SPOILERS: Entwined with You Overall Discussion

[Kirsten]

There you are Kirsten! Julie wanted her Henry fix earlier and since I didn't see you on I uploaded a pic lol

Love the pic you posted... I just wish he would wear a blue tie more often lol

 

Crazy past few days. I would love to have him in a blue tie more often too.   

[Kirsten]

So happy I finally got my validation to post. Looking forward to sharing this Crossfire journey with all of you!

 

 

He lives to protect the family, has for years and has a brother in the FBI and a past as some sort of commando , I'm sus about Stanton's involvement as well.

 

[Kirsten]

Hi Rogue,

It will be interesting to see if Sylvia gives a quick time line of Monica’s past married lives.  I wonder why she left husband number two.  We all know why dumped Barker, but what the deal with the second husband?  I also wonder if Monica had any contact with Victor during those years. 

Hi GiGi,

 

Wasn't husband number 2 the one with the gambling problem?

[Kirsten]

 

 

I think that if Tatiana and Trey ever met then the fur would fly indeed!!  I don't think that for one moment, Tatiana would be interested in sharing Cary with ANYONE!!  She has become quite rude and is constantly testing her boundaries with Eva, Gideon and Cary.  I suspect that if anyone is looking for drama, they may get it with these two in the next book.  What do you think? 

LOL GiGi.  I'm picturing that scene in my head and can't help but laugh. Trey seems so soft spoken, and Tat, well we know she's a witch.

 

[Kirsten]

^ 

^{N rock here is the link to the New Years Eve teaser:  http://www.sylviaday.com/2012/12/31/special-teaser-years/}

 

^ 

^ 

[Sheens263]

LOL GiGi.  I'm picturing that scene in my head and can't help but laugh. Trey seems so soft spoken, and Tat, well we know she's a witch.

Love your animation Kirsten

[Nrock]

Just out of curiosity, by what process does one get "validated"? When I signed up a little while back, I thought I could start posting immediately. I kept tying to figure out where on the screen I could hit a reply and couldn't figure it out. Then a day or two later I think I got a message and the screen changed. It still took me a little time to figure out the system - being a little tech challenged. It would be easier if there were a clear Reply button at the bottom of each post, rather than only saying Reply at the bpttom of each page. I've also wondered it it had anything to do with my using an iPad instead of a regular computer.

I realize this info is probably posted somewhere and I've just overlooked it. I'm only going on about it in case some other people who are just readers, have some of the same questions. I'm sure these amazing stories have brought lots of other new people into this world of blogs and fan forums. You just have to have someone to share and discuss with!

And you guys are so friendly and supportive and welcoming - however wild or emotional or bizarre we get with our theories!

Thanks so much!!!

[Kirsten]

Hi Gigi

Regarding the murder and when did Eva know about it.

Surely that would be up to the prosecution to prove when Eva knew. Can we go the route of plausible deniability?The Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent?

 

IMO it would be very difficult for them to prove when Eva knew. She won't testify against Gideon.

[Nrock]

^ 

^{N rock here is the link to the New Years Eve teaser:  http://www.sylviaday.com/2012/12/31/special-teaser-years/}

 

^ 

^ 

Thank so much, Kirsten!

[LN Cronan]

Regarding the thorny question of could Eva ever be forced to testify against Gideon, it's a complicated area of U.S. law with some gray areas.

 

I'm the forum's resident expert on criminal trials, including murder trials, having spent a dozen years as a journalist covering crime cases from the start of investigations to the verdicts and beyond. Plus my college education has included courses covering aspects of the U.S. Constitution that cover the rights of citizens suspected/accused of crimes (right to silence, right to a lawyer, etc.).

 

Here are some of the real-world things that could apply to a case such as Gideon and Eva. This stuff is based on some of the things I learned in college and actually saw being applied by the police and the courts. If you can bear a mini law lesson, here it is ....

 

Criminal law and the ways trials are handled in the United States are a hodge-podge. Each of the 50 states has its own set of laws and its own state court system. The VAST majority of criminal cases are handled by the state courts, not the U.S. Federal government courts. The investigation into Nathan's death is being handled under the laws of the State of New York.

 

However, some very important basic things about police investigations and criminal trials apply in every single state, things that are covered under the U.S. Constitution. Both Gideon and Eva have certain constitutional rights. Why Eva too? Because an argument could be made she had been involved before the killing (such as she asked Gideon to do it.) She's definitely involved now after the fact (in helping to protect Gideon, she is now committing the crime of being an accessory after the fact.)

 

There are two kinds of spousal privileges.  The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution.  A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases.

 

The spousal testimonial privilege (also known as "spousal immunity") covers all testimony, including testimony concerning events that predated the marriage. Because Gideon and Eva are now married, there is some legal protection over the stuff that happened before the wedding.

 

The spousal confidential communications privilege applied to private conversations between spouses -- but only the conversations that took place during the marriage itself, not before it. Gideon admitted to Eva when they got back together he'd done it -- for example, top of page 107 "I killed a man ..." -- confessions that happened before they got married. Those confessions are not protected as a confidential communication between husband and wife.

 

There are important exceptions to both the testimonial privilege and the communications privilege in criminal cases. For example, the most obvious are cases where one spouse commits a crime against the other -- or commits a crime against their children. I've actually seen cases where one spouse beat up the other and got charged with assault or abused one of their children. The victim later decides he/she doesn't want to press charges. Or the spouse doesn't want to testify against the other in a child abuse case. The prosecution can force the spouse to have to do so anyway -- no dropping the charges or withdrawing statements made to the police. I've seen this done numerous times.

 

Another one of the exceptions to the testimonial privilege and the communications privilege is when a couple together is committing a crime -- i.e. it's not just one spouse knowing about a crime, but rather, the pair of them are co-defendants. Now that Gideon and Eva are "in this together" they're both conspiring to cover up the crime. The conspiracy started the night they got back together.

 

Neither one of them can be forced to talk to the police if they don't want to (the "right to silence" protected under the U.S. Constitution). At any time they do decide to answer police questions, they have a right to have a lawyer present with them (that's another right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution). They can invoke the right at any time - before questioning or during it.

 

In Eva's case, the night Detective Graves told her Gideon did it, Eva clearly said at the very start she didn't want to talk to Graves without a lawyer. So Eva was invoking two rights -- right to silence and right to a lawyer. Graves ought to have walked away then. Technically, Graves did nothing wrong by talking TO Eva (i.e. spilling the beans while Eva sat there) -- but Graves was in a dangerous legal zone doing even that. But to ASK Eva any questions would violate Eva's rights to silence and to have her lawyer with her. Graves DID ask Eva a question (that Eva broke up with Gideon during that phone call Saturday morning -- something that proved Eva dumped Gideon after Nathan was dead, not Gideon left her for Corrine days before Nathan died.) 

 

At last resort, either one could refuse to take the witness stand at their own trial. This is another U.S. Constitutional right. The prosecution has to prove the case -- technically the defense doesn't have to raise a finger. In practice, what the defense actually does is punch holes in the prosecution case and/or presents its own witnesses to tell the jury another side of the story. The defendant himself/herself doesn't have to testify though -- and if the defendant doesn't, the judge basically has to bend over backwards to explain to the jury the defendant didn't have to.

 

Why wouldn't a defendant take the stand? If because if he/she does, he/she gives up "the right to silence." After the defense lawyer is done questioning the defendant, the prosecutor gets to cross-examine -- and the defendant has to answer any questions. So unless Gideon were to take the stand at his trial, the prosecution doesn't get any shot at asking him a single question in front of the jury. Same deal with Eva -- if they charged her with being an accessory, she doesn't have to testify at her own trial. BUT ... if either of them decided to testify in their own behalf, well then the prosecutor gets to try to nail them on cross-examination.

[Kirsten]

Hi ! I don't know if I'm right but I don't think Eva and Gideon haveever talked about him doing the murder directly or him admitting to it to Eva.Theyve talked around it and about it but Gideon has never come out and said he's done it nor has he told how he did it.Three conversations come to mind where they have alluded to Gideon killing Nathan is when Gideon is telling Eva what the options were for keeping her safe that's in Chapter 1 or 2 and the second time is when she says you killed a man for me and he responds his love is not an obligation third time is when he says he left the bracelet on Nathan but he has never explicitly said .Based on this I would think that Eva has no knowledge that Gideon killed Nathan from Gideon himself but rather from Detective Graves.

I could altogether wrong ,would welcome any other view /correction.

In chapter 5 when Eva tells Gideon she is going to the video reveal and the conversation that ensues she does tell Gideon "You killed a man for me."

 

In chapter 8 Eva wakes Gideon when she thinks he is slipping into a nightmare, and he says, "I killed a man,"..."It's never been safe for you to be with me when I'm sleeping and that's even truer now."

[Nrock]

There you are Kirsten! Julie wanted her Henry fix earlier and since I didn't see you on I uploaded a pic lol

Love the pic you posted... I just wish he would wear a blue tie more often lol

I've been loving all the Gideon pictures, but especially the occasional moody unsmiling ones. Anyone run across any "dark and dangerous" looking ones? Like maybe when Gideon is watching Eva dancing with Martin or talking to Brett? Sigh...

[Kirsten]

no you are right they have never discussed it and personally (and I could be wrong) I don't think they will, I think Gideon knows if he discusses it with Eva she will not be able to cope with it especially if she is struggling with the knowledge she already knows and he will not want her in the position if anything was asked of her she could confidently say she didn't know the details and she is not lying and with her dad being a cop Gideon will want to protect her form the scrutiny from the police 

Morning Sheens, I don't think I'd want the details either.

[Mam2e]

In chapter 5 when Eva tells Gideon she is going to the video reveal and the conversation that ensues she does tell Gideon "You killed a man for me."

 

In chapter 8 Eva wakes Gideon when she thinks he is slipping into a nightmare, and he says, "I killed a man,"..."It's never been safe for you to be with me when I'm sleeping and that's even truer now."

Tx for the chapter 8 reminder .

