes. I like to think of it as a good theory as to what could have happened to KJ's clothes, since we are on the topic of it. I also like to think that the RPD and the Gibbons clan are holding a lot of information in . . . this possibly being a bit of it . . .

I've heard this rumor too. But I've never heard if the clothes had been laundered or who dropped them off or anything. Wouldn't he know from L&O to get rid of them in a better way?

[optimumprimal78]

Let me get this straight. You think the blood from Nona's headwound would have absorbed into the carpet , but not soaked through the clothes he was wearing well enough to not be noticed even if turned around inside out? :shrug: That just doesn't make much sense to me. He wouldn't have gotten very far that way.

You all put a lot of stock in that stick being there. I have not heard any one confirm that it indeed existed, and if it did, what would be the need to get rid of it if it weren't used in the murder? If it was to allow himself a way back in, he could have just simply left it out of the door. Less work that way, less to cover up.

But with the stick gone you could make the argument that it would be easier for anyone to just break in (or walk in if she didn't lock the door).

[lorettalockhorn]

Let me get this straight. You think the blood from Nona's headwound would have absorbed into the carpet , but not soaked through the clothes he was wearing well enough to not be noticed even if turned around inside out? :shrug: That just doesn't make much sense to me. He wouldn't have gotten very far that way.

You all put a lot of stock in that stick being there. I have not heard any one confirm that it indeed existed, and if it did, what would be the need to get rid of it if it weren't used in the murder? If it was to allow himself a way back in, he could have just simply left it out of the door. Less work that way, less to cover up.

There is no reason to assume that KJ's clothes were soaked in blood, it would be simple enough to hide blood spatter by turning his clothing inside out.

Kevin himself is the one who introduced the idea of the stick. Why would he lie? Wouldn't he have simply omitted the existence of the stick if it didn't indeed exist? Isn't it possible that other friends or family have confirmed that it did exist? He took the stick so that it would appear that a stranger could gain entry into the locked apartment without a key.

[Lyndi5]

Does it appear likely that she let the person who killed her into the apartment?

[sololobo]

Does it appear likely that she let the person who killed her into the apartment?

Yes, more than likely Nona let the killer in. She probably answered the door, knew the killer and let him in or the killer forced his way in when she answered the door.

It is remotely possible the killer forced the sliding door open if the stick was already missing that day. Not very likely though. Why would the stick be missing before the murder and where was it?

It may be possible she left the door unlocked and the killer walked in. I doubt this though.

It is also possible the killer had a key and let himself in. There are only three keys known to exist, not counting the one the apartment complex management would have or keys past tenants might possess. Nona had a key, Jones had a key and Carol and Duane Dipert had a key. Nona would let any of them in so why would they need a key?

Yes, more than likely Nona let the killer in.

[sololobo]

imo.. this is EXACTLY how the turn of events unfolded It just all makes sense. And IIRC this was a first year going to the party for KJ. He wasn't a yearly guest, correct? it wasn't tradition for him to accompany mommy? All seems wayyyy to planned out for me. imo

I'm sure all those teachers watched Kevin grow up. I'm sure he was in most of their classes while attending school in Dover. They probably wanted to see him and he probably wanted to see them. I find nothing suspicious about this.

[Mishell1383]

I'm sure all those teachers watched Kevin grow up. I'm sure he was in most of their classes while attending school in Dover. They probably wanted to see him and he probably wanted to see them. I find nothing suspicious about this.
ya you could be right, but I don't know, it doesn't fit for me. imo.

[hOTwIREd]

Enjoy you 4th of July celebrations, everyone, and don't burn the Bar-B-que.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
No offense to you Hotwired.:D

None taken ;)

Don't feel too bad for Hotwired. I've heard they get more public holidays than we do! :)

With the holiday and all it feels like this should be Monday. Sure glad the trial is just several days away though. It's been a long haul for many. Praying that the jury's verdict is just and corresponds with the truth.

:rose:

You know, every morning when I get up I have to check to make sure it is not a holiday - it is so embarassing turning up to work on a Bank Holiday... j/k

As to July 4TH - I celebrate it for two reasons...

#1 As an example that people can get free of the yoke of the English Government (remember, the English are still paying those taxes your forefathers disapproved of! ).
#2 My very first day of full time employment was on a July 4TH - at a forensic science laboratory.

[lorettalockhorn]

Can you show me the link where Kevin actually talked about the stick being there? Aside from the PCS; I don't have a lot of faith in that.

