First I’ve heard of this. Is the surveillance video even in color? Most surveillance video I’ve seen is in black and white.
TSJ Thread
- Status
As far as I'm aware, there is no camera footage of Shannon. Exhibit B-1 (the surveillance video exhibit) only monitors the movements of the victim and friend.
The confusion may stem from Point 14 of the affadavit, which states "the video also showed a person identical to Shannon off camera." This is the last sentence of that paragraph and is not supported by the provided evidence, so it might've been a falsehood to secure a warrant or it is included in evidence which we don't have access to. The rest of the paragraph of Point 14 accurately summarizes Exhibit B-1.
As for the shirt color itself, it is mentioned by the victim and then corroborated by her friend in each of their interviews. Note that Shannon would have to have changed out of the jersey and t-shirt he was pictured wearing from earlier that day (as seen in the Instagram post). In the Instagram post, he can be seen wearing gray sweats and a gray t-shirt under the jersey.
Last edited:
I am not sure what your point is. Shannon isn't disputing that he was at that bar. He is saying he had no interaction with M.N.
My impression is M.N said she was assaulted from behind and she didn't actually she who did it.
There are several scenarios in which Shannon is innocent, including:
- The woman was assaulted by the man who pulled her to him, but she unintentionally misidentified that man as Shannon. The yellow shirt provides some support for her identification of him if he was indeed wearing a yellow shirt (or really undermines her statement if not, though I would have to believe the defense would have mentioned this already).
- The woman was pulled in by Shannon, but assaulted by another man while in Shannon's grasp. Shannon seems to claim that he never saw or interacted with her, so they could have a tough time pushing hard on this. It would also require that the layout of the bar would allow for someone else to have access to her backside during this encounter, and we don't have good information on that.
- The woman made the whole thing up (or her memory is entirely unreliable). The yellow shirt isn't that relevant to this theory, since she could have observed whatever details necessary to concoct a story (or misremembered all sorts of details).
What do you mean by "not supported by the provided evidence". Do you simply mean that the detective doesn't explain in the report why he thinks the video shows him, or do you have reason to believe the video doesn't show him?
Also, do you know if the state subpoenaed phones from Shannon and his group to look for any photos they may have taken?
Exhibit B-1 is the Surveillance Video exhibit. There are no other exhibits publicly available regarding surveillance footage obtained from that night. The text of that exhibit describes Detectives Leitner and Welch meeting with the Jayhawk Cafe manager to review the footage from the night in question and then describes what the footage contains. That description tracks the victim and her friend at the bar, with the victim at one point going off-camera (at which point the alleged incident occurs), then returning to her friend, and the two of them leaving the room.
The exhibit DOES NOT mention Shannon at all, so either there's footage of him not mentioned in Exhibit B-1 or it is a falsehood. Let me be clear, I am not saying the Detectives saw a man in the footage and am claiming they're mistaken, I am saying they failed to mention if they did see anybody other than the victim and her friend in Exhibit B-1, as it mentions nobody else other than those two on camera. The Affadavit adds this "fact" regarding seeing Shannon that is not mentioned in Exhibit B-1.
I am not aware of phone subpoenas for Shannon and friends.
Thanks for clarifying. Wish we could see the video. I'm sure it will all come up in court, but I doubt we'll get all the details from that either.
Two things:
(1) The alleged victim said Shannon's shirt was "mustard yellow" that night, so if others say Morris was wearing a differently colored shirt, then there's problem with the defense's suggestion that Morris was the perpetrator (in addition to the facts that the men's hair and faces don't match one another). Again, the defense's suggestion wouldn't match what M.N. told the LPD when she reported the incident, so it would be weak argument for the defense.
(2) A prior case involving Jayhawk Cafe mentions that they have used color surveillance cameras since 2016. This is written up in a 2017 article by the Lawrence Journal World and likely other publications around that time. This also makes sense since color surveillance cameras have been available for a long time now.
Do you mind naming the specific case/linking the article?
Since this clearly needs to be said, the defense doesn't need to prove Morris is guilty, and will have no intention in doing so, all the defense is trying to do is provide the jury with sufficient reasonable doubt.
And as per your prior comment, this case is not about whether or not TSJ and the alleged victim were in the same room of the bar at the time of the alleged incident. They were. It's about whether or not there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt TSJ committed this crime. That is what his lawyers will be focusing their defense on.
And again, thus far there has been no released evidence, witnesses, or statements that corroborate the alleged victims assertion that TSJ and her had any interaction or physical contact. So unless the State is withholding some critical evidence that does so, the defense will likely focus on all of the major parts of this case showcasing why there is probable doubt.
A person previously charged with sexual assault being in close proximity to the incident and not adequately investigated by police will most likely be one facet of that.
It's the Albert Wilson case. An affidavit for that case says that a surveillance camera at the Jayhawk Cafe showed a victim being led out at 12:10 "by a man in a sweater with bright colors". Right, it's possible this was poorly worded by the police/prosecution, but, if taken literally, then it suggests they had, at least at that time, a color surveillance camera near the front of this bar. Obviously, the most critical camera for Shannon is the in the basement, near the hallway, outside the Martini Room on 9/9/2023. But it also seems likely that a lot of the surveillance cameras were installed together at the Jayhawk Cafe and use similar technology and settings. We'll likely have to wait for the trial to know exactly what tech they have and what footage they captured, but, again, it seems this idea of pointing to Morris as a suspect might not raise much doubt, especially if the video shows "a person identical to Shannon" as Det. Leitner has said, and the plaintiff continues to identify that person exclusively as the defendant, which she has done since the date of the incident.
Last edited:
I thought that might be what you were referring to, as I too had seen the "bright colors" quote, but I interpreted it the opposite way- that the camera was black and white so it couldn't interpret the colors themselves, just that they were bright vs. dark.
Keep this quote from Exhibit B-1 in mind: "R/O noted Hunter advised they recently had camera system trouble and some of their cameras were not operation during the day of the incident." I suspect this is a cover-up for the bar not maintaining their security system and would not be surprised if they really are old black and white cameras.
One update- Seiden's response to Shannon's team wanting the Morris files has been uploaded. Within, he insults the defense team's DNA expert, admits that they might be onto something, and then says their request is untethered in reality, along with his usual typos (waive instead of wave) and grammar mistakes (it almost vs. it's almost). I just wish he defended Shannon's presumption of innocence as much as he defends Morris' here, but I'm not surprised as he lost the Morris case and then immediately took over the Shannon case and upped the alternative charge.
Like his superior, Seiden has a history of vitriol and acting emotionally rather than rationally, as seen in this article, when he coincidentally failed to keep an affadavit sealed from the newspaper.
Like his superior, Seiden has a history of vitriol and acting emotionally rather than rationally, as seen in this article, when he coincidentally failed to keep an affadavit sealed from the newspaper.
Douglas County prosecutors are a weird bunch. One is awaiting ruling on a hearing concerning her suspension from the practice of law, while Seiden seems to regard insult as an advanced form of legal argument. He devotes one paragraph of his response to criticizing TSJ's expert witness, with no suggestion at all concerning what that expert has to do with a simple motion to compel discovery.
His other argument seems to be that the contents of the Morris files might not be admissible in evidence in this case, therefore, TSJ has no right to learn what that file contains. This is a discovery motion, intended to uncover potentially admissible evidence. TSJ cannot know if any part of the Morris file is admissible in this case if TSJ is not allowed to see those contents. Seiden seems not to address that rather elementary distinction.
I am a retired lawyer. I was never adept at criminal law. But it looks to me like Seiden is simply missing the point here.
His other argument seems to be that the contents of the Morris files might not be admissible in evidence in this case, therefore, TSJ has no right to learn what that file contains. This is a discovery motion, intended to uncover potentially admissible evidence. TSJ cannot know if any part of the Morris file is admissible in this case if TSJ is not allowed to see those contents. Seiden seems not to address that rather elementary distinction.
I am a retired lawyer. I was never adept at criminal law. But it looks to me like Seiden is simply missing the point here.
It makes me wonder why Seiden would even mention the defense's DNA expert. What could be in the Morris file that they don't want the defense to see?
I suggest the minor edit, above
Hahahaha “the defense argues propensity based upon nothing more than untested and unproven allegations, as well as their own unfettered speculation”……….
WHAT DO YOU THINK YOURE DOING HAHAHAHA
Would that be written in the fines and charges area of the system or would that be off-books?
Just checked and the Morris case actually doesn't have a Financial Information section like Shannon's.
It would have to off books if it happened at all. Pure speculation on my part, but it seems like there must be some reason to pursue a case that is little more than he said she said when the Morris case involved a "real" rape (I know, I know) in the Kansas athlete dorm.
LMAO what a muddled & weak response. This case really feels like a house of cards. DA office are sweating through their clothes to keep someone from bumping the table - and doing a terrible job at that - because the whole thing is about to collapse.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
IANAL ... and while I consider myself pretty intelligent/capable in some areas, I admit that I have never even have much of a novice interest (much less arm chair expertise) in criminal law. With that said...
How can this be happening? I will of course caveat this with the obvious fact that there might be evidence presented in June that we have not seen yet. However, operating under the assumption for now that the case is as flimsy as it seems ... WHY?! Why would you proceed with this? I know this question has been asked a lot, but this just feels so icky. IF there is no additional evidence being withheld, I don't know how you couldn't have reasonable doubt that TSJ did not commit this crime ... and if you DO have any reasonable doubt as a prosecutor, I genuinely do not understand how you can push forward in this style.
I'm completely with you. Without withheld critical evidence, I don't know what the DA is doing here outside of wasting taxpayer money and the court and jurors time. I am humored by Seiden's response in that he's basically arguing that a defendant's legal team should not be allowed discovery unless it pertains specifically to the alleged victim's statement, i.e. you must accept that statement as fact of what happened and can't discover to give more credence to an alternate hypothesis or the possibility of a different criminal actor committing the crime.
All this is going to turn into is the alleged victim testifying TSJ did this, and then a bunch of witnesses saying they were there and that they either never saw the alleged victim or they saw the alleged victim but never saw any physical interaction between her and TSJ, the defense cross-examining witnesses to show there's no video or DNA evidence of any kind suggesting TSJ did this, along with poking holes in the victim's and police testimony. So long as this isn't a backwaters kangaroo court I don't know how they convict.
- Status