TRIAL! JUSTICE FOR JANE!

EllsBells wrote:

smallal wrote:

There's another saying, "Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too." Hope this gets mentioned.

Not to worry, Smallal, it's well established by now that BB has no problem lying about ANYTHING whether little (his whereabouts, watching porn, having a dungeon etc.) or big (being married, owing money, having a girlfriend, hiring various hitmen etc.). He's clearly on the pathological spectrum for lying, so much so that he seems to believe his own lies.  

The best? Not only was he at a golf outing (rather than Rachel's daughter's wedding) but he got a hole in one. Anyone remember Walter Mitty?

Any discussion around town that the murderer will take the stand in his own defense?

catscratchfever wrote:Any discussion around town that the murderer will take the stand in his own defense?

I wish I wish I wish! No idea, but it's at the top of my Christmas List!!!

migraine wrote:

catscratchfever wrote:Any discussion around town that the murderer will take the stand in his own defense?

I wish I wish I wish!  No idea, but it's at the top of my Christmas List!!!  

Oh Lordy... Then the trial would go on forever... Debunking his pathological lies.... Oh the thought of having to listen to the evil lying sociopath makes me want to

On the other hand, however, I keep praying the car ballet is not a rumor... Oh please oh please....

All will be well though-- Truth is Winning!

Well Diallo is going for jugulars today so she is trying to get in all the shots she can before the prosecution rests.

migraine wrote:Well Diallo is going for jugulars today so she is trying to get in all the shots she can before the prosecution rests.

Again the defense wallows and gets bitten. The irrelevance of Missy recalling who was at her house when she witnessed the Blob sweeping after 7pm. Diallo's attack on the young woman whose testimony did not fit Blob's alibi. Her attempt to imply that LE was incompetent when the gun was not found in the search of the home(I commented that maybe Mark Fuhrman planted it, but Gina did not post it). Diallo's insinuation to the jury that LE was not to be trusted at a time when the justice system could be seen as failing and capitalizing on the current events of the day. Diallo's attempt at criticizing Jimenez for not recording Virgona's interview:
Diallo asked Jimenez if he violated a mandate on the police department by Department of Justice mandate by not taking video of his interview with Steve Virgona. Jimenez said the mandate is to record all interviews with suspects, not all witnesses.

Egg on the face again Ms Diallo ?


These two witness testified to something I found significant, the arrival of Blob at the Hard Luck. The only thing concerning me is the words Carmody used which were not clear. He said,

Amy Lange: They agreed to meet - Michael checked with Mary - his significant other to make sure she didn't mind - he went over - called Bob at 6:55 and was five minutes away


Amy Lange: Bob was coming around through the parking lot when Carmody first saw him


"coming around through the parking lot" in his car or on foot ?


And then Carol Porzondek testified but did not say from which direction he was coming from, the parking lot from his car or from where he was supposedly cleaning, did he have a broom or rake in his hand ?

7:12 was the screen shot from when she called her husband - that was about ten minutes after she left Dylan's

Amy Lange
Her husband suggested she document what time she called him - she did a screen grab on her phone from when she called her husband

Amy Lange
She mentioned she saw Bob while she was leaving Dylan's

Amy Lange
The next day January 25 she learned that Jane had been murdered - she and her husband talked about it

Amy Lange
She called her husband Mike ten minutes later on her way home to see if he was coming home or going to the Yacht Club

Amy Lange
Bob nodded his head - Bob opened the door and walked inside the Hard Luck Lounge

To me, I still have questions because we were not allowed to hear the complete testimony only the blog relay.

Did Carmody see BB pull in the lot in his car at that time or walk up ? Did Carol note which way he was coming from ? Did he have a coat on ? Did he seem in a hurry ? Did he appear to be dressed appropriately for cleaning outdoors ?

What time did BB's cell phone show he was back at the Hard Luck ? Did Carmody say what time he left BB at the Hard Luck ? Did BB tell Carmody he was working at the Hard Luck when he called or just ask him to meet him there ?

Crucial questions, Smallal, although not crucial enough to derail the debunking of Monster Blob's "alibi", imho...

Yet when Carmody testified to "coming around the parking lot" I too kept questioning "in his car or on foot?" Keeping faith there is a reason it was not clarified... Maybe it is entirely unnecessary??

And let's hope here is why-- It is all of five minutes from Middlesex to the Hard Luck property, so if he had set up his "sweeping" mission ahead of time (i.e, getting brush/broom out before he left the property earlier to head to the scene of the murder), all he would need to do was to zip on over there, arrive by say, even 6:50, hop out of the Big Bob Mobile, grab the aforementioned broom and make a few cursory swoops & swishes. Then, a few min later why he could easily pull off a smile and nod as he casually walks into the Hard Luck to meet Carmody...

I'm not sure how much it matters that people saw him near the Hard Luck close to 7 pm as the main thing is no one saw him there around 6:30 ish when Jane was killed and when phone towers show him near her phone.

Given Diallo's questions re which newspaper reportedly confirmed the "car ballet" I think she knows there's no evidence forthcoming abut it. Though a red herring, it did the job of getting BB to blow his alibi and admitting he was home at the time in question.

EllsBells wrote:I'm not sure how much it matters that  people saw him near the Hard Luck close to 7 pm as the main thing is no one saw him there around 6:30 ish when Jane was killed and when phone towers show him near her phone.

Given Diallo's questions re which newspaper reportedly confirmed the "car ballet" I think she knows there's no evidence forthcoming abut it. Though a red herring, it did the job of getting BB to blow his alibi and admitting he was home at the time in question.

