TalkLeft Discussion Forums

Topics => Current Cases => Topic started by: Sydney Carton on September 08, 2008, 03:39:10 PM



Title: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 08, 2008, 03:39:10 PM
      SG
     The only way for me to be "out of bounds" and "slanderous" I must tell an untruth.

    SC
     Actually no ,Steve.
       While no reasonable person can have the slightest doubt that you are telliing the truth about the judge and jury's iincredible conductfrom which you have ,and are now suffering,((You have well and clearly documented this.) a statement,but to charge that  that some witness is  lying as "Drake" has done , could be construed  as slanderous ) and defamatory(the legaal word actually used by our hostess) if written. Our hostess who admitted that she had never read the thread till she (very briefly) scanned before  sending off her letter immediately happpened to chance on some allegations which could be viewed as defamatory,though under internet standards,there is no possibility that anyone will.
   More importantly she is worried(though I do not understand why she waited so long to view a thread with four thousand hits) that you are using TL forums to promote your own case.Printiing facts in your own defence  is,I presume ,acceptable to her as they are matters of public record and raise serious legal issues,however, to republish the identical set of facts on several occasions could be construed as self-promotionalism. No other defendant is contjinuously publishing  for himself on TL and the last one who did was removed as she kept comparing  her own case to the Duke case.
    The other forum to which you are contributing is much better suited to this kind of discussiion.
   On the old forum at Court tv,many,many local inhabitants voluntered their first observations of your trial..This was allowed by Coldwater and shamefully  disrupted  by "Drake" and her buddies.Their spontaneous and unsolicited statements  deserved to be on permanent record.It was as generous  and caring an act,in its own small way,as anything I have seen on the court tv site,apart from the Duke case.If you  could have got these statements reprinted  over here,I don't beleve there would be any problem now.Unfortunately they were destroyed when the Court tv thread went down without notice.Ordinarily what is printed  here are cross-references to legal briefs.I,and others, often scan several thousand pages before we post a few select references to iinteresting or deserving legal briefs for the readers.
    If the readers were allowed to exchange lprivate letters as formerly you wouldn't have been humilated in thiis way.But we aren't and you understandably thought you had a green light to proceed.The same goes for this recent discussion about your most recent appointed attorney's action .I kept asking you,is something  missing here.It finally develops that you learned ,but didn't first time understand first time around that this is a pre-trial discovery motion.
   It still sounds unusual that oral testimoiny is being taken at this stage or that the posecution is beinig allowed  first crack at your witness(as you seem to believe).But if this man is strong on your side,your attorney may have good reason for putting him on record.It could be(neither I nor any one else here have any way of knowing) that getting your expert's theory of the case  on to public record and reportage could prove an excellent move.
   The thing is  these are not things that should be discussed on an open forum.If the PM box were re-opened  I am sure there are six real lawyers here tht would have courteously clarified your question in a half a dozen sentences -and told you,whatever the case, not to antagonize your present counsel of record on a public forum.You are  not as yet in an  FLDS situation.
   I haven't heard from TL yet but I can't believe she won't allow a documented statement of your case to remain or new factual developments to be posted.Meantime,in case she's feeling irritable,save what what you can save for later reworking..Also I ought to point out to her that  if it were  still possible to delete as in former days,it would have been possible for you to solidify your situatioin inside of forth minutes without all this unnecessary embarassment.
   I can't be back for several days and can't ever,write at such length on this case again.
               All the best,
        Sydney
    P.S. Drake writes that she has never been banned.TL writes me that she has deleted numerous of her letters,though she has only penned five as "Drake". A number of her other pseudonyms have cedrtainly been banned on more than one site. One of my correspondents(accurately or not) claims to have traced her masquerading under thirty identities.
     If she were  banned she,like the Dragon Lady,will only pop back up again as Bonnie Buzzard,Goosey Lucy, or,perhaps, Ventura Vulture.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 09, 2008, 08:48:46 AM
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2251&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Letters to the Editor  September 09, 2008 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
9/26/2007 1:21:00 PM  Email this article • Print this article 
No right to defend ourselves?
Dear Editor,

As the second murder trial for Steve Gilmore with a change in venue in Ripley County is rapidly approaching, I am still troubled by discrepancies of the first trial not discussed outside of letters to the editor in The Plain Dealer.

A letter I submitted was published in the July 28 issue was in response to a letter published on June 28 from Mr. Gilmore's now deceased mother, Beverly Akers. Both of our letters questioned the submission and acceptance of blank verdict forms after Mr. Gilmore was initially found not guilty on the charge of murder, though there was a hung jury on the lesser charge of reckless homicide.

An anonymous juror responded in a letter published in the Aug. 9 issue of The Plain Dealer. The juror wrote, "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank." The editor's note following the letter said, "According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned."

How can it be both ways? Either the jury was given forms or they were not. Whatever forms Judge Webster had that came into his possession were blank. It has yet to be explained why blank forms, which the juror states they were never given or turned in, were accepted.

While in school, if a student turns in work that is not finished, they are awarded an incomplete. In this case, with supposedly incomplete forms, a man is going to have to endure a second murder trial.

I visited www.IN.gov to look at IC (Indiana Code) 35-41-3-2 to see for myself what the laws of the state have to say about protecting oneself. I firmly believe this is exactly what Mr. Gilmore was doing at the time Billy Akers was killed.

Parts of this law have been quoted in past letters to the editor and I will do so again:

"A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

With the law clearly stated, I question the validity of the first trial and ponder the need for a second one.

