Madsen goes home after 4 1/2 years
DA moves to drop murder case after third mistrial
After three murder trials and more than four and a half years in custody, Caleb John Madsen walked out of the Placer County Jail a free man Monday afternoon.
The 28-year-old Granite Bay man’s release came about an hour after prosecutor Bill Marchi announced that his office had decided not to further pursue the case.
That decision came a week after a jury found Madsen not guilty of first-degree murder, but deadlocked 6 to 6 on a charge of murder in the second degree. In two previous trials, jury panels had deadlocked 7 to 5 and 10 to 2 in favor of guilt on the first-degree murder charge.
Marchi did not provide comment after the brief court hearing, but District Attorney Brad Fenocchio was quick to issue a press release.
“We presented this murder case to three separate juries,” Fenocchio wrote. “Each jury was unable to unanimously agree. In light of those prior inabilities, our view is that now a fourth trial would also likely result in a jury divided. Accordingly, at this time, we will not attempt to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.”
For Dan and Karen Madsen, the release of their son marked an emotional conclusion to a long-fought battle to prove his innocence.
Karen Madsen appeared ecstatic when she first caught sight of her son walking toward a gate outside the jail.
“There he is,” she screamed. “Caleb.”
Moments later, with cheers erupting from his supporters, Caleb Madsen emerged through the gate and hugged his mother for the first time since his July 2005 arrest.
He then extended a lengthy hug to his father and to his attorney, Mary Beth Acton.
When he eventually walked toward his parents' car, he appeared almost like a deer in headlights. When asked by reporters how it felt to be free, he responded only by saying, “It’s good to be out.”
When the reunited family then proceeded to drive out of the jail parking lot, tears streamed down attorney Acton’s face.
“Look at that,” she said. “Isn’t that something? Finally free after all that time. Hopefully he goes on to live a very productive life.”
Acton, who represented Madsen from the start, said her client will likely need counseling to readjust to society after being incarcerated for four and a half years.
“I still just don’t understand that,” she said. “How can someone be presumed guilty, but locked up all that time?”
The Roseville attorney said her heart goes out to the family of Christopher Worth, whose brutal stabbing murder Madsen was charged with in 2005.
“I don’t for a second doubt that the Worth family has gone through tremendous suffering,” she said. “But they just didn’t have the right guy.”
Worth’s mother Linda, however, has long disagreed with that assertion. Outside the courtroom she said she was very saddened over Madsen’s freedom.
“I just feel like the justice system failed,” she said. “My son would have been 28 if he were alive today. There is nothing that can bring him back.”
She then reaffirmed her prior statement that she fears Madsen is still dangerous and could be a threat to his own family.
“I’m hoping the family gets him some significant help,” she said. “For them, dealing with him has been a longtime struggle.”
Madsen’s arrest had come days after Worth’s body was found in a field off Cavitt Stallman Road, near both of the men’s homes. Though Madsen had been the last person to see Worth alive, and some circumstantial evidence pointed to Madsen, a jury acquitted him of the first-degree murder charge, finding that there was no evidence of premeditation. The six who voted not guilty on the second-degree murder charge had not been convinced there was enough forensic evidence presented at trial.
Though Madsen is now free, the prosecution still has the power to refile the second-degree murder charge, should any new evidence surface pointing in his direction.
During Monday's hearing, Madsen was also convicted of two misdemeanor assault charges related to two separate incidents that took place in the jail.
In a January 2006 incident, he assaulted another inmate. In October 2008, he assaulted a jail guard. Though both convictions came with jail time, Madsen was given credit for time served.
Another noteworthy item of discussion during the hearing was an allegation of juror misconduct with regard to the most recent trial.
Prosecutor Marchi told Judge Robert McElhany that one of the jurors came forward to investigators last week, reporting that four members on the panel had researched the case on the Internet prior to deliberations. Such behavior is forbidden on the grounds that it could create bias. But Marchi said it did not impact his office’s decision to drop the case.
|
Change Location:
|
So, will Madsen sue? He's spent five years in jail. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But Madsen has spent five years in jail without being convicted of anything. If I were truly innocent and I was in the same boat as Madsen, I'd carefully check my options.
I'm suspicious of Madsen. But for three juries to not convict him of anything, the evidence must have been weak.
Who wrote this story? I don't see a byline.
I was certain this would be the decision of the D/A especially during an election year. If new evidence is discovered they will be able to bring charges against him again. What if they don't find any new evidence? I don't believe they will because much of the evidence was lost in the area of the crime which was in the field not at his parents home where they claimed the crime took place..
I am pretty sure if evidence was never found, you can't really do much more than speculate on "where it was lost." Your opinion is one thing and I know you're entitled to it, but it is not a fact that the murder took place in that field. Just pointing out another example of this juror trying to state an opinion as a fact like I mentioned before.
This was the right result. Too bad it took more than 4 1/2 years. It's unlikely that new evidence will be found to retry Mr. Madsen. The detectives stopped looking by the end of August or September 2005, if they even looked for that long, since they believed they had their man in July. I hope that Caleb stays on the straight and narrow going forward so that the police have nothing to bring him under suspicion for, for anything else. Ms. Acton did do a great job as his defense attorney.
You are right Audrey my position is speculative based on knowing there was an area of blood found in that field by the cadaver dogs that was not even considered by the officers when those dogs laid down beside it this happening while they were searching the field. I do know what facts was in the 2nd trial and know this jury got it right this time on the 1st degree charge. Half of them got in wrong on 2nd degree by voting guilty. The best to you and to the Worth family and I do pray that the person or persons that are guilty will be brought to justice. I know you may not think I mean that but I do.
You are right Daisy in the position, and do believe if Caleb remains in Placer County they will be watching him. Ms. Acton really did an outstanding job and my congratulations to her and her team. I do know Daisy that this was the right result.
He's the Placer County White O.J.
Ooooo...even better. He's a habitual violent offender. One stabbing (read that as murder), one attack on an inmate, one attack on a Correctional Officer. Congratulations, Auburn...another violent criminal out free. I wonder if old Miss Acton had one of her family members slain by this piece of filth, if her tears would still be for him?
And...for you bleeding hearts (sorry - poor choice of words) there is a difference between being found 'not guilty' and being innocent. He was not found 'innocent'. The prosecutor failed to present a strong enough case and there was reasonable doubt. This does NOT mean he didn't stab a man to death. It just means he got off.
MRex21, we rarely agree on anything, but in this case you speak the truth. Too bad no one knew about the assaults, and the jury misconduct just adds insult to injury.
Guard your children,,, Caleb got out ,, not because he is innocent,,, He would not have been charged if there was not evidence. Some KILLERS do get out for lack of evidence,,,, ,, and KILL again,,,,,, my opinion,,,,,
M.R. 21: As far as one being found "innocent", no such verdict exists...it's always "not guilty", so by reminding us that Madsen was found "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent"...that is a non-issue.
The rest of your diatribe is, well, nothing more than your usual crap.
MR 21,, I agree with you. He is not innocent,,, he just got out to commit another crime,,,,,, again,,,, How many strikes does he get???? ,,,,,
I guess as long as his parents can afford to hire an attorney,,,,,, They can forget about retirement!!!!!
Today the justice system failed Christopher Worth, and Christopher's family and friends. I am so very frustrated with the justice system and HOW and WHY "facts" that would be relevant in a jury making a decision would not be allowed to be heard during a trial. A person's character, mental stability, drug use, prior violent incidents, prior jobs, would all be important in making a decision about whether a person is GUILTY "beyond a reasonable doubt" of a violent crime. How can a person with even an average intelligence not put all of the pieces in this case together and not see that Caleb Madsen cold heartedly murdered Christopher Worth. He has been released from jail but I would almost guarantee this will not be the last time Caleb finds himself in trouble with the law!
Loomis _mom: Caleb had a court appointed attorney. Mary Beth Acton was with Placer Co. previously and has since gone out on her own but she continue to represent Caleb.
Steely, It's not always "Not guilty". There is a verdict called a "Factual finding of Innocence" In the case of a factual finding of innocence the evidence shows that the defendant did not do the crime and should not have been charged.
Why is the DA not going after manslaughter charges?
Someone died here. Someone was carrying and used a knife in a bar fight.
Never mind my last question. I re-read the story. Its a matter of time.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any legal training, but I thought we were presumed innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, in fact, the only verdict I've seen is "not guilty", therefore don't we go back to square one and again he is "presumed innocent."
3 trials, 3 juries, same outcome...no verdict of guilt. That is our legal system. Those are your peers too.
Rolandmc. Presumed innocence is presumed. A factual finding of innocence is proven innocence. It is innocence beyond any doubt.
Gold_Panner: If that makes you feel better at night to hope that instead of Madsen turning his life around, he screws up & ends up in jail,,,well then, you're a screwed-up individual.
Or, if you're counting on some evidence miraculously presenting itself after 5 years & 3 trials in order to re-file charges, then you'll certainly pass out from holding your breath.
JonGreen: So now that's all we're gonna hear about is splitting legal hairs?
steelybob, I've been waiting for you to beat me up on this. I was under the impression that the two other charges were recent. I didn't know they went back from a year and a half to four years. In that case, time served would be appropriate. Did Caleb make a plea deal, that if he pleaded guilty to the two charges, he would get time served? He had to have gone to court on them.
steelybob: now that the murderer is out of jail I would not be surprised if new evidence appears miraculously, since the only person that knows where that evidence disappeared to is now free and capable of accessing any such evidence.
Analyst: He pleaded no contest yesterday. Got something between 2-3 years for the charges, and got time served.
Analyst: The far worse charge was as recently as Oct. 2008... Even so, there was no other outcome but to allow him to walk on the spot.
From the article, the convictions on those charges didn't take place until yesterday & the sum total appropriate time he would have served on those charges fell far short of his time served. I'm sure there was never any intention by Ms. Acton for him to contests those charges.
That was my whole point from the beginning.
AudreySand: Regarding your scenario of Madsen attempting to retrieve immaginary evidence of which you speak...again, if it helps to ease your tension...go with that.
steelybob: Believe me, there is nothing that can ease my tension at this point. I'll continue to wait for the other shoe to drop, and when it does I certainly hope you are still around so I can see your and others "I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong" posts.
L don't know much about this other than what I have read or heard so I won't comment. I don't know either the late Mr. Worth or his alleged attacker either so I don't have a bias either way.
However, Mr. Madsen did attack another inmate as well as a Guard during his stay at County Jail, that makes me believe that he has some issues that he must work on.
I really hope that justice was served properly and that this was not a miscarriage.
Audrey and steely, makes sense.
The pic tells a thousand words... Larry Demates and Caleb arm in arm, two people of the same Ilk....
auburnite: What's your beef with Larry Demates?
I'm afraid all that's left now is mindless innuendo.
I honestly don't know enough about this case to believe Caleb is innocent or guilty, however, as for the incidents in jail.......IF he had been falsely accused and incarcerated for almost 5 years, who could blame him for having some anger issues?
stellablue: i guess that means if he really did kill chris, and the jurors were wrong, that it would be okay since he is angry at a lot of things in his life, like being put up for adoption. Or like, not getting any attention from his adoptive parents until AFTER he was in jail. Is that what you're saying? If you're angry it is okay to hurt people?
Interesting that in two separate incidents, he couldn't control himself in jail and assulted both an inmate and a guard on separate occasions. Although I don't know the details of the case, it does appear he does not have the ability to control himself. If that behavior continues, it's likely he'll end up in jail again.
Audrey,
I'm curious, and I really mean this with all sincerity, you seem to know something that others do not. Were you called as an eye witness during the trial? I don't have any way to know more about this than what I read. What is your information based on?
Uh no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even a little bit. I said flat out that I don't know enough to believe he's innocent or guilty but IF, that's right "IF" in capital letters...he's been falsely accused and incarcerated, who could blame him for having anger issues. I never said it was okay to hurt anyone. I was simply pointing out that it would be understandable that he might have anger issues. Would you be happy go lucky if you were in jail for 5 years and you were innocent? I think not. I'll say it again, I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS CASE TO BELIEVE HE'S GUILTY OR INNOCENT. I just don't think that getting into a couple fights in jail means he is a danger to society. I myself have never been to jail, but I would think there are a lot of people in there with all sorts of issues and anger. Am I saying they are all innocent? Nope. Am I saying they are entitled to be violent because of their issues? No, I'm not.
stellablue: You're right...it's called "mitigating circumstances" which can be taken into consideration at least in sentencing, if not in considering charges.
I meant, "if not WHEN considering charges"
Rolandmc: Counting all 3 trials and a hearing before the first trial, I was on the stand 11 different times. I have been on this never-ending roller coaster with these trials making it impossible to complete my necessary process of grieving, but it has constantly been brought back and put in my face for 4 1/2 years now. The victim in this case was my best friend, my partner, and lover that I planned on marrying one day.
I am not claiming to know all the facts. I wasn't there the night Chris was killed, so I admit that I don't know. I simply feel compelled to comment when I see others claiming to know what happened. Just because I don't know for matter of fact, doesn't mean I don't believe that Caleb was Chris' killer. My information is based on what I know from when he was alive: my time with Chris, time with Caleb, Chris' time with my son - a character witness I believe it's called, and from the events that followed his death involving interviews, conversations(including one with Caleb the morning they found Chris' body), evidence, spending time with The Worth family, and Chris' friends, and speaking with detectives.
stellablue, the difference is that lots of people are angry about going to jail, but they don't assault the guards. It appears that Caleb was only in jail for about six months when the first attack occurred.
steely, just correcting your incorrect assertion.
Jon: Just correcting your correction of my assertion.
It's a shame the judge wouldn't allow some of Madsen's statements to be heard at the Worth trial. He had some interesting things to say as to why he attacked the female deputy in the jail. It might have changed the outcome of the trial. I dont understand why a statement made three years after the murder would be any less valid...but I guess thats why I'm not a judge.
luv4life: Shouldn't have made a difference unless in a fit of rage, he confessed...otherwise it would be irrelevant as to the evidence & outcome of the trial.
Luv4life- My thoughts exactly. I believe there would have been a much different outcome indeed.
titanium_ballerina & luv4life: Why not share this info you have that might have supposedly changed the course of a murder trial...the way you two have portrayed it, sounds pretty substantial.
steelybob- I would hate to spoil any chance of Madsen ever being convicted on the lesser charge of 2nd degree murder. If that ever happens I will gladly share. I just hope if he does go to trial again that the judge will consider using the statements that reference Worth.
luv4life: The same problem would still exist. If there were to be another trial in the future, whatever statements he made during the course of the jail assault would still be ruled inadmissible.
steelybob- If thats the way it would work then I find that unfortunate.
steelybob you are one of the sound minds on this site. I do know Audrey and having observed her testimony at the second am not surprised at her position. A witness can not remain in the court room before or beyond the time of their actual testimony. They can't hear what others say or what they have done because it could cause her testimony to become biased even more so than what it already would be with her connection to Christopher. Likewise with all of the witnesses. I must say I am shocked at the messages I have read. I am sure most all of those with such a negative position are intelligent beings, but there is sure a major display of ignorance among them. We all have the blessing of the constitution and it protections and one of those protections is being considered innocent unless proven guilty. Nothing can be considered relevant if it is not a part of the actual incriminating evidence against a person accused of a crime. It is clear to me that Caleb is innocent of at least murder in the 1st and likewise with murder in the 2nd because he is innocent unless proven guilty. I wonder how many of us would desire to convicted by public opinion when that opinion for the most part is based in ignorance. If we were to be charged with a crime would we not prefer to have the protection of the constitution or would we desire to be convicted even though we wasn't found guilty? Seems to me that most on this site believes they know more that the professionals do.
Grinunbarrett, I just don't think some of the commentors have a clear understanding of how our judicial system works. A juror's use of their intuition is never part of the jury instructions.
Do you think they would have a different opinion if they had to sit in a jury box all those weeks and then receive the instructions and the law from the judge with instructing you that you must follow them? You are so right Daisy and it is refreshing to hear from someone who understands. Even those who may have witnessed one thing or another doesn't have access to all that the jurors do. Some on the board would have everyone believe that the know more that the jurors do. It was an education for me and I am thankful for the experience.
MRex21 Was you there that night to witness what you are alleging took place? How can you condemn Mary beth for what would seem to me to be the failure of the detective div if all these evidences actually existed that you and others say they do? There is according to the constitution no difference in being found not guilty and being innocent MRex21 the constitution clarifies that in these words one is INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY. Do you think the prosecution would purposely present a case that was weak if they had solid evidence of his guilt? What propaganda you spread MRex21. This would also apply to Salamander as well who tells us that there was 4 jurors in the 3rd trial who committed the crime you have charged them with in this public forum? I hope each who have not had the opportunity will get the chance to serve on a jury in the near future.
grinunbarrett: Trust me, MRex21 is by no means impartial juror material...he needs to be kept out of the pool in order to maintain the integrity of the process. Salamander, on the other hand, would be fair.
Anyone who believes the Constitution is an impediment to justice has no business serving.
I am not sure what to think here?? Isit even possible that he got away with it? Is it possible he is innocent? I still feel it is more important
to find out what went wrong during the investigation why there wasn't enough to either convict or acquit. Rather than all of us specutlating one way or another.
Just leaves you scratching your head???
Steelybob...how much time have you done in jail or prison? You seem rather pro-crime...even for a leftist.
And grinunbearbutt...You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Thank you for trying, but you are clearly colossally ignorant...much like a child attempting to use 'grown-up' words to sound smarter. Go read a book.
When I read this I had to read it again to make sure... "During Monday's hearing, Madsen was also convicted of two misdemeanor assault charges related to two separate incidents that took place in the jail.
In a January 2006 incident, he assaulted another inmate. IN OCTOBER 2008, HE ASSAULTED A JAIL GUARD. Though both convictions came with jail time, Madsen was given credit for time served."
I would think there would be a crime report or court transcript or something detailing how wholesome and innconnet the Madsen's baby boy is...
abc123def: I guess when it happens while in custody, you don't get to know.
steeley, Truth is stranger than fiction, the Worths are actually shirt tail relatives (cousins). Who says lightening doesn't strike twice?
My God Sal, had no idea. I'm sorry for your family's loss...
Isn't it odd that Grinunbarrett has become some sort of leader for a "Free Madsen" campaign on this board? He's boasted several times about serving on the second jury and about there being no evidence that Madsen killed Worth. Well, the second jury's vote was 10-2 in favor of convicting Madsen of the murder. Tell us, Grin, how you were forced to sit on a jury with 10 morons who were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Madsen did it because they were able to connect all the dots in the evidence.
madhatter: So out of the 3 trials, you just want to focus on the middle one? Of the 3 trials combined, more jurors voted for aquittal than guilty...I know you were being facetious about the jury being stupid, but I've read some posters here chime in about the intellectual capacity of jurors. It's the height of childishness to make such an ignorant observation as to call a jury stupid just because they were privy to info that led them to a more informed conclusion than that of the back seat drivers around here.
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. There was no factual finding of innocence as part of the verdict.
Ok Jon, I understand what you are saying, and saying and saying.
JonGreen: just an fyi, Since Madsen was found not guilty by a jury trial, he can make a motion directly to the judge that heard his trial about getting a factual innocence motion,where his records will be sealed and subsequently ordered destroyed. There are no 3 choices for a jury: guilty, not guilty, or factual innocence or whatever you keep saying.....
norgod: Are you sure? If that is true, it does not seem right. You need all 12 to vote guilty to get a "not guilty" verdict, but only half to get a factual innocence? I think you're wrong here. He was found not guilty on the murder 1 charge, but it was hung up, 6-6 on murder 2.
Sorry, "You need all 12 to vote guilty' to get a *guilty verdict" is what I meant to type.
AudreySand- I think there is a misunderstanding. Once the jury had come back with a "not guily" verdict on the 1st degree murder charge, Madsen or his attorney CAN (if they want) file a motion for factual innocence, meaning that there was ever enough evidence to begin with to have been charged with this crime. It is up to the judge to decide Madsen's petition for a factual innocence finding, which will expunge his arrest record and constituted a conclusion that the facts not only supported reasonable doubt, but also proved he did not commit the crime. Since he hasn't been found guilty or not guilty on the 2nd degree charge, this would have no bearance on that charge.
Not so madhatter they wasn't able to connect all the dots and the 3rd jury verifies that fact. The majority of the 2nd jury was determined to speculate against the instructions of the judge. I do think that with the final out come that would be obvious to you. I do agree with you local girl something is not right and there should be an investigation by the department to determine just what was out of line. MRex21 does your user name indicate your age it sure seems it does and I am basing that on you calling the kettle black. It is obvious you are ignorant of the facts but I do appreciate your compliment. Remember those so called crimes you speak of abc123def were alleged to have been committed in jail where one may have to defend themselves at times. Sorry Salamander for your loss and it is my prayer they will find and prosecute the guilty one. Thanks steelybob I needed that. Jon Green let me say again you are in opposition to the constitutional protections afforded yourself and all citizens which tell us that one is innocent unless proven guilty you may choose your course but I prefer to follow the constitution. Thanks norgod! Sorry if I have caused some a problem on this board but I do know whereof I speak.
norgod: Your right, it's not an option for the jury to find the defendant factually innocent...that can only be doen in a motion after the trial is over...as you said.
AudreySand: You misunderstood norgod who is saying this applies to the not guilty verdict...only where one is found "not guilty" of a charge can they apply for factual innocence. It doesn't apply to a hung jury where no verdict is reached.
grinunbarrett...no, I believe it refers to his I.Q.
steely, a factual finding of innocence can be filed before the defendant is charged or after the trial is over.
JonGreen: Fair enough, but I would say in only a slight miniscule number of cases would that motion be successful when filed before the defendant is charged. At least after the trial all of the facts have been already laid out for a judge to be able to confidently grant or deny the motion.
if you are not charged with a crime, why would you need to file a factual finding of innocence? that would seem like a waste of time...
i guess if you were arrested and not charged you can file to have that arrest expunged.
i guess if you were arrested and not charged you can file to have that arrest expunged.
I think the most interesting line in this whole article is the the quote from the district attoney Brad Fennoccio; per the DA it is unlikely that they could "PERSUADE"a jury. What ever happened to presenting the facts, better known as EVIDENCE. That to me is the "rEst of the story" as Paul harvey used to say.
Hopefully the victim's mother will sue Madsen in civil court, the burden of proof is less in civil court
norgod: Possibly when the D. A. is still reviewing whether or not to file....this could be used a a pre-emptive strike before they file possibly.
rsvlres: Yes, but even with the lesser burden, when taking into account the verdicts & pathetic lack of evidence, it's unlikely Worth's family would even prevail in civil court...proving wrongful death would be an uphill battle. Plus would only be a pyric victory...pretty shallow pockets there.
grinunbarrett, MRex21 used to work in law enforcement so I think he knows of what he speaks, more than you do being a one time juror. I seriously doubt Madsen is going to file a factual finding of innocence. He knows what he did and he skated. He's not going to push it. He probably just wants to shut up and blend into the woodwork.
Analyst: Guaranteed... grinunbarrett knows more about this case than MRex21.
Analyst I would expect that out of one who was in law enforcement if he actually was I would expect him to know more than his posts reveal. I sure don't see that in his conversation. If he was in law enforcement surely he would know that a person charged is innocent UNLESS PROVEN guilty and Caleb was not proven guilty. I don't have any clue of what Mr Madsen will do I just know he was not proven guilty. Thank you steelybob I do appreciate your comments. jrnauburn that is what was attempted in the 2nd trial and I would imagine in the 3rd trial. They put on a show in the 2nd where they attempted to convict Mr Madsen for the crimes of Charles Manson. One thing about it what ever our opinion it is over and Mr Madsen is free this day because of the theatrics that was used in the place of good solid evidence if there ever was any.
Tell me the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'.
Mrex21,
"Not Guilty" There was not enough evidence for a jury or a judge to prove quilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Innocent" There was enough evidence for a judge to rule that the person never committed the crime.
The folks that have been in prison and were later released because of DNA evidence that showed that they did not do the crime are an example of a factual finding of innocence. Another example would be a person that was arrested and then presented evidence that caused a judge to rule that they did not do the crime they were arrested for.
The difference between not guilty and innocent is in the case of this message board a matter of terminology. If The constitution tells us that a person is INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY. IF A DEFENDANT IS NOT PROVEN GUILTY HE IS INNOCENT BY LAW, whether an individual person accepts that or not it is their choice. I will stick with the constitution rather than to join what has seemed to be the opinion of a lynch mob since I became aware of this internet community. All are entitled to their opinion but the person was not proven guilty therefore he is innocent. If the Placer County law enforcement community were to discover actual evidence to prove the defendant guilty then he would be guilty. If they had present that presented evidence to that effect I would have been the first to vote for a conviction. They did not as the facts in the actual outcome of 3 trials have proven. One can have his record expunged if for instance they were to find prosecute and prove the person guilty who actually committed this terrible crime. I hope they will be able to do just that. It is not my intent to offend anyone so we obviously must agree to disagree on the matter. Whatever opinion we choose doesn't make good evil or evil good.
I thought Acton was smart yet intent on selling her integrity for money. Now I just think she is naive and foolish if she believes Madsen is innocent. He will hurt someone in the future.
Realist: What exactly is your understanding as to what she does for a living & the goals involved in being a success in her chosen occupation?
Good point about innocence Grin. "Innocent until proven guilty" should be such a simple & to the point concept, except for many on this thread.
No wriggle room in that phrase.
just splitting hairs here-even though he was found "not guilty" there is still a record of his arrest, and technically when he fills out a job application and if they ask if he's ever been arrested he has to say yes. So if he wants that arrest record off the books, he must have it expunged or whatever even though he was 'innocent'
For all of you who wish life to be extraordinarily difficult for him, ie: getting a job, think for a minute what that can breed. I personally wish him all the success he's capable of, it'll prevent him from any criminal proclivities he may have in the future & will be good for society as a whole.
His attorney had enough evidence for a not guilty verdict. If she had enough evidence for a factual finding of innocence she and every other attorney I know would have pursued it. To do less would not be in the best interest of the client.
Realist sometimes it doesn't pay to think especially if you don't know the person you are attempting to discredit. One of the reason the D/A's office went for 3 trials was to defeat the attorney whom they have not been able to defeat. Rest assured that Ms Acton is not naive if you don't believe that ask the attorneys in the D/A's office.
Good points steelybob! Yes to some degree you are correct norgod but you must remember he has 2 things on his side. He was not guilty of 1st degree and malice and was not found guilty on 2nd degree or VMS. I do believe that time must pass in order to pursue a ruling of innocence or at least that is what I have been informed from a very good source.
I believe when you apply for a job, you are asked if you have ever been CONVICTED of a crime, not arrested of a crime. As to the murder, no conviction., he doesn't have to disclose that.
Analyst, All the employers I know "Google" applicants for jobs.
There are over 2.5 million hits on Caleb Madsen.
grinunbarrett, I offered my personal opinion. If you don't agree, that's not my concern. My main point is that Madsen is free and will most likely hurt/ kill someone in the future. He was on trial for murder, then assaulted an inmate and attacked a deputy while he was in custody. Face it, he is violent. He couldn't even control himself in jail. Furthermore, I said I believed Acton is naive. I didn't say I thought she wasn't smart. Foolish vs. wisdom and stupid vs. intelligent are two vastly different concepts. If she believes Madsen is innocent as she says, then I think she is naive.
steelybob, a prostitute may be successful at her job, that's doesn't make her a good person. Success isn't the ultimate barometer. I think you missed my point. And no, I am not implying anything with this analogy. It is an illustration.
Realist,
Defense attorneys are ethically obligated to defend their clients to the best of their ability whether or not they know they are guilty or innocent. That's the way our constitutional justice system works. The worst thing for a client to do to their attorney is to lie to them. Even if an attorney knows their client is guilty they must present an affirmative defense or risk being disbarred.
jongreen, ok. So ethically they are required to try to put back violent people back on the street to hurt and possibly kill others. Got it. Just glad I don't feel the need to take money to do it.
Realist, Please wake up. The jury put him back on the street not the defense attorney.. That's the way our system works. Or would you prefer vigilante justice? Before you answer the question read about the San Francisco and Truckee vigilance committees.
You are entitled to your opinion realist and you are right I don't agree and that is not your concern. Just as it is not my concern if you feel someone is Naive. I would say though your description of Ms Acton pretty much describes you, in my opinion of course. In my opinion you most likely don't even know Ms Acton just as you don't know anything about the murder of Christopher Worth nor what the circumstances surrounding it your opinion it would seem to me is based on what you have read on this message board, I could be wrong but that is my opinion.
I do believe that is right JonGreen on both counts and it is my opinion that there is a good number of individuals on the message board that do have that vigilante mind set, thank God they aren't in control.
On the applications I have submitted the question is have you ever been convicted of a felony, not have you ever been tried on one. If you have not been convicted it is irrelevant. I wonder if all of those who serve in the prisons of this county and state and nation are righteous and pure as the driven snow, surely they would not set someone up to get them to commit a crime while they was in their custody would they? For me that is the same as believing they would never lie on the stand in a trial something that the lead detective admitted that he lied in 2nd trial. I suppose in Realist's opinion that would never happen, but then Realist is entitled to that opinion, just maybe Realist is naive but that is my opinion.
Regarding 'innocent' vs 'not guilty'...
JonGreen...you are right. Not surprising. Obviously educated.
grinunbarrett...you are wrong. Again, not surprising. Willfully ignorant.
Realist...hammer...nail...head. Thank you for your post.
JonGreen and grinunbarrettm, to be a vigilante I would have to take some sort of illegal action against Madsen in support of my belief, right? Obviously, that is not going to happen. Frankly, no one posting here is going to do any such thing and you both know it. To speak of vigilantism is just stupid and alarmist. You both know people are just expressing their opinion, just like the two of you. The difference is you get hysterical and accuse those you don't agree with of plotting to commit a crime or at least to have the "mindset" to do such a thing.
Grinandbarrett, you go much further than Jon in that you insinuate that Madsen was sent up up the authorities to attack someone in jail (well actually two people). I would suggest that you are the naive one here. Or maybe you watch too much cable TV.
Realist, I wasn't suggesting that anyone would become a vigilante. But vigilantism begins when people don't agree with the results of the justice system in criminal cases. In San Francisco and Truckee between about 1865 and 1890 juries were picked from the homeless(yes there were homeless then) who loitered in the courthouse park. These jurors often times were bought off with booze. The "law abiding" citizens did not seem to have time to serve on juries, but did have time to meet at night after the verdicts came in and took vigilante action when they didn't like the outcome of the trial. After some innocent people were killed because of mistaken identity, the vigilante leaders were themselves prosecuted and the movement literally died out.
We have only one choice. Support the current justice system even though it is not 100% perfect. Our present jury selection process came out of the failures of the earlier jury picking system. Don't try to get out of jury duty. It is an important civic duty.
I would expect that of you MRex21. Whether I am educated or not is something you have no information on and it does fit in with most of your posts I have read, very uninformed, in my opinion of course. One good thing about it is our speech is protected by the constitution just as our RIGHT TO INNOCENCE UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF WE DISAGREE OUR SPEACH is another protection we each have under the constitution. I reserve that right and would not deprive you of that right. Whether I watch to much cable TV is something you wouldn't have a clue about Realist and that is an uninformed statement in my opinion. If you believe that all of those on the right side of the law are pearly white in their profession you must be living a protected life for sure. It is my opinion that most of them are honest, but no matter the bushel of apples there is almost always some apples that are bad. I have watched a little TV but the ones I have watch seem to display law enforcers in the same category that you place them in, all perfect no exceptions. JonGreen excellent I could not have said it better myself. If any on this board disagree with me that is fine. The law has taken its course and Caleb not having been proven guilty has been released and that should be the end of the conversation.
grinunbarrett, I applaud you for following the law in your jury decision. The fact is, all the posts from the people who knew Caleb, either casually or very well, all said he is wierd, or they knew this was coming, or they weren't surprised, or they were surprised it took this long. And when he got out they were saying that he is going to do it again. You followed the law, that's great, you think he's innocent, that's great, but you received information that was spoon fed to you by the prosecution and the defense in court. The people who really know him think he's guilty. It's time to let it go and move on.
Jon, just because I said the system failed in this case does not mean I believe we should get rid of it. If you think that was my point then you read way too much into my post. My point was that perhaps Acton can live with herself, but if I was in her shoes I could not.
grinandbarrett, well since you have decided that the conversation should be over and no one should continue to state their opinion, I will cease writing.
Realist, Many times defense attorneys have to put aside their personal feelings to do their ethical duty. You would not make a good defense attorney because you would put your own feelings ahead of your responsibility to your client.
Hmmmm Analyst I think that is what I said in my post on 2/13/10 just previous to yours and I totally agree with you and on that point I presume you will be taking your own advice. The only problem is that a number of people on the board are judging those who were involved in one or all of the trials as being less than honest and it is my guess, notice I said guess, that most of them do not know any of the folks involved whether it was the jurors, detectives, the Assistant D/A/'s, or the defense attorneys. Weird to you maybe normal to another normal to you maybe weird to the other. Again I agree with you the D/A has made his choice it was the D/A who made that choice not the defense so it is time to let it go. AMEN Realist. All of you have what's left of a great year!
Realist: Prostitution is illegal. Opine waht you will abotu Ms. Acton....she did her job extemely well & she did it within the confines of the system.
There's no pratical reaason to ridicule her because she out-did Placer's D.A. office. You can still be proud of their 90-something % conviction record....she did a better job.
Darn it, I agree with Steely.
JonGreen: This is a good start to the new week.
Yes I totally agree with steelybob who seems to have a sound mind an JonGreen.
Caleb Madsen attacked a female prison guard from behind while he was in jail. When asked why he did it he said, I saw her and Chris Worth in a magazine add and they had my journal. Odd. Don’t believe me. Go look at the public records. Yes Mary Beth operated within the confines of the law. Did she use sound ethical judgments? I don’t think so. Many times she was on or over the boarder of harassment towards the victims family and friends. People look at the facts of this case. Fresh blood in Caleb’s driveway (yes it was fresh, old blood would of have a layer of dirt, dust, and debris on it). Caleb just happened to be missing a knife like the one found by the victim’s truck. A rag from the Madsen’s house stuffed in the victim’s wound. Caleb said he did it because Chris was a thief. The victim was laid to rest in a very odd way. Caleb just happened to work in a graveyard and buried people for a living. Many people had been warned about Caleb before this happened. I will continue to warn people about Caleb. There is a reason I can say bad things about Caleb. What I say is true. I am not afraid of a slander lawsuit, because I speak the truth. I knew Caleb and Chris for most of my life. Caleb was fired from every job he ever had. Caleb had no friends. Caleb never had a girl friend. Caleb used prostitutes. Caleb was on meth. Caleb was a failure with nothing to lose. Just like OJ, his craziness will show itself again. He will kill again.
JB are you an officer or attached to the D/A's office? I think she did use sound ethical judgments. I didn't see that while I served on the 2nd jury JB, being over the boarder of harassment that is. The age of the blood on the driveway could not be determined by the county forensic experts who testified in trial 2 JB and only three of those drops smaller that the tip of a littler finger, were proven to be the DNA of Christopher Worth. The knife found under the tire of the victims truck was not the murder weapon according to the testimony heard in trial 2. The rag could have been from the family business and as Chris was an employee it could have been available to the murderer when he was killed in the field near where he lay. I heard every word of the so called confession and he did not confess, over fifty times he stated that he did not kill Chris. Yes he was laid to rest in a unique way, a practice of those who peddle drugs in many areas especially those kingpins south of the border. Working in a graveyard has nothing to do with the case and is just a scam to convince people that he was a vampire or something. Maybe Caleb had no friends because of tale packers such as yourself who will continue to pack those tails to destroy another person. By the way OJ did not kill again and he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury who sat in judgement of him. I don't know who you are but I do not trust your words after serving on one of the juries.
I meant that OJ wasn't proven guilty in his murder trial. He was proven guilty in the trial in Las Vegas and was given a sentence that was far greater than the crime based on the news reports.
JBClassics, Give it a rest. If you're right, he'll get in trouble again. In any case, I think you don't understand the jury instructions that are given. The jury must convict or acquit only on the evidence presented before them. The evidence was inconclusive, therefore, either acquital or hung jury, which is what happened in the three trials. I hope that he will not cause himself or anyone else trouble going forward. Serving time in jail can either make a problem worse or wake you up big time. I hope for the latter in Caleb's case.
The prosecution randomly sampled three drops of blood out of many. When the three drops came back as Chris’ blood then you can reasonably assume that the other drops of blood were also his. This is called science. The knife was consistent with the murder weapon. It was cleaned of blood and fingerprints so it could not be proven to be the murder weapon. Reasonable people can make the assumption that it was the murder weapon given the circumstances. There is no reasonable explanation of how all of these bad things just happened to Caleb. Unless you really think that the cops planted the evidence, or maybe this was an elaborate professional murder hit that was made to look like Caleb did it. That is a really reasonable thing to think. The experts said the blood was fresh, and the experts said the knife was consistent with the murder weapon. Gruinbarrett you just hear what you want to hear, there is a reason that 10 of the jurors voted guilty on the panel that you sat on. I think you are the one out in left field. You know very little about Caleb and I don’t know why you stand up for him.
daisy12, I agree with you regarding jury instructions, however, I don't believe that the evidence was "inconclusive", it just wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the OJ murder trial, a juror said she believed OJ may have done it, but per jury instructions, the prosecution didn't prove their case. Grinunbarrett followed the law, however, I think he's confusing "I don't think Caleb did it", with "the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt", or, "the defense did a good job raising doubt". Grinunbarrett, I think it's inappropriate for you to say that the people who disagree with your opinion "are not of sound mind". Just because Caleb was found not guilty of 1st degree murder, and they hung on 2nd degree, doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Reply to grinunbarrett 2/20/10, why do you speculate that Chris was killed in the field? There was no evidence presented that suggests that Chris was killed in the field. For you to say that is unreasonable speculation and that makes you a hypocrite. His blood was found in the driveway of the Madsen’s. Are you also ignoring the drag marks that came from the back of his truck all the way to where he was laid. Yes, everybody that saw them said they were drag marks. Yes, everybody that saw the blood in the driveway said that it was consistent with fresh blood. I really hope you won’t say that the amount of blood they found at the Madsen’s house is not consistent with a murder. This would also be speculation, unless you have seen people get stabbed in the heart followed by a rag being stuffed into the wound. Only then would you know how much blood would be expected. It seems that you are the one making all of the speculation here. Unreasonable speculation at that.
I don't really have an opinion on wether he did it or not. Was there forensic evidence with Christy Wilson or Kovavich or was it all circmumstantial? It doesn't make sense to me that if Caleb did it he would be stupid enough to leave his truck in the field with a knife under the wheel. If someone is stabbed in the heart (rag stuffed in wound or not) they are going to within several seconds exsanguinate six courts of blood. If the murderer had the skill and presence of mind to clean up six courts of blood why would he or she be stupid enough to leave a truck and knife? It is a wierd case.
I sure hope the detectives got the journal and reviewed its contents. Sounds like a possible acute anxiety over what was in the journal and possoble projection of guilt
There was no way to prove that those drag marks as you call them was actually the drag marks of a body being dragged thru the field. . You may call me all the names you wish that doesn't change the facts. In the end Caleb was found not guilty of 1st degree murder and the vote on 2nd degree was 6 to 6 which means he was not proven guilty. Sorry that doesn't fit with your agenda. There was some very valid questions about the so called drag marks which could have been something totally different being dragged across the field, and in the finally analysis they did not prove that the defendant was the power behind those marks. There was only three drops found on the driveway proven by DNA to be Chris' blood none was found in the Madsen home except a trace of animal blood in the garage. That was from the testimony of the county forensic experts and common sense tells one that a stab wound to the heart would produce far more than the blood that was found which was not found in the beginning of the investigation. You fail in your presentation to prove that Caleb was the one who did it. It is my understanding that there was testimony in the 3rd trial tconcerning a pool of blood found in the field not far from the victim by cadaver dogs some days after the victim was found that was supposed to have been overlooked. Speculation was in the presentation of facts. The majority voted not guilty in the 3 trials, sorry you disagree but the trial is over and he has been set free.
There was so much more than that Bluebird. I am thinking that maybe JB was related to the victim and I feel for him if he is but there was really no proof of who killed Chris and it would seem after this experience that some do not need proof. Just the fact that he was accused was all the evidence that is needed. I can say again that the prosecution presented a mountain of reasonable doubt. There was more in the 3 juries in favor of not guilty than those in favor of guilty. If it doesn't walk on webbed feet and it doesn't quack it just can not be a duck. Again JB there was a reason why they did and I have mentioned it to many times to count and won't say anymore about it. There was a reason why I and a person involved in the justice system voted the way we did. That is the reason why one is called to serve. we could not know anything about them. Those that did know something about Caleb was dismissed from the jury I sat on. I do believe that it was a professional hit and the knife did not have any blood under the handle a rubber handle that was removed, no one could clean that blood from under the handle unless they cut it off as the forensic experts did. Caleb was being tried for murder not for his previous experiences in life we could not convict him on his past. I will stand up and be heard if one has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Daisy a person is innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I would do the same for you JB and anyone else.
Analyst We don't know who did it and I am not saying anyone on the message board is not of sound mind I am saying they are not informed especially when it concerns the law and instruction we were given in terms of what we could do and not do, sorry you got that impression. Again I would repeat what I have said before. The constitution protects us from assumed guilt declaring that we are innocent UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY. That is my position and they did not prove him guilty. I have said before and I repeat, I am thankful to have had the opportunity to serve it has been a real education from the court room and jury room experience to the public opinion aspect of it. I have been attacked by more than one on this board and have merely attempted presented my position and what the law and my conscience dictated to me. In each of those trials guilt was not proven. If I were called to sit on another jury I would as I did in this one listen to every piece of evidence and testimony and then follow what the judge instructed me rather than stand in contempt.
Grinunbarret, you are wrong again.The majority of jurors vote guilty in this case. 23 guilty of murder, 13 not guilty of murder.Yes those drag marks were drag marks.The 13 year old boy who found the body followed what he called drag marks right to the body.All of the detectives that saw them testified that they were drag marks. Mary Beth presented no evidence that went with her crazy stories of how the victim must have parked his truck in the field or in the church to sleep.Why would he have left Caleb’s house?I knew the victim well enough to know that there is no way in hell he would leave the Madsen’s house to go sleep in a field.The blood-sniffing dog did alert to an area in the field, but it was the spot were the body was found, just as the detective told the dog handler in the field that day, shortly after the murder.Only a couple years later did the dog handler point to an areal photo, and she did not point to the exact spot where the body was.She pointed a couple inches off of the body location in the areal photo, and Mary Beth interpreted this as there was a pool of blood in the field that no one paid any attention to.Again you believe whatever irrational make believe tales that Mary Beth told you.You did not listen to the evidence.There is a reason that the panel you sat on voted 10 guilty of first-degree murder. After the trial, most of the other jurors said that you were unreasonably prejudice towards law enforcement. You should be ashamed of your actions.
It is very difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury when it only takes one unreasonable juror to have a mistrial. grinunbarret that would be you.
JBClassics, you just confirmed my suspicions. Grinunbarrett posted on another thread, "But if Rocky is a police officer shouldn't we trust him." It was clearly an anti-cop comment.
How many juries have you sit on JB? I was not the only one who voted not guilty and as I have said, of the 3 trials the vote majority was carried by the not guilty votes. Sorry you feel that way but as I have said it is over and Mr Madsen is free. That indicates to me that you are the one who is unreasonable and by the way that remark about the county supervisor was just for you. I do know that supervisor and he is a good person. It was not anti police Analyst. I have friends and family in law enforcement and I love them. I have discovered by my associations with them that they two are human. JB there was 12 votes cast in the 1st trial 7 in favor of guilt 5 in favor of not guilty, in the 2nd there was 12 votes cast 10 in favor of guilt 2 in favor of not guilty, neither of those juries got past 1st degree murder. In the 3rd trial there was 24 votes cast 12 in favor of not guilty 0 in favor of not guilty of 1st degree and they was hung up on the 2nd degree and was sent back to spend another couple of hours and returned with a vote of 6 for guilty and 6 for not guilty so beginning at the 1st 7 for 5 against in the 2nd there was 10 for and 2 against that is a total of 17 to 7 then in the 3rd there was a vote of 12 for not guilty and 0 for guilty bringing the score to 17 to 19 then the final vote of 6 to 6 on 2nd degree makes the score 25 against conviction and 23 against conviction. Those figures are very clear to me.
The evidence concerning the 13 year old that was presented to the jury in # 2 was not as you say, we was informed that he was riding his bike around the field and spotted from the path something that was unusual and went to investigate, finding the victim. We were also informed that it was a detective that discovered what he called appeared to be drag lines the length of the field. There was some question whether those lines was actually connected to the area where the body was found. How could someone as stupid as you say Caleb was, be able to eliminate all evidence leaving the alleged crime scenes spotless. I kept hearing from others that he was so stupid but yet so smart as to be able to pull off a crime that could not be proven he did. Concerning the blood, a good source who sat thru the 3rd trial said it wasn't as close as you say. Admitting that I wasn't there to hear it I can't say it is totally accurate but it was a good source. Mary Beth must be a real challenge for you. My conviction of not proven guilty came more from the prosecution's witnesses than from Mary Beth. If you believe that, you must have been in the meeting all jurors attended after release where the fore person said that they tried to get me to see but I just wouldn't speculate with them. Even the D/A told her she couldn't do that. If this is you position what is it concerning those on the 3rd panel? Rest assured that I am not ashamed I did as instructed by the judge some did not.
If you vote not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder, then your vote is that he was guilty of murder, just not first degree. Interpret it in your favor if you would like; just like everything else in this case. Your logic is not sound.
Caleb was a meth addict. Caleb’s knife on the scene. Chris’s blood in Caleb’s Driveway. Caleb just happened to be missing a knife and a ski mask. A rag from Caleb’s house was stuffed in Chris’s wound. Caleb was recently fired from Scandia by his own dad because he was freaking people out, and he was bad for business. He was jealous of Chris. Everything points to Caleb, and nothing points to anybody else. The Madsen family should be ashamed for supporting a cold blooded killer. They know he did it. The next time he kills the blood will be on the hands of the Madsens and Mary Beth. Mark my words, Caleb will kill again. Before this happened I had warned friends that Caleb was the kind of person that would end up stabbing or shooting someone someday, because he was paranoid, he heard voices, he was violent, and he was on meth. What a bunch of bad traits. He will kill again. He will kill again. He will kill again. Mark my words. The blood is on Mary Beth and the Madsen parents now. Mary Beth should go back to school and study ethics. Her job is to make sure everybody has a fair trial. Her job is not to win at all cost. Caleb will kill again. Lock your doors and load your guns, there is a killer on the loose and he has a collection of knifes, ninja stars, ninja swords, ninja masks, and he is willing to use them. A paranoid-methhead-voice-hearing-killer.
You are so full of it grinunbarrett. All of the witnesses said the drag marks were drag marks. The only person that said they were not drag marks was Mary Beth. You were supposed to have listened to the witnesses and not Mary Beth. You did not follow the instructions. Additionally, I never said Caleb was stupid. I said he was a paranoid-methhead-voice-hearing-killer. There is a big difference between stupid and crazy. Look at Philip Garriddo, he was crazy but he was not stupid.
What witnesses are you talking about JB. The only witnesses that said they were drag marks was a detective or 2. They said they appeared to be drag marks, not that they was likewise with the prosecutor. That was their speculative opinion, jurors could not speculate. I did listen to everyone of the witnesses and some of them was not to be trusted one being a inmate at the jail. A paranoid-methhead-voice-hearing-killer would indicate that he is not to swift. I wonder why you have such a need to bad mouth Caleb and those you don't even know, not being present when that person meaning myself was in the court room and the jury room. How many of the jurors do you know? What you may think is at this point insignificant. In the 3rd trial there was 12 jurors that agreed as I that Caleb was not proven guilty of 1st degree murder with malice aforethought, their verdict is the law and what anyone else thinks matters not. Are you in favor of overruling the law? They were evenly split on the 2nd degree charge as well, I am sure you know that a split decision simply means that the prosecution did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the 2nd charge. You may cry and whine all you desire but it won't change the decision handed down by the 3rd jury nor the decision of Mr. Marchy not to go for a 4th trial. It is over the only way that you may get your wish of seeing Caleb in prison is to investigate and come up with evidence to convict him. What about your ethics JB?
The detectives and the 13year old boy all said they were drag marks. Mary Beth was the only one that said they were not. Yes you are right, without a videotape of the body being dragged across the dirt, then you can’t say with 100% accuracy that those were drag marks. However, reasonable people should assume that the young boy and the detectives know drag marks when they see them. There was no reasonable explanation of why those were not drag marks. You listened to Mary Beth and not the witnesses. I am not in favor of overruling the law. I just think that people should be aware of the true Caleb. This is not the Caleb that was cleaned up and presented to the jurors. Also the inmate from jail you talk about was not an inmate. Mary Beth had him arrested because he did not want to miss work for a second day. Mary Beth called friends and family of the victim to the courtroom with no intensions of putting them on the stand that day. The witnesses would sit in the lobby all day and then be told to come back the next day. This was one of Mary’s unethical tactics. After one witness did not want to show up a second day, Mary had him arrested and put in an orange jump suite. He was treated worse than Caleb who was given a shiny new three-piece suite. Why are you still talking about this case? You did your so-called duty, and now you should disappear. I am a friend of the victim, and I want people to know about Caleb. That is why I am still talking about this case. What is your …
Why are you still talking about this case?
I know what was presented in the 2nd trial and it does not fit with what you say JB. Yours is hate propaganda. The jurors in the 3rd trial disagreed with you 18 out of 24 votes JB. You need to get the court record in the 2nd trial and read what was said in it because you are telling people something totally different than what was presented. I know for sure that the prosecution would have taken advantage of what you say if it was actually fact. The inmate from the jail was the prosecution's witness not a defense witness, why would Mary Beth have him arrested? Something is not right with what you are saying, and that is the reason why I answer your accusations. I kind of suspected that you was connected in that manner and that pretty much explains to me why friends or relatives of the victim or the defendant or law enforcement are not permitted to sit on a jury. Sorry for your loss but in my opinion two wrongs don't make a right. If Mary Beth had been unethical she would have been shut down by Judge Curry in short order and I suppose a mistrial would have been declared before it even got to the jury. Why am I still talking about this case, maybe for the same reason you are. How could I disappear when you can't see me? Sounds like you don't understand that a witness is subject to the time other witnesses spend on the stand and sometimes it runs over to the next day. They must be ready when their time arrives.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about grinunbarret. You are wrong on all accounts. Mary Beth did have that witness arrested, and for you to say otherwise shows your ignorance of the situation. I will tell you what I told you before; Mary Beth operates within the confines of the law, but she does not show a very strong moral compass. I will also tell you again that there is a difference between crazy and stupid. You do not seem to be able to differentiate between these distinctions, which shows me just how far out in left field you are. In trial number three, 6 out of 12 voted guilty of murder. Your 18 out of 24 is completely ridiculous. It was 6 guilty of murder, 6 not guilty of murder. The level of the crime has absolutely nothing to do with guilt. Wake up grinunbarret. You have also said I bad mouth Caleb. I simply tell the truth about him, and YES this is supposed to be about the truth. Don’t you think that given the circumstances that people deserve to know the truth about Caleb. You seem to want to hide the truth by telling people that I am lying. I have known Caleb and Chris most of my life, and for you to say I am making stuff up, is once again, ridiculous. You are a crazy old man with nothing better to do than get involved in something that has nothing to do with you. You are absurd, illogical, and maybe just plain stupid.
JB, have you seen grin's vocabulary in his many posts? Kind of sad I would think. Grin doesn't know the truth, he only knows what the lawyers gave to him piece meal. And Mary Beth did a good job of giving Caleb's version. Oh....let me re-phrase that.....Grin "don't" know the truth........And Mary beth "done" a good job.... Just sayin.....
Neither of you know the truth either. I know what the prosecution presented and it did not remove reasonable doubt and there is adequate proof of that when one considers the outcome of the trial. How is it that you folks know more than the professionals. Obviously the two of you should petition the county to replace the law enforcement professionals in Placer County with the two of you, just maybe you could out do the outstanding job that the sheriff and the D/A are doing. Have either of you registered to run for D/A or Sheriff yet? I guess Mr Marchy held the truth back from all three juries Analyst. Mr Marchy did a good job with what he had to work with and in the 3rd trial he had one of his top associates at his side thru the entire trial. The strange thing is there was far more on that Jury that voted for acquittal than on the 2nd jury, It would seem to me that you two folks are the ones who have it backward. Again JB that person who was brought over from the jail was a prosecution witness. It really doesn't matter what, where, how, or why, one way or the other, because Caleb wasn't convicted on any of the charges against him and to be quite honest I had nothing to do with that I was on the jury in the 2nd trial not the 3rd one. I can tell you as well that the other person on the 2nd would not have reversed their decision any more than I.
I thought that Marchi did a fabulous job with what he had to work with. The problem is that Mary Beth was able to cloud the facts of this case with nonsense.
Like I said JB, I disagree that Mary Beth clouded the facts. She presented a clear picture even at a disadvantage at times, there was nothing nonsensical about the presentation made by the defense. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to disagree. I am sure you feel the same way.