No, I don't have a link; I don't believe that KJ has ever made a public statement? At any rate, your research faculties are probably as good or better than mine.

As for the PCS. Isn't it to be considered as a sworn statement? Aren't there recordings and videotapes of KJ's statements to LE? Why would LE lie about KJ saying that there was a stick if the PCS can be refuted? I personally take little stock in the stick being what stacks the deck against him. Maybe I'm just stuck. I just don't understand why he would have lied about the stick if it didn't exist. Or why it is such a bone of contention. Maybe witnesses will swear in court that the stick never existed, but that will make Kevin to seem like a bigger liar than he may be considered to be at this point.

[lorettalockhorn]

I totally get that there are pro-defense types here, but I'm wondering if they have a theory about the crime? Something that they could put forth for the purpose of discussion?

Are there people on the fence that feel that there is a fatal flaw in LE's theory? Several folks have stated that there are questions that will help them to decide more certainly about KJ's guilt, such as substantiation of Kevin's alibi.

It's not likely that the State is going to give details of the original six suspects at trial (at least not in my mind), does anyone out there have some ideas about why the other suspects should have been indicted?

[JR2007]

3 Days and counting
:rose: :rose: :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm sure all those teachers watched Kevin grow up. I'm sure he was in most of their classes while attending school in Dover. They probably wanted to see him and he probably wanted to see them. I find nothing suspicious about this.

That very well could be. For some reason, that he was to attend the party with mom niggles me. Maybe he went every year, maybe he was a special student, maybe there were several children at this party, maybe he was her frequent escort. Maybe it's not important at all! I do wonder where some of those teachers might be now when they could be here (for instance) shoring up Kevin's character. Not knowing him, I would like to learn more about why he couldn't have committed this heinous crime.

[jonikay]

The fact that the stick was not bracing the door upon discovery could be a very pertinent piece of information in regards to Nona's murder, KJ or not. If the stick was not there, someone, anyone could have opened the back sliding door to get in. Since there was no signs of forced entry into the apartment, it probably narrowed down the list of prospective suspects, with the RPD thinking to look towards Nona's friends, etc. for answers. If a stick was bracing the door and had been broken by the force used to open the door from the outside, RPD would have seen it, or pieces of it probably. If they would have seen signs of the stick that braced the door, they would have probably thought, "hmm . . . someone broke in to her apartment. Why would Nona's boyfriend break in to Nona's apartment if he had a key." If the stick would have been where it usually was, that would have given more reasonable doubt that KJ didn't do it, since he had the key. So IMO, the fact that the stick wasn't there could be very important.

[lorettalockhorn]

The fact that the stick was not bracing the door upon discovery could be a very pertinent piece of information in regards to Nona's murder, KJ or not. If the stick was not there, someone, anyone could have opened the back sliding door to get in. Since there was no signs of forced entry into the apartment, it probably narrowed down the list of prospective suspects, with the RPD thinking to look towards Nona's friends, etc. for answers. If a stick was bracing the door and had been broken by the force used to open the door from the outside, RPD would have seen it, or pieces of it probably. If they would have seen signs of the stick that braced the door, they would have probably thought, "hmm . . . someone broke in to her apartment. Why would Nona's boyfriend break in to Nona's apartment if he had a key." If the stick would have been where it usually was, that would have given more reasonable doubt that KJ didn't do it, since he had the key. So IMO, the fact that the stick wasn't there could be very important.

I agree that the stick is important, afterall Nona herself was using it as a form of security, albeit rudimentary. And I would suspect that at least one of the fifty or more people interviewed have confirmed to LE that there was a stick.

Kevin better hope so or he's gonna look like a liar.

Unless of course, Frost lied in the PCS.

[FDInLaw]

Have there been ANY official statements by ANYONE that has brought in to question the existence of the stick? I must have missed something. :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Have there been ANY official statements by ANYONE that has brought in to question the existence of the stick? I must have missed something. :shrug:

I only know that it was mentioned in the PCS that Kevin notified LE of its existence.

At this point, there is apparently a question about the truthfulness of the PCS. Maybe some legal type can tell us if the PCS is considered to be a true statement, similar to a statement made under oath? I guess I just have a problem believing that an officer of the court would include an untruth in a written statement, especially a statement that could later be impeached during the trial.

[FDInLaw]

No, I think just me. And, Lord knows I am no official. I was just curious is all.

It's good to question. I was just checking to make sure there was no "offical" reason to question. Thanks.

[lorettalockhorn]

So. Do any pro-defense types have a theory(ies) about the crime to put forth for discussion?