TRIAL! JUSTICE FOR JANE!

I feel like today's testimony did a lot to underscore how very weak RG is, so can be seen as consistent with BB using JG, another weak person, even though it's in a different way.

AnalyzeThis wrote:I feel like today's testimony did a lot to underscore how very weak RG is, so can be seen as consistent with BB using JG, another weak person, even though it's in a different way.

I entirely concur. Also, I hadn't heard the part about Obedient Slave IMing Rachel about starting a rumor about Jane! Wow!

Is this "Obedient Slave" testifying, I wonder?? And....Kitty...kudos about Theresa Giffon-- There was so much amazing investigative work done by Hinky Meter contributors (many of which continue to contribute to Justice 4 Jane to this day).

Shout out to the originators of Justice 4 Jane:  DanStar, Stinamobena, and Migraine!  Carrying on in the tradition of the Hinky Meter.  JUSTICE FOR JANE!

meandmyshadow wrote:

AnalyzeThis wrote:I feel like today's testimony did a lot to underscore how very weak RG is, so can be seen as consistent with BB using JG, another weak person, even though it's in a different way.

I entirely concur.  Also, I hadn't heard the part about Obedient Slave IMing Rachel about starting a rumor about Jane!  Wow!  

Quite a crew, attempting to malign the reputation of a murdered woman. Wonder if Obedient Slave (Therese Giffen?) will testify that Bob suggested that miserable deed.

It seemed like the judge backed off the intrusive questioning after lunch, maybe some colleagues got to her about it.

To date, for those following the case closely, it doesn't seem like we learned too many things we didn't know before --- nothing big at least. But we are only a week into it.

Lindsey & team doing a good job, while the defense seems ... well almost defenseless, with none of their cross-examines undermining the witnesses/testimony.  Only surprising thing was the order of witnesses --- jumping from forensics to relationship stuff, back to forensics etc.  Maybe it's to put the boring mundane stuff in between the juicy things to keep the jury's interest up.  Oh well.

What does everyone think about how it is going?

meandmyshadow wrote:     Shout out to the originators of Justice 4 Jane:  DanStar, Stinamobena, and Migraine!  Carrying on in the tradition of the Hinky Meter.  JUSTICE FOR JANE!

Didn't see this in any of the 3 blogs followed, but reported by Hunter in the Detroit News:

"Rachel Gillett said during Bashara's murder-for-hire trial that, in an email two months after Jane Bashara was found dead, she wrote to a friend that she thought she was the motive for the murder."

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2014/10/16/bashara-girlfriend-expected-continue-testimony/17339963/

Seems like that's a new tidbit of info.

EllsBells wrote:

meandmyshadow wrote:

AnalyzeThis wrote:I feel like today's testimony did a lot to underscore how very weak RG is, so can be seen as consistent with BB using JG, another weak person, even though it's in a different way.

I entirely concur.  Also, I hadn't heard the part about Obedient Slave IMing Rachel about starting a rumor about Jane!  Wow!  

Quite a crew, attempting to malign the reputation of a murdered woman. Wonder if Obedient Slave (Therese Giffen?) will testify that Bob suggested that miserable deed.

It seemed like the judge backed off the intrusive questioning after lunch, maybe some colleagues got to her about it.

To date, for those following the case closely, it doesn't seem like we learned too many things we didn't know before --- nothing big at least. But we are only a week into it.

Lindsey & team doing a good job, while the defense seems ... well almost defenseless, with none of their cross-examines undermining the witnesses/testimony.  Only surprising thing was the order of witnesses --- jumping from forensics to relationship stuff, back to forensics etc.  Maybe it's to put the boring mundane stuff in between the juicy things to keep the jury's interest up.  Oh well.

What does everyone think about how it is going?

At first I questioned the sequence of witnesses and then realized the Prosecution is showing Blobs character through testimony... i.e renigs on a promise to pay for concrete, lies to his mistress, his wife, his associates. New to me --- he takes his slaves to his marital bed and lets Rachel drive his wife's car. How much lower can you get on the humanity scale ? They also did a good job at emphasizing how he would do anything(desperate) to keep this "woman" and I use the term loosely. My guess is the next thing to show the jury is his financial status and employment. We know he was going down the tubes fast and probably had a lousy relationship with his Janitorial Supply boss. Although at one time didn't he win a Cadillac for selling cleaning supplies ? He probably sold by intimidation.

