TRIAL! JUSTICE FOR JANE!

migraine wrote:As Rachel testifies -so much the "victim" all I can hear is Sir Patrick testifying that all the power lies with the SUBMISSIVE!

Whoa do I hear you, Migraine! SMH

George Hunter's coverage is off the chain today!  Wow! Day 2 Bashara Murder trial Twitter Feed

2 Favorite tweets of the day:

1) Hiding and Lying

and

2) Let's Move On....

migraine wrote:2 Favorite tweets of the day:

1) Hiding and Lying

and

2) Let's Move On....

I was questioning the sequence of witnesses being called but just now discovered the common thread of the witnesses who have testified so far. Manipulation, intimidation and control . I am guessing those are the traits the prosecution is trying to instill in the minds of the jury with these witnesses who know Bob and have testified so far.

Yes that and destroying Blob's credibility. "So after he told you the Hiding and Lying would stop, the hiding and lying didn't stop?" NAILED

And motive and more motive (money problems, marital problems, girlfriend he wanted to be with and lifestyle he wanted more freedom to pursue), planning, and a consistent when-he-breathes-he-lies state.

I wasn't sure about putting the vehicle discovery in at this point, but the testimony surrounding that clearly showed that it was staged and not a real car jacking or random crime.

Yes- As I was following the feeds I imagined myself in the courtroom as a juror listening to all the witnesses. I could feel myself loathing this man as it was presented CLEARLY just how unscrupulous he is. The BDSM isn't the reason for my loathing, though, it's really secondary. It's his lying, unethical, manipulative behavior that is being presented plain as day! In his own words (with all those awful emails that were read). There is no way they can sit there and think he is a good and loving husband or upstanding community member. My reasonable doubt would already be starting to rush out the nearest window. I don't see how the defense stands a chance.

meandmyshadow wrote:Yes- As I was following the feeds I imagined myself in the courtroom as a juror listening to all the witnesses.  I could feel myself loathing this man as it was presented CLEARLY just how unscrupulous he is.  The BDSM isn't the reason for my loathing, though, it's really secondary.  It's his lying, unethical, manipulative behavior that is being presented plain as day!  In his own words (with all those awful emails that were read).  There is no way they can sit there and think he is a good and loving husband or upstanding community member.  My reasonable doubt would already be starting to rush out the nearest window.  I don't see how the defense stands a chance.

After opening arguments (including the phone records, some videos, and copies of his emails) and the first day of testimony, I think if I were a juror, I'd be thinking "can we just vote now?"

I seriously feel like you do...I don't see how they can come up with any reasonable defense.

Fox2 news Charlie Langton yesterday indicated that in a murder case, finding a motive was not necessary. Did not know that...although the prosecution is doing a masterful job amassing evidence showing motive.
Also find it interesting that defense is not cross examining most of prosecution's witnesses. And for good reason...what could they possibly say/do to shoot holes in this testimony?

Bob Bashara's 'other woman' gives key testimony
Rachel Gillett reveals details about relationship with Grosse Pointe Park man charged in wife's murder
Author: Hank Winchester, Local 4 Reporter, @HankLocal4
Published On: Oct 15 2014 05:02:12 PM EDT   Updated  2 h




Source/read associated article:  http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/bob-basharas-other-woman-gives-key-testimony/29150470

Two good sources of blogs/tweets from today's testimony:

Blog recap, Day 2: Bob Bashara trial continues  (Read from top down)

http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Day_2_Bob_Bashara_trial_continues?Page=0


https://twitter.com/GeorgeHunter_DN

(Read from bottom up)

GPPGRL wrote:Fox2 news Charlie Langton yesterday indicated that in a murder case, finding a motive was not necessary. Did not know that...although the prosecution is doing a masterful job amassing evidence showing motive.
Also find it interesting that defense is not cross examining most of prosecution's witnesses. And for good reason...what could they possibly say/do to shoot holes in this testimony?

I think for 1st degree murder the prosecution has to prove " intent." I'm sure we can all agree they pretty much concluded there was intent. In just one day!

Curious as to whether or not Nancy Bashara and Gwen & Stephanie S. will be called upon to testify.

GPPGRL wrote:Curious as to whether or not Nancy Bashara and Gwen & Stephanie S. will be called upon to testify.

In the opening statements, LL brought up the fact that BB tricked his mom into hiding his gun, and also brought up the "it is what it is" statement (regarding why he tried to hire a hit on Joe), so I'm guessing those mean we'll hear testimony to confirm.

If anyone ran a business like the court does in terms of time - "starting promptly at" apparently means "in the neighborhood of, give or take 45 minutes..." (unless it's "quitting time" and that's right on time)...Yikes.

For convenience, here are today's links:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeHunter_DN

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/26802285/follow-live-testimony-from-former-lover-continues-in-bob-bashara-trial

http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_Bob_Bashara_trial_Day_4

AnalyzeThis wrote:For convenience, here are today's links:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeHunter_DN

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/26802285/follow-live-testimony-from-former-lover-continues-in-bob-bashara-trial

http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_Bob_Bashara_trial_Day_4

Thanks, Analyze, it's a big convenience to have the links, always takes me several minutes to pull up the three blogs.

Ditto! Much appreciated, Analyze.

Oh my God could this woman be any more pathetic?

Judge Evans is clearly appalled by what she's hearing that Rachel is capable of

meandmyshadow wrote:Oh my God could this woman be any more pathetic?

Judge Evans is clearly appalled by what she's hearing that Rachel is capable of

Hearing about Rachel's daughter's wedding a month beforehand...can only IMAGINE what the in-laws are now thinking. (Breathes there a woman any more passive and culpable in her passivity than this stupid cooze??!!)

Am actually starting to think pathological is more like it.... Recall she's been married four freaking times!!! (Blob woulda been 5)

Besides the fact that wth in their right mind would ever, eveeer, evvvverrrr find that evil FREAK (Blob) attractive? Ewwww.... Just ewwww!!!

chewet wrote:Am actually starting to think pathological is more like it.... Recall she's been married four freaking times!!! (Blob woulda been 5)

Besides the fact that wth in their right mind would ever, eveeer, evvvverrrr find that evil FREAK (Blob) attractive? Ewwww.... Just ewwww!!!

Poster girl for the mindset "He'll change!" Younger photos show a reasonably attractive girl but now she apparently is consoling herself with donuts rather than intensive psychotherapy.

(Oh! Mis-read your post - BOB the freak! Two of a kind, I'd say. "There's a lid for every pot."

meandmyshadow wrote:Oh my God could this woman be any more pathetic?

Judge Evans is clearly appalled by what she's hearing that Rachel is capable of

Prosecution done with Rachel ? Perhaps on redirect they'll ask WHY she got the PPO .

I am curious as to HOW Rachel learned Jane was murdered. Didn't she leave work unexpectedly that morning? Had Bob or someone else called her? Or was she monitoring newscasts? Don't believe I have ever heard this stated. ??

People need to separate being a submissive from being a masochist.

She was a submissive to Bob. None of her blog entries appeared to have her interest in the lifestyle diminished. She is trying to save face now perhaps? But she is a submissive/slave, absolutely. Not all submissives/slaves act like her, however; and not all people involved in BDSM like the party scene.

Also Janet had been very clear in interviews that things were not gonna proceed forward with Bob after their initial meet...

Obedient slave - therese griffin?

GPPGRL wrote:I am curious as to HOW Rachel learned Jane was murdered. Didn't she leave work unexpectedly that morning? Had Bob or someone else called her? Or was she monitoring newscasts? Don't believe I have ever heard this stated. ??

We heard she left work abruptly and never returned. Also that she got a PPO based on her fear of him(the master she was so obedient to) and what she believed happened to Jane. If he could do this to his wife of many years what could he do to her ? Perhaps these things are inadmissible !

McCarthy's line of questioning of Rachel is interesting; is he trying to position her as being the frustrated woman who possibly is the killer in order to be with the man she loves ? (!) His "job" is to create doubt....

The upshot of testimony to date is that Blob really detested/resented Jane and very much wanted her out of his life, but couldn't afford a divorce. Imo there's not one person who has heard this testimony who will believe he tried to kill Gentz as revenge for his murder of Jane as claimed by the defense.  There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Diallo can convince the jury otherwise.

Now if Gentz had murdered the real object of his love and obsession Rachel, that's a different story.

Guess who else was President of the Rotary? John Wayne Gacy

This is the answer of the day- I can't believe this woman (BBM)!

Judge - what happened to the woman you went to bed with at his house?
She was a friend for several years I don't have contact with any of those people. She was a friend I met on-line.
First time they met - blindfolded and sex? asks Judge
Rachel - well we had dinner first

source

I think Judge Evans needs to back down a bit! This is not an episode of Jerry Springer!

Does anyone get where Evans is going with all of her questions? It seems more about her own agenda vs. clarification of relevant issues.

Migraine - just what I was thinking (obviously, by my post). Strange!

migraine wrote:I think Judge Evans needs to back down a bit!  This is not an episode of Jerry Springer!

Was thinking the same thing. Seems inappropriate for her to be castigating a witness. She is not asking for clarification of certain points but rather being judgmental (yeah, I know she's a judge but this is not cool). I'm sure BigBob's defense attorney was delighted to hear that the man she represents uses the "N-word".

GPPGRL wrote: I'm sure BigBob's defense attorney was delighted to hear that the man she represents uses the "N-word".