IMO, BB blew it big time by admitting he came home around this time. He could have just lied and said, "where did you hear that ? it's BS." But no, he wasn't that smart. And now since he never revealed the fact he went home in any of his interviews with LE and especially when he began giving his alibi when reporting his wife missing. Which no one had even inquired about his whereabouts. I cannot imagine him taking the stand and attempting to explain his neglect to mention his trip home. And its extremely weird that he claims he went in, got keys and used the bathroom never acknowledging himself to his wife. Was she just standing there watching him run to the bathroom and grab keys ? I would hope he could at least say "hello" as he did to the friend of a friend when entering the Hard Luck. She could have been in another part of the house but he could yell, "hey hon I forgot something, gotta go, see you at 8 for our taxes". Total BS.

IMO, the fact that he was seen coming in at that time and not already sitting there having a drink waiting for his friend to arrive as he originally led everyone to believe. He said he came inside periodically while cleaning outside, did anyone (bartender) confirm that ? And what about the mysterious disappearance of the security camera recordings ?

Smallal- I forgot about the mysterious disappearance of the camera recordings! Yes and all the prosecution needs to show is that his phone put him at home at the time of the murder, and returning a few minutes before 7. Obviously, he wasn't in the parking lot if his phone wasn't. Phones don't walk away by themselves.

Good point, Shadow. It's a wonderful thing BB wasn't smart enough to leave the phone in the dungeon under the Hard Luck as the leak about his phone pinging off the same tower as Jane's caused him to blow to bits his alibi. He could have explained away a witness reporting a car ballet with "the witness is lying or mistaken," but not phone data. Without the pinging phone as the proverbial 'smoking gun,' BB would have had a much higher chance of beating a conviction. Good for justice for Jane that he's not very smart.

EllsBells wrote:Good point, Shadow. It's a wonderful  thing BB wasn't smart enough to leave the phone in the dungeon under the Hard Luck as the leak about his phone pinging off the same tower as Jane's caused him to blow to bits his alibi. He could have explained away a witness reporting a car ballet with "the witness is lying or mistaken," but not phone data. Without the pinging phone as the proverbial 'smoking gun,' BB would have had a much higher chance of beating a conviction. Good for justice for Jane that he's not very smart.

Exactly! If he had left his phone in the dungeon there would be no way to place him at the scene of the crime definitively. He messed up BIG TIME by keeping his phone with him.  

I have also been thinking about the MOTIVE.  The Defense keeps trying to say that he wasn't REALLY intending to leave his wife to be with Rachel that he was LYING to her as he did to so many others about so many other things.  Truth is, the Defense is reinforcing Blob's Motive by trying to assert that Blob DIDN'T actually have the financing in place to close on January 27th.

MOTIVE:

 1) we heard testimony from the finance guy that Bob COULDN'T get a pre-approval letter without Jane and her 401K as collateral:

Calcaterra said there were challenges with the application, partly because the house on Cadieux prevented him from getting the loan. Calcaterra said he told Bashara that Jane would have to be on the loan.
by Gina Damron October 28 at 3:15 PM

2) Then the Realtor testified that she got a VAGUE approval letter, but that Bob was going to pay cash (Calcaterra had previously testified that he finally gave Bob the vague letter only because of his relationship with the family, as a favor):

Muccioli said she was told Bashara was going to get a mortgage through Towne Mortgage. She said that after much pressure from her and another realtor he got them a letter that was emailed to them. "A very vague pre-approval letter," Muccioli said.

Eventually, she said, Bshara said he was going to pay cash for the house.
by Gina Damron November 24 at 2:15 PM

Evans asked why a special consideration was made. "Because of our relationship with them," Calcaterra said, saying they knew their family.
by Gina Damron October 28 at 3:18 PM ↑0

 3) Then Bob canceled the closing "because my wife is missing" and "she is where I was getting the money from".  REALLY?  Wow- you sure were as we all know he had no cash, but was intending to have Jane's 401K that could only come FROM HER DEATH.  

Muccioli testified that Bashara called and told her the closing had to wait, his wife was missing.
by Gina Damron November 24 at 2:21 PM ↑0

Amy Lange: She gets a phone call from the defendant in the morning and he said they would have to delay the closing - he said his wife was missing - she didn't come home
This was the first she heard him say his wife - she thought they were divorced. She thought the wife probably had a boyfriend because he had a girlfriend.
She said why does that matter - he said that was where he was getting the rest of his money - from his wife

4) Then the Realtor testified that Bob rescheduled the closing after his wife's death!

Muccioli said she talked to Bshara on Jan. 26. She said it was all over the news that Jane Bashara was dead. Muccioli said she told Bashara she was sorry about his wife. She said he said: "We're going to have to postpone the closing a little longer."
by Gina Damron November 24 at 2:24 PM ↑0

Amy Lange: The following day on the 26th he called again and said this is Bob and there was silence - she said - I'm sorry to hear about your wife - he said we're going to have to postpone the closing a little longer - can we wait until after the funeral on Monday - then he said no let's wait until February 10th

5) So then we hear from the witness that Bob asked to help him FACILITATE getting Jane's insurance just shortly AFTER her murder.  

Amy Lange
in the time frame of the funeral - Bob called Sandy and said the kids needed money could she help him expedite the insurance money -Sandy sent something to the HR department to ask them to contact him.

Ennis testified that after Jan. 24, 2012 she had conversations with Bob Bashara. She said the first conversation, she believes, was the day after Jane Bashara was killed.
by Gina Damron November 25 at 10:16 AM
Permalink

Ennis said she called the home phone at the Bashara house and Bob Bashara told her Jane was dead.
by Gina Damron November 25 at 10:17 AM

Ennis said Bashara told her: "Somebody killed by Jane."
by Gina Damron November 25 at 10:17 AM

Ennis said Bashara called her because he wanted to see if she could help. He wanted to expedited getting the insurance money, Ennis said.

Motive ESTABLISHED.

Phone records as testified by Christopher Hess and Stan Brue


3:48 p.m. Hess testified that Bob Bashara's phone on Jan. 24, 2012 used a cell phone site in an area encompassing his residence.

