Nona Dirksmeyer, 2005 Miss Arkansas pageant contestant found dead in her apartment [Archive] - Page 26

hawgustusgloop

08-06-2007, 02:24 PM

oxfordwebster

08-06-2007, 02:31 PM

consistently cheating on Nona up to a week before her murder.What makes it even more crazy is that the one girl he had sex with a week before Nona was killed. That means KJ got with at least one girl on Thursday or Friday before coming to Russellville and getting with Nona like everything was okay. Shining examples of Christian values. These people can do no wrong.

FDInLaw

08-06-2007, 02:55 PM

Adderall is one of the latest forms of "speed" used by college students. Its effects are essentially the same as those produced by the "white crosses" kids used back in my day to help them stay up all night and study.

http://www.albion.edu/pleiad/2005_spring/issue12/features/features1.asp

(Still using links to source, document and verify my posts......does that mark me as old fashioned around here?) Great link! :beer: Thank you for posting it. :seeya:

hawgustusgloop

08-06-2007, 02:57 PM

Here's the interview with the juror who thinks people who appear to be Christians for 5 seconds on the witness stand can't possibly lie. From the Courier:

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15610

FDInLaw

08-06-2007, 04:18 PM

http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.info/drug-addiction-facts.htm

This site lists Amphetamine (Adderall) as the 8th most abused drug (List includes illicit and prescription drugs). It also states that Adderal is in the highest risk category for addiction among prescription drugs.

Schedule II
High potential for abuse. Use may lead to severe physical or psychological dependence. Prescriptions must be written in ink, or typewritten and signed by the practitioner. Verbal prescriptions must be confirmed in writing within, 72 hours, and may be given only in a genuine emergency. No refills are permitted.

Alfentanil (Afenta)
Amobarbital (Amytal)
Amphetamine (Dexedrine, Adderall) . . .

Other statements:

70% of violent crime is committed by people who are intoxicated with either alcohol or drugs.

Approximately 80% of all crime in the U.S. is related to drug or alcohol addiction.

lorettalockhorn

08-06-2007, 05:07 PM

Lorettalockhorn addressed the issue of K.Jo's drug use as it pertained to the jury a couple of times during the trial. To paraphrase, she thought the jury might feel a little misled or feel like they had not been given all the facts, if they reached a verdict and then later found out about the drug use, etc.

At the time, I thought it probably wouldn't matter, and that they would just have disregarded it after the fact as unimportant and unrelated to his potential to have committed the murder.

Now, I think lorettalockhorn was absolutely SPOT ON with that. I think THIS jury in particular, with all their "right-mindedness," whatever that means, might think differently now of poor, vulnerable, little K.Jo the Cuddlemuffin, crying for his mommy and shivering and fidgeting with his sweater in the interrogation room, if someone clued them in on the fact that K.Jo had been abusing illicit substances and consistently cheating on Nona up to a week before her murder.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, IIRC Kamp Jones pooh-poohed my assertion that KJ's drug use or the combined effects of alcohol, Adderall and whatever else might have had on his psyche.

I wonder if any jurors have read up on this case or the alleged rape story now that it's all over? I honestly wonder if they don't feel duped that they didn't have the drug information, or that they didn't learn what a lying cheat Kevin is. I'm particularly interested in what the juror who reportedly had a connection to Ryan Whiteside; wonder if he would want his niece to actually party with that crowd.

Gibbons made some fatal concessions to the defense.

lorettalockhorn

08-06-2007, 05:10 PM

Thanks for the links FD, hawg and Gary Busey!

angelbay

08-06-2007, 05:47 PM

Thank you for the vote of confidence, IIRC Kamp Jones pooh-poohed my assertion that KJ's drug use or the combined effects of alcohol, Adderall and whatever else might have had on his psyche.

I wonder if any jurors have read up on this case or the alleged rape story now that it's all over? I honestly wonder if they don't feel duped that they didn't have the drug information, or that they didn't learn what a lying cheat Kevin is. I'm particularly interested in what the juror who reportedly had a connection to Ryan Whiteside; wonder if he would want his niece to actually party with that crowd.

Gibbons made some fatal concessions to the defense.

Duped by what? An incidental or infrequent use doesn't account for addiction. Do you know the numbers on how many young people have a history of incidental uses of drugs? Do you have any info on whether or not Jones was using Adderall or was addicted, or even drinking during the time of Nona's murder?

TJEddie

08-06-2007, 06:14 PM

Can anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that drug and/or alcohol abuse/addiction was legitimately suspected to have played any role in this murder? Pertaining to Kevin directly, can anyone cite any evidence that Kevin's drug/alcohol use went beyond what could fairly be characterized as social drinking, social pot smoking, and the occasional use of uppers to study/cram for tests?

lorettalockhorn

08-06-2007, 06:20 PM

Duped by what? An incidental or infrequent use doesn't account for addiction. Do you know the numbers on how many young people have a history of incidental uses of drugs? Do you have any info on whether or not Jones was using Adderall or was addicted, or even drinking during the time of Nona's murder?

Who said anything about addiction? How would you know whether or not KuJo's drug use can be characterized as either addictive or incidental? I don't remember reading anything about him being drug tested the night that he murdered Nona, you? His drug use is damaging enough that the defense didn't want the jury to know about it; that says something to me. One of the conditions of his bail was that he wasn't allowed to use drugs or alcohol unless prescribed by a physician; that says something to me.

Speaking of numbers; I have yours. Figuratively AND literally.

sololobo

08-06-2007, 08:28 PM

TJEddie

08-06-2007, 08:46 PM

christina

08-06-2007, 11:44 PM

Hmmm.....I must have missed something....Oh, well, If I may change the subject....

I think a real FBI profile of the murderer is the first step in a new investigation. One that does not have a specific suspect in mind, one that the FBI would not be ashamed of putting on paper.

First, are you saying you believe Gibbons and the RPD (via the PCS) were telling the truth when they stated the FBI profile expert helped them finger Jones?
It is obvious that an outside agency needs to take a fresh look at this case. An expert profiler-sure, that's as good a start as any.

sololobo

08-07-2007, 03:50 AM

First, are you saying you believe Gibbons and the RPD (via the PCS) were telling the truth when they stated the FBI profile expert helped them finger Jones?
It is obvious that an outside agency needs to take a fresh look at this case. An expert profiler-sure, that's as good a start as any.

Welcome back, christina:)

I think the investigators asked if Kevin could have committed the crime and gave the profiler only evidence implicating him. I would like the profiler to pay particular attention to the cuts on the neck. While the blows to the face and the back of the head could have been the work of an enraged killer, the cuts seem more deliberate and imply a very mentally sick, deranged killer. Also, the profiler should consider the position of the blood stains and items out of place, such as the greeting card on the floor by the body and the candle for example.

christina

08-07-2007, 11:47 AM

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:

Hello FD, hope all is well at your household.
You have brought up many issues here. As one who has followed the case for a while and seems to have "inside information", do you think the prosecution did not put on the best case? You mention information not being put out there about their relationship for example- were there witnesses that could have testified to an abusive relationship?

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 11:56 AM

You have brought up many issues here. As one who has followed the case for a while and seems to have "inside information", do you think the prosecution did not put on the best case? You mention information not being put out there about their relationship for example- were there witnesses that could have testified to an abusive relationship?I can't answer for FD, but I've been gathering a lot of information/rumors that really echo her sentiments. There's even a rumor one of the jurors had a connection to Whiteside that he didn't acknowledge during jury selection, on top of everything else that has come out of the jury's mouths.

christina

08-07-2007, 11:57 AM

Welcome back, christina:)

I think the investigators asked if Kevin could have committed the crime and gave the profiler only evidence implicating him. I would like the profiler to pay particular attention to the cuts on the neck. While the blows to the face and the back of the head could have been the work of an enraged killer, the cuts seem more deliberate and imply a very mentally sick, deranged killer. Also, the profiler should consider the position of the blood stains and items out of place, such as the greeting card on the floor by the body and the candle for example.

I have been thinking about the candle. The candle really bothered me - neither side brought it up in any depth. In the pictures it shows a jar candle about 5 inches or so in diameter and 4 inches high. It had blood on it but testimony said no fingerprints. It was laying by her body. I have thought about this and think this could have been what caused the initial blows. Testimony said she was hit on the side of the head, the eye and the mouth. The knife cuts were all shallow and odd like you say.
For me, this opens up the door to the jealous girlfriend theory.
But yes, I would like to see all information could go to a professional profiler and analized. But this time without any pre-conceived suspects handed to them.

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 12:01 PM

I have been thinking about the candle. The candle really bothered me - neither side brought it up in any depth. In the pictures it shows a jar candle about 5 inches or so in diameter and 4 inches high. It had blood on it but testimony said no fingerprints. It was laying by her body. I have thought about this and think this could have been what caused the initial blows. Testimony said she was hit on the side of the head, the eye and the mouth. The knife cuts were all shallow and odd like you say.
For me, this opens up the door to the jealous girlfriend theory.I think that if there was any indication that the candle was a weapon, then the defense would have brought it up to make the prosecution look like they got it wrong, casting further doubt on their case.

But, as usual, I can't follow your logic. How exactly does that open up a "jealous girlfriend" theory? Besides, I thought all of the people on the defense's side were good, outstanding, Christian people, so I don't see how Kevin would have had a girlfriend on the side that could have been jealous...

But yes, I would like to see all information could go to a professional profiler and analized. But this time without any pre-conceived suspects handed to them.I agree with this, just to satiate some curiosity.

optimumprimal78

08-07-2007, 12:08 PM

FDInLaw

08-07-2007, 12:16 PM

Hello FD, hope all is well at your household.
You have brought up many issues here. As one who has followed the case for a while and seems to have "inside information", do you think the prosecution did not put on the best case? You mention information not being put out there about their relationship for example- were there witnesses that could have testified to an abusive relationship?
IMO the PA focused too much on the bloody palm print and not enough on building motive. Again, I was not present for any of the trial, and like most of you, are relying mostly on what was reported through the media.

Yes, there are people that could have testified to an emotionally abusive relationship. If there is a civil trial, this may well be touched on more. (As always, don't just take my word for it, do your own investigating). ~ FD

TJEddie

08-07-2007, 12:18 PM

I have been thinking about the candle. The candle really bothered me - neither side brought it up in any depth. In the pictures it shows a jar candle about 5 inches or so in diameter and 4 inches high. It had blood on it but testimony said no fingerprints. It was laying by her body. I have thought about this and think this could have been what caused the initial blows. Testimony said she was hit on the side of the head, the eye and the mouth. The knife cuts were all shallow and odd like you say.
For me, this opens up the door to the jealous girlfriend theory.
But yes, I would like to see all information could go to a professional profiler and analized. But this time without any pre-conceived suspects handed to them.

Stop it, christina, you're scaring me. I've been sitting here this morning thinking about......the candle. Ha!

What's been rattling around in my brain is this....could the candle have possibly been used by Nona as a weapon against the attacker? Maybe she threw it or used it to hit him in the head? Surely that blood was tested.....wasn't it?

FDInLaw

08-07-2007, 12:25 PM

I have been thinking about the candle. The candle really bothered me - neither side brought it up in any depth. In the pictures it shows a jar candle about 5 inches or so in diameter and 4 inches high. It had blood on it but testimony said no fingerprints. It was laying by her body. I have thought about this and think this could have been what caused the initial blows. Testimony said she was hit on the side of the head, the eye and the mouth. The knife cuts were all shallow and odd like you say.
For me, this opens up the door to the jealous girlfriend theory.
But yes, I would like to see all information could go to a professional profiler and analized. But this time without any pre-conceived suspects handed to them.

Interesting thoughts but I'm not sure I am following you. Please elaborate more. Are there any suspects that would fit the "jealous girlfriend?" How does the presence of the candle support this theory? (Keep in mind that I'm not getting much sleep and you may be making perfect sense. . . please just help me out here. :) )

christina

08-07-2007, 12:26 PM

I can't answer for FD, but I've been gathering a lot of information/rumors that really echo her sentiments. There's even a rumor one of the jurors had a connection to Whiteside that he didn't acknowledge during jury selection, on top of everything else that has come out of the jury's mouths.

Interesting, the rumor I heard was that one of the jurors graduated with Gibbons, the prosecutor. It was believable as Gibbons is from that area.

christina

08-07-2007, 12:30 PM

Interesting thoughts but I'm not sure I am following you. Please elaborate more. Are there any suspects that would fit the "jealous girlfriend?" How does the presence of the candle support this theory? (Keep in mind that I'm not getting much sleep and you may be making perfect sense. . . please just help me out here. :) )

Totally understand the sleep deprivation thing!
A jar candle swung would land a blow equivalent to a man's punch.

christina

08-07-2007, 12:32 PM

Stop it, christina, you're scaring me. I've been sitting here this morning thinking about......the candle. Ha!

What's been rattling around in my brain is this....could the candle have possibly been used by Nona as a weapon against the attacker? Maybe she threw it or used it to hit him in the head? Surely that blood was tested.....wasn't it?

That is weird. Yes, I do think it could have been used as a weapon. The only "candle" testimony I remember was that it was brushed for prints and none were found. I do not remember it being blood typed. Anyone else remember?

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 12:32 PM

Totally understand the sleep deprivation thing!
A jar candle swung would land a blow equivalent to a man's punch.And quite possibly leave completely different marks, as well.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 12:32 PM

Interesting, the rumor I heard was that one of the jurors graduated with Gibbons, the prosecutor. It was believable as Gibbons is from that area.

Where is Gibbons from, just out of curiosity? Where did he go to high school?

FDInLaw

08-07-2007, 12:37 PM

These might be interesting to revisit. I believe the Courier did this interview with Glenn BEFORE the arrest (so the information he had was limited).

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11884&Search=glenn%20owen

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11883&Search=glenn%20owen

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=11882&Search=glenn%20owen

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 12:39 PM

And quite possibly leave completely different marks, as well.

I would think the candle was probably looked at as a possible weapon for the fatal blow as well as the other bruise-type wounds. If it had blood but no fingerprints, maybe it was just knocked over during the attack?

How far was this candle from Nona's body? I wonder where this candle usually was in Nona's apartment?

christina

08-07-2007, 12:42 PM

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:

You seem to be inferring the defense had the power to keep prosecution witnesses from testifying. I do not think that was true.The only witness the judge did not allow the prosecution to bring in was the girl who would testify to having sex with Jones the week before. The judge said it was not neccessary since Jones himself(on the tape) admitted to that. If there were others that could testify to other alliances I do not think the judge would have left those out as he could not use that same logic/reason. Why did the prosecution leave these witnesses out of their line up? Logic would tell you that hearing about serious difficulties in a relationship tend to make the boyfriend look more suspect.
If there were more "negative" character witnesses, why did the prosecution not present them?

christina

08-07-2007, 12:46 PM

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

This is most disturbing to me. I can only tell you I never saw this happen. I saw the family treated with appropriate deferrence and respect.
I can imagine some people might have felt uncomfortable and not know what to say but I hope the family did not interpret that as harsh treatment. The whole trial was thick with emotion and tension.

christina

08-07-2007, 12:50 PM

IMO the PA focused too much on the bloody palm print and not enough on building motive. Again, I was not present for any of the trial, and like most of you, are relying mostly on what was reported through the media.

