Owner of Campbell's Cottage arrested

Apparently the jury found Susan guilty. Bummer. I love her store, both versions. Good luck Susan!

Apparently the jury found Susan guilty. Bummer. I love her store, both versions. Good luck Susan!

If I'm reading the report right, the prosecution is asking for a 12 year sentence.

These are the dark days.

My daughter had illness and surgery last week and I missed the entire trial. I'm "catching up" on google and you tube but I have a few questions. Did Susan take a polygraph test and if not, why? I know the evidence isn't admissable but passing one is a good PR step.
Was the surveillance video able to absolutely identify her vehicle?
What was the "fire sale" that they alluded to?

[Robin Garr]

My daughter had illness and surgery last week and I missed the entire trial. I'm "catching up" on google and you tube but I have a few questions. Did Susan take a polygraph test and if not, why? I know the evidence isn't admissable but passing one is a good PR step.
Was the surveillance video able to absolutely identify her vehicle?
What was the "fire sale" that they alluded to?

I can't answer most of these questions, Linda, other than to say that most lawyers would advise an *innocent* client to avoid a polygraph. Too unpredictable - that's why they're not admissable - and a freaky report resulting from tension and stress could be quickly leaked by aggressive prosecutors.

Bottom line, the "pinned" post currently at the top of the forum doesn't seek to do the jury's job; it invites people to attest to Susan's character as we know it through her long-established shop, in the hope of allowing her to stay out of jail while her appeal runs.

Yes, I understand that Robin and thank you for the answer. That makes sense. The whole trial seems very strange at this point. All I've heard this past week were snippets, rumors and such.

I do hope she avoids jail time. I don't see why they would do that- she has no other convictions. Of course, I know nothing about these things.

I misread Linda's comment, so I'm editing (removing) my analysis. It's not relevant, and while I have no connection to this person and, as a lawyer, am forced to put my trust in the facts as determined by a jury, I understand that many here do have personal relationships with Ms. Lukjan and feel strongly about her innocence. Thus, no need to a lengthy lesson on Kentucky sentencing laws.

[Robin Garr]

Unless her appeal is successful, I don't see any way she avoids jail time.

Bear in mind, though, that the current letter-writing effort is aimed at avoiding jail time pending her appeal. I'm sure you're correct about what's likely if her appeal does not succeed, but the call to spare her jail time is focused specifically on the period between now and any ruling from the appellate court.

Susan had no reason to set fire to her own business.
1. Business was improving and soon to get better with the Christmas season coming up.
2. Trinity was giving her free rent for a period of time.
3. Trinity was letting her keep the store fixtures (a good sum).
4. Susan loved having that business.
5. She would not have opened again if she wanted out of business.
The jury did not get to hear testimony from the defenses' expert witness, a professor at EKU who teaches arson investigators how to do their job. Apparently the arson investigators for this fire must have dropped out. This alone would have given the jury "reasonable doubt" about a guilty verdict. I know Susan very well from taking classes at Campbells and helping with classes, and though my opinion is very biased she is NOT GUILTY!

I should have been more clear. What I meant to say was avoiding jail time pending appeal. I do understand the ramifications of felony convictions.

I am still uncertain about the tape. Anyone? Did they say positively that her vehicle was on there or was it just the same model? The "reasonable doubt" in this case has me questioning the decision.

I didn't know Susan like some of you who have commented here so I cannot attest to her character one way or the other. What I do know is that from what was shown in the press during the trial I don't think a very good job was done for her defense.

The defense did not really disprove any of the major points of the prosecution. They started to try to discredit the arson investigation and really didn't and what they focused on in that regard was only the formality of the report. They also did nothing to discredit the witness who overheard the conversation in the store before the fire. Lastly they really didn't show anyone else who would have had a motive. They inferred Trinity but really never presented any reason they would want the shop to burn.

I certainly hope the best for Susan and hope everything works out for her. We always enjoyed the old shop but really don't think the new shop is of the same caliber.

http://www.wlky.com/news/23545815/detail.html

This link shows the video. If this is all the proof they had, the jury is crazy.

http://www.wlky.com/news/23545815/detail.html

This link shows the video. If this is all the proof they had, the jury is crazy.

The report said that ATF and Arson investigators testified that she used cardboard and packing peanuts to fuel the fire.

Are you kidding?!!!

Anytime I was ever there to buy something, clerks were stocking shelves by opening up a cardboard box full of packing peanuts to protect her merchandise during shipment.

If the UPS Store burned down would they say it was arson and the fire was fueled by packing peanuts, or cardboard, or bubble wrap?

That's like saying the owner of a bullet factory used gunpowder to burn down his factory.
Use your head people!!!

http://www.wlky.com/news/23545815/detail.html

This link shows the video. If this is all the proof they had, the jury is crazy.

Go on, Justin! Get you some!

Here's my deal...

I don't wanna be a thread killer, but this woman is part of our familly and, thus, I will defend her to the teeth... as I would you all- the city of Louisville, my old restaurants, and especially my people- and I guess myself, on the occassion.

She was convicted by a jury of her peers. She has the right to appeal. She also has the right to petition the court for her freedom during this process...

Come hell or high-water, mine will be the most impassioned of the testimonies. Been working on it all day. Call me John Hancock, I believe in this person so much. She who has given so much to the community. She, who has believed in us, to the point where she would place her life in stead for us. She, the champion of the little-old-lady-cooking-for-thier-families.

Love this person, know her well, and will walk with her- as you should.

Shame to you if you don't.

EDIT: My hackles are raised. May the boldest of the opposition meet me on any field. Love you to death. Respect your opinion. Yet, understand I have a birth-labor to this land and its people. Let's get at it- and then go have a beer, as is the old custom!