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

[FDInLaw]

:lol: Are you kidding? Why would I have any reason to be paranoid? :lol: Your the one who sounds pretty dang paranoid. I think you might be losing track of all your cyber personalities. THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER!

:rolleyes: This is the only place I post on a daily basis.

[FDInLaw]

:eek: Uhh-hmm. Suuurrrre. :tongue: I believe you. Okay, I'll play your game. . . where else have I posted in the last month? You're a real character. Why are you so obsessed with me anyhow? Are you some sort of cyber stocker?
:D

[optimumprimal78]

Have I missed something? What's the deal with asking if people are posting under different names? Someone explain it.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[FDInLaw]

Have I missed something? What's the deal with asking if people are posting under different names? Someone explain it.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Sorry for all the confusion! Someone believes I may have being posting as "phynickyb," which I found humorous. Sorry for getting of topic.

[JR2007]

That's, an Idea. We can sign up for multiple names, and when things are slow and we don't have anyone to communicate with, we can start a conversation with ourselves. We could even steer it in any direction we want to. We can get smart with ourselves or just compliment the heck out of ourselves. :D

[FDInLaw]

That's, an Idea. We can sign up for multiple names, and when things are slow and we don't have anyone to communicate with, we can start a conversation with ourselves. We could even steer it in any direction we want to. We can get smart with ourselves or just compliment the heck out of ourselves. :D

:lol: Now, that's the ticket! :biggrin:

I have a hard enough time just keeping one personality out of trouble! Besides, we would end up fighting over who got to use "fruitcake" as a username!

[Brainstorm]

Sorry for all the confusion! Someone believes I may have being posting as "phynickyb," which I found humorous. Sorry for getting of topic.

I just now am catching up ,but want to say weclome new posters.I read about Renee Fox also. Hmmmm.....so terribly sad. I hope her family gets the answers they need,since they cant have her back.
FDInLaw,I honestly believe that thatkg poster is extremely jealous of your
insights into this case. I believe she has been BAITING you the whole time and steady attacking you,
I've yet to see any thing much more of her on this board. She doesnt even give her reasons what makes her belive kj is innocent,on the other hand , we have have all told WHY we belive as we (I)do, that Kevin is a killer and the Prosecution has the proof.Therefor what we've beeen posting is abut the case,....what kj is posting is personal grips toward the best of the best,FDInLaw.......................I couldnt believe what I just read FDInLaw,acusing you of other nic........unreal

Someone like FDInLaw ,with honest insights and open-mindedness
doesn't need to use any nic other than he/she has. FDI is on the right track
looking at the facts,(as are known) and not into stupid,jealous games that some people want to play.kg...needs to change nics and come back as an intelligent poster wiiling to discuss the CASE...or not come back.....we have a couple new poster that are open-minded,so maybe we caan have a discussion after all.
JMHO
JMHO

[FDInLaw]

I just now am catching up ,but want to say weclome new posters.I read about Renee Fox also. Hmmmm.....so terribly sad. I hope her family gets the answers they need,since they cant have her back.
FDInLaw,I honestly believe that thatkg poster is extremely jealous of your
insights into this case. I believe she has been BAITING you the whole time and steady attacking you,
I've yet to see any thing much more of her on this board. She doesnt even give her reasons what makes her belive kj is innocent,on the other hand , we have have all told WHY we belive as we (I)do, that Kevin is a killer and the Prosecution has the proof.Therefor what we've beeen posting is abut the case,....what kj is posting is personal grips toward the best of the best,FDInLaw.......................I couldnt believe what I just read FDInLaw,acusing you of other nic........unreal

Someone like FDInLaw ,with honest insights and open-mindedness
doesn't need to use any nic other than he/she has. FDI is on the right track
looking at the facts,(as are known) and not into stupid,jealous games that some people want to play.kg...needs to change nics and come back as an intelligent poster wiiling to discuss the CASE...or not come back.....we have a couple new poster that are open-minded,so maybe we caan have a discussion after all.
JMHO
JMHO
Wherein I agree that KG has failed to give much of an actual argument for what she believes, one thing I must say for her is that she keeps coming back. There have been quite a number of yellow bellied pansies that have opted not to stand their ground. At least she endeavors to do so to the best of her ability.

Thank you for the kind words. . . I'll try to live up to them, my friend.

[phynickyb]

Well, now... You have an AWFULLY familiar tone. Whatever "baiting" you'd be talking about, I am not quite sure. As I have said many times, this is not personal for me. So, I don't guess I am following you. You do seem to contradict yourself in some of your messages though. I am not getting in to restating my opinions, though, no matter how you want to "bait" me into it. I feel as if everything I had to say was pretty clear, at least to most people. I can see where it would be hard for some of those who believe passionately in the opposite direction might not see it as being clear because I, myself, am not clear on some of their views. When people believe passionately in what they believe, and are stubborn to boot, it is unlikely one side is going to convince the other side to change their mind. My opinions are on this board in black and white, if you or anyone else want's to adress it, be my guess. If not, so be it. :cool:

You continue in your snide tone. Talk about the case or end it. I will not continue this silly little game with. Your accusations are completely off base as far as my familiarity with anyone on this board (not IMO, but fact) so next time you want to throw that out there, back up your assertions.

[phynickyb]

:lol: Now, that's the ticket! :biggrin:

I have a hard enough time just keeping one personality out of trouble! Besides, we would end up fighting over who got to use "fruitcake" as a username!


OMG that was just too funny!!!! "Fruitcake"...Sorry I really didn't mean to start this whole thing. It really is a compliment though, for me anyhow ;)

[hawgustusgloop]

Well, now... You have an AWFULLY familiar tone.

Please tell me kg** is not suggesting that a regular poster on this board is impersonating a relative of murder victim Renee Fox just to argue points with her that everyone else has already argued anyway.

Where IS that vomit smiley?

[FDInLaw]

You continue in your snide tone. Talk about the case or end it. I will not continue this silly little game with. Your accusations are completely off base as far as my familiarity with anyone on this board (not IMO, but fact) so next time you want to throw that out there, back up your assertions.

:eek: Oh, NO! It's my other personality again! Someone needs to have me committed. . . send out the white jackets! :biggrin:

(I'm sorry, I can't help it. . . still laughing over JR's post!)

:lol:

[FDInLaw]

OMG that was just too funny!!!! "Fruitcake"...Sorry I really didn't mean to start this whole thing. It really is a compliment though, for me anyhow ;)

"Fruitcake" is a term that was used repeatedly by last week's troll. . . some of us still get a kick out of it. Y'all should have seen the look on my face when sassypants first directed it at me. . . I was so confused. . . "Grandma, is that you?" Anyhow, I wasn't directing it at you!

[phynickyb]

Please tell me kg** is not suggesting that a regular poster on this board is impersonating a relative of murder victim Renee Fox just to argue points with her that everyone else has already argued anyway.

Where IS that vomit smiley?

Yes. I was accused of that as was FD...or am I FD and...oh never mind.

:biggrin:

[phynickyb]

"Fruitcake" is a term that was used repeatedly by last week's troll. . . some of us still get a kick out of it. Y'all should have seen the look on my face when sassypants first directed it at me. . . I was so confused. . . "Grandma, is that you?" Anyhow, I wasn't directing it you!

I know... I caught the reference from Sassypants... :) I still think that is too funny though, the reference about us being the same, or related. I am still not sure why that would even be thrown out there. Oh well.:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

No, actually I stated tones were familiar. They do sound quite similar. You can read what you want into it.
I'm sure that's all you had to say. :rolleyes:

[FDInLaw]

I've given plenty of reasons why I believe what I believe. You just choose not to see. That's ok-- I'm the same way about most of your opinions, too.

Cool, let's take this opportunity to get back on topic.

Kevin Jones had opportunity. He does not have an alibi.

Kevin Jones had motive, or at least that is pretty obvious to most.

There is evidence at the crime scene that Kevin claims not to have touched that bares his bloody finger print(s), namely, what is believed to be the murder weapon.

Kevin Jones lied about when he first arrived at the gas station and when he first started calling Nona.

Need I go on?

You appear to have a deep conviction that Kevin is being wronged. If it wasn't him, who killed Nona? What actual facts can you present to back up your assertions?

[phynickyb]

Hmm, :shrug: . So, it seems I was wrong. You two should really try not to be so paranoid and touchy.

I will try not to be. It would be easier if not accused of idiotic assumptions. Also, bring your own terms for your snideness instead of repeating terms used by others. The details of the case please! That is why I am here.

BTW, I am not sure how you and I have gotten into this interaction, my only statements to you that apparently started this was that we all have come to our own opinions by ourselves, none better than the next. I really mean that. So I am not sure why you got so fired up in your IMs and replies.

JMHO

[FDInLaw]

You bet ya. I'm on here 24/7 waiting to get you at every cyber corner! Uhmm, don't forget... I know more about you than you care to admit, so if I was going to "stalk" you, not "stock" your shelves, I am probably smart enough do it where counts, not on the internet,

Are you trying to threaten me?

[FDInLaw]

The same ones, you have honey. My eyes are just big enough to see all the holes!

And this is what we all have come to expect from you. . . you tear down what is written but offer nothing in return.

[phynickyb]

Cool, let's take this opportunity to get back on topic.

Kevin Jones had opportunity. He does not have an alibi.

Kevin Jones had motive, or at least that is pretty obvious to most.

There is evidence at the crime scene that Kevin claims not to have touched that bares his bloody finger print(s), namely, what is believed to be the murder weapon.

Kevin Jones lied about when he first arrived at the gas station and when he first started calling Nona.

Need I go on?

You appear to have a deep conviction that Kevin is being wronged. If it wasn't him, who killed Nona? What actual facts can you present to back up your assertions?

Further...Even if you don't have another person who might of killed her, just state WHY he is not guilty of this crime. This is your passion, that is why I as you KG.

[FDInLaw]

Excuse me that should be FD. Pardon me for the typo.


You're not fooling me.

[phynickyb]

The same ones, you have honey. My eyes are just big enough to see all the holes!

Apparently not the same ones because you can't even state them, honey. What holes, please tell us?

Have I actually resorted to begging?

[FDInLaw]

Apparently not the same ones because you can't even state them, honey. What holes, please tell us?

Have I actually resorted to begging?

Be fair warned. . .you not going to get anywhere. It's just the same game over and over again.

[FDInLaw]

Be fair warned. . .you not going to get anywhere. It's just the same game over and over again.

Should read "you're not". . . I think I need to take a break this weekend!

[phynickyb]

Has there been any confirmation about the greeting card. IIRC the card might have been from her mother. I was curious if there had been any finger prints found on the card.

The condom wrapper is another thing that had bothered me, and I believe had been touched on. If the DNA found on the wrapper was found not to be KJ's it would certainly not point to him as the one using that condom. However, it doesn't preclude him from finding it say in a trash can, getting infuriated, confronting Nona and then killing her. Realizing what had just happened, he then wipes the condom wrapper clean, to eliminate his trace evidence (really the only way the condom wrapper would have showed no prints IMO) and sets it on the counter for it to be found by LE...again JMHO

[FDInLaw]

Has there been any confirmation about the greeting card. IIRC the card might have been from her mother. I was curious if there had been any finger prints found on the card.

The condom wrapper is another thing that had bothered me, and I believe had been touched on. If the DNA found on the wrapper was found not to be KJ's it would certainly not point to him as the one using that condom. However, it doesn't preclude him from finding it say in a trash can, getting infuriated, confronting Nona and then killing her. Realizing what had just happened, he then wipes the condom wrapper clean, to eliminate his trace evidence (really the only way the condom wrapper would have showed no prints IMO) and sets it on the counter for it to be found by LE...again JMHO


Correct me if I'm wrong, but both Kevin and Ryan stated that Kevin picked up the card when they discovered Nona.

[FDInLaw]

hmmmmm....


:lol: You posted that back in May! Do I need to go dig up my responses? Since you have come back, you have done little that resembles this post.

[FDInLaw]

As you well know I have posted much more since May. Seems you can't even look back and "pick apart" what I have to say. It must be tough to be such a headcase.
All you really offer is "what ifs" and I believe I addressed your comments already, do you need to go back and do some reading?

[FDInLaw]

Hey kg, thanks for sharing your thoughts. If you read the entire thread here most (if not all) of your points have been discussed. I see your point, that much of the evidence is circumstantial and has more than one possible explanation. In studying the PCS I did not come to the same conclusion though. Any crime, unless witnessed, is like a puzzle. . . you need to look at all the pieces together and see whether or not they fit. Sure, there are pieces in this puzzle that on their own do not seem to point directly to Kevin’s guilt. Reading down the list of arguments you make, I concede that it is possible that there might be other explanations, BUT I don’t think it’s probable that all or even most do. If you widen your view, from debating each point, to the whole argument as a whole it paints a picture of guilt IMO. We will all have to wait for the trail to see how well the arguments made in the PCS actually hold up.

This was in response to some of KG's posts above.

[FDInLaw]

And, tell me, what do you have to offer other than "what if's", "I believe's", and "in my opinions"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOT A DANG THING DIFFERENT THAN YOUR OPINION. I have taken what I've learned and stated MY OPINION JUST LIKE YOU-- taken facts from what you have learned and stated your opinion, but you feel that makes you without a doubt correct about every single thing. Unless you were there, you don't have a leg to stand on any more than any one else on here.

Alright, let's go through this again. . .

Kevin has no alibi, this is NOT just my opinion or wishful thinking. If he does have one, he needs to fire his defense team because they should have been able to get his charges dropped by now.

Kevin's statements contradict phone records and the statements of other witnesses. FACT.

Kevin's print(s) is on the murder weapon that he and Ryan both stated he did not touch.

You're right, I wasn't there. . . I don't know for a fact who killed Nona or what actually happened that day. That is why I look to the facts, the evidence. . . not my fluffy feelings or even my ego. Your "what ifs" weren't enough to convince me Kevin is innocent. Try finding him an alibi or something truly useful.

[hawgustusgloop]

Covering it up by going to "check on her" doesn't make any sense in any circumstances whether it was accidental or not. If he didn't, why didn't he leave it alone, and just let someone else discover the body altogehther? I agree, the stupid client ideal won't work because he's not stupid. I don't think KJ is stupid enough to have done anything like anyone on has proposed he has.

You forgot your classic, world-famous "the defendant is too smart to make such a stupid mistake" schtick.

[optimumprimal78]

Did anyone ever figure out anything about the guys named Jim or Jeremy? I was trying to go back and read some of the older stuff and I was just curious.

[FDInLaw]

You forgot your classic, world-famous "the defendant is too smart to make such a stupid mistake" schtick.

:lol: Thank you, I needed that! :)

[hawgustusgloop]

As you well know I have posted much more since May. Seems you can't even look back and "pick apart" what I have to say. It must be tough to be such a headcase.

Some of kg**'s posts back in the day were thought-provoking and definitely worth considering, but this is just plain petty, rude, and unnecessary. I am sure kg** is embarrassed about doing such a ridiculous thing as insinuating that FDInLaw or whoever was impersonating Renee Fox's cousin on these boards. I would be embarrassed, too. I am sure everyone is over that now, so kg** doesn't need to continue to act out in such a disrespectful manner.

[FDInLaw]

For Renee and her family:rose:

For Nona and her family:rose:

Peace to all :rose:

Thanks for bring it all back into focus.

[FDInLaw]

I have never seen any where that he does not have an alibi.
The print is on the dang light bulb. That is fact, but it certainly doen's make it plausible that he did it. Per Chief Bacon's report, the blood on the bulb was of "tacky consistensy". I certainly feel it would have dried by the time the body was discovered.
Since I'm not sure whether or not he does have an alibi, the discraprancy in time doesn't convince me he did it either.

So it doesn't bother you at all the both Kevin and Ryan stated that Kevin didn't touch the lamp? The discussion about the meaning of "tacky" will come out more in the trial I'm sure.

You've got to be joking. . . do you honestly believe Kevin might have an alibi? Why one earth is he wasting his parents money with this legal mess if he has got the goods to get himself off?

[FDInLaw]

As you often say, I guess it will come out in the trial. Whether he has an alibi or not, he's already been charged, so if he does, it won't change anything till the trial.

Every chance the defense gets they motion for the charges to be dropped. . . so, in fact that is not a possibility? GIVE ME A BREAK. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

[FDInLaw]

Like I have said, I think during the whole shock of it all, I really don't think either one would remember for sure. I don't think I would.
But Kevin has such high "intellegenc". . . surely, he wouldn't forget such an important detail. ;)

[FDInLaw]

Y'all have a great weekend!

:seeya:

[jonikay]

now, i may be mistaken, but I thought that the PCS states that nona died from blunt force trauma, with injuries consistent with the base of a floor lamp. The PCS also states (if i remember correctly) that the lamp was broken in a few places. i take this as meaning that whoever killed nona could have broken the lamp either purposely or accidentally and bludgeoned her with the bottom end of the lamp. The lamp could have been unscrewed at the middle, for all we know, so the killer would not have to work as hard. My theory is that somewhere in the midst of a struggle, the killer grabbed the floor lamp and began beating nona with the heavy, bottom end of it. During all this the lamp somehow got broken into a few pieces and the killers fingerprints were left all over the lamp. Perhaps the killer was trying to put the lamp back together and realized there was no use, so the killer then tried to wipe prints off of the lamp. If the killer tried to wipe the prints off of the lamp, it would have been difficult at that point not to touch the lightbulb. The killer was obviously more focused on wiping the prints off the base of the lamp because that was where the damage was done. In all the hustle and bustle of trying to clean a crime scene, the killer forgot to wipe the bulb clean, just as the killer could easily forget whether he (or she) touched the bulb upon the "discovery" of the body. The word "discovery" is emphasized because my theory, again my opinion, is that the "discovery" in which we are all aware, is not the first time that the murderer saw Nona's dead body. I believe that the killer was at the scene after the fact and made sure that there wasn't any incriminating evidence. This could have been when the mysterious printless condom was strategically placed on the condom, the prints were wiped clean, the computer was accessed, etc. etc. Did the killer have an accomplice . . . .hmmm . . . someone doing some of the dirty work . . I don't know. I would like to hear some of the differing theories of how this all could have went down. Then, maybe we can sift through some of this and make better sense of the things that we continue to question. I'm sure everyone has their theories. I would really like to hear them!

[Brainstorm]

But Kevin has such high "intellegenc". . . surely, he wouldn't forget such an important detail. ;)

and dont forget all the knowledge he acquired watching Court TV...and let me add I was not trying to be funny there, because I LOVE COURT TV and am disappointed that the trials are not aired at my place
JMHO

[JR2007]

now, i may be mistaken, but I thought that the PCS states that nona died from blunt force trauma, with injuries consistent with the base of a floor lamp. The PCS also states (if i remember correctly) that the lamp was broken in a few places. i take this as meaning that whoever killed nona could have broken the lamp either purposely or accidentally and bludgeoned her with the bottom end of the lamp. The lamp could have been unscrewed at the middle, for all we know, so the killer would not have to work as hard. My theory is that somewhere in the midst of a struggle, the killer grabbed the floor lamp and began beating nona with the heavy, bottom end of it. During all this the lamp somehow got broken into a few pieces and the killers fingerprints were left all over the lamp. Perhaps the killer was trying to put the lamp back together and realized there was no use, so the killer then tried to wipe prints off of the lamp. If the killer tried to wipe the prints off of the lamp, it would have been difficult at that point not to touch the lightbulb. The killer was obviously more focused on wiping the prints off the base of the lamp because that was where the damage was done. In all the hustle and bustle of trying to clean a crime scene, the killer forgot to wipe the bulb clean, just as the killer could easily forget whether he (or she) touched the bulb upon the "discovery" of the body. The word "discovery" is emphasized because my theory, again my opinion, is that the "discovery" in which we are all aware, is not the first time that the murderer saw Nona's dead body. I believe that the killer was at the scene after the fact and made sure that there wasn't any incriminating evidence. This could have been when the mysterious printless condom was strategically placed on the condom, the prints were wiped clean, the computer was accessed, etc. etc. Did the killer have an accomplice . . . .hmmm . . . someone doing some of the dirty work . . I don't know. I would like to hear some of the differing theories of how this all could have went down. Then, maybe we can sift through some of this and make better sense of the things that we continue to question. I'm sure everyone has their theories. I would really like to hear them!
Jonikay:
About the lamp, if it is like most of the lamps I have seen, the poles are made of Aluminum. These are very easily broken apart, although even though they are broken apart, the separate parts do not become completely detached from each other. The electrical cord that runs from the base to the bulb fixture at the top will keep them all attached, unless it is cut with a knife or dikes. So it is my opinion that the killer picked up the lamp and used it as a club, in one piece and that it would break apart upon impact. since the lamp pole was in pieces though, it is also my belief that by hitting Nona, it would not probably come apart, since she would not present a huge block to counter the inertia of the swinging lamp. I believe the lamp was picked up and in a show of force and rage was used to strike the floor, wall or something more substantial then Nona, which broke it. There would be evidence of this on the floor, wall, etc. With the lamp broken it could have lain on the floor and Nona could have been knocked down, striking her head on the base, killing her. It may even be possible that the other Marks on her, excluding the throat cut were done before she hit the lamp base. The reason I excluded the throat cut is that it was possibly the cause for the whole incident. If she were trying to cut herself and KJ got mad because she wouldn't stop or listen to reason. If this was the case then KJ would have been guilty of Manslaughter not 1st degree Murder. I hope this doesn't give anybody any ideas.
whoa, where did this come from!! Don't ask me, I just write the stuff, it just came to me.
Also your question about the finger prints. The PCS wasn't real clear and may have been miss stated on an earlier post.
Quote: The light bulb had fingerprint impressions which were made in the blood. The fingerprint impression which was made in the blood on the light bulb were compared with known prints of KJ's and the print on the lamp bulb was identified as palm print impressions of Kevin Jones.

[JR2007]

Added note to above: The blood trail and pattern would bear this theory out.:punch: This is my separate personalities in conflict.

[JR2007]

Actually this was my wife's :punch: reaction after she read the above.

[hawgustusgloop]

Freshwater, you are showing favoritism not moderation! If you are banning one of these persons, there are others who should be banned as well. No one truly threatened anyone, and conversations on all sides were heated, so maybe you should consider banning all involved, NOT just one person!

Freshwater didn't say to whom Freshwater was referring anyway, so how can susieQ judge the fairness of it?

[hawgustusgloop]

Freshwater didn't say to whom Freshwater was referring anyway, so how can susieQ judge the fairness of it?

OK, now that I have used my fruitcake armchair detective skills to figure out what happened here, I would like to say that IMO that particular poster was making posts that were mean-spirited, called people names, and made threats. Other posters including myself who were feeding that troll weren't repeatedly crossing those lines.

[FDInLaw]

now, i may be mistaken, but I thought that the PCS states that nona died from blunt force trauma, with injuries consistent with the base of a floor lamp. The PCS also states (if i remember correctly) that the lamp was broken in a few places. i take this as meaning that whoever killed nona could have broken the lamp either purposely or accidentally and bludgeoned her with the bottom end of the lamp. The lamp could have been unscrewed at the middle, for all we know, so the killer would not have to work as hard. My theory is that somewhere in the midst of a struggle, the killer grabbed the floor lamp and began beating nona with the heavy, bottom end of it. During all this the lamp somehow got broken into a few pieces and the killers fingerprints were left all over the lamp. Perhaps the killer was trying to put the lamp back together and realized there was no use, so the killer then tried to wipe prints off of the lamp. If the killer tried to wipe the prints off of the lamp, it would have been difficult at that point not to touch the lightbulb. The killer was obviously more focused on wiping the prints off the base of the lamp because that was where the damage was done. In all the hustle and bustle of trying to clean a crime scene, the killer forgot to wipe the bulb clean, just as the killer could easily forget whether he (or she) touched the bulb upon the "discovery" of the body. The word "discovery" is emphasized because my theory, again my opinion, is that the "discovery" in which we are all aware, is not the first time that the murderer saw Nona's dead body. I believe that the killer was at the scene after the fact and made sure that there wasn't any incriminating evidence. This could have been when the mysterious printless condom was strategically placed on the condom, the prints were wiped clean, the computer was accessed, etc. etc. Did the killer have an accomplice . . . .hmmm . . . someone doing some of the dirty work . . I don't know. I would like to hear some of the differing theories of how this all could have went down. Then, maybe we can sift through some of this and make better sense of the things that we continue to question. I'm sure everyone has their theories. I would really like to hear them!

Excellent post! I've wondered if Kevin whipped the lamp down, so when he was asked if he touched it he was confident that his prints would not be found on it. "I don't know if I touched it" would have been a much safer answer if in fact he was in some sort of grief stricken state and unsure of what he touched when he discovered Nona. The fact that the lamp was for the most part clean of prints suggests to me that it was wiped down. The fact that his print was found on the light bulb is indeed curious, as some have mentioned with sarcasm, it's obvious that the lamp was not held there when the fatal blow was rendered. Light bulbs are fragile and you really only touch them intentionally when changing them. . . I suspect that Kevin unknowingly touched it and in his hast to clean off the murder weapon did not notice the bloody smudge he left there. Just my arm chair detective theory for the day.

:seeya:

[phynickyb]

According to the PCS, "During affiant’s processing of the crime scene, affiant observed a floor lamp which was located within a few feet of Nona’s body. The lamp was separated in three pieces: a weighted base, a lower portion of the pole and an upper portion of the pole with the light bulb. The weighted base and the light bulb had blood on them. The light bulb had fmgerprint impressions which were made in the blood." Most floor lamps are "pieced" together in that each piece screws together, it makes it easier for packaging purposes. While it is true that the pieces are also threaded with the cord, when unscrewed or broken apart, it is very difficult to keep all the pieces under control so to speak because they are still all linked by the cord and are "floppy". So it is still unclear to me whether the lamp was taken apart or just completed broken apart. My questions also are whether or not, with what degree of accuracy could a floor lamp with a weighted base be "swung" at a moving cognizant person and not have defensfive bruising and such on arms, etc...and still hit the intended target right on. The floor lamp just seems like it would be unwieldly. IMO, I think she was already knocked face down from whatever struggle that had already ensued and then as a final blow, the base of the floor lamp was used to ultimately kill her.:mad: JMHO

[optimumprimal78]

So if the base was used to kill her were there any prints found on any other part of the lamp besides the bulb?

[FDInLaw]

So if the base was used to kill her were there any prints found on any other part of the lamp besides the bulb? If there were other prints found that information has not been released to the public. . . this is why I wonder if the perpetrator wiped the lamp down with something hoping to remove any finger prints. We'll have to wait for the trial to know more I guess. JMO

[hawgustusgloop]

If there were other prints found that information has not been released to the public. . . this is why I wonder if the perpetrator wiped the lamp down with something hoping to remove any finger prints. We'll have to wait for the trial to know more I guess. JMO

Also, maybe there will be more detail about the injuries inflicted with the lamp base. Investigators may have been able to tell which way the base was facing and at which angle it was held at when Nona was struck.

Was the light bulb close enough to Nona's body that Kevin would have a reason to touch it if he's innocent?

[optimumprimal78]

Well, isn't there usually a diagram/schematic of the layout of the crimie scene? If there is would it be available for public viewing?

[FDInLaw]

>SNIP<Was the light bulb close enough to Nona's body that Kevin would have a reason to touch it if he's innocent?

The actual location and position of the lamp has not been released to my knowledge. . . these are key details. Like you I'm curious to know how close the light bulb was to Nona's body, and how probable it is that Kevin might have inadvertently touched it when he found her.

[FDInLaw]

Well, isn't there usually a diagram/schematic of the layout of the crimie scene? If there is would it be available for public viewing?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is considered evidence and will not be available to the public till after the trial.

[JR2007]

This is a site I found that has a lot of good information on it about Nona's case. Scroll down to bottom to other links, this can answer some of the questions being asked.:)

[optimumprimal78]

Which site are you talking about? There is no link.

[FDInLaw]

This is a site I found that has a lot of good information on it about Nona's case. Scroll down to bottom to other links, this can answer some of the questions being asked.:)

Please post the links! :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

This is a site I found that has a lot of good information on it about Nona's case. Scroll down to bottom to other links, this can answer some of the questions being asked.:) It's a little early for an April Fools joke, don't ya think? :biggrin:

[JR2007]

It's a little early for an April Fools joke, don't ya think? :biggrin:
Oops, I was on my computer at work and now I'm at home and don't have the link here. Trying to find it again.

[JR2007]

Ok, Here is the link to the site I should have posted earlier. Scroll down to the bottom to find links to most all the articles published on Nona's case.:punch:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217214&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

Here is a simular on without all the links, just the articles.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t9528.html

[FDInLaw]

So, FDInLaw, how are you and the moderator sooo close that you manage to stay on here? You manage to throw off anyone you don't like. Must be nice.
Actually, I don't even know who the moderators are and certainly do not have a personal relationship with any of them. What happened last week is probably not totally apparent to those reading the board, and I'm afraid I just can't go into it. The board will not be the same without KG. Out of respect for her, in no way do I want to bash her or expose what happened. She is not here to defend herself. . . and it just would not be fair to her. I'm sad that things got out of hand.
:(

[woopig_sooie]

I just came back to post this short message.

It is aparant to me now that you guys do not mean to attack, belittle, or make fun of posters with oposing views. However as one of these posters myself, I can attest that when several other people are hounding you on here and questioning your views in sometimes pretty agressive manners, it can leave someone feeling very small and quite hunted. I'm not saying that what KG did or said was right or wrong. I don't really know, becuase I chose not to read that part of this thread due to the feelings that it brought back when you guys ran me off. I just wanted to remind you that you are the majority on this board. Each of you have each other's backs when some one questions one of you. You might try to keep this in mind when someone with oposing views comes on here to express them. It takes quit a bit of courage to stand up to the majority and say "I don't think the way you do, and here's why". Just a thought..........

[FDInLaw]

I just came back to post this short message.

It is aparant to me now that you guys do not mean to attack, belittle, or make fun of posters with oposing views. However as one of these posters myself, I can attest that when several other people are hounding you on here and questioning your views in sometimes pretty agressive manners, it can leave someone feeling very small and quite hunted. I'm not saying that what KG did or said was right or wrong. I don't really know, becuase I chose not to read that part of this thread due to the feelings that it brought back when you guys ran me off. I just wanted to remind you that you are the majority on this board. Each of you have each other's backs when some one questions one of you. You might try to keep this in mind when someone with oposing views comes on here to express them. It takes quit a bit of courage to stand up to the majority and say "I don't think the way you do, and here's why". Just a thought..........I don't believe anyone intended to run you off, you left. There are several of you that left KG on her own. To fault the majority seems a tad silly, why didn't you all band together and support each other? You do make some good points, though. It does take courage. . . I complimented KG on this last week, you have to respect someone that keeps coming back even when others run off. Thanks for posting, woo pig. It's nice to see you're still around. :seeya:

[phynickyb]

Ther is one thing that I will say, as a new poster to this board. As regards to the whole fiasco last week, there were background comments and things written in IMs that everyone is not privy to, just the one that was IM'd. My own personal experience is what I can go by. What started all of that up again was that I tried to explain to kg that as a newbie, I came on the board, read the info presented and came to a different conclusion, and that is how things are. Differing opinions does not mean one is better than the other, just different. That was misconstrued apparently as an attack on her. If it was taken that way by anyone, I apologize as that is not what was intended.

[phynickyb]

So, FDInLaw, how are you and the moderator sooo close that you manage to stay on here? You manage to throw off anyone you don't like. Must be nice.


I don't remember FD threatening anyone either. :cool:

[JR2007]

I enjoy the contrast of different peoples opinions, it is the only way to get new Ideas out there and help us to get plausible answers to questions. It's when people let emotions control what the say, that things get out of hand. It is all because these are real people and events that this happens.

So children play nicely.:biggrin: JMO

[phynickyb]

Well, NEITHER did kg**. Not even close to it. I read what was written and there was not even a loose threat, to speak of.

IMO It was a threat and apparently I am not the only one that saw it that way. But again, we all can take things differently and form different opinions.

[FDInLaw]

Are you saying she sent you PM's with a threat?

Please reread my post. . . I didn't offer an explanation for what happened and I even stated I did not intend to. I realize this is an unsatisfactory response and you are hoping for more. . . I'm sorry, but this is all I can offer you. ~ FD
:shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

I just came back to post this short message.

It is aparant to me now that you guys do not mean to attack, belittle, or make fun of posters with oposing views. However as one of these posters myself, I can attest that when several other people are hounding you on here and questioning your views in sometimes pretty agressive manners, it can leave someone feeling very small and quite hunted. I'm not saying that what KG did or said was right or wrong. I don't really know, becuase I chose not to read that part of this thread due to the feelings that it brought back when you guys ran me off. I just wanted to remind you that you are the majority on this board. Each of you have each other's backs when some one questions one of you. You might try to keep this in mind when someone with oposing views comes on here to express them. It takes quit a bit of courage to stand up to the majority and say "I don't think the way you do, and here's why". Just a thought..........

That is so true and I wish that some folks would do just that instead of instigating (problems). Of course I realize that sometimes the reason that people believe what they do is purely instinct and cannot be explained. Peace.

[lemoncello]

this discussion
is getting tiresome
(why must we
have the drama
once a month?)
to get back on
track, consider this...
kennedy just
recused on a different
murder trial because
he was dep. pros. when
the men were arrested...
they were arrested in april 2006...
seems likely he will
recuse for this trial as well...
courier link...
http://couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=13877&Search=kennedy
wonder if this will
cause yet another delay...

[FDInLaw]

this discussion
is getting tiresome
(why must we
have the drama
once a month?)
to get back on
track, consider this...
kennedy just
recused on a different
murder trial because
he was dep. pros. when
the men were arrested...
they were arrested in april 2006...
seems likely he will
recuse for this trial as well...
courier link...
http://couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=13877&Search=kennedy
wonder if this will
cause yet another delay...

Good question. . . thanks for posting the link, lemoncello.

- - - - -

Yippie! I just noticed my post count is back!

[JR2007]

Good question. . . thanks for posting the link, lemoncello.

- - - - -

Yippie! I just noticed my post count is back!
Lemon,
Good morning, yes I agree with your post. About getting back in the groove.
Good Post, I had read about Kennedy recusing himself, but I didn't catch the arrest date. I guess I was under the impression that Kennedy was Assist. Pro. several years before and didn't realize it was just last year. I think your right though about him needing to recuse himself on this one too. You would think he would want to do this as soon as possible because of the high profile of this case. JMO

[JR2007]

Good question. . . thanks for posting the link, lemoncello.

- - - - -

Yippie! I just noticed my post count is back!
I noticed you back to 1700 post again. Hmmmmm

[FDInLaw]

Lemon,
Good morning, yes I agree with your post. About getting back in the groove.
Good Post, I had read about Kennedy recusing himself, but I didn't catch the arrest date. I guess I was under the impression that Kennedy was Assist. Pro. several years before and didn't realize it was just last year. I think your right though about him needing to recuse himself on this one too. You would think he would want to do this as soon as possible because of the high profile of this case. JMO

I'm a little shocked too. . . just thought he was a hospital administrator last year. Makes me wonder if he was the best choice.

[FDInLaw]

I noticed you back to 1700 post again. Hmmmmm


On the welcome forum Freshwater posted a thread for folks to report missing posts. Guess about 300 users lost posts do to some kind of computer glitch.

[FDInLaw]

I'm sorry, but I think kg** had you pegged correctly in the first place. You do not respect nor will you miss him or her. :no: You got him or her kicked off, which is exactly what you wanted. You are just saving face by saying that.

Hope your discussions on this board work the way you want now so that you can continue your "Kevin bashing".

Peace to all. :cool:

You don't even know what's going on. . . why are you being so hateful?

:confused:

[JR2007]

I'm a little shocked too. . . just thought he was a hospital administrator last year. Makes me wonder if he was the best choice.
I don't feel that Kennedy was a good choice for the position as I stated last Month. I think Sutterfield would be a much better choice. Someone Else thought that Coker would be the best choice, although he primarily hears juvenile cases only. Kennedy's position was purely political and Alex Streett probably had more to do with it then anyone. He's friends with Clinton and Beebe and helped get Beebe elected Gov. And Kennedy had worked with Streett Law firm. JMO

[optimumprimal78]

When the trial starts up how many of you are going to try to be there? Also, how are they going to elect people to go into the courtroom (first come, first serve?) and does anyone know when they are going to be giving out jury selection notices?

[woopig_sooie]

I don't feel that Kennedy was a good choice for the position as I stated last Month. I think Sutterfield would be a much better choice. Someone Else thought that Coker would be the best choice, although he primarily hears juvenile cases only. Kennedy's position was purely political and Alex Streett probably had more to do with it then anyone. He's friends with Clinton and Beebe and helped get Beebe elected Gov. And Kennedy had worked with Streett Law firm. JMO


Sutterfield would be a good choice, but I've heard that he didn't want to be involved becuase he is friends with the Jones'. This is pure hearsay so take it for what it's worth.

[woopig_sooie]

When the trial starts up how many of you are going to try to be there? Also, how are they going to elect people to go into the courtroom (first come, first serve?) and does anyone know when they are going to be giving out jury selection notices?

I was planning on going, however I just took a new job that starts in March. I will probably not be able to attend. The court room is quite small, so there may be some sort of lottery system for spectators. :shrug:

[FDInLaw]

When the trial starts up how many of you are going to try to be there? Also, how are they going to elect people to go into the courtroom (first come, first serve?) and does anyone know when they are going to be giving out jury selection notices? I was hoping to attend but will be unable to if the trial does commence in July.
:(

[JR2007]

When the trial starts up how many of you are going to try to be there? Also, how are they going to elect people to go into the courtroom (first come, first serve?) and does anyone know when they are going to be giving out jury selection notices?
I doubt I will be able to attend any of the trial and would imagine the court will be full of Press people. The court room will hold maybe 100 people.
I would think that they would use the normal pool of jurors for the 3 quarter of the year. They may have extras on the normal pool to cover this trial, but as far as I know there is not a special pool of jurors for any one trial. I believe each Jury pool serves for 3 Month periods.
JMO

[optimumprimal78]

Does anyone know if there is a way to find out if CTV will be covering it?

[JR2007]

It would be great if CTV televised the trial. Then we could all be there, even those of us a thousand miles away. JMO.
Yes, that would be great, but first the Judge that is going to preside over the trial needs to be know. He will be the one to allow or disallow cameras into the court room.

[Brainstorm]

It would be great if CTV televised the trial. Then we could all be there, even those of us a thousand miles away. JMO.

Same here.......but I'm not able to see trials anymore........WHERE do I vote to get them back?
JMHO

[JR2007]

Same here.......but I'm not able to see trials anymore........WHERE do I vote to get them back?
JMHO
Brainstorm,
You mean your cable provider dropped Court TV or what ??

[lorettalockhorn]

this discussion
is getting tiresome
(why must we
have the drama
once a month?)
to get back on
track, consider this...
kennedy just
recused on a different
murder trial because
he was dep. pros. when
the men were arrested...
they were arrested in april 2006...
seems likely he will
recuse for this trial as well...
courier link...
http://couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=13877&Search=kennedy
wonder if this will
cause yet another delay...

Lemon, thanks so much for jogging my memory; I thought it was odd that Kennedy waited as long as he did to recuse. Seems like he would immediately be reviewing the docket for any cases that he might have ties to and referring them to the other judges. Hope there aren't any bottlenecks in any of the trial dates/schedules.

Also, someone mentioned JK's connection to the Democratic Party; he and his wife both contributed to Beebe's campaign if memory serves. I don't think that's a big shocker, and I don't think that it was much of a contribution (dollarwise).

[lorettalockhorn]

Same here.......but I'm not able to see trials anymore........WHERE do I vote to get them back?
JMHO

Brainstorm, what happened? Did your cable drop CTV? DISH Network did at the first of the year but recently settled whatever issues and added it back to our schedule. WHEW! I hope that you don't have to go long without your CourtTV.

[FDInLaw]

Ideally, CTV coverage would be optimum. However, if that does not occur, we will need to figure out some way to keep informed. Maybe set up a rotation? Hey, we could even play up some of the local sites, like the beauty of Lake Dardanelle, in an attempt to draw some of the out of state folks to spend part of their vacation in Russellville to help with the coverage. This attempt would be totally futile I'm sure, but hey, I'll try anything! Seriously, in the end, we may have to rely heavily on the Courier's coverage. I am confident though that when the time comes we will figure out something.

:hat:

[Brainstorm]

Brainstorm, what happened? Did your cable drop CTV? DISH Network did at the first of the year but recently settled whatever issues and added it back to our schedule. WHEW! I hope that you don't have to go long without your CourtTV.

Ideally, CTV coverage would be optimum. However, if that does not occur, we will need to figure out some way to keep informed. Maybe set up a rotation? Hey, we could even play up some of the local sites, like the beauty of Lake Dardanelle, in an attempt to draw some of the out of state folks to spend part of their vacation in Russellville to help with the coverage. This attempt would be totally futile I'm sure, but hey, I'll try anything! Seriously, in the end, we may have to rely heavily on the Courier's coverage. I am confident though that when the time comes we will figure out something.

:hat:

Thats right !! No trials on my 204 channel.At times I kept a close eye on things but got burnt out..........then when I checked,no trials...........

PLease tell us more,FDInLaw........about the lake....I went to Eureka Springs one time long ago,and fell in love with the place,but would love to hear more about the national or state parks,etc.in the area.............
JMHO

[FDInLaw]

Thats right !! No trials on my 204 channel.At times I kept a close eye on things but got burnt out..........then when I checked,no trials...........

PLease tell us more,FDInLaw........about the lake....I went to Eureka Springs one time long ago,and fell in love with the place,but would love to hear more about the national or state parks,etc.in the area.............
JMHO

Here's a link for Lake Dardanelle:

http://www.arkansasstateparks.com/lakedardanelle

I must admit though, I'd rather be in Eureka Springs. It's one of my favorite spots around here. Sounds like you should make another trip. . . we could meet up there, my friend! :)

(See what a lousy sales person I am? Someone else needs to jump in and make the sale for Russellville!) :punch:

This may be illegal in Arkansas (It's not in Missouri). . . but let me suggest a possible recreational activity:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isonRyT7PEk&mode=related&search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjA8Puh1BM&mode=related&search

[JR2007]

Here's a link for Lake Dardanelle:

http://www.arkansasstateparks.com/lakedardanelle

I must admit though, I'd rather be in Eureka Springs. It's one of my favorite spots around here. Sounds like you should make another trip. . . we could meet up there, my friend! :)

(See what a lousy sales person I am? Someone else needs to jump in and make the sale for Russellville!) :punch:

This may be illegal in Arkansas (It's not in Missouri). . . but let me suggest a possible recreational activity:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isonRyT7PEk&mode=related&search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjA8Puh1BM&mode=related&search
FD:
Have you ever gone noodling? I hear that just below the Dam at Russellville there a suppose to be catfish bigger than a man. I have seen some mighty big ones come out of there too. Don't think I'm going to try noodling though. Funny

[FDInLaw]

FD:
Have you ever gone noodling? I hear that just below the Dam at Russellville there a suppose to be catfish bigger than a man. I have seen some mighty big ones come out of there too. Don't think I'm going to try noodling though. Funny

Me? NEVER! I'm not from these parts. . . I only learned about noodling two years ago. I obviously had a deprived childhood!

:seeya:

Here's a big catfish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-jTsz1845o&mode=related&search=

[Brainstorm]

Here's a link for Lake Dardanelle:

http://www.arkansasstateparks.com/lakedardanelle

I must admit though, I'd rather be in Eureka Springs. It's one of my favorite spots around here. Sounds like you should make another trip. . . we could meet up there, my friend! :)

(See what a lousy sales person I am? Someone else needs to jump in and make the sale for Russellville!) :punch:

This may be illegal in Arkansas (It's not in Missouri). . . but let me suggest a possible recreational activity:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isonRyT7PEk&mode=related&search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjA8Puh1BM&mode=related&search

oh the precious memories,I only got to stop off for one day in Eureka Springs,but I said then,I'd go back some day,just for a visit.......It is awesome
there!!!!! who knows,it is a small world,sometimes.........
Thanks for the links, friend..........

[Brainstorm]

FD:
Have you ever gone noodling? I hear that just below the Dam at Russellville there a suppose to be catfish bigger than a man. I have seen some mighty big ones come out of there too. Don't think I'm going to try noodling though. Funny

Pleasee explain your version of noodling,JR,over in So Ga,our grown children use either gallon jugs witha bait or one of those swimming pool floaties called noodles,with the line & bait attached.I would rather sit there with one line,no cork,and bait on the bottom.......our catfish arent that big,but its worth the trip..........
JMHO

[FDInLaw]

Pleasee explain your version of noodling,JR,over in So Ga,our grown children use either gallon jugs witha bait or one of those swimming pool floaties called noodles,with the line & bait attached.I would rather sit there with one line,no cork,and bait on the bottom.......our catfish arent that big,but its worth the trip..........
JMHO

Watch these links that I posted earlier! :biggrin: It ain't the same thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isonRyT7PEk&mode=related&search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjA8Puh1BM&mode=related&search

[hawgustusgloop]

A good place to go that is not too far from Russellville is Petit Jean State Park. There are a lot of nice hiking trails and such there. That's the only vacationish spot I can think of that is somewhat nearby.

You could always go check out the Dover lights or if all else fails, you can go muddin'!

Hopefully KFSM will cover the trial as well. They had exhaustive up-to-the-minute coverage of the Deanna Bobo trial, so maybe they will do the same for this one.

[FDInLaw]

A good place to go that is not too far from Russellville is Petit Jean State Park. There are a lot of nice hiking trails and such there. That's the only vacationish spot I can think of that is somewhat nearby.

You could always go check out the Dover lights or if all else fails, you can go muddin'!

>SNIP<

:lol:

"Dover lights". . . last time I was in town someone was kind enough to take me on a little tour of Dover (it didn't take long). . . now there's a real attraction for you! (Sarcasm) :biggrin:

[lemoncello]

A good place to go that is not too far from Russellville is Petit Jean State Park. There are a lot of nice hiking trails and such there. That's the only vacationish spot I can think of that is somewhat nearby.

You could always go check out the Dover lights or if all else fails, you can go muddin'!

Hopefully KFSM will cover the trial as well. They had exhaustive up-to-the-minute coverage of the Deanna Bobo trial, so maybe they will do the same for this one.

there's alos mt. magazine...
which will be closer
if the trial moves to
clarksville or charleston...
i hear the new lodge
is awesome...
i hear kj's brother
works at kfsm so keepp
in mind that possibility
as you evaulate their
coverage...
especially if they
get any "exclusive"
access to jones...
i think the courier
coverage will be ok
this is the kind of
case that makes careers...
theyll put theyre best
people on it and they
would be fools not to
put heart and soul
into the stories...

[JR2007]

[quote=hawgustusgloop;8820511]A good place to go that is not too far from Russellville is Petit Jean State Park. There are a lot of nice hiking trails and such there. That's the only vacationish spot I can think of that is somewhat nearby.

You could always go check out the Dover lights or if all else fails, you can go muddin'!



Haugustusgloop:
There is Branson Mo. About 90 minute drive up the very beautiful senic Hwy. 7. Hwy 7 is on the National senic Hwy list. It's a wonderful drive if you don't get in a hurry. Also on the way to Branson is Mystic Caverns, which you can go through.
There is also Mt. Nebo about 6 miles south of Russellville. You can spend a day site seeing over the River valley, lake Dardanelle and a great view of the Nuclear plant. Nebo is approx. 1100 feet high and has a couple wonderful trails to hike.
You can spent a day canoing down the Piney rapids if the water is high enough in July. Not real safe for most after a big rain though. It's fun and a beautiful day spent.
You can fish Lake Dardanelle, for many different types of fish. Each year there are many fishing tornements that are held there, both local and national.
Russellville has the best visitors center at Lake Dardanelle, I don't know where you would have to go to find a nicer one. There's plenty of camping sites in the area, if your into that.
You can travel about 1 1/2 hour south to Hot Springs Ar. to see the hot springs and the old town of hot springs, which used to be very popular with the elite of america, in the 1920s and 30s. It's old and getting somewhat ran down, but they are trying to refurbish Bathhouse Row.
Then you can drive another hour south to Murfreesboro, to spend a day digging for diamonds. It's the only diamond mine in the US. It's not really a mine but a field, and in July is very hot in that field.
North of Russellville, about 30 min drive is, Pedestal Rock, A wonderful hike through caves and surrounding area.

[lorettalockhorn]

Gosh, I've lived in Russellville most of my life but have never seen the Dover Lights; what the heck are they???

Petit Jean Mountain is also home of Winrock Farms and the Museum of Automobiles, a fine collection of vintage cars. The Longpool recreation area is a beautiful example of WPA handiwork, primarily stonework. Also nearby Russellville is Heifer Project International, a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching independence to communities and families worldwide through gifts of livestock. Mt. Nebo and Mt. Magazine are truly beautiful with amazing views. Lots to see outside and around Russellville. But BYOB! :beer:

PS The Corps of Engineers offers an Eagle Watch tour (not sure if that's exactly what they call it) on Sunday afternoons along the Arkansas River and a tour of the lock and dam.

[optimumprimal78]

I don't know if anyone has seen this but this is about a case in the Russellville area where a 17 year old was arrested for murder. The reason I am posting this is because of the amount of the bond and who gave it to him.

http://couriernews.com/story.php?ID=13935

[JR2007]

I don't know if anyone has seen this but this is about a case in the Russellville area where a 17 year old was arrested for murder. The reason I am posting this is because of the amount of the bond and who gave it to him.

http://couriernews.com/story.php?ID=13935
Yes, this is a small community about 10 miles Northeast of Dover. There has been some gossip that the baby was molested. This is what someone that lives there told me this morning. Sad, Sad, Sad.

Gibbons was the one that asked for the amount of bond and Judge Bourne granted it. Bourne is a District judge and Kennedy is a Circuit judge. I don't quite understand who or how judges take cases like this. I would think that Bourne would not be the judge that would try this case. JMO

[JR2007]

Sorry Folks just got the word - CTV does not intend to cover the trial.

FH20
Thanks for the heads up, wish it was a different answer though.

[Lyndi5]

I read here that the way that clothes were found it appears Nona was not forced to undress. Does that seem likely and if so does it change much? What about the condom situation?

[JR2007]

I read here that the way that clothes were found it appears Nona was not forced to undress. Does that seem likely and if so does it change much? What about the condom situation?
That was just one theory, but we don't know where the clothes were found and in what condition they were in. I assume her clothes were upstairs in the bed room, but I don't know. If that is the case I can see her having removed them herself and either being forced to go down stairs naked or running from some one. I can't see anyone running around naked, with the sliding door blinds partially open or answering the door naked, even if she knew who it was. This is not a private area she lived in.
The condom situation is the reason the trial was delayed. The prosecution didn't get the evidence in time, from the Defense, to do their own testing or find explanations for someone else's DNA on the wrapper.

[Lyndi5]

So possibly more of a situation of being walked in on while getting dressed? Does it also seem unlikely she engaged in sexual activity shortly before being killed?

[JR2007]

I believe Nona's clothes were found in the same room as Nona's body. I believe it has been mentioned that her underwear were actually found inside her pants as if both were pulled off in one swift motion.
SusieQ:
I don't remember reading anywhere, where her clothes were found. If you have anything that states this, would you forward it to us all.
I believe as stated earlier that if someone took clothes off someone else, that it would be taking one item off at a time, and not both together. Try to take your own clothes off, while lying down, without using anything except your hands, no help from your legs by wiggling them or anything.
The most likely way someone else removes clothes from someone is, by grabbing the pant leg and pulling of the jeans, then taking the panties off next. They wouldn't be one inside the other. IMO
And, If someone was told to take off their clothes, it is my opinion that they would not take jeans and panties off together, unless willingly taking them off. If they were scared they'd more likely take the jeans off first, then the panties, trying to maintain some cover for as long as possible.

[JR2007]

So possibly more of a situation of being walked in on while getting dressed? Does it also seem unlikely she engaged in sexual activity shortly before being killed?
It's possible that she didn't have time to shower before she had her early exam, and since she had time before her next exam, she could have come home to take a shower. I believe that the ME said there were no signs of sexual assault. I don't know if that means she didn't have sex or she didn't have forced sex.???
These are all questions that we will have to wait for the answers to, at the trial. Of course a lot of these questions may never come up in the trial. I've sat a Murder trial, and sat there wondering why this or that was never asked of the witnesses.

[phynickyb]

It's possible that she didn't have time to shower before she had her early exam, and since she had time before her next exam, she could have come home to take a shower. I believe that the ME said there were no signs of sexual assault. I don't know if that means she didn't have sex or she didn't have forced sex.???
These are all questions that we will have to wait for the answers to, at the trial. Of course a lot of these questions may never come up in the trial. I've sat a Murder trial, and sat there wondering why this or that was never asked of the witnesses.
Great point! As the timeline showed, she was up late. KJ had left her apt around 12:30 am IIRC, and then they spoke again about 1:30 am or thereabouts.

Also, IIRC KJ's details were very accurate about when (timewise) he had last spoken to Nona the night before, but then the details of his additional attempts to contact her the next day and the timing of his whereabouts (timing is everything when it is YOUR only alibi and extremely critical) were way off and unsubstantiated. Could it be that the reason that the "accurate" and "supported" details of the night before were correct because at that time that is what really happened. And that the differences in his statement about when he arrived at work and how many calls and when he made them were not what witnesses or evidence shows are because he was covering something up? JMHO

[JR2007]

Great point! As the timeline showed, she was up late. KJ had left her apt around 12:30 am IIRC, and then they spoke again about 1:30 am or thereabouts.

Also, IIRC KJ's details were very accurate about when (timewise) he had last spoken to Nona the night before, but then the details of his additional attempts to contact her the next day and the timing of his whereabouts (timing is everything when it is YOUR only alibi and extremely critical) were way off and unsubstantiated. Could it be that the reason that the "accurate" and "supported" details of the night before were correct because at that time that is what really happened. And that the differences in his statement about when he arrived at work and how many calls and when he made them were not what witnesses or evidence shows are because he was covering something up? JMHO
I'm sure that if he did Kill Nona,that he would have done as you said, and stretch times to give him a better alibi. But that requires other people that tell the same story.

[hawgustusgloop]

Here are a few questions I have. I would like anyone's opinion who wishes to share it:

Does anyone feel like the defense may be stalling? They practically waited until the trial was slated to begin to announce their magical DNA evidence. Does anyone think the trial will actually start in July? If the defense is stalling, why? If Kevin were so obviously innocent, I'd think they would want to get him in and out of the courts ASAP. Would it be because they hope the crime won't be as fresh on the minds of residents? Or because they know the prosecution has a strong case and want to let K.Jo stay out of jail for as long as possible since he is facing a lenthy term if convicted? Are they just stalling in hopes that the evidence fairy will bring them something to bolster their case? I wonder if there would have been as much of a delay if K.Jo was sitting in jail this entire time?

I also want to say that if K.Jo is guilty, I feel so bad for the numerous people who have supported him and truly believed in his innocence all along. IF the evidence is good enough for a conviction, IMO his loyal friends are going to realize that he killed their other dear friend and then lied to them about it even as they stuck their necks out to staunchly defend him.

[JR2007]

Here are a few questions I have. I would like anyone's opinion who wishes to share it:

Does anyone feel like the defense may be stalling? They practically waited until the trial was slated to begin to announce their magical DNA evidence. Does anyone think the trial will actually start in July? If the defense is stalling, why? If Kevin were so obviously innocent, I'd think they would want to get him in and out of the courts ASAP. Would it be because they hope the crime won't be as fresh on the minds of residents? Or because they know the prosecution has a strong case and want to let K.Jo stay out of jail for as long as possible since he is facing a lenthy term if convicted? Are they just stalling in hopes that the evidence fairy will bring them something to bolster their case? I wonder if there would have been as much of a delay if K.Jo was sitting in jail this entire time?
I also want to say that if K.Jo is guilty, I feel so bad for the numerous people who have supported him and truly believed in his innocence all along. IF the evidence is good enough for a conviction, IMO his loyal friends are going to realize that he killed their other dear friend and then lied to them about it even as they stuck their necks out to staunchly defend him.
I'm sure the defense would like to wait as long as possible before going to trial. They know what the evidence against KJ is, and if they think he will be convicted, then why not stall, give him time on the outside. The people who are convinced that KJ is innocent, will probably say he was railroaded, if found guilty. For those who think he's guilty, no amount of proof will prove him innocent and for those who think he's innocent, no amount of evidence will prove him guilty.
I had originally said that I believed he was guilty, but didn't see enough evidence to convict him. ( I'm sure there is more that will be presented at the trial). But after reading what Nona's mother and step dad said, about not believing that KJ could have done something like this, then changing their minds days later, after being given the evidence against him. This was just a few days after her death. Their reaction makes me wonder what they were told, that changed their minds so quickly.:confused: AJMO

[JR2007]

When I came to this site and read the post, and then posted myself, I said I was going to set back and do alot of reading and not much posting.
Hmmmmm:o I lied. :punch:

[hawgustusgloop]

snipped But after reading what Nona's mother and step dad said, about not believing that KJ could have done something like this, then changing their minds days later, after being given the evidence against him. This was just a few days after her death. Their reaction makes me wonder what they were told, that changed their minds so quickly.:confused: AJMO

Yes, I wonder too what they were told that convinced them. And the biggest point of curiousity to me is that text message Nona received a little after 11:00 a.m. but didn't respond to. The PCS IIRC stated that the police believe Nona was killed "very shortly after" that text message was opened. I wonder if that text message was part of what Nona's parents were told that convinced them? What could it have said? Whom was it from? IMO that text message is the most likely thing that set K.Jo off if he did it.

[Brainstorm]

Here are a few questions I have. I would like anyone's opinion who wishes to share it:

Does anyone feel like the defense may be stalling? They practically waited until the trial was slated to begin to announce their magical DNA evidence. Does anyone think the trial will actually start in July? If the defense is stalling, why? If Kevin were so obviously innocent, I'd think they would want to get him in and out of the courts ASAP. Would it be because they hope the crime won't be as fresh on the minds of residents? Or because they know the prosecution has a strong case and want to let K.Jo stay out of jail for as long as possible since he is facing a lenthy term if convicted? Are they just stalling in hopes that the evidence fairy will bring them something to bolster their case? I wonder if there would have been as much of a delay if K.Jo was sitting in jail this entire time?

I also want to say that if K.Jo is guilty, I feel so bad for the numerous people who have supported him and truly believed in his innocence all along. IF the evidence is good enough for a conviction, IMO his loyal friends are going to realize that he killed their other dear friend and then lied to them about it even as they stuck their necks out to staunchly defend him.

Sorry to hear that we wont be seeing the trial,but am counting on you locals to keep us posted and up to dat. I was disappointed when it got delayed ,and
if this is a ploy then it could happen again.......right?
...
JMHO
JMHO

[jonikay]

It seems like that particular loop of friends are big on texting (remember the rape accusations). It cleared folks on the rape accusations, but it might be what kills kj in the end. who knows. gloop-could the text message you're referring to be the one in which kj texted "R U ALIVE" to Nona? KJ said that saying was just an inside joke between the two. I bet he doesn't think it's funny now. I hope that the RPD's mistakes in reference to nona's phone being released from evidence and given to nona's stepdad to use personally, with the sim card erased when it was given back (which, the evidence handlers or the crime lab could have done that after copying the information from it, I guess), doesn't get the case dismissed or something like that. The defense has already tried to do this because of the phone fiasco.

[JR2007]

I just got home from work and saw the front page of the Paper. Patterson is back on the case.
Read
Patterson back on Dirksmeyer case

Justice appoints retired judge to preside over Jones’ trial after Kennedy recuses
By Janie Ginocchio (government@couriernews.com)
Reporter

Fifth Judicial District Circuit Judge Dennis C. Sutterfield announced Tuesday afternoon in a letter to attorneys involved in Kevin Jones’ upcoming murder trial that newly appointed Circuit Judge James D. Kennedy has recused himself.
Kennedy served as a deputy prosecutor from January to July 2006, according to the 5th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s office. Jones was charged with the murder of Nona Dirksmeyer on March 31, 2006, and his trial is scheduled to begin July 9.
According to the Arkansas Judicial Code of Conduct, “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
When a judge recuses himself, it is up to the administrative judge — Sutterfield in this district — to determine if the case should be reassigned to another division or if a special judge should be appointed. In the 5th Judicial District, only Sutterfield and Kennedy hear circuit court criminal cases. Judge Ken Coker Jr. presides over juvenile matters and Judge Gordon “Mack” McCain Jr. handles domestic relations and probate cases.
Kennedy recently recused himself from another murder case against David Woody, Travis Farmer, Donovan Farmer and Kevin Erdelyi, who stand accused of killing an informant. The case was transferred to Sutterfield’s court and Woody’s trial will begin March 6. [see related story]
“Due to the congestion of my docket and a desire that this matter not be delayed, I requested the appointment of a Special Judge for [the Dirksmeyer case],” Sutterfield wrote in his letter.
In an order signed Monday, State Supreme Court Chief Justice Jim Hannah assigned retired Judge John Patterson to preside over the case.
The Jones case was originally assigned to Patterson’s court; Patterson retired in January.
“I wish to express my appreciation to Judge Patterson for accepting this assignment,” Sutterfield wrote. “His extensive experience on the bench and his previous involvement as the sitting judge on this case means that this matter can be tried as scheduled without delay and this will serve the interests of justice for all concerned.”
Background
Dirksmeyer, a 2004 graduate of Dover High School and the reigning Miss Petit Jean Valley at the time of her death, was found slain in her Russellville apartment in December 2005, authorities said.
Jones, her boyfriend, was charged with first-degree murder in connection with her death March 31, 2006, and the trial was scheduled to begin Jan. 16, 2007.
Citing an “extraordinary amount” of media coverage, Jones’ attorneys requested a gag order be placed in effect.
The agreed order signed in July forbid attorneys, attorney employees, agents, consultants, witnesses, court personnel and law enforcement officers from making any public comment regarding the case against Jones.
The gag order will be lifted when a Pope County jury returns a verdict deciding Jones’ guilt or innocence, the order states. Any limited comments made prior to the trial must be court approved.
The day before he announced his retirement, Patterson granted the prosecution’s motion for a continuance, and the trial was delayed until July 9.
Copyright 2007 Russellville Newspapers, Inc. :D

[JR2007]

The defense did not make the motion for delay. It was actually the prosecution.







This is true, but the defense waited until just a few days before the trial was to begin, in Jan. and the prosecution had no choice but ask for a delay to go over the evidence and present their on findings, which they hope to refute or answer the defenses findings.

[Amy]

It would seem to me that anyone who is indeed innocent would like a speedy trial...so s/he could get out from under the cloud of suspicion and get on with their lives. Especially those who are actually sitting in jail awaiting trial. But, I would think one who is out running around would like to get it over with also.

Those folks who go into the numerous delays, and over pi##y little things, make me wonder if they aren't guilty after all.

True, this first delay was at the request of the prosecution, but caused by the actions of the defense, IMO.

Glad to see that Judge Patterson is back on the case. Since this is the only case he will have (I hope) he will be able to concentrate on it, and there should not be any time contraints or crunches to bog up getting the trial underway. IMO

[JR2007]

What has happened to FD. Miss her comments on here.

R U alive. :D

[lorettalockhorn]

Perhaps his varying in times is because he wants to protect someone other than himself. Maybe he was with someone that day but doesn't want to bring them into all the mess.


For some reason, that seems unlikely to me. 1) He needs someone, anyone who can give him a solid alibi, and 2) he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would protect (for lack of a better word) someone who isn't willing to come forward for him.

Glad to see Patterson back on the case. We'll have to rely on the Courier and Gazette, etc. for coverage; hope that we can get some answers to some of our questions about where the clothes were found and whose (if any) prints were found on the computer/keyboard/mouse. It's difficult enough to picture the crime scene without this information; but one thing I cannot imagine is Nona nude downstairs in her apartment, especially with the blinds open. God rest her soul.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but aren't the Diperts to be called as defense witnesses? Doesn't this mean that they will be excluded from the courtroom until after their own testimonies? If so, I'm pretty honked off at Gibbons for not finding a way to call them as prosecution witnesses.

[hawgustusgloop]

Perhaps his varying in times is because he wants to protect someone other than himself. Maybe he was with someone that day but doesn't want to bring them into all the mess.

That would be really sweet of K.Jo to forego giving the police and the whole world that magical alibi that would unquestionably exonerate him from murder charges and keep him outta jail just to prevent bringing someone else into "all the mess." That notion is completely ludicrous.

IMO he already brought his momma, his best friend, and all of his and Nona's friends and family into this mess. In fact, I personally feel like he used his mom and friend as props in his coverup without a second thought about how they would feel to see someone they cared about's bludgeoned body and without concern of how a police investigation would affect them. All my opinion only.

[optimumprimal78]

1. Where are the documents that showed the people called to testify? Did it get removed?

2. Has there been any editorials or letters to the editor about the case and/or the rape accusations and if so does anyone have copies? I ask this because in one of the other threads someone (I think FD) was wondering if there was an uproar in the community.

3. How long is the trial scheduled for now that there is a special judge? Wasn't it supposed to be a week?

[JR2007]

1. Where are the documents that showed the people called to testify? Did it get removed?

2. Has there been any editorials or letters to the editor about the case and/or the rape accusations and if so does anyone have copies? I ask this because in one of the other threads someone (I think FD) was wondering if there was an uproar in the community.

3. How long is the trial scheduled for now that there is a special judge? Wasn't it supposed to be a week?


Opti:
Here is a site I posted the other day with a lot of information on it and also a lot of links. Sorry I can't help you more, but I don't think there was a list on this thread of all the witnesses. IIRC
Freshwater had some sites posted on the State vs. KJ site.

[JR2007]

I've done it again, I forgot to post the link.
http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217214&mode=threaded&show=&st:punch:

I'm starting to get a head ache

[optimumprimal78]

I was looking for the State vs KJ thread but it is no longer there. Will it be making a comeback?

[hawgustusgloop]

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

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

Is this what you were looking for, optimumprimal78?

[hawgustusgloop]

I was looking for the State vs KJ thread but it is no longer there. Will it be making a comeback?

I didn't see that thread either, but I used the search function to show threads and typed in

kevin jones trial

and it came up and I was able to view the posts.

[optimumprimal78]

Is this what you were looking for, optimumprimal78?


Yeah that was part of it. But I thought I saw something about an actual list of people testifying.

Maybe not. Oh well.

[hawgustusgloop]

I agree with this statement. There are two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

The truth isn't always somewhere in the middle, especially if one side is completely lying IMO.

[Amy]

For some reason, that seems unlikely to me. 1) He needs someone, anyone who can give him a solid alibi, and 2) he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would protect (for lack of a better word) someone who isn't willing to come forward for him.

Glad to see Patterson back on the case. We'll have to rely on the Courier and Gazette, etc. for coverage; hope that we can get some answers to some of our questions about where the clothes were found and whose (if any) prints were found on the computer/keyboard/mouse. It's difficult enough to picture the crime scene without this information; but one thing I cannot imagine is Nona nude downstairs in her apartment, especially with the blinds open. God rest her soul.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but aren't the Diperts to be called as defense witnesses? Doesn't this mean that they will be excluded from the courtroom until after their own testimonies? If so, I'm pretty honked off at Gibbons for not finding a way to call them as prosecution witnesses.


I think, tho, they would not be allowed in the courtroom til they testify, no matter which side called them as witnesses.

Perhaps the prosecution didn't call them, thinking that would allow them to attend the proceedings. Don't have a clue why the defense would be calling them. If they were quite vocal, saying that there is no way KJ could be the perp, that would be one thing. But, seems they have come to the conclusion that he most likely is.

[lorettalockhorn]

I think, tho, they would not be allowed in the courtroom til they testify, no matter which side called them as witnesses.

Perhaps the prosecution didn't call them, thinking that would allow them to attend the proceedings. Don't have a clue why the defense would be calling them. If they were quite vocal, saying that there is no way KJ could be the perp, that would be one thing. But, seems they have come to the conclusion that he most likely is.

I don't have a clue as to why the defense would call them either; I guess my point it that the prosecution should have named them as witnesses and called them as early as possible so that they would be able to be in the courtroom to hear other testimony. Since the defense case follows the prosecution, it seems that they will be excluded. Granted the testimony would be brutal to hear, but I would think that they would want to hear it.

Hawgustusgloop, what you stated about KJ bringing his mother and best friend into the situation is exactly what made me first think that he is guilty.

There was a witness list (for the prosecution?) posted earlier(around P5 or 6?), but haven't seen it while going back to refresh my memory. Am assuming that the people named in the post below will be called to support the documents listed. I don't remember seeing a list of defense witnesses; were they included with the other witnesses?

[lemoncello]

I don't have a clue as to why the defense would call them either; I guess my point it that the prosecution should have named them as witnesses and called them as early as possible so that they would be able to be in the courtroom to hear other testimony. Since the defense case follows the prosecution, it seems that they will be excluded. Granted the testimony would be brutal to hear, but I would think that they would want to hear it.

Hawgustusgloop, what you stated about KJ bringing his mother and best friend into the situation is exactly what made me first think that he is guilty.

There was a witness list (for the prosecution?) posted earlier(around P5 or 6?), but haven't seen it while going back to refresh my memory. Am assuming that the people named in the post below will be called to support the documents listed. I don't remember seeing a list of defense witnesses; were they included with the other witnesses?

even if the pros. called
them to testify early...
they could still be excluded
from the courtroom by the
request of the defense
if the defense planned to call them
when they presented their case...
so it wouldnt matter...
that said... to testify they
have to be subpeonaed, i believe...
and the defense has only subpoenaed
like four people and not the diperts...
my guess is putting them on the
witness list is to keep them
bound by the gag order....
since they gave lots of interviews
to the paper in the beginning...
the defense has got a strategy
of trying to tie the hands
of anyone on the prosecution
side of telling their story...
while they load public documents
with some pretty detailed stuff...
seems theyre trying to spin the story
their way...
good or bad is not for me to
decide...
JMHO

[FDInLaw]

even if the pros. called
them to testify early...
they could still be excluded
from the courtroom by the
request of the defense
if the defense planned to call them
when they presented their case...
so it wouldnt matter...
that said... to testify they
have to be subpeonaed, i believe...
and the defense has only subpoenaed
like four people and not the diperts...
my guess is putting them on the
witness list is to keep them
bound by the gag order....
since they gave lots of interviews
to the paper in the beginning...
the defense has got a strategy
of trying to tie the hands
of anyone on the prosecution
side of telling their story...
while they load public documents
with some pretty detailed stuff...
seems theyre trying to spin the story
their way...
good or bad is not for me to
decide...
JMHO

It won't be surprising if the Defense team does try to keep Carol Dipert out of the court room. Just her mere presence could influence the Jury. Personally, I will be outraged if they manage this though. If it were my child murdered, I would want to be there, and I don't think this right should be taken from a Mother. JMO

[hawgustusgloop]

It won't be surprising if the Defense team does try to keep Carol Dipert out of the court room. Just her mere presence could influence the Jury. Personally, I will be outraged if they manage this though. If it were my child murdered, I would want to be there, and I don't think this right should be taken from a Mother. JMO

I agree completely. No matter what, though, the defense won't be able to deny her the right to be there when the verdict is read. That is the part that really counts. I can't even imagine how awful it would be to be in her position, and a conviction would be no real consolation for losing her baby girl. I hope she gets justice for Nona. At least being out of the courtroom might spare her some of the no doubt trashtastic tactics IMO the defense will probably try to use to paint Nona in an unfavorable light. We have seen so much rumor and innuendo already on this site. It would be extremely difficult to sit idly by and listen to someone trashtalk your beloved deceased daughter.

[optimumprimal78]

If they do not allow CD to be in the courtroom then they should not allow KJ's mom or any of the other close relatives to be in the courtroom. IMO

[FDInLaw]

If they do not allow CD to be in the courtroom then they should not allow KJ's mom or any of the other close relatives to be in the courtroom. IMO


Janis Jones is on the Prosecution's witness list (for obviously reasons, she was with Kevin when he discovered the body). . . so, she will not be in the court room I guess (?).

[lorettalockhorn]

You all make valid points about how emotional hearing the testimony would be for the Diperts; NOT that I think for a minute that the judge is going to allow Nona herself to be put on trial. My thinking is that it should be their decision(s) as to whether or not they want to be in the courtroom as is their right; once their own obligations are completed.

Despite what I believe about KJ's guilt and my support of law enforcement in general, I think that RPD and Gibbons have made some mistakes that I would hate to see ruin the opportunity to convict.

[optimumprimal78]

So I was looking at these links:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217206&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217206

and

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217215&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217215

And I have a couple of questions that might have already been addressed:

1. In the first one CH stated that she knew with all her heart that KJ was innocent. Has she ever given a statement/alibi/situation that would be her reasoning behind why she feels like this?

2. In the second one she states that she just wanted to be with KJ and "Jim". Why would you want to be with someone who has no other connection with the case other than just being a friend of the victim?

[hawgustusgloop]

So I was looking at these links:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217206&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217206

and

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=9528&pid=217215&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry217215

And I have a couple of questions that might have already been addressed:

1. In the first one CH stated that she knew with all her heart that KJ was innocent. Has she ever given a statement/alibi/situation that would be her reasoning behind why she feels like this?

2. In the second one she states that she just wanted to be with KJ and "Jim". Why would you want to be with someone who has no other connection with the case other than just being a friend of the victim?

These are great questions and definitely worth exploring. I wish I had the answers.

1. I don't know if CH has specific knowledge that K.Jo couldn't have possibly been there when the crime was committed or anything else that could exonerate him. That entry was made way before the gag order, so if she was saying how stupid it is to think he is guilty, you would think she would say, "I know in my heart he didn't do it, plus we were at so-and-so's house, eating at x restaurant, etc. while the crime took place." After reading the whole entry again, it seems like her reasoning is based primarily on how distraught K.Jo seemed in the following days. If she has given any statements that might prove his innocence, I haven't seen anything about it, and they likely wouldn't be verifiable since he was actually charged.

2. I have no idea on this one. My only guess is that CH was understandably upset and emotional at the time. She seemed to be distraught over the loss of her friend, the investigation, and the fact that poor mourning K.Jo was arousing suspicion. The way I read it was that maybe they (including Nona) were all friends together and she just wanted everyone else to leave them alone?

If he IS guilty:
My personal opinion is that if K.Jo was crying his eyes out on the floor, needing to be held, etc., it was because he felt sorry for himself. IMO he thought he was slick to steal some gimmicky coverup from one of his Law & Order type shows. But the criminals on those shows he watched always get caught in the end, and he had to know it was just a matter of time before he'd be rockin' the orange jumpsuit.

[jonikay]

Yes it is very popular. I love it myself. My point is that I am sure they didn't know it could be traced back and get them into so much trouble . . . or be the thing that gets them OUT of trouble (like the rape accusations). Surely KJ didn't realize that the messages could all be read by an outside source, or he wouldn't have texted "R U ALIVE." Of course, who am I to judge. It could all be total coincidence . . .

[jonikay]

Yes it is very popular. I love it myself. My point is that I am sure they didn't know it could be traced back and get them into so much trouble . . . or be the thing that gets them OUT of trouble (like the rape accusations). Surely KJ didn't realize that the messages could all be read by an outside source, or he wouldn't have texted "R U ALIVE." Of course, who am I to judge. It could all be total coincidence . . . This message, by the way, is in response to SUSIEQ's previous message regarding texting.

[JR2007]

These are great questions and definitely worth exploring. I wish I had the answers.

1. I don't know if CH has specific knowledge that K.Jo couldn't have possibly been there when the crime was committed or anything else that could exonerate him. That entry was made way before the gag order, so if she was saying how stupid it is to think he is guilty, you would think she would say, "I know in my heart he didn't do it, plus we were at so-and-so's house, eating at x restaurant, etc. while the crime took place." After reading the whole entry again, it seems like her reasoning is based primarily on how distraught K.Jo seemed in the following days. If she has given any statements that might prove his innocence, I haven't seen anything about it, and they likely wouldn't be verifiable since he was actually charged.

2. I have no idea on this one. My only guess is that CH was understandably upset and emotional at the time. She seemed to be distraught over the loss of her friend, the investigation, and the fact that poor mourning K.Jo was arousing suspicion. The way I read it was that maybe they (including Nona) were all friends together and she just wanted everyone else to leave them alone?

If he IS guilty:
My personal opinion is that if K.Jo was crying his eyes out on the floor, needing to be held, etc., it was because he felt sorry for himself. IMO he thought he was slick to steal some gimmicky coverup from one of his Law & Order type shows. But the criminals on those shows he watched always get caught in the end, and he had to know it was just a matter of time before he'd be rockin' the orange jumpsuit.
Haugustusgloop
Look up the word infatuated or infatuation. The definition WORDWEB gives sounds like it answers your questions. I guess I never knew the real definition, just thought I did.

[FDInLaw]

Some time ago, someone stated on this board that Kevin couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. I for one don't believe this for a second. CH's personal convictions could stem from denial, not wanting to even consider the possibility of Kevin's guilt, as well as a good con job on Kevin's part. JMO

[hawgustusgloop]

Haugustusgloop
Look up the word infatuated or infatuation. The definition WORDWEB gives sounds like it answers your questions. I guess I never knew the real definition, just thought I did.

Now that you mention it, those Xanga entries by CH were pretty light on discussion about Nona and really heavy on discussion about K.Jo.

I wonder how close Nona and CH were at the time of Nona's death? Were they still best friends or had they grown apart in college? Would CH have been in the know about everything that was going on in Nona's personal life?

[hawgustusgloop]

Some time ago, someone stated on this board that Kevin couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. I for one don't believe this for a second. CH's personal convictions could stem from denial, not wanting to even consider the possibility of Kevin's guilt, as well as a good con job on Kevin's part. JMO

I agree. While I would never underestimate the power of denial, most people probably think they could never look their loved ones in the eyes and lie to them convincingly, especially about something so important. But maybe K.Jo isn't like most people and is a sociopath or something similar. If that were the case, IMO he would probably have no problem lying to their faces to benefit himself.

All my opinion, of course.

[optimumprimal78]

Now that you mention it, those Xanga entries by CH were pretty light on discussion about Nona and really heavy on discussion about K.Jo.

I wonder how close Nona and CH were at the time of Nona's death? Were they still best friends or had they grown apart in college? Would CH have been in the know about everything that was going on in Nona's personal life?

I know that if I had a friend that was murdered and another that was a suspect I would show great remorse for my friend who was murdered. I would focus more on remembering him/her then focusing on the potential suspect. No matter my personal view (if you have ever had a friend arrested or get in trouble for anything your initial reaction is disbelief) I would hold off on showing those beliefs until I had found something out. That is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

I do know that CH and Nona were seen hanging out together at parties thrown by high school friends but I can only guess that their relationship would be changed from one where they saw a lot of each other to one that was based more on phone calls and weekend adventures due to the distance between Russellville (where ATU is) and Conway (where UCA is).

[JR2007]

Add this to what we know, about what Nona was doing the morning she was murdered. The photos that are to be presented as evidence must be the photos taken by Arvest bank, I just noticed that the time of the photos was 10:01 to 10:06. I'm rather busy right now, and can look up the times, but later tonight I'd like to see how all that fits into what's known about her activities that morning. Are the photos of her coming or going, or are they someone else? Interesting.:read:

[FDInLaw]

Add this to what we know, about what Nona was doing the morning she was murdered. The photos that are to be presented as evidence must be the photos taken by Arvest bank, I just noticed that the time of the photos was 10:01 to 10:06. I'm rather busy right now, and can look up the times, but later tonight I'd like to see how all that fits into what's known about her activities that morning. Are the photos of her coming or going, or are they someone else? Interesting.:read:

I assume you are getting the times from the Response to the Motion for Discovery which states;

"jj. Nine (9) photos taken 12-15-05 (10:01 to 10:06)- attached"

I don't concur that they MUST be the Arvest Bank photos. . . but you definitely bring up something worth speculating about further! It bothers me that a.m. or p.m. is not used, but what would be the significance of mentioning the time if it were not a.m. ?

Further down the list of evidence it states (on the Response to the Motion for Discovery):

"kkk. Eleven (11) Arvest photos taken 12-15-05 - attached"

I don't know, but I'm thinking the nine photos are something different.

[cyottee]

Perhaps Nona was about to engage in a "quickie" ?
She takes her jeans and panties off fast ie. together.
While she is disrobing the male is opening the condom with his teeth but using a bent forfinger and middle finger to hold the package (leaving saliva DNA but no fingerprints) KWIM ?

Then at this very moment KJ enters using his key.
The unknown male tucks,zips, and hightails it out of there !
Meanwhile KJ hits Nona and knocks her to the floor.
Maybe there is blood either from her busted mouth or his wounded hand or both.
At this time he picks up the lamp as a weapon and it pulls apart (I have a brass one that does this).
In an attempt to unleash the electrical cord that strings the pieces of the lamp together he attempts to unscrew the bulb.
I know from experience that sometimes the bulb is stuck (like if has been in there a long time).
Realizing he doesn't want to bust the bulb ,or whatever, he aborts the effort .
He continues to ....well ...do what he did.

This explains the condom situation,
the bloody bulb,
the naked but no sex,
the pants and panties,
and the reason for the rage behide this impulse killing.

How'd I do ?:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

Perhaps Nona was about to engage in a "quickie" ?
She takes her jeans and panties off fast ie. together.
While she is disrobing the male is opening the condom with his teeth but using a bent forfinger and middle finger to hold the package (leaving saliva DNA but no fingerprints) KWIM ?

Then at this very moment KJ enters using his key.
The unknown male tucks,zips, and hightails it out of there !
Meanwhile KJ hits Nona and knocks her to the floor.
Maybe there is blood either from her busted mouth or his wounded hand or both.
At this time he picks up the lamp as a weapon and it pulls apart (I have a brass one that does this).
In an attempt to unleash the electrical cord that strings the pieces of the lamp together he attempts to unscrew the bulb.
I know from experience that sometimes the bulb is stuck (like if has been in there a long time).
Realizing he doesn't want to bust the bulb ,or whatever, he aborts the effort .
He continues to ....well ...do what he did.

This explains the condom situation,
the bloody bulb,
the naked but no sex,
the pants and panties,
and the reason for the rage behide this impulse killing.

How'd I do ?:shrug:

Don't recall seeing you on here before, so if I haven't let me say WELCOME TO THE BOARD!

:seeya:

The question that immediately comes to my mind is where is that other guy? He would know what happened, so why hasn't he come forward?

[optimumprimal78]

But KJ (in your theory) never saw the other guy. So he would not necessarily have a defense of going into rage and it would be more premeditation. As far as the other guy, if he exists he should (or should have) come forward to say "hey KJ came into her apartment, I left, I don't know what happened afterwards".

[cyottee]

Oh no KJ saw the guy!
Mystery man was just unzipped not undressed and was able to run.
KJ chose to attack Nona instead of chasing the guy.

The guy didn't come forward because he is a low life jerk and doesn't care enough to get involved.
I mean a man that will run out and leave you to face the BF isn't a real stand up kinda guy.

IMO

[optimumprimal78]

But the BF staying to beat (and eventually killing) the GF, that person is a stand up kind of guy?

[cyottee]

But KJ (in your theory) never saw the other guy. So he would not necessarily have a defense of going into rage and it would be more premeditation. As far as the other guy, if he exists he should (or should have) come forward to say "hey KJ came into her apartment, I left, I don't know what happened afterwards".

Hey,I'm not looking to defend.

And I think it obvious he did not come to kill given the murder weapon.

[FDInLaw]

But KJ (in your theory) never saw the other guy. So he would not necessarily have a defense of going into rage and it would be more premeditation. As far as the other guy, if he exists he should (or should have) come forward to say "hey KJ came into her apartment, I left, I don't know what happened afterwards".

If in fact there was a mystery man, this person would have to be riddled with guilt about what happened (if he is in any way a functioning human being). There would have to be some pretty good reasons for the person not to come forward. Having testimony that placed Kevin at the apartment that morning would be HUGE for the prosecution. One would also hope that the evidence found at the crime scene would point to the presence of another individual. JMO

[cyottee]

But the BF staying to beat (and eventually killing) the GF, that person is a stand up kind of guy?

:confused:
No not in my world.
Why would you assume that?
The question was why did mm (mystery man) not come forward.
The character of a killer I would say speaks for itself,does it not?

[optimumprimal78]

It is true that not too many people come to person's home with intent to kill with a lamp. However, he did have an intent to get into a fight. And instead of going after the other guy (like most men would) he chose to hit a 100 pound woman instead.

I'm not trying to be argumentative I just think that if it were me in KJ's shoes in your theory then I would be finding who the guy was and taking it up with him.

Also keep in mind that KJ was not faithful to ND either.

[FDInLaw]

Hey,I'm not looking to defend.

And I think it obvious he did not come to kill given the murder weapon.

Don't take any of the questioning personally. . . it's what we do here! Some kind soul throws a theory out and we pick it to pieces to see if it fits the evidence, etc. Thank you for presenting your ideas. The whole process of questioning really helps, often in a discussion like this a new angle or detail may come to mind that was formerly overlooked. So, please don't stop participating!

:)

[FDInLaw]

It is true that not too many people come to person's home with intent to kill with a lamp. However, he did have an intent to get into a fight. And instead of going after the other guy (like most men would) he chose to hit a 100 pound woman instead.

I'm not trying to be argumentative I just think that if it were me in KJ's shoes in your theory then I would be finding who the guy was and taking it up with him.

Also keep in mind that KJ was not faithful to ND either.

Good points. Does anyone know if Kevin has ever been in a fist fight with another guy? How macho is this kid?

I often wonder if physical abuse was present in ND and KJ relationship period.

[cyottee]

It is true that not too many people come to person's home with intent to kill with a lamp. However, he did have an intent to get into a fight. And instead of going after the other guy (like most men would) he chose to hit a 100 pound woman instead.

I'm not trying to be argumentative I just think that if it were me in KJ's shoes in your theory then I would be finding who the guy was and taking it up with him.

Also keep in mind that KJ was not faithful to ND either.

I have read about 40 pages and I do not know everything.:shrug:

I too believe that KJ should have gone after the mm but pussy boys would rather beat the woman. Been there...as the woman....

If KJ went after mm it would be proof that he was there and had motive,right?

My guess mm is probably married or a prominent citizen.

:shrug: Isn't anybody gonna see how many answers my theory provides?

We are debating....no argueing here ! :beer:
I come in peace ;-)

[cyottee]

Don't take any of the questioning personally. . . it's what we do here! Some kind soul throws a theory out and we pick it to pieces to see if it fits the evidence, etc. Thank you for presenting your ideas. The whole process of questioning really helps, often in a discussion like this a new angle or detail may come to mind that was formerly overlooked. So, please don't stop participating!

:)


Hey I'm :cool:
Thanks for the welcome!
I'm trying to keep up.:cool:

[FDInLaw]

Hey I'm :cool:
Thanks for the welcome!
I'm trying to keep up.


Well, to be truly :cool: you need to find a nifty avatar . . . with a nic like yours that shouldn't be too hard! ;)

[phynickyb]

It is true that not too many people come to person's home with intent to kill with a lamp. However, he did have an intent to get into a fight. And instead of going after the other guy (like most men would) he chose to hit a 100 pound woman instead.

I'm not trying to be argumentative I just think that if it were me in KJ's shoes in your theory then I would be finding who the guy was and taking it up with him.

Also keep in mind that KJ was not faithful to ND either.

I would certainly not call the person that killed Nona a "Man" IMO. He was perhaps an excuse for a man, just a fearful little man that directed his anger at an easy target. From where I come from, a person even hitting a woman would be taken care of by most men I know.

I think by the actions shown, KJ or the perp, regardless of the new theory presented, would not have demonstrated normal responses like most "men". Most men I know would never beat a poor girl to death...IMO

[phynickyb]

Don't take any of the questioning personally. . . it's what we do here! Some kind soul throws a theory out and we pick it to pieces to see if it fits the evidence, etc. Thank you for presenting your ideas. The whole process of questioning really helps, often in a discussion like this a new angle or detail may come to mind that was formerly overlooked. So, please don't stop participating!

:)

ITA. As long as this case has been going, it is refreshing to see new theories and ideas so the topic doesn't become stagnant for us that are hooked on this thread.

[cyottee]

Well, to be truly :cool: you need to find a nifty avatar . . . with a nic like yours that shouldn't be too hard! ;)

Ya' think?
A skill I have yet to learn.
You wanna give me one?
I will send you my pass.

[phynickyb]

I have read about 40 pages and I do not know everything.
I too believe that KJ should have gone after the mm but pussy boys would rather beat the woman. Been there...as the woman....

If KJ went after mm it would be proof that he was there and had motive,right?

My guess mm is probably married or a prominent citizen.

:shrug: Isn't anybody gonna see how many answers my theory provides?

We are debating....no argueing here !
I come in peace

You have presented some fine questions in your theory. Some that I have thought about myself ;) Welcome to the board!:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Ya' think?
A skill I have yet to learn.
You wanna give me one?
I will send you my pass.

Listen here, young one. . . don't send anyone your password!

I will gladly help you find and set up an avatar (that is if I can remember how I stumbled through installing mine!)

:seeya:

[hawgustusgloop]

Perhaps Nona was about to engage in a "quickie" ?
She takes her jeans and panties off fast ie. together.
While she is disrobing the male is opening the condom with his teeth but using a bent forfinger and middle finger to hold the package (leaving saliva DNA but no fingerprints) KWIM ?

Then at this very moment KJ enters using his key.
The unknown male tucks,zips, and hightails it out of there !
Meanwhile KJ hits Nona and knocks her to the floor.
Maybe there is blood either from her busted mouth or his wounded hand or both.
At this time he picks up the lamp as a weapon and it pulls apart (I have a brass one that does this).
In an attempt to unleash the electrical cord that strings the pieces of the lamp together he attempts to unscrew the bulb.
I know from experience that sometimes the bulb is stuck (like if has been in there a long time).
Realizing he doesn't want to bust the bulb ,or whatever, he aborts the effort .
He continues to ....well ...do what he did.

This explains the condom situation,
the bloody bulb,
the naked but no sex,
the pants and panties,
and the reason for the rage behide this impulse killing.

How'd I do ?:shrug:

Not bad. But I don't think it really explains the condom situation very well. That is an extremely awkward way to open a condom unless you are purposely trying not to leave fingerprints. I don't think someone wanting a "quickie" would hold the wrapper that way unless they are missing parts of their fingers.

Also, I think this mystery man would have hightailed it to the police department once he heard she had been murdered and knowing his prints, etc. were in her apartment to make sure they knew he wasn't involved.

[optimumprimal78]

I agree that if this mystery man had heard that she was killed he would have gone to the police department to try to clear his name. As far as the condom wrapper, any guy who has tried to take one off does not do it in a calculated way. We usually just rip the thing off.

[hawgustusgloop]

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

I thought this was a really interesting post and thought that since we have a lot of good discussion going on I'd bump it up.

[phynickyb]

Not bad. But I don't think it really explains the condom situation very well. That is an extremely awkward way to open a condom unless you are purposely trying not to leave fingerprints. I don't think someone wanting a "quickie" would hold the wrapper that way unless they are missing parts of their fingers.

Also, I think this mystery man would have hightailed it to the police department once he heard she had been murdered and knowing his prints, etc. were in her apartment to make sure they knew he wasn't involved.

I still lean towards the condom wrapper was found in the trash can by KJ, then the confrontation and then the wrapper was placed on the counter, after being wiped clean of his finger prints. Much like leaving the empty toilet paper roll on the counter of the bathroom after you were caught without, and had to change it yourself, to prove your point. I think he could have been trying to say "hey, this is the reason, see I am justified." But obviously, nothing could justify his or anyone's actions as such and I would never presume the scenario presented is on the same level of ND's murder. Again, JMHO!

[JR2007]

I assume you are getting the times from the Response to the Motion for Discovery which states;

"jj. Nine (9) photos taken 12-15-05 (10:01 to 10:06)- attached"

I don't concur that they MUST be the Arvest Bank photos. . . but you definitely bring up something worth speculating about further! It bothers me that a.m. or p.m. is not used, but what would be the significance of mentioning the time if it were not a.m. ?

Further down the list of evidence it states (on the Response to the Motion for Discovery):

"kkk. Eleven (11) Arvest photos taken 12-15-05 - attached"

I don't know, but I'm thinking the nine photos are something different.
FD:
You are probably correct about the pictures. I was just reading the list and when I came to the 9 pictures and the time they were taken. I immediately posted my find and didn't read the rest. Now it's got me wondering what are the 9 pictures unless the p.m. should have been there.

[FDInLaw]

FD:
You are probably correct about the pictures. I was just reading the list and when I came to the 9 pictures and the time they were taken. I immediately posted my find and didn't read the rest. Now it's got me wondering what are the 9 pictures unless the p.m. should have been there.

Your not alone. . . I'm wondering too. If the photos were taken that night they may simply be of the crime scene. However, the Response to the Motion for Discovery states:
"n. CD of Crime Scene Photos - copy provided"

:cool:

[FDInLaw]

"dd. Notes written by defendant on 12-15-05 (includes friends of victim, victim's classes and timeline of defendant) - attached
ee. Crime Scene Sketch drawn by defendant - 12-15-05 - attached "

Once the trial rolls around, these documents should prove interesting. . . they should give some indication of the state of mind Kevin was in that night. If Kevin was truly distraught and not thinking straight, his sketch should differ significantly from the official one I would think. JMO

[JR2007]

"dd. Notes written by defendant on 12-15-05 (includes friends of victim, victim's classes and timeline of defendant) - attached
ee. Crime Scene Sketch drawn by defendant - 12-15-05 - attached "

Once the trial rolls around, these documents should prove interesting. . . they should give some indication of the state of mind Kevin was in that night. If Kevin was truly distraught and not thinking straight, his sketch should differ significantly from the official one I would think. JMO
Ditto, I had read "dd" this evening and thought I'd sure like to know what those notes said, and were they hand written on paper or electronic???

[Amy]

Not bad. But I don't think it really explains the condom situation very well. That is an extremely awkward way to open a condom unless you are purposely trying not to leave fingerprints. I don't think someone wanting a "quickie" would hold the wrapper that way unless they are missing parts of their fingers.

Also, I think this mystery man would have hightailed it to the police department once he heard she had been murdered and knowing his prints, etc. were in her apartment to make sure they knew he wasn't involved.

The other thing, in my mind, would be that Kevin would quickly point out to the LE that there had been another man at her apartment. Something along the lines that, he went there, this dude was there. He left, so it must have been the other dude. And later he couldn't contact her and got worried and called his bud, and eventually he and his mom and bud went to the apartment.

I think that, whether or not KJ killed Nona, but [I]especially[I] if he did NOT kill her, he would have mentioned seeing another man. That would have come up in the initial reports where he is telling the officers he watches Law and Order, and that he didn't touch the lamp, etc.

[Amy]

I thought this was a really interesting post and thought that since we have a lot of good discussion going on I'd bump it up.

That is an interesting post. Especially about the stick.

Just random tho'ts here. Nona is a college girl, own apartment, etc. Answers to no one at this point. Even a boyfriend, who, from accounts is not in a monogamous relationship with Nona. It would seem that she would be free to hop into a car with anyone (as the quoted post points out, she could have gone shopping with a friend/neighbor.)

She doesn't answer the phone when he calls. So, maybe she was concentrating on the tests she was doing (he supposedly was under the impression she had some more tests to do.) After she would be out of the testing, she would have been free to go window shopping or whatever with anyone she chose--so why WOULD he think she had to be at her apartment? If he hadn't talked to her all afternoon, she could have made any number of plans and would not have been obligated to tell him.

Why would he immediately think that something was wrong, just because her car was there? Did he happen to call her mom to say he wanted to talk to her, and couldn't reach her? Thinking, maybe she was at or with her mom? Don't think that was ever mentioned. It would seem that, if he had tried to contact her other than texting her, or calling HER phone, there would have been mention somewhere that, he couldn't find her AT ALL. Meaning he didn't call any other friends, either to see if she was hanging out.

And, so she didn't want to talk to him that afternoon? Would that be absolutely out of character? If she was miffed at him in any way, it would be reasonable to assume she might not respond to his calls/texts.

So, I do think it's kind of hinky that, without making any other (that was reported) attempts to contact her, see if she was with ANY one else, that he would go to her apartment and immediately assume something was wrong, that with no answer on the door, that he would "investigate" by going to the patio door.

Thanks for bringing that post back.

[FDInLaw]

That is an interesting post. Especially about the stick.

Just random tho'ts here. Nona is a college girl, own apartment, etc. Answers to no one at this point. Even a boyfriend, who, from accounts is not in a monogamous relationship with Nona. It would seem that she would be free to hop into a car with anyone (as the quoted post points out, she could have gone shopping with a friend/neighbor.)

She doesn't answer the phone when he calls. So, maybe she was concentrating on the tests she was doing (he supposedly was under the impression she had some more tests to do.) After she would be out of the testing, she would have been free to go window shopping or whatever with anyone she chose--so why WOULD he think she had to be at her apartment? If he hadn't talked to her all afternoon, she could have made any number of plans and would not have been obligated to tell him.

Why would he immediately think that something was wrong, just because her car was there? Did he happen to call her mom to say he wanted to talk to her, and couldn't reach her? Thinking, maybe she was at or with her mom? Don't think that was ever mentioned. It would seem that, if he had tried to contact her other than texting her, or calling HER phone, there would have been mention somewhere that, he couldn't find her AT ALL. Meaning he didn't call any other friends, either to see if she was hanging out.

And, so she didn't want to talk to him that afternoon? Would that be absolutely out of character? If she was miffed at him in any way, it would be reasonable to assume she might not respond to his calls/texts.

So, I do think it's kind of hinky that, without making any other (that was reported) attempts to contact her, see if she was with ANY one else, that he would go to her apartment and immediately assume something was wrong, that with no answer on the door, that he would "investigate" by going to the patio door.

Thanks for bringing that post back.

ITA. . . The level of concern KJ claimed seems unfounded IMO. For one, didn't she have another final scheduled for that afternoon? It's not like she could have taken a call during that time. And, to top it off, the cell phone records show that KJ did not start calling until sometime after when he claimed. It all appears staged to this fruitcake (arm chair detective). MOO :cool:

[phynickyb]

ITA. . . The level of concern KJ claimed seems unfounded IMO. For one, didn't she have another final scheduled for that afternoon? It's not like she could have taken a call during that time. And, to top it off, the cell phone records show that KJ did not start calling until sometime after when he claimed. It all appears staged to this fruitcake (arm chair detective). MOO :cool:

If I have tried to call the home phone, left at least one message, and then have tried to call a cell phone several times over a period of hours, then I might start getting a little worried for my loved one. I would then start calling other close associates of theirs to see if they have seen them. The assumption to send a buddy over to check on her is just weird to me when none of the other normal and reasonable attempts at finding her were even tried. The buddy even thought it was weird when KJ asked him to go up to the door and knock....HELLO? :eek: is this just me? To me, IMO it just makes him look like he was setting the situation up for finding her.

[Amy]

Nope, it's not just you. It just seems that she could have easily gone with a friend, been at her mom's (leaving in the friends' or her mom's car.) Even if she had indicated in their early hour conversation that she planned on just being at home for the evening, after the last final, she could easily have changed her mind, and not necessarily have to have called him to advise him of her change of plans.

While probably most people take their cell phones with them everywhere they go, I know there are times when I kinda forget (or there was the time, when I reached in my purse for my phone, I pulled out the tv remote!!! :punch: ). So, even if she did not answer the land line or the cell, he still could have called at least her mom, if not some of her friends.

[JR2007]

ITA. . . The level of concern KJ claimed seems unfounded IMO. For one, didn't she have another final scheduled for that afternoon? It's not like she could have taken a call during that time. And, to top it off, the cell phone records show that KJ did not start calling until sometime after when he claimed. It all appears staged to this fruitcake (arm chair detective). MOO :cool:



The Prosecution is going to present cell phone tower records, which to me will show where the phone call was made from. Maybe not the exact locations but the general direction, and if another call was made a little later and a different tower picks it up, the LE can tell in what direction you are traveling. This could be for KJ or Nona's phone. Can't wait to see what they have.

[FDInLaw]

The Prosecution is going to present cell phone tower records, which to me will show where the phone call was made from. Maybe not the exact locations but the general direction, and if another call was made a little later and a different tower picks it up, the LE can tell in what direction you are traveling. This could be for KJ or Nona's phone. Can't wait to see what they have.

Huh, maybe the tower records place Kevin somewhere other than where he claims to have been? Good observation!

[FDInLaw]

Huh, maybe the tower records place Kevin somewhere other than where he claims to have been? Good observation!

A friend just sent me this in response to my comment above and I felt it was worth posting (how did I get so fortunate to have such smart friends? :) );



"I do not know this absolutely, but I have enough experience with wireless technology to have an idea how this works.



Say that KJ’s phone connected to one cell tower. Using the known speed of radio waves, that cell tower can estimate KJ’s distance from it in a circle around it. So, let us say he’s one mile away from the cell tower. Take that cell tower, and draw a circle one mile in diameter around it. Obviously, this does not help much, because it means he could be anywhere inside of that circle.



Now, what happens if KJ happened to be in range of a second tower, as well? That tower knows he is x amount of distance away, so you end up with another circle around that tower that intersects our first circle at two points, giving a much more definite approximation of KJ’s location.



The triangulation bit comes in with the third tower. In a perfect world, the third tower’s range to KJ circle will intersect with one of the points created by the second circle, giving his exact location. Unfortunately, there is a lot out there that can interfere with radio signals and distort these results. The good news is that in Nona’s area of town (and most of Russellville) these factors barely exist because Russellville is not a big city. I am not a cell tower expert, but triangulation should be accurate in Russellville. Not only that, if KJ claims he was calling from Dover and the triangulation places him in Russellville, it does not matter how much interference there could be. That would be physically impossible with how radio waves work."

[JR2007]

A friend just sent me this in response to my comment above and I felt it was worth posting (how did I get so fortunate to have such smart friends? :) );



"I do not know this absolutely, but I have enough experience with wireless technology to have an idea how this works.



Say that KJ’s phone connected to one cell tower. Using the known speed of radio waves, that cell tower can estimate KJ’s distance from it in a circle around it. So, let us say he’s one mile away from the cell tower. Take that cell tower, and draw a circle one mile in diameter around it. Obviously, this does not help much, because it means he could be anywhere inside of that circle.



Now, what happens if KJ happened to be in range of a second tower, as well? That tower knows he is x amount of distance away, so you end up with another circle around that tower that intersects our first circle at two points, giving a much more definite approximation of KJ’s location.



The triangulation bit comes in with the third tower. In a perfect world, the third tower’s range to KJ circle will intersect with one of the points created by the second circle, giving his exact location. Unfortunately, there is a lot out there that can interfere with radio signals and distort these results. The good news is that in Nona’s area of town (and most of Russellville) these factors barely exist because Russellville is not a big city. I am not a cell tower expert, but triangulation should be accurate in Russellville. Not only that, if KJ claims he was calling from Dover and the triangulation places him in Russellville, it does not matter how much interference there could be. That would be physically impossible with how radio waves work."


You have gotten it just about perfect for Radar. With cell phone towers they aren't quit that good. But a cell phone tower picks up you phone the instant you turn your phone on. It knows what tower you are in range of. If you make a call and are driving along the phone automatically switches you from tower to tower. At that instant, based on where roads are located in a towers range they can identify where and when you were at that place. They know what direction you are headed and if you go through enough towers they can average you speed.
:read:

[FDInLaw]

You have gotten it just about perfect for Radar. With cell phone towers they aren't quit that good. But a cell phone tower picks up you phone the instant you turn your phone on. It knows what tower you are in range of. If you make a call and are driving along the phone automatically switches you from tower to tower. At that instant, based on where roads are located in a towers range they can identify where and when you were at that place. They know what direction you are headed and if you go through enough towers they can average you speed.
:read:

Wow, now I'm really curious to know why cell phone tower info is on the Prosecution's list of evidence!

[hawgustusgloop]

Wow, now I'm really curious to know why cell phone tower info is on the Prosecution's list of evidence!

Me, too! If it is from Kevin's phone and it shows that he was near Nona's apartment while he said he was in Dover, that sounds like some good evidence to this fruitcake.

[JR2007]

Here is another interesting item on the Motion For Discovery, item "y". DVD for fingerpint technique using Amino Black and Leucocrystal Violet.
So I'm sure the Jury is going to get a lesson on finger printing like this. It will be curious as to what it is tied to.
Below is an except form a web site that tells more about it.:read:

Hill was involved in a highly publicized homicide case in Lake Worth, Florida where five family members were murdered. Armed with an airbrush and a chemical called Leucocrystal Violet (LCV), he was able to develop prints that were not visible prior to processing with the chemical.
Hill, who instructs other investigators how to use LCV, says the chemical reacts instantly to the presence of blood causing faint or invisible blood prints to turn a violet color. Further color enhancement is done through the application of a second chemical called Amino Black, which is a protein dye stain that causes the violet ridges to turn a dark indigo blue. Further enhancement can then be accomplished through the use of tools in digital applications.

[FDInLaw]

Here is another interesting item on the Motion For Discovery, item "y". DVD for fingerpint technique using Amino Black and Leucocrystal Violet.
So I'm sure the Jury is going to get a lesson on finger printing like this. It will be curious as to what it is tied to.
Below is an except form a web site that tells more about it.:read:

Hill was involved in a highly publicized homicide case in Lake Worth, Florida where five family members were murdered. Armed with an airbrush and a chemical called Leucocrystal Violet (LCV), he was able to develop prints that were not visible prior to processing with the chemical.
Hill, who instructs other investigators how to use LCV, says the chemical reacts instantly to the presence of blood causing faint or invisible blood prints to turn a violet color. Further color enhancement is done through the application of a second chemical called Amino Black, which is a protein dye stain that causes the violet ridges to turn a dark indigo blue. Further enhancement can then be accomplished through the use of tools in digital applications.

Wow, thanks for posting this. . . interesting stuff! I have a pet theory that Kevin wiped down the lamp and so when asked if he touched anything he was confident that his prints would not be found there. What is described above could explain why he didn't see the bloody print on the light bulb. This is all mere speculation on my part and should be regarded as such. ~ FD

[JR2007]

Wow, thanks for posting this. . . interesting stuff! I have a pet theory that Kevin wiped down the lamp and so when asked if he touched anything he was confident that his prints would not be found there. What is described above could explain why he didn't see the bloody print on the light bulb. This is all mere speculation on my part and should be regarded as such. ~ FD

In light of this new fingerprinting technique and rereading some old post, it has come to me that the evidence that LE has with the window blind panels, could show KJ's prints in blood on them. Pointing directly to him as being guilty, if he didn't touch them on discovery of her body. I was trying to think of why LE would use the window blind panels unless they have fingerprints on them. And it wouldn't be enough if they were just KJ's prints, since he was her BF, and his prints would be everywhere in the apartment. But if they have the slightest trace of blood on the prints and
the new technique shows it to be, then he's history.

[JR2007]

If I hit refresh, one more time while intending to hit spell check, I'm going to scream. My Google tool bar has them both Green and when I'm trying to post I press refresh, loosing all I've typed.
:cuss:

[FDInLaw]

In light of this new fingerprinting technique and rereading some old post, it has come to me that the evidence that LE has with the window blind panels, could show KJ's prints in blood on them. Pointing directly to him as being guilty, if he didn't touch them on discovery of her body. I was trying to think of why LE would use the window blind panels unless they have fingerprints on them. And it wouldn't be enough if they were just KJ's prints, since he was her BF, and his prints would be everywhere in the apartment. But if they have the slightest trace of blood on the prints and
the new technique shows it to be, then he's history.

I've been wondering about the significance of the blinds. . . you present some interesting ideas! Sure glad to have you hanging out with us, you really add to the conversation!
:seeya:

[JR2007]

Me, too! If it is from Kevin's phone and it shows that he was near Nona's apartment while he said he was in Dover, that sounds like some good evidence to this fruitcake.
I think if it is KJ's phone they have records for, it will make for excellent evidence. What I dread more then anything, no matter who is charge with the crime, is that the evidence is not conclusive or strong enough for the jury to feel good about the guilty verdict.

[JR2007]

I've been wondering about the significance of the blinds. . . you present some interesting ideas! Sure glad to have you hanging out with us, you really add to the conversation!
:seeya:
Thank you FD for the kind words, I also enjoy your post, and also for keeping me straight with facts. I just wish we could get on with the trial and get this over. For both Nona and Nina. They are pretty much the only reason I 'm here on CL. As you can tell I've become a regular motor mouth.

[FDInLaw]

Thank you FD for the kind words, I also enjoy your post, and also for keeping me straight with facts. I just wish we could get on with the trial and get this over. For both Nona and Nina. They are pretty much the only reason I 'm here on CL. As you can tell I've become a regular motor mouth.


I'm with you, the trial can't come soon enough. Unlike Nina's case, at least there is a pending trial. I can't imagine the added grief of not knowing or having the option of prosecution. I hope and pray that answers are found for Nina's loved ones.

Regarding your presence here, JR. When the Response to the Motion for Discovery came out it seemed most folks were mainly interested in the list of witnesses to be called. You have encouraged discussion about the list of evidence, which for the most part was ignored here. As you have brought out, there are some things worthy of our attention. The list makes it obvious that the Probable Cause Statement was not the State's complete case against Kevin Jones. . . like everyone else, I'm anxious to see what else they have.

[FDInLaw]

Just want to say "HI!" to SusieQ. . . you haven't posted in awhile.

:seeya:

(I just noticed you were viewing the board).

[FDInLaw]

Where's Merrick these days?

That's a good question! I've been worried about her, she hasn't responded to PMs I sent her days ago. :confused:

[FDInLaw]

All cases seems to hit dead spots and as such I've got in the habit of following more than one. Several of us from this board are hanging out on Nina Ingram's thread (it's found under "News From The South). If you (or anyone here) gets bored, come hang out with us! :seeya:

[hawgustusgloop]

In light of this new fingerprinting technique and rereading some old post, it has come to me that the evidence that LE has with the window blind panels, could show KJ's prints in blood on them. Pointing directly to him as being guilty, if he didn't touch them on discovery of her body. I was trying to think of why LE would use the window blind panels unless they have fingerprints on them. And it wouldn't be enough if they were just KJ's prints, since he was her BF, and his prints would be everywhere in the apartment. But if they have the slightest trace of blood on the prints and
the new technique shows it to be, then he's history.

OK I promise I am not being sarcastic for once. Are you telling us that they could get his fingerprints even if he wiped them off? Wow!

And based on the info you found on the technique, it appears that the prints would have to be in blood in order to show up since the chemicals react to blood.

I find this technology remarkable if it is capable of doing that.

Off topic: Also I checked out Google Earth when FDInLaw suggested it on another thread and it was amazing. I think it is so cool how my tiny iPod Nano can hold so much music. The investigative technique mentioned above is so fascinating to me. I must be getting old or something but I am increasingly impressed with the technological advances we are seeing!

[FDInLaw]

OK I promise I am not being sarcastic for once. Are you telling us that they could get his fingerprints even if he wiped them off? Wow!

And based on the info you found on the technique, it appears that the prints would have to be in blood in order to show up since the chemicals react to blood.

I find this technology remarkable if it is capable of doing that.

Off topic: Also I checked out Google Earth when FDInLaw suggested it on another thread and it was amazing. I think it is so cool how my tiny iPod Nano can hold so much music. The investigative technique mentioned above is so fascinating to me. I must be getting old or something but I am increasingly impressed with the technological advances we are seeing!

You sarcastic? Never! :biggrin:

I'm not sure if the presence of blood is needed. Where's JR? He/she is the brain that did all the reading. :read:

[hawgustusgloop]

Hill, who instructs other investigators how to use LCV, says the chemical reacts instantly to the presence of blood causing faint or invisible blood prints to turn a violet color. Further color enhancement is done through the application of a second chemical called Amino Black, which is a protein dye stain that causes the violet ridges to turn a dark indigo blue. Further enhancement can then be accomplished through the use of tools in digital applications.

If the above is all true, it seems that blood is necessary for it to show up. I guess regular prints (not in blood) would not show up with this particular chemical?

[FDInLaw]

If the above is all true, it seems that blood is necessary for it to show up. I guess regular prints (not in blood) would not show up with this particular chemical?

Come on now, I'm feeling lazy today. . . let's wait for JR to show up. :hat:

[FDInLaw]

It looks like blood is necessary. . check out this link:

http://www.latent-prints.com/cac_blood.htm

I'm still reading. . . :read:

[JR2007]

OK I promise I am not being sarcastic for once. Are you telling us that they could get his fingerprints even if he wiped them off? Wow!

And based on the info you found on the technique, it appears that the prints would have to be in blood in order to show up since the chemicals react to blood.

I find this technology remarkable if it is capable of doing that.

Off topic: Also I checked out Google Earth when FDInLaw suggested it on another thread and it was amazing. I think it is so cool how my tiny iPod Nano can hold so much music. The investigative technique mentioned above is so fascinating to me. I must be getting old or something but I am increasingly impressed with the technological advances we are seeing!

I would think that if there was blood present on a smooth hard surface that you could wipe the prints off, if you did it immediately, but being blood it tends to dry where other prints leave an oily residue that I assume wipes off easily or at least smears easily. If the blood did slightly dry then this method would detect the prints even if they were wiped slightly. As long as there is some blood hemoglobin present it can be detected. If it is a somewhat porous surface where the blood prints were it would probably take a chemical to get rid of them, cause just wiping wouldn't work. AMO
I'm no expert just what I read about the other day and common sense.
spoken like a true He. HE HE HE

[JR2007]

It looks like blood is necessary. . check out this link:

http://www.latent-prints.com/cac_blood.htm

I'm still reading. . . :read:
I read part of your link will have to read the rest later. Got to go to Choir practice. Sounds interesting though.
Bye.

[JR2007]

If the above is all true, it seems that blood is necessary for it to show up. I guess regular prints (not in blood) would not show up with this particular chemical?

This is true from what I've read Hawgust.

There is a lot of good information out there about various types of printing, not only of fingers and palms but also of shoe prints using amido black. Shoe prints could be what LE are after if the perp stepped in blood then walked away it might show who's foot print it was, and which way they went or left the apartment. This would be supper.
Good night all.

[lorettalockhorn]

:seeya: Long time no..

Good information on the amino black, etc. Thanks for posting. And good comments too; I'm very curious about what the cell tower records and the Arvest photos reveal.

[JR2007]

:seeya: Long time no..

Good information on the amino black, etc. Thanks for posting. And good comments too; I'm very curious about what the cell tower records and the Arvest photos reveal.

:seeya: Hey Loretta, glad to see you are still with us. Been on Vacation?
Between you and Merrick we thought we needed to send out the posse.
Better yet grab our mothers and best friend to go check on you
:rolleyes:

[JR2007]

:seeya: Hey Loretta, glad to see you are still with us. Been on Vacation?
Between you and Merrick we thought we needed to send out the posse.
Better yet grab our mothers and best friend to go check on you
:rolleyes:



I know, that was uncalled far. Here's my punishment:punch:

[FDInLaw]

:seeya: Hey Loretta, glad to see you are still with us. Been on Vacation?
Between you and Merrick we thought we needed to send out the posse.
Better yet grab our mothers and best friend to go check on you
:rolleyes:

Speaking of Merrick. . . she sent me a PM a few days ago. Guess she has been out of town without much computer access. She should be back today though.

Should we flood her mailbox so that she'll remember to check in with us here?
:D

Also, JR, I thought your not so subtle declaration of gender yesterday was hilarious. . . you so funny!

[optimumprimal78]

So I guess nothing is really going on right now. Has there been anything new on Nona's case or the rape case/lawsuit?

[FDInLaw]

So I guess nothing is really going on right now. Has there been anything new on Nona's case or the rape case/lawsuit?

How ya doing, OP? :seeya:

Everything has been quiet as far as I know.

[optimumprimal78]

Everything is going good on this end. Just trying to figure out how to get a break from this work thing.

How's everything on your end?

[FDInLaw]

Everything is going good on this end. Just trying to figure out how to get a break from this work thing.

How's everything on your end?

Doing good here I guess. When nothing is going on here I usually hang out on the Court TV forum. . . lot's of fun threads there. If you need a distraction, come join the fun!

:seeya:

[JR2007]

Doing good here I guess. When nothing is going on here I usually hang out on the Court TV forum. . . lot's of fun threads there. If you need a distraction, come join the fun!

:seeya:

When nothing is happening here I like to go back over old post and reread various links about this murder. It's surprises me how much more I get out of rereading articles and post. For a long time I was confused about the bloody prints on the lamp. Was it a palm print or a finger print? Some post would mention that it was a palm print on the base others stating a palm print on the bulb. I just reread Gibbons arrest statement where he said they were both on the lamp parts, although he didn't say which was where, he did state that one was on the base and the other was on the bulb, and that they were latent prints, not seen with the eye. Making it less likely for it to be accidentally touched, in my opinion.

[FDInLaw]

When nothing is happening here I like to go back over old post and reread various links about this murder. It's surprises me how much more I get out of rereading articles and post. For a long time I was confused about the bloody prints on the lamp. Was it a palm print or a finger print? Some post would mention that it was a palm print on the base others stating a palm print on the bulb. I just reread Gibbons arrest statement where he said they were both on the lamp parts, although he didn't say which was where, he did state that one was on the base and the other was on the bulb, and that they were latent prints, not seen with the eye. Making it less likely for it to be accidentally touched, in my opinion.


Here's the quote (and link):

"Bloody palm and fingerprints were found on the base and light bulb of the lamp authorities believe was the murder weapon. According to a released probable cause statement, the prints matched that of KEVIN JONES.
When asked, Gibbons declined comment on when police were notified of the latent print results, but said, "A lot of things came together at the end (of the investigation) that caused us to be completely satisfied with filing charges."


http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=10804&Search=kevin%20jones


Hi JR! :seeya:

[JR2007]

Here's the quote (and link):

"Bloody palm and fingerprints were found on the base and light bulb of the lamp authorities believe was the murder weapon. According to a released probable cause statement, the prints matched that of KEVIN JONES.
When asked, Gibbons declined comment on when police were notified of the latent print results, but said, "A lot of things came together at the end (of the investigation) that caused us to be completely satisfied with filing charges."


http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=10804&Search=kevin%20jones

Hi JR! :seeya:


That was the link I had reread, yesterday. Notice that the prints were Latent prints. I was just wondering if these were the prints they used the amido black on. Finding the prints in 2 places and in blood will be hard for the defense to explain away.
Defense: "Oh yes ladies and gentlemen of the jury, KJ possibly touched the lamp upon discovery of her body, and in his state of confusion probably moved the lamp out of the way, and didn't recall touching it.
He was too busy trying to determine how fresh her blood was, laying there in a pool under her."

I'm guessing that the prosecutor and the FBI lab will be using the drying time of blood and other facts to prove that the prints could only have been left there at the time of the murder, not hours later as the defense will try to have the jury believe.

Hello FD. Not much going on here:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

That was the link I had reread, yesterday. Notice that the prints were Latent prints. I was just wondering if these were the prints they used the amido black on. Finding the prints in 2 places and in blood will be hard for the defense to explain away.
Defense: "Oh yes ladies and gentlemen of the jury, KJ possibly touched the lamp upon discovery of her body, and in his state of confusion probably moved the lamp out of the way, and didn't recall touching it.
He was too busy trying to determine how fresh her blood was, laying there in a pool under her."

I'm guessing that the prosecutor and the FBI lab will be using the drying time of blood and other facts to prove that the prints could only have been left there at the time of the murder, not hours later as the defense will try to have the jury believe.

Hello FD. Not much going on here:seeya:

Yep, it's sure going to be fun to see how the defense tries to explain away both prints. . . "Kevin Jones, on discovering the body inadvertently touched the bulb AND the base" . . . it almost makes me giggle. I don't know the type of lamp that was used or the placement it was found in, but it is possible that the pieces were found a foot or more apart. Sure wish I knew the actual placement!

ITA with you JR, the only way the defense is going to wiggle out of this one is to raise question about the process and findings, which is precisely what they are attempting.

[FKfanMoe]

I would think that if there was blood present on a smooth hard surface that you could wipe the prints off, if you did it immediately, but being blood it tends to dry where other prints leave an oily residue that I assume wipes off easily or at least smears easily. If the blood did slightly dry then this method would detect the prints even if they were wiped slightly. As long as there is some blood hemoglobin present it can be detected. If it is a somewhat porous surface where the blood prints were it would probably take a chemical to get rid of them, cause just wiping wouldn't work. AMO
I'm no expert just what I read about the other day and common sense.
spoken like a true He. HE HE HE

Assuming that the lamp was porous, maybe the blood would seep into the pores so that simply wiping them off would not eliminate them. I am no expert n this, just trying some common sense and a little of my true crime readings. BTW.

If there was an actual print that could be identified, wouldn't it be clear enough to see the ridges and whorles for idenity comparison? Since in this case it was a latent, apparently blood tranfer print, it HAD to have been put there soon after the actual event when Nona's blood was still moist enough for transfer. Unless OC the accused could claim he had a nosebleed and touched the lamp at some earleir date and Nona didn't see it to clean it up.

As for the defense, I have no doubt his lawyers will bring up Nona's troubled past, including the claim she cut herself repeatedly. However if they try that line to could how she was murdered, it may backfire on them. If Nona looked like a goth or something ( no offense meant to the Goths, but you know what I mean) instead of a young beauty, a jury might accept such lame excuses. Juries are made of people, with biases and prejudices.

Okay I hope THIS time I am not being misunderstood. I have had people of certian groups that HAVE been misunderstood been victims of prejudice. Jurors in a trial are no exception to being prejudiced and holding misconceptions.:rose:

[FKfanMoe]

If the above is all true, it seems that blood is necessary for it to show up. I guess regular prints (not in blood) would not show up with this particular chemical?


From what I understand regular prints come from oil secretions on the hand, except for non-secretors. Also there are prints made by transfer, such as contact on a dusty surface or when the surface or the hand is contaminated by something. You know, like Cheeto fingers .:D

From what it sounds like, this test is specifically for blood-related prints. One possible defense angle is if the test disturbs the blood residue, did the police take a sample for DNA testing before or after the test.

The two methods of kiilling Nona still make me suspect two people were involved. However I do see the possibility of one perpetrator using two different attack methods to make sure she was dead. As far as we know, Nona was a "low risk" type victim, so her murderer could very likely be an acquantance. I haven't seen stories of other murders in the Russellville area, so I doubt a serial killer is lurking around. Witnesses of the apartment area at the time of the murder could add to who might have actually killed her.

[FKfanMoe]

These are great questions and definitely worth exploring. I wish I had the answers.

1. I don't know if CH has specific knowledge that K.Jo couldn't have possibly been there when the crime was committed or anything else that could exonerate him. That entry was made way before the gag order, so if she was saying how stupid it is to think he is guilty, you would think she would say, "I know in my heart he didn't do it, plus we were at so-and-so's house, eating at x restaurant, etc. while the crime took place." After reading the whole entry again, it seems like her reasoning is based primarily on how distraught K.Jo seemed in the following days. If she has given any statements that might prove his innocence, I haven't seen anything about it, and they likely wouldn't be verifiable since he was actually charged.

2. I have no idea on this one. My only guess is that CH was understandably upset and emotional at the time. She seemed to be distraught over the loss of her friend, the investigation, and the fact that poor mourning K.Jo was arousing suspicion. The way I read it was that maybe they (including Nona) were all friends together and she just wanted everyone else to leave them alone?

If he IS guilty:
My personal opinion is that if K.Jo was crying his eyes out on the floor, needing to be held, etc., it was because he felt sorry for himself. IMO he thought he was slick to steal some gimmicky coverup from one of his Law & Order type shows. But the criminals on those shows he watched always get caught in the end, and he had to know it was just a matter of time before he'd be rockin' the orange jumpsuit.

The Xanga site was shut down so I didn't see the source quote from CH herself, but the excerpt gave me a good clue. Bear in mind that friends and family of the accused usually do not want to admit that the accused is a murderer. Scott Peterson's family for the most part denied he murdered Laci. So naturally CH would do whatever she could in her young immature mind to defend KJ. Many times those close to the accused can't handle that the person they thought they knew could do such horrible things. Even Anne Rule, noted true crime writer, who worked beside Ted Bundy in a rape crisis hotline, had a hard time reconciling what she saw with the facts of what Bundy did. So I can see how CH could be so emotionally defensive.

I do agree, though that KJ's crying and misery is because of his own guilt over what he did. I think he and Nona had an argument that went out of hand and in a rage he killed her. Whatever little conscience this guy has ( which IMO is not much) is drowned out over anxiety of getting caught for what he did. If he HAD a conscience he would have accepted a plea bargain and admitted his guilt. I do think judging by the closed door friend " rapes" female who was on drugs allegation that KJ has no conscience.

[FDInLaw]

Take a little time away and you sure do miss a lot!! I've got some catching up to do but I will say it's good to be back (for the next couple of days, anyway.).

It's MERRICK! I was starting to have abandonment issues. :o

Welcome back!

:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

>SNIP<

The two methods of kiilling Nona still make me suspect two people were involved. However I do see the possibility of one perpetrator using two different attack methods to make sure she was dead. As far as we know, Nona was a "low risk" type victim, so her murderer could very likely be an acquantance. I haven't seen stories of other murders in the Russellville area, so I doubt a serial killer is lurking around. Witnesses of the apartment area at the time of the murder could add to who might have actually killed her.


The two methods of killing? Could you explain your thoughts here more?

:seeya:

[lorettalockhorn]

:seeya: Hey Loretta, glad to see you are still with us. Been on Vacation?
Between you and Merrick we thought we needed to send out the posse.
Better yet grab our mothers and best friend to go check on you
:rolleyes:

LMAO I rarely leave home, but my Leroy is going out of town tomorrow; that's as good as a vacation in my book! :beer:

[lorettalockhorn]

From what I understand regular prints come from oil secretions on the hand, except for non-secretors. Also there are prints made by transfer, such as contact on a dusty surface or when the surface or the hand is contaminated by something. You know, like Cheeto fingers .:D

From what it sounds like, this test is specifically for blood-related prints. One possible defense angle is if the test disturbs the blood residue, did the police take a sample for DNA testing before or after the test.

The two methods of kiilling Nona still make me suspect two people were involved. However I do see the possibility of one perpetrator using two different attack methods to make sure she was dead. As far as we know, Nona was a "low risk" type victim, so her murderer could very likely be an acquantance. I haven't seen stories of other murders in the Russellville area, so I doubt a serial killer is lurking around. Witnesses of the apartment area at the time of the murder could add to who might have actually killed her.

By two methods, are you referring to the fact that she was stabbed/cut as well as bludgeoned? I've thought about that and it occurred to me that maybe after she was attacked with the knife and the killer realized what he had done, he bashed her out of rage for his own act, (POed at what she had caused him to do.) That fits the mental image that I have of KJ crying over her body; not from grief but from selfishness and knowing that this incident will put his perfect life on hold.

Don't know if y'all saw that last week, The Atkins Chronicle had an article about Ryan Whiteside lawsuit against The Courier. It was basically a recap of what was printed and outlined the reasoning behind the suit including that it wasn't made clear that these were allegations. (I would have sworn that forms of the word "allege" were all over those articles.)

[FDInLaw]

because i'm feeling
really persnickety...
lets do the math shall we...
story #1 on alleged rape...
total number of sentences ... 26
number of sentences describing
what was supposed to have happened
during the alleged rape...10
number of times "alleged" is used...8
number of times "allegedly" is used...6
number of times some form of
"according to... (report, statement, police, etc.)...11
that means in those 10 sentences
some form of the above or combination
was used every time...
if its not clear the story
was talking about allegations...
and sourcing exclusively
from the police report
or complainant's statement...
then people need to go
back to elementary school...
This is a classic post IMO. . . I don't understand how anyone could read what the Courier published and miss that what was reported was just allegations. I hope the judge laughs them out of the court room. :rolleyes:

[optimumprimal78]

Don't know if y'all saw that last week, The Atkins Chronicle had an article about Ryan Whiteside lawsuit against The Courier. It was basically a recap of what was printed and outlined the reasoning behind the suit including that it wasn't made clear that these were allegations. (I would have sworn that forms of the word "allege" were all over those articles.)

Here is the article from the online edition if no one has read it:

Libel suit in 'alleged rape' story answered by newspaper

The Courier in Russellville has filed an answer to a suit charging it with libel in stories about an alleged rape. The reply, in Pope County Circuit Court, denies most of the allegations in the libel suit and asks that the claims be dismissed with prejudice. The reply also claims that the reports in the stories are covered by the fair report privilege and that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 2, Section 6 of the Arkansas Constitution. The libel suit, by Ryan Whiteside of Russellville, claims he was libeled by two stories about an incident at his residence Dec. 28, 2006. The stories were a Jan. 11 article headed "Arkansas State Police looks into alleged rape," and another article on Jan. 15 reporting that the prosecuting attorney had decided not to file charges but repeating all the names and details of the previous article. Among the claims in the original suit that are denied in the reply are: * the article "is libelous because it is false and tends to be reasonably calculated to cause harm to the plaintiff's reputation;" * the plaintiff is a "private individual" as that term is defined under Arkansas law of defamation; * that the defendants "failed to meet journalistic standards" including "(a.) publishing the story before the police had completed their preliminary investigation; (b.) publishing a police report that had been marked 'no press;' (c.) publishing the story before charges had been filed; (d.) failing to interview the source of the hearsay in the Report; (e.) failing to contact the Plaintiff for a statement; (f.) reporting statements as facts without clearly identifying them as allegations and twisting facts to imply greater involvement and culpability of Plaintiff in the alleged criminal activity." In addition to The Courier (Russellville Newspapers, Inc.), the libel suit names the corporate owner, Paxton Media Group, Neal Ronquist, publisher; Janie Ginocchio, the reporter and Scott Perkins, editor of The Courier. The reply was filed Feb. 20 by Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull and Burrow, PLLC of Little Rock. It was responding to the original suit, filed Feb. 5 by H. Clay Moore of Houston, Texas, and R. David Lewis of Little Rock.

[optimumprimal78]

I was thinking about the "Private Individual" comment in the article. Since he is in the public eye due to being involved with the murder case and the rape case, wouldn't he fall into one of these two categories (exerpt from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Figure):

"A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of unwanted publicity. A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, jokes about Terry Rakolta, an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children, are fair comments within the confines of her public conduct and are protected because she was a "limited public figure."

If this is the case then the argument about being a "private individual" is a moot point and anyone involved with either case could theoretically become a "public individual". Just my opinion.

[FDInLaw]

I was thinking about the "Private Individual" comment in the article. Since he is in the public eye due to being involved with the murder case and the rape case, wouldn't he fall into one of these two categories (exerpt from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Figure):

"A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of unwanted publicity. A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, jokes about Terry Rakolta, an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children, are fair comments within the confines of her public conduct and are protected because she was a "limited public figure."

If this is the case then the argument about being a "private individual" is a moot point and anyone involved with either case could theoretically become a "public individual". Just my opinion.

Excellent point IMO.

:beer:

[optimumprimal78]

I hate being the only one posting right now but since no one else has I did what was suggested and went back through some of the stuff.

Another question on my mind: Has there been a release of the 911 audio? I know there is a partial transcript HERE (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=7419991&postcount=24) but it doesn't include the time up until the ambulance gets there.

Also, I understand that KJ's mom would be hysterical but why would her thoughts be to include the statement that "This is the first time I’ve been here" and then getting the "boys" to go get the address? Shouldn't the caller to 911 be the one who is the calmest person at the scene and also the one who does all of the talking to 911? By giving the phone to her son or RW that could have allowed for misinformation to be given (of course I think that might fall on the 911 dispatcher).

Again sorry for all the posts just some random stuff I was thinking about.

[FDInLaw]

I hate being the only one posting right now but since no one else has I did what was suggested and went back through some of the stuff.

Another question on my mind: Has there been a release of the 911 audio? I know there is a partial transcript HERE (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=7419991&postcount=24) but it doesn't include the time up until the ambulance gets there.

Also, I understand that KJ's mom would be hysterical but why would her thoughts be to include the statement that "This is the first time I’ve been here" and then getting the "boys" to go get the address? Shouldn't the caller to 911 be the one who is the calmest person at the scene and also the one who does all of the talking to 911? By giving the phone to her son or RW that could have allowed for misinformation to be given (of course I think that might fall on the 911 dispatcher).

Again sorry for all the posts just some random stuff I was thinking about.Don't apologize. . . this case has hit a quiet spell and there is a lot to dig through. To my knowledge the complete audio has not been released. I believe I read somewhere that Janis Jones chatted with the 911 operator for the final duration of the call.

[FDInLaw]

This is interesting. . . I don't see the 911 call transcript listed as evidence to be called by the Prosecution (am I missing it?).

[optimumprimal78]

It is not in the Response for Motion and I don't really remember seeing it in anything else.

[JR2007]

This is interesting. . . I don't see the 911 call transcript listed as evidence to be called by the Prosecution (am I missing it?).

Hey FD:seeya:
I thought I remembered seeing it somewhere, but I just went through my hard copies of all the motions and evidence list that I've copied and didn't find mention of it.
Boy, things have been slow on here. I guess we've got to wait for the trial for new things to talk about, but if you are like me with this pretty weather, I've been very busy outside and also at work we've been busy too.
Excuses, excuses. :punch:

[FDInLaw]

Hey FD:seeya:
I thought I remembered seeing it somewhere, but I just went through my hard copies of all the motions and evidence list that I've copied and didn't find mention of it.
Boy, things have been slow on here. I guess we've got to wait for the trial for new things to talk about, but if you are like me with this pretty weather, I've been very busy outside and also at work we've been busy too.
Excuses, excuses. :punch:

Hey There! :seeya:

It's been quiet and that's actually a good thing. . . it's easier to openly discuss points of the case when there is no one intentionally creating drama. JMO

[FDInLaw]

This is a little off topic. . . it was on the news this morning that that family of Bobbie Jo Burton has filled a lawsuit. Does anyone know more? It should be in one of the local papers down there.

[hawgustusgloop]

This is a little off topic. . . it was on the news this morning that that family of Bobbie Jo Burton has filled a lawsuit. Does anyone know more? It should be in one of the local papers down there.

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6300962

[FDInLaw]

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6300962

Thanks for the link! :seeya:

I'm not sure what I think of the lawsuit, but I'm sure sad for the family. . .

For Bobbie Jo and her loved ones ~ :rose:

[JR2007]

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6300962


The Courier in Russellville ran a similar story. I don't believe the TV station is at fault, unless they knew of some medical reason he should not be driving or driving against doctors orders, and they pushed or told him to go anyway. It says Eells was planning to retire this year, maybe they will use that against the station, saying they should have retired him years ago. That won't work either, then they'd have to make it unlawful for all 70 year olds to drive. I believe it will have to be handled just like any other accident where the insurance company handles it.

[Amy]

I agree. Especially if the man has a good driving record (don't know that to be a fact or not, didn't read anything about it one way or the other.) The only way the station could be responsible (IMO) is if he had a lot of accidents under his belt and they let him drive anyway. Or, maybe if the car malfunctioning was the cause of the accident, but there would have to be proof that the station knew the car was unsafe (and I don't think the fellow would have been driving THAT car if the/they knew it was unsafe--he would have insisted on driving another vehicle. (IMO.)

[woopig_sooie]

My father was killed in a car wreck. It was the other drivers fault, and so his insurance paid for most of the hospital and funeral costs, but not all of it. We had to sue the individual to recoup the rest.
I imagine this to be the case here. I don't see any other reason for this lawsuit. It's the same way with tractor trailer accidents, right? You sue the driver and the company the driver worked for. :shrug:

[hawgustusgloop]

My father was killed in a car wreck. It was the other drivers fault, and so his insurance paid for most of the hospital and funeral costs, but not all of it. We had to sue the individual to recoup the rest.
I imagine this to be the case here. I don't see any other reason for this lawsuit. It's the same way with tractor trailer accidents, right? You sue the driver and the company the driver worked for. :shrug:

I am glad to see you posting here again. I am sorry for what happened to your father, and you make a great point. I kind of wondered if Ms. Burton's family had to choose between suing Paul Eells's family and suing the TV station, and chose the station.

[FDInLaw]

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

Why is Kevin hanging out with a bunch of high school kids? :shrug:

[FDInLaw]

At least it was something on a good, positve note.:rolleyes:

You're right, the last time his name appeared in print it wasn't very positive. . . I guess I'm having a hard time buying the "church boy" image in light of everything.

Bad, FD! :punch:


It's nice to see you see you again, susieQ!


:seeya:

[hawgustusgloop]

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

Why is Kevin hanging out with a bunch of high school kids? :shrug:

Honestly I'm more shocked to see him being a part of a normal church activity. Can you say AWKWARD????? This guy is going to be tried for murder in 3 months. Dover is a small town.

I guess it's a lot better than hanging out with high schoolers after hours at the Whiteside's house.

[hawgustusgloop]

I know that I have read in some of the articles that early on in the case all suspects but one passed the lie detector tests. Does it say anywhere definitely that the one who failed was Kevin Jones? I don't think I've read that anywhere. I think there were only implications, but ultimately, I believe this was left unanswered. Does anyone know?

I personally don't recall it being specifically stated that Kevin Jones failed a lie detector test. I believe the investigators once said that one suspect failed, but they didn't say who.

[hawgustusgloop]

What does everyone think about the possibilities of someone else having failed?

I think if someone actually failed, and it wasn't just some invesigative tactic to say so, that is was probably K.Jo.

[hawgustusgloop]

Ya know, he's not that much older than they are, and they are probably area kids he has known practically his whole life. Most of them are likely friends who don't see him as being guilty as do you.

He is way out of high school now, though. He is now what? 20? 21? I don't believe for a second they all are friends with him and believe he is innocent. A lot of them probably knew Nona, too.

I wouldn't be surprised if his participation was some attempt to get Kevin some positive publicity for once.