TSJ Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#501      
A question I have that may or may not have been asked and/or answered yet: We know the accuser went home, looked online at the Kansas basketball roster before eventually going to the Illinois website and identifying TSJ. But was Arterio Morris kicked off the team by the night of the UI/KU football game? If so, — and if Morris is indeed the assailant — that would explain why she didn’t see him on the Kansas roster.
 
#502      
A question I have that may or may not have been asked and/or answered yet: We know the accuser went home, looked online at the Kansas basketball roster before eventually going to the Illinois website and identifying TSJ. But was Arterio Morris kicked off the team by the night of the UI/KU football game? If so, — and if Morris is indeed the assailant — that would explain why she didn’t see him on the Kansas roster.
The football game was about 3 weeks prior to Morris's dismissal from team
 
#503      
A question I have that may or may not have been asked and/or answered yet: We know the accuser went home, looked online at the Kansas basketball roster before eventually going to the Illinois website and identifying TSJ. But was Arterio Morris kicked off the team by the night of the UI/KU football game? If so, — and if Morris is indeed the assailant — that would explain why she didn’t see him on the Kansas roster.
I had originally considered this as a possibility (thinking maybe KU was alerted off-the-record and proactively removed him from the roster site before having to confirm his suspension) but you can check the Internet Archive for the KU roster site and see that Morris was still listed when she would have checked.
 
#504      
Lawyers/people with court experience out there- is it normal for a court's calendar to still have things scheduled that would occupy the courtroom on days a jury trial is taking place? Shannon has the courtroom reserved Day 1, but the rest of the week has other things scheduled in the courtroom throughout the day.

See schedule here.
 
#505      
Regarding where the men in question were standing (and any people that joined them and stood nearby them), it helps to consider the spacing of the lamps and 3'-diameter bar tables located underneath the corresponding lamps along this 2-foot-thick south wall of this building. In photos of Martini Room posted on the bar's Instagram page, these lamps appear to be spaced about 10' apart. This corresponds with the length of the Martini Room which, again, is about 70' measured by the outside walls. This means the interior space on that south wall is closer to 70' - 2*2' = 66'. So, if the lamps are about 10' apart, then there would be about 66'/ 10' = 6 lamps along the full length of this room, with some extra space at either end for a door or space on the far side of the 1st and the 6th tables. This roughly matches the photos on this website, since from those shots, which appear to be taken near the middle of this room, you can see 3 lamps along this wall to the end of this room (or total of about 6 on the full length of this wall).

In the end, it means men standing against this wall were standing in the space between these bar tables, which is about 10' - 3' (for width of the table) = 7'. So, if Shannon, Harmon, and Hobson were standing near this wall, then each man was in one of these 7' spans, where 1 of the 3 was likely on the far side of a table that the group shared. Putting it together, it means that if M.N. is claiming she went to a person standing against this wall (who she and Det. Leitner say looked "identical to Shannon"), then, according to her claim, that person must have stood within 1 of these 6 (or so) about-7' spans between the bar tables along this wall.
 
#507      
Regarding where the men in question were standing (and any people that joined them and stood nearby them), it helps to consider the spacing of the lamps and 3'-diameter bar tables located underneath the corresponding lamps along this 2-foot-thick south wall of this building. In photos of Martini Room posted on the bar's Instagram page, these lamps appear to be spaced about 10' apart. This corresponds with the length of the Martini Room which, again, is about 70' measured by the outside walls. This means the interior space on that south wall is closer to 70' - 2*2' = 66'. So, if the lamps are about 10' apart, then there would be about 66'/ 10' = 6 lamps along the full length of this room, with some extra space at either end for a door or space on the far side of the 1st and the 6th tables. This roughly matches the photos on this website, since from those shots, which appear to be taken near the middle of this room, you can see 3 lamps along this wall to the end of this room (or total of about 6 on the full length of this wall).

In the end, it means men standing against this wall were standing in the space between these bar tables, which is about 10' - 3' (for width of the table) = 7'. So, if Shannon, Harmon, and Hobson were standing near this wall, then each man was in one of these 7' spans, where 1 of the 3 was likely on the far side of a table that the group shared. Putting it together, it means that if M.N. is claiming she went to a person standing against this wall (who she and Det. Leitner say looked "identical to Shannon"), then, according to her claim, that person must have stood within 1 of these 6 (or so) about-7' spans between the bar tables along this wall.
We need your talents on the basketball side to fact check player heights
 
#508      
Lawyers/people with court experience out there- is it normal for a court's calendar to still have things scheduled that would occupy the courtroom on days a jury trial is taking place? Shannon has the courtroom reserved Day 1, but the rest of the week has other things scheduled in the courtroom throughout the day.

See schedule here.
Yes. Because so many things can cause a case to not proceed almost all judges will schedule multiple cases overlapping each other. Many judges will employ a trailing trial calendar, scheduling multiple jury trials for a Monday. If the first doesn’t proceed the second is called, then the third and so on. When the first finishes the second starts. Scheduling in this manner is hard on lawyers and their clients, but doing one thing at a time would result in a backlog of cases which would be even worse. Keeping a court docket moving is one of a trial court’s biggest challenges. Lawyers simultaneously are aggravated by and appreciate a judge who moves cases. In Shannon’s case other cases on the schedule very likely contributed to the court’s denial of the prosecutor’s motion to continue.
 
#509      
Yeah… my wife and I worked with his now deceased wife. POS.
 
#510      
It’s interesting that when someone testifies before a legislative body, time limits are usually in place and strictly adhered to. Taking a similar approach in judicial proceedings might encourage lawyers to be more efficient.
 
#511      
Hah, don't much there. But, if it's anything like basketball, then maybe subtract about an inch.
 
#512      
BTW, the strongest argument I've heard for potentially raising doubt that Shannon committed any crime against M.N. is based on the idea reported on Friday, 6/7/2024 by Myron Medcalf. In that ESPN report, Medcalf claims that Shannon's lawyers (Tricia and Tom Bath, it seems) said in a hearing (the day before on Thursday, 6/6, with Judge Amy Hanley) that they plan to show video evidence that a 3rd-party defendant (which is an apparent reference to Arterio Morris) was "standing next to the alleged defendant", and Judge Hanley will allow them to do that.

What isn't clear in Medcalf's report is where did that occur w.r.t. M.N.'s claim that the incident occurred near the far wall from a door of the Martini Room (which amounts to the south wall of this room). If Morris was captured standing next to the victim away from that area (say by a door or near the bar in that room) then this evidence shouldn't raise doubt in her allegations (and possibly should not have been admitted at all, which had been Judge Pokorny's ruling up to this point). On the other hand, if this video shows that Morris stood next to M.N. in the small area, where she says the crimes occurred, then this video could raise doubt among members of the jury as to whether Shannon committed either of the alleged crimes (and, in that case, Judge Hanley would, in my opinion, have been correct to allow it).
 
#513      
BTW, the strongest argument I've heard for potentially raising doubt that Shannon committed any crime against M.N. is based on the idea reported on Friday, 6/7/2024 by Myron Medcalf. In that ESPN report, Medcalf claims that Shannon's lawyers (Tricia and Tom Bath, it seems) said in a hearing (the day before on Thursday, 6/6, with Judge Amy Hanley) that they plan to show video evidence that a 3rd-party defendant (which is an apparent reference to Arterio Morris) was "standing next to the alleged defendant victim", and Judge Hanley will allow them to do that.

What isn't clear in Medcalf's report is where did that occur w.r.t. M.N.'s claim that the incident occurred near the far wall from a door of the Martini Room (which amounts to the south wall of this room). If Morris was captured standing next to the victim away from that area (say by a door or near the bar in that room) then this evidence shouldn't raise doubt in her allegations (and possibly should not have been admitted at all, which had been Judge Pokorny's ruling up to this point). On the other hand, if this video shows that Morris stood next to M.N. in the small area, where she says the crimes occurred, then this video could raise doubt among members of the jury as to whether Shannon committed either of the alleged crimes (and, in that case, Judge Hanley would, in my opinion, have been correct to allow it).
I fixed a typo
 
#514      
BTW, the strongest argument I've heard for potentially raising doubt that Shannon committed any crime against M.N. is based on the idea reported on Friday, 6/7/2024 by Myron Medcalf. In that ESPN report, Medcalf claims that Shannon's lawyers (Tricia and Tom Bath, it seems) said in a hearing (the day before on Thursday, 6/6, with Judge Amy Hanley) that they plan to show video evidence that a 3rd-party defendant (which is an apparent reference to Arterio Morris) was "standing next to the alleged defendant", and Judge Hanley will allow them to do that.

What isn't clear in Medcalf's report is where did that occur w.r.t. M.N.'s claim that the incident occurred near the far wall from a door of the Martini Room (which amounts to the south wall of this room). If Morris was captured standing next to the victim away from that area (say by a door or near the bar in that room) then this evidence shouldn't raise doubt in her allegations (and possibly should not have been admitted at all, which had been Judge Pokorny's ruling up to this point). On the other hand, if this video shows that Morris stood next to M.N. in the small area, where she says the crimes occurred, then this video could raise doubt among members of the jury as to whether Shannon committed either of the alleged crimes (and, in that case, Judge Hanley would, in my opinion, have been correct to allow it).
Sorry, I meant "standing next to the alleged victim" (not defendant).
 
#515      
IANAL, however… It would not surprise me if tomorrow, the prosecutor in TSJs case wants to dismiss the case without prejudice. This would mean the state could charge TSJ or another person at a later date, but feels the evidence is insufficient to proceed at the moment.

The reason I say this is because the new prosecutor on the case was the prosecutor on the Arterio Morris case. He's taking over a case that appears to have weak evidence and a reasonable possibility that Morris is the actual offender. He knows that the police will be asked why they didn't consider Morris a viable suspect and they will have no answer for it.

Dismissing the case without prejudice will allow the state to save face and say "we're still going to pursue this." Of course, they won't, but it's an out without having to put on a high profile case with -- unless we don't know something crucial -- has no solid evidence.
 
#516      

chrisRunner7

Spokane, WA
Dismissing the case without prejudice will allow the state to save face and say "we're still going to pursue this." Of course, they won't, but it's an out without having to put on a high profile case with -- unless we don't know something crucial -- has no solid evidence.
I wonder why the prosecutor wouldn't dismiss the case and then (unless this has already been done) seek a voluntary or court-ordered DNA sample from Arterio Morris, unless it's already in some criminal database somewhere for comparison. Would be beneficial to either charge the correct suspect or to put a dent in Shannon's defense if they ultimately decided to re-file charges.
 
#517      

JFGsCoffeeMug

BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
I wonder why the prosecutor wouldn't dismiss the case and then (unless this has already been done) seek a voluntary or court-ordered DNA sample from Arterio Morris, unless it's already in some criminal database somewhere for comparison. Would be beneficial to either charge the correct suspect or to put a dent in Shannon's defense if they ultimately decided to re-file charges.
Your key witness has not testified it was Morris. That's a giant gaping hole in that potential prosecution.
 
#518      
IANAL, however… It would not surprise me if tomorrow, the prosecutor in TSJs case wants to dismiss the case without prejudice. This would mean the state could charge TSJ or another person at a later date, but feels the evidence is insufficient to proceed at the moment.

The reason I say this is because the new prosecutor on the case was the prosecutor on the Arterio Morris case. He's taking over a case that appears to have weak evidence and a reasonable possibility that Morris is the actual offender. He knows that the police will be asked why they didn't consider Morris a viable suspect and they will have no answer for it.

