Three repeat witnesses take the stand
Well, Roy McNeil, the cadaver dog man, took the stand for the third time, second in front of the jury, this morning. However, instead of taking up the whole day, his testimony lasted 10 minutes (made me want to dance), and it wasn't too confusing, although, there was something different. McNeil said while Bellas was questioning him that he did not remember what time Hartley came with the video. But he knew it wasn't when he first arrived. He believed the video recording must have occurred on Kiser's second alert. McNeil testified the video was accurate. McNeil also said, however, that his dog went to the search area three or four times. Robert Campbell asked him why he testified last time he said Kiser went down there three times? Did he lie? McNeil said no. He said no matter how many times Kiser went down there, he alerted to the scent of decomposition, not for a treat, as Campbell eluded to.
The next two witnesses also were repeat witnesses. Jose Garcia and Lt. Tracy Pyle took the stand. They made a lot more sense about the oil filters and why the testimony of the oil filters is even important to begin with. Pyle said that he and several other investigators met with Garcia and Antonio Reyes shortly after midnight Jan. 26. Garcia told the detectives that earlier that day (technically Jan. 25), Jerry Anderson asked him to change the oil filters. He asked him to change them and date them Dec. 29, 2005 - about a month prior. Gracia thought that was odd, as Garcia testified before, because Jerry just asked him to change them not too long before that. But now we know it's odd. If Garcia is telling the truth, why would Jerry want the oil filters changed Jan. 25 to reflect Dec. 29? Was Jerry trying to create an alibi? Although, in the two statements Bennett said Jerry gave him concerning Jerry's whereabouts and activities Dec. 29, 2005, Jerry never once said anything about changing the oil filters on Dec. 29. He did call Emily and asked her to pick up some, but we know that never happened. Interesting. This new information about the oil filters sheds a lot more light on why it's so important to discuss oil filters in the first place.
Pyle is still on the stand answering prosecution questions. The defense will get its turn after lunch.
The next two witnesses also were repeat witnesses. Jose Garcia and Lt. Tracy Pyle took the stand. They made a lot more sense about the oil filters and why the testimony of the oil filters is even important to begin with. Pyle said that he and several other investigators met with Garcia and Antonio Reyes shortly after midnight Jan. 26. Garcia told the detectives that earlier that day (technically Jan. 25), Jerry Anderson asked him to change the oil filters. He asked him to change them and date them Dec. 29, 2005 - about a month prior. Gracia thought that was odd, as Garcia testified before, because Jerry just asked him to change them not too long before that. But now we know it's odd. If Garcia is telling the truth, why would Jerry want the oil filters changed Jan. 25 to reflect Dec. 29? Was Jerry trying to create an alibi? Although, in the two statements Bennett said Jerry gave him concerning Jerry's whereabouts and activities Dec. 29, 2005, Jerry never once said anything about changing the oil filters on Dec. 29. He did call Emily and asked her to pick up some, but we know that never happened. Interesting. This new information about the oil filters sheds a lot more light on why it's so important to discuss oil filters in the first place.
Pyle is still on the stand answering prosecution questions. The defense will get its turn after lunch.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
12:37 PM
16 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
OK. Granted, the oil filters info is odd.
I suppose the prosecution is pushing on this because they think Mr. Anderson is trying to setup an alibi for himself. But I don’t see how that makes for an alibi. Maybe Mr. Anderson is just really bad at faking an alibi, but why does an oil filter with the Dec 29th date make for an alibi. Yes he mentioned the filter in a phone call to Emily, but just because the filter has that date doesn’t mean he didn’t have the time to commit murder that day.
If Mr. Anderson had asked the workers to say he was with them from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, ok, then it looks like he is trying to setup an alibi. That would be very bad for his defense. But changing the date on an oil filter - meaning it looks like a worker spent 20 minutes changing the oil that day, why would Mr. Anderson think that gave him an alibi. In other words, it wouldn’t. So really why does the prosecution think Mr. Anderson is trying to create an alibi out of it.
In fact, it does so much more to incriminate Mr. Anderson than it does to exonerate him. So why would he do it?
I think Mr. Anderson needs to explain his oil filter request. Maybe it is something as simple as the farm equipment is owned by the bank and Mr. Anderson promised in writing to maintain the equipment in a regular manner, meaning change the oil filters every month. With all the hectic mess going on, maybe Mr. Anderson forgot and is now caught in a fib trying to make it look like he wasn’t failing in his promise to the bank. Maybe? I don’t know. But score one for the prosecution. Mr. Anderson didn’t do the right thing that day and now must explain his actions. Does it equate to trying to cover up a murder? I’ll reserve judgment on that until the defense comes up with a reasonable explanation.
Also, as a side note, why do I get the impression the prosecution team is reading this blog? We mention our trouble with the oil filter testimony yesterday, and today they call witnesses back to the stand to explain it better. Who says the little guy can’t make a difference!
The brave new world. A blog being used as a feedback tool for the lawyers to gauge how they are doing. The power of the internet.
Well now maybe we are getting somewhere--If the Hispanic workers testimony can be believed. The dog man is still questionable to me but I'm not a dog expert like he is.
Several things still bother me about all this. The main thing I cannot seem to grasp is what did Jerry do with the truck on the morning he and Emily went down to the other part of the farm and he came back out but she did not. Did he hide the truck somehow until he could go back down there and drive it somewhere else? Did he have an accomplice already down there and he drove the truck to some other location out a back way off the farm. Did Reyes see the truck when he took Jerry back down there when Jerry had the trash bag? Someone, somewhere has the answers to all of this because I cannot see Jerry pulling this off by himself. Did he use the trash bag to put Emily's body in (if it was large enough)and conceal the body somewhere? Still a lot of unanwsered questions that I hope will come together soon.
