Rachel shoaf and Sheila eddy

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#4718 Oct 15, 2013
rebe

Morgantown, WV

#4719 Oct 15, 2013
Mikko_S wrote:
Good gosh that is pretty funny...nit smiling as much this time huh
maryville

Ballwin, MO

#4720 Oct 15, 2013
Can't tell from the photos if she was wearing her prison issue cuffs. I suspect that she was--she looks so nice with them on.
Pure Speculation

Morgantown, WV

#4721 Oct 15, 2013
To clairfy in my earlier posts when I said her defense could say it was a hang out - I was only pointing out that just because the location was near SE's Dad's house doesn't automatically make her involved. And IF they did find any evidence linking her they would do their best to explain it. In fact it would be a better defense to say "Why would I do it so close to my family's property? Don't you think I'm smarter then that?". She could SAY the THREE of them used to stop there on their way home all the time to smoke one last time before heading home. Obviously RS found the place fine on her own when leading police to the body so it is not like she couldn't have gotten there without SE to lead her.

As for RS's BF dealing - I think the dealer has already admitted he was their dealer and it wasn't the BF. If SE defense decides to go the drug route they would probably go more along the lines of SN threatened the dealer who either coerced the girls into luring her out so he could kill her - or that he killed her on his own because she was going to turn him in. Then RS can't stand the pressure - she confesses she did it because she would rather go to jail then face him after ratting him out. After all they are going to have to explain why RS would confess and implicate herself.

As someone mentioned earlier - if they had really planned this for a year they really did do a poor job. They had no realistic view on how to hide the body, they didn't even think of the mine apparently AND they committed the crime and left the body somewhere that could be associated to SE. So I for one can't believe they almost got away with murder and will find it harder to believe if they left absolutely no clues behind. However given that 6 months went by with the crime scene exposed to elements and wildlife it isn't a sure thing.

I assume SE is denying ANY involvement even to her lawyer so I have no idea what they will come up with but they will have a "defense" story to (try to) explain any/all evidence direct or circumstancial. It will be interesting to hear RS's side of the story and to watch SE's reaction to that story.
Wonderer

Charleston, WV

#4722 Oct 15, 2013
Hmm... did anyone notice where it said she was being held at North Central Regional Jail?? I guess that means she is no longer being held at a Juvenile Center. She definitely wasn't smiling in any of these photo's lol could it be because she didn't get her way?
rebe

Morgantown, WV

#4723 Oct 15, 2013
I don't understand why they are motioning to change the venue when they haven't even polled jurors yet. Shouldn't they have to at least try to find a jury before theybsay the whole county is already tainted?? I'm sure there are 12 people out there that aren't following this case the way we are. I think I read the defense had Thousands of pages to present for the motions that were deferred. That seems like an awful lot to me or is that reasonable??

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#4724 Oct 15, 2013
I wonder whose interests all these delays really serve, the defendant or the attorney's?

Since: Jun 13

Charleston, WV

#4725 Oct 15, 2013
Mikko_S wrote:
The hair looks terrible!

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#4726 Oct 15, 2013
Wonderer wrote:
Hmm... did anyone notice where it said she was being held at North Central Regional Jail??
That statement was not correct.
That Guy

Huntington, IN

#4727 Oct 15, 2013
Do we know what type of a reduced sentence Shelia will get for testifying against the drug dealers that killed Skylar? 5 years? 8 years?
Nicki

Winnipeg, Canada

#4728 Oct 15, 2013
The middle part.. so instantly after Rachel confessed Shelia had a lawyer? Why was she not arrested earlier then if she had already known Rachel ratted her out then?

"Benninger said Eddy should be released on home confinement and 24-hour monitoring until her trial, arguing that she is no threat to the community, the victim's family or Shoaf.

He added that Eddy has been in constant contact with his office since January, when Shoaf told investigators about the plot and where to find Neese's body.

But prosecutor Marcia Ashdown objected, saying Eddy is charged "with the most serious offenses a defendant can be charged with in this jurisdiction."

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4729 Oct 15, 2013
rebe wrote:
I don't understand why they are motioning to change the venue when they haven't even polled jurors yet. Shouldn't they have to at least try to find a jury before theybsay the whole county is already tainted?? I'm sure there are 12 people out there that aren't following this case the way we are. I think I read the defense had Thousands of pages to present for the motions that were deferred. That seems like an awful lot to me or is that reasonable??
No ma'am. It's our old friend (or nemesis, depending on the circumstances of your case) "judicial economy." It's easier and cheaper to change the venue than it is for the court in the challenged jurisdiction to try and find an impartial jury---especially in cases where the local media and/or private citizenry has been keeping the story on everyone's mind. That's a judgment call to be made by (you guessed it) the judge. The defense, who made the motion, will need to show Clawges that the local jury pool is irrevocably tainted and that Eddy cannot receive a fair trial (or could not receive a fair trial without what would probably be a great deal of expensive voir dire. The State will say "What negative sentiment, your Honor? This is a well-liked and respected local student. Why, just look at all these tweeter messages [conveniently dated prior to May 1st] showing the bottomless well of support the locals have for her. There's no need to move the trial."

