Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:10 am

Injustice Anywhere Radio

The Jeffrey Havard Case: Innocent on Death Row

Guests: wrongful conviction advocate Lori Howard, Attorney Jen Fitzgerald, former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Jeffrey Havard

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2013/08/07/the-jeffrey-havard-case-innocent-on-death-row
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby myloridarlin » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:18 pm

Paige wrote:Rebecca and Chloe(baby) were living with Rebecca's brother's(Billy Britt) while they were cooking Crystal Meth in the home. Jeffrey,found out about Rebecca's and the Chloe's living conditions and moved them into his home with him,giving the baby her own nursery. Jeffrey,loved this child as if she were his own. He has a picture of Chloe in his cell that he looks at everyday.


We now know that this information is partially inaccurate. Rebecca had been thrown out of her mother's home with the baby, but did not live with her brother. She lived in a drug house, but not a meth lab.
myloridarlin
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby myloridarlin » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:33 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I had a case once involving a head injury to a baby. It was not fatal but the baby sustained a skull fracture, a fact which did not become apparent for many hours. One of the symptoms, which presented early, was vomiting, which strikes one as odd but there it is. Harvard's story is the baby vomited then he gave it a bath then he dropped her.

Another possibility is that the baby's crying or screaming provoked him to inflict the head injury, which was followed by vomiting which he dealt with by giving the baby a bath. It's clear there is no evidence of sexual assault and the trial jury got this wrong, aided by inadequate defence counsel and faulty medical evidence, but Harvard's story of what happened does not seem convincing.

I have not read anything like everything but were all the injuries explained, including those to the thighs?

This is another case in which, like Scott Peterson, the death penalty distorts the analysis by raising the stakes too much.


The entire case revolves around the sexual assault. No assault, no case. They gave no cause of death. They assumed the death was caused by the violence of the sexual assault.

Chloe was sick. She was receiving medicine for her illness. Jeffrey was not an experienced parent. Most would have just wiped off the babies clothes if she spit up. Spitting up is very common. Jeffrey saw the spit up and decided to give Chloe a bath.

This was a very small bathroom. The toilet was right next to the tub. Chloe was a big baby. Jeffrey claims she slipped out of his hands leading her to hit her head on the toilet. Dr. Baden states the injuries are consistent with Jeffrey's description of the accident.

Are you suggesting that Chloe's injuries occurred before Jeffrey gave her a bath and got her dressed for bed?

The time frame was not "many hours," Chloe's health deteriorated quickly after Jeffrey put her to bed. When Rebecca returned home from the store Chloe was already not breathing.

Chloe's body went through rigorous trauma while the ER staff tried to revive her. It is often not a gentle process. Bruises on Chloe's legs could have come from that time. If there was no sexual assault (as you have already concluded) then there would be no basis for Jeffrey to have inflicted those bruises.

I am part way through the trial transcript. I have no problem at all with the idea he did not get a fair trial, nor even with the suggestion that the state did not have any kind of case which could be proved beyond reaonable doubt, at least not without an analysis of the injuries that was not skewed by the assumption there had been a sexual assault.

I do, however, consider the circumstances highly suspicious and I would take issue with the idea that there is a strong positive case for innocence (i.e. of some level of homicide, including manslaughter). Jeffrey had an abusive childhood, was a young male living with a partner with a child who was not his, who reacted deceptively to the accident he said occurred, gave the child a bath for the first time for insufficient reason, had she merely regurgitated a little food, sent the mother out a second time for no good reason, washed sheets, and failed to provide medical staff with information that might have been helpful (for all he knew).

I have not yet read up properly on the injuries to see whether they are consistent with a fall and will revert when I have done so but my working hypothesis is that he injured the child when the mother went out the first time, by punchng her or swinging her against a hard surface (as happened in my case) or both and then tried to clean up the evidence (no dispute about that) and that he had some further cleaning up to do which required that he send her out again.

It's very much like Ryan Widmer, in that we have an incident witnessed by no one except the accused. This gives rise to acute difficulties which were not resolved by the state going off on its sex abuse theory. What I don't see is the positive case for complete innocence.

ETA even on Havard's own case he may be guilty of manslaughter by omission. That is, having himself created a risk of serious harm, his failure to seek medical assistance at once may have contributed to the fatality. And sorry, I now notice you say Baden thought the injuries consistent with his account, which is important, but I assume Baden has not been cross examined in any proceedings yet.


I know this is an old post, but Jeffrey did not "send" the mother back out and he did noe wash the sheets. He merely stripped the bed. Chloe spit up her medicine. You facts are incorrect.
myloridarlin
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby myloridarlin » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:37 am

Please forgive the typos. The trial transcripts and the prosecutions case do not reflect the truth.
myloridarlin
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby myloridarlin » Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:54 am

Jeff didn't "send" her off to the video store. She returned because she ran out of money and needed more.
myloridarlin
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:14 pm

We here at the Injustice Anywhere Forum have seen it all?? NO! Get ready for another absolute shocker!


Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Files Motion Attempting To Seal Jeffrey Havard Case

The State of Mississippi filed a motion on Monday requesting that the Jeffrey Havard case be sealed. If this request is granted, it could limit or prohibit a non-party’s remote electronic access to case documents that would normally be public record.

The motion filed by the office of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, cites a message posted on a Facebook page by one of Havard’s attorneys as the reason for the filing of the request. The problem is that the State’s request attempts to go far beyond the prevention of an attorney speaking publicly about the case on social media websites. If granted, this motion will prevent the public from seeing the injustice currently being committed against Jeffrey Havard. The public has a right to know the facts of this case.

Jeffrey Havard currently sits wrongfully convicted on death row in Mississippi for the sexual assault and murder of his girlfriend’s six-month-old daughter, Chloe Britt. The truth is the infant slipped from Jeffrey’s arms while lifting her from the tub, causing her head to hit the toilet. Chloe’s death was a tragic accident, not a murder. According to two national leading experts, Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. James Lauridson, the evidence supports Jeffrey’s claims. Jeffrey Havard is innocent.

The State seems shocked that Havard’s case is receiving any public attention at all:

“Additionally, although the State has no knowledge of how this case has become such a public one, the State directs this Court to Exhibit B. Routinely, the State receives letters from across the country, from concerned citizens pleading for the life of Jeffrey Havard. See Exhibit B. Curiously, each of the letters (submitted herein as examples) contains detailed factual allegations about this case: that the victim, Chloe Britt, died as the result of an accidental fall; that the victim’s autopsy made no reference to sexual assault; that the only binding factor in this case was anal dilation of the victim; that Mr. Havard requested a polygraph test; that Mr. Havard refused a plea agreement. Moreover, some of these letters are identical in their wording, leading the State to believe the writers are procuring their information from the same source.”

The motion goes on to say: “The State is not suggesting that Petitioner or his legal team have disseminated such information; indeed, he State has no evidence to support or infer such a claim and would go so far as to suggest habeas counsel have had no involvement whatsoever with respect to these letters. However, the facts being as they are, this case has become a public spectacle; and Mr. Carner’s Facebook posting has only added fuel to the fire.”

It is odd that the State is claiming not to know how Havard’s case has become a public one, when a simple Google search for “Jeffrey Havard” provides the answer. Freejeffreyhavard.org, a website owned and operated by Injustice Anywhere, currently occupies the top two entries on Google for Jeffrey Havard.

The letters mentioned in the motion are the result of a letter writing campaign that was started by Havard’s supporters. The letter campaign is detailed on the home page of freejeffreyhavard.org. Visitors will also see that the site provides public case documents and expert analysis in support of Havard’s innocence. Every detail cited by the State can be found in public documents. It makes no sense to speculate that Havard’s attorneys are making an effort to leak public information to the public.

There should be absolutely no confusion as to why this case is getting public attention. In addition to the ongoing advocacy efforts for Havard, there have also been several news reports on Havard’s case that question his conviction.

Radley Balko, a senior writer and investigative reporter for the Huffington Post, stressed the need to take another look at Havard’s case in his article titled: Despite Evidence From Discredited Medical Examiner, Mississippi’s Jeffrey Havard Nears Execution.

Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz has repeatedly voiced his opinion on the case. In an interview with Jerry Mitchell from the Clarion Ledger, Diaz said the prosecution’s claims went unchallenged because the public defender couldn’t afford a second exam. “He was denied the use of his own expert in that case” said Diaz, who was one of two justices who voted to throw out Havard’s conviction in a 2006 appeal.

Diaz was recently a guest on the Injustice Anywhere internet radio program, where he discussed his concerns about Havard’s conviction. Diaz informed listeners that he believed Havard was the victim of ineffective counsel. According to Diaz, Havard’s attorney failed to file the proper request for an independent expert, leaving the defense with the burden of paying for an expert they could not afford.

The Mississippi Attorney General has made it known that he does not approve of the attention Havard’s case is receiving. The motion filed Monday makes it quite clear that the State would like concerned citizens to keep their opinions to themselves:

“In light of the sensitive nature of this case, the State has no choice but to move to protect the victim and her family from informal slander and snooping in the name of protecting the Constitutional rights of Jeffrey Havard. The State cannot retract information which is already before the public; but if the State can prevent a single “concerned citizen” or angry lawyer from discussing, publically, how a six-month-old child was anally battered and murdered, then this motion will have served its intended purpose.”

The advocacy efforts on Havard’s behalf do not “include informal slander and snooping” as the motion suggests. Havard’s supporters are providing the public with factual information about the case that has been provided to them by multiple experts. All documents presented by Havard’s supporters are public record. It is incorrect to claim that Havard’s supporters are snooping by obtaining public documents from Pacer.gov.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, should be making no attempt to silence concerned citizens. If you agree, please feel free to send a letter to his office voicing your opinion.

Please visit http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org to learn more about the Jeffrey Havard case.


http://groundreport.com/mississippi-attorney-general-jim-hood-files-motion-attempting-to-seal-jeffrey-havard-case/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:09 am

You begin with secreted files and you arrive to secret tribunals.

So people must not be interested in justice and injustice, they must not know what is happening because closed doors.
Well, surely there are people around the world with such a concept of justice in their minds, it is more surprising that some public official in a country like the US does so.

Aside from anything else there are two considerations that Mr. Hood perhaps misses:

1) It is perhaps a bit late to close the barn doors (I don't know if the saying is the same as in English, but you should get it).

2) Without access to the real facts, every rumour becomes a fact and this is not guaranteed at all to benefit the prosecution: any allegation of any kind would be allowed.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:54 am

roteoctober wrote:You begin with secreted files and you arrive to secret tribunals.

So people must not be interested in justice and injustice, they must not know what is happening because closed doors.
Well, surely there are people around the world with such a concept of justice in their minds, it is more surprising that some public official in a country like the US does so.

Aside from anything else there are two considerations that Mr. Hood perhaps misses:

1) It is perhaps a bit late to close the barn doors (I don't know if the saying is the same as in English, but you should get it).

2) Without access to the real facts, every rumour becomes a fact and this is not guaranteed at all to benefit the prosecution: any allegation of any kind would be allowed.



This is really unbelievable. In the United States, defendants generally have the right to a public trial. Sealing the record at the state's motion allows for in camera secret abusive proceedings and insulates the state from public criticism. Does the State really think that public understanding of the issues in this case will be furthered by depriving the public of access to the actual facts? Once again, the old adage is proven - "What has four i's but can't see?"
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:29 am

http://groundreport.com/mississippi-attorney-general-jim-hood-files-motion-attempting-to-seal-jeffrey-havard-case/

Update 8-30-2013: The State’s motion was just denied outright by Federal Judge Kieth Starrett.

