View Full Version : Murderer Pastor's Wife Regains Custody of Children
In what has to be one of the biggest travesty's of justice in America in recent years the Church of Christ pastor's wife who got off with a three year sentance for shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun while he slept (and then only served part of that sentance) has now regained custody of her two daughters.
Her slain husbands parents had custody of the children after she murdered their son but now the murdering mom has regained full custody.
I am so ashamed of the state of Tennessee and the judicial system that let her get away with murder and now have her children back.
Here is a link to the article about her getting her children;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/04/minister.slain.custody.ap/index.html
Mrs. LPW
08-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Wow, you guys are about as messed up down there as we are up here!
Shaking head
CC1, do you have a problem with the "battered wife syndrome" defense?
tstew
08-04-2008, 05:36 PM
CC1, do you have a problem with the "battered wife syndrome" defense?
Rico, the particulars in this case make the judgement a travesty to me. She said that they were arguing about money. She was dumb enough to lose money in one of those Nigerian scams. She said they were arguing and she just lost it. She shot him in the back while he was laying in bed (not attacking her) and then ran away with her daughters and was arrested in Alabama. She didn't start talking about killing him because of abuse until it came time to build her legal defense.
She served a total of less than 9 months. If any man had done that he would be fried for sure.
Scott Hutchinson
08-04-2008, 05:41 PM
I remember this case,they caught that woman in AL., I saw it on the news.
Rico, the particulars in this case make the judgement a travesty to me. She said that they were arguing about money. She was dumb enough to lose money in one of those Nigerian scams. She said they were arguing and she just lost it. She shot him in the back while he was laying in bed (not attacking her) and then ran away with her daughters and was arrested in Alabama. She didn't start talking about killing him because of abuse until it came time to build her legal defense.
She served a total of less than 9 months. If any man had done that he would be fried for sure.
I don't remember all the detail of the case, Stew. I just know she shot him, got arrested for what she had done, went the battered wife route, and basically won her case, even though she was convicted of a lesser crime.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 05:44 PM
Rico, the particulars in this case make the judgement a travesty to me. She said that they were arguing about money. She was dumb enough to lose money in one of those Nigerian scams. She said they were arguing and she just lost it. She shot him in the back while he was laying in bed (not attacking her) and then ran away with her daughters and was arrested in Alabama. She didn't start talking about killing him because of abuse until it came time to build her legal defense.
She served a total of less than 9 months. If any man had done that he would be fried for sure.
It was a jury trial. It's not as if it was some judge with an agenda, the jury found her testimony credible. Most of us have made up our minds not after hearing all the evidence but after reading a 4 paragraph news story.
Rhoni
08-04-2008, 05:49 PM
It was a jury trial. It's not as if it was some judge with an agenda, the jury found her testimony credible. Most of us have made up our minds not after hearing all the evidence but after reading a 4 paragraph news story.
EXACTLY...no one knows the whole story.
Blessings, Rhoni
vrblackwell
08-04-2008, 05:55 PM
I can say this. My best friend who is a member of this forum was the banker who managed their accounts. He was interviewed by the FBI and I am sure had to hand over information.
Although he would never get into details about their fiances, it was about money.
Rico, the particulars in this case make the judgement a travesty to me. She said that they were arguing about money. She was dumb enough to lose money in one of those Nigerian scams. She said they were arguing and she just lost it. She shot him in the back while he was laying in bed (not attacking her) and then ran away with her daughters and was arrested in Alabama. She didn't start talking about killing him because of abuse until it came time to build her legal defense.
She served a total of less than 9 months. If any man had done that he would be fried for sure.
Exactly. She shot him in the back and when the shot knocked him off the bed and he saw his why had shot him his dying words to her were "WHY?".
Not only had she lost their money in that Nigerian scam to cover it up she had opened a second bank account in another town and was kiting checks between the two accounts.
It was all about to come out that day (the bank had called her) and she knew her husband was going to find out and naturally be angry.
