TSJ Thread

[skyIdub]

I’m sorry, Kat, but strong disagree. In a bar??? They have similar hair styles, similar skin tones, are of a similar height, have a similar brow ridge and they have IDENTICAL facial hair patterns, at least here. They’re obviously not twins, but not similar at all?!

Not to mention...these are stock photos...we have no idea exactly how they were wearing their hair that night.
A quick image search will show you about a dozen plus looks for TSJ. I didn't search the other.

 

[nicksmith4three]

I have no idea if the methods of the study are comparable with this case, but...

I found it interesting that the initial "wearer" of the garment was detected so much less frequently than the subsequent "handler" subject, especially in situations where the quantity of handler DNA was large. The authors state that "it was indicative that the “handler” profile could “overwrite” the “wearer” profile."

So, by that logic, given the amount of time between the incident and the DNA test, the woman would presumably have handled/touched those garments/areas and may have to some degree "overwritten" whatever DNA was there from the perpetrator.

Regardless, based on what's public, it sounds like the case will likely hinge on how believable and confident the accuser is in saying it was his hand that assaulted her.

Your point about overwritten is only valid in the context of amplifying all human DNA present. The samples in this case, I believe, were only amplified for male DNA, thus ignoring the female DNA present that could overwhelm the sample. Again I assume all this because we have never seen the actual DNA report from the KBI lab.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

Seriously what is the DA doing

Trying to get a big-name conviction to keep her job.

Right now, I don't know if this is incompetence, negligence, or outright "fraud" (can't think of a better word at the present time). The scary thing is that I don't think anyone really knows this answer, including TSJ's attorneys.

Here's a question for the lawyers out there- let's say the defense wants Morris to testify. Can he refuse on the basis of self-incrimination?

And as a follow-up, could Shannon's defense have Morris' alleged victim testify despite the case being dismissed?

I'm not a lawyer (but my brother and sister-in-law both are). I have to think that the defense can call Morris, and he can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.

But if I'm a juror, a defense witness refusing to incriminate himself/taking the 5th would absolutely be at the front of my mind when thinking about reasonable doubt. Remember, TSJ's team doesn't have to convict Morris. They just have to provide reasonable doubt that TSJ did anything criminal. Given all of the other factors we are seeing in this case, that would certainly be a large piece of the puzzle regarding reasonable doubt.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

Trying to get a big-name conviction to keep her job.

Right now, I don't know if this is incompetence, negligence, or outright "fraud" (can't think of a better word at the present time). The scary thing is that I don't think anyone really knows this answer, including TSJ's attorneys.



I'm not a lawyer (but my brother and sister-in-law both are). I have to think that the defense can call Morris, and he can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.

But if I'm a juror, a defense witness refusing to incriminate himself/taking the 5th would absolutely be at the front of my mind when thinking about reasonable doubt. Remember, TSJ's team doesn't have to convict Morris. They just have to provide reasonable doubt that TSJ did anything criminal. Given all of the other factors we are seeing in this case, that would certainly be a large piece of the puzzle regarding reasonable doubt.

I also want to be crystal clear that, like anyone else, Morris is innocent until proven guilty. If he truly is innocent, then he would have no incentive to invoke his 5th amendment rights unless his attorney said "say nothing, no matter what" (and to be honest, I wouldn't blame anyone if that happened). It's obviously a very dangerous road to assume any sort of guilt, and I realize after rereading my original post that I could have implied that. I absolutely DO NOT want that to happen to anyone. My point was very much a hypothetical that if the defense called a "person of interest" to the stand and that person invoked the 5th Amendment it would certainly plant some sort of doubt in my mind about the actual defendant in the case I'm hearing.

 

[splitter]

i served on a jury in a similar case. There were two witnesses who did not see the incident but told about the interaction between the two parties involved. Their reaction with each other confirmed what was alleged. Hopefully the security camera footage and witnesses show that they were just engaged in a friendly conversation will speak to the jury that TJ was not involved in anything more.
i have had my DNA tested and one must be very careful about not contaminating the two samples that are taken. One of the samples showed results that were consistent with family history. The other one showed 1.5% showed a different ethnicity. Upon retesting it was determined that that 1.5% came from the one doing the testing, possibly from their clothing. Hopefully TY's lawyers are successful in getting their test results used instead of the DA's.