You can view the denial here: http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/denial.pdf
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:10 pm

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2013/09/11/jeffrey-havard-case-discussion-motion-to-seal-is-denied

Jeffrey Havard Case Discussion: Motion to Seal is Denied

Please tune in Tuesday September 10, at 8 PM CDT.
What is CDT? - http://www.thetimenow.com/cdt/central_daylight_time

On August 26, the State of Mississippi filed a Motion to seal Jeffrey's case. The State’s motion was baseless and was rightfully denied by Federal Judge Keith Starrett.

On this week's show, we will be discussing what it means to seal a case. We will also discuss the details of the State's request as well as the denial issued by Federal Judge Keith Starrett.

Scheduled Guests: wrongful conviction advocate Lori Howard, Attorney Jen Fitzgerald, and a special guest.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:53 pm

Facebook Posters,

We are going to have a group listen and comment while the show is on live.

It's on the IA Facebook Group if anyone would like to participate:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/291062117582686/

Please post any questions you would like Bruce to ask Jeffrey Havard on the thread.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:08 am

I hope this thread is active soon. This is an important Death Row case that needs to be discussed.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby ljrobins » Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:33 pm

Oh my goodness. I have not been in this area for awhile. I am not sure how I missed this absolute absurdity of the state trying to seal the file.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:41 pm

I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:13 am

Lori wrote:I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.

Can you summarise the latest developments please?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:13 am

Lori wrote:I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.


Hi Lori.

Do you have any photos of the trailer so we can get a feel for where they lived? It'd be good to have a map showing the trailer, where she bought the groceries, video store and hospital.

One of the things I'd like to know is why didn't Jeffrey take the stand? I just find it so hard to believe an innocent person in this particular case wouldn't stare down the prosecutors & jurors declaring his innocence, explain what happened and be outraged given how heinous the allegation was of infant rape. I know no negative inference should be made because someone doesn't take the stand but we talked about this in the Ryan Widmer thread and Clive reckons lawyers will normally want and encourage innocent clients to speak and in certain cases they MUST speak. They just need that one juror to find them credible and spare them.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:21 am

MichaelB wrote:
Lori wrote:I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.


Hi Lori.

Do you have any photos of the trailer so we can get a feel for where they lived? It'd be good to have a map showing the trailer, where she bought the groceries, video store and hospital.

One of the things I'd like to know is why didn't Jeffrey take the stand? I just find it so hard to believe an innocent person in this particular case wouldn't stare down the prosecutors & jurors declaring his innocence, explain what happened and be outraged given how heinous the allegation was of infant rape. I know no negative inference should be made because someone doesn't take the stand but we talked about this in the Ryan Widmer thread and Clive reckons lawyers will normally want and encourage innocent clients to speak and in certain cases they MUST speak. They just need that one juror to find them credible and spare them.

Well, that's what I thought before I chatted with Jen Fitzgerald. It seems in the US it is much more rare for defendants to give evidence. AT least she said she advises almost all her clients not to testify. I find that pretty weird because, if innocent, there are usually points which the defendant can explain and without the explanation the jury is left floundering. Consider Darlie Routier and the silly string. As her lawyer, wouldn't you want her in the witness box explaining that (provided the perceived benefit outweighed the harm of all the other points she would have to deal with)?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:36 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Lori wrote:I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.


Hi Lori.

Do you have any photos of the trailer so we can get a feel for where they lived? It'd be good to have a map showing the trailer, where she bought the groceries, video store and hospital.

One of the things I'd like to know is why didn't Jeffrey take the stand? I just find it so hard to believe an innocent person in this particular case wouldn't stare down the prosecutors & jurors declaring his innocence, explain what happened and be outraged given how heinous the allegation was of infant rape. I know no negative inference should be made because someone doesn't take the stand but we talked about this in the Ryan Widmer thread and Clive reckons lawyers will normally want and encourage innocent clients to speak and in certain cases they MUST speak. They just need that one juror to find them credible and spare them.

Well, that's what I thought before I chatted with Jen Fitzgerald. It seems in the US it is much more rare for defendants to give evidence. AT least she said she advises almost all her clients not to testify. I find that pretty weird because, if innocent, there are usually points which the defendant can explain and without the explanation the jury is left floundering. Consider Darlie Routier and the silly string. As her lawyer, wouldn't you want her in the witness box explaining that (provided the perceived benefit outweighed the harm of all the other points she would have to deal with)?


Darlie testified.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:41 pm

Hi Michael,

I can certainly get you a map and show you the routes and distances from Montgomery Rd. to the places as you request. It may take me a day or so. The trailer was sold and moved off the property, so there are no photos, except of the interior.

Before I continue, let me correct 2 MAJOR points of misinformation in this case. Rebecca (Chloe's mother) was supposed to RETURN movies to Blockbuster and pick up more. She returned to the home because she ran out of money and needed Jeff to give her more. He did not SEND her out anywhere.

Also, There are written statements from one of the nurses (Murphy) and Rebecca's own mother saying that Rebecca and Jeff both stated that he was supposed to give Chloe a bath. Since Rebecca had no idea what was wrong with Chloe at the time, she had no motivation to lie to either the nurse or her mother.

I am not sure why the comparison to Darlie Routier, but okay, I'll bite. Jeff had every intention of taking the stand. His attorney, Gus Sermos, had told him all along that he SHOULD take the stand. That he would make a great witness and that he was likeable, etc. Then right before the trial was to begin, Sermos changed his mind and told Jeff that his video statement was enough. You have to remember that Jeff was barely 23 and he was following the advice of his attorney (although he might just as well have defended himself for all the good Sermos did him). Also, I am pretty sure you have seen the autopsy report. It said nothing about sexual assault, not even a mention of it. A sexual assault was never diagnosed by anyone with expertise, which is the standard in an US Court of Law.

During closing, DA Harper stated that if he (Harper) had been accused of a sexual assault, he would have been insisting that, "Hell no, I didn't do this, instead of I don't recollect it". The fact is that Jeff DID insist that "Hell, no, I didn't do this", for about 3 hours before the tape was turned on. By this point, he was tired of being asked the same question in 50 different variations, so he began to parrot their questions back at them. "No, I don't recollect". He also asked to be given a polygraph and was refused. That never made it on to the videotape either. And please remember, he was cooperating with the investigation, so he had no attorney present.

When he was taken to the jail, written statements were taken from everyone involved EXCEPT the prime suspect, Jeffrey. From him they just took a "general verbal statement" that same general verbal statement was proceeded with the following; (I cannot quote but it was along the lines of) "Well, son, Chloe is dead and she has been anally raped, her bottom has been ripped apart. If you can't explain that, you will get a needle in your arm". Jeff, in shock, clammed up, (just like I would have). He couldn't explain it because he didn't know how it was POSSIBLE that she had been raped. They then took him to a cell on a closed cellblock and left him there, never attempted to speak to him again for two and a half days (in February with no blanket or shoes and a bare minimum of food) until he flagged someone down to contact the Detective. This happened when he received paperwork showing that Chloe had actually died of a head injury. Prior to that, he was under the false impression, that was intentionally given to him by Manley, that she had died of injuries related to rape.

As to the jury, the media was told and then reported that Coroner James Lee stated that autopsy results "confirmed the child's private parts had been violated" (please look up James Lee, he was an EMT, CMT prior to becoming coroner and there have been problems with his media announcements/conduct before and since). How could Jeff have ever gotten an unbiased jury in that county after that? In fact, his OWN attorney accepted a juror who stated during Voir Dire that her niece had been raped and she didn't feel she could be impartial. Another potential juror who stated he believed in an eye for an eye was allowed on the jury.

During his extensive day and a half trial (I am not counting the half day to select the jury and impose verdict and sentencing), Jeff's defense called ONE witness. The nurse who did the rape kit. Awesome job, they did.

There were many malicious, devious things that occurred during his trial and they were all worse than anything Jeff Havard ever did.

Also, you may remember the Motion to Seal filed by the state recently regarding the upcoming appeal. Thankfully the judge flat out turned it down, but such a motion is literally unheard of in the appeals process. What do you think the state was trying to hide from the public? Never mind, the question was rhetorical as I am certain I have the answer to that.

Jeffrey didn't testify, Darlie did and they both ended up in the same place, for what that's worth.

Michael, I will get you the map ASAP.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:27 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:I also hope this thread becomes active soon.

Jeff's attorney's will be filing their response to the state from early to mid December.

Since there has been any real activity on this thread, SO much has been discovered regarding this case.

I believe that there is much misunderstanding and misconception about what really happened in the case against Jeffrey Havard.

Can you summarise the latest developments please?



I will be happy to, Clive. As soon as his attorney's response is filed on the 15th of this month and I can speak freely. I will be sure to get back to you then. In the meantime, I can only speak to what is public about the case at this point. Wouldn't want another attempt at sealing the record. :roll:

And I apologize, I did not see your question at first.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:29 am

Lori, what was the distance between the bathtub and the toilet? Was the toilet right beside the tub?

It's a he said/she said when it comes to the trip to the video store because her testimony is Jeffrey insisted she go rent movies. I want to look that up again.

I'm reading these:-

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/69_-_Memo_in_Supp_of_Amended_Petition.pdf
http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/PETITION_FOR_POST-CONVICTION_RELIEF_DENIED_-_5-22-2008.pdf
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:10 am

Yes, the toilet was directly next to the tub. I have a picture of the bathroom. Let me dig it up and post it.

In fact, it was NOT a he said/she said as far as the trip to the video store goes. She returned to the home to get more money from Jeff (and she also checked on Chloe). In her videotaped statement the night after this tragedy, she was asked if anyone from the video store would remember her. She said no at first, then she said that maybe the guy that checked her out would remember, that he was the same guy that checked her out the NIGHT BEFORE. Again, he did not send her anywhere, he expected her to come back with groceries and movies.

Reading those aren't going to help you, because she perjured herself on the stand. You would have to compare the taped statement to her testimony, which were absolutely contradictory to each other.

Although the perjury was addressed (as a generality, not specifically) to the Mississippi Supreme Court, it was ignored, just like every other piece of exculpatory evidence in this case. And none of that has even scratched the surface of what was wrong here. Sorry if that seems vague, I can explain in more detail tomorrow, I have to get up early.

I was under the impression that you were given additional case documents, as I requested they be given to you. Did you not receive them?

So, now I am working on getting you a map and a photo of the bathroom.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:16 am

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/PETITION_FOR_POST-CONVICTION_RELIEF_DENIED_-_5-22-2008.pdf

From page 22:

William Havard's (the grandfather) affidavit said he bought Jeffrey a truck for work but he quit his job soon as he got it. He asked his neighbours to call the police once because Jeffrey wouldn't let them onto their own property and he himself had to call the police sometimes to "calm him down". Lastly, Jeffrey would have people over and take drugs at the trailer.

Daniel Bradshaw (childhood friend) said Jeffrey got into drugs and was hanging out with the wrong people.

Australia Bradshaw described him as happy go lucky, said Jeffrey went to live with them for a while, Jeffrey's grandfather would get angry at him and he'd say hurtful words to his grandfather.

Etta White described him as super with a great personality.

Cheryl Havard never stated in her affidavits or testimony Jeffrey was abused.

Jeffrey never stated he was abused in his affidavits.