Indiana House Bill 1028, also known as the Castle Doctrine, was signed into law March 21, 2006, by Gov. Mitch Daniels. The bill basically placed into law the right of self-defense. It reads strikingly similar to IC 35-41-3-2. The Castle Doctrine also protects citizens from criminal and civil charges for defending themselves against the instigator of a violent attack.

With such laws in place, how can Mr. Gilmore continue to be prosecuted? Could it be his rights are now being violated? This leaves me fearful. If by chance tomorrow I am attacked here in Jennings County while finding myself in grave danger, and I respond by defending myself, I too may find myself under arrest for murder. The same could happen to anyone else in this county as the right to defend ourselves appears to have been eliminated.

Still an Inquiring Mind

 
 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 09, 2008, 08:52:10 AM
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3558&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Letters to the Editor  September 09, 2008 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1/16/2008 9:33:00 AM  Email this article • Print this article 
Legal professionals show their indifference in Gilmore case
Dear Editor,

I have read about Steve Gilmore and his plight about his last trial and his next trial quickly approaching. There are so many unanswered questions and I find it puzzling that the community isn't alarmed by the indifference shown by the legal professionals representing your county.

In the first trial, the jury found that Mr. Gilmore was not guilty of murder within 30 to 60 minutes of starting the deliberations. Apparently, the jury's focus then went to the lesser charge of reckless homicide that the prosecutor had told them they could also consider. This is where the jury came to an impasse.

Having no verdict forms available to them, the jury notified the court they had reached an impasse. No one, not the judge who was there to protect his rights nor Mr. Gilmore's attorneys who were also there to protect his rights, asked the jurors on what count or counts they could not agree on or what count they could agree on.

In a hearing in February 2007 for a motion to dismiss, jury members were prepared to testify that they indeed unanimously voted not guilty on the count of murder. However, the prosecutor, Gary Smith, objected and the judge sustained the objection. None of the jurors were allowed to speak! The judge then said the verdict forms were returned blank, the forms the jurors said they never received.

Aren't the citizens curious as what has happened here? As Mr. Gilmore had asked his attorneys to prepare motions for him, the courts said there had been a "communication problem," only to get another attorney for the upcoming trial to say, "Yes, those motions should have been made, but now it's too late."

Oh my! Is this where we've come? I commend Robert Kirkham and the rest of his fellow jurors to come to see that the truth be told, however silenced by the courts.

If only they could help begin again and fight for the truth, how much we all would be better off. Perhaps more letters letting the public know what is really going on will help.

As Mr. Gilmore wrote recently, "To all who just pass by, today this is me, tomorrow it could be you. If my constitutional and civil rights are violated, yours are and can be."

Michael from New York
 
 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 09, 2008, 12:06:28 PM
   Thanks,Steve,this is exactly what is wanted and needed.I haven't heard from TL but I trust that she wouldn't be delating these communications.
    If we could only delete,as we used to ,it should take less than forty minutes maximum to produce a thread that could meet TL's specifications.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 10, 2008, 06:57:44 AM
From the old insessions posted by Katmandu:

" Transcript
I have read the first 500 pages of the transcript (aside from a handful of pages missing from it), and some parts of it 3 times. I have read of police officers contradicting themselves. I have read of "evidence" deemed as contents of Akers' pockets. I have read of shoddy police work. I have read of a tape missing portions of a statement being allowed to be presented in court. But, I have not read of how the state presented a case as to where it stated Steve lured Akers to his mother's home under the pretext to kill him. It never stated how he went about and laid in wait. What I read does not back up the state's case. It does show a man who was in shock trying to contact 911, administering first aid, and cooperating with the police."
 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Katmandu on September 10, 2008, 07:45:48 AM
I hope I will be allowed a bit of leniency. This letter was originally posted as a quote from the Court TV sight on Feb 7, 2008 by Sydney Carton on the other Steve Gilmore thread. Since I am the author of this letter and it is relevant to this thread, I am going to post it once again. I cannot provide a link to the paper to verify it since they did not post it on their websight, but they did publish it in the North Vernon Plain Dealer on Jan. 31, 2008 on page 3A.

"Sunday, January 06, 2008


Dear Editor:

My lengthy letter is in response to one published in the December 12, 2007 issue of the Plaindealer from Gary Mundy of Mitchell pertaining to questions in the Steve Gilmore alleged murder case. Kudos to you, Gary, for researching verdict forms and how blank ones are handled elsewhere. I submitted 2 letters myself, published on July 28 and September 26, 2007, and questioned the supposed submission and acceptance of blank verdict forms after Mr. Gilmore was initially found not guilty of the charge of murder, though there was an impasse on the lesser charge of reckless homicide, so a mistrial was declared.

As I remind readers, an anonymous juror submitted a letter published in the August 9, 2007 issue of the Plaindealer stating, “Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.”  The editor’s note that followed the letter stated, “According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.”

 A juror’s word against a judge’s. Eleven more jurors and 2 alternates were present for Mr. Gilmore’s trial. Surely these 13 other participants know if they signed verdict forms, yet no additional jurors have come forward even anonymously to comment on what took place. If they did not sign them, how did they come to be in Judge Jon Webster’s possession? Signing these forms was the crucial step necessary to dismiss this charge of murder. No one has taken responsibility for this horrible oversight. Thanks to this oversight, Mr. Gilmore is caught up in double jeopardy, facing a second murder trial scheduled to begin on June 11, 2008. It is absurd that he is being tried a second time for murder, much less reckless homicide, after being found not guilty on this charge, in what was a case of self defense. 

The irony of the second trial for murder continues. Wouldn’t the first charge have been taken off the table, rectified, eliminated, since Mr. Gilmore was found not guilty? The jury had moved on to determining the lesser charge of reckless homicide. Why would they move on to this charge if the first one had not already been decided? Mr. Gilmore was denied a chance to have the jurors testify as to the results of their deliberations at a hearing on February 12, 2007 by Jennings County Prosecutor Gary Smith, who based his reasons on Indiana Law 606. As quoting from the February 15, 2007 issue of the North Vernon Plain Dealer, “ “I don’t believe a juror can testify (as to their deliberations),”  citing it would be contrary to Indiana law.”

To quote Indiana Law, Rule 606 part “(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify (1) to drug or alcohol use by any juror, (2) on the question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or (3) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying may not be received for these purposes.
 
The jurors weren’t asked about their deliberations, but their outcome, their decision, the end result! As I interpret it, nowhere does it state that jurors cannot discuss the outcome of their deliberations. However, jurors could not testify as to what went on during the deliberations and what influenced them to reach their decision unless is pertained to parts (1), (2), or (3).

Is this truly justice in Jennings County? It seems our rights by law are being eliminated. I will once again quote from Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 which deals with the laws of the state in protecting oneself, “a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force: and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

It appears to me Mr. Gilmore is in the midst of a huge legal jeopardy as he faces a second murder trial after being found not guilty in the first one. As I make this final thought with great dismay, if we don’t speak up for him since his own letters are not printed, who may be left to speak up for us? The following last quote by Martin Neimoller has much relevance. “In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Sincerely,
(Signed as) Still an Inquiring Mind"


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Katmandu on September 10, 2008, 08:03:58 AM
With this next submission, I will include what was my second Letter to the Editor of the Plain Dealer on July 26,2007. As with the preceeding letter, it was not posted on the websight so no link was available. It was published in the Plain Dealer on July 26, 2007, once again on page 3A under the heading of "Murder trial verdict remains confusing."

" Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Dear Editor,

My letter is pertaining to one submitted on June 28, 2007, by Beverly Akers in defense of her son, Steve Gilmore. The editor’s note to this letter states, “In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.”  I am confused, because wasn’t a verdict reached on the first charge against him? The jury did agree unanimously quite quickly in finding him not guilty of murder, though they were undecided on a lesser charge, but still no verdict forms were completed. Instead, they were turned in blank and accepted in that state. Why were they turned in blank in the first place and why was it not brought to someone’s attention of the need to complete them?  I remain confused on the matter of double jeopardy here as well. Back in the Spring, there was an attempt to explain it in this forum why that is not applying to this case. It remains unclear to me how a jury can unanimously find a man not guilty of murder as I mentioned above, yet another trial for murder is pending.

An Inquiring Mind."




Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: MarkRougemont on September 10, 2008, 10:12:53 AM
  It still seems to me to be a case of double jeopardy followed by judges and courts covering for their own by not recognizing what seems to be common sense.

Sydney, I appreciate your efforts to continue to bring this case to our attention.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Katmandu on September 11, 2008, 07:52:57 PM

I hope that bit of leniency continues just a little longer. As with 2 other preceeding letters I have shared here, this was not posted on the websight so a link to it is not available. It was published in the June 28, 2007 issue of the Plain Dealer from North Vernon, Indiana, submitted by Steve Gilmore's now deceased mother, Beverly Akers. It appeared on page 3A of the paper under the heading of, "Why is innocent man being sent to trial again?"

"Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter so I may openly and publicly ask this county why are Prosecutor Gary Smith and Judge Jon Webster continuing to persecute an innocent man, my son, Steve Gilmore.
Why is the judge so blind to the facts which were so apparent and obvious to the jury he impaneled for my son’s first trial?

As this newspaper reported on Nov. 8, 2005, “We (the jury) based all our feelings not on the courtroom proceedings but on the interviews in the jail,” meaning the jury gave the prosecutor’s case absolutely no credence.

This paper also reported: “We (the jury) were unanimous (in finding the defendant) not guilty of murder.” The jury quickly arrived at the verdict, which was brought to the judge’s attention in a letter from attorney Alan Marshall the day after the trial ended, Aug. 23, 2005. The attorney reported to the judge what jury members told him in the hallway immediately after they were dismissed. “All advised that the murder charge was quickly disposed of by all 12 jurors… Within 30 to 60 minutes, all 12 agreed that this was not a murder case.”

So if the prosecutor presented such a baseless case and quickly arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict, then under Indiana law IC 35-41-2-3, “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself.” I believe it was criminal to prosecute my son the first time, let alone proceeding with a second trial.

Then we come to the matter of the judge stating he was in, possession of blank verdict forms presented to him by the jury during the first trial as reported in your newspaper on Feb. 15, 2007. This is extremely suspicious. Why would a jury bother presenting blank verdict forms in such an important trial? Worse yet, why would the judge accept these supposedly blank forms, and then dismiss the jury instead of having them correct this massive oversight? Is the judge that negligent?

Then the judge declares there is no verdict because he accepted blank verdict forms.

You see, if the judge would have had the jury fill out the verdict forms then there would be a record of the not guilty verdict, which apparently the judge didn’t want for some reason. Why else would a judge dismiss the jury before he had them complete the form?

So you have an unsubstantiated case given no credence by a jury that quickly came to a unanimous not guilty verdict and a judge, who accepted blank verdict forms, then dismissed the jury without having them fill out these extremely important forms.

This is considered justice in Jennings County?
Beverly Akers
Commiskey"

(Editor’s note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.)


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 13, 2008, 08:45:11 AM
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2905&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

This is how and when I became aware Ms Stotts was appointed my attorney, a month after the fact. She never attempted to contact me, saying she thought Mark Wynn would. (?)

Bryce Mayer, editor of the paper had said before they would never print anything by me so when I wrote that added comment to him I did not expect it to be added on. I'm sorry but it does get a little old of being falsely accused. (and forced to face it alone)


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 18, 2008, 06:55:22 AM
Repeating the same old info and letters achieves what S.G.?   Not much.   That complaint about your lawyer is rather old.  You mean all this time she hasn't contacted you?   You've done nothing to currect the situation for over a year now?  Why?   Why haven't you gotten a new "court appointed" lawyer? This is a question you repeatedly ignore on purpose.  Why is that?   Could it be the Judge knows you aren't being honest and won't let you get a new one? 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 18, 2008, 07:05:14 AM
That letter writing campaign by very few didn't work for you Steve.   Just wondering why you keep  posting those letters on every message board over and over? 

Seriously, what prevents you from getting out of the house and being proactive about your case?  Now you say you are "poor".  Can't work?  Why can't you work?   How do you afford the net?  Can't be that poor if you can afford that.  If you can afford the net, you can afford to get off your hide and get a lawyer. 

Remember in life. Actions speak louder than words.  No Judge will feel sorry for you because of your actions via the net and that of those you have fooled. 




 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 19, 2008, 10:26:13 AM
Does this say they did not accept jurisdiction of the appeal due to: " ATTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFECT BY FILING A WRITTEN  NOTICE OF SERVICE.

Also Ms Stotts told me she filed the appeal the first of July, this says Aug. doesn't it?

Case Number: 40 A 01 - 0808 - CR - 00370 
GILMORE, STEPHEN -V- STATE OF INDIANA 
Interlocutory 
 
Litigant Inquiry

GILMORE, STEPHEN L. 1 of 2 
 
Attorney Number Name and Address Phone Number Fax Number

20676 39  STOTTS, MARY JEAN  812-265-1616 
 413 EAST MAIN STREET,   
 MADISON, IN 47250-0000   
   
STATE OF INDIANA 2 of 2 
 
Attorney Number Name and Address Phone Number Fax Number
4150 64  CARTER, STEPHEN R.  317-232-4866 
 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN., IGCS, 5TH F LOOR   
 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2770   
   
Docket Inquiry

DATE TEXT  8/04/08 
APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY BY MARY JEAN STOTTS, ATTY. FOR THE 
 APPELLANT (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) BY MAIL 08/04/08. EF 
8/04/08  ****RECEIVED 08/06/08: MOTION OF STEPHEN L. GILMORE REQUESTING 
 THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPT JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL ON AN 
 INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. NEED MORE COPIES. EF 
8/08/08  **** NOTICE OF DEFECT MAILED **** EF/MS 
8/15/08  ****RECEIVED 08/18/08: ADDITIONAL COPIES OF MOTION TO ACCEPT 
 JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL ON INTERLOCUTORY ORDER (6). ATTY 
 DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFECT BY FILING A WRITTEN 
 NOTICE OF SERVICE. MS 
9/15/08  ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 
9/15/08  HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT 
 APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION OF INTERLOCUTORY 
 APPEAL IS DENIED. 
 FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE 
 KIRSCH, MAY, J.J., GARRARD, SR.J., CONCUR. KJ 
9/15/08  ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 19, 2008, 03:59:38 PM
   Steve,
      Thanks for keeping us informed.Your legal complaints seem  well justified and keep documenting them.Do not engage in any conversation whatsoever with Drake or any of her ilk.
     I am devoting full time to soliciting  signatures on behalf of Troy Davis right now. He has less than a week left,though at least four surviving jurors have now signed statements to the Board of Pardons asking that his life be spared and a new trial granted.
   All we are asking is that the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court be honored and a full hearing be held on whether a new trial be granted or not.
   I hope everyone here,even Drake, will feel obligated to do that much.It will only take a couple of days and,if it had been held five years ago,would have then removed most people's doubts one way or the other.
     I see this case moved to the front page of TL on September 15.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 19, 2008, 05:29:13 PM
As always thank you Syd;

Did you notice the discrepancies in the reports from the judge to the editor when he asked for info for his "Editors notes"?

Mom's letter from June 28, 2007:
"(Editor’s note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.)"
There is no verdict form to complete.

The jurors' letter from Aug. 9, 2007:
"Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.
A jury member
(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)"

"A" verdict form...

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp...ectionID=42&S=1

"Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

So he went from none needed, to "A" form, to there were two of them.





Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 20, 2008, 09:09:56 AM

Steve you have made this statement and then back tracked on other boards because it proves you guilty:

After holding him off from coming in, he backs off a little and I back off to watch thru window, he starts back in, when I see his right foot step on door sill I fire for corner of outside glass door to scare him, it shatters the glass (showering him w/ glass, proving he was coming in) instead of him turning to run away he backs off and starts digging for his gun, I'm yelling at him, no don't do it, get outta here, he doesn't so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way, as i shoot he must turn to his left and it hits his right shoulder and travels UP to base of head...hold on...

"...so I go to door and stick only the gun out the door and fire his way..."

Do you deny making this statement?



Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 20, 2008, 09:11:35 AM
Steve Gilmore returned to Commiskey in 1996. He lived in a situation for six years in which knowledge of Billy Akers possession of a concealed weapon was common, as well as Akers' mental condition, his illicit affairs, and his propensity for violence.

Keeping that in mind, would it not have been prudent for any reasonable man the moment that he saw an unstable person lurking upon his property to have contacted law enforcement via the telephone in the livingroom? Also, during those six years, did Steve Gilmore meet Billy Akers with a rifle in his hand at his mother's doorstep each time Akers arrived?

On the contrary, Gilmore elects to say that the night of 2005 was different than all other encounters. So different, in fact, that he choose to acquire his rifle from a back bedroom shortly before he opened the door to confront Akers on the front porch. Moreover, Gilmore claims to have had time to watch Akers through a window.

Would a reasonable man have opened the front door? Would a reasonable man have met Akers at the threshold?

Or...would someone who knew that he had a golden opportunity presented before him do something so foolhardy?

Gilmore has yet to show that Akers entry was "unlawful". Remember, Gilmore opened his mother's door to show Billy Akers his rifle.

Indiana State Law IC 35-41-3-2 is not intended to be used as a tool by crafty manipulators. As to fools...?



Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 20, 2008, 09:14:10 AM
S.G.

You know what the relevant facts are: you claim one thing at one moment and another later. Since most of what you have written is spread over three or four boards, linking to specific material is subject to the quirks governing those boards.

However, if an objective reader wishes to follow the highlighted road here and begin reading a few of your discrepancies regarding how you were at one time 16 feet away from the front door firing your first shot at Mr. Akers, and then at another, hiding behind that very same, opened door, some of your facts may seem doubtful.

Your stubborn and repetitive insistence on any issue you have about your first trial has run its course.



Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 20, 2008, 09:20:49 AM
Source:
Republic
August 17, 2005

VERNON - Billy Akers' friends and family members held back tears as they watched portions of a police videotape recorded at the scene of his shooting death in Commiskey on Feb. 18.

The videotape was part of evidence submitted in the first day of testimony in the murder trial of Akers' former son-in-law Steve Gilmore, 52, also of Commiskey.

The videotape shows Jennings County's Sheriff's deputies responding to the Akers' family property on Private Road 855S after Gilmore had reportedly called 911 around 5 p.m. saying he'd shot Billy Akers.

Akers, 59, died in a hospital in Louisville, Ky., later that night.

"When I pulled up to the residence, Mr. Gilmore was standing next to (Akers) holding (Akers') arm up and holding another object in his other hand," said Deputy Robert Duckworth, of the Decatur County Sheriff's Department.

The object was later identified as a telephone.

Duckworth testified that he was a deputy at the Jennings County Sheriff's Department at the time of the incident and was the first officer to arrive at the scene on Feb. 18.

The videotape also shows officers taking Gilmore into custody and Rescue 20 technicians attempting to stabilize Akers.

Duckworth testified that when officers and emergency management technicians assessed Akers, he had a gunshot wound on his back between his shoulder blades.

Defense attorney Brad Kage asked Duckworth why he thought Gilmore was holding up one of Akers' arms when the officer first arrived.

"It appeared he was maybe following some kind of orders that the dispatchers gave him," said Duckworth.

After questioning from Kage, Duckworth also said he saw a metal rod on the ground near Akers' body.

The prosecution also called deputies Jason Bliton and Steve Cardinal and Sgt. Jeff Barger from the Jennings County Sheriff's Department, who also responded to the shooting scene.

Cardinal testified that collected items Akers was wearing that night after he was taken to St. Vincent Jennings Hospital that included coveralls, boots, a flannel shirt and blue jeans with a revolver in the front pocket.

Kage cross-examined Cardinal by asking him if the revolver in Akers' jeans was loaded.

"Yes," said Cardinal.

"Do you remember about how many rounds were in there?" said Kage.

"Four or five."

Sgt. Rob Ewing of the Indiana State Police testified that he accepted the clothing evidence from Cardinal and other items from the Akers' and Gilmore residences after arriving at the scene around 7 p.m.

Ewing displayed the items, including a bloodstained pair of coveralls, in front of the jury.

Ewing also testified that the type of revolver found in Akers' pants typically holds five rounds and that none had been fired from the gun.

Lt. Dave Turner and Sheriff Earl Taggart testified about two interviews they conducted with Gilmore after his arrest.

Turner stated that Gilmore told him he and Akers had a phone argument about installing a water meter on the property off Private Road 855S. Following the argument, Gilmore saw Akers approaching his property that he "thought he looked irate."

Gilmore told Turner that Akers tried to enter the residence, so Gilmore showed Akers the rifle he was carrying at his side.

Turner stated that Gilmore said after showing Akers the rifle, he fired two shots through the door but didn't know if he'd hit Akers.

After questioning from Kage, Turner stated that Gilmore had asked deputies twice about Akers' condition.

"Did you ever check to see if there was a protective order against Mr. Akers to keep him off (Gilmore's) property?" said Kage.

"No," said Turner.

Taggart testified about a second interview with Gilmore that he conducted at the sheriff's department.

"(Gilmore) said he purposely fired one shot above Akers' head so that it would miss him," said Taggart.
================================================== ==
Gilmore s account disputed
Kelsey VanArsdall
Source:
Republic
August 18, 2005

(7) VERNON - The bullet that pierced Billy Akers just above his right shoulder blade traveled through his back, cutting his spinal cord and immediately incapacitating him, according to testimony from the medical examiner.

In the third day of the murder trial against Steve Gilmore, 52, of Commiskey, Barbara Jones, who performed the autopsy on 59-year-old Akers, testified to the unlikelihood that Akers would have been able to take any steps after being shot.

"The only way (Akers) would have moved beyond falling at the spot he was shot was if he was already running and the momentum from running away carried him further as he fell," said Jones, on a taped deposition presented to the jury.

Gilmore was arrested Feb. 18 after he called 911, saying he'd shot Akers.

Earlier in Wednesday's testimony, Gilmore used a tissue to wipe the tears from his eyes as the courtroom watched videotape of his police interview about what happened the night of the incident.

"I just shot a man," said Gilmore on the tape during some downtime while officers were out of the room.

"My God, I just (expletive) shot a man."

Jennings County Sheriff Earl Taggart and Lt. Dave Turner conducted the interview.

During the interview, Gilmore claimed he shot Akers out of self-defense while the two were in an argument at the home of Gilmore's mother, Beverly Akers.

"I live in fear every day," said Gilmore during the interview.

During a second videotaped interview, Taggart asked Gilmore why he shot at Akers.

"I think you could handle yourself (in an argument)," said Taggart.

"Not with him," said Gilmore.

Gilmore also said that he would not have shot at Akers if he had not thought Akers was coming at him.

Defense attorney Brad Kage cross-examined Taggart by asking him if there was evidence of a struggle between Gilmore and Akers.

"I would say that there was no evidence because there was no damage to the door or entryway (of Beverly Akers' house)," said Taggart.

"But if Mr. Akers and Mr. Gilmore were having a tug-of-war-type struggle with the door, which Mr. Gilmore stated happened, then there wouldn't be any damage to the door frame from that, is that correct?" said Kage.

"Yes, sir," said Taggart.

Following questioning from Prosecutor Gary Smith, Taggart said officers originally considered Gilmore's claim of self-defense while investigating the crime.

"But during these investigations you found Mr. Gilmore's claim of self-defense doesn't hold water, is that right?" said Smith.

"Yes," said Taggart.

"And in your professional opinion, you see this as a murder case?" said Smith.

"Yes, sir," said Taggart.

The prosecution rested its case about 4 p.m. Wednesday.

Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster denied defense attorney Alan Marshall's immediate plea to dismiss the case because "the state failed to provide sufficient evidence or even identified Gilmore as the man sitting in the courtroom charged with the crime."

The defense then presented Greg Carter of Commiskey as its first witness.

Carter testified that he lived on property adjacent to Akers and had known Akers more than 30 years.

"Was (Akers) a peaceful man?" said Marshall.

"That's hard to answer," said Carter. "Bill had a hard time getting along with folks."

Deputy Prosecutor Drew Dickerson cross-examined Carter by asking him if he knew Akers had donated more than $5,000 to charities in the past few years.

"No," said Carter.

"Mr. Carter, does that change your opinion of Mr. Akers?" said Marshall.

"No it does not," said Carter.

The trial resumes at 8:30 a.m. today.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 20, 2008, 12:50:49 PM
   Steve,
     Do not argue with  or comment directly to this individual.We all know that she has tried to provoke incidents on more than one board.
   If you wish to post newspaper clippings or documents,it is quite permissable to do so,if you think it necessary.Do not in any way personally indulge her  in further comments or explications . This is not supposed to be allowed here.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on September 26, 2008, 07:52:02 AM
Syd:
When you get time I ws wondering if you could answer a legal question for me concerning Motion of Limine?

When M. Wynn was still "my" counsel we had a Limine hearing where at the very last the state asked for Akers past bad acts not to be discussed and w/o batting an eye Wynn agreed. I contained myself till we got in the hallway and asked him about this ludicrious agreement and he said he can bring his bad acts when he feels they are relavant. In fact hre is part of an e-mail from him when I asked again later:
"As for Akers bad acts that is a motion in limine, that means as soon as they become relevant they can be introduced. There is no agreement to never bring them up."

I know I've read somewhere that, that is just not true.

Well Ms Stotts (currant atty.) says that that agreement is still in effect even though Wynn is no longer my counsel and the have been a couple postponements since then and there was a Motion of Limine hearing postponed since the last because of this deposition today.

Does the ludicrious agreement by my past atty. still stand about Akers past bad acts? Or is it easily correctable by another Limine hearing?
Sorry for bothering you, for I know you are hard at it, congrats on the stay and hopefully he gets another trial.









Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 26, 2008, 04:52:15 PM
 Hello Steve,
   Yes,the Arthur and Davis affairs are taking a lot of my time.Arthur almost died two days ago.The State again tried to get him executed without holding any hearing at all on either the DNA evidence or the alleged confession.He won six to two which is better than the first stay  when he only got four to five. There is still hope; but two judges certainly dislike him intensely!
    No word from the US Supreme Court on Davis.If they don't get a quorum to hear full argument,he still dies September 29th.
   Steve,I wish I could answer your question but (a)I'm not a lawyer and not qualified to give legal advice and (b)can certainly not come between a client and his attorney of record.
   Furthermore,this is the first time I've personally come upon a case where the stategy you described was adopted.If the agreement is (as your first lawyer described it to you) and easily can be dropped.that it could mean, as is standard  in English criminal  law,that a mutual agreement was to exclude all evidence as to character on either side unless one side chooses to open it up,thereafter any of the witnesses' characters can be attacked .
   Why not drop her an e-mail aand ask her what it means and how she intends to employ to your advantage.But do not print any lawyer-client communications on this site whatever you do!
   


