Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

Travis account of the chase on Holmes does not appear to be correct. Maybe I misunderstood something.

Travis says he was on Burford. Arbery ran back down Burford toward Satilla and Holmes. He sees Arbery run around Roddie's truck. He continues forward around Zellwood and then turns onto Holmes.

He says when he gets about halfway to the dogleg on Holmes, he sees Arbery running toward him at the dogleg. He says he did not see Roddie. He continues on to the dogleg. He says he sees Roddie's truck at the intersection of Holmes driving toward him. He says he see Arbery running next the to passenger side of Roddie's truck and attack the truck like he is trying to get in. Travis is now about 30 feet from where he stopped near the intersection of Holmes and Satilla. Roddie and Arbery are both moving into his lane. They are basically in front of him so that he practically has to stop. They are about 10 feet in front of him. He says he doesn't think they even see him.

Arbery runs around his passenger side. Roddie goes around to the right. Travis continues on to near the intersection where he stops. Travis sees Roddie and Arbery both go down Holmes and around the dogleg. He gets his shotgun and starts walking back after them. He thinks better of that and goes back to the truck. He asks when the police are coming and realizes Greg had not called the police. He dials 911 and then sees Arbey running back at him.

But...that middle part doesn't make sense. All that stuff about seeing Arbery attack the truck back at the intersection of Holmes and Arbery running past his truck didn't happen.

At the start of the video we see Arbery on the left side of the road. Roddie is right behind him. Arbery is right at the bend in the road. Arbery turns around and run back toward Satilla. Roddie' camera points to that bend and we can't see Travis's truck. Travis is right around that bend. That's why Arbery turned around. He got to that bend and saw that he had trucks coming at him from different directions in the same lane.

Travis wasn't around the bend yet. He didn't see Roddie's truck down at the intersection of Satilla because he couldn't see down to Satilla yet. And because Roddie's truck wasn't down at that intersection. It was right in front of him. After we see Arbrey turn around at the bend, the camera goes down and we see the steering wheel going back and forth. That is Roddie turning back in to the right lane so that Travis can get past him. Right after that we hear Travis's truck go by.

Roddie continues down Holmes. He says to himself, "You know, I'm going to keep going." That is Roddie thinking about turning around in a driveway but then deciding to either go to go to the Zellwood intersection and turn around there. It is a bit further, but faster and easier to turn around.

Arbery is running back toward Satilla. Travis drive past him in the same direction and stops near the intersection. Arbery didn't run past Travis going the other way. Travis knew that Arbery was running toward him. He stopped to block him in knowing that Roddie was on the other end of the road. They had him trapped like a rat. Travis knew it. That is what he was trying to do.
 
plague311 said:
They merely blamed the petty theft on him for purposes of the trial.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. This neighborhood had a regular sewing circle. All kinds of gossip and rumors around town and on the neighborhood Facebook page about crimes and suspects.

Travis decided he was going to play neighborhood detective. He had some law enforcement type training. He dad is a former cop. He's mad that somebody stole his gun from his unlocked truck. He gonna find out who done and get 'em and get 'em good. Solve the mystery. Crack the case. Get the bad guy.

He begins investigating. Getting videos from neighbors. He sees a video from the day his gun was stolen with a truck he doesn't recognize. He tracks it down to someone living on the other side of the neighborhood. He posts on Facebook that he is pretty sure he knows who did and now he knows where they live. He continues to analyze the situation. He eventually find out that that guy didn't steal his gun.

Then he is in his boat. Under the bridge near the entrance to Satilla Shores he sees a guy fishing. He has a tarp and some things. Like a homeless camp. He must be a homeless guy! This must be the thief. He drives his boat back. Travis and Greg get there guns and go down to talk to this guy. When testifying under cross, I could see he immediately knew that he used too much cop talk when he said they went down there to "investigate" the situation. They investigate. The guy says he lives in Fancy Bluff and is just down there fishing. They go home, but then call 911. The prosecutor was quick to point out that instead of calling police and letting them handle it and even before they call the police, they get their guns and go to "investigate".

Then he moves on to his next victim suspect. That black guy poking around old man English's house. It must be that guy! I mean, he's in there walking around. And his mom told him English had some things stolen, even though it might not have been there and English suspected some contractors. But when he encountered Arbery he was, you know, creeping around. And he stuck his had in his pocket. That's what he said on the 911 call. Twice. That later became he was reaching into his waistband like he was going for a gun. Even though Arbery was always seen wearing long t-shirts and Travis didn't see him lift up his shirt. But, you know, like he was reaching for a gun. Totality of circumstances.

He talking to neighbors. Posting on Facebook. Getting the whole place worked into a frenzy about a "string of burglaries" and "rising crime". Whipping up a posse to get this guy.

