Foster parents arrested for death of Marcus Fiesel

[CougarQuest]

This case is a lot more disgusting than what has been allowed out in court. I can't add any more comment than that.

I guarantee that the prosecutors were disappointed that Liz didn't testify for numerous reasons.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Justice served. One more for Lady Justice to serve. Then we wait to hear about word getting out in their respective prisons about what they have done. More justice...

[Roy Tucker]

I think all 3 of them were equally culpable.

Baker just flipped first and now gets off scot-free. I understand why the prosecution gave her immunity, but I wish there was a way to park her butt in jail for 40-50 years.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I think all 3 of them were equally culpable.

Baker just flipped first and now gets off scot-free. I understand why the prosecution gave her immunity, but I wish there was a way to park her butt in jail for 40-50 years.

Absolutely, Roy. Unfortunately it seems that the DA wasn't sure it could be solved or a conviction had without Baker's help. Someday, somewhere... this world or another... I hope she gets hers.

[flyer85]

Obviously the dynamic is bizarre in a home with a husband/wife/live-in girlfriend and foster children.

I suspect we may never know the full truth about what happened.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Absolutely, Roy. Unfortunately it seems that the DA wasn't sure it could be solved or a conviction had without Baker's help. Someday, somewhere... this world or another... I hope she gets hers.

I suppose it's better to have the Carrolls convicted and Baker to go free than to have everyone go free. It's not the ideal situation but at least someone is going to do time for this.

[CougarQuest]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I think all 3 of them were equally culpable.

Baker just flipped first and now gets off scot-free. I understand why the prosecution gave her immunity, but I wish there was a way to park her butt in jail for 40-50 years.

Pray that the husband testifies. Highly doubtful though.

[Joseph]

Is her [Amy Baker] immunity complete? Or is it [I'm not sure the word] dependent on her story? I've heard talk of certain types of immunity being predicated on the story told and that if the story waivers at all that the immunity is waived.

Dunno for sure.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by CougarQuest

This case is a lot more disgusting than what has been allowed out in court. I can't add any more comment than that.

I guarantee that the prosecutors were disappointed that Liz didn't testify for numerous reasons.

Appreciate the comment CougarQuest and understand your position.

Had WLW on while coming back from lunch and Cunningham was talking. Being Cunningham makes many question the validity, but it does not seem like he'd fabricate stuff relative to something like this...

Claims Liz Carroll was a drug dealer, a thief and was known to tie up her kids. Says the prosecutor had witnesses ready to testify to this had Liz taken the stand and have her attorney portray her as something she was not.

[Matt700wlw]

She got 54 years to life (54 is the minimum if she only gets 15 for murder) for all 7 counts she was found guilty for.

David's trial starts next month....and for now, Amy walks.

All 3 should die....you kill a kid, you die.

Hopefully, down the road, they find some evidence that they can link to Amy Baker.

[Matt700wlw]

Originally Posted by Razor Shines 1B

From what I've read about Baker, I can't believe they gave her a deal. She helped David dump the body, but she didn't have anything to do with the death, right.

It's the only way that anybody would be convicted.....she came "clean" and it "solved" the case.

Without her, they had nothing....

Sad really, because I don't buy her story....hell, I don't buy any of their stories.

[CougarQuest]

Originally Posted by Joseph

Is her [Amy Baker] immunity complete? Or is it [I'm not sure the word] dependent on her story? I've heard talk of certain types of immunity being predicated on the story told and that if the story waivers at all that the immunity is waived.

Dunno for sure.

If evidence is raised that shows her involvement in the murder (other than her non-assistance in helphing Marcus), the deal is off. Both Carrols and all their attorneys know that.

I think the prosecutors office said it best today. There was a woman who was helping search for Marcus when this first came out. Her reason was that her brother went missing 40 years ago and they never found him.

This case was at the point that without working out a deal with one of them, and in this case a deal with the person least responsible for raising Marcus, there wouldn't have been any trial this week or within 40 years. Any physical evidence, especially with all the rain and snow that we've experienced, would have been gone forever. Everyone would still feel all three were guilty, but no one would face a criminal trial.

I'm going to add something else:
The Cincinnati Enquirer needs to take a deep dark look at itself.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by CougarQuest

If evidence is raised that shows her involvement in the murder, the deal is off. Both Carrols and their attorneys know that.

I'm going to add something else:
The Cincinnati Enquirer needs to take a deep dark look at itself.

Yea, I think Amy Baker is up to her arm pits in this mess, but without her jumping out first to save her skin all three would likely walk, or at the very least face very reduced charges. That's just the way of the legal system, sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil to get to the "greater good".

I agree CG, what the hell was the Enquirer thinking? Posting names and addresses of jurors? And publishing stories that were chock full of errors and what amounted to "Carroll Talking Points". Sad.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Claims Liz Carroll was a drug dealer, a thief and was known to tie up her kids. Says the prosecutor had witnesses ready to testify to this had Liz taken the stand and have her attorney portray her as something she was not.

Willie didn't make that up. The prosecuters said they had evidence of all of this in their statement to the judge prior to sentencing (listend to it live). They had coorborting eveidence from witnesses/sworn statements. Basicailly they were telling the judge if he was entertaining the idea of excersing some lienency that he should know about all of this other crap that didn't come because she didn't take the stand. And I would guess, not being a lawyer, that this was a clear message to the David Carroll camp that they had the goods on him too.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by CougarQuest

I'm going to add something else:
The Cincinnati Enquirer needs to take a deep dark look at itself.

Absolutely agreed.

I can't really comment on any of these things, but the Enquirer lost credibility by the bucketloads during this entire proceeding, from it's sham article that amounted to free testimony in the court of public opinion prior to voir dire to the juror debacle today.