-
A FATAL MISTAKE BY THE DEFENSE?
Posted on February 1st, 2010 19 comments“I DID NOT HEAR
HER COMING”
“I would have stopped at the Turkey Hill,” Joy O’Shea Woomer told the court under defense attorney Christopher Patterson’s questioning about the night of September 26, 2002. “I would have bought a few ice teas. That’s what kept me up at night.”
Woomer was describing what she did just prior to going to Brent Weaver’s house. She testified she got to the Weaver house about 10:45 pm – she was due at 11:00 – and entered the house about 10:50 using a key the Weaver’s left in the mailbox for her.
She said she went through the utility room to Brent’s room and looked in on him. She then went to the kitchen where his chart was on the kitchen counter and she proceeded to read it.
“I didn’t anticipate seeing Mrs. Weaver that night,” she testified. She said she was reading his chart when she heard her say, “Hello.”
“I was startled,” Woomer testified. “I was assuming she would be in bed. I did not hear her coming.”
Later in the questioning, Woomer was asked about household noises. “In the laundry room the washer or dryer was going. And the dishwasher came on – it must have been on a timer.”
Patterson asked, “Did you see any individuals in the lower part of the house that night?”
“No,” Woomer testified. “I was not looking.”
“Did you hear anyone?” Patterson asked. “No,” Woomer said.
“Do you know if anyone came downstairs that night?” Patterson continued.
“I was not aware of anyone,” Woomer testified. “Not that I know of,” she continued.
19 responses to “A FATAL MISTAKE BY THE DEFENSE?”
-
chingching February 1st, 2010 at 18:27
I’m confused here. Are you saying that Joy’s testimony helped to convict her? How?
-
Because the defense basically ignored her being startled and saying “I did not hear her coming.”
If she didn’t hear her that time, how does she know someone didn’t come down again? The defense didn’t use this at all and they basically had her state no one came down that night! How does she know? How can she be sure? She was startled once.
-
Suspicious since I read the LNP story February 1st, 2010 at 19:02
Good catch Becky.
-
abbylynn February 1st, 2010 at 19:40
Letter to the Editor Feb.,1st 2010
Thank You! Mattie Brian of Millersvile.I couldn’t of said it better myself.
“If I had a child who needed a nurse,I would want that nurse to be by my child’s bed the whole night.Why would Joy O’Shea Wommer not be allowed to turn on the lights and not be allowed to go in his room?.Why would a parent call a nurse 2-3 times,begging her to come and be with a child,plus telling her she’d give her a $75.00 bonus to take care of him,and not let her go into his room?.Why was mrs weaver begging for Mrs Wommer to come and sit with brent?.She knows Why. Couldn’t she or her husband take turns resting,so they could take care of brent?.There are so many unanswered questions.I hope and pray that Mrs.Wommer gets an appeal,and that she is found NOT GUILTY!.I hope the truth finally comes out.”
-
Moon Dust February 1st, 2010 at 19:47
Wondering what the lay out of the house is like..is there other ways to get to the room Brent was in besides going through the room that Joy was told to sit in. I think Joy’s lawyers did a crappy job. There is so much they could have looked into before the trial…heck they had 15 months to work on a better defense.
-
Suspicious since I read the LNP story February 1st, 2010 at 20:40
And the courts and the prison had fifteen months to break Joy’s spirit, guilty or not.
Kills me that a child molester in Columbia who was on America’s Most Wanted and on the run for years is now out on bail. I wonder if that judge rendered him guilty at the bail hearing the same way Ashworth did for Joy Woomer?
-
“they had 15 months to work on a better defense.”
I can only believe that the defense felt the case was so completely flimsy that they did not aggressively pursue proving as best they could Joy was not guilty but rather relied on the idea that the case was certainly not provable beyond reasonable doubt.
Then, of course, we read the juror’s account of how they came to their conclusions and the defense was in no way prepared for a jury that apparently deliberated the possible guilt of the parents (and naively believed that impossible or whatever term he used) and who therefore determined it must have been the nurse.
This case is just sad and makes me glad I no longer live in Lancaster County.
-
Anonymous February 2nd, 2010 at 07:23
They asked those questions in that order for a reason. First, he established that she didn’t hear anyone coming and that the house was too noisy. They obviously went over her testimony multiple times before that day. Then, he asked if she heard or saw anyone. She responded, “I wasn’t looking”, and “not that I know of”. They were asked in that sequence to try to make people believe that because there was so much noise, she couldn’t hear anyone and she wasn’t looking to see if anyone came down the stairs. If he came right out and said, “So, you believe that the mother or father or children could have come down the stairs and entered Brent’s room without your knowledge?” He probably felt that it may sway the jurors to go against Joy, which wasn’t in her best interest. However, when she (Joy) made comments to basically say that the mother killed the son, those jurors heard and if there was any doubt in the minds of those jurors this questioning would then make them think, “hey, she didn’t hear here once maybe she didn’t hear them again.” The defense attorney was to put a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.
Of course, those sounds only last for about an hour and then are gone. You cannot make people believe that a dryer/washer or dishwasher run all night long. Not only that but you do not know the layout of the home. Where are these noises compared to where she stayed all night long? The defense made it seem that she was sitting in the kitchen all night according to this bit of questioning. I do not know the next portion of the questioning or the questioning before this.
The defense made the jurors question the parents. You cannot come out and say that you think the mother did this crime and then believe the jurors should not have discussed this as a possibility. This is how you would get your reasonable doubt.
-
You are dead wrong, anonymous. Nice speculation though.
-
boomie February 2nd, 2010 at 09:55
The parents were not on trial so the jury had no business clearing them based on their teary eyed testimony.
Don’t forget what the mom said when asked about trying to revive the child.
There was reasonable doubt already which is why the last DA didn’t bring charges. -
Anonymous February 2nd, 2010 at 10:17
Please elaborate on why this is “dead wrong”.
-
Anonymous February 2nd, 2010 at 11:27
When the defendant basically states they think the mother did it, you don’t think someone is going to bring that up in the deliberation room? That is the basis everyone on this site is using as reasonable doubt. The actions the mother took is, according to you boomie, reasonable doubt. How can you claim someone is guilty without first ruling out a claim on the other two people that could have given the child the drug? Is there reasonable doubt? Could the parents have done this crime? Is it possible that the mother was able to acquire this drug? If these questions were answered by a unanimous ‘no’, in their mind, then you can look to see if there is enough evidence to base a conviction. Someone gave that boy medication he wasn’t supposed to have. How do you know why the last DA didn’t bring charges? Do you have facts? Is this hearsay? Most people on here are spouting out half truths and theories. I’d like some concrete evidence to validate your theories.
-
chingching February 2nd, 2010 at 12:53
The defense didn’t use this at all and they basically had her state no one came down that night!
So can she appeal on the grounds of improper representation by her attorney?
-
boomie February 2nd, 2010 at 16:05
Anonymous. Are you serious? The DA did not bring charges because he could not prove anything. Unless you want to claim that the DA had enough evidence but didn’t bring charges for some other reason. Go ahead make that claim.
As for the jury deciding the innocence of the mom based on her testimony, that is absurd. She wasn’t on trial or even investigated so the jury didn’t know enough.
They had as much evidence on mom and dad as they did on Joy.In other words, none. So in your world had the mom or dad been on trial they would have been found guilty? -
Anonymous February 2nd, 2010 at 17:25
Boomie: All I’m saying is 12 jurors convicted the nurse based on evidence they heard. How do you know that they (the DAs office) wasn’t waiting for the civil case to conclude before filing charges. How do you know that there wasn’t an on-going investigation behind the scenes that you aren’t aware of? I don’t know this information but am not claiming I know this either. No, you are right the mom wasn’t on trial. Yet, the defendant made it clear the mom should be. And, the defense attorney questioned the mom about the things she said and the things she did back then. That was all brought out in the trial. Do you think they didn’t investigate the mom/dad at that time? I think you would be sadly mistaken my friend. There is more evidence against the nurse than that of the mom/dad and so therefore I have to say that the mother/father would not be found guilty. In my world, the nurse was found guilty of giving morphine to the child twice. My world is considered the real world, boomie.
-
“All I’m saying is 12 jurors convicted the nurse based on evidence they heard.”
Not according to the interview given by one of the jurors. That interview indicates they made the decision based on their belief that the parents were absolutely not guilty along with assumptions about the possibility of procuring morphine. I don’t see that as convicting based on the evidence.
It took 6 years because the case was full of holes and remains so today. If you break it down into very basic premises, ANYONE in that house was capable of administering morphine to the child, and, it is no LESS likely that the father, mother did versus the nurse. There is equal opportunity there.
Because she is a nurse, the jury cannot (but did) assume that morphine was at her fingertips.
Because they are the boy’s parents, the jury cannot assume (and they did) that a parent would not kill a child. From a motive standpoint, the parents certainly had more ‘reason’ - if you can call it that - than the nurse for murdering the child. Again, 3 people that we are aware of in the house who had an equal opportunity to administer morphine to the child. There is no solid evidence after all these years to convict any of them.
The jury was unable to comprehend that a not guilty verdict for the nurse would not indicate guilt of the parents, but rather it would indicate the DA did not PROVE the nurse killed the child.
-
cinnamon February 2nd, 2010 at 19:26
Amen to that Trish ! Well spoken
-
Anonymous February 2nd, 2010 at 22:28
I respectfully disagree Trish. I see where your coming from, however, until you listen to all information available to the jurors you would find there is not as many holes as some suggest.
-
Moon Dust February 3rd, 2010 at 11:29
Anonymous were you at the trial for the whole 2 weeks or at all? You make it sound like you know everything that went on in the trial. what do you know that we do not know? Please share.
-