OT: Samantha Josephson

hillstosea

Member
Apr 12, 2020
820
812
93
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.
Your career hasn’t jaded you. Most of us non lawyers don’t fully understand the degree of evidence needed
 
  • Like
Reactions: redrogers

chucktowncock

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2001
15,108
4,371
113
All but a couple of tablespoons of blood had drained from Josephson’s body at the time of the autopsy due to the attack, and Josephson would have bled quickly where she was attacked.
 

smcnd

Member
Nov 30, 2006
29
29
13
Remembering back to opening arguments, the prosecution spent considerable time talking about how circumstantial evidence can be used to convict. I think we will hear that again in their closing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikolas22

Gamecock122

Active Member
Dec 17, 2005
2,390
1,193
113
By law, you cannot find someone not guilty via doubt. You have sworn to serve the jury and to accept the terms of the law in its original form. To find not guilty it must be from “reasonable doubt”. When you add up all of the so called circumstantial evidence then i believe you have removed any and all reasonable doub…..they will convict for murder.
 

TAV31

Member
Sep 1, 2011
692
805
93
Hand of one, hand of all. The person sitting in the car as a look out gets the same charges as the person in the house committing a burglary. So for all you that can't seem to find him guilty of murder because they don't have a color video of him literally stabbing her. If he's part of bigger setup/plan(trafficking, etc..) he's just as guilty as the others that are involved that he's not giving up their identity. If her kidnapping led to her death by another person, he's just as guilty.
 

CockySC01

Member
Jun 20, 2021
139
153
43
SC
What doesn’t make sense to me is that why would this guy abduct someone he doesn’t know just to violently stab them to death? I think there is more to the story and someone else, like his girlfriend, was involved. Did anyone else see her being questioned on the stand?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USCBatgirl21

sickoftryingtothinkofausername

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2008
2,931
1,110
113
What doesn’t make sense to me is that why would this guy abduct someone he doesn’t know just to violently stab them to death? I think there is more to the story and someone else, like his girlfriend, was involved. Did anyone else see her being questioned on the stand?

well the most common assumptions, and it’s likely that one are true, is that he was either going to rape her or get her drugged up and sold into sex trafficking. Both are very sadly A LOT more common than you’d think in this country. Clearly she fought back, as the police and other witnesses testified, and he killed her. There very well could be a sex trafficking ring. That same thing was rumored to be what happened to Brittany Drexel who disappeared out of Myrtle Beach several years ago. It’s scary to think about, but there are truly some evil and depraved people out there. Which IMO is why the death penalty should be expanded, but that’s another topic.
 

TAV31

Member
Sep 1, 2011
692
805
93
What doesn’t make sense to me is that why would this guy abduct someone he doesn’t know just to violently stab them to death? I think there is more to the story and someone else, like his girlfriend, was involved. Did anyone else see her being questioned on the stand?
You got to understand most criminals are missing a few pieces in their brain. I had a case where a guy held a woman down in an ant bed while raping her. He intentionally did the act on the ant bed! The pictures were sickening to look at. The poor lady had nearly 500 bites on her body.
Someone mentioned the Drexel girl. The authorities don't have enough evidence to go forward, but she was basically kidnapped and taken to a drug house and raped by who knows how many thugs. In the Georgetown area. There's no clue where they dumped her.
The two cases above were committed by
regular criminals. The case we are talking about now was committed by someone in a really dark place in their life. It's more than the simple criminal act. For the safety of all of us, especially our daughters, sisters, and mother's, this guy needs to be behind bars for life. There's no rehabilitation for someone of this caliber. He was back in 5pts the next night for more. I have no doubt in my mind he was back for another victim! Once a killer has a taste of the blood, it's hard to stop it.
 

JeffTweedyFan

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2004
6,950
706
113
well the most common assumptions, and it’s likely that one are true, is that he was either going to rape her or get her drugged up and sold into sex trafficking. Both are very sadly A LOT more common than you’d think in this country. Clearly she fought back, as the police and other witnesses testified, and he killed her. There very well could be a sex trafficking ring. That same thing was rumored to be what happened to Brittany Drexel who disappeared out of Myrtle Beach several years ago. It’s scary to think about, but there are truly some evil and depraved people out there. Which IMO is why the death penalty should be expanded, but that’s another topic.
Got to be more than that, though. You don't have to stab someone over 100 times to kill them. All these conspiracy theories - could it not just be that the guy is a freaking psycho?
 

robertfootball

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2006
14,415
15,073
113
SC
You got to understand most criminals are missing a few pieces in their brain. I had a case where a guy held a woman down in an ant bed while raping her. He intentionally did the act on the ant bed! The pictures were sickening to look at. The poor lady had nearly 500 bites on her body.
Someone mentioned the Drexel girl. The authorities don't have enough evidence to go forward, but she was basically kidnapped and taken to a drug house and raped by who knows how many thugs. In the Georgetown area. There's no clue where they dumped her.
The two cases above were committed by
regular criminals. The case we are talking about now was committed by someone in a really dark place in their life. It's more than the simple criminal act. For the safety of all of us, especially our daughters, sisters, and mother's, this guy needs to be behind bars for life. There's no rehabilitation for someone of this caliber. He was back in 5pts the next night for more. I have no doubt in my mind he was back for another victim! Once a killer has a taste of the blood, it's hard to stop it.
They fed that Drexel girl to the alligators. There’s a reason they call it Murder Beach, place is nothing but a kidnapping for sex trafficking area. Nasty, awful place. Columbia needs to clean up its act too, it’s a very dangerous place to go out in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAV31

ToddFlanders

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2007
7,663
2,672
113
You can convict on circumstantial evidence. Supreme Court said so

This is true, but the evidence still has to be able to reach the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And it's definitely harder to reach that standard in a circumstantial case. There are usually holes in a circumstantial case that can be filled with "reasonable" explanations or theories that can create doubt. And then that's it.
 

USCBatgirl21

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2006
17,638
12,420
113
47
Sec 4, Row 1, Seat 16 Carolina Stadium
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.
You're mistaking my statement. I'm not saying he's not guilty. Simply that I would have a hard time with the murder charge. Not saying that I wouldn't get there once in deliberations and having time to review the evidence more closely. But on it's face right now, I have doubt. There is a reason that people in the legal profession are more often than not NOT picked for a jury. We know what to look for. We know the tricks that can be played to make the average juror believe one side or the other. We know how to detach from the emotion of something like this and look at it through an objective lens. We'll ask questions that the average person will not.

I did answer your question, when I mention that the Defense asked the right questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redrogers

smcnd

Member
Nov 30, 2006
29
29
13
Got to be more than that, though. You don't have to stab someone over 100 times to kill them. All these conspiracy theories - could it not just be that the guy is a freaking psycho?
If that were the case, wouldn’t he have submitted an insanity plea?
 

USCBatgirl21

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2006
17,638
12,420
113
47
Sec 4, Row 1, Seat 16 Carolina Stadium
OK. I missed the testimony about the scratch marks on the jacket. I remember testimony about striations, but didn't realize it was the jacket. There was testimony about fibers found under her nails wasn't there?
 
Last edited:

redrogers

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2004
4,613
1,142
113
Summerville
OK. I missed the testimony about the scratch marks on the jacket. I remember testimony about striations, but didn't realize it was the jacket. There was testimony about fibers found under her nails wasn't there?
Thanks for your professionalism in explaining where we are in the case and how we got to where we are now. “Jaded “ means realistic most times, btw.
You blow the local media out of the water, ma’am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smcnd

Bubbaglide

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2006
2,617
2,240
113
On the road again
Thanks for your professionalism in explaining where we are in the case and how we got to where we are now. “Jaded “ means realistic most times, btw.
You blow the local media out of the water, ma’am.
It is interesting to have the insights of people in the legal profession rather than what the talking heads pontificate on. I think he is in it up to his eyeballs. If he didn't do it, he was there
 

nikolas22

Active Member
Dec 2, 2013
1,188
725
113
You're mistaking my statement. I'm not saying he's not guilty. Simply that I would have a hard time with the murder charge. Not saying that I wouldn't get there once in deliberations and having time to review the evidence more closely. But on it's face right now, I have doubt. There is a reason that people in the legal profession are more often than not NOT picked for a jury. We know what to look for. We know the tricks that can be played to make the average juror believe one side or the other. We know how to detach from the emotion of something like this and look at it through an objective lens. We'll ask questions that the average person will not.

I did answer your question, when I mention that the Defense asked the right questions.
I think the prosecution did an excellent job and the defense did the best they could. There was enough evidence that I would vote GUILTY on all counts. If he did not kill her with his own hands…they should have given the reason why he could not have done it….who stole his car, where was he at during this time, etc. No evidence given by Mr. Rowland. Justice for our USC Samantha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cola G'Cock

TAV31

Member
Sep 1, 2011
692
805
93
Is the jury in back now? About 4:30 the judge will ask how close they are to a decision. If close, they may stay and finish it tonight. Obviously if they go to tomorrow, not everyone is seeing eye to eye. A good night's sleep should help them come to a decision by lunch tomorrow. I don't think it's a hard decision here unless you are letting some other issue(race) get in your way of finding him guilty.
 

USCBatgirl21

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2006
17,638
12,420
113
47
Sec 4, Row 1, Seat 16 Carolina Stadium
Is the jury in back now? About 4:30 the judge will ask how close they are to a decision. If close, they may stay and finish it tonight. Obviously if they go to tomorrow, not everyone is seeing eye to eye. A good night's sleep should help them come to a decision by lunch tomorrow. I don't think it's a hard decision here unless you are letting some other issue(race) get in your way of finding him guilty.
Yes. They went back around 1 pm.