USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
WIS has a live feed on their Facebook page, and their website.
OT: Samantha Josephson
- Thread starter nikolas22
- Start date
The forensic pathologist stated it when questioned by the prosecutor. Thankfully they are keeping Sami’s pictures away from the camera and only visible to the jury.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Although The State, on their Facebook update, had a clear shot of them holding up one of the pictures and you could see the stab wounds. Looked like a shoulder, but couldn't really tell.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
And the Defense just rested without calling a single witness.
Closing arguments tomorrow morning at 930.
Closing arguments tomorrow morning at 930.
Wonder if that’s due to they know they’ve done all they could and know they’re going to lose or confident they’ve done enough to put doubt in the jury’s mind if he murdered her or not?
You seem to have kept up with the trial. How are you voting if you're a member of the jury?
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I think it's the latter. One of the attorneys I work with used to be in the PDs office, and even she is saying that the evidence as to murder is all circumstantial. And it is. We've all been talking about it here. He was involved. But I have serious doubt if he actually killed her.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I would have a very hard time convicting him of Murder. But the other stuff, I would vote for conviction.
Defendants are convicted of murder in cases with much less circumstantial evidence, plenty here to convict.
I hate to say this but I'm sure this hasn't been his first major crime - he's probably committed ten other crimes that he was never charged with and I feel much safer with him being behind bars for a very long time.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I agree. This wasn't his first rodeo. But even with the kidnapping, he'll get significant jail time.
Justice for Samantha and her family. If Mr. Roland had evidence to prove he did not do it…they should have put it on!
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
He doesn't have to prove it. That rests on the Prosecution.
I think we will have a hung jury to be honest. I don’t see them coming back fast with a decision.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I haven’t caught all of it but I did hear numerous times today that they didn’t have images to show who was in the car when she got in.
We know he was in the car when he was arrested but did they ever prove he was in the car the night she disappeared?
why? Is there evidence I missed, or are you suggesting he’s part of a conspiracy but not the one who physically stabbed her? Because if it’s the latter, that does NOT make him not guilty of Murder. Vicarious liability holds that all conspirators are guilty of all the crimes of their co-conspirators. so unless he were to become state’s witness and cut a deal, he doesn’t get to just say “well, I kidnapped her to be trafficked, but I’m innocent of murder”. If he kidnapped her in a conspiracy, he is just as guilty of her murder as anyone who may have stabbed her. Vicarious liability is literally the reason that even in a state as nutty as California, Charles Manson spent his life in prison for murders that he didn’t physically commit.
That is true. He does not have to put on a case. Sadly, they could not come up with a case for him…besides I didn’t do it. In my opinion, the prosecution proved that the murder was in the courtroom. I could never be a defender and sit there defending someone who murdered an innocent young woman who had her life ahead of her. But that is their job. Innocent until proven guilty.
It will be interesting to hear their closing arguments. They said there was no DNA evidence in opening arguments but the SLED forensic scientist said there was very strong support that Rowland had Josephson’s DNA under his nails. I’m not sure if they can get a murder conviction on that, but I bet the prosecution’s closing argument will tee it up perfectly to really get the jury thinking.
No…I don’t think they had evidence that he was in the car the night of the murder…except he drives with the seat back and you could tell from the video that the seat was back. Of course, that is not strong evidence.
Last edited:
Not to simplify everything that was covered but in essence all they know for sure is that he tried to sell her cell phone and was in the car with evidence of her being murdered after the fact?
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
They said that his DNA wasn't on her. And from what I heard that is true.
Under his nails was her DNA, his own DNA, and another unidentified male's DNA. I believe the same combination was on his sock.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
They have his bloody clothes. They have her DNA on his clothes. They have video of someone dressed like him trying to use her cards. They have him trying to sell her phone. They have his and her phones pinging in the same location. They have him refusing to answer to his girl friend why he has blood in his car. He possesses what they feel is the murder weapon. The weapon has Samantha and Rowland’s dna.
Last edited:
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
OK...Manson all but admitted he orchestrated the murders, and that he was in the house the night the LaBianca's were killed. So not exactly the same.
This guy has pled not guilty. At that point it's strictly up to the prosecution to prove that he committed the act. What have they put forward that proves that he actually stabbed her, that is not essentially circumstantial evidence?
As another mentioned, unless the prosecution tees it up and drives it farther than DJ, I fear we are going to end up with a hung jury, at least as to the murder charge.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Yes…that is when he was arrested. The police spotted the car matching the one that Samantha got into. And of all things, Mr. Rowland was driving the vehicle. And I believe still had the phone and knife in the car.
Last edited:
just an aside on Manson, he didn’t admit any such thing. At least definitely not in the trial. In fact, the girls changed their behavior midway through the trial because they realized it was giving the appearance that Manson had total control over them and they didn’t want to make him appear culpable.
now back to this case, again, what makes you say you’d have a hard time convicting him? it seems that several people are suggesting he was part of a conspiracy to kidnap and traffick, but not necessarily the one physically murdered her. Is that it? If so, as I said, he’s still guilty of her murder. its the same thing if you and a buddy went into a gas station to rob it at gunpoint and your buddy ends up murdering the clerk. Unless you cut a deal, you’re still guilty of murder.
as far as what they’ve proven, that’s what I’m asking you... what have they shown you to suggest he DIDN’T kill her? I know they’ve proven a massive amount of her blood was n his car and possibly her dna under his fingernails. I‘d those are 2 pretty damn big ones, unless he’s offered some kind of plausible reason. Saying “I kidnapped her but I didn’t kill her” in an attempt to send the jury down fantasy land is NOT a plausible reason.
now don’t get me wrong, I’d never underestimate the potential stupidity of a jury. But you and others seem to BANKING on the stupidity of the jury, and I wouldn’t go that far either.
Last edited:
Just hoping there is a verdict and the family does not have to go through this again!
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I'm not banking on the jury doing anything. I'm simply giving how I see things if I were on the jury.
He doesn't have to offer a plausible reason as to why he didn't do it. All he has to say is he didn't do it, which he basically did by pleading not guilty.
All their evidence is circumstantial. I haven't been looking for anything that the Prosecution has proven that says he didn't kill her. I've been looking for them to prove to me that he did. I don't think they have. Not convincingly.
The Defense asked all the right questions TBH. Was his DNA on her? No. Can you see him driving the car the night she was taken? No. Those two questions are enough for a hung jury IMO. Do I like that I feel that way? Not at all.
Maybe my career has jaded me.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
the backseat of the car he owns being saturated with her blood isn’t remotely circumstantial. It didn’t magically get there. He doesn’t have to tell them WHO caused it to be there, he can take the blame himself, which he appears to be doing and hedging his bets on a stupid jury.
but for the third time, you’re still not answering my question as to what you’ve seen to suggest he’s not guilty or what you think happened. you think someone else killed her in his car without him knowing, even though nothings been offered to show he ever lost possession of the car? Or are you suggesting there’s a conspiracy in which he was the kidnapper but not the killer? If you’re suggesting the conspiracy, which I assume you are, he’s still guilty of murder.
Last edited:
Similar threads
