Hooker callously murders client, DA only charges her with manslaughter

[Derec]

Another case of double standard when it comes to female murderers. A prostitute injected a client with a lethal dose of heroin but even though her crime was captured on video she is only being charged with manslaughter rather than murder. The excuse that they "can't prove the intent to kill" is bogus as her actions clearly indicate she had the intent to kill as she deliberately injected him with heroin then finished her wine before closing the blinds without any attempt to render aid and she is suspected in a similar case elsewhere (establishing pattern of crime like that bitch Wuornos who in a rare fit of sanity by the criminal justice system got the death penalty but not before murdering seven men).

Alix Catherine Tichelman is joining the ranks of women like Mary Winkiler or Nikki Redmond that either get away with their murders of men outright or are given a slap on the wrist only. Remember, Mary Winkler shot her sleeping husband in the back, then cut the phone lines so he could not call for help as he did not immediately die and she got only 60 days. Nikki Redmond followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and shot him in the back but was acquitted because a woman following an unarmed man and shooting him in the back is apparently "self defense".

Prostitute gave Google exec a fatal heroin dose, police say

 

[laughing dog]

Another case of double standard when it comes to female murderers. A prostitute injected a client with a lethal dose of heroin but even though her crime was captured on video she is only being charged with manslaughter rather than murder. The excuse that they "can't prove the intent to kill" is bogus as her actions clearly indicate she had the intent to kill as she deliberately injected him with heroin then finished her wine before closing the blinds without any attempt to render aid and she is suspected in a similar case elsewhere (establishing pattern of crime like that bitch Wuornos who in a rare fit of sanity by the criminal justice system got the death penalty but not before murdering seven men).

In order to make a convincing case for a double standard, you would need to show there are similar cases involving accused men who are charged with 2nd or 1st degree murder by the same police/DA. Are you familiar with all of the facts of this case along with the outcomes of similar cases in that area so that you can make an informed assessment of the police or is this just another example of you trotting out your misogynistic hobby horse?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, what did he expect going to see a prostitute in such a skimpy outfit? I don't like blaming the victim, but clearly the victim was entirely at fault in this case.


<-- This is a smiley to indicate that I'm joking in case there's anyone who can't piece that together without such blatant help.

 

[Derec]

In order to make a convincing case for a double standard, you would need to show there are similar cases involving accused men who are charged with 2nd or 1st degree murder by the same police/DA.

That's a pretty tall order and deliberately so constructed. The double standard is not limited to one county or even one state. They happen everywhere. Mary Winkler's case was in Tennessee, Nikki Redmond's in Georgia, this is in California.

In none of these states are there cases of men getting off with an acquittal or slap on the wrist under similar circumstances, which include guilt beyond any doubt.

is this just another example of you trotting out your misogynistic hobby horse?

No I am just exposing misandry.

 

[Ford]

she deliberately injected him with heroin

Most heroin injections are deliberate.

 

[laughing dog]

That's a pretty tall order and deliberately so constructed. The double standard is not limited to one county or even one state. They happen everywhere. Mary Winkler's case was in Tennessee, Nikki Redmond's in Georgia, this is in California.

In otherwords, you have no specific evidence that there is a double standard here. You have not shown that the Santa Cruz Police acted differently with this woman than with males. You have not shown that the Santa Cruz police are mistaken in their ability to get a conviction with a higher charge. Your argument is based on a false premise that this woman knew the heroin injection would be lethal and that she administered it to the victim without his knowledge and against his will.

No I am just exposing misandry.

Your assertion is not evidence to the contrary. Your mischaracterization of Nikki Redmond's situation is evidence to my conjecture about misogynistic hobby horses. The jury foreman explained why the jury found her not guilty. They believed her boyfriend had a gun in the house and that his death was not due to the gunshot wound (source: http://savannahnow.com/stories/040905/2944067.shtml). Even if they were wrong, that is not evidence that they found her not guilty because she was a woman.

 

[Arctish]

she deliberately injected him with heroin

Most heroin injections are deliberate.

And most high priced hookers like regular customers, especially the filthy rich ones. So why are we to believe she wanted to him to die, as opposed to accidently killing him by giving him too much heroin?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't see any evidence of murder here. People routinely inject heroin without intending death to result.

She was awfully callous about the result but she's probably seen a lot of people doing drugs and he's probably not the first to pass out.

 

[Derec]

In otherwords, you have no specific evidence that there is a double standard here. You have not shown that the Santa Cruz Police acted differently with this woman than with males.

I know of no case where they went easy on a man who shot up a woman with an overdose of heroin, calmly drank his wine and closed the blinds to conceal the body. The facts of the case are clear, this is a murder. To only charge her with manslaughter is highly suspect of bias.

Your assertion is not evidence to the contrary. Your mischaracterization of Nikki Redmond's situation is evidence to my conjecture about misogynistic hobby horses. The jury foreman explained why the jury found her not guilty. They believed her boyfriend had a gun in the house and that his death was not due to the gunshot wound (source: http://savannahnow.com/stories/040905/2944067.shtml). Even if they were wrong, that is not evidence that they found her not guilty because she was a woman.

Those statements are nonsensical. The victim had no gun and was shot in the back. Also his death was due to nothing other than the gunshot wound deliberately and with malice aforethought inflicted upon him by his bitch girlfriend - if she hadn't shot him in the back he would not have needed medical attention in the first place. In the US murder cases have been brought years later if the victim dies of something that can be linked to some crime even that far back. But in this case the jury refused to recognize that the real reason the victim was dead was because he was shot, with malice aforethought, by the jealous, murderous bitch girlfriend.

The self hating foreman says that the perp "had the right to shoot" her boyfriend, who posed no threat to her and whom she followed, is actually proving my case of the jury bias, and not yours that she is actually innocent or murder. He had no reason to think that she was acting in self defense.

What it boils down to is that a woman got away with murdering her boyfriend by shooting him in the back. No man would be acquitted after shooting his girlfriend in the back. No jury foreman would say, well she might have had a gun, or well, she might have survived if she had had better medical care, so let's acquit him. No, that only works for women. If a jealous boyfriend follows her girlfriend to another man's house to confront he would be labeled as a possessive creep and it would be a strike against him. Not so for women. If a jealous, possessive woman follows her boyfriend to another woman's house to confront him that is used as a strike against the victim even if he gets murdered by the jealous girlfriend (who is deemed "justified" in murdering out of jealousy).

Check your privilege ladies!

Same thing for Winkler. No man could shoot his sleeping wife in her sleep, cut phone lines and still get only 60 days.

Again, the facts are that she followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and shot him in the back causing his death. That is a clear case of murder and acquitting her shows clear misandrist bias. That you refuse to acknowledge that any misandrist bias exists either in this case or the Mary Winkler case or other such cases where unarmed men are murdered by their wives and girlfriends says volumes about you.

 

[Derec]

I don't see any evidence of murder here. People routinely inject heroin without intending death to result.

Overdose amounts too?

She was awfully callous about the result but she's probably seen a lot of people doing drugs and he's probably not the first to pass out.

Her acting callously and not concerned/alarmed at all shows clearly that she intended to kill the man. And don't forget that she did something like this before.

 

[il Palazzo]

The move suggested they don't believe they can prove an intent to kill, even though authorities say Tichelman was caught on video injecting her client with heroin, stepping over him as he fell unconscious, finishing a glass of wine, and closing the boat's blinds before slipping away.

By this statement alone I still don't see a proof of an intent to kill. She might just want to sedate him for whatever purpose. Even stepping on him on the way out doesn't prove that she thought he's dead. She could just be an asshole.

If it was my call I would rather consider:
1) Is the dosage found in his body overtly large? To the point of obviously fatal?
2) Does she have experience with heroin herself, or is she known to have any reason to know how much heroin is a lethal dose?

 

[Derec]

And most high priced hookers like regular customers, especially the filthy rich ones. So why are we to believe she wanted to him to die, as opposed to accidently killing him by giving him too much heroin?

Maybe she robbed him in the process?

- - - Updated - - -

2) Does she have experience with heroin herself, or is she known to have any reason to know how much heroin is a lethal dose?

According to the article she killed somebody like this before.

 

[Arctish]

Maybe she robbed him in the process?

- - - Updated - - -

That would make the DA's case for First Degree Murder a hell of a lot stronger. But if she acted like this was just another day in the life of a call girl, there's no evidence she thought he was going to die.

2) Does she have experience with heroin herself, or is she known to have any reason to know how much heroin is a lethal dose?

According to the article she killed somebody like this before.

Police said they had learned of a second case in another state with "similar circumstances" and were investigating Tichelman's possible involvement.

Let us know if her "possible involvement" turns out to be "she killed somebody like this before".

 

[Derec]

But if she acted like this was just another day in the life of a call girl, there's no evidence she thought he was going to die.

Hookers always leave their clients unconscious do they? </sarcasm>

 

[Arctish]

But if she acted like this was just another day in the life of a call girl, there's no evidence she thought he was going to die.

Hookers always leave their clients unconscious do they? </sarcasm>

You'd know more about that than I would.

Maybe we can ask Charlie Sheen if he was always conscious when his "goddesses" finished up and went home.

 

[il Palazzo]

Maybe she robbed him in the process?

I assumed that too. It'll be kinda pointless otherwise. Why inject him heroin at all, killing intent or not?

2) Does she have experience with heroin herself, or is she known to have any reason to know how much heroin is a lethal dose?

According to the article she killed somebody like this before.

Are you refering to this:

Police said they had learned of a second case in another state with "similar circumstances" and were investigating Tichelman's possible involvement.

Sounds like they aren't even sure that she's involved. If it is that make a lot of difference though.
Then again, even if it's her, she could be just super careless with heroin and didn't know that the last guy is dead. But that's stretching a lot.

 

[Ford]

Overdose amounts too?

Funny thing about heroin is that an "overdose" for one person is just a nice mellow buzz for others.

 

[Derec]

You'd know more about that than I would.

Always been conscious. But then again, I've never been murdered yet either, so I'm not sure how good a sample I make.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing about heroin is that an "overdose" for one person is just a nice mellow buzz for others.

Really? I'd suspect there'd be a lot more accidentallethal overdoses if that were the case. Surely there is a LD50 or something (but then again, what's the st. dev.)

 

[Ford]

Really?

Yes, really.

Talk to some recovering heroin addicts for reference. Talk to people who have lost family members to this disease.

Of course, it isn't exactly a science. The "victim" in this case appears to be just one of many addicts who had someone else shoot him up (a bad idea for sure but very common) and for whatever reason (again, we're dealing with unregulated doses of narcotics) his body said "fuck it" and died.


This happens all the fucking time with addicts.

 

[barbos]

Google execs doing drugs worries me