https://mylifeofcrime.wordpres...-12-years-in-prison/
He cut up the body.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The only thing wrong with the death penalty is they do not use it often or fast enough in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. I am talking cases of known guilt like the Fort Hood Shooter etc. I also believe it should be up to the victims families to decide if they want it administered after all they were the ones wronged.
The only thing wrong with the death penalty is they do not use it often or fast enough in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. I am talking cases of known guilt like the Fort Hood Shooter etc. I also believe it should be up to the victims families to decide if they want it administered after all they were the ones wronged.
-----------------------
If the family didn't want death, the crimianals still should be in prison for life. IF life meant life that is. This guy cut up the body, some parts were never found, and he is already out of prison and back to his life.
Something is wrong with the system. A man convicted of murder. Already out of jail after 5 1/2 years? In Nashville, two guys convicted of rape of a passed put girl are looking at about 20 years mandatory jail with no chance of parole. I'm not condoning rape, not never. But, the murder victim was dismembered, she is still in school working on a degree. It seems to me that the murder is worse. Somebody straighten me out.
Something is wrong with the system. A man convicted of murder. Already out of jail after 5 1/2 years? In Nashville, two guys convicted of rape of a passed put girl are looking at about 20 years mandatory jail with no chance of parole. I'm not condoning rape, not never. But, the murder victim was dismembered, she is still in school working on a degree. It seems to me that the murder is worse. Somebody straighten me out.
===============
Look at the guy they are saying they will execute in Feb. Arthur. I don't know if he will get it this time, but it's way past time he was gone, and he should have been gone when he killed his first victim. Anyway, the wicker woman, the one that hired him, is running her mouth about how Arthur should be executed. She's right, but she should be right up there on that gurney with him. She did 10 years. He wouldn't have been killed if not for her. Both she and arthur should have already been gone.
The only thing wrong with the death penalty is they do not use it often or fast enough in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. I am talking cases of known guilt like the Fort Hood Shooter etc. I also believe it should be up to the victims families to decide if they want it administered after all they were the ones wronged.
-----------------------
If the family didn't want death, the crimianals still should be in prison for life. IF life meant life that is. This guy cut up the body, some parts were never found, and he is already out of prison and back to his life.
Agree, what I mean is some liberal judge or state should not be the ones deciding death penalty or not should be left up to the victims family, if they say no then life in prison. I mean life!!!!
There is nothing at all wrong with the death penalty. The problem is that in the past there has been too many innocent persons put to death that was wrongly convicted and now there is going to be some lawyer who is going to make that claim in order to get their fame down for history.
There is nothing at all wrong with the death penalty. The problem is that in the past there has been too many innocent persons put to death that was wrongly convicted and now there is going to be some lawyer who is going to make that claim in order to get their fame down for history.
Respectively, all the above are in favor if there is no doubt. There are hundreds if thousands of people who are caught on video tape killing who could be purged from society. If you commit a robbery or other crime with a weapon and someone gets killed then you should get the death penalty. I say it was premeditated as you took a gun and someone got killed in your illegal act.
There are people on death row convicted on circumstantial evidence. That is not right. There are people in jail where there can be no doubt as to guilt (Ft Hood shooter). It is wrong that he is still alive.(don't worry if he gets hurt while executing him)
Then, there are people in jail where the prosecution withheld evidence that would have cleared them. The one guilty of withholding evidence should have to swap places with the convicted, and serve the sentence.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't automatically mean flawed or bad evidence. It can be as good as, or even better, than an eye witness.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't automatically mean flawed or bad evidence. It can be as good as, or even better, than an eye witness.
an example please?
Circumstantial evidence doesn't automatically mean flawed or bad evidence. It can be as good as, or even better, than an eye witness.
-------------------
Don't kill a person because the prosecutor or witness says so. Have something solid to prove it
Something solid such as?
Ft Hood, Tx, a man shot and killed several people. He was shot at the location. There is no doubt he did it.
California, (I don't remember the name) a pregnant woman was killed. The prosecutor thought the husband did it. He had no physical evidence, no DNA evidence, he just thought the husband did it.The man got a death sentence. The husbands actions showed that the husband was a total idiot, but being an idiot is not grounds for the death penalty.
Ft. Hood? Terrorism that your president called work place violence? What pregnant woman? Post links so people can read the entire story, and do some research on circumstantial evidence, then tell us what a prosecutor does. They can barely bring even the obviously guilty people to trial.
I'm not even going to try to research either case.
If you don't remember the California case where the pregnant woman was killed and dumped in the ocean, or the Fort Hood shooting, you need to get out of your dark room and see and hear what is happening in the world.
Of course you aren't going to post a link to your made up stuff. I remember the fort hood shooting, the terrorist attack that your president called work place violence. I made that pretty clear in my post. As for the other case, how would anyone remember something so vague? A pregnant woman in calif. killed by her husband. Gee, that could only be a few hundred cases.
Gonzalez and her ex-husband, Paul, were both charged with capital murder nearly 18 years ago in connection with the death of their daughter, Andrea.
Kim Gonzalez was found guilty of child abuse in May 1997. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison, of which she served four years and three months.
Paul Gonzalez pleaded guilty to manslaughter in April 1997 as part of a plea agreement that included his testimony against his wife during the trial. He received a 10-year sentence and was required to serve two years in jail and two years on probation. After his release from jail, he moved back to his native Texas.
Andrea’s body has never been found.
She was reported missing from her Russellville home Nov. 20, 1993. A two-day search was called off when investigators suspected foul play. More than a year later, Kim Gonzalez told authorities Andrea had not disappeared but had died after she was accidentally scalded while taking a bath.
Kim Gonzalez told authorities she tossed the girl’s off the bridge and into the water at Mon Dye Bottoms Recreation Area near Phil Campbell.
Man Convicted In Shoals Murder Released From Prison
Summary of Offense:
Sentenced to death on August 3, 1998 in Colbert County for the 1997 shooting deaths of Harold Pugh and his 11-year-old son, Joey, as they were fishing at Cane Creek, west of Tuscumbia.
This human waste should have been gone long ago. Instead of being on death row, the other piece of crap was given life but, but life not meaning life, he keeps coming up for parole!!! Some of the killers are already out.
Of course you aren't going to post a link to your made up stuff. I remember the fort hood shooting, the terrorist attack that your president called work place violence. I made that pretty clear in my post. As for the other case, how would anyone remember something so vague? A pregnant woman in calif. killed by her husband. Gee, that could only be a few hundred cases.
======================
I am glad that you can remember the Ft Hood shooting. The other was Scott Peterson convicted and sentenced to death in the murder of his wife Lacy. There was only evidence was the prosecutor said "I think he did it". It was national news for months. (might not have been on Fox)
Well, first of all the peterson case is about 13 or 14 years old, so your "a man killed his pregnant wife in calif" was not much of a hint, and I don't know why you couldn't just name the case. Secondly, your silly claim that the prosecutor got him convicted just because he wanted to convict him is asinine.
What "proof" did the prosecutor have? All circumstantial and speculative, not one piece of solid evidence. He got the death penalty.
What "proof" did the prosecutor have? All circumstantial and speculative, not one piece of solid evidence. He got the death penalty.
===============
It's been years and years since the trial. I know his own sister said she believes he did it, his mistress, the one he told his wife was dead weeks before Laci was killed, said she believes he did it, there were four witnesses that saw him taking out his boat the day Laci went missing even though he said he didn't go there. The jurors thought he was guilty. Instead of asking ME, why don't you read it yourself to find out how they built their case? Apparently you have read nothing at all about the case or you wouldn't make the stupid claim that they had no evidence and the prosecutor just convicted him because he wanted to convict him. You need to learn the meaning of circumstantial evidence too. It does not mean bad or flawed.
I know how they built the case. It was all on gossip. I think he was guilty. But there was no physical evidence, no DNA found in or on the boat, car, or house to suggest a murder. Again, I think he was probably guilty, put him in jail, don't kill him on gossip. It was pretty much proven that he was a total idiot.
It's getting sillier and sillier. Gossip. You don't have a clue how they built the prosecution's case, claim he just wanted to prosecute him, yet you turn right around and say you think he was guilty, so put him in jail, but don't kill him. SMH.
Again, put him in jail, don't execute him. He was sentenced to death, not life in prison.
Again, put him in jail, don't execute him. He was sentenced to death, not life in prison.
------------------
The JURY gave him death after he had a trial. In California of all places too. Funny you would support death for some, yet not for others. His crime was way more heinous than some others that got death. Life doesn't mean life, and it would be a crime against nature to ever let him out of prison.
whatever
Exactly-whatever.
jt,
If I remember correctly, and it has been awhile, the Scott Peterson case (2003 - 2004) had some interesting tidbits .. You are right, the guy was a numbskull. Laci went missing around Christmas eve I think, and although her body was not recovered, police did find a part of a fetus that washed as**** in the same area in which Scott "went fishing" on Christmas Eve. This happened a few months after she went missing. A few days later others parts of a female torso washed up in the same area. Decomposition prevented them determining the cause of death. This case was based on mostly circumstantial evidence, however, when you put one and two together (body washes up in an area where Scott admits to going fishing, on the same day she disappeared) it makes it look like he is probably the likely suspect. Now, I would not want to be the person who condemned him to death based just on this, but I feel like he is probably the one who did it, and deserves to be in prison. The only piece of evidence they could produce was a single strand of Laci's hair, which was found on a set of pliers in the boat. The same boat he went fishing in.
He might have been stupid, but he covered his tracks pretty darn well.
Now, I would not want to be the person who condemned him to death based just on this
==========================
It's been years true, but I think it was a bit more than just the fact he went fishing on the same day. Again, his own sister and his mistress believe he did it. He told his mistress his wife was dead when their affair began. Ah, coincidence maybe? Someone makes her dead just like he said she was!! Just like robert blake. He hates his wife and threatens to kill her, they go out to eat, he has to go back to the restaurant for something he forgot, his gun I think, and just as luck would have it some stranger comes along and kills his problem. Wow, what a lucky guy. Problem solved and he gets to walk.
I did not say he may not have deserved it. It was my inference that based on just the information I had, from an outsider who saw only the presented evidence and was not there to hear the actual testimony, I could not have given him the death penalty. As a human being I would have wanted to be absolutely sure he was guilty, and if there was even one small chance he was not, I could not have lived with my decision. He committed so many acts during the time of the the disappearance it is unlikely that he was innocent, but in reality again most of these were not directly associated with the crime, and had to be considered circumstantial. On aother note, I think OJ killed Nicole and her friend., but there again how could I vote for death for him when the majority of the evidence was circumstantial.
It would living with the decision I made for the rest of my life, and I am not sure I could do it. On the instances where the guilt is absolute, and clear cut evidence proves this, this would not be an issue for me.
I did not say he may not have deserved it. It was my inference that based on just the information I had, from an outsider who saw only the presented evidence and was not there to hear the actual testimony, I could not have given him the death penalty.
===================
And what I "said" was they had a bit more than jt's claim of gossip, and what you listed. I also posted that a jury, not the prosecutor as jt keeps claiming, found him guilty and sentenced him. He will still live a long life, even with a death penalty. That long life is not what most of society would want, but it is still better than giving him 'life' only to see him released after a few years.
It's a defense attorney job to create doubt and that includes challenging every shred of evidence and the credibility of every prosecutorial witness. To create that doubt in the mind of a single juror, some rebuttal is pretty farfetched as exemplified by the testimony of prostituted expert witnesses but what ever sticks to the wall including playing the race card.
Such as the OJ case. Such as since the jurors were pretty well known, how could any of them return to their communities were OJ was held as a national hero and say "I put OJ in prison."
The outcome of the civil trial was much different.
The good news, if you will, about oj, he will at least do some time in prison, maybe as much as he would have done if he'd been found guilty of the slaughter of his wife and goldman. He got 33 or some years, but will probably only do about nine of those.
http://news.yahoo.com/did-kill...yings-193616561.html
Excerpts:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A man charged with killing two Northern California sheriff's deputies stunned a courtroom Wednesday by blurting out that he committed the crimes and is ready to be executed.
"I did kill those cops. You can execute me whenever you're ready," an agitated Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes said at the end of a hearing as he was led from the Sacramento County courtroom in chains.
Earlier, during a break, Bracamontes repeatedly told his lawyers he wanted to plead guilty.
"You don't have the right to plead guilty without our consent," Assistant Public Defender Jeffrey Barbour told him quietly while the judge waited.
"I killed, I did, I did. I just want to plead guilty and get the execution," he said as his attorneys stood nearby amid heavy security. "I did it, everything."
A spokeswoman for the Sacramento County District Attorneys' Office, Shelly Orio, said she was prohibited from commenting because it would violate legal ethics.
Bracamontes and his wife both are charged with murder, along with numerous other charges, in the slayings of Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver and Placer County Sheriff's Detective Michael Davis Jr.
Bracamontes is a Mexican national with a long criminal history who had been deported several times and was in the country illegally at the time of the slayings.
Grisly abuse details emerge against mom in freezer case.