There is zero evidence he ever layed a hand on her physically or mentally in an abusive way. The children, close friends, and relatives all never saw anything like that.
At her trial her "smoking gun" was that she said he asked her to dress up in high heels and something sexy sometimes at night in their bedroom.
Sounds like a reason to shoot your husband in the back to me.
The signal it sends to first let her get off with almost no punishment and now to regain custody of her children is pretty scary.
CC1, this wasn't some sort of plea bargain, Brother. The jury heard all the evidence and made its decision to convict her of a lesser crime. There had to be some reason why they went that route.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:03 PM
Exactly. She shot him in the back and when the shot knocked him off the bed and he saw his why had shot him his dying words to her were "WHY?".
Not only had she lost their money in that Nigerian scam to cover it up she had opened a second bank account in another town and was kiting checks between the two accounts.
It was all about to come out that day (the bank had called her) and she knew her husband was going to find out and naturally be angry.
There is zero evidence he ever layed a hand on her physically or mentally in an abusive way. The children, close friends, and relatives all never saw anything like that.
At her trial her "smoking gun" was that she said he asked her to dress up in high heels and something sexy sometimes at night in their bedroom.
Sounds like a reason to shoot your husband in the back to me.
The signal it sends to first let her get off with almost no punishment and now to regain custody of her children is pretty scary.
Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:05 PM
It was a jury trial. It's not as if it was some judge with an agenda, the jury found her testimony credible. Most of us have made up our minds not after hearing all the evidence but after reading a 4 paragraph news story.
Baron, read the initial things she was saying to the police...before a lawyer told her what made sense to say if trying to build a defense. She did not lawyer up immediately and did give many statements that would have gotten any man crucified for sure. This jury was one of the worst since the one that let Mel Ignatow get away with murder because they didn't like the length of the main witness' skirt. The facts of this case make 9 months a travesty.
Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?
Sadly apparently so. Remember though that this is a state that when I moved here 9 years ago had not executed anybody for a few decades and had a bazillion hissy fits getting up the nerve to do it again.
They finally figured out it is not that hard to do. I kept thinking they needed to hire my former state of residence, Texas, as a consultant.
I kept thinking perhaps something explosive would come out in the trial to at least semi justify cold blooded murder but nope, not a thing.
The DA that prosecuted must be the most incompetent prosecuter in history.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:07 PM
Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?
Sometimes juries are just that stupid. Sometimes they are swayed by how someone looks or by an attorney's ability to play with their emotions. I almost guarantee a judge would have given her substantially more time.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:08 PM
Baron, read the initial things she was saying to the police...before a lawyer told her what made sense to say if trying to build a defense. She did not lawyer up immediately and did give many statements that would have gotten any man crucified for sure. This jury was one of the worst since the one that let Mel Ignatow get away with murder because they didn't like the length of the main witness' skirt. The facts of this case make 9 months a travesty.
You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:11 PM
You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.
Baron, I don't just do the soundbites. I followed that thing on Court TV, that jury was nuts and they just looked at her and could not convict her. I know that you know as well as anyone, that as good as our system is, there have been some loony juries.
You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.
Baron Von Frankenstein,
I was the jury foreman on a murder trail in Texas where it was absolutely clear that the woman had killed the man and yet when we went to deliberate and I suggested we first have a secret poll as to our positions there were 10 guilty votes and two not guilty.
I had allowed three choices. Guilty of murder, Guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.
Jury's can be unpredictable.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:16 PM
Baron, I don't just do the soundbites. I followed that thing on Court TV, that jury was nuts and they just looked at her and could not convict her. I know that you know as well as anyone, that as good as our system is, there have been some loony juries.