4:52 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. that day, Bob Bashara's phone used sites located in the geographic area encompassing the Hard Luck Lounge on Mack Avenue, Hess said.

4:40 p.m. to 6:26 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2012 Hess testified that Jane Bashara's phone used towers in an area encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:26 p.m. that day, Hess testified, Bob Bashara's phone used a tower encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:28 p.m., Hess testified, Jane Bashara's phone used a cell site just north of the Bashara residence.

6:41 p.m. Bob Bashara's phone was using sites near the lounge again, he said.

6:43 p.m. Jane Bashara's phone used a tower in Detroit.

8:42 – January 24, 2012 to end of day – Jane’s phone is utilizing another tower that is consistent with the phone being at the adress on Annott where Jane's body was found in her car

9 p.m. January 24, 2012 until -9 a.m. Jan. 25, 2012 Jane Bashara's phone received 91 incoming calls. Only four were from the Bashara family home. Two were from Robert Bashara's cell phone.

Opportunity established --- Would be nice to know what phone numbers were being connected as each record of the tower is being made.

smallal wrote:Phone records as testified by Christopher Hess and Stan Brue


3:48 p.m. Hess testified that Bob Bashara's phone on Jan. 24, 2012 used a cell phone site in an area encompassing his residence.

4:52 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. that day, Bob Bashara's phone used sites located in the geographic area encompassing the Hard Luck Lounge on Mack Avenue, Hess said.

4:40 p.m. to 6:26 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2012 Hess testified that Jane Bashara's phone used towers in an area encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:26 p.m. that day, Hess testified, Bob Bashara's phone used a tower encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:28 p.m., Hess testified, Jane Bashara's phone used a cell site just north of the Bashara residence.

6:41 p.m. Bob Bashara's phone was using sites near the lounge again, he said.

6:43 p.m. Jane Bashara's phone used a tower in Detroit.

8:42 – January 24, 2012  to end of day – Jane’s phone is utilizing another tower that is consistent with the phone being at the adress on Annott where Jane's body was found in her car

9 p.m. January 24, 2012 until -9 a.m. Jan. 25, 2012 Jane Bashara's phone received 91 incoming calls. Only four were from the Bashara family home. Two were from Robert Bashara's cell phone.

Opportunity established --- Would be nice to know what phone numbers were being connected as each record of the tower is being made.

Did gentz ever say what time he went to bashara' s house that night?

wwjd wrote:

smallal wrote:Phone records as testified by Christopher Hess and Stan Brue


3:48 p.m. Hess testified that Bob Bashara's phone on Jan. 24, 2012 used a cell phone site in an area encompassing his residence.

4:52 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. that day, Bob Bashara's phone used sites located in the geographic area encompassing the Hard Luck Lounge on Mack Avenue, Hess said.

4:40 p.m. to 6:26 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2012 Hess testified that Jane Bashara's phone used towers in an area encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:26 p.m. that day, Hess testified, Bob Bashara's phone used a tower encompassing the Bashara residence.

6:28 p.m., Hess testified, Jane Bashara's phone used a cell site just north of the Bashara residence.

6:41 p.m. Bob Bashara's phone was using sites near the lounge again, he said.

6:43 p.m. Jane Bashara's phone used a tower in Detroit.

8:42 – January 24, 2012  to end of day – Jane’s phone is utilizing another tower that is consistent with the phone being at the adress on Annott where Jane's body was found in her car

9 p.m. January 24, 2012 until -9 a.m. Jan. 25, 2012 Jane Bashara's phone received 91 incoming calls. Only four were from the Bashara family home. Two were from Robert Bashara's cell phone.

Opportunity established --- Would be nice to know what phone numbers were being connected as each record of the tower is being made.

Did gentz ever say what time he went to bashara' s house that night?

...AND do we know HOW Joe got there? Given the tight timeline & all locations involved (Mack/Nottingham-Wayburn-Middlesex), it's not inconceivable that BigB picked him up on the way, is it? Made a call to Jane to make sure she was home....?
Side note for those who are not local: the alley behind Dylan's and the Hard Luck Lounge is one way only which might impact Bob's visibility coming & going.

Must be watching too much TV. Was expecting a much grander finale for the prosecution. Lots of questions that are probably answered best from a legal standpoint.

Why were the numbers/persons of the cell calls never identified ? Who called who and when.

The prosecution was not allowed to use any recorded interview of Joe Gentz ? What happened to the one in Steve's van that was on the news ?

No one asked Kristy if Bob gave the excuse he would be back because he was retrieving some keys. But he made a point to mention he'd be back. Nor did they ask her if his face was flushed or did he appear to be working outside. Nor was the nagging question I had about him "coming around" by Carmody on foot or he saw him pull up in his car.

IMO, The prosecution labored through so much evidence concerning his behavior, cheating, lying, bullying etc. and then rushed through the testimony at the end concerning the crucial day and times.

Speculation. Defense will attempt to discredit the investigation by calling the police chief to make it appear as a witch hunt. Attempt to show Blob as incapable of such a deed through testimony of fellow Rotarians or the testimony of the friend that was at the Hard Luck eating pizza with Kristy. In any event IMO it will be an attack on the prosecutor, her office and LE, nothing relevant to the evidence.

One more thing, what if JG is charged with first degree murder and he testifies at his own trial and names BB as co-conspirator ? And gives a very believable version of events. Double Jeopardy will prevent BB from being charged again if he is acquitted ? Perhaps they should have dropped one charge so they can later charge him with it.

Lots to armchair quarterback about now. Not feeling as confident as I expected to be.

One last passing thought after hearing the defense may call Captain Loch of the GPPD. How low and irrelevant will Lillian go ? Hopefully doesn't attempt to play this card !!

http://archive.freep.com/article/20131122/NEWS02/311220084/Grosse-Pointe-park-videos-demeaning-blacks

and this about Loch explaining the issue:

"When presented with the information about the alleged behaviors of some of his law enforcement team, Gross Pointe Parl Capt. David Loch defended Najm, telling a Motor City Muckraker reporter that Najm is in the throes of a nasty divorce. Loch even went as far as to blame Loch’s wife for creating the racist texts."

http://newsone.com/2780457/grosse-pointe-mi-police-department-racism/

The opening statements were allowed 90 minutes, but in an 8 week trial with 75 live testimonies and dozens of stipulated testimonies with five complicated charges (conspiracy, first degree murder, solicitation to murder, evidence/witness tampering, and obstruction), why are the attorneys only allowed 120 minutes for a closing?  This seems woefully inadequate especially since Judge Evans forbade jurors from taking notes, leaving it up to the prosecutors to refresh completely their memories and the timelines.  Lindsey is going to have to zoom through a powerpoint presentation to cram it all into the summary, and give a readable road map for jurors to follow.  

The easiest to prove are the obstruction and tampering charges which then begs the question: Why would a man innocent of murder/solicitation/conspiracy have to go to such great lengths --- including attempts to murder witnesses --- to prevent the unvarnished truth from being presented? Even without any testimony linking BB to hiring/coercing Gentz, the clear-cut evidence of obstruction and tampering are very damning to him.  Imo, building from the simple to the more complex may make it easier for jurors to get beyond reasonable doubt on the murder charges.

How stupid was BB to announce to the bartender that he was leaving the Hard Luck rather than sneak out when she wasn't looking? And what was the point of telling her he planned to return? Stupid BB, good for justice for Jane.  

Again, defense counsel McCarthy stepped in it when he asked the bartender if she'd ever seen BB working around the property of the Hard Luck and she responded simply: "No."  I didn't think the defense scored any points in trying to discredit her time line, especially since she could peg it to television programs and regulars arriving at fairly consistent times nightly.

Did anyone get the reason for adding Ms. Towar's testimony at all --- not to mention so close to the end --- when it was totally redundant of BB using everybody's phone in his line of sight and of the outward appearance of the Bashara's marriage as intact?  

Did anyone think the defense was able to do much damage to any recent witnesses?  Imo, they held up quite well, albeit not being myself in the courtroom to hear the whole exchanges.

smallal wrote:Must be watching too much TV. Was expecting a much grander finale for the prosecution. Lots of questions that are probably answered best from a legal standpoint.

Me too re the grand finale, thought Carmody with his testimony "if Bob's lips are moving, he's lying" was the most potent and better for a finale.

smallal wrote:The prosecution was not allowed to use any recorded interview of Joe Gentz ? What happened to the one in Steve's van that was on the news?

 Very good questions, what happened to them?

smallal wrote:No one asked Kristy if Bob gave the excuse he would be back because he was retrieving some keys. But he made a point to mention he'd be back. Nor did they ask her if his face was flushed or did he appear to be working outside. Nor was the nagging question I had about him "coming around" by Carmody on foot or he saw him pull up in his car.

 It would seem odd for a bartender to ask a patron/landlord where he was going or why returning --- she was probably so surprised by his announcing his plans that she said something like, "Oh, okay, sure Bob ..."  If he was flushed or red-faced, one could interpret that as exertion from working outside or flustered from having just murdered his wife.   So not sure what conclusion one could draw from it.  Was surprised the defense didn't ask Carmody if BB seemed to act like always --- not distracted or "off" as one would expect in a fresh murderer.

smallal wrote:IMO, The prosecution labored through so much evidence concerning his behavior, cheating, lying, bullying etc. and then rushed through the testimony at the end concerning the crucial day and times.

Can't disagree as seems there was some overkill on the cheating, lying, Rachel obsessing, and bullying.

smallal wrote:Speculation. Defense will attempt to discredit the investigation by calling the police chief to make it appear as a witch hunt. Attempt to show Blob as incapable of such a deed through testimony of fellow Rotarians or the testimony of the friend that was at the Hard Luck eating pizza with Kristy. In any event IMO it will be an attack on the prosecutor, her office and LE, nothing relevant to the evidence.

Also character assassination of Gentz as a quick trigger hot head.

smallal wrote: One more thing, what if JG is charged with first degree murder and he testifies at his own trial and names BB as co-conspirator ? And gives a very believable version of events. Double Jeopardy will prevent BB from being charged again if he is acquitted? Perhaps they should have dropped one charge so they can later charge him with it.

Double jeopardy would apply in that scenario, but it seems difficult to disentangle one charge (which one --- the murder, conspiracy, or solicitation?) from the whole ball of wax.

smallal wrote:Lots to armchair quarterback about now. Not feeling as confident as I expected to be.

I too wanted a slam-dunk, but there's still a ton of evidence against him, which the defense did little to debunk.

smallal wrote:One last passing thought after hearing the defense may call Captain Loch of the GPPD. How low and irrelevant will Lillian go ? Hopefully doesn't attempt to play this card !!

http://archive.freep.com/article/20131122/NEWS02/311220084/Grosse-Pointe-park-videos-demeaning-blacks

and this about Loch explaining the issue:

"When presented with the information about the alleged behaviors of some of his law enforcement team, Gross Pointe Parl Capt. David Loch defended Najm, telling a Motor City Muckraker reporter that Najm is in the throes of a nasty divorce. Loch even went as far as to blame Loch’s wife for creating the racist texts."

http://newsone.com/2780457/grosse-pointe-mi-police-department-racism/

If Bob were black or a minority, maybe those racist videos would have some relevance,  but fortunately for this instance, he's the poster child for lily white GPP establishment.  Remember that GP Public Safety quickly dismissed BB's claim that "they (read = Detroit thuggish blacks) killed my Jane" and went after the white guy who was very much part of the community.

Besides, Lindsey will surely object to Diallo throwing this irrelevant monkey wrench into the mix, and despite her oft screwy interjections Evans probably won't allow it.

.

EllsBells wrote:

smallal wrote:One last passing thought after hearing the defense may call Captain Loch of the GPPD. How low and irrelevant will Lillian go ? Hopefully doesn't attempt to play this card !!

http://archive.freep.com/article/20131122/NEWS02/311220084/Grosse-Pointe-park-videos-demeaning-blacks

and this about Loch explaining the issue:

"When presented with the information about the alleged behaviors of some of his law enforcement team, Gross Pointe Parl Capt. David Loch defended Najm, telling a Motor City Muckraker reporter that Najm is in the throes of a nasty divorce. Loch even went as far as to blame Loch’s wife for creating the racist texts."

http://newsone.com/2780457/grosse-pointe-mi-police-department-racism/

If Bob were black or a minority, maybe those racist videos would have some relevance,  but fortunately for this instance, he's the poster child for lily white GPP establishment.  Remember that GP Public Safety quickly dismissed BB's claim that "they (read = Detroit thuggish blacks) killed my Jane" and went after the white guy who was very much part of the community.

Besides, Lindsey will surely object to Diallo throwing this irrelevant monkey wrench into the mix, and despite her oft screwy interjections Evans probably won't allow it.

.

Just thought it may be an attempt to discredit GPPD and make-up of jury is unknown but then again I may be out in left field but somehow i sensed a vague subtle reference to LE by Diallo on Ferguson day.

smallal wrote:No one asked Kristy if Bob gave the excuse he would be back because he was retrieving some keys. But he made a point to mention he'd be back. Nor did they ask her if his face was flushed or did he appear to be working outside. Nor was the nagging question I had about him "coming around" by Carmody on foot or he saw him pull up in his car.

ellsbells wrote:It would seem odd for a bartender to ask a patron/landlord where he was going or why returning --- she was probably so surprised by his announcing his plans that she said something like, "Oh, okay, sure Bob ..."  If he was flushed or red-faced, one could interpret that as exertion from working outside or flustered from having just murdered his wife.   So not sure what conclusion one could draw from it.  Was surprised the defense didn't ask Carmody if BB seemed to act like always --- not distracted or "off" as one would expect in a fresh murderer.

I meant that the prosecutor did not ask Kristy if BB mentioned anything about going home for keys.

Is it a coincidence that the court has lost power twice in the Bashara proceedings? One was while Rachel Gillett was testifying and today while Judge Evans was close to dismissing count 6 via a direct verdict on Blob's suborning perjury. Jane is still maintaining connection to DTE.

smallal wrote:Is it a coincidence that the court has lost power twice in the Bashara proceedings? One was while Rachel Gillett was testifying and today while Judge Evans was close to dismissing count 6 via a direct verdict on Blob's suborning perjury. Jane is still maintaining connection to DTE.

Smallal! Yes! Jane wants and deserves Justice and will not be silenced!!!!!

Elisha Anderson of Free Press reported "Judge Evans said she doesn't believe the testimony specifically asked Bashara [sic Fick] to lie under oath about not talking about Rachel Gillett." BB told Fick not to say anything about Gillett if asked, how is that not telling him to lie?  As a hypothetical example, Investigator: Have you ever seen Bashara with Gillett?  Fick: No I haven't."  Such omissions are lies under oath just as statements of commission.

Further after seeing a doctor re high blood pressure after first investigative session, Fick went back the next day with his attorney and told investigators he had lied the day before. He wasn't lying for the fun of it, he was lying for fear of retaliation by BB.

Further, Moran was arguing that there is a conflict in the testimony which under the law is a matter for the jury to decide (weighing credibility of witness etc) and not a lack of evidence for suborning perjury which is what a directed verdict is supposed to be.

Sometimes the brain of Judge Evans seems like a tv antenna  that doesn't quite pick up all the channels.

meandmyshadow wrote:

smallal wrote:Is it a coincidence that the court has lost power twice in the Bashara proceedings? One was while Rachel Gillett was testifying and today while Judge Evans was close to dismissing count 6 via a direct verdict on Blob's suborning perjury. Jane is still maintaining connection to DTE.

Smallal!  Yes!  Jane wants and deserves Justice and will not be silenced!!!!!

Amen!!

EllsBells wrote:Elisha Anderson of Free Press reported "Judge Evans said she doesn't believe the testimony specifically asked Bashara [sic Fick] to lie under oath about not talking about Rachel Gillett." BB told Fick not to say anything about Gillett if asked, how is that not telling him to lie?  As a hypothetical example, Investigator: Have you ever seen Bashara with Gillett?  Fick: No I haven't."  Such omissions are lies under oath just as statements of commission.

Further after seeing a doctor re high blood pressure after first investigative session, Fick went back the next day with his attorney and told investigators he had lied the day before. He wasn't lying for the fun of it, he was lying for fear of retaliation by BB.

Further, Moran was arguing that there is a conflict in the testimony which under the law is a matter for the jury to decide (weighing credibility of witness etc) and not a lack of evidence for suborning perjury which is what a directed verdict is supposed to be.

Sometimes the brain of Judge Evans seems like a tv antenna  that doesn't quite pick up all the channels.

Didn't Lisa Lindsay or Judge Evans make a point about "half truths are lies" ? And then the Judge comes out with this gem from Amy Lange blog:

Judge - it's different to tell someone not to tell police about Rachel than to tell someone to lie under oath.

smallal wrote:

EllsBells wrote:Elisha Anderson of Free Press reported "Judge Evans said she doesn't believe the testimony specifically asked Bashara [sic Fick] to lie under oath about not talking about Rachel Gillett." BB told Fick not to say anything about Gillett if asked, how is that not telling him to lie?  As a hypothetical example, Investigator: Have you ever seen Bashara with Gillett?  Fick: No I haven't."  Such omissions are lies under oath just as statements of commission.

Further after seeing a doctor re high blood pressure after first investigative session, Fick went back the next day with his attorney and told investigators he




had lied the day before. He wasn't lying for the fun of it, he was lying for fear of retaliation by BB.

Further, Moran was arguing that there is a conflict in the testimony which under the law is a matter for the jury to decide (weighing credibility of witness etc) and not a lack of evidence for suborning perjury which is what a directed verdict is supposed to be.

Sometimes the brain of Judge Evans seems like a tv antenna  that doesn't quite pick up all the channels.

Didn't Lisa Lindsay or Judge Evans make a point about "half truths are lies" ? And then the Judge comes out with this gem from Amy Lange blog:

Judge - it's different to tell someone not to tell police about Rachel than to tell someone to lie under oath.

as much as I hate to admit it, legally I think she's right. Lying to police isn't the same thing as lying under oath. But, I still believe that's what Bob intended.

wwjd wrote:

smallal wrote:

EllsBells wrote:Elisha Anderson of Free Press reported "Judge Evans said she doesn't believe the testimony specifically asked Bashara [sic Fick] to lie under oath about not talking about Rachel Gillett." BB told Fick not to say anything about Gillett if asked, how is that not telling him to lie?  As a hypothetical example, Investigator: Have you ever seen Bashara with Gillett?  Fick: No I haven't."  Such omissions are lies under oath just as statements of commission.

Further after seeing a doctor re high blood pressure after first investigative session, Fick went back the next day with his attorney and told investigators he




had lied the day before. He wasn't lying for the fun of it, he was lying for fear of retaliation by BB.

Further, Moran was arguing that there is a conflict in the testimony which under the law is a matter for the jury to decide (weighing credibility of witness etc) and not a lack of evidence for suborning perjury which is what a directed verdict is supposed to be.

Sometimes the brain of Judge Evans seems like a tv antenna  that doesn't quite pick up all the channels.

Didn't Lisa Lindsay or Judge Evans make a point about "half truths are lies" ? And then the Judge comes out with this gem from Amy Lange blog:

Judge - it's different to tell someone not to tell police about Rachel than to tell someone to lie under oath.

as much as I hate to admit it, legally I think she's right. Lying to police isn't the same thing as lying under oath. But, I still believe that's what Bob intended.

I was under the impressing the charge came from more than one witness. Wrong about that and it's a done deal now. Is the judge still making daily remarks about BB's appearance or health issues ? I guess what Blob really meant is "go ahead tell the truth, I'll just put a hit out on you later".

I am thinking that dropping count 6 if it's not a sure thing legally is a good thing-- less reasons to give an appeal!!!!!!!!!!!!

meandmyshadow wrote:I am thinking that dropping count 6 if it's not a sure thing legally is a good thing-- less reasons to give an appeal!!!!!!!!!!!!

That could be true, not to mention the suborning perjury charge was a minor one compared to all the others. Now it's one less thing Lindsey has to address in her already tight 2 hour time frame for a closing.

EllsBells wrote:

meandmyshadow wrote:I am thinking that dropping count 6 if it's not a sure thing legally is a good thing-- less reasons to give an appeal!!!!!!!!!!!!

That could be true, not to mention the suborning perjury charge was a minor one compared to all the others.  Now it's one less thing Lindsey has to address in her already tight 2 hour time frame for a closing.

Since this horrendous saga began, the bizarre has unfolded on a regular basis. So at this point, anything that happens now beyond the realm of what we would consider normal or reasonable should not surprise us.

Well now there is a juror missing for the 12 noon call time so the proceedings are in a holding pattern again...

Judge Evans scolding a juror for being 10 minutes late on day 25 and threatening to take him into custody is the height of hypocrisy! Evans herself is chronically and often extremely late --- has never started on time, never had a break that did not go many minutes past the stated time, and never back from lunch anywhere near the announced time. She should have taken herself into custody weeks ago.

If the weak testimony of McSkimming and Valente is half (2 of 4 witnesses) of the defense's case, that doesn't look good for BB. McSkimming helped prosecution by confirming BB's continued attempts to intimidate Fick and by being yet another friend who abandoned the creep. Valente helped by confirming Jane's repeated considerations of divorce and by showing the so-called "pillar of the community" as a louse who goes to disgusting parties for random sex with strangers and gambling away his wife's bank accounts.

Confronted with all the vile things done by BB and his loathsome character, it's hard to imagine any jurors will give him any benefit of doubt in the jury room.

It may have been cathartic for Lindsey to vent past frustrations with GPP Public Safety and Narduzzi, but certainly that didn't help her case imo. Wonder if there will be any repercussions for GPP PS now that the deep problems are revealed?

EllsBells wrote:Judge Evans scolding a juror for being 10 minutes late on day 25 and threatening to take him into custody is the height of hypocrisy! Evans herself is chronically and often extremely late --- has never started on time, never had a break that did not go many minutes past the stated time, and never back from lunch anywhere near the announced time. She should have taken herself into custody weeks ago.

If the weak testimony of McSkimming and Valente is half (2 of 4 witnesses) of the defense's case, that doesn't look good for BB. McSkimming helped prosecution by confirming BB's continued attempts to intimidate Fick and by being yet another friend who abandoned the creep. Valente helped by confirming Jane's repeated considerations of divorce and by showing the so-called "pillar of the community" as a louse who goes to disgusting parties for random sex with strangers and gambling away his wife's bank accounts.

Confronted with all the vile things done by BB and his loathsome character, it's hard to imagine any jurors will give him any benefit of doubt in the jury room.

It may have been cathartic for Lindsey to vent past frustrations with GPP Public Safety and Narduzzi, but certainly that didn't help her case imo. Wonder if there will be any repercussions for GPP PS now that the deep problems are revealed?

GPPD has gotten their feet in more doo doo since then as well. For Lisa Lindsay to take on this sad excuse of a detective(clearly out of his league) was a masterful job of preempting the defense. Exposing the shoddy investigation done by GPPD before defense can plant doubt in its findings. They clearly dropped the ball but there was real competent work done by many agencies while they mopped up for GPPD. Go Lisa !

BTW, who is John McKee (JJ) and what does his car have to do with anything ?

I am sick and tired of people knocking the GPP police. Thank God we live in a community where murders are rare! They had Bob pegged from the beginning, they just didn't have the resources to investigate a murder in the same capacity as a larger, more crime ridden city would have.

When one does not have the resources or the experience but has the opportunity to get help and/or use the resources and expertise of others who are available and well qualified one should do so without hesitation, especially in such a serious and heinous case. The disclosure of the lack of round the clock personnel needed to work on and solve crimes along with the repeated pattern of failing to employ all available expertise when clearly it was appropriate, prudent and necessary to successfully and thoroughly gather and properly preserve evidence does not bode well for the residents who think they are being protected. Hopefully it has been a wake up call that will be handled with a sense of urgency resulting in the right steps to be taken to improve standard operating procedures within the public safety dept.I felt like Ms. Lindsey put this out there partly to vent her frustration and also to let people know how vulnerable future criminal investigations will be unless they take what is learned from this situation and support appropriate improvements in resources, personnel, and inter-agency collaboration. Lots of humbling lessons to be learned on this sad case. If what has been learned is not addressed right away, the criminal element could gain the upper hand rather quickly. With all due respect, law enforcement needs to do many things differently. A lot of it doesn't need to cost a bunch more in budget. Swallow your pride and admit when you have no experience and need help; ask for it and advocate for it so that the job of preventing and solving crime gets done. Best practices were not well known or adequately implemented. There's a lot at stake for both local law enforcement and the public they serve and protect. This is not meant to knock law enforcement, just saying they now know so much more about what their shortcomings are, so hoping they take adequate steps to fill the gaps and continue to keep the criminal element at bay.

rubyslippers wrote:When one does not have the resources or the experience but has the opportunity to get help and/or use the resources and expertise of others who are available and well qualified one should do so without hesitation, especially in such a serious and heinous case. The disclosure of the lack of round the clock personnel needed to work on and solve crimes along with the repeated pattern of failing to employ all available expertise when clearly it was appropriate, prudent and necessary to successfully and thoroughly gather and properly preserve evidence does not bode well for the residents who think they are being protected. Hopefully it has been a wake up call that will be handled with a sense of urgency resulting in the right steps to be taken to improve standard operating procedures within the public safety dept.I felt like Ms. Lindsey put this out there partly to vent her frustration and also to let people know how vulnerable future criminal investigations will be unless they take what is learned from this situation and support appropriate improvements in resources, personnel, and inter-agency collaboration. Lots of humbling lessons to be learned on this sad case. If what has been learned is not addressed right away, the criminal element could gain the upper hand rather quickly. With all due respect, law enforcement needs to do many things differently. A lot of it doesn't need to cost a bunch more in budget. Swallow your pride and admit when you have no experience and need help; ask for it and advocate for it so that the job of preventing and solving crime gets done. Best practices were not well known or adequately implemented. There's a lot at stake for both local law enforcement and the public they serve and protect. This is not meant to knock law enforcement, just saying they now know so much more about what their shortcomings are, so hoping they take adequate steps to fill the gaps and continue to keep the criminal element at bay.

I will agree that there is always room for improvement, and obviously this was a horrific crime. The reality is, this is a relatively small town which allows for a certain amount of public safety personnel. If you look at our crime stats, we are doing quite well. Average response time is around one minute, and nearly all of our crime is committed by non-residents. Unfortunately when the city govt wants to take steps to protect us from the criminal element, ie, (storage barns on alter rd) we are deemed racist.This rare murder probably did catch public safety off guard to a certain degree, but this was not a random crime.

I really, really liked Jane a lot and considered her a friend. Like you, I want to see justice for her! I'm just saying that we weren't there. Do you really think GPP cops are inept and weren't trying to do their absolute best to get Bob bashara arrested and convicted in this murder? Fortunately, this was the first murder for the city in almost twenty years, I'd say that's keeping the criminal element at bay.

wwjd wrote:

rubyslippers wrote:When one does not have the resources or the experience but has the opportunity to get help and/or use the resources and expertise of others who are available and well qualified one should do so without hesitation, especially in such a serious and heinous case. The disclosure of the lack of round the clock personnel needed to work on and solve crimes along with the repeated pattern of failing to employ all available expertise when clearly it was appropriate, prudent and necessary to successfully and thoroughly gather and properly preserve evidence does not bode well for the residents who think they are being protected. Hopefully it has been a wake up call that will be handled with a sense of urgency resulting in the right steps to be taken to improve standard operating procedures within the public safety dept.I felt like Ms. Lindsey put this out there partly to vent her frustration and also to let people know how vulnerable future criminal investigations will be unless they take what is learned from this situation and support appropriate improvements in resources, personnel, and inter-agency collaboration. Lots of humbling lessons to be learned on this sad case. If what has been learned is not addressed right away, the criminal element could gain the upper hand rather quickly. With all due respect, law enforcement needs to do many things differently. A lot of it doesn't need to cost a bunch more in budget. Swallow your pride and admit when you have no experience and need help; ask for it and advocate for it so that the job of preventing and solving crime gets done. Best practices were not well known or adequately implemented. There's a lot at stake for both local law enforcement and the public they serve and protect. This is not meant to knock law enforcement, just saying they now know so much more about what their shortcomings are, so hoping they take adequate steps to fill the gaps and continue to keep the criminal element at bay.

I will agree that there is always room for improvement, and obviously this was a horrific crime. The reality is, this is a relatively small town which allows for a certain amount of public safety personnel. If you look at our crime stats, we are doing quite well. Average response time is around one minute, and nearly all of our crime is committed by non-residents. Unfortunately when the city govt wants to take steps to protect us from the criminal element, ie, (storage barns on alter rd) we are deemed racist.This rare murder probably did catch public safety off guard to a certain degree, but this was not a random crime.