Great to see everyone here.

That marital bed stuff and her driving Jane's car were new to me, too. As was the info about trying to create a false rumor about Jane having a boyfriend.

I think the prosecutors have tons on him.  I was originally concerned that they couldn't place Bob in the garage, but now I remember that there was a witness that saw him help swap cars so Joe could drive her car away.

I think he's screwed (and not in the way he wants...lol).

CuriousPortlander wrote:That marital bed stuff and her driving Jane's car were new to me, too. As was the info about trying to create a false rumor about Jane having a boyfriend.

I think the prosecutors have tons on him.  I was originally concerned that they couldn't place Bob in the garage, but now I remember that there was a witness that saw him help swap cars so Joe could drive her car away.

I think he's screwed (and not in the way he wants...lol).

IMO. The person that witnessed the car ballet and JG behind the wheel was a fabricated leak to smoke Blob out. To see what he would do thinking that there was actually someone who witnessed his car being moved in order to get Jane's car out of the garage. Remember there was also some story about the street lights being inoperative in the area of the home. Perhaps that person really does exist, if so, they have been a well kept secret for quite a while. And with this case there aren't too many secrets left.

smallal wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:That marital bed stuff and her driving Jane's car were new to me, too. As was the info about trying to create a false rumor about Jane having a boyfriend.

I think the prosecutors have tons on him.  I was originally concerned that they couldn't place Bob in the garage, but now I remember that there was a witness that saw him help swap cars so Joe could drive her car away.

I think he's screwed (and not in the way he wants...lol).

IMO. The person that witnessed the car ballet and JG behind the wheel was a fabricated leak to smoke Blob out. To see what he would do thinking that there was actually someone who witnessed his car being moved in order to get Jane's car out of the garage. Remember there was also some story about the street lights being inoperative in the area of the home. Perhaps that person really does exist, if so, they have been a well kept secret for quite a while. And with this case there aren't too many secrets left.

I agree, think it was a ruse to get him to change his alibi about not being home at that time, which he in fact did change.  

Some interesting archived videoclips and Rachel blog as links on this twitter feed below, including the Dateline show.  Btw, does anyone know if Dateline of other national shows are covering the trial?

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bobbashara?f=realtime&src=hash

The streetlights were out that night! I remember that for a fact! It was dark as hell

Don't know how this happened but someone uploaded the video testimony of Patrick Webb on link below, though I couldn't get the sound to work. He's an odd looking dude.

http://courtchatter.tv/basharatrialday2partial.htm

migraine wrote:The streetlights were out that night!  I remember that for a fact!  It was dark as hell

So if the streetlights were out and it was very, very dark, then the existence of a car ballet witness would be of even more importance, right?? Bcs the garage lights coming on and cars backing out would stick out even more starkly!  Plus, I'd think it would have to be someone out walking or else a neighbor directly across from the drive....

(My take has often been that there are many unnamed witnesses specifically due to Monster Blob's nefarious threatening nature, and to me, one such as this, could truly be the smoking gun!)

Oh Ells, wait'll we all get to see that awful Falcinelli creep (Sir Rick/Midnight Rider) again. Remember him from the prelim? Blobber's POA (post cousin Stephanie), bdsm pal? Big, fat, heavy breathing ass who thinks it is funny to testify?? *shudders*

migraine wrote:The streetlights were out that night!  I remember that for a fact!  It was dark as hell

hmmm.. were all the street lights out or just the one closest to bashara' s house? Could there be evidence that this light was broken on purpose? We may be in for some surprises.

No- all the streetlights were out. They had been out for weeks/months. There was a huge project going on with Detroit Edison upgrading all the streetlights in our neighborhood street by street. Middlesex was in the middle of the process at the time of the murder. So we all KNEW the streetlights would be out for an indeterminate (but extended) period of time. I have told this story before, but the reason I specifically remember that the lights were out that night is that I was not at home, and my daughter was dropped at home around 7pm by another parent. I had forgotten to leave the porch lights or any lights in the house on so I was very worried that she would be coming home in the pitch dark. I called the other parent to make sure she got in OK and got the lights on for her before she left. The next morning I heard they had found Jane's body...when the news came out that she was murdered in her own garage I had a meltdown realizing that my daughter may have been home alone while a murder was occurring....

Omg! That must have been horrible for you! I'm so sorry!

wwjd wrote:Omg! That must have been horrible for you! I'm so sorry!

It definitely makes a detail like the streetlights being out stick in your mind, I can say that!  At any rate, I have often wondered if knowing the streetlights being out was part of the reason Blob decided to have it done this way.  Who knows.  But I tend to agree with Ells that the "car ballet" witness was a phony leak to put pressure on Blob.  Otherwise I feel as if Blob would have been charged much, much sooner than he was.

Hi everybody, it's been a very long time since my last visit here... Before the slime slithered to prison.

Can anyone share an update on how the children view their father now?  Are they ok?  I'm not asking or want personal info. it's just that my heart still breaks for them and I have always been so very concerned for their wellbeing.

catscratchfever wrote:Hi everybody, it's been a very long time since my last visit here... Before the slime slithered to prison.

Can anyone share an update on how the children view their father now?  Are they ok?  I'm not asking or want personal info. it's just that my heart still breaks for them and I have always been so very concerned for their wellbeing.

Forgive me if I'm overstepping boundaries here but during what must surely be a horrendous time of reliving this nightmare for them, I think we should refrain from discussing Jane's family members at all, keeping them in our hearts and prayers, and allowing them the privacy to deal with this and heal out of the spotlight of anyone's comments or analysis. I am sure your question is well intentioned but let's not go there.

On the link below are short videotapes of Webb's, McQueen's and Gillett's testimony.  Didn't the judge ban any videotaping?  I'm confused. 

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/bashara-murder-trial-testimony-concentrates-on-evidence-confrontation-between-bob-and-jane

EllsBells wrote:On the link below are short videotapes of Webb's, McQueen's and Gillett's testimony.  Didn't the judge ban any videotaping?  I'm confused. 

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/bashara-murder-trial-testimony-concentrates-on-evidence-confrontation-between-bob-and-jane

maybe she just banned "live" streaming of video?

There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

AnalyzeThis wrote:There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

So well said, Analyze.   I too didn't get the gratuitous piling on of Gillett as her testimony alone painted her as a thoroughly pathetic creature.  Imo no trial-critical point was intended, just knee jerk reactions by two women (Evans & Lindsey) towards a very needy and clueless adulteress whose many bad decisions not to end her tawdry affair ultimately led to BB's motive for murdering Jane.  

My guess is most people who knew, admired, or loved Jane have great disdain for Gillett, and that same sentiment compelled the questioning by Evans and Lindsey.

EllsBells wrote:

AnalyzeThis wrote:There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

So well said, Analyze.   I too didn't get the gratuitous piling on of Gillett as her testimony alone painted her as a thoroughly pathetic creature.  Imo no trial-critical point was intended, just knee jerk reactions by two women (Evans & Lindsey) towards a very needy and clueless adulteress whose many bad decisions not to end her tawdry affair ultimately led to BB's motive for murdering Jane.  

My guess is most people who knew, admired, or loved Jane have great disdain for Gillett, and that sentiment compelled the questioning by Evans and Lindsey.

Perhaps they were tiring of her victim act. As an adult she made some choices especially about the marital bed, staying overnight, showering in the bathroom, using Jane's car. Kinda made herself at home wouldn't you say ? Not quite the poor victim of Blob's lying she wants us all to believe. Maybe this disgusted the LL and the judge. In fact there are some who believe the opposite. That she knew all along he was married and just didn't give a fig as long as she got what she wanted.

meandmyshadow wrote:

EllsBells wrote:On the link below are short videotapes of Webb's, McQueen's and Gillett's testimony.  Didn't the judge ban any videotaping?  I'm confused. 

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/bashara-murder-trial-testimony-concentrates-on-evidence-confrontation-between-bob-and-jane

maybe she just banned "live" streaming of video?

If so, what is the point of banning live streaming, but allowing it to be videotaped and then broadcasted a little later? I don't get it, but then given Judge Yonda's screwy ways maybe it makes some odd sense to her.

AnalyzeThis wrote:There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

Your ability to show compassion in the face of this is
admirable. I was thrown by the shaming behavior a bit as well but I wonder if Rachel's total passivity, lack of self knowledge, self-abnegation, etc. set off personal alarms in the judge and LL and they were actually rebuking little pieces of their past selves...Very little pieces perhaps...in a prior relationship? Lots of men out there and I think at one time or another most of us have been preyed on, but hopefully made the wise decision on what to do about it. So maybe this was more about them and their fears of dependency than it was about Rachel.
...and I, too, wondered what in Rachel's upbringing contributed to her character-or lack of it. Guess we'll have to wait for the "tell all" book (not that she's getting MY money....)

