TiVo Community Forums Archives - June 29 Crime and Punishment (spoilers)

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

June 29 Crime and Punishment (spoilers)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: dimented

So, did anybody catch Crime and Punishment last night? I thought that he was totally set up. 200 and some years in jail!!! that is ridiculous. It doesn't really matter if he was guilty or not, there was no proof that he was guilty. Only her word against his, and that is not enough to set him up for that many years, in my opinion. It was a total snow job in my eyes.

Posted by: daperlman

quote:
Originally posted by dimented
So, did anybody catch Crime and Punishment last night? I thought that he was totally set up. 200 and some years in jail!!! that is ridiculous. It doesn't really matter if he was guilty or not, there was no proof that he was guilty. Only her word against his, and that is not enough to set him up for that many years, in my opinion. It was a total snow job in my eyes.

Well that picture of the woman certainly DID look like her face was slammed against the curb. But like you I feel the state failed to live up to their burden of proof in the establishment of the charges of kidnapping and rape. He did come off as cocky and misogynistic, and that just goes to show you that personality goes a long way.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the man clearly did assault her and violate a restraining order. After seeing him on the stand and most notably at sentencing he looked very guilty of all of it to me.

How about the dumb father stating his son was previously incarcerated and then the defense attorney trying to blame it on the prosecution and move for a mis-trial. Unbelievable, I thought the prosecutor was going to say, "it is not my fault the man is an idiot."

Posted by: dimented

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
How about the dumb father stating his son was previously incarcerated and then the defense attorney trying to blame it on the prosecution and move for a mis-trial. Unbelievable, I thought the prosecutor was going to say, "it is not my fault the man is an idiot."

Yea, I replayed that a couple of times to see if she actually was trying to bait him into saying that and there was no way she was leading him into that. In one question she asked when did he move in with him and the father replied "well he was living in a halfway house..." and the other she asked if he was working while living with him and the father replied "no he was answering to his parole officer...". How is that leading him into anything or tricking him. The guy was just a friggin idiot.

As far as the rest goes, I tend to agree that he was probably guilty just by the way he was acting, but my wife and I had an alternate theory. The woman was getting it on with him and then got pissed at him for whatever reason. She poured kitty litter in his car and then to avoid retaliation got a restraining order. It is not hard to get one. And then when he threatened her she thought he was going to ruin her life so she called him over and took him out to get high and then dreamed up the story about being kidnapped and raped. Afterall, who was going to believe him, he was an ex-con. I am not sure how her face got smashed in. Either by accident or he got mad and did it on purpose. Either way I am not sure that he kidnapped her and raped her. I mean, come on, she had like 5 chances to escape, one time with the keys in the car and her parents' house a block away. Plus she washed all the evidence off of her, if there ever was any evidence. It just all seemed to fishy to me. There was not one piece of physical evidence against him.

Posted by: JohnJr

They had a pre-existing (violent?) relationship. They were both druggies. She was on vacation, I doubt if he worked. My guess is it was a more or less a mutual "let's go on a binge" thing.

Then, when she realizes what she has done (and takes a look at her face in the mirror), she concocts the kidnapping and rape case. With the restraining order outstanding... boom, he's nailed.

The punishment of 200+ years to life in no way fit the circumstances of the case in my opinion, unless they didn't show us stuff on TV. I almost have to believe they are cutting stuff out just to give us the shock and awe. :(

One thing I did catch in passing regarding physical evidence of Rape, is that while no fluids were found, there was a "consistency" with Rape as indicated by (paraphrasing) some abraisions and their location. I've heard this before, where when sex is consentual it is expected to find abraisions here and there, while if it is not consentual, then the abraisions will be there and there. With all that said, however, she made it sound like she worked with him as best she could on the first count of Rape (so she could just go home), so it must have been one of the other 4 counts that was more forced.

Both scum in my opinion.

-John {next week looks cool ;) }

Posted by: xix_84

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
How about the dumb father stating his son was previously incarcerated and then the defense attorney trying to blame it on the prosecution and move for a mis-trial. Unbelievable, I thought the prosecutor was going to say, "it is not my fault the man is an idiot."

I was amazed at this too - I couldn't believe what the father was saying, until the judge interrupted and the defense immediately moved for a mis-trial. My theory was the defense attorney told the father: " If you were to accidently mention your son's prior convictions during questioning, that would compromise the jury, and would cause a mis-trial. So don't let it happen." Wink, wink.

There is no way that he would have been stupid enough to mention those things twice, even if he hadn't been warned about it. Unless he wanted his son back in jail, and that did not appear to be the case.

Personally, although the sentence seemed a little extreme, I believe that while the victim may not have told the whole truth regarding her relationship with the defendent prior to the events of the case, there was a kidnap and vicious assault. And I believe the judge was probably factoring in the defendent priors when sentencing.

On a side note, I think the defense lawyers in every case so far this series have come across in court as rather sleazy, vs. the 'clean-cut' DAs. In my mind that is already working against the defendent, before the evidence is heard.

Posted by: whitson77

What is the most amazing thing about this trial is they convicted a man without a shred of evidence. He is a pig. A total disgusting human, but I find it disturbing that you can legally lock someone behind bars for 200 years with no evidence. That lady was a liar. He was a liar.

Did you notice the inconsistancies in HER testimony. At one point she said he kick her twice when she was laying on the ground next to the curb. Then later on the cross she said he never hit or kicked her. Who leaves gas money for friends in the mail box? She probably was buying meth.

This case came down to the defendant being such an ass the jury sent him away for 200 years based on that alone!

Posted by: JohnJr

quote:
Originally posted by xix_84
And I believe the judge was probably factoring in the defendent priors when sentencing.

I didn't even think of that... I'll bet you are right! While the priors are inadmissable during a trial, they (AFAIK) are perfectly