subpeona to baby killer trial?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:15 pm

i have been trying to copy and paste this article, but the software won't let me. it's about a female i know who killed her twin boys. jury selection is on now, and there's talk i may be subpeonaed. court TV is going to show the trial in real time on their website, court tv 'extra',not the cable programming. i'll post a link for it if anyone wants to see it. what follows here is a graphic description of what she did......Sons' slayings described in the event i am subpeonaed i really can't discuss anything i personally know about her, but may post public information. www.courttv.com.

MOTHER ON TRIAL FOR KILLING TWINS Fla. v. Demeniuk

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:20 pm

I remember you talking about this before, LC. While I won't be clicking on that link to read about what she did, what do you think about maybe being called to testify? Do you want to, or would you rather not be there?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:31 pm

BabyRider wrote: I remember you talking about this before, LC. While I won't be clicking on that link to read about what she did, what do you think about maybe being called to testify? Do you want to, or would you rather not be there?i'd rather eat s**t and die than be on court tv.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:49 pm

It is very magnaminous of you to post this thread, LC. Out of respect for you, I will not view the programme even if I have the opportunity. Take care not to let it make you ill.:-4

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:50 pm

So if i subscribe & you give evidence i'll be able to see you?

Not very nice circumstances, but still Cool

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:51 pm

i don't understand why magnanimous OM, and it won't make me ill. but two friends of mine were on that life-flight and they have to testify what a horrific scene it was.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:52 pm

OpenMind wrote: It is very magnaminous of you to post this thread, LC. Out of respect for you, I will not view the programme even if I have the opportunity. Take care not to let it make you ill.:-4I feel awful now!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:52 pm

abbey wrote: So if i subscribe & you give evidence i'll be able to see you?

Not very nice circumstances, but still Cool

IF i must Abbey, i will let you know.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:56 pm

lady cop wrote: IF i must Abbey, i will let you know. Much rather be seeing you in the flesh here in England though. :-6

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:07 pm

lady cop wrote: i don't understand why magnanimous OM, and it won't make me ill. but two friends of mine were on that life-flight and they have to testify what a horrific scene it was.

LC, you said "i'd rather eat s**t and die than be on court tv." That's the reason for my comment.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:10 pm

they managed to impanel a jury today, opening statements tomorrow (friday). i'll keep this thread updated as it goes along. a real shock was that the state attorney office had been seeking death for nearly 5 years, and took it off the table at Christmas for no apparent reason.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:59 pm

OK, so you'd rather not be on CourtTv, but what about testifying in the case itself? Is this an opportunity you want, or would rather not deal with?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:06 pm

IF i accepted service of a subpeona, i would be on court tv. it's not that i'm shy, it's just i have worked undercover, and do not want to be IDed. then again court tv will honor that. i've seen them do it before.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:13 pm

lady cop wrote: IF i accepted service of a subpeona, i would be on court tv. it's not that i'm shy, it's just i have worked undercover, and do not want to be IDed. then again court tv will honor that. i've seen them do it before.
I'm not making my question clear, sorry, LC: What I'm curious about is, do you want the chance to testify in this case against this woman, as long as your identity is protected, or do you not want to be involved in her prosecution at all?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:24 pm

BabyRider wrote: I'm not making my question clear, sorry, LC: What I'm curious about is, do you want the chance to testify in this case against this woman, as long as your identity is protected, or do you not want to be involved in her prosecution at all?frankly, without saying more than i should, it's HER attnys. that want to call me. i was in that county when she was charged and got to know her well. she was a master manipulator and i saw through it. my sgt. at the time told me what was up and i never spoke to her again about anything. i made the mistake of being human/kind. what happens is if you spend years getting to know someone charged with an awful crime, you start to see them as human. you disassociate them from the crime. i've done this more than once, we all do.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:29 pm

lady cop wrote: frankly, without saying more than i should, it's HER attnys. that want to call me. i was in that county when she was charged and got to know her well. she was a master manipulator and i saw through it. my sgt. at the time told me what was up and i never spoke to her again about anything. i made the mistake of being human/kind. what happens is if you spend years getting to know someone charged with an awful crime, you start to see them as human. you disassociate them from the crime. i've done this more than once, we all do.
Well, on a slightly different note, it's good to know that you coppers are capable of still seeing even proven criminals as people. :sneaky: :yh_wink