Yes, and even more than that, BB's attempt to put blame there, because "of course" (in his mind) everyone would suspect those people before the big-deal Grosse Pointe "Big Bob."

Kitty - In yesterday's testimony, there was discussion of people at a party having to ask BB to tone down his BDSM activities since they were getting a little out of hand. (I'm paraphrasing, since I don't have time right now to look it up.) It seemed like they were trying to make the point that BB was getting too violent in terms of BDSM norms.

But at the same time, I think they said it was actually a "swinger" party, so I wondered if his activity was just inappropriate for that. Maybe the testimony was just to prove inappropriate behavior? I read no mention of Rachel asking him to stop at the party they were talking about. If you read that testimony, did you have any thoughts on it? Thanks.

GPPGRL wrote:

migraine wrote:I think Judge Evans needs to back down a bit!  This is not an episode of Jerry Springer!

Was thinking the same thing. Seems inappropriate for her to be castigating a witness. She is not asking for clarification of certain points but rather being judgmental (yeah, I know she's a judge but this is not cool). I'm sure BigBob's defense attorney was delighted to hear that the man she represents uses the "N-word".

Judge Vonda Evans' questions seem more for both prurient interest and castigating the witness --- highly inappropriate imo.  She's way out there, like "out in the wild blue yonda."   Parents misnamed her, more descriptive as 'Yonda Evans.'

AnalyzeThis wrote:Kitty - In yesterday's testimony, there was discussion of people at a party having to ask BB to tone down his BDSM activities since they were getting a little out of hand.  (I'm paraphrasing, since I don't have time right now to look it up.)  It seemed like they were trying to make the point that BB was getting too violent in terms of BDSM norms.

But at the same time, I think they said it was actually a "swinger" party, so I wondered if his activity was just inappropriate for that.  Maybe the testimony was just to prove inappropriate behavior?  I read no mention of Rachel asking him to stop at the party they were talking about.  If you read that testimony, did you have any thoughts on it?  Thanks.

Swingers and BDSM folks can exist together but for the most part a lot of that gets kept separate.  In my experience a lot of BDSM people are more open to swinging, but swingers generally don't like to see BDSM at their events.  BDSM is sometimes a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around and seeing the bad side of BDSM in this case with Bob and Rachel and the totally fantasy side of BDSM like in trash like "50 Shades of Grey" gives people the wrong impression.  

I'm familiar with swinging, I know swingers, I myself am not a swinger and never have tried it.  But if you think of it this way I think it makes sense.  Swingers like the variety and get a sexual charge out of having sex with different people.  They like seeing their partner with another person, etc.  To see acts that could be described as violent intermixed with the sex play for someone who isn't familiar with or attracted to that kind of thing, that would kind of be a buzzkill, so that type off stuff (BDSM play) is typically not allowed or at least it is toned down.

BDSM on the other hand...if you're a girl like Rachel who would probably self-classify as a slave...we can see that she would have done almost anything for Bob.  Bob knows this and capitalizes on it.  He wants to have sex with other women (or whatever he does with me, I know his stuff doesn't work, etc).  So Rachel will go along with it.  If Bob has another playtoy he is more likely to stay faithful to the two of them instead of looking for more is her logic.  So she grudgingly accepts the search for a sister.  And for a woman with some kind of low self esteem maybe the thought of a friend, a sister appeals to her on some level, as long as she gets to the be the primary, the first, the most important, the most loved and cherished.  

There are a lot of submissives out there with no self worth and a lot of guys out there who prey upon them.  A lot of times polyamorous relationships start not because both people genuinely want a polyamorous relationship, but because the Dom wants and the sub shouldn't say no.  Or he won't stay if she says no.  And they use the power exchange in their relationship to get the extra partners that they wanted (and a lot of times that is the guy getting a harem and the woman sharing her man with other chicks.)  And then there are genuinely polyamorous people.  Go on fetlife and people are in all kinds of multiple relationships...dating x, toy of y, pet of z, sister of c, mistress of b, etc.  

People can also play with each other but they say it's not sexual.  I'm not wired that way so I don't understand it, but some people swear that it isn't about sex at all for them; that there is a cartharsis in the beating, a release of endorphins, etc that is completely separate from their nether regions.  And there is also power there.  Someone is letting you hurt them.  And with certain men in the community being very well respected and having a lot of experience and knowing a lot about safety (where to hit, where not to hit, etc) there are a lot of guys who are sought after to play nonsexually.

I'm not a masochist and I am not polyamorous by nature.  So some of it I don't understand, but I think I've been enough around people who are that I kind of get it.  

I'm rambling.