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 29, 2008, 08:09:09 AM
   Steve,
     Do not argue with  or comment directly to this individual.We all know that she has tried to provoke incidents on more than one board.
   If you wish to post newspaper clippings or documents,it is quite permissable to do so,if you think it necessary.Do not in any way personally indulge her  in further comments or explications . This is not supposed to be allowed here.
Excuse me but the last time I checked I am and will alwasy a male.  Don't accuse me of being a she and inciting anything here or anywhere else.  If Steve can bore us by posting the same boring untruthful posts, I know I'm entiled to show how many mistatements he has made all over the net.  Are you really telling us that showing the other side of the story from Steve is not allowed here?  What's the matter, the truth hurts? 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 29, 2008, 08:23:02 AM
If she were  banned she,like the Dragon Lady,will only pop back up again as Bonnie Buzzard,Goosey Lucy, or,perhaps, Ventura Vulture.

Might want to go back to your so called source for you've been given the wrong info.  Why would a guy use female nics and no I don't have 30 identities.  You want to talk about what the rules are around here whilest you don't appear to be following them yourself. 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on September 29, 2008, 08:34:28 AM
Steve, you made this statement.  You're saying the tape was altered?   What is improper about deposing Dr. Westrick?  That's really stretching it don't you think?  Probably not.  Your untruths get more and more outlandish. 

What happend on the 26th? 


S.G.

as stated above on top of this page the state has postponed the trial so they can "improperly" depose Dr. Aaron Westrick, which as stated above is Sept. 26.

Although the state presented Dr. Weekly Jones (in an altered taped sworn testimony) as an expert in forensic pathology, they along with my attorney now say they didn't present her as an expert, even though it is clearly so stated in the transcript (pg 286)that they did.



Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on September 29, 2008, 12:49:23 PM
   "Drake" has long been identified here with a particularly vitrolic female contributor who quite frequently identies with one or another of our feather friends and is documented as having  posted undersome  thirty separate names. In fact our hostess specifically wrote to me that she has deleted many oif Drake's  letters in the past though he has  only recently posted here under the name of Drake.I therefore had/have every reason believe that this identification is correct,as your modes of controversy are indistinguishable from hers.
   Except with the important exception that Drake  has  quite recentlly begun to here republish actual newspaper reports (some,or all ,of which  were  previously printed elsewhere on a now deleted thread) his/her techniques remain unaltered."He " can hardly  be surprised at our continuing scepticism when  he deliberately chose his monicker in the full knowledge of "Chicky Girl"'s scandelous(ultimately banned ) exploits on the same board.
   Further,as "he"  has waited  weeks without attempting to ostensably clairify  his situation,he has no one but himself to blame for any misconception which has arisen.In itself a tactic very familar to longtime Chicky watchers.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on October 01, 2008, 09:17:11 AM
Interesting you post to me, but tell others not to.   I will not give your immature accusations the time of day Sydney.  You continue to take the S.G. off topic.   You're not going to bully me into leaving here because you and your friend are trying to play this case out online.  If you had an ounce of integrity you'd want to hear the other side and I will continue to do so.  If you don't like it is not my concern.   I have options to deal with you the mature way.  A) report you daily and b) use the ignore button. 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on October 01, 2008, 09:27:09 AM
It is most telling that whenever the other side of this case is posted on all the boards Steve belongs to, he runs off.   Steve, how will handle being in court? 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on October 13, 2008, 11:20:40 AM
  Quack,Quack.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Drake on October 17, 2008, 06:45:01 AM
Steve, you made this statement back in July:

All I ask for was the witness list and to mark which witnesses she talked to, the motions she filed and the statement given her by Dr A Westrick and a copy of the probable cause affidavit which I have ask each of my attorneys for since none of them can or will explain what is "their" probable cause that renders IC 35-41-3-2 invalid.

Yet, you still complain about your lawyer not contacting you. Which is it?  How did you ask her? 

Just how will you handle all that you've said and done via the net being thrown back at you in court?   


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on October 22, 2008, 08:00:46 AM
New trial date set for June 10, 2009


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on October 23, 2008, 07:56:28 AM
I read this on front page and was wondering how there could be such a huge differance in rulings?

"No Second Trial For Watada"
"U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled today that Watada cannot be tried on those charges again. The government rested without proving its case, and Watada did not request or provoke the mistrial. Under those circumstances, the protection against double jeopardy bars a second prosecution."
-----------

Yet in my case:

Judge Jon Websters Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.

Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof."
---------------------

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1
Private investigator John Mann was the only witness at the hearing. He stated he had personally interviewed each juror and they had unanimously agreed Gilmore was not guilty of murder

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1
While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial.
John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.



Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on October 24, 2008, 02:03:44 PM
  SG:
    New trial date set for June 10, 2009

  SC:
    Is this good news or bad news for you?
     Was the expert deposed  as scheduled?
    Lots of people are interested in your case.But do not revile anyone,despite your frustration, not even trolls.It could account against you later.
     Otherwise please keep us informed.
   


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on November 03, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
Allan Marshall, one of the attorneys that was supposed to represent me during my first trail is campaign calling for the prosecutor (Gary Smith) who is running for Superior Court judge here in jennings county, in.

He actually had the nerve to call me and tell me it was my best interest to vote for him.

The expert (Aaron Westrick) was deposed and told them it had to have happen the way I said it did, I was amazed to learn that everything we taked about was not covered under attorney / client priviledge even though my attorney was there. (Not that it mattered, for there's nothing for us to hide) Mr. Westrick told them everything I told him coinsided with what I said at trial.

Sydney you also asked if the new trial date is good or bad, well another 8 months with an 800 pound gorilla on my back 24/7.  ??


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on November 03, 2008, 06:55:18 PM
   Steve,
     As I suspected would happen, this obviously very much law and order guy is backing you.It sounds like your lawyer did know what she was doing in taking his testimony in advance.At the least a great public relations move.
   If your expert was  being put on the stand  early (as I recollect you wrote that he was ) because the prosecution was now admitting that their  their expert(and the only expert called at the first trial) wasn't the best forensic expert  imaginable  in the case  and they actually wanted to get your man's evidence.Well,as you report it,they heard him,so why don't they either proceed to trial or drop the case?
    You have been in limbo for years.Is this postponement  o.k. with your attorney?Since you have exculpatory testimony from the only full fledged forensic expert now figuring in the case and the guy's right in front of her,why not start the trial posthaste?The prosecution has had over four years to prepare side of it. Does the State want even more time to challenge expert,a man whom you have made available to them since before  since before your first trial.
   If you answer this, do not bcome abusive or castigate anyone(unless you have direct documented quotes to back you up)in particular.However,I am sure we are all anxious to view exactly what is going on.
   Any chance we could see some news reports of the expert's testimony?
     Then take good,and well deserved, break.
     I'll be off until after the election.
      I would advise anyone who has a tape oof "I Clauudius" to view it before voting.
       
 


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on November 22, 2008, 07:09:32 AM
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&ArticleID=7141

Alan Marshall was one of my attorneys during the trial.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on February 24, 2009, 12:24:01 PM
Barry S. Brown
P.O Box 6596
Bloomington, IN. 47408

Designated Special Prosecuting Attorney
As of now trial date is still set on June 8,2009

Please forgive the self promotion but does this make sense?
----------------

Remember THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
     Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person  reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
        (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person  reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.    (b) A person:
        (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate  the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
-------------------------------
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."
 
pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. (Now check this out) There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 
The judge admits there is evidence of self-defense, shouldn't it be over as per the LAW?


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: Sydney Carton on February 26, 2009, 02:41:11 PM
   Good to hear from you,Steve.It has been a long time.
     Getting citations from the law and the transcripts is exactly what we like to get here.That is one of the things which makes it difficult when one is arguing one's own case.
   I presume the judge's statement was made when( or after) your attorney presented expert forensic testimony on your behalf.As I recollect your expert ,who is very much a law and order man,was available earlier but your earlier attorneys didn't utilize his services.I hope I have this right.I tried to find the newspaper  account of your man's testimony but failed to locate it.
   By the way,I suspect  you may have caught the nail  end of the stick when TL and I pulled you up a few months back.You were being bitterly assailed by some of your adversaries for having allegedly given two incompatable accounts of how the shooting occurred.Looking back,I believe that your outburst must have  directed against the policeman who says that you gave a contradictory account and you were forcefully asserting that he prevericates and that you have always given the version of the shootiing which your forensic expert now corroborates.
Unfortunately,it was by no means clear  in your communication (certainly not to me) why you accused an (apparently) unidentified cop of  lying.
   The correct(and non libelous) form would have been,"I absolutely deny that any such statements were ever made  but can't discuss it further while the case is in progress." I can understand why you weren't in a mood for legal niceties but you have to be in your present situation.
   I think you have a supporter,Katmandu,who has transcripts of at least part of your  proceedings,it would always be great for him(or her) to post the actual documents  here.
   


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on March 02, 2009, 01:21:29 PM
These jury instructions are from the first trial to the first and only jury.
So we have a LAW that states: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting..."
Then the judge says there is evidence of self-defense in his instructions to the jury, so if he understands the LAW then he should of tossed this before it went to trail, but this judge says Indiana does not allow judges to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice.

The juror said he thought I was guilty of reckless homicide because I should of ran and hid.
Where did he get the right to decide that aspect?

I'm still wondering how with a law so exact and precise, how a lesser charge is even allowed? Either I have the right to protect myself or not, how do you throw an accidental shooting into this? How do you go from an intentional act to oops it was an accident?

I've never responded to Drake or any adversary on this site so I do not know what outburst your talking about. Go to pg 3, post 34 on other thread to see where I mentioned the ex-sheriff.
"I have a witness that puts the now ex-sheriff in jail for perjury but she hasn't spoke to her."
I was simply pointing out that a witness is willing to testify that discredits the sheriffs character/ testimony and "my" atty. refuses to this day to speak to her.


Title: Re: Steve Gilmore
Post by: S.G. on March 03, 2009, 07:01:11 AM
He who has nothing to hide, Hides nothing.

As all of you know if the jury spent most all of their time contemplating the lesser charge (which should of never been allowed in) then they had to of voted unanimously not guilty on the murder charge.

Why would a judge not allow for the jury to "validate their verdict" when they were ALL present and ready to do so?

What is he hiding?