Yes, there are people that could have testified to an emotionally abusive relationship. If there is a civil trial, this may well be touched on more. (As always, don't just take my word for it, do your own investigating). ~ FD

There is no doubt in my mind that, as in any relationship, the whole story can only be told by those involved. I felt we got snippets of the relationship but definitely not the whole story. These were two young people just getting out on their own.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 12:51 PM

This is most disturbing to me. I can only tell you I never saw this happen. I saw the family treated with appropriate deferrence and respect.
I can imagine some people might have felt uncomfortable and not know what to say but I hope the family did not interpret that as harsh treatment. The whole trial was thick with emotion and tension.

Do you doubt this occurred? If the incident occurred as FDInLaw described it, I don't think it was just a misinterpretation to think it was harsh IMO. I believe it happened, and I think it is beyond sad.

christina

08-07-2007, 12:52 PM

I would think the candle was probably looked at as a possible weapon for the fatal blow as well as the other bruise-type wounds. If it had blood but no fingerprints, maybe it was just knocked over during the attack?

How far was this candle from Nona's body? I wonder where this candle usually was in Nona's apartment?

Within a few feet on the floor.

christina

08-07-2007, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=hawgustusgloop;8936697]Do you doubt this occurred? If the incident occurred as FDInLaw described it, I don't think it was just a misinterpretation to think it was harsh IMO. I believe it happened, and I think it is beyond sad.[/QUOTE

I do not know where FD got her information. I just wanted to assure that I never saw harsh treatment towards Nona's family. To me it is disturbing to think anyone would behave that way.

FDInLaw

08-07-2007, 12:54 PM

And quite possibly leave completely different marks, as well.

I wonder this as well. For instance, if the bottom edge hit, would there not be a deeper/darker bruise to indicate that? :shrug:

christina

08-07-2007, 01:07 PM

I wonder this as well. For instance, if the bottom edge hit, would there not be a deeper/darker bruise to indicate that? :shrug:

Good questions. The two ME's were different. (I know, surprise, surprise!) Their testimonies did not make or break the case for me, or others probably. IMO, the way she was murdered does not greatly effect who murdered her. But the defense ME had more experience and went more into depth about the actual injuries. For example he listed the blow to the side of her head as doing some serious brain damage. He showed at length the histology(sp?) slides and what they meant. For example he showed that the hits to the mouth, eye and side of the head were deep.
The AR State ME did not seem thorough in his autopsy. Example- he waited several days to perform it and decomposition had started to take place. And he did not obtain fingerprints from Nona.
I wish someone would have thought to compare the candle to the injuires.

angelbay

08-07-2007, 01:14 PM

Interesting, the rumor I heard was that one of the jurors graduated with Gibbons, the prosecutor. It was believable as Gibbons is from that area.

Why he is exactly from Ozark, AR. His Daddy was a doctor, practiced there for many years and finally retired. He was a good old fashion doctor. His mom was a school teacher there. Last that I know of, she taught the sixth grade. I'm sure she is retired by now as well.

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 01:53 PM

Interesting, the rumor I heard was that one of the jurors graduated with Gibbons, the prosecutor. It was believable as Gibbons is from that area.

I would fully expect the jury pool to know Gibbons whether it was from going to school with him or from him being in the public eye; they are registered voters, they could recognize his name from the ballot, or from having read about his cases in the newspaper. I have no idea if the potential jurors were asked about their relationship(s) with Gibbons.

The juror in question however, if not asked about his knowledge of RW because of his niece's friendship, should have volunteered the information, if not asked directly. Stinks, IMO. Just another reason to doubt the jury's fairness.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 01:59 PM

I would fully expect the jury pool to know Gibbons whether it was from going to school with him or from him being in the public eye; they are registered voters, they could recognize his name from the ballot, or from having read about his cases in the newspaper. I have no idea if the potential jurors were asked about their relationship(s) with Gibbons.

The juror in question however, if not asked about his knowledge of RW because of his niece's friendship, should have volunteered the information, if not asked directly. Stinks, IMO. Just another reason to doubt the jury's fairness.

No kidding. The information I received indicated that RW's friend's uncle was aware of their close friendship to the point of personally calling his niece after the verdict to deliver the "good news." I agree it reeks.

christina

08-07-2007, 02:02 PM

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.

The prosecution had a picture of the lighbulb in relation to the body up on the screen during Bacon's testimony. They asked him to physically illustrate the position Jones would be in when he touched the bulb. He came off the stand and stood in front of the tv and jury and did so. When he did, it was obvious to me(so I assume others also) that Jones could have been on the body and touched the bulb. But add to that the body was even closer to the bulb prior to Jones turning it over and it becomes probable he touched it.
As for "lieing", I agree with what you have said previously, he could have touched it and not been aware he had.
One point that needs to be made-If he had been the murderer, it seems to me as intelligent as he was assumed by the prosecution(a 31 on the ACT), he would have told the police he did touch it when he found her so as to explain why his print was there.
As for Whiteside and Janice Jones testifying they did not see him touch anything- I think they were telling the truth. But that does not mean he did not touch the bulb, it just means they did not see it.
If I remember the sequence correctly- Janice was out front when the boys came in the back. After entering the apartment Whiteside initiates a call to 911 while Jones ran to Nona. While on the phone Whiteside goes to the front door and opens it to let Janice in and gives her the phone. Whiteside returns to Jones and Nona. By that point Jones has turned Nona over and would have already touched the bulb.
We also know it was dark as the EMT testified she had to turn the light on.

christina

08-07-2007, 02:08 PM

I would fully expect the jury pool to know Gibbons whether it was from going to school with him or from him being in the public eye; they are registered voters, they could recognize his name from the ballot, or from having read about his cases in the newspaper. I have no idea if the potential jurors were asked about their relationship(s) with Gibbons.

The juror in question however, if not asked about his knowledge of RW because of his niece's friendship, should have volunteered the information, if not asked directly. Stinks, IMO. Just another reason to doubt the jury's fairness.

Haven't heard anything about this. What is the source?

christina

08-07-2007, 02:13 PM

No kidding. The information I received indicated that RW's friend's uncle was aware of their close friendship to the point of personally calling his niece after the verdict to deliver the "good news." I agree it reeks.

This is a very serious allegation and should be brought to the Judge's attention if true. What is your source?

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 02:19 PM

So both you and Oxford think this is a joke?

I do not think it is a joke at all, but you asked where the information came from, and I thought oxfordwebster's answer to the same question was accurate and adequate, so I repeated it.

TJEddie

08-07-2007, 02:23 PM

The prosecution had a picture of the lighbulb in relation to the body up on the screen during Bacon's testimony. They asked him to physically illustrate the position Jones would be in when he touched the bulb. He came off the stand and stood in front of the tv and jury and did so. When he did, it was obvious to me(so I assume others also) that Jones could have been on the body and touched the bulb. But add to that the body was even closer to the bulb prior to Jones turning it over and it becomes probable he touched it.
As for "lieing", I agree with what you have said previously, he could have touched it and not been aware he had.
One point that needs to be made-If he had been the murderer, it seems to me as intelligent as he was assumed by the prosecution(a 31 on the ACT), he would have told the police he did touch it when he found her so as to explain why his print was there.
As for Whiteside and Janice Jones testifying they did not see him touch anything- I think they were telling the truth. But that does not mean he did not touch the bulb, it just means they did not see it.
If I remember the sequence correctly- Janice was out front when the boys came in the back. After entering the apartment Whiteside initiates a call to 911 while Jones ran to Nona. While on the phone Whiteside goes to the front door and opens it to let Janice in and gives her the phone. Whiteside returns to Jones and Nona. By that point Jones has turned Nona over and would have already touched the bulb.
We also know it was dark as the EMT testified she had to turn the light on.

I agree. If Kevin was the murderer and was there to contaminate the scene, I think logic dictates that he would have made a point of handling the murder weapon, would have admitted it, and probably would have made darn sure he was witnessed handling it.

christina

08-07-2007, 02:24 PM

I do not think it is a joke at all, but you asked where the information came from, and I thought oxfordwebster's answer to the same question was accurate and adequate, so I repeated it.

I'm lost here. So this is a serious allegation? And saying "those darn kids posting on the internet" is an accuarate and adequate answer?
What does that mean?

christina

08-07-2007, 02:27 PM

I agree. If Kevin was the murderer and was there to contaminate the scene, I think logic dictates that he would have made a point of handling the murder weapon, would have admitted it, and probably would have made darn sure he was witnessed handling it.

The bulb was one of the things the jury examined further in their deliberations as well as re enacting Jones ability to touch it. So obviously we are not alone in our thoughts. The print on the bulb became a non issue.

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 02:30 PM

The bulb was one of the things the jury examined further in their deliberations as well as re enacting Jones ability to touch it. So obviously we are not alone in our thoughts. The print on the bulb became a non issue.I hope I'm not the only person bothered with a print on a murder weapon in fresh, non-coagulated blood becoming a "non-issue."

christina

08-07-2007, 02:32 PM

No, it's just an answer. I'm not going to post what is out there because I figure I'll just get banned again for talking about "personal" crap. I'm not even going there again.

IMO this is a very serious allegation and thus needs a source backup.

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 02:38 PM

IMO this is a very serious allegation and thus needs a source backup.

Rumor is that a friend of the niece of the juror in question posted a communication from her about the uncle personally calling to give her the news of the verdict, since he knew that she and RW are close friends.

Maybe Patti could help you verify?

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 02:39 PM

I hope I'm not the only person bothered with a print on a murder weapon in fresh, non-coagulated blood becoming a "non-issue."

Not a non-issue for me in the least. Even the defense made me think that it was most likely left at the time of the murder.

christina

08-07-2007, 02:43 PM

Rumor is that a friend of the niece of the juror in question posted a communication from her about the uncle personally calling to give her the news of the verdict, since he knew that she and RW are close friends.

Thank you for giving me an understandable answer. Where was this posted?

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 02:52 PM

Thank you for giving me an understandable answer. Where was this posted?

From the house rules:

Infractions are given for more notable violations of rules and standards. Typical infractions include

Lack of civility (1 pt)
Insulting other members (2pts)
Use of inappropriate language (2pts)
Bringing PMs or Reps to the forum (1-2 pts)
Outing nics and real world ids (1-2 pts)
Bring conversation begun elsewhere to CL (1 pt)
Linking to a blog or other MB site (1pt)

Maybe PW knows about this by now and could help you out?

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 03:10 PM

I hope I'm not the only person bothered with a print on a murder weapon in fresh, non-coagulated blood becoming a "non-issue."

I am extremely bothered by it becoming a non-issue, but I am not even remotely surprised given these insightful interviews with the jurors.

christina

08-07-2007, 03:16 PM

From the house rules:

Infractions are given for more notable violations of rules and standards. Typical infractions include

Lack of civility (1 pt)
Insulting other members (2pts)
Use of inappropriate language (2pts)
Bringing PMs or Reps to the forum (1-2 pts)
Outing nics and real world ids (1-2 pts)
Bring conversation begun elsewhere to CL (1 pt)
Linking to a blog or other MB site (1pt)

Maybe PW knows about this by now and could help you out?

Thank you again for further clarification. So how did the rest of you find out about it?

As for my knowledge/relationship of Patty Whiteside- the party thrown at her house was what brought me to this site, however it is not what keeps me here. I have not spoken with Patty through this entire event. To my knowledge, she is not aware I am involved in this blog.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 03:18 PM

>snip<

One point that needs to be made-If he had been the murderer, it seems to me as intelligent as he was assumed by the prosecution(a 31 on the ACT), he would have told the police he did touch it when he found her so as to explain why his print was there.

Ah, yes. This point has actually been made several times before, and it is by far my favorite defense ever. The old "Kevin is too smart to make such a stupid mistake, so he could not have done it" excuse. I can assure you from personal experience that a 31 on the ACT does not make one immune from stupid mistakes, especially in stressful situations.

If K.Jo did it, I think he was more concerned with where his fingerprints were than his palm prints. Actually, the palm print makes me think of someone purposely trying to grab an object in such a way as to not leave fingerprints on it.

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 03:24 PM

Ah, yes. This point has actually been made several times before, and it is by far my favorite defense ever. The old "Kevin is too smart to make such a stupid mistake, so he could not have done it" excuse. I can assure you from personal experience that a 31 on the ACT does not make one immune from stupid mistakes, especially in stressful situations.

If K.Jo did it, I think he was more concerned with where his fingerprints were than his palm prints. Actually, the palm print makes me think of someone purposely trying to grab an object in such a way as to not leave fingerprints on it.

Didn't Mother Jones describe him as fairly intelligent? Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a educational professional.

christina

08-07-2007, 03:26 PM

Ah, yes. This point has actually been made several times before, and it is by far my favorite defense ever. The old "Kevin is too smart to make such a stupid mistake, so he could not have done it" excuse. I can assure you from personal experience that a 31 on the ACT does not make one immune from stupid mistakes, especially in stressful situations.

If K.Jo did it, I think he was more concerned with where his fingerprints were than his palm prints. Actually, the palm print makes me think of someone purposely trying to grab an object in such a way as to not leave fingerprints on it.

It might help you if you re read my post. That is not the point I was making. The prosecution was making Jones out to be so smart and watching so much crime tv that he knew how to stage a scene. I was using their explanation of Jones smarts and crime savvy and applying it to the "lieing about" the print on the bulb.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 03:28 PM

Didn't Mother Jones describe him as fairly intelligent? Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a educational professional.

I believe you are correct. But then again, maybe that comes from her unique perspective, and maybe she was used to doing a lot of his "thinking" for him. After all, despite his age, she still picked out and set out his clothes for him!

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 03:31 PM

It might help you if you re read my post. That is not the point I was making. The prosecution was making Jones out to be so smart and watching so much crime tv that he knew how to stage a scene. I was using their explanation of Jones smarts and crime savvy and applying it to the "lying about" the print on the bulb.

And I was replying that it didn't make sense. I don't think the police told him they found his print on the bulb before he told them he didn't touch it. I don't think he ever knew it was there.

christina

08-07-2007, 03:45 PM

And I was replying that it didn't make sense. I don't think the police told him they found his print on the bulb before he told them he didn't touch it. I don't think he ever knew it was there.

If he was as crime scene savvy as the police wanted to make him out to be, to the point of staging a scene to throw law enforcement off- the logic follows, IMO, that he would have explained along with everything else in his voluntary interview the night of the murder, why his prints would have been on anything. It would be counter productive to "lie" about not touching anything.

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 03:50 PM

If he was as crime scene savvy as the police wanted to make him out to be, to the point of staging a scene to throw law enforcement off- the logic follows, IMO, that he would have explained along with everything else in his voluntary interview the night of the murder, why his prints would have been on anything. It would be counter productive to "lie" about not touching anything.

I don't think he realized his print was on the murder weapon in fresh, uncoagulated blood. He knew his prints on anything could be easily explained since he was Nona's boyfriend and admitted to being there on other occasions. His prints in Nona's fresh, uncoagulated blood, however, not so much. IMO he didn't know it was there at all.

angelbay

08-07-2007, 04:28 PM

Why he is exactly from Ozark, AR. His Daddy was a doctor, practiced there for many years and finally retired. He was a good old fashion doctor. His mom was a school teacher there. Last that I know of, she taught the sixth grade. I'm sure she is retired by now as well.

David Gibbons is from Ozark that is. BTW, he looks just like his daddy, Doc Gibbons.

christina

08-07-2007, 05:21 PM

I don't think he realized his print was on the murder weapon in fresh, uncoagulated blood. He knew his prints on anything could be easily explained since he was Nona's boyfriend and admitted to being there on other occasions. His prints in Nona's fresh, uncoagulated blood, however, not so much. IMO he didn't know it was there at all.

I think I understand your point now. I disagree about the blood. It was never testified that the blood on the bulb was "fresh" and uncoagulated was up for grabs.

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 05:39 PM

I think I understand your point now. I disagree about the blood. It was never testified that the blood on the bulb was "fresh" and uncoagulated was up for grabs.Of course it wasn't fresh, Bacon's testimony established that it was dry. Unless you also think he is committing perjury, but I haven't seen anybody willing to go that far.

christina

08-07-2007, 06:00 PM

Of course it wasn't fresh, Bacon's testimony established that it was dry. Unless you also think he is committing perjury, but I haven't seen anybody willing to go that far.

Bacon has a stellar reputation. I can not see him committing perjury.
(You will need to take the "fresh" blood issue up with Hawg though. He wrote-"I don't think he realized his print was on the murder weapon in fresh, uncoagulated blood.")

oxfordwebster

08-07-2007, 06:02 PM

Bacon has a stellar reputation. I can not see him committing perjury.
(You will need to take the "fresh" blood issue up with Hawg though. )Nah, I've read as much as I can get my hands on about prosecution and defense testimony to see that the print was placed in fresh blood. No offense to Hawg, but I don't think Hawg was one of these expert witnesses so he doesn't have to answer to me. ;)

hawgustusgloop

08-07-2007, 07:11 PM

Bacon has a stellar reputation. I can not see him committing perjury.
(You will need to take the "fresh" blood issue up with Hawg though. He wrote-"I don't think he realized his print was on the murder weapon in fresh, uncoagulated blood.")

I am sorry for not being more clear. My intention was to say that his print was placed in fresh, uncoagulated blood (blood that was fresh at the time of imprint). I do accept the fact that the print in blood dried at some point.

Oxfordwebster is correct in that I was not one of the experts called to testify!

I didn't realize that the "uncoagulated" part was "up for grabs," though.

I feel like I need a Cosmo or something.

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 07:31 PM

Didn't Mother Jones describe him as fairly intelligent? Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a educational professional.

Good thing I'm not a educational professional. LMAO

lorettalockhorn

08-07-2007, 07:34 PM

I am sorry for not being more clear. My intention was to say that his print was placed in fresh, uncoagulated blood (blood that was fresh at the time of imprint). I do accept the fact that the print in blood dried at some point.

Oxfordwebster is correct in that I was not one of the experts called to testify!

I didn't realize that the "uncoagulated" part was "up for grabs," though.

I feel like I need a Cosmo or something.

Yeah, that the blood was fresh and uncoagulated when it was used to make the print makes total sense to me. That it was fresh and coagulated hours later does not.

mmmm Cosmos sound great; who's buying?

christina

08-08-2007, 12:09 AM

I was reading through old articles and found this statement that stuck out to me...
"Bacon declined to say what weapon might have been used, but says a weapon has been found."

What was he talking about-the lamp base?

article link

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1205/288038.html

christina

08-08-2007, 12:29 AM

Story Date: 2/15/2006 8:59:26 AM

Questions & Answers: Dirksmeyer investigators navigate Courier queries

Editor's note: David Gibbons, 5th Judicial District prosecuting attorney, answered many questions during a recent interview with The Courier, but some responses, such as those that follow, offered little insight into the investigation.

By Scott Perkins
editor@couriernews.com
Q: Can you explain the reasons for no charge in this case. Probable cause is required for a formal charge. Do you have probable cause against the suspect?
A: I don't want to get into that right now. But I will say, there is a big difference between the amount of evidence necessary to file charges and the amount of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction.
Q: Can you grade the evidence in the investigation up to this point?
A: I don't want to get into that.
Q: Could you say you have a substantial amount of evidence?
A: Yes, the crime scene provided substantial evidence. And some of it is still being processed.
Q: What is the nature of evidence being processed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies?
A: I don't think I want to go into that.
Q: How confident are you with the investigation?
A: Very confident.
Q: Were there signs of forced entry into Nona Dirksmeyer's apartment?
A: Can't go into that.
Q: Was a murder weapon discovered and if so is it in evidence?
A: Can't go into that.
Q: Has the suspect's clothes been obtained via a warrant for evidence? As in to say, have the clothes worn by suspect the day of the murder been acquired to check for blood spatter, etc.?
A: I don't believe.... I'm not going to comment on that.
Q: What was the time of death?
Gibbons: Can't go into that.
Q: Is this a homicide?
A: Yes
Q: What were the results of the polygraph administered by the Arkansas State Police to the one suspect?
A: I can't go into that.
Q: What can you say about a murderer walking the streets?
A: He won't be walking the streets for long.
Q: Is the suspect being watched?
A: Can't go into that. www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=10396

christina

08-08-2007, 01:22 AM

"Jones' attorney Kenny Johnson said his client is holding up as well as can be expected "if you’re accused of murdering the girl you loved,” Johnson said of Jones’ attitude.

Johnson was hired by the Jones’ at first to conduct his own investigation; now he’s representing Kevin in court.

“We did our own investigation, [we did] not just sit back and wait," Johnson said after the bond hearing. "We've been working on it also. Of course we don't agree with some of the facts the prosecutor produced.”

Quote from this article-

http://www.5newsonline.com/Global/story.asp?S=4708342&nav=menu151_1

This is the first I have read that the Jones had hired someone to investigate Nona's death prior to Kevin being charged.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:36 AM

FDInLaw

08-08-2007, 08:07 AM

My departure from this forum is long overdue. I've enjoyed the stimulating conversation when it has occurred. I won't miss the drama. For those of you that post on other forums, I'll see you around. For the few I call friends, you know how to contact me.

Take care and don't let anyone deter your armchair detective work!

Smooches ~ FD

:seeya:

christina

08-08-2007, 10:00 AM

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 10:48 AM

I won't be posting anymore because I'm just a sockpuppet account controlled by other people, most notably J. Edgar Hoover

sololobo

08-08-2007, 11:13 AM

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 11:15 AM

christina

08-08-2007, 11:22 AM

The candle was by Nona's body. It had blood on it but no prints. From this, I assume the killer wiped the candle clean of prints. There should have been prints from at least Nona handling it prior to the murder. And I assume the killer wiped it because he touched it in some way and for some reason. We have now observed evidence of a physical action by the killer but have no explanation of it so far.

Kevin picked up the greeting card from beside Nona's body and looked at it. This raises a few questions. Why did he pick it up? Was he looking for an address or was it even in an envelope? Was he puzzled why it was there by her body? Was any fingerprints on the card or had it been wiped clean or even checked for fingerprints? Where was the card in relation to the body before Kevin turned her over? Was it under Nona when she was face down? Could she have been holding the card when attacked? From the location of the card, can we determine a physical action by the killer or Nona?

I am thinking the card was in the vicinity of the body. Could be it was touched when Jones rolled her over?
The more I think about the candle the more I think it was probably used in the attack.

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 11:26 AM

The more I think about the candle the more I think it was probably used in the attack.Then the defense team failed to figure that one out, and it probably would have been nice to bring up as yet one more thing they could use for reasonable doubt on the PD's investigation.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 11:30 AM

The candle was by Nona's body. It had blood on it but no prints. From this, I assume the killer wiped the candle clean of prints. There should have been prints from at least Nona handling it prior to the murder. And I assume the killer wiped it because he touched it in some way and for some reason. We have now observed evidence of a physical action by the killer but have no explanation of it so far.

Kevin picked up the greeting card from beside Nona's body and looked at it. This raises a few questions. Why did he pick it up? Was he looking for an address or was it even in an envelope? Was he puzzled why it was there by her body? Was any fingerprints on the card or had it been wiped clean or even checked for fingerprints? Where was the card in relation to the body before Kevin turned her over? Was it under Nona when she was face down? Could she have been holding the card when attacked? From the location of the card, can we determine a physical action by the killer or Nona?

I did not know the card was by Nona's body. I thought it was on a counter or something. That is bizarre.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 11:32 AM

Then the defense team failed to figure that one out, and it probably would have been nice to bring up as yet one more thing they could use for reasonable doubt on the PD's investigation.

You would think that PI/criminal defense attorney would have figured that out during that big investigation when the Jones family hired him to find the real killer.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 11:32 AM

The candle was by Nona's body. It had blood on it but no prints. From this, I assume the killer wiped the candle clean of prints. There should have been prints from at least Nona handling it prior to the murder. And I assume the killer wiped it because he touched it in some way and for some reason. We have now observed evidence of a physical action by the killer but have no explanation of it so far.

Kevin picked up the greeting card from beside Nona's body and looked at it. This raises a few questions. Why did he pick it up? Was he looking for an address or was it even in an envelope? Was he puzzled why it was there by her body? Was any fingerprints on the card or had it been wiped clean or even checked for fingerprints? Where was the card in relation to the body before Kevin turned her over? Was it under Nona when she was face down? Could she have been holding the card when attacked? From the location of the card, can we determine a physical action by the killer or Nona?

It's asinine to believe that KJ didn't know Nona's address or at the very least directions to her apartment. What's so hard about the intersection of 12th street and Inglewood? There was no reason for him to be running amok through the apartment touching anything. He told the 911 operator that Nona was dead; yet he "attempted resuscitation". Unbelievable that the jury couldn't see through his attempt to destroy the scene and contaminate himself with Nona's blood.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 11:33 AM

I did not know the card was by Nona's body. I thought it was on a counter or something. That is bizarre.

I thought that it was on the counter too. It miracled itself around the apartment?

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 11:37 AM

I thought that it was on the counter too. It miracled itself around the apartment?He also, by a miracle, was able to completely change his timeline and make the jury not think anything of his lies to the police, so... I think he's a magic user. I don't think that's very Christian to be a wizard, right?

sololobo

08-08-2007, 11:49 AM

I did not know the card was by Nona's body. I thought it was on a counter or something. That is bizarre.

"Prosecutors also pointed out that witnesses, including Jones in a taped interview with police the night Dirksmeyer’s body was found, said Jones never touched anything in the apartment at the time her body was discovered except Dirksmeyer’s body and a greeting card laying on the floor next to her."

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/196134/

It may have ended up on a counter. The cell phone was on the floor and ended up on a table.

optimumprimal78

08-08-2007, 11:53 AM

After getting reemed for posting a truth by my source, I find this post by ValleyGirl #244

It has been confirmed "off the record" that she was seeing other people. This comes from a reliable source, I promise. I am not trying to stir up gossip!

And the follow up by FDInLaw #247

Valley Girl, If Nona was seeing other guys that could definitely be a motive! Out of curiosity, can your source confirm whether or not Kevin was seeing other people too?

It isn't too hard to figure out that they were both seeing other people. The argument about the sources is that at the time there was (and in some cases still is) some misinformation being given out to people.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 11:58 AM

It's asinine to believe that KJ didn't know Nona's address or at the very least directions to her apartment. What's so hard about the intersection of 12th street and Inglewood? There was no reason for him to be running amok through the apartment touching anything. He told the 911 operator that Nona was dead; yet he "attempted resuscitation". Unbelievable that the jury couldn't see through his attempt to destroy the scene and contaminate himself with Nona's blood.

I believe our 911 system requires a valid street address to operate as designed.

christina

08-08-2007, 12:09 PM

I did not know the card was by Nona's body. I thought it was on a counter or something. That is bizarre.

If I remember correctly, there were two cards. One was by her body, the other was by the mail Janice Jones went through looking for the address.

christina

08-08-2007, 12:11 PM

It isn't too hard to figure out that they were both seeing other people. The argument about the sources is that at the time there was (and in some cases still is) some misinformation being given out to people.

I understand what you are saying. I was just using these posts to point out the different standard I was being held to about my source. I was told I needed to stick to "the rules". Yet, it was/is obvious some are allowed to say they have a source without ever quoting/revealing that source. Mine was "rumor" but their's was "fact" and even requested they go back to the source and get further information.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 12:15 PM

I hear calls on my scanner frequently where responders are dispatched with very sketchy directions. At least one of those three stooges could have gone outside the apartment to wave the ambulance in, instead of remaining inside to contaminate the scene.

In a computerized dispatch system, a valid address pops up a detailed map of the address and is used to determine the closest responders. I'm sure the dispatcher sent help immediately but a valid address would enable them to determine a closer responder.

christina

08-08-2007, 12:17 PM

I hear calls on my scanner frequently where responders are dispatched with very sketchy directions. At least one of those three stooges could have gone outside the apartment to wave the ambulance in, instead of remaining inside to contaminate the scene.

Very rude characterization.
If I remember correctly, The EMT said Whiteside did stand out on the street and wave them in.

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 12:18 PM

I understand what you are saying. I was just using these posts to point out the different standard I was being held to about my source. I was told I needed to stick to "the rules". Yet, it was/is obvious some are allowed to say they have a source without ever quoting/revealing that source. Mine was "rumor" but their's was "fact" and even requested they go back to the source and get further information.You get held to this standard because many of your posts have been extremely questionable and your courtroom reporting clashes with other people who I have managed to talk to through all of this.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 12:26 PM

Very rude characterization.
If I remember correctly, The EMT said Whiteside did stand out on the street and wave them in.

Sorry to offend; I just find the entire story of the discovery to be ridiculous. If Whiteside was waving them in, why would there be a need to run amok touching cards or anything else, unless it was intentional?

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 12:28 PM

christina

08-08-2007, 12:39 PM

optimumprimal78

08-08-2007, 12:45 PM

christina

08-08-2007, 12:48 PM

Sorry to offend; I just find the entire story of the discovery to be ridiculous. If Whiteside was waving them in, why would there be a need to run amok touching cards or anything else, unless it was intentional?

The call lasted a short time so "running amok" doesn't fit in my opinion. Whiteside intitiated the call after entering the slider, went to the front door to let Janice Jones in and then handed her the phone. Kevin Jones left the body and came to the phone at Janice's request to give apartment/address information. He handed it back to her after a minute or less. During the time she was on the phone she was looking through a stack of mail for an address. That is when she came up with the bank statement and card but read the address as Skyline(Dipert's) and said that was wrong.
Again, guessing how people will react in a horrible situation is dicey at best. Putting a value judgement on their behavoir is terrible.

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 12:48 PM

This is an opinion. My understanding is I was being held to concrete rules.Yeah, it's just an opinion, but it's based on talking to a number of people who were in the court room along with various posts of yours with questionable content and your tendency to disappear when you are asked questions about your claims. I'd be sorry to say it, but... well, that's just how it is.

christina

08-08-2007, 12:50 PM

Plus the post that is being referred to is from a year and a half ago. Things have definitely changed in case.

How does that effect "the rules"?

christina

08-08-2007, 12:54 PM

Yeah, it's just an opinion, but it's based on talking to a number of people who were in the court room along with various posts of yours with questionable content and your tendency to disappear when you are asked questions about your claims. I'd be sorry to say it, but... well, that's just how it is.

False accusation. I answer all claims, just not to your satisfaction. When I take breaks, it is for my well being.
But again, I talked with a number of people in the court room as well as sat through the entire trial myself. Why then does your opinion weigh more than mine? Who decides which opinion is to be "trusted"?

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 12:59 PM

False accusation. I answer all claims, just not to your satisfaction.I'm not the only who has asked questions and never saw them answered.

But again, I talked with a number of people in the court room as well as sat through the entire trial myself. Why then does your opinion weigh more than mine? Who decides which opinion is to be "trusted"?When numerous people I talk to feel like your accounts have been extremely skewed and not at all like how you've portrayed them, then I'm going to lean on the observations that actually match up.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 01:00 PM

You get held to this standard because many of your posts have been extremely questionable and your courtroom reporting clashes with other people who I have managed to talk to through all of this.

I tend to place more trust in christina's posts and observations than in any others on this board, including my own. I believe she is held to a higher standard because she agrees with the unbiased jury's decision to aquit and disagrees with the unexplainable obsession of some here to believe Kevin's guilt to the point they are unwilling to even entertain the possibility of another killer.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:01 PM

I believe our 911 system requires a valid street address to operate as designed.

Requires? So, if K.Jo said, "It's at 12th and Inglewood, Apt. so and so," the dispatcher would be like, "Sorry, dude, we need a valid street address to process your request"? I doubt it.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:02 PM

Plus the post that is being referred to is from a year and a half ago. Things have definitely changed in case.

I can't figure out why it was resurrected in the first place. Makes no sense to me.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:03 PM

Going on memory here.....wasn't there mention of an overturned lamp and a spilled substance on or around an end table near the sliding glass door? Maybe the card and candle were on that table and got knocked to the floor, perhaps during a brief struggle or in an attempt by Nona to flee through the slider?

Although I've got to say, I tend to agree with christina that the candle may very well have been used in the attack. If it was, I would lean toward it having been used by Nona as a defensive weapon rather than by the attacker, though.

You make a good point. I do not remember any defensive wounds on Nona though and under her fingernails was only her dna.
There was a dark substance spilled on both end tables. One table was in the corner, it had the lamp knocked over and the spill on the wall behind it. The other table was next to the slider. The spilled dark substance made me suspicious when York testified he had spilled a coke in his car that morning. Sure wish the police had checked the cars of their two main suspects out!
I do wish the candle blood had been checked for owner as well as the blood next to the light switch by the front door and the blood on the slider. One expert testified "if you can see the blood with the naked eye, you can extract dna".The spot of blood on the front of the stove was checked and determined to be Nona's.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:04 PM

I'm not the only who has asked questions and never saw them answered.

When numerous people I talk to feel like your accounts have been extremely skewed and not at all like how you've portrayed them, then I'm going to lean on the observations that actually match up.

Thank you for answering.

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 01:06 PM

One table was in the corner, it had the lamp knocked over and the spill on the wall behind it. The other table was next to the slider. The spilled dark substance made me suspicious when York testified he had spilled a coke in his car that morning. Sure wish the police had checked the cars of their two main suspects out!So, was Nona's mother lying about that stain you find so questionable?

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 01:07 PM

The call lasted a short time so "running amok" doesn't fit in my opinion. Whiteside intitiated the call after entering the slider, went to the front door to let Janice Jones in and then handed her the phone. Kevin Jones left the body and came to the phone at Janice's request to give apartment/address information. He handed it back to her after a minute or less. During the time she was on the phone she was looking through a stack of mail for an address. That is when she came up with the bank statement and card but read the address as Skyline(Dipert's) and said that was wrong.
Again, guessing how people will react in a horrible situation is dicey at best. Putting a value judgement on their behavoir is terrible.

Once again, sorry to offend, but in the end, the jury and all of us put a value judgement on the behavior of everyone involved.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:10 PM

Yeah, it's just an opinion, but it's based on talking to a number of people who were in the court room along with various posts of yours with questionable content and your tendency to disappear when you are asked questions about your claims. I'd be sorry to say it, but... well, that's just how it is.

I agree with your opinion. Also the timing of the rumors is interesting IMO. One day Christina is casting suspicion all over Trey York, then we suddenly have the "mom calling about his "girlfriend"" rumor spring up out of nowhere.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:13 PM

False accusation. I answer all claims, just not to your satisfaction. When I take breaks, it is for my well being.
But again, I talked with a number of people in the court room as well as sat through the entire trial myself. Why then does your opinion weigh more than mine? Who decides which opinion is to be "trusted"?

IMO we all decide for ourselves whom we believe is and isn't credible. We all build reputations here.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:13 PM

So, was Nona's mother lying about that stain you find so questionable?

I know I am stepping into it by responding to this but..... no , I did not have a problem believing Nona's mother. She explained the splatter on the wall, not the spill on the tables or carpet.
I thought she was brave to get on the stand, it must have been hard. She did it as a rebuttal witness though. What I did wish is that she had testified to more. She could have given the jury insights into Nona's habits better than anyone, she could have told about the relationship with Jones, the way they communicated, what Nona's state of mind during the semester apart was, many other things as well.
The jury chose to believe the Jones relatives. This makes me think they would have believed Nona's as well. Just food for thought.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:15 PM

So, was Nona's mother lying about that stain you find so questionable?

What is up with the spill? People keep talking about the spill. I thought it was just a stain from an old spill. Which one is it? Surely this can be verified somehow whether or not something was spilled when they "discovered" Nona's body or if it was spilled a long time before.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 01:15 PM

Requires? So, if K.Jo said, "It's at 12th and Inglewood, Apt. so and so," the dispatcher would be like, "Sorry, dude, we need a valid street address to process your request"? I doubt it.

Every valid address in Russellville is programmed into the 911 system. A call from a landline displays the location. A cell phone does not. The corner of 12th and Inglewood is not a valid address. While a vague location does not prevent dispatch from sending assistance, the full capabilities of our 911 system are not utilized as designed.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:16 PM

Once again, sorry to offend, but in the end, the jury and all of us put a value judgement on the behavior of everyone involved.

Not offensive- I ultimately agree although wish it weren't so.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 01:21 PM

IMO we all decide for ourselves whom we believe is and isn't credible. We all build reputations here.

Agree. And it is a person's posts that speaks for them, not the opinions of others. When there are contradictions, they are there for everyone (who wants) to see.

christina

08-08-2007, 01:22 PM

What is up with the spill? People keep talking about the spill. I thought it was just a stain from an old spill. Which one is it? Surely this can be verified somehow whether or not something was spilled when they "discovered" Nona's body or if it was spilled a long time before.

The defense called Frost to enter into evidence several items the prosecution had not. There were pictures presented that showed the splatter on the wall(testified to as having been there by Nona's mother), a dark substance on the tables and carpet and a dust ring showing where the table lamp had sat. Previously Frost testified he did not think the knocked over table lamp was out of place and thought it was just the messy apartment of a college girl. He thought it had probably been that way for awhile since he did not see a dust ring. The picture entered by the defense(taken by the police the night of the murder) showed a dust ring.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 01:22 PM

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 01:23 PM

Every valid address in Russellville is programmed into the 911 system. A call from a landline displays the location. A cell phone does not. The corner of 12th and Inglewood is not. While a vague location does not prevent dispatch from sending assistance, the full capabilities of our 911 system are not utilized as designed.

So, what is the point here? Are you saying it's possible K.Jo knew all this and intentionally decided not to waste the dispatcher's time by giving an approximate, but not valid street address, instead deciding to wait until they found the valid address?

christina

08-08-2007, 01:25 PM

Agree. And it is a person's posts that speaks for them, not the opinions of others. When there are contradictions, they are there for everyone (who wants) to see.

And for all to decide if the "contradictions" are valid. Can you give that those posts that agree with the jury's verdict are held to a different standard on the part of several here, you being one of them?

christina

08-08-2007, 01:29 PM

christina, I'm thinking you and I posted very similar scenarios in the past, speculating that this attack might have had 2 very distinct stages. Basically, the first part being a controlled attack with the condom wrapper being opened and Nona being forced to disrobe.....and then something happening which caused it to turn violent. My thought is that perhaps Nona did try to defend herself, causing pain to her attacker.....a knee to the groin, a glass candle thrown at his head? If such an attempt at self defense did occur and only served to enrage her attacker, she might have quickly realized the futility of fighting back and gone into non-defense/self-protection mode. Just a theory......

Yes, I think we have. I can see that scenario as well as others. I wish they had taken pictures of York as they did of Jones. Jones had no marks/wounds/bruises.
The acting out of the murder in court was very disturbing. Of course all the ME was doing was showing the attack, he did not show what NOna may or may not have been doing.
Boy do I wish we knew the owner of the dna on the wrapper. I do think its presence plus her being naked say there was some form of something sexual taking place or about to take place.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 01:29 PM

So, what is the point here? Are you saying it's possible K.Jo knew all this and intentionally decided not to waste the dispatcher's time by giving an approximate, but not valid street address, instead deciding to wait until they found the valid address?

The point is, if called from a cell phone, 911 will ask for a valid address.

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 01:39 PM

And for all to decide if the "contradictions" are valid. Can you give that those posts that agree with the jury's verdict are held to a different standard on the part of several here, you being one of them?The jury has done a good enough job of calling their own verdict into question, so I don't see why it's such a stretch that people who agree with it be asked to defend it.

sololobo

08-08-2007, 01:53 PM

There are many items apparently out of place at the murder scene. These are all indications of physical actions. We have a candle with no prints by the body, a greeting card by the body, an overturned lamp, a spill on a table, a condom wrapper with a mysterious DNA, a cell phone on the floor minus the battery, a missing stick, a missing green sweater, a broken floor lamp alleged to be the murder weapon, blood on a light switch, kitchen counter, oven door, patio door blinds, a wet shower upstairs, and a thermostat turned off, etc. Anything else out of place?

As to the blood on the candle, if the investigators did not give it away like the cell phone, it can still be tested.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 02:02 PM

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 02:06 PM

If I remember correctly, there were two cards. One was by her body, the other was by the mail Janice Jones went through looking for the address.

So, are you saying the card by her body and the card on the counter were two different cards? I believe one was from Nona's mom. What about the other? Did they both have bloody K.Jo prints on them or just one? Which one? Which card is the card K.Jo claimed to have touched? I thought the card on the counter was the one with K.Jo's print on it in blood.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 02:09 PM

The point is, if called from a cell phone, 911 will ask for a valid address.

Sorry, I guess I was just reading too much into it. I thought you posted that to explain why K.Jo didn't tell the dispatcher they were at 12th and Inglewood.

christina

08-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Every valid address in Russellville is programmed into the 911 system. A call from a landline displays the location. A cell phone does not. The corner of 12th and Inglewood is not a valid address. While a vague location does not prevent dispatch from sending assistance, the full capabilities of our 911 system are not utilized as designed.

The dispatcher testified to something about this. The system is not fully utilized- I made a note because I remember how much the county and city bragged about the system and paid a lot for it.
If I remember correctly, the ambulance had been dispatched toward the area while awaiting an exact address. I do not remember at what point or at whose suggestion Whiteside went out to the street.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 02:12 PM

So, are you saying the card by her body and the card on the counter were two different cards? I believe one was from Nona's mom. What about the other? Did they both have bloody K.Jo prints on them or just one? Which one? Which card is the card K.Jo claimed to have touched? I thought the card on the counter was the one with K.Jo's print on it in blood.

This is an OT question, but......do you really want to know, or is this just an attempt to wear christina down with more endless and pointless questions and challenges?

oxfordwebster

08-08-2007, 02:15 PM

This is an OT question, but......do you really want to know, or is this just an attempt to wear christina down with more endless and pointless questions and challenges?It's almost as if people want clarification on statements that seem to contradict with things we knew from before. Two cards is news to me.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 02:17 PM

This is an OT question, but......do you really want to know, or is this just an attempt to wear christina down with more endless and pointless questions and challenges?

Excuse me? This is a rude suggestion. An attempt to wear her down? I am sure she appreciates your chivalry in trying to come to her rescue, but you are way off base.

These are not endless or pointless questions. These are pieces of information (especially the rumor that there were TWO greeting cards) that I have to date been unaware of after closely following this case since the beginning. I would imagine other posters are wondering about this as well.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 02:58 PM

And for all to decide if the "contradictions" are valid. Can you give that those posts that agree with the jury's verdict are held to a different standard on the part of several here, you being one of them?

I'll give you that the pro-defense types and the jury use a different logic than I do. I'll give you that some pro-defense, pro-jury types have proven themselves to be less credible than others. I'll give you that the jury was minimally misguided and maximally tainted.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 03:01 PM

This is an OT question, but......do you really want to know, or is this just an attempt to wear christina down with more endless and pointless questions and challenges?

Gee, I want to know about this second card also. I had no idea or had forgotten that there were two cards.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 03:18 PM

Excuse me? This is a rude suggestion. An attempt to wear her down? I am sure she appreciates your chivalry in trying to come to her rescue, but you are way off base.

These are not endless or pointless questions. These are pieces of information (especially the rumor that there were TWO greeting cards) that I have to date been unaware of after closely following this case since the beginning. I would imagine other posters are wondering about this as well.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now you've piqued my interest.....could you please explain how you find this pertinent to the investigation to the extent that it would warrant asking christina to answer five questions about it in a single post? Surely you have some theory or basis for your interest....

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 03:25 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now you've piqued my interest.....could you please explain how you find this pertinent to the investigation to the extent that it would warrant asking christina to answer five questions about it in a single post? Surely you have some theory or basis for your interest....

Good grief, those questions could be answered in a single sentence. Maybe Hawg doesn't want to appear as an ASW by asking the questions in individual posts. Surely when Christina threw out that there are two cards, she would have expected questions, since it is news to those of us who are uninformed, even though we've been here for some time.

I guess that she had to leave and we'll have to fish around for the information.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 03:33 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now you've piqued my interest.....could you please explain how you find this pertinent to the investigation to the extent that it would warrant asking christina to answer five questions about it in a single post? Surely you have some theory or basis for your interest....

I had NEVER heard about the possible existence of a second card until today. IIRC K.Jo admitted to only touching Nona and a greeting card. I would like to know which one, so that I have a clearer picture in my mind of the crime scene. I don't think answering those questions will change the universe or anything, but when someone mentions an item at the crime scene that several posters were completely unaware of, I think it is quite reasonable for that person to expect requests for more information about it. My interest is piqued as well, wondering why you are being so defensive just because someone is asking Christina questions about her rumors.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 03:39 PM

Good grief, those questions could be answered in a single sentence. Maybe Hawg doesn't want to appear as an ASW by asking the questions in individual posts. Surely when Christina threw out that there are two cards, she would have expected questions, since it is news to those of us who are uninformed, even though we've been here for some time.

I guess that she had to leave and we'll have to fish around for the information.

Thanks, loretta. I see that you, too, seem to find this apparent contradiction to be pertinent. Maybe you could fill me in on just how you think it might be pertient to the investigation. Five questions in a single post indicates a lot of interest to me.....I'm anxious to know why some have given it such significance.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 03:48 PM

I had NEVER heard about the possible existence of a second card until today. IIRC K.Jo admitted to only touching Nona and a greeting card. I would like to know which one, so that I have a clearer picture in my mind of the crime scene. I don't think answering those questions will change the universe or anything, but when someone mentions an item at the crime scene that several posters were completely unaware of, I think it is quite reasonable for that person to expect requests for more information about it. My interest is piqued as well, wondering why you are being so defensive just because someone is asking Christina questions about her rumors.

Of course the answers won't change the universe, but you seem to believe that they might change the crime scene in a way that you apparently find significant. You've already established that your 5 questions about the card/cards were not pointless questions.....I'm just asking what the point of those questions was.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 03:51 PM

Thanks, loretta. I see that you, too, seem to find this apparent contradiction to be pertinent. Maybe you could fill me in on just how you think it might be pertient to the investigation. Five questions in a single post indicates a lot of interest to me.....I'm anxious to know why some have given it such significance.

Are you implying it doesn't matter at all, and that we shouldn't be asking questions about it? I do not understand where you are coming from here. The topic of the card was brought up by another poster, then Christina surprised us all by saying there were two cards. Then, you accused me of trying to wear Christina down by asking about it, even though it contradicts everything I've ever seen about the case. Now, it seems like we are just supposed to drop it because you appear to think it is not pertinent to the investigation. Are you trying to backtrack on her behalf?

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 03:51 PM

Of course the answers won't change the universe, but you seem to believe that they might change the crime scene in a way that you apparently find significant. You've already established that your 5 questions about the card/cards were not pointless questions.....I'm just asking what the point of those questions was.

To obtain answers.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 03:52 PM

Thanks, loretta. I see that you, too, seem to find this apparent contradiction to be pertinent. Maybe you could fill me in on just how you think it might be pertient to the investigation. Five questions in a single post indicates a lot of interest to me.....I'm anxious to know why some have given it such significance.

I am beside myself with curiousity about any new information re: the crime scene. I have no memory of the second card until today. And now that Christina has made us aware of the card, she's not here to answer our questions. If no one else is aware of the presence of the card, no one else can answer the questions. Maybe someone will chime in here with information about the second card and which card(s) had KJ's fingerprints on it (them).

christina

08-08-2007, 03:57 PM

I'll give you that the pro-defense types and the jury use a different logic than I do. I'll give you that some pro-defense, pro-jury types have proven themselves to be less credible than others. I'll give you that the jury was minimally misguided and maximally tainted.

I'll take whatever I can get :)

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 04:08 PM

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 04:12 PM

Well, I see no one has addressed my request for an explanation on how the card/cards issue might have particular significance to the case or to the crime scene. If anyone comes up with anything, let me know. Thanks.

It is hard to assess the significance of the spontaneously appearing card without any information about it, so I guess we'll just have to get back to you on that one. Well, I see no one has addressed my request for information about the second card. If anyone comes up with anything, let me know. Thanks. I see Christina has posted recently but must not have seen my questions.

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 04:13 PM

Well, I see no one has addressed my request for an explanation on how the card/cards issue might have particular significance to the case or to the crime scene. If anyone comes up with anything, let me know. Thanks.

Two cards were found at the crime scene, one on a counter, one near the body. One was not previously known about. One had a bloody print on it. How can it not be important? It (they) are part of the crime scene. Who knows what other facts haven't been reported? Who knows why we cannot learn about the second card?

There hasn't been much information about the candle, yet you seem to find it incredibly significant and no one seems to find that suspicious in the least.

christina

08-08-2007, 04:29 PM

Good grief, those questions could be answered in a single sentence. Maybe Hawg doesn't want to appear as an ASW by asking the questions in individual posts. Surely when Christina threw out that there are two cards, she would have expected questions, since it is news to those of us who are uninformed, even though we've been here for some time.

I guess that she had to leave and we'll have to fish around for the information.

Yes, had to leave for a little while-Darn that job!
I did not know it was news there were two cards- this is my memory though- anyone else that was there or has a link-jump in here.
There was one by the body and another with the mail on the table/counter.
I am not falling on my sword on this one, I don't think it is that important- its just what I am remembering between the crime scene photos, the 911 call/tape and the testimony.

What is ASW?

christina

08-08-2007, 04:36 PM

I had NEVER heard about the possible existence of a second card until today. IIRC K.Jo admitted to only touching Nona and a greeting card. I would like to know which one, so that I have a clearer picture in my mind of the crime scene. I don't think answering those questions will change the universe or anything, but when someone mentions an item at the crime scene that several posters were completely unaware of, I think it is quite reasonable for that person to expect requests for more information about it. My interest is piqued as well, wondering why you are being so defensive just because someone is asking Christina questions about her rumors.

Clarification- Jones said in his tape at least twice "I don't remember touching anything else". At another point "I could have touched something else". In my opinion that is different than "I didn't touch anything else". He was asked the question several times over the 2 and a half hours of his voluntary interview. He was consistent in that he was obviously trying to give as much information as he could remember. He was also very distraught.

My memory on testimony and pictures I saw is now labelled as "rumor". Isn't it sufficient if I just say it is what I remember?

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 04:44 PM

Clarification- Jones said in his tape at least twice "I don't remember touching anything else". At another point "I could have touched something else". In my opinion that is different than "I didn't touch anything else". He was asked the question several times over the 2 and a half hours of his voluntary interview. He was consistent in that he was obviously trying to give as much information as he could remember. He was also very distraught.

My memory on testimony and pictures I saw is now labelled as "rumor". Isn't it sufficient if I just say it is what I remember?

I think the "touching the greeting card part" came from the PCS, so perhaps he said it in another interview, but I wouldn't know. I don't think that part is pertinent to the investigation, though, since IIRC his print was on the card anyway. I would imagine he said at some point that he touched it, though, or it would have been a point of contention, just like the lamp he said he didn't touch.

I called it a rumor because I had never heard it before and it has not been confirmed by anyone or anything else. Therefore, it is still a rumor to me, as in,"I just read a rumor on the CrimeLibrary Message Boards that there were actually 2 greeting cards at the crime scene instead of 1, as previously reported."

christina

08-08-2007, 05:19 PM

I think the "touching the greeting card part" came from the PCS, so perhaps he said it in another interview, but I wouldn't know. I don't think that part is pertinent to the investigation, though, since IIRC his print was on the card anyway. I would imagine he said at some point that he touched it, though, or it would have been a point of contention, just like the lamp he said he didn't touch.

I called it a rumor because I had never heard it before and it has not been confirmed by anyone or anything else. Therefore, it is still a rumor to me, as in,"I just read a rumor on the CrimeLibrary Message Boards that there were actually 2 greeting cards at the crime scene instead of 1, as previously reported."

Clarification again- he said he didn't remember touching anything else. This is different from how his words have been characterized by the PCS, the police and the prosecution. They stated like it was fact that he said he denied touching anything else. Watching the two and a half hour tape in court was one of the things that started me on the road to believing Jones was innocent. I did not see/hear the things that had been reported to me. And his print was found on a light bulb a foot from the body he admits to touching. His prints are not on the lamp(the murder weapon), someone elses prints are there.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 05:28 PM

Clarification again- he said he didn't remember touching anything else. This is different form how his words have been characterized by the PCS, the police and the prosecution. They stated like it was fact that he said he denied touching anything else. Watching the two and a half hour tape in court was one of the things that started me on the road to believing Jones was innocent. I did not see/hear the things that had been reported to me. And his print was found on a light bulb a foot from the body he admits to touching. His prints are not on the lamp(the murder weapon), someone elses prints are there.

So, the light bulb was not part of the lamp? It was just an errant lightbulb? How can you be so sure he never said those things, if you only saw one interrogation tape? If he denied touching the greeting card, I have a feeling it would have been a major issue since he left a bloody print on it. So, which greeting card was it that he left the print on? Was it the one on the counter or the one by her body? Which card was from Nona's mom? Whom was the other card from? Were the other prints on the lamp made in Nona's uncoagulated blood?

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 05:37 PM

FDInLaw

08-08-2007, 05:38 PM

(Psst. . . clean out your PM box, Loretta!)

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Clarification again- he said he didn't remember touching anything else. This is different from how his words have been characterized by the PCS, the police and the prosecution. They stated like it was fact that he said he denied touching anything else. Watching the two and a half hour tape in court was one of the things that started me on the road to believing Jones was innocent. I did not see/hear the things that had been reported to me. And his print was found on a light bulb a foot from the body he admits to touching. His prints are not on the lamp(the murder weapon), someone elses prints are there.

5....4.....3....2....

(I know what you mean here, but I'm betting it's gonna draw some fire.....hahahaha!)

christina

08-08-2007, 05:40 PM

So, the light bulb was not part of the lamp? It was just an errant lightbulb? How can you be so sure he never said those things, if you only saw one interrogation tape? If he denied touching the greeting card, I have a feeling it would have been a major issue since he left a bloody print on it. So, which greeting card was it that he left the print on? Was it the one on the counter or the one by her body? Which card was from Nona's mom? Whom was the other card from? Were the other prints on the lamp made in Nona's uncoagulated blood?

Yes, the bulb is "part" of the lamp. But I do not see a light bulb as crucial in the use of the lamp as a weapon. If it had been handled during the murder it would have broken/shattered. However, I do see prints on the pole closest to the base of the lamp as very important. And the fact that those prints are not Jones is vitally important.
Correct, his voluntary interview the night of the murder was the only tape played at the trial. The other interview was the night of the viewing I believe.
My understanding from my source is that the comments on the PCS were mainly taken from the first tape, the one shown at the trial.

christina

08-08-2007, 05:45 PM

I'm wondering if the second card couldn't have been the trigger. I wish that we knew more about it.

I was thinking that the fingerprints on the lamp weren't of a quality to be tested, despite the fact that Bacon thought that they would be.

The prosecution gave competing testimony on those fingerprints. They made sure Bacon was qualified in the jury's eyes as an expert latent print examiner for the purpose of testifying the print on the bulb was Jones.
Bacon said the prints on the lamp pole were useful. Then the prosecution puts another expert latent print examiner (from the state crime lab) up there and he says they were not useful.
So which one do we believe?

christina

08-08-2007, 05:46 PM

(Psst. . . clean out your PM box, Loretta!)

Ahhhh, so Loretta made your A friends list :)

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 06:07 PM

The prosecution gave competing testimony on those fingerprints. They made sure Bacon was qualified in the jury's eyes as an expert latent print examiner for the purpose of testifying the print on the bulb was Jones.
Bacon said the prints on the lamp pole were useful. Then the prosecution puts another expert latent print examiner (from the state crime lab) up there and he says they were not useful.
So which one do we believe?

I know what you're saying (I think) and I actually believe them both. Maybe Bacon thought from a cursory view that they would be usable; when the lamp actually reached the lab, the prints were not of as good quality as Bacon had hoped and couldn't be used to dentity anyone.

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 06:11 PM

Yes, the bulb is "part" of the lamp. But I do not see a light bulb as crucial in the use of the lamp as a weapon. If it had been handled during the murder it would have broken/shattered. However, I do see prints on the pole closest to the base of the lamp as very important. And the fact that those prints are not Jones is vitally important.
Correct, his voluntary interview the night of the murder was the only tape played at the trial. The other interview was the night of the viewing I believe.
My understanding from my source is that the comments on the PCS were mainly taken from the first tape, the one shown at the trial.

Are you going to address any of my questions about this second card (of which I am beginning to seriously doubt the existence) or not? Otherwise, I am going to file it away with all the other "contradictions."

hawgustusgloop

08-08-2007, 06:21 PM

Yes, the bulb is "part" of the lamp. But I do not see a light bulb as crucial in the use of the lamp as a weapon. If it had been handled during the murder it would have broken/shattered. However, I do see prints on the pole closest to the base of the lamp as very important. And the fact that those prints are not Jones is vitally important.
Correct, his voluntary interview the night of the murder was the only tape played at the trial. The other interview was the night of the viewing I believe.
My understanding from my source is that the comments on the PCS were mainly taken from the first tape, the one shown at the trial.

Unless they are Nona's prints. IMO the Kevinator put his palm print on the bulb while trying to wipe his fingerprints off the lamp. It was a palm print because IMO he was taking care not to leave fingerprints.

christina

08-08-2007, 06:44 PM

lorettalockhorn

08-08-2007, 06:51 PM

I can see what you are saying here. But it could put Bacon's expertise about the print on the bulb into question.

Oh, okay. I thought that it was generally accepted that Bacon was to be considered a latent print expert. To the best of my knowledge, he did not have access to any laboratory at RPD to put his expertise to work.

I have been nebbing around archived articles and cannot find any references to a second card. Wish we could learn more about its existence;, hopefully the others who were in court can tell us more about it.

christina

08-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Are you going to address any of my questions about this second card (of which I am beginning to seriously doubt the existence) or not? Otherwise, I am going to file it away with all the other "contradictions."

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that your posts come across quite often as rude? If not, I am now, and this one is an example.
I was trying to respond to as much as I could in one of your posts. I went back and gleaned a few more questions (below in italics)the ones I am assuming you are referring to here. I will endeavor to answer them. But, let's be honest here, you are not prepared to believe what I say anyway.

So, which greeting card was it that he left the print on? Was it the one on the counter or the one by her body? Which card was from Nona's mom? Whom was the other card from? Were the other prints on the lamp made in Nona's uncoagulated blood?

I think the one next to the body had Jones print.
I do not know for sure which one was from Nona's mom, I think it was the one next to the body.
I only remember Nona's mom being mentioned as the sender of cards. Something to that effect was said- that was one way Nona's mom liked to communicate with her.
The prints on the lamp pole closest to the base were made in blood I am pretty sure. I remember they excluded Whiteside, Jones and Janice Jones.

Hope that answers them for you.

christina

08-08-2007, 07:00 PM

Oh, okay. I thought that it was generally accepted that Bacon was to be considered a latent print expert. To the best of my knowledge, he did not have access to any laboratory at RPD to put his expertise to work.

I have been nebbing around archived articles and cannot find any references to a second card. Wish we could learn more about its existence;, hopefully the others who were in court can tell us more about it.

He and Frost testified that they used the super glue and the black powder method to get fingerprints. Both at the RPD station.
That was testified to during the part of the mix up on the condom wrapper- Frost called the Crime Lab and asked what could be gotten from the wrapper- dna or prints. The lab told him it would be doubtful to get dna so Frost(and Bacon) went ahead and used the super glue method to try for prints.

There were things not reported in papers that I heard/saw in court. But there was never anything reported in papers that I had not heard in court. That was one of the reasons I ended up attending each day of the trial-I wanted to hear/see it all myself.
I had/have no intention of stirring up falsehoods. If I have been wrong in my rememberance, I have said so.

christina

08-08-2007, 07:09 PM

Unless they are Nona's prints. IMO the Kevinator put his palm print on the bulb while trying to wipe his fingerprints off the lamp. It was a palm print because IMO he was taking care not to leave fingerprints.

This is a stretch in my opinion. But if you have gone into this believeing Jones is guilty, I can see how you would surmise this. There was no testimony that the pole showed wipes of blood or smudged prints on the pole, only that Bacon saw prints that could be used and he compared them to Jones, Whiteside, Janice Jones and someone else(York maybe). And I can not see holding a light bulb while trieing to wipe something off the pole, common sense would tell you it would/could break.

Do you agree with the PCS that Jones said he watched a ton of crime shows and therefore knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 08:25 PM

I know what you're saying (I think) and I actually believe them both. Maybe Bacon thought from a cursory view that they would be usable; when the lamp actually reached the lab, the prints were not of as good quality as Bacon had hoped and couldn't be used to dentity anyone.

From The Courier's witness summaries (archived):

Bacon, who is a certified latent print examiner, said he was unable to match latent prints found on the floor lamp base and on the lamp pole near the base with known prints from Jones, Janice Jones, Ryan Whiteside or James “Trey” York.
When questioned about state crime lab fingerprint examiner Bobby HUMPHRIES’ decision that the same latent prints were unsuitable for comparison, Bacon said, “I respect his opinion.”
“Does that make him wrong?” Phillips asked.
“No,” Bacon said. He added the prints were unsuitable for comparison through the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, a computerized database used by law enforcement to help identify fingerprints.
He said there was no way to tell when the prints were made, and there was a possibility that the prints were Dirksmeyer’s. Her fingerprints were not recorded after death. He said no other fingerprints were brought to him for comparison."

And later in the same article:

"When asked about latent fingerprints found on the base of the floor lamp not belonging to Jones, Frost said Bobby HUMPHRIES, the fingerprint examiner from the State Crime Lab, informed him the prints were not suitable for comparison.
“But Chief Bacon, your boss and a certified latent print examiner, said they could be used for comparison,” Bristow said, adding that Bacon had been able to compare them to Jones‚ prints. He asked Frost if the RPD took fingerprints from anyone other than Jones.
Frost said Trey York, an ATU student who went on a date with Dirksmeyer, was fingerprinted when police interviewed him, and Bacon said the latent prints did not match with York’s.
“If the prints aren’t identifiable, there’s no reason to print anyone else,” Frost said."

So it sounds like Bacon found them suitable for comparison and actually used them for comparison to 4 other people. Humphries then came in and deemed them unsuitable for comparison. Bacon seemingly attempts to clarify this as meaning they are unsuitable for comparison via the state's automated database. Then we have Frost's cryptic statement, "If the prints aren't identifiable, there's no reason to print anyone else."

Draw your own conclusions.....

christina

08-08-2007, 10:02 PM

From The Courier's witness summaries (archived):

Bacon, who is a certified latent print examiner, said he was unable to match latent prints found on the floor lamp base and on the lamp pole near the base with known prints from Jones, Janice Jones, Ryan Whiteside or James “Trey” York.
When questioned about state crime lab fingerprint examiner Bobby HUMPHRIES’ decision that the same latent prints were unsuitable for comparison, Bacon said, “I respect his opinion.”
“Does that make him wrong?” Phillips asked.
“No,” Bacon said. He added the prints were unsuitable for comparison through the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, a computerized database used by law enforcement to help identify fingerprints.
He said there was no way to tell when the prints were made, and there was a possibility that the prints were Dirksmeyer’s. Her fingerprints were not recorded after death. He said no other fingerprints were brought to him for comparison."

And later in the same article:

"When asked about latent fingerprints found on the base of the floor lamp not belonging to Jones, Frost said Bobby HUMPHRIES, the fingerprint examiner from the State Crime Lab, informed him the prints were not suitable for comparison.
“But Chief Bacon, your boss and a certified latent print examiner, said they could be used for comparison,” Bristow said, adding that Bacon had been able to compare them to Jones‚ prints. He asked Frost if the RPD took fingerprints from anyone other than Jones.
Frost said Trey York, an ATU student who went on a date with Dirksmeyer, was fingerprinted when police interviewed him, and Bacon said the latent prints did not match with York’s.
“If the prints aren’t identifiable, there’s no reason to print anyone else,” Frost said."

So it sounds like Bacon found them suitable for comparison and actually used them for comparison to 4 other people. Humphries then came in and deemed them unsuitable for comparison. Bacon seemingly attempts to clarify this as meaning they are unsuitable for comparison via the state's automated database. Then we have Frost's cryptic statement, "If the prints aren't identifiable, there's no reason to print anyone else."

Draw your own conclusions.....

It was a mistake to not have Nona's fingerprints, the ME screwed up in more than just one way. The defense ME was much more professional and thorough in their testimony.
Frost's and Bacon's statements do not make sense to me. Is comparing for the purpose of AFIS that different from comparing by eye/through training/expertise?

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 10:27 PM

It was a mistake to not have Nona's fingerprints, the ME screwed up in more than just one way. The defense ME was much more professional and thorough in their testimony.
Frost's and Bacon's statements do not make sense to me. Is comparing for the purpose of AFIS that different from comparing by eye/through training/expertise?

Going on memory here.....I seem to recall Bacon (?) saying something about 3ridges being sufficient for comparison. Maybe he finds that sufficient for a personal comparison but the automated system requires more?

Anyway, on another note (and also from the Courier's witness summaries):

" Former Russellville Police Chief James Bacon testified about several latent fingerprints he collected from items seized at the crime scene. He said no usable prints were collected from blood smears observed on a CANDLE and a set of vertical blinds."

So apparently the candle wasn't wiped clean of prints.....they just weren't deemed usable. Didn't find anything on whether the blood was typed, though.

TJEddie

08-08-2007, 10:57 PM

Off on a new topic here....

I noticed christina's post today about Kenny Johnson having been hired by the Jones family to investigate Nona's murder. It was noted by another poster that Johnson is a defense attorney, not a private investigator. I did some reading up on that and found that defense attorneys frequently (if not always) have private investigators at their disposal to do defense investigations.

Anyway, I got to thinking about the 3 suggested weaknesses in Trey York's story/alibi that were brought up by the defense......Brandy Bean's observations, discrepancies between Trey's story and his phone records, and Trey's apparent inability to produce a receipt for his alleged 1pm gas purchase. I wonder if Gibbons only became aware of these issues during the pretrial discovery process or if he was aware of them before charges were filed. I guess the lack of rebuttal by the prosecution makes me suspect the former. Anybody have any other insights on this?

hawgustusgloop

08-09-2007, 12:02 AM

hawgustusgloop

08-09-2007, 12:14 AM

This is a stretch in my opinion. But if you have gone into this believeing Jones is guilty, I can see how you would surmise this. There was no testimony that the pole showed wipes of blood or smudged prints on the pole, only that Bacon saw prints that could be used and he compared them to Jones, Whiteside, Janice Jones and someone else(York maybe). And I can not see holding a light bulb while trieing to wipe something off the pole, common sense would tell you it would/could break.

Do you agree with the PCS that Jones said he watched a ton of crime shows and therefore knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?

What? Who ever said K.Jo told anyone he knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene? Where do you keep getting this stuff? I do not know what to say about all of this "info" you are putting on this board today.

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 12:30 AM

From Christina's post, I didn't get the impression that she was trying to say the Jones family hired Johnson to do a "defense investigation." She made it seem like they hired someone to look for the "real killer." If that were the case, why go to a criminal defense attorney? Why not just call a PI and hire him or her directly?

You may have a valid point there. I really wasn't trying to pick nits on the defense attorney/private investigator issue.....mostly I just looked it up to satisfy my own curiosity about how defense attorneys gather their information.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:32 AM

I've always laughed at the notion of the defense team doing their own investigation to find the "true killer." It's not going to happen and it never has. The defense team's sole purpose to get Kevin off, and that they did.

They aren't going to look for another person. Who would pay for it? Kevin's family? Unlikely. They aren't going to do it out of their own good will, either.

sololobo

08-09-2007, 08:53 AM

What? Who ever said K.Jo told anyone he knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene? Where do you keep getting this stuff? I do not know what to say about all of this "info" you are putting on this board today.

"Affiant believes Jones laying on top of the body and rubbing his hands over the blood was a deliberate attempt to tamper with the crime scene and provide an explanation for any of the victim’s blood, tissue or fibers being on him or any of his tissue being on the victim. Affiant’s belief is buttressed by the fact that while at the crime scene, Jones told RPD Officer Beyette that Jones watched a lot of Law and Order, a television show which Afflant knows to deal with forensic science and crime scene analysis." PCS statement

Her info came from the PCS statement as stated. The PCS took an innocent statement by Kevin and ballooned it into something sinister.

As for the card, I assume the card on the counter was with the stack of mail Kevin's mother was looking through for an address. The card by the body that Kevin picked up was from Nona's mother. Now I wonder if its possible Kevin still had the card in his hand when he went to speak on the phone to 911 and placed it on the counter. Christina, could you tell from the trial photos if this was a possibility?

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 08:58 AM

Uh, Solo...

Nowhere does that say that Kevin told the police that he knew how to stage or clean-up a crime scene.

sololobo

08-09-2007, 09:13 AM

Uh, Solo...

Nowhere does that say that Kevin told the police that he knew how to stage or clean-up a crime scene.

Actually, it does.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 09:19 AM

Actually, it does.You obviously have a higher reading skill than I do, since the only thing I can see Kevin saying is that he watched crime shows. Do tell me how that translates into Kevin claiming he knew how to stage or clean-up crime scenes?

sololobo

08-09-2007, 09:39 AM

You obviously have a higher reading skill than I do, since the only thing I can see Kevin saying is that he watched crime shows. Do tell me how that translates into Kevin claiming he knew how to stage or clean-up crime scenes?

Kevin did not claim this...the PCS statement claims it. The word "buttressed" is key here. I guess it depends on the definition of "buttressed". Maybe we should get Chief Bacon's definition of this word to clarify the PCS statement.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 09:48 AM

Kevin did not claim this...the PCS statement claims it. The word "buttressed" is key here. I guess it depends on the definition of "buttressed". Maybe we should get Chief Bacon's definition of this word to clarify the PCS statement.Oh, okay. I guess I need to do some hand-holding.

Hawg: "What? Who ever said K.Jo told anyone he knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?"

You came back with the PCS statement. "Kevin did not claim this," you say. Which is exactly what Hawg was asking for.

The *affiant* believed that Kevin contaminated the scene. The affiant believed that Kevin's statement about watching crime shows strengthens that belief.

Nowhere did anybody claim that Kevin himself said he knew how to clean-up or cover-up a crime scene. You responded to Hawg's question with an answer that suggested that he did.

Just making sure people reading don't get mixed up by false information.

BTW, Bacon didn't write the PCS.

sololobo

08-09-2007, 10:14 AM

Oh, okay. I guess I need to do some hand-holding.

Hawg: "What? Who ever said K.Jo told anyone he knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?"

The PCS statement did.

You came back with the PCS statement. "Kevin did not claim this," you say. Which is exactly what Hawg was asking for.

The PCS statement claimed Kevin did.

The *affiant* believed that Kevin contaminated the scene. The affiant believed that Kevin's statement about watching crime shows strengthens that belief.

Correct.

Nowhere did anybody claim that Kevin himself said he knew how to clean-up or cover-up a crime scene. You responded to Hawg's question with an answer that suggested that he did.

Again, the PCS statement claims he did.

Just making sure people reading don't get mixed up by false information.

Same here:)

BTW, Bacon didn't write the PCS

I didn't say he did. I was merely curious for his definition:).

Replied inline in bold.

christina

08-09-2007, 10:17 AM

"Affiant believes Jones laying on top of the body and rubbing his hands over the blood was a deliberate attempt to tamper with the crime scene and provide an explanation for any of the victim’s blood, tissue or fibers being on him or any of his tissue being on the victim. Affiant’s belief is buttressed by the fact that while at the crime scene, Jones told RPD Officer Beyette that Jones watched a lot of Law and Order, a television show which Afflant knows to deal with forensic science and crime scene analysis." PCS statement

Her info came from the PCS statement as stated. The PCS took an innocent statement by Kevin and ballooned it into something sinister.

As for the card, I assume the card on the counter was with the stack of mail Kevin's mother was looking through for an address. The card by the body that Kevin picked up was from Nona's mother. Now I wonder if its possible Kevin still had the card in his hand when he went to speak on the phone to 911 and placed it on the counter. Christina, could you tell from the trial photos if this was a possibility?

I would give anything to see the crime scene photos again at this point! It is possible the card was carried. I simply do not remember for sure, sorry. I just remember there was a card in the vicinity of her body.
Anyone else that was at the trial?

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:20 AM

christina

08-09-2007, 10:21 AM

You may have a valid point there. I really wasn't trying to pick nits on the defense attorney/private investigator issue.....mostly I just looked it up to satisfy my own curiosity about how defense attorneys gather their information.

I was just posting a bit of information I had not noticed/read before. That the Jones had retained Johnson well in advance of Kevin being charged. It is rumored they have spent quite a bit of money on this and some was spent looking at other suspects. Sure, that is the job of a defense lawyer-to defend their client-but it was the defense team's experts (paid for by the Jones) that came up with the dna on the condom wrapper and the fingernail on the carpet by the body.
One thing we have all seemed to agree on was that the RPD did not do a stellar job in this investigation.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:30 AM

Sure, that is the job of a defense lawyer-to defend their client-but it was the defense team's experts (paid for by the Jones) that came up with the dna on the condom wrapper and the fingernail on the carpet by the body.Which did a good job of making a smokescreen that the poor Ozark jury couldn't work through. Their own defense experts said the fingernail didn't have anything to do with the murder, and even if we knew whose DNA was on that condom wrapper, it doesn't automatically make them more suspect than Kevin, the guy with no alibi who left a print in blood fresh enough to not leave any evidence of coagulation.

christina

08-09-2007, 10:30 AM

The PCS statement never claimed that Kevin admitted to knowing how to clean-up or contaminate crime scenes. You show me where it said anything to the effect of Kevin claiming he did.

Here is the statement from Kevin that I saw in what you quoted:

"Jones told RPD Officer Beyette that Jones watched a lot of Law and Order"

This is not Kevin claiming that he knew how to clean-up a crime scene. The detectives believed that the crime scene was contaminated by the murderer, and Kevin's statement added to that belief. Nowhere, as you claim, did Kevin claim he knew how to do this.

I don't know why you are trying to push this misinformation.

From the beginning the prosecution has stated they believed Jones, because of his watching of crime shows and his intelligence, altered or staged the crime scene. It was said by Gibbons to the press and here is an excerpt from his opening statement as relayed by somone you might trust more than me- Janie Ginoccio-

Gibbons alleged Jones may have deliberately set out to contaminate the crime scene, telling the jury that, upon discovery of DIRKSMEYER’s body, “Jones got on top of Nona and covered himself in her blood ... his hands, his face, his arms.” He also devoted special attention to the fact that despite what he termed “a gaping wound” in DIRKSMEYER’s head, Jones repeatedly engaged with the body, at times straddling and attempting to lift DIRKSMEYER.
“There was a serious attempt to alter this crime scene from the very beginning,” Gibbons said.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:32 AM

From the beginning the prosecution has stated they believed Jones, because of his watching of crime shows and his intelligence, altered or staged the crime scene. It was said by Gibbons to the press and here is an excerpt from his opening statement as relayed by somone you might trust more than me- Janie Ginoccio-That's great Christina, but it doesn't mean anything. I'm asking about where Kevin claimed he knew how to contaminate or clean-up a crime scene.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 10:43 AM

Do you agree with the PCS that Jones said he watched a ton of crime shows and therefore knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?

Gibbons' statement has nothing to do with you having put these words into KJ's mouth. I don't think that it has ever been claimed before that Kevin told LE that he knew how to stage a crime scene.

BTW, are we back to just one greeting card? Is the card that was found near the body, the same as the card that was found on the counter? Or did it miracle itself around the crime scene?

sololobo

08-09-2007, 10:45 AM

That's great Christina, but it doesn't mean anything. I'm asking about where Kevin claimed he knew how to contaminate or clean-up a crime scene.

The PCS statement claimed he did.

christina

08-09-2007, 10:46 AM

That's great Christina, but it doesn't mean anything. I'm asking about where Kevin claimed he knew how to contaminate or clean-up a crime scene.

If I stated that, it was not what I meant. All along the prosecution and police have brought out that they thought Jones staged and intentionally contaminated the scene. It was brought out in the PCS, opening statement and interviews. The belief was that Jones stating he watched crime shows proved he knew a lot about crime scenes and thus could stage/contaminate one. I believe it was discussed on this site as well.
I was asking others(Hawg I think) if he thought that was true.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:49 AM

The PCS statement claimed he did.I asked you once to show me where it claimed that Kevin made the statement that he knew how to clean-up or contaminate a crime scene. Apparently you would rather be obtuse and not do so. At least everyone else can read for themselves that you refuse to answer.

I can't believe I'm actually having to stick up for Kevin now, but you're putting words in his mouth that he never said.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 10:51 AM

I was just posting a bit of information I had not noticed/read before. That the Jones had retained Johnson well in advance of Kevin being charged. It is rumored they have spent quite a bit of money on this and some was spent looking at other suspects. Sure, that is the job of a defense lawyer-to defend their client-but it was the defense team's experts (paid for by the Jones) that came up with the dna on the condom wrapper and the fingernail on the carpet by the body.
One thing we have all seemed to agree on was that the RPD did not do a stellar job in this investigation.

It makes perfect sense for the Joneses to have wanted to find the "true killer", as they probably knew that KJ was going to be arrested fairly early on. (Some would probably infer that having hired Johnson well in advance of the arrest could be taken as an admission of guilt, but I digress.) What I don't get is why they would hire an attorney to perform the investigation rather than an investigator. (Or why an attorney would act as an investigator. Is this something that Johnson normally does? Is he licensed? Just out of curiosity.)

christina

08-09-2007, 10:51 AM

christina

08-09-2007, 10:54 AM

It makes perfect sense for the Joneses to have wanted to find the "true killer", as they probably knew that KJ was going to be arrested fairly early on. (Some would probably infer that having hired Johnson well in advance of the arrest could be taken as an admission of guilt, but I digress.) What I don't get is why they would hire an attorney to perform the investigation rather than an investigator. (Or why an attorney would act as an investigator. Is this something that Johnson normally does? Is he licensed? Just out of curiosity.)

These are some of the same things I am wondering. Was there any research done as to Johnson's background?

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 10:55 AM

It makes perfect sense for the Joneses to have wanted to find the "true killer", as they probably knew that KJ was going to be arrested fairly early on. (Some would probably infer that having hired Johnson well in advance of the arrest could be taken as an admission of guilt, but I digress.) What I don't get is why they would hire an attorney to perform the investigation rather than an investigator. (Or why an attorney would act as an investigator. Is this something that Johnson normally does? Is he licensed? Just out of curiosity.)

Well, if that's the case, Trey York beat him to it.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:56 AM

From Frost' interview with Courier published on May 15, 2006

"I'll be honest, when I first get to a scene, I formulate ideas and theories," he said, noting he must always remain objective. "But to sit here and tell you I didn't think this (crime scene) was staged or that something wasn't right would be a lie, because I did." What's your point? The whole thing is that sololobo (and possibly you since you're diving into this discussion) claim that Kevin stated to the police that he knew how to contaminate and/or clean-up a crime scene.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 10:57 AM

The PCS statement claimed he did.

I thought that the PCS was a statement of beliefs held by the affiant; Frost?

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 10:57 AM

Well, if that's the case, Trey York beat him to it.Oh, right. There's not a difference in having an attorney while being questioned by the police and having an attorney because all of the evidence is pointing to you, so you need to start going on the defensive.

None at all. You sure got a zinger in on that one!

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 11:00 AM

Well, if that's the case, Trey York beat him to it.

Well, Christina practically had York convicted for the murder due to the fact that he is rumored to have exercised his rights as a citizen to have an attorney present during questioning. I'm applying her reasoning to the fact that KJ hired an attorney before he was arrested and coming to the conclusion that he is indeed guilty.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:03 AM

Gibbons' statement has nothing to do with you having put these words into KJ's mouth. I don't think that it has ever been claimed before that Kevin told LE that he knew how to stage a crime scene.

BTW, are we back to just one greeting card? Is the card that was found near the body, the same as the card that was found on the counter? Or did it miracle itself around the crime scene?

My intent was not to put words into Jones mouth. If you read it carefully I am saying this is what the PCS stated/inferred. It was testified that Jones stated to an officer that he watched a crime show. The therefore in my sentence relates to the assumption made by police, not what Jones himself stated.

Do you agree with the PCS that Jones said he watched a ton of crime shows and therefore knew how to stage/clean up/contaminate a scene?

Greeting card- I remember two (one by the body and one that Janice Jones looked at)but wish now I could see the pictures again. Sololobo had the thought that maybe Kevin Jones carried it to Janice Jones location when he got on the phone with 911. Again, I am just trying to share what I remember, I am not trying to stir anything up! I do wish someone else that saw the pictures and was present at the trial would give their memory as well.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 11:05 AM

These are some of the same things I am wondering. Was there any research done as to Johnson's background?

I'm sure that Johnson must have come highly recommended from some source; attorneys have their areas of expertise just as other professionals do. Spending attorney's fees on an investigation doesn't seem like a wise choice to me. But hey, I might have hired an attorney, an investigator, a profiler AND a psychic.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:05 AM

What's your point? The whole thing is that sololobo (and possibly you since you're diving into this discussion) claim that Kevin stated to the police that he knew how to contaminate and/or clean-up a crime scene.

I started this discussion. Please re read my response to you and to Loretta - it might clear it up for you.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:09 AM

I started this discussion. Please re read my response to you and to Loretta - it might clear it up for you.If you're not claiming that Kevin stated to police that he knew how to clean-up and contaminate crime scenes as sololobo is, then you don't have anything to say to me to clarify.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:12 AM

I'm sure that Johnson must have come highly recommended from some source; attorneys have their areas of expertise just as other professionals do. Spending attorney's fees on an investigation doesn't seem like a wise choice to me. But hey, I might have hired an attorney, an investigator, a profiler AND a psychic.

I wonder if it is common for a defense attorney to use investigators. It makes sense they would. In this case, the police investigation did lack. I really think the RPD would have benefitted from including outside help. Example- the ASP detective Stacey Rhodes who testified to obtaining the cell records is one example. She was sharp on the stand, very impressive. Another question I have- how much investigation did the prosecutor's office do after they received the file from the RPD. And who did they get to do their investigations?

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 11:12 AM

sololobo

08-09-2007, 11:16 AM

I asked you once to show me where it claimed that Kevin made the statement that he knew how to clean-up or contaminate a crime scene. Apparently you would rather be obtuse and not do so. At least everyone else can read for themselves that you refuse to answer.

I can't believe I'm actually having to stick up for Kevin now, but you're putting words in his mouth that he never said.

The PCS statement claimed he did. This is my answer you refuse to acknowledge.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:17 AM

I don't understand. Why would you apply christina's logic in this instance when you have argued so vehemently in the past that her logic on this issue is/was faulty?It made me laugh, so that's a good enough reason for me.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:17 AM

The PCS statement claimed he did. This is my answer you refuse to acknowledge.Quote from the PCS statement where it claimed that Kevin stated that he knew how to clean-up or contaminate a crime scene. Your refusal to do so is telling.

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 11:18 AM

I wonder if it is common for a defense attorney to use investigators. It makes sense they would. In this case, the police investigation did lack. I really think the RPD would have benefitted from including outside help. Example- the ASP detective Stacey Rhodes who testified to obtaining the cell records is one example. She was sharp on the stand, very impressive. Another question I have- how much investigation did the prosecutor's office do after they received the file from the RPD. And who did they get to do their investigations?

Based on my own Google research, yes, it is very common.

I don't know if prosecutors use similar services or if they just rely on the police investigations.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:18 AM

Well, Christina practically had York convicted for the murder due to the fact that he is rumored to have exercised his rights as a citizen to have an attorney present during questioning. I'm applying her reasoning to the fact that KJ hired an attorney before he was arrested and coming to the conclusion that he is indeed guilty.

Foul-unfair characterization here! Having a lawyer was a minor issue as to why I thought he could be a serious suspect. The fact he underplayed their contact/relationship on the stand, the fact he was the only other suspect fingerprinted(menaing police had serious thoughts about his guilt), the fact the neighbor described someone that looked like him at Nona's apartment arguing with her, his weird exaplantion of why he did not take the phone call from the lab partner the night of Nona's murder and subsequent lie about when he found out about her death, testifying he spilled coke in his car and the police photographs show a dark substance spilled on the end tables and carpet.................

sololobo

08-09-2007, 11:19 AM

If you're not claiming that Kevin stated to police that he knew how to clean-up and contaminate crime scenes as sololobo is, then you don't have anything to say to me to clarify.

I did not claim that. The PCS statement did.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 11:19 AM

I don't understand. Why would you apply christina's logic in this instance when you have argued so vehemently in the past that her logic on this issue is/was faulty?

Didn't you hear, it's opposite day! Christina weighed in with information that KJ implicated himself by claiming to know how to stage a crime scene, which was certainly the opposite of any of the defending that I've seen her do. I thought that I would try on her logic.

Seriously, how can you pro Jones types condemn York for exercising his rights but not apply the same criticism to Kevin?

And I'm not sure that I would necessarily characterize Christina's logic as faulty, just different from my own; much like her opinions, her loyalties and motivations.

Your vehement defense of Christina is interesting.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:21 AM

the fact the neighbor described someone that looked like him at Nona's apartment arguing with herDid you ever answer the questions about Trey's complexion? Everybody I have talked to that was in the courtroom said that Trey didn't have a dark complexion like the neighbor claimed she saw. I know you were asked about his complexion in the courtroom but I never saw an answer, but I guess I could have missed it.

testifying he spilled coke in his car and the police photographs show a dark substance spilled on the end tables and carpet.................Is this the same substance that Carol Dipert testified was there when Nona moved in? Just trying to keep my facts straight.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:22 AM

I did not claim that. The PCS statement did.Quote the specific part of the PCS or stop claiming that it did.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:23 AM

Based on my own Google research, yes, it is very common.

I don't know if prosecutors use similar services or if they just rely on the police investigations.

I would imagine prosecutors use police for their investigation. I would imagine they were less than impressed when they received the file on this case! Since it took awhile for them to charge Jones, I would think they were having investigaions done. It was all circumstantial except for the palm print on the light bulb.
I also wonder how often a prosecutor chooses not to charge the person police ask them to, especially in a murder case.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:28 AM

Didn't you hear, it's opposite day! Christina weighed in with information that KJ implicated himself by claiming to know how to stage a crime scene, which was certainly the opposite of any of the defending that I've seen her do. I thought that I would try on her logic.

Seriously, how can you pro Jones types condemn York for exercising his rights but not apply the same criticism to Kevin?

And I'm not sure that I would necessarily characterize Christina's logic as faulty, just different from my own; much like her opinions, her loyalties and motivations.
Your vehement defense of Christina is interesting.

This is getting way off topic. I explained, clearly I thought, my initial comment- to Oxford in post #7055 and to you in post# 7065.

You do not know my motivations and loyalties.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 11:29 AM

Foul-unfair characterization here! Having a lawyer was a minor issue as to why I thought he could be a serious suspect. The fact he underplayed their contact/relationship on the stand, the fact he was the only other suspect fingerprinted(menaing police had serious thoughts about his guilt), the fact the neighbor described someone that looked like him at Nona's apartment arguing with her, his weird exaplantion of why he did not take the phone call from the lab partner the night of Nona's murder and subsequent lie about when he found out about her death, testifying he spilled coke in his car and the police photographs show a dark substance spilled on the end tables and carpet.................

Sorry to offend. How is it that he underplayed the relationship? How do we know that he was fingerprinted because he was a serious suspect or just to rule him out since he had admitted to being in Nona's apartment? As far as I remember, the only thing that the neighbor's testimony implied that could be applied to York's appearance, was that he wears wristbands and that he drives a silver Mustang. Regardless of that and the rest of your suspicions, the jury chose to play armchair detectives and attempt to investigate Jared? during deliberations, so surely they weren't as suspicious of York as you are. (Weren't you sure at some point that Martin or DD had committed the crime or am I thinking of someone else?)

christina

08-09-2007, 11:34 AM

Did you ever answer the questions about Trey's complexion? Everybody I have talked to that was in the courtroom said that Trey didn't have a dark complexion like the neighbor claimed she saw. I know you were asked about his complexion in the courtroom but I never saw an answer, but I guess I could have missed it.

Is this the same substance that Carol Dipert testified was there when Nona moved in? Just trying to keep my facts straight.

I don't think I weighed in on York's complexion. I would characterize it as medium I guess. Not important to me as Bean said he had a ball cap on. It was the car he drove and the wrist things that got me.
I was asked about his complexion in the courtroom-bafflying-I sure don't remember anyone asking me that in the courtroom.

Nona's mother testified that the splatter on the wall had been there when Nona moved in. No one testified as to the dark liquid spill on both end tables and the carpet.

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 11:35 AM

I would imagine prosecutors use police for their investigation. I would imagine they were less than impressed when they received the file on this case! Since it took awhile for them to charge Jones, I would think they were having investigaions done. It was all circumstantial except for the palm print on the light bulb.
I also wonder how often a prosecutor chooses not to charge the person police ask them to, especially in a murder case.

Perhaps the prosecutors were even less impressed with the police file after they received the results of the defense's investigation during the pretrial discovery process. Of course, charges would have already been filed by then.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:37 AM

I don't think I weighed in on York's complexion. I would characterize it as medium I guess. Not important to me as Bean said he had a ball cap on. It was the car he drove and the wrist things that got me.
I was asked about his complexion in the courtroom-bafflying-I sure don't remember anyone asking me that in the courtroom.Well, you were asked because (I believe) jonikay said he was light-complected, and others in the courtroom that I have talked to have said the same thing. So, naturally, I have to see what statements agree with each other... unfortunately, you got left out of this round of agreements. Again.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:37 AM

Perhaps the prosecutors were even less impressed with the police file after they received the results of the defense's investigation during the pretrial discovery process. Of course, charges would have already been filed by then.The defense would have been handing all kinds of crap to the police to investigate if Kevin had a lawyer that early on, before the charges were ever filed. I've talked to some that say that this is definitely true, and I don't see why it wouldn't. Of course they would have handed off anything that would have stopped Kevin from being charged.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 11:40 AM

This is getting way off topic. I explained, clearly I thought, my initial comment- to Oxford in post #7055 and to you in post# 7065.

You do not know my motivations and loyalties.

True. You came to the forum claiming to know both Nona and some of her family and the Whitesides. It wasn't Nona's brutal murder that brought you here, it was the alleged rape report. You have commented that you withheld an opinion of guilt or innocence lest you be called for jury duty; yet it would seem to me that your knowing both Nona, some of her family and the Whitesides, combined with your attendance at hearings and posting here would have precluded that. You have posted information about the trial that was called into question and deflected your reasons for having done so; all the time claiming that the media is biased.

There is no way that I can understand that.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:41 AM

Sorry to offend. How is it that he underplayed the relationship? How do we know that he was fingerprinted because he was a serious suspect or just to rule him out since he had admitted to being in Nona's apartment? As far as I remember, the only thing that the neighbor's testimony implied that could be applied to York's appearance, was that he wears wristbands and that he drives a silver Mustang. Regardless of that and the rest of your suspicions, the jury chose to play armchair detectives and attempt to investigate Jared? during deliberations, so surely they weren't as suspicious of York as you are. (Weren't you sure at some point that Martin or DD had committed the crime or am I thinking of someone else?)

York testified that he thought Nona was using him to get a good grade in biology so he "cooled" their relationship. Yet the cell records show their texting did not slow down up to the day of her murder. Their biology lab partner testified that the reason he called York the night of the murder was becasue he thought they were boyfriend and girlfriend. York said he had only been to Nona's apartment once but Bean saw him(or a likeness) there 3 times.
I inferred he was a serious suspect since he was interviewed as was Jones within a very short period of the murder and the police did not take finger prints of other people who testified to being in the apartment.
As for the jury and Jared- only explanation I have heard is that Jared's texts to Nona showed up on the cell records the jury had.
Like many others here, suspects have been discussed. I have entered into these discussions. I do not remember a suspect named Martin though.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:44 AM

York said he had only been to Nona's apartment once but Bean saw him(or a likeness) there 3 times.Kind of disingenuous to say "saw him (or a likeness)" when Bean clearly didn't identify York in court, since she wasn't allowed to identify him since she didn't actually get to look at him that well, or even see his face.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:48 AM

True. You came to the forum claiming to know both Nona and some of her family and the Whitesides. It wasn't Nona's brutal murder that brought you here, it was the alleged rape report. You have commented that you withheld an opinion of guilt or innocence lest you be called for jury duty; yet it would seem to me that your knowing both Nona, some of her family and the Whitesides, combined with your attendance at hearings and posting here would have precluded that. You have posted information about the trial that was called into question and deflected your reasons for having done so; all the time claiming that the media is biased.

There is no way that I can understand that.

I did not say I knew Nona and her family, only of them. I did not feel the need back then to discuss the brutal murder, I felt it was being handled by the proper authorities. Agreed, I would have told the judge during voir dire, had I been called for jury duty, that I knew people involed in the case. I attended the hearing because I wanted to see/hear for myself the proceedings. Agreed, that too might have excluded me during voir dire.

Foul again- in your opinion I deflected. I can only tell you I have done my level best to answer questions. Why else would I hang around here and continue to post? I want to see this case settled.

And yes, I still believe the media was biased in this case.

TJEddie

08-09-2007, 11:50 AM

christina

08-09-2007, 11:52 AM

Perhaps the prosecutors were even less impressed with the police file after they received the results of the defense's investigation during the pretrial discovery process. Of course, charges would have already been filed by then.

That is something that got me- the prosecutors never sought out more dna from suspects after finding out the defense obtained it from the wrapper and fingernail. I think it was said they knew it for 7 months. Besides pointing to another possible murderer, it could possibly have helped their case against Jones even. If they could prove the wrapper had dna of a boy Nona was dating, it would have added to the Jones getting enraged because of jealousy motive.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:54 AM

Kind of disingenuous to say "saw him (or a likeness)" when Bean clearly didn't identify York in court, since she wasn't allowed to identify him since she didn't actually get to look at him that well, or even see his face.

No, not disingenuous at all, in my opinion.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 11:55 AM

That is something that got me- the prosecutors never sought out more dna from suspects after finding out the defense obtained it from the wrapper and fingernail. I think it was said they knew it for 7 months.I'd like to know when the thumbnail was found, because it was only brought up very recently in any discussions, unlike the condom wrapper. Not that it matters, since KJ's own defense experts said it was a non-issue.

Besides pointing to another possible murderer, it could possibly have helped their case against Jones even. If they could prove the wrapper had dna of a boy Nona was dating, it would have added to the Jones getting enraged because of jealousy motive.They proved that it didn't have Kevin's DNA on it, so it already helps with the jealousy motive.

christina

08-09-2007, 11:56 AM

Well, you were asked because (I believe) jonikay said he was light-complected, and others in the courtroom that I have talked to have said the same thing. So, naturally, I have to see what statements agree with each other... unfortunately, you got left out of this round of agreements. Again.

Who asked me in the courtroom about York's complexion.

Are you inferring here that I am consistently wrong or not in agreement with others?

christina

08-09-2007, 11:59 AM

I'd like to know when the thumbnail was found, because it was only brought up very recently in any discussions, unlike the condom wrapper. Not that it matters, since KJ's own defense experts said it was a non-issue.

They proved that it didn't have Kevin's DNA on it, so it already helps with the jealousy motive.

The defense expert testified he found it when they received the carpet from the state crime lab. He testified it was not Jones dna and did not match the dna found on the wrapper.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:00 PM

Who asked me in the courtroom about York's complexion.

Are you inferring here that I am consistently wrong or not in agreement with others?I don't know who asked you what in the courtroom, nor am I inclined to have a reason to think that it matters. I just remember reading someone, I believe jonikay, posting that they thought that York had a fair complexion. Other people in the courtroom that I have talked to, and others that actually know who York is, said he has a fair complexion.

And yes, Christina. As I've said over and over, your courtroom accounts tend to clash with a number of people who I have talked with. I guess it could just be a conspiracy, though. Not only is the media biased, the other people I've talked to are clearly biased against you. :shrug:

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:00 PM

The defense expert testified he found it when they received the carpet from the state crime lab. He testified it was not Jones dna and did not match the dna found on the wrapper.He also testified that it didn't have anything to do with a struggle, but nice try on leaving that out.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:03 PM

According to Brandy Bean's testimony, she never saw this "boyfriend's" face. I wonder how she drew that conclusion about his dark complexion.....perhaps the shadow of a baseball cap bill? What she was able to see clearly included height, build, "things on wrists".....it was my impression from those who have seen Trey York (and from Trey's admission to wearing wrist bands) that those features did match up. Certainly not a rock solid ID, but enough to get my attention. If it wasn't Trey York, who might it have been? After all, Nona's lifestyle, friends an associates were investigated thoroughly. I find it hard to believe this "boyfriend" would have been a complete unknown.

After Bean's testimony I went over to the apartment complex and stood in front of Bean's door looking down at Nona's old apartment door. They are close, about 50 apart. Any noise is trapped between the brick buildings. The trash receptacle is located on the lower level about 20 feet from Nona's front door. I assume that is where it was back then as well becasue there is a marked area in the parking lot for it.

hawgustusgloop

08-09-2007, 12:03 PM

I did not say I knew Nona and her family, only of them. I did not feel the need back then to discuss the brutal murder, I felt it was being handled by the proper authorities. Agreed, I would have told the judge during voir dire, had I been called for jury duty, that I knew people involed in the case. I attended the hearing because I wanted to see/hear for myself the proceedings. Agreed, that too might have excluded me during voir dire.

Foul again- in your opinion I deflected. I can only tell you I have done my level best to answer questions. Why else would I hang around here and continue to post? I want to see this case settled.

And yes, I still believe the media was biased in this case.

>snip<
FDInLaw,
Why do you assume I think negatively of Ms Dirksmeyer. I knew her and know some members of her family. I know them to be believers and believe she is at peace with her God. I liked her and wish justice as it appears you do. Both of your "welcome to the boards" seem a bit insincere to me now.

I wonder which of THESE statements is true? Ugh. This is getting old.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:05 PM

He also testified that it didn't have anything to do with a struggle, but nice try on leaving that out.

This post and the previous one are rude in my opinion. You appear to be inferring I have an agenda or am intentionally trying to mislead, even lie about what I saw and heard. I do not appreciate that.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:05 PM

I wonder which of THESE statements is true? Ugh. This is getting old.Oh, goodness.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:06 PM

This post and the previous one are rude in my opinion. You appear to be inferring I have an agenda or am intentionally trying to mislead, even lie about what I saw and heard. I do not appreciate that.I don't have a problem saying that I think you try to mislead about facts, and may even possibly lie. I mean, look at the post Hawg just dug up.

I don't say it without reason.

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 12:07 PM

York testified that he thought Nona was using him to get a good grade in biology so he "cooled" their relationship. Yet the cell records show their texting did not slow down up to the day of her murder. Their biology lab partner testified that the reason he called York the night of the murder was becasue he thought they were boyfriend and girlfriend. York said he had only been to Nona's apartment once but Bean saw him(or a likeness) there 3 times.
I inferred he was a serious suspect since he was interviewed as was Jones within a very short period of the murder and the police did not take finger prints of other people who testified to being in the apartment.
As for the jury and Jared- only explanation I have heard is that Jared's texts to Nona showed up on the cell records the jury had.
Like many others here, suspects have been discussed. I have entered into these discussions. I do not remember a suspect named Martin though.

I honestly think that with a little more information or misinformation, any of us could spin suspicion toward any number of suspects. My understanding of the texting was that Nona initiated the texts and that York responded. Sounds to me like Nona and York had a very flirty relationship in biology class/lab. I'm not sure that Bean's description of the Trash Carrier and/or Door Banger jibe with York's description other than the wristbands.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:07 PM

I wonder which of THESE statements is true? Ugh. This is getting old.

Good morning Hawg. Both are true. I have friends who attended church with Carol and Nona and they informed me of what wonderful people they were.
Again, it is not my intent to lie. I can see how this is misleading though and I am sorry for that.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:09 PM

Good morning Hawg. Both are true. I have friends who attended church with Carol and Nona and they informed me of what wonderful people they were.
Again, it is not my intent to lie. I can see how this is misleading though and I am sorry for that.Oh, you have got to be kidding me. Here's the post (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8801535&postcount=1189) for anybody who wants to see it for themself.

This is some of the worst backpedaling that I've seen in a long, long time.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:09 PM

I don't have a problem saying that I think you try to mislead about facts, and may even possibly lie. I mean, look at the post Hawg just dug up.

I don't say it without reason.

What reason do you think I have to stay here and post? And do you think it would be better for the discussion if I did not post?

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 12:10 PM

This post and the previous one are rude in my opinion. You appear to be inferring I have an agenda or am intentionally trying to mislead, even lie about what I saw and heard. I do not appreciate that.

Don't know about ox; just a guess that he doesn't like being manipulated here anymore than I do or (anyone else does) in The Real World.

sololobo

08-09-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote from the PCS statement where it claimed that Kevin stated that he knew how to clean-up or contaminate a crime scene. Your refusal to do so is telling.

I have not refused to answer. I've answered multiple times.

If we may get back on topic, I believe we were discussing the out of place greeting card found by Nona's body and the out of place candle before this diversion.

From a previous post, we now know the candle was not wiped clean of prints. If the killer touched the candle and was not concerned enough to wipe it clean of prints, may we assume he wore gloves? It was cold that day and the killer may have had gloves with him. Or perhaps only Nona touched the candle. Any thoughts?

Where exactly was the greeting card in relation to the body when Kevin picked it up from the floor? Did Kevin find it after turning the body over? Was Nona holding the card when attacked?

lorettalockhorn

08-09-2007, 12:14 PM

Well, you were asked because (I believe) jonikay said he was light-complected, and others in the courtroom that I have talked to have said the same thing. So, naturally, I have to see what statements agree with each other... unfortunately, you got left out of this round of agreements. Again.

From his myspace page, he appears to be very fair complected with dark hair, dark ample eyebrows and fairly long sideburns.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:14 PM

Don't know about ox; just a guess that he doesn't like being manipulated here anymore than I or anyone else does in The Real World.

This is another unfair characterization- how am I manipulating you?

christina

08-09-2007, 12:16 PM

From his myspace page, he appears to be very fair complected with dark hair, dark ample eyebrows and fairly long sideburns.

After posting it, someone, I think nobody, retracted that was not Yorks myspace page.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:16 PM

What reason do you think I have to stay here and post? And do you think it would be better for the discussion if I did not post?Since Kevin is probably going to face a civil suit, then he can't lose all of his defenders since his journey isn't over. It's in Kevin's interest to continue to having misinformation spread and people defending him.

I'm not sure what your own, personal motivations are. You claimed to be a friend of Patty and Dennis Whiteside, yet then recently said you haven't talked to them through all of this, even though you've been in the courtroom. You claimed to know Nona and her family, yet backpedaled from that one as well. You're an interesting figure to watch, that's for sure. I know I question who you claim to be.

oxfordwebster

08-09-2007, 12:18 PM

After posting it, someone, I think nobody, retracted that was not Yorks myspace page.I found the kid on Facebook a while back. He's fair-complected.

christina

08-09-2007, 12:22 PM

Since Kevin is probably going to face a civil suit, then he can't lose all of his defenders since his journey isn't over. It's in Kevin's interest to continue to having misinformation spread and people defending him.

I'm not sure what your own, personal motivations are. You claimed to be a friend of Patty and Dennis Whiteside, yet then recently said you haven't talked to them through all of this, even though you've been in the courtroom. You claimed to know Nona and her family, yet backpedaled from that one as well. You're an interesting figure to watch, that's for sure. I know I question who you claim to be.

Jones has no need of my piddling views of the trial to help him. It is not my intent to defend him nor spread misinformation, it has been to post what I saw and heard in the courtroom.

Anonymous is an interesting way to post. I much prefer direct and face to face. I know I have questioned some posters identity here as well, yours included.
Others have said they were in the courtroom, I wish they would post more of their insights.