Dismissing the case without prejudice will allow the state to save face and say "we're still going to pursue this." Of course, they won't, but it's an out without having to put on a high profile case with -- unless we don't know something crucial -- has no solid evidence.
Shannon team wants a trial. Right to dismiss without prejudice is not unilateral. Defendant can object and I bet they would and is then discretionary with the court
 
#520      
For sure. But if dismissed without prejudice you give the state more time to pull a rabbit out of the hat and as should be apparent you cannot put anything past them. Gets dismissed guarantee they announce with much fanfare they will re-file which has obvious draft implications but most important if they did object they must be confident they are holding the cards. You can bet there were some long and candid discussions with the defendant
 
#521      
For sure. But if dismissed without prejudice you give the state more time to pull a rabbit out of the hat and as should be apparent you cannot put anything past them. Gets dismissed guarantee they announce with much fanfare they will re-file which has obvious draft implications but most important if they did object they must be confident they are holding the cards. You can bet there were some long and candid discussions with the defendant
My suspicion — and it’s only that, a suspicion — is that if the state moved to dismiss without prejudice, it would be doing so believing that it may have prosecuted the wrong person and hopes the whole matter gets swept under the rug. If this is true (also a big IF), then I would think they’d never want to touch the case again. Out of sight, out of mind.

But again, IANAL. This is just very crude layman speculation. For all I know, the prosecution may have the goods. But from all outward indication, this seems to have been a very flawed investigation from the start.
 
#522      
BTW, the strongest argument I've heard for potentially raising doubt that Shannon committed any crime against M.N. is based on the idea reported on Friday, 6/7/2024 by Myron Medcalf. In that ESPN report, Medcalf claims that Shannon's lawyers (Tricia and Tom Bath, it seems) said in a hearing (the day before on Thursday, 6/6, with Judge Amy Hanley) that they plan to show video evidence that a 3rd-party defendant (which is an apparent reference to Arterio Morris) was "standing next to the alleged defendant", and Judge Hanley will allow them to do that.

What isn't clear in Medcalf's report is where did that occur w.r.t. M.N.'s claim that the incident occurred near the far wall from a door of the Martini Room (which amounts to the south wall of this room). If Morris was captured standing next to the victim away from that area (say by a door or near the bar in that room) then this evidence shouldn't raise doubt in her allegations (and possibly should not have been admitted at all, which had been Judge Pokorny's ruling up to this point). On the other hand, if this video shows that Morris stood next to M.N. in the small area, where she says the crimes occurred, then this video could raise doubt among members of the jury as to whether Shannon committed either of the alleged crimes (and, in that case, Judge Hanley would, in my opinion, have been correct to allow it).
This is all rehashed information that was previously covered by documents we can read publicly. The only new info that hack provided was confirming the judge was allowing the evidence at trial, which the docket still doesn't confirm at this time. I wouldn't rely on him for any interpretation seeing as how he has misstated facts of the trial.
 
#524      
This is all rehashed information that was previously covered by documents we can read publicly. The only new info that hack provided was confirming the judge was allowing the evidence at trial, which the docket still doesn't confirm at this time. I wouldn't rely on him for any interpretation seeing as how he has misstated facts of the trial.
Right, I am rehashing what Medcalf wrote, because his writing seems important, yet it is hard to follow. Not only does he say "third-party defendant" in reference to Arterio Morris throughout his entire article (obviously, for legal reasons), but he also makes other vague references. For example, in Medcalf's crucial sixth paragraph (written as a single sentence), Medcalf states where Morris was standing (in this video that Shannon's lawyers are now allowed to show at trial), namely 'in "exactly" the same spot ... where the woman in (Shannon's) case said he was standing ...'

That sentence/paragraph of Medcalf's writing deserves rehashing. The final "he" in this sentence refers to Shannon. Medcalf is writing that Shannon's lawyers are basically claiming they have video that shows M.N. wrongly identified Shannon as Morris.

I'm all for this argument getting into court documents, not just scoops by ESPN writers. It sounds like we are 1-2 days from that. But if Medcalf and Shannon's lawyers are correct on this crucial point, then it might even be enough for the alleged victim to change her mind about who she feels assaulted her. So, I definitely want this video viewed carefully and for just decisions to be made based on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.