Archive for Monday, February 12, 2007


New witness halts arson, murder case proceedings

Jason Rose bites his fingers at his murder and arson trial at the Douglas County District Court. Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial after the prosecution introduced a new, previously undisclosed witness more than four days into testimony on Monday. A new trial date was set for April 30.

Jason Rose bites his fingers at his murder and arson trial at the Douglas County District Court. Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial after the prosecution introduced a new, previously undisclosed witness more than four days into testimony on Monday. A new trial date was set for April 30.

February 12, 2007


The murder and arson trial for Jason Rose ended abruptly Monday.

District Court Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial after prosecutors attempted to introduce a new, previously undisclosed witness more than four days into testimony.

Rose mistrial

Judge Jack Murphy declares a mistrial. Enlarge video

Jason Rose bites his fingers at his murder and arson trial at the Douglas County District Court. Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial after the prosecution introduced a new, previously undisclosed witness more than four days into testimony on Monday. A new trial date was set for April 30.

Jason Rose bites his fingers at his murder and arson trial at the Douglas County District Court. Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial after the prosecution introduced a new, previously undisclosed witness more than four days into testimony on Monday. A new trial date was set for April 30.

"The state had a witness come forward late Friday after court had convened," Assistant District Attorney Amy McGowan told Murphy on Monday. "We spent the weekend looking into it."

Rose has been charged with three counts of murder, one count of aggravated arson and seven counts of aggravated battery in connection to the Oct. 7, 2005, Boardwalk Apartments fire. The fire killed Kansas University student Nicole Bingham, electrician Jose Gonzalez and social worker Yolanda Riddle, and it severely injured seven others.

New witness

McGowan and Assistant District Attorney David Melton had nearly completed presenting state's evidence in the trial when they learned of the new witness. Many of the fire's survivors had already testified, and jurors were nearing the end of Rose's videotaped police interview, showing Rose confessing to starting a fire at the apartment complex the night it burned.

The defense had not yet presented any witnesses.

Murphy ruled that the evidence prosecutors said the witness would present appeared to be admissible, but declared a mistrial after Rose's attorney, Ron Evans, complained because the request was so late.

Although prosecutors won't disclose who the new witness is, someone posting on the Journal-World's Web site on Friday afternoon wrote that Rose had plans to set an apartment fire.

The comment, posted by a user under the name "truth_society," stated that Rose told the poster and several others during his stay in a group home "that as soon as he moved out into his own apartment space, he was going to set it on fire."

Several people posting comments urged "truth_society" to call police with the information.

Lawrence police Detective Greg Pruett called the Journal-World on Friday afternoon attempting to identify the poster who left the comment.

Late Friday, the Journal-World received a subpoena from the Office of the Kansas State Fire Marshal requesting records and Internet protocol addresses for the poster. The records were to be directed to police Detective David Axman or Wally Roberts, an investigator with the Fire Marshal's office.

The newspaper complied with the subpoena Friday night. Under the user agreement, the organization reserves the right to disclose identifying information of those posting comments in the event of legal action.

District Attorney Charles Branson would not comment Monday about the identity of the witness. Defense attorney Ron Evans did not return a call seeking comment.

The case has been under a gag order since November 2005, barring all attorneys, officers and others with knowledge of the proceedings from commenting publicly outside of court.

It appears that much of the decision to declare a mistrial was made in Murphy's chambers Monday afternoon.

'Unfair to the defense'

Branson did say Monday that the information gathered during the weekend checked out, and that both prosecutors and Murphy thought it was important for jurors to hear that witness's testimony.

"We can't control when a witness appears," Branson said. "It's unfair to the defense. Obviously, the defense has to be prepared for this information."

Monday's mistrial came less than a year after a mistrial was declared in the murder trial of Jay Decker. Decker's first trial ended when prosecutors announced "newly discovered evidence" - a police interview that had not been delivered to attorneys - that they said would affect the outcome of the case. Decker was convicted at a second trial of murdering his infant daughter.

Mistrials in cases where a new witness surfaces late in the trial process are not unusual, District Judge Robert Fairchild said, especially when the testimony presented would affect the case considerably.

"Its not unusual to have a witness discovered at a late date," said Fairchild, who is administrative judge for Douglas County. "Anything can happen."