Think about getting 12 people totally fooled at the same time. It might happen but it would be rare. I remember one jury that I watched all the way through in a case the ACLJ was trying against a Planned Parenthood security gaurd. There was one woman who was more concerned with what us interns were doing than with the trial her I.Q. probably wasn't high enough for her to be executed, no way she had any idea what was going on. but she was one out of eight or nine whatever it was not the whole jury.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:18 PM
Baron Von Frankenstein,
I was the jury foreman on a murder trail in Texas where it was absolutely clear that the woman had killed the man and yet when we went to deliberate and I suggested we first have a secret poll as to our positions there were 10 guilty votes and two not guilty.
I had allowed three choices. Guilty of murder, Guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.
Jury's can be unpredictable.
Sure they can. There is this thing called resonable doubt, that just grabs ahold of them sometimes.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:20 PM
Think about getting 12 people totally fooled at the same time. It might happen but it would be rare. I remember one jury that I watched all the way through in a case the ACLJ was trying against a Planned Parenthood security gaurd. There was on woman who was more concerned with what us interns were doing than with the trial he I.Q. probably wasn't high enough for her to be executed, no way she had any idea what was going on. but she was one out of eight or nine whatever it was not the whole jury.
Baron, just look at some of the case evidence. I guarantee you that she would not be free today if you had been on that jury. Some people are just not convicted for a myriad of reasons...they just look too innocent, they can appeal to emotions, etc. Just wait til the "American Justice" episode is done on this one. :)
It's always easy to try to second guess what a jury decides.
Sure they can. There is this thing called resonable doubt, that just grabs ahold of them sometimes.
It only grabbed our two "not guilty's" for about four hours and they were also convinced of the woman's guilt.
Thankfully she chose to have the judge set her sentance so we didn't have to do that.
Even though she deserved whatever punishment she got for taking a young man's life it was heart rending knowing that whatever happened this 56 year old woman was going to spend the rest of her productive life behind bars.
As the jury foreman I had to stand and read the verdict with her staring at me. However remembering the crime scene photos and autopsy photos we had to view I had no problem doing it.
Baron, just look at some of the case evidence. I guarantee you that she would not be free today if you had been on that jury. Some people are just not convicted for a myriad of reasons...they just look too innocent, they can appeal to emotions, etc. Just wait til the "American Justice" episode is done on this one. :)
Yup. She is this mousy shy little 30ish bookworm looking woman I am sure they felt sorry for. I mean she is a widow after all !!!!! Who doesn't feel sorry for a widow?
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:27 PM
It's always easy to try to second guess what a jury decides.
Rico, I've seen enough of the evidence. In general, I do have respect for our legal system, but I almost threw something through my monitor when I heard the verdict and sentence.
Rico, I've seen enough of the evidence. In general, I do have respect for our legal system, but I almost threw something through my monitor when I heard the verdict and sentence.
I was shocked. I figured small town Tennessee would nail her.
She was dating some idiot that lived here in the Nashville area (she was working for his brother's dry cleaning store while awaiting trial) and he would give interviews to the local TV station. He was a goober who obviously just dated her for the publicity. He would insinuate they were....ah...intimate leading up to her trial for the murder of her husband.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:34 PM
I was shocked. I figured small town Tennessee would nail her.
She was dating some idiot that lived here in the Nashville area (she was working for his brother's dry cleaning store while awaiting trial) and he would give interviews to the local TV station. He was a goober who obviously just dated her for the publicity. He would insinuate they were....ah...intimate leading up to her trial for the murder of her husband.
There was so much wrong in that case that I am still fired up about it.
BTW, McMinnville is where my sister and nieces live. I guess this is the town this lady is moving to.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:37 PM
It only grabbed our two "not guilty's" for about four hours and they were also convinced of the woman's guilt.
Thankfully she chose to have the judge set her sentance so we didn't have to do that.
Even though she deserved whatever punishment she got for taking a young man's life it was heart rending knowing that whatever happened this 56 year old woman was going to spend the rest of her productive life behind bars.
As the jury foreman I had to stand and read the verdict with her staring at me. However remembering the crime scene photos and autopsy photos we had to view I had no problem doing it.