GPPGRL wrote:

AnalyzeThis wrote:There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

Your ability to show compassion in the face of this is
admirable. I was thrown by the shaming behavior a bit as well but I wonder if Rachel's total passivity, lack of self knowledge, self-abnegation, etc. set off personal alarms in the judge and LL and they were actually rebuking little pieces of their past selves...Very little pieces perhaps...in a prior relationship? Lots of men out there and I think at one time or another most of us have been preyed on, but hopefully made the wise decision on what to do about it. So maybe this was more about them and their fears of dependency than it was about Rachel.
...and I, too, wondered what in Rachel's upbringing contributed to her character-or lack of it. Guess we'll have to wait for the "tell all" book (not that she's getting MY money....)

IMO she played the innocent victim role a little too heavy and it ticked off LL and the Judge. Any book she writes as this character(poor Rachel) will be in the fiction/fantasy shelves. IMO some of those "break-ups" were precipitated by something other than his marital status. She could care less about Jane and whether or not he was married. If she wanted to find out about the divorce, she could have asked for the attorney's name, she could have gone on line and spent 10 bucks to search public records. She could have asked Jane or had one of her friends ask Jane. Please.... LL and the Judge knew this and knew she was putting it on heavy and just wanted to get their jabs in to remind Rachel, "hey, we know who you are, we ain't buying all this BS". But its okay because she provided what the Prosecution wanted, an insight to Blob, his words his actions and most of all his motive.

smallal wrote:

GPPGRL wrote:

AnalyzeThis wrote:There's something that really bothered me about yesterday's questioning:  since this is a trial to determine whether or not BB is guilty as charged, I didn't see the point of all the Rachel-shaming.  Even LL, on cross, did that bit about "you're still alive, aren't you?' and "You wouldn't change places with Jane Bashara, would you?"  Both legitimate questions in terms of life (and I could understand the family wanting to literally scream those things at her), but what was the point relative to the determination of BB's guilt?

No, I don't at all condone that RG was involved with a married man. But BB advertised himself as "widowed," and would have found someone else if not RG (actually was looking for someone else even with her).  Yes, she "should" have dumped him and never gone back, and yes, it seems like she was trying to paint herself in a more positive light while testifying.  But no,  I haven't walked in her shoes, so while it made me want to scream when I heard a lot of her testimony (really, you slept on the FLOOR while the jerk slept with another woman on the bed?, and really, he lied and lied and lied again and you still went back?), I also felt a lot of pity for her and wondered how in life she got to the place to accept that kind of behavior in exchange for some attention, and the hope of love and a future.

I believe in growing up and learning to make healthy, good decisions and have healthy boundaries regardless of our pasts.  She obviously hasn't gotten to that place, at least according to my limited viewpoint.  But back to the original question, isn't that all beside the point?  Why did everyone seemingly feel the need to shame then re-shame Rachel?  Was there a trial-critical point I'm missing?

Your ability to show compassion in the face of this is
admirable. I was thrown by the shaming behavior a bit as well but I wonder if Rachel's total passivity, lack of self knowledge, self-abnegation, etc. set off personal alarms in the judge and LL and they were actually rebuking little pieces of their past selves...Very little pieces perhaps...in a prior relationship? Lots of men out there and I think at one time or another most of us have been preyed on, but hopefully made the wise decision on what to do about it. So maybe this was more about them and their fears of dependency than it was about Rachel.
...and I, too, wondered what in Rachel's upbringing contributed to her character-or lack of it. Guess we'll have to wait for the "tell all" book (not that she's getting MY money....)

IMO she played the innocent victim role a little too heavy and it ticked off LL and the Judge. Any book she writes as this character(poor Rachel) will be in the fiction/fantasy shelves.

Yep! The only time she showed ANY insight at ALL was when she said (when BB referred to Jane in the media as "my wife") "I realized my whole life had been a lie".

I wonder when she realized Bob DID mastermind the murder. And what of Obedient Slave?  How compartmentalized does someone have to be to want to float a rumor about a murder victim to protect a murderer? These people make me shudder to think they "walk among us" and my revulsion has nothing to do with BDSM but, rather, their lack of humanity. I was truly sickened by Rachel's invasion of Jane's bed and as much as she wishes to play victim, that bitch is evil.

GPPGRL wrote:These people make me shudder to think they "walk among us" and my revulsion has nothing to do with BDSM but, rather, their lack of humanity. I was truly sickened by Rachel's invasion of Jane's bed and as much as she wishes to play victim, that bitch is evil.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

In this instance good women are doing something, they are speaking out against the wickedness of Gillett, here and in the courtroom.  Imo, it was their revulsion of Gillett that caused Evans and Lindsey to lash out, perhaps despite their better professional judgment and more like a knee jerk reaction.

EllsBells wrote:

GPPGRL wrote:These people make me shudder to think they "walk among us" and my revulsion has nothing to do with BDSM but, rather, their lack of humanity. I was truly sickened by Rachel's invasion of Jane's bed and as much as she wishes to play victim, that bitch is evil.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

In this instance good women are doing something, they are speaking out against the wickedness of Gillett, here and in the courtroom.  Imo, it was their revulsion of Gillett that caused Evans and Lindsey to lash out, perhaps despite their better professional judgment and more like a knee jerk reaction.

Well said, ladies!!

Keep in mind too that Rachel was not always super forthcoming with information.  She didn't tell prosecutors about Janet because she didn't think it was relevant.  Why did the cops have to raid her house?  Because she wasn't being totally forthcoming.  That had to have frustrated LL and then to have her get on the stand.  And based on some of the things LL said I wondered too if her testimony in the trial was not consistent with testimony she had given before.  Rachel has been parading around like another victim in all this.  And maybe she is victimized a little.  But her victimization is nothing compared to what Jane must have endured in her life and death.  

I do not think Rachel is not as innocent as she appears, she is not just a lovestruck woman, I think she can be manipulative.  I have sympathy for her and compassion...I've done stupid things for what I thought was love, I've tolerated less than I deserved, etc.  But on some level she had an awareness that Bob was not divorced, had never seen the papers, and yet she willingly participated (whatever her motivation) in the search for a third woman.  She even had the balls to say something akin to having lost a lot during the police search of her residence.  Cooperation wouldn't have necessitated a raid.

I personally cannot wait to hear testimony from Obedient Slave.  I believe that during Bob's solicitation trial she was still assisting him, doing his bidding, if I remember LL correctly.  And floating a rumor about Jane to Rachel...an innocent man wouldn't need rumors and a woman convinced of her man's innocence wouldn't need rumors...when someone is deceased and they have a beautiful legacy you can't physically harm them anymore so you try to take out their reputation by suggesting infidelity?  That's reprehensible.

EllsBells wrote:

meandmyshadow wrote:

EllsBells wrote:On the link below are short videotapes of Webb's, McQueen's and Gillett's testimony.  Didn't the judge ban any videotaping?  I'm confused. 

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/bashara-murder-trial-testimony-concentrates-on-evidence-confrontation-between-bob-and-jane

maybe she just banned "live" streaming of video?

If so, what is the point of banning live streaming, but allowing it to be videotaped and then broadcasted a little later?  I don't get it, but then given Judge Yonda's screwy ways maybe it makes some odd sense to her.

Thought the live streaming was banned because the screen the slides were shown on occasionally either reflected a juror or when cameras panned to the screen, picked up a glimpse of a juror. This way any inadvertent view of a juror could be eliminated before broadcast.

kittygirl wrote:Keep in mind too that Rachel was not always super forthcoming with information.  She didn't tell prosecutors about Janet because she didn't think it was relevant.  Why did the cops have to raid her house?  Because she wasn't being totally forthcoming.  That had to have frustrated LL and then to have her get on the stand.  And based on some of the things LL said I wondered too if her testimony in the trial was not consistent with testimony she had given before.  Rachel has been parading around like another victim in all this.  And maybe she is victimized a little.  But her victimization is nothing compared to what Jane must have endured in her life and death.  

I do not think Rachel is not as innocent as she appears, she is not just a lovestruck woman, I think she can be manipulative.  I have sympathy for her and compassion...I've done stupid things for what I thought was love, I've tolerated less than I deserved, etc.  But on some level she had an awareness that Bob was not divorced, had never seen the papers, and yet she willingly participated (whatever her motivation) in the search for a third woman.  She even had the balls to say something akin to having lost a lot during the police search of her residence.  Cooperation wouldn't have necessitated a raid.

