Jodi – Picking apart the State response on Nov 11 2014

” Any deletion of the browser history“ and registry, if it did occur, was caused by previous defense counsel during their examination.”

WRONG! ( Maria Schaffer testimony 21 Nov 2014 )

“He was killed by defendant on June 4, 2008, and it is impossible for him to be engaged in this activity six days after his death.”

The truth : the cops did it! ( Bryan Neumeister Testimony 21 Nov 2014 ) The laptop was powered up on June 10, BEFORE a copy was taken, with no write-blocker, destroying the evidence.

” It is also coincidental that the victim allegedly only began to access these sites on May 28, 2008, the same day defendant staged the burglary at her grandparents’ home.”

The truth : Travis’ was accessing porn back in September 2007! And of course there is no proof Jodi staged the burglary, since Juan argued an alternative in which Jodi stole Travis’ gun!

” These viruses apparently redirected the computer sending it to various porn sites for the period of May 28, 2008 through June 10, 2008, when the computer was turned off.”

Wrong! Travis was accessing porn.

” In their haste to sensationalize the issue defense counsel tripped over the truth. ”

No, they didn’t!

Then on 20 November, the State changes it’s position to :

Because judgment and sentence have not yet been entered in this case, such a motion would be premature.”

Game over!

Sources

Advertisements

What is Murder ?

It seems to be that the general public, and indeed many people who should know better, often fail to understand the meaning of this ancient word.

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). (Wikipedia)

The key point that is often overlooked is “malice”. Malice implies some motive for personal gain, for example to eliminate a witness to an earlier crime, robbery, financial gain, to escape capture or to take revenge for some percieved wrong.

I believe people often only focus on the physical act  (“actus reus”) and forget the essential mental element (“mens rea”).

In law, the prosecution is generally not required to prove motive, but I sometimes wonder if this is a big mistake. If no rational, malicious motive can be established, then should we call a killing murder at all, but instead declare it to be manslaughter?

In the case of Oscar Pistorius, the South African authorities have opted to appeal the conviction for manslaughter, asserting that a murder verdict should have been returned. But it is abundantly clear that Pistorius had no malicious motive, he simply made an extremely tragic error, using force that was not justified, due to an irrational fear. There is no need for further analysis.

Similar considerations apply to women who have reacted with excessive, disproportionate force in situations where they have become terrified for psychological reasons. A person acting out of fear, should never be charged with murder, however unreasonable their actions may be, if a malicious motive is not evident.

That’s the memo.

See also Instrumental versus Expressive violence