Having a story in the news often can cause new witnesses to surface after a trial has started, Fairchild said. The new evidence, if important enough, can hamper one side of a case or another.

"Generally, we do grant mistrials when evidence comes in late in the game," Fairchild said.

Murphy indicated in court that the evidence was important enough to be let into court even after the trial had begun.

"The court has reviewed the evidence," Murphy said. "And it does appear to be admissible."

To declare a mistrial, the judge has to believe in the validity of the evidence as well, forcing the court's hand to start the proceedings over, said David Gottlieb, Kansas University law professor.

"It's something courts only do because they have to do it," Gottlieb said. "It means they have to start all over."


Boardwalk Fire Trial declared a mistrial

The trial for the man accused of setting a deadly fire at the Boardwalk Apartments comes to an abrupt end this afternoon in Douglas County District Court. Four days into testimony, Judge Jack Murphy declared a mistrial based on new evidence entered by the prosecution. Enlarge video

Many of those involved with the trial left the courthouse Monday frustrated by the mistrial decision.

"Somebody mentioned getting left at the altar," juror Brad Wertz said of conversations with other jurors. "It's sort of a disappointment having sat through so much of it."

When trial left off Monday, the prosecution was getting close to wrapping up its case. Many expected a verdict by Friday, as the courtroom was reserved for only two weeks.

"I had lots of thoughts both ways, and it's disappointing to not be able to follow through on it," Wertz said. "I was looking forward to more information."

A new jury will have to be chosen before the April 30 trial date - a two-month delay that shocked some who were following the trial closely.

"It's a good thing I was sitting down," said Lindsey Gold, a friend of fire victim Nicole Bingham who had been following the trial online from Kansas City.

But Bingham's mother, Nancy, said that she'd rather see all of the evidence come to light than to have the trial over quickly.

"I'm OK with that," Nancy Bingham said. "Another month or two is not going to make a big difference. I'll be back."

Rose remains in Douglas County Jail on $500,000 bond.


Mike Blur 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure if anyone will be calling for much of anything these days, because it is now known that the J-W can, and will, disclose identities of people who post on these forums.

Just because it says "anonymous" next to your name, don't believe for a second you are posting anonymously.

As far as the case goes, I hope this will serve as a reminder to all of you reading this - if you have any information at all in a criminal case, even if it seems inconsequential, notify the authorities early on so the information can be vetted prior to any motion hearings. Another, completely separate case that I had a personal interest in might have been altered by late-breaking information disclosed to the prosecutors right before trial.

Let's put out the request: ANYONE ELSE reading this forum that has any information related to the Jason Rose case, please step forward and contact the appropriate authorities NOW, or else forever hold your peace.

No more mistrials.

cerealmom 11 years, 3 months ago

Every Poster should stand behind what they say anyway. If you won't back it up then do not post it.

Of course if anyone knows about a crime they should report it.

Jeffrey Watts 11 years, 3 months ago

Um, in this circumstance someone posted claiming to have evidence that would be very important in a murder trial, but did not identify themselves nor did they go to the police.

It would have been morally acceptable for the LJW to have just given this information to the authorities, but they didn't. They made the authorities subpoena them in order to ensure that the request was legal. And yet you lambast them for giving it up?

Here's the reality. If you are a participant in a serious crime or have knowledge of one, your anonymity is not Constitutionally protected. The LJW took the proper course here and a proper subpoena was delivered. All legal and above-board.

If the LJW had refused, the Fire Marshalls would have gone to a judge and I'm sure that that warrant would have sat on that judge's desk for about 3 seconds before being signed.

Horace 11 years, 3 months ago

We've been put of fair notice. Unlike other internet media companies, the LJWorld will not protect its users. Can't say I'm surprised.

oldgoof 11 years, 3 months ago

Horace, other internet media companies & service providers respond to subpeonas too. Tell me one that doesn't. (No one here is claiming to be a reporter or to be a confidintial source)

maveric 11 years, 3 months ago

What I am out to seek is one important information about Boardwalk Apartments misuse of running a criminal background check on Mr. Rose. Why I ask is because when I first moved in I was run through every background check and credit history known to man. I would NOT of been able to move in if it wasn't for my caseworker and friends backing me up. WHY???? Did Boardwalk Apartment allow Mr. Rose with the statement known in his criminal history of setting fires in the group home stated in past Newspapers and being caught stealing lighters from Ace Hardware on 23rd and LA, that there is a BIG BIG clue in a background check. I aint going into details but its totally wrong and the landlord of Boardwalk tried to me and my friend into an apartment across the street from our burned out apartment that had bags of trash and magets on the floor and every room had dog and cat droppings, and the counter tops in the kitchen was covered with alcohol products and molded and magets, something sure aint right when a landlord does this to people. Why?? is the question of allowing him in with a criminal background like he has and allow him to put everyone in jepordy. I think Boardwalk is hiding something,why??? they was hurting SO BAD for money after redoing the roofs that leaked there for the 12+ years I lived there and took in anyone from the bad crowd and so on. Something is just not right in the decision of allowing him there especialy in his state of mind. In a past newspaper since I have collected them all about the fire he has had a criminal history of fire settings and thats according to the newspaper and police reports at the group home, why was he allowed to move into Boardwalk, especially with NO credit history????. Makes one wonder who is hiding what info from authorities. Also to allow someone to assault someone with a gun even a lady and her son who was a problem daily to the landlord and behind on rent allowed to live there and continue to harass us. I lost everything in this fire without any family help since I was 13 after my mom died and I am sad of the 3 who were lost but never forgotten and counting everyone who had to jump for there lives, the landlord has NO respect for anyone on and I know this personally because of how she treated me, I know enough of how she was and know what I know and I aint giving details, but she wasn't the perfect landlord either by locking a tenant in her office and verbally abusing me and threatening me, I have nothing to hide but I aint going into full detail on how she treats people who are on section 8 who can't help being disabled from birth who try everyday to live life peacefully and do the right thing. , but her maintenance and old maintenance people got first bids on what apartment they wanted before she helped anyone, so she should be at some fault somewhere by the respect she has for people.

gabbo 11 years, 3 months ago

Before anyone calls for the complete disintegration of state and local goverment over this one, please remember that this unfolded very quickly this weekend, and the story checked out. This is good for the good guys and just for the bad guy, and will ultimately put this tragedy to rest better than the alternative.

Baille 11 years, 3 months ago

Sounds fake. Anyone know who posted it?

costello 11 years, 3 months ago

Baille: It sounded fake to me too, when I first read it. But apparently they ran down the source and verified it.

KUred06 11 years, 3 months ago

Baille -

If it was truly fake, the police would not have subpoenaed the person and stopped the trial. I doubt that the jumping to conclusions will assure that Jason has a fair trial. A knee-jerk reaction is the last thing that people need to think. If we know who posted it, the police would never have had to get a subpoena to find the person's identity. Although it would have been ideal if this person had come forward before the trial started, this is the way that the cookie crumbles.

All we can hope as citizens of Douglas County is that this trial is completed with all the formalities the legal system can offer.

The Lawrence Journal-World did nothing wrong. If people are under the impression that they can say or do whatever they want without consequences, they are sadly disillusioned. The First Amendment only protects us so far. It should not protect us if we know information that could be pertinent in convicting, or not convicting, someone accused of this serious of a crime.

Mike Blur 11 years, 3 months ago

Boscoe: please re-read my post before posting. I was merely stating facts. I re-read my own post, and failed to find any "lambasting."

My own personal thoughts on the JW's actions are actually of approval. I feel like we all should register using our actual identities; discourse would be much more civil, and Lawrence as a community would be better off in the long run.

KansasKel 11 years, 3 months ago

QUOTE: Under the user agreement, the organization reserves the right to disclose identifying information of those posting comments in the event of legal action.

So, for those of you whining about how the ljworld does not protect their readers - shut up! If you read the user agreement, you would KNOW you could potentially be given up if subject to legal action! All the "anonymous" beside your name means is that your email address is not available to other people who might disagree with you and harass you. It NEVER meant that no one could find out who you are.

Baille 11 years, 3 months ago

"Baille -

If it was truly fake, the police would not have subpoenaed the person and stopped the trial."

The police have an obligation to investigate such a claim, and the DA's office has an obligation to put forth evidence it believes to be credible. But it is the province of the fact finder to determine whether the evidence is credible and establishes all the elements of the crime charged.

"I doubt that the jumping to conclusions will assure that Jason has a fair trial. A knee-jerk reaction is the last thing that people need to think."