What your telling us is the system worked.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:37 PM
BTW, McMinnville is where my sister and nieces live. I guess this is the town this lady is moving to.
Just be thankful that you don't have a single brother living there.
What your telling us is the system worked.
LOL!!!! O.J. Simposn would be proud of that town. In fact I think they may have imported the Simpson jury from LA for this trial.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 06:57 PM
It was a jury trial. It's not as if it was some judge with an agenda, the jury found her testimony credible. Most of us have made up our minds not after hearing all the evidence but after reading a 4 paragraph news story.
She shot the man. Is it true she shot him in the back? If she was a battered wife she could have left. It takes as much will power to blow someone away as it does to walk away
LOL!!!! O.J. Simposn would be proud of that town. In fact I think they may have imported the Simpson jury from LA for this trial.
Well, you can rejoice because it looks like Nevada is gonna put him away for life.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:57 PM
LOL!!!! O.J. Simposn would be proud of that town. In fact I think they may have imported the Simpson jury from LA for this trial.
This one was even worse in my opinion. This was a crazy case. I'll try to go find some of the particulars and post them.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 06:58 PM
LOL!!!! O.J. Simposn would be proud of that town. In fact I think they may have imported the Simpson jury from LA for this trial.
You know what. I got a new perspective on that OJ trial when I watched it as part of an Art of Advocacy class. You know who was brilliant in that trial? Not Johnny Cockroach, it was Flea Bailey (yes I know their names are wrong). The defense did their job in that trial and discredited the star witness for the prosecution. Cockroach may have got all the press but Bailey won that trial.
tstew
08-04-2008, 06:59 PM
She shot the man. Is it true she shot him in the back? If she was a battered wife she could have left. It takes as much will power to blow someone away as it does to walk away
Prax, she told the cops in the beginning that they were arguing about money and she lost it. She had somehow gotten involved with some scams without her husband's knowledge. She shot him in the back while he was in the bed. She ran away with her daughters...
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:02 PM
You know what. I got a new perspective on that OJ trial when I watched it as part of an Art of Advocacy class. You know who was brilliant in that trial? Not Johnny Cockroach, it was Flea Bailey (yes I know their names are wrong). The defense did their job in that trial and discredited the star witness for the prosecution. Cockroach may have got all the press but Bailey won that trial.
Honestly, the LAPD helped to lose that trial too. They came across as either really incompetent or actually trying to insure that Simpson got convicted. The missing blood that they took from Simpson, but could not account for put a lot of the blood evidence in a bad light. The drop on the sock that was on both sides as if it were placed there as the sock lay there and not like there was a foot in it, they dropped the ball on a lot of things.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:03 PM
You know what. I got a new perspective on that OJ trial when I watched it as part of an Art of Advocacy class. You know who was brilliant in that trial? Not Johnny Cockroach, it was Flea Bailey (yes I know their names are wrong). The defense did their job in that trial and discredited the star witness for the prosecution. Cockroach may have got all the press but Bailey won that trial.
Actually the Dfense screwed up big time by having the Juice put on the gloves. But even then Im not sure that was a reasonable doubt. Hearing the Jury it sounded like some of them were doing their version of 'reverse justice'.
BTW those cops that beat Rodney King did more time for a man that was able to walk away and got millions as a result than the thugs that smashed open that truckers head did during the riots with a huge brick...
Reginald Denny I think was his name. Our Justice system is fine, it's our citizens that are messed up.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:03 PM
Prax, she told the cops in the beginning that they were arguing about money and she lost it. She had somehow gotten involved with some scams without her husband's knowledge. She shot him in the back while he was in the bed. She ran away with her daughters...
Im just saying I have problems with the battered wife argument. They can leave. They can have the man arrested. She should have gotten a LOT more time
Sassy
08-04-2008, 07:04 PM
Prax, she told the cops in the beginning that they were arguing about money and she lost it. She had somehow gotten involved with some scams without her husband's knowledge. She shot him in the back while he was in the bed. She ran away with her daughters...
YOu mean....no matter how mad I get at my husband....I can't take him out? j/k :tease
Justice was not served...this case will let others think they can do the same.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:06 PM
Actually the Dfense screwed up big time by having the Juice put on the gloves. But even then Im not sure that was a reasonable doubt. Hearing the Jury it sounded like some of them were doing their version of 'reverse justice'.
BTW those cops that beat Rodney King did more time for a man that was able to walk away and got millions as a result than the thugs that smashed open that truckers head did during the riots with a huge brick...
Reginald Denny I think was his name. Our Justice system is fine, it's our citizens that are messed up.
The defense didn't screw up, they pulled it off. The glove thing was Cockroaches doing, not Flea. They won inspite of Cockroaches antics.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:07 PM
YOu mean....no matter how mad I get at my husband....I can't take him out? j/k :tease
Justice was not served...this case will let others think they can do the same.
Or maybe the next local jury in that area will be so motivated to fix it that they will go overboard.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:07 PM
The defense didn't screw up, they pulled it off. The glove thing was Cockroaches doing, not Flea. They won inspite of Cockroaches antics.
I meant the prosecution
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:09 PM
The police did things that left too much room for bright lawyers to raise reasonable doubt...especially in a case that never had overwhelming physical evidence in the first place.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:12 PM
The police did things that left too much room for bright lawyers to raise reasonable doubt...especially in a case that never had overwhelming physical evidence in the first place.
That is true too, but not to the point that the evidence was tainted. More like they were able to exploit the "don't trust the police" facter coupled with that Detectives racist comments he made for that book and that he lied...they used that to suggest the police planted evidence
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:12 PM
I meant the prosecution
Again that is wrong that was a good team on the prosecution. The problem was their star witness was a liar and it s hard to recover from that, they were blind-sided by that.
rgcraig
08-04-2008, 07:19 PM
The glove thing still riles me up!
If he had tried to get it on, it would have fit.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:19 PM
That is true too, but not to the point that the evidence was tainted. More like they were able to exploit the "don't trust the police" facter coupled with that Detectives racist comments he made for that book and that he lied...they used that to suggest the police planted evidence
Prax, it went beyond statements. In a case where all the blood evidence against Simpson could be measured in drops. (no pools of blood anywhere but a few drops in his room, and a few on the back gate that a cop happened to see in the dark)...the issue of being unable to account for all the blood that was taken from him is a huge problem.
Having issues with the chain of custody and the timeline immediately following the taking of the blood (the guy who transported it accounted for the unusually long time it took him to check it in by saying that he decided to take it to a place that was further away than the one that made the most sense).
There were just some things that were done that gave some credence to the defense's allegation that the evidence was suspect. I honestly feel like some of the cops wanted to make sure that he did not get away with murder and it may have backfired.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Either way, I don't want to hijack the topic of the thread. I believe Simpson got away with murder, and I believe that this lady did as well. Her case is even more baffling to me.
rgcraig
08-04-2008, 07:27 PM
I think her story of being a battered wife (which probably was true) played on the emotions of the jury and got her off easy.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:27 PM
Again that is wrong that was a good team on the prosecution. The problem was their star witness was a liar and it s hard to recover from that, they were blind-sided by that.
I didn't say it was a bad team. Im saying that was a blunder. They never should have requested the juice to try on the glove. In fact that day Marsha Clark was not there. It was the other guy that did it. All the legal analysts were agreeing it was unusual and not good. Blunders add up.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:29 PM
The glove thing still riles me up!
If he had tried to get it on, it would have fit.
Exactly. The other question is he has severe arthritis or something in his hands and takes anti inflammatory meds. Someone was saying he stopped taking them in case they asked him to try it.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:29 PM
I think her story of being a battered wife (which probably was true) played on the emotions of the jury and got her off easy.
If she wasn't battered I think it would be harder to explain. An emotionally stable woman doesn't kill her husband over a money scheme.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:29 PM
I think her story of being a battered wife (which probably was true) played on the emotions of the jury and got her off easy.
I guess I can't say if it was true, but it certainly doesn't jive with what she told the police in the first few interviews. It doesn't fit with her behavior afterwards either.
All I can say is that some of you have memories like an elephant! The only thing I can remember about the OJ trial is the glove not fitting and Furhman was a racist.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:31 PM
Prax, it went beyond statements. In a case where all the blood evidence against Simpson could be measured in drops. (no pools of blood anywhere but a few drops in his room, and a few on the back gate that a cop happened to see in the dark)...the issue of being unable to account for all the blood that was taken from him is a huge problem.
Having issues with the chain of custody and the timeline immediately following the taking of the blood (the guy who transported it accounted for the unusually long time it took him to check it in by saying that he decided to take it to a place that was further away than the one that made the most sense).
There were just some things that were done that gave some credence to the defense's allegation that the evidence was suspect. I honestly feel like some of the cops wanted to make sure that he did not get away with murder and it may have backfired.
blood is not hard to spot in the dark when a flash light hits it. It's shiny. I don't think there was evidence of contamination or tampering but there certainly was some mis takes that they exploited to their defense
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:34 PM
If she wasn't battered I think it would be harder to explain. An emotionally stable woman doesn't kill her husband over a money scheme.
Yes, but an emotionally stable person doesn't kill because they were "disrespected", or because the neighbor's dog told them to, or because they hate women, or because they wanted someone's shoes, or because they're in a turf war...or any of the other reasons people kill (including the various money issues that people kill over everyday).
She told the cops that they had argued about money and that "she guesses her ugly side just came out"
She shot him and knew that he was still alive...she disconnected the phone and left.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:36 PM
blood is not hard to spot in the dark when a flash light hits it. It's shiny. I don't think there was evidence of contamination or tampering but there certainly was some mis takes that they exploited to their defense
Yes, but all a good attorney needs is a sliver. If you give him that and some sort of history of LAPD scandal...he can work wonders.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:37 PM
blood is not hard to spot in the dark when a flash light hits it. It's shiny. I don't think there was evidence of contamination or tampering but there certainly was some mis takes that they exploited to their defense
We're not talking puddles by any stretch of the imagination.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:37 PM
Yes, but all a good attorney needs is a sliver. If you give him that and some sort of history of LAPD scandal...he can work wonders.
Not any attorney could have pulled that off, that was superior work.
tstew
08-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Not any attorney could have pulled that off, that was superior work.
I guess I should have specified "high-powered, top dollar" attorney...like our good friend the Baron. That's why you guys make all the money :)
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:39 PM
Yes, but all a good attorney needs is a sliver. If you give him that and some sort of history of LAPD scandal...he can work wonders.
Yes but that is based on suspicion. I don't see how any jury can say "reasonable doubt"...that is why I said the Jury was doing "reverse justice"
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:39 PM
We're not talking puddles by any stretch of the imagination.
I know. There would not be puddles. BTW what DID Robert Cardasia have in that bag? lol
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:40 PM
It was emotional manipulation
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:41 PM
I guess I should have specified "high-powered, top dollar" attorney...like our good friend the Baron. That's why you guys make all the money :)
HA!! Maybe one day I can be half as good as Flea Bailey without getting disbarred, and never become half as cocky as Cockroach.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:42 PM
It was emotional manipulation
It was more than that, the jury didn't trust the prosecutions witness, that leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:42 PM
Oh, don't forget their DNA expert Lawyer too!
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:43 PM
It was more than that, the jury didn't trust the prosecutions witness, that leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.Isn't trust about emotions? They were able to play to the jury's emotions and the Prosecution was not able to fix it.
Baron1710
08-04-2008, 07:44 PM
Isn't trust about emotions? They were able to play to the jury's emotions and the Prosecution was not able to fix it.
Trust is about credibility.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 07:54 PM
Trust is about credibility.
Yeeeeees. My point is people can be distrustful for irrational reasons. If they are emotional about something, angry or whatever it's easy to manipulate that feeling
If she wasn't battered I think it would be harder to explain. An emotionally stable woman doesn't kill her husband over a money scheme.
Who said she was emotionally stable? I think it is pretty clear that any woman who kills her husband by shooting him in the back while he is asleep when there is zero evidence of any physical abuse is not emotionally stable.
Most killers are not emotionally stable. Doesn't excuse their behaviour.
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 08:14 PM
Who said she was emotionally stable? I think it is pretty clear that any woman who kills her husband by shooting him in the back while he is asleep when there is zero evidence of any physical abuse is not emotionally stable.
Most killers are not emotionally stable. Doesn't excuse their behaviour.
Exactly and if she is emotionally unstable that led her to kill was she evaluated by a psychologist before release?
TalkLady
08-04-2008, 08:15 PM
I find it incredible that people can discredit emotional abuse and give so much credence to physical abuse. HELLO...Emotional abuse is just as real and sometimes more damaging than physical abuse. Nobody knows what this woman endured but this woman. I am not defending her or saying her sentence was "fair" but she had her time in court and that is what was decided.
I find it incredible that people can discredit emotional abuse and give so much credence to physical abuse. HELLO...Emotional abuse is just as real and sometimes more damaging than physical abuse. Nobody knows what this woman endured but this woman.
HELLO yourself,
So you think she was justified in shooting her husband in the back and leaving him to die on the floor?
You think 12 days in prison and two months in a mental health facility for murder is appropriate?
You think a woman unstable enough to murder her husband should have custody of her children?
All when there is zero evidence of ANY abuse physical or mental?
TalkLady
08-04-2008, 08:19 PM
HELLO yourself,
So you think she was justified in shooting her husband in the back and leaving him to die on the floor?
You think less than two years in prison for murder is appropriate?
You think a woman unstable enough to murder her husband should have custody of her children?
All when there is zero evidence of ANY abuse physical or mental?
CC1, I added to my post while you were typing this...Please reread after my additions. No, I don't think she was justified. No, I don't think that sentence was appropriate. No, as far as custody, I think all of that should be supervised visits with the grandparents.
rgcraig
08-04-2008, 08:25 PM
If she wasn't battered I think it would be harder to explain. An emotionally stable woman doesn't kill her husband over a money scheme.
Who said she was emotionally stable? I think it is pretty clear that any woman who kills her husband by shooting him in the back while he is asleep when there is zero evidence of any physical abuse is not emotionally stable.
Most killers are not emotionally stable. Doesn't excuse their behaviour.
Read Baron's post - - that's exactly what he was saying - - - an emotionally stable woman doesn't kill her husband.
CC1, I added to my post while you were typing this...Please reread after my additions.
I read your edited post and edited mine because she did not spend two years in prison as I first stated. It was a whopping 12 days in jail plus two months in a mental health facility.
I don't have to be happy with what the court decided and I am not. There are many instances of justice being thwarted and this is one of them.
Then for her to get her children back on top of it all is absolutely a mockery of justice.
Even if she had been psychologically abused as her late to the game charge was she should not be seen as mentally able to have custody of her girls after her horrific crime.
The only consolation is that God knows the truth and he will mete out the ultimate justice if she does not truly repent and make things right with God.
rgcraig
08-04-2008, 08:28 PM
I feel sorry for the grandparents - I can't imagine what they are having to deal with!
Praxeas
08-04-2008, 08:33 PM
I find it incredible that people can discredit emotional abuse and give so much credence to physical abuse. HELLO...Emotional abuse is just as real and sometimes more damaging than physical abuse. Nobody knows what this woman endured but this woman. I am not defending her or saying her sentence was "fair" but she had her time in court and that is what was decided.
Nobody was crediting or discrediting anything. Nobody knows IF this woman endured anything at all, that does not justify killing the man though.
tstew
08-04-2008, 08:34 PM
1. She said that they argued over money
2. She had lost close to $20,000 in a Nigerian scam
3. She told the police that after arguing "her evil came out"
4. She shot him in the back while he was sleeping
5. He was alive and pleading after she shot him
6. She unplugged the phone so he couldn't call for help
7. She took her daughters to the beach
8. She fled to Alabama
If those "she"s were "he"s...I dare say we would not be having this conversation
TalkLady
08-04-2008, 08:34 PM
Nobody was crediting or discrediting anything. Nobody knows IF this woman endured anything at all, that does not justify killing the man though.
I wish everyone could delete the quotes of my posts on this thread and I could delete mine. They didn't belong on this thread.
CC1, I added to my post while you were typing this...Please reread after my additions. No, I don't think she was justified. No, I don't think that sentence was appropriate. No, as far as custody, I think all of that should be supervised visits with the grandparents.
TalkLady,
I understand what you are saying. You are correct that emotional / psychological abuse should not be discounted in any case.
I appreciate you clarifying your position in your post and it makes perfect sense to me.
I am just a hard core law and order guy and don't accept emotional abuse as an excuse for murder. Divorce yes, Murder no!!
I have had personal experience within my extended family structure with a woman enduring psychological abuse from a husband. She showed up hysterical on our doorstep one Christmas Eve and I had to go with her and my wife to her home the next day to get her things as she moved out.
In that case her pastor had warned her not to rush into marriage with this man but she would not listen to anybody. I literally had a knife in my coat pocket when we went for her to get her things because her husband had taken her pistol. Sure enough the husband cornered me and started trying to talk to me and act like the woman was crazy. I cut him off, looked him in the eye and told him I knew this was not the first time with this woman AND that I also knew it had happened with his first two or three wives (I forget now how many it was). He had a shocked look on his face and when he saw my eyes he just backed off and left us alone. I was doing a lot of silent praying that day!
tstew
08-04-2008, 08:40 PM
TalkLady,
I understand what you are saying. You are correct that emotional / psychological abuse should not be discounted in any case.
I appreciate you clarifying your position in your post and it makes perfect sense to me.
I am just a hard core law and order guy and don't accept emotional abuse as an excuse for murder. Divorce yes, Murder no!!
I have had personal experience within my extended family structure with a woman enduring psychological abuse from a husband. She showed up hysterical on our doorstep one Christmas Eve and I had to go with her and my wife to her home the next day to get her things as she moved out.
In that case her pastor had warned her not to rush into marriage with this man but she would not listen to anybody. I literally had a knife in my coat pocket when we went for her to get her things because her husband had taken her pistol. Sure enough the husband cornered me and started trying to talk to me and act like the woman was crazy. I cut him off, looked him in the eye and told him I knew this was not the first time with this woman AND that I also knew it had happened with his first two or three wives (I forget now how many it was). He had a shocked look on his face and when he saw my eyes he just backed off and left us alone. I was doing a lot of silent praying that day!
Whoah...I take back everything I said on that other post. You were absolutely right and Ron was wrong, wrong, wrong. :aaa
Whoah...I take back everything I said on that other post. You were absolutely right and Ron was wrong, wrong, wrong. :aaa
LOL!!! I was a lot skinnier and faster then. Now you could just distract me with a snickers bar.
tamor
08-05-2008, 07:58 AM
This makes me sick! Some of you know that I live 15 miles from where this happened - the same county.
There are mixed feelings around here about all this, but the majority of the folks are appalled that she got off with a slap on the wrist. I have also heard that in the recent months, initial sympathy that Mary's super star legal team managed to generate has waned.
She would not have wanted me on that jury. And in case it's not obvious yet, I for one, am disgusted that she got custody of her children.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.