Here are some fo my thoughts and feelings from the thread on exchristian.net:
"In human terms, and in legal terms, I think that any opinion, in this thread, that states innocence or guilt as "obvious" is misguided. There was nothing obvious from either side of the argument. However, If I were on that jury, I would have "hung" them - I would not have been able to convict Josh Rosa, because the prosecution did not support thier scenario to a degree that was significantly greater than the possibility of Josh Rosa just happening on the scene. Even if the prosecution was able to make me feel that the possibility of Josh Rosa being the murderer was "greater" than the possibility of him being innocent, I still would not have given a "guilty" vote. It would not have been enough to take away my reasonable doubt of his guilt.In summary, both scenarios had a strong possibility, and hence it wouldnt have been enough for me to convict Josh Rosa. That was the "greyest" debate I have ever been exposed to.I think the most obvious failure was in the police dept's investigation, and I say this from the experience of being raised in a neighborhood similar to Citrus Park. There were many known sex-offenders in that area. There was a lot of lawlessness in that park.All of the "warning" stories that I was exposed to when I was young, had to do with wooded areas where "dangerous" people were known to hang out. We all knew that crazy people were going into the woods, drinking, smoking, etc. Bad things happenend in my old neighborhood because of this - very bad things.The greatest failure was in the investigation. The police should have looked deeper into the neghborhood as a whole, and not just by asking questions. They should have done surveillence AFTER the murder - for months. They also should have looked deeper into Ronny Tomlinson Jr's problems.After watching the trial, not looking into the "shadyness" of the nieghborhood, and not looking into Ron Jr's troubles, were the biggest red flags that I saw coming from the trial as a whole. That's why I wouldnt have convicted Rosa. It's also where I think the truth is. Based on that, my feeling is that Rosa didn't do it."
(previous thread comments continue in this thread)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I continue to respond to others:
"I agree with Jesse. Rosa's lawyer lost any hope with making an impression on the jury, because he was contrived, pushy, and seemed to use "tactics". He pushed witnesses unneccesarily, and made the courtroom more uncomfortable.
The prosecutors were like-able.
Regardless of the parameters given to the jury about dismissing a personal liking or disliking of council during deliberations, it plays a huge part of how the jury sees the character of Joshua Rosa. I thought that Rosa's attorney gave a strong closing argument. But he was too spastic in many points of the trial, and way too pushy.
Along these lines, I believe that Rosa not testifying was a mistake. Human beings NEVER operate on data alone. Human beings take impressions of everything. It was really Rosa's character that was on trial, and we only got to see it at the end. Being "nice" or "sweet" has nothing to do with it. His comments had heart, and re-enforced in me my notion that he was innocent. Again, I am not convinced totally that he was innocent. But I lean more towards his innocence than his guilt.
My advice for Rosa's case for an appeal:
Let Joshua Rosa speak his mind during all phases of examination.
and
Get a lawyer that puts off a better impression."
(continuation of thread)
"Also, in regards to Ronny Jr not being in FLA at the time of the murder:
He may not have been, but the cause-and-affect of his previous troubles could, very reasonbly, still have been in play.
Doesn't take much for troubled people to hold a grudge. And Citurs park is obviously a place that has it's share of troubled people, if the testimonies hold true."
(continuation of former thread)
"Bishop,
Instead of reacting to each and every thing that you have stated in your argument, I am going to show you the relationship between the possibility of Joshua Rosa's innocence and the facts from the case, from my view only.
Then, I am going to show you some of the research that I've done, after my evidence based conclusion. This research points in the direction of what I feel was a huge gap in the police departments investigation. This research is the extension of my conscience, of my gut feeling, which I did not include in my consideration of the evidence. Gut feelings can be helpful, but sometimes misleading in considering data. So I left it out until the end.
Again, I am a third party observer who only has access to publicly stated information.
Also, I am not here saying that the evidence presented totally proved or disproved either argument. I am only stating that the prosecution's case, from my view only, did not support it's theory in a manner strong enough to remove my supposition of Rosa's innocence. And thats key here. It is my duty as a citizen to make my supposition of innocence as strong as possible. It is my duty to make the prosecution knock me over with the evidence before I relinquish my belief in the defendants innocence."