Is this accurate or contested?
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:31 am

Lori wrote:Yes, the toilet was directly next to the tub. I have a picture of the bathroom. Let me dig it up and post it.

In fact, it was NOT a he said/she said as far as the trip to the video store goes. She returned to the home to get more money from Jeff (and she also checked on Chloe). In her videotaped statement the night after this tragedy, she was asked if anyone from the video store would remember her. She said no at first, then she said that maybe the guy that checked her out would remember, that he was the same guy that checked her out the NIGHT BEFORE. Again, he did not send her anywhere, he expected her to come back with groceries and movies.

Reading those aren't going to help you, because she perjured herself on the stand. You would have to compare the taped statement to her testimony, which were absolutely contradictory to each other.

Although the perjury was addressed (as a generality, not specifically) to the Mississippi Supreme Court, it was ignored, just like every other piece of exculpatory evidence in this case. And none of that has even scratched the surface of what was wrong here. Sorry if that seems vague, I can explain in more detail tomorrow, I have to get up early.

I was under the impression that you were given additional case documents, as I requested they be given to you. Did you not receive them?

So, now I am working on getting you a map and a photo of the bathroom.


Thanks Lori. I think she's discredited but not fully.

This just blows me away. Pages 40-42, one of Jeffrey's lawyers, Robert Clark, used drugs with Jeff before it happened and was later arrested on drug charges. How old was he at the time of the trial and did he get disbarred?
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:22 am

Rebecca testified she picked Chloe up at 5.30pm and went straight home. They played with her for a while and she fed her around 6.30-7.00pm. It was 9.00-9.15pm when she got back from blockbuster.

She says the baby was alive, and made a little noise when she got back from buying groceries. She opened her eyes a little and went back to sleep.

She went and sat down with Jeff and he "insisted she go to the video store"

This is what I find really suspicious. They'd just had the sat dish installed. He'd sent her out to buy groceries, why didn't he go? She was the mum with the little baby. She comes back but then SHE has to go out again to get the movies EVEN if it was her who forgot to rent them. It just doesn't add up. Why didn't he go?

The throat closure I don't understand.

Page 54 PDF 3

Jeffrey told her Chloe had spit up a little and that's why he was washing the sheets but isn't that BS? I know the sheets weren't washed but had been stripped. It just seems suspicious to me. How much can a 6 month old pule up banana mash and why was It on their bed?

Nurse Godbold observed bruising on the inner thigh and on the frontal part of her head as she "pinked" up. Exhibits 4 & 6

Godbold "So we rolled the baby over on it's side, and I was just blown away by what I saw. I saw a rectum that was about the size of a quarter" (diameter 24mm or 2.4cm approx.)

There was stool oozing from it. Exhibit 5 is shown but she says it doesn't do it justice compared to what she saw.

She observed rhinorrhea (spinal fluid leakage) from her nose.

91/152 - 3
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:08 pm

Michael B. I am about to post a map for you.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:15 pm

Michael B. Those are all excellent points, and it really highlights just how unfair this trial truly was. Let me explain: Rebecca's trial testimony was much different then the statement that she had originally provided to police just the day after the child had died. Unfortunately for Jeff, neither he nor his counsel were ever made aware that Rebecca had provided a detailed videotaped statement the day after the incident; they were not aware of it nor would they provided a copy of it. There are a number of discrepancies between her trial testimony and her earlier statement. if you give me just a second I'm going to pull the actual quotes from the original statement so that we can put everything on the table here and we can ensure that everything is accurate.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:34 pm

Regarding Rebecca's trip to the video store:

1.) Rebecca was supposed to have gone to the market AND to the video store to return to movies and pick up some new ones. That had been the plan at the time that Rebecca left for the market. Rebecca had simply forgotten to stop at the video store and that is why she went back out; Jeff did not suddenly decide that they desperately needed videos and then insist that she go out to the video store despite the fact that they already had a satellite dish.

2.) Rebecca told police and a videotaped statement that she was the one insisting that Jeffrey up and give her more money for her to go back to the video store, he had originally given her $40 and she spent approximately $33 at the grocery store and therefore needed more money for the videos.

3.) Although it may appear suspicious for her to go to the video store when they had just gotten a satellite dish the previous week, however, it really wasn't suspicious at all in light of what she told police right after the child died. Unfortunately, the jury was never made aware of this. During her videotaped statement she told police that she was going to the video store to rent some movies but also to RETURN movies they had previously watched. The movies they had previously rented needed to be returned or they would have been overdue. Also, during her videotaped statement police asked her whether the video store that she went to was the one that she usually goes to, and she told them that it was. They asked her whether or not she knew anybody that worked there – would anybody recognize her as having been there that night? She responded that she wasn't sure but she also mentioned that there had been a new employee that she'd seen JUST THE PREVIOUS NIGHT when she was there at blockbuster. She said that he was messing up on the register because he was new and she thought his name was Josh.

4.) obviously Rebecca had been at that very video store just the previous night renting the very videos that needed to be returned on the night in question. Thus, it appears that Rebecca and just were still in the habit of renting videos DESPITE the fact that they had purchased a satellite dish, because they had done so just the previous night.

All of this is documented in the transcript of Rebecca's videotaped statement that she gave to police on February 23, 2002, the day after the child died. The videotape was never provided to the defense and therefore the jury was never made aware of any of this.

[album]]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WO3QHa12EAxlp0A-aQnTHp0f8Zla2OX8yWlwSzAr01M/edit?usp=sharing[/album]
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:34 pm

okay now I tried to attach photographs of the pages of the transcript of the videotaped statement where she's made these statements, I'm wondering why they did not post
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:34 pm

I have written about this case on Ground Report and I stand by what I wrote. The trial was a gross violation of due process. In this type of case, it is absurd to try the case without providing the defense with forensic experts on all relevant issues. Because the expert testimony has not been subject to the adversary process, there is no way to determine whether it has any validity. This would be an excellent case for an appellate court to use to spell out the due process requirement that, under appropriate circumstances, a defense must be provided with access to forensic consultants and experts, if necessary at state expense. I am reasonably confident that, after a truly fair trial, there is not going to be the evidence necessary to convict. But the first step is the easiest one - reverse the conviction on the grounds that the trial was grossly unfair and provide the defendant an opportunity to have a fair trial.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:42 pm

can anybody tell me why I cannot get the pictures to post?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:52 pm

regarding the rest of Michael Burks points:

she spit up on the bed because she was sick, that's all documented in the medical reports. She was on the bed, their bed, because that's where they changed her. Many people do. As far as why did just change the sheets when only a small child had spit up on them, it might have only been a small amount but it was still vomit. My chihuahua is only 7 pounds and he's vomited on my bed at least ten times in the years I have owned him. Any reasonably claim person would change the sheets; it's vomit and it smells.

With respect to nurse Godbold testifying that she rolled the child over and was blown away by what she saw, I'm sure she was blown away by what she saw. A dilated anus to about the size of a quarter is an uncommon thing to see. The problem is that nurse Godbold drew a conclusion about what caused the anus to dilate without having any medical basis to draw that conclusion. Nurse Godbold had assumed the child must've been penetrated, and it truly was a rush to judgment. But had judgment not been rushed, and had all of the presenting symptoms then evaluating properly, it would have been clear that this child was not sexually assaulted. you noted that Godbold testified that she saw stool losing from the rectum, which she did not see was any blood. She claimed that she saw some tears, but the autopsy later confirmed that there was no tearing, which explains why she didn't see any blood. At the time that Godbold saw the child's rectum it was admittedly covered in losing stool, and in order to gain a clear view of the condition of the child's anus at autopsy the child had to be cleaned up prior to being examined. And then she was thoroughly examined, and the medical examiner looked for tears and specifically did not find any. As far as Godbold testimony that the anus and the photographs "didn't do justice" to the one that she saw in the emergency room, what you should find suspicious is the fact that the prosecution had in their possession right there at trial photographs of the child's anus taken in the emergency room as well as the photograph taken during the autopsy. The prosecutor chose to show the medical witnesses, including Godbold, ONLY the photograph of the child's anus taken at autopsy. And when Godbold testified that that photograph did not do justice to what she saw there in the emergency room, it's suspicious that the prosecution didn't pull out the photographs of the child's anus at the emergency room and say is this what you mean?
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:16 pm

MichaelB. Here is the map I promised you earlier.
Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:25 pm

Image
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:07 pm

JenFitzgerald wrote:can anybody tell me why I cannot get the pictures to post?


Thanks for posting them. So she would have been fully impeached and lied on the stand about two major points. Jeffrey did bath the baby previously and it was her who wanted the movies and that was nothing out of the ordinary.

You need an imageshack.us account. Upload image to that then copy the url here, highlight it, then click the [img] tag box.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:07 am

erasmus44 wrote:I have written about this case on Ground Report and I stand by what I wrote. The trial was a gross violation of due process. In this type of case, it is absurd to try the case without providing the defense with forensic experts on all relevant issues. Because the expert testimony has not been subject to the adversary process, there is no way to determine whether it has any validity. This would be an excellent case for an appellate court to use to spell out the due process requirement that, under appropriate circumstances, a defense must be provided with access to forensic consultants and experts, if necessary at state expense. I am reasonably confident that, after a truly fair trial, there is not going to be the evidence necessary to convict. But the first step is the easiest one - reverse the conviction on the grounds that the trial was grossly unfair and provide the defendant an opportunity to have a fair trial.



Thank you so much for your articles and for trying to help people understand what has really happened to Jeffrey Havard.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:58 am

Robert E Clark suspended for 2 years.

http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2009/09B1631.opn.pdf

http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2565:attorney-robert-e-clark-of-vidalia-la-drug-abuser-&catid=150:louisiana-attorney-misfits&Itemid=100

Attorney Robert E. Clark of Vidalia, LA; drug abuser

The state of Louisiana provided Robert E. Clark with a law license in 1983.

In 2007, Dennis Roberts, a longtime friend of Bobby’s was arrested on charges of possession of cocaine in Natchez, Mississippi. Later on Roberts told law enforcement that in return for leniency on his cocaine charge, he could arrange to obtain marijuana from Bobby. The officers allowed Roberts to meet with Bobby at his home, where Bobby gave Roberts a bag of marijuana.

When the cops searched Bobby’s home they found marijuana, a variety of drug paraphernalia, and residual amounts of cocaine, muscle relaxants and Zanax. Bob was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

As a consequence of his criminal conduct, the Louisiana Supreme Court punished Bobby by gifting him with a two-year suspension of his law license.

As we speak (ca. April 2012) Bobby practices law at 109 Carter Street in Vidalia,
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:34 pm

MichaelB wrote:http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/PETITION_FOR_POST-CONVICTION_RELIEF_DENIED_-_5-22-2008.pdf

From page 22:

William Havard's (the grandfather) affidavit said he bought Jeffrey a truck for work but he quit his job soon as he got it. He asked his neighbours to call the police once because Jeffrey wouldn't let them onto their own property and he himself had to call the police sometimes to "calm him down". Lastly, Jeffrey would have people over and take drugs at the trailer.

Daniel Bradshaw (childhood friend) said Jeffrey got into drugs and was hanging out with the wrong people.

Australia Bradshaw described him as happy go lucky, said Jeffrey went to live with them for a while, Jeffrey's grandfather would get angry at him and he'd say hurtful words to his grandfather.

Etta White described him as super with a great personality.

Cheryl Havard never stated in her affidavits or testimony Jeffrey was abused.

Jeffrey never stated he was abused in his affidavits.