I personally cannot wait to hear testimony from Obedient Slave.  I believe that during Bob's solicitation trial she was still assisting him, doing his bidding, if I remember LL correctly.  And floating a rumor about Jane to Rachel...an innocent man wouldn't need rumors and a woman convinced of her man's innocence wouldn't need rumors...when someone is deceased and they have a beautiful legacy you can't physically harm them anymore so you try to take out their reputation by suggesting infidelity?  That's reprehensible.

The bold above is something I wondered about, and a possible answer to the real point/question of my post

I also think everyone brought up good points about RG and the feelings that go along with those.

GPPGRL wrote:

EllsBells wrote:

meandmyshadow wrote:

EllsBells wrote:On the link below are short videotapes of Webb's, McQueen's and Gillett's testimony.  Didn't the judge ban any videotaping?  I'm confused. 

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/bashara-murder-trial-testimony-concentrates-on-evidence-confrontation-between-bob-and-jane

maybe she just banned "live" streaming of video?

If so, what is the point of banning live streaming, but allowing it to be videotaped and then broadcasted a little later?  I don't get it, but then given Judge Yonda's screwy ways maybe it makes some odd sense to her.

Thought the live streaming was banned because the screen the slides were shown on occasionally either reflected a juror or when cameras panned to the screen, picked up a glimpse of a juror. This way any inadvertent view of a juror could be eliminated before broadcast.

Well that makes sense, given the need to protect jurors' identities.  Since videotapes are being made, maybe some news stations will upload the most interesting clips later onto websites, sure would be better than hit-or-miss blogs.  

Some great discussions going on here!

Regarding the car ballet witness; thanks for your comments about that possibly being faked.  Makes sense when I read your thoughts (and it apparently worked).

So now I'm back to being a bit concerned about how they are going to place him in the garage.  He places himself at the house.  Is that enough?

I went back through my detailed notes from the hearing that held him over for trial.  I think I found one discrepancy about Rachel's testimony.  At the hearing, she said the BDSM lifestyle was HER choice.  In the trial, she said this:

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 16

MM: “You didn’t like that BDSM stuff?” Not really. McCarthy: “The truth of the matter is, you’d do anything for him? Right?”



I also looked to see if Obedient Slave testified at the hearing, but I don't think she did.

@Migraine - thanks for your facts about the lights.  Sorry about the situation it created for you!

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some great discussions going on here!

Regarding the car ballet witness; thanks for your comments about that possibly being faked.  Makes sense when I read your thoughts (and it apparently worked).

So now I'm back to being a bit concerned about how they are going to place him in the garage.  He places himself at the house.  Is that enough?

I went back through my detailed notes from the hearing that held him over for trial.  I think I found one discrepancy about Rachel's testimony.  At the hearing, she said the BDSM lifestyle was HER choice.  In the trial, she said this:

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 16

MM: “You didn’t like that BDSM stuff?” Not really. McCarthy: “The truth of the matter is, you’d do anything for him? Right?”



I also looked to see if Obedient Slave testified at the hearing, but I don't think she did.

@Migraine - thanks for your facts about the lights.  Sorry about the situation it created for you!

From the testimony this week my recollection is that one drop of blood in the garage contained DNA from 3 individuals: Jane, BOB, and the 3rd was inconclusive. (Am I recalling this correctly?)

GPPGRL wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some great discussions going on here!

Regarding the car ballet witness; thanks for your comments about that possibly being faked.  Makes sense when I read your thoughts (and it apparently worked).

So now I'm back to being a bit concerned about how they are going to place him in the garage.  He places himself at the house.  Is that enough?

I went back through my detailed notes from the hearing that held him over for trial.  I think I found one discrepancy about Rachel's testimony.  At the hearing, she said the BDSM lifestyle was HER choice.  In the trial, she said this:

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 16

MM: “You didn’t like that BDSM stuff?” Not really. McCarthy: “The truth of the matter is, you’d do anything for him? Right?”



I also looked to see if Obedient Slave testified at the hearing, but I don't think she did.

@Migraine - thanks for your facts about the lights.  Sorry about the situation it created for you!