(continuation of former thread)
"Bishop,
I appreciate your level headed response and the show of heart. I too come from a troubled upbringing in which, I wasn't a troublemaker, but was certainly affected by the surrounding dysfunction. There is not one way in which my personal boundaries were not disrespected, crossed, neglected or abused. This includes mental, emotional, spiritual, physical, and sexual boundaries. Glad to say I have long-since recovered from the wrongdoinds of others and am a happy and balanced person.
My neighborhood was eerily close to Citus Park in it's dynamic. As a quick aside, this is something that was left out of the trial, but, to me, should have been brought into evidence: the track history of that town. After I rendered my third party observer opinion of the trial, I did research. But I'll speak on that later.
What I want to say here is that, although I would choose different words to describe it, I am in FULL AGREEANCE with you on the how ignorant, immature,misinformed, disconnected, and dysfunctional the American populus can be as a whole. That ignorance is certainly represented more often than not on the internet. Long story short: there's a lot of bullshit on this thread. I just ignore it.
In addition, I can say to you that the internet is the last place where I would let people push my buttons, relative to the anger associated with my upbringing. I would never give complete strangers that power. I also would never use a thread to project my own personal anger, about a completely different set of issues, onto someone else's situation. I would also not use my personal pain to judge what happened in Citrus park, or the people commenting about it. It would blind me to the facts. It would also just be too painful.
I would like to respond to the idea that Stephen Tomlinson stole Rosa's keys:
I agree with you that anyone coming out and professing a "special gift from god", in terms of divine intuition, is someone that needs to taken with a grain of salt. In my experience, there actually are people who have a divine gift of insight. But they would never say that up front. Not like the loopy "psychic" that posted earlier. That being said, the keys are a very important part of the evidence. As someone who leans towards Rosa's innocence, i would have to say those keys are what concern me the most. I looked at a few different scenarios of innocence and of guilt. Again, I held them up to the evidence to see if something stood out as a stronger possibility. None of them stood out to me as the "winner", because their isnt enough hard evidence. No witness, no hard motive, no explanation from Rosa's mouth.
One of those possibilities that I looked upon is one where Stephen took Rosa's keys when they were hanging out. As I said to the loopy "pyschic" previously, I had a friend, when I was young, that was 3 years younger than me, who came from a horrible family - stuff so bad in that family I wouldnt even write it down for people to read about. We had no idea at the time. He used to steal stuff from me, and my mother, all the time. It was a way for him to get attention. When you come from a bad home, any attention is better than no attention. Deep in his psyche he was pushed to take things in the hope that he was caught, because it would get people to focus on him.
I am not saying that that's what S.T. did. I am saying that if two people have considered this scenario on this thread, without consulting each other, it shows a reasonable possibility. If I am assuming Rosa's innocence, as is my duty, this possibility has weight as one of many explanations for the keys. So, now let me state another important piece of evidence:
-Joshua Rosa's keys were found WITH S.T. (I would need a calculator to add up all the media reports and blog entries that stated that the keys were found under S.T. According to the paramedic, the keys were in between S.T.'s legs, closer to his pelvis than his knee.)
No one in there right mind would try to say that it was just a one in a trillion coincidence that S.T.'s body fell on the exact spot where Rosa lost his keys.
My biggest problem with the whole trial, was that, even though the jury had access to rosa's statement, it wasn't re-enforced properly. The keys are a big issue. The defense needed to put Rosa on the stand and ask:
"How did your keys get there?"
"Had S.T. ever stolen anything from you or anyone else that you are aware of?"
"Why were you looking for S.T. that day?"
Because, correct me if I am wrong, but the defense made no effort to speak about how the keys got there. Or did I miss that? correct me if I am wrong. My guess is that the explanation was in Rosa's statement and the defense was too arrogant to think that re-explaining that was important.
As an observer, if I had the answers to the above questions from Rosa's mouth, I would be able to make a stronger connection to one of the possibilities.
And to respond to your earlier comment, I dont think the defense kept Rosa from the stand out of fear. I dont think they were afraid of him spilling the beans or contradicting himself. I believe the defense didint put him on the stand because they were arrogant. I think the defense saw this case as I do: a case that rests on "probability" and "possibility". I think the defense thought it was a no-brainer and that Rosa was going to be let off quickly. Of course, they were wrong. The defense team was pushy and arrogant."
(more to come)
(comments continue from former thread)
"Bishop,
I want to continue with one last evidential point that has to deal with Kevin Whitely and his testimony, followed by my conclusion about what would give me a stronger base of information for a full-on conclusion of guilt or innocence. Again, my decision was that I could not convict Rosa. Not because the evidence proved that he didnt do it, but because the evidence did not support the prosecutions case enough for me to be knocked off of my presumption of innocence.
The last piece of evidence I want to talk about is the testimony by Kevin Whitely.
~Kevin Whitely testified that: Rosa came out of the woods, Rosa said he didn't know S.T., and that "Papi" tackled Rosa.
Regardless of what Whitely testified, the accuracy of his testimony, to my view, has less weight than the probabilities involved in the DNA sampling, and this includes the testimony of his friend. As you know, I do not give full weight to the DNA evidence for reasons I have already stated. The weight that I give to Whitely's testimony is far less than this - so its pretty low.
The reason that I do not give the testimony of Whitely and pal full credibility is because they are chronic pot smokers. I am not judging them morally. I know from having friends who are chronic pot smokers that the whole "inaccuracy of memory" thing isn't just a stereotype. It's very real. I am not saying Whitely doesn't remember things. I am saying the fine points, that the prosecution rested on, were not given much power by me due to the fact that Whitely and friends, in bona fide memory testing, would show that they had inconsistencies.
(I could be wrong about this next thing, please correct me if I am, even though it really bares no weight against my perspective. But Whitely testified that "Papi" tackled Rosa. And "Papi" testified that he didn't. Add that to my belief about the pot smoking, and it almost makes Whiteley's testimony totally useless.)
Nowhere in what I have said have I ever claimed that the prosecutions evidence had zero weight, nor did I state that their evidence couldn't support, in part, a scenario in which Rosa was the killer. I am only stating that all of the major sources of evidence, in all of the major areas had inherant instability, and thus I did not observe that the prosecutions case was any stronger than the defenses case.
For me to convict Rosa, I would have needed more.
Now, let me tell you what I think, as a person, in my gut, not based on evidence.
I think that the Tampa police did a hack job on the investigation.
The biggest holes in the the whole case were due to Rosa not testifying, and the investigation done by the Tampa Police.
The only thing worse than Stephen Tomlinson being dead, is the scenario where Stephen Tomlinson is dead, the wrong person is in prison, and the real killer(s) are availabile to do this whole thing again. This is the scenario that I would protect against.
In no way am I implicating the Tomlinson's family in S.T's death. But I know, statistically, and from my own life, that families who have trouble, attract trouble. And families that are strong, typically, do not. Of course it is true that horrors happen to good people, and that "good" people do horrors. But the phenomenon of "trouble attracting trouble" was missing from the trial. During the trial, I only knew that there were big holes in the circumstances presented. It took some research after the trial to pinpoint what they were. This is one of those holes:
"People who have trouble, attract trouble."
It is just as likely to see a scenario where the former troubles of the Tomlinson's had a wave that rippled into sick people, and that wave came back on S.T. as it is that Rosa was a pedophile, and accidentally or pre-meditatively killed S.T. when he was trying to overtake him.
The whole of this information needed to be on the table.
also
According to Logan Parks own website, they currently have 5 sex offenders living in the area.
in addition to that, I did a search on the statewide database for sex offenders. Within a 5 mile radius of Citrus park, there are 112 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS! Thats just registered! A very large percentage of that is hispanic.
To check that data:
Go here for the Logan Gate Sex Offender List:
http://logangatevillage.org/
To see the 5 mile radius result thorugh the FDLE site, go here:
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/searc...
In addition, people had the heeby-jeebies about that park much prioir to S.T.'s murder. In fact, so much so that R.T. is taking them to task for it by suing them. Which he should.
Article about the park:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/05/Northoftampa/...
Here's the last question: Can 12 people, who came out of the deliberation room that quickly be wrong?
Yes, yes they can. In world history, 12 million people have been wrong at once.
If Joshua Rosa did this, if the evidence supported it in a way that I saw as signifigant, I would be the first person to drop the hammer on him. I dont mess around when it comes to evil that dark. Based on my experience, I have a hatred of evil, and consider it my deepest passion to defeat it.
As things stand, I would need more evidence, much more. My advise for the way to get to the truth:
The Tampa Police would have to re-open the investigation and investigate the cause and affect tracks of the Tomlinson's troubles and do an exhaustive invstigation of Citrus Park as a whole. I think: if give Rosa a better lawyer, if you put Rosa on the stand and let him speak, if you investigate the affects of the Tomlinson's troubles in the neighborhhood, and if you bring the information of an extensive investigation of the undercurrent in Citurs Park, then all the info would be there. It would either OBVIOUSLY show Rosa as guilty , and if so, Id drop the hammer on him. Or it would show him as OBVIOUSLY innocent.
Thank you for your patience.
Peace and strength be with you."
For anyone that is interested, a civil, informal petition has been started on ipetition.com for anyone who either: 1. Believes Joshua Rosa was wrongfully convicted and/or 2. That the evidence presented was not significant enough to justify the conviction. Not sure that it has any legal bearing. It seems to be a show of solidarity aimed at gathering the large amount of people from the blogs who don't support the conviction. Go here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Joshua_Rosa/
It is 11:05pm EST.
22 people signed the petition today!
Excellent!
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed people can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
~ Margaret Mead
Greetings to all:
I would like the author of this fabulous initiative to support Joshua (the civil petition and the blog) to please contact me at his/her earliest convenience. You can send me an email at petervidal@verizon.net.
Best regards and may the Lord continue to bless us all!
Peter Vidal
These are the states that have been represented by signatures on the petition:
Florida, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
as of 5:09pm on July 31st, there are 51 signatures.
The Joshua Rosa petition has broken another boundary. Today, we have our first signature from a country outside of the US.
We have a signature from Belize.
Here is an article, written about a wrongful conviction survey that was done in 1990 by Huff, Ratner, and Sagarin who found that an estimated 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted each year.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm
A fact sheet from http://www.innocenceproject.org
reports the following data on wrongful conviction:
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness misidentification testimony was a factor in 77 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Of that 77 percent, 48 percent of cases where race is known involved cross-racial eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.
Limited, unreliable or fraudulent forensic science has played a role in 65 percent of wrongful convictions.
In over half of DNA exonerations, the misapplication of forensic disciplines—such as blood type testing, hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, bite mark analysis, and more—has played a role in convicting the innocent. In some cases, forensic scientists and prosecutors presented fraudulent, exaggerated, or otherwise tainted evidence to the judge or jury which led to the wrongful conviction. Three cases have even involved erroneous testimony about DNA test results.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in 25 percent of cases. More than 500 jurisdictions now record interrogations to prevent false confessions.
False confessions are another leading cause of wrongful convictions. Twenty-five percent of cases involve a false confession or incriminating statement made by the defendant. In 35 percent of those cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.
Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 15 percent of cases.
Another principal factor in wrongful convictions is the use of snitches, or jailhouse informants. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.
[Print Version]
© Innocence Project, All rights reserved.
info@innocenceproject.org
Here is a 2004 article from The New York Times (on the web)about a study done through the University of Michigan (under law professor Samuel Gross) about the occurrence wrongful conviction:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm
Here is an essay from C. Ronald Huff (who was one of the authors of the aforementioned study from 1990) that was published in 2004 on the American Bar Associations website. It is a much more thorough treatment of the results found in Huff's survey of wrongful convictions.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html
For anyone that is interested, here are some sites that host portions of the video footage of the trial:
http://www.dailymotion.com/TrialBuzz/Rosa/1
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/video-joshua-rosa-guilty-of-murder/615487857
Here is a link sent by KM, friend of the petition, about the instability of DNA evidence. The link is a listing of pages, from a google search, relative to this topic:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dna+not+foolproof
Another link by KM:
A website that is dedicated to Dennis Duchaine - wrongfully convicted of murder. On this site you will find links to many other people who were convicted innocents, as well as information about wrongful conviction in general:
http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/index.shtml
Thank you KM!
A friend of mine, who is interested in assisting the cause to free Josua Rosa, has given a link to an organization that works on behalf of innocents who have been imprisoned:
www.innocentinprison.org
My friend is the coordinator for this organization - Innocent in Prison Project International or IIPPI.
She is also the State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator (SDPAC)of Florida for
Amnesty International.
More to come...
I have to say this is a wonderful thing you are doing. Joshua has been wrongfully convicted and is innocent. This has been a case that has touched me significantly and I can only pray daily that justice is served. There is someone out there who is guilty, and it is not Joshua Rosa.
I have followed this case and read over and over so many different articles, watched the trials, and it just is not sufficient information to incrimate him. I feel the investigations were done improperly and it was easier to focus on Joshua than continue searching.
It is very sad and I hope I am still around to see the day that he is freed, because he will be. God is righteous and will work his wonders!
sogurly02,
Thank you for coming to the blog and thank you for sharing your feelings. I believe that every thought and every feeling that we have is vital fuel for the movement that will set Joshua Free.
Keep thinking, keep considering, keep feeling, keep expressing.
if you are not aware, there is an online petition dedicated to Joshua's innoncence and the re-investigation of the Tomlinson murder:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Joshua_Rosa/
Look forward to hearing from you again.
I have to take back part of something that I expressed earlier, just after the trial.
I have found out more recently that Brian Gonzalez, Joshua Rosa's attorney, was "handcuffed" a lot by the court. There were a lot of things, key to Joshua's defense that the court wouldn't allow.
During the trial, Brian Gonzalez seemed agitated and pushy to me, and I believed it to be from a lack of ability on his part. I can now see that it most likely had to do with the fact that he was angry at how much he was being "handcuffed".
That being said, I still believe that the image presented by Joshua Rosa and the defense team was more vital than the facts themselves.
I still believe that Brian Gonzalez, due to his anger or frustration, pushed a little too much, and that came off as a big negative to the jury.
Here is an important message from the facebook group: 100,000 Wrongful Convictions.
By John Terzano, The Justice Project
In recent decades, the use of forensic science in criminal investigations has skyrocketed. In the media, TV crime dramas like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation portray forensic evidence collection and analysis as a flawless science that can quickly and accurately identify the perpetrator. Yet time and again, inaccurate or misleading forensic evidence and testimony has helped to convict the wrong person.
Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were convicted of a crime they didn't commit based on microscopic hair comparison – a notoriously unreliable forensic test. Williamson was sent to death row and Fritz spent a decade in prison before DNA testing proved their innocence. Brandon Moon, another innocent man, went to prison for seventeen years after a state forensic crime lab analyst gave erroneous testimony at his trial.
Flawless? According to a recent study, faulty forensic evidence or testimony was a contributing factor in nearly sixty percent of the first 200 DNA exonerations. While a few of those cases involved deliberate misconduct, most problems result from inadvertent errors due to the fact that many areas of forensic analysis involve discretionary interpretations by individual analysts.
Fortunately, there are simple steps that can be taken to ensure the integrity of forensic testing and analysis.
Today, The Justice Project is releasing Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review (PDF - http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/forensics-fin.pdf). The policy review provides an overview of the problems with certain forensic science policies and procedures, offers solutions to these problems, profiles cases of injustice, highlights states with good laws and procedures, and includes a model policy to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic evidence.
Substantive, independent oversight is the first step. Forensic crime labs often operate with little or no oversight, and few states have established statutory standards to ensure the objectivity, reliability, and efficiency of forensic testing and analysis. To improve accountability, states should create independent commissions to oversee forensic science laboratories. The commissions would be responsible for implementing standards for laboratory performance, overseeing analyst training and continuing education, and instituting safeguards to ensure accurate testimony.
Often, bias is inadvertent. Information such as details of the crime, names of suspects, and the expected result can impact an analyst's objectivity. In one study, experienced examiners were given fingerprints they had correctly identified in the past along with made up information, such as that the suspect had confessed. With the additional information, these examiners misidentified seventeen percent of the fingerprints.
Given that, states should require all forensic labs to develop internal structures and policies to prevent unintentional bias in testing and analysis. The use of an evidence control officer, for instance, could manage the flow of information from law enforcement to ensure that analysts receive only the information necessary to test the evidence.
Ideally, all laboratories should be independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to eliminate bias from the process. Instead nearly all state forensic labs are under the jurisdictions of police departments or the attorneys general. As a result, analysts may come to see their role as part of the "crime fighting team" rather than as neutral and objective agents of science. Independence helps labs become neutral environments dedicated to scientific procedures that ensure accurate and reliable testing.
The demands on forensic laboratories and the high stakes involved demand that analysts receive proper scientific training and are certified before they are allowed to perform forensic analysis or testify in criminal trials. Laboratories should also adopt a strong ethical code to help analysts understand the serious nature of their responsibilities and to guide them through the sometimes challenging ethical waters they face.
Of course none of these reforms can be achieved without sufficient funding. In many states, funding for forensic laboratories has remained constant despite a dramatic increase in workload. And low salaries make it difficult for forensic laboratories to hire and retain highly qualified analysts. Salaries must be competitive with other job opportunities to attract the best and brightest applicants.
While forensic laboratories have yielded critical evidence in countless cases, preventable error has subverted justice, convicted the innocent, and jeopardized public safety. Law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the public at large all have a vested interest in making sure reforms are implemented to reduce the risk of mistakes and to elevate the quality and objectivity of forensic evidence and testimony.
John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system, with a focus on capital punishment. Copies of "Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review" are available at The Justice Project (http://www.thejusticeproject.org).
First off I would like to say that this is a great post I've been on many of them online and they are simply disturbing.
I have also followed this case inside and out and have researched the area that this all happened in, I do have to say that I do not agree with the whole idea of S.T stealing Josh's keys, even if he did it's just disturbing to point that at him when he sadly cannot defend that and besides Josh admitted to having his keys on him when he was jogging and that he did lose them, so that guess work doesn't fit in.
I have always had the gut feeling that Josh was innocent and I never leaned the other way at all during the trial. I have been in a situation like this myself, not with the finger being pointed at me at all but finding a classmate of mine deceased behind a house that we were having a party at, and I can tell you first hand that the holes that everyone were saying didn't make sense and that is why Josh was convicted and those were the main reasons that people thought he was quilty can be easily explained away and I will explain what I mean by that by comparing my first hand experience to Josh's answers to some of the questions.
For those who believe that they had him guilty from the first words he spoke when Kevin Whitely and his friends asked him who it was and Josh's response " I don't know ", makes perfect since to me, and it really hit home for me because that is exactly what my words were when that sad day struck me because although I did know who he was, the shock of it took over and those just happened to be the words that came out of my mouth even while I was running back with my friends to bring them back to help me and I guess I didn't really realize that that is what I was saying until we got back to him and they all looked at me and said you know who it is, it's so and so, and it was my response of "I know I do", that made me realize what I was saying, so that statment from Josh at that specific time made perfect sense to me, I never questioned that for a moment and when I saw that everyone else was questioning that statement as much as they were it killed me knowing that all I could do was sit back and watch where I would have loved to be able and jump up and say I know exactly why those were the words he chose to use at that time. So I hope that me sharing that part of my personal experience helps anyone that may still be questioning that statement understand that as strange as it sounds it does make sense that he said that when he did.
Unfortunatly I need to run out with my kids right know but I will be back to finish my position on this tomorrow, I really hope that everything I have to share helps some of the doubts and maybe fill in the gaps of some of the unkown, but I do know that as similiar as the stories are everyone reacts differently but this is how I feel regarding Josh's statments based on my own personal experience that is as fresh in my mind just as the night it happened.
Thanks for reading. Patty P in Vermont
I cannot believe after all these years I am finding out someone I truly cared about in high school could ever hurt aninnocent child ... Josh and I were in ROTC together in high school Josh was Sergeant Majors private first class over the entire class ... including the drill team the raider team in the rifle team .. when I read about the gloves I did not find it odd at all we were taught when running or handling our weapons to always wear our gloves.... my heart goes out to Steven’s family .. as a mother I would want justice for my children as well but this has to be a case of wrong place wrong time everyone knows Logan gate is not the safest and best community and is drug and gang related everywhere there .. but Josh wasn’t just a leader in church he was also a leader in our class who only wanted to help people in church and to server country one day. out of everyone in ROTC in high school Joshua was one of the very few who took it very seriously and taught me everything that I know .... to Josh and his family I am so sorry this happened to your family and may God find the people who really did this .. I believe in my heart he is innocent. Christina J
Post a Comment