The guy got screwed by the jury. They convicted him of First Degree murder just because he is....well... whatever someone who does stuff like that is.
I'd have more respect for our "justice system" if they had instead loaded up the charges, like improper disposal of a body, lying to police, failing to obtain a boat license if they used a boat to dispose of her body, etc., and made him serve the terms consecutively.
que
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 27, 2014, 10:06 PM NHFT
que
If you were in New Hampshire, you'd know. Or in New England, for that matter, since the Boston Herald covered the trial better than anyone, but that is, of course, their specialty. I used to deliver that newspaper back in the mid-1960s, when it was the Record American, and I credit it for all I know about Joseph Barboza.
Quote from: WithoutAPaddle on June 28, 2014, 01:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 27, 2014, 10:06 PM NHFT
que
If you were in New Hampshire, you'd know. Or in New England, for that matter, since the Boston Herald covered the trial better than anyone, but that is, of course, their specialty.
I'm in NH, and I didn't have a clue. When I searched for his name, I found one WOKQ article reporting that he was found guilty, but nothing else.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 28, 2014, 03:19 PM NHFT
I'm in NH, and I didn't have a clue. When I searched for his name, I found one WOKQ article reporting that he was found guilty, but nothing else.
You should have tried Google. It produced a list of 535,000 pages.
Quote from: WithoutAPaddle on June 28, 2014, 01:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 27, 2014, 10:06 PM NHFT
que
If you were in New Hampshire, you'd know. Or in New England, for that matter, since the Boston Herald covered the trial better than anyone, but that is, of course, their specialty. I used to deliver that newspaper back in the mid-1960s, when it was the Record American, and I credit it for all I know about Joseph Barboza.
sheeeee don't reveal my location :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 28, 2014, 11:58 PM NHFT
]sheeeee don't reveal my location :)
Did you leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way back? New Hampshire is the right-side up triangle on the map, Vermont is the upside down one. I still have trouble keeping track of those square states that are on the way to California,
does Idaho count as a right side up triangle? I was there this morning. :)
Why do think he got screwed by the jury?
Someone died while he was having sex with them and he tried to hide the body... he screwed himself.
Because he didn't murder her. Her girlfriend killed her during kinky sex, presumably accidentally, and then the two of them disposed of her body.
If you have intimate knowledge of the crime, maybe you should have given it to the defense attorney.
I do have intimate knowledge of the crime. I got it from the girl who had initially said she sat on her friend's face and suffocated her, until she turned state's evidence and received a plea bargain.
The jurors were instructed that if they voted for either of the murder charges, then they could not vote for the manslaughter charge. Based on what I have read, the Supreme Court should rule that the evidence does not support the murder conviction, and remand it for retrial, and then perhaps a sustainable verdict of manslaughter could be the result.
I guess it all comes down to the girlfriend's testimony.
Damn shame for the victim and her family.
Have sex anyway you want, ya don't have to kill people. BDSM is one thing, murder and necrophilia is something else all together.
Quote from: WithoutAPaddle on June 30, 2014, 09:29 AM NHFT
I do have intimate knowledge of the crime. I got it from the girl who had initially said she sat on her friend's face and suffocated her, until she turned state's evidence and received a plea bargain.
The jurors were instructed that if they voted for either of the murder charges, then they could not vote for the manslaughter charge. Based on what I have read, the Supreme Court should rule that the evidence does not support the murder conviction, and remand it for retrial, and then perhaps a sustainable verdict of manslaughter could be the result.
Your "information" is, at best, third hand.
If you're going participate in near death activities, and someone dies, you shouldn't expect others to understand or get a "pass" from society.
I don't think this is a case I would choose for jury outreach activism. This is a sketchy one. You know how they say "pick your battles"?
I agree that he bears a significant level of responsibility.
But the evidence does not support a conviction (or even charge) for first degree murder. First degree murder requires premeditation.
The evidence supports a conviction for second degree murder, as his behavior showed an "indifference to the value of human life." Breath play is a very serious form of BDSM, and is engaging in that sort of behavior without an substantial level of experience and preparation is akin to deciding that you should shoot an apple off someone's head... because you saw a cartoon version of William Tell do so.
The issue here is not that he was not responsible, but that the prosecutor convinced the jury to convict him of something more serious than the actual crime, solely based upon the notion that anyone who engages in kinky sex is guilty until proven innocent.
Quote from: MaineShark on June 30, 2014, 12:31 PM NHFT
The issue here is not that he was not responsible, but that the prosecutor convinced the jury to convict him of something more serious than the actual crime, solely based upon the notion that anyone who engages in kinky sex is guilty until proven innocent.
Is that what the prosecutor argued? Are you saying the prosecutor conceded and did not argue against the claim that it was kinky sex? If so, it's a valid point. I honestly am not familiar with the case. Still not something I would pick for activism.
The reason I bring it up--that may be the defendant's claim of what happened but it sounds like the prosecutor and jury didn't buy it. First degree means intent to kill. So he convinced the jury that there was an intent to kill which goes beyond consensual kinky sex. Maybe he convinced them that it was a cover story for just holding someone down and suffocating her.
I guess I am still baffled as to why people feel this particular case isn't getting enough attention here.
Trying to hide the body puts him in 'First Degree' territory.
Quote from: dalebert on June 30, 2014, 02:51 PM NHFTIs that what the prosecutor argued? Are you saying the prosecutor conceded and did not argue against the claim that it was kinky sex? If so, it's a valid point. I honestly am not familiar with the case. Still not something I would pick for activism.
Out loud? No. But that's clearly the basis of his case (and the entire investigation, for that matter). The "undercurrent" of the whole case was that anyone who is kinky is obviously sick and twisted and can't be trusted, so even despite all of the holes in his girlfriend's story (which was only obtained by threatening/bribing her with prosecution and a plea bargain), the jury should convict him of premeditated murder. There's no evidence of premeditation, other than the story they concocted.
The fact that he likes kinky sex, at all, ever, was what was used to convince the jury that
this was premeditated murder. Sort of like how Blacks used to be automatically guilty of anything of which a White cared to accuse them - it didn't matter if race was involved in the particular instance, because the mere fact that one was Black and facing accusation by a White was all that mattered.
The evidence supports the claim that it was planned as kinky sex, not murder, and that his incompetence and indifference to the risks caused her death. Which qualifies as second-degree murder. But the prosecutor got that first-degree conviction based upon prejudice.
I also agree that it's a little odd to think this is not getting enough attention. The difference is largely academic. In NH, first-degree murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Second-degree murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment, or a lower sentence if the judge chooses... but in this case it's not realistic to imagine that the judge would impose anything less than life, even if the option existed. Therefore, the only real difference would be whether he got life with the possibility of parole, or without. So, the practical result is too close to really be worth much concern, compared to the far-greater travesties that happen in the court system every day, where innocent people get convicted of crimes they did not commit, or crimes that are not legitimately crimes; a murderer getting a slightly-harsher sentence than the law actually calls for is not enough for me to get worked up about, except to point out the role that discrimination played in that result.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on June 30, 2014, 07:33 PM NHFTTrying to hide the body puts him in 'First Degree' territory.
Nope. First degree requires that the killing be purposeful. Which, according to the statute, means that "the actor's conscious object is the death of another, and that his act or acts in furtherance of that object were deliberate and premeditated."
Second-degree murder, on the other hand, applies if someone "knowingly causes the death of another" or "causes such death recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life."
There's no evidence that he went into this planning to kill her. The evidence is that he did whatever the hell he wanted, and just didn't care what happened to her, which meets the standard for second-degree murder, but not first.
As I noted, the only practical difference is whether he will ever be eligible for parole.
If anything, what stands out to me about this case is that the woman, who just as likely is the killer as the guy, and confessed to it, got off completely by saying she was scared of the man. That's pretty much all a woman has to do. Society automatically views women as victims and men as predators. They freaking disposed of the body that might have provided evidence of the rough sex claims if it could have been examined. Jurors were supposed to believe the defendants testimony after they disposed of the body? It seems reasonable to find them both guilty. Honestly though, I don't care for discussing the details of a justice system that is massively fracked.
What Dale said....