I would guess Clawges wants this, especially given his earlier commentary regarding Shoaf's plea deal. It will take a great deal of convincing---and evidence to support the argument---to win a change of venue in this case...in my opinion. That's likely why he deferred the ruling on that motion: to give both sides a chance to prepare an argument for or against the change; he may also do a little fact-finding of his own, if that's permitted in WV.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4730 Oct 15, 2013
That Guy wrote:
Do we know what type of a reduced sentence Shelia will get for testifying against the drug dealers that killed Skylar? 5 years? 8 years?
Seriously? Still?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4731 Oct 15, 2013
rebe wrote:
I'm assuming that the other motions were thrown out??? In the news update there was no mention of shoafs testimony or the prosecution misconduct. Anyone know about these?? The trial was set sooner than I thought it would be.
Prosecutorial misconduct is going to be alleged in many cases...whether it exists or not. It's often used as a red herring to try and influence the Court (and/or potential jurors, some of whom will deny having heard anything about the case, even if they have, to satisfy their own agenda) as to the reliability of the State's case. I would imagine that in matters involving juveniles, that it might be even more common, since the standards are more strict regarding their interaction with law enforcement. However, unless the defense has something good---which today they obviously did not---these types of allegations rarely succeed in doing more than making people wonder "just exactly what the facts is."

As to Shoaf's reliability, both in her confession and in her implication of Eddy, if I read the motion correctly, the defense is putting forth the idea that Shoaf was under such stress and strain that, when combined with her *diagnosed* mental illness, her words cannot be accepted as evidence (or even for the basis of an indictment, again if I'm reading it correctly). However, being successful in that motion would require a lot of luck and an impressionable judge, as well as proof that she had been diagnosed with some mental illness that impaired her ability to elucidate truthfully. Depression, learning disability, ADD/ADHD, and even Autism spectrum disorders (if on the higher-functioning end of the scale) would not satisfy that element. You would really need something like schizophrenia or megalomania or the like to even have a chance at winning that one pre-trial (at least without a battery of expert witnesses to bolster your claims).

Now if the defense was trying to imply that law enforcement TOOK ADVANTAGE of Shoaf's state of mind (and alleged mental illness---presuming she had been diagnosed, and assuming they knew that), it's well-settled that most suspects are generally pretty desperate, nervous, and under a great deal of stress...and yet their confessions are upheld all the time. Shoaf did not say she was there as a witness and only watched while Eddy killed Skylar: she admitted that she participated in the planning and execution of the murder. Sure, she got a deal out of doing so, but referring back to an earlier post I made after my return to this board, it has to be kept in mind that other than overwhelming guilt [UNLESS you believe that Rachael really had it in for Eddy bad enough to throw herself under the bus at the same time she was putting Shelia there OR unless the authorities found some damning evidence against Shoaf and she somehow found out about it and confessed to avoid trial, offering up the only thing she had to give (other than the location of Skylar's body) in exchange for a lighter sentence, whether Eddy was actually involved or not], there was NO reason for Shoaf to go to the cops. NONE. Which means, there was likely no reason for her to lie about Eddy's involvement (save the two implausible notions above). Obviously, Shoaf could have been batshit crazy enough to have made the whole thing up, too---but she knew where the body was, had a suspicious injury, was one of the last people known to have seen Skylar Neese alive, AND if she had been that unstable her attorney would have let the chips fall where they might and plaid an insanity defense if and when she were ever tried. Not to mention that the cops wouldn't have been eager to act on the word of someone who was in an obvious state of mental incapacity. Stress and even DURESS (as long as it isn't inflicted by the authorities seeking the statement) are okay-dokey-artichokey in terms of admissibility of a voluntary statement/confession.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4732 Oct 15, 2013
Nicki wrote:
The middle part.. so instantly after Rachel confessed Shelia had a lawyer? Why was she not arrested earlier then if she had already known Rachel ratted her out then?
"Benninger said Eddy should be released on home confinement and 24-hour monitoring until her trial, arguing that she is no threat to the community, the victim's family or Shoaf.
He added that Eddy has been in constant contact with his office since January, when Shoaf told investigators about the plot and where to find Neese's body.
But prosecutor Marcia Ashdown objected, saying Eddy is charged "with the most serious offenses a defendant can be charged with in this jurisdiction."
*cough cough* DNA testing results to bolster Shoaf's story with physical evidence *cough cough*