Is this accurate or contested?




Quick question - Are you reading these documents in chronological order?
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:14 pm

Lori wrote:
MichaelB wrote:http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/PETITION_FOR_POST-CONVICTION_RELIEF_DENIED_-_5-22-2008.pdf

From page 22:

William Havard's (the grandfather) affidavit said he bought Jeffrey a truck for work but he quit his job soon as he got it. He asked his neighbours to call the police once because Jeffrey wouldn't let them onto their own property and he himself had to call the police sometimes to "calm him down". Lastly, Jeffrey would have people over and take drugs at the trailer.

Daniel Bradshaw (childhood friend) said Jeffrey got into drugs and was hanging out with the wrong people.

Australia Bradshaw described him as happy go lucky, said Jeffrey went to live with them for a while, Jeffrey's grandfather would get angry at him and he'd say hurtful words to his grandfather.

Etta White described him as super with a great personality.

Cheryl Havard never stated in her affidavits or testimony Jeffrey was abused.

Jeffrey never stated he was abused in his affidavits.

Is this accurate or contested?




Quick question - Are you reading these documents in chronological order?


I started on Page 1 of both documents but only read 1/3rd of Jeffrey's appeal so far. I've read it previously though. The case law stuff I skip over.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:07 am

MichaelB wrote:
Lori wrote:
MichaelB wrote:http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/PETITION_FOR_POST-CONVICTION_RELIEF_DENIED_-_5-22-2008.pdf

From page 22:

William Havard's (the grandfather) affidavit said he bought Jeffrey a truck for work but he quit his job soon as he got it. He asked his neighbours to call the police once because Jeffrey wouldn't let them onto their own property and he himself had to call the police sometimes to "calm him down". Lastly, Jeffrey would have people over and take drugs at the trailer.

Daniel Bradshaw (childhood friend) said Jeffrey got into drugs and was hanging out with the wrong people.

Australia Bradshaw described him as happy go lucky, said Jeffrey went to live with them for a while, Jeffrey's grandfather would get angry at him and he'd say hurtful words to his grandfather.

Etta White described him as super with a great personality.

Cheryl Havard never stated in her affidavits or testimony Jeffrey was abused.

Jeffrey never stated he was abused in his affidavits.

Is this accurate or contested?




Quick question - Are you reading these documents in chronological order?


I started on Page 1 of both documents but only read 1/3rd of Jeffrey's appeal so far. I've read it previously though. The case law stuff I skip over.



I get that, the case law, while extremely important, is confusing for those that are laypeople (like myself), but my suggestion to you is to read them in order, because if you do, you will see where the MSC (for example) gave Dr. Lauridson extra time to give his opinion, because he has such trouble getting proper slides from Hayne (the original set was inadequate for review,) yet when he submitted his final opinion that excluded sexual assault and SBS, the MSC simply ignored it.

Also, certain things are irrelevant, Jeffrey's grandparents demanded custody of him when he was 12. Even if the only witnessed the injuries and not the actual abuse . The MSC ignored that, too. People don't generally admit to condoning abuse and abuse by an adult is NEVER the fault of the child.

Being abused in mo way makes a person an abuser.

Reading the Petitions and responses in order will answer your questions as to what the defense disputes.

The crux of this case is the only thing that binds Jeffrey. The anal dilation. Which was never diagnosed by anyone, ever, with the proper ability to so so.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:14 am

Where I stand atm is I've gone from firmly convinced of his guilt to now having some reasonable doubt because of the mothers testi-lies. It's now believable that he wasn't behaving really suspicious that night as far as the movies/groceries/baby bathing. I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital. He wasn't a 10 year old boy who dropped his baby sister and didn't know what to do.

The trial was a farce. I know we all agree about that. How does Arias get over $1.6 million and counting for her defence and she admits doing it yet Jeffrey was given $2500 and one of his lawyers was a druggie working a DP case.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:28 am

MichaelB wrote:Where I stand atm is I've gone from firmly convinced of his guilt to now having some reasonable doubt because of the mothers testi-lies. It's now believable that he wasn't behaving really suspicious that night as far as the movies/groceries/baby bathing. I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital.

The trial was a farce. I know we all agree about that. How does Arias get over $1.6 million and counting for her defence and she admits doing it yet Jeffrey was given $2500 and one of his lawyers was a druggie working a DP case.

Ditto to just about all of the above.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:04 am

MichaelB wrote:I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital. He wasn't a 10 year old boy who dropped his baby sister and didn't know what to do.


Responding to just this portion. I think it is very easily true that he 'didn't know what to do'. The baby was crying loudly at first but had calmed down and stopped crying. The mother had checked on her briefly also. His plan was probably to check in on the baby occasionally. I think this is something that happens ALL the time, and in most cases the baby really would be fine.

Adults also are known to take blows to the head, seem fine and then die. Natasha Richardson a very public example.

One very sad statement Jeffery made on the 'Other Side of Justice' radio show:

"I know I dropped her, I know that caused her death. The first few years I was here it didn't bother me so bad to be locked up because on principle I know that I was negligent for dropping her. I know that"

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

Jeffrey joins the show at 41:45 and says the above at 44:45.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:11 am

Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital. He wasn't a 10 year old boy who dropped his baby sister and didn't know what to do.


Responding to just this portion. I think it is very easily true that he 'didn't know what to do'. The baby was crying loudly at first but had calmed down and stopped crying. The mother had checked on her briefly also. His plan was probably to check in on the baby occasionally. I think this is something that happens ALL the time, and in most cases the baby really would be fine.

Adults also are known to take blows to the head, seem fine and then die. Natasha Richardson a very public example.

One very sad statement Jeffery made on the 'Other Side of Justice' radio show:

"I know I dropped her, I know that caused her death. The first few years I was here it didn't bother me so bad to be locked up because on principle I know that I was negligent for dropping her. I know that"

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

Jeffrey joins the show at 41:45 and says the above at 44:45.


Sarah...come on. Seriously? How do you know? You weren't there but you're giving an eyewitness account as if you were. It's all based on what he says. Who would drop a baby and not seek help or advice let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.

Using Ryan Widmers case as an example....I'm firmly convinced of his guilt BUT not beyond all doubt because only he knows what happened BUT I'm firmly convinced of Arias' guilt beyond all doubt because she admits doing it. Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:23 am

The main thing is there is absolutely NO proof of sexual abuse. ALL of the experts agree on this.

There WAS a blow to the back of Chloe's head. So the question is was the blow from accidental injury or child abuse.

Is there ANY previous sign or reason to believe it would be child abuse? Any proof at all?

What would the penalty be for accidental death, negligent death or manslaughter? Wouldn't he already be out of jail for any of these charges?

Jeffrey already feels responsible Chloe's death. He's already paid. I think the best result at this point would be a new trial that eliminates the sexual abuse charge and reduces the charges to time served.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:30 am

MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:Responding to just this portion. I think it is very easily true that he 'didn't know what to do'. The baby was crying loudly at first but had calmed down and stopped crying. The mother had checked on her briefly also. His plan was probably to check in on the baby occasionally. I think this is something that happens ALL the time, and in most cases the baby really would be fine.

Adults also are known to take blows to the head, seem fine and then die. Natasha Richardson a very public example.

One very sad statement Jeffery made on the 'Other Side of Justice' radio show:

"I know I dropped her, I know that caused her death. The first few years I was here it didn't bother me so bad to be locked up because on principle I know that I was negligent for dropping her. I know that"

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

Jeffrey joins the show at 41:45 and says the above at 44:45.


Sarah...come on. Seriously? How do you know? You weren't there but giving an eyewitness account as if you were. It's all based on what he says. Who would drop a back and not seek help or advice let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, then the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.


Okay Michael, I do not know, I wasn't there. What signs have there ever been that Jeffrey abused Chloe or any other child? What signs are there that he is prone to suddenly lose his temper and may have hurt the baby? The baby had stopped crying - yes according to him - but the mother checked on her and she seemed fine at that point. If he thought she was fine why would he seek emergency response? Why would he do that?

let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, then the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.


He should have told everyone about Chloe's fall. I agree with that.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:41 am

MichaelB wrote:Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.


Innocent people will also work to convince people they are innocent, or in Jeffrey's case that it is his fault but an accident. He will do or say anything? His story has been consistent. What reason is there to not believe him?

The sexual abuse has been eliminated by experts, so with that gone the main thing against Jeffrey is not shouting out about the fall. Does that make him guilty of child abuse? or are there other reasonable reasons he didn't do that?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:48 am

Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.


Innocent people will also work to convince people they are innocent, or in Jeffrey's case that it is his fault but an accident. He will do or say anything? His story has been consistent. What reason is there to not believe him?

The sexual abuse has been eliminated by experts, so with that gone the main thing against Jeffrey is not shouting out about the fall. Does that make him guilty of child abuse? or are there other reasonable reasons he didn't do that?


Sarah I'm not trying to be difficult here but it hasn't. Baden is a stooge and worthless, he's not credible. He's just another one of these celebrity hired gun "experts" like Wecht. The prosecution can just as easily go and find 4 or 5 experts to say it was sexual abuse no different than the defence can.....Just like with so many cases.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:55 am

MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.


Innocent people will also work to convince people they are innocent, or in Jeffrey's case that it is his fault but an accident. He will do or say anything? His story has been consistent. What reason is there to not believe him?

The sexual abuse has been eliminated by experts, so with that gone the main thing against Jeffrey is not shouting out about the fall. Does that make him guilty of child abuse? or are there other reasonable reasons he didn't do that?


Sarah I'm not trying to be difficult here but it hasn't. Baden is a stooge and worthless, he's not credible. He's just another one of these celebrity hired gun "experts" like Wecht. The prosecution can just as easily go and find 4 or 5 experts to say it was sexual abuse no different than the defence can.....Just like with so many cases.


There are NO experts who have ever said there was sexual abuse. It's been ages since I read it but both of the other experts were clear that there was NOT anything sexual:

"Dr. Baden also concluded that the anal dilation noted by hospital staff was a common occurrence when a patient is in a coma or after death, and the small anal contusion was likely due to innocent causes, such as constipation, diarrhea or rubbing up against a diaper.

Dr. Baden concluded that Chloe “was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop.”

Former Alabama state medical examiner Dr. James Lauridson also reviewed the case after Jeffrey’s conviction and concluded that the evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault of any kind had taken place. There was no evidence of any tears or lacerations in Chloe’s anus, that would have been especially apparent in a sexual assault of an infant, and it is not out of the ordinary for dilation to occur naturally. He also noted that a thermometer inserted into the Chloe’s anus at the emergency room could have easily caused the small bruise."


I don't agree that the other side could also get experts. This is not a case of dueling experts. No expert has ever said there was a sexual assault.

To be quite graphic - a grown man having sex with an infant would have made rips and tears in the infant that WERE NOT THERE.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:06 am

Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.


Innocent people will also work to convince people they are innocent, or in Jeffrey's case that it is his fault but an accident. He will do or say anything? His story has been consistent. What reason is there to not believe him?

The sexual abuse has been eliminated by experts, so with that gone the main thing against Jeffrey is not shouting out about the fall. Does that make him guilty of child abuse? or are there other reasonable reasons he didn't do that?


Sarah I'm not trying to be difficult here but it hasn't. Baden is a stooge and worthless, he's not credible. He's just another one of these celebrity hired gun "experts" like Wecht. The prosecution can just as easily go and find 4 or 5 experts to say it was sexual abuse no different than the defence can.....Just like with so many cases.