I am not jumping to conclusions. The story related by the poster sounds fake to me. It may not be. I would like to hear more about it and am interested to see what the defense does to investigate and evaluate the credibility of both the "witness" and the story related.

I have no doubt the message was really posted.

"If we know who posted it, the police would never have had to get a subpoena to find the person's identity.

Yes they would. Unless they spoke to you or me or whoever "we" is supposed to refer to. How else would they know who posted it? I simply asked if anyone knows who the witness is. Who posted the message? I don't remember reading that anywhere, but I may have missed it.

bevy 11 years, 3 months ago

What this whole thing makes me wonder is - why would someone with this kind information post it on a board like this, but NOT think to take it to the police right away? Were they afraid they wouldn't be believed (as it sounds like their youth group leaders didn't believe them at the time)? Or did they just not think they needed to do so? Amazing.

And yes, the LJW did the right thing. If you are so concerned about protecting your identity, then you should actually read the user agreement before indicating that you agree with it. Most user agreements are in place to assure users that their e-mail addresses will not be sold to spammers. Though many sites reserve the right TO share your info, so be careful when signing up for things like this.

Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

Ok, what a mess. I don't know how credible this newly discovered witness is, but under the circumstances if the DA really believes this new witness is credible, then putting this poster on the witness list and on the stand may make some sense. I don't see how Judge Murphy nor the defense had any choice.

I assume the defense will have some very tough questions them and will offer an alternate explanation of the "new witness" testimony, like "you made Rose's statement up, you posted it on a website thinking you were anonymous, when you found out you weren't and the DA found you, in an effort to save face you are now committing perjury, isn't that correct?" Under these circumstances I think I would be more likely to believe this new person has other motives than simply telling the truth.

But doesn't this all still beg the question, if Branson is going for the death penalty, shouldn't he be more confident in his case without chasing down every boasting LJW posters? If his case needed this witness, how strong is it? I guess it doesn't take much to get a mistrial around these parts.

Oh, and if you really believe you are anonymous on the Interweb, I hope this incident shall cure you of that delusion!

Nonsense 11 years, 3 months ago


Where exactly does it say that this is a death penalty case?

yellowhouse 11 years, 3 months ago

I think every poster should be identified and that the public should be able to know who is saying what. Since a lot of the comments can be mean and slanderous, and even untrue. Identity would make the posters think more about what they are saying before it is said!

Accountability breeds Disipline.

MyName 11 years, 3 months ago

While there is something to be said for taking away the anonymity of internet message boards, the bottom line is that there are way too many people interested in using my identity for nefarious purposes (spammers, hackers, and other crooks), and the only way to keep that information away from them is to keep as little of your personal information online as you can. I'm sure they could care less about anything I post here, but if it gives them a new email address to phish or spam, and a real name to go with that address, it works great for them.

BTW, I hope you appreciate the irony of making such a statement preceeded by this:

yellowhouse (anonymous) on February 13, 2007 at 2 p.m.

Baille 11 years, 3 months ago

"I think every poster should be identified and that the public should be able to know who is saying what."

JayCat_67 11 years, 3 months ago

It's never actually been confirmed that this poster is the new witness. Just speculation. But hey, it makes for good debate.

Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

Nonsense, this is a death penalty eligible case being multiple homicide resulting from intentional arson (redundant, yes I know). It is my understanding that the defense team appointed to Mr. Rose was done so because they have experience doing indigent death penalty defense. You might have not noticed but the LJW doesn't reiterate every single detail in every article. They assume some knowledge on the part of their readers.

Baille 11 years, 3 months ago

I am pretty sure that Ron Evans is with the death penalty unit of the State Board of Indigent Defense Services.

Christine Anderson 11 years, 3 months ago

The "new" witness IS the poster, and I for one am glad this person came forward.

There was a serious, STINKIN' lack of discipline and accountability among the leadership of the church Rose formerly attended. ( NOT, the youth leaders. NOT the elders who resigned because they could no longer abide the lack of accountability.) Obviously, arson and murder resulting from such arson are the most serious of all possible matters. So is killing your wife because she won't go along with your perverted lifestyle. Along with these crimes being committed by members of this same church, there was also adultery, porn addiction, wife battery, a married man taking up with a very young, unmarried single mom, marriage/immigration fraud, and some financial practices which did NOT meet bibical standards. I know this sidetracks from the Rose case, but it is a potrait of the total lack of accoutability that was present.

I say this to thank the person who finally came forward. You clearly have a greater maturity then those who occupied the pulpit.

Here's the deal, folks. When you have leadership at the "top rung", who will not discipline or correct in a timely fashion, it trickles on down the line.....

daman 11 years, 3 months ago

This is NOT a death penalty case. It's a felony murder case and he's looking at life eligible after 20 years.

Sounds like the new witness is the poster from the other day and that may have already been determined so I apologize if I'm behind. In any event, if it is obviously law enforcement and the DA's office find their statement credible. However, rather than giving the defense another crack at each witness and impeaching them to death with their prior statements (that's what defense lawyers do), seems to me this witness would have been a great rebuttle witness to rebut the defendant's evidence of lack of intent. What a great bookend to the evidence that would have been. I guarantee you that if the State would have said, "fine judge and Mr. Evans, we'll just use him in rebuttle, one of two things would have happened; one, defendant doesn't take the stand and presents NO evidence so the State can't use rebuttel, or two, witness hits the stand after defense spends all that time saying his client didn't do it, wouldn't do it, and just told cops what they wanted to hear. Not second guessing the State here but may have been an option to avoid mistrial.

daman 11 years, 3 months ago

Ron Evans is with the death squad but they don't have much work these days and since the State is overpaying him, they figure he might as well take on some other cases while he's waiting on the next death case.

Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

If this person really had this kind of knowledge they should have come forward much, much sooner. The situation they put the defendant, the prosecution, the first jury, the judge, the victims, the families, and the community in, is intolerable. If this does not turn out to be credible, they should be charged with a crime.

Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

I thought this is a death eligible case (capital murder).

It was an intentional act and killed more than one person. 21-3439. Capital murder. (6) intentional and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct;

If they charged felony murder instead, I stand corrected.

compmd 11 years, 3 months ago

If you think you're anonymous, let me tell you how hard it is to identify the user of a bulletin board.

Client side:

1) Log in. 2) Post comment

Sometimes there is a step 1.5) read article. :)

Server side:

1) User logs in. 1a) Verify username against database. 1b) Encrypt user supplied password, verify hashed password against stored hashed password. 1c) If 1a and 1b return true, continue, or else reject login. 2) User posts. 2a) Record username, timestamp, and IP address of posting user in logs.

Now, to identify the user.

1) Sysadmin finds post timestamp and IP address in logs. 2) Perform ARIN lookup of IP address to determine network owner/ISP. 3) Subpoena ISP. Provide IP address and timestamp. 4) ISP determines what user the DHCP server assigned the IP address in question to at the requested time. 5) ISP hands back name and physical address of the user.

Steps 2 and 3 are unnecessary for IP addresses in the range (Sunflower) and another range they have I can't remember if we're talking about identifying LJW users. This entire process takes VERY little time on the technical end. My fastest identification of an "anonymous" user was just under an hour, and that was working with authorities in another country. Coordinating people is the hard part. I'd say that if the LJW was asked to identify a user here who posted from a Sunflower connection, it would take less than a minute.

Maybe I should have been using Tor when I posted this...

Tom McCune 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm not a lawyer or crime watcher, but it seems to me that someone who overheard a comment about something that Rose might do at some point in the future is not all that important in establishing what Rose actually did on the night in question. If truth_society had actually seen Rose set the actual fire THAT would be worth a mistrial.

Baille 11 years, 3 months ago

"Ron Evans is with the death squad but they don't have much work these days and since the State is overpaying him..."

Overpaying him? Evans is a top-notch lawyer. His value on the open market is much higher that what the state is paying him.

Sigmund 11 years, 3 months ago

compnd, it is hoped that while it is trivial to identify "anonymous" users, none of these entities would do so without a warrant. Maybe I should have used an overseas (non-treaty country) anonymous proxy server to post this? But then again, exactly which oversees anonymous proxy server do I really trust?

None of them, not even the onion router....

compmd 11 years, 3 months ago

Sigmund, since the Journal World and Sunflower Broadband are under the same parent company, I'm pretty sure that asking the LJW for an identity is just about asking Sunflower directly. If the LJW sees a user posting from a Sunflower address, the LJW admin can say, "hey, who had this address at 8:32 last night?" and an admin at Sunflower can say, "oh, that was joe schmo." What ISP do most Lawrencians use? Sunflower. The ISP is so integrated into this city that even the netblock of second to last hop between my residence and is registered to USD497. This is why I am no fan of mega media companies.

Bob Forer 11 years, 3 months ago

Stuipd move, Charles. Rose will now argue on appeal that the second trial constiututes double jeopardy. If the newly discovered evidence doesn't pan out (e.g. lack of corroboration) or if Rose can demonstrate that the police were negilgent in discovering this evidence earlier, any conviction could possibly be overturned on appeal on double jeopardy grounds, which means that Rose walks.

Bob Forer 11 years, 3 months ago

Assuming the "new witness" is the LJW poster, I think the state may have some serious problems. According to Amy McGowan, the new witness came forward after court convened on Friday. Not quite true. Rather than "coming forward" it appears that the state tracked him down sometime after he posted his "information" shortly before 4:00 p.m. This leads to a more profound question. Did the state reveal to Judge Murphy that according to the "new witness" Rose made the same comment to several other youths at the group home. I seriously doubt they revealed the existance of possible corroborating witnesses to the Judge, because had such information been revealed, it is doubtful that Judge Murphy would have allowed the testimony without corroboration. A very serious omission. If these are the facts, the defense will argue that the ommission was intentional, and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Who knows, but Rose may walk.

Bob Forer 11 years, 3 months ago

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down United States v. Dinitz, which held that a defendant's motion for mistrial ordinarily removed any double jeopardy bar to retrial. The Court recognized an exception for "governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby subject defendants to the substantial burden of multiple prosecutions." Retrials would be barred "where 'bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor' . . . threatens the '[harassment] of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict' the defendant." With regard to the case before it, the Court held that the conduct in question "was not done in bad faith in order to goad the respondent into requesting a mistrial or to prejudice his prospects for an acquittal."

Evans had no choice but request a mistrial. If truth_society is the newly discovered witness, then his testimony compromises the entire defense strategy, something which is immutable given that he already revealed his hand to the jury in his opening statement.

The prosecution is treading on very thin ground. Obviously, the state was unable to corroborate the veracity of truth-society by interviewing the other boys at the youth home who also allegely heard these statements, because if they had, then the state would have sought to add those boys as witnesses as well. I think the prosecution may have mislead Judge Murphy. Had Judge Murphy known that Rose had allegedly made the same statement to several boys, then I doubt he would have allowed the one witness to testify without corroboration.

If this is the case, then Rose's attorney will file a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. He could walk.

Bob Forer 11 years, 3 months ago

"Branson did say Monday that the information gathered during the weekend checked out."

If truth-society is the witness, then I have reasons to question Mr. Bransons intellectual honesty. In his post, truth-society stated that Rose made the same comment to several of the boys at the youth home, including a twelve year-old boy who asked him "What about the people."

The only way to truly check out this information is to ascertain the idenfity of the other boys who heard the incriminating statements, find them, and interview them.

I doubt this could have been accomplished over a weekend. Even if truth-society was able to provide first and last names, which is doubtful, it would have been nearly impossible to track down those boys in a weekend and conduct interviews.

Charles, you may have just cost the People a conviction, you fool.

Bob Kidder 11 years, 3 months ago

FYI - Please re-read the post. The girl was NOT from the group home; nor, was that where this statement was allegedly made. The LJW incorrectly quoted the post in their article go figure. The statement was supposedly made at youth GROUP; an activity that Jason did not attend since he worked from 17:00 to 21:00 at McD's. Her story, whether true or false, is very damning. Even with a lack of corroboration, the Jury will still hear premeditation in a statement made some three years prior to the fire. Several people involved in the youth group at that time have already told police that they have no knowledge of this story. I wonder what "checked out" actually means. Fact Jason lived in a group home for youth. Youth love drama. Any statement like this alleged comment would have created immediate gossip among those youth which never happened.

dthroat 11 years, 3 months ago

TheSycho - "I doubt this could have been accomplished over a weekend." Have you ever heard of OVERTIME and working really hard and fast when under a time limit.???

And I probably think that the LAWYERS in the DA office have probably heard of double jeopardy in their struggles to pass the bar and 'cussed and discussed ALL the ramifications before bringing this up to the judge.

Do you actually practice law or you just a first year student??

Commenting has been disabled for this item.