Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2017, 12:39:40 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
TalkLeft Discussion Forums  |  Topics  |  Crimes 'R Us: Crimes in the News  |  Current Cases  |  Steve Gilmore 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Steve Gilmore  (Read 17512 times)
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #15 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?

Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #16 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...?

Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #17 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.

Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #18 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.
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #20 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.







Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #21 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!
   
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #22 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? 
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #23 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. 
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #24 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.

Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #26 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. 
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #27 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? 
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2008, 11:20:40 AM »

  Quack,Quack.
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #29 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?   
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here