Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:08 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive wrote: "Manslaughter is a pretty serious crime of which he would be guilty even if he dropped her as he claims, if it could be proved that earlier medical intervention could have saved her. AFAIK no medical expert has addressed this question yet but it seems a reasonable possibility. Is this what you mean by actual innocence?"

Jeff is innocent of the crimes he is accused of. Jeff did not sexually assault the infant and he did not shake the infant to death. Therefore he has been wrongfully convicted. His case more than meets the standards that IA set out to achieve when we began. We are new evolving group and as we continue to develop we will certainly reevaluate what we do from time to time.

But murder includes manslaughter. Accusing someone of murder necessarily involved accusing them of all the lesser offences that murder encompasses, from common assault to manslaughter.

There seems to be a hang up on actual innocence when it comes to this case and I understand your position. I think the argument of whether the case meets the actual innocence requirement has confused the argument here a bit. You have been debating the case on multiple levels with regard to IA's involvement. They really should be two different conversations. We can debate the facts of this case in one debate, and we can debate whether this case meets the requirements of IA in another debate. Mixing the two confuses the argument here, and I think it has caused unnecessary tension.

As an example, I could be charged with manslaughter for killing a person with my car in an accident. The fact that is was an accident does not always prevent charges. If we ignore the new evidence (which we should not do) that suggests Chloe had a preexisting medical condition that could have been aggravated by the fall, I can see that Jeff could be charged with manslaughter because the death was caused while the infant was in his care. For me, I would disagree with that assessment but, due to the fact that Jeff's life is currently in jeopardy, I would accept it because Jeff would most likely be released on time served. The West Memphis Three accepted a deal because one of them was facing the death penalty. Once you are in that position, a lessor charge, even if it is not warranted, beats the alternative.

I think the two conversations are:

what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? and

what really happened?

You agree that Jeff deserves a new trial. That's good enough for me. A new trial will not involve the death penalty. A new prosecutor will be faced with making a case based on the current evidence, and will never be able to build a death penalty case, and will have a difficult time (in my opinion) of building a manslaughter case as well. The evidence currently available supports an acquittal.

I said before that a prosecutor would need evidence that early intervention would probably have saved her. In that case, manslaughter can be proved even if it was an accident as Jeff says.

On another note, you are very critical of Jeff for what you call lies. Jeff did not openly lie to anyone. Jeff neglected to mention the fall. It was a horrible mistake but I feel that silence on a matter is not quite the same as lying. Its not a major point, just an opinion on how words are used to describe an action or non action. I think we are all in agreement that Jeff made a mistake by not telling the mother about the fall. I think it was very possible that Jeff thought Chloe's problems were the result of her illness and not the fall. Chloe was a sick baby. When Jeff heard that head trauma was involved he told the investigators what happened. Up until that point, I think it's quite possible that Jeff thought the problems were related to the illness. He was not a father, he had no real experience with infant health. He knew the infant was on medication and he knew she had been sick.

Same goes for the infant spitting up. Jeff was not used to seeing baby vomit. For those that are not parents, spit up is gross. If you are a parent and see that regularly, then wiping it up and moving on seems like a good option. If you are not accustomed to seeing baby vomit, then you may be more likely to do a more extensive clean up. Of course experienced parents know better, because spit up is a common occurrence and changing and bathing an infant every time it happened would become quite tedious. This would be viewed differently by a non experienced person that was trying to properly take care of his girlfriend's infant. Jeff's actions were not incriminating. He was doing what he thought was best for the infant. I have no doubt that he now wishes that he would have simply wiped up the spit up instead of taking the extra steps to clean up Chloe. If he had been more experienced with spit up, we would not be here talking about this case today.

Your moral compass is a bit off here IMO. If memory serves, they were asked at hospital if anything happened and he had a chance to speak up. He failed that test. Plus Jeff had several weeks experience with Chloe and, so it is said, had taken care of his little brother, so he wasn't that inexperienced.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:45 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

Do you realize that I could take the same position you are taking here, in the Nyki Kish case? There are many possibilities in that case. But there is no proof to support those possibilities so they should not be used to convict. Nyki's case is one that will forever have unknowns. Unknowns should not be viewed as incriminating.

I could take your position here in many cases Clive. Guilt must be proven, it can never be accepted to force a defendant to prove innocence. There were no witnesses so it is impossible for Jeff to prove that he did not strike the infant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove that he did, and there is no proof to back up the accusations.

I'm going to sound like Mach discussing calunnia. He lied about what happened. To the mother and even at the hospital, where the medical staff thought initially there was a blockage in the airway and thus directed their attention to the wrong thing. He had no way of knowing his concealment of what happened likely made no difference at that point but he concealed it nonetheless. That suggests he may have had more to worry about than a fall. If the investigation had not been skewed by the false consensus of sexual assault the focus might have been on her head injuries to see whether they were consistent with his story.

Nyki Kish did not lie and the forensic evidence proves her innocence (no transfer). The two cases are different.


I addressed the accusation of lying in the post above. Of course every case is different and I am not suggesting otherwise. But there are always unknowns in every case. It seems to me that you are applying different standards when reviewing the different cases.

As an example, you believe that Nyki could not have caused the fatal wound because there was no transfer. You and I agree completely on that. But then you look at the frenulum in Jeff's case and instead of looking at the lack of blood evidence to support the theory that the injury occurred at home, you suggest that Jeff may have cleaned up the blood. There is no evidence to support that. Why not look at the evidence available (as you did in Nyki's case) and draw your conclusions from that? Chloe's clothing had no blood to suggest the frenulum tear was caused at home and there is no evidence of a clean up. Why are you trying so hard to attribute that injury to Jeff when the evidence does not support it? You seem to be using different standards with regard to the cases. That's all I was suggesting.

Take another case: Casey Anthony. Like Jeff, nobody but her knows what really happened and a jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally harmed her child. I don't know what the evidence really was in her case but I guess it was mainly a bunch of circumstantial stuff about her behaviour afterwards, the state of the body etc. Suppose she had been convicted. Would IA have taken up her case using the equivalence between an absence of clear evidence of guilt and a positive case for innocence?

The thing is, whatever the experts in this case say, they can never rule out the possibility that his lies went further than his supporters wish to believe, just as there is no way of knowing what happened in the Casey Anthony case.


Are you really going to compare Jeff to Casey Anthony, the woman that went a month without reporting her child missing? I think it's a crazy comparison. I did write about Casey Anthony and I agreed with the verdict: http://groundreport.com/from-casey-anthony-in-florida-to-amanda-knox-in-italy/, but that doesn't mean that I think she was innocent.

I will check my moral compass and see if it is working. :) I do think that you are taking an extreme position with certain aspects of this case, that you do not take with other cases. You have predetermined views of Jeff based on his behavior. I get that, but as you know, you often have to look past behavior to get the truth. You have 6 experts telling you that Jeff's claims are consistent with the evidence. I can't make you believe them.

Did Raffaele lie when he wrote in his diary about pricking Meredith's finger? If Raff lied then who knows how much further his lies may have gone Clive. I have voiced my opinion on Raff and anyone that has followed my work on that case knows where I stand, so please don't take my comparison out of context.

As far as Jeff's case goes, no one will ever convince you that it was impossible for Jeff to harm the child. That seems to be what you are looking for. It's impossible to provide that information, just as it is in many other cases. A defendant should not be put in that position Clive. Guilt must be proven.

If Jeff is granted a new trial, which we both agree he should be, I have no doubt that Jeff will walk out of that courtroom a free man, damaged by ten years of isolation, but free.

I do not think you will have a problem with that result. I highly doubt that you will feel justice was done if Mississippi puts him to 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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:03 pm

Clive -
Whenever there is a grossly inadequate effort to investigate the truth of a matter, there will likely be some doubt as to the actual facts. In this case, the trial was a sham. I actually think that the ACLU should consider trying to get it to the US Supreme Court in an effort to expand the Gideon doctrine to include a constitutional right to defense experts in critical situations. I definitely think that Havard was deprived of due process under the US Constitution as properly construed. Partly because this is a death row case and partly because of the absurdly inadequate defense Havard received as well as the lame justifications for this travesty that the State of Mississippi has served up, this case delivers us an opportunity to redefine the right to due process on a virtual silver platter.

That said, we, of course, prefer to advocate cases in which we can be 100% certain that the defendant is innocent not only of first degree murder but also of all lesser included crimes. As one who is very reluctant to assert 100% certainty about anything (and, in that sense, is an absurdist), I find it hard to reach that level in most cases. That is why I call the Lobato case - "the Hope Diamond of Wrongful Convictions"; of the 300 million plus people in the United States - indeed, of the more than 6 billion people in the World - Lobato is less likely to have committed the crime of which she was convicted that virtually anyone else (myself included). That level of certainty is rare. For example, some negatives are almost impossible to prove. It is virtually impossible for a defendant to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant never had a conversation in which he or she suggested, urged, or otherwise encouraged another individual to commit a crime. So cases of this kind will never provide us with 100% certainty of innocence.

Back to Havard. I have read the available material and I think that much of the "evidence" is suspect because it was never really subjected to an effective adversarial process. I also am aware that people do not always perform in the optimal manner that can be identified only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that the failure to do so should not necessarily be criminalized.

I think it is healthy for us to debate these issues. If nothing else, addressing your arguments may help construct a defense in court and in the media. I have little doubt that you will be more intelligent, balanced and resourceful in presenting those arguments than the prosecutors in the State of Mississippi (what has four i's and can't see?). If we can refute your arguments, the State's arguments will be a piece of cake. So - in that spirit - I would ask you to sum up as you would before a jury in closing the arguments and the evidence supporting those arguments that stand behind the case that Havard should be convicted of something and to tell us exactly what you think he should be convicted of.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:18 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Clive -
Whenever there is a grossly inadequate effort to investigate the truth of a matter, there will likely be some doubt as to the actual facts. In this case, the trial was a sham. I actually think that the ACLU should consider trying to get it to the US Supreme Court in an effort to expand the Gideon doctrine to include a constitutional right to defense experts in critical situations. I definitely think that Havard was deprived of due process under the US Constitution as properly construed. Partly because this is a death row case and partly because of the absurdly inadequate defense Havard received as well as the lame justifications for this travesty that the State of Mississippi has served up, this case delivers us an opportunity to redefine the right to due process on a virtual silver platter.

That said, we, of course, prefer to advocate cases in which we can be 100% certain that the defendant is innocent not only of first degree murder but also of all lesser included crimes. As one who is very reluctant to assert 100% certainty about anything (and, in that sense, is an absurdist), I find it hard to reach that level in most cases. That is why I call the Lobato case - "the Hope Diamond of Wrongful Convictions"; of the 300 million plus people in the United States - indeed, of the more than 6 billion people in the World - Lobato is less likely to have committed the crime of which she was convicted that virtually anyone else (myself included). That level of certainty is rare. For example, some negatives are almost impossible to prove. It is virtually impossible for a defendant to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant never had a conversation in which he or she suggested, urged, or otherwise encouraged another individual to commit a crime. So cases of this kind will never provide us with 100% certainty of innocence.

Back to Havard. I have read the available material and I think that much of the "evidence" is suspect because it was never really subjected to an effective adversarial process. I also am aware that people do not always perform in the optimal manner that can be identified only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that the failure to do so should not necessarily be criminalized.

I think it is healthy for us to debate these issues. If nothing else, addressing your arguments may help construct a defense in court and in the media. I have little doubt that you will be more intelligent, balanced and resourceful in presenting those arguments than the prosecutors in the State of Mississippi (what has four i's and can't see?). If we can refute your arguments, the State's arguments will be a piece of cake. So - in that spirit - I would ask you to sum up as you would before a jury in closing the arguments and the evidence supporting those arguments that stand behind the case that Havard should be convicted of something and to tell us exactly what you think he should be convicted of.

As usual, I find it difficult to disagree with anything you say. I can't do the summing up thing though because the evidence I would want to see is missing. I repeat: if I had:

1 evidence that those of her injuries that we can be sure were present on arrival at the hospital were not consistent with his account, or
2 evidence that earlier intervention would have saved her

then I would prosecute for something, probably manslaughter in theory. It seems unlikely to be possible to answer question 1 now since, as Ophoven says, it may no longer be possible to distinguish those injuries from those resulting from intervention at the hospital. The second question is still live but, of course, he has served more time (and on death row too) than a conviction would warrant (in my book) so even then, granted the powers of an Attorney General or US equivalent, I would probably drop the whole thing for that reason.

The discussion is useful. I don't mind being wrong. I probably am on this one. Stress-testing supporters' beliefs in a civil way is constructive. I would love a debate with a pro-guilt person on the Nyki Kish thread. It would force me to test my assumptions.

I think Amanda and Raffaele are 100% innocent btw. Or 99.9% anyway. Maybe we could stretch to 100 if we had those EDFs :)
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:33 pm

What is it that people don't understand about lucid intervals and no outward signs of injury?

What is it that people don't understand about the time frame for early intervention being under an hour?
Most parents whose children suffer a fall do the exact same thing Jeff did, which was check on her (as did Rebecca) in that short frame of time and they both thought she was fine. Until she wasn't.

What is so hard to understand about "predisposition to brain bleeds" and the fact the the child already had bleeding on the brain that Dr. Ophoven's opinion said could have begun to bleed again with a gentle (not her word) bump to the head?

You just have to shake your head at the people who hold one person to a higher standard than another.

I agree with you, erasmus44, regarding 20/20 hindsight. Had Jeff driven to the larger, closer, more advanced hospital, rather than listening to Rebecca and turning around to go to the small community hospital, this debate likely would not be happening at all.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Clive -
Whenever there is a grossly inadequate effort to investigate the truth of a matter, there will likely be some doubt as to the actual facts. In this case, the trial was a sham. I actually think that the ACLU should consider trying to get it to the US Supreme Court in an effort to expand the Gideon doctrine to include a constitutional right to defense experts in critical situations. I definitely think that Havard was deprived of due process under the US Constitution as properly construed. Partly because this is a death row case and partly because of the absurdly inadequate defense Havard received as well as the lame justifications for this travesty that the State of Mississippi has served up, this case delivers us an opportunity to redefine the right to due process on a virtual silver platter.

That said, we, of course, prefer to advocate cases in which we can be 100% certain that the defendant is innocent not only of first degree murder but also of all lesser included crimes. As one who is very reluctant to assert 100% certainty about anything (and, in that sense, is an absurdist), I find it hard to reach that level in most cases. That is why I call the Lobato case - "the Hope Diamond of Wrongful Convictions"; of the 300 million plus people in the United States - indeed, of the more than 6 billion people in the World - Lobato is less likely to have committed the crime of which she was convicted that virtually anyone else (myself included). That level of certainty is rare. For example, some negatives are almost impossible to prove. It is virtually impossible for a defendant to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant never had a conversation in which he or she suggested, urged, or otherwise encouraged another individual to commit a crime. So cases of this kind will never provide us with 100% certainty of innocence.

Back to Havard. I have read the available material and I think that much of the "evidence" is suspect because it was never really subjected to an effective adversarial process. I also am aware that people do not always perform in the optimal manner that can be identified only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that the failure to do so should not necessarily be criminalized.

I think it is healthy for us to debate these issues. If nothing else, addressing your arguments may help construct a defense in court and in the media. I have little doubt that you will be more intelligent, balanced and resourceful in presenting those arguments than the prosecutors in the State of Mississippi (what has four i's and can't see?). If we can refute your arguments, the State's arguments will be a piece of cake. So - in that spirit - I would ask you to sum up as you would before a jury in closing the arguments and the evidence supporting those arguments that stand behind the case that Havard should be convicted of something and to tell us exactly what you think he should be convicted of.

As usual, I find it difficult to disagree with anything you say. I can't do the summing up thing though because the evidence I would want to see is missing. I repeat: if I had:

1 evidence that those of her injuries that we can be sure were present on arrival at the hospital were not consistent with his account, or
2 evidence that earlier intervention would have saved her

then I would prosecute for something, probably manslaughter in theory. It seems unlikely to be possible to answer question 1 now since, as Ophoven says, it may no longer be possible to distinguish those injuries from those resulting from intervention at the hospital. The second question is still live but, of course, he has served more time (and on death row too) than a conviction would warrant (in my book) so even then, granted the powers of an Attorney General or US equivalent, I would probably drop the whole thing for that reason.

The discussion is useful. I don't mind being wrong. I probably am on this one. Stress-testing supporters' beliefs in a civil way is constructive. I would love a debate with a pro-guilt person on the Nyki Kish thread. It would force me to test my assumptions.

I think Amanda and Raffaele are 100% innocent btw. Or 99.9% anyway. Maybe we could stretch to 100 if we had those EDFs :)


erasmus44 summed it up much better than I could. I agree with his assessment. I highly doubt that we will have anyone in our group protesting the release of Jeffrey Havard (when that day hopefully comes), regardless of their current position on the case.

I also think that the conversations here are healthy and productive. There is no harm done when someone on an internet discussion forum thinks a person is guilty. It is a good place to further evaluate the cases being discussed.
"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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:45 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Clive -
Whenever there is a grossly inadequate effort to investigate the truth of a matter, there will likely be some doubt as to the actual facts. In this case, the trial was a sham. I actually think that the ACLU should consider trying to get it to the US Supreme Court in an effort to expand the Gideon doctrine to include a constitutional right to defense experts in critical situations. I definitely think that Havard was deprived of due process under the US Constitution as properly construed. Partly because this is a death row case and partly because of the absurdly inadequate defense Havard received as well as the lame justifications for this travesty that the State of Mississippi has served up, this case delivers us an opportunity to redefine the right to due process on a virtual silver platter.

That said, we, of course, prefer to advocate cases in which we can be 100% certain that the defendant is innocent not only of first degree murder but also of all lesser included crimes. As one who is very reluctant to assert 100% certainty about anything (and, in that sense, is an absurdist), I find it hard to reach that level in most cases. That is why I call the Lobato case - "the Hope Diamond of Wrongful Convictions"; of the 300 million plus people in the United States - indeed, of the more than 6 billion people in the World - Lobato is less likely to have committed the crime of which she was convicted that virtually anyone else (myself included). That level of certainty is rare. For example, some negatives are almost impossible to prove. It is virtually impossible for a defendant to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant never had a conversation in which he or she suggested, urged, or otherwise encouraged another individual to commit a crime. So cases of this kind will never provide us with 100% certainty of innocence.

Back to Havard. I have read the available material and I think that much of the "evidence" is suspect because it was never really subjected to an effective adversarial process. I also am aware that people do not always perform in the optimal manner that can be identified only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that the failure to do so should not necessarily be criminalized.

I think it is healthy for us to debate these issues. If nothing else, addressing your arguments may help construct a defense in court and in the media. I have little doubt that you will be more intelligent, balanced and resourceful in presenting those arguments than the prosecutors in the State of Mississippi (what has four i's and can't see?). If we can refute your arguments, the State's arguments will be a piece of cake. So - in that spirit - I would ask you to sum up as you would before a jury in closing the arguments and the evidence supporting those arguments that stand behind the case that Havard should be convicted of something and to tell us exactly what you think he should be convicted of.

As usual, I find it difficult to disagree with anything you say. I can't do the summing up thing though because the evidence I would want to see is missing. I repeat: if I had:

1 evidence that those of her injuries that we can be sure were present on arrival at the hospital were not consistent with his account, or
2 evidence that earlier intervention would have saved her

then I would prosecute for something, probably manslaughter in theory. It seems unlikely to be possible to answer question 1 now since, as Ophoven says, it may no longer be possible to distinguish those injuries from those resulting from intervention at the hospital. The second question is still live but, of course, he has served more time (and on death row too) than a conviction would warrant (in my book) so even then, granted the powers of an Attorney General or US equivalent, I would probably drop the whole thing for that reason.

The discussion is useful. I don't mind being wrong. I probably am on this one. Stress-testing supporters' beliefs in a civil way is constructive. I would love a debate with a pro-guilt person on the Nyki Kish thread. It would force me to test my assumptions.

I think Amanda and Raffaele are 100% innocent btw. Or 99.9% anyway. Maybe we could stretch to 100 if we had those EDFs :)


erasmus44 summed it up much better than I could. I agree with his assessment. I highly doubt that we will have anyone in our group protesting the release of Jeffrey Havard (when that day hopefully comes), regardless of their current position on the case.

I also think that the conversations here are healthy and productive. There is no harm done when someone on an internet discussion forum thinks a person is guilty. It is a good place to further evaluate the cases being discussed.



I WISH the ACLU would take this case to the SCOTUS. Mississippi has violated just about every right to due process that Jeffrey had. And I honestly don't expect any better from the MS Supreme Court now than they have already done. My faith lies with Judge Starrett.

In fact, Jeff is just starting to realize exactly the lengths the state went to in order to gain his conviction and death sentence (because his focus was disproving that he somehow was intentionally responsible for the anal dilation), and he is angry. To him, it was as if it was about him personally, although I assume the misconduct on the part of the prosecution was more about conviction rates. I don't think it was about being unwilling to admit error, because it was so egregious..

I don't have a problem debating Jeff's case. I know it well enough. I don't have a problem with debating with someone who thinks Jeff is guilty. What I do find to be unnecessary is having to argue or debate things about the case that are speculative or just plain arbitrary and not in evidence.

I also think that we need to further the issue I mentioned above regarding the lengths of the misconduct of the prosecution. It is much greater than most realize. I sometimes wonder if they just took advantage of the defense not being adversarial or if he knew they would not be. That may sound paranoid, but it's been privately discussed.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:23 am

Lori

Can you itemise the misconduct you wish to discuss?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:47 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Are you really going to compare Jeff to Casey Anthony, the woman that went a month without reporting her child missing? I think it's a crazy comparison. I did write about Casey Anthony and I agreed with the verdict: http://groundreport.com/from-casey-anthony-in-florida-to-amanda-knox-in-italy/, but that doesn't mean that I think she was innocent.

Imagine a scale. Towards the right is complete certainty and over to the left are blind prejudice, ignorance, hatred etc. Somewhere near to the right, marked 'beyond reasonable doubt' is where we have placed the standard of proof required for criminal convictions, in both the UK and US. We are all satisfied with that standard but it doesn't mean our own private thoughts have to be so rigorous. So long as we recognise there is a world of difference between what is acceptable in conversation and what a court requires we should be OK. I freely admit that prejudice, experience, intuition, suspicion etc play a role in my thinking about this case. I don't claim they have anything to do with evidence that proves guilt to the required standard but it is as legitimate for me to cling to them as it is for you to harbour beliefs about Casey Anythony that are not founded in evidence.

I will check my moral compass and see if it is working. :) I do think that you are taking an extreme position with certain aspects of this case, that you do not take with other cases. You have predetermined views of Jeff based on his behavior. I get that, but as you know, you often have to look past behavior to get the truth. You have 6 experts telling you that Jeff's claims are consistent with the evidence. I can't make you believe them.

I have no experts telling me his claims are inconsistent with a non-accidentl injury.

Did Raffaele lie when he wrote in his diary about pricking Meredith's finger? If Raff lied then who knows how much further his lies may have gone Clive. I have voiced my opinion on Raff and anyone that has followed my work on that case knows where I stand, so please don't take my comparison out of context.

It doesn't matter whether he lied or not. In Raffaele's case we have more than his word to go on.

As far as Jeff's case goes, no one will ever convince you that it was impossible for Jeff to harm the child. That seems to be what you are looking for. It's impossible to provide that information, just as it is in many other cases. A defendant should not be put in that position Clive. Guilt must be proven.

Of course. I agree completely. There was an injustice here but, like you and Casey Anthony, the mere fact that there may not be clear and conclusive evidence that he acted deliberately does not mean he didn't. It's like the little boy who shows up at school and says the dog ate his homework. How is the teacher to prove that didn't happen? Does she have to believe the story? No. She can take account of her own experience of little boys and homework, this particular boy's past behaviour, the basic improbability that the homework would be lost without trace and the fact the kid has no dog :) and make her mind up. She intuits reality from what she knows as we all do all the time. It's why we have juries of 12 and not 1, because we all bring our different experiences and perspectives to the jury room. So long as we don't overestimate ourselves and we listen to others, the system should work well. My experience includes handling child abuse cases. Parents and carers do lash out and guys do from time to time harm their girlfriend's kids. You say Casey hushed up the death for a month and that plays badly in your mind. Jeff lying about (or concealing) what happened plays badly in mine.