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:27 am

lady cop wrote: frankly, without saying more than i should, it's HER attnys. that want to call me. i was in that county when she was charged and got to know her well. she was a master manipulator and i saw through it. my sgt. at the time told me what was up and i never spoke to her again about anything. i made the mistake of being human/kind. what happens is if you spend years getting to know someone charged with an awful crime, you start to see them as human. you disassociate them from the crime. i've done this more than once, we all do.
Sort of like Truman Capote?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:58 pm

SOJOURNER wrote: Sort of like Truman Capote?

capote had a vested financial interest in that case, although the book (in cold blood) was superb. it was one of the first of its genre.-------------------today i watched the first day of trial on my computer, it was great to be able to view it. her former husband, the children's father, testified, some other peripheral people, and then her boyfriend, who discovered the bodies and called 911. it was really fascinating to see that i knew all the deputies in the courtroom, and some other people there as well. watching her brought a lot back to me re: my conversations with her.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:23 pm

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL -- Tommy Demeniuk said he loved his wife when they were married, but he doesn't know if she loved him.

Leslie Demeniuk's former husband took the stand in her double murder trial. She is on trial for shooting her twin sons to death in March of 2001 at her father's Ponte Vedra home.

Tommy says he met Leslie in a Jacksonville Beach bar in 1996, dated her for two to three months, and then he had to report to duty on a Navy ship for six months. Just a few weeks into the cruise, he says Leslie told him on the phone that she was pregnant. The two decided to get married and tied the knot when he came back to Jacksonville months later.

Shortly afterwards in February 1997, Tommy remembers James and John Demeniuk were born. However, he says he and Leslie seldom agreed on how to raise the children. For example, he says he disagreed with her breast-feeding the twins until they were two and a half years old. Tommy describes Leslie as the controlling force in the marriage.

Tommy remembers he was surprised when Leslie told him she wanted to leave him. He was deployed at the time. Tommy says he was opposed to it. However, he says he filed for divorce when he came back into town.

A custody battle ensued afterwards, and Tommy says he did not feel Leslie's lifestyle was the best for their sons. However, Tommy also says he gave in and let Leslie have custody of "Jamie and Johnny," and he got the house.

The prosecution claims it will prove the then 31-year-old mom knew exactly what she was doing when she retrieved the gun from one bedroom, got the revolver out of the closet, loaded it, walked back into another room, shot one son, and then "chased" after the other and shot him.

The defense says Demeniuk was temporarily insane due to stressors from the custody battle, from personal characteristics which may include genetic reasons, and from the anti-depressants she was taking at the time. Her attorneys also say Leslie drank alcohol to handle the drugsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ side effects, and that created a state of involuntary intoxication.

Leslie is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecution is no longer seeking the death penalty.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:46 am

lady cop wrote: The prosecution is no longer seeking the death penalty.
Why not?

:-3

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:00 am

BabyRider wrote: Why not?

:-3beats the hell out of me. i think they were concerned they couldn't get a death verdict from a jury there.

sheryl_b · Post by **sheryl_b** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:58 am

How can any mother harm her own children this way????? I couldn't dream of hurting my child this way and from the picture that LC has put on the sick woman had 2 adorable children she should have been more than proud of

To think a mother could do this to her own children make me sick to the stomach maybe it should be done to her...... the woman is f**kin sick

She SHOULD be given the death penatly and a public one with as much pain as possible nobody will feel sorry for her when she lands in jail infact she'll probably end up being murder'd in there or in woth all the other sick child killers

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:25 am

that's the problem. she's pleading that she is sick. let me be graphic....two little boys with their brains blown all over the room. they ran. they tried to get away. as to her safety....she has been in protective custody for nearly five years, she will remain so. other inmates won't get to her.

sheryl_b · Post by **sheryl_b** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:49 am

maybe they should let the other inmates get to her........ she took 2 innocent lifes why should she live hers

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:21 am

lady cop wrote: beats the hell out of me. i think they were concerned they couldn't get a death verdict from a jury there.
A crime like this....so heinous, so violent, so tragic and sad and sick and fu*ked-up, and they don't think they can get the death penalty? Too bad they can't get her tried here, we'd hang the b!tch in a nano-second.

