Hooker callously murders client, DA only charges her with manslaughter

[Keith&Co.]

Wait a minute.
The blinds were open while she had illegal sex with him?
The blinds were open while she shot him with illegal drugs?
The blinds were open while she (allegedly) administered a lethal dose with the intent to kill him?
And she shut the blinds so no one would, what, see her step over him and leave?

If it's premeditated murder, wouldn't she have closed the blinds before administering the fatal dose? I mean, if she's at all concerned about witnesses coming to the guy's rescue, that's where i'd expect her to take precautions. Not too late to prevent someone presenting key evidence. Without a witness, and unaware of the camera, she could say he shot himself up while she watched and think there's no chance the prosecution could find someone who could gainsay her testimony.

Leaving them open during the crimes may have been something he chose. I mean, some people get a little additional thrill from the chance of getting caught being naughty. He may have said keep them open, or she may have assumed he'd shut them if he wanted them shut. Then, after the hour (or whatever contracted period) was up, she's done... Closing the blinds on his drugged stupor seems almost considerate on her part.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, because if there's one thing that we know about heroin addicted whores, it's that they always put a great deal of thought into the potential consequences of their actions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, because if there's one thing that we know about heroin addicted whores, it's that they always put a great deal of thought into the potential consequences of their actions.

Oh. She's addicted? I thought she just administered the dose, not that she joined him.

But then, if they thought she could say she was out of her head and not aware of her actions, that would make it even harder for the prosecution to prove premeditated.

I'm just thinking this behavior doesn't seem to match the allegations in the OP. If you say that reality is something completely different from the OP, i don't really have an issue with that. Not even going to put on my 'surprise!' face.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Derec : I am detecting a huge inconsistency in view of the number of times you have insisted that guilty verdicts be rendered once reasonable doubt has been eliminated. In this particular case, you have infused your own speculations to conclude that she should have been found guilty of murder versus manslaughter however without meeting the burden to eliminate reasonable doubt :

1) You speculated that she pulled the curtain to dissimulated "the body". Such conclusion lacks the evidence (and beyond reasonable doubt) that she was aware her client had expired hence was now a "body". I am not aware of people who can reach a conclusion that an unconscious person is dead without checking their pulse. There is no mention from the video that she at any time checked for vitals.

2) You speculated that she was aware she injected him with a lethal dose. Meaning she would have to be aware that the injected dose could only be lethal. There is a vast difference between harm or death resulting from one party's neglect and harm or death resulting from a conscious INTENT to harm or induce death. You have failed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that she was aware she was injecting him with a lethal dose and 2, that there was any conscious intent on her part to induce death.

It is possible you are not aware that in order for the Prosecution to build a case which will result in a verdict addressing murder 1 or murder 2, the Prosecution has to present evidence that the accused intended to cause death.

Your speculations above certainly do not meet such requirement to obtain a conviction on a murder charge. Further, your speculations are plagued with the reality that you have not eliminated reasonable doubt.

I hope you will understand that such pathetic fail on your part can only reinforce the perception or impression that you tend to cry out wolf at the drop of a hat based on your own belief that this is another case where the Jury's verdict was motivated by the accused party's gender as a female. While you relied on pure speculations which in no way should be confused for evidence of and further would eliminate reasonable doubt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, because if there's one thing that we know about heroin addicted whores, it's that they always put a great deal of thought into the potential consequences of their actions.

Oh. She's addicted? I thought she just administered the dose, not that she joined him.

But then, if they thought she could say she was out of her head and not aware of her actions, that would make it even harder for the prosecution to prove premeditated.

I'm just thinking this behavior doesn't seem to match the allegations in the OP. If you say that reality is something completely different from the OP, i don't really have an issue with that. Not even going to put on my 'surprise!' face.

I assumed they were doing the heroin together.

Regardless, the allegation that it wasn't premeditated because she didn't act like a master criminal would isn't valid. Some people are just stupid twits who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Regardless, the allegation that it wasn't premeditated because she didn't act like a master criminal would isn't valid. Some people are just stupid twits who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

But if we accept that, then Derec's claims that she clearly intended his death, based on the observations of her actions, are invalidated.
She can't simultaneously exhibit acts of clear meditation AND acts of terminal stupidity, to support a coherent estimation of her unstated plans. I mean, this is real life, not a James Cameron movie.

 

[fromderinside]

... She can't simultaneously exhibit acts of clear meditation AND acts of terminal stupidity, to support a coherent estimation of her unstated plans. I mean, this is real life, not a James Cameron movie.

OK. Download the digital memories. We're gonna run simulations. Upload memories and attributes into the Avatars and lets have a go.

Action!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Regardless, the allegation that it wasn't premeditated because she didn't act like a master criminal would isn't valid. Some people are just stupid twits who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

But if we accept that, then Derec's claims that she clearly intended his death, based on the observations of her actions, are invalidated.
She can't simultaneously exhibit acts of clear meditation AND acts of terminal stupidity, to support a coherent estimation of her unstated plans. I mean, this is real life, not a James Cameron movie.

Why not?

For instance, in relation to your question "If it's premeditated murder, wouldn't she have closed the blinds before administering the fatal dose?", the answer could very well be "No, because she's not very smart". Police often catch criminals because they leave stupid clues behind and don't consider how to cover up the crime very well. There's not any kind of necessary relation between deciding to kill somebody in a premeditated manner and properly covering up your tracks after doing that - especially for the idiots in the world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why not?

Because Derec is claiming that intent can be clearly seen from her behavior. But if there are inconsistencies, then the intentions aren't quite so clear.

I can see why this defense would appeal to Derec.
Anything that's not consistent with his 'she clearly intended murder' story can be dismissed with 'because she's stupid.' She closed the blinds when she did because she's stupid. She missed the camera because she's stupid. She (whatever objection offered) because she's stupid.

But then, how do we look at her actions and conclude that murder was intended? It becomes exactly as easy to say 'the dose was fatal because she's evil'* as it is to say 'the dose was fatal because she's stupid.'* One's murder, one's manslaughter.

*Or in Derec's case, one suspects that both statements can be combined. 'The dose was fatal because she's a woman.'

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry Derec. No testorsterone, no case.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh. She's addicted? I thought she just administered the dose, not that she joined him.

But then, if they thought she could say she was out of her head and not aware of her actions, that would make it even harder for the prosecution to prove premeditated.

I'm just thinking this behavior doesn't seem to match the allegations in the OP. If you say that reality is something completely different from the OP, i don't really have an issue with that. Not even going to put on my 'surprise!' face.

I assumed they were doing the heroin together.

Regardless, the allegation that it wasn't premeditated because she didn't act like a master criminal would isn't valid. Some people are just stupid twits who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

So, her actions are consistent with a stupid twit of a planner or someone who is not a planner. It is neither logical nor reasonable to assert - as Derec has - that her actions are clear signs of premeditation if there are other reasonable explanations without more compelling evidence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, her actions are consistent with a stupid twit of a planner or someone who is not a planner. It is neither logical nor reasonable to assert - as Derec has - that her actions are clear signs of premeditation if there are other reasonable explanations without more compelling evidence.

I just don't see a necessary link between "I'm going to go and kill this guy" and "I'm going to properly stage the crime scene so that the murder doesn't look premeditated".

A significant number of murderers are really bad at murder and get caught really easily because they don't put much more effort into the planning beyond "I'm going to go and kill this guy". That number largely consists of the stupid people who decide to murder people.

 

[laughing dog]

So, her actions are consistent with a stupid twit of a planner or someone who is not a planner. It is neither logical nor reasonable to assert - as Derec has - that her actions are clear signs of premeditation if there are other reasonable explanations without more compelling evidence.

I just don't see a necessary link between "I'm going to go and kill this guy" and "I'm going to properly stage the crime scene so that the murder doesn't look premeditated".

A significant number of murderers are really bad at murder and get caught really easily because they don't put much more effort into the planning beyond "I'm going to go and kill this guy". That number largely consists of the stupid people who decide to murder people.

That was evident in your previous post. What I don't understand is how it is a relevant response to what I wrote. With the information to date, her actions are consistent with a number of different plausible explanations. She may have been a stupid premeditator of a murderer or she may have been a murderer at the spur of the moment or she may have been unlucky while following a request. All 3 are plausible and consistent with the information at hand. Which makes it neither logical nor reasonable to assert that a particular one of them -as Derec has - as THE explanation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I just don't see a necessary link between "I'm going to go and kill this guy" and "I'm going to properly stage the crime scene so that the murder doesn't look premeditated".

A significant number of murderers are really bad at murder and get caught really easily because they don't put much more effort into the planning beyond "I'm going to go and kill this guy". That number largely consists of the stupid people who decide to murder people.

That was evident in your previous post. What I don't understand is how it is a relevant response to what I wrote. With the information to date, her actions are consistent with a number of different plausible explanations. She may have been a stupid premeditator of a murderer or she may have been a murderer at the spur of the moment or she may have been unlucky while following a request. All 3 are plausible and consistent with the information at hand. Which makes it neither logical nor reasonable to assert that a particular one of them -as Derec has - as THE explanation.

I wasn't referencing Derec's post. I was only saying that Keith's had other explanations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wasn't referencing Derec's post. I was only saying that Keith's had other explanations.

Yeah, but the fact that there are other explanations spoils Derec's OP.

The cops and the prosecutoin see either a stupidly competent killer (or a competently stupid killer), or simply a sex worker without the qualifications to administer heroin or the skills to diagnose a heroin OD.
...while Derec sees the clear intention of heinous murder for which the only conclusion must be murder most foul.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I wasn't referencing Derec's post. I was only saying that Keith's had other explanations.

Yeah, but the fact that there are other explanations spoils Derec's OP.

The cops and the prosecutoin see either a stupidly competent killer (or a competently stupid killer), or simply a sex worker without the qualifications to administer heroin or the skills to diagnose a heroin OD.
...while Derec sees the clear intention of heinous murder for which the only conclusion must be murder most foul.

Ya, it was actually an irrelevant snarky comment in reference to a single part of your post in isolation from everything else and wasn't meant as a basis for actual discussion.

Next time I'll use a smiley.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, come on, some of your best work is the rebar found wrapped in the snark.