But also, people need to understand that BDSM is a little word for a HUGE area of things.  Bondage/discipline, domination/submission, and sadism/masochism.  If you identify with being in a patriarchal relationship there is a home for you in BDSM.  If you like to wear a blindfold that is a fetish in the BDSM world (sensory deprivation.)  There is a lot there.  So I wish Rachel could have been more articulate about her role in it.  She's not interested in whips and chains (I wasn't either.)  She did them because her Dominant liked to do them (so did I once upon a time.)  But on the whole, she just wanted to be in a male-led relationship where she could really devote her life to serving another person.  You put them on a pedestal, you try to make their life as easy as possible; to you that is what love is, that is what service is, that is what being selfless is.  I identify with her, I've felt the same way before.  No, I wouldn't have stayed and I don't sympathize with her.  But deep down I get it.

Also...there are certain "lines" in BDSM at parties. There are parties where people do blood play. There are parties I've seen chest piercings, they've done flesh pulls. A lot of it depends on the venue and who is hosting. The Reformatory was a different animal, it was a private venue. A lot of BDSM events are at like a VFW Hall and so there are certain rules, dress code, types of play that are prohibited. In smaller, more intimate and privately owned venues there is a lot more latitude for people to do what they want. But there are usually Dungeon Masters who keep an eye on the play and intervene if there are rules being broken, if someone is playing unsafely, etc.

Thanks, Kitty. Appreciate your perspectives, as always.

Thank you, kittygirl.  That was a very helpful and informative post.

AnalyzeThis wrote:Kitty - In yesterday's testimony, there was discussion of people at a party having to ask BB to tone down his BDSM activities since they were getting a little out of hand.  (I'm paraphrasing, since I don't have time right now to look it up.)  It seemed like they were trying to make the point that BB was getting too violent in terms of BDSM norms.

But at the same time, I think they said it was actually a "swinger" party, so I wondered if his activity was just inappropriate for that.  Maybe the testimony was just to prove inappropriate behavior?  I read no mention of Rachel asking him to stop at the party they were talking about.  If you read that testimony, did you have any thoughts on it?  Thanks.

My take is that the prosecutor was trying to show that Bob has a hard time following rules and has anti-social tendencies such as not caring if his behavior is offensive.   Just painting him as a general louse.

Interesting comment on the freep blog by "AP":


"Not to be a total tool about this but as an attorney (civil) I was interested so I did some legal research on the judge's questioning and this is the legal test for improper conduct of a judge "While a trial judge may ask questions of witnesses now and then for the purpose of clarifying points that appear obscure, and the supplying of facts omitted, which the interest of justice requires, comments, extensive examination, and action reflecting partiality on the part of the trial judge constitute grounds for reversible error. People v. Cole (1957), 349 Mich. 175, 84 N.W.2d 711;"

Edited to add comment by different person:

"As a lawyer, I have seen judges as questions for sake of clarity all the time. Particularly here where the subject matter ("alternative" lifestyle) may be foreign to jurors, the judge has the latitude nay responsibility to clarify the subject matter.
by BigSap 2:46 PM"

So he brought his mommy to Rachel's so she would finally talk to him?  He'll stoop to anything.

   

*********

Regarding the judge's persistent questioning of witnesses, a lawyer on one of the twitter blogs posted the following.  Not encouraging ....

Not to be a total tool about this but as an attorney (civil) I was interested so I did some legal research on the judge's questioning and this is the legal test for improper conduct of a judge "While a trial judge may ask questions of witnesses now and then for the purpose of clarifying points that appear obscure, and the supplying of facts omitted, which the interest of justice requires, comments, extensive examination, and action reflecting partiality on the part of the trial judge constitute grounds for reversible error. People v. Cole (1957), 349 Mich. 175, 84 N.W.2d 711;"

Hinkymeter reference for the win!!!!

kittygirl wrote:Hinkymeter reference for the win!!!!

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  4m 4 minutes ago

Rachel and Bob became concerned because her blog posts were showing up on the website The Hinky Meter.


George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  4m 4 minutes ago

The moderator of that website, which was taken down, did some great investigative work early on in this case.

I wonder if I still have the blogs saved? I had some of them at one point..

kittygirl wrote:Hinkymeter reference for the win!!!!

yeah, Val did a lot of work. Does anyone remember if there were any posts attempting to slur Jane ?

I knew it! I knew who obedient slave was! So...this is interesting...what role did she play in all of this? And she was the one still communicating with Bob for a long time after...still doing his bidding. Potentially even more messed up than Rachel?

smallal wrote:

kittygirl wrote:Hinkymeter reference for the win!!!!

yeah, Val did a lot of work. Does anyone remember if there were any posts attempting to slur Jane ?

After the murder I don't think she made any more. And some about the house on Kensington were quickly deleted.

at some point we read this blog. Obedience blog. I remember seeing it.