When the guy shows up in the neighborhood, everybody is on it. The neighbor calls the cops. That's what he should do. But Travis follows his modus operandi: get the guns and investigate, and then call the cops. He's out playing detective. Out playing cop. And that's bad. That can be dangerous. Someone could end up hurt. Someone could even get shot and killed.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, he did rather well when his attorney's were asking him questions, but that prosecutor is razor sharp, and wasn't taking ****. I think my favorite part was, because the defense played up his military record, she used that to completely undress him in front of the jury. Pointed out that pulling a gun is the absolute last step. That no one is forced to talk to him. That when people leave you have to let them. She got him to admit all of that on the stand, and that he was even trained to ******* do it by his own admission. It was so good. It just tickled me.
Click to expand...

And even admit that his training is to position himself so that his gun can't be taken away. All that defense about his training just turned into evidence that he a bunch of things against that training. He did it even when he knew it was wrong.

She also got him to say that he "assumed" Arbery must have done something. The very first words in the trial from the prosecution were "This case is all about assumptions..."
 
plague311 said:
It makes no difference but he was caught on camera all over that place. He was never caught committing any crimes, but walking in yards, in that house, etc.
Click to expand...

When was that evidence about walking thorough yards? Do remember which day? I don't remember that. But I play through the trial at high speed because people in court talk too slow and jump through the formalities and usually the foundation questions (spell your name, where do you work, how long have you worked there, etc.) And sometimes I am just doing something else and don't really pay attention. I am such a juror number 12.

I thought the prosecution did a good job of presenting the surveillance video of Arbery at English's property. He was just walking around and looking around in general. He walked past a table with some saws and other things, but didn't look at what was on the table. He walked past some boxes on or stacked up on the floor, but didn't go looking through the boxes. He walked past a small boat without looking into it.

He was on the dock where he could have gone on the boat (a different boat from what was previously in the garage) but he didn't go on the boat to look for anything. There was a toolbox and I think a cooler with some things in it just sitting there. He didn't try to open the toolbox. He didn't pick it up and run off with it. He didn't come back later and steal it.

I didn't see anything indicating that Arbery was looking to steal anything or casing the joint or anything like that. It looked like curiosity and taking a break from a run, which would have been at the mid-point running from his home down and around the loop at Satilla Shores and back.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, he did rather well when his attorney's were asking him questions, but that prosecutor is razor sharp, and wasn't taking ****. I think my favorite part was, because the defense played up his military record, she used that to completely undress him in front of the jury. Pointed out that pulling a gun is the absolute last step. That no one is forced to talk to him. That when people leave you have to let them. She got him to admit all of that on the stand, and that he was even trained to ******* do it by his own admission. It was so good. It just tickled me.
Click to expand...

Even if these three morons are acquitted in the state case (that's looking increasingly unlikely), they were still indicted on federal hate crimes and kidnapping charges. The AUSA can use his statements under cross against him and that trial won't happen in Brunswick, Georgia. The defense won't have a bunch of slack-jawed yokels to stack the jury with. He's going to be up against a jury pool selected in Savannah or Augusta.
 
I saw a comment yesterday that the defense got mad during jury instructions when the judge explained the citizen's arrest law to the jury, and explained that it had to be an immediate response to observing a felony in progress.

The defense lawyers whined that he had just pulled the rug out from under their whole defense.

Because they wanted to base their defense on a "citizen's arrest" law that didn't exist, it seems.

Calling what they did a citizen's arrest does not make it one.
 
Last edited:
What does the defense want? To have the law say something other than what it says. The law said when you can make a citizen's arrest and the defendants didn't follow the law.

At this point, the defense's best bet is to go for a deal or try to get lesser included charges.
 
Clearly Gough at least wants enough mistrials that the State stops prosecuting; or to stack enough outright racists on a jury that they acquit regardless of evidence and law. Seems a solid, if disgusting and unethical, way of achieving an acquittal when your client is obviously guilty.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I saw a comment yesterday that the defense got mad during jury instructions when the judge explained the citizen's arrest law to the jury, and explained that it had to be an immediate response to observing a felony in progress.

The defense lawyers whined that he had just pulled the rug out from under their whole defense.

Because they wanted to base their defense on a "citizen's arrest" law that didn't exist, it seems.

Calling what they did a citizen's arrest does not make it one.
Click to expand...

Well, with this sort of thing I can see grounds for an appeal based upon ineffective counsel.
 
I did miss something. I missed the drive trough that Seacrest did with Roddie. I have watched that now. That is not good for Travis. That fully supports that Travis was lying.

Roddie pulled out of driveway to go left, but overshot. Then Arbery was right there and ran through the ditch around the front of the truck. Roddie backed up and pursued with Arbery to his left. Roddie moved to the very left to block Arbery in with the big trees along the street. Arbery makes it around. At the last house on Burford, before it gets to the Satilla/Holmes intersection, Roddie turns left and cuts him off. Roddie backs up. Somewhere around that point is where Arbery impacts the truck in some way. None of that is visible from Holmes.

Arbery runs through the ditch around the front of the truck an into the intersection. Roddie backs up and then pursues. Going passed Holmes, Arbery is to the left of the truck. Roddie goes forward and blocks the path down Satilla. Arbery turn right and goes down Holmes.

Gough was actually correct. At that point Arbery was behind Roddie. Roddie had moved in front to block Satilla, forcing Arbery to turn onto Holmes.

Roddie backs up and then proceeds down Holmes. He catches up where there is the turn in the road that creates the dogleg. That is when he starts his video. Arbery is on the left side of the street, as is Roddie. Roddie is still behind the turn, but Arbery is in the middle. Arbery turns around and runs back Roddie's passenger side. Due to Bruton they can't say what Roddie saw Travis do, but it is quite clear that the reason that Arbery turn around was because Travis was coming at him from the other direction. That is why we see Roddie turning the wheel to get into the correct lane. That is why we hear a vehicle then passing.

Roddie proceeds down Holmes. Somewhere near the end he turns round and heads back. Then the video starts again. Roddie goes down Holmes. He catches up. Arbery is running toward the intersection with Holmes where Travis is parked on Holmes.

There is no logical scenario where Travis saw Arbery turn around at the curve on Holmes and then saw Arbery attacking Roddie's truck at the Holmes intersection. That is contradictory to evidence from statement made on bodycams and police reports and statements to police by the defendants. And it is even contradicted by a drive through with Roddie and even by the freaking video.

It didn't happen. It was a lie. He lied. And it can be proved that he lied. With evidence that had already been presented in court.

I am just baffled. I don't know how this could happen. During one deliberation where the jury wasn't present the prosecution flat out said he was lying. The prosecution knows. It is obvious.

His goose is cooked. Prosecution's closing arguments are going to brutal. Brutal. She is going to tear him apart. Even a juror sympathetic to the defense's rather weak arguments isn't going to pass over a proven lie by the defendant under oath to the jury. He is doomed.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I thought putting defendants on the stand was usually avoided, but we're seeing it a lot more.
Click to expand...

It can be difficult to not have the defendant testify in a self defense case. In some jurisdictions, and in others depending on the judge, the jury may not be instructed on self defense unless it is brought up in testimony. Often the only way to do that is by testimony by the defendant.

In many jurisdictions (I want to say most, but I haven't actually counted) the prosecution has to prove that it was not self defense. That is technically a burden shift, but in practically to what a jury will actually consider, the defense needs to make a case for self defense. And that usually means they need to put the defendant on the stand.
 
Darat said:
I'm not - there is simply not a good defence that can be brought forward so the lawyers have no choice but to work with what they have which is extraordinarily little, the best* lawyers in the world couldn't help with this case.


*And by best, I mean ethical lawyers who follow their professions codes and so on. I've not listened to all the court proceedings, but I am surprised the judge hasn't had a conference with the defense lawyers reminding them that whilst they must do their best for their client they have to do so ethically, which is not to try for instance to get a mistrial and so on.
Click to expand...

When I said I was baffled by his approach, I did not mean the argument he was making, but rather how he was making it. This was in regard to testimony of some transcript.

Do you now, as jurors are now in a position to do, remember anything of that testimony? I do not. I don't think the jurors do either. He had an opportunity to present memorable evidence for the defense. He did not. To jurors, ultimately, that will be remembered as blah blah blah not asking a question blah blah blah trying to speculate about something blah blah blah defense looks shady.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
When I said I was baffled by his approach, I did not mean the argument he was making, but rather how he was making it. This was in regard to testimony of some transcript.

Do you now, as jurors are now in a position to do, remember anything of that testimony? I do not. I don't think the jurors do either. He had an opportunity to present memorable evidence for the defense. He did not. To jurors, ultimately, that will be remembered as blah blah blah not asking a question blah blah blah trying to speculate about something blah blah blah defense looks shady.
Click to expand...



The reality is that the vast, overwhelming majority of trial lawyers in criminal jury trials are either incompetent or operating at a very low level of competence. And if most prominent trial lawyers met their reputations out on the street, they wouldn't recognize each other.

Vincent Bugliosi writing in the Washington Post
(He was an incredibly successful attorney who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. He was best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate–LaBianca murders of August 9–10, 1969.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/outrage.htm
 
Last edited:
It's a bit cynical, but ain't nobody gonna want to deal with this over the long weekend. The jurors will return a decision by close of business Wednesday, assuming closing arguments end before midday Tuesday or so.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
When was that evidence about walking thorough yards? Do remember which day? I don't remember that.
Click to expand...

I believe it was mentioned in a few spots. Diego's wife said she had him on video walking through her driveway, and then the last lady. I don't remember names now. She was the daughter of the other woman that testified and wouldn't shut up. She said she had him walking through her yard, but nothing ever happened.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's a bit cynical, but ain't nobody gonna want to deal with this over the long weekend. The jurors will return a decision by close of business Wednesday, assuming closing arguments end before midday Tuesday or so.
Click to expand...

Closing arguments should be done today I'd think. They're bringing the jury back, and Friday was only "perfecting the record" as they say. So all-in-all if they read the jury instructions and do closing arguments they could be in deliberation by late today, or beginning tomorrow. Hopefuly it won't take them long to come to a conclusion.

They're bringing the jury in right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom