Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Update - Gibbs jury dismissed after deadlock

Update - Gibbs jury dismissed after deadlock

Jul 12, 2007 - 15:38:38 CDT

By the Associated Press

MINOT -- The jury in the Moe Gibbs murder trial was dismissed Thursday after deadlocking on the question of whether he killed college student Mindy Morgenstern. Supporters of Gibbs and Morgenstern said they were heartbroken by the stalemate.

The jury of seven women and five men deliberated more than 22 hours over four days before declaring themselves deadlocked. A jury statement, signed by foreman Walter Skrainy Jr., said jurors had unanimously concluded they could not reach a decision.

``This is based on our completion of your instructions, and our deeply held judgments, which are evenly divided,'' Skrainy wrote in a note to Southeast District Judge John Paulson, who presided over the case.

Paulson thanked the jurors and dismissed them shortly before 1:30 p.m. The jurors had just finished their lunch break.

Gibbs, 34, a former Barnes County jailer and campus security guard, was charged with killing Morgenstern, 22, of New Salem, last September. Authorities said she was strangled and stabbed in her off-campus apartment. Gibbs lived in the same building at the time.

Several supporters of Morgenstern gasped and cried after the deadlock was announced. ``It's a little bit of a shock,'' said Liz Kleinke, who said Morgenstern was her best friend and track teammate at Valley City State University.

Morgenstern's parents, Larry and Eunice Morgenstern, of New Salem, were not present in the courtroom when the stalemate was announced. They could not be reached immediately for comment.

Gibbs kept a stoic appearance, but appeared to weep after Paulson read the jury's statement. Steve Etienne, his brother-in-law, described Gibbs as ``devastated'' by the jury's failure to acquit him.

``There's a killer out there, and pinning it on my brother-in-law, I think is just wrong,'' Etienne said. ``For the jury to come back with this verdict, there is obvious doubt ... It really put us in limbo, because we don't have any closure.''

Breeze Etienne, who is Gibbs' sister, declined comment, other than to say authorities should reopen the investigation ``and find out who really did it.'' Her husband agreed. ``They need to get back on the horse and ride again,'' Steve Etienne said.

Gibbs remained in custody after the verdict. He is awaiting trial on charges that he sexually assaulted five women while working as a Barnes County jailer, and that he raped a woman in Fargo three years ago. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Gibbs could be tried again on the murder charge, but there was no immediate word on whether that would happen. A gag order bars attorneys on both sides from commenting on the case.

Brad Cruff, the Barnes County state's attorney, was the lead prosecutor on the case, assisted by Jonathan Byers, an assistant attorney general, and assistant county prosecutor Lee Grossman. Attorneys Jeff Bredahl and Dennis Fisher defended Gibbs.

The trial was moved from Valley City to Minot because of pretrial publicity. Attorneys began interviewing potential jurors June 19, and lawyers gave their opening statements June 27. Thursday was the 11th day of the trial.

Gibbs was accused of Class AA felony murder, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

News > Update

Printer friendly version Update - Gibbs jury dismissed after deadlock

Comments

REX wrote on Jul 24, 2007 12:01 PM:

" I'm truly currious about this DNA thing. I've kept up on the "under the finger nails" thing. But it would seem to me to be such a trace amount from touching a door knob that test results would be negligible. Often during forensic research the labs are provided with whole bones and hair samples yet are unable to extract enough DNA evidence to venture an opinion or voice a diagnosis. "

To just a thought wrote on Jul 24, 2007 11:12 AM:

" The below information was copied from another article printed in the Bismarck Tribune. "Morgenstern was stabbed and strangled in her apartment. She and Gibbs, a former Barnes County jailer, lived in the building. Authorities said Gibbs' DNA was found on the fingernails of Morgenstern's left hand and on part of the shirt she was wearing" "

Just a thought wrote on Jul 24, 2007 9:13 AM:

" To Fingernails. The people on this blog are the ones that made the statements about being under the fingernails. During the trial it was stated that trace DNA which think means not enough to get a complete DNA profile was found on, NOT under Mindy's fingernails. "

fingernails wrote on Jul 23, 2007 10:43 PM:

" I keep reading about people saying you can get DNA under fingernails by toughing a door knob. Where do you find this information. Where did you find this information. I know I don't open doors with my fingernails, don't know many people who do either. Sounds like a ploy made up by the defense, not an actualll fact. Sounds like a guilty man to me. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

" Boy you people are a very rare breed. I am just astounded at what the brain allows you to think or lack of a better word "not think". Forget the entire scenario it is FAR above your head to comprehend and I am done "trying" to explain what was trying to be captured here. I am perfectly aware of the process of the justice system what I was "trying" to explain is on the other end of the spectrum for you "innocent until proven guilty" do gooders. "

Just a thought wrote on Jul 23, 2007 11:33 AM:

" To Mom of 2. I will make an attempt to educate you. The courts require bail as a way of making sure that the defendant shows up for future court dates not because they consider them guilty. There are rare instances when bail is denied such as when the defendant is an obvious threat to themselves or other members of society. If you read this several times veeeeerrrrry slooowly you may be able to understand but I am not holding my breath. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 23, 2007 9:25 AM:

" You take things entirely too seriously and like to twist my words around, like I said before it comes with the territory, I fully understand!! For those of us that are more down to earth what I was simply saying is just something to ponder (yet again not to be taken seriously--if that's at all possibly) but if these people "according" to the justice system are so called "innocent until proven guilty" then why are they NOT treated as such......If they are SO INNOCENT then why are they not free to roam the streets as any other red blooded american that is in fact innocent instead of being jailed until their trial and then once they are proven guilty then they are jailed. It's really nothing that needs an answer therefore is where my RHETORICAL comment came in. Again, the word sarcasm and as I can see my job here is complete!!! "

jeff wrote on Jul 23, 2007 6:57 AM:

" to nadine, yes the keyword is proven.. dna under a finger nail is proven.. what more do you want. that is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.. just go get you nails checked by opening your neighbors door and see if you get dna.. you wont so shut up and get real "

REX wrote on Jul 23, 2007 3:24 AM:

" OJ is that you? "

Nadine wrote on Jul 22, 2007 12:24 PM:

" Could I ask which of you sat through every day of testimony? Please post your nicknames please...........I don't believe any of you were there. I rest my case. No one knows enough facts to make a decision/judgement. If you have a problem with the outcome of this case, get on the phone, send a letter or whatever to your local representative and get the judicial system changed. OH and by the way, good luck with that. We have a law that says you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. The key word here is PROVEN. I wish you all peace. "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 21, 2007 1:39 PM:

" To still confused (and confusing) Mom of 2--I truly don't know why I am bothering with this last post--I guess just to point out that I have read each and every item that you have posted regarding Gibbs and the the juvenile homicide in Fargo, and I would challenge you to point out one thing in any of your vehement rants regarding bullets, guns and a reversed burden of proof that ANYONE, even a lawyer, would or could strain credulity to consider even having a remote and distant association with the concept of humor. You are not funny--you are the reason that I am personally going to print out this blog/commentary for future use at jury trials. Someone with your ingrained prejudices, bias and plain contrariness will never sit in judgment of one of my clients, if I can possibly help it. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 10:03 PM:

" Don't you think any redblooded american knows why they have bail, etc....my question was to get you innocent until proven guilty people thinking further!! I can see that humor doesn't run in your profession! I know why they have It I was asking you why is that they do that to someone who is innocent?? Again Rhetorical question. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 9:02 PM:

" My comment was a rhetorical question in that if they are so INNOCENT then why are they remaining in jail, wouldn't they let them free to roam. NO they are worried what they MIGHT do "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 20, 2007 7:44 PM:

" To confused Mom of 2--do you have the assets to post a $100,000.00 plus bond in a major case? They are held in jail because they can't post a bond--once again, that annoying due process of law thing--it is called pretrial detention. Let us hope that eases your confusion. By the by--it is not a matter of the Defendant having to prove his innocence--the State has the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"--I thought you maintained you had actually sat on a jury--it must have been a civil matter. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 2:52 PM:

" Another interesting fact to ponder is if these "so called criminal's" are innocent until proven guilty then why are they still jailed until they are infact proven innocent?? If you guys are saying they are not yet found guilty, fine I will buy that(i don't have to agree with it and just for the record I don't) but they don't let them out of prison either......Why not?? Because they are accused of whatever their horrible actions were and don't want them out on our streets possibly causing harm to others, knowing there is a very BIG possibility they already did. If they are so INNOCENT as someone like myself is then they should be able to walk the streets until their trial and then once convicted then either let them free to walk again or jailed because they are NOW GUILTY!!! That silly justice system of ours, they sure do know how to confuse a person now don't they. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 2:38 PM:

" before the grammar police comes and barks at my for my post it was suppose to say "amount to anything" "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 12:30 PM:

" To JL, I think you've got it just alittle bit wrong here...I don't want to hang "everyone" except those that deserve the hanging, gas chamber, lethal injection my preference would be the torture chamber (there's that anger coming out in me again). Those that deserve this treament are the ones that have such a complete and utter lack of respect for "someone elses" life (i can only imagine stems from a lack of respect in general) that they find is necessary to "play god" and decide for themselves when their innocent victims time on earth here has ended. Noone should be able to have that kind of power----NOONE, except for that dear lord above!! He put us here and he should be the only one that can take that away. To me if they are that far gone that they are able to make choices like this than they are a complete drain on our society and will never amount to nothing and therefore be gone with them!!! As many times as you or anyone else would like to tell me any differently believe me you are wasting your breathe as my views will NEVER change!! "

Momof3 wrote on Jul 20, 2007 7:30 AM:

" To JL: I don't know why some of you are standing up for this mom. Even if her child was not murdered by her, which we don't know yet, she did the wrong thing and left that poor child lying around for 2 weeks, not 2 hours, 2 WEEKS and then did not give her a funeral, but put her in a PLASTIC CONTAINER and transported her to Minnesota. What about this screams this person is a good mother? I guess I don't see anything good about this whole situation or about this woman. "

JL wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:59 PM:

" MOM of 2 why is it that you want to hang everyone right away??? The mother with the decomposing child and now Gibbs. Yes the mother seems to be an aweful person, and if she had anything to do with the cause of her childs death then yes she should suffer the same fate. But you went on a rant to kill her before the autopsy was even performed to determine the cause of death. As for Gibb's, if you want to go after somebody, ripp the investigators. Apparently youdid not hear how the defense absolutely destroyed the lead invesigator. The defense attorney asked how the time of death was determined, the answer he recieved from the investigator was " by the time she stopped answering her cell phone" NOT BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER BUT BY CELL PHONE RECORDS !!!!!! If you take an afternoon nap do you still answer you phone, or have you ever forgot your phone when you left your house ??? Apparently to these investigators if you do either of them you must be dead. When asked if they had any other leads he said yes, and when asked if they followed up on those leads he answered no. The body had pine sol all over it, but yet Gibbsclothes had no signs of pine sol on them. There was DNA from 2 other men at the crime scene. You have to remember the prosocution has to prove thier case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense only has to put reasonable doubt into a single juror. I just gave you 3 good reasons for reasonable doubt. That is what 6 jurors heard, that is why he is free for now. My gut feeling tells me he did it, but there does not seem to be much evidenceof it. "

....... wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:37 PM:

" This guy really needs to fry "

Thomas Elliot wrote on Jul 18, 2007 3:27 PM:

" I would love to have an opportunity to read the court room transcripts. "

Thomas Elliot wrote on Jul 18, 2007 2:10 PM:

" Today is the anniversary of Ted Kennedy and Chappquidic. Here's to Mary Jo.... "

Your all Nuts!!!!! wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Not only did 6 people have DOUBT-----Their was OTHER PEOPLES DNA on this poor girl, that can not be identified and on the weapon- Who cares? That is not doubt is it- But like I stated before I was not in the court room so who knows what else caused doubt in 6 peoples minds. Like I stated I do not know if the man is innocent or guilty - So I am on no ones side- besides stating the obvious: THE MAN WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY (so he is still innocent)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What I do know, the state does not have proof at this time/ or needs a better game plan or there is nothing for us to see! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:05 PM:

" Thank you for your last post, ND Conservative wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:29 PM, that is exactly what I was expecting and thought all along!! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:34 PM:

" that is ok online editor, I am not going to get into any further detail with reposting my previous comments to ND Conservative or your all nuts as they are on the side of the 6 innocent jurors and I am siding with the 6 guilty jurors so be it. The evidence that I have heard with the DNA under the victims fingernails points my guilty verdict in the right direction as they have nothing to back up their innocent verdict. They can continue to feel the way they do as will I and we will see who prevails. Time will tell and so will the evidence!! "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:29 PM:

" To online editor--my feelings won't be hurt if Mom of 2 has a problem with lawyers--it won't be the first time I have heard of such a gripe. "

Online Editor wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:24 PM:

" To Mom or 2: The lawyer comment needs to be removed before your comment can be posted. "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:45 PM:

" To Mom of 2--jurors are routinely instructed that a charge of a criminal act is not evidence--you must have slept throught that part of your service. Likewise, criminal records are not admissible pursuant to Rule 609 of the ND Rules of Evidence. I really doubt that you sat on a criminal jury, and gien your ingrained bias and prejudice, if you did and that person was convicted, he or she is definitely entitled to a new trial before a fair and impartial jury--i.e., one without you on it--as your comments over the last days indicate you should have never served, and it was an grave miscarriage of the system to leave you in place, if you did serve. "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:40 PM:

" Mom of 2--I guarantee you, 100%, that there is not a trial lawyer in the Great State of North Dakota that would want you on a jury after reading your rants in this blog/commentary. I further guarantee you--reveal your name and address to the State Bar Association and I will personally assure you that you will never have to serve on a jury again. "Feeling sorry" has no place in a court of law--it is strictly and solely what the evidence is and what the jury determines as fact from that evidence. If you had actually served on a jury, I would have hoped that a little of that may have sunk in--but I guess that gun and that bullet were always in the forefront of your mind. DUE PROCESS OF LAW--read about it, some time. "

Your all Nuts!!!!! wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:10 PM:

" Also mom of 2 it is not about feeling for the criminals IT IS CALLED A FAIR TRIAL!!!! You jump on the band wagon judgemental people have no morals/ or the little inner guy that gives you a gut ache when you are so wrong and it affects others!!!! You look the other way---I know that I would much rather make sure when I ruin a life it was justified!!!!!!!!!!! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Lastly ND Conservative, I have already served on jury duty and will continue to in the future you could just hope it's never for you. Although the law is innocent until proven guilty it my mind it should be guilty until you can prove to me that you are innocent.....These people are not in this type of situation because they are innocent, something obviously links them to the crime and crime scene for whatever the reason is, now it's their responsibility to talk me out of it. If they'd be innocent then they wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 1:00 PM:

" To ND Conservative, it's really too bad that neither a rope or bullet is how these criminals are handled!! If it was up to me that is what their consequence would be. It's people like you and "your all nuts" that is wrong with society as you feel more sorry for the criminals than you do for the victims and therefore they get off on their harsher punishment and eventually are set free, yet again to reoffend or commit their crimes over and over. Don't blame me for being too hard on them as it was their choice to commit the crime to begin with (not mine) and now they must pay the ultimate sacrifice. If these men would be such upstanding citizens then they wouldn't be getting themselves into these kind of situations and have the kinds of backgrounds that they do!!! Sorry it doesn't look good with have a rap sheet a mile long that you are dealing with Mr. Innocent, if he had a clean record maybe then I would be willing to cut him some slack. But if you are wanting to be the scum of the earth then you should be treated as such!!! Also remember that there were 6 jurors that also found without a reasonable doubt that he is guilty...... "

Your all Nuts!!!!! wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:29 AM:

" NO Mom of 2----I was not stating wether this mother was guilty or innocent- I drew my conclusion off of other factors. Like Parents should be Responsible for their children NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION. See you think it is all fine for the government to make all these laws for you so you can raise your child by everyone elses standards- Where I would like to be THE PARENT to raise my child as I SEE FIT, NOT HOW YOU SEE FIT....Their for if my child messes up I am responsible BECAUSE I DID NOT TEACH HIM/HER CORRECTLY------ If I decided to have him/her light off fireworks and they get hurt --it is me who takes resposibilty- NOT have laws out their taking away my rights!!!!!!!!!! I do not know if this man is innocent or guilty I WAS NOT IN THE COURTROOM--I DO KNOW that I can not judge him when 6 individuals stated their IS A DOUBT!!!! Their for I can not even make a nieve remark as to "Without knowing any of the evidence myself I also say he is guilty" Reguardless of how you clarified a different way that you meant it----You still made a judgement NOT KNOWING THE FACTS, and stated it out in PUBLIC- --taking away a mans FAIR trial, which is what this country stands for! Like I stated before you are not the only one who ruins this concept! "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:42 AM:

" To Freddy--Cleaning solution was on her body and face--not her hands. DNA source was never identified in court--no indication if source material was blood, semen or just skin cells that could be acquired from casual contact with common areas of the apartment building where they both lived. To Jim S--you are right--DNA can be picked up from casual contact. To REX and Mom of 2--due process of law is neither a rope nor a bullet--both of you do the system a favor and stay off of our jury panels. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:27 AM:

" Ooh 1 more thing to your nuts, in your comments "You think you can make a decision off of what you hear in the news? You think the Bismarck Tribune puts everything in their articles? You truely would judge someone by the Tribune or by the Media? " Believe me in that in pains me to point out the obvious is that is exactly what you were doing in your last blog on here about criticizing the woman who made the decision to call law enforcement on her daughter. You then were making your decision off of what you heard in the media not knowing the entire story. You had no idea what events had lead her to do finally make that decision. Sounds like to me someone other than myself is the one who can't keep their stories straight. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:18 AM:

" To your all nuts, Again you can take and twist my words around all you want but If you read the clarification on my last posts, it was reentered because it didn't get transferred over correctly AND THAT IS... Obviously the only thing that everyone else and myself (that are not in the courtroom) can go by is that what we hear by the media and making our decisions based off of that. In my words not hearing all of the evidence was meant by not all of the evidence presented in court!!! Please then don't assume he's innocent by what you are ONLY hearing in the news!!! "

REX wrote on Jul 17, 2007 5:55 AM:

" Somebody get a rope. "

I don't know wrote on Jul 17, 2007 12:34 AM:

" Jim S. You may be right, a person may be able to get DNA under their finger nails by touching a door knob. I am saying I have never heard of it and there has never been anything written in these articles backing up the defense attorneys statements. Example, expert testimony saying it can or can not happen. If you do know this is fact please tell me where I can research this as I have never heard of it before. I would have liked to have heard what testimony was given about that sort of stuff or was it just something the defense came up with. I may have sounded like I believe he is guilty, but from what I have read about his past, changing his name and being convicted of similar crimes under his first name, then the similar crimes he is still waiting trial for AND this. Doesn't sound like a innocent man to me. I understand you are innocent untill proven guilty but the crime fits the MO. "

Your all Nuts!!!!! wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:38 PM:

" Mom of 2: To clarify----You think you can make a decision off of what you hear in the news? You think the Bismarck Tribune puts everything in their articles? You truely would judge someone by the Tribune or by the Media? "

Your all Nuts!!!!! wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:26 PM:

" MOM of 2: "Without knowing any of the evidence myself I also say he is guilty" This is exactly why you can not trust the justice system. PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!! The really sad thing is 85% of America think like you---SAD SAD SAD...Another really good reason we can not have the death penalty, however if you ever convict a innocent person and rip his/her life apart- they would probably rather die! "

Jim S wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:19 PM:

" To I don't know. You make it sound like he is quilty. Maybe he is but it is NOT for us to decide, not our job. We don't get to hear all the facts and evidence in this case. Just because he has a few other "pending" cases awaiting him does not nessesarily mean he is quilty here. I am sure he will be retried if prosicuters can find better evidence. If he is quily he should pay the price, if he is innocent he should be set free of this. I am glad that I am not am on the jury for this case. And one can get DNA from something by casual contact, even a door knob. "

Captain Crunch wrote on Jul 16, 2007 2:12 PM:

" Have not heard of any other suspects. Won't they have a retrial? "

got a question wrote on Jul 15, 2007 11:52 PM:

" does anybody know if they have a new suspect list out or not? "

gg wrote on Jul 15, 2007 10:05 AM:

" I think plain and simple the prosecuter just did a terrible job here. If you are going to trial, you have to make sure you case is air tight, it doesn't take much for a defense to put reasonable doubt into the minds of jurors. "

freddy wrote on Jul 15, 2007 9:40 AM:

" the only reason the dna wasnt strong enough was cause mo washed her nails and body with cleaning fluid , he works with the law so he knew what to clean up. "

Pete Conlin wrote on Jul 15, 2007 9:11 AM:

" Gibbs was not found innocent. I read this as there is too much reasonable doubt to convince of guilt. The prosecutors need to do their homework. I have been on a jury before and know exactly where the jurors are on this. My experience is that if the prosecutor doesn't close the sale with every piece of evidence, even a guilty person goes free. "

REX wrote on Jul 15, 2007 6:58 AM:

" I blame George Bush. "

I don't know wrote on Jul 14, 2007 4:52 AM:

" I don't know much about DNA evidence. I do know that people who were wrongly convicted have gotten off because of DNA evidence. The thing is... is that defense attorneys can say what ever they want, even make stuff up... so I don't beleive that this poor girl could get his DNA under her fingernails by touching a door knob or other things in the apartment building. This guy has six more charges of sexual assault that haven't been to court yet and people want a motive. That sounds like motive enough. I hope that the Morgenstern's will get some closure on this soon. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 13, 2007 11:14 AM:

" To ND Conservative, the clarification of my post that you are talking about is I didn't hear any of the evidence in the COURT.....Obviously. I am making my guilty judgement just like everyone else is but what were hear in the news as in these words... "Prosecutors presented evidence of Gibbs' DNA on Morgenstern's shirt, and the fingernails of her left hand. DNA samples submitted by 21 people were analyzed, and Gibbs' sample was the only one that matched" I don't know what's left to say about that they he WOULDN'T be guilty. But you can find your own way around it if you'd like!! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:58 AM:

" To ND Conservative, Lastly, if you reread all of the comments in regards to several different articles printed about this situation I do believe you will find alot more people with my "ingrained attitude" than yours!! So just for clarification....Sounds like my thinking isn't too far off with the evidence and information that has been supplied in the news and papers. "

Southpark wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:37 AM:

" To Dave: The justice system worked? You can't use those words all in the same sentence. It's an oxy moron. "

Just a thought wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:34 AM:

" To all that are talking about Gibbs DNA under Mindy’s fingernails. Where in the world do you people come up with your assumptions? Everything that I have read in news reports indicates that Gibbs DNA was found on Mindy’s fingernail clippings they said nothing about being under the fingernail. They also said that Gibbs DNA was not the only DNA found on her fingernails just that his was the largest amount which from statements made by Gibbs attorney was so small that it was barely enough to be tested. There are many unanswered questions that should have been answered before the rush to judgment. "

RN wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:40 AM:

" I do believe it is highly likely that Gibbs is guilty. However; you can't put a case together based soley on DNA. If you get one or two jurors who don't understand the science behind it or believe in the science you have a hung jury. Jurors want to see motive, physical evidence and witness's. Had Gibbs soaked Mindy's fingers in the pine-sol or bleach and spilled it on her chest there would have been no DNA evidence and he would likely never have been arrested. God Bless her and the family. May justice prevail. "

Not so fast wrote on Jul 13, 2007 7:40 AM:

" Six jurors did not think Moe Gibbs was innocent - most felt he was most likely guilty but the element of reasonable doubt factored in. This was not an acquittal where they found the guy innocent, the sad thing is it may very well end up having the same effect. Six jurors were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mindy had his DNA under her fingernails. If you want to buy the theory that is just happened to get there from casual contact why didn't they find DNA from the many other people who live in that apartment building or from someone who has been at her apartment before - touched the doorknob to her apartment etc...Why only Moe Gibbs? "

TK to sad state wrote on Jul 12, 2007 10:17 PM:

" I have had my hands slip off of my vehicle doors, doors going to malls, and doors going to apts. and have had my nails bent back, etc. Don't know if you are male or female, but I am female and I grab w/ my fingertips when entering a building, or the ends of my hands, I am not trying defend anything but some of the comments are totally ridiculous!!!! If there was a fight, it should have been evident ~enough, I am not a juror nor an expert, God bless Mindy and her family and let the truth come forward....... "

sad state wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:36 PM:

" I don't know about anyone else but I don't use the bottom of my fingernails to open doors. The defense attorney missed his calling. He should be in sales, to be able to sell half the jury on a concept so rediculous. Did the victim in Minot also have some of Moe's dna under her nails? There's no connection here. Don't let your imaginations run wild, look at the facts! "

Dave wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:06 PM:

" Wow!! I'm amazed at some of the responses to this article. It's nice to see that the justice system worked in this case. NONE of us commenting on this article KNOW if Gibbs was guilty or not. It sounds like there was a very competent jury in this case. Thank God some of the yahoos posting here weren't on the jury. "

TK to norm wrote on Jul 12, 2007 9:05 PM:

" Not trying to start a fight, but evidently you know something that no one else has heard...... They need more evidence before going to trial........ "

norm wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:20 PM:

" its official. murder is legal in North Dakota. "

Sad wrote on Jul 12, 2007 7:24 PM:

" From what I saw of the prosecution, they did a horrible job. I half expected a not guilty verdict. At least they were deadlocked! Let's try again and have good attornies on BOTH sides. "

gg wrote on Jul 12, 2007 7:05 PM:

" While it is very possible he is guilty, the state's attorney needs to build a better case before they run out and send someone to trial. How bad was the case when the defense didn't even eed to call a witness and still get a deadlocked jury? "

sarah wrote on Jul 12, 2007 6:11 PM:

" Hopefully prosecuters will not dwell on Gibbs (if he is guilty or not) and hopefully dwell whose dna were on those knives. i just want to say..God Bless mindy's family. "

TK wrote on Jul 12, 2007 6:10 PM:

" You have to ask yourself if you could have convicted beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed this heinous crime ~ just following the paper and hearing what was coming of the trial, I can't say I could have, the evidence was not strong enough ~ I'm afraid there is still a killer amongst us that needs to be found. "

neutral wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:42 PM:

" This doesn't mean that he isn't guilty--they just need more evidence to prove innocence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At least they will be able to bring him to trial again, if they find more evidence. "

Stepper wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:23 PM:

" Robert Ressler (one of the first FBI profilers), who first coined the phrase serial killer says in his books that there is a large number of serial killers in this country who are not known to the police or FBI. They are going about free will...he said it would very difficult to catch them all as there are so many (he reckoned around 300 or so) but the more police agencies talk to each other about facts of cases the more they learn and zero in on more of them. The similarities between the deaths of the two college girls might be enough to spark a serial killer investigation. it sure couldn't hurt and what if it saved someone else's life? I think Gibbs gets another trial if there is a hung jury but don't quote me. "

AM wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:00 PM:

" I personally think Moe Gibbs is guilty as their is plenty of evidence that they have on him. For instance the DNA on the shirt matched along with the DNA under Mindy Morgenstern's fingernails matched to Moe Gibbs. Right their tells you that he killed Mindy Morgenstern. Moe Gibbs should be hung and put to death for kiling another human being. "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:51 PM:

" Mom of 2--at least you are consistent. In the other article, due process of law was a bullet and a gun, according to you. Now we have your declaration of Gibbs' guilt, even though you admit you didn't hear any of the evidence. You really should do the system a favor and never, EVER, sit an a jury with those ingrained attitudes. "

Keith wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:41 PM:

" The frightening thing is not only has this horrible thing happened in our community, we can't even take care of the situation after it has been splashed before our eyes. The authorties exist for the reason of punishing those who choose to do evil, and to reward those who do what is right. We even have that backwards... oh my, how far have we fallen? "

Mom of 2 wrote on Jul 12, 2007 4:11 PM:

" Without knowing any of the evidence myself I also say he is guilty. He sounds like trouble, but that in itself is not enough to convict him or make him guilty of this heinous crime. For the families sake and piece of mind I do hope they find out soon who did this to their beautiful daughter!! "

seen it all wrote on Jul 12, 2007 3:27 PM:

" I think everyone is right. We probably don't know enough about it to really comment one way or the other. Jury trials are like trying to predict the weather. I've sat through enough of them (not as a participant) to know that sometimes they really do not make any sense at all. It seems pretty easy and common for innocent people to go to jail and guilty people to get off.....just the way it is "

Deb wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:51 PM:

" Yikes. Depsite my gut feeling that he is guilty as sin (which means nothing), the prosecution did one heck of a job bringing doubt to the jury. The defense team had bet get on their game if they want to get their verdict. "

Nice Work State's Attorneys wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:50 PM:

" From other attorney's in the state that were in the courtroom listening - State's attorney's were not very good. They lost and the defense didn't even present a case. He still may not be guilty, of course. "

I agree! wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:46 PM:

" To Just a Thought...you've echoed what I've been saying for weeks (although not in this forum). I believe there are too many similarities between the cases of Morgenstern and Knutson. As you stated, similar in appearance and both suffered stab wounds. But also, both were college students and both lived alone in off-campus apartments. I'd be willing to bet there are other similarities of which we're just not aware. I could be wrong, but there seem to be too many similarities to simply write it all off as a coincidence! "

To Just a thought wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:33 PM:

" I was thinking the same thing!!! Then I said to myself, "Self, you watch too much CSI!" But it really IS coincidental! Both young women were petite, dark haired, adopted children. Both were stabbed... pretty eerie. "

stop being lazy VC wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:22 PM:

" Start looking for the real killer, instead of opting out on someone with a little bit of a past on them "

wondering wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:22 PM:

" Maybe they could have someone who knows something about DNA from the State Lab testify next time. Hope Olson was ripped apart and probably did more harm than good. "

Just a thought wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:19 PM:

" Is it just coincidence that 2 college girls similar in appearance were murdered? They were both stabbed, one in Jamestown and another in Minot just before the trial for the first murder was to get under way. Maybe, just maybe, the real murderer was taunting law enforcement when he killed the girl in Minot. "

N.D. Justice? wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:15 PM:

" There obviously wasn't enough concrete evidence to prosecute Gibbs. Time to move on and find the real killer. "

Question??? wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:15 PM:

" Yeah, but doesn't Gibbs have several charges pending from his previous life and while he was a jail guard? He'll still probably have plenty of time to think about his mistakes... While behind bars. "

ND Conservative wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:03 PM:

" Only six out of twelve thought he was guilty? The State had better find another suspect, or dig up much more convincing evidence. Plus, if the defense team files a demand for a speedy trial, they will only have 90 days to retry Gibbs as per State v. Ripley. "

jw wrote on Jul 12, 2007 2:01 PM:

" So what does this all mean? Is he free or do they continue with the trial until they can either prove one way or the other.. How terrible sad. I pray for her family to find comfort at this time. My thoughts and prayers are with them.. "

court news wrote on Jul 12, 2007 1:51 PM:

" What can a person say..................I hope there is a plan b for the prosecutors so that whomever is responsible for the death of this young woman is brought to justice. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.