Henderson jury sees autopsy photos

Henderson prosecution rests, defense calls first witnesses:

Short article…

Just before the state rested its case today in the capital murder trial of Richard Henderson Jr., disturbing autopsy photos caused some jurors to wince and one to hold her hands over her eyes.

Dr. Wilson Broussard, the medical examiner for the 12th Judicial Circuit, was showing the jury close-up autopsy photos of the slain parents, Richard Sr. and Jeaneane, when the juror who had covered her eyes passed a note to the bailiff. Other jurors cringed at the sight of the photos.

The bailiff passed the note to Circuit Judge Diana Moreland, who called a 10-minute break in the proceedings. The juror who passed the note then put her head in her lap and placed her hands over her head.

Shortly after the state rested, the defense called its first five witnesses, including two elementary school teachers from Myakka City Elementry who testified that Henderson was disruptive and struggled academically.

Disruptive and struggled academically does not mean insane.

15 thoughts on “Henderson jury sees autopsy photos”

  1. Does anyone know what the demograph of the jurers is? I would be intrested to know what class of people are deciding this kids fate.

    Theres no doubt this kid is filled with self hate. He has deep issues of self loathing and suspect he is jealous of the rest of world and full of hate towards the rest of us, because we dont wallow in his misery with him. So is he menatally ill? Without a doubt, yes he is. Should that be a reason for him to escape the consequences of his actions? Noway. He killed and he needs to be removed from society, for societies own good. He says he dosnt know why he did this, but I contend he does know why. He did this because he is filled with a hurt that is so deep and so bad that the only way he can find relief is by inflicting hurt back. He may be unaware of what inside him is causing the pain he feels, but he has an intimate relationship with this pain. Him and his pain are two lovers married to one another and it’s them against the world. I pity the exsistence he lives in. It’s an ugly reality that for him has no ending. His only hope of asylum is to kill everyone until there is noone left to feel hurt by. His fears manifest themselves in a brutality and violence unbeknownist to most of us. He is a coward and lives in fear of the darkness that has engulfed him. His true enemy is himself, hence why he attempts suicide. He is not man enough to kill himself and lacks the chacter and courage to control his demons. He instead chooses to lash out at the world around him. He bludgeons the old, the young, the feeble, and the trusting people around him. He attacks them with thier backs turned to him. His feelings and actions are based in selfishness and his own best intrests. He is drowning inside of himself and incapable of being empathetic to others emotions. His own self’s best intrest is meanigless to me and should also be to the rest of you as well. He is guilty of violating humanities ultimate rule and humanity needs to adminster it’s justice upon him. The moment he struck his first blow upon his first innocent was the moment all options of salvation were relenquished over to retribution.

    Like

  2. I would be intrested to know what class of people are deciding this kids fate.

    *what does that have to do with anything ? I am not even sure I understand the question. what do you mean by “class” ?*

    Him and his pain are two lovers married to one another and it’s them against the world

    *are you kidding ?*

    Like

  3. What I mean by class is what demograph of people are hearing the evidence. Rebublican, democrat, white, ethnic, rich, poor, men, women, educated, not? It does matter who hears this case.

    And yes im serious.
    Im following this case because I feel its very important to get the ruling right. I think its important for everyone to consider everything and build a clear and accurate picture of what happened here and why it occured. Do you have a problem with something I said? Im open to constructive critizim. Im trying to understand this as best I can and to answer your question yes the above post is what I think is going on inside of him. The specific line you chose to quote was simply a metaphore.

    Like

  4. Please explain how is matters who hears the case. We are guaranteed a case decided by a jury of our peers. But our peers are not defined by their political stance, religion or the color of our skin. Our peers as defined by the state are citizens who have no prior knowledge of the case. I do not see how the color of your skin or the size of your bank account would make a difference when it comes to making a decision about this kid when all the evidence is laid before you.

    I asked you if you are serious because you related his “pain” to love and wrote it in the manor of romance drama dreck. He is not having a love affair with his pain, he killed people and is now trying to escape justice by pretending to be a tortured soul.

    Like

  5. I’ve never really been a fan of the jury system in our country… I think the selection process inadvertently favors prosecution. Still I don’t really see how demographic factors into a case like this. He’s not about to get a sympathy ‘not guilty’ bid ’cause he was into Xanax and is probably mentally disturbed. There are plenty who went through a way worse childhood but didn’t turn around and kill their family when they reach adulthood. If he had such lingering issues he could have just disassociated himself from his family… He wasn’t trapped, he’s just another worthless psycho in an ever-degrading gene pool.

    Like

  6. Another Johnny Come Lately. It amazes me that someone who just “recently found a connection” to this case is now such an authority. As I posted earlier in another area, I’ve followed this case since its beginning due to the fact of a “connection” to one of the people involved. I really wish if you were going to make “suggestions” that you would take the time to research the entire case. Its easily found. Of course, if you take everything written as gospel your gullible. This monster is beyond mentally ill. Again, some people are just born evil. There is no way to ever “understand” someone like Henderson. And I agree with Jim it dosent matter about your religion race or political affiliation. Because this country was founded on the principles that make our justice system he’ll have the opportunity to have a “fair” trial. Seems like alot more consideration than he gave when being judge and jury in the execution of his family

    Like

  7. Let me understand this now, because you have been following this case longer that makes your oppion more valid? I hope that is not what your implying? I dont recall making any suggestions to anyone. Maybe you are reading more into my posts then is there. How do you know how much I know or dont know about this case. I never claimed to be any kind of authority either. I really dont appricate your the way your trying to demean me and find you to be insulting. We are all here for the same reason to see that justice is served. We are on the same side here. Im not here to fight with you please give me the respect Ive shown you.

    *The jury*
    The reason I asked is because the people who hear this case, thier backgrounds will influence thier decission.
    Look at the OJ murder, anyone think justice was served in that case? But the jury dosnt matter because the American justice system entitles us to a jury by our peers and its a fair system.
    How about a poor guy who has been in trouble with the law in the past and could noit afford an attorney and is mad at “the man”. Do you want this guy on the jury?
    Why do you think the laweryers fight over who gets seated in the jury if it dosnt matter who decides guilt or innocence. Who hears the evidence being presented is as important as the evidence itself.

    Like

  8. that is why the jury is picked randomly rather than specific people from specific backgrounds.
    The OJ case could have gone in a much different direction had the jury been loaded with KKK members… but thats not how things work in this country.

    Also, one member of the jury does not fix the case. The decision they make is based on all of their opinions, not just the guy who wants to “get back at the man”.

    Like

  9. I understand that and get your point I only asked the question as a point of reference. I felt like I needed to further clarify it because I thought maybe the question was being interpeted as being motivated by biogtry, which it was not. One thing I will add though it only takes one bad jurer to hang the jury and cause a miss-trial. Honestly it may be difficult to get 12 people together and all agree on one oppion in this case. His insanity case may create a hung jury behindclosed doors. I hope not but it could happen.

    Like

  10. Personally I don’t see the insanity defense working. It’s obvious to me that Henderson knew what he was doing and knew what he was doing was wrong or else he wouldn’t have tried to flee.

    Like

  11. To be honest, my first reaction to your question was that you were being a bigot. My second, and the one I kind of stuck with, was that you were ignorant. (sorry if it offends you, that was my reaction).

    Nevertheless, One person can cause a hung jury but it seems to me… with the evidence that we have seen thus far, I doubt he would stand a chance if he had a jury of former murderers.

    Like

  12. I agree with both of you and hope your right. Im not as confident that its a slam dunk. Even here on this blog theres an anyomous poster who seems to think that he was failed by those around him and can be saved with propper meds. If you got somebody like that on the jury it can be a problem for the prosecution.
    I dont think theres going to be any more evidence presented. Only thing left before the jury retires is closing arguments. I think its rather telling that the defense’s only witness was one sympathetic shrink and a brain scan result.

    Like

  13. It was a slam dunk until the prosecution’s witness almost caused a mistrial.

    I think there will be a conviction but a big question mark over whether he gets the death penalty or not.

    Like

  14. Im kinda confused as to why that is considered grounds for a misstrial. Lets just say I go into the DA’s office or where ever and give my depostion to the best of my recollection and then I went to the stand and recalled things differently why would that be a miss trial? In my example I made my statements in good faith but as my memory is jogged I begin to remember things more accuratly so I testify as I remember it. The way I see it this girl can be held accountable for purposely interferring/perjury for her depostion statements but if she was honest on the stand then its not grounds for a miss trial. I would say this reguardless of which side it helped. The truth is the truth. I dont think its fair to put someone on the stand and reask them questions they already answered under oath, its easy to recall it differently the second time around. I think she can fairly say I missunderstood the quetion I was originally asked or I remember it differently. These events took place over a year ago, I cant remember things I did yesterday detail for detail sometimes. Sorry about the defenses luck if it hurt thier case, but thats how the cookie crumbles.

    My problem is this If the jury was lied too intentionaly or not then I understand the need for a new trial because they are formulating thier decission based on false data but if the jury heard the truth and the lawyers built thier case on bad data thats thier problem. If the prosecuters knew that her story was different from the original deposition thier might be grounds to say the DA did not provide full disclousure. That does not seem to be the case here though. If this was a concern why wasnt she interviewed before she took the stand to ensure her testimony has not changed or simply just submitted her original testimony transcripts into evidence. There is no reason to have a retrial because this guy’s lawyers were sloppy.

    Like

  15. It is as much grounds for mistrial as the DNA wasn’t sufficient evidence against OJ. Its just a matter of the lawyers discovering lawful back doors to avoid losing the case.
    Gotta give the god damn crooks one thing, they are good at finding loopholes and using it to stretch bullshit into reasonable doubt.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.