If I live to be 196, I will never fully comprehend our so-called justice system. I just don't get it.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:19 am

Try ours in the UK now thats ****ed up .

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:49 pm

i do not believe this! GRRRRRRRRRRR....the defense objected to extra microphones in the courtroom, the judge had them removed, you can't hear diddly and court TV is no longer going to show the trial because of it! excuse me while i go shoot something.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:26 pm

lady cop wrote: i do not believe this! GRRRRRRRRRRR....the defense objected to extra microphones in the courtroom, the judge had them removed, you can't hear diddly and court TV is no longer going to show the trial because of it! excuse me while i go shoot something.

If court cases can be televised, how is it that either party can object to it. Can they also object to people listening from the gallery? I really don't understand how an objection can be plausibly raised.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:34 pm

OpenMind wrote: If court cases can be televised, how is it that either party can object to it. Can they also object to people listening from the gallery? I really don't understand how an objection can be plausibly raised.the judge gave approval months ago for court TV to be there taping. the defense last week said they were afraid the extra mics would pick up private comments between he and the defendant. that is pure bollocks. she just didn't like the idea of the testimony and her visage being seen all over the internet. she's a real princess in her own mind. the judge succumbed because he has to preserve the record against errors.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:55 pm

lady cop wrote: the judge gave approval months ago for court TV to be there taping. the defense last week said they were afraid the extra mics would pick up private comments between he and the defendant. that is pure bollocks. she just didn't like the idea of the testimony and her visage being seen all over the internet. she's a real princess in her own mind. the judge succumbed because he has to preserve the record against errors.

Tell me truthfully LC. Is the court system incorruptible. It only takes selective positioning of microphones to prevent 'eavesdropping'. I state this as someone who understands acoustic engineering.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:06 pm

OpenMind wrote: Tell me truthfully LC. Is the court system incorruptible. It only takes selective positioning of microphones to prevent 'eavesdropping'. I state this as someone who understands acoustic engineering.i don't believe this judge is corrupt, i really think in a case like this judges go the extra mile to appear fair to the defendant. they grant a lot of motions so the defense won't have anything to appeal or whinge about.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:13 pm

There is really something mentally or physically wrong with anybody - man or woman - who kills their children. They need to be put away or sterilized. I say sterilized because if they get off on some mental condition they should NEVER be allowed to have more children to kill. I know this seems harsh - I never felt anything but love and protection for my child. There is something fundamentally WARPED about any person who is capable of killing their own child.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:16 pm

I believe what you say LC. But microphone technology isn't difficult and there are two different types of microphone. It would be so easy to ensure that only the relevant discourse was heard and nothing else.

As a matter of point, a rock band is extremely noisy. Each player is pumping out his/her worth in volume. Yet the mikes are set up so as only to receive one player's contribution which is fed back to them through a foldback monitor system or headphones.

A court house would be so easy to mike up in a selective manner. That's why I asked the question. It's not modern technology. The technology for this was developed decades ago. I am a telecomms engineer by apprenticeship. Plus I spent time as a young man working as a sound and recording engineer for a local band in my leisure hours. This is how I know these things. That was back in the early seventies. The art has become more refined since then.

sheryl_b · Post by **sheryl_b** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:57 pm

The boyfriend of this woman testified Monday that her behavior changed when she started taking anti-depressants,

I know that drugs do change people but not to the point of where you kill your own children.............i'd never dream of hurting my son don't get me wrong he's had a smack'd backside for doing wrong but drugs are no excuse to how u treat them

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:23 pm

here is the 911 tape her boyfriend made when he discovered the children, also some video of her first appearance.( click on link, you'll get newspaper article, then click on 911 tape in the article. )

Demeniuk's boyfriend called police after finding her twins dead. VIDEO

Hear 911 Tape

sheryl_b · Post by **sheryl_b** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:51 am

mrsK wrote: The behaviour should have changed for the better,she / they are just making excuses & should not get away with this.

your right mrsK drugs ain't no excuse to kill anybody let alone your her own children if they let her plead insanity then there's something clearly wrong with the judge and jury they should have hung her the day she took them innocent lives and sayin she didi it to get at their dad........ c**p

.............. i hate my sons real dad with a passion but i'd never kill my son to get at him............... :-5 :-5

I just listen'd to the tape LC and even when he called 911 he was tryin to blame it on the medication....... if you ask me then maybe this guy is iin on this........... he say's he still loves her but i tell you if my boyfriend killed his own child then i'd hate him not still love him the guy needs to be treated the same as the so called mother

my heart goes out tto the boysa father n family who really did care :-1

THE MOTHER SHOULD BURN IN HELL

GIVE HER A SLOW AND VERY PAINFULL DEATH IF YOU ASK ME

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:33 am

today's newspaper.'Why did I kill my babies?'

By RICHARD PRIOR richard.prior@staugustinerecord.com

Jurors in the trial of a Ponte Vedra Beach woman charged with shooting her children to death heard a recording Monday in which the defendant sobbed, "I'll burn in hell for this."

sheryl_b · Post by **sheryl_b** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:22 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: They should drop her and Andrea Yates tied together into a shark infested tank.

SnoozeControl i totally agree....... but also on the other hand wouldn't a slow and painfull death be alot better for them??? they should do to them what they did to them innocent children

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:31 pm

today's evidence

Sgt. Jay Lawing shows the jury the handgun that killed the Demeniuk twins.

Jury In Demeniuk Murder Trial Hears Grim Crime Scene Evidence

POSTED: 6:19 pm EST January 10, 2006

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- The jury in the Leslie Demeniuk murder trial heard more about the grim crime scene evidence on Tuesday.

One of the witnesses called by prosecutors was lead detective Sgt. Jay Lawing, who one of the first investigators called after victims James and John Demeniuk were shot to death inside their grandfather's Ponte Vedra Beach home.

The victims' mother, Leslie Demeniuk, has admitted to killing the boys, but claims she was insane at the time of the of the March 2001 incident.

As Lawing described the clothing the boys were wearing, Leslie Demeniuk cried, as did the boys' father Tommy Demeniuk, who testified earlier in the week about the last time he saw his sons alive.

Four-year-old twins Jamie and Johnny.

Lawing also read a statement signed by Leslie Demeniuk that read: "When I got back in the room, I shot both boys in the head. I think I shot Jamie first. I think I shot one of them twice. I don't know what was going through my head. I heard one of the boys still breathing."

Earlier in the day, some of the first people to come in contact with Leslie Demeniuk the day of the shooting testified, including a deputy with the St. Johns County Sheriff's Department and a paramedic.

The deputy testified that Leslie Demeniuk was coherent, as did one of the emergency workers at the crime scene.

"The police officer asked if she knew why she was there, and she stated that she shot her baby. She told police that the gun was in the house, that it was her father's gun, she got it out of the closet and then shot her children," said Emergency Room Physician Dr. Karen Flek.

The prosecution is expected to rest by Wednesday afternoon.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:43 am

it's total crap the judge wouldn't let the jury see crime scene photos...what, protect jury from REALITY??? ....................

Attorneys defending a woman charged with murdering her two sons began telling their side of the story Wednesday, producing drug company documents that warned of possible violent behavior in some patients who took the same antidepressants that were prescribed for the defendant.

With the presentation of its 16th witness, the prosecution completed its portrayal of Leslie Ormandy Demeniuk, 36, as a cold-hearted woman who put a gun to the heads of her 4-year-old twins on March 17, 2001.

Demeniuk's attorneys, Bill Sheppard and Gray Thomas, entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity nearly three years ago.

They contend that a mix of anti-depressants and alcohol created a "substance-induced mood disorder" that drove their client to kill her boys, James and John Demeniuk.

Demeniuk faces life in prison without parole if the jury of five women and one man finds her guilty.

Assistant State Attorney Noah McKinnon rested the state's case shortly before noon Wednesday after calling his final four witnesses to the stand.

One was a registered nurse who tended to Demeniuk when she was brought to the Baptist Medical Center-Beaches' emergency room on March 17.

A Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms examiner demonstrated how the Smith & Wesson .357-caliber Magnum revolver fired.

The medical examiner, Dr. Terrence Steiner, was the next witness. Thomas, once again, objected.