 

[ChiefGritty]

i served on a jury in a similar case. There were two witnesses who did not see the incident but told about the interaction between the two parties involved. Their reaction with each other confirmed what was alleged.

Tell us more!

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Tell us more!

 

[splitter]

This happened in an office not a bar. The guy involved was known to be a creep. He would drop things on the floor and look up the women's dresses and other such things, The witnesses saw the two going to the elevator where the incident allegedly happened. When she returned, she was visibly upset. Later she reported everything to her supervisor who did nothing about it. The supervisor said that this is just who he is and was later sued. The two witnesses confirmed that the guy accused was what kind of person he was, What TJ is accused of doing is not what kind of person he is. That is what the security camera of them just talking seems to show. Reasonable doubt. Lots of doubt. More likely a case of mistaken identity.
BTW The creep had to pay his victim $25,000 and for the bills from her therapy however long it took. The supervisor still works there.

 

[Boskydell]

This happened in an office not a bar. The guy involved was known to be a creep. He would drop things on the floor and look up the women's dresses and other such things, The witnesses saw the two going to the elevator where the incident allegedly happened. When she returned, she was visibly upset. Later she reported everything to her supervisor who did nothing about it. The supervisor said that this is just who he is and was later sued. The two witnesses confirmed that the guy accused was what kind of person he was, What TJ is accused of doing is not what kind of person he is. That is what the security camera of them just talking seems to show. Reasonable doubt. Lots of doubt. More likely a case of mistaken identity.
BTW The creep had to pay his victim $25,000 and for the bills from her therapy however long it took. The supervisor still works there.

It was my understanding that there was no video of any interaction between the two.

 

[ChiefGritty]

The two witnesses confirmed that the guy accused was what kind of person he was, What TJ is accused of doing is not what kind of person he is.

As I said a number of pages ago, if you want to convict on rape, you need to show the jury a rapist.

There will be no Illinois Basketball fans on the jury, but no Twitter keyboard warrior radical feminists either.

 

[Chuck Nuggets]

We have to throw rogue DAs in prison. Otherwise this will never stop.

 

[FAR Penthouse]

In the federal system and every state of which I’m aware, the prosecution has to consent to a bench trial in a criminal case.

I practiced criminal law here in Illinois for 37 years and never encountered a situation where the prosecutor had to consent to defendant's election to proceed with a bench trial. I was surprised to hear that many jurisdictions are different. It seems a truly strained construction of the law to allow the State to object, when the right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the defendant, not the State. I could understand the State objecting if they believed that defendant was somehow incompetent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial.

 

[GrayGhost77]

Man, if Shannon's lawyers are even at least moderately competent (and I assume they are way more than that) then they are going to make the DA and prosecution look like complete and utter fools.

 

[IlliniFan42]

I also want to be crystal clear that, like anyone else, Morris is innocent until proven guilty. If he truly is innocent, then he would have no incentive to invoke his 5th amendment rights unless his attorney said "say nothing, no matter what" (and to be honest, I wouldn't blame anyone if that happened). It's obviously a very dangerous road to assume any sort of guilt, and I realize after rereading my original post that I could have implied that. I absolutely DO NOT want that to happen to anyone. My point was very much a hypothetical that if the defense called a "person of interest" to the stand and that person invoked the 5th Amendment it would certainly plant some sort of doubt in my mind about the actual defendant in the case I'm hearing.

My concern is can the prosecutor argue that Morris shouldn't even be allowed to see the witness stand due to the charge being dismissed and knowing he will invoke the 5th? As in, legally speaking, does the dismissed charge protect Morris? In which case the jury would not see this other possible suspect.