Allison--I do not think the prosecution is reading this blog but you can bet the law enforcement side is. All I can tell you is read between the lines and the actions of some of the bloggers.
From the press I've seen.. Jerry doesn't look like the kind of guy who could carry a 190 lb. body in a trash bag.
Does anyone know how long it takes for a body to produce the scent of decomposition? The prosecution seems to be saying that Emily's body was in the woods long enough for the dogs to identify decomp.. but then another of their witnesses puts the truck in SC for 9-10 days. Would a body produce that scent immediately after being shot? So was she in the toolbox in SC for 9-10 days or not?
Just Watchin--I have not read anything about the prosecution leading to that theory of the body in the woods--However I also did not know Emily weighed that much--Sure does not look like it in the pictures--Your theory about the body in woods could make some sense--It was winter time--Decomposing of the body I presume would take longer--Still does not explain what happened to Emily's truck--I recall early on in the newspapers they supposedly searched for the truck from the air and on the ground--That truck must have been hid inside somewhere until whomever took it to Duncan,SC--Possibly inside of a covered trailer or bigger truck-I hope we get the answer--I want to know how it was pulled off if in fact Jerry did it by himself.
Actually justwatchin, brilliant observation. McNeil testified his dogs trigger on decomposition. But if the prosecution's theory is to be believed, that body was sitting in the ground for maybe an hour. Certainly enough time for blood to have been spilled, but the dog doesn't trigger on blood, only on decomposition - remember McNeil's testimony about keeping human flesh in his refrigerator - no mention of keeping human blood in there.
So could a dog trigger on a body sitting in the woods for an hour? And could it do this two weeks after the fact? Seems so incredibly unlikely. Especially since no one could smell anything from the truck in Duncan 11 days later.
well there you go again allison talking about something you know little about. Nothing odd about oil filters. He was just trying to find an alibi. What are you gong to say when they find him guilty.
You and a bunch of others are going to have egg on your face.
Does anyone understand exactly what the prosecution is trying to say happened? I keep hoping they will give us a plausible explanation of how Emily died.
The oil filter angle still doesn't make sense to me. How could back dating a 20 minute oil filter change provide an alibi.. particularly if you ask someone else to do it. In one moment we're asked to see Jerry as fumbling for an alibi.. the next minute we're asked to believe he coldly calculated murder and disposal of a body.
I'm more confused than ever now. It would seem to me that maybe Jerry was trying to create an albi--but why wait until Jan 25--I thought from previous testimony the oil filters got changed on Dec 29--Did Jerry discover that the date was not put on the oil filters on that day? If not then why ask for them to be changed--why not just write the date on the filters that are already on there without involving anyone else--Something does not make any sense here.
ret-investigator--I have ask myself the same question since the beginning-how do Jerry get the truck down to Duncan SC (approx. 2.5 hrs away) and how did he get back in time for a dinner party. He certantly didn't hitch a ride back up I-85...AND for thoses who didn't catch my question I posted yesterday-read below---did anyone else hear this news?
"Last night while watching the news (I believe WSOC) a trial update said: "Emily's glasses were found on a table in one of the hotel rooms next to the Waffle House in Duncan SC" AND also the news reported: "That one of Emily's credit cards had been used two days after she disappeared" Did anyone else hear this?
tinkerbell--I caught your earlier comment this morning but I did watch the news last night and could not find it on any of the news channels web-site--I read in the local paper about Dubs asking about the glasses and it seems they cannot be found--This would have been a case I would have loved to investigate from the beginning--Put the puzzle together--paint the whole picture--would have been time consuming but well worth it to find out why,who,when and where this woman was murdered.
And tinker I think it is a great question which needs to be answered by the prosecution.
Parallel to that, something I've never seen questioned: Why would Mr. Anderson deem it necessary to ditch the truck so far away? Why Duncan? It creates nothing but logistical problems to leave the truck so distant.
1) As you point out, it is difficult for him to get back.
2) I think it is a good rule of thumb as far as murders go to be driving around as little as possible with a body in your trunk.
3) Choosing to going so far away means Mr. Anderson would have to account for his not being seen for 5 hours round-trip. Wouldn't it have been easier to drop the truck closer and only having to account for 20 minutes of disappearance?
Why not "hide" the truck at one of the 2 dozen hotels/motels in Lenoir or Hickory? So much easier and would give the same effect that Emily ran off with someone.
Why Duncan?
And a thought on the eyeglasses slightly separate from tinkerbell.
Emily tells people she is going to Sams Club. She is not seen on the store video. However, I pointed out there is a 2nd Sams Club which deals with the replacement of eyeglasses. Emily is found without her glasses yet no investigator thinks it is necessary to check the video of the eyeglass store?
Maybe she left her glasses there to be fixed? Maybe she went to get a new prescription? Wouldn't it have been slightly prudent to check the Sams Club eyeglass store video since she said she was going to a Sams Club and she was found without her glasses?
A exit wound is larger,therefore taking tissue out with the bullet.Is it possible that this is what triggered the dogs to decomposition?
ret-investigator-
I also would have loved to have investigated this from the beginning. It's like you said earlier "Put the puzzle together-find all the missing pieces"
This is way intersting to me-I have so many thoughts-questions going thru my mind. Wonder why the lead investigator lost so many of the "pieces" to this puzzle?
Post a Comment
<< Home