[Sheens263]

Morning Sheens, I don't think I'd want the details either.

me neither, I think if I knew them I would freak out LOL

[jls1216]

Personally i don't want Monica and Victor to end up together. I think Victor deserves better!

[GLH]

Had thought Tat was lying about the pregnancy.  Cannot think of Cary being that careless considering how he is.  Also, this woman is not the type to be faithful.  I think it speaks volumes about Cary as a person.  It doesn't even occur to me that she is honest.  The idea of Deanna bribing Tat is quite interesting.  And makes sense.  I don't think Tat is pregnant.  

 

The 2 people who bother me the most are Graves and Deanna.  I just don't trust either.  

 

Reread the Brett chapter.  Still not sure why Eva would even invite Brett up to the apartment.  Makes no sense considering Gideon has a key, hated the video, and is so possessive.  Like asking for trouble.

[julie54]

In chapter 5 when Eva tells Gideon she is going to the video reveal and the conversation that ensues she does tell Gideon "You killed a man for me."

 

In chapter 8 Eva wakes Gideon when she thinks he is slipping into a nightmare, and he says, "I killed a man,"..."It's never been safe for you to be with me when I'm sleeping and that's even truer now."

Hello ladies.

Gideon admitted to Eva that he killed Nathan in chapter 1 page 9.

"I won't apologise. I'd do it again, the options were restraining orders . Increased security, vigilance for the rest of your life. There was no guarantee you'd be safe unless Nathan was dead"

Gideon has never discussed specifics, Eva doesn't need to know at this moment. Who knows?

[fsumom]

Yes, it was brilliant indeed!!!

I loved the change in perspective, and it made me even more eager to read 'his' Crossfire series.

In the Blackstone Affair series (which I saw recommened here, thank you very much  ) the 2nd & 3rd books both tell the story from male & female POV.  It is really different and I liked it.  Was happy to see the snippet with Gideon's POV and hoping that maybe in book 4 or 5 Gideon with starting 'talking' to Sylvia

[Sharonm745]

Hi Sharon

I'm doing good at insulting people tonight!!!

I was referring to Tat as the witch.

Love the picture though

 

I didn't take it as an insult I thought it was a compliment. 

[Nrock]

Hi Nrock, 

Let's see if this works:

 

http://www.sylviaday.com/category/snippet/

 

If you click on that you should be able to find which ever snippets that you are looking for.  I think that the snippet that you are looking for is between snippet 6 and 5.  I hope that helps. 

Thanks, Gigi- and to everyone who replied. You're the best !

[MrsCrossfire]

Hey I just wanted to tell everyone SD said snippets and snapshots for book 4 are coming soon..! B.B.L..! Gotta go to work now :(

[julie54]

Crazy past few days. I would love to have him in a blue tie more often too.

Hi Kirsten

He has such beautiful eyes.

The eyes are the windows to your soul.

Very expressive. First things I look at. :)

[julie54]

Hey I just wanted to tell everyone SD said snippets and snapshots for book 4 are coming soon..! B.B.L..! Gotta go to work now

Woohoo!

Bring them on. :)

[LN Cronan]

One follow-up to the legal lesson .... as it applies to a real-life trial in general and the very clever way Sylvia twisted the plot here with the Nathan-bracelet-on-the-dead-gangster.

 

In the now remote possibility a prosecutor decided to bring Gideon to trial, that prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt Gideon did it. Gideon does NOT have to prove himself innocent -- the prosecutor HAS to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt." So really, all Gideon's defense team would need to do is to punch holes in the prosecution's version of the story.

 

It'd be a slam dunk to punch a hole "big enough to drive a truck through" right now (to use some lawyer snark) by telling the jury about the dead gangster. The defense lawyers would get to cross-examine Detective Graves and her partner all about that. The defense wouldn't even need to come up with witnessed of their own, because the prosecution witnesses themselves (the cops) would be practically a gift to the defense.

 

In the end, the jury would go into deliberations with two different versions of what might have happened:

Gideon Cross killed Nathan Barker because he decided Barker might possibly kill Eva Trammell some day.

The Russian gangster killed Nathan Barker over some sort of criminal deal gone bad.

 

How could the jury decide beyond reasonable doubt Gideon did it when it is actually reasonable to believe it was the Russian? Bingo -- there's the reasonable doubt, so the verdict would have to be not guilty.

 

And if the verdict came back not guilty, it is over forever. The prosecution cannot "appeal" that verdict and ask for a new trial to get another shot at convicting Gideon. The U.S. Constitution forbids something called "double-jeopardy" -- forbids the government from repeatedly trying to convict a citizen of a crime after a jury of other ordinary citizens decided "peers" already decided once the defendant was not guilty. 

 

Really the only option -- well the only smart option -- is for the cops and prosecutors to sit on their hands for now, maybe forever. Unless the cops can come up with proof the Russian gangster didn't do it,  that someone attempted to "frame" the Russian for a crime he didn't commit. This worries them -- and ironically, it's got GidEva concerned too. What if the person trying to frame the gangster is an enemy of Gideon, not someone trying to protect him? Whoever did plant evidence against the Russian does know what Gideon did -- because that bracelet was on Nathan's dead body when Gideon left the hotel room.