I really, really liked Jane a lot and considered her a friend. Like you, I want to see justice for her! I'm just saying that we weren't there. Do you really think GPP cops are inept and weren't trying to do their absolute best to get Bob bashara arrested and convicted in this murder? Fortunately, this was the first murder for the city in almost twenty years, I'd say that's keeping the criminal element at bay.

The balls dropped do not surprise me a bit, given the multiplicity of cities/agencies/handoffs occurring during the investigation. A case of "too many cooks spoil the stew". As a 35 year resident of GPP within spitting distance of one of the most blighted, poverty stricken and crime ridden areas of Detroit, I know I have never been a crime victim due to the visible presence and vigilance of our public safety folks. Sadly, since Jane's murder we have had a second murder. Case solved. Pepetrator convicted. The Blob WILL go down for this.

GPPGRL wrote:

wwjd wrote:

rubyslippers wrote:When one does not have the resources or the experience but has the opportunity to get help and/or use the resources and expertise of others who are available and well qualified one should do so without hesitation, especially in such a serious and heinous case. The disclosure of the lack of round the clock personnel needed to work on and solve crimes along with the repeated pattern of failing to employ all available expertise when clearly it was appropriate, prudent and necessary to successfully and thoroughly gather and properly preserve evidence does not bode well for the residents who think they are being protected. Hopefully it has been a wake up call that will be handled with a sense of urgency resulting in the right steps to be taken to improve standard operating procedures within the public safety dept.I felt like Ms. Lindsey put this out there partly to vent her frustration and also to let people know how vulnerable future criminal investigations will be unless they take what is learned from this situation and support appropriate improvements in resources, personnel, and inter-agency collaboration. Lots of humbling lessons to be learned on this sad case. If what has been learned is not addressed right away, the criminal element could gain the upper hand rather quickly. With all due respect, law enforcement needs to do many things differently. A lot of it doesn't need to cost a bunch more in budget. Swallow your pride and admit when you have no experience and need help; ask for it and advocate for it so that the job of preventing and solving crime gets done. Best practices were not well known or adequately implemented. There's a lot at stake for both local law enforcement and the public they serve and protect. This is not meant to knock law enforcement, just saying they now know so much more about what their shortcomings are, so hoping they take adequate steps to fill the gaps and continue to keep the criminal element at bay.

I will agree that there is always room for improvement, and obviously this was a horrific crime. The reality is, this is a relatively small town which allows for a certain amount of public safety personnel. If you look at our crime stats, we are doing quite well. Average response time is around one minute, and nearly all of our crime is committed by non-residents. Unfortunately when the city govt wants to take steps to protect us from the criminal element, ie, (storage barns on alter rd) we are deemed racist.This rare murder probably did catch public safety off guard to a certain degree, but this was not a random crime.

I really, really liked Jane a lot and considered her a friend. Like you, I want to see justice for her! I'm just saying that we weren't there. Do you really think GPP cops are inept and weren't trying to do their absolute best to get Bob bashara arrested and convicted in this murder? Fortunately, this was the first murder for the city in almost twenty years, I'd say that's keeping the criminal element at bay.

The balls dropped do not surprise me a bit, given the multiplicity of cities/agencies/handoffs occurring during the investigation. A case of "too many cooks spoil the stew". As a 35 year resident of GPP within spitting distance of one of the most blighted, poverty stricken and crime ridden areas of Detroit, I know I have never been a crime victim due to the visible presence and vigilance of our public safety folks. Sadly, since Jane's murder we have had a second murder. Case solved. Pepetrator convicted. The Blob WILL go down for this.

I can't believe I forgot about sabrina! But I do know since that scumbag, the city has really tightened up residency/lease regulations.

I think the jury is not supposed to consider whether the defendant testifies or not. IMO, an innocent defendant really has nothing to lose by defending themselves through their own words. However, since Lillian Diallo proclaimed in her opening statement that this was the day Blob had been waiting for, can the Prosecution in closing refer to that statement ? For example, "The day Bob Bashara had been waiting for has come and gone and we heard nothing in his defense, where he was, why he was "blowing up" Joe Gentz's phone, etc.". In fact to my surprise I never heard testimony about Joe Gentz being a loose canon or any of the characterizations Diallo made of Gentz. Nothing to imply he acted alone. Perhaps they could not enter any testimony by defense witnesses about him due to the fact he refused to testify himself. Anyone know ?

Good summation today at Freep.com of some of the key points/issues in the trial: (see "Bashara's trial's tale of sex, lies enters final chapter By Elisha Anderson, Detroit Free Press")

GPPGRL wrote:Good summation today at Freep.com of some of the key points/issues in the trial: (see "Bashara's trial's tale of sex, lies enters final chapter By Elisha Anderson, Detroit Free Press")

Here is the link to the story:Bashara tale of sex and lies enters final chapter!

Thanks Shadow and GPPGRL!

Foe some reason, closing statements have been moved back from Tuesday to Wednesday, consistent with the rest of this slow as molasses trial. Any bets on whether Judge Evans will show up on time?


http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2014/12/08/bashara-trial-closing-arguments-wednesday/20106685/

WDIV at 5:30 has something about courtroom drama tomorrow in bashara case? Hopefully just trying to get us to watch.

wwjd wrote:WDIV at 5:30 has something about courtroom drama tomorrow in bashara case? Hopefully just trying to get us to watch.

OH NO! I hope so too!

meandmyshadow wrote:

wwjd wrote:WDIV at 5:30 has something about courtroom drama tomorrow in bashara case? Hopefully just trying to get us to watch.

OH NO! I hope so too!

They're such teasers!

Prayers going out to Jane's family, especially her children, her mother, and her siblings.

God grant them peace. Bring the Justice Jane needs.