I'm just trying to predict how it would go, where the defense can ask him if he was there and he has to answer that but bringing up a dismissed charge which the prosecutor is fighting to keep sealed would lead to a sustained objection. Maybe they could bring up his charge at his prior school that is on his record?

 

[IlliniFan42]

The State has issued its subpoenas today, ordering the SANE nurse, the KBI worker, the three players, the alleged victim, and her friend to appear.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

I practiced criminal law here in Illinois for 37 years and never encountered a situation where the prosecutor had to consent to defendant's election to proceed with a bench trial. I was surprised to hear that many jurisdictions are different. It seems a truly strained construction of the law to allow the State to object, when the right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the defendant, not the State. I could understand the State objecting if they believed that defendant was somehow incompetent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial.

I'll be honest - that makes zero sense to me. The US Constitution says that the defendant has a right to a trial by jury of peers. If the defendant waives that right, it's protected under the highest federal law of the land (6th Amendment). I don't see how or why the prosecution would have to consent when it's the defendant's right alone to have the opportunity to have a jury trial.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

The State has issued its subpoenas today, ordering the SANE nurse, the KBI worker, the three players, the alleged victim, and her friend to appear.

Who are the three players?

 

[alaskaillini]

I'll be honest - that makes zero sense to me. The US Constitution says that the defendant has a right to a trial by jury of peers. If the defendant waives that right, it's protected under the highest federal law of the land (6th Amendment). I don't see how or why the prosecution would have to consent when it's the defendant's right alone to have the opportunity to have a jury trial.

The Constitution guarantees the defendant a right to jury trial. The state's right is a creature of statute. Nothing prohibits the state legislature from granting the state a right to a jury trial in state court cases. In other words, the defendant does not have a constitutional right to a bench trial, just a trial by jury.

 

[IlliniFan42]

Who are the three players?

McCullar, Dickinson, Jackson

 

[uiba99]

As I said a number of pages ago, if you want to convict on rape, you need to show the jury a rapist.

There will be no Illinois Basketball fans on the jury, but no Twitter keyboard warrior radical feminists either.

Hey now I'm an Illini alum and a big ol' radical feminist and I think this case is shady as...f*#$.

I am ashamed that this District Attorney shares the same profession as me. I would have never brought such a weak case, particularly when it involves such high profile personnel and stakes. I still live in fear that I may have unwittingly aided in convicting an innocent person, and I never handled anything really egregious.

It's disgusting.

 

[splitter]

It was my understanding that there was no video of any interaction between the two.

Either security camera or a witness saw them briefly. In a crowded room it would be difficult to tell. Hope there are character witnesses allowed to tell what kind of person TJ is. As ChiefGritty has said, you have to show a jury a rapist to expect a conviction. The DA obviously doesn't know him or even seem to try and find out. A jury will.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

it appears the DA doesn’t really care if she wins or not . She has other motives to try this case regardless

 

[IlliniFan42]

Either security camera or a witness saw them briefly. In a crowded room it would be difficult to tell. Hope there are character witnesses allowed to tell what kind of person TJ is. As ChiefGritty has said, you have to show a jury a rapist to expect a conviction. The DA obviously doesn't know him or even seem to try and find out. A jury will.

They were only seen separately by the various witnesses and security cameras. No witness nor camera confirms they were ever within touching distance.

 

[nichi]

McCullar, Dickinson, Jackson

They were previously subpoenaed to testify for Shannon. Are they being called for the prosecution now?

 

[cjw1901]

They were only seen separately by the various witnesses and security cameras. No witness nor camera confirms they were ever within touching distance.

That is different than what Det. Josh Leitner wrote in the PCA. There, he wrote, "The video also showed a person identical to Shannon off camera in the same area where <redacted> was off camera." Here, the redacted name seems to be M.N.'s, and Leiter seems to be saying this based on having watched who previously entered that area and/or who later left that area. If the video itself is used as evidence, then the jury can make their own judgements whether Shannon and M.N. were in the same area of the Martini Room at the time of the alleged incident. It also seems that Leitner will testify and give his interpretation of this video to the jury again.