Adam Kaufman Murder Trial (murder of Eleonora Kaufman - 11/7/07 - Aventura, FL) #2

I don't remember testimony about a dog or cat...what did I miss

tesstruhart wrote:question: did family dog get sick or die after Mrs. Kaufman passed

Did they have a cat that got sick or died after Mrs. K passed

WTH

Um... WTH? I don't remember any testimony about that?

Now IS is done for the day and I can't find a live feed...Woe is me...

what do we do now

Wait for twitter. lol

back2back19 wrote:

tesstruhart wrote:question: did family dog get sick or die after Mrs. Kaufman passed

Did they have a cat that got sick or died after Mrs. K passed

WTH

Um... WTH? I don't remember any testimony about that?

These questions lead me to think that the jury has discounted all of the defense's "medical heart condition" explanations... I dunno.

I am woed right with you Estee. I put it on HLN hoping that if there is a verdict they would have it.

darn even HLN isn't covering this sucks
does anyone have Vinnie on twitter. I have tried to find Miami tv station but nothing....grrr

Weeziethm wrote:

back2back19 wrote:

tesstruhart wrote:question: did family dog get sick or die after Mrs. Kaufman passed

Did they have a cat that got sick or died after Mrs. K passed

WTH

Um... WTH? I don't remember any testimony about that?

These questions lead me to think that the jury has discounted all of the defense's "medical heart condition" explanations... I dunno.

Maybe. I don't know. Or they're reaching 'cause yeah, no clue WTH that question was about?

Weezie, its almost as though they are making their own theories of the case, ie: poisoning? or something.

suz1729 wrote:darn even HLN isn't covering this sucks
does anyone have Vinnie on twitter. I have tried to find Miami tv station but nothing....grrr

https://twitter.com/#!/VinniePolitan

falling off fence into a deep dark hole. What cat, what dog? All my marbles have a flat side again.

Suz, I have him on twitter but has not said anything other than they had a question. On home page here on left side will be updated insession tweets.

tesstruhart wrote:Weezie, its almost as though they are making their own theories of the case, ie: poisoning? or something.

Right....drugging, etc.

Crazy. I'm stumped. This is one wild ride!

this question will be fodder til tomorrow, LOL unless there is a verdict today.

Yeah, he's gonna be convicted. I think they're trying to decide if he tested anything out on a pet, etc. They're coming up with their own theories. Doesn't seem like they buy the prosecution's theory but they believe he killed her.

InSession #AdamKaufman - The judge replied that they must rely on the evidence presented during the trial.

angiefly2 wrote:
InSession #AdamKaufman - The judge replied that they must rely on the evidence presented during the trial.

Duh. I can't believe they need to be told that. :/

WS posters are saying they remember Dr. Baden testifying that the pink foam could be consistent with poisoning...I did not hear his testimony, so I'm not sure. Perhaps that is the basis of their question.

Maybe their thinking is if Lina got ahold of a poison/drug that maybe the pets did as well. Who knows!!

Weeziethm wrote:WS posters are saying they remember Dr. Baden testifying that the pink foam could be consistent with poisoning...I did not hear his testimony, so I'm not sure. Perhaps that is the basis of their question.

Maybe their thinking is if Lina got ahold of a poison/drug that maybe the pets did as well. Who knows!!

Huh. Thanks. I skipped him.

back2back19 wrote:Yeah, he's gonna be convicted. I think they're trying to decide if he tested anything out on a pet, etc. They're coming up with their own theories. Doesn't seem like they buy the prosecution's theory but they believe he killed her.

Ok but there were NO substances found in Lina's system so it doesn't have to mean that. Plus they asked if they had a dog, cat turtle or any other animals in the home. How does one poison a turtle or fish?

hmmmmmmmm - you can kill fish in a tank with spray insecticide anywhere in the same room - oil film settles on top of water in the tank.

spray tan?? - well, that's nutty !

B2B, you and I would be oil and water on this jury. I am looking at things just the opposite. to me, its like they don't want to convict him and are looking for alternatives

angiefly2 wrote:

back2back19 wrote:Yeah, he's gonna be convicted. I think they're trying to decide if he tested anything out on a pet, etc. They're coming up with their own theories. Doesn't seem like they buy the prosecution's theory but they believe he killed her.

Ok but there were NO substances found in Lina's system so it doesn't have to mean that. Plus they asked if they had a dog, cat turtle or any other animals in the home. How does one poison a turtle or fish?

I know but it seems like they're coming up with their own scenarios for what happened. Like they don't believe the defense's heart assertion and they don't seem to believe the prosecutions theory that she was strangled, so maybe they're thinking poisoning? Wondering about AK's anger problems? I don't know.

tesstruhart wrote:B2B, you and I would be oil and water on this jury. I am looking at things just the opposite. to me, its like they don't want to convict him and are looking for alternatives

Haha... I think I'm looking at it from the it's Florida view, so I am expecting them to not get it right(in my opinion), but I can see it that way too. It's just weird.

As far as the previous acts on AK's part, I have to believe that there wasn't much too them. I would think no matter how old the conviction for attempted strangulation, it would have been pertinent. I was never sure that was even true. Maybe he got into a fight with someone in college, but I never bought that he tried to kill the roommate

back2back19 wrote:

angiefly2 wrote:

back2back19 wrote:Yeah, he's gonna be convicted. I think they're trying to decide if he tested anything out on a pet, etc. They're coming up with their own theories. Doesn't seem like they buy the prosecution's theory but they believe he killed her.

Ok but there were NO substances found in Lina's system so it doesn't have to mean that. Plus they asked if they had a dog, cat turtle or any other animals in the home. How does one poison a turtle or fish?

I know but it seems like they're coming up with their own scenarios for what happened. Like they don't believe the defense's heart assertion and they don't seem to believe the prosecutions theory that she was strangled, so maybe they're thinking poisoning? Wondering about AK's anger problems? I don't know.

Well if they don't believe the pros theory then that's reasonable doubt and should be a NG verdict... right? or am I confused lol I swear that question they asked threw me for a huge loop!

angiefly2 wrote:
Well if they don't believe the pros theory then that's reasonable doubt and should be a NG verdict... right? or am I confused lol I swear that question they asked threw me for a huge loop!

I know; it threw me for a loop too. It could be what Tess suggest too that they don't want to convict, so they're coming up with the random or it could be that they think he did it but don't believe he strangled her or something. It's just weird.

angiefly2 wrote:

back2back19 wrote:

angiefly2 wrote:

back2back19 wrote:Yeah, he's gonna be convicted. I think they're trying to decide if he tested anything out on a pet, etc. They're coming up with their own theories. Doesn't seem like they buy the prosecution's theory but they believe he killed her.

Ok but there were NO substances found in Lina's system so it doesn't have to mean that. Plus they asked if they had a dog, cat turtle or any other animals in the home. How does one poison a turtle or fish?

I know but it seems like they're coming up with their own scenarios for what happened. Like they don't believe the defense's heart assertion and they don't seem to believe the prosecutions theory that she was strangled, so maybe they're thinking poisoning? Wondering about AK's anger problems? I don't know.

Well if they don't believe the pros theory then that's reasonable doubt and should be a NG verdict... right? or am I confused lol I swear that question they asked threw me for a huge loop!

To me it means that they are thinking that Lina was maybe poisoned.

They don't believe she had a heart condition and they don't believe she had fainting spells.

Well maybe not all of them, but some members of the jury.

I think you're right Angie. The State had the burden to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Last question threw me too. I hope they just consider the evidence and not make up their own version. Sometimes, when in Florida, it gets scary

it is weird. As many trials as I have watched I think that had to be the most odd question from a jury that I'd ever heard lol

tesstruhart wrote:I think you're right Angie. The State had the burden to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Last question threw me too. I hope they just consider the evidence and not make up their own version. Sometimes, when in Florida, it gets scary

BBM
That's what I thought. Maybe the jury is just messing with the judge and pros trying to waste their time like they wasted the jurors time Wouldn't that be some $hit

According to IS, the jury is still deliberating:

In Session ‏@InSession
#AdamKaufman - The jury is still deliberating. The moment we get notice of a question or verdict, we will post it via Twitter and Facebook.

I'm guessing they will go til about 5 or so. If no verdict, then come back tomorrow. I wonder if they reach a verdict will it be televised somewhere? this is nerve-wracking

tesstruhart wrote:I'm guessing they will go til about 5 or so. If no verdict, then come back tomorrow. I wonder if they reach a verdict will it be televised somewhere? this is nerve-wracking

If there's one today? No, I don't think it'll be televised. Tomorrow between 9-3? Yeah. After that, no.

OK...back into the fray.....no verdict yet?

Ok CB did you read and catch up?

I was skimming thru,will read more carefully later....a dog or cat died? So they think he poisoned her and the family pets?

What trial were these people listening too....Did I miss the part about pets dying?

Chickenbutt wrote:I was skimming thru,will read more carefully later....a dog or cat died? So they think he poisoned her and the family pets?

Either that or as Tess suggested they're looking for reasons not to convict. WTH knows. It was a very strange question. :/

That was a weird question. What I was thinking was that they are throwing out the P and D arguments and coming up with alternatives. The asked if there were any Cats, turtles or fish that died. Are they serious? I could kill a fish by looking at him backward.

Hubby is lucky to be alive....nothing neither fish nor fowl, nor plants live in my house.

If they are looking at pets dying, I see reasonable doubt.

add a fish and turtle to that...aventura lakes has it all!!

dummy trial, dummy everything

dummy trial...dummy everything....
too darm funny Summer

Chickenbutt wrote:If they are looking at pets dying, I see reasonable doubt.

That's what Tess and I said up thread as well. The jury can't just throw out the pros and def theories and make up their own. It was the state's (government's lol) burden to prove the case.

tesstruhart wrote:That was a weird question. What I was thinking was that they are throwing out the P and D arguments and coming up with alternatives. The asked if there were any Cats, turtles or fish that died. Are they serious? I could kill a fish by looking at him backward.

That's what I think... they don't believe either side, so maybe it'll be a hung jury? Or they'll just acquit 'cause they don't know? Or he gets manslaughter. Since the judge told them they have to base their verdict on the evidence in front of them, I have no idea how they convict since they don't seem to believe anything. Except Lina is dead.

I think they are trying to come up with answers to questions that will never have answers. Because, in large part, the police screwed this up royally, we cannot ever get answers.

So when the jury asked the question about the pets, what was the answer given to the jury?

The judge told them they must rely on evidence presented to them.