Steiner's appearance, when coupled with the planned exhibition of autopsy photographs, would unnecessarily enflame the jury, Thomas told Circuit Judge John M. Alexander.

The "gruesome" photographs are "brutal to look at," Thomas said, and would prejudice the jury against his client.

Assistant State Attorney Chris France said the photographs were needed to demonstrate the "actual mechanism of death."

"How the shots were fired speak to the intent of the defendant," France said.

Alexander struck the photographs and had Steiner point to his own head to show where the entrance and exit wounds were on the boys.

The final witness was a crime scene reconstructionist, who told the jury where the boys were, and how close the gun was to their heads, when they died.

The only witness for the defense who made it to the witness chair on Wednesday was Dr. David Menkes, a Yale University graduate and professor of psychological medicine at the University of Wales.

Menkes already testified at a series of "Frye hearings" that were held to decide if the defense could claim that certain anti-depressants can lead to violent behavior.

A Frye hearing is held to determine whether a particular theory is generally accepted in the scientific community.

The theory being tested was whether certain antidepressants -- Zoloft and Paxil -- can make some people homicidal or suicidal.

Those antidepressants are in a group of SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They are used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety by increasing the amount of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain.

Paxil is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer Inc. makes Zoloft.

Alexander issued his Frye decision on Oct. 21.

He wrote that the defense could not argue there is a direct link between SSRIs and suicidal or homicidal thoughts or behavior.

The defense would be allowed to present evidence that patients who take SSRIs can develop akathisia, described as "an inner restlessness that can't be relieved."

Many of those patients, the attorneys could explain, also drink alcohol to relieve akathisia.

Menkes testified that most people are helped by antidepressants.

They also produce side effects, which are not the same with everyone.

Whatever antidepressant is prescribed, Menkes said, requires "a great deal of planning or monitoring."

That was one of his big concerns in Demeniuk's case, he said, because, "There wasn't any of that fine tuning or adjusting available here. That's regrettable. For obvious reasons."

Thomas gave Menkes a large sheet with tiny printing that contained prescribing information for Paxil.

Under the "adverse reaction" category was the word "hostility," which Menkes said was "a bit of a misnomer."

Some of the "adverse reactions" bunched in the "hostility" category, he said, are "aggressive thoughts aggressive behavior and assaultive behavior," along with "suicidality and contemplated, intended or completed homicide."

McKinnon jumped up to object that the defense was using this strategy as a way around Alexander's decision in the Frye hearing.

"They're trying to get around your order by creating a literary package that links suicidality to SSRIs," he told the judge. "There is definitely an attempt to avoid the ruling you made."

Sheppard argued that the Frye hearing was about the testimony of defense witnesses. This information, he said, came from the drug company itself.

Alexander said he was concerned that Menkes was "expanding" on the definition of hostility and asked if there were any confirming documents.

Sheppard said Menkes was holding one that had been completed by a SmithGlaxoKline scientist.

"Are you intending to tell the judge and the jury that hostility includes homicidality?" McKinnon asked.

"That's what the company says," Sheppard replied.

The document was part of several studies that were included in four large boxes sent to the defense from SmithGlaxoKline as the result of a discovery order.

Sheppard and Thomas received the boxes in mid-November, and copies were made available to the state. Alexander dismissed the jury at 5:15 and held a "modified Frye hearing" on the new information. He is expected to announce how far Menkes can go in his testimony when the trial resumes at 8:30 this morning. ...............

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:22 am

i cannot wait for this verdict. .....Witness: Mom thought killings 'right'

By RICHARD PRIOR richard.prior@staugustinerecord.com

A Ponte Vedra Beach mother was so "psychotic and insane" when she shot her children to death that she thought it was "the right thing to do," a defense witness testified on Thursday. ...........

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:42 pm

Doctor calls Demeniuk 'controlling'

By RICHARD PRIOR richard.prior@staugustinerecord.com

Leslie Ormandy Demeniuk became "delusional" and "insane" through a mix of certain anti-depressants and alcohol, which drove her to shoot her 4-year-old twins to death, a defense psychologist testified earlier this week.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:57 am

closing arguments monday. i am very anxious about this verdict. i have known this woman for 5 years and have a definate opinion.