If Jeff is granted a new trial, which we both agree he should be, I have no doubt that Jeff will walk out of that courtroom a free man, damaged by ten years of isolation, but free.

The case is like looking at a torchlight being shone at you with the sun as a backdrop. You can't see it because of the glare. Take away the groundless allegation of sexual abuse and the real case emerges, which is substantially the same as that of Casey Anthony - what happened to cause the unnatural death of a small child?

I do not think you will have a problem with that result. I highly doubt that you will feel justice was done if Mississippi puts him to death.

For sure.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Lori

Can you itemise the misconduct you wish to discuss?


Sure, but I have to preface it with a couple things;

The day after, before the autopsy was even started, a nurse from the hospital called in to a local radio station and went on air saying that Chloe was brutally raped and murdered.

The pathologist, Steven Hayne (I am not sure if you know the story with HIM), called the coroner, James Lee, and told him he concluded SBS but found no indication of sexual assault.

The Sheriff's report states that the day after Chloe's death he received a call from Coroner Lee saying a verbal report from Hayne confirmed SBS and sexual assault.

Although Haynes's autopsy report made no mention of sexual assault, a report from the Sheriff that was turned over to the defense during pretrial discovery clearly stated that Hayne positively identified SA (I am just going to type SA instead of sexual assault).

The DA, Ronnie Harper, was told directly by Hayne that he could not conclude that SA had occurred, yet Harper charged Jeff with capital murder with an underlying felony of sexual assault.

There was an additional underlying charge of felony child abuse that was dropped the night before trial.

Harper did nothing before, during or after trial to alert Jeff's defense that the Sheriff's report contained an inaccurate statement as to Hayne's findings, nor did he make an attempt to supplement discovery by informing the defense what Hayne's true findings were.

Instead, Harper took full advantage of the defense's ignorance of the true nature of Hayne's opinion by artfully framing the questions that he posed to Hayne at trial and eliciting equivocal answers from Hayne regarding his opinion on the issue of SA. Harper maneuvered his way through direct examination of Hayne being deliberate in his questions, which gave defense counsel, the Court and the jury a misleading and false impression of the true nature of Hayne's opinion regarding SA.

Then, during closing arguments, Harper argued an interpretation of Hayne's testimony that he KNEW to be untrue. To this day, the state continues to assert on their response pleadings that Hayne concluded SA "by an object".

Harper knowingly and falsely told the jury that Hayne AGREED with the unqualified, untendered testimony of the ER staff.

He specifically told the jury in closing, "Ain't NO OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT then to admit he committed sexual battery, Ladies and Gentleman. No other way".

Harper had a duty to disclose both exculpatory evidence and to investigate and discover exculpatory evidence when he has reason to believe it exists. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Not one person representing Jeff had ever even talked to Hayne until current counsel in 2010.

Hayne did everything he could to not explain his testimony in a way that was favorable to the defense. But that is typical of Hayne.

So, there we were, 11 years after the fact, not knowing what Hayne's actual opinion truly was.

Thankfully, we do now.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:58 pm

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Lori

Can you itemise the misconduct you wish to discuss?


Sure, but I have to preface it with a couple things;

The day after, before the autopsy was even started, a nurse from the hospital called in to a local radio station and went on air saying that Chloe was brutally raped and murdered.

The pathologist, Steven Hayne (I am not sure if you know the story with HIM), called the coroner, James Lee, and told him he concluded SBS but found no indication of sexual assault.

The Sheriff's report states that the day after Chloe's death he received a call from Coroner Lee saying a verbal report from Hayne confirmed SBS and sexual assault.

Although Haynes's autopsy report made no mention of sexual assault, a report from the Sheriff that was turned over to the defense during pretrial discovery clearly stated that Hayne positively identified SA (I am just going to type SA instead of sexual assault).

The DA, Ronnie Harper, was told directly by Hayne that he could not conclude that SA had occurred, yet Harper charged Jeff with capital murder with an underlying felony of sexual assault.

There was an additional underlying charge of felony child abuse that was dropped the night before trial.

Harper did nothing before, during or after trial to alert Jeff's defense that the Sheriff's report contained an inaccurate statement as to Hayne's findings, nor did he make an attempt to supplement discovery by informing the defense what Hayne's true findings were.

Instead, Harper took full advantage of the defense's ignorance of the true nature of Hayne's opinion by artfully framing the questions that he posed to Hayne at trial and eliciting equivocal answers from Hayne regarding his opinion on the issue of SA. Harper maneuvered his way through direct examination of Hayne being deliberate in his questions, which gave defense counsel, the Court and the jury a misleading and false impression of the true nature of Hayne's opinion regarding SA.

Then, during closing arguments, Harper argued an interpretation of Hayne's testimony that he KNEW to be untrue. To this day, the state continues to assert on their response pleadings that Hayne concluded SA "by an object".

Harper knowingly and falsely told the jury that Hayne AGREED with the unqualified, untendered testimony of the ER staff.

He specifically told the jury in closing, "Ain't NO OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT then to admit he committed sexual battery, Ladies and Gentleman. No other way".

Harper had a duty to disclose both exculpatory evidence and to investigate and discover exculpatory evidence when he has reason to believe it exists. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Not one person representing Jeff had ever even talked to Hayne until current counsel in 2010.

Hayne did everything he could to not explain his testimony in a way that was favorable to the defense. But that is typical of Hayne.

So, there we were, 11 years after the fact, not knowing what Hayne's actual opinion truly was.

Thankfully, we do now.

Interesting. That looks like about 25 parts misconduct by the state to 75 parts incompetence on the part of the defence. Maybe 33/67.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:46 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Lori

Can you itemise the misconduct you wish to discuss?


Sure, but I have to preface it with a couple things;

The day after, before the autopsy was even started, a nurse from the hospital called in to a local radio station and went on air saying that Chloe was brutally raped and murdered.

The pathologist, Steven Hayne (I am not sure if you know the story with HIM), called the coroner, James Lee, and told him he concluded SBS but found no indication of sexual assault.

The Sheriff's report states that the day after Chloe's death he received a call from Coroner Lee saying a verbal report from Hayne confirmed SBS and sexual assault.

Although Haynes's autopsy report made no mention of sexual assault, a report from the Sheriff that was turned over to the defense during pretrial discovery clearly stated that Hayne positively identified SA (I am just going to type SA instead of sexual assault).

The DA, Ronnie Harper, was told directly by Hayne that he could not conclude that SA had occurred, yet Harper charged Jeff with capital murder with an underlying felony of sexual assault.

There was an additional underlying charge of felony child abuse that was dropped the night before trial.

Harper did nothing before, during or after trial to alert Jeff's defense that the Sheriff's report contained an inaccurate statement as to Hayne's findings, nor did he make an attempt to supplement discovery by informing the defense what Hayne's true findings were.

Instead, Harper took full advantage of the defense's ignorance of the true nature of Hayne's opinion by artfully framing the questions that he posed to Hayne at trial and eliciting equivocal answers from Hayne regarding his opinion on the issue of SA. Harper maneuvered his way through direct examination of Hayne being deliberate in his questions, which gave defense counsel, the Court and the jury a misleading and false impression of the true nature of Hayne's opinion regarding SA.

Then, during closing arguments, Harper argued an interpretation of Hayne's testimony that he KNEW to be untrue. To this day, the state continues to assert on their response pleadings that Hayne concluded SA "by an object".

Harper knowingly and falsely told the jury that Hayne AGREED with the unqualified, untendered testimony of the ER staff.

He specifically told the jury in closing, "Ain't NO OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT then to admit he committed sexual battery, Ladies and Gentleman. No other way".

Harper had a duty to disclose both exculpatory evidence and to investigate and discover exculpatory evidence when he has reason to believe it exists. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Not one person representing Jeff had ever even talked to Hayne until current counsel in 2010.

Hayne did everything he could to not explain his testimony in a way that was favorable to the defense. But that is typical of Hayne.

So, there we were, 11 years after the fact, not knowing what Hayne's actual opinion truly was.

Thankfully, we do now.

Interesting. That looks like about 25 parts misconduct by the state to 75 parts incompetence on the part of the defence. Maybe 33/67.


One thing I forgot to mention;

Obviously, there were photos taken of the dilation (5 to my knowledge) at the hospital and another taken by Hayne at autopsy.

During the trial, while Harper was questioning the ER staff, he erected a photo of the dilation and asked each of the staff if that photo represented what they saw at the hospital.

Each one, in turn, exclaims, "Oh, no, it was much worse than that", or whatever their various answers were. He then had each of them point out the tear they saw.

He used the photo from autopsy, even though he had all 6 photos, in order to elicit the "it was much worse" type responses so that the jury was left to imagine exactly how much worse it actually was.

As to the tear that didn't exist, they were pointing to Hayne's photo and Hayne found no tear, just the 1 cm. bruise.

When asked about the tearing, and told that ER staff thought they saw tearing, Hayne deferred to them, saying that rigor could have caused the muscles to retract (huh?) allowing them to see something he missed.

Insanity.

I think Harper's misconduct would exceed 33% - he charged Jeff and gained a death sentence for something that he knew never happened. I find that horrendous. But that's just me.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:34 am

Lori wrote:One thing I forgot to mention;

Obviously, there were photos taken of the dilation (5 to my knowledge) at the hospital and another taken by Hayne at autopsy.

During the trial, while Harper was questioning the ER staff, he erected a photo of the dilation and asked each of the staff if that photo represented what they saw at the hospital.

Each one, in turn, exclaims, "Oh, no, it was much worse than that", or whatever their various answers were. He then had each of them point out the tear they saw.

He used the photo from autopsy, even though he had all 6 photos, in order to elicit the "it was much worse" type responses so that the jury was left to imagine exactly how much worse it actually was.

As to the tear that didn't exist, they were pointing to Hayne's photo and Hayne found no tear, just the 1 cm. bruise.

When asked about the tearing, and told that ER staff thought they saw tearing, Hayne deferred to them, saying that rigor could have caused the muscles to retract (huh?) allowing them to see something he missed.

Insanity.

I think Harper's misconduct would exceed 33% - he charged Jeff and gained a death sentence for something that he knew never happened. I find that horrendous. But that's just me.

Your estimate is probably better than mine. I was thinking that a more active and less credulous defence team might have availed itself of the opportunity to interview Hayne pre-trail when much of the harm caused by the prosecution's deceptive tactics might have been averted.

I was told yesterday that the AG is due to publish a reply to a submission made on Jeff's behalf by 8th January. May I trouble you to tell us in which proceeding these documents are being filed and to link me to Jeff's document? I would like to get up to speed on the current process and understand it better.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:50 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:One thing I forgot to mention;

Obviously, there were photos taken of the dilation (5 to my knowledge) at the hospital and another taken by Hayne at autopsy.

During the trial, while Harper was questioning the ER staff, he erected a photo of the dilation and asked each of the staff if that photo represented what they saw at the hospital.

Each one, in turn, exclaims, "Oh, no, it was much worse than that", or whatever their various answers were. He then had each of them point out the tear they saw.

He used the photo from autopsy, even though he had all 6 photos, in order to elicit the "it was much worse" type responses so that the jury was left to imagine exactly how much worse it actually was.

As to the tear that didn't exist, they were pointing to Hayne's photo and Hayne found no tear, just the 1 cm. bruise.

When asked about the tearing, and told that ER staff thought they saw tearing, Hayne deferred to them, saying that rigor could have caused the muscles to retract (huh?) allowing them to see something he missed.

Insanity.

I think Harper's misconduct would exceed 33% - he charged Jeff and gained a death sentence for something that he knew never happened. I find that horrendous. But that's just me.

Your estimate is probably better than mine. I was thinking that a more active and less credulous defence team might have availed itself of the opportunity to interview Hayne pre-trail when much of the harm caused by the prosecution's deceptive tactics might have been averted.

I was told yesterday that the AG is due to publish a reply to a submission made on Jeff's behalf by 8th January. May I trouble you to tell us in which proceeding these documents are being filed and to link me to Jeff's document? I would like to get up to speed on the current process and understand it better.


http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/DownloadableFiles.html
"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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:29 am



Thanks Bruce. I see there a

- Motion For Relief From Judgment Or For Leave To File Successive Petition For Post-Conviction Relief

and a

- Motion To Stay And Abate Proceedings Pending State Court Successive Petition

both dated 25th November 2013. I will rummage through them.

ETA and having now done so, I think I am up to speed. The state's response will be interesting. I expect a lot of stuff about it being too late etc etc
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:27 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:One thing I forgot to mention;

Obviously, there were photos taken of the dilation (5 to my knowledge) at the hospital and another taken by Hayne at autopsy.

During the trial, while Harper was questioning the ER staff, he erected a photo of the dilation and asked each of the staff if that photo represented what they saw at the hospital.

Each one, in turn, exclaims, "Oh, no, it was much worse than that", or whatever their various answers were. He then had each of them point out the tear they saw.

He used the photo from autopsy, even though he had all 6 photos, in order to elicit the "it was much worse" type responses so that the jury was left to imagine exactly how much worse it actually was.

As to the tear that didn't exist, they were pointing to Hayne's photo and Hayne found no tear, just the 1 cm. bruise.

When asked about the tearing, and told that ER staff thought they saw tearing, Hayne deferred to them, saying that rigor could have caused the muscles to retract (huh?) allowing them to see something he missed.

Insanity.

I think Harper's misconduct would exceed 33% - he charged Jeff and gained a death sentence for something that he knew never happened. I find that horrendous. But that's just me.

Your estimate is probably better than mine. I was thinking that a more active and less credulous defence team might have availed itself of the opportunity to interview Hayne pre-trail when much of the harm caused by the prosecution's deceptive tactics might have been averted.

I was told yesterday that the AG is due to publish a reply to a submission made on Jeff's behalf by 8th January. May I trouble you to tell us in which proceeding these documents are being filed and to link me to Jeff's document? I would like to get up to speed on the current process and understand it better.


I see Bruce has done that. New evidence trumps procedural time bars.

As to the misconduct, I don't know, you're the lawyer, but it seems to me that but for Harper's deceit, Jeff would not have been there defending his life and dealing with attorney's that didn't know or care how to defend him.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:34 am

This crucial paragraph in the affidavit of Dr Hayne sworn on 22nd July 2013 bothers me:

Image

He still seems to me to be saying SBS played a part in the death. This does not accord with what Baden seems to be saying, which is that the whole of the observed injuries, internal and external, are consistent with blunt force trauma. I expect the state to latch onto this discrepancy.

Reading the exhibits to the 25 Nov 2013 application I am re-reading Jeff's statement to police (exhibit F). He says at page 5, lines 14-15, that he decided he might as well give her a bath after she 'spit up' (vomited?). This is not consistent with the claim that it had already been arranged between him and Becky that he would give the child a bath (a claim which was not supported in her trial evidence). On page 7, lines 2-3 he says he told Becky when she returned the first time that he had given Chloe a bath. He doesn't claim to have said 'as arranged' or 'as discussed'. The context suggests he was reporting something that counted as news. Again, on page 12, lines 9-20, he is asked whether he had given her a bath before and says he has not but that he has seen it done by her mother countless times. Even at this point, he does not mention any prior arrangement that he would be bathing Chloe while Becky was out. On page 17, lines 22-25 he is asked right out: how come he gave her a bath for the first time just because she spit up? His answer is to do with lavender lotion and hoping she would sleep, but nothing at all about any prior arrangement made with Becky. Does anyone have an explanation?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:28 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:This crucial paragraph in the affidavit of Dr Hayne sworn on 22nd July 2013 bothers me:

Image

He still seems to me to be saying SBS played a part in the death. This does not accord with what Baden seems to be saying, which is that the whole of the observed injuries, internal and external, are consistent with blunt force trauma. I expect the state to latch onto this discrepancy.

Reading the exhibits to the 25 Nov 2013 application I am re-reading Jeff's statement to police (exhibit F). He says at page 5, lines 14-15, that he decided he might as well give her a bath after she 'spit up' (vomited?). This is not consistent with the claim that it had already been arranged between him and Becky that he would give the child a bath (a claim which was not supported in her trial evidence). On page 7, lines 2-3 he says he told Becky when she returned the first time that he had given Chloe a bath. He doesn't claim to have said 'as arranged' or 'as discussed'. The context suggests he was reporting something that counted as news. Again, on page 12, lines 9-20, he is asked whether he had given her a bath before and says he has not but that he has seen it done by her mother countless times. Even at this point, he does not mention any prior arrangement that he would be bathing Chloe while Becky was out. On page 17, lines 22-25 he is asked right out: how come he gave her a bath for the first time just because she spit up? His answer is to do with lavender lotion and hoping she would sleep, but nothing at all about any prior arrangement made with Becky. Does anyone have an explanation?


Hayne is saying SBS with impact or blunt force trauma. You may not know much about Hayne, the "Prosecutors Best Friend" as he is referred to in the media, or as I call him, The King of Ambiguity. Notice he says consistent with. At trial, he said consistent with penetration with an object but failed to mention all the other things it could be consistent with. He is infamous and disgraced and rarely gives any opinion that gives a definite conclusion.

What Hayne says does not accord with Baden or Ophoven or Lauridson, etc. and I believe the reason for that is that he did not want to give an affidavit at all, he wanted to testify. Jeff's lawyers had to explain to him that in order for him to testify, he had to give the affidavit so that there would be a hearing in which he could tetsify.

Let me also say that Hayne could not give one damn about Jeff Havard. His entire motivation in this is most likely to make himself look like less of the monster that he is. Jeff's case is one where even he wouldn't go so far as to say in his autopsy report that a sexual assault had occurred.

This is the guy who testified in a different case that he could tell by the trajectory of a bullet that there were two fingers (of different people) on the trigger.

And yes, I have an explanation as to your other question; It was Rebecca who told Nurse Murphy and Lillian Watson (Rebecca's mother) that the bath was prearranged. I will get their statements posted in their entirety, although I was under the impression that Jen had already sent them to you.

He "decided" to give her a bath when she spit up, rather than giving her a bath after he had finished cleaning up the kitchen, which was his original plan.

He told Becky he had given her a bath, not as news, but confirming he had done what they had agreed upon.

What Jeff said was, he didn't want to put lotion on her after she was dirty, he would rather clean her and then put the lotion on, maybe I don't understand your question about that.

He didn't say it was arranged or discussed in the statement you see, but please remember that that statement is a from a videotape that wasn't turned on until after several hours of talking with the detectives. He did not realize that something nefarious was being attached to him giving her a bath.

Also, just since we have been over this before and you tend to think Jeff lies about the color of the sky (no snark intended, stating truth), when Rebecca told Murphy and Watson that Jeff was supposed to give Chloe a bath, she had no idea what was wrong with Chloe, nor did Jeff.

And just so we are on the same page (since sometimes we aren't), you know about lucid intervals. Chloe appeared fine to Jeff when he took her in and put her on the bed. She appeared fine when he checked on her a few minutes later. She appeared fine to Rebecca. She appeared fine when Jeff checked on her again. The total time elapsed was under an hour. If she had not appeared fine, he would have taken her to the ER himself.

Nobody, including Jeff, is okay with his cowardice that night in not telling the hospital staff. It was very poor judgment and that poor judgment may cost him his own life.

He would be okay with that if it would bring Chloe back, but it won't.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:32 am

Clive, I was searching for the statements of Murphy and Watson for you regarding the bathing arrangement, but they are buried in my disorganized mess somewhere and it's late here. I will try and find them for you tomorrow. :)
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:52 am

Lori wrote:Clive, I was searching for the statements of Murphy and Watson for you regarding the bathing arrangement, but they are buried in my disorganized mess somewhere and it's late here. I will try and find them for you tomorrow. :)

If you mean the statements which purport to show that there was a prior arrangement for bathing, I am familiar with them already Lori. My point is that Jeff made no reference to this arrangement despite having ample opportunity to do so in the video-taped interview. On the contrary, he says he bathed the baby because she spit up, not because it had been arranged beforehand that he would. I can understand why Becky might have altered her account or chosen to forget such an arrangement - she was told her daughter had been sexually abused and murdered after all - but I don't understand why Jeff would not refer to it when specifically asked.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:10 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:This crucial paragraph in the affidavit of Dr Hayne sworn on 22nd July 2013 bothers me:

Image

He still seems to me to be saying SBS played a part in the death. This does not accord with what Baden seems to be saying, which is that the whole of the observed injuries, internal and external, are consistent with blunt force trauma. I expect the state to latch onto this discrepancy.

Reading the exhibits to the 25 Nov 2013 application I am re-reading Jeff's statement to police (exhibit F). He says at page 5, lines 14-15, that he decided he might as well give her a bath after she 'spit up' (vomited?). This is not consistent with the claim that it had already been arranged between him and Becky that he would give the child a bath (a claim which was not supported in her trial evidence). On page 7, lines 2-3 he says he told Becky when she returned the first time that he had given Chloe a bath. He doesn't claim to have said 'as arranged' or 'as discussed'. The context suggests he was reporting something that counted as news. Again, on page 12, lines 9-20, he is asked whether he had given her a bath before and says he has not but that he has seen it done by her mother countless times. Even at this point, he does not mention any prior arrangement that he would be bathing Chloe while Becky was out. On page 17, lines 22-25 he is asked right out: how come he gave her a bath for the first time just because she spit up? His answer is to do with lavender lotion and hoping she would sleep, but nothing at all about any prior arrangement made with Becky. Does anyone have an explanation?


Hayne is saying SBS with impact or blunt force trauma. You may not know much about Hayne, the "Prosecutors Best Friend" as he is referred to in the media, or as I call him, The King of Ambiguity. Notice he says consistent with. At trial, he said consistent with penetration with an object but failed to mention all the other things it could be consistent with. He is infamous and disgraced and rarely gives any opinion that gives a definite conclusion.

What Hayne says does not accord with Baden or Ophoven or Lauridson, etc. and I believe the reason for that is that he did not want to give an affidavit at all, he wanted to testify. Jeff's lawyers had to explain to him that in order for him to testify, he had to give the affidavit so that there would be a hearing in which he could tetsify.

Let me also say that Hayne could not give one damn about Jeff Havard. His entire motivation in this is most likely to make himself look like less of the monster that he is. Jeff's case is one where even he wouldn't go so far as to say in his autopsy report that a sexual assault had occurred.

This is the guy who testified in a different case that he could tell by the trajectory of a bullet that there were two fingers (of different people) on the trigger.

And yes, I have an explanation as to your other question; It was Rebecca who told Nurse Murphy and Lillian Watson (Rebecca's mother) that the bath was prearranged. I will get their statements posted in their entirety, although I was under the impression that Jen had already sent them to you.

He "decided" to give her a bath when she spit up, rather than giving her a bath after he had finished cleaning up the kitchen, which was his original plan.

He told Becky he had given her a bath, not as news, but confirming he had done what they had agreed upon.

What Jeff said was, he didn't want to put lotion on her after she was dirty, he would rather clean her and then put the lotion on, maybe I don't understand your question about that.

He didn't say it was arranged or discussed in the statement you see, but please remember that that statement is a from a videotape that wasn't turned on until after several hours of talking with the detectives. He did not realize that something nefarious was being attached to him giving her a bath.

Also, just since we have been over this before and you tend to think Jeff lies about the color of the sky (no snark intended, stating truth), when Rebecca told Murphy and Watson that Jeff was supposed to give Chloe a bath, she had no idea what was wrong with Chloe, nor did Jeff.

And just so we are on the same page (since sometimes we aren't), you know about lucid intervals. Chloe appeared fine to Jeff when he took her in and put her on the bed. She appeared fine when he checked on her a few minutes later. She appeared fine to Rebecca. She appeared fine when Jeff checked on her again. The total time elapsed was under an hour. If she had not appeared fine, he would have taken her to the ER himself.

Nobody, including Jeff, is okay with his cowardice that night in not telling the hospital staff. It was very poor judgment and that poor judgment may cost him his own life.

He would be okay with that if it would bring Chloe back, but it won't.

Thank you for those points Lori. I was aware of much of that already,including the stuff about Haynes. Nothing you say quite explains Jeff's answer to the direct question about bathing here (this is the most pointed one, but he had several other opportunities to refer to the prior arrangement with Becky). Here it is:

Image

Your post contains assertions of fact which depend entirely on what Jeff has said but which are otherwise unsupported. Why, given that he was not truthful,do you think he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these points?

A point which bothered me before has fallen away somewhat. The defence doctors between them say the relevant injuries, insofar as it is any longer possible to distinguish them from those acquired at hospital, are consistent with Jeff's story. Of course, they have not been subjected to cross examination yet but, equally, there is nobody on the other side to gainsay them. That was one of my concerns. The other one remains, namely whether early intervention would have made a difference.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:34 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:Clive, I was searching for the statements of Murphy and Watson for you regarding the bathing arrangement, but they are buried in my disorganized mess somewhere and it's late here. I will try and find them for you tomorrow. :)

If you mean the statements which purport to show that there was a prior arrangement for bathing, I am familiar with them already Lori. My point is that Jeff made no reference to this arrangement despite having ample opportunity to do so in the video-taped interview. On the contrary, he says he bathed the baby because she spit up, not because it had been arranged beforehand that he would. I can understand why Becky might have altered her account or chosen to forget such an arrangement - she was told her daughter had been sexually abused and murdered after all - but I don't understand why Jeff would not refer to it when specifically asked.


My question to you would be, why by omitting something , which admittedly, everyone, including Jeff has a problem with, does that mean you have to pick apart every single syllable that he speaks? Why do you think he is any more subject to your unfavorable scrutiny than some of the cases that you support? You can't KNOW Nyki or Darlie didn't lie but you evidently give them the benefit of the doubt. No one can know that neither of them lied (not to pick on Nyki or Darlie, just using as examples).

Purport, Clive? If Rebecca said he was going to give her a bath and she didn't have a question about or a problem with it at the time, and her statement didn't change until trial, then maybe you should take that for what it's worth, not a small piece of his statement.

The detectives were, obviously, aware that Becky said he was to give her a bath, because she told them.

Just because he doesn't make a specific mention of it in the videotape, doesn't mean he never spoke to those detectives about it. He had been talking to them for a great length already.

You (not you specifically) can pick every little thing apart, but no one found it strange that Becky left Chloe with Jeff twice that night and no one found it strange that he gave her a bath, until there was an accident.

Looking at it in context, he was trying to take on the role of a father and there is not one thing strange about that.

I didn't know you were familiar with the statements of Murphy and Watson, because when Jen posted snippets, you totally discounted them, saying you didn't know who they were from or when they were given. Hence, I was trying to find them for you in their entirety.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:41 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:This crucial paragraph in the affidavit of Dr Hayne sworn on 22nd July 2013 bothers me:

Image

He still seems to me to be saying SBS played a part in the death. This does not accord with what Baden seems to be saying, which is that the whole of the observed injuries, internal and external, are consistent with blunt force trauma. I expect the state to latch onto this discrepancy.

Reading the exhibits to the 25 Nov 2013 application I am re-reading Jeff's statement to police (exhibit F). He says at page 5, lines 14-15, that he decided he might as well give her a bath after she 'spit up' (vomited?). This is not consistent with the claim that it had already been arranged between him and Becky that he would give the child a bath (a claim which was not supported in her trial evidence). On page 7, lines 2-3 he says he told Becky when she returned the first time that he had given Chloe a bath. He doesn't claim to have said 'as arranged' or 'as discussed'. The context suggests he was reporting something that counted as news. Again, on page 12, lines 9-20, he is asked whether he had given her a bath before and says he has not but that he has seen it done by her mother countless times. Even at this point, he does not mention any prior arrangement that he would be bathing Chloe while Becky was out. On page 17, lines 22-25 he is asked right out: how come he gave her a bath for the first time just because she spit up? His answer is to do with lavender lotion and hoping she would sleep, but nothing at all about any prior arrangement made with Becky. Does anyone have an explanation?


Hayne is saying SBS with impact or blunt force trauma. You may not know much about Hayne, the "Prosecutors Best Friend" as he is referred to in the media, or as I call him, The King of Ambiguity. Notice he says consistent with. At trial, he said consistent with penetration with an object but failed to mention all the other things it could be consistent with. He is infamous and disgraced and rarely gives any opinion that gives a definite conclusion.

What Hayne says does not accord with Baden or Ophoven or Lauridson, etc. and I believe the reason for that is that he did not want to give an affidavit at all, he wanted to testify. Jeff's lawyers had to explain to him that in order for him to testify, he had to give the affidavit so that there would be a hearing in which he could tetsify.

Let me also say that Hayne could not give one damn about Jeff Havard. His entire motivation in this is most likely to make himself look like less of the monster that he is. Jeff's case is one where even he wouldn't go so far as to say in his autopsy report that a sexual assault had occurred.

This is the guy who testified in a different case that he could tell by the trajectory of a bullet that there were two fingers (of different people) on the trigger.

And yes, I have an explanation as to your other question; It was Rebecca who told Nurse Murphy and Lillian Watson (Rebecca's mother) that the bath was prearranged. I will get their statements posted in their entirety, although I was under the impression that Jen had already sent them to you.

He "decided" to give her a bath when she spit up, rather than giving her a bath after he had finished cleaning up the kitchen, which was his original plan.

He told Becky he had given her a bath, not as news, but confirming he had done what they had agreed upon.

What Jeff said was, he didn't want to put lotion on her after she was dirty, he would rather clean her and then put the lotion on, maybe I don't understand your question about that.

He didn't say it was arranged or discussed in the statement you see, but please remember that that statement is a from a videotape that wasn't turned on until after several hours of talking with the detectives. He did not realize that something nefarious was being attached to him giving her a bath.

Also, just since we have been over this before and you tend to think Jeff lies about the color of the sky (no snark intended, stating truth), when Rebecca told Murphy and Watson that Jeff was supposed to give Chloe a bath, she had no idea what was wrong with Chloe, nor did Jeff.

And just so we are on the same page (since sometimes we aren't), you know about lucid intervals. Chloe appeared fine to Jeff when he took her in and put her on the bed. She appeared fine when he checked on her a few minutes later. She appeared fine to Rebecca. She appeared fine when Jeff checked on her again. The total time elapsed was under an hour. If she had not appeared fine, he would have taken her to the ER himself.

Nobody, including Jeff, is okay with his cowardice that night in not telling the hospital staff. It was very poor judgment and that poor judgment may cost him his own life.

He would be okay with that if it would bring Chloe back, but it won't.

Thank you for those points Lori. I was aware of much of that already,including the stuff about Haynes. Nothing you say quite explains Jeff's answer to the direct question about bathing here (this is the most pointed one, but he had several other opportunities to refer to the prior arrangement with Becky). Here it is:

Image

Your post contains assertions of fact which depend entirely on what Jeff has said but which are otherwise unsupported. Why, given that he was not truthful,do you think he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these points?

A point which bothered me before has fallen away somewhat. The defence doctors between them say the relevant injuries, insofar as it is any longer possible to distinguish them from those acquired at hospital, are consistent with Jeff's story. Of course, they have not been subjected to cross examination yet but, equally, there is nobody on the other side to gainsay them. That was one of my concerns. The other one remains, namely whether early intervention would have made a difference.


Sorry, added my answer to the one I was already typing.

So what if I assert he checked on her based on his word? I am entitled to believe him, I have no reason to doubt the truth of that, it makes perfect sense he would check on her.

I am glad that you concede that. I doubt these highly respected experts will have their opinions discredited under cross.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:55 am

Lori wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Lori wrote:Clive, I was searching for the statements of Murphy and Watson for you regarding the bathing arrangement, but they are buried in my disorganized mess somewhere and it's late here. I will try and find them for you tomorrow. :)

If you mean the statements which purport to show that there was a prior arrangement for bathing, I am familiar with them already Lori. My point is that Jeff made no reference to this arrangement despite having ample opportunity to do so in the video-taped interview. On the contrary, he says he bathed the baby because she spit up, not because it had been arranged beforehand that he would. I can understand why Becky might have altered her account or chosen to forget such an arrangement - she was told her daughter had been sexually abused and murdered after all - but I don't understand why Jeff would not refer to it when specifically asked.


My question to you would be, why by omitting something , which admittedly, everyone, including Jeff has a problem with, does that mean you have to pick apart every single syllable that he speaks? Why do you think he is any more subject to your unfavorable scrutiny than some of the cases that you support? You can't KNOW Nyki or Darlie didn't lie but you evidently give them the benefit of the doubt. No one can know that neither of them lied (not to pick on Nyki or Darlie, just using as examples).


That is an interesting reply. FYI Nyki Kish did not speak to police nor testify so the question of her lying to anyone does not arise. OTOH she did seek medical aid at the very point where Hammond was lying on the ground, with police, paramedics and foremen milling around, at a point when, for all she knew, he could have pointed her out. To disbelieve Darlie Routier I have to accept an utterly incredible staging scenario involving a 150 yard dash to drop a sock, knocking over a vacuum cleaner, breaking a glass, planting fingerprints, somehow splashing blood in unlikely places etc etc.

Purport, Clive? If Rebecca said he was going to give her a bath and she didn't have a question about or a problem with it at the time, and her statement didn't change until trial, then maybe you should take that for what it's worth, not a small piece of his statement. The detectives were, obviously, aware that Becky said he was to give her a bath, because she told them.

Is there a record of her telling the police this? I thought the two statements we have were made by hospital staff. I assume if her trial evidence was verifiably at variance with a prior statement to police that this has cropped up and been aired in one or other of the procedures Jeff has taken since conviction. I would be interested to read up if you have a reference. This is a point which troubles me a lot.

Just because he doesn't make a specific mention of it in the videotape, doesn't mean he never spoke to those detectives about it. He had been talking to them for a great length already.

If he told them another time, that would not prevent him telling them again when asked directly and repeatedly on the tape.

You (not you specifically) can pick every little thing apart, but no one found it strange that Becky left Chloe with Jeff twice that night and no one found it strange that he gave her a bath, until there was an accident. Looking at it in context, he was trying to take on the role of a father and there is not one thing strange about that.

Context is important, I agree. Reading the transcript of the taped interview, it sounds pretty calm and measured. There are no threats and he himself requested the opportunity to give the interview. The officers 'found it strange' which is why they asked him about it. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to tell them the bath had already been arranged. I know what you will say to this, but it's also true that his lawyers did not confront Becky at trial with the claim that the bath was pre-arranged. I have previously asked about the whereabouts of their file and its contents (if Jen is anything to go by, this question seems to attract a puzzlement on your side of the pond which I find completely mystifying). What were Jeff's instructions to his lawyers on this point? Are their notes available somewhere?

Actually, there is another point to add to the one you would doubtless make about the lawyers and that is their case strategy may well have been to treat Becky as gently as possible in front of a jury that was bound to be sympathetic towards her, making it very difficult for them to risk challenging her on the bath agreement (or on anything).

I didn't know you were familiar with the statements of Murphy and Watson, because when Jen posted snippets, you totally discounted them, saying you didn't know who they were from or when they were given. Hence, I was trying to find them for you in their entirety.

I do not 'totally discount' them but I do not regard them as decisive either. Can you please remind me, were these documents properly disclosed to the defence at the time of the trial or did they only emerge subsequently? If the latter then again, I would expect an issue to have been made out of them on appeal and would appreciate a reference if you have one.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:59 am

Lori wrote:
Sorry, added my answer to the one I was already typing.

So what if I assert he checked on her based on his word? I am entitled to believe him, I have no reason to doubt the truth of that, it makes perfect sense he would check on her.

I am not questioning your right to believe him. I am questioning his right to be believed.

I am glad that you concede that. I doubt these highly respected experts will have their opinions discredited under cross.

If you are right about that then he is close to being home free, provided he gets over this latest hurdle. What may hamper the prosecution is their own fixed mind set forcing them to focus on the busted sexual assault theory to the exclusion of other possibilities.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:50 pm

I tried to find you online on fb to ask you how to address these point by point as you have done. I don't know how, so I will do my best in this way (maybe you could explain it to me inbox later?).

1. I am not doubting Nyki or Darlie here, I was making a point that you have no way of KNOWING they are truthful. You said upfeed that Nyki didn't lie. You are giving them the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I totally believe in Nyki Kish. You mean to tell me that Nyki never gave a statement to police? How odd, that they just arrested her without ever speaking to her and never got a statement after arrest.

2. The two statements were made by a nurse and Rebecca's own mother (which, if you were familiar with those statements, you would know that). And you absolutely did discount those statements earlier in this feed.

I have to get back to this later, but you say that the transcript of Jeff's statement sounds calm and measured. That is not the case at all. At one point he tried to overturn the table out of frustration and he was "all over the place". I know this, not from Jeff, but from his lawyers. Neither you (I find it safe to assume) or I have ever been subjected to hours of questioning by police who are accusing you of the rape a baby that you cared about that absolutely didn't happen. Until one or the other of us have, we can't really speak to how a person reacts other than from what is known in general about reactions to the questioning tactics of police.

As to Jeff's trial attorney's, the videotape statement was withheld from them. They had no clue that her trial testimony was different because they never saw the tape. They had no clue, seemingly, about anything. And they did not turn over their entire case file, but when Mark (one of Jeff's current attorneys) filed a motion to depose Sermos, the MSC denied it outright.

I understand you being mystified by this trial and any documents that may or may not exist. I think we all are. The state lied. Jeff's attorney's were in court in body only. It is a complete mess and it is difficult to know any actualities.

You have an omission on Jeff's part. Understandable you question him, but to doubt his right to be believed? He is not convicted of lying. It was a lie only in omission, he did not lie outright.

Do you not think that an attorney who took this case to advocate pro bono and has spent hours speaking to him and hours investigating the case would not try to trip him up?
And if she had, would she still be working her ass off to save him?

I am a layman trying to answer the questions of a lawyer from another country that does things differently. I do the best I can. I do not try to push straw man theories. Sorry if I get out of sorts with you sometimes. It is more frustration than anger.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:11 pm

Lori wrote:I tried to find you online on fb to ask you how to address these point by point as you have done. I don't know how, so I will do my best in this way (maybe you could explain it to me inbox later?).

1. I am not doubting Nyki or Darlie here, I was making a point that you have no way of KNOWING they are truthful. You said upfeed that Nyki didn't lie. You are giving them the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I totally believe in Nyki Kish. You mean to tell me that Nyki never gave a statement to police? How odd, that they just arrested her without ever speaking to her and never got a statement after arrest.

Nyki was advised to remain silent. She has never testified nor spoken to police. So she can't have lied. She was selected as the murderer largely as a result of DS Giroux's idea that the person who brings a knife to a fight is the one who gets stabbed. She was stabbed therefore ... Of course, I don't KNOW the truth about her case any more than it is possible to know anything for sure in most of these cases. We approach certainty as close as we can by discussion and argument. That's what I'm doing here.

ETA it occurs to me say that if Faith Watts was the one serving time instead of Nyki, I would probably advocate for her too, even though she very likely did lie about her recollection of the evening.

2. The two statements were made by a nurse and Rebecca's own mother (which, if you were familiar with those statements, you would know that). And you absolutely did discount those statements earlier in this feed.

OK, if I did, a point to you.

I have to get back to this later, but you is that you say that the transcript of Jeff's statement sounds calm and measured. That is not the case at all. At one point he tried to overturn the table out of frustration and he was "all over the place". I know this, not from Jeff, but from his lawyers. Neither you (I find it safe to assume) or I have ever been subjected to hours of questioning by police who are accusing you of raping a baby that you cared about. Until one or the other of us have, we can't really speak to how a person reacts other than from what is known in general about reactions to the questioning tactics of police.

I'm guessing the tape is not in the public domain.

As to Jeff's trial attorney's, the videotape statement was withheld from them. They had no clue that her trial testimony was different because they never saw the tape. They had no clue, seemingly about anything. And they did not turn over their entire case file, but when Mark (one of Jeff's current attorneys) filed a motion to depose Sermos, the MSC denied it outright.

I find that very disturbing.
I understand you being mystified by this trial and any documents that may or may not exist. I think we all are. The state lied. Jeff's attorney's were in court in body only. It is a complete mess and it is difficult to know any actualities.

Sure is a f*** up.

You have an omission on Jeff's part. Understandable. Do you not think that an attorney who took this case to advocate pro bono and has spent hours speaking to him and hours investigating the case would not try to trip him up?

Well, I sure would.
I am a layman trying to answer the questions of a lawyer from another country that does things differently. I do the best I can. I do not try to push straw man theories. Sorry if I get out of sorts with you sometimes. It is more frustration than anger.

Well, let me say I appreciate your replies and I am sorry to be the one putting my finger on potential sore points.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:17 am

New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:40 am

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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby jane » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:26 am

MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:35 pm



Yes, Alan Dale Walker has this chance at IAC during penalty phase and post conviction. Guilt isn't the question here.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:48 pm

jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?


There's a list;

Hayne - State of Mississppi (Trial)
Baden - Jerry Mitchell, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Investigative reporter - Clarion Ledger
Lauridson - MS Office of Post Conviction
Ophoven - MS Innocence Project
Van Ee - MS Innocence Project
Nichols - Investigating Innocence

In a death penalty case totally based on faulty science, such as SBS and child sexual assault (that was not found at autopsy) as an underlying felony, I would imagine most experts are generally concerned a travesty of justice has happened, wouldn't you? It has here.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:39 am

Lori wrote:
jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?



Various members of the defense asked experts to look at the case. They were all eager to do so on a pro bono basis. And they have all offered to do further reviews and testify if needed at their own expense.

In a death penalty case totally based on faulty science, such as SBS and child sexual assault (that was not found at autopsy) as an underlying felony, I would imagine most experts are generally concerned a travesty of justice has happened, wouldn't you?
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby jane » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:35 am

Lori wrote:
Lori wrote:
jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?



Various members of the defense asked experts to look at the case. They were all eager to do so on a pro bono basis. And they have all offered to do further reviews and testify if needed at their own expense.

In a death penalty case totally based on faulty science, such as SBS and child sexual assault (that was not found at autopsy) as an underlying felony, I would imagine most experts are generally concerned a travesty of justice has happened, wouldn't you?


I'm glad to hear that experts responded to the defense request for assistance.

I imagine that the innocence projects also have experts who have agreed to assist them. This comes from the home page for Investigating Innocence (which also supports Jeffrey Havard):

.......The Board is also comprised of a divergent group of medical doctors and forensic experts who are available as consulting experts on the cases we accept.

http://www.investigatinginnocence.org/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:22 am

jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?


Jeff's supporters have spearheaded the recent influx of expert evidence. Injustice Anywhere had the opportunity to introduce the case to Bill Clutter from Investigating Innocence this past summer. This led to the new expert affidavits we have today. Jen Fitzgerald, Lori Howard, and I have been working closely on this case. Jeff also has the support of the Mississippi Innocence Project.
"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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:13 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?


Jeff's supporters have spearheaded the recent influx of expert evidence. Injustice Anywhere had the opportunity to introduce the case to Bill Clutter from Investigating Innocence this past summer. This led to the new expert affidavits we have today. Jen Fitzgerald, Lori Howard, and I have been working closely on this case. Jeff also has the support of the Mississippi Innocence Project.

I know I count as a skeptic on some aspects of this case, but I am nevertheless very impressed by this instance of IA making a difference.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:41 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
jane wrote:
MichaelB wrote:New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/new-e ... alty-case/


Who arranged for the experts to file affidavits supporting Jeffrey Havard? Did the defense attorneys do this or is an innocence organization involved? How were the experts persuaded to examine the case?


Jeff's supporters have spearheaded the recent influx of expert evidence. Injustice Anywhere had the opportunity to introduce the case to Bill Clutter from Investigating Innocence this past summer. This led to the new expert affidavits we have today. Jen Fitzgerald, Lori Howard, and I have been working closely on this case. Jeff also has the support of the Mississippi Innocence Project.



I consider us part of the defense team; like his lawyers say, we are all Team Jeff! :)
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:31 pm

January 20, 2014: The Death of Chloe Britt: Capital murder or accidental fall?

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140119/NEWS01/301190044

This article was also featured in the USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/19/science-questioned-in-shaken-baby-conviction-/4642923/
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:17 pm

Blog Talk Radio: New Expert Evidence Could Lead To New Trial In Jeffrey Havard Death Penalty Case

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2014/01/30/new-expert-evidence-could-lead-to-new-trial-in-jeffrey-havard-death-penalty-case

Tune in Wednesday January 29, at 8 PM CST, for an important update on recent events in the Jeffrey Havard case.

There is extensive new expert evidence that completely crumbles the case against Jeffrey Havard. Based on this new compelling evidence, Jeff’s defense team recently filed a motion for relief from judgment or for leave to file successive petition for post-conviction relief. There are currently 6 well qualified experts that support Jeff’s claims.

The state's only expert, Dr. Steven Hayne, doesn't even support the prosecution’s theory. Journalist Jerry Mitchell from the Clarion Ledger recently wrote:

"Havard is sitting on Mississippi’s death row for a crime the state’s pathologist believes never took place."

Scheduled Guests: Jeff's sister Paige Sullivan, wrongful conviction advocate Lori Howard, and Attorney Jen Fitzgerald.

Case Overview
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 Jeff'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. Jeffrey Havard is innocent.
"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: Jeff Havard Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:24 pm

In another case I have been working on I have learned of a Supreme Court decision - Hinton v. Alabama - recently handed down which would seem to support the argument that Jeff got ineffective assistance of counsel in that no forensic work was done on his behalf at the trial level.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:08 am

Thank you very much, I will follow up on that. We very much appreciate it!
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri May 23, 2014 11:19 am

United States District Judge Keith Starrett has issued an order granting Jeffrey Havard's request for a stay of the federal proceedings while the state court reviews a motion filed by Jeffrey’s defense team in November of 2013, detailing new compelling evidence.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/96_-_Order_granting_stay.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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri May 23, 2014 11:30 am

United States District Judge Keith Starrett has issued an order granting Jeffrey Havard's request for a stay of the federal proceedings while the state court reviews a motion filed by Jeffrey’s defense team in November of 2013, detailing new compelling evidence.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/96_-_Order_granting_stay.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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby roteoctober » Sat May 24, 2014 2:58 am

Sounds good. It was a while I had not heard any news, but that probably comes from my limits in following multiple cases.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Jeffrey Havard Public Discussion Forum

Postby geebee2 » Sat May 24, 2014 1:33 pm

There was a good article May 15, from Radley Balko in the Washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... -examiner/

I'm very glad to hear the state court are looking at the new evidence.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:19 am

"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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:21 am

"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:24 am

Please share these informational posters. Feel free to share these posters on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, Pinterest, blogs, and anywhere else that accepts images online.

Image
"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Brady violation in the Jeff Havard case. Pros withheld pathologist statements from defense.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Rebuttal8-14.pdf
http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/Hayne7-14.pdf
http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/

BIG developments in this case. Jeff's lawyers have submitted a rebuttal that includes a clear Brady Violation.

I hope this will lead to big news for Jeff!
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:26 pm

More good news in a similar case regarding Dr Steven Hayne

Good news from Mississippi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/20/good-news-from-mississippi/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:52 pm

This is a major development in Jeff's case!

Pathologist: Miss. Death Row inmate wrongly convicted

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/08/20/pathologist-miss-death-row-inmate-wrongly-convicted/14372529/
"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:02 am

Good news for Jeff and a big morale boost for his tremendous supporters.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:10 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Good news for Jeff and a big morale boost for his tremendous supporters.


Absolutely!
Jerry Mitchell from the Clarion Ledger has been a key! Without his work this Brady violation would not have been found!
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:30 pm

Prosecution Lied To Secure Conviction Of Death Row Inmate Jeffrey Havard

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2014/08/27/prosecution-lied-to-secure-conviction-of-death-row-inmate-jeffrey-havard

Tune in on Tuesday August 26, at 8 PM CDT

This week we will be discussing the Jeffrey Havard case with attorney Jen Fitzgerald and advocate Lori Howard. We will also have a special guest to be announced during the show.

Jeff 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 Jeff's arms while lifting her from the tub, causing her head to hit the toilet. New expert evidence supports Jeff's claims. Chloe’s death was a tragic accident, not a murder.

Jeff’s defense team recently filed a rebuttal citing a Brady violation. A new affidavit from the prosecution's only expert witness Dr. Steven Hayne strongly supports the defense argument that a Brady violation occurred. Hayne specifically told prosecutors on more than one occasion prior to trial that he could not support a finding a sexual abuse. Unbelievably, the State chose to ignore Hayne's findings and prosecute Jeff for murder during the course of a sexual assault.

Prosecutors stood before the Court and told the jury that Dr. Hayne had "confirmed the nurses and doctors worst fear, that this child had been sexually abused." They knew that Dr. Hayne had done no such thing; in fact, he had done just the opposite.

Jeffrey Havard is on death row because the prosecution lied to the jury.
"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:52 pm

Hopefully a Brady violation should be enough to reopen the case on technical grounds, shouldn't it?
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:18 pm

Show will be in 45 minutes. Tonight's show should be big. More than one special guest.

As always, join us on the IA facebook page to listen to the show together! - https://www.facebook.com/groups/291062117582686/

Here's the number to call with questions toward the end of the show: (347) 850-1478

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2014/08/27/prosecution-lied-to-secure-conviction-of-death-row-inmate-jeffrey-havard
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:14 am

Prosecution Lied To Secure Conviction Of Death Row Inmate Jeffrey Havard

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/prosecution-lied-to-secure-conviction-of-death-row-inmate-jeffrey-havard/
"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:20 pm

Jeff Havard's grandfather passed away today.

Jeff Havard case is a stark reminder that wrongful convictions cause irreparable damage

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/jeff-havard-case-is-a-stark-reminder-that-wrongful-convictions-cause-irreparable-damage/
"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: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Sarah » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:56 pm

There has been some exciting in the Jeff Havard case:

"In a unanimous decision made public Thursday, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted death row inmate Jeffrey Havard permission to request an evidentiary hearing since science on shaken baby syndrome has changed."

Death row inmate Jeff Havard may get hearing because science on shaken baby has changed ‪#‎wrongfulconviction
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/journeytojustice/2015/04/02/mississippi-supreme-court-request-evidentiary-hearing-jeffrey-havard/70851908/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:31 pm

But it could still be denied and Mississippi might execute an innocent man?
I am a bit nervous if Mississippi restarts executions (It has been almost three years)
I understand that at least some thought Larry Matthew Puckett was also innocent.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Niteangel » Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:38 am

LarryK wrote:I agree that death, or life in prison, should be off the table. But given Mississippi justice, if Jeffrey has the chance to plead guilty for time served, or up to the maximum for involuntary manslaughter if less than time served, I think he should take it. It's time for his release. (I'm not convinced that the fatal dropping of a baby, even accidental, should be let off scot-free anyway.)


I don't know this case yet so won't comment for the moment. But about dropping a baby, I disagree with you, unfortunately accidents happens, and I don't agree that people should be put in prison for an accident, whether it involved a baby or not, unless it was actually due to negligence. One of my sisters-in-law, who has 4 children, once dropped one of her kids (he was only a few months old), she felt terrible eventho thankfully he didn't get hurt (just a litle bruise). She was lucky, nothing bad happened, but if it had been fatal it still wouldn't have deserved punishment, it was an accident, not intentional nor due to negligence.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Public Discussion Forum

Postby Niteangel » Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:08 am

I am not done reading all the comments here about this case, and I haven't read the official documents, so I won't pretend to know every single detail, but so far I tend to believe that Jeffrey is innocent, and that this was simply an accident. And I believe this type of accident happens quite often, i.e. people dropping a child, thankfully in most cases without consequences. I also don't believe that most people who have dropped a child will automatically run to the ER (p.s. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just saying I don't think most do), especially if the child seems perfectly fine and/or unless they notice something is wrong with the child, because most people feel terrible about the simple fact that they have dropped a child (like my sister-in-law, who couldn't even tell me that she had dropped her son without crying, because she felt terribly guilty, eventho there was no consequences whatsoever and her son was perfectly fine), and they would rather keep this for themselves (unless they notice something is wrong with the child).

Now about the crime(s) he is accused of:

First, it seems pretty obvious that he didn't abuse the child sexually and is completely innocent to the least of this crime (no signs of abuse, nor sperm found correct?).

Also there is many red flags that point to his innocence, or to the least to the prosecution's dishonesty, for example many details that pointed to his innocence but were originally concealed. (p.s. this is all too familiar)

Also the girlfriend changing her version in her testimony vs questioning. Anyone has any idea why she did that? Is it related to the rape charges and she would have lied to get him convicted? But even that doesn't seem to make sense, unless she was blinded by hate at that point.

And I don't understand why the fact that he gave a bath to the child is even an issue anymore. I don't see anything uncommon or strange with a boyfriend giving a bath to his girlfriend's child, and vice versa. And what does this have to do with a murder? If he wanted to kill the child he didn't have to give her a bath. This reminds me of the "phones off" non issue, but made out to be one, in Amanda and Raffaele's case.

Even assuming he had abused the child, how is giving her a bath supposed to erase all signs of abuse? I would think the mother would have eventually noticed something was wrong.

Also the fact that he said he dropped the child and she fell on the toilet. Why would he even mention this detail if this was not the case, and/or if it was intentional, he could have just said he dropped her on the floor. He didn't have to mention giving her a bath either (or was that something the mother had noticed whether he mentioned it or not?).

Anyway, I will continue reading.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Members - Which Featured Case is yours?

Postby Niteangel » Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:07 pm

To Sarah,

For some reason when I click on this link: http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/08/csi-mississippi all I see where the article should be are gray lines. I will look at other links/documents about the case for now.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Members - Which Featured Case is yours?

Postby Sarah » Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:47 pm

Niteangel wrote:To Sarah,

For some reason when I click on this link: http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/08/csi-mississippi all I see where the article should be are gray lines. I will look at other links/documents about the case for now.


It's coming up for me. Maybe give it another try?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Members - Which Featured Case is yours?

Postby Niteangel » Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:32 pm

Sarah wrote:
Niteangel wrote:To Sarah,

For some reason when I click on this link: http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/08/csi-mississippi all I see where the article should be are gray lines. I will look at other links/documents about the case for now.


It's coming up for me. Maybe give it another try?


I did, and nope, still the same gray lines unfortunately. I'll just skip this I guess, there is still plenty to read. Thank you for checking tho! P.S. I started listening to the interview from 2012 with his sister and mother, not done yet because I had some things to do, but will continue listening later today, very interesting so far.

I haven't read all the comments yet, I decided to just go ahead for now and read the documents about the case (which of course I am not done reading either), so I am not sure, is there an appeal coming?

P.S.: Is there a video or audio of his girlfriend Rebecca's interrogation/questioning?
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Sarah » Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:43 pm

There was just big news recently for Jeff's case.

"This week, the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously ruled that death row inmate Jeffrey Havard can proceed with an evidentiary hearing to challenge his murder conviction."

"The ruling this week doesn’t grant Havard a new trial, but it does give him permission to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the scientific legitimacy of the Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis. A favorable ruling in that hearing could then result in a new trial."

Mississippi Supreme Court rules for death row inmate Jeffrey Havard
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/03/mississippi-supreme-court-rules-for-death-row-inmate-jeffrey-havard/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Niteangel » Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:03 pm

Sarah wrote:There was just big news recently for Jeff's case.

"This week, the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously ruled that death row inmate Jeffrey Havard can proceed with an evidentiary hearing to challenge his murder conviction."

"The ruling this week doesn’t grant Havard a new trial, but it does give him permission to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the scientific legitimacy of the Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis. A favorable ruling in that hearing could then result in a new trial."

Mississippi Supreme Court rules for death row inmate Jeffrey Havard
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/03/mississippi-supreme-court-rules-for-death-row-inmate-jeffrey-havard/


Thank you for the great news! I hope it will go well, I don't see why it wouldn't :)
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Niteangel » Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:42 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sarah wrote:Listen to Jeffrey Havard BlogTalkRadio interview:

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice
with Vincent Hill


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

I listened to this and note that Jeffrey admits he may have been liable for manslaughter by negligence. That's a sensible (but nevertheless still very serious) admission so I am at least not alone in reaching that view. I remain skeptical of his overall account but reasonably satisfied there is no evidence of sexual abuse.


This is an old post but I will reply anyway. He says this because he feels terribly guilty for dropping her, I don't think he should be charged with manslaughter. I have started looking into this case, and the more I know, the more I believe that he is 100% innocent. This is the kind of unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone, and as the woman in the radio show mentioned (sorry I can't think of her name) his initial reaction (or lack of) was similar to the paramedics who examined Liam Neeson's wife, the baby seemed ok and he thought she was ok. And in addition to this there is the girlfriend who stuck her finger in the child's throat, Chloe's death might not even have been caused by the fall, but I guess we'll never know.

In retrospective, this case makes me shiver thinking of the times I gave baths to the kids I was babysitting, my niece and nephew among others.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Lori » Thu May 14, 2015 8:30 pm

Niteangel wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sarah wrote:Listen to Jeffrey Havard BlogTalkRadio interview:

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice
with Vincent Hill


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

I listened to this and note that Jeffrey admits he may have been liable for manslaughter by negligence. That's a sensible (but nevertheless still very serious) admission so I am at least not alone in reaching that view. I remain skeptical of his overall account but reasonably satisfied there is no evidence of sexual abuse.


This is an old post but I will reply anyway. He says this because he feels terribly guilty for dropping her, I don't think he should be charged with manslaughter. I have started looking into this case, and the more I know, the more I believe that he is 100% innocent. This is the kind of unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone, and as the woman in the radio show mentioned (sorry I can't think of her name) his initial reaction (or lack of) was similar to the paramedics who examined Liam Neeson's wife, the baby seemed ok and he thought she was ok. And in addition to this there is the girlfriend who stuck her finger in the child's throat, Chloe's death might not even have been caused by the fall, but I guess we'll never know.

In retrospective, this case makes me shiver thinking of the times I gave baths to the kids I was babysitting, my niece and nephew among others.



I hope I am doing this correctly, I haven't been on the forum in a long time.

In response to Clive's comment regarding the July 2012 interview with Jeff, he made the statement that he knew he was responsible for her death due to the fall. That interview was done before we got the expert opinions.

Chloe had many pre-dispositions that Jeff, at least, was unaware of. The mother should have been aware though I don't know that she was. Chloe's pediatrician, Dar, who was in the ER that night was certainly aware of some if not all of Chloe's medical problems yet she never wrote a word in her notes from the ER, nor a word at trial.

Jeff thought the fall alone killed Chloe when he made that 2012 statement. We now know the fall alone did not kill her and we now know that early medical intervention would not have saved her. Had there been a doctor in that bathroom at the moment of the fall, that doctor could not have saved her.

That is not to say Jeff still doesn't feel terrible because he does, but he also now knows he was not in actuality responsible, the fall just set into motion the catastrophic abnormalities in her head that did kill her.

Hayne does not believe it was SBS with impact, he believes that due to advances in biomechanics that the cause of death he listed on her autopsy report was "probably not correct". He wants to testify. Period. He gave as much as he is going to give until then to Jerry Mitchell.

Some food for thought; In all of the horrific claims (read lies) of the state on appeal, and all of the articles quoting DA Harper, never have they once said they had forensic proof of a sexual assault. Seems to me that if they had it they would be screaming about it. That's why I fully believe Hayne told Harper that no sexual assault or battery occurred prior to Jeff being charged with capital murder. I find it horrific he was charged based on that alone.


Niteangel - Thank you for looking at Jeff's case with an open mind, unbiased mind. I was so glad to see you here when I logged on today.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon May 18, 2015 9:04 pm

http://www.spreaker.com/user/injusticeanywhere

Injustice Anywhere Radio: The Jeff Havard Case: Will Science Set Him Free?

Please join us on Tuesday May 19 at 8 PM CDT, for our third show on our new online radio station. Please visit our show page to listen in. The show link will appear on the show page at 8 PM as soon as we go live. If you do not see this week's show link, just refresh your page and it should appear.

All live shows are available on our show page archive after they air. If you miss the live broadcast, be sure to catch the podcast at your convenience.
In this episode, we will be discussing the Jeff Havard case with Attorney Jen Fitzgerald and advocate Lori Howard.

Jeff 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 Jeff's arms while lifting her from the tub, causing her head to hit the toilet. New expert evidence supports Jeff's claims. Chloe’s death was a tragic accident, not a murder. Jeff Havard is innocent.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has granted permission to Jeff’s defense team to request an evidentiary hearing based on the fact that the science on shaken baby syndrome has now changed. This is an important development in Jeff’s case. We will discuss the possible impact this ruling will have on Jeff’s case and what will need to occur for him to receive an evidentiary hearing.

Be sure to visit the Injustice Anywhere Facebook group page to post any questions you would like answered during the broadcast.

Please visit http://www.freeJeffreyHavard.org to learn more about this case.
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Niteangel » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:50 am

Hi Lori! Sorry for the late reply, but you are very welcome. I was wondering if there was any good news about his case?
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:14 am

"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Numbers » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:38 pm

I recommend that those interested read the "Petition for post conviction relief" at http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/. That document gives a good summary of the issues with SBS.

It is clear to me that Jeff Harvard's trial did not meet constitutional standards in that it failed to provide him an adequate defense; he was not provided with the opportunity to call his own expert witnesses.

It is also clear that SBS is not likely to be a cause of death in infants, according to current expert opinion.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:39 pm

Err, somebody who knows the case better than I do needs to listen to the Generation Why podcast and point out all the errors that they made with regards to the case

http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/jeffrey-havard/

I know in every case I have known well, they seem to make serious mistakes.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:38 pm

Thank you for the heads up, Desert Fox.

So many major errors that I spent the entire hour cringing.

I contacted one of the hosts, Aaron, and when I tried to explain about pre-existing conditions, he said it sounded like I was blaming the baby. :juggle:
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Lori » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:54 pm

Niteangel wrote:Hi Lori! Sorry for the late reply, but you are very welcome. I was wondering if there was any good news about his case?


Sorry, I don't get on here much.

The state has been ordered by the circuit court to respond by August 31.

They are backed into a corner by the misconduct, so they should be careful.

They are responding in front of the original trial judge, who has only sentenced two men to death, so I am sure he remembers the trial vividly.

That should bode well for Jeff. I hope the judge will be furious at having been duped by the state.

I don't see much wiggle room there, but we ARE talking about AG Jim Hood's office. Who knows what nonsense they will come up with?

High hopes here, though.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:19 am

Lori wrote:Thank you for the heads up, Desert Fox.

So many major errors that I spent the entire hour cringing.

I contacted one of the hosts, Aaron, and when I tried to explain about pre-existing conditions, he said it sounded like I was blaming the baby. :juggle:


If you have not, you may at least want to leave a reply on the page for that podcast and point out those errors.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:10 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Lori wrote:Thank you for the heads up, Desert Fox.

So many major errors that I spent the entire hour cringing.

I contacted one of the hosts, Aaron, and when I tried to explain about pre-existing conditions, he said it sounded like I was blaming the baby. :juggle:


If you have not, you may at least want to leave a reply on the page for that podcast and point out those errors.



I'm going to do more than that, I have talked to Bruce and we are going to ask that they do a show to correct their errors. Smug little twits.

Thanks again!
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:07 am

Lori wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Lori wrote:Thank you for the heads up, Desert Fox.

So many major errors that I spent the entire hour cringing.

I contacted one of the hosts, Aaron, and when I tried to explain about pre-existing conditions, he said it sounded like I was blaming the baby. :juggle:


If you have not, you may at least want to leave a reply on the page for that podcast and point out those errors.



I'm going to do more than that, I have talked to Bruce and we are going to ask that they do a show to correct their errors. Smug little twits.

Thanks again!


I think their normal tactic is to read a few websites, watch a few YouTube videos, and cram everything together.
They do everything within a week and I don't think that is enough to get a good feel. When they find something interesting, they do not dig.
They managed to make the Norfolk Four seem as if they might be guilty and even vilified Hannah Overton.
When they did their show on the Bermuda Triangle, I actually offered to get them a couple of books.
I was also listening to an older program and they suggested than an eye witness testimony from a woman was valid when she was IDing from a picture of a many she was when she was seven and she in now a grandmother.

Of note, I have had capable and had pay per view at one time. I always preferred renting video cassettes and dvds over pay per view.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:31 pm

User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:13 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Another case of Shaken Baby dropped
http://analysis.rte.ie/uncategorised/20 ... rthy-case/


Thank you.

Some striking similarities here minus a bogus sexual assault charge.

The SBS proponents act as if they are working with a valid medical diagnosis, when, in fact, the opposite is true.

SBS was a "theory" only that never had any scientific validity. Unfortunately, the medical community, and then prosecutors ran with it as gospel.

People that have been incarcerated based on a theory and a triad of symptoms, (which the child in Jeff's case never met) that have now been debunked, are being given new trials, while others are simply being released.

Yet still we wait for Jeffrey because it would have been a much greater scandal for the Mississippi Supreme Court to acknowledge a Brady claim and IAC for a crime that never occurred, than it will be for his case to be overturned based on changes in science by the trial court.

The MSC is a political court.

Jeff has a blog where you can read his own words; www.savejeffhavard.com
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Advocate Discussion

Postby Lori » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:39 pm

Desert Fox wrote:But it could still be denied and Mississippi might execute an innocent man?
I am a bit nervous if Mississippi restarts executions (It has been almost three years)
I understand that at least some thought Larry Matthew Puckett was also innocent.


Jeff is back in the trial court asking for a hearing, so the time bars the state keeps screaming about are no longer applicable.

My worry is that Jeff is before the same trial judge who denied him a medical expert and then denied a directed verdict because JEFF could not explain the dilation.

He is stayed and abated in the Federal Court, so he has that though that would leave him imprisoned for a few more years until he makes his way back through the "system", which I find completely unacceptable.

I am more convinced than ever that he is 150% innocent.

He is obviously innocent of the sexual assault, of that there is no doubt, so I don't see an execution, but he is still on death row in Mississippi, so...

I'm sure you know by now that executions in Mississippi have been halted temporarily due to the banning of midazolam and pentobarbital by a judge that heard a lawsuit brought by two death row inmates about "secrecy". Of course, the monstrous A.G. Jim Hood will appeal that decision.
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:04 am

Some random thoughts which I hope this is alright. . . .I consider it an extremely bad idea to have an elected state Supreme Court. It means that they cannot be good judges but instead politicians.

You need to also understand that many prosecutors want to get death penalty juries because they tend to be the types that consider the defendant automatically guilty. In front of many death penalty juries, you are really guilty until proven innocent.

The worst I could see Jeff guilty of is involuntary manslaughter. Maximum for that is what, maybe two years.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Lori » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:59 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Some random thoughts which I hope this is alright. . . .I consider it an extremely bad idea to have an elected state Supreme Court. It means that they cannot be good judges but instead politicians.

You need to also understand that many prosecutors want to get death penalty juries because they tend to be the types that consider the defendant automatically guilty. In front of many death penalty juries, you are really guilty until proven innocent.

The worst I could see Jeff guilty of is involuntary manslaughter. Maximum for that is what, maybe two years.



The Mississippi Supreme Court is a VERY political court. I believe that's why they did not grant Jeff an evidentiary hearing but sent it back to the trial court instead. They found the Brady claim without merit because they take care of their own. The judge that wrote the opinion(s) on Jeff's case retired which is one of the reasons I think he got as much as he did from the MSC this go round.

There are elections coming up on November 3rd, after all, so who would expect them to do the right thing by a death row inmate?

The state has continually given false evidence and "made up" scenarios in this case. They are beyond despicable.

Yes, I am familiar with death-qualified juries. There were several members of his jury that had connections to the prosecution and the defense. I don't understand why that was allowed to happen.

I don't see him as guilty of any crime, many people drop children and they don't die, but Chloe happened to have many of the medical issues that are overturning SBS cases today, though the defense did not know that at the time of trial. Did I just say Jeff had a defense? My bad. That, and being denied a medical expert doomed him.

I do know that he did not have a fair trial. He did not receive due process. so until he does...

Thank you very much for taking an interest in Jeff's case, and please accept my apologies for the slow reply!

I welcome all discussion unless it is from Clive, (just kidding, Clive :wave: ).
Lori
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:06 pm

The Jeff Havard Case Highlights The Need For Criminal Justice Reform

http://www.groundreport.com/the-jeff-havard-case-highlights-the-need-for-criminal-justice-reform/
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri May 20, 2016 4:40 pm

Jeff has a new blog post up on savejeffhavard.com.

https://savejeffhavard.com/2016/05/20/jeffs-voice-capital-punishment/
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Sun May 22, 2016 10:37 am

Just read and commented: it's a recommended reading.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:06 pm

Based on the Facebook site, it looks like he is going to get a hearing but it will not be until 2017. Still, good news!!!
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:59 am

Jeff Havard has written a new blog discussing his struggles as he waits for his evidentiary hearing in August. Jeff is currently experiencing very difficult times. We are hopeful that he will receive good news this summer.

https://savejeffhavard.com/2017/06/17/jeffs-voice-long-time-gone/
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:07 pm

Lori wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Some random thoughts which I hope this is alright. . . .I consider it an extremely bad idea to have an elected state Supreme Court. It means that they cannot be good judges but instead politicians.

You need to also understand that many prosecutors want to get death penalty juries because they tend to be the types that consider the defendant automatically guilty. In front of many death penalty juries, you are really guilty until proven innocent.

The worst I could see Jeff guilty of is involuntary manslaughter. Maximum for that is what, maybe two years.



The Mississippi Supreme Court is a VERY political court. I believe that's why they did not grant Jeff an evidentiary hearing but sent it back to the trial court instead. They found the Brady claim without merit because they take care of their own. The judge that wrote the opinion(s) on Jeff's case retired which is one of the reasons I think he got as much as he did from the MSC this go round.

There are elections coming up on November 3rd, after all, so who would expect them to do the right thing by a death row inmate?

The state has continually given false evidence and "made up" scenarios in this case. They are beyond despicable.

Yes, I am familiar with death-qualified juries. There were several members of his jury that had connections to the prosecution and the defense. I don't understand why that was allowed to happen.

I don't see him as guilty of any crime, many people drop children and they don't die, but Chloe happened to have many of the medical issues that are overturning SBS cases today, though the defense did not know that at the time of trial. Did I just say Jeff had a defense? My bad. That, and being denied a medical expert doomed him.

I do know that he did not have a fair trial. He did not receive due process. so until he does...

Thank you very much for taking an interest in Jeff's case, and please accept my apologies for the slow reply!

I welcome all discussion unless it is from Clive, (just kidding, Clive :wave: ).



What has 4 i's but can't see?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:21 am

Judge to decide if Mississippi should put Jeffrey Havard to death for a crime that never happened

Image

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/judge-decide-mississippi-put-jeffrey-havard-death-crime-never-happened/
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:49 am

There is a good post at Forensics Forum on the general issue of access to experts. I put a comment there with respect to this case.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:08 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:There is a good post at Forensics Forum on the general issue of access to experts. I put a comment there with respect to this case.


Thank you for posting your comments about Jeff's case on the forensic forum, Chris.
"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: Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:55 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:There is a good post at Forensics Forum on the general issue of access to experts. I put a comment there with respect to this case.



McWilliams v. Dunn was another 5-4 decision with the four Federalist Society most recent Republican appointees dissenting. If we are going to create law in this area giving defendants a clear right to a defense expert on all material issues (which is the only way to make the Constitutional right to counsel meaningful), it will have to happen before Trump gets his next appointment. The "conservatives" (actually statists in the area of criminal law) seem to oppose it and once they get five votes it will never happen.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Previous

Return to Jeff Havard Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest