- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Files to be unsealed in Seth Fontenot case
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:00 am to GeeOH
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:00 am to GeeOH
quote:
Not true, he detailed the shirts AND pants
How does he do this accurately if the truck was just passing down the street?
Edit: I guess it doesn't matter now. It's a nasty situation all around, and I can't begin to understand what the families of those involved are going through.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 12:07 am
0
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:27 am to Ash Williams
Some posters are conspiracy theory or attention whore types who tell other posters they're wrong and how much they don't know, but rarely provide any detail about what they "know" (or think they know). When they do provide any semblance of an answer, it's usually in a cryptic form. It's tedious and frustrating to the posters trying to have a discussion.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:13 am to White Roach
What would you like to know?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:20 am to Ash Williams
quote:
No actually I'm 100% right
Bc I watched the entire trial from the beginning of voire dire to the end of closing statements
You do realize that in trials like this there is a ton of information that is argued over and much of it is deemed inadmissible. So although you may sit through an entire trial, you don't know everything.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:24 am to joeleblanc
quote:
As someone pointed out, Fontenot was able to tell what two of those kids were wearing. How could you do that if the truck didn't stop and the passengers didn't exit the vehicle?
quote:
Easy...access to the tapes at the hospital.
Didn't he tell the cops that morning what they were wearing? How could he have gotten access to the hospital tapes by then?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:40 am to tom
quote:
Yeah, any remotely competent prosecutor would have got him for 1st degree.
Nope. He was overcharged and couple that with the worst investigation in the history of Lafayette and you'll understand the prosecutor had so little to work with it was a joke.
They couldn't prove his intent to murder. So that takes away all first AND 2nd degree charges. Manslaughter is what was left. The defense could have put negligent on the card. It likely would have hung the jury. Not a good situation. The defense had the exact judge they wanted to hear a case like this. Hung jury and they lose the judge.
It was manslaughter from day one. Seth is not a good shot. But he will pay for his stupidity.
A young child is dead. Pray for his family to find peace. They deserve it
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:46 am to GeeOH
No shite Sherlock
Lilly got on here saying that things happened in the trial that did not
I posted what was testified to
Everything I said in the post about the 911 call is exactly what was testified to
That's why I'm saying that I know what actual testimony and evidence was presented, bc I saw the entire thing
Lilly got on here saying that things happened in the trial that did not
I posted what was testified to
Everything I said in the post about the 911 call is exactly what was testified to
That's why I'm saying that I know what actual testimony and evidence was presented, bc I saw the entire thing
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:48 am to GeeOH
quote:
The defense could have put negligent on the card. It likely would have hung the jury.
No they couldn't have.
You can't ADD responsive or lesser verdicts
Negligent homicide is not a responsive verdict to first degree murder.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:57 am to GeeOH
There's a whole list of things I'd like to know, but I'll settle for an answer to your most puzzling statement...
You mentioned that the Defense only presents "what they need". Seth was convicted of Manslaughter. It seems to me that if the Defense had access to additional relevant and exculpatory evidence, that they needed to present it, seeing as their client was found guilty.
Unless you think they're trying to set the table for an Incompetent Defense appeal (which is a moronic premise) I can't understand why they wouldn't present "all they had". I'm not talking about irrelevant BS like "they were drinking", "driving w/o a DL" or petty BS like that. Real actual relevant and exculpatory evidence. What have you got?
You mentioned that the Defense only presents "what they need". Seth was convicted of Manslaughter. It seems to me that if the Defense had access to additional relevant and exculpatory evidence, that they needed to present it, seeing as their client was found guilty.
Unless you think they're trying to set the table for an Incompetent Defense appeal (which is a moronic premise) I can't understand why they wouldn't present "all they had". I'm not talking about irrelevant BS like "they were drinking", "driving w/o a DL" or petty BS like that. Real actual relevant and exculpatory evidence. What have you got?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:06 am to Ash Williams
Partially correct. Which is exactly why they overcharged.
But the defense could have argued that it was negligent the whole trial. IF the jury, or more than 2 agreed with them, they wouldn't have had the option to chose negligent. Therefore, it more than likely hangs the jury. Wouldn't you agree? Unless of course they would have given a not guilty verdict on all charges and he walks. I think we can agree they weren't inclined to do that. Although it does seem a few may have felt that way.
But the defense could have argued that it was negligent the whole trial. IF the jury, or more than 2 agreed with them, they wouldn't have had the option to chose negligent. Therefore, it more than likely hangs the jury. Wouldn't you agree? Unless of course they would have given a not guilty verdict on all charges and he walks. I think we can agree they weren't inclined to do that. Although it does seem a few may have felt that way.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:17 am to GeeOH
No. 100% correct
You said they could've added negligent as a responsive.
They couldn't have and then I explained why
And negligent homicide only fits in this situation if the gun went off on its own which is why even tommy guilbeau didn't argue for it
You continue to misstate the law and facts and then when I correct you, you crawfish and say I'm "only partially correct" and then talk about something else
Look, you clearly know some stuff about this case and you may even be an attorney, but misstating facts and then trying to explain your way around it when corrected is starting to make it look like you're full of shite
You said they could've added negligent as a responsive.
They couldn't have and then I explained why
And negligent homicide only fits in this situation if the gun went off on its own which is why even tommy guilbeau didn't argue for it
You continue to misstate the law and facts and then when I correct you, you crawfish and say I'm "only partially correct" and then talk about something else
Look, you clearly know some stuff about this case and you may even be an attorney, but misstating facts and then trying to explain your way around it when corrected is starting to make it look like you're full of shite
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:23 am to Ash Williams
quote:
And negligent homicide only fits in this situation if the gun went off on its own which is why even tommy guilbeau didn't argue for it
He did offer it as a plea (which was just good lawyering IMO), but I think everyone knows Seth meant to fire the gun.
I think the distance from which he fired is the main factor to me. I always assumed it was 30,40, 50 feet and he was just the (un)luckiest shot in the world. If it was more like 5-15 feet, then he knew what was on the other side of the door and should he held accountable for that level of culpability.
All we have if Fontenot's estimation of the distance, but I wish ( I don't even know if it's possible) there was a forensic test to run to conclude how far away he was.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 10:24 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:30 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
he did offer it as a plea
Oh I know but I'm saying there's no way it would have fit legally with the facts
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 10:30 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:34 am to Ash Williams
He's not only full of shite, but he can't keep his own argument straight. In one post, bragging about how he "knew" more than you did, he briefly introduced us simpletons to the concept of inadmissible evidence. Yet, a post or two later, he's illuminating us to the fact that the Defense had "exactly the judge they wanted for a case like this" and if the trial results in a Hung Jury, they lose that judge. Is this the same judge that ruled so much of the Defense's evidence as inadmissible?
Maybe the fix is in and the judge is going to sentence Fontenot to no jail time. But aside from that, I'd think a Mistrial is better than a Manslaughter conviction. Rather than going back to trial, the Prosecution may be more inclined to accept a plea arrangement. If it does go back to trial, maybe the new judge doesn't rule as much evidence as inadmissible. Maybe the next jury has three meatheads who think it's okay to shoot anyone you want another Hung Jury results.
Maybe the fix is in and the judge is going to sentence Fontenot to no jail time. But aside from that, I'd think a Mistrial is better than a Manslaughter conviction. Rather than going back to trial, the Prosecution may be more inclined to accept a plea arrangement. If it does go back to trial, maybe the new judge doesn't rule as much evidence as inadmissible. Maybe the next jury has three meatheads who think it's okay to shoot anyone you want another Hung Jury results.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:47 am to White Roach
quote:
by White Roach
I'm not lawyer. Sure didn't mean to imply anything like that.
The prosecutor had to throw every reach he could to go for 1st. The families knew it was a reach.
I don't think the defense held out anything relevant. A manslaughter charge was a win since it was the lowest charge available. A kid died, the defendant pulled the trigger, and there was no disputing those facts. I don't think not guilty was possible. At best a hung jury which no one wanted.
Guilbeau argued for manslaughter in his closing. Prather argued for 1st.
He and his daughter (co council) were tremendous. I saw an interview where he said it was the fastest (2 hr) deliberation ever in LA, going from a 1st to manslaughter.
They would be option #1 if my kids were in trouble
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:51 am to GeeOH
Yea I saw that interview too
He's full of shite about it being the fastest deliberation from first to manslaughter in LA history.
There's a lot of parishes in this state and that's not a statistic that's tracked.
He's full of shite about it being the fastest deliberation from first to manslaughter in LA history.
There's a lot of parishes in this state and that's not a statistic that's tracked.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:53 am to GeeOH
Tommy Guilbeau is one of the best criminal defense guys in the city. He's definitely on the short list if you're facing a felony.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:55 am to Ash Williams
quote:
Ash Williams
GFY
I'm crawfishing on nothing and I am not an attorney. Is it possible I worded something incorrectly? Sure it is. Happy bitch?
Maybe they couldn't add it, but thy damn sure could have argued it if they chose to.
You want to fight, it's obvious. Get over yourself. You aren't correcting anyone. You're arguing semantics in a casual conversation on a posting board against me when I've clearly stated I'm no lawyer.
You don't know everything that went on. Not even close.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:03 am to GeeOH
You specifically "corrected" me after two of my earlier posts then you get all pissy when I correct your "correction" bc your correction was not the proper statement of law and facts.
I'm not looking to "fight"
I only got into this thread bc lilly bumped it and started posting things that didn't actually happen in the trial
I don't care what peoples' opinions are, I was just clearing up the bull shite that's being posted bc I feel like people who are curious about the case should know what actually was testified to at trial and what the actual law is.
If you're that familiar with the case and trial then feel free to look at every single post I've made in this thread. They are all discussing the law and/or what was testified to or presented at trial. That's it.
I have no personal connection to either family, I just don't like when people state falsities as facts and then claim that the facts that I'm posting are falsities. When that happens, I will call you on it.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
I'm not looking to "fight"
I only got into this thread bc lilly bumped it and started posting things that didn't actually happen in the trial
I don't care what peoples' opinions are, I was just clearing up the bull shite that's being posted bc I feel like people who are curious about the case should know what actually was testified to at trial and what the actual law is.
If you're that familiar with the case and trial then feel free to look at every single post I've made in this thread. They are all discussing the law and/or what was testified to or presented at trial. That's it.
I have no personal connection to either family, I just don't like when people state falsities as facts and then claim that the facts that I'm posting are falsities. When that happens, I will call you on it.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:06 am to Ash Williams
quote:
He's full of shite about it being the fastest deliberation from first to manslaughter in LA history.
There's a lot of parishes in this state and that's not a statistic that's tracked.
There you go again. You can't prove differently, yet you call him out.
Just stop dude.
2 hrs INCLUDING a re-read of the definitions....that's pretty damn fast when you consider the actual time spent deliberating.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News