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

[neutattoo]

Hello forum members. Brand new to the forum here! Am following the Nona case because I live in Russellville. I don't have much to add to the discussion because I didn't know any of the people involved. I was a student at the college at the same time as Nona, but I never got the chance to meet her. She seemed like a wonderful person. My heart goes out to Nona's parents and to Kevin's parents. I have 3 daughters and couldn't imagine having to go threw any of this myself.
As far as I am concerned, with the evidence that has been public knowledge, I feel that the Pr. Att. has got the right person. I feel Kevin did this based on his actions and that his alibi doesn't hold up to what others have stated. Namely the fact that he says he went to work at noon and the other person claims it was 1pm.
I was wondering, he says it was noon, could it be possible that he did get there at noon and this other person just didn't come to the store until 1pm? Or was this person working there at noon and would know for a fact that Kevin didn't get there until 1pm??
Well anyway, I have learned a lot from reading this thread about this case. Glad to see so many folks from the area on here supporting this dreadful deed and hopefully some day the parents can have a little peace in their minds from all this. I don't know how, but hopefully they can find it.
Peace be with you all.
Thomas

[JR2007]

Hello forum members. Brand new to the forum here! Am following the Nona case because I live in Russellville. I don't have much to add to the discussion because I didn't know any of the people involved. I was a student at the college at the same time as Nona, but I never got the chance to meet her. She seemed like a wonderful person. My heart goes out to Nona's parents and to Kevin's parents. I have 3 daughters and couldn't imagine having to go threw any of this myself.
As far as I am concerned, with the evidence that has been public knowledge, I feel that the Pr. Att. has got the right person. I feel Kevin did this based on his actions and that his alibi doesn't hold up to what others have stated. Namely the fact that he says he went to work at noon and the other person claims it was 1pm.
I was wondering, he says it was noon, could it be possible that he did get there at noon and this other person just didn't come to the store until 1pm? Or was this person working there at noon and would know for a fact that Kevin didn't get there until 1pm??
Well anyway, I have learned a lot from reading this thread about this case. Glad to see so many folks from the area on here supporting this dreadful deed and hopefully some day the parents can have a little peace in their minds from all this. I don't know how, but hopefully they can find it.
Peace be with you all.
Thomas

Hello, and welcome to the board:seeya:

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm patiently(ha ha) wainting for the trial to begin.I formed my opinion after reading everything I could find, and I agree with the prosecution, they have the right man.....
jmhho

Only two weeks until the motions should be heard; it's been so long that the killer has enjoyed his freedom, I'm hoping that no more delays will be necessary.

Hey to Our Newbies! :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Hello forum members. Brand new to the forum here! Am following the Nona case because I live in Russellville. I don't have much to add to the discussion because I didn't know any of the people involved. I was a student at the college at the same time as Nona, but I never got the chance to meet her. She seemed like a wonderful person. My heart goes out to Nona's parents and to Kevin's parents. I have 3 daughters and couldn't imagine having to go threw any of this myself.
As far as I am concerned, with the evidence that has been public knowledge, I feel that the Pr. Att. has got the right person. I feel Kevin did this based on his actions and that his alibi doesn't hold up to what others have stated. Namely the fact that he says he went to work at noon and the other person claims it was 1pm.
I was wondering, he says it was noon, could it be possible that he did get there at noon and this other person just didn't come to the store until 1pm? Or was this person working there at noon and would know for a fact that Kevin didn't get there until 1pm??
Well anyway, I have learned a lot from reading this thread about this case. Glad to see so many folks from the area on here supporting this dreadful deed and hopefully some day the parents can have a little peace in their minds from all this. I don't know how, but hopefully they can find it.
Peace be with you all.
ThomasWELCOME! :seeya:

[Mishell1383]

Hello forum members. Brand new to the forum here! Am following the Nona case because I live in Russellville. I don't have much to add to the discussion because I didn't know any of the people involved. I was a student at the college at the same time as Nona, but I never got the chance to meet her. She seemed like a wonderful person. My heart goes out to Nona's parents and to Kevin's parents. I have 3 daughters and couldn't imagine having to go threw any of this myself.
As far as I am concerned, with the evidence that has been public knowledge, I feel that the Pr. Att. has got the right person. I feel Kevin did this based on his actions and that his alibi doesn't hold up to what others have stated. Namely the fact that he says he went to work at noon and the other person claims it was 1pm.
I was wondering, he says it was noon, could it be possible that he did get there at noon and this other person just didn't come to the store until 1pm? Or was this person working there at noon and would know for a fact that Kevin didn't get there until 1pm??
Well anyway, I have learned a lot from reading this thread about this case. Glad to see so many folks from the area on here supporting this dreadful deed and hopefully some day the parents can have a little peace in their minds from all this. I don't know how, but hopefully they can find it.
Peace be with you all.
Thomas
:seeya: Welcome Thomas ! Glad to have you join us ! JUSTICE FOR NONA ! :rose:

[hawgustusgloop]

I agree that the time discrepancies are very important in this case. The issue of when Kevin arrived at work seems to be pretty important. IMO, there is probably some documentation (time card, etc.) to back up the fact that the employee was there.

Another very important discrepancy occurred with the time K.Jo first tried to contact Nona that day. IIRC, he said he first tried to call her around 11:00 or noon, but the first call from him on her phone records was after 2:00. I could easily understand if he was not sure of the exact time, but IMO he would know where he was when he made the call, and should have known if he tried to call her before he went in to work, while at work, or after he left.

I am sure that I have just missed it, but can someone help me out and tell me approximately when K.Jo supposedly left that day? We know he either got there around noon or 1:00, depending on whom you believe, but when did he leave?

[neutattoo]

Thank you all for the welcomes.

[FDInLaw]

Thank you all for the welcomes.
So, when ya gonna start carrying a "Justice For Nona" t-shirt? ;)

[neutattoo]

So, when ya gonna start carrying a "Justice For Nona" t-shirt? ;)
I would make one, but I just wouldn't feel right making any money from it. If anyone wants one, I will make one and offer it at my base price.
Thomas

[FDInLaw]

I would make one, but I just wouldn't feel right making any money from it. If anyone wants one, I will make one and offer it at my base price.
Thomas
That would be super cool! :)

[neutattoo]

Is it ok to post a link to the design here? I am not making a profit from it. What other ways can I make sure I don't get in any trouble? Does any one think it is a good idea to raise money for some charity regarding this case with a design? Im not sure about all this, someone give me suggestions here!

[lorettalockhorn]

I agree that the time discrepancies are very important in this case. The issue of when Kevin arrived at work seems to be pretty important. IMO, there is probably some documentation (time card, etc.) to back up the fact that the employee was there.

Another very important discrepancy occurred with the time K.Jo first tried to contact Nona that day. IIRC, he said he first tried to call her around 11:00 or noon, but the first call from him on her phone records was after 2:00. I could easily understand if he was not sure of the exact time, but IMO he would know where he was when he made the call, and should have known if he tried to call her before he went in to work, while at work, or after he left.

I am sure that I have just missed it, but can someone help me out and tell me approximately when K.Jo supposedly left that day? We know he either got there around noon or 1:00, depending on whom you believe, but when did he leave?

I agree with Angel that it would seem like KJ would remember where he was when he made those phone calls. I'm assuming that if they were made from the cell, that his location will be pinned down by triangulation.

Hawg, I don't remember reading anywhere what time Kevin left work to meet his mother for the party in Dardanelle, but it would take twenty to thirty minutes to drive there from Dover, maybe? I believe that the probable cause statement indicates that at 6pm, the Joneses were driving to D'nelle and at 6:30 Nona's body was discovered.

[FDInLaw]

That is a very nice idea! :seeya: How about a Nona scholarship?
Nona's scholarship is what came to my mind too. Also, Nona helped with Big Brothers & Big Sisters I think. . . I can ask. Great idea! Please do post the link, or if your not sure send it via private message.

[neutattoo]

http://www.cafepress.com/wilder_side/3059430 Ok I don't mind posting the link. I just want to state again that I am making no profit from this. I also didn't take to much time making the design. I think I will try to take a little more time and make a better design tomorrow. I had to work all day today!
I would like to state again that I don't know any of the people in this case. I don't know is Kevin is guilty or innocent. That is for the courts to determine. I wish all the best to both sets of parents.
My only interest in this case, is that it just seems tragic for such a young beautiful talented person to have left the world the way she did. I'm sure she had a lot to offer the world.
If anyone gets offended by the idea of having t-shirts or other gift things with any of this about Nona on them, please say so and I will take them down. If everyone is alright with it, I could make more.
Thomas

[FDInLaw]

Is there already a scholarship fund open?Nona Dirksmeyer Scholarship Fund :
Arkansas Tech Foundation, P.O. Box 8820, ATU Russellville, Ar. 72801 Attn: Nona Scholarship

[FDInLaw]

http://www.cafepress.com/wilder_side/3059430 Ok I don't mind posting the link. I just want to state again that I am making no profit from this. I also didn't take to much time making the design. I think I will try to take a little more time and make a better design tomorrow. I had to work all day today!
I would like to state again that I don't know any of the people in this case. I don't know is Kevin is guilty or innocent. That is for the courts to determine. I wish all the best to both sets of parents.
My only interest in this case, is that it just seems tragic for such a young beautiful talented person to have left the world the way she did. I'm sure she had a lot to offer the world.
If anyone gets offended by the idea of having t-shirts or other gift things with any of this about Nona on them, please say so and I will take them down. If everyone is alright with it, I could make more.
Thomas Please check your private messages. :seeya:

[Mishell1383]

http://www.cafepress.com/wilder_side/3059430 Ok I don't mind posting the link. I just want to state again that I am making no profit from this. I also didn't take to much time making the design. I think I will try to take a little more time and make a better design tomorrow. I had to work all day today!
I would like to state again that I don't know any of the people in this case. I don't know is Kevin is guilty or innocent. That is for the courts to determine. I wish all the best to both sets of parents.
My only interest in this case, is that it just seems tragic for such a young beautiful talented person to have left the world the way she did. I'm sure she had a lot to offer the world.
If anyone gets offended by the idea of having t-shirts or other gift things with any of this about Nona on them, please say so and I will take them down. If everyone is alright with it, I could make more.
Thomas
OH MY GOODNESS! I love the little doggy shirt one !!! Nice work Thomas!

[FDInLaw]

OH MY GOODNESS! I love the little doggy shirt one !!! Nice work Thomas! It might be just enough to make you want to change your avatar a tad. :)

[Mishell1383]

It might be just enough to make you want to change your avatar a tad. :)
Are there any for big doggies!?

[neutattoo]

There is a sizing chart for most of the clothing products. Click on the view larger link under the product image. Dog sizes go up to 2x which says up to 80lbs of doggy!
I will answer any more questions by private message please. That way the discussion on the boards would be related to the case!

[Mishell1383]

There is a sizing chart for most of the clothing products. Click on the view larger link under the product image. Dog sizes go up to 2x which says up to 80lbs of doggy!
I will answer any more questions by private message please. That way the discussion on the boards would be related to the case!
o sorry !:patriot:

[FDInLaw]

Since our board is for the most part void of any willing to put forth logical arguments on behave of the defendant, Kevin Jones. . . why don't we all take up the task? A sort of devil's advocate thing (no pun intended). IMO this case is not a slam dunk for either side. The upcoming hearing is key, and we will learn a lot then. In the mean time, would anyone like to offer speciation about the defense's best argument for reasonable doubt? If you were on Kevin's defense team, what would your strategy be?

[Mishell1383]

I honestly thought you did think the case was cut and dried for the PA, so I'd be interested to read what your ploy for defense would be.
YES! me too!

[FDInLaw]

I honestly thought you did think the case was cut and dried for the PA, so I'd be interested to read what your ploy for defense would be.

When it comes to opportunity and motive, as far as we can tell the defense does not have much to put on the table in Kevin's defense, so I assume they will try the "well, it could have been __________" approach. There have already been attempts by Kevin supporters to implicate others (even on this very thread) so I won't be surprised if the defense employs this very tactic as well.

The integrity of the evidence is already under attack. . . this is an obvious strategy that they are already engaging in. In June we'll know more about the outcome of this. Also, the foreign DNA found on the condom. . . will this actually identify someone else? To place someone else at the scene would not be good for the PA. However, if Kevin's attorneys had a good case here, one would think that the charges would have been dropped back in December/January. JMO

SusieQ, you lean toward believing Kevin is innocent. What are the issues that cause doubt in your mind?

[optimumprimal78]

I think if they are going to make their case it will be as such:

The lamp/fingerprints: There were many people (friends, family, etc.) in her apartment. Too many fingerprints to single one person out.

The condom: The DNA is not that of KJ but of someone that Nona was intimate with. The condom was left on the counter (it doesn't happen a lot but it does happen) when they thought that KJ was coming over. Wasn't it mentioned that BOTH of the them dated other people and weren't necessarily BF/GF?

The Time Frame: Maybe he was supposed to be there at a certain time but showed up at another. When he was questioned that was the reason for the confusion on the times.

I'm probably missing some stuff but I haven't read the stuff in a while.

[JR2007]

It was a condom wrapper, not a condom that was left behind.
I believe that the testimony of the guy at the station will be questioned by the Defense, if they can challenge his times, where it can put doubt as to when KJ showed up at the station, then it will sway some jurors. I would doubt very seriously if they used a time clock to clock in and out. I'll bet it's as it is at most small places, where you keep your time by hand on a time card or piece of paper.
JMO

[JR2007]

[quote=optimumprimal78;8865532]I think if they are going to make their case it will be as such:

The lamp/fingerprints: There were many people (friends, family, etc.) in her apartment. Too many fingerprints to single one person out.


Opti, I believe that the finger prints and palm prints were both in blood. So anyone else's prints don't matter, even KJ's if they weren't in blood. After all his prints should have been all over the apartment. There is some testimony as to the drying time of blood, which must have something to do with the state the prints were found in. Each side will have their expert witnesses stating differing opinions about the state of the prints found in the blood. I thought I read somewhere that they were Latent prints that were found on the lamp.

[hawgustusgloop]

I think FDInLaw is probably right in that the defense will try to point the finger elsewhere. They could try to mention a specific person and imply that it is possible that person committed the crime instead. Perhaps they might make it seem like Nona was seeing several different people that she may or may not have told her friends and family about, and that one of these mysterious gentlemen is the perpetrator. I think this scenario is especially likely if they don't get an ID for the condom wrapper DNA.

I think the strongest physical evidence is K.Jo's fingerprint in Nona's blood on what is likely the murder weapon. If the defense can somehow get that thrown out at the hearing, their chances of an acquittal are infinitely better. I think it will also be important for them to be able to show what K.Jo was up to that day, if he wasn't at Nona's apartment, and have a good explanation why he was SO concerned about her after not hearing from her for only half a day.

If they could somehow get the phone records thrown out, I think their chances are even better. In the PCS, it says that Nona received a text message that was opened but not responded to at 11:04 a.m., and that they believe she was killed shortly after 11:04. So, that tells us that whatever was in that message would be inflammatory enough for the investigators to believe K.Jo was angry enough over it to murder Nona. If they can get that stuff thrown out (because they didn't get the chance to examine the SIM card), then the jury won't know about that message, the discrepancies on the times K.Jo said he called, or that creepy "U ALIVE" message.

They can bring in witnesses to show how distraught he was over Nona's death, how he has no criminal record, no previous indications of violence, etc.

They can try to show that the police made mistakes in the gathering of evidence, securing the scene, getting information from the SIM card, etc.

IMO the defense should ESPECIALLY focus on the fact that they believe that the police developed "K.Jo Tunnel Vision" very early on in the investigation, suggesting that they focused primarily on K.Jo instead of fully exploring other possible suspects at such a crucial time in the investigation.

I think the upcoming hearing is very important for the defense. If they succeed on both evidentiary motions, I think K.Jo has a decent chance of being acquitted, based only on what I know right now. However, I am guessing their chances are slim on the phone records, and next to nothing on the blood evidence, but I am far from an expert on the subject.

All of the above is my opinion only.

[FDInLaw]

I would think as in most gas stations that there would be a security camera that could verify exact times. Good point!

[FDInLaw]

I think FDInLaw is probably right in that the defense will try to point the finger elsewhere. They could try to mention a specific person and imply that it is possible that person committed the crime instead. Perhaps they might make it seem like Nona was seeing several different people that she may or may not have told her friends and family about, and that one of these mysterious gentlemen is the perpetrator. I think this scenario is especially likely if they don't get an ID for the condom wrapper DNA.

I think the strongest physical evidence is K.Jo's fingerprint in Nona's blood on what is likely the murder weapon. If the defense can somehow get that thrown out at the hearing, their chances of an acquittal are infinitely better. I think it will also be important for them to be able to show what K.Jo was up to that day, if he wasn't at Nona's apartment, and have a good explanation why he was SO concerned about her after not hearing from her for only half a day.

If they could somehow get the phone records thrown out, I think their chances are even better. In the PCS, it says that Nona received a text message that was opened but not responded to at 11:04 a.m., and that they believe she was killed shortly after 11:04. So, that tells us that whatever was in that message would be inflammatory enough for the investigators to believe K.Jo was angry enough over it to murder Nona. If they can get that stuff thrown out (because they didn't get the chance to examine the SIM card), then the jury won't know about that message, the discrepancies on the times K.Jo said he called, or that creepy "U ALIVE" message.

They can bring in witnesses to show how distraught he was over Nona's death, how he has no criminal record, no previous indications of violence, etc.

They can try to show that the police made mistakes in the gathering of evidence, securing the scene, getting information from the SIM card, etc.

IMO the defense should ESPECIALLY focus on the fact that they believe that the police developed "K.Jo Tunnel Vision" very early on in the investigation, suggesting that they focused primarily on K.Jo instead of fully exploring other possible suspects at such a crucial time in the investigation.

I think the upcoming hearing is very important for the defense. If they succeed on both evidentiary motions, I think K.Jo has a decent chance of being acquitted, based only on what I know right now. However, I am guessing their chances are slim on the phone records, and next to nothing on the blood evidence, but I am far from an expert on the subject.

All of the above is my opinion only. Excellent post! :beer:

[FDInLaw]

I think FDInLaw is probably right in that the defense will try to point the finger elsewhere. They could try to mention a specific person and imply that it is possible that person committed the crime instead. Perhaps they might make it seem like Nona was seeing several different people that she may or may not have told her friends and family about, and that one of these mysterious gentlemen is the perpetrator. I think this scenario is especially likely if they don't get an ID for the condom wrapper DNA.

I think the strongest physical evidence is K.Jo's fingerprint in Nona's blood on what is likely the murder weapon. If the defense can somehow get that thrown out at the hearing, their chances of an acquittal are infinitely better. I think it will also be important for them to be able to show what K.Jo was up to that day, if he wasn't at Nona's apartment, and have a good explanation why he was SO concerned about her after not hearing from her for only half a day.

If they could somehow get the phone records thrown out, I think their chances are even better. In the PCS, it says that Nona received a text message that was opened but not responded to at 11:04 a.m., and that they believe she was killed shortly after 11:04. So, that tells us that whatever was in that message would be inflammatory enough for the investigators to believe K.Jo was angry enough over it to murder Nona. If they can get that stuff thrown out (because they didn't get the chance to examine the SIM card), then the jury won't know about that message, the discrepancies on the times K.Jo said he called, or that creepy "U ALIVE" message.

They can bring in witnesses to show how distraught he was over Nona's death, how he has no criminal record, no previous indications of violence, etc.

They can try to show that the police made mistakes in the gathering of evidence, securing the scene, getting information from the SIM card, etc.

IMO the defense should ESPECIALLY focus on the fact that they believe that the police developed "K.Jo Tunnel Vision" very early on in the investigation, suggesting that they focused primarily on K.Jo instead of fully exploring other possible suspects at such a crucial time in the investigation.

I think the upcoming hearing is very important for the defense. If they succeed on both evidentiary motions, I think K.Jo has a decent chance of being acquitted, based only on what I know right now. However, I am guessing their chances are slim on the phone records, and next to nothing on the blood evidence, but I am far from an expert on the subject.

All of the above is my opinion only.Regarding "tunnel vision". . . I'm sure there are some folks that wished the investigation would have just focused on Kevin in the beginning. Weren't there like six initial suspects? I'm sure that week was no picnic for any of them.
JMO

[lorettalockhorn]

I also think that the defense will concentrate on making it seem that there was another perpetrator. If evidence that KJ used the home phone or store phone to call Nona's home phone rather than only her cell phone, that will be introduced. They will present his time card or security tapes if available to impugn the store witness's testimony that he lied about his arrival time for work. They also have the DNA from the condom wrapper to point to another suspect and will dispute that it was a red herring. There is a lot of evidence available for the trial that is not mentioned in the PCS; it's difficult to say where that evidence points.

(Weren't those stooges who were posting early on in this thread certain that the blame could be placed on a particular person other than Kevin?)

I think that the defense stands a good chance of having their motions granted which could be detrimental to the prosecution's case. If so, I hate it that there were such idiotic blunders made in such an important case.

Is anyone going to the courthouse on 6/12?

[hawgustusgloop]

I think that the defense stands a good chance of having their motions granted which could be detrimental to the prosecution's case.


This sentence scares the heck outta me! I am sure the defense has some legal basis for their evidentiary motions, but what makes you think they stand a "good chance" of having them granted? You've been right on target with a lot of things on here in the past, so you are making me nervous!

[lorettalockhorn]

This sentence scares the heck outta me! I am sure the defense has some legal basis for their evidentiary motions, but what makes you think they stand a "good chance" of having them granted? You've been right on target with a lot of things on here in the past, so you are making me nervous!

Hawg, I don't think that the change of venue will make any difference, but I'm assuming that if that the SIM card evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case. And since the defense didn't have in situ access to it; I wonder if the judge will throw it out.

OT: Weren't the blinds taken as evidence? I'm really anxious to know of what importance they are. As well as the computer thing.

[FDInLaw]

This sentence scares the heck outta me! I am sure the defense has some legal basis for their evidentiary motions, but what makes you think they stand a "good chance" of having them granted? You've been right on target with a lot of things on here in the past, so you are making me nervous! Hey Hawg, my personal "feeling" is that the hearing won't go all in the favor of the defense. . . but I really don't know what is going to happen. If the forensic lab in Little Rock made an exact copy of the SIM card let's hope the Judge does not throw it out. The "tacky" blood . . . this word may have a different "technical" meaning than what comes to all of our minds. At this point, we really don't know if the defense has a good argument here or not. There are just too many unknowns to call the hearing one way or the other IMO.

[FDInLaw]

Hawg, I don't think that the change of venue will make any difference, but I'm assuming that if that the SIM card evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case. And since the defense didn't have in situ access to it; I wonder if the judge will throw it out.

OT: Weren't the blinds taken as evidence? I'm really anxious to know of what importance they are. As well as the computer thing.
We need lemoncello to make an appearance. . . he/she is the one that brought up the blinds (if I remember right).

[JR2007]

We need lemoncello to make an appearance. . . he/she is the one that brought up the blinds (if I remember right).

We had discussed this earlier and if I recall correctly there were 3 panels taken into evidence. In my opinion there has to be blood on them. Otherwise if they just had finger prints of KJ's that would prove nothing. His fingerprints could have been everywhere. I'll see if I can find where we theorized on what their importance was back then.
Susie: I find it very strange that KJ asked to go with his mother, if in the past this had never been done or a pattern for never attending any function with his mother had been set. AMO

[JR2007]

But, we don't really know the pattern of doing things with his mom for sure. I don't recall having heard it before, but if that is correct, I could see it as being a little strange, I suppose, under the circumstances.

I'll have to look for the information I have on this. Someone, I thought one of KJ's friends said this was not usual. I'll let you know when I run across it.
:shrug:

[Brainstorm]

We had discussed this earlier and if I recall correctly there were 3 panels taken into evidence. In my opinion there has to be blood on them. Otherwise if they just had finger prints of KJ's that would prove nothing. His fingerprints could have been everywhere. I'll see if I can find where we theorized on what their importance was back then.
Susie: I find it very strange that KJ asked to go with his mother, if in the past this had never been done or a pattern for never attending any function with his mother had been set. AMO

Strange indeed and IIRC he also had a friend go by and check.Seems to me, he knew something and was staging all this.Looks like the day is drawing near,huh?
jmho

[lorettalockhorn]

Strange indeed and IIRC he also had a friend go by and check.Seems to me, he knew something and was staging all this.Looks like the day is drawing near,huh?
jmho


That KJ sent Ryan and then showed up with his Mother in two is exactly why I think that he is the perp. He needed witnesses to his shock and grief. RW told police that he thought it was "weird" for KJ to make the request; wonder if that means that he didn't know Nona. Like maybe KJ had two sets of friends?
With regard to what someone said earlier that maybe Kevin didn't want to bother Nona in person (if they were on the outs), then why was he calling and texting her?
Agree with JR that we would expect his fingerprints to be found at Nona's; it would be odder if they weren't there. That makes the blind panels more significant (to me anyway). I'm also really curious about the photos taken from the bank camera; do they along with the SIM card indicate that KJ wasn't calling from home as he claimed?
I've done some research on smart cards used as trial evidence and have found many references, but so far haven't found any rulings when the original evidence was destroyed. Does anyone here have access to legal sites?

[JR2007]

Strange indeed and IIRC he also had a friend go by and check.Seems to me, he knew something and was staging all this.Looks like the day is drawing near,huh?
jmho

Yes it is, for both the hearing on the Motions 6/12/07 and the trial in July. I don't know if you have been keeping up with the posting about the Sim card evidence and change of venue. If they do not allow the evidence on the Sim card and he gets off because of a technicality, that would be terrible. That would be pulling an OJ on us. If he's innocent that's one thing but if he's guilty and gets of on a tech, I might say a bad word or two.

[Brainstorm]

Yes it is, for both the hearing on the Motions 6/12/07 and the trial in July. I don't know if you have been keeping up with the posting about the Sim card evidence and change of venue. If they do not allow the evidence on the Sim card and he gets off because of a technicality, that would be terrible. That would be pulling an OJ on us. If he's innocent that's one thing but if he's guilty and gets of on a tech, I might say a bad word or two.

I havent been keeping up like I should.So they have changed it already or is this a motion to be brought up on 6-12?
If he gets off, I just have a feeling that something else will happen.He seems to be a careless young man,hanging with the same and nothing but trouble will continue,IMO:flamemad:......... I pray that God will give Nonas family and friends the strength they need to go thru this..and the prosecution team, the guidance and direction they need,also
jmhho

[FDInLaw]

Yes it is, for both the hearing on the Motions 6/12/07 and the trial in July. I don't know if you have been keeping up with the posting about the Sim card evidence and change of venue. If they do not allow the evidence on the Sim card and he gets off because of a technicality, that would be terrible. That would be pulling an OJ on us. If he's innocent that's one thing but if he's guilty and gets of on a tech, I might say a bad word or two.

If it is apparent that Kevin is guilty, yet gets off OJ style, one or two bad words shows some serious restraint! I fully expect to develop a nasty case of tourette's syndrome! :flamemad:

The sad truth is injustice does occur in our court system. I just pray that the one responsible is brought to Justice. God was there the moment Nona slipped into eternity. . . He knows who did this, it's no mystery to Him. I pray that He will intervene and assure that the guilty party is found, tried, and punished. MOO

[JR2007]

I havent been keeping up like I should.So they have changed it already or is this a motion to be brought up on 6-12?
If he gets off, I just have a feeling that something else will happen.He seems to be a careless young man,hanging with the same and nothing but trouble will continue,IMO:flamemad:......... I pray that God will give Nonas family and friends the strength they need to go thru this..and the prosecution team, the guidance and direction they need,also
jmhho

This motion of venue change will be heard on the 12th of this month.

[JR2007]

Hello and a big welcome to BROOKLYN.
If you are reading any of the old post you will find that most of the older links are no longer any good. Never fear though, just by asking I'm sure there is someone hear who can get you the link you are looking for or the information you seek.
Welcome.:)
:seeya:

[JR2007]

I think the prosecution has a good case but there are weaknesses that the defense will most likely prey upon. I don't think this is a slam dunk case for the PA, he's got his work cut out for him. I think the defense's weakest link is Kevin himself. He has not conducted himself like a man looking at life in prison at all. I would bet that his attorney advised him to keep a low profile and to comport himself as a grieving boyfriend who is unjustly accused of killing the woman he loved. IMO, he has not done that and that's the kind of behavior that could sway a jury. JMVHO.[/quote]

I'm hoping, like everyone else, that the prosecution has several items of evidence that we know nothing about, that will prove without a doubt who the Murder is. I would not be satisfied with a conviction that leaves a doubt in folks minds. JMO

[Brainstorm]

Welcome Brooke and thanks for the compliment.I believe YOU will be a valuable asset to this board. Let me introduce you to my good friend FDInLaw and vice versa.FD,Brooke has been a very well read,intelligent and well spoken poster on the Tara forum and Iam glad she has joined in here.I havent been keeping up, but I'm SO READY for this to begin. I have my link for the Russelville paper,but I am looking forward to YOUR opinions and DETAILS(please and Thank you)
just my honest,humble opinion

[FDInLaw]

Welcome Brooke and thanks for the compliment.I believe YOU will be a valuable asset to this board. Let me introduce you to my good friend FDInLaw and vice versa.FD,Brooke has been a very well read,intelligent and well spoken poster on the Tara forum and Iam glad she has joined in here.I havent been keeping up, but I'm SO READY for this to begin. I have my link for the Russelville paper,but I am looking forward to YOUR opinions and DETAILS(please and Thank you)
just my honest,humble opinion Thank you for the introduction! I'm so glad you have invited another experienced poster.

Welcome to Nona's forum, Brooke!
:seeya:

[optimumprimal78]

The thought of KJ getting off made me think this question:

Who else would be on the list of potential assailants and why do you believe they would be on the list?

[FDInLaw]

The thought of KJ getting off made me think this question:

Who else would be on the list of potential assailants and why do you believe they would be on the list?
Great question! If I had reason to suspect someone else, then I wouldn't be so convinced that Kevin is in fact guilty. At this point I don't have another name to throw out here as a possibility. When the trial finally rolls around, I'm sure Kevin's defense team will try to convince us all that it could have been someone else. At that time I will weigh what they have to say. If there was viable evidence for someone else, you would think that Kevin's attorneys could get his charges dropped. Honesty, if Kevin walks I don't believe there will be another arrest. If there is not enough evidence to get Kevin off the hook then there certainly is not enough for an arrest and trial. MOO

[FDInLaw]

Hi optimumprimal78!

IIRC, weren't there five or six other men interviewed by the police early on in this investigation? I can't find the link or post where I read that but if LE seriously considered any one of them, they might start looking at them again. IMO, KJ is the only seriously considered suspect. There are just too many inconsistencies and blaringly obvious issues that can't be overlooked. For instance, the door being locked from the inside, the phone message to Nona, KJ's arrival time at work, there was no forced entry, other than the light there was no sign of a life and death struggle, the condom package and no sign of a condom, the bloody prints, KJ sending his friend over first to look for Nona, KJ conveneintly forgetting his keys, and other things like that when presented together paint a picture of guilt, IMO.
My thoughts exactly! :beer:

[JR2007]

The thought of KJ getting off made me think this question:

Who else would be on the list of potential assailants and why do you believe they would be on the list?

I believe, like the OJ murder trial, there was only one suspect, after all the other suspects were looked at and found to either have an alibi or no evidence against them. Everything boiled down and turned to OJ. He was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't present the case effectively and the Defense pull a lot of garbage that was just Bull $$$$ to anyone with a brain. So because of some technicality he was set free.
All the evidence in Nona's case points to only one person, as far as we know, if KJ is found not guilty I don't believe they will put anyone else on trial, since the evidence doesn't point to anyone else. It's not like the LE would say OH we made a mistake and need to start looking for who really did it. Yeah right. AMO.
:eek:

[optimumprimal78]

I guess with my question I am playing devil's advocate. I think that the first people they would look at would be the people Nona and KJ were around. It has been said that he was dating other people and so was she. Could it have been a former lover? A friend? I wish I was able to get off so I could go to the trial. Does anyone know the minimum amount of time the trial will take?

[optimumprimal78]

I believe, like the OJ murder trial, there was only one suspect, after all the other suspects were looked at and found to either have an alibi or no evidence against them. Everything boiled down and turned to OJ. He was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't present the case effectively and the Defense pull a lot of garbage that was just Bull $$$$ to anyone with a brain. So because of some technicality he was set free.
All the evidence in Nona's case points to only one person, as far as we know, if KJ is found not guilty I don't believe they will put anyone else on trial, since the evidence doesn't point to anyone else. It's not like the LE would say OH we made a mistake and need to start looking for who really did it. Yeah right. AMO.
:eek:


If he is found not guilty, what kind of response do people expect to occur?

[FDInLaw]

I guess with my question I am playing devil's advocate. I think that the first people they would look at would be the people Nona and KJ were around. It has been said that he was dating other people and so was she. Could it have been a former lover? A friend? I wish I was able to get off so I could go to the trial. Does anyone know the minimum amount of time the trial will take?
The trial should take two weeks from what I understand.

[FDInLaw]

Thanks. Why did you change your avatar?
Oh, I get bored and change it now and then. This was my original avatar. As soon as I get some new photos of "Justice for Nona" stickers on cars I'll probably use them. Guess today I'm just in a snoopy mood.

[FDInLaw]

If he is found not guilty, what kind of response do people expect to occur?
Well, for one, the Dover Times will actually do an article! :D






(Bad FD! :punch: )

[JR2007]

Well, for one, the Dover Times will actually do an article! :D



(Bad FD! :punch: )


Here let me do that

BAD FD:punch:

[FDInLaw]

Here let me do that

BAD FD:punch:. . . :tongue:

[FDInLaw]

I know what you mean. My little one (just about 6 months now) loves her Snoopy stuffed animal. I think she just likes gumming his ears. He spends more time in the washer and dryer than anything else in this house.
We have a lot in common. :)

[FDInLaw]

Don't tell me you like to chew on Snoopy's ears, too.:biggrin: Nah, like Snoopy, I'm too cool for that. :)

- - - - - - - -

Casey Crowder. . . For the few of you that follow this case as well, here is a new link. . .

http://www.fox16.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=47359@video.fox16.com#top

[FDInLaw]

Thanks, too cool one!

I'm not familiar with the Casey Crowder case, do you have a link to it? I think it's wonderful when the community comes together to do these types of memorial activities. My husband and I are members of an organization that supports and organizes scholarships for victims of violent crimes and victims of drunk driving accidents here on LI. It's very satisfying work, but very sad, too. JMVHO.
Here's the link for Casey Crowder's thread over on CTV. There has been an arrest and the trial is pending.


http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273531

For Casey. . . :rose:

For Nina. . . :rose:

For Nona. . . :rose:

All taken away from their loved ones at a young age.

[FDInLaw]

What a terrible, terrible waste of a young, beautiful girl's life. I can't imagine what her mother must feel today. Why are these predators allowed to walk the streets? What do we have to do to stop this random, violent hatred? This case really made me angry and very sad. JMVHO.
It is a really sad case. :(

For the girls you mentioned and Roxanne and Renee as well. . . :rose:

Once a case seriously grabs your attention it's hard not to care about the others as well. I often think of Nona and how she was genuinely passionate about her platform, child abuse, and also all that she went through personally. She wanted to take what had happened to her and use it in a positive way to bring awareness. . . I really admire her for that. The least we can do for all these women is to stand by their loved ones and pray for justice (and in some cases a safe return). :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

I believe, like the OJ murder trial, there was only one suspect, after all the other suspects were looked at and found to either have an alibi or no evidence against them. Everything boiled down and turned to OJ. He was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't present the case effectively and the Defense pull a lot of garbage that was just Bull $$$$ to anyone with a brain. So because of some technicality he was set free.
All the evidence in Nona's case points to only one person, as far as we know, if KJ is found not guilty I don't believe they will put anyone else on trial, since the evidence doesn't point to anyone else. It's not like the LE would say OH we made a mistake and need to start looking for who really did it. Yeah right. AMO.
:eek:

I always thought that the problem with the OJ case was that LE tried to frame the guy who DID it, thinking that maybe the jury wouldn't quite understand how he did it. (He also had the best defense attorneys.) I def don't think that's the case here.

[lorettalockhorn]

I guess with my question I am playing devil's advocate. I think that the first people they would look at would be the people Nona and KJ were around. It has been said that he was dating other people and so was she. Could it have been a former lover? A friend? I wish I was able to get off so I could go to the trial. Does anyone know the minimum amount of time the trial will take?

It has been mentioned a couple of times that LE had five or six suspects at the outset. I'll bet LLN (don't ask!) that those suspects gave their DNA right away to compare to the condom wrapper found in the apartment. I can't help but think that the wrapper came out of someone's trash.

Brooklyn (Hey, welcome!) mentioned that the doors were locked from inside. I have always thought that that is why KJ couldn't find his keys; he wanted it to appear that he couldn't have been the one to lock the doors from outside. (Someone please correct me if those doors could be locked without a key.)

[FDInLaw]

It has been mentioned a couple of times that LE had five or six suspects at the outset. I'll bet LLN (don't ask!) that those suspects gave their DNA right away to compare to the condom wrapper found in the apartment. I can't help but think that the wrapper came out of someone's trash.

Brooklyn (Hey, welcome!) mentioned that the doors were locked from inside. I have always thought that that is why KJ couldn't find his keys; he wanted it to appear that he couldn't have been the one to lock the doors from outside. (Someone please correct me if those doors could be locked without a key.)Wasn't it the lab specialist(s) hired by the defense team that found the DNA on the condom wrapper? :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Wasn't it the lab specialist(s) hired by the defense team that found the DNA on the condom wrapper? :shrug:

Unknown to me. At some point, I'll go to the other puter and print out the PCS, evidence list, witnesses, etc. Maybe seeing some of this on paper will make it look different and/or refresh my memory. (I know that sounds crazy, but for instance, I cannot work a Sudoku or XWord puzzle on the puter, but I do them in record time on paper. :shrug: )

[FDInLaw]

Unknown to me. At some point, I'll go to the other puter and print out the PCS, evidence list, witnesses, etc. Maybe seeing some of this on paper will make it look different and/or refresh my memory. (I know that sounds crazy, but for instance, I cannot work a Sudoku or XWord puzzle on the puter, but I do them in record time on paper. :shrug: )
I'm with you, I like to print things out and use a highlighter. :read:

[lorettalockhorn]

It has been mentioned a couple of times that LE had five or six suspects at the outset. I'll bet LLN (don't ask!) that those suspects gave their DNA right away to compare to the condom wrapper found in the apartment. I can't help but think that the wrapper came out of someone's trash.

Brooklyn (Hey, welcome!) mentioned that the doors were locked from inside. I have always thought that that is why KJ couldn't find his keys; he wanted it to appear that he couldn't have been the one to lock the doors from outside. (Someone please correct me if those doors could be locked without a key.)

Oops, my bad. I meant to say that I feel that KJ wanted it to appear that he couldn't have been the one to lock the door from the inside, since he didn't have keys. Sorry for any confusion. I'd still like to know if both the doors required a key to lock up.

[FDInLaw]

Oops, my bad. I meant to say that I feel that KJ wanted it to appear that he couldn't have been the one to lock the door from the inside, since he didn't have keys. Sorry for any confusion. I'd still like to know if both the doors required a key to lock up. One of the doors was a sliding glass door. . . don't these usually latch and lock from the inside? (Can you tell that I don't have one? :o )

[JR2007]

Good morning, FD,

Yes, they do latch and lock from the inside. Some have key locks, but not most. They also have bars to prevent them from being opened. I wonder what happened to the bars from Nona's door. IIRC, it was never located. I believe that KJ took it with him after he killed Nona so that entry to the apartment would be possible without a key. I believe that he planned on having someone else find Nona and that someone else would need to gain access without breaking down any doors. JMVHO.

Brooke

That was somewhat the theory that was discussed earlier somewhere in this thread. I believe that is why the Blind panels are of importance. The killer had to open them just enough to see her body from outside, and at the same time remove and discard the door stop so the door could be jimmied open. If he had the slightest amount of blood on his hands when he touched the blinds then the new finger print method could be used to find them. And the blood has to be on them, no other prints will work. JMO.

[lorettalockhorn]

That was somewhat the theory that was discussed earlier somewhere in this thread. I believe that is why the Blind panels are of importance. The killer had to open them just enough to see her body from outside, and at the same time remove and discard the door stop so the door could be jimmied open. If he had the slightest amount of blood on his hands when he touched the blinds then the new finger print method could be used to find them. And the blood has to be on them, no other prints will work. JMO.

Thanks for refreshing my memory. It makes sense that it was the latch type door, rather than a bolt type, because it is stated in the PCS that KJ showed LE how the door could be bumped open. IMO, the reason that KJ got so "nervous" about not hearing from Nona, is because he went to so miuch trouble staging things so that someone else would discover her body.

[FDInLaw]

Sad news. . . many of us have been wondering why Merrick has not been around much. . . she wrote today with news that her daughter Jackie had passed away. There is a thread for Merrick here:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281969

(Please leave your condolences there. )

Merrick wanted us all to know that she is still following Nona's case and will be keeping an eye on the trial. She is sorely missed and I'm so sorry that this has happened. I hope in time we'll have our Merrick back. :rose:

[Brainstorm]

Good morning, FD,

Yes, they do latch and lock from the inside. Some have key locks, but not most. They also have bars to prevent them from being opened. I wonder what happened to the bars from Nona's door. IIRC, it was never located. I believe that KJ took it with him after he killed Nona so that entry to the apartment would be possible without a key. I believe that he planned on having someone else find Nona and that someone else would need to gain access without breaking down any doors. JMVHO.

Brooke

Thanks for refreshing my memory. It makes sense that it was the latch type door, rather than a bolt type, because it is stated in the PCS that KJ showed LE how the door could be bumped open. IMO, the reason that KJ got so "nervous" about not hearing from Nona, is because he went to so miuch trouble staging things so that someone else would discover her body.

I agree with both points.Brookes,that KJ took the door jam.Since it was missing, I wonder if this could be the murder weapon.(sorry if I'm recalling wrong. I remember reading and talking about the door jam,but I havent re read any posts lately and I admit,my memory is terrible)
and I agree also that KJs' actions,appearing "nervous" was in part because he had staged things,planned things but he may have been honestly nervous as he was sweating whether LE was beliving him,IMO.....seemed like he was giving out too much info about unimportant,(except to himself) details...
about his choice of tv shows,for example, I've always thought tht was a strange thing to offer up. Why?
jmho

[Brainstorm]

Sad news. . . many of us have been wondering why Merrick has not been around much. . . she wrote today with news that her daughter Jackie had passed away. There is a thread for Merrick here:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281969

(Please leave your condolences there. )

Merrick wanted us all to know that she is still following Nona's case and will be keeping an eye on the trial. She is sorely missed and I'm so sorry that this has happened. I hope in time we'll have our Merrick back. :rose:

Thanks for posting this link today and for sharing this tragic news.You are a dear and this will allow any and everyone to send thoughts and prayers to Merrick.Prayers for Merrick,the rest of her family and also to Kelseys' family
for their horror they have had to face today. God be with you all.
jmhho

[sololobo]

Since our board is for the most part void of any willing to put forth logical arguments on behave of the defendant, Kevin Jones. . . why don't we all take up the task? A sort of devil's advocate thing (no pun intended). IMO this case is not a slam dunk for either side. The upcoming hearing is key, and we will learn a lot then. In the mean time, would anyone like to offer speciation about the defense's best argument for reasonable doubt? If you were on Kevin's defense team, what would your strategy be?

I'm sure the defense will bring up neighbors' statements to police about a car they did not recognize parked at her apartment early Thursday afternoon.

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?s=4254754

I assume the killer exited the sliding patio door to avoid being seen leaving from the front door and took the jam stick with him since he couldn't replace it from the outside. This scenario seems more plausible than an attempt by the accused to mislead investigators.

If the finger or palm print of the accused found on the lamp consisted of fresh blood as opposed to tacky blood, it will be slam dunk for the prosecution. Case closed.

There is not much information available with the gag order in effect. I'm sure the prosecution has a good case or they wouldn't have filed charges. But I intend to keep an open mind until more evidence comes to light in the trial. I especially want to hear the motive for the murder. I think I would have used the condom wrapper as a possible motive rather than another attempt by the accused to mislead investigators. (Jones finds condom wrapper which leads to a violent argument resulting in the death of Nona.)

[FDInLaw]

I'm sure the defense will bring up neighbors' statements to police about a car they did not recognize parked at her apartment early Thursday afternoon.

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?s=4254754

I assume the killer exited the sliding patio door to avoid being seen leaving from the front door and took the jam stick with him since he couldn't replace it from the outside. This scenario seems more plausible than an attempt by the accused to mislead investigators.

If the finger or palm print of the accused found on the lamp consisted of fresh blood as opposed to tacky blood, it will be slam dunk for the prosecution. Case closed.

There is not much information available with the gag order in effect. I'm sure the prosecution has a good case or they wouldn't have filed charges. But I intend to keep an open mind until more evidence comes to light in the trial. I especially want to hear the motive for the murder. I think I would have used the condom wrapper as a possible motive rather than another attempt by the accused to mislead investigators. (Jones finds condom wrapper which leads to a violent argument resulting in the death of Nona.)

Welcome to the board! :seeya:

You are probably right. . . the unknown car in the parking lot is a great way for the defense to establish reasonable doubt. Was the owner of the car ever identified? Were the neighbor's able to give a good consistent description of it?

Regarding the sliding glass door. . . I still wonder if the perpetrator went out the front door. The sliding glass door may have had to been latched from the inside to be locked. The perpetrator may have taken the stick and opened the blinds to facilitate a way for the body to be found and accessed. . . this is all quite telling IMO. If Nona was the victim of a random organized murder her body would not have been left on the scene, in fact she probably would not have been murdered there either. Like everyone, I'm waiting for more details to come out at during the trial, but IMO the PA has the murder pegged. . . this was a personal crime that was staged to look like a sex crime. Unfortunately for the perp, he should have watched a few more episodes of Law & Order. In attempting to set the scene up, he only gave more away about himself. An organized murderer would have done everything in his power to insure that the body was NOT found for at least a few days. If this was the act of some idiot unorganized murderer there would have been evidence on the scene to determine that. As it stands though, it appears Kevin is the only real possibility as far as physical evidence goes (that we know of at this point). JMO

Your comments about the blood are confusing. . . the defense wants to argue that the blood was fresh so that it appears that the prints were left during the discover of the body. This is a key issue to watch during next week's hearing. . . far more important that the change of venue motion. MOO

[JR2007]

Greeting and welcome Sololobo :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Welcome to the board! :seeya:

You are probably right. . . the unknown car in the parking lot is a great way for the defense to establish reasonable doubt. Was the owner of the car ever identified? Were the neighbor's able to give a good consistent description of it? >SNIP<

I posted this earlier today and have since thought about it more. Are there any other articles that mention a mystery car? The fact that we have not heard much about it makes me wonder if it was cleared up. Guess we'll know more when the trial starts.

[JR2007]

I posted this earlier today and have since thought about it more. Are there any other articles that mention a mystery car? The fact that we have not heard much about it makes me wonder if it was cleared up. Guess we'll know more when the trial starts.

I don't recall anything about a mystery car. The only thing I recall is about the vehical that belonged to Jeromy, I believe was his name, which was the same type and color vehical as KJ. Although this is not a mystery car.:shrug:

[Amy]

I don't recall anything about a mystery car. The only thing I recall is about the vehical that belonged to Jeromy, I believe was his name, which was the same type and color vehical as KJ. Although this is not a mystery car.:shrug:


What I remember was a poster stating that Nona was seeing another fellow (don't remember if this poster put a name to him) who also seeming drove the same type of vehicle as KJ--or at least one that could be "mistaken" for KJ's.
And, that THAT vehicle might have been the one seen in the vicinity of Nona's apartment.

[sololobo]

Thanks for the welcome, all:)

The defense was trying to determine the drying time of the blood found on the lamp. If the prints were made with fresh blood from the time of the murder, it should be dry after six hours. If it was not completely dry, they will contend Jones touched the lamp after discovering the body.

If the front door had a locked deadbolt, the defense will contend the killer would need a key to lock it if he left from the front door. Jones had one of three keys known to exist. If the killer did not have a key, he would have to leave from the sliding glass door in the back which would explain the missing stick. The locks on both doors will be important in this case. Did the front door have a deadbolt and was it locked? Or was just the door knob locked which could be locked from the outside without a key. Can the sliding door at the back be locked from the outside without a key? The lock lever on some of these doors can be placed in the lock position on the inside and then shut from the outside, locking them. Others require a key to lock from the outside.

I'm sure the defense will look into the possibility of the existence of other keys by asking the owner of the apartment complex how often the locks are changed and if they were changed when Nona moved in. They could imply previous tenants might have keys.

A possible downside for the defense claiming the killer left from the back sliding door is these doors on this apartment complex face the street. They are on a hill high above street level but passing motorists can see the doors. But if the defense claims the killer left from the back sliding door, Jones is probably not the killer. He had a key and would leave from the front door to avoid detection from passing motorists. The locks will be an important issue.

The only mention I've heard of the strange car was in the linked article in my previous post.

[FDInLaw]

I don't recall anything about a mystery car. The only thing I recall is about the vehical that belonged to Jeromy, I believe was his name, which was the same type and color vehical as KJ. Although this is not a mystery car.:shrug:

What I remember was a poster stating that Nona was seeing another fellow (don't remember if this poster put a name to him) who also seeming drove the same type of vehicle as KJ--or at least one that could be "mistaken" for KJ's.
And, that THAT vehicle might have been the one seen in the vicinity of Nona's apartment.
This person was probably one of the six original suspects and was cleared (had an alibi), at least that is my guess. If a vehicle resembling Kevin's was seen this is not good for Kevin. I can't wait for the trial! I'm dying to know what the cell phone tower info indicates. . . if there is proof that Kevin was not at home when he said he was this is not good for him.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm sure the defense will bring up neighbors' statements to police about a car they did not recognize parked at her apartment early Thursday afternoon.

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?s=4254754

There is not much information available with the gag order in effect. I'm sure the prosecution has a good case or they wouldn't have filed charges. But I intend to keep an open mind until more evidence comes to light in the trial. I especially want to hear the motive for the murder. I think I would have used the condom wrapper as a possible motive rather than another attempt by the accused to mislead investigators. (Jones finds condom wrapper which leads to a violent argument resulting in the death of Nona.)

Welcome! Thanks for the link; hadn't seen that article before. I wonder if part of the reason that KJ's arrest took so long was because LE had to track down this mystery car and its owner, as well as alibi the other few suspects. Also, putting together the information from the phone calls, text messages (as well as triangulating cell calls), and IDing vehicle traffic (the bank photos, maybe?) on Inglewood (street) would be time consuming. So I'm satisfied that Kevin wasn't arrested as a last resort or only when the evidence could be fitted to him, rather that the prosecution was crossing Ts and dotting Is.

Re: the condom; it bothers me on a couple of counts. First that it was found in the kitchen. Unless the apartment was generally untidy, it just doesn't seem like a likely place to leave a wrapper; there would have been a trash receptacle nearby. Nor does the kitchen seem to be a likely place to be having sex or donning a condom. Also, isn't there just one print on the wrapper? Wouldn't there be more evidence? You would expect a finger and thumb print from where it was held and either another finger and thumb print from tearing the package open or (as someone suggested), saliva from tearing it open with the teeth. That makes me think that the wrapper was taken from the trash and cleaned up with the exception of the print found.

This was in today's Gazette: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/jun/09/prosecutor-dont-move-trial-slaying-tech-s-20070609/ It's nothing new, but I believe that some of you are keeping track of whatever articles are available.

[sololobo]

I'm sure the defense will question the residents of the apartment complex on not only the mystery car they saw but the cars they did not see parked at Nona's apartment that day. I'm inclined to believe the killer used a vehicle to get to her apartment assuming none of the suspects lived in walking distance of her apartment. Walking distance would include any of the complex apartments, the general vicinity of the junction of W. 12 and S. Inglewood and possibly a small section of the Skyline Drive area. (After viewing a topographic map and a satelite photo of the area, it appears foot access from Skyline would be impractible unless trails zigzag through there.) More than likely the killer had a vehicle at Nona's apartment and the defense will zero in on what vehicles the tenants saw and did not see.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm sure the defense will question the residents of the apartment complex on not only the mystery car they saw but the cars they did not see parked at Nona's apartment that day. I'm inclined to believe the killer used a vehicle to get to her apartment assuming none of the suspects lived in walking distance of her apartment. Walking distance would include any of the complex apartments, the general vicinity of the junction of W. 12 and S. Inglewood and possibly a small section of the Skyline Drive area. (After viewing a topographic map and a satelite photo of the area, it appears foot access from Skyline would be impractible unless trails zigzag through there.) More than likely the killer had a vehicle at Nona's apartment and the defense will zero in on what vehicles the tenants saw and did not see.

Even if someone could swear that they saw KJ's car at Nona's on the day of the brutal attack and murder, I would (if I was the defense), try to impeach that witness' credibility in some way. Or try to instill some doubt by asking how he/she could be absolutely positive that it was that day and not the many other times that KJ will readily admit to being there.

It occurred to me the other day, that if KJ was suspicious or jealous of Nona's other friends; he might have parked somewhere and walked to her apartment in order to sneak up and catch her with someone else. She may have seen him lurking and that could be what incited the rage that led to her death. I don't know of any bona fide trails on Skyline Mt., but who knows? At any rate, there are plenty of places nearby that he could have parked his car. But then, he would be more obvious walking away with the stick. He could have taken it away the night before in order to make his stalking and/or getting inside the apartment easier.

I'm very curious to know if his keys were "lost" or if he simply didn't have them with him that evening when Nona was discovered. Which makes me wonder if he was in his car or mom's. In other words, did he take Nona's key off his keyring for some reason, to conveniently NOT have been able to come and go at will? But by demonstrating to Frost that the door could have been bumped open by a stranger, he also explained how he could have done the same.

[JR2007]

Welcome! Thanks for the link; hadn't seen that article before. I wonder if part of the reason that KJ's arrest took so long was because LE had to track down this mystery car and its owner, as well as alibi the other few suspects. Also, putting together the information from the phone calls, text messages (as well as triangulating cell calls), and IDing vehicle traffic (the bank photos, maybe?) on Inglewood (street) would be time consuming. So I'm satisfied that Kevin wasn't arrested as a last resort or only when the evidence could be fitted to him, rather that the prosecution was crossing Ts and dotting Is.

Re: the condom; it bothers me on a couple of counts. First that it was found in the kitchen. Unless the apartment was generally untidy, it just doesn't seem like a likely place to leave a wrapper; there would have been a trash receptacle nearby. Nor does the kitchen seem to be a likely place to be having sex or donning a condom. Also, isn't there just one print on the wrapper? Wouldn't there be more evidence? You would expect a finger and thumb print from where it was held and either another finger and thumb print from tearing the package open or (as someone suggested), saliva from tearing it open with the teeth. That makes me think that the wrapper was taken from the trash and cleaned up with the exception of the print found.

This was in today's Gazette: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/jun/09/prosecutor-dont-move-trial-slaying-tech-s-20070609/ It's nothing new, but I believe that some of you are keeping track of whatever articles are available.

Good post Loretta, and I agree with the top paragraph, but the bottom one I'd think it must have just been DNA from saliva or such, and I don't believe anyone said it was finger prints on the wrapper, just that they found DNA. I would think that the easy way of opening, a condom, if it's wrapped in plastic, would be to use your teeth. I don't know how hard they are to open, since I've never used one, but I always use my teeth to open any other plastic packages. I will have to say that the thought of opening a condom package that way, with your mouth, just seems wrong to me.:D

[JR2007]

I'm sure the defense will question the residents of the apartment complex on not only the mystery car they saw but the cars they did not see parked at Nona's apartment that day. I'm inclined to believe the killer used a vehicle to get to her apartment assuming none of the suspects lived in walking distance of her apartment. Walking distance would include any of the complex apartments, the general vicinity of the junction of W. 12 and S. Inglewood and possibly a small section of the Skyline Drive area. (After viewing a topographic map and a satellite photo of the area, it appears foot access from Skyline would be impractical unless trails zigzag through there.) More than likely the killer had a vehicle at Nona's apartment and the defense will zero in on what vehicles the tenants saw and did not see.

Pretty good analysis of the area form just maps and aerial photos, but the area between Skyline and Inglewood is not quite what it appears on aerial photos, it is probably a 200 foot or more drop down to Inglewood, not an easy trail if there was one. It would be more like a climb or drop depending on which way your headed, up or down.

[lorettalockhorn]

Good post Loretta, and I agree with the top paragraph, but the bottom one I'd think it must have just been DNA from saliva or such, and I don't believe anyone said it was finger prints on the wrapper, just that they found DNA. I would think that the easy way of opening, a condom, if it's wrapped in plastic, would be to use your teeth. I don't know how hard they are to open, since I've never used one, but I always use my teeth to open any other plastic packages. I will have to say that the thought of opening a condom package that way, with your mouth, just seems wrong to me.:D

JR, gonna go back and look for the information about the condom wrapper. I've never opened one and I don't use my teeth to open anything, but I would think that there would have to be at least a couple of fingerprints unless they had been wiped away.

[sololobo]

It is about a 200 ft drop over a distance of about 600 ft. But it appears to have steep areas and flatter areas. I don't see anyone walking straight up or down there. There would have to be trails winding back and forth between the steeper levels which would increase the walking distance drastically I would think. There is a power line beside the apartment complex going up to Skyline and it appears to be very steep in places. I wouldn't want to walk up it. The power company does clear its right of way of vegetation along the power line but I dont know how they do it.

[JR2007]

JR, gonna go back and look for the information about the condom wrapper. I've never opened one and I don't use my teeth to open anything, but I would think that there would have to be at least a couple of fingerprints unless they had been wiped away.

Yes I agree with your fingerprint theory. I meant to say that in the last post. The fingerprints could be easily smudged in an attempt to wipe them away, but if there were saliva present it may not be wiped off but only smeared around.

[FDInLaw]

The hearing is at 9am on Wednesday. I believe the gag order is in effect till the end of the trial.

[JR2007]

Hi FD! How are you doing? Will the gag order prevent press coverage during the hearing Wednesday? It seems like the media has been able to get certain information out to the public. I'm very interested in seeing how the judge rules on the change of venue motion. I was a little confused why the defense would be calling Nona's parents. That seems too cruel to be a wise move. JMVHO.

Someone, FD or Merrick, I believe stated many months ago that they probably wouldn't call Nona's parents to the stand, but had them on the list to be call, which would keep them out of the court room. This might be to keep the Jury from any feelings they might get by seeing or watching them. Then again maybe they will be called to answer the question about them not believing that KJ was capable of this murder, which I guess the did make that statement, but changed their minds immediately when told some of the evidence against him. I believe I have my facts straight, if not someone will correct me. AMO.

[lorettalockhorn]

:shrug: I'm not sure where we got helter skelter, but the motion is to be on June 13, 2007, NOT June 12!:eek: I was thinking it was tomorrow, too.


http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=14805&Search=dirksmeyer

Thanks for the link/reminder; I would have been looking all over the world on Tuesday night trying to find the judge's decision.

[lorettalockhorn]

:shrug: I'm not sure where we got helter skelter, but the motion is to be on June 13, 2007, NOT June 12!:eek: I was thinking it was tomorrow, too.


http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=14805&Search=dirksmeyer

Hi FD! How are you doing? Will the gag order prevent press coverage during the hearing Wednesday? It seems like the media has been able to get certain information out to the public. I'm very interested in seeing how the judge rules on the change of venue motion. I was a little confused why the defense would be calling Nona's parents. That seems too cruel to be a wise move. JMVHO.

Janie Ginnochio (sp), the Courier reporter who has posted here, told us a while back that she and Brooke Chambers would be covering the trial for The Courier. I don't know if Janie's having been named in Ryan Whiteside's lawsuit against The Courier will affect that, but I can't imagine why there won't be coverage by them as well as the ArDemGaz, other papers and other media.

Here is her quote from 1/6/07; this forum:

Brooke Chambers and I both will be attending the trial -- The Courier is literally putting every resource it has into covering this.

Locals should pick up the print version of tomorrow's (Sunday) paper. The website should be updated sometime Monday afternoon.

[FDInLaw]

"Prosecutor: Change of Venue Unnecessary"

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15050

[optimumprimal78]

Prosecutor: Venue change unnecessary



http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15050

[optimumprimal78]

Great minds think alike:D

[FDInLaw]

Great minds think alike:D :hat: (beat ya to it by a second or two! :D )

[optimumprimal78]

That's what I get for having a long user name.

Today's question:

Who do you all think is going to be the most likely people to be called to the stand and what are their position/argument most likely going to be (knowing that they are under oath)?

[hawgustusgloop]

That's what I get for having a long user name.

Today's question:

Who do you all think is going to be the most likely people to be called to the stand and what are their position/argument most likely going to be (knowing that they are under oath)?

Great question! I think the key witnesses are going to be the first people on the scene: K.Jo's mom, Ryan Whiteside, and the investigators. I also think the testimony of the employee who said K.Jo didn't arrive until 1 p.m. will be very important. I am not sure what their stories will be, but if they don't correlate with their previous statements, they are going to be raked over the coals IMO and made to look like liars.

The burning question for me is: Will K.Jo take the stand?

[optimumprimal78]

I honestly don't think that he will. He has given too many different versions of the story and then back tracked. You don't really want to risk that on the stand even with all this time to think up answers and to practice.

[Mark501]

Hello All!

I have been lurking for some time but I am ready to see this trial get on the road. One of the defense lawyers lives in my area and I really want to see how he does in this. I certainly think he has some hard work ahead judging from the things I have read here and in the news. I look forward to participating in some of the commentary.

Mark501

[FDInLaw]

Hello All!

I have been lurking for some time but I am ready to see this trial get on the road. One of the defense lawyers lives in my area and I really want to see how he does in this. I certainly think he has some hard work ahead judging from the things I have read here and in the news. I look forward to participating in some of the commentary.

Mark501
WELCOME!:seeya:

Like you, I'm glad the trial will start soon. . . I'm more than ready to get this over with! Nona was murdered a year and a half ago and it's about time!

[JR2007]

Hello All!

I have been lurking for some time but I am ready to see this trial get on the road. One of the defense lawyers lives in my area and I really want to see how he does in this. I certainly think he has some hard work ahead judging from the things I have read here and in the news. I look forward to participating in some of the commentary.

Mark501

Greetings and welcome Mark :seeya:

[Mark501]

Based on what I've read, I think Jones is going to have a hard time staying out of the slammer. I can't imagine the sinking feeling of the unknown as his time runs out so fast with the passing of each day now.

One thing about this change of venue thing was the reference to this board being a factor and I thought that was really lame, like the internet isn't available in every county. I am no expert by any means I just see a beautiful child's life ended needlessly. My daughter went to school there and I could not have handled that phone call Nona's parents got.

501

[FDInLaw]

Time is running out as Mark mentioned. This is an extremely difficult time for both families, let's all keep them in our thoughts and prayers. Also, please pray for God's hand in all this, that the truth will be made known and the appropriate verdict given. :rose:

[Mark501]

I think it's going down in Russelville.

501

[Mark501]

Thanks for all the welcomes folks! I am piddling with my avatar, all I have are avatars that I made from my car board, so bear with me until I can make one that is more pertinent to this site.

501

[Mishell1383]

Time is running out as Mark mentioned. This is an extremely difficult time for both families, let's all keep them in our thoughts and prayers. Also, please pray for God's hand in all this, that the truth will be made known and the appropriate verdict given. :rose:
HALLELUJAH !!!! :rose:

[FDInLaw]

What do you think will go on with the change of venue-- Russellville or elsewhere? Honestly, I don't care where the trial is as long as it happens soon. Having it moved will cause a lot of people to drive quite a ways and I agree with Gibbon's that it seems unnecessary. In the end however, if it is moved and Kevin is convicted, his defense team will have one less thing to use in an appeal. MOO

[Amy]

I wonder how the judge would determine how much affect this site (or others like it) have on the local people? There have been people posting here that say they have asked people about reading message boards--and most don't have a clue--don't read them or post on them.

I know there are scads (millions?) of people who DO read/post on message boards--but there are probably many more who do NOT. Or, they are on message boards that deal with things other than crimes--wherever their interests lie. Not everyone in the good ol' US of A or even Russellville are the least bit interested in crime message boards.

[sololobo]

I don't know how the judge will rule but a change of venue is probably justified.

To some extent, this board may indicate a need for a venue change. This case seems to have the highest "post to view" ratio compared to the nationally high profile cases discussed at this site. Since this is not a high profile case nationally, I tend to believe a lot of locals are viewing this board. We may be partly to blame for "contaminating" the jury pool.

The main reason I think there should be a venue change is the lie detector test statements. No public official has stated that Jones failed a lie detector test (which is inadmissible in court due to its unreliability). However, a series of statements by them have implied it. (Only one suspect failed a lie detector test. There is only one suspect. Kevin Jones is the suspect and is arrested. Public's conclusion: Jones failed the lie detector test.) I think most residents of this county believe Jones failed a lie detector test even though no one publicly said he did. Whether by design or accident, I believe this did more to contaminate the jury pool than this board, the Courier or letters to the Editor.

[Mishell1383]

I don't know how the judge will rule but a change of venue is probably justified.

To some extent, this board may indicate a need for a venue change. This case seems to have the highest "post to view" ratio compared to the nationally high profile cases discussed at this site. Since this is not a high profile case nationally, I tend to believe a lot of locals are viewing this board. We may be partly to blame for "contaminating" the jury pool.

The main reason I think there should be a venue change is the lie detector test statements. No public official has stated that Jones failed a lie detector test (which is inadmissible in court due to its unreliability). However, a series of statements by them have implied it. (Only one suspect failed a lie detector test. There is only one suspect. Kevin Jones is the suspect and is arrested. Public's conclusion: Jones failed the lie detector test.) I think most residents of this county believe Jones failed a lie detector test even though no one publicly said he did. Whether by design or accident, I believe this did more to contaminate the jury pool than this board, the Courier or letters to the Editor.
THROW HIM TO THE DOGS!!!!

[FDInLaw]

My thoughts and prayers are with the judge. :rose:

[FDInLaw]

What I find ironic is that whole lot more folks know about the rape allegations than the existence of this board. The defense's true problem is their client, if he and his buddies could manage to stay out of the public eye that would sure help! It's not the Courier's fault that they choose to carry on in a manner that generates news. :rolleyes:




MOO

[optimumprimal78]

A lot of people don't really know who he is period. Outside of being involved in this case (and the rape case) you never heard of Jones. He was and is only known to the people in Dover that he hangs out with the most. He hasn't really done anything before or since to show that he is a good person.

[FDInLaw]

Any thoughts on how long this hearing will last and when we will actually hear something? :shrug:

[al38]

The defense's true problem is their client, if he and his buddies could manage to stay out of the public eye that would sure help! It's not the Courier's fault that they choose to carry on in a manner that generates news. :rolleyes:




MOO

A great big AMEN to that!!!

[JR2007]

Any thoughts on how long this hearing will last and when we will actually hear something? :shrug:

The hearing will last but a few hours, but the results may be days. Patterson will study what comes out in the hearing and my guess rule on it later.

[Mishell1383]

What I find ironic is that whole lot more folks know about the rape allegations than the existence of this board. The defense's true problem is their client, if he and his buddies could manage to stay out of the public eye that would sure help! It's not the Courier's fault that they choose to carry on in a manner that generates news. :rolleyes:




MOO
he reminds me of Joran Van Der Sloot with his arrogance, and doing whatever the he*l he wants to do. Out running a muck! OBSURD! He should atleast be on house arrest or something worse! imo

[FDInLaw]

The trial date was not changed and it will take place in Ozark from what I've heard.

[hawgustusgloop]

Wow! I am surprised that the parties in this case have taken such an interest in these boards. I wonder how they figured out who was posting under which user names?

If this info is true, I am glad there will be a change of venue. I think the judge should do everything in his power to ensure the most fair trial possible. Assuming it will be in Ozark, at least that isn't too far away for the participants. I knew people who commuted to Tech from Ozark every day. It would actually be closer for those in the Fort Smith/NWA area to make it.

[FDInLaw]

Wow! I am surprised that the parties in this case have taken such an interest in these boards. I wonder how they figured out who was posting under which user names?

If this info is true, I am glad there will be a change of venue. I think the judge should do everything in his power to ensure the most fair trial possible. Assuming it will be in Ozark, at least that isn't too far away for the participants. I knew people who commuted to Tech from Ozark every day. It would actually be closer for those in the Fort Smith/NWA area to make it. The change of venue is for the best, it will give Kevin's defense team one less thing to whine about if Kevin is convicted. . . I say this, but I'm not one of the folks that is going to have to drive there everyday!

I wonder why there is going to be another hearing regarding the blood issue. Did they run out of time? I hope this hearing is soon!

Christina, any word about the cell phone? ;)

[christina]

The Courier reporter admitted that the personal information (being raped) she shared as lemoncello on the blog was fiction. Her lawyer requested no other questions about that matter be asked since there was an ongoing lawsuit in Jonesboro.

[hawgustusgloop]

:eek: Are you serious about lemoncello? Who knew?

The trial date was not changed and it will take place in Ozark from what I've heard.

I always wondered how lemoncello claimed to know the Whitesides were complaining in the Courier office before any of us knew of the lawsuit they filed. That said, I will be totally bummed out if lemoncello isn't posting here anymore. I loved all those cryptically insightful posts!

[FDInLaw]

The Courier reporter admitted that the personal information (being raped) she shared as lemoncello on the blog was fiction. Her lawyer requested no other questions about that matter be asked since there was an ongoing lawsuit in Jonesboro.

Was there anything said about the cell phone?

[hawgustusgloop]

The Courier reporter admitted that the personal information (being raped) she shared as lemoncello on the blog was fiction. Her lawyer requested no other questions about that matter be asked since there was an ongoing lawsuit in Jonesboro.

This all just gets crazier and crazier! I wonder what her status will be with her employer? I wonder if they knew what she was doing or even encouraged it?

[FDInLaw]

I always wondered how lemoncello claimed to know the Whitesides were complaining in the Courier office before any of us knew of the lawsuit they filed. That said, I will be totally bummed out if lemoncello isn't posting here anymore. I loved all those cryptically insightful posts!
Cryptic is right. . . I've always enjoyed lemoncello's style of writing. :)

[Mark501]

The change of venue surprises me along with a few other things that have just come to light, but I think it's a neutral move, that is it will not work in anyone's favor.

I am confused about the Lemoncello comments though, I've been reading back through them and I think I need to read some more.

501

[FDInLaw]

This all just gets crazier and crazier! I wonder what her status will be with her employer? I wonder if they knew what she was doing or even encouraged it?
If there is any truth to all this, the story will surely show up in the Atkins Chronicle or Dover Times. . . which of you local folks can keep an eye on this for us??? Wouldn't it be ironic if "Christina" worked for one of those papers? He, he, he. . . bad FD! :punch: I'm just playing, but you've got to wonder who everyone really is now!

[lorettalockhorn]

Oh my. Janie Ginnochio was lemoncello?? What in the world would possess her? YIKES! Does she still have a job with the Courier and will she still be covering the trial? IMO, she should be removed from any further involvement with this case IF she still works for the Courier.

Wonder how the defense was able to nail down that information; was it with or without a warrant?

The change of venue is for the best, IMO. I did try to research The Johnson County Graphic to see what kind of coverage they might have had, but could only find obit archives. Ozark isn't a much longer drive than Clarksville (I think Johnson County/Clarksville was mentioned as a possible venue), so that seems wise.

I still think that for the defense to claim that the eleven voters questioned about pre-trial publicity represents the jury pool is ridic at best and anecdotal at worst. Also, people would be up in arms if The Courier wasn't reporting local crime. With regard to this thread; my own unscientifc observations show that there has been a higher view to post ratio after the gag order.

Glad that there is no delay to the trial date. Thanks for the information, Christina.

[FDInLaw]

Before the gag order there were some extremely slanderous things posted on the Internet by Kevin's supporters. I wonder if we'll get to find out who all those folks were? :cool:

[FDInLaw]

First I would like to say upfront that I am a friend of Patty and Dennis Whiteside. I was led to this site by the articles Ms. Ginocchio has written. To say I am upset with her articles about an alleged rape taking place at the Whiteside home is an understatement. They are good, upstanding people and it was highly inappropriate for the article to be written, especially in that manner.
Please note that in Sundays paper was the notice of a rape charged FILED by Mr. Gibbons. Where was that article? It wasn’t front page and above the fold like this one where NO charges were filed. It was on page 7 under the title Courthouse News in a long list of other charges filed. It was also authored by Ms. Ginocchio. Why is a story about an allegation getting more press than one about a person actually charged with rape? I would call that biased.
One of our police officer friends told me that the RPD allowed Ms. Ginocchio to see the incident report of the alleged rape but informed her that it was an ongoing investigation and to hold off reporting till the investigation was complete. That fact that she did not hold off and chose to print an allegation including names and addresses of innocent people was wrong. All she had to do was wait a few days for the whole story. Her reporting skills should be called into serious question in my opinion. Not only did she write these articles before getting the entire story, she is also writing here on this apparent “anti Kevin Jones and anyone associated with him” site. This adds to my belief of her being biased.
The Whiteside's know Kevin Jones, they knew Nona Dirksmeyer but that is all. Why should upstanding people get pulled through the mud of the press because of an association and a biased reporter?
Do young adults, for that matter all adults, make bad choices- yes. Should there have been underage drinking at a party- no. Had Dennis and Patty been present I assure you they would have stopped it.
When the article is put on the Courier’s website you all will have the opportunity to see “the rest of the story”. The comments and actions by the alleged victim are very questionable and that appears to be part of the reason charges were not filed. Example- she admits to having two beers and a shot of rum and admits to having “hung out twice before” with Simmons.
Just as you here talk about how good a job David Gibbons, the Arkansas State Police and the RPD did in investigating Ms. Dirksmeyer’s murder- give them the same kudos about investigating and choosing not to file charges in this case.
Thank you for listening. For those of you who were not around when Christina posted this.

[christina]

Evidence from the cell phone is still in but will have instructions for the jury from the judge I think.

For the record, I am still a friend of the Whitesides.

[FDInLaw]

Evidence from the cell phone is still in but will have instructions for the jury from the judge I think.

For the record, I am still a friend of the Whitesides. Thank you for answering my question. :)

[lorettalockhorn]

For those of you who were not around when Christina posted this.

Yep, sure do remember Christina's posts.

I'm aware that pre-trial publicity played a role in the request for change of venue. I maintain that eleven people polled (even at random) is a minute representation of the jury pool. I haven't been able to find the exact number of registered voters in this district, but did find this:

http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/demographic/statecourt/430050.html

Even by unscientific extrapolation methods to determine age or voter registration as a basis for a jury pool, it's obvious that eleven people would be a small representation. Don't get me wrong, I think that the change of venue is not going to be a problem for the prosecution and applaud the decision.

Some of us who have followed the case will agree that LE made errors; discussing a lie detector test would fall into that category as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe The Courier noticed that JG had two accounts registered on this site through emails or PMs on a work computer? Hope that we can find out how this issue was raised in court today. I for one am disappointed (for lack of a better word), this sounds like an instability. :shrug:

[FDInLaw]

Uhhhmmm, I doubt it since she was caught on camera literally running away from all the Little Rock news reporters, as seen on KATV channell 7.:lol:

Oh poop! I forgot to watch the news! SusieQ, can you tell us more about what was reported? (Pretty please! :) )

[lorettalockhorn]

Oh poop! I forgot to watch the news! SusieQ, can you tell us more about what was reported? (Pretty please! :) )

Leroy told me the same thing; that JG ran from reporters questions.

I've only found a couple of citations about the change of venue and no comments about Ginnochio:

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=6655229

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/?cid=56718

[lorettalockhorn]

It goes by the jury pool, not the registered voters, meaning the amount of people normally called to the jury pool for that period. I may be mistaken but I believe it is 10% of the jury pool. I'm not sure how many that would be, but I don't think it is that large. Then take into consideration that there are alternate sets of people. If the defense had not gone by the law and had the required amount of people interviewed, I believe he would not have heard the case. Eleven people certainly doesn't seem like a lot, but I guess according to the law it is sufficient.

I do agree, however, that this will be the best for both sides.


Yes, I'm aware that we are discussing the jury pool (which is taken from registered voters)and I'm wondering if some cases have larger jury pools than others. Can you find a link to the 10% law? I'm short of time and all I've been able to find is information about referendum/ballots which don't help one bit.

[FDInLaw]

Oh, yes... They of course gave some background info on the case and showed some beautiful footage of Nona singing (no sound though, dang it) in a formal at a pageant and some of her in a bathing suit.
Nona had a beautiful voice. :rose:

:(

[lorettalockhorn]

I don't have one, but I'll see what I can dredge up. That is just what I heard quoted somewhere. Wasn't trying to badger you. I just didn't think you were aware of that. I may be totally wrong here, but I don't think the primary pool itself is larger, but I think some cases may have more sets of alternate pools to call jurors from. I think the 10% pertains to only the primary set or jurors and not all combined, therefore only 11 citizens sounds more feasible.


Sorry for the drive-by post; it's so hard to convince Leroy that I'm not addicted to the board, when everytime he walks by looking hungry and peeking into the oven, I'm logging on!

When the motion was first made and The Eleven were first mentioned, I noted that I thought they surely represent a small segment of the jury pool, and I guess what I'm so ineloquently wondering is, since there are so many eligible voters available, why isn't the jury pool increased when a case of notoriety comes before the court. The jury service section of the AR court system at Arkansas.gov is under construction and I haven't found any other links. Thought that maybe you had the lowdown.

So, no problemo. (I would never picture you as a badger!)

[lorettalockhorn]

Well, mostly what we already know. Channel 7 showed KJ and his local attorney, Michael Robbins, walking into the court house. It told the change of venue was granted and would be moved to the Franklin County court house in Ozark and that the date to begin already set would not change. It showed shots of officials inside the court room and Kevin, mostly his lawyer. It didn't show any of the 11 citizens that were interviewed till near the end, and then only briefly . It talked of the cell phone and the blood- I guess I wasn't listening too closely because I was looking for people I might know- I know it said the issues with the blood would be later decided. I thought it said that about the cell phone, too, but I guess I am wrong about that because it sounded like Christina was probably actually there. They stated that all attorneys declined comment due to the gag order. A big lot of the story was about Janie posting on CL forums (it did not specifically name) and how she had made up some stories, etc. It did mention the libel suit against her, etc. The last thing they showed was Janie running to her car to get away from reporters. I don't think it mentioned her name, just said a local reporter. That's about all I remember.

But, I don't think Janie will be posting here or any where any time seem. She seemed pretty humiliated, as well she should. Channel 7 didn't report who she worked for, so her relationship with the Courier might now be estranged if it wasn't already. I haven't noticed if she has been writing any lately in the Courier.

:punch: Agree!

Thanks for posting.

[Amy]

The Courier reporter admitted that the personal information (being raped) she shared as lemoncello on the blog was fiction. Her lawyer requested no other questions about that matter be asked since there was an ongoing lawsuit in Jonesboro.

I didn't know that there was anything illegal about posting false information (about one's self) on an internet message board!!! There is no way any one of us know for sure about the other that what we post about ourselves is true.

That is a caution I see on about every forum--posters reminding other posters that we have no idea if the people posting are what they say they are, have experienced what they say they do.

I didn't think she (or Lemoncello--by the way, I must have missed the posts about her rape) posted anything on the board that wasn't printed in the paper. So, it's not like she gave out protected information---to an audience who for the most part isn't even in Arkansas, and of the ones in AR--just a handful from that area. It's not like she could have tainted our pool, cuz this jury isn't gonna swim in it anyway.

[Amy]

Yep, sure do remember Christina's posts.

I'm aware that pre-trial publicity played a role in the request for change of venue. I maintain that eleven people polled (even at random) is a minute representation of the jury pool. I haven't been able to find the exact number of registered voters in this district, but did find this:

http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/demographic/statecourt/430050.html

Even by unscientific extrapolation methods to determine age or voter registration as a basis for a jury pool, it's obvious that eleven people would be a small representation. Don't get me wrong, I think that the change of venue is not going to be a problem for the prosecution and applaud the decision.

Some of us who have followed the case will agree that LE made errors; discussing a lie detector test would fall into that category as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe The Courier noticed that JG had two accounts registered on this site through emails or PMs on a work computer? Hope that we can find out how this issue was raised in court today. I for one am disappointed (for lack of a better word), this sounds like an instability. :shrug:


I don't know the number of registered voters in the county, but I'm wondering how many people they asked before they came up with 11 that would serve their point?

No matter how many, 11 just seems to be a miniscule number to base jury-pool tainting on. AND, it really matters how they asked the questions about it. You can pretty much set up what answer you want to get by posing the question in a certain way, then allowing only yes or no as a response.

Like, on the 13th jury questions--most of them I would like to say Yes, but.... or No, but...... Or the way a lawyer will question a "hostile" witness. You can see the witness wants to explain his/her answer, but they are allowed only the yes or no.

[JR2007]

Yes, I'm aware that we are discussing the jury pool (which is taken from registered voters)and I'm wondering if some cases have larger jury pools than others. Can you find a link to the 10% law? I'm short of time and all I've been able to find is information about referendum/ballots which don't help one bit.

The jury pool in Pope county Ark. should be a tad over 30,000 in 2006.

[christina]

This morning's Courier says that Judge Patterson is allowing the evidence from the cell phone and will not give instruction to the jury. The defense can present the incident (the detective returning the phone to the step father prior to charging Jones) to the jury for them to decide.
I am sorry about my earlier statement. The judge spoke softly and I did not hear clearly.

[FDInLaw]

This morning's Courier says that Judge Patterson is allowing the evidence from the cell phone and will not give instruction to the jury. The defense can present the incident (the detective returning the phone to the step father prior to charging Jones) to the jury for them to decide.
I am sorry about my earlier statement. The judge spoke softly and I did not hear clearly.
Thanks for the update! This sounds like good news for the PA.

The hearing for the blood motion will be important IMO. Anyone hear when that will take place?

[christina]

to be scheduled for the last week in June.

[FDInLaw]

Anyone read this morning's Courier? Looks like we now know of one person the defense plans on going after during the trial.

[FDInLaw]

Good morning, FD! How are you feeling this morning? Would you have a link to the Courier? TIA.

Brooke Not till this afternoon. I'll drop you a quick note via a private message. . .


:seeya:

[JR2007]

Anyone read this morning's Courier? Looks like we now know of one person the defense plans on going after during the trial.
Sorry I don't pick my copy of the Courier up till this evening. And they don't post things on line till after lunch, I believe.:shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Today's ArDemGaz story:

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/jun/14/change-venue-gets-judges-ok-20070614/

One of today's Courier articles states that Robbins (defense attorney) learned about JG using two usernames here "after he requested a transcript of her deposition testimony in a libel lawsuit filed against The Courier."

(Not sure why The Courier doesn't update overnight, it irks me that the online edition has today's date and yesterday's news. :cuss:)

[FDInLaw]

Today's ArDemGaz story:

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/jun/14/change-venue-gets-judges-ok-20070614/

One of today's Courier articles states that Robbins (defense attorney) learned about JG using two usernames here "after he requested a transcript of her deposition testimony in a libel lawsuit filed against The Courier."

(Not sure why The Courier doesn't update overnight, it irks me that the online edition has today's date and yesterday's news. :cuss:)

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

[lorettalockhorn]

I didn't know that there was anything illegal about posting false information (about one's self) on an internet message board!!! There is no way any one of us know for sure about the other that what we post about ourselves is true.

That is a caution I see on about every forum--posters reminding other posters that we have no idea if the people posting are what they say they are, have experienced what they say they do.

I didn't think she (or Lemoncello--by the way, I must have missed the posts about her rape) posted anything on the board that wasn't printed in the paper. So, it's not like she gave out protected information---to an audience who for the most part isn't even in Arkansas, and of the ones in AR--just a handful from that area. It's not like she could have tainted our pool, cuz this jury isn't gonna swim in it anyway.

Amy, what bugs me (and this is my opinion only), is that by posting about her personal experience while discussing the alleged rape involving KJ and RW, it appears that she was somehow inserting herself into the case. The post in question was 1/15/07 IIRC. Also, lemoncello mentioned The Courier more than once while posting, in hindsight it might seem that she had an agenda.

JR, I would have thought from the link to the 5th Judicial's profile that the number of registered voters in the district would be approximately twice that of just Pope County. Of course, that depends on how many people who are of age, actually register to vote, how many out of district and state students register, any number of factors. Maybe there is a law that determines the number allowed in a jury pool that supercedes common sense. :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

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

:cuss: Dang it! I don't get it; I wasn't logged in to get the link. Can you go to arkansasonline.com and read it? Sorry.

[FDInLaw]

:cuss: Dang it! I don't get it; I wasn't logged in to get the link. Can you go to arkansasonline.com and read it? Sorry.
Well, we're having one :cuss: of a morning! :biggrin:

[JR2007]

JR, I would have thought from the link to the 5th Judicial's profile that the number of registered voters in the district would be approximately twice that of just Pope County. Of course, that depends on how many people who are of age, actually register to vote, how many out of district and state students register, any number of factors. Maybe there is a law that determines the number allowed in a jury pool that supercedes common sense. :shrug:


I went to the site that tells how many registered voters there are in each county. The jury pool is pulled from the registered voters of the county.

[lorettalockhorn]

I went to the site that tells how many registered voters there are in each county. The jury pool is pulled from the registered voters of the county.

The Fifth Judicical Circuit consists of Pope, Johnson and Franklin Counties. Maybe my thinking is skewed, but I would think that the jury pool would come from the entire district. Maybe not, to cut down on the burden of driving to a distant courthouse. Like I said before, the jury section of the Arkansas.gov site is under construction and I haven't looked past that. I don't have a problem with the change of venue, I just don't get that the eleven people polled were representative.

BTW, one of The Courier articles states that one of The Eleven is married to a representative for Robbins' office. :confused:

BrookLyn, NY's procedure sounds like a good method.

[JR2007]

The Fifth Judicical Circuit consists of Pope, Johnson and Franklin Counties. Maybe my thinking is skewed, but I would think that the jury pool would come from the entire district. Maybe not, to cut down on the burden of driving to a distant courthouse. Like I said before, the jury section of the Arkansas.gov site is under construction and I haven't looked past that. I don't have a problem with the change of venue, I just don't get that the eleven people polled were representative.

BTW, one of The Courier articles states that one of The Eleven is married to a representative for Robbins' office. :confused:

BrookLyn, NY's procedure sounds like a good method.

Your thinking is right, am the one in error. I forgot about the court system covering the 3 county area. OOPS good catch.
Thanks,:punch: :shrug:

[FDInLaw]

Than it would seem to me 11 people was not representative of a good sampling of the jury pool. Maybe the judge made his ruling to cut off one possible appeal avenue. It might be inconvenient for some people but if precludes an appeal based on venue, I say it's a good thing. JMVHO.

ETA: How long do they anticipate the trial lasting? From what I've read and heard, I really wonder if Gibbons put up much of a fight regarding the change of venue. Couldn't he have dug up 11 witnesses to counter the defense? Gibbons did make the statement that the change of venue was unnecessary, but IMO he wisely focused his energy else where. The Defense got their change of venue (which will benefit both sides IMO) but the PA gets to use the cell phone information. From my perspective the PA came out on top this round. MOO

Brooke ~ the trial should last two weeks IIRC.

[lorettalockhorn]

This quote from JG's article this morning is interesting:

"During the hearing, both the defense and prosecution were shocked to realize a month before Jones was charged in Dirksmeyer's death, the Russellville Police Department released to Dirksmeyer's stepfather what the defense called a significant piece of evidence - her cell phone and SIM card, which was found at the crime scene.
Fifth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney David Gibbons told Patterson the RPD released the cell phone to Duane Dipert on March 1, 2006. Jones was charged March 31.
"Oh, Jesus," Michael Robbins, one of Jones' attorneys, said in response to the discovery. Robbins then looked at Jones, and both men shook their heads and smiled."

Wasn't that information released before? It appears that the defense is going to contend that the killer handled the phone at the murder scene before Nona was discovered, since the battery is missing. (Why didn't he just steal the phone, I wonder?) I have read that the battery is important to recovering data on SIM cards.

[lorettalockhorn]

Your thinking is right, am the one in error. I forgot about the court system covering the 3 county area. OOPS good catch.
Thanks,:punch: :shrug:

No, I don't think you're in error at all. I just think that there is more to the jury selection process than we know.

[FDInLaw]

>SNIP<

BTW, one of The Courier articles states that one of The Eleven is married to a representative for Robbins' office. :confused:

This is too funny. . . no obvious bias there! :biggrin:

[FDInLaw]

This quote from JG's article this morning is interesting:

"During the hearing, both the defense and prosecution were shocked to realize a month before Jones was charged in Dirksmeyer's death, the Russellville Police Department released to Dirksmeyer's stepfather what the defense called a significant piece of evidence - her cell phone and SIM card, which was found at the crime scene.
Fifth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney David Gibbons told Patterson the RPD released the cell phone to Duane Dipert on March 1, 2006. Jones was charged March 31.
"Oh, Jesus," Michael Robbins, one of Jones' attorneys, said in response to the discovery. Robbins then looked at Jones, and both men shook their heads and smiled."

Wasn't that information released before? It appears that the defense is going to contend that the killer handled the phone at the murder scene before Nona was discovered, since the battery is missing. (Why didn't he just steal the phone, I wonder?) I have read that the battery is important to recovering data on SIM cards. Regarding your last sentence, SIM cards are made to transfer information from one phone to another. I really don't think the missing battery would have caused any problems. This is a horribly morbid thought (and I truly wish these sorts of things did not come to my mind) but I wonder if the murderer took to cell phone battery to insure that Nona would not be able to call for help if she came to. I hate thinking about such things but I really wonder if that is why the battery was missing.

:(

Here is a link with more info about SIM cards. . .

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sim-card.htm

[FDInLaw]

Change of venue to Ozark granted:

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15072

Arguments heard in State v. Jones case:

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=15073

[lorettalockhorn]

Regarding your last sentence, SIM cards are made to transfer information from one phone to another. I really don't think the missing battery would have caused any problems. This is a horribly morbid thought (and I truly wish these sorts of things did not come to my mind) but I wonder if the murderer took to cell phone battery to insure that Nona would not be able to call for help if she came to. I hate thinking about such things but I really wonder if that is why the battery was missing.

:(

Here is a link with more info about SIM cards. . .

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sim-card.htm

Hey! Just checking back in to see if you got The Courier links, thanks for posting.

I did some research last week because I was interested in whether or not destruction of SIM card data had been used in a murder case. I didn't find anything pertinent in the US along those lines, but I did find several links to police protocol regarding the preservation of cell phone and computer data, and one of the first items mentioned was the preservation of the power supply as well as the battery life. I'll check your link too.

I get what your saying about rendering Nona unable to call for help, but I think the murderer knew that she was dead when he left the scene. What I do wonder is, why didn't he simply take the phone?

[christina]

“The cell phone was handled and manipulated by the perpetrator,” defense attorney Kenneth Johnson from Monticello said at the hearing. He told the court the phone was found at the crime scene without the battery, and the battery has not been recovered. He also noted during the Arkansas State Crime Lab’s examination of the SIM card, authorities discovered several text messages to Dirksmeyer sent days before her death, but all of her responses had been deleted.
“There was a message on Dec. 9 [2005] sent by an individual who says, ‘I wonder why you’re leading me on,’” Johnson said. He said the same person sent 5 to 10 messages to Dirksmeyer in the days preceding her death.
“This is a significant piece of evidence,” he said. He said defense experts were hoping to recover the deleted messages Dirksmeyer sent, but when the phone was recovered from Dipert and turned over to the defense, the experts discovered the SIM card contained no information. Gibbons said the State Crime Lab confirmed the expert’s finding.
Johnson said Dipert told police he wanted the phone for his personal use and deleted the messages.

[christina]

Bristow asked that Patterson find in favor of the defense, but “if your honor wants to deny that and take it under advisement and revisit this when Mr. Bacon can give sworn testimony in front of your honor, and if Mr. Bacon stays with what he said initially and what he said in our interview, then from a time standpoint we are absolutely right.”
The parties agreed to schedule another hearing for the last week in June to resolve the matter. Johnson also asked Gibbons to provide information on the following issues at the upcoming hearing: whether there are any FBI tests or reports on the computers of Dirksmeyer, Jones or Jeremy Martin; any additional tests on blood drying and time of death; any additional scientific tests and expert witnesses; any follow-up interviews with Martin; and any additional fingerprint tests.
In reference to follow-up interviews with Martin, Johnson alluded to Martin not telling “the truth about his involvement with Nona” to police. Martin is listed as a potential witness for the defense, and the prosecution provided copies of e-mails from Dirksmeyer to Martin as part of their response to the defense’s motion for discovery, according to court documents.

[FDInLaw]

Well now, just because the man's wife worked there doesn't automatically mean you think the guy is guilty or vice-versa, or even if you work in the same office for that matter.True, but it sure is likely! I think it's funny that the defense was not able to produce enough people without using someone linked to them. Kinda makes a statement IMO.

:D

[FDInLaw]

“The cell phone was handled and manipulated by the perpetrator,” defense attorney Kenneth Johnson from Monticello said at the hearing. He told the court the phone was found at the crime scene without the battery, and the battery has not been recovered. He also noted during the Arkansas State Crime Lab’s examination of the SIM card, authorities discovered several text messages to Dirksmeyer sent days before her death, but all of her responses had been deleted.
“There was a message on Dec. 9 [2005] sent by an individual who says, ‘I wonder why you’re leading me on,’” Johnson said. He said the same person sent 5 to 10 messages to Dirksmeyer in the days preceding her death.
“This is a significant piece of evidence,” he said. He said defense experts were hoping to recover the deleted messages Dirksmeyer sent, but when the phone was recovered from Dipert and turned over to the defense, the experts discovered the SIM card contained no information. Gibbons said the State Crime Lab confirmed the expert’s finding.
Johnson said Dipert told police he wanted the phone for his personal use and deleted the messages. I am really curious about the text messages and will definitely be watching for more information during the trial. The "I wonder why you're leading me on" message caught my eye for sure. I wonder who sent it?

[sololobo]

Hey! Just checking back in to see if you got The Courier links, thanks for posting.

I did some research last week because I was interested in whether or not destruction of SIM card data had been used in a murder case. I didn't find anything pertinent in the US along those lines, but I did find several links to police protocol regarding the preservation of cell phone and computer data, and one of the first items mentioned was the preservation of the power supply as well as the battery life. I'll check your link too.

I get what your saying about rendering Nona unable to call for help, but I think the murderer knew that she was dead when he left the scene. What I do wonder is, why didn't he simply take the phone?

I'm no expert, but I believe most cell phones, especially smart phones, use volatile RAM to store some data. Smart phones use it extensively. If power is lost, the data is destroyed. Most have a power down feature to protect them from losing data if the battery is going dead and have a trace charge internally to stop data loss while changing the battery or accessing the SIM card. This trace charge does not last long. Removing the battery will eventually result in RAM data loss. It should not affect info on the SIM card though. Photos are stored in RAM on most models I think. The killer may have removed the battery to remove info on the RAM memory and took the battery with him to prevent an early battery replacement.

Again, I'm no expert, but I believe the location of cell phones are constantly tracked by in-range towers to facilitate incoming calls even if they are turned off. Perhaps the killer knew this and didn't want to risk being tracked.

The above assumes the killer was somewhat knowledgable in cell phone technology. On the other hand, perhaps the killer is a cell phone novice and thought battery removal would erase everything including the SIM and ROM (non-volitile internal memory which, unlike RAM, is retained with power loss).

[christina]

Does anyone else see it as unusual that Duane Dipert asked for a piece of evidence found at his step daughter's murder scene "for his personal use"? Surely he already had a cell phone for that purpose.

And odd that the police gave it to him prior to filing charges in the case?

[lorettalockhorn]

True, but it sure is likely! I think it's funny that the defense was not able to produce enough people without using someone linked to them. Kinda makes a statement IMO.

:D

Exactly, if eleven people are representative of the jury pool, wouldn't twelve or thirteen be even more so? (I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the jury pool for a notorious case, let alone the other cases on the docket, would only be 110 people if 10% is indeed the magic percentage.)

At any rate, Patterson felt that a change of venue was necessary; I've got no qualms with his judgement.

[sololobo]

Does anyone else see it as unusual that Duane Dipert asked for a piece of evidence found at his step daughter's murder scene "for his personal use"? Surely he already had a cell phone for that purpose.

And odd that the police gave it to him prior to filing charges in the case?

It could be a very expensive "smart phone" and he may not have had one. But I do find it odd about the police giving it to him prior to charges being filed. I'm sure they thought the SIM card copy would suffice in court though, and saw no problem retuning it. They should have consulted Gibbons before doing so.

[FDInLaw]

Exactly, if eleven people are representative of the jury pool, wouldn't twelve or thirteen be even more so? (I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the jury pool for a notorious case, let alone the other cases on the docket, would only be 110 people if 10% is indeed the magic percentage.)

At any rate, Patterson felt that a change of venue was necessary; I've got no qualms with his judgement.
From the article it sounded like the matter was decided quickly. I really don't think Gibbons fought the change of venue very hard. Really, it's best for both sides, there are a number of people that decided Kevin was innocent long before many facts were known in the case (this is especially true over in Dover). Also, Kevin supporters have tried to spread all sorts of rumors. Remember the big one about Bubba Turner? They have actively tried to sway public opinion. . . their use of all out lies hurt their credibility mind you, but they still tried. MOO

[lorettalockhorn]

Is anyone having trouble posting?

[christina]

That segment was about an hour and a half long. Gibbons asked intelligent questions of every defense witness and fought the concept put forth by the defense that this blog could effect possible jurors in Pope County.

[christina]

I just find it odd as personally I would not want to handle an item found beside my loved one's slain body. And I can't imagine having the presence of mind to ask for the item "for my personal use" right after it happened.
But I do understand everyone grieves differently though.

[lorettalockhorn]

And odd that the police gave it to him prior to filing charges in the case?

IMO, it was bad protocol for RPD to have allowed any evidence outside chain of custody; just an open door for their methods to be questioned. But we've known about it for months, so I was a little surprised by Mr. Robbins' response that was reported. It seemed feigned.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm no expert, but I believe most cell phones, especially smart phones, use volatile RAM to store some data. Smart phones use it extensively. If power is lost, the data is destroyed. Most have a power down feature to protect them from losing data if the battery is going dead and have a trace charge internally to stop data loss while changing the battery or accessing the SIM card. This trace charge does not last long. Removing the battery will eventually result in RAM data loss. It should not affect info on the SIM card though. Photos are stored in RAM on most models I think. The killer may have removed the battery to remove info on the RAM memory and took the battery with him to prevent an early battery replacement.

Again, I'm no expert, but I believe the location of cell phones are constantly tracked by in-range towers to facilitate incoming calls even if they are turned off. Perhaps the killer knew this and didn't want to risk being tracked.

The above assumes the killer was somewhat knowledgable in cell phone technology. On the other hand, perhaps the killer is a cell phone novice and thought battery removal would erase everything including the SIM and ROM (non-volitile internal memory which, unlike RAM, is retained with power loss).

Thanks so much. I'm pretty ignorant of much cell phone technology, I did read about SIM card data recovery but the board won't let me post the links. :cuss: OR I'm doing something wrong!

[christina]

The courier reporter was sitting up font beside the judges bench and apparantly did not hear the gasp from many in the audience when Gibbons admitted the phone was given to Dipert prior to charges being filed. The defense kept asking Gibbons for a specific date as to when it left police custody and Gibbons kept saying he wasn't sure. The judge then asked the defense when they requested the phone, they gave the date. The judge then turned to Gibbons and asked him to give a date also. Gibbons did then. The judge then repeated "so you allowed the phone to leave custody before you ever filed charges?". Gibbons embarrassedly answered yes.

[twisted_angel74]

Ok I just have a question,and I'm not really keeping up with,nor have I read all the post but can someone tell me who Jeremy Martin is and what his involvement in this case is ..... Thanks

************************************************** ********

The parties agreed to schedule another hearing for the last week in June to resolve the matter. Johnson also asked Gibbons to provide information on the following issues at the upcoming hearing: whether there are any FBI tests or reports on the computers of Dirksmeyer, Jones or Jeremy Martin; any additional tests on blood drying and time of death; any additional scientific tests and expert witnesses; any follow-up interviews with Martin; and any additional fingerprint tests.

[Mishell1383]

<snipped>
But, I don't think Janie will be posting here or any where any time seem. She seemed pretty humiliated, as well she should. Channel 7 didn't report who she worked for, so her relationship with the Courier might now be estranged if it wasn't already. I haven't noticed if she has been writing any lately in the Courier.
WOW! I missed alot I've only been gone for a day! I CANT BELIEVE THIS! :cuss: :cuss:

[Mishell1383]

well lemoncello is still logging on it stated her last activity was today in the 11 am hour

[JR2007]

No, I don't think you're in error at all. I just think that there is more to the jury selection process than we know.

I don't know if anyone else had any imput here about the change of venue. I now don't think my thinking was in error on the first post about this, but yes it was on the second one. Each county has to have its own juror pool or why have a change of venue. DAH :shrug: :punch: :punch:

[JR2007]

Yes, but from each period aren't only a certain number chosen to be potential jurors for that period, making the jury pool? I am a registered voter and potentially can be called to the jury pool at any time, but that doesn't mean that all registered voters are in the pool at all times. You have to be called to the jury pool. I think this where the figure 10% of the jury pool comes in, no 10% of Pope county's registered voters. I was called last summer and IIRC, there were several different categories of the jury pool. I will have to get the summons out and reread it.

If you were called last summer you can not be call this year. I too was on call last summer. They only call in about 100 people per 3 month periods except on special case they have extras called in. Once you have been called your name is taken out of the pool for , I believe 3 years.

[lorettalockhorn]

I don't know if anyone else had any imput here about the change of venue. I now don't think my thinking was in error on the first post about this, but yes it was on the second one. Each county has to have its own juror pool or why have a change of venue. DAH :shrug: :punch: :punch:

That makes perfect sense. Now all I wonder is why they don't have a larger jury pool when a case of some notoriety is on the docket. Or is a request for change of venue just a given? I've never been called; can you tell?

[JR2007]

Exactly.... as I was saying before the extra jurors are divided into subdivisions. I guess my thoughts weren't coming across clearly but it sounds like you and I are on the same page now. For xample, (I reread my letter) I was called to serve on panel #2. I think probably each panel consist of the 100 or so people like you said, which would be where the 10% comes. Eleven or so would be on target with that. I think maybe in larger cases that there may be more panels called in, but I don't know.

I guess potentially you could get called again before the 3 years is up if all 30,000 registered voters were gone through, but I think that would be unrealistic.

Do you know how many registered voters Franklin County has?

9,893 registered voters in franklin county.:)

[JR2007]

That makes perfect sense. Now all I wonder is why they don't have a larger jury pool when a case of some notoriety is on the docket. Or is a request for change of venue just a given? I've never been called; can you tell?

They always have the same 30,000 plus pool size, but do call a larger number from this pool that will serve, when special circumstances call for it.

[JR2007]

Ok I just have a question,and I'm not really keeping up with,nor have I read all the post but can someone tell me who Jeremy Martin is and what his involvement in this case is ..... Thanks

************************************************** ********


E-mails that Nona sent him were on the evidence list. So I guess they were seeing or dating each other at some point.

[christina]

As stated before, in high profile cases it is common to call 2 jury pools. Although the population of the county is small, that is Gibbons hometown area and his deputy is well known there. The change of venue granted, in my opinion, is a wash, neutral for both sides.

[sololobo]

Arkansas Change of Venue law reads as follows:

16-88-204. Application and issuance for order of removal.

(a)(1) The application of the defendant for an order of removal shall be by petition setting forth the facts on account of which the removal is requested. The truth of the allegations in the petition shall be supported by the affidavits of two (2) credible persons who are qualified electors, actual residents of the county, and not related to the defendant in any way.
(2) Reasonable notice of the application shall be given to the prosecuting attorney.

(3) The court shall hear the application and, after considering the facts set forth in the petition and the affidavits accompanying it and any other affidavits or counter affidavits that may be filed and, after hearing any witnesses produced by either party, shall either grant or refuse the petition according to the truth of the facts alleged in it and established by the evidence.

(b) Every order for the removal of a criminal cause under the provisions of this subchapter shall state whether the order is made on the application of the party or on facts within the knowledge of the court or judge making the order, and shall specify the cause of removal, and designate the county to which the cause is to be removed.

(c) The order, if made in term time, shall be entered on the record of the proceedings of the court. If made by a judge in vacation, the order shall be in writing and be signed by the judge and shall be filed by the clerk with the petition, if any, as a part of the record.


History. Crim. Code, §§ 415, 417, 418, as added by Acts 1873, No. 98, § 1, p. 156; 1873, No. 98, § 1, p. 234; C. & M. Dig., §§ 3088-3090; Init. Meas. 1936, No. 3, § 27, Acts 1937, p. 1384; Pope's Dig., §§ 3918-3920; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 43-1502 - 43-1504.

[JR2007]

I wonder how much information was shared with lemoncello, aka Janie Ginnochio behind the scenes, in PM's etc. Makes you wonder.....
Except for her little story about the Rape, I have no problem with her posting with 2 names. I believe it's the only honorable way to post her thoughts on a Forum like this and that's her right. I don't believe she was bound by the Gag order, since she was not an official of the county and only reported what was public knowledge anyway.
As far as the Rape thingy being untruthful, there is no laws broken. Items on a forum are not considered Gospel to anyone I know, anyway. JMHO

[JR2007]

Except for when it becomes public knowledge, which it should not do. I think when you are in that position the safest thing would be to keep it to yourself in case it is made public info. Since there is no way to ensure in a case like that that your opinion won't be made public, I honestly think it would be best to keep you opinions to yourself and your personal life so that it doesn't conflict with the ethical standards in your job of not enforcing your personal opinion on the public, which a reporter is not supposed to do. They are supposed to be impartial. Janie has not been. I don't need a Courier reporter trying to influence my decisions. I just want them to give me fair adequate information so I can make up my mind. She hasn't done that in the Courierm, and by posting on here and it becoming public knowledge has greatly imposed upon that.

I thought the articles the Courier had were good articles I saw no Bias whatever. And as far as her personal life she has the same rights you or I do in expressing her feelings. Bias is something hard to keep out of the media altogether. The term liberal media doesn't come from being non-biased. AMO.:confused:

[JR2007]

Yes, it is her right, and I suppose no laws were broken, but it certainly was unethical and distasteful given her position. As I said before, I think she was just fishing for info. to try to make advances in her career. Leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Her job position would never have been known if it weren't for the Defense team. So her opinions would not have reflected on her article writings.

[FDInLaw]

I wonder how much information was shared with lemoncello, aka Janie Ginnochio behind the scenes, in PM's etc. Makes you wonder.....
:eek: I told her everything I know!














J/K :tongue:

[Mishell1383]

:eek: I told her everything I know!















J/K :tongue:
lmao goof!!!! :patriot: i fell for that for the .65768 seconds it takes to scroll down!! lol

[FDInLaw]

lmao goof!!!! :patriot: i fell for that for the .65768 seconds it takes to scroll down!! lolMaking you laugh is what I live for! :D

[FDInLaw]

Hi Susie! How are you doing today? Is Janie being sued personally? I thought the Courier was being sued. Wasn't there some mention of Jonesboro? Where is Christina today? I'm sure she would know.

[FDInLaw]

This is ironic. . . I was about to dig up a great post wherein someone counted the number of times the word alleged was used and inferred in Janie's article but then realized that lemoncello wrote it!

I think I agree with JR about lemoncello. . . IMO this is all being blown out of proportion.

[christina]

What I heard the man who identified himself as Ms. Ginocchio's lawyer say was that he requested the defense lawyer not question her regarding the rape story as there was an ongoing lawsuit in Jonesboro.
That is all that I know on that.
I don't see her career going anywhere after this. But, there were many more issues to discuss for the hearing than this. Such as, will the cell phone debacle effect how the jury sees the handling of the case by the police?What will happen in the next hearing with Chief Bacon testifying whether the blood on the lightbulb was tacky or dry?

[FDInLaw]

I definitely disagree, but since lemoncello voiced guilt of Kevin Jones and the undertones of Janies stories implies guilt of Kevin Jones, I can see why you would agree with that. I feel that Janie's situation is news worthy to an extent, but believe this is overshadowing other things that occurred during the hearing. IMO the fact that the SIM info is going to be allowed is big news. . . guess I'm more interested in the actual case than something I view as a bit of a side issue.

[FDInLaw]

I think Christina's post about the info on Nona's cell being deleted was a good point. I think it raises suspicion and is extremely curious. Why would a family member do that? That is all extremely odd to me.
Perhaps Duane Dipert planned on using the phone for personal use (does it not state this somewhere?) and figured that if it was returned the info on it must have been saved by the investigators. This sounds reasonable to me. Obviously the phone should not have been returned, but the RPD is to blame for that.

[christina]

Agree Ms. Q, there was no logical reason to ask for a cell phone. I find it odd as well.
Not being able to recover information from the cell phone by the defense will come back to hurt the prosecution in the end I believe. The reaction in the courtroom at the hearing confirmed that. It opens the door for the jury to have reasonable doubt-who texted those messages days before, what were the messages sent from the victim's phone, who's prints and or dna were on the phone? It was an unfortunate mistake by the police.

[FDInLaw]

Agree Ms. Q, there was no logical reason to ask for a cell phone. I find it odd as well.
Not being able to recover information from the cell phone by the defense will come back to hurt the prosecution in the end I believe. The reaction in the courtroom at the hearing confirmed that. It opens the door for the jury to have reasonable doubt-who texted those messages days before, what were the messages sent from the victim's phone, who's prints and or dna were on the phone? It was an unfortunate mistake by the police. Or a fortunate mistake judging by the smiles it created in the court room, guess it all depends on what you want out of all this. You would think, that if this fumble caused the possible identity of the "real" murderer to escape detection, Kevin would not find it humorous. But hey, it's all about him walking. MOO

[JR2007]

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=15072&Search=Kevin%20Jones
Quote:
"Robbins concentrated his questions on Ginocchio’s stories and Internet communications with the crimelibrary.com message board.
Robbins learned about her posting history after he requested a transcript of her deposition testimony in a libel lawsuit filed against The Courier, Ginocchio, Editor Scott Perkins and Publisher Neal Ronquist by Ryan Whiteside in connection with two January articles regarding an alleged rape."
Quote:
"John Tull, an attorney representing Ginocchio and The Courier in the libel lawsuit, objected to the line of questioning, stating Robbins was veering into issues raised in the civil case."

She was personally named, according to media.

Did JG tell them that she was posting as lemoncello or did CL give them that information.
I agree with Att. Tull the line of questioning about the liable suit shouldn't be brought up in the murder trial motions. JG was being a reporter doing what any reporter would do if she heard about a rape taking place. Just because no charges were brought doesn't mean there wasn't a RAPE. From what I have gathered from day one was that there was a rape, but Nona's so called best friend changed her story to protect her boyfriend.
AMO, JMHO, WC.

[lorettalockhorn]

Arkansas Change of Venue law reads as follows:

16-88-204. Application and issuance for order of removal.

(a)(1) The application of the defendant for an order of removal shall be by petition setting forth the facts on account of which the removal is requested. The truth of the allegations in the petition shall be supported by the affidavits of two (2) credible persons who are qualified electors, actual residents of the county, and not related to the defendant in any way.
(2) Reasonable notice of the application shall be given to the prosecuting attorney.

(3) The court shall hear the application and, after considering the facts set forth in the petition and the affidavits accompanying it and any other affidavits or counter affidavits that may be filed and, after hearing any witnesses produced by either party, shall either grant or refuse the petition according to the truth of the facts alleged in it and established by the evidence.

(b) Every order for the removal of a criminal cause under the provisions of this subchapter shall state whether the order is made on the application of the party or on facts within the knowledge of the court or judge making the order, and shall specify the cause of removal, and designate the county to which the cause is to be removed.

(c) The order, if made in term time, shall be entered on the record of the proceedings of the court. If made by a judge in vacation, the order shall be in writing and be signed by the judge and shall be filed by the clerk with the petition, if any, as a part of the record.


History. Crim. Code, §§ 415, 417, 418, as added by Acts 1873, No. 98, § 1, p. 156; 1873, No. 98, § 1, p. 234; C. & M. Dig., §§ 3088-3090; Init. Meas. 1936, No. 3, § 27, Acts 1937, p. 1384; Pope's Dig., §§ 3918-3920; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 43-1502 - 43-1504.

Excellent information, not a percentage at all; thanks for posting.

[lorettalockhorn]

True, but it sure is likely! I think it's funny that the defense was not able to produce enough people without using someone linked to them. Kinda makes a statement IMO.

:D

Well, heck yeah. Especially in light of the fact that we now know that it only takes two people to make the request for the change of venue.

[FDInLaw]

Silly me, I thought it's all about justice, and innocent untill proven guilty instead of guilty till proven innocent. But, honestly, that is kind of an embarassingly humorous fact that the cell phone was released nearly a month before Kevin's arrest, since it is such a siginigicat piece of evidence, as you put it. Bad enough that it sheds light on the true essence of the whole investigation, but I'd certainly hate to be the specific person who released it.:o With God's help justice will prevail.

[lorettalockhorn]

I thought the articles the Courier had were good articles I saw no Bias whatever. And as far as her personal life she has the same rights you or I do in expressing her feelings. Bias is something hard to keep out of the media altogether. The term liberal media doesn't come from being non-biased. AMO.:confused:

Agree that The Courier hasn't been overly biased, their reporting didn't influence my mindset.

[FDInLaw]

JR, I guess we see it differently. I think it sheds light on her type of reporting and her sharing things on here-- she should have stuck to reporting the facts and not put herself in the mix. I guess reporters are known for doing some pretty shady things, but personally, I would never have falsified and belittled a serious, horrible & tragic thing such as rape to get "in" (or whatever her motives were) no matter what my career was, but everyone is different. From what I gathered from day one was, that Chelsea said she didn't tell the girl those things. Just because the girls (victim & cousin) said she did, doesn't mean she actually did. I don't think she was protecting her boy friend, since from what I gather on here, is that her boyfriend are other women. I just seriously doubt a rape ever occurred. I certainly wouldn't be able to joke about a sex crime so casually with the alleged perpetrator. After all, the prosecutor dropped the charges because of lack of evidence. This is an old argument, and I thinK FD thinks we should discuss other things. I don't care if you discuss it further, and frankly there's so reason for you to worry about it if I did. I merely expressed my opinion.

[lorettalockhorn]

I feel that Janie's situation is news worthy to an extent, but believe this is overshadowing other things that occurred during the hearing. IMO the fact that the SIM info is going to be allowed is big news. . . guess I'm more interested in the actual case than something I view as a bit of a side issue.

Agree here too, we here at CrimeLibrary were the ones influenced by JG's use of two usernames (if anyone was), not the readers of The Courier. It's not like any of us will likely be on this jury.

But I am disheartened and confused by the lie. :no: :confused:

[hOTwIREd]

Yes I agree with your fingerprint theory. I meant to say that in the last post. The fingerprints could be easily smudged in an attempt to wipe them away, but if there were saliva present it may not be wiped off but only smeared around.

It is a good theory. However, fingerprints on a condom wrapper could easily be wiped off by the very nature of how the packet it torn open - the pressure of the fingers pressing down on the wrapper to grip it can completely obliterate the ridge detail, just leaving the clear outline of a fingerprint. In that case.

The fingerprints on a glossy surface could easily be wiped off, but being selective and only wiping some marks off and not others is not easy - unless the fingerprints are visible (and the person wiping the marks would need to know which ones to wipe off and which to leave behind). Condom wrappers do not have very much surface area and handling them to remove some marks and not others would be quite difficult, in my opinion.

I would have thought that low copy number DNA profiling could have been used in an attempt to extract DNA from where the fingers have pressed wown hard on the wrapper. Not that this is anywhere near 100% successful at giving results.


The DNA from saliva from the person using their teeth to tear open a condom wrapper is very insightful. I always look for indications of how a condom wrapper is opened to decide if fingerprinting or swabbing for DNa is the better option for evidential recovery.

I have examined many condom wrappers in the past and only once recovered a partial fingerprint. Most times I am just frustrated to see a perfect silhouette of a finger and thumb combination where too much pressure was applied to leave any ridge detail.

Obtaining a DNA profile from the saliva on the torn part of the wrapper would be another option (I swab cigarette lighters left at scenes - not for the skin cells on the 'striker' wheel, but the other end, having seen many people hold their lighters in their mouth whilst handling a cigarette - and get results (not always, but then you can never be sure that the lighter was held in the mouth)).
I would consider it at a sexual offence scene - if I could get authorisation for low copy number DNA profiling. I am not sure that the standard DNA profiling extraction technique would produce sufficient DNA to get a profile and would go for fingerprinting instead.


Digressing somewhat away from crime detection and the discussion in hand...
Regarding tearing open a condom wrapper with the teeth - I would have thought that this is a risky business - the condom may get perforated by the teeth.

[lorettalockhorn]

Nope! Even much less than that! :eek: My bad! Sorry! :o

No problem at all, I just hope that I remember this, now that I've learned it!!



What's wrong with calling known and trusted people?

Nothing at all, but we now know that only two people were necessary. Why bother with someone connected to the case, when ten witnesses would still have been overkill.

[lorettalockhorn]

It is a good theory. However, fingerprints on a condom wrapper could easily be wiped off by the very nature of how the packet it torn open - the pressure of the fingers pressing down on the wrapper to grip it can completely obliterate the ridge detail, just leaving the clear outline of a fingerprint. In that case.

The fingerprints on a glossy surface could easily be wiped off, but being selective and only wiping some marks off and not others is not easy - unless the fingerprints are visible (and the person wiping the marks would need to know which ones to wipe off and which to leave behind). Condom wrappers do not have very much surface area and handling them to remove some marks and not others would be quite difficult, in my opinion.

I would have thought that low copy number DNA profiling could have been used in an attempt to extract DNA from where the fingers have pressed wown hard on the wrapper. Not that this is anywhere near 100% successful at giving results.


The DNA from saliva from the person using their teeth to tear open a condom wrapper is very insightful. I always look for indications of how a condom wrapper is opened to decide if fingerprinting or swabbing for DNa is the better option for evidential recovery.

I have examined many condom wrappers in the past and only once recovered a partial fingerprint. Most times I am just frustrated to see a perfect silhouette of a finger and thumb combination where too much pressure was applied to leave any ridge detail.

Obtaining a DNA profile from the saliva on the torn part of the wrapper would be another option (I swab cigarette lighters left at scenes - not for the skin cells on the 'striker' wheel, but the other end, having seen many people hold their lighters in their mouth whilst handling a cigarette - and get results (not always, but then you can never be sure that the lighter was held in the mouth)).
I would consider it at a sexual offence scene - if I could get authorisation for low copy number DNA profiling. I am not sure that the standard DNA profiling extraction technique would produce sufficient DNA to get a profile and would go for fingerprinting instead.


Digressing somewhat away from crime detection and the discussion in hand...
Regarding tearing open a condom wrapper with the teeth - I would have thought that this is a risky business - the condom may get perforated by the teeth.

Hotwired, I was the one saying earlier in the discussion that I agree with LE that KJ could have planted the condom wrapper. What I picture is him retrieving the package at random from ?'s trash and wiping the corners (front and back) in a not necessarily particularly careful way, but just enough to destroy any fingerprints. I'm not personally familiar with condom use, but I understand that it's not unusual for the package to be opened using teeth.

Thanks for posting.

[FDInLaw]

Welcome Hotwired! :seeya:

Very interesting post! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. :) :)

[hOTwIREd]

Hotwired, I was the one saying earlier in the discussion that I agree with LE that KJ could have planted the condom wrapper. What I picture is him retrieving the package at random from ?'s trash and wiping the corners (front and back) in a not necessarily particularly careful way, but just enough to destroy any fingerprints. I'm not personally familiar with condom use, but I understand that it's not unusual for the package to be opened using teeth.

Thanks for posting.

Hello loretta, thank you for the reply.

It is certainly worrying how easy it is for someone to plant evidence at a crime scene. I recover cigarette ends from crime scenes - what is to stop an offender from collecting cigarette ends from another site (a public house or bar) where criminals frequent, or, if they want to frame a person, or redirect attention from themselves, rummage through a selected person's trash for 'dropping' in a crime scene?

As you suggest, they could easily get a condom wrapper from 'anyones' trash, or even pick one up from the ground in a place where 'lovers' (polite description) frequent.

Wiping the fingerprints from it and leaving it behind would enable them to leave evidence that obviously would not be traced back to them - even tracing the production number would lead to a shop that they had never been in and would lead the investigation team on a wild goose chase whilst the evidence trail goes cold.
A partial fingerprint, or partial DNA profile from a wiped wrapper could leave an outstanding profile for years, particularly if the wrapper was recovered from a 'non-criminal' (and therefore a person not on any database, and not likely to ever be on a criminal database).

__________________________________________________ __
I never put 'in my opinion' on my other post. Having read some other posts I see it is almost mandatory, so...

'The opinions above are my own opinions. I also assume that any one that leaves 'IMO' off their posts are posting their own opinions, unless they state otherwise'.
__________________________________________________ __
(I will not take offence if people wish to criticise my comments, I am always willing to learn, that is how I (hope I) get better at what I do. Healthy debate and discussion is a learning experience for all involved.
After browsing some of the other threads I am sure I will find information, ideas and suggestions which will definately help me hone my own skills. Some of the people here are really 'on the ball').

[hOTwIREd]

Welcome!:seeya: Very interesting info there! Thanks for sharing!

Welcome Hotwired! Great information. I guess you're a crime scene investigator. That must be very interesting work.

Welcome Hotwired! :seeya:

Very interesting post! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. :) :)

There I am, typing away and taking so much time that people are saying hello and I am missing them!

Thank you for the welcome.

That must be very interesting work.

I can honestly say that in almost 25 years I have never ever had a boring day. I have had tiring days, exhausting days but I have never not been busy lol.
My job title is SOCO - scenes of Crime Officer, although i have been told we are going to be changing our name to CSI. I believe because every one on the planet knows what CSI is lol.
The following is a (paraphrased) regular conversation I have...

Me "Hello, SOCO, may I come in?"
Complainant "What is SOCO?"
Me "It is CSI"
Complainant "Oh, why did you not say that in the first place?"

[christina]

If Jones planted a condom wrapper with someone else's dna at the victim's house doesn't that imply intent and therefore justify a capital murder charge?
Why did the prosecution not check anyone else's fingerprints or dna to rule them out? And why did they not file a capitol murder charge against Jones?

[Mishell1383]

Hello loretta, thank you for the reply.

It is certainly worrying how easy it is for someone to plant evidence at a crime scene. I recover cigarette ends from crime scenes - what is to stop an offender from collecting cigarette ends from another site (a public house or bar) where criminals frequent, or, if they want to frame a person, or redirect attention from themselves, rummage through a selected person's trash for 'dropping' in a crime scene?

As you suggest, they could easily get a condom wrapper from 'anyones' trash, or even pick one up from the ground in a place where 'lovers' (polite description) frequent.

Wiping the fingerprints from it and leaving it behind would enable them to leave evidence that obviously would not be traced back to them - even tracing the production number would lead to a shop that they had never been in and would lead the investigation team on a wild goose chase whilst the evidence trail goes cold.
A partial fingerprint, or partial DNA profile from a wiped wrapper could leave an outstanding profile for years, particularly if the wrapper was recovered from a 'non-criminal' (and therefore a person not on any database, and not likely to ever be on a criminal database).

__________________________________________________ __
I never put 'in my opinion' on my other post. Having read some other posts I see it is almost mandatory, so...

'The opinions above are my own opinions. I also assume that any one that leaves 'IMO' off their posts are posting their own opinions, unless they state otherwise'.
__________________________________________________ __
(I will not take offence if people wish to criticise my comments, I am always willing to learn, that is how I (hope I) get better at what I do. Healthy debate and discussion is a learning experience for all involved.
After browsing some of the other threads I am sure I will find information, ideas and suggestions which will definately help me hone my own skills. Some of the people here are really 'on the ball').
wowsers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol some great insightful info here! Learn something new everyday! Welcome glad to have you!! I'll be picking your brain.

[FDInLaw]

If Jones planted a condom wrapper with someone else's dna at the victim's house doesn't that imply intent and therefore justify a capital murder charge?
Why did the prosecution not check anyone else's fingerprints or dna to rule them out? And why did they not file a capitol murder charge against Jones?
You pose some good questions that are worthy of further thought. Planting evidence is not necessarily a sign of premeditation. A perpetrator can do this after the fact and possibly even leave and come back to the scene of the crime to stage it. Regarding the type of murder charge, the investigators might have suspected premeditation, but if there was not enough evidence for a good case in court the PA might have gone for a lesser charge, one that is more likely to bring a conviction. This is mere speculation on my part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a capital murder charge involves a premeditated crime. First degree murder does involve intent to kill does it not?

[FDInLaw]

Do we know who was swabbed and printed in this case, other than Jones? If LE identified any other men that Nona was involved with I'm going to presume they were swabbed and printed and not matches. IMO, the perceptions of the first officer on the scene are key. However, I don't think the DA would want to risk a capital case on a condom wrapper. Too risky. JMVHO.
ITA, how do we know the PA did not check the prints and DNA of other possible suspects?

[lorettalockhorn]

If Jones planted a condom wrapper with someone else's dna at the victim's house doesn't that imply intent and therefore justify a capital murder charge?
Why did the prosecution not check anyone else's fingerprints or dna to rule them out? And why did they not file a capitol murder charge against Jones?

Not necessarily. Perhaps Kevin killed Nona in a fit of rage, then after the murder scrounged for the condom wrapper and left it in the apartment to implicate someone else. (I'm assuming that any of the original suspects supplied DNA and fingerprints to LE in order to clear themselves.) He didn't plan the murder and didn't take the package with him, just seized on the idea to throw suspicions off himself. It was a coverup, not premeditation.

We don't know that the prosecution didn't check fingerprints or DNA. I would imagine that (some) suspects were more than happy to comply with the request when/if made.

Is it just me, or does the PCS make it seem as thought the phone/SIM card was sent for analysis right away? And could Sololobo or someone who is tech savvy come back and explain to me how the defense knows about the 12/9 message; "I wonder why you're leading me on?" and the five to ten other messages that aren't recoverable?

[JR2007]

Hotwired, Greetings and welcome to the board. Thanks, for the information, interesting.:seeya:

[JR2007]

If Jones planted a condom wrapper with someone else's dna at the victim's house doesn't that imply intent and therefore justify a capital murder charge?
Why did the prosecution not check anyone else's fingerprints or dna to rule them out? And why did they not file a capitol murder charge against Jones?

The condom wrapper, if placed there to throw off LE, could have been place there anytime AFTER the murder or on discovery of the body, as an after thought to intentionally throw off LE. AMO

[JR2007]

You pose some good questions that are worthy of further thought. Planting evidence is not necessarily a sign of premeditation. A perpetrator can do this after the fact and possibly even leave and come back to the scene of the crime to stage it. Regarding the type of murder charge, the investigators might have suspected premeditation, but if there was not enough evidence for a good case in court the PA might have gone for a lesser charge, one that is more likely to bring a conviction. This is mere speculation on my part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a capital murder charge involves a premeditated crime. First degree murder does involve intent to kill does it not?

Sorry FD, I just stated about the same thing as you did, because I hadn't read this far yet. But I agree.:beer:

[christina]

"I remember reading that Nona's step father didn't get the phone back until it had been processed and a duplicate made of the information on it. I suspect the defense knows what the prosecution know through the discovery process. The PA's office would have to turn over everything they have against Jones,"

That was brought out in the hearing this week. The phone was given to the stepfather before Jones was even charged. The crime lab downloaded what they could then returned it to the RPD. In the hearing the defense lawyer brought out that in his interview with the crime lab about the cell phone, the technician admitted there were more sensitive tests out there that could possbily have retrieved more information and the crime lab did not perform those. So the defense never had a chance for their experts to examine the cellphone and attempt those tests. So the defense was not given everything in discovery.

Also, I thought I read that no other fingerprint or dna was taken on any other suspects by the prosectutor. But I guess the trial will bring that out.

[christina]

True, there is no way to determine when the wrapper was put there. But what if the wrapper has the dna of Jeremy Martin, the person that texted the victim? Would it make a difference then?
I would think the prosecution would not just want to point the jury to who they think committeed the crime, but also close the doors to other possiblities.

[christina]

From the Courier-"Johnson also asked Gibbons to provide information on the following issues at the upcoming hearing: whether there are any FBI tests or reports on the computers of Dirksmeyer, Jones or Jeremy Martin; any additional tests on blood drying and time of death; any additional scientific tests and expert witnesses; any follow-up interviews with Martin; and any additional fingerprint tests.
In reference to follow-up interviews with Martin, Johnson alluded to Martin not telling “the truth about his involvement with Nona” to police. Martin is listed as a potential witness for the defense, and the prosecution provided copies of e-mails from Dirksmeyer to Martin as part of their response to the defense’s motion for discovery, according to court documents."

So Martin is a defense, not a prosecution witness. Interesting.

[JR2007]

IMO, the DA's role in any prosecution is to develop their case by not only preparing their prosecution but by defending the defendant. I think that's pretty standard in most DA offices. I'm sure they have that base covered. There is that gag order so there is a lot that is not known, IMO. JM may very well have provided a swab and his cell phone and records of any email he and Nona may have exchanged. We just might not have heard about it yet. JMVHO.

I'm sure all the suspects were printed and everything. The only problem is that they all had good alibis, except one. IMO that is why no arrest were made until March. Just because LE has a strong suspect, they do not stop following leads until all suspects and all alibi have been traced to the end, and all evidence is collected and tested. You don't come up with a suspect and then try to make the evidence fit, you follow the evidence till it lead to only one possibility. Bingo.

[sololobo]

Not necessarily. Perhaps Kevin killed Nona in a fit of rage, then after the murder scrounged for the condom wrapper and left it in the apartment to implicate someone else. (I'm assuming that any of the original suspects supplied DNA and fingerprints to LE in order to clear themselves.) He didn't plan the murder and didn't take the package with him, just seized on the idea to throw suspicions off himself. It was a coverup, not premeditation.

We don't know that the prosecution didn't check fingerprints or DNA. I would imagine that (some) suspects were more than happy to comply with the request when/if made.

Is it just me, or does the PCS make it seem as thought the phone/SIM card was sent for analysis right away? And could Sololobo or someone who is tech savvy come back and explain to me how the defense knows about the 12/9 message; "I wonder why you're leading me on?" and the five to ten other messages that aren't recoverable?

I assumed the crime lab made a thorough, 100% copy of retrievable data on the SIM card before it was returned. Apparently this was not done if the lab technician said more data could have been retrieved with more sensitive tests as noted by Christina in a previous post. Was the lab technician refering to the SIM card or the internal phone memory?

The paper stated there were five to ten other messages from the person who sent her the message on 12/9. The paper did not say these were deleted. The replies to these messages from Nona were deleted. Depending on the make and model of the phone, the "in" messages could have been stored on the SIM card and the replies from Nona may have been stored on the internal RAM memory which was more than likely destroyed by the extended absence of a power supply. Or possibly, text message replies on her phone may be routinely overwritten on the SIM card. Or the crime lab did not make a thorough copy of the SIM card.

[FDInLaw]

True, there is no way to determine when the wrapper was put there. But what if the wrapper has the dna of Jeremy Martin, the person that texted the victim? Would it make a difference then?
I would think the prosecution would not just want to point the jury to who they think committeed the crime, but also close the doors to other possiblities.
Also, "what if" Jeremy Martin had not seen Nona for months? :rolleyes:

[FDInLaw]

I'm sure all the suspects were printed and everything. The only problem is that they all had good alibis, except one. IMO that is why no arrest were made until March. Just because LE has a strong suspect, they do not stop following leads until all suspects and all alibi have been traced to the end, and all evidence is collected and tested. You don't come up with a suspect and then try to make the evidence fit, you follow the evidence till it lead to only one possibility. Bingo. Excellent post! :beer:

[sololobo]

I tend to doubt Jones "planted" the condom wrapper. If he found it in Nona's apartment at the time of the murder, this would support a possible motive for Jones being the killer. Since the prosecution claims it was planted and is not claiming it is supporting evidence for motive, I assume they think it was planted after Jones and company discovered the body. If this is the case, I'm having problems visualizing a young man searching Russellville and/or Dover for a opened condom package with a stranger's DNA on it. I am also wondering why Jones would plant supporting evidence for a motive that would implicate himself.

I'm more interested in the bloody print on the lamp. Was it dry or was it "tacky". I want to hear more from Chief Bacon.

[christina]

From what I observed at the hearing, the door for the jury to have reasonable doubt is open.

[FDInLaw]

True, there is no way to determine when the wrapper was put there. But what if the wrapper has the dna of Jeremy Martin, the person that texted the victim? Would it make a difference then?
I would think the prosecution would not just want to point the jury to who they think committeed the crime, but also close the doors to other possiblities.

Where has it been stated that Jeremy Martin was the one that texted Nona? I haven't seen that anywhere. I think you're taking some giant leaps here, but it doesn't surprise me. Jeremy has been a favorite suspect of the "Kevin is innocent" camp for some time now. How much of this is based on facts is questionable IMO.

You're right, if Jeremy Martin was the one that text messaged Nona and the DNA on the condom matched him this would be great news for the Defense. Even with that (and at this point we don't know that either of these things are true) this is where the importance of an alibi comes in, it doesn't matter how "weird" you think someone is if they didn't have the opportunity to commit the murder, they didn't. It's that simple. This is why Kevin is in the hot seat and not someone else. . . he had opportunity, motive, and there is evidence on the scene ( the hearing about the bloody prints found is going to be key here, as you pointed out earlier). MOO

[FDInLaw]

Well, the defense stated he had lied about his involvement with Nona, so that leads me to believe that this is not true.
They have stated this but at this point we don't even know what they are talking about. Are we just suppose to take their word for it or should we wait for some evidence?

[christina]

You are correct. I went back and read the article again. It does not state he was the one who wrote the text "why are you leading me on". I inferred it from the defense request of any more discovery about him, not from evidence.
As for being in the "Kevin is innocent camp", I along with the just about everyone I came in contact with, felt from the beginning Kevin Jones was guilty. I have tried to remain open because the prosepct of being called as a juror was ever present and I truly do believe in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
That is why I took the time to attend the hearing. I do think, after observing in person, there is more reasonable doubt.

[lorettalockhorn]

True, there is no way to determine when the wrapper was put there. But what if the wrapper has the dna of Jeremy Martin, the person that texted the victim? Would it make a difference then?
I would think the prosecution would not just want to point the jury to who they think committeed the crime, but also close the doors to other possiblities.


Maybe it is JM's DNA on the condom wrapper; if so I'll just assume that it was found by Kevin in the apartment and left in an obvious place to implicate him (whether knowing it was Jeremy's or not). I'll also assume that Jeremy was cooperative with LE and had a solid alibi. At this point, it would appear that Kevin's alibi is shaky.
If Jeremy is the one who texted the "leading me on" message", how do we know that he wasn't joking? Like Kevin was joking when he texted "U alive?"
(I don't for a minute think that KJ went to JM's home to find a condom wrapper in the trash. I also think it would be easy for him to find a random wrapper just about anywhere and leave it on the counter when he "found" Nona's body. Just another reason for him to be the one to discover her.)
I honestly think that the reason that the arrest took so long is because LE carefully examined and tested the evidence and alibis available. I also think that there is a LOT of information that we don't know.

[lorettalockhorn]

I assumed the crime lab made a thorough, 100% copy of retrievable data on the SIM card before it was returned. Apparently this was not done if the lab technician said more data could have been retrieved with more sensitive tests as noted by Christina in a previous post. Was the lab technician refering to the SIM card or the internal phone memory?

The paper stated there were five to ten other messages from the person who sent her the message on 12/9. The paper did not say these were deleted. The replies to these messages from Nona were deleted. Depending on the make and model of the phone, the "in" messages could have been stored on the SIM card and the replies from Nona may have been stored on the internal RAM memory which was more than likely destroyed by the extended absence of a power supply. Or possibly, text message replies on her phone may be routinely overwritten on the SIM card. Or the crime lab did not make a thorough copy of the SIM card.

Thanks, I was curious about the wording about the lab being able to retrieve more information with more sensitive testing. Why wouldn't they perform the most sensitive tests possible? Or did the lab tech mean if the phone and SIM card had been in better condition?

I hope that The Gazette has trial coverage as well as The Courier. Getting information in a timely manner is going to be frustrating and at this point, I want to read more than one version of the proceedings. Christina, thanks for the first hand information.

[christina]

Agreed. Like I said, I have tried hard to remain open minded in case I was called as a juror.
I do hope to attend as much of the trial as possible, harder now that it is out of town.

[JR2007]

They have stated this but at this point we don't even know what they are talking about. Are we just suppose to take their word for it or should we wait for some evidence?

This was my thought too. It seems that in most cases the DA or prosecution side has to deal with facts, although they may have an unproven theory, they still have to stick with facts. On the other hand it appears that in most cases the Defense does not have to stick with facts. They can make insinuations, wild statements, not backed up by evidence, all to confuse and sway the jury, in order to get a client off they know to be guilty. I guess that is their jobs. I believe that the job of defense was originally set forth, when our judicial system was began, to assure that the writes of the defendant were not abused, not to make or hide evidence that points to a persons guilt.
:patriot:

[JR2007]

Maybe it is JM's DNA on the condom wrapper; if so I'll just assume that it was found by Kevin in the apartment and left in an obvious place to implicate him (whether knowing it was Jeremy's or not). I'll also assume that Jeremy was cooperative with LE and had a solid alibi. At this point, it would appear that Kevin's alibi is shaky.
If Jeremy is the one who texted the "leading me on" message", how do we know that he wasn't joking? Like Kevin was joking when he texted "U alive?"
(I don't for a minute think that KJ went to JM's home to find a condom wrapper in the trash. I also think it would be easy for him to find a random wrapper just about anywhere and leave it on the counter when he "found" Nona's body. Just another reason for him to be the one to discover her.)
I honestly think that the reason that the arrest took so long is because LE carefully examined and tested the evidence and alibis available. I also think that there is a LOT of information that we don't know.

Good post Loretta

[JR2007]

I ride my mt. bike a lot, when riding down any dead end street or road with bushes hiding or making cover, in or out of the city, I find places where people, I assume young kids park to make out. You can find all types of things on the surrounding ground and bush. So it is very easy to come by.

[christina]

Is there still the possibility that you will be called for jury duty in this case? If you are called, during voir dire are you going to tell the court about your message board involvement and attendance at the hearing? IMO, if you do, you'll passed over. Especially so if you let them know you initially felt Kevin was guilty. JMVHO and good luck with the jury duty thing!

No, they will only be calling people from the other county, thus the change of venue. I am a resident of Pope County.
As for voire dire, of course I would answer all the questions honestly as I would expect everyone else to. Watching the voire dire for this case would be interesting. But I think in a high profile case like this the lawyers will do it with the judge and recording clerk, in another room, with just a few jurors at a time.

[JR2007]

No, they will only be calling people from the other county, thus the change of venue. I am a resident of Pope County.
As for voire dire, of course I would answer all the questions honestly as I would expect everyone else to. Watching the voire dire for this case would be interesting. But I think in a high profile case like this the lawyers will do it with the judge and recording clerk, in another room, with just a few jurors at a time.

I have been on a jury several times, and I agree with what Christina says here, although when we were call for a murder trial, under Patterson as judge we were narrowed down by general questions then we went in one person at a time in a room with the Judge and lawyers, to answer questions. It was very interesting and I believe everyone should serve on a jury at least once, although the second time you enjoy it more, because you aren't as apprehensive. :)

[christina]

Agreed, jury service is an honor. I have served twice and took it very seriously. Once was for this judge as well. That is part of what got me interested in court proceedings.

[JR2007]

Agreed, jury service is an honor. I have served twice and took it very seriously. Once was for this judge as well. That is part of what got me interested in court proceedings.

Me too :patriot:

[JR2007]

Reasonable doubt seems to becoming more and more evident. I think the defense is do an excellent job!:beer: I am glad the opposite side is finally getting some press that shows their side.

To me its all about alibis, if you got one, you didn't do it. If you ain't got one it doesn't mean you did it, but if the evidence points to you and you don't have an alibi, guess what. IIIIIIIIIIII
I don't care who did it, I would like to see justice done. AMHO