There are NO experts who have ever said there was sexual abuse. It's been ages since I read it but both of the other experts were clear that there was NOT anything sexual:

"Dr. Baden also concluded that the anal dilation noted by hospital staff was a common occurrence when a patient is in a coma or after death, and the small anal contusion was likely due to innocent causes, such as constipation, diarrhea or rubbing up against a diaper.

Dr. Baden concluded that Chloe “was not sexually assaulted and that she died of injuries consistent with an accidental drop.”

Former Alabama state medical examiner Dr. James Lauridson also reviewed the case after Jeffrey’s conviction and concluded that the evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault of any kind had taken place. There was no evidence of any tears or lacerations in Chloe’s anus, that would have been especially apparent in a sexual assault of an infant, and it is not out of the ordinary for dilation to occur naturally. He also noted that a thermometer inserted into the Chloe’s anus at the emergency room could have easily caused the small bruise."


I don't agree that the other side could also get experts. This is not a case of dueling experts. No expert has ever said there was a sexual assault.

To be quite graphic - a grown man having sex with an infant would have made rips and tears in the infant that WERE NOT THERE.


The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:11 am

Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:Responding to just this portion. I think it is very easily true that he 'didn't know what to do'. The baby was crying loudly at first but had calmed down and stopped crying. The mother had checked on her briefly also. His plan was probably to check in on the baby occasionally. I think this is something that happens ALL the time, and in most cases the baby really would be fine.

Adults also are known to take blows to the head, seem fine and then die. Natasha Richardson a very public example.

One very sad statement Jeffery made on the 'Other Side of Justice' radio show:

"I know I dropped her, I know that caused her death. The first few years I was here it didn't bother me so bad to be locked up because on principle I know that I was negligent for dropping her. I know that"

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

Jeffrey joins the show at 41:45 and says the above at 44:45.


Sarah...come on. Seriously? How do you know? You weren't there but giving an eyewitness account as if you were. It's all based on what he says. Who would drop a back and not seek help or advice let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, then the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.


Okay Michael, I do not know, I wasn't there. What signs have there ever been that Jeffrey abused Chloe or any other child? What signs are there that he is prone to suddenly lose his temper and may have hurt the baby? The baby had stopped crying - yes according to him - but the mother checked on her and she seemed fine at that point.If he thought she was fine why would he seek emergency response? Why would he do that?

let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, then the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.


He should have told everyone about Chloe's fall. I agree with that.


Remember the movie Honey I Shrunk The Kids? Well why didn't he say "Honey I Dropped The Baby" at the very least when she got home?
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:14 am

Sarah wrote:The main thing is there is absolutely NO proof of sexual abuse. ALL of the experts agree on this.

There WAS a blow to the back of Chloe's head. So the question is was the blow from accidental injury or child abuse.

Is there ANY previous sign or reason to believe it would be child abuse? Any proof at all?

What would the penalty be for accidental death, negligent death or manslaughter? Wouldn't he already be out of jail for any of these charges?

Jeffrey already feels responsible Chloe's death. He's already paid. I think the best result at this point would be a new trial that eliminates the sexual abuse charge and reduces the charges to time served.

If the blow was to the back of her head, how did she get a cut to the mouth?

I don't think Michael is arguing there was sexual abuse. If he is, I would not go so far due to the association of anal dilation with head injury. The circumstances were nonetheless ripe for abuse. Indeed, this was a classic set up in which abuse is most common: low class couple, living in poor circumstances with a very sickly child that wasn't his. People need a break from the stress this can cause even in better circumstances than this. Maybe she went shopping twice to get a break. Maybe he was angry about her forgetting whatever it was she didn't get the first time. Maybe he resented the child coming between them.

There is an irreducible element of uncertainty about what happened because there were no witnesses, only the account of someone who did not react properly when he dropped her and behaved as though he had something to hide.

I asked before: did she fall all the way to the floor striking her head on the toilet bowl on the way down? That's quite a fall. If that's what happened he must have realised how serious that was but he kept silent when, for all he knew, urgent assistance might have saved her.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:45 am

These are some of the other things I'm interested in.

1. Did he attempt to escape? I still don't understand that claim other than it's been denied it happened.

2. Telling the police officer twice at the hospital he wanted to go home for a shower after the baby died.

3. I think his videotaped interrogation should be made public so people can judge for themselves.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:19 am

MichaelB wrote:These are some of the other things I'm interested in.

1. Did he attempt to escape? I still don't understand that claim other than it's been denied it happened.

2. Telling the police officer twice at the hospital he wanted to go home for a shower after the baby died.

3. I think his videotaped interrogation should be made public so people can judge for themselves.



Numbers 1 and 2 are absolute falsehoods.

We have no copy of the videotaped statement, it has never been converted from VHS, we only have a transcript.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:41 am

MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:
MichaelB wrote:I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital. He wasn't a 10 year old boy who dropped his baby sister and didn't know what to do.


Responding to just this portion. I think it is very easily true that he 'didn't know what to do'. The baby was crying loudly at first but had calmed down and stopped crying. The mother had checked on her briefly also. His plan was probably to check in on the baby occasionally. I think this is something that happens ALL the time, and in most cases the baby really would be fine.

Adults also are known to take blows to the head, seem fine and then die. Natasha Richardson a very public example.

One very sad statement Jeffery made on the 'Other Side of Justice' radio show:

"I know I dropped her, I know that caused her death. The first few years I was here it didn't bother me so bad to be locked up because on principle I know that I was negligent for dropping her. I know that"

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

Jeffrey joins the show at 41:45 and says the above at 44:45.


Sarah...come on. Seriously? How do you know? You weren't there but you're giving an eyewitness account as if you were. It's all based on what he says. Who would drop a baby and not seek help or advice let alone conceal that from emergency responders or nurses and doctors. If his story is true, the baby might be alive if he'll dialled 911.

Using Ryan Widmers case as an example....I'm firmly convinced of his guilt BUT not beyond all doubt because only he knows what happened BUT I'm firmly convinced of Arias' guilt beyond all doubt because she admits doing it. Only Jeffrey knows what happened that night and killers will do and say anything to convince people their innocent or try and game the system if there's a chance of freedom or another trial till the bitter end.



Michael,

Of course none of us were there, but she stopped crying, appeared fine and he put her to bed. The mother checked on her and thought she was fine, also. They call it a lucid period for a reason. Sarah used Natasha Richardson as an excellent example.

Someone that you have respect for told me his child fell off a bed, hitting her head on the floor, they watched her, she is fine. My daughter fell, under her father's care, off a picnic table, when she was a little over a year old, onto concrete. She is fine. Many people hit their heads and don't die.

You equate Jeffrey to a killer here, but he is the first to say that if he had thought something were seriously wrong, the mother would have come home to an empty house, because he would have flew to the hospital. And not the podunk hospital that the mother he insisted he turn around to go to (with an unresponsive child in her arms), but the more sophisticated hospital that he was driving towards. And THAT hospital was as close if not closer than the one the mother insisted on (check the map).
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:58 am

MichaelB wrote:The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.


Michael,

You don't have to believe Baden or Lauridson. You don't have to believe Hayne even though he never mentioned sexual abuse in the autopsy or on the stand.

I think if Hayne (the "prosecutor's best friend") wouldn't go there, then any expert the prosecution could come up with would be be putting their own head on the chopping block, don't you?
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:14 am

Michael, Sarah,
Sorry, my comment got stuck in the middle there. I am still getting used to this thing.

The police searched, believe me they searched, for an object they thought could have been used and they came up with nothing. NOTHING.

Also, the ER doctors and nurses not only jumped to a conclusion, but they didn't find the contusion to the back of her head. That's how competent they were. Hayne found it, yet still he attributed the death to SBS without even questioning the injury.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:50 pm

Michael,
first of all, let's get our facts correct: there has never been any expert testimony that the child was sexually abused. Never. Not even Dr. Hayne, the states start expert witness believed that there was any evidence of sexual abuse. Dr. Hayne testified at trial that the condition of the child's anus was "consistent with" sexual abuse, but he was never asked what he meant by this. The term "consistent with" merely means that sexual abuse could not be ruled out on the basis of the condition of the child's anus, in the same way that sexual abuse could not be ruled out if the child did not have a scratch on her. Dr. Hayne testified in a deposition about the case in 2010, eight years after the conviction, and he unequivocally stated that he did not mention sexual abuse in his autopsy report, "because I did not see any evidence of that, counselor." This was the states only expert was qualified to render any sort of an opinion regarding sexual abuse. You are relying on the road speculation of doctors and nurses who testified that they believed a sexual assault had occurred; however, you've been provided absolutely zero information regarding what training or experience those doctors and nurses have in diagnosing anal sexual assault. The reason that you've been provided no information relative to that is because they were not proffered as expert witnesses by the state prior to testifying. And the reason that they weren't is because they would not have qualified as having sufficient expertise in that area of medicine. It is that simple. Furthermore, not a single medical witness testified regarding WHY they concluded the child had been sexually assaulted. What studies did they rely on? August 100 cases of dilated anus how many have been confirmed as being the result of sexual assault? Are there any other causes of a dilated anus in a child such as this and if so were they considered and discounted as being unlikely? All of these things must be considered when rendering any type of a diagnosis or finding. The American Academy of pediatrics publishes guidelines for the reporting of suspected sexual assault every several years, and the guidelines clearly suggests that if the child presents with a dilated anus without any previous history of having been assaulted and without any confirmatory lab tests (the lab tests were negative in this case) then medical personnel should seek the opinion of an EXPERT to determine whether or not suspicion of sexual assault should be reported to the police. The American Academy of pediatrics issued guidelines just this year with some added recommendations; one of those recommendations is that pediatricians receive training in the treatment and diagnosis of sexual assault. The American Academy of pediatrics has determined that pediatricians are not receiving proper training in this specific area. In this case, the treating physician – Dr. Lori Patterson – was not a pediatrician; however, the jury was not aware of this because the only testimony she provided relative to her experience and training with that she was an emergency room doctor on duty that night. That was the totality of her testimony regarding her experience in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual assault. The jury was also not told that she had been practicing for total of a year and a half at the time the child was brought in that night. Dr. Darr, the child's regular pediatrician, provided little more with respect to her background in the diagnosis and treatment of child sexual abuse, merely stating that she was a pediatrician and had been for a few years and had been this child's regular pediatrician since the time of her birth. The jury was not told that Dr. Darr received her medical degree in Pakistan, where there is simply no training at all during medical school regarding child sexual abuse. None. It's incredible to me that you have discounted Dr. Baden's opinion, who has more training in this area than all of the witnesses combined and then some, yet you are willing to apparently accept the opinion of coroner Lee who did not even attend medical school. The prosecution argued in its closing that it was immediately apparent to coroner Lee that something was terribly wrong with this child and that in his opinion the child had been sexually assaulted. The prosecutor went on to state that this is the coroner that were talking about,and told the jury to just imagine what she sees. however;, coroner Lee had been the corner for all of her teen months at the time the child died. Looking at Adams County vital statistics, it appears that there were less than 10 infant deaths during men 13 month timeframe in which coroner Lee had been in office, several of those deaths occurred in utero and there is no information relative to whether or not any of the remaining infants died under circumstances suspicious for abuse. Coroner Lee essentially was no more qualified than myself or your self in determining whether or not the child had been abused. With respect to Sheriff Ferrell, his testimony was that he was "shown trauma" to the child's anal area, and that "Dr. Patterson was the explaining physician." She was the EXPLAINING physician. Sheriff Ferrell's testimony was nothing more than a regurgitation of Dr. Patterson's opinion, which I just described above as being unqualified.

There is a reason why autopsies are performed in the first place; it is to confirm or just affirmed the suspected cause of death and circumstances surrounding the cause of death. In this particular case the medical examiner to perform the autopsy could not confirm that the suspicions of the medical staff that the child had been sexually assaulted. He had been told to look for sexual assault and he did look for sexual assault but he could not find any evidence of it. What is extremely important as to realize that the prosecutor knew this. The prosecutor was told by Dr. Hayne prior to the time that he took the stand that he could not confirm a sexual assault had occurred and yet the prosecutor did not disclose this to the defense and the prosecutor elicited misleading testimony from Dr. Hayne – the misleading testimony being the "consistent with" testimony. And then the prosecutor stood up before the jury and argued and interpretation of Dr. Hayne's testimony that he knew to be untrue. He argued to the jury that every single one of the states witnesses had testified that they saw the child's and immediately knew that she had been sexually assaulted. Prosecutor Rosenblatt stood up during his opening statement and told the jury that Dr. Hayne would come in there and tell them that he had "confirmed the nurses and doctors worst fears" that the child had been sexually assaulted. However, that was NOT the testimony of Dr. Hayne. The fact that Jeff's defense counsel did not question Dr. Hayne in any meaningful way regarding what his true opinion was is clear proof of ineffective assistance of counsel. Had defense counsel merely asked Dr. Hayne is anything else could have caused the child's anus to be in that condition he would have clearly testified that there are a number of other things that could've caused back condition. That's the very reason why Dr. Hayne could not conclude that the child had been sexually assaulted. If the only thing that could cause the child's anus to be in that condition was a sexual assault he would've necessarily had to have concluded that a sexual assault occurred. Hayne told the prosecutor that he could not make that conclusion. Yet the prosecutor stood up and argued to the jury that there "ain't no other way to explain it than to admit" that he sexually assaulted the child. Do the prosecutor, again, knew that this was not true. He knew this because he heard it directly from Hayne's mouth. Hayne testified during his deposition that he told not only the prosecutor but coroner Lee Wright from the beginning that he could not conclude a sexual assault occurred.

You should also take into consideration coroner Lee's credibility here. In the states Main police report authored by Sheriff Ferrell, it states that on the night that the autopsy was completed coroner Lee placed a phone call to Sheriff Ferrell in order to relay l Dr. Hayne's preliminary findings to Sheriff Ferrell (coroner Lee had received telephone call from Dr. Hayne upon completion of the autopsy, as is normal protocol.) The report went on to state that Dr. Hayne found that the child had died of subdural hemorrhage thought to be caused by shaken baby. The report also went on to state that "the anus and mouth had positively been identified as having been invaded by a foreign object which caused trauma and damage." We now know that Dr. Hayne said no such thing. I will address the head injury in a minute.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:58 pm

I'm also using voice recognition software which isn't working very well today so I apologize for the numerous errors in my previous post, grammatical and otherwise.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:33 pm

With respect to the head injury:

first, of course it is true that any responsible caretaker would have called 911 or immediately sought treatment for the child if they dropped the child AND had any reason to believe the child had suffered any sort of serious injury. That's the problem with head injuries. That's the problem subdural bleeding. Immediately following the injury the person (child or adult) often appears to be perfectly fine – just a little bump to the head. This is so because the serious injury is not caused by the actual blow itself but it's caused by intracranial pressure which builds up as blood slowly leaks into the subdural area. This is why people often times have what's been referred to as a "lucid interval" after an accident. The person appears to be perfectly fine until intracranial pressure builds up and suddenly it the person is in a critical condition. As pointed out above, none of us were there and none of us saw what happened. We can only speculate from our own personal experiences. Jeff has given account of what happened and we need to look at that account and see whether or not it's even plausible that things could've occurred the way that Jeff said they did. The child was either shaken to death or she suffered a dramatic head injury – both of those things cause the build up of intracranial pressure from subdural bleeding, which is what caused the death of this child. If the child died of a traumatic head injury is impossible to determine based upon medical evidence and science whether or not it was intentionally inflicted or accidentally inflicted. a child that is dropped onto a hard surface is going to suffer the same types of injury as a child who intentionally hit onto a hard surface. Shaken baby syndrome is a medical theory that was developed in order to explain symptoms of head injury where there is no externaly visible injury to the head – where there is no impact injury. Under the shaken baby syndrome theory, where there is no external sign of impact it is thought the child must've received the injury due to a severe shaking because there is no external sign of impact. under the theory of shaken baby syndrome, in order to diagnose it there must be the presence of a classic triad of symptoms – subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhages, and it the lack of an alternative explanation for the injury. in this case there was subdural hemorrhage and there was also retinal hemorrhages, and Dr. Hayne was not aware of any alternative explanation for the injuries. Shaken baby is suspected when a caretaker brings a child into the emergency room with subdural hemorrhage and retinal hemorrhage and no visible sign of impact and the factual account that the caregiver provides regarding what led to the child's condition does not adequately explain the child's condition. Medical experts used to believe that subdural bleeding could not occur from shortfalls; however, that belief has now been discounted. It is now widely recognized that children can and do suffer subdural bleeding as a result of very shortfalls. In fact, in one study that was conducted by Dr. John Plunkett, the grandmother of a child suffering these types of injuries just happened to be recording the child at the time the accident happened. She was filming her grandchildren when one of them fell off the jungle gym and landed on her head. The child presented at the hospital as having the classic triad of symptoms and was originally suspected as having been shaken. Thankfully, it just so happened that the whole incident had been recorded and that is what saved caregivers from being prosecuted in that particular case. That one incident led Dr. Plunkett to conduct further studies relative to shortfalls and the results have shown that children can and do suffer these types of severe head injuries due to short falls. In this particular case the child did have an externally visible sign of impacts to the back of her head. There was a 6 centimeter contusion to the back of this child had which clearly was the impact injury; however, the doctors and nurses at the hospital ALL neglected to notice it. The reason they did not notice it is because once they saw the condition of the child's anus and had assumed that she had been sexually assaulted, they then assume that the child must have been physically abused as well and they simply looked no further. They suspected that there was intracranial bleeding and pressure and they saw the retinal hemorrhages and they didn't look any further for any evidence of an impact injury because they jumped to the conclusion that she must've been shaken to death in the same respect that they jumped to the conclusion that she had been sexually assaulted.

With respect to the suggestion that the moment that Jeff dropped the child he should have known that the injury was likely to be extremely serious and therefore he should've immediately called 911. This is simply not true. For years, the nations leading pediatric experts all believed that these kinds of fatal injuries could not occur from a shortfall. Four years some of the nations most educated medical experts believed that it was impossible for a child to suffer this type of serious injury from a shortfall or a bump to the head, so it's no surprise that a reasonable caretaker could also have believed that the child was fine. But there was no serious injury that needed emergency attention. a reasonable person will seek medical attention when it appears that a serious injury has been suffered and in this case , like many other cases, it was reasonable to believe that no serious injury had occurred. Jeff did not think the child had suffered any sort of serious injury and after the child calm down he put her to bed. When mother came home and mother checked on her the child appeared fine. this was a child that was not exhibiting outward symptoms that she was seriously injured. However once it appeared that a serious injury had been suffered no time was wasted – Jeff and mother immediately jumped in the car and drove the child to the hospital. They didn't call 911 because they did not have a phone. The most reasonable and expedient action they thought to take was to jump in the car into drive the child to the hospital. Jeff certainly should have told medical specials that you dropped the child but make no mistake about it – the doctors and nurses would have done nothing differently in their treatment of the child's if Jeff had told them. They treated the child AS IF she had suffered a head trauma, if Jeff had told them that he had dropped the child their course of treatment would not in any way have been changed. The outcome of this case would've been identical whether Jeff had told them he dropped her or not.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:48 pm

Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:54 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?


Why are you putting the 911 call on Jeff? Why not ask about the mother?

As far as I know there was no working phone in the trailer. Jen can elaborate on that.

The baby was intubated at the hospital. The process took 20 minutes. The injuries to the mouth most likely occurred then.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:02 pm

MichaelB wrote:
The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.


Your statement about Baden is just silly. The guy is a world renowned expert.

You are putting too much confidence in the medical staff at the hospital. None of them were qualified to diagnose sexual assault. We know that dilation is known to happen in infant death due to head injury. That is proven fact.

The staff was dealing with an infant death. Someone shouted sexual assault and everyone was disgusted and with that possibility and joined in. It was a group think scenario.

Please tell me how the prosecution can refute that dilation occurs in infants with head injuries at death.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:22 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?


Why are you putting the 911 call on Jeff? Why not ask about the mother?

As far as I know there was no working phone in the trailer. Jen can elaborate on that.

The baby was intubated at the hospital. The process took 20 minutes. The injuries to the mouth most likely occurred then.

I must be confused about the facts. Didn't Jeff say he wiped blood from the baby's mouth? I didn't know they had no phone. Maybe somebody nearby had one.

ETA and he dropped the baby, not the mother. Don't understand this one Bruce. He didn't tell her the child had an accident.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:42 pm

Just reading the autopsy report I am wondering how the child acquired these injuries to the front of her face if he dropped her so that the back of her head struck the ceramic:

Contusions (plural) of the forehead
contusion of the bridge of the nose
contusion of the upper lip
Tear of the frenulum
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:21 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?


Why are you putting the 911 call on Jeff? Why not ask about the mother?

As far as I know there was no working phone in the trailer. Jen can elaborate on that.

The baby was intubated at the hospital. The process took 20 minutes. The injuries to the mouth most likely occurred then.

I must be confused about the facts. Didn't Jeff say he wiped blood from the baby's mouth? I didn't know they had no phone. Maybe somebody nearby had one.

ETA and he dropped the baby, not the mother. Don't understand this one Bruce. He didn't tell her the child had an accident.


Jeff was not a parent. He looked at the baby and thought she was okay. He put her to bed. Later when the baby was non responsive, Rebecca did not attempt to call 911. You suggested that Jeff's lack of calling 911 was suspicious.

Jeff did say that he wiped red from the baby's face but thought it was medicine of the same color. There are injuries to the mouth and nose that I have no doubt came from resuscitation efforts. Resuscitation efforts are often brutal. Bones are broken, mouths are injured. They are trying to save a life. Superficial injuries are not a concern.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:23 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Just reading the autopsy report I am wondering how the child acquired these injuries to the front of her face if he dropped her so that the back of her head struck the ceramic:

Contusions (plural) of the forehead
contusion of the bridge of the nose
contusion of the upper lip
Tear of the frenulum


I have the autopsy photos and any contusions to the forehead are very minor and could have easily come from medical staff holding the baby's head in place while trying to intubate.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:27 pm

People drop infants all the time. We are human after all. When my daughter was an infant she fell off the bed while on my watch. I did not call 911. She stopped crying. I felt awful, I apologized to her profusely (which she did not understand of course) and I put her in her swing to calm her down. I was 24 years old and it was our first child. If she would have sustained a non visible head injury like Chloe did, would I have ended up on death row?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:31 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?


Why are you putting the 911 call on Jeff? Why not ask about the mother?

As far as I know there was no working phone in the trailer. Jen can elaborate on that.

The baby was intubated at the hospital. The process took 20 minutes. The injuries to the mouth most likely occurred then.

I must be confused about the facts. Didn't Jeff say he wiped blood from the baby's mouth? I didn't know they had no phone. Maybe somebody nearby had one.

ETA and he dropped the baby, not the mother. Don't understand this one Bruce. He didn't tell her the child had an accident.


Jeff was not a parent. He looked at the baby and thought she was okay. He put her to bed. Later when the baby was non responsive,Rebecca did not attempt to call 911. You suggested that Jeff's lack of calling 911 was suspicious.

Jeff did say that he wiped red from the baby's face but thought it was medicine of the same color. There are injuries to the mouth and nose that I have no doubt came from resuscitation efforts. Resuscitation efforts are often brutal. Bones are broken, mouths are injured. They are trying to save a life. Superficial injuries are not a concern.


He didn't tell the mother he dropped the baby when she got back from buying groceries and he never told the hospital staff what happened. That's suspicious.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:36 pm

MichaelB wrote:He didn't tell the mother he dropped the baby when she got back from buying groceries and he never told the hospital staff what happened. That's suspicious.


Of course it is. It is a mistake that might very well cost him his life, but it shouldn't. Jeff should have told Rebecca. He was not a parent and he did not want to upset his girlfriend. He thought Chloe was okay.

The hospital was chaotic. He was left in the waiting room alone and then quickly accused of being a baby rapist. It was overwhelming.

The baby was very sick leading up to that day. Once Jeff heard the death could have resulted from a head injury he immediately told the police what happened.

Sorry, short on time. BBL
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:55 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.


Your statement about Baden is just silly. The guy is a world renowned expert.

You are putting too much confidence in the medical staff at the hospital. None of them were qualified to diagnose sexual assault. We know that dilation is known to happen in infant death due to head injury. That is proven fact.

The staff was dealing with an infant death. Someone shouted sexual assault and everyone was disgusted and with that possibility and joined in. It was a group think scenario.

Please tell me how the prosecution can refute that dilation occurs in infants with head injuries at death.


It's not silly. There's an industry of these experts/hired guns that both sides use and they'll say whatever for whoevers paying them.

If Jeffrey gets a new trial, I think the jurors will need to be shown photographs of other babies who were dropped and told "these babies weren't sexually assaulted and look exactly like the hospital staff described Chloe"
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:57 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.


Your statement about Baden is just silly. The guy is a world renowned expert.

You are putting too much confidence in the medical staff at the hospital. None of them were qualified to diagnose sexual assault. We know that dilation is known to happen in infant death due to head injury. That is proven fact.

The staff was dealing with an infant death. Someone shouted sexual assault and everyone was disgusted and with that possibility and joined in. It was a group think scenario.

Please tell me how the prosecution can refute that dilation occurs in infants with head injuries at death.


It's not silly. There's an industry of these experts/hired guns that both sides use and they'll say whatever for whoevers paying them.

If Jeffrey gets a new trial, I think the jurors will need to be shown photographs of other babies who were dropped and told "these babies weren't sexually assaulted and look exactly like the hospital staff described Chloe"



No, they will need to see photos of dilated anuses from babies that died from head trauma. This will be absolutely no problem.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:05 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Would the outcome have been the same had he called 911 right away, without any delay at all? How much time passed unnecessarily due to his failure to do that?

I imagine the hospital staff did not notice the 6cm contusion because nobody told them she baby had been dropped and had struck it's head. That must have made quite a clunk. A fall on the floor would be less alarming. May I ask again how the child got an injury to her mouth from falling and hitting the back of her head?

When the child was checked by grandma and seemed fine, was she conscious or just assumed to be sleeping?


Why are you putting the 911 call on Jeff? Why not ask about the mother?

As far as I know there was no working phone in the trailer. Jen can elaborate on that.

The baby was intubated at the hospital. The process took 20 minutes. The injuries to the mouth most likely occurred then.




There was no working phone in the trailer.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:07 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
The prosecution can easily find experts to refute anything the defence comes up with. There's no recantation from any of the nurses, doctors, coroner or assistant coroner (who didn't testify) or Sherrif who saw what they saw when the diaper came off. I don't think anyone could think he actually put his penis in the baby. It might have been something else if he did something.

Baden is out and worthless. James Lauridson is the only credible expert but it's just his opinion no different than an expert having a different opinion about DNA or footprints.


Your statement about Baden is just silly. The guy is a world renowned expert.

You are putting too much confidence in the medical staff at the hospital. None of them were qualified to diagnose sexual assault. We know that dilation is known to happen in infant death due to head injury. That is proven fact.

The staff was dealing with an infant death. Someone shouted sexual assault and everyone was disgusted and with that possibility and joined in. It was a group think scenario.

Please tell me how the prosecution can refute that dilation occurs in infants with head injuries at death.


It's not silly. There's an industry of these experts/hired guns that both sides use and they'll say whatever for whoevers paying them.

If Jeffrey gets a new trial, I think the jurors will need to be shown photographs of other babies who were dropped and told "these babies weren't sexually assaulted and look exactly like the hospital staff described Chloe"



No, they will need to see photos of dilated anuses from babies that died from head trauma. This will be absolutely no problem.


That's what I meant :)
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:39 pm

MichaelB wrote:Where I stand atm is I've gone from firmly convinced of his guilt to now having some reasonable doubt because of the mothers testi-lies. It's now believable that he wasn't behaving really suspicious that night as far as the movies/groceries/baby bathing. I'll never see innocence because I don't believe anyone could be if a child in their care is taken to a hospital and dies because of something they did even if it was an accident, especially when the person didn't dial 911, immediately seek medical attention and say what happened at the hospital. He wasn't a 10 year old boy who dropped his baby sister and didn't know what to do.

The trial was a farce. I know we all agree about that. How does Arias get over $1.6 million and counting for her defence and she admits doing it yet Jeffrey was given $2500 and one of his lawyers was a druggie working a DP case.



Sermos had tried his first death penalty case in January 2002 and Jeff's in February 2002. Wanna guess where the first guy is?

As to the difference in Arias funding and Jeffrey's funding, well, he IS in Mississippi.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:33 pm

PDF 5 Page 11

in closing, there's a reference made to his statement where he says to the mother when she gets back from the grocery store "Shh. Don't bother her. Don't go in there. Don't go in where the baby is"

What's the story with that? Have his words been twisted? It's her baby that he's dropped and he's telling her not to go in there.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:12 pm

Ernie Lopez

http://www.propublica.org/article/facin ... -plea-deal

During the trial, hospital workers and a medical examiner provided the key testimony, describing bleeding in the child's genital area and bruising on multiple areas of her body. Vas died a day after being hospitalized. The jurors sentenced Lopez to a 60-year prison term.

Lopez, however, insisted he'd never harmed the child. After a host of medical experts challenged the evidence at the heart of the case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals last year overturned his conviction, ruling that Lopez had received ineffective legal representation during the trial. Dr. Michael Laposata, the top pathologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, reviewed hospital records and concluded that Vas had been afflicted by a severe blood-clotting disorder that caused her to bruise and bleed.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:27 pm

MichaelB wrote:PDF 5 Page 11

in closing, there's a reference made to his statement where he says to the mother when she gets back from the grocery store "Shh. Don't bother her. Don't go in there. Don't go in where the baby is"

What's the story with that? Have his words been twisted? It's her baby that he's dropped and he's telling her not to go in there.




The words are twisted, but the only person to ever make any statement to that effect was Jeff himself. In his videotaped statement, he said that when Rebecca came in with the groceries, he told her, "Shhh, she's sleeping. Don't bother her", that's a quote. The mother went in there anyway and all appeared well.

There was nothing suspicious about it, especially since at this point he thought Chloe was just fine.

What IS suspicious about it is the way DA Harper twisted those words, just like he misled the jury by letting the ER staff testify to their "observations" because the jury saw them as credible, just like he showed the autopsy photo to the ER staff leading them to say that the picture "didn't do it justice", leaving the meaning of that to the jurors imaginations (even though he had the pictures taken in the ER right there in the courtroom), just like he tried to say Jeff confessed in the videotape until the judge stopped him and said there was no confession, just like he stated in closing (as Rosenblatt stated in opening arguments) that Hayne said the child was sexually assaulted, when Hayne said no such thing, ever. THAT is what is suspicious. Along with just about everything else the state said during Jeff's trial.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:19 pm

388
You can see in these photos that there is very little room in the bathroom. The bowl of the toilet would be a significant fall if the baby squirmed out of Jeff's hands.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:31 pm

Here is the transcript of Jeff's statement.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:35 pm

389
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:48 pm

390
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:48 pm

391
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:52 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:389


Thanks Bruce. That looks respectable enough compared to this which is what I thought it might have been.

Image
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:25 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Here is the transcript of Jeff's statement.


Page 7. there's mention of a cell phone.

Houston we have a problem. Page 12 He says he's never bathed her before.

Page 16. was the first diaper he put on where he says the strap/tab broke recovered confirming his story?
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:36 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Here is the transcript of Jeff's statement.


Page 7. there's mention of a cell phone.

Houston we have a problem. Page 12 He says he's never bathed her before.

Page 16. was the first diaper he put on where he says the strap/tab broke recovered confirming his story?




Where do you see mention of a cell phone on page 7?

And my apologies for the misinformation about there not being a picture of the trailer. I was told there were no existing pictures.

Why is there a problem with him never bathing her before? Rebecca told two different people that night that Jeff was supposed to bathe her and we have written statements confirming that.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:55 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Just reading the autopsy report I am wondering how the child acquired these injuries to the front of her face if he dropped her so that the back of her head struck the ceramic:

Contusions (plural) of the forehead
contusion of the bridge of the nose
contusion of the upper lip
Tear of the frenulum


I have the autopsy photos and any contusions to the forehead are very minor and could have easily come from medical staff holding the baby's head in place while trying to intubate.

Was this accepted by the medical staff at trial, that these facial injuries were all caused at the hospital?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:02 am

Lori wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Here is the transcript of Jeff's statement.


Page 7. there's mention of a cell phone.

Houston we have a problem. Page 12 He says he's never bathed her before.

Page 16. was the first diaper he put on where he says the strap/tab broke recovered confirming his story?




Where do you see mention of a cell phone on page 7?

And my apologies for the misinformation about there not being a picture of the trailer. I was told there were no existing pictures.

Why is there a problem with him never bathing her before? Rebecca told two different people that night that Jeff was supposed to bathe her and we have written statements confirming that.


Sorry page 9 "a friend of mine called me on my cell phone"

Hearing trailer + drug use can be deceiving because I assumed it was one of those horrible things people live in and trailer park trash.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:42 am

Yes, he says he has a cell phone and he also talks about 'freaking out' when he dropped her. He says he thought he had killed her when he dropped her, so in his version she must have thumped the toilet very hard. I do not understand the shaking he describes and I don't understand his description of wiping up between her legs too hard. Blood came from her nose and he wiped other blood away. There was red stuff in her vomit which he assumed was medicine even though he had seen her bleed from the nose and thought he had killed her. He had never given her a bath before. Had he changed her before? In his favour, he says he had bathed his little brother before.

There is reference to him being prone to anger and to being abused as a child himself. He had planned the evening all out and Chloe being sickly was shaping up to spoil the evening.

I just do not believe his story. I think in a fit of anger he lashed out at this unhappy child, that the child vomited as a result and that, freaked out by what he had done, he gave her a bath and did all the other things to cover up.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:17 am

MichaelB wrote:
Lori wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Here is the transcript of Jeff's statement.


Page 7. there's mention of a cell phone.

Houston we have a problem. Page 12 He says he's never bathed her before.

Page 16. was the first diaper he put on where he says the strap/tab broke recovered confirming his story?




Where do you see mention of a cell phone on page 7?

And my apologies for the misinformation about there not being a picture of the trailer. I was told there were no existing pictures.

Why is there a problem with him never bathing her before? Rebecca told two different people that night that Jeff was supposed to bathe her and we have written statements confirming that.


Sorry page 9 "a friend of mine called me on my cell phone"

Hearing trailer + drug use can be deceiving because I assumed it was one of those horrible things people live in and trailer park trash.




He is saying that he had a cell phone when he was working offshore three months prior and a friend called him to tell him Becky was interested in him., not that there was a working cell in the trailer that night. In order to use a phone that night, he would have had to leave the trailer.

Please read page 9 again.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:19 am

The reason that you don't understand his description of shaking her or waking her too hard is because all of that came out during the first hour and a half long police interrogation that was not videotaped or recorded and that was never mentioned at trial. At trial they made it seem as though the police went to speak with Jeff and he gave her handwritten statement and they've recorded the videotaped statement. That's not exactly what happened. As is often the case here in the states the police went there and spoke with him for an hour and a half to two hours without recording any of that discussion. That discussion was much different than the one that was videotaped. When Jeff said that he might have wiped her too hard his finger might've slipped in, that was initially in response to police insisting he had to have done something, it could only have been him, how else could the child's anus have gotten that way? He repeatedly over and over again insisted he did not know. So his suggestion that perhaps he wiped her too hard is quite frankly the only logical explanation he could think of when they were demanding that he provide one. But he never said that he did wipe her too hard, he offered that up as a possible explanation in the face of police relentlessly insisting he must have done it. With respect to shaking the child, this comes up time and again in these kinds of cases – when the child here had and gasped, she didn't immediately start crying… There was a bit of a pause and Jeff gave her a slight shake, which by the way is one of the steps in the American heart Association's guide to giving infant CPR. A gentle shake in order to make sure the child is conscious. I'm sure he did have a cell phone, that doesn't mean it was working at the time. I believe that Rebecca had somewhere along the line stated that she had a cell phone but it was out of order that day and I think it was in her videotaped statement, she told Jeff to try to run to his grandparents house to use their phone to call for help and I believe that Jeff suggested let's just jump in the car and take her to the emergency room right now.
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby JenFitzgerald » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:20 am

so basically Clive, you're just going to decide just guilt based upon your gut instinct and your limited knowledge of the factual allegations?
JenFitzgerald
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:34 am

JenFitzgerald wrote:so basically Clive, you're just going to decide just guilt based upon your gut instinct and your limited knowledge of the factual allegations?


It appears that way.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:35 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Yes, he says he has a cell phone and he also talks about 'freaking out' when he dropped her. He says he thought he had killed her when he dropped her, so in his version she must have thumped the toilet very hard. I do not understand the shaking he describes and I don't understand his description of wiping up between her legs too hard. Blood came from her nose and he wiped other blood away. There was red stuff in her vomit which he assumed was medicine even though he had seen her bleed from the nose and thought he had killed her. He had never given her a bath before. Had he changed her before? In his favour, he says he had bathed his little brother before.

There is reference to him being prone to anger and to being abused as a child himself. He had planned the evening all out and Chloe being sickly was shaping up to spoil the evening.

I just do not believe his story. I think in a fit of anger he lashed out at this unhappy child, that the child vomited as a result and that, freaked out by what he had done, he gave her a bath and did all the other things to cover up.


I am honestly surprised that you are willing to draw these conclusions based on the evidence provided.

If you look at the toilet bowl you will see that it would have caused blunt force trauma to an infant's head if dropped.

He had been interrogated for hours. The police were demanding an explanation for the injuries on the infant. Jeff was trying to come up with a reason it could have possibly happened. He had no idea how any of it could be possible. So he thought maybe it was because he wiped the infant to hard. This is not incriminating at all.

Jeff had cared for the infant and had changed her before.

Jeff had planned the evening? Really? They planned on watching a couple of movies. Hardly a big event.

If Jeff did not molest the infant, please describe how you think he caused her injuries?

Are you aware of the fact that the police made absolutely no effort to investigate the bathroom to see if the scenario Jeff described was possible? No investigation at all. They knew Jeff was an easy target to prosecute. They needed no investigation at all. Just a 2 day trial start to finish, and send him off to death row. Are you okay with this Clive?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:43 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Just reading the autopsy report I am wondering how the child acquired these injuries to the front of her face if he dropped her so that the back of her head struck the ceramic:

Contusions (plural) of the forehead
contusion of the bridge of the nose
contusion of the upper lip
Tear of the frenulum


I have the autopsy photos and any contusions to the forehead are very minor and could have easily come from medical staff holding the baby's head in place while trying to intubate.

Was this accepted by the medical staff at trial, that these facial injuries were all caused at the hospital?


These injuries were not noticed until autopsy Clive. This should tell you that they most likely occurred during resuscitation efforts. Have you ever visited someone that was resuscitated in the hospital? I have, and I can tell you that the process is not gentle. Superficial injuries are of no concern to a medical staff frantically trying to save a life. It took 20 minutes to intubate the infant in this case. Do you think it was an easy process?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:49 am

We all need to keep in mind that this is an Injustice Anywhere featured case. It is one that is very important to me (as they all are). I would appreciate it if everyone here would take the time to read through all of the evidence before posting speculation based on nothing other that a gut feeling. We need to discuss facts here. A man's life is at stake. Is anyone here prepared to state that the evidence supports a death sentence?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:13 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Yes, he says he has a cell phone and he also talks about 'freaking out' when he dropped her. He says he thought he had killed her when he dropped her, so in his version she must have thumped the toilet very hard. I do not understand the shaking he describes and I don't understand his description of wiping up between her legs too hard. Blood came from her nose and he wiped other blood away. There was red stuff in her vomit which he assumed was medicine even though he had seen her bleed from the nose and thought he had killed her. He had never given her a bath before. Had he changed her before? In his favour, he says he had bathed his little brother before.

There is reference to him being prone to anger and to being abused as a child himself. He had planned the evening all out and Chloe being sickly was shaping up to spoil the evening.

I just do not believe his story. I think in a fit of anger he lashed out at this unhappy child, that the child vomited as a result and that, freaked out by what he had done, he gave her a bath and did all the other things to cover up.




Evidently you need to actually READ page 9. He was talking about a cell phone call he got THREE MONTHS PRIOR to the day in question, while he was working offshore.

I know that you have not read this case and I know you said you didn't have time to read it.

You don't know the case and frankly, I am quite disappointed and disturbed that you would come on this feed and make such speculative statements.

Michael, at least, is reading the case and coming up with valid questions and concerns. What you are doing is quite the opposite.

Being abused does not an abuser make.

You just assume that he woke up one day at the age of 23 and suddenly showed murderous rage to an infant? That he had a "fit" of rage because she was sick and a little fussy? Even though he had never shown violence towards anyone ever before?

I mean really, I am quite surprised by this from you. What if an attorney went on a discussion board for someone you truly believed in and tore them to shreds without knowing the reality of the case?

That would be quite irresponsible.

But that is what you have done here.

You can't take a 100 piece puzzle and solve it with 15 pieces, Clive.

I must say, you are quite out of line here and I would feel the same no matter who you did this to and even if I didn't believe in Jeffrey Havard.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:52 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Just reading the autopsy report I am wondering how the child acquired these injuries to the front of her face if he dropped her so that the back of her head struck the ceramic:

Contusions (plural) of the forehead
contusion of the bridge of the nose
contusion of the upper lip
Tear of the frenulum


I have the autopsy photos and any contusions to the forehead are very minor and could have easily come from medical staff holding the baby's head in place while trying to intubate.

Was this accepted by the medical staff at trial, that these facial injuries were all caused at the hospital?



In your examination of the autopsy report, did you also notice what a very sick child she was? Because you don't mention that.
Did you notice that she had sepsis and cephalhematoma?
Do you know what a cephalhematoma is? It is a birth trauma, a bleed on the brain and it is quite unusual to still be present present in an infant her age? They usually resolve themselves within a few weeks, three months would be unusual.
Did you know that it is very possible that the drop alone may not have killed her, no matter what a devastated, frightened young man said he thought during a police interrogation in which he was trying to cooperate without an attorney present?
But that the drop along with the cephalhematoma causing death is a very valid theory that no one bothered to explore at the time?
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:14 am

JenFitzgerald wrote:so basically Clive, you're just going to decide just guilt based upon your gut instinct and your limited knowledge of the factual allegations?

I am going to express my first impressions and test your convictions if you are willing to encounter some push back. If I talk bull-shit I am sure you will let me know. I have made it clear here and elsewhere I see this as a manslaughter case, not murder and not sexually aggravated. I am not sure I could even be convinced of manslaughter BRD, but on a balance of probabilities certainly.

People whose judgments I trust (including you) say he did not receive a fair trial, which means he did not receive a trial at all. That's a whole different ball game, as is the crazy US justice system as is also the death penalty. Bruce has said many times that IA requires a positive case for innocence (meaning, as I understand it, complete innocence) before it will take up a case. In my opinion, this case does quite not meet that standard but, since I agree he should at least get a new trial, it nonetheless seems a worthy cause.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:18 am

JenFitzgerald wrote:The reason that you don't understand his description of shaking her or waking her too hard is because all of that came out during the first hour and a half long police interrogation that was not videotaped or recorded and that was never mentioned at trial. At trial they made it seem as though the police went to speak with Jeff and he gave her handwritten statement and they've recorded the videotaped statement. That's not exactly what happened. As is often the case here in the states the police went there and spoke with him for an hour and a half to two hours without recording any of that discussion. That discussion was much different than the one that was videotaped. When Jeff said that he might have wiped her too hard his finger might've slipped in, that was initially in response to police insisting he had to have done something, it could only have been him, how else could the child's anus have gotten that way? He repeatedly over and over again insisted he did not know. So his suggestion that perhaps he wiped her too hard is quite frankly the only logical explanation he could think of when they were demanding that he provide one. But he never said that he did wipe her too hard, he offered that up as a possible explanation in the face of police relentlessly insisting he must have done it. With respect to shaking the child, this comes up time and again in these kinds of cases – when the child here had and gasped, she didn't immediately start crying… There was a bit of a pause and Jeff gave her a slight shake, which by the way is one of the steps in the American heart Association's guide to giving infant CPR. A gentle shake in order to make sure the child is conscious. I'm sure he did have a cell phone, that doesn't mean it was working at the time. I believe that Rebecca had somewhere along the line stated that she had a cell phone but it was out of order that day and I think it was in her videotaped statement, she told Jeff to try to run to his grandparents house to use their phone to call for help and I believe that Jeff suggested let's just jump in the car and take her to the emergency room right now.

Thanks. I get the part about how the cops operate. They did it that way here when I first qualified.

You and Lori seem to disagree about the phone. The point about whether he had a phone or not is really secondary to the fork in the road he was confronted with when, on his account, he chose to cover up what happened instead of call for help. Anyhow, he had a phone which may or may not have been working but he was in a position anyway to run to someone to get help or jump in the car and head off to the hospital - but he didn't do either.
Clive Wismayer
 

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Havard Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest