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

[sololobo]

That's a bit over-reaching, abusive, and broad if you consider everybody a suspect without any evidence. I guess you need to consider Nona's mother a suspect too since she had a key.

On the contrary, if it had been proven the killer used a key to gain access to Nona's apartment, and I don't know if that thought was even entertained, then anyone with a key would be suspect. Nona, Kevin, and the Diperts had keys. Also, I assume the apartment complex management had a key. Possibly, Nona may have given a key to someone else or someone may have had access to a key long enough to make a copy on the sly. And possibly, if the locks were not changed between tenants, any past tenant could have an extra key.

Anyone that was at the trial, was the theory the killer had a key mentioned in the trial?

[sololobo]

No, because it's pretty stupid to consider someone a suspect based on that alone.

The killer gained access to Nona's apartment. There was no signs of forced entry. Therefore, anyone with access to Nona's apartment is suspect until other facts clear them.

[sololobo]

I resemble that remark and I am pretty secure about myself! Seriously- what became obvious during the trial is many more men had access to Nona and her apartment than Jones-leaving the way open for serious reasonable doubt.

That's like saying that everybody that was ever within five feet of her is a reasonable suspect, and you know that doesn't work.

Christina said "access to Nona and her apartment" and that does work.

[christina]

You know, I hope that the jury didn't think that because Nona was enrolled in a coed school and involved in coed study groups, choir, etc., that that means that the entire male population had access to her. It's just not obvious to me; but then again, I wasn't in the courtroom.

(Hope that wasn't too hyperbolic.)


Ignoring your hyperbolic sarcasm yet again...... (had no idea I would be made a joke of because I chose to sit through the entire trial and chose to take time to post here in the evenings)
The prosecution made a big point in the beginning of the trial to point out that Nona was serious about security, specifically in her apartment. They called one witness just for that purpose(her old room mate) and asked several others a question about her view of security. Examples- the music classmate driving in from Springdale who "had to call her" before she would let him in. He arrived between 2-3 in the morning, he had to call to wake her up. Sara Bailey said she "had to call" when she arrived to pick Nona up to go somewhere with her. These examples did not shore up the point the prosecution was trying ot make. Yes, no one broke in to attack her, but it is not hard to believe she opened the door for someone to come in. And she had more than Jones that she opened the door for.

[christina]

And therein is the kicker. KJ could have terminated the interview at any time (or asked for counsel to be present). He was not under arrest at the time (or detained). He could have said "thats it" and they would have had to let him go (or arrest him). Since he didnt this discussion is purely academic.

A lot of what is done is by perception. A lot of times people are questioned without being arrested and the answers they give can (and usually are) used against them. The locked door was probably as ox said, to keep him from wondering out before they were done with him however it would have had a pretty good psychological effect on him as well (many do not know that they can cancel the interview and leave (provided they are not under arrest) at any time for any reason).

Just my .02

That is a point the defense team made-Jones never did either because he was not guilty and wanted to help the police.

[christina]

Exactly. I don't get how he could watch so much CSI or L&O or whatever without knowing that he could leave at any time and that he probably should have an attorney. I believe that he was mirandized, at that time it would have been clearly stated that anything that he said could be used against him in a court of law. Maybe he didn't receive Miranda until later. That would be something that the attorneys could kick about, or someone could call the ACLU about.

You were on a sarcasm role last night Loretta..........
That is a good example of a statement in the PCS being misleading. Jones never said that. Office Edgin tesitified-when told he would have to be patted down before he could ride in the squad car to the station, Jones said he kenw becasue he had watched Law & Order (or CSI I think Jonikay heard).
No one ever testified he watched "so much" or "lots" or "all the time" as has been reported.

[christina]

Not to get off topic (it really does pertain to this): (and before anyone ask's at this time; I am not a lawyer or associated with the Criminal Justice system in any way).

I have taken several law courses throughout the past couple of years and the application of miranda is not quite as you see it on tv. I have been surprised by how it is applied.

In 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture" (Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given.

This is from a wikipedia article on the subject however there are some other interesting cases that I have gone through which limits the scope of miranda (I can find the cases but it will take a bit of time to go through notes and whatnot).

Just thought I would add this in for those who were interested.

Thanks, this helps. Custodial is a key word to me. If I remember correctly Jones was read the Miranda warning during his voluntary interview.
I didn't think to go to the Supreme Court site and search.

[christina]

On the contrary, if it had been proven the killer used a key to gain access to Nona's apartment, and I don't know if that thought was even entertained, then anyone with a key would be suspect. Nona, Kevin, and the Diperts had keys. Also, I assume the apartment complex management had a key. Possibly, Nona may have given a key to someone else or someone may have had access to a key long enough to make a copy on the sly. And possibly, if the locks were not changed between tenants, any past tenant could have an extra key.

Anyone that was at the trial, was the theory the killer had a key mentioned in the trial?

The prosecution said only 3 people had keys. Like you have pointed out though, how would they be able to prove that. They wouldn't. The defense showed pictures of her door jam being split and called a couple of witnesses to say they had not seen it that way prior to the 15th.
But from then on there was no mention, it seemed like they all leaned towards the strong possiblity she knew her killer and allowed them in.

[lorettalockhorn]

Ignoring your hyperbolic sarcasm yet again...... (had no idea I would be made a joke of because I chose to sit through the entire trial and chose to take time to post here in the evenings)
The prosecution made a big point in the beginning of the trial to point out that Nona was serious about security, specifically in her apartment. They called one witness just for that purpose(her old room mate) and asked several others a question about her view of security. Examples- the music classmate driving in from Springdale who "had to call her" before she would let him in. He arrived between 2-3 in the morning, he had to call to wake her up. Sara Bailey said she "had to call" when she arrived to pick Nona up to go somewhere with her. These examples did not shore up the point the prosecution was trying ot make. Yes, no one broke in to attack her, but it is not hard to believe she opened the door for someone to come in. And she had more than Jones that she opened the door for.

You know, it amuses me how you from time to time post that you are ignoring sarcasm or whatever, because I'm not sure how making note of it, is actually ignoring it. Yes, I do remember that you posted here that Nona opened the door for the neighbor who came to inquire about her cat, that is not exactly proof to me that she had an open door policy to every Tom, Dick and Harry that came through the apartment complex or her classes or whatever. I for one, did appreciate your insight into the trial until there were discrepancies in what you posted. I also know that you and SusieQ labored to malign Nona's reputation while defending KJ's.

You and I simply have a very different view of how the trial progressed, how the jury performed and what the "truth" is, (as well as what actually constitutes hyperbole).

Just because I didn't attend the trial doesn't mean that I do not or cannot have an opinion to express. No one's opinion here is any more valuable than anyone else's, although some make much more sense and are less biased sounding to me. There were other people in the courtroom, I value their insight.

[oxfordwebster]

The prosecution said only 3 people had keys. Like you have pointed out though, how would they be able to prove that. They wouldn't.Just like you can't prove that she was letting people inside of her apartment all willy nilly. Nona's apartment must have been a 24/7 party by how you and the defense made it sound.

[hawgustusgloop]

Just like you can't prove that she was letting people inside of her apartment all willy nilly. Nona's apartment must have been a 24/7 party by how you and the defense made it sound.

Also, didn't Nona have a former roommate that testified that Nona was security conscious to the point it annoyed her (the roommate) at times? Wasn't it something about Nona locking her out when she just went to take out the trash?

[lorettalockhorn]

Also, didn't Nona have a former roommate that testified that Nona was security conscious to the point it annoyed her (the roommate) at times? Wasn't it something about Nona locking her out when she just went to take out the trash?

True, I had forgotten that Nona's rommie from her apartment on Elmira had testified. It looks like the apartment manager would have been asked about whether or not the locks had been changed. Christina posted that there was a registered sex offender (cannot remember what she said his name is) who was a tenant or a roommate at the apartments. Looks like the defense would have been all over that.

[christina]

You know, it amuses me how you from time to time post that you are ignoring sarcasm or whatever, because I'm not sure how making note of it, is actually ignoring it. Yes, I do remember that you posted here that Nona opened the door for the neighbor who came to inquire about her cat, that is not exactly proof to me that she had an open door policy to every Tom, Dick and Harry that came through the apartment complex or her classes or whatever. I for one, did appreciate your insight into the trial until there were discrepancies in what you posted. I also know that you and SusieQ labored to malign Nona's reputation while defending KJ's.
You and I simply have a very different view of how the trial progressed, how the jury performed and what the "truth" is, (as well as what actually constitutes hyperbole).

Just because I didn't attend the trial doesn't mean that I do not or cannot have an opinion to express. No one's opinion here is any more valuable than anyone else's, although some make much more sense and are less biased sounding to me. There were other people in the courtroom, I value their insight.

That is completely not true. I never labored to malign anyone!

I agree, we are all equal in the ability to have/hold an opinion. Where I disagree with you on this is that some have been more open about their biases up front. I appreciate that.

The only people that have posted on here that have said they were in the courtroom are Ms Q, me and the person from Ozark that got banned. Is there some else I am missing? And you have made it abundantly obvious my insight is not one you value.

[christina]

Gee, that seems uncalled for. Wonder what brought that on?

You have no less than a dozen times brought up the need to have a lawyer present anytime one is questioned by police. I am now a convert and this was my sad attempt at humor again.

[oxfordwebster]

Also, didn't Nona have a former roommate that testified that Nona was security conscious to the point it annoyed her (the roommate) at times? Wasn't it something about Nona locking her out when she just went to take out the trash?Yeah. I'm much more apt to believe people who lived with Nona and would actually know her habits, rather than believe the defense's one witness who saw a situation where no one understands the context.

[christina]

True, I had forgotten that Nona's rommie from her apartment on Elmira had testified. It looks like the apartment manager would have been asked about whether or not the locks had been changed. Christina posted that there was a registered sex offender (cannot remember what she said his name is) who was a tenant or a roommate at the apartments. Looks like the defense would have been all over that.

The apartment manager did testify to the security of the apartments.

[christina]

Also, didn't Nona have a former roommate that testified that Nona was security conscious to the point it annoyed her (the roommate) at times? Wasn't it something about Nona locking her out when she just went to take out the trash?

Yes, a former female room mate testified to that.

[lorettalockhorn]

That is completely not true. I never labored to malign anyone!

I agree, we are all equal in the ability to have/hold an opinion. Where I disagree with you on this is that some have been more open about their biases up front. I appreciate that.

The only people that have posted on here that have said they were in the courtroom are Ms Q, me and the person from Ozark that got banned. Is there some else I am missing? And you have made it abundantly obvious my insight is not one you value.

I was referring to one of your first comments about Nona and that you have said for instance, that two boys testified that they slept with her, along with your inferences that she along with her apartment was accessible.

IIRC, jonikay and upallnight were in court and were kind enough to give firsthand reports. (I believe there was one other poster who had attended the trial at some point.) There have been reports that differed from yours, making it difficult to determine what was what.

Some of your insight, I value.

[christina]

I was referring to one of your first comments about Nona and that you have said for instance, that two boys testified that they slept with her, along with your inferences that she along with her apartment was accessible.
IIRC, jonikay and upallnight were in court and were kind enough to give firsthand reports. (I believe there was one other poster who had attended the trial at some point.) There have been reports that differed from yours, making it difficult to determine what was what.

Some of your insight, I value.

I can appreciate why you would see this as negative but to characterize me as "laboring to malign Nona", I draw the line of civilty there. I reported what was testified to about what the boys said in court. I felt sick for her mother having to hear these things from the witness stand. I know you do not know me, and therfore cannot judge/understand my motives. All I can do is just tell you I do not have anything but sympathy and grief for Nona and her family.
And my comments about access to her and her apartment, you are taking it out of context. I was debating the idea that she was into security to the point that she would not have allowed anyone in so therefore someone with a key had to be the killer.

I was unaware upallnight or any other poster was there.

But obviously not my attempts at humor!

[oxfordwebster]

I was unaware upallnight or any other poster was there.I'm pretty sure I've actually watched you discuss details of the court trial with jonikay on this very forum. Now I want to dig up old posts just to see how you could possibly think this.

[lorettalockhorn]

I can appreciate why you would see this as negative but to characterize me as "laboring to malign Nona", I draw the line of civilty there. I reported what was testified to about what the boys said in court. I felt sick for her mother having to hear these things from the witness stand. I know you do not know me, and therfore cannot judge/understand my motives. All I can do is just tell you I do not have anything but sympathy and grief for Nona and her family.
And my comments about access to her and her apartment, you are taking it out of context. I was debating the idea that she was into security to the point that she would not have allowed anyone in so therefore someone with a key had to be the killer.

I was unaware upallnight or any other poster was there.

But obviously not my attempts at humor!

You are correct that I do not understand your motives, or humor for that matter.

Please remind us again, who were the two boys who testified as to having had sex with Nona?

[hawgustusgloop]

>snip<
I was unaware upallnight or any other poster was there.




So you got the opportunity to enjoy those hard courtroom pews as well!


This is the post (#5783) where you responded to upallnight's post, where upallnight agrees with jonikay about NOT hearing Jordan Harris testify to oral sex with Nona in a music room at Tech as you claim to have heard.

[lorettalockhorn]

You have no less than a dozen times brought up the need to have a lawyer present anytime one is questioned by police. I am now a convert and this was my sad attempt at humor again.

Well, I'm too lazy to go back and count; I'll take your word for it.

It has been brought up by others as well, due to the fact that you found York's allegedly having a lawyer with him for his interview to be suspicious.

[partyharty]

Just like you can't prove that she was letting people inside of her apartment all willy nilly. Nona's apartment must have been a 24/7 party by how you and the defense made it sound.

Oxford once again taking it to the extreme
Noone has discussed any all day keggers at nona's.
:beer:

I have always thought this was an attempt by the prosecution to kind of hide the issue.

Why do I say this (glad you asked).:D

Both the prosecution and the defense argued that the killer was someone she knew. So the question is, would she open the door to someone she knew? The answer is probably yes (hense the neighbors testimony that she opened the door).

This would put at ease the issue of who had keys (because if she knew the person then she would have (probably) opened the door anyways.

Her former roomate could have simply been asked if she had ever seen Nona opening the door to someone she knew (without the call ahead). Was she asked this by either the prosecution or the defense?

[lorettalockhorn]

Oxford once again taking it to the extreme
Noone has discussed any all day keggers at nona's.
:beer:

I have always thought this was an attempt by the prosecution to kind of hide the issue.

Why do I say this (glad you asked).:D

Both the prosecution and the defense argued that the killer was someone she knew. So the question is, would she open the door to someone she knew? The answer is probably yes (hense the neighbors testimony that she opened the door).

This would put at ease the issue of who had keys (because if she knew the person then she would have (probably) opened the door anyways.

Her former roomate could have simply been asked if she had ever seen Nona opening the door to someone she knew (without the call ahead). Was she asked this by either the prosecution or the defense?

I'm guessing that someone from the other side of the courtroom would have objected on the grounds that the roommate wouldn't know whether or not the visitor(s) had actually called ahead.

[christina]

This is the post (#5783) where you responded to upallnight's post, where upallnight agrees with jonikay about NOT hearing Jordan Harris testify to oral sex with Nona in a music room at Tech as you claim to have heard.

Thank you for the reminder. I had obvioulsy forgotten.

[christina]

Well, I'm too lazy to go back and count; I'll take your word for it.

It has been brought up by others as well, due to the fact that you found York's allegedly having a lawyer with him for his interview to be suspicious.

Yep, I did(past tense). After thought and research, some due to your comments on the subject, I have come around to seeing how important this can be. Now to just find a lawyer I like and can trust.......... (surely you get this humor?!)

[christina]

You are correct that I do not understand your motives, or humor for that matter.

Please remind us again, who were the two boys who testified as to having had sex with Nona?

Can I take that as an apology then for characterizing me as "laboring to malign Nona"?

[partyharty]

I'm guessing that someone from the other side of the courtroom would have objected on the grounds that the roommate wouldn't know whether or not the visitor(s) had actually called ahead.

When I had a roommate (granted it has been a long time) we usually told one another when we had someone coming over (hey I have XX coming over). It would have been simple to work that question around the objection.

To the best of your knowledge have you ever seen anyone come over without hearing the telephone ring first :>

(of course this was also before cellphones were the norm so we would actually hear the phone ring (no silent mode)).

[hawgustusgloop]

This is an old post from January 15, 2007:

I understand how the Whitesides and friends could feel somewhat "pulled through the mud," but you have to remember that the company their son is keeping is going to make everything a bit more magnified. For lack of a better saying, "If you run with dogs, you are going to get fleas." This probably would have been reported regardless of the people involved, but due to the circumstances and people involved it is definitely more sensational.

In my opinion this whole "they are out to get me" attitude that many seem to be taking on Kevin's side is getting really old.

Here was Christina's response:

Can we assume you inlcude Ms Dirksmeyer and the young female who attended the party and then accused someone of rape later in your "wise quip" about dogs?

This post was from the same month Christina registered. At the time, it elicited some angry responses from other posters. Again, I can't speak for lorettalockhorn, but I would imagine this is the early comment she has referenced before, because it has certainly stuck in my memory.

[christina]

This is an old post from January 15, 2007:



Here was Christina's response:



This post was from the same month Christina registered. At the time, it elicited some angry responses from other posters. Again, I can't speak for lorettalockhorn, but I would imagine this is the early comment she has referenced before, because it has certainly stuck in my memory.

Yes, I remember that and again, out of context. I was very upset for the Whitesides at the time. I was pointing out that many posters were characterizing Jones very horribly, partly based on who he hung out with and being present at that party. Since he was Nona's fiance', they were dragging Nona through that characterization as well.

[lorettalockhorn]

When I had a roommate (granted it has been a long time) we usually told one another when we had someone coming over (hey I have XX coming over). It would have been simple to work that question around the objection.

To the best of your knowledge have you ever seen anyone come over without hearing the telephone ring first :>

(of course this was also before cellphones were the norm so we would actually hear the phone ring (no silent mode)).

I get your point; I just think that it would be pretty easily refuted. For instance, even if Nona had never at any other time opened the door to someone who didn't call first, and it could be proven, I'm not in the least surprised that she did open it for a known neighbor who was there to inquire about her beloved kitty babies. And that would be exactly the objection that I would make.

[lorettalockhorn]

Yes, I remember that and again, out of context. I was very upset for the Whitesides at the time. I was pointing out that many posters were characterizing Jones very horribly, partly based on who he hung out with and being present at that party. Since he was Nona's fiance', they were dragging Nona through that characterization as well.

Man, I've give LLN for Vol Girl to come back and explain whether or not she was besmirching Nona. (To the best of my knowledge, Nona did not party with KJ's hooligan crowd.) I honestly don't remember anyone taking it that way.

[hawgustusgloop]

Yes, I remember that and again, out of context. I was very upset for the Whitesides at the time. I was pointing out that many posters were characterizing Jones very horribly, partly based on who he hung out with and being present at that party. Since he was Nona's fiance', they were dragging Nona through that characterization as well.

IMO this is not out of context (at least, in a misleading way) at all. I purposely included VolGirl's post in order to place it in the proper context. If anyone would like to check, it is all on Page 30 of this thread. I stand by the opinion that this post was quoted in a proper context.

[christina]

IMO this is not out of context (at least, in a misleading way) at all. I purposely included VolGirl's post in order to place it in the proper context. If anyone would like to check, it is all on Page 30 of this thread. I stand by the opinion that this post was quoted in a proper context.

I respectfully disagree. I went back and read through the January posts. That was the good old days when lemmoncello/Janie was posting.

[partyharty]

I get your point; I just think that it would be pretty easily refuted. For instance, even if Nona had never at any other time opened the door to someone who didn't call first, and it could be proven, I'm not in the least surprised that she did open it for a known neighbor who was there to inquire about her beloved kitty babies. And that would be exactly the objection that I would make.

Actually that is precisely the point I was trying to make. If, as both the prosecutor and the defense claimed, the killer was a person she knew then she would have opened the door. She opened the door to a neighbor (I am unaware if this was a "known" neighbor or not), to talk about her beloved kitty babies, is it crazy to think that she would open the door to a friend to talk about this or another subject?

If so this would render the question of who had keys moot.

[lorettalockhorn]

Actually that is precisely the point I was trying to make. If, as both the prosecutor and the defense claimed, the killer was a person she knew then she would have opened the door. She opened the door to a neighbor (I am unaware if this was a "known" neighbor or not), to talk about her beloved kitty babies, is it crazy to think that she would open the door to a friend to talk about this or another subject?

If so this would render the question of who had keys moot.

I don't think Nona opening the door to the one particular neighbor really says yea or nay that she was or wasn't security conscious.

CDipert stated after the verdict that there were only three known keys in existence, but she never testified to why she believes that so wholeheartedly. Don't know if Nona told her that, if the keys were stamped "Do Not Copy" or why, but she does seem to believe that to be a fact.

I believe the neighbor that testified that she had opened the door, remarked that the door frame wasn't damaged at the time, as did others, so I'm not sure what the timeline was for the damage to have occurred. Surely not when KJ was trying to "card" or force his way in when Nona didn't answer that evening. I'll admit that it was hard for me to picture how much damage there was or if it was truly indicative that someone had tried to break in.

[christina]

Actually that is precisely the point I was trying to make. If, as both the prosecutor and the defense claimed, the killer was a person she knew then she would have opened the door. She opened the door to a neighbor (I am unaware if this was a "known" neighbor or not), to talk about her beloved kitty babies, is it crazy to think that she would open the door to a friend to talk about this or another subject?

If so this would render the question of who had keys moot.


And in court, it did. It was a red herring thrown up by the prosecution.

[sololobo]

I'm really having problems reconciling this board's vicious depictions of Kevin being a heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopath to Nona's assessment of him that very morning, "cuddlemuffin". I am inclined to believe Nona knew him better than any of us.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm really having problems reconciling this board's vicious depictions of Kevin being a heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopath to Nona's assessment of him that very morning, "cuddlemuffin". I am inclined to believe Nona knew him better than any of us.


I haven't really seen any vicious depictions, most of what is known about his drug and alcohol use is by his own admission. I'm inclined to think that Nona didn't know him as well as she thinks that she did. Just a different perception, I suppose.

I would classify him as a narcissist, rather than a sociopath. But that's just my armchair diagnosis.

[oxfordwebster]

I'm really having problems reconciling this board's vicious depictions of Kevin being a heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopath to Nona's assessment of him that very morning, "cuddlemuffin". I am inclined to believe Nona knew him better than any of us.A throwaway pet name is an assessment?

[sololobo]

A throwaway pet name is an assessment?

Indeed it is.

[christina]

I'm really having problems reconciling this board's vicious depictions of Kevin being a heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopath to Nona's assessment of him that very morning, "cuddlemuffin". I am inclined to believe Nona knew him better than any of us.

Intelligent thought here. The whole message I believe was 'Good Morning cuddlemuffin, I love you, hope you have a good day'.
One point is that this suggested she was aware they might not see each other til much later in the day- thus he did not get concerned until the afternoon.

[oxfordwebster]

Intelligent thought here. The whole message I believe was 'Good Morning cuddlemuffin, I love you, hope you have a good day'.
One point is that this suggested she was aware they might not see each other til much later in the day- thus he did not get concerned until the afternoon.I'd follow that if it said "hope you have a good day, can't wait to see you later" or any other variation where it would actually make what you're saying make sense. This also doesn't jive with her known plans, such as tests and her plans with her little, so I'm not following your logic on this at all.

[TJEddie]

I'm really having problems reconciling this board's vicious depictions of Kevin being a heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopath to Nona's assessment of him that very morning, "cuddlemuffin". I am inclined to believe Nona knew him better than any of us.

Well, obviously she just didn't have time to type in "heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopathic cuddlemuffin." Or wait.....maybe cuddlemuffin is really an acronym for "crazy, unfaithful, demented, dopehead, etc. etc. (/sarcasm)

Ok, on a more serious note.....according to the prosecution's motive theory, within hours or even minutes of texting that loving "cuddlemuffin" message to Kevin, Nona was engaged in condom-optional behavior with another man. As far as maligning Nona's reputation, I think discussions about Nona's security habits are pretty mild compared to that.

[christina]

I'd follow that if it said "hope you have a good day, can't wait to see you later" or any other variation where it would actually make what you're saying make sense. This also doesn't jive with her known plans, such as tests and her plans with her little, so I'm not following your logic on this at all.

Exactly, they had been together the night before and I would guess talked about their plans for the next day. She was going to be busy well into the late afternoon/early evening. Therefore, it did not make sense to me for the prosecutor in the opening and closing statement to use this text as a way to make Jones look bad for not returning it. It also explains/negates the constantly asked question- if Jones was so concerned why didn't he call or go over there sooner.

[hawgustusgloop]

I respectfully disagree. I went back and read through the January posts. That was the good old days when lemmoncello/Janie was posting.

This is an excellent example of deflection IMO.

[oxfordwebster]

according to the prosecution's motive theory, within hours or even minutes of texting that loving "cuddlemuffin" message to Kevin, Nona was engaged in condom-optional behavior with another man.Source this.

[christina]

Well, obviously she just didn't have time to type in "heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopathic cuddlemuffin." Or wait.....maybe cuddlemuffin is really an acronym for "crazy, unfaithful, demented, dopehead, etc. etc. (/sarcasm)

Ok, on a more serious note.....according to the prosecution's motive theory, within hours or even minutes of texting that loving "cuddlemuffin" message to Kevin, Nona was engaged in condom-optional behavior with another man. As far as maligning Nona's reputation, I think discussions about Nona's security habits are pretty mild compared to that.

The text was sent around 9, not opened until 9:30. In the closing statements the prosecution said the murder was at 11:05(they disregarded the grandmother's testimony of seeing Jones at 11:30). York's text came in at 11:05, was opened but not responded to.

[oxfordwebster]

Exactly, they had been together the night before and I would guess talked about their plans for the next day. She was going to be busy well into the late afternoon/early evening. Therefore, it did not make sense to me for the prosecutor in the opening and closing statement to use this text as a way to make Jones look bad for not returning it. It also explains/negates the constantly asked question- if Jones was so concerned why didn't he call or go over there sooner.It doesn't explain/negate anything. He didn't go over there sooner because he wasn't legitimately concerned. His feigned concern is pretty odd considering what her plans were, which has been one of the reasons his behavior has been so scrutinized.

[christina]

This is an excellent example of deflection IMO.

Not at all. What am I deflecting? I re read through that week and the prior week's posts and stand by my assertion that my intent was to show that when maligning Jones by friend association, you do the same to Nona as they were finace's.

[oxfordwebster]

In the closing statements the prosecution said the murder was at 11:05(they disregarded the grandmother's testimony of seeing Jones at 11:30)Even not disregarding her testimony, a five-minute murder with a hasty retreat would have still given him enough time to make it to that gas station, which is on the outskirts of Dover to the south. He could have easily seen her roughly between 11:30-11:40, because I doubt she knew the exact time she saw him.

But, for the record, I think grandma was full of it.

[christina]

It doesn't explain/negate anything. He didn't go over there sooner because he wasn't legitimately concerned. His feigned concern is pretty odd considering what her plans were, which has been one of the reasons his behavior has been so scrutinized.

And you know this how?

[lorettalockhorn]

Well, obviously she just didn't have time to type in "heinous drug crazed, alcoholic, hedonistic, murderous sociopathic cuddlemuffin." Or wait.....maybe cuddlemuffin is really an acronym for "crazy, unfaithful, demented, dopehead, etc. etc. (/sarcasm)

Ok, on a more serious note.....according to the prosecution's motive theory, within hours or even minutes of texting that loving "cuddlemuffin" message to Kevin, Nona was engaged in condom-optional behavior with another man. As far as maligning Nona's reputation, I think discussions about Nona's security habits are pretty mild compared to that.

She was? And if she was, how do we know that it wasn't KJ? He's already been proven to be a liar. At least in my book. Maybe the DNA on the condom wrapper belonged to the guy who sold Kev the condom. It was stipulated that he had a sexual relationship outside of his very, very exclusive relationship with Nona with at least one other woman.

(Still waiting to hear who the two boys are that testified to having sex with Nona.)

[lorettalockhorn]

This is an excellent example of deflection IMO.

I'm still wondering what lemoncello/JG has to do with the this.

[oxfordwebster]

And you know this how?Well, if you read past the parts you bolded, you might be enlightened!

He knew what she was supposed to be up to, and that made his "concern" look very suspicious.

Now, why would he be concerned if he knew she was busy that day? It's almost as if Kevin knew that her plans had changed for one reason or another.

[oxfordwebster]

She was? And if she was, how do we know that it wasn't KJ? He's already been proven to be a liar. At least in my book. Maybe the DNA on the condom wrapper belonged to the guy who sold Kev the condom. It was stipulated that he had a sexual relationship outside of his very, very exclusive relationship with Nona with at least one other woman.Two, wasn't it? I thought the girl that they wanted to put on the stand was a different one than one he admitted to at a different time, or however that sequence worked out.

[christina]

Even not disregarding her testimony, a five-minute murder with a hasty retreat would have still given him enough time to make it to that gas station, which is on the outskirts of Dover to the south. He could have easily seen her roughly between 11:30-11:40, because I doubt she knew the exact time she saw him.

But, for the record, I think grandma was full of it.

I think a witnesses' believabilty can be seen/judged by the jury as they watch/listen to them.

[christina]

Well, if you read past the parts you bolded, you might be enlightened!
He knew what she was supposed to be up to, and that made his "concern" look very suspicious.

Now, why would he be concerned if he knew she was busy that day? It's almost as if Kevin knew that her plans had changed for one reason or another.

That is rude. I did read all over your post. Sorry though, I do not follow your logic.

[christina]

I'm still wondering what lemoncello/JG has to do with the this.

Both were posting during the time period Hawg had me look up/refer to. "They" were stirring things up about the trial and the false rape complaint. Lemoncello, as we know now was lieing about being a victim herself. I had forgotten that until he encouraged me go back and read that time period.

[TJEddie]

She was? And if she was, how do we know that it wasn't KJ? He's already been proven to be a liar. At least in my book. Maybe the DNA on the condom wrapper belonged to the guy who sold Kev the condom. It was stipulated that he had a sexual relationship outside of his very, very exclusive relationship with Nona with at least one other woman.

(Still waiting to hear who the two boys are that testified to having sex with Nona.)

If the condom wrapper was from having sex with Kevin, why would it have triggered him into a jealous, homicidal rage? Notice I referenced the prosecution's motive theory.

[lorettalockhorn]

Well, if you read past the parts you bolded, you might be enlightened!

He knew what she was supposed to be up to, and that made his "concern" look very suspicious.

Now, why would he be concerned if he knew she was busy that day? It's almost as if Kevin knew that her plans had changed for one reason or another.


Didn't KJ tell LE that Nona had cancelled her dinner plans with the Little? Maybe he was projecting somehow that he knew that Nona wasn't going to be available that evening.

Because I find it hard to believe that the Little lied on the witness stand.

[oxfordwebster]

I think a witnesses' believabilty can be seen/judged by the jury as they watch/listen to them.Well, that ignores the meat of the post, but thanks for telling me this?

Kevin originally said he went straight to the gas station at noon and talked to Blake Walters. I'm going to wonder how until the day I die how he was able to completely change up his timeline for the courtroom and get away with it.

[christina]

She was? And if she was, how do we know that it wasn't KJ? He's already been proven to be a liar. At least in my book. Maybe the DNA on the condom wrapper belonged to the guy who sold Kev the condom. It was stipulated that he had a sexual relationship outside of his very, very exclusive relationship with Nona with at least one other woman.

(Still waiting to hear who the two boys are that testified to having sex with Nona.)

Sorry, I got side tracked. Sara Bailey testified that Nona told her she had sex with someone to get back at Jones for going out with a girl (in Fayettville?) And Jordan Harris,the music major guy testified. York said he spent the night over there once they only kissed but did not have sex. After hearing the rest of the testimony, that became suspect in my mind.

[lorettalockhorn]

Both were posting during the time period Hawg had me look up/refer to. "They" were stirring things up about the trial and the false rape complaint. Lemoncello, as we know now was lieing about being a victim herself. I had forgotten that until he encouraged me go back and read that time period.

What I mean is, I don't see what lemoncello's or JG's posts have to do with Vol's post re: the old adage about dogs and fleas. And I honestly thought that it had been ascertained that Nona didn't party with KJ's party friends. So I'm still missing the boat on how you inferring that Nona was one of Kevin's dogs makes sense.

[oxfordwebster]

Sorry, I got side tracked. Sara Bailey testified that Nona told her she had sex with someone to get back at Jones for going out with a girl (in Fayettville?)Could you source this? I can't find it in anything on Sara Bailey.

York said he spent the night over there once they only kissed but did not have sex. After hearing the rest of the testimony, that became suspect in my mind.From everything I've heard about him, I can see him being the awkward, nerdy type. I don't know why this wouldn't be believable. I don't know many awkward, nerdy types that are secretly Rico Suave.

[lorettalockhorn]

Sorry, I got side tracked. Sara Bailey testified that Nona told her she had sex with someone to get back at Jones for going out with a girl (in Fayettville?) And Jordan Harris,the music major guy testified. York said he spent the night over there once they only kissed but did not have sex. After hearing the rest of the testimony, that became suspect in my mind.


hmmm How did she know that? Did she see Nona having sex with ? Does she know that it wasn't Jordan Harris?

Sorry for the confusion, I thought that you had posted a couple of times that two boys testified that they had sex with Nona.

[christina]

What I mean is, I don't see what lemoncello's or JG's posts have to do with Vol's post re: the old adage about dogs and fleas. And I honestly thought that it had been ascertained that Nona didn't party with KJ's party friends. So I'm still missing the boat on how you inferring that Nona was one of Kevin's dogs makes sense.

Ok, sorry I don't know how to explain any further to help you understand

[christina]

Could you source this? I can't find it in anything on Sara Bailey.

From everything I've heard about him, I can see him being the awkward, nerdy type. I don't know why this wouldn't be believable. I don't know many awkward, nerdy types that are secretly Rico Suave.

Only source I have is what I heard in her testimony, I remember being surprised it was not objected to as heresay.
Anyone else that was there jump in with your memory.

[christina]

If the condom wrapper was from having sex with Kevin, why would it have triggered him into a jealous, homicidal rage? Notice I referenced the prosecution's motive theory.

The prosecution flip flopped on what they believed the wrapper meant. First it was planted during the time Jones supposedly staged the scene. Then it was the trigger. Did they ever once stop and think maybe someone else was in the apartment that morning and that person did it?

[oxfordwebster]

The prosecution flip flopped on what they believed the wrapper meant. First it was planted during the time Jones supposedly staged the scene. Then it was the trigger. Did they ever once stop and think maybe someone else was in the apartment that morning and that person did it?Did the prosecution present the case to the jury as the condom wrapper being staged and not a trigger, thus flip-flopping in front of the jury?

[lorettalockhorn]

If the condom wrapper was from having sex with Kevin, why would it have triggered him into a jealous, homicidal rage? Notice I referenced the prosecution's motive theory.

One of them at any rate. I have a tendency to think that the wrapper was planted rather than a trigger, but that's just me.

[christina]

Did the prosecution present the case to the jury as the condom wrapper being staged and not a trigger, thus flip-flopping in front of the jury?

Yes, their expert witness, Bevel, stated the wrapper was part of the staging of the crime scene- reason was it should have been closer to the body if it was a sex crime.
In the closing arguments Gibbons said it was the trigger.

[hawgustusgloop]

Not at all. What am I deflecting? I re read through that week and the prior week's posts and stand by my assertion that my intent was to show that when maligning Jones by friend association, you do the same to Nona as they were finace's.

I ask you once again to please show me the courtesy of not putting words into my mouth. The inflammatory post you made was in response to VolGirl's post, not mine. Also, I think the issue of whether or not the were engaged, or "fiance's," as you put it, is certainly debatable.

[christina]

I ask you once again to please show me the courtesy of not putting words into my mouth. The inflammatory post you made was in response to VolGirl's post, not mine. Also, I think the issue of whether or not the were engaged, or "fiance's," as you put it, is certainly debatable.

The you used here is meant universally, as in one.


That is a rude characterization.


Agree that is debateable. I am going on what Nona's mother stated.

[partyharty]

That is rude. I did read all over your post. Sorry though, I do not follow your logic.

Your not the only one. I am trying to follow his logic as well and I am somewhat lost. I am guessing (just a guess) that he is saying b/c Kevin knew her plans (which is guessword in itself) he should not have been concerned that she didnt get back with him.

The only problem with that is we dont know if the plans had changed.

[TJEddie]

The prosecution flip flopped on what they believed the wrapper meant. First it was planted during the time Jones supposedly staged the scene. Then it was the trigger. Did they ever once stop and think maybe someone else was in the apartment that morning and that person did it?

In all of my reading, I have never once seen the argument that Kevin was the only one there that morning.....or the only one with access. In fact, the "condom as trigger" motive clearly implies to me that they believe someone else was indeed there. As to why that person was/is not considered a suspect, I can only assume that all possibles were checked out and discarded.....for whatever reasons.

[oxfordwebster]

Yes, their expert witness, Bevel, stated the wrapper was part of the staging of the crime scene- reason was it should have been closer to the body if it was a sex crime.
In the closing arguments Gibbons said it was the trigger.What testimony claimed the condom wrapper as a trigger?

[christina]

Two, wasn't it? I thought the girl that they wanted to put on the stand was a different one than one he admitted to at a different time, or however that sequence worked out.

The discussion in the courtroom by the lawyers(with the jury gone) was that she was the same girl but simply testifying they had sex more than once.

[christina]

What testimony claimed the condom wrapper as a trigger?

None that I remember, Gibbons said it in his closing arguments.

[oxfordwebster]

The discussion in the courtroom by the lawyers(with the jury gone) was that she was the same girl but simply testifying they had sex more than once.So, what about Whiteside's knowledge of "times" that Kevin has been with other people? Still the same girl?

[oxfordwebster]

None that I remember, Gibbons said it in his closing arguments.Is it possible that yes, the condom was a trigger but it was then arranged? I don't see how it's a flip-flop when the two situations aren't exclusive of each other.

[christina]

In all of my reading, I have never once seen the argument that Kevin was the only one there that morning.....or the only one with access. In fact, the "condom as trigger" motive clearly implies to me that they believe someone else was indeed there. As to why that person was/is not considered a suspect, I can only assume that all possibles were checked out and discarded.....for whatever reasons.

The suggestion was made by the prosecution that the condom could have been placed there prior to the 15th and Jones simply did not see it the night before when he was there.

[christina]

So, what about Whiteside's knowledge of "times" that Kevin has been with other people? Still the same girl?

Don't know the answer, prosecution did not follow up on Whiteside making that statement.

[hawgustusgloop]

The you used here is meant universally, as in one.


That is a rude characterization.


Agree that is debateable. I am going on what Nona's mother stated.

What is a rude characterization? If you are referring to me describing your post as inflammatory, that is because it generated a lot of angry responses.

[christina]

Is it possible that yes, the condom was a trigger but it was then arranged? I don't see how it's a flip-flop when the two situations aren't exclusive of each other.

When used as motive it seems a flip flop to me. But that is just my opinion.

[christina]

What is a rude characterization? If you are referring to me describing your post as inflammatory, that is because it generated a lot of angry responses.

My intent was not to inflame. But I understand your view now.
Did you understand that my comment was not speaking to you personally nor putting words in your mouth?

[TJEddie]

Yes, their expert witness, Bevel, stated the wrapper was part of the staging of the crime scene- reason was it should have been closer to the body if it was a sex crime.
In the closing arguments Gibbons said it was the trigger.

Wow. So the prosecution's motive theory was challenged even by their own expert witness.....in front of the jury. Thanks.

[christina]

Your not the only one. I am trying to follow his logic as well and I am somewhat lost. I am guessing (just a guess) that he is saying b/c Kevin knew her plans (which is guessword in itself) he should not have been concerned that she didnt get back with him.

The only problem with that is we dont know if the plans had changed.

The other problem is we do not know their communication habits (with each other)either.

[oxfordwebster]

When used as motive it seems a flip flop to me. But that is just my opinion.A flip-flop would imply a contradiction, and I see none here. If the condom triggered him, he could have easily placed it where it was found as well. For some reason, I have a hard time buying your characterization of the prosecution's case.

[TJEddie]

The suggestion was made by the prosecution that the condom could have been placed there prior to the 15th and Jones simply did not see it the night before when he was there.

Thanks. (An unlikely scenario, IMO, but I appreciate you pointing it out.)

[partyharty]

Didn't KJ tell LE that Nona had cancelled her dinner plans with the Little? Maybe he was projecting somehow that he knew that Nona wasn't going to be available that evening.

Because I find it hard to believe that the Little lied on the witness stand.

Mabey the plans were not set in stone? The reason I said this is didnt the "little" testify that she called to verify the plans?

Just a suggestion, I also have trouble believing that the "little" lied on the stand (esp when she had nothing to gain/lose by doing so)

[oxfordwebster]

Wow. So the prosecution's motive theory was challenged even by their own expert witness.....in front of the jury. Thanks.No it wasn't. There isn't anything about the condom being planted where it was that excludes it also being a trigger for Kevin. If you think that's a contradiction, please explain how it is.

[hawgustusgloop]

Refer to my post 2 above you, FD. There was more than one girl . . . The prosecution wanted to prove that KJ lied to LE. It didn't stand, but they hope to bring her back during closing arguments.

I can't speak for jonikay, but it appears that she claimed at one point that there was more than one girl there to testify she (the girl, not jonikay) slept with K.Jo.

I hope jonikay sees this and gives us her account.

It may come down, once again, to deciding for ourselves who is most reliable and whom we choose to believe.

[oxfordwebster]

Mabey the plans were not set in stone? The reason I said this is didnt the "little" testify that she called to verify the plans? Courier:

She said Dirksmeyer was supposed to pick her up at 5:30 p.m. Dec. 15 and treat her to dinner at a Chinese restaurant. She said she called Dirksmeyer to confirm their plans beginning at about 2:45 p.m. until about 6:40 p.m. None of the calls were answered, she said.I'd say that if Nona was supposed to pick her up at 5:30pm then they had some plans. Calling to "confirm" the plans doesn't mean they weren't set.

[hawgustusgloop]

My intent was not to inflame. But I understand your view now.
Did you understand that my comment was not speaking to you personally nor putting words in your mouth?

Yes. At first, when I saw that you had quoted my post, and then used the word "you," I naturally thought you were referring to me specifically, but I understand and accept your explanation.

[christina]

I can't speak for jonikay, but it appears that she claimed at one point that there was more than one girl there to testify she (the girl, not jonikay) slept with K.Jo.

I hope jonikay sees this and gives us her account.

It may come down, once again, to deciding for ourselves who is most reliable and whom we choose to believe.

You know, I came back to this board after attending the hearing hoping to be part of a forum disussing this case. I have tried to be honest with my biases and motives. I attended the trial and did my best to report what I saw and heard. I have tried to stay in converstionas here where my honesty, accuracy and logic/conclusions were questioned. I have joked along with you making fun of myself as well. I am at a place where I genuinely do not know what you have against me.

[christina]

Courier:

I'd say that if Nona was supposed to pick her up at 5:30pm then they had some plans. Calling to "confirm" the plans doesn't mean they weren't set.

She called Nona's phone over 10 times.

[partyharty]

A flip-flop would imply a contradiction, and I see none here. If the condom triggered him, he could have easily placed it where it was found as well. For some reason, I have a hard time buying your characterization of the prosecution's case.

Thats the first time I have ever heard that it was both planted and the "trigger".

Personally I would think that if it was the "trigger" and it set Kevin off, that it wouldnt be so nicely displayed on the kitchen counter. I would think that he would confront her about it (which would mean something would happen either in / around the kitchen area).

I have to give you the planted part. It could have very well been planted (however the dna evidense excluding KJ would have to come into effect here).

It is just one of those weird pieces of evidense I wish we had more information about. It does seem odd to have a condom, a murder, and no evidense of sexual trama. (esp considering that KJ claims they never used condoms). Seems to point to someone else

Once again though just my .02

[lorettalockhorn]

Courier:

I'd say that if Nona was supposed to pick her up at 5:30pm then they had some plans. Calling to "confirm" the plans doesn't mean they weren't set.

Bless her heart, for all we know, she could have been calling to find out what to wear. I honestly haven't heard much about the details of her testimony.

[christina]

Thanks. (An unlikely scenario, IMO, but I appreciate you pointing it out.)

Its more likely than an theory floated around here- Jones fished through someone's trash to get the condom and plant it there!

[christina]

Bless her heart, for all we know, she could have been calling to find out what to wear. I honestly haven't heard much about the details of her testimony.

She was a sweetie. I got the impression very little was written about her for her protection due to her age.

[partyharty]

Courier:

I'd say that if Nona was supposed to pick her up at 5:30pm then they had some plans. Calling to "confirm" the plans doesn't mean they weren't set.

That is true, however having to call to "confirm" the plans dosent exaclty suggest they were set in stone either.

Remember I am just spitballing here.

[hawgustusgloop]

You know, I came back to this board after attending the hearing hoping to be part of a forum disussing this case. I have tried to be honest with my biases and motives. I attended the trial and did my best to report what I saw and heard. I have tried to stay in converstionas here where my honesty, accuracy and logic/conclusions were questioned. I have joked along with you making fun of myself as well. I am at a place where I genuinely do not know what you have against me.

I'm sorry, but that post wasn't about you. It was about the conflicting accounts concerning whether there was one or two girls there to testify about their relationships with K.Jo. The accounts at this point seem to be in direct conflict, so each poster will have to try to decide for him- or herself whom and what to believe.

[partyharty]

She was a sweetie. I got the impression very little was written about her for her protection due to her age.

Thats good. She unfortunatly got wrapped up in all of this and I am sure it was a very traumatic experience. Hopefully if she needs help to get past this she will get it.

[oxfordwebster]

She called Nona's phone over 10 times.Yeah, if I was a li'l and had plans with my big sis, I'd be pretty concerned if I couldn't get in touch with her because it'd probably be something I was excited about.

I'm sure you meant something else by that, though.

[christina]

Thats good. She unfortunatly got wrapped up in all of this and I am sure it was a very traumatic experience. Hopefully if she needs help to get past this she will get it.

I can not even imagine- being in the program because of existing troubles then having the person you were bonding with taken from you in such a horrible way!

[christina]

Yeah, if I was a li'l and had plans with my big sis, I'd be pretty concerned if I couldn't get in touch with her because it'd probably be something I was excited about.

I'm sure you meant something else by that, though.

I do not know what you mean by this?

[TJEddie]

About the date with the little sister.....I think it's conceivable that the date had been previously cancelled (maybe for Nona's evening with Kevin the night before) and had been tentatively rescheduled for the next night. That would explain Kevin's statement that it had been cancelled and would also explain the little sister's feeling that it needed to be confirmed.

[hawgustusgloop]

About the date with the little sister.....I think it's conceivable that the date had been previously cancelled (maybe for Nona's evening with Kevin the night before) and had been tentatively rescheduled for the next night. That would explain Kevin's statement that it had been cancelled and would also explain the little sister's feeling that it needed to be confirmed.

Why wouldn't the defense ask about that during cross-examination then? I'm sure if that were the case, K.Jo would've told his attorneys about it at some point.

[TJEddie]

Why wouldn't the defense ask about that during cross-examination then? I'm sure if that were the case, K.Jo would've told his attorneys about it at some point.

Did the defense cross examine her at all?

[lorettalockhorn]

Why wouldn't the defense ask about that during cross-examination then? I'm sure if that were the case, K.Jo would've told his attorneys about it at some point.

I don't quite get that either; if they were going to call her regardless of her age; why not get to the crux of the testimony. At any rate, I have a tendency to believe the Little over KJ as it would seem that KJ has proven himself to be a liar and I cannot imagine why the Little would lie. Regardless of how many times she called. But, that's just me.

[partyharty]

Why wouldn't the defense ask about that during cross-examination then? I'm sure if that were the case, K.Jo would've told his attorneys about it at some point.

Because there was no real reason to?

The point the prosecution wanted to get across was that she had attempted to call and couldnt get ahold of nona. The defense really didnt need to counter this argument because it didnt effect KJ in any way. The timeline was set by other events. As for the plans, if they were set in stone it really didnt matter to the defense. The only thing that could have helped for the defense would have been if there was some proof that Nona and Kevin had plans for later that night and in order to get that into testimony, Kevin would have to testify.

Unless I am missing something (which is possible).

[hawgustusgloop]

Because there was no real reason to?

The point the prosecution wanted to get across was that she had attempted to call and couldnt get ahold of nona. The defense really didnt need to counter this argument because it didnt effect KJ in any way. The timeline was set by other events. As for the plans, if they were set in stone it really didnt matter to the defense. The only thing that could have helped for the defense would have been if there was some proof that Nona and Kevin had plans for later that night and in order to get that into testimony, Kevin would have to testify.

Unless I am missing something (which is possible).

I always assumed the prosecution was trying to both help illustrate the timeline and show that K.Jo lied to authorities. If I recall correctly, (was it on the interrogation tape?) K.Jo told the police that Nona's Little had canceled their plans for the evening.

[christina]

Did the defense cross examine her at all?

Not that I remember. It seemed like a non issue to the case.

[christina]

I don't quite get that either; if they were going to call her regardless of her age; why not get to the crux of the testimony. At any rate, I have a tendency to believe the Little over KJ as it would seem that KJ has proven himself to be a liar and I cannot imagine why the Little would lie. Regardless of how many times she called. But, that's just me.

I agree with this.

[christina]

I always assumed the prosecution was trying to both help illustrate the timeline and show that K.Jo lied to authorities. If I recall correctly, (was it on the interrogation tape?) K.Jo told the police that Nona's Little had canceled their plans for the evening.

It was said by someone that on the tape Jones thought their date/dinner had been cancelled.
I did not remember hearing that but have no problem believing someone else did. There was a lot of information to absorb on that tape.

[lorettalockhorn]

I always assumed the prosecution was trying to both help illustrate the timeline and show that K.Jo lied to authorities. If I recall correctly, (was it on the interrogation tape?) K.Jo told the police that Nona's Little had canceled their plans for the evening.

I guess it makes sense in a way that the defense would steer clear of cross examination, lest the State remind the jury that Kevin stated in the interview that Nona had cancelled the plans with the Little.

[christina]

Because there was no real reason to?

The point the prosecution wanted to get across was that she had attempted to call and couldnt get ahold of nona. The defense really didnt need to counter this argument because it didnt effect KJ in any way. The timeline was set by other events. As for the plans, if they were set in stone it really didnt matter to the defense. The only thing that could have helped for the defense would have been if there was some proof that Nona and Kevin had plans for later that night and in order to get that into testimony, Kevin would have to testify.

Unless I am missing something (which is possible).

Agreed.

I got the impression that the prosecution wanted to present the little sister to show a side of Nona's personality. There were a few other witnesses that seemed unnecessary, used just to set a timeline. An example would be the one that hurt them- Jordan Harris.

[oxfordwebster]

An example would be the one that hurt them- Jordan Harris.And how exactly did Jordan Harris hurt them? What did he say that makes Kevin look more innocent?

[christina]

And how exactly did Jordan Harris hurt them? What did he say that makes Kevin look more innocent?

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.
But don't take my thoughts on this- ask one of the prosecutors how they feel about his testimony now?

[hawgustusgloop]

KFSM has posted this, based on the Courier's interview with Gibbons:

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6864884

I think this is an interesting edit, and I wish they would spell "Dirksmeyer" correctly, but judge for yourselves.

[hawgustusgloop]

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.
But don't take my thoughts on this- ask one of the prosecutors how they feel about his testimony now?

Whoa! Did Jordan Harris testify that other people had keys? I definitely missed that.

[lorettalockhorn]

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.
But don't take my thoughts on this- ask one of the prosecutors how they feel about his testimony now?

Wait! JH testified that he had a key to Nona's? I thought that he woke her up and she let him in?

Sorry that I missed that in all the discussion.

[oxfordwebster]

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.So Jordan Harris claimed to have a key?

[lorettalockhorn]

KFSM has posted this, based on the Courier's interview with Gibbons:

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6864884

I think this is an interesting edit, and I wish they would spell "Dirksmeyer" correctly, but judge for yourselves.

Thanks, Hawg That's a very abridged version, for sure. I does seem like KFSM would be able to spell Nona's name; considerig that they have so much time and manpower invested in the case.

[oxfordwebster]

Thanks, Hawg That's a very abridged version, for sure. I does seem like KFSM would be able to spell Nona's name; considerig that they have so much time and manpower invested in the case.It's an AP (wire) story. I love how these Arkansas stations can't write their own stories about something like this. The AP stories have been as bare minimum on details as possible.

[christina]

That is both amusing and informative that all three of you drew the same conlcusion from my post.


Hawg-Whoa! Did Jordan Harris testify that other people had keys? I definitely missed that.

Loretta-Wait! JH testified that he had a key to Nona's?

Oxford-So Jordan Harris claimed to have a key?

[hawgustusgloop]

It's an AP (wire) story. I love how these Arkansas stations can't write their own stories about something like this. The AP stories have been as bare minimum on details as possible.

The odd thing is, it was just posted there today, and if you go to their homepage (www.kfsm.com), it is the main story on the top left, like it's the big story of the day or something.

[hawgustusgloop]

That is both amusing and informative that all three of you drew the same conlcusion from my post.


Hawg-Whoa! Did Jordan Harris testify that other people had keys? I definitely missed that.

Loretta-Wait! JH testified that he had a key to Nona's?

Oxford-So Jordan Harris claimed to have a key?

That is an excellent example of deflection IMO.

[oxfordwebster]

That is an excellent example of deflection IMO.Seriously. Christina says, and I quote:

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.Thanks for clearing that up by deflecting it, Christina.

[oxfordwebster]

Defense attorney Michael Robbins asked Harris what time he arrived at Dirksmeyer's apartment on the night the pair had sex. Harris replied it was about 2 a.m., and Dirksmeyer was asleep. He said he woke her with a phone call and she let him in the apartment.Sounds like he had a key, alright!

[partyharty]

Not to defend Christina however

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer. Is what you highlighted


He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.

Read the entire sentence and it makes a bit more sense.

[christina]

Hawg's comment-That is an excellent example of deflection IMO

Ox's comment-Thanks for clearing that up by deflecting it, Christina.

To deflect means to turn aside, bend or deviate. That is not what I did. You chose to pick up on only one part of what I said and it is interesting that you guys think alike!
The prosecution was contending that since Nona was so into security she did not allow people into her apartment, thus someone with a key had to be the murderer. I did not follow their logic on that. I was pointing out that she did let people into her apartment on more than one occasion. In my opinion it negates the "only someone who had a key" could be the murderer.

[oxfordwebster]

Not to defend Christina however

He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer. Is what you highlighted


He showed that other men visited that apartment. It directly disputed the theory of only 3 people having keys therefore one of them had to be the murderer.

Read the entire sentence and it makes a bit more sense.Except that doesn't make sense, either. Just because she let the guy into her apartment at one time doesn't mean that now everybody who has ever set foot in her apartment is a suspect.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the lack of alibi and print in fresh blood is what points to a murderer, not a set of keys.

[hawgustusgloop]

Except that doesn't make sense, either. Just because she let the guy into her apartment at one time doesn't mean that now everybody who has ever set foot in her apartment is a suspect.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the lack of alibi and print in fresh blood is what points to a murderer, not a set of keys.

IMO she didn't just let the guy in. She invited him to drive to her apartment from Springdale to visit her. She asked him to call when he arrived, and then she let him in.

[hawgustusgloop]

Hawg's comment-That is an excellent example of deflection IMO

Ox's comment-Thanks for clearing that up by deflecting it, Christina.

To deflect means to turn aside, bend or deviate. That is not what I did. You chose to pick up on only one part of what I said and it is interesting that you guys think alike!
The prosecution was contending that since Nona was so into security she did not allow people into her apartment, thus someone with a key had to be the murderer. I did not follow their logic on that. I was pointing out that she did let people into her apartment on more than one occasion. In my opinion it negates the "only someone who had a key" could be the murderer.

I know what deflection means, and I stand by my use of the word.

So, is this your way of saying that Jordan Harris did NOT testify that anyone else had a key?

[oxfordwebster]

IMO she didn't just let the guy in. She invited him to drive to her apartment from Springdale to visit her. She asked him to call when he arrived, and then she let him in.I don't think you have to IMO that, because that's basically the testimony. He was asked to come, he called when he arrived and she let him in.

[partyharty]

Except that doesn't make sense, either. Just because she let the guy into her apartment at one time doesn't mean that now everybody who has ever set foot in her apartment is a suspect.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the lack of alibi and print in fresh blood is what points to a murderer, not a set of keys.

See christina's post (directly above mine #6766). It does make sense when you put it into context.

And I am not going to rehash the print with you, you listen and hear what you want to hear and disregard anything you dont want to hear. I cannot change that (nor am I going to try anymore).

[lorettalockhorn]

It's an AP (wire) story. I love how these Arkansas stations can't write their own stories about something like this. The AP stories have been as bare minimum on details as possible.

Thanks, ox. It says that right in front of my face. Pretty sure that Nona's name was spelled correctly in The Courier, wonder how it got botched if that's where the AP got it?

[lorettalockhorn]

Hawg's comment-That is an excellent example of deflection IMO

Ox's comment-Thanks for clearing that up by deflecting it, Christina.

To deflect means to turn aside, bend or deviate. That is not what I did. You chose to pick up on only one part of what I said and it is interesting that you guys think alike!
The prosecution was contending that since Nona was so into security she did not allow people into her apartment, thus someone with a key had to be the murderer. I did not follow their logic on that. I was pointing out that she did let people into her apartment on more than one occasion. In my opinion it negates the "only someone who had a key" could be the murderer.

The question by all three of us pragmatists was along the lines of did JH testify that he had a key? Not having been there and only having read about his testimony, I never got that his testimony indicated that he had a key or that there were more than three keys.

Aware of the meaning of deflection and fully aware of examples as well.

[lorettalockhorn]

So ummmm.....refusal to accept repeated explanations, direct quotes, cited sources, etc. and continuing to hound a poster for more, more, more.....all of that without directly addressing what has already been provided.....would that be an example of deflecting?

I must have missed those posts along with the ones that characterized KJ as a heinous, drug crazed, alcoholic sociopath. Or however that went.

I will admit to having asked on numerous occasions who the two boys were who testified to having sex with Nona. I have now asked twice whether or not JH testified that he had a key or that he had proof that there were more than three keys in existance. How is it hounding when the question is skipped over? People have voluntarily admitted that they were in court and presented their views on what they heard; is there something wrong with asking for clarification?

[christina]

I know what deflection means, and I stand by my use of the word.

So, is this your way of saying that Jordan Harris did NOT testify that anyone else had a key?

I don't know how else to explain this(my post) to you and the others. Sorry.

[christina]

Do tell me what I've been missing about the print. TJ refuses to say anything about it when asked, and if you've said something, I've missed it. No one else has tried to explain it away.


This is not correct. I agree with the poster above- you simply want to re hash something without regarding seriously what someone who does not agree with you says/posts.

[christina]

I must have missed those posts along with the ones that characterized KJ as a heinous, drug crazed, alcoholic sociopath. Or however that went.

I will admit to having asked on numerous occasions who the two boys were who testified to having sex with Nona. I have now asked twice whether or not JH testified that he had a key or that he had proof that there were more than three keys in existance. How is it hounding when the question is skipped over? People have voluntarily admitted that they were in court and presented their views on what they heard; is there something wrong with asking for clarification?

You asked twice that I saw and I answered you.


The answer to this is no. That was not the point of my original post.

[oxfordwebster]

This is not correct. I agree with the poster above- you simply want to re hash something without regarding seriously what someone who does not agree with you says/posts.Please specify what facts and points about the print I am ignoring. If you can make this claim then I expect you to back it up and I will address each thing that is brought up.

If you won't back it up, then don't make the claim.

[christina]

The question by all three of us pragmatists was along the lines of did JH testify that he had a key? Not having been there and only having read about his testimony, I never got that his testimony indicated that he had a key or that there were more than three keys.

Aware of the meaning of deflection and fully aware of examples as well.

Sorry Loretta, I did not take any of the three as serious questions but rather as snide remarks. Hope you have gotten your answer now.

As far as pragmatists goes- that is interesting. Also interesting that you only list you, Hawg and Oxford.
Do you believe pre-conceived ideas are in line with the sociological view of pragmatism?

[christina]

Please specify what facts and points about the print I am ignoring. If you can make this claim then I expect you to back it up and I will address each thing that is brought up.

If you won't back it up, then don't make the claim.


Please do not tell me whether I can make a claim or not. And what you expect of me? What?!?!?!
Read back through the posts and you will come up/find with an answer.
How else can I say this? I am done discussing with you the issue of the print.

[christina]

What are the chances the police or prosecutor will now go back and try to find who owns the DNA on the nail and or wrapper?
Of doing further/more indepth research on the alibis of orignal suspects?
Just allowing fresh/new eyes to look at the file?
My concern is it is the close of another business day and still I see no movement towards solving this case.

[oxfordwebster]

What are the chances the police or prosecutor will now go back and try to find who owns the DNA on the nail and or wrapper?The nail? Probably not likely at all. The defense expert himself said he didn't think it had anything to do with a struggle. It was just a nail. As for the wrapper, per defense expect, it was Y-chromosome DNA. You can't nail a person to that--the closest you can get is finding out if they have some relation to the donor of the DNA.

Of doing further/more indepth research on the alibis of orignal suspects?Do you think they just ignored the original suspects? It took long enough (about 3-4 months) to arrest Kevin in the first place. I imagine they must have been doing something aside from railroading Kevin if it took that long.

Just allowing fresh/new eyes to look at the file?
My concern is it is the close of another business day and still I see no movement towards solving this case.My guess is that the prosecution and investigators on the case know where the evidence will lead them, and a jury already let that guy get off.

[lorettalockhorn]

You asked twice that I saw and I answered you.


The answer to this is no. That was not the point of my original post.

Christina, I asked you twice and you answered by saying that Sara Bailey testified that Nona had had sex in revenge for Kevin having had sex with a girl in Fayetteville. You did not answer me it she named JH as that male, nor did you answer if she had actually witnessed the alleged sex.

And it doesn't matter what SB testified to when it boils down to it; because she's not the guy. JH is the only boy who testified to having had sex with Nona, correct?

Yes, I did ask you point blank, as did Hawg and Ox if JH had testified in anyway to lead the court or the jury to believe that he could swear to existense of more than three keys and you did not answer. How could you have construed the question as a snide remark? It was in direct response to your post about his testimony.

Yes, I did refer to the three of us; because you did in your post. Yes, I think that the three of us are pragmatists. I don't "know" some of the others on the board as well, so I cannot begin to hazard a guess as to how to classify them.

I will say that I don't think that it is very practical to set yourself up as the eyes and ears of the court and then not clarify your statements, especially when there are discrepancies with the other firsthand courtroom reporters.

[oxfordwebster]

Christina, I asked you twice and you answered by saying that Sara Bailey testified that Nona had had sex in revenge for Kevin having had sex with a girl in Fayetteville. You did not answer me it she named JH as that male, nor did you answer if she had actually witnessed the alleged sex.

And it doesn't matter what SB testified to when it boils down to it; because she's not the guy. JH is the only boy who testified to having had sex with Nona, correct?At this point, I'd like to see verification of Sara Bailey claiming Nona told her this. It wasn't in the Courier or anything else I've looked at.

[lorettalockhorn]

At this point, I'd like to see verification of Sara Bailey claiming Nona told her this. It wasn't in the Courier or anything else I've looked at.


Even if I read it in every media outlet, I would have a hard time believing that it was or wasn't JH unless she witnessed the act and could identify the boy. It sounds like hearsay to begin with, and it doesn't particularly sound like she wasn't talking about JH (or was definitely talking about someone else).

I wish someone would help a girl out about JH's testimony. I am at a loss as to how his statements have anything to do with the number of keys that were out. I have not until this day heard that he testified to the keys or that by having visited the apartment is a way to infer anything about the keys.

[christina]

Christina, I asked you twice and you answered by saying that Sara Bailey testified that Nona had had sex in revenge for Kevin having had sex with a girl in Fayetteville. You did not answer me it she named JH as that male, nor did you answer if she had actually witnessed the alleged sex.

And it doesn't matter what SB testified to when it boils down to it; because she's not the guy. JH is the only boy who testified to having had sex with Nona, correct?

Yes, I did ask you point blank, as did Hawg and Ox if JH had testified in anyway to lead the court or the jury to believe that he could swear to existense of more than three keys and you did not answer. How could you have construed the question as a snide remark? It was in direct response to your post about his testimony.

Yes, I did refer to the three of us; because you did in your post. Yes, I think that the three of us are pragmatists. I don't "know" some of the others on the board as well, so I cannot begin to hazard a guess as to how to classify them.

I will say that I don't think that it is very practical to set yourself up as the eyes and ears of the court and then not clarify your statements, especially when there are discrepancies with the other firsthand courtroom reporters.



It is apparant that no matter how I say/state something there are three of you that will either interpret it wrongly or misconstrue it.
I think it might be a good time for me to take a bit of a break from the board. I have a garden and family in need of attention!
There are many others here, as you have pointed out, that were also in the courtroom. I will leave the fact verifying to them for a while. Maybe they will be willing to spend time answering your questions as I have attempted to.
Peace.

[hawgustusgloop]

It is apparant that no matter how I say/state something there are three of you that will either interpret it wrongly or misconstrue it.
I think it might be a good time for me to take a bit of a break from the board. I have a garden and family in need of attention!
There are many others here, as you have pointed out, that were also in the courtroom. I will leave the fact verifying to them for a while. Maybe they will be willing to spend time answering your questions as I have attempted to.
Peace.

At least you are leaving us with another good example of deflection IMO.

Peace.:seeya:

[jonikay]

Yes, I was there as well and the prosecution was arguing that this was another woman and that it proves that KJ lied to LE and cements what RW says about "times" that KJ had sex with others. Not to forget that we endured talk of Nona having oral sex and "regular" (?) sex with other guys. His testimony had to be in detail about their tryst and Patterson wouldn't allow that same testimony about KJ. A win for the defense . . . The laughter was still inappropriate, imo and really gave me insight . . .


:shrug: If I said it once, I said it at least three other times . . . Also, nothing in my extensive notes on Sara Bailey's testimony does it state that Nona had sex with someone out of revenge or anything of that nature. The only thing that I have is that Sara told the defense that she and her boyfriend do not yell at one another and Nona stated that she and her boyfriend did yell at one another. She told the prosecution that she thought Nona and Kevin's relationship was unhealthy, they got into verbal fights, and Nona thought Kevin was cheating on her.
I guess I could have missed something though. Christina and I have continually butted heads on our notes and perceptions of the testimonies that I was in the courtroom for. That's ok. One thing we agreed on on several occasions was the fact that the courtroom was very cold and the "pews" were very hard. This is what makes it so sad for me that christina does not even remember me . . . :confused:

[hawgustusgloop]

:shrug: If I said it once, I said it at least three other times . . . Also, nothing in my extensive notes on Sara Bailey's testimony does it state that Nona had sex with someone out of revenge or anything of that nature. The only thing that I have is that Sara told the defense that she and her boyfriend do not yell at one another and Nona stated that she and her boyfriend did yell at one another. She told the prosecution that she thought Nona and Kevin's relationship was unhealthy, they got into verbal fights, and Nona thought Kevin was cheating on her.
I guess I could have missed something though. Christina and I have continually butted heads on our notes and perceptions of the testimonies that I was in the courtroom for. That's ok. One thing we agreed on on several occasions was the fact that the courtroom was very cold and the "pews" were very hard. This is what makes it so sad for me that christina does not even remember me . . . :confused:

I appreciate you going to the trial and giving us your account, and thank you for clarifying this.

[hawgustusgloop]

I think the part about retaliation came from the Courier's summary of Sara Bailey's testimony:

"She testified Dirksmeyer talked to her about Dirksmeyer’s relationship with Jones, which Bailey said “didn’t seem healthy.”
“They fought a lot verbally,” she said. “I knew she thought he had cheated on her and she had cheated on him like a retaliation.” "

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=15414&Search=sara%20bailey

[lorettalockhorn]

:shrug: If I said it once, I said it at least three other times . . . Also, nothing in my extensive notes on Sara Bailey's testimony does it state that Nona had sex with someone out of revenge or anything of that nature. The only thing that I have is that Sara told the defense that she and her boyfriend do not yell at one another and Nona stated that she and her boyfriend did yell at one another. She told the prosecution that she thought Nona and Kevin's relationship was unhealthy, they got into verbal fights, and Nona thought Kevin was cheating on her.
I guess I could have missed something though. Christina and I have continually butted heads on our notes and perceptions of the testimonies that I was in the courtroom for. That's ok. One thing we agreed on on several occasions was the fact that the courtroom was very cold and the "pews" were very hard. This is what makes it so sad for me that christina does not even remember me . . . :confused:

jk, thanks again for helping us out. Those pews and the ai rconditioning must have been notable, I've read comments about both in several places.

Not sure who the many posters are that Christina spoke about; I remember you and upallnight and SQs, I apologize if I left someone out, I think that we all appreciate the help y'all gave us.

[sololobo]

Deflection....this board appears to be deflecting guilt to Kevin and away from any other possible suspect. Kevin was determined to be not guilty by an un-biased jury of his peers. It is time to move on and explore the possibility of another killer.

[oxfordwebster]

Deflection....this board appears to be deflecting guilt to Kevin and away from any other possible suspect. Kevin was determined to be not guilty by an un-biased jury of his peers. It is time to move on and explore the possibility of another killer.Yes, because there's nothing questionable about the verdict, which is why we haven't discussed multiple things surrounding it. It's been so obvious, thanks for clearing that up!

[sololobo]

Yes, because there's nothing questionable about the verdict, which is why we haven't discussed multiple things surrounding it. It's been so obvious, thanks for clearing that up!

You are very welcome:)

[lorettalockhorn]

Deflection....this board appears to be deflecting guilt to Kevin and away from any other possible suspect. Kevin was determined to be not guilty by an un-biased jury of his peers. It is time to move on and explore the possibility of another killer.

If we had any evidence against any of the suspect, it might be easier to move on, as you put it. When/if I move on will be my decision, not at the presumption of someone else.

If I thought that the jury had done a good job, I might be able to move on. I, along with countless others think that KJ is guilty. It will be interesting to see what the case file reveals and/or another investigation if one is performed. Or a civil suit, for that matter.

[partyharty]

Yes, because there's nothing questionable about the verdict, which is why we haven't discussed multiple things surrounding it. It's been so obvious, thanks for clearing that up!

Lets go with the flip side of that coin. If KJ had been found guilty, would there still be questions (and discussions about multiple things surrounding it). Of course there would. Funny thing is we would be discussing many of the same issues (verdict non withstanding).

[lorettalockhorn]

And there lies the problem. Until they find (and convict) you will be un-open to any other possibilities. (I throw Ox into this category as well). Basically you have tried and convicted (in your mind) based on media reports (which are biased to say the least).

As for the evidence not pointing to anyone else. How do we know? All we have heard is what came out (and was reported on) in trial. None of us (that I am aware of) have access to the evidence in the case (such as phone records etc). To be honest it kind of scares me that there are people out there that will blindly follow the police investigation when it has been shown to be shoddy at best. The case is only as good as the weakest link and in this case unfortunatly it was the investigation. This was Frost's first investigation (as lead investigator) and there were several errors committed which really hurt the investigation (and thus the case) (example returning the phone, allowing 20 or so people into the crime scene, etc).

It is very possible in my mind that they could have fixated on a suspect (KJ) and worked their way backwards (and in fact the prosecution admitted that they did not test certain pieces of evidence because they knew what happened). (obviously I am paraphrasing here).

This was not a who gets what toy investigation, this was a MURDER investigation and I would hope that they 1. collect all evidence and then 2. go where the evidence leads them (as opposed to collect some of the evidence and roll with that). The fact that the defense was able to walk into the crime scene and roll out with evidence that the police felt was un-necessary, is unsettling in my mind. The police was there to collect evidence and it appears that they did collect some (but not all).

Now my opinion of this may change when the case-files are released.

I am waiting until I can get ahold of the case file before I can decide for myself his guilt or innocence. Until we get ahold of the SAME DATA the jury had, to make their decision, then we are all just speculating on what might (or might not) have happened.

Bottom line is that it really does not matter. He was found not-gulty and the jury (the one that you are stating "did not do a good job") made the decision (which was in fact their job to do). There may be stuff that comes out when the files are released which shows he didn't do it (there may not), however the jury's responsibility was to come to a verdict, THEY DID THIS, therefore they did a "good job". Fortunately, we do not have to agree with the verdict but we are required (by law) to respect it (which is why KJ is a free man).

As for my opinion of his guilt, I think it is entirely possible that he did it. However I am waiting for the files to be released first. I said it before, I feel that the prosecution put way to much emphasis on a single point of evidence (I have also hashed this out before so feel free to read earlier posts). With the investigation they had, this was not a good course of action. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and I am sure Gibbons would do it differently now.

As for the civil suit, they have a good shot at winning that simply because they don't have to prove as much (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt). Just because a civil suit is won or lost does not determine guilt. (there are a lot of "not guilty" people who have lost civil suits because they have chosen to not fight (see RIAA lawsuits for example)), or they do not have the ability to prove beyond a preponderance.

Once again this is just my .02 however I feel that I will be hearing from at least 3 people fairly soon.

Rip away :hat:

Haven't read your entire post; I stopped at you claiming that I am unopen to other possibilities. You should probably read all of my posts, there has been plenty of discussion that I have taken part of where we have discussed other possibilities with the limited information at hand.

Please do not presume to tell me what I am open or unopen to. It's as offensive as telling me to move on.

The jury did a lousy job in my opinion. I'm not even convinced that all of the jury didn't have prior knowledge of some of the parties involved.

[lorettalockhorn]

I for one believe that the bloody print points to KJ having been on the scene at the time of the murder; don't know how many times that I have to say that that piece of physical evidence combined with the fact that he lied to LE and had motive and opportunity, makes me believe that he is the murderer.

I have acknowledged that there is much that we do not know. If you are going to attack my beliefs, you might want to read them first.

[lorettalockhorn]

"As for the civil suit, they have a good shot at winning that simply because they don't have to prove as much (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt). Just because a civil suit is won or lost does not determine guilt."

And just because a jury found him not guilty does not mean that he is innocent. Cannot believe that you honestly think that I'm the only who finds fault with the jury's work and statements to the press. Get out much? People are still talking about it.

[hawgustusgloop]

I am waiting until I can get ahold of the case file before I can decide for myself his guilt or innocence. Until we get ahold of the SAME DATA the jury had, to make their decision, then we are all just speculating on what might (or might not) have happened.



I have never been involved with a criminal trial (thank God!), but I don't think the jury receives the case file. I believe the jury only gets what is presented during the course of the trial. The case file, however, should contain all of the information collected during the investigation including info about other suspects, etc.

[lorettalockhorn]

I have never been involved with a criminal trial (thank God!), but I don't think the jury receives the case file. I believe the jury only gets what is presented during the course of the trial. The case file, however, should contain all of the information collected during the investigation including info about other suspects, etc.

I believe that you are correct. If the jury had had the case file, there's no telling who they would have been investigating during deliberations. LMAO

[partyharty]

Haven't read your entire post; I stopped at you claiming that I am unopen to other possibilities. You should probably read all of my posts, there has been plenty of discussion that I have taken part of where we have discussed other possibilities with the limited information at hand.

Please do not presume to tell me what I am open or unopen to. It's as offensive as telling me to move on.

The jury did a lousy job in my opinion. I'm not even convinced that all of the jury didn't have prior knowledge of some of the parties involved.

I have read your other post's (I have literally read the entire thread).

Please feel free to source the "prior" knowledge that you feel they have. I have not seen any news articles citing this and I am sure the prosecutor would love to hear any proof that you may have on jury misconduct (as would the judge).

[partyharty]

I have never been involved with a criminal trial (thank God!), but I don't think the jury receives the case file. I believe the jury only gets what is presented during the course of the trial. The case file, however, should contain all of the information collected during the investigation including info about other suspects, etc.

You are correct about this however earlier it was stated (not sure who) that they got cell phone records and stuff of that nature. This was not reported in the paper (if it was please feel free to send me the link to Nona's cellphone records).

They do not get the case file but they did get information that has not been released (or at the very least published).

[lorettalockhorn]

I have read your other post's (I have literally read the entire thread).

Please feel free to source the "prior" knowledge that you feel they have. I have not seen any news articles citing this and I am sure the prosecutor would love to hear any proof that you may have on jury misconduct (as would the judge).


I did not say that it is a fact that there is jury misconduct, I said that I am not convinced that the jury didn't have some prior knowledge of the parties involved (or the case for that matter), that is my opinion.

If you have read the entire thread and my posts, you will know that when I post something as fact, that isn't generally accepted knowledge, I back it up with a link or a quote.

[partyharty]

Haven't read your entire post; I stopped at you claiming that I am unopen to other possibilities. You should probably read all of my posts, there has been plenty of discussion that I have taken part of where we have discussed other possibilities with the limited information at hand.

Please do not presume to tell me what I am open or unopen to. It's as offensive as telling me to move on.

The jury did a lousy job in my opinion. I'm not even convinced that all of the jury didn't have prior knowledge of some of the parties involved.

I am commenting on your statements, not your beliefs (of course they may be one and of the same).

You have made comments on this board that you do not care what is reported, you will not believe it anyways

Example
"Even if I read it in every media outlet, I would have a hard time believing that it was or wasn't JH unless she witnessed the act and could identify the boy. It sounds like hearsay to begin with, and it doesn't particularly sound like she wasn't talking about JH (or was definitely talking about someone else)."

This is not a open minded statement. It speaks for itself.

There are others as well although I am not going back to post all of them. Basically what I am trying to point out is that there is information that we are not aware of (or that has not been reported).

It just amazes me that we base the case off of the news reports (because at the moment thats all we have), and yet you make statements that you will not believe them "even if you read it in every media outlet". What makes this statement so special?

[partyharty]

I did not say that it is a fact that there is jury misconduct, I said that I am not convinced that the jury didn't have some prior knowledge of the parties involved (or the case for that matter), that is my opinion.


If this is not jury misconduct then why is this a problem. It sounds like you are insinuating that they had knowledge regarding the crime prior to the event. That may or may not be misconduct, however if they used this information to make their decision, it is misconduct and should thus be reported.

That is why I made the statement I did. Would you have the same argument if they found him guilty?

Their job was to come to a verdict (guilty or not guilty). Their job was not to come to the "popular" or "correct" verdict. It was to deliberate and come to a verdict. They did that. The fact that it is not the "popular" verdict should have no bearing whatsoever.

[lorettalockhorn]

If this is not jury misconduct then why is this a problem. It sounds like you are insinuating that they had knowledge regarding the crime prior to the event. That may or may not be misconduct, however if they used this information to make their decision, it is misconduct and should thus be reported.

That is why I made the statement I did. Would you have the same argument if they found him guilty?

Their job was to come to a verdict (guilty or not guilty). Their job was not to come to the "popular" or "correct" verdict. It was to deliberate and come to a verdict. They did that. The fact that it is not the "popular" verdict should have no bearing whatsoever.

Certainly if any of the jurors had knowledge of any of the parties/witnesses and didn't report that during voir dire, that would be misconduct IMO. I'm not convinced that isn't the case; don't have a link for you as it is my opinion. There are all kinds of rumors out there.

If KJ had been found guilty, we would still be writing about it, no doubt. And the people who "found him innocent" before the trial would very likely still be defending him.

What's up with the lectures on the jury's job?

[lorettalockhorn]

I am commenting on your statements, not your beliefs (of course they may be one and of the same).

You have made comments on this board that you do not care what is reported, you will not believe it anyways

Example
"Even if I read it in every media outlet, I would have a hard time believing that it was or wasn't JH unless she witnessed the act and could identify the boy. It sounds like hearsay to begin with, and it doesn't particularly sound like she wasn't talking about JH (or was definitely talking about someone else)."

This is not a open minded statement. It speaks for itself.

There are others as well although I am not going back to post all of them. Basically what I am trying to point out is that there is information that we are not aware of (or that has not been reported).

It just amazes me that we base the case off of the news reports (because at the moment thats all we have), and yet you make statements that you will not believe them "even if you read it in every media outlet". What makes this statement so special?

Why should I believe that Nona had sex with more than one boy, no matter where I read it, when there was no such testimony?

You don't seem very open-minded to me expressing my opinions about what was reported here that wasn't testified to in court. And why would I make a statement that isn't my opinion? I'm not a exactly a lemming.

[hawgustusgloop]

I am commenting on your statements, not your beliefs (of course they may be one and of the same).

You have made comments on this board that you do not care what is reported, you will not believe it anyways

Example
"Even if I read it in every media outlet, I would have a hard time believing that it was or wasn't JH unless she witnessed the act and could identify the boy. It sounds like hearsay to begin with, and it doesn't particularly sound like she wasn't talking about JH (or was definitely talking about someone else)."

This is not a open minded statement. It speaks for itself.

There are others as well although I am not going back to post all of them. Basically what I am trying to point out is that there is information that we are not aware of (or that has not been reported).

It just amazes me that we base the case off of the news reports (because at the moment thats all we have), and yet you make statements that you will not believe them "even if you read it in every media outlet". What makes this statement so special?

Again, I can only speak for myself, but I understood this statement to mean that even if it was reported in the news, it would be hard to take it as fact unless the witness was there to see the act taking place and could positively identify the boy. Otherwise, IMO it would just be hearsay or conjecture. This statement may show close-mindedness in that it indicates a refusal to accept hearsay as fact, but nothing beyond that IMO.

[partyharty]

What's up with the lectures on the jury's job?

Because of the statements that the jury didn't do their job. I would agree with this if they had come to a hung jury however since the verdict was made they did their job. This has been brought up multiple times and I am simply pointing out they did their job.

Was it the right verdict? Was it the verdict you wanted? Was it the verdict that was "right" (this is what I am guessing you have a problem with)

To say they didnt do their job is incorrect. They did their job, the question is wither or not they did it to your satisfaction (or mine, or any other persons on this board).

A simple I don't agree with the jury is better than saying the jury didnt do their job.

And before it is brought to bear I have no ties to the jury (or anything else in this case). I just thought this needed to be brought forward before my loyalities were questioned.

[partyharty]

Why should I believe that Nona had sex with more than one boy, no matter where I read it, when there was no such testimony?

You don't seem very open-minded to me expressing my opinions about what was reported here that wasn't testified to in court. And why would I make a statement that isn't my opinion? I'm not a exactly a lemming.

I have no problem with you expressing opinions (as long as they are labelled as such). I do not like it when you come down on others (for what I perceive is the same thing). This is why I asked for you to cite the source that the jury had information prior to the trial, this was not labelled in advance (and if others had posted it, or something similar, they would have been crucified). :rolleyes:

[lorettalockhorn]

I have no problem with you expressing opinions (as long as they are labelled as such). I do not like it when you come down on others (for what I perceive is the same thing). This is why I asked for you to cite the source that the jury had information prior to the trial, this was not labelled in advance (and if others had posted it, or something similar, they would have been crucified). :rolleyes:

This is what I posted:

Haven't read your entire post; I stopped at you claiming that I am unopen to other possibilities. You should probably read all of my posts, there has been plenty of discussion that I have taken part of where we have discussed other possibilities with the limited information at hand.

Please do not presume to tell me what I am open or unopen to. It's as offensive as telling me to move on.

The jury did a lousy job in my opinion. I'm not even convinced that all of the jury didn't have prior knowledge of some of the parties involved.

What part of that makes you think that I wasn't expressing my opinion only? If I had a source, I would have linked it or quoted it; you should know that by now if you have read all of my posts. And considering the way that you've been quoting them, I'll assume that you've read several.

Yes, there is a rumor that at least one of the jurors had prior knowledge and/or a connection to at least one of the parties involved. I thought that I commented on that when I asked about you getting out and hearing rumors. Maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. People are obviously still talking about this case, if we are any indication.

Oh, okay. Here is where I posted about rumors; the same post that you may have missed earlier:

Certainly if any of the jurors had knowledge of any of the parties/witnesses and didn't report that during voir dire, that would be misconduct IMO. I'm not convinced that isn't the case; don't have a link for you as it is my opinion. There are all kinds of rumors out there.

If KJ had been found guilty, we would still be writing about it, no doubt. And the people who "found him innocent" before the trial would very likely still be defending him.

What's up with the lectures on the jury's job?

I realize that you haven't been posting here long, but I swear, you sure are familiar sounding.

[hawgustusgloop]

This is what I posted:



What part of that makes you think that I wasn't expressing my opinion only? If I had a source, I would have linked it or quoted it; you should know that by now if you have read all of my posts. And considering the way that you've been quoting them, I'll assume that you've read several.

Yes, there is a rumor that at least one of the jurors had prior knowledge and/or a connection to at least one of the parties involved. I thought that I commented on that when I asked about you getting out and hearing rumors. Maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. People are obviously still talking about this case, if we are any indication.

Wow! IMO There isn't much more you can do to label an opinion as an opinion other than to state "in my opinion."

[lorettalockhorn]

Because of the statements that the jury didn't do their job. I would agree with this if they had come to a hung jury however since the verdict was made they did their job. This has been brought up multiple times and I am simply pointing out they did their job.

Was it the right verdict? Was it the verdict you wanted? Was it the verdict that was "right" (this is what I am guessing you have a problem with)

To say they didnt do their job is incorrect. They did their job, the question is wither or not they did it to your satisfaction (or mine, or any other persons on this board).

A simple I don't agree with the jury is better than saying the jury didnt do their job.

And before it is brought to bear I have no ties to the jury (or anything else in this case). I just thought this needed to be brought forward before my loyalities were questioned.

That the jury did a lousy job doesn't necessarily have to do with the verdict, even though I disagree. I will admit that I'm a little flabbergasted that they couldn't put KJ on the scene at the time of the murder what with the print in uncoagulated blood and all, not to mention the motive, opportunity and lies that he told to LE which makes me doubt his core character.

What bothers me is that the jury found everything that the prosecution to be unworthy of consideration, that the foreperson had the gall to cite her personal relationship with God on camera, and that there were statements that the jury disregarded opinions; which in my mind would mean that they didn't consider expert testimony.

A hung jury would have made more sense to me, so I disagree with your opinion there, but you are entitled to it. A hung jury would have at least gone a long way to convincing me that they spent enough time on the case before them instead of playing armchair detective.

I've said the same surely more than once. Why continue to ask me about my opinions if your interest is in the facts?

[lorettalockhorn]

Wow! IMO There isn't much more you can do to label an opinion as an opinion other than to state "in my opinion."


You are smarter than the average Hawg, IMO. (Not to mention beautiful and rich! Of course.)

[lorettalockhorn]

I have no problem with you expressing opinions (as long as they are labelled as such). I do not like it when you come down on others (for what I perceive is the same thing). This is why I asked for you to cite the source that the jury had information prior to the trial, this was not labelled in advance (and if others had posted it, or something similar, they would have been crucified). :rolleyes:

Crucified? Sounds like hyperbole to me. Yes, we do like to see sources for information stated as fact.

With regard to your earlier post, I wouldn't have thought that you necessarily have ties to the jury, but might have thought that you were previosly bound by the gag order and that's why you got to the party so late.

[hawgustusgloop]

Crucified? Sounds like hyperbole to me. Yes, we do like to see sources for information stated as fact.

With regard to your earlier post, I wouldn't have thought that you necessarily have ties to the jury, but might have thought that you were previosly bound by the gag order and that's why you got to the party so late.

Why would partyharty feel the need to post that he or she has no ties to the jury anyway? I figured most assumed that was the case after partyharty thought that the jury deliberated over the actual case file rather than what was presented at trial.

[lorettalockhorn]

Why would partyharty feel the need to post that he or she has no ties to the jury anyway? I figured most assumed that was the case after partyharty thought that the jury deliberated over the actual case file rather than what was presented at trial.

Not sure. That was a little surprising, since ph had stated that he/she had taken some law courses and had done some research on Wikipedia.

It doesn't make sense to me for the jury to have had the case file and more than it would make sense for the jury deliberations to become public.

[upallnight]

I agree alot of hearsay**** but I do think the pro was looking for the statement from Sara that (IHO) Nona and Kevins relationship was unhealthy due to the fact Kevin and Nona would fight (verbally) and hollor at each other.

[upallnight]

By the way, the Sara Bailey reply was for Christina, sorry ***I have to much going on at one time. I do agree with Christina on the hear say.

[upallnight]

I ask you once again to please show me the courtesy of not putting words into my mouth. The inflammatory post you made was in response to VolGirl's post, not mine. Also, I think the issue of whether or not the were engaged, or "fiance's," as you put it, is certainly debatable.

Christina, I think in one of the local papers they had Kevin written in the Obit as Nona's fiance. Could look it up if need be.

[oxfordwebster]

Christina, I think in one of the local papers they had Kevin written in the Obit as Nona's fiance. Could look it up if need be.I believe it did, but that still doesn't change the fact that their pristine relationship, as Kevin wanted it to be seen, was questionable. That part isn't debatable.

[upallnight]

Yes, I agree, there was more than meet the eye there.

[upallnight]

I believe it did, but that still doesn't change the fact that their pristine relationship, as Kevin wanted it to be seen, was questionable. That part isn't debatable.

Like I said I agree and there is so much we will never know. You can not judge a book by it's cover.

[lorettalockhorn]

With regard to the fiance reference:

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

If the obituary had been written immediately prior to the funeral, it may have been worded differently, IMO.

With regard to Sara Bailey's testimony: My take on MissC's earlier posts were that SB's testimony proved that Nona had had sex with more than one boy besides JH. But to the best of my knowledge, SB was not an eyewitness to this, nor did she name the boy that Nona had told her was the object of the "retaliation sex". The issue that I personally had, was that MissC reported that two boys testified that they had had sex with Nona. I simply don't find that to be credible. I can only find references to JH having testified that he had sex with Nona.

Thanks for posting!

[nobody]

(IMO) I believe we will all be astonished at the evidence that comes out within the case once the LE's close the case and release the files. I predict we will see information that points at another suspect - not followed up, because investigators were sure that a bloody fingerprint was the key to the murder. Thank you to everyone that has discussed the media speculations with me. For me, I've drawn closure in this case - at least until new information is released. I hope that you can do the same soon.

[oxfordwebster]

(IMO) I believe we will all be astonished at the evidence that comes out within the case once the LE's close the case and release the files. I predict we will see information that points at another suspect - not followed up, because investigators were sure that a bloody fingerprint was the key to the murder. Thank you to everyone that has discussed the media speculations with me. For me, I've drawn closure in this case - at least until new information is released. I hope that you can do the same soon.That seems like a strong assumption to make without any evidence to make it with. You must know something everybody else doesn't.

I also bet we'll be astonished at things the judge didn't let into the trial.

[upallnight]

Even if I read it in every media outlet, I would have a hard time believing that it was or wasn't JH unless she witnessed the act and could identify the boy. It sounds like hearsay to begin with, and it doesn't particularly sound like she wasn't talking about JH (or was definitely talking about someone else).

I wish someone would help a girl out about JH's testimony. I am at a loss as to how his statements have anything to do with the number of keys that were out. I have not until this day heard that he testified to the keys or that by having visited the apartment is a way to infer anything about the keys.

Nona's mom made a statement on TV after the verdict and was outside the courthouse. She said there was 3 keys, Those she named having a key being: Nona, her (Carol, Nona's mother) and Nona's Stepfather Duane (not sure if I spelled his name correctly). To her that seemed to point to why she thought it came down to Kevin was the right one to be on trial since there was no forced entry. Then she said she had been saving and would take Kevin to civil court. JH did not testify he had a key, he said she called and invited him down, he traveled to her apartment, called her and she let him in. He said some time later he called Nona to see if he could crash at her apartment because he had something to do in Russellville with school or something. Nona informed him she had gotten back with Kevin and he said he understood. Nothing was ever said about him having a key.

[upallnight]

:shrug: If I said it once, I said it at least three other times . . . Also, nothing in my extensive notes on Sara Bailey's testimony does it state that Nona had sex with someone out of revenge or anything of that nature. The only thing that I have is that Sara told the defense that she and her boyfriend do not yell at one another and Nona stated that she and her boyfriend did yell at one another. She told the prosecution that she thought Nona and Kevin's relationship was unhealthy, they got into verbal fights, and Nona thought Kevin was cheating on her.
I guess I could have missed something though. Christina and I have continually butted heads on our notes and perceptions of the testimonies that I was in the courtroom for. That's ok. One thing we agreed on on several occasions was the fact that the courtroom was very cold and the "pews" were very hard. This is what makes it so sad for me that christina does not even remember me . . . :confused:

Once again Jonikay, I agree with this, I think I wrote hollored but yell I'm sure it was as I did not take notes then. I just remember SB did state this.

[upallnight]

"As for the civil suit, they have a good shot at winning that simply because they don't have to prove as much (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt). Just because a civil suit is won or lost does not determine guilt."

And just because a jury found him not guilty does not mean that he is innocent. Cannot believe that you honestly think that I'm the only who finds fault with the jury's work and statements to the press. Get out much? People are still talking about it.

Makes sense to me, well said!

[lorettalockhorn]

Nona's mom made a statement on TV after the verdict and was outside the courthouse. She said there was 3 keys, Those she named having a key being: Nona, her (Carol, Nona's mother) and Nona's Stepfather Duane (not sure if I spelled his name correctly). To her that seemed to point to why she thought it came down to Kevin was the right one to be on trial since there was no forced entry. Then she said she had been saving and would take Kevin to civil court. JH did not testify he had a key, he said she called and invited him down, he traveled to her apartment, called her and she let him in. He said some time later he called Nona to see if he could crash at her apartment because he had something to do in Russellville with school or something. Nona informed him she had gotten back with Kevin and he said he understood. Nothing was ever said about him having a key.

Thanks for helping me with JH's testimony. It makes sense in a way that Nona would trust him; they had met in the fall of '04 (according to The Courier's account of his testimony), and had classes together. Their friendship went past the sexual relationship and they remained friends; it just seems that even though she trusted him, it doesn't mean that she would trust or let just anyone into the apartment.

One thing that I'm not understanding is; I thought that Kevin had told LE that he had a key to Nona's apartment, but didn't have it with him that night. That was supposedly why he and RW tried to card the door and eventually went around to the back, saw Nona through the door and broke in. I don't remember that Duane had the third key rather than KJ. I did see Carol's statement to the press, but don't remember her saying that KJ didn't have a key, or rather that Duane did.

[lorettalockhorn]

Makes sense to me, well said!

For the record, pattyharty posted this: "As for the civil suit, they have a good shot at winning that simply because they don't have to prove as much (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt). Just because a civil suit is won or lost does not determine guilt."

My statement was: And just because a jury found him not guilty does not mean that he is innocent. Cannot believe that you honestly think that I'm the only who finds fault with the jury's work and statements to the press. Get out much? People are still talking about it.

[upallnight]

With regard to the fiance reference:

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

If the obituary had been written immediately prior to the funeral, it may have been worded differently, IMO.

With regard to Sara Bailey's testimony: My take on MissC's earlier posts were that SB's testimony proved that Nona had had sex with more than one boy besides JH. But to the best of my knowledge, SB was not an eyewitness to this, nor did she name the boy that Nona had told her was the object of the "retaliation sex". The issue that I personally had, was that MissC reported that two boys testified that they had had sex with Nona. I simply don't find that to be credible. I can only find references to JH having testified that he had sex with Nona.

Thanks for posting!

The only testimony was JH had sex with Nona, one time was sexual intercourse, one time was oral sex. 100% no one else testified to the fact of a sexual relationship with Nona other than JH and Kevin of course. SB spoke of what Nona had told her. Trey testified he did not have sex with Nona also. If I missed something I wish C would let me in on it. But to the best of my knowledge this is what I am aware of. I would like a name if there was another guy because that would have flew right over me. I also contacted several who knows of the case and asked them, they are also unaware of any other guy having testified to having sex with Nona or the fact that SB wittnessed more than what Nona told her. SB did not name the person Nona had "retaliation sex" with that I am aware of either and I was sitting in the court room. SB was not on the stand long at all.

[upallnight]

(IMO) I believe we will all be astonished at the evidence that comes out within the case once the LE's close the case and release the files. I predict we will see information that points at another suspect - not followed up, because investigators were sure that a bloody fingerprint was the key to the murder. Thank you to everyone that has discussed the media speculations with me. For me, I've drawn closure in this case - at least until new information is released. I hope that you can do the same soon.


WOW, do tell, if you do know something, there is a murderer walking around. I think everyone would like to see this monster put away. Everyone wants Justice For Nona and no more families to have to endure what these families have gone through. If you know something, do the right thing, go to the police. Maybe you don't know anything but if you do please do the right thing. Also, if you know someone else did it, and Kevin did not, this will follow Kevin around until the murder is solved, so it is in the best interest of all parties to put the killer behind bars. Am I serious YES! If you are just IMOing, that's different so either way peace be upon you.

[lorettalockhorn]

The only testimony was JH had sex with Nona, one time was sexual intercourse, one time was oral sex. 100% no one else testified to the fact of a sexual relationship with Nona other than JH and Kevin of course. SB spoke of what Nona had told her. Trey testified he did not have sex with Nona also. If I missed something I wish C would let me in on it. But to the best of my knowledge this is what I am aware of. I would like a name if there was another guy because that would have flew right over me. I also contacted several who knows of the case and asked them, they are also unaware of any other guy having testified to having sex with Nona or the fact that SB wittnessed more than what Nona told her. SB did not name the person Nona had "retaliation sex" with that I am aware of either and I was sitting in the court room. SB was not on the stand long at all.

I am clueless as to why MissC would have been insistent that there was testimony by two boys that they had sex with Nona. And just as clueless as to why when she did backtrack to cite SB's testimony, that it was proof likewise. Thanks so much.

I may have missed the gist of CDipert's interview with the media; can anyone help me out about whether or not Kevin Jones did in fact have the third key? I could have sworn that he told LE that he had a key, but had not brought it with him that night as he was driving his father's vehicle. That was a large part of what I felt was the contrivance with regard to his cock and bull story.

[upallnight]

Thanks for helping me with JH's testimony. It makes sense in a way that Nona would trust him; they had met in the fall of '04 (according to The Courier's account of his testimony), and had classes together. Their friendship went past the sexual relationship and they remained friends; it just seems that even though she trusted him, it doesn't mean that she would trust or let just anyone into the apartment.

One thing that I'm not understanding is; I thought that Kevin had told LE that he had a key to Nona's apartment, but didn't have it with him that night. That was supposedly why he and RW tried to card the door and eventually went around to the back, saw Nona through the door and broke in. I don't remember that Duane had the third key rather than KJ. I did see Carol's statement to the press, but don't remember her saying that KJ didn't have a key, or rather that Duane did.

I stand corrected, report is below, her stepdad was not to have said had a key, I was not thinking correctly as her stepdad and her mom live in the same house and have use of the same key if needed. Kevin did have a key, he said he did not bring it with him, that's why they went to the back door. That would have been 4 keys, I see my mistake there, thanks for correcting me! I just wish we knew the truth of who killed Nona. I get busy with the phone calls and I did not enter that information correctly.
Again Thanks!
Jury Returns Not Guilty Verdict in Kevin Jones Trial
Thursday July 19, 2007 7:15pm Posted By: Scott Munsell
Instant Message this Article
___ KATV Interact ___

• Signup for eNews Alerts
• Whats Your Opinion?
• Printable Version
• E-Mail This Story
___ Related Stories ___

Defense Attacks Evidence in Jones TrialProsecution Rests in Ozark Murder TrialCrime Lab Employees Testify at Ozark Murder TrialProsecutors Focus on Timeline in Ozark Murder Trial
Watch the eVideo

Ozark - A circuit court jury has found Kevin Jones not guilty of killing his girlfriend, onetime Miss Arkansas contestant Nona Dirksmeyer.



The verdict came down just before 2:30 Thursday. There was emotional reaction from both sides, including tears from the defendant as the verdict was read.

Escorted by his attorneys, Jones walked out of the Franklin County courthouse a free man.

(Kevin Jones, Defendant) "I'd like to thank the jury."

The jury deliberated for more than eight hours before returning the verdict.

(Carol Dipert, Nona Dirksmeyer’s Mother) "I don't think justice was served today."

Speaking exclusively to Channel 7, Nona Dirksmeyer's mother expressed her frustration with the jurors.

(Dipert) "It had a lot of evidence, but when it came down to it, it really wasn't that hard of a case. There were three people with keys, and one of those people's handprints was on that light bulb."

Carol Dipert says she'll try to find justice for her daughter in civil court. As for the defense team, they want to see justice served as well. But they believe in this case, the Russellville Police Department had the wrong man.

(Bill Bristow, Defense Attorney) "Today, justice was done for Kevin Jones and his family. I feel like justice needs to be done for Nona Dirksmeyer and her family."

[upallnight]

Night to all, work will be calling early.

[lorettalockhorn]

Night to all, work will be calling early.

Thanks for posting. :seeya:

[optimumprimal78]

I've never heard mention of a ring on her finger so I wonder how they (the paper) really came to the conclusion of him being her fiance? And did the family allow it to be put in there or did the editors just do it themselves?

[lorettalockhorn]

I've never heard mention of a ring on her finger so I wonder how they (the paper) really came to the conclusion of him being her fiance? And did the family allow it to be put in there or did the editors just do it themselves?


I cannot speak with any authority on this issue, but what I can imagine might have happened is that the engagement was somewhat a foregone conclusion by both families, it had possibly been talked about quite a bit. So even though there was not a ring yet, the Diperts categorized KJ as the fiance when the obituary was written, probably very soon after Nona's death. By the time that the funeral actually occurred, a week later, the family had more information and wanted to distance themselves from Kevin.

[FDInLaw]

I cannot speak with any authority on this issue, but what I can imagine might have happened is that the engagement was somewhat a foregone conclusion by both families, it had possibly been talked about quite a bit. So even though there was not a ring yet, the Diperts categorized KJ as the fiance when the obituary was written, probably very soon after Nona's death. By the time that the funeral actually occurred, a week later, the family had more information and wanted to distance themselves from Kevin.

This is a very good assumption. Carol called in the obituary info herself. In the beginning Kevin was the last person she expected. Kevin even went to the funeral home with her to help pick out the casket. What I don't get is the harsh treatment Carol received during the trial. . . it's like folks thought she was to blame. Some woman even tried to intentionally hit Carol with a door in the restroom and then turned around and glared at her. The trial was very difficult for Nona's family, and the total lack of compassion they received is intolerable IMO. Carol will be doing some interviews this week and I believe she will touch upon these things (this is my cheeky way of sighting future links, I'll post them when they are out). ~ FD

[lorettalockhorn]

This is a very good assumption. Carol called in the obituary info herself. In the beginning Kevin was the last person she expected. Kevin even went to the funeral home with her to help pick out the casket. What I don't get is the harsh treatment Carol received during the trial. . . it's like folks thought she was to blame. Some woman even tried to intentionally hit Carol with a door in the restroom and then turned around and glared at her. The trial was very difficult for Nona's family, and the total lack of compassion they received is intolerable IMO. Carol will be doing some interviews this week and I believe she will touch upon these things (this is my cheeky way of sighting future links, I'll post them when they are out). ~ FD

I look forward to seeing/reading Carol's interviews. Thanks for the heads up.

I don't understand how Carol could have been disrespected by anyone at the trial, or here for that matter. I've seen her referred to as Ms. Dipert and Mrs. Dirksmeyter; I've wondered if those references were subtle digs by someone with an axe to grind. It is possible that since the jury and gallery didn't actually hear the testimony of the girl that Kevin was screwing around with, that they fell hook, line and sinker for his characterization that he believed the relationship to be "very, very exclusive".

My heart goes out to Nona's family. A murderer is free.

[hawgustusgloop]

This is a very good assumption. Carol called in the obituary info herself. In the beginning Kevin was the last person she expected. Kevin even went to the funeral home with her to help pick out the casket. What I don't get is the harsh treatment Carol received during the trial. . . it's like folks thought she was to blame. Some woman even tried to intentionally hit Carol with a door in the restroom and then turned around and glared at her. The trial was very difficult for Nona's family, and the total lack of compassion they received is intolerable IMO. Carol will be doing some interviews this week and I believe she will touch upon these things (this is my cheeky way of sighting future links, I'll post them when they are out). ~ FD

How sick can a person be to treat the grieving mother of a brutally murdered young woman in such a horrible and seemingly unwarranted way, during the very emotional trial of her daughter's alleged killer?

Even if she had been my bitter enemy, I would still have loads of sympathy for her and treat her with kindness out of respect for her daughter's memory and for what she's going through.

I also detected some resentment in posts on this board about reporters talking to Carol Dipert and handing her a package, but not talking to the Jones family.

Some ex-CL posters' attitudes about Duane Dipert were oddly personal and IMO a little out of line, but there is no excuse for anyone treating Nona's mom so shabbily. I hope the person who behaved in this nasty and childish way toward Carol Dipert is ashamed of themselves, but I have a disgusting feeling this cruel person is proud of it and maybe even bragged to other morally bankrupt individuals about doing so.

How sad.

[optimumprimal78]

It is sad to me that the trial was more about the "travesty" and "injustice" that KJ would even be considered than finding out who killed Nona.

[hawgustusgloop]

I did not say that it is a fact that there is jury misconduct, I said that I am not convinced that the jury didn't have some prior knowledge of the parties involved (or the case for that matter), that is my opinion.

If you have read the entire thread and my posts, you will know that when I post something as fact, that isn't generally accepted knowledge, I back it up with a link or a quote.

That is my opinion as well.

[Amy]

How sick can a person be to treat the grieving mother of a brutally murdered young woman in such a horrible and seemingly unwarranted way, during the very emotional trial of her daughter's alleged killer?

Even if she had been my bitter enemy, I would still have loads of sympathy for her and treat her with kindness out of respect for her daughter's memory and for what she's going through.

I also detected some resentment in posts on this board about reporters talking to Carol Dipert and handing her a package, but not talking to the Jones family.

Some ex-CL posters' attitudes about Duane Dipert were oddly personal and IMO a little out of line, but there is no excuse for anyone treating Nona's mom so shabbily. I hope the person who behaved in this nasty and childish way toward Carol Dipert is ashamed of themselves, but I have a disgusting feeling this cruel person is proud of it and maybe even bragged to other morally bankrupt individuals about doing so.

How sad.


Surely even the most robust of the KJ supporters would realize that CAROL is not the one who brought charges against him--LE did. And, seemingly, not even on her say-so. So, why would they treat her in such a fashion? I'm sure she would much rather have been out shopping and eating with Nona as opposed to being at the trial of her murder.

[FDInLaw]

That is my opinion as well.

Going to chime in my agreement here as well. It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things kids these days will post on the Internet. :cool:

[chambord]

This is a very good assumption. Carol called in the obituary info herself. In the beginning Kevin was the last person she expected. Kevin even went to the funeral home with her to help pick out the casket. What I don't get is the harsh treatment Carol received during the trial. . . it's like folks thought she was to blame. Some woman even tried to intentionally hit Carol with a door in the restroom and then turned around and glared at her. The trial was very difficult for Nona's family, and the total lack of compassion they received is intolerable IMO. Carol will be doing some interviews this week and I believe she will touch upon these things (this is my cheeky way of sighting future links, I'll post them when they are out). ~ FD

Good morning friend.

I wondered how you were doing. Hope all is well with you and yours. *smile*. Thanks for the notice re Carol, I'm looking forward to what she has to say. IMO, suffering Nona's loss, going thru a trial with no results, and the aftermath must have been a setback. Life goes forward for everyone else, but Nona's family are most likely in the mode of *what if's*..Just so sad.

[lorettalockhorn]

Chiming mine in as well. People do post the dumbest stuff on here. Knowing when to let go is a good quality. Obviously no one here has that quality. It never ceases to amaze me that you arm chair detectives can't get past the acquittal of Kevin Jones. You are still here wasting away your words and effort on him. Meanwhile the real killer runs free. I mean Kevin didn't get up on the witness stand and lie. I would even bet if he tells you a movie was returned on a certain date, well then, it probably was......

There are people, who after hearing the evidence, believe that KJ is guilty because of motive, opportunity, physical evidence and the lies, misconceptions, inconsistencies, misunderstandings, etc. No, KJ didn't get up on the witness stand, but the interviews showed him to be a liar. Grandmother's last ditch effort at giving him an alibi didn't help. Neither did the experiment by the defense expert.

I've seen some asinine comments posted that make the armchair detectives here look like rocket scientists.

A killer is free to walk the streets.

"Most heartfelt sympathy goes out to Carol Dirksmeyer." I believe that Carol's name is Dipert. Has she changed her name?

[lorettalockhorn]

Most heartfelt sympathy goes out to Carol Dirksmeyer. Sadly she is a victim in all this, too. Yes, I guess it is probably seen as a set back. But, in my honest opinion, the setback begun when LE charged KJ with the death of Nona, and has been going on for over a year and a half now. The only way to have avoid this long and lengthy delay of justice is if the correct person would have been charged in the first place. Sadly, LE tredged down the wrong road with tunnel vision and took A LOT of people along for the ride. If Carol plans to file civil suit, she should wake up and file it against the RPD for the way this whole case was handled and force them to work harder to find the true killer.....

Yep, sounds familiar to me.

Seriously, has Carol Dipert changed her name?

[doverite]

I know the show 48 hours interviewed the Jones' family. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

[FDInLaw]

I know the show 48 hours interviewed the Jones' family. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Do you suspect that the Jones family will have anything to say that was not in Janice's interview with the Dover Times?

Belated "Welcome to the board!" :seeya:

[lorettalockhorn]

From today's Courier:

Willhite remebered arriving at the courthouse on the morning of July 9 for jury selection. The courtroom was packed with potential jurors - Willhite called them "a picture of life" - but she said she knew in her heart she would be chosen for the jury, as she believed that she "was there for a reason" that day.
"It's a very tough case for all involved when you have two young lives on the line," Willhite said. "Nona was beautiful and full of energy and had a life to live."

"I just wanted to make sure I was getting it right," she said, noting the jury examined evidence, timelines and motives as they sifted through the case in the deliberation room.
"When you're in a jury room, and you've got eight hours to look at evidence, you get a clear picture," she said. That picture, in Willhite's estimation, was one of reasonable doubt.
"I know it's been reported that God led us, and that's true," she told The Courier, citing the jurors' mutual faith of "right mindedness," as she called it, as a comfort to her despite the difficulty of her position as a juror.
Carol Chambers of Mulberry, who was also a member of the jury, remembered the panel's initial vote was split 3[sic] ways - six for acquittal, two undecided, and four in favor of a guilty verdict.
As deliberations continued into the second day, she said, certain things convinced the dissenting and undecided jurors that Jones did not commit the crime he was accused of, including witness testimonies, a desription of Jones' palm print found on a lightbulb at the scene as "having an apapearance consistent with tacky," and Jones himself.
"There were some older people who said he did not act one bit different in the afternoon than he did every day of his life." Chambers said, "I just don't believe those people wouldn've lied.
"For example, his grandmother. She seemed like a very Christian lady - I can't believe people who are Christians will lie."

[oxfordwebster]

As deliberations continued into the second day, she said, certain things convinced the dissenting and undecided jurors that Jones did not commit the crime he was accused of, including witness testimonies, a desription of Jones' palm print found on a lightbulb at the scene as "having an apapearance consistent with tacky," and Jones himself.:flamemad: Yeah, like I needed further confirmation that these jurors can't see the forest for the trees.

"There were some older people who said he did not act one bit different in the afternoon than he did every day of his life." Chambers said, "I just don't believe those people wouldn've lied.
"For example, his grandmother. She seemed like a very Christian lady - I can't believe people who are Christians will lie."
[/I]:flamemad: :flamemad:

Hi, jury? This isn't how you evaluate witnesses. Thanks for successfully making me think even less of the job you did!

[lorettalockhorn]

"The only thing that put him anywhere there was that palm print on the bulb, and we came to the conclusion that that was put there when she was found," Chambers said.
"We re-enacted the scene to make sure that could've gotten gotten on there when [Jones] found her, Chambers added.
In addition, Chambers said, the police department said in their report it appeared tacky. [former Russellville Police Chief James Bacon] didn't say it was dry. He said it appeared tacky, which meant it was wet."
In addition, Chambers said she was disturbed by taped police interviews with Jones at the RPD on the night of the murder.
That tape bothered me a lot" she said. He just found out that his girlfriend of years had been killed and then within an hour he was at the police station, and they said he went voluntarily.l
"He kept messing with his sweater like he was cold. I don't know, it was jut sad to me."
Chambers was also impressed by the fact that prosecutors couldn't put Jones anywhere outside the area surrounding his home using cell phone records, as well as the fact RPD investigators testified they did not observe any wounds on Jones' hands indicative of his involvement in a struggle.

[lorettalockhorn]

:flamemad: Yeah, like I needed further confirmation that these jurors can't see the forest for the trees.

:flamemad: :flamemad:

Hi, jury? This isn't how you evaluate witnesses. Thanks for successfully making me think even less of the job you did!


Christians don't lie? Or sin? I guess this juror isn't aware of the blasphemy of the crusades, for instance.

[oxfordwebster]

In addition, Chambers said, the police departnebt said in their report it appeared tacky. [former Russellville Police Chief James Bacon] didn't say it was dry. He said it appeared tacky, which meant it was wet."Hi, I'm a jury that can't listen to testimony properly and what "tacky" actually meant. It was dry according to sworn testimony, geniuses.

Chambers was also impressed by the fact that prosecutors couldn't put Jones anywhere outside the area surrounding his home using cell phone records, as well as the fact RPD investigators testified they did not observe any wounds on Jones' hands indicative of his involvement in a struggle.[/I]Gee, it's almost as if these jurors didn't have the ability to understand how cell phones work. The phone company keeps track of which towers were used when things are going on actively with a phone--such as receiving/sending calls/text messages. He didn't have any phone activity, thus nothing to place him there.

Once again... :flamemad:

[lorettalockhorn]

Chambers said she wondered about testimony from Dirksmeyer's former neighbor Brandy Bean, who told the jury she witnessed an argument between Dirksmeyer and a male who was not Jones about two weeks before the murder that culminated in Dirksmeyer throwing her keys out her apartment door to the man, who drove away in her car.
"If some guy took off in her car one night, it's really easy to get a key to the apartment]," Chambers said.
Despite her ultimate conviction that Jones did not commit the murder, the trial was difficult for her, Chambers said.
"You do get kind of muddled, and you want to ask questions while you're sitting there, but you can't say anything," she said.
In the end, though, she said she and the other jurors all agreed that Jones was either innocent of Dirksmeyer's murder, or that enough reasonable doubt remained to prevent a conviction.
"I just don't believe he wouldn've had time to go over there and kill somebody and then act normal all day," Chambers said.
I just couldn't imagine anybody going around acting normal the rest of the day."
Although both Willhite and Chambers stand by the jury's verdict, they have each expressed regret with respect to the crime, if not their decision to acquit.

"It's a no-win situation," Willhite said.

[lorettalockhorn]

Hi, I'm a jury that can't listen to testimony properly and what "tacky" actually meant. It was dry according to sworn testimony, geniuses.

Gee, it's almost as if these jurors didn't have the ability to understand how cell phones work. The phone company keeps track of which towers were used when things are going on actively with a phone--such as receiving/sending calls/text messages. He didn't have any phone activity, thus nothing to place him there.

Once again... :flamemad:

Oh well, Chambers apparently doesn't realize that appearance and texture are two different things. Didn't Bacon iterate that he never actually touched the blood?

Yeah, that was a no-brainer. Not only could the cell records not place him outside the area, they couldn't place him inside the area either.

[oxfordwebster]

My reenactment of the jury deliberation. Ahem.

Hurrrrrrrrrr

Was that close enough? I tried to draw it out to be as accurate as possible... Sheesh. I'm beginning to think that the only reason we had a verdict in the afternoon is that they "deliberated" long enough to get a free lunch before they left.

[lorettalockhorn]

Billy Ginoccchio (Janie's husband) is featured in today's Living section of The Courier; haven't had a chance to read it yet.

[sololobo]

Hi, I'm a jury that can't listen to testimony properly and what "tacky" actually meant. It was dry according to sworn testimony, geniuses.

Gee, it's almost as if these jurors didn't have the ability to understand how cell phones work. The phone company keeps track of which towers were used when things are going on actively with a phone--such as receiving/sending calls/text messages. He didn't have any phone activity, thus nothing to place him there.

Once again... :flamemad:

Tacky
Adjective
1. (of a glutinous liquid such as paint) not completely dried and slightly sticky to the touch; "tacky varnish". Webster's dictionary

tacky
• adjective (tackier, tackiest) (of glue, paint, etc.) slightly sticky because not fully dry. Oxford dictionary

“A [painted] wall can look wet and be dry,” he said. “Until you touch it, you don’t know.” Bacon-Pretrial hearing

He explained to the jurors that he was unable to touch the blood, so therefore tried to best explain the blood’s visual appearance. He compared it to a paint drip on a wall.
“You can touch it and it might be dry, or it might burst because the paint inside is still wet,” he said. “But you don’t know until you touch it.” Bacon-Trial testimony

Well, I'm no genius so I will have to take Oxford and Webster's dictionaries' definition as fact....tacky is wet.

It appeared "tacky" according to sworn testimony. Bacon did not retract his original description but instead offered a retroactive self-definition of tacky that was clumsy at best. The jury knew what tacky meant. Bacon, by the time of the trial, apparently did not.

You are correct and so was the jury, the cell phone records could not place Kevin at the scene of the crime.

[lorettalockhorn]

Tacky
Adjective
1. (of a glutinous liquid such as paint) not completely dried and slightly sticky to the touch; "tacky varnish". Webster's dictionary

tacky
• adjective (tackier, tackiest) (of glue, paint, etc.) slightly sticky because not fully dry. Oxford dictionary

“A [painted] wall can look wet and be dry,” he said. “Until you touch it, you don’t know.” Bacon-Pretrial hearing

He explained to the jurors that he was unable to touch the blood, so therefore tried to best explain the blood’s visual appearance. He compared it to a paint drip on a wall.
“You can touch it and it might be dry, or it might burst because the paint inside is still wet,” he said. “But you don’t know until you touch it.” Bacon-Trial testimony

Well, I'm no genius so I will have to take Oxford and Webster's dictionaries' definition as fact....tacky is wet.

It appeared "tacky" according to sworn testimony. Bacon did not retract his original description but instead offered a retroactive self-definition of tacky that was clumsy at best. The jury knew what tacky meant. Bacon, by the time of the trial, apparently did not.

You are correct and so was the jury, the cell phone records could not place Kevin at the scene of the crime.

I'm no genius either, so I'll take Bacon's sworn testimony; the blood appeared to be tacky. Then, and days later.

[sololobo]

I'm no genius either, so I'll take Bacon's sworn testimony; the blood appeared to be tacky. Then, and days later.

Agreed, the blood was tacky.

[lorettalockhorn]

Agreed, the blood was tacky.

The jury didn't seem to be able to discern between appearance and actual texture. If the appearance of the blood didn't change in the days following the murder, how can they assume that it had changed drastically in the hours after the crime?

[sololobo]

The jury didn't seem to be able to discern between appearance and actual texture. If the appearance of the blood didn't change in the days following the murder, how can they assume that it had changed drastically in the hours after the crime?

Therefore, the jury could not assume the print was made at the time of the murder. At the very least, Bacon's testimony would be irrelevent as to the time the print was made. The prosecution could not prove when the print was made. On the other hand, "tacky" implies it was made after discovery of the body.

[lorettalockhorn]

Therefore, the jury could not assume the print was made at the time of the murder. At the very least, Bacon's testimony would be irrelevent as to the time the print was made. The prosecution could not prove when the print was made. On the other hand, "tacky" implies it was made after discovery of the body.

My logic is exactly the opposite. Kevin touched the bulb when he killed her. No one claims that they noticed him touch the bulb on discovery, surely they were watching his bizarre actions, surely they would have noticed the grotesque angle that his arm/wrist would have been held at to even leave the print. Lowering the temperature was the engineering feat that probably caused the appearance to remain tacky for hours.

Believe me, if you and I had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury.

Cannot believe that the original undecided or guilty votes gave in to feeling sorry for KJ; cry me a river. Can't believe that they fell for some schlock about Christians not lying. (BTW, this is NOT an endorsement for heathens!)

[lorettalockhorn]

Believe me, if you and I had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury.

Disclaimer: This is not a dig at you or any of the pro-defense types; I just found KJ's lack of alibi, considering that grandmother was not believeable, combined with the motive that became even stronger at trial to be convincing of his guilt.

Later, on hearing the rumors of a juror having a tie to a party of the case; I'm more than ever just not convinced that the jury did a good job.

[oxfordwebster]

Well, I'm no genius so I will have to take Oxford and Webster's dictionaries' definition as fact....tacky is wet.

It appeared "tacky" according to sworn testimony. Bacon did not retract his original description but instead offered a retroactive self-definition of tacky that was clumsy at best. The jury knew what tacky meant. Bacon, by the time of the trial, apparently did not.So, you're suggesting that Bacon lied on the stand. That's interesting. (Note: if it appeared the same days later, it wasn't wet. Please contact the appropriate authorities to charge Bacon with perjury.)

[FDInLaw]

Therefore, the jury could not assume the print was made at the time of the murder. At the very least, Bacon's testimony would be irrelevent as to the time the print was made. The prosecution could not prove when the print was made. On the other hand, "tacky" implies it was made after discovery of the body.
You're not the only one that has embraced this line of logic. The problem I have is that the print appeared "tacky" days later. . . this in mind, and as Bacon testified, his use of this word was not referring to substance but to appearance. In my mind, if it appeared "tacky" days later it obviously could have been dry at the time Bacon first observed it, meaning Kevin could have left it during the murder. IMO the defense successfully used a confusing comment to their advantage and this case very well may have been decided by this very situation. To me this is heartbreaking, the jury, instead of listening to what Bacon meant got caught up in what the defense wanted them to believe Bacon meant. On top of this, the jury ignored Bacon's testimony about how difficult (impossible) it would have been for Kevin to make the print from where he straddled the body. Then there is the FACT that Kevin claimed he did not touch the lamp and both witnesses concurred with this. Justice appears to have hinged on one word.

I'm not impressed with the jury, but I certainly won't focus my frustration at them. They only were allowed a snap shot of the situation. There were other people that could have taken the stand to testify about the problems Kevin and Nona were having, but short of Sarah Bailey's brief statements, the jury was given the idea that there were no problems. Also, there was evidence that Kevin knew about Nona's other relationships. This would have established motive, yet the jury didn't hear about it. I'm left totally confused with a million questions. Folks have got on here and suggested that it's just time for people like me to move on and accept that Kevin is "innocent." I sincerely wish I could. Maybe if the jury would have been allowed to see the complete picture I would be able to accept their verdict. As it stands, the boy they saw on trial was a fraud, a fake, a lie. . . how could any of us expect them to see the truth?


:shrug:

[hawgustusgloop]

"For example, his grandmother. She seemed like a very Christian lady - I can't believe people who are Christians will lie."


Well, I can see how these deliberations went, since we have now found out that all the jurors were of the same "right-mindedness." "Hey, let's just identify the people who appear to be the most "Christian" to us, and side with them, because all those who are right-minded like we are will be the ones telling the truth! How easy is that?!"

[sololobo]

"For example, his grandmother. She seemed like a very Christian lady - I can't believe people who are Christians will lie."


Well, I can see how these deliberations went, since we have now found out that all the jurors were of the same "right-mindedness." "Hey, let's just identify the people who appear to be the most "Christian" to us, and side with them, because all those who are right-minded like we are will be the ones telling the truth! How easy is that?!"

If Grandma Jones wanted to lie and give Kevin an alibi, I sure she would have testified she saw him at 11:05 am.

[oxfordwebster]

If Grandma Jones wanted to lie and give Kevin an alibi, I sure she would have testified she saw him at 11:05 am.Which would have been even more ludicrous with Kevin's claims from that day that he didn't leave his house until 11:45am.

These people are incapable of lying, though.

[sololobo]

You're not the only one that has embraced this line of logic. The problem I have is that the print appeared "tacky" days later. . . this in mind, and as Bacon testified, his use of this word was not referring to substance but to appearance. In my mind, if it appeared "tacky" days later it obviously could have been dry at the time Bacon first observed it, meaning Kevin could have left it during the murder. IMO the defense successfully used a confusing comment to their advantage and this case very well may have been decided by this very situation. To me this is heartbreaking, the jury, instead of listening to what Bacon meant got caught up in what the defense wanted them to believe Bacon meant. On top of this, the jury ignored Bacon's testimony about how difficult (impossible) it would have been for Kevin to make the print from where he straddled the body. Then there is the FACT that Kevin claimed he did not touch the lamp and both witnesses concurred with this. Justice appears to have hinged on one word.

I'm not impressed with the jury, but I certainly won't focus my frustration at them. They only were allowed a snap shot of the situation. There were other people that could have taken the stand to testify about the problems Kevin and Nona were having, but short of Sarah Bailey's brief statements, the jury was given the idea that there were no problems. Also, there was evidence that Kevin knew about Nona's other relationships. This would have established motive, yet the jury didn't hear about it. I'm left totally confused with a million questions. Folks have got on here and suggested that it's just time for people like me to move on and accept that Kevin is "innocent." I sincerely wish I could. Maybe if the jury would have been allowed to see the complete picture I would be able to accept their verdict. As it stands, the boy they saw on trial was a fraud, a fake, a lie. . . how could any of us expect them to see the truth?


:shrug:

I'm sure Kevin did not touch the lamp in the manner Bacon exibited. However, the body moved, the lamp would have moved if Kevin pushed it away, and Kevin was in different positions relative to the body and lamp during this time frame. Bacon's demonstration was meaningless.

The tacky print statement was not confusing at all. Bacon's subsequent explanations of it were confusing and somewhat suspicious.

Kevin not remembering touching the lamp does not make him a liar. None of us would be able to remember every little detail when under the extreme emotional distress of finding a loved one dead in a pool of blood. Nor can we even begin to assume both witnesses there aware of Kevin's every move.

I don't see how Kevin could have fooled everyone around him since the age of 14 if he was indeed a fraud, a fake, a lie. This would include Nona and Carol also. Can we even pretend to know Kevin better than those who watched him grow up? We don't know him. They did. The "evil" side of Kevin was almost entirely begat and nourished by the imagination of this board and is meaningless to the true personality of "cuddlemuffin" Kevin.

[oxfordwebster]

The tacky print statement was not confusing at all. Bacon's subsequent explanations of it were confusing and somewhat suspicious.So do you think Bacon perjured himself? The written statement was that it "appeared tacky," and none of his explanations of what he meant conflicted with that. He wasn't sitting around, playing in wet blood, and then trying to cover his tracks later.

But, I guess he perjured himself. Go figure.

I don't see how Kevin could have fooled everyone around him since the age of 14 if he was indeed a fraud, a fake, a lie. This would include Nona and Carol also. Can we even pretend to know Kevin better than those who watched him grow up? We don't know him. They did. The "evil" side of Kevin was almost entirely begat and nourished by the imagination of this board and is meaningless to the true personality of "cuddlemuffin" Kevin.One person that probably knew him the best can't speak anymore.

[FDInLaw]

I'm sure Kevin did not touch the lamp in the manner Bacon exibited. However, the body moved, the lamp would have moved if Kevin pushed it away, and Kevin was in different positions relative to the body and lamp during this time frame. Bacon's demonstration was meaningless.

The tacky print statement was not confusing at all. Bacon's subsequent explanations of it were confusing and somewhat suspicious.

Kevin not remembering touching the lamp does not make him a liar. None of us would be able to remember every little detail when under the extreme emotional distress of finding a loved one dead in a pool of blood. Nor can we even begin to assume both witnesses there aware of Kevin's every move.

I don't see how Kevin could have fooled everyone around him since the age of 14 if he was indeed a fraud, a fake, a lie. This would include Nona and Carol also. Can we even pretend to know Kevin better than those who watched him grow up? We don't know him. They did. The "evil" side of Kevin was almost entirely begat and nourished by the imagination of this board and is meaningless to the true personality of "cuddlemuffin" Kevin.
My suggestion would be to dig deeper. For one, check out all you can regarding the rape allegation. Are there any court documents you can get your hands on via FOIA? It's not my desire to slander Kevin, or anyone for that matter, on this board. If I make a strong statement it is not without cause. There's a lot more to Kevin than "cuddlemuffin." Don't take mine or anyone else's word for it. . . do your own detective work, but in so doing, seek the truth and be open to the possibilities.

Since the trial is over and it is public knowledge that Kevin has admitted to illicit drug use, I will state that Carol and Nona were aware of Kevin's issues here. Nona worried a great deal about this. Having acoholics in my family, I guess I'm a tad biased on this issue. . . but substance abuse changes people. The Kevin folks knew a few years ago may in fact be a very different person now. JMO

Patterson ruled the statement could be entered into evidence Monday afternoon. At the request of the defense, prosecutors excised Jones’ statements about using marijuana and other drugs, Gibbons said Monday. A copy of the taped statement without the drug references was given to defense attorneys for their review.
http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=15331&Search=kevin%20jones

[FDInLaw]

So do you think Bacon perjured himself? The written statement was that it "appeared tacky," and none of his explanations of what he meant conflicted with that. He wasn't sitting around, playing in wet blood, and then trying to cover his tracks later.

But, I guess he perjured himself. Go figure.

One person that probably knew him the best can't speak anymore. What kills me is that Nona did talk about their problems to some. . . in fact there were very serious problems. A lot of these issues revolved around Kevin cheating on her, something the defense wisely had blocked from the jury. The irony is Kevin's defense was able to stand before the jury and state in closing arguements that no one had testified to Kevin and Nona having problems. In reality serious issues did exist, but how could anyone state different when they could not bring up Kevin's infidelity??? I just don't see the logic. How could Kevin messing around be just a side issue? Nona's family had to endure all sorts of statements made about Nona, yet Kevin was protected from the truth being stated. Why did Kevin have more rights than Nona? :mad:

[LurkerNoMore]

Since the trial is over and it is public knowledge that Kevin has admitted to illicit drug use, I will state that Carol and Nona were aware of Kevin's issues here. Nona worried a great deal about this. Having acoholics in my family, I guess I'm a tad biased on this issue. . . but substance abuse changes people. The Kevin folks knew a few years ago may in fact be a very different person now. JMO

Are you talking about smoking marijuana?

Because from my college days, I can tell you, people smoking majijuana leads to 1) sitting around on a couch looking glassy-eyed and laughing at stupid jokes, and then 2) eating junk food.

[oxfordwebster]

Are you talking about smoking marijuana?

Because from my college days, I can tell you, people smoking majijuana leads to 1) sitting around on a couch looking glassy-eyed and laughing at stupid jokes, and then 2) eating junk food.Prescription medication abuse was also mentioned. Who knows what else the defense was able to get thrown out.

[FDInLaw]

Are you talking about smoking marijuana?

Because from my college days, I can tell you, people smoking majijuana leads to 1) sitting around on a couch looking glassy-eyed and laughing at stupid jokes, and then 2) eating junk food.

Also, marijuana use can lead to excessive video game playing, or so I've heard. :D But no, I was not just referring to marijuana use (the article states "other drugs" as well).

[sololobo]

Prescription medication abuse was also mentioned. Who knows what else the defense was able to get thrown out.

The prescription drug was Adderall, given to children and college students for A.D.D. and I'm not aware of any allegation of abuse. The defense did not get it thrown out. Gibbons agreed to delete it. He must have considered it trivial and had no bearing on the case.

[oxfordwebster]

The prescription drug was Adderall, given to children and college students for A.D.D. and I'm not aware of any allegation of abuse. The defense did not get it thrown out. Gibbons agreed to delete it. He must have considered it trivial and had no bearing on the case.:beer:

Something tells me he wasn't taking Adderall because he needed it.