Hypothetically, of course. But typical in a case like this. Co-conspirator goes to the cops, tells them where body is, LE retrieves the remains and sends them for autopsy and forensics (which takes time). Meanwhile, co-c confesses to involvement (or had confessed at the time they gave the location of the victim, it doesn't matter which), which is *good* evidence but (as we've seen in this case) NOT above being challenged for various reasons (co-c got a deal, or immunity, or there were issues with the confession, etc.). Physical evidence, however, is another matter. The defense would have a hard time explaining how a perp's blood got on the victim's clothing, for example (or hair, or some other indisputable link to the perp), not to mention the fact that such evidence makes the co-c's testimony VERY strong and less subject to impeachment. Keep in mind, too, that even if NOTHING were found on/with/around the remains, that testing takes time...in some instances quite a few weeks, in fact.

It is ALSO possible, in a murder case like this one, that even if there wasn't any physical evidence recovered that links the claimed co-actor to the victim (and corroborates the co-c's version of events), that LE was seeking to get some type of admission from the alleged co-actor that they could use to back up the co-c's story instead of physical evidence.

Or, both.
1 post removed

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4734 Oct 15, 2013
rebe wrote:
@dalleenberry is tweeting as it progresses. She is the lady who is writing the book. Bail has been denied
Another boilerplate motion. She never had a prayer for bail.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4735 Oct 15, 2013
James wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank You I Am Vengenance, it will be very interesting how this one is ruled though I would be concerned that if the tweet "We really went on three" is allowed that it would bascially be giving SE's defense a valid reason to appeal.
Does using "learned treatise" in relation to this tweet mean that the state would use this not to prove that SE's made this claim as to prove she held the knife but would be used solely to bolster RS's claim that they went on three as would be stated in her confession and this way by-pass the hearsay rule that could be applied by the defense against the tweet.
No sir. A "learned treatise" is one of the exceptions for certain categories of hearsay evidence. It's basically a persuasive publication that backs up your claim with some type of scientific or broadly know or accepted knowledge. Grey's Anatomy is a learned treatise. The DSMR-IV is a learned treatise. The book written by a guy who got his PhD through a correspondence course and self-published his earth-shattering views on forensics or psychology with no validation or peer review is NOT a learned treatise. Nor does the court have to accept it (it is persuasive, not binding, authority, but it's sometimes better than nothing...barely).

The tweet may or may not come in. As I said, the "jury is still out" as to many social media evidentiary issues. If Shoaf said they planned it that way and "went on a count of three" and the State can somehow show that Eddy WAS indisputably the author of the tweet confirming that, it goes to planning and it's coming in. Getting that proof will be the hard part. I don't know that it exists: not statutorily for certain, but there isn't really much if any case law on it either, and expert opinion may also be hard to get...which would leave the learned treatise.

To be perfectly honest, I don't expect this case to even get to jury. Once the defense sees what the State has, I predict Eddy will finally fall on her sword and offer to plead guilty. Ashdown will likely reject, but if things aren't going Eddy's way it would be a fool's errand to let a jury decide your fate. Even if the State refuses a deal for a guilty plea (where, say, Eddy might actually supply a REASON this happened), she very well MIGHT throw herself on the mercy of the court.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4736 Oct 15, 2013
Arrrrgh....Topix has gone crazy! Sorry for the duplicate posts---I know they're long enough without having to wade through them twice.

Sure wish there was an edit/delete button hereabouts.
That Guy

Huntington, IN

#4737 Oct 15, 2013
I Am Vengeance wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Still?
It was a serious question, yes. I don't find anything funny about this case. The whole thing is quite disturbing.
Gina

Fairmont, WV

#4738 Oct 15, 2013
Shelia's latest appearance seems she is definitely trying to distance herself from the hot, young sexy teen look of twitter pics. The bun in her hair was pulled up sloppy, no effort. Her face was pale and blank. A shell of her former self. Hmmmm. Even though in jail one could have dolled up a little for a court date...if they wanted to.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morgantown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
danielle hilling (Sep '11) 3 hr Winston 22
Ian Ganzer? 3 hr TJA 1
Curious 4 hr TJA 1
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 9 hr The Last warrior ... 1,471
damien lee...aka gary ravenscroft (Sep '12) 15 hr Something for you... 91
now hiring Mon Nit Piecker 6
How Do Mylan Employees Live with Themselves? Mon Clarksburg 2

Morgantown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morgantown Mortgages