<< Back to the Story

Friday, June 22, 2007

Here we go again

Hey, guess what? We have a new witness who remembers something that he hasn't told anyone until just recently. This is a good one, too. At 10:45 a.m., Wilford Perry Arant Jr. took the stand. Information about his testimony was handed over to the defense just this morning. So, Lisa Dubs objected to the potential testimony saying the defense team doesn't have time to see if his testimony is true or not true and Dubs said Arant's testimony is double hearsay. Reportedly, according to the discovery Dubs read just now, Arant was told by a Doug Baldwin (an out of state banker) that Jerry Anderson said he was going to use the insurance money he got from Emily's death to pay off some bills. This statement Jerry reportedly made to Mr. Baldwin, who told Mr. Arant, was reportedly said before Emily's body was found. What a damaging statement. I can see why the defense is mad. They have no real good arguments to discuss with Arant about this comment because they just heard about it this morning.
When we get back in session, the judge is going to hear (without the jury there) what Bellas plans to ask Arant. Then I guess he will make a decision whether or not Arant can testify. This makes, what, the third time this week something has popped up to a witness. Both times the witnesses have been allowed to continue testifying to the new statement. Interesting...
So, McNeil finished up his testimony at 10:45 a.m. It's funny to watch is demeanor. He's hasty answering Robert Campbell's questions. He's more calm answering Eric Bellas' questions. In fact, McNeil said Steve Wright (the DA's investigator) is welcome to come visit him anytime. McNeil said he regrets ever talking to the defense team. However, Campbell asked McNeil if he remembered telling Dubs, when the defense met McNeil on Memorial Day, cherry moonshine would be available at an upcoming seminar if Dubs wanted to attend. McNeil said it probably would be there but he doesn't know who brings it.
I'll be back at lunch - I promise I'll stay away from the moonshine between now and then.

3 Comments:

Blogger Tinkerbell_28120 said...

Looks like 'HEAR-SAY" is permitted in this trial. If it were my court it wouldn't.
It goes like this...tell one person something...then they tell someone...they put another twist to it..and...so it goes down the line. By the time the story comes around, it's nothing like was originally told.
Why are these witnesses all of the sudden "remembering" things that are pretty damaging to the defense. Now don't get me wrong...I am not trying to take up for the defense...right is right...wrong is wrong...this second hand information is WRONG!! Period..no question about it

June 22, 2007 at 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like the prosecution now knows their case is weak, so they are grasping at anything to sway the jury. I am disappointed to see justice approached in this manner. If he did it, show the real evidence and get a conviction. But being found guilty because of dirty tricks? Double hear-say no less!!??

I don't think this is what our founders had in mind.

June 22, 2007 at 11:58 AM  
Blogger Bruce Roffey said...

All seems a bit odd to me.

"Free Ebook: The greatest viral marketing idea of all time"

June 23, 2007 at 9:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home