From the testimony this week my recollection is that one drop of blood in the garage contained DNA from 3 individuals: Jane, BOB, and the 3rd was inconclusive. (Am I recalling this correctly?)

I'll have to go back and find what was said at trial.  My notes from the hearing say this:

-----

Witness 22:   Andrea Young:  Michigan State Police; Expert in forensic biology

• processes crime scenes, DNA evidence
  
• explaining DNA processing; looks at 16 different locations on the DNA
  
• Had known samples from Jane, Bob, Joe
  
• Compared those to evidence
  
• Blood from garage floor:  3 donors:  major is Jane; Bob can't be excluded; Joe is excluded!
  
• can do a process YSTR testing; only looks at male DNA
  
• results of fingernail clipping (right hand); no foreign DNA
  
• results of fingernail clipping (left):  mixture:  Jane and Joe
  
• Blood from clipped nails:  Jane cannot be excluded; Joe cannot be excluded
  
• Boots:  at least 3 donors; major is Joe; Jane and Bob excluded
  
• Boot swabs:  3 donors; major is Joe; Bob could be one of the contributors
  
• missed last item
  

------

Hence, my concern.

Let me go hunt through tweets to see what was said at trial.

GPPGRL wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some great discussions going on here!

Regarding the car ballet witness; thanks for your comments about that possibly being faked.  Makes sense when I read your thoughts (and it apparently worked).

So now I'm back to being a bit concerned about how they are going to place him in the garage.  He places himself at the house.  Is that enough?

I went back through my detailed notes from the hearing that held him over for trial.  I think I found one discrepancy about Rachel's testimony.  At the hearing, she said the BDSM lifestyle was HER choice.  In the trial, she said this:

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 16

MM: “You didn’t like that BDSM stuff?” Not really. McCarthy: “The truth of the matter is, you’d do anything for him? Right?”



I also looked to see if Obedient Slave testified at the hearing, but I don't think she did.

@Migraine - thanks for your facts about the lights.  Sorry about the situation it created for you!

From the testimony this week my recollection is that one drop of blood in the garage contained DNA from 3 individuals: Jane, BOB, and the 3rd was inconclusive. (Am I recalling this correctly?)

Yes, I heard that too. I would think that's enough to place him at the scene. Can they talk about the gun or not, does anyone know?

I went back through George Hunter's tweets.  The only comment I found was tweeted during Opening Statements (which is not evidence):

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 14

One blood drop found in the garage contained DNA from Jane, Bob, and a 3rd person, who was unidentified.

So I don't think Andrea Young has testified yet.  I wonder if the opening statements "exaggerated" the truth, or if they did further testing that confirmed it was him.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Bricktop wrote:

GPPGRL wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some great discussions going on here!

Regarding the car ballet witness; thanks for your comments about that possibly being faked.  Makes sense when I read your thoughts (and it apparently worked).

So now I'm back to being a bit concerned about how they are going to place him in the garage.  He places himself at the house.  Is that enough?

I went back through my detailed notes from the hearing that held him over for trial.  I think I found one discrepancy about Rachel's testimony.  At the hearing, she said the BDSM lifestyle was HER choice.  In the trial, she said this:

George Hunter @GeorgeHunter_DN  ·  Oct 16

MM: “You didn’t like that BDSM stuff?” Not really. McCarthy: “The truth of the matter is, you’d do anything for him? Right?”



I also looked to see if Obedient Slave testified at the hearing, but I don't think she did.

@Migraine - thanks for your facts about the lights.  Sorry about the situation it created for you!

From the testimony this week my recollection is that one drop of blood in the garage contained DNA from 3 individuals: Jane, BOB, and the 3rd was inconclusive. (Am I recalling this correctly?)

Yes, I heard that too.  I would think that's enough to place him at the scene.  Can they talk about the gun or not, does anyone know?

Lindsey said not enough blood from third person to test for DNA.   Besides, imo it doesn't seem like much evidentiary value to have BB and Jane's mingled blood droplet on the garage floor of a house they'd owned for decades. Further, iirc Gentz said BB didn't touch Jane at all, probably fearing his DNA on her clothes etc., so why would there be any of his blood from the attack?

Pretty sure Obedient Slave did not testify at the prelim, which mostly focused on evidence of conspiracy for murder, not on obstruction and tampering.

Probably his mother and cousin are going to testify about finding the gun in the safety deposit box and mommy being tricked to put it there unbeknownst to her.  In the opening, Lindsey showed the tv clip of his denying owning a gun and apparently none was registered to him.  Glad BB was too stupid to just chuck it into the Detroit River since it couldn't be traced to him even if found, rather put it somewhere linked to him without a shadow of doubt. Good for justice for Jane.

Wonder if the prosecution can subpoena the "investigator" Bob hired to find Jane's killer, would love to hear what his "evidence" shows.

Imo.. placing Bob in the garage will probably be circumstantial, unless there actually was a witness to the car ballet. There's Gents' testimony of Bob forcing him at gunpoint, the hidden gun, along with Bob's denial of ownership, and Bob admitting he had stopped home.( Feel free to add anything I may have missed.) This along with witness testimony at the location of Bob's alibi, minutes from his home , I think we can rule out reasonable doubt.

After listening to the defense's opening on you tube, I was disturbed to hear that a Lois Valente will actually testify that Jane didn't care about Bob's extra marital sexcapades, and that he could do whatever he wanted to do.. really?? I hope when cross examined, they can discredit this fool!

wwjd wrote:Imo.. placing Bob in the garage will probably be circumstantial, unless there actually was a witness to the car ballet. There's Gents' testimony of Bob forcing him at gunpoint, the hidden gun, along with Bob's denial of ownership, and Bob admitting he had stopped home.( Feel free to add anything I may have missed.) This along with witness testimony at the location of Bob's alibi, minutes from his home , I think we can rule out reasonable doubt.

After listening to the defense's opening on you tube, I was disturbed to hear that a Lois Valente will actually testify that Jane didn't care about Bob's extra marital sexcapades, and that he could do whatever he wanted to do.. really?? I hope when cross examined, they can discredit this fool!

IMO First, who the heck is Lois Valenti ? Is she on the Greim letter of references ? Cross examination, "when Jane told you she no longer cared what Bob did, did she know he had brought his mistresses to their home, to their bed, to their shower ?" "and was Jane ok with Bob's mistress driving her car ?" If the answer is "no" then she does care what the Blob does. It's my belief that a witness cannot testify to what someone else may have been thinking so they cannot ask what the witness what a person(Jane) may have been thinking. However, they have enough witnesses to testify that Jane would never be ok with those things. Also, if she had said "I don't care what he does" in a  flippant manner its pretty irrelevant. The statement out of context can be construed to mean many things but I seriously doubt that it meant she approved of his sexual escapades in her home. We'll find out eventually.

smallal wrote:IMO First, who the heck is Lois Valenti ? Is she on the Greim letter of references ? Cross examination, "when Jane told you she no longer cared what Bob did, did she know he had brought his mistresses to their home, to their bed, to their shower ?" "and was Jane ok with Bob's mistress driving her car ?" If the answer is "no" then she does care what the Blob does. It's my belief that a witness cannot testify to what someone else may have been thinking so they cannot ask what the witness what a person(Jane) may have been thinking. However, they have enough witnesses to testify that Jane would never be ok with those things. Also, if she had said "I don't care what he does" in a  flippant manner its pretty irrelevant. The statement out of context can be construed to mean many things but I seriously doubt that it meant she approved of his sexual escapades in her home. We'll find out eventually.

There's also "I don't care" in the context of "it doesn't matter anymore at this point - the idiot has done so many stupid things, we're getting a divorce anyway, so I don't want to waste my time discussing it."

If I were on the jury, Jane being "OK" with it wouldn't change my mind. We have all those emails from Bob about a change coming, and we know he was pressured to divorce Jane or lose Rachel. We know he didn't have $, and she did. He couldn't afford a divorce.

Good morning, everyone!

Here's the Fox link:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/26828563/trial-continues-monday-for-bob-bashara

I wish there was a "like" button to push!

chewet wrote:Good morning, everyone!

Here's the Fox link:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/26828563/trial-continues-monday-for-bob-bashara

Thanks. Here are two more:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeHunter_DN

http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Day_4_Bob_Bashara_trial

wwjd wrote:I wish there was a "like" button to push!

Me too, wwjd! Have seen so much on here this past week I wish I could simply give a big "thumbs up" on.

Thanks, Analyze, for the links (that Freep one is hard to find)

Justice for Jane!

Thanks smallal, for clarifying jury sequestration! Per Gina Damron's blog, the jury is not sequestered.... They are free to go home at night...