Kaelin Glazier

[tvguy]

Has anyone been following this case? I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it. Maybe I missed it.
I can't figure out how they will convict Simmons. I don't see any real evidence.

[Wonky]

Has anyone been following this case? I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it. Maybe I missed it.
I can't figure out how they will convict Simmons. I don't see any real evidence.

I guess the District Attorney will present the evidence, the defense will attempt to destroy it, the jury will decide, and the judge will rule.

Damn sad in any event. We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

[tvguy]

Has anyone been following this case? I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it. Maybe I missed it.
I can't figure out how they will convict Simmons. I don't see any real evidence.

I guess the District Attorney will present the evidence, the defense will attempt to destroy it, the jury will decide, and the judge will rule.

Damn sad in any event. We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

There has already been a lot of news coverage and witness statements. I would have thought that what ever evidence they have would have already came out.

We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

What's that mean? You can learn what many of the witnesses has to say and what they saw, where the body was found and when, it's proximity to the accused grandparents home and the travel trailer he lived in.
You can here what the boyfriend had to say plus his parents, what her state of mind was, where she was last seen, where she was supposedly going.

And in todays paper a witness incriminated the boyfriend and not the accused?

I just wonder if they even have enough evidence to convict this guy or if they are just making a stab at it.

[Wonky]

Has anyone been following this case? I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it. Maybe I missed it.
I can't figure out how they will convict Simmons. I don't see any real evidence.

I guess the District Attorney will present the evidence, the defense will attempt to destroy it, the jury will decide, and the judge will rule.

Damn sad in any event. We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

There has already been a lot of news coverage and witness statements. I would have thought that what ever evidence they have would have already came out.

We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

What's that mean? You can learn what many of the witnesses has to say and what they saw, where the body was found and when, it's proximity to the accused grandparents home and the travel trailer he lived in.
You can here what the boyfriend had to say plus his parents, what her state of mind was, where she was last seen, where she was supposedly going.

And in todays paper a witness incriminated the boyfriend and not the accused?

I just wonder if they even have enough evidence to convict this guy or if they are just making a stab at it.

Dunno. I guess we will find out.

And if ever anyone LOOKED guilty, this poor perp is the poster boy! Sorry, but I'd have to vote guilty no matter the evidence. Not really, but, damn...!

[tvguy]

Has anyone been following this case? I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it. Maybe I missed it.
I can't figure out how they will convict Simmons. I don't see any real evidence.

I guess the District Attorney will present the evidence, the defense will attempt to destroy it, the jury will decide, and the judge will rule.

Damn sad in any event. We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

There has already been a lot of news coverage and witness statements. I would have thought that what ever evidence they have would have already came out.

We will read LOTS about it in the local paper. I doubt we will learn much, if anything.

What's that mean? You can learn what many of the witnesses has to say and what they saw, where the body was found and when, it's proximity to the accused grandparents home and the travel trailer he lived in.
You can here what the boyfriend had to say plus his parents, what her state of mind was, where she was last seen, where she was supposedly going.

And in todays paper a witness incriminated the boyfriend and not the accused?

I just wonder if they even have enough evidence to convict this guy or if they are just making a stab at it.

Dunno. I guess we will find out.

And if ever anyone LOOKED guilty, this poor perp is the poster boy! Sorry, but I'd have to vote guilty no matter the evidence. Not really, but, damn...!

Him?, come on, that's the guy who does your taxes.

[illcommandante]

They don't seem to have anything they didn't have before, beyond what. What's left to wonder, is who, and why. And, those answers seem out of reach. So, this is a crapshoot, and maybe a little spectacle.

[PonderThis]

It seems like they convicted the guy in Douglas County under seemingly similar circumstances (involving the teenage Stephanie Condon of Myrtle Creek).

EDIT: I'm wrong. The guy was found not guilty at trial. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Condon-mur...78334.html

[Tiamat]

You know I haven't been following the case. I was just glad they found the body, and brought closure to the family. At least ending all doubt.

[tvguy]

Still NOTHING. The DA has no case. There is no evidence that Simmons committed the crime.
As a matter of fact it seems like there are more witnesses statements showing he is innocent than guilty.

[broadzilla]

The jury found him guilty of manslaughter.

[tvguy]

The jury found him guilty of manslaughter.

Yeah, I think it's baloney. I would love to know what evidence there is that shows that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't understand the law. Two people out of twelve did not think he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so they convict him of something else other than murder?? WTF?
Maybe now that the trial is over we will see some evidence? So far I haven't seen anything conclusive.

Simmons guilty of manslaughter, but not murder
Popular Today


A jury has found William Frank Simmons guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder in the 1996 death of Kaelin Glazer.

Simmons' mother cried as the jury was polled, but he didn't react. Ten jurors said he was guilty of manslaughter, while two didn't.
Links

Kaelin Glazier case: Coverage from the trial and from the archives

Simmons was arrested on a murder charge in April 2010. On Monday, as the deliberations started, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Bloom instructed jury members that they could consider the lesser manslaughter charge if they were unable to reach the required unanimous verdict on murder.

Ten votes are necessary to convict on manslaughter, which covers causing another's death through recklessness or negligence.

Murder is committed intentionally or in the commission of other felonies, according to Oregon law.

[broadzilla]

I think he should appeal.
I also don't think that this should have been tried locally, as public opinion had already convicted him.

[tvguy]

I think he should appeal.
I also don't think that this should have been tried locally, as public opinion had already convicted him.

Yeah, maybe there will be an appeal but on the other hand the sentence for manslaughter may be very light. I would have thought the first thing a good lawyer would have done would be to file for a change of venue.

[broadzilla]

It's a third strike for him, by Measure 11 standards he will get no less than 10 years.

[tvguy]

It's a third strike for him, by Measure 11 standards he will get no less than 10 years.

Well then I guess there will be an appeal.

[Wonky]

It's a third strike for him, by Measure 11 standards he will get no less than 10 years.

Well then I guess there will be an appeal.

Curious stuff. I'm looking forward to an explanation by the DA as to why they included manslaughter in the indictment. As I learned in the 3rd year of law school, the ... hold it: Oh yeah, I didn't got to law school.
Anyway, i thought "manslaughter" was taking a life without intent to do so. Like killing someone when driving drunk. Or pushing a mother-in-law out of an airplane because you thought she could fly.

[broadzilla]

It's a third strike for him, by Measure 11 standards he will get no less than 10 years.

Well then I guess there will be an appeal.

Curious stuff. I'm looking forward to an explanation by the DA as to why they included manslaughter in the indictment. As I learned in the 3rd year of law school, the ... hold it: Oh yeah, I didn't got to law school.
Anyway, i thought "manslaughter" was taking a life without intent to do so. Like killing someone when driving drunk. Or pushing a mother-in-law out of an airplane because you thought she could fly.

Because they knew there wasn't enough evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, they added it at the last minute so they could at least get him for something.

[tvguy]

Well I guess if you are ever arrested you better ask for a judge and not a jury trial.
Unless you want your future decided by fools. At least with a judge you know you'll get one guy with some common sense, logic and critical thinking.

I don't see any evidence that shows Simmons to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see the logic in a jury deciding that they can not convict the man of murder based on the evidence or lack of evidence but somehow the evidence shows them that he IS guilty of unlawfully or recklessly killing Kaelin Glaizer??

This is the same jury that had two jurors state that there was "little direct evidence". One who questioned whether the wrong person was brought to trial.

One juror said that several jurors believed someone else was either the actual killer or that they participated in the killing with Simmons.

Jurors found credible the testimony of Diane Smandra, a neighbor who said she locked eyes with a "scruffy" male, whom she did not believe was Simmons, walking on Haven Road as she was driving home between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. that overcast night on Nov. 6. Smandra said the thing she remembered most was the fear.

"I was afraid of this guy," she testified. "I'm not ever going to forget those eyes."




There were other witnesses who said they heard screams and a car speed away. There were also canines who followed a scent that ended at a road.


They have no murder weapon and they don't even know the cause of death.

And yet ten these jurors still think Simmons is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? IMO there is plenty of reasonable doubt.



http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...sitesearch

[Wonky]

Well I guess if you are ever arrested you better ask for a judge and not a jury trial.
Unless you want your future decided by fools. At least with a judge you know you'll get one guy with some common sense, logic and critical thinking.

I don't see any evidence that shows Simmons to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see the logic in a jury deciding that they can not convict the man of murder based on the evidence or lack of evidence but somehow the evidence shows them that he IS guilty of unlawfully or recklessly killing Kaelin Glaizer??

This is the same jury that had two jurors state that there was "little direct evidence". One who questioned whether the wrong person was brought to trial.

One juror said that several jurors believed someone else was either the actual killer or that they participated in the killing with Simmons.

Jurors found credible the testimony of Diane Smandra, a neighbor who said she locked eyes with a "scruffy" male, whom she did not believe was Simmons, walking on Haven Road as she was driving home between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. that overcast night on Nov. 6. Smandra said the thing she remembered most was the fear.

"I was afraid of this guy," she testified. "I'm not ever going to forget those eyes."




There were other witnesses who said they heard screams and a car speed away. There were also canines who followed a scent that ended at a road.


They have no murder weapon and they don't even know the cause of death.

And yet ten these jurors still think Simmons is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? IMO there is plenty of reasonable doubt.



http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...sitesearch

1st TVg, I confess I havent' followed this closely.

But from what I've read in the MT, and reading your comments above, I think I agree.

There was NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. That makes me nervous when anyone life is threaded by years in jail or execution.

But hey, if ever there was a guilty looking' dude, this is the guy! I'd have sent him away for at least a year based solely on his appearance and demeanor.

The old "I looked in his creepy eyes and he by God looked like a killer to me" should not sway a jury.

My guess is that we will see an appeal and if the State does not have anything more, tis guy may be back among us. Should he move next door to me, I'm outta here! Hey, he may no be guilty, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it.

[tvguy]

Well I guess if you are ever arrested you better ask for a judge and not a jury trial.
Unless you want your future decided by fools. At least with a judge you know you'll get one guy with some common sense, logic and critical thinking.

I don't see any evidence that shows Simmons to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see the logic in a jury deciding that they can not convict the man of murder based on the evidence or lack of evidence but somehow the evidence shows them that he IS guilty of unlawfully or recklessly killing Kaelin Glaizer??

This is the same jury that had two jurors state that there was "little direct evidence". One who questioned whether the wrong person was brought to trial.

One juror said that several jurors believed someone else was either the actual killer or that they participated in the killing with Simmons.

Jurors found credible the testimony of Diane Smandra, a neighbor who said she locked eyes with a "scruffy" male, whom she did not believe was Simmons, walking on Haven Road as she was driving home between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. that overcast night on Nov. 6. Smandra said the thing she remembered most was the fear.

"I was afraid of this guy," she testified. "I'm not ever going to forget those eyes."




There were other witnesses who said they heard screams and a car speed away. There were also canines who followed a scent that ended at a road.


They have no murder weapon and they don't even know the cause of death.

And yet ten these jurors still think Simmons is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? IMO there is plenty of reasonable doubt.



http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...sitesearch

1st TVg, I confess I havent' followed this closely.

But from what I've read in the MT, and reading your comments above, I think I agree.

There was NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. That makes me nervous when anyone life is threaded by years in jail or execution.

But hey, if ever there was a guilty looking' dude, this is the guy! I'd have sent him away for at least a year based solely on his appearance and demeanor.

The old "I looked in his creepy eyes and he by God looked like a killer to me" should not sway a jury.

My guess is that we will see an appeal and if the State does not have anything more, tis guy may be back among us. Should he move next door to me, I'm outta here! Hey, he may no be guilty, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it.

I know you are kidding ( mostly) about Simmons appearance but you do realize that he was just one of the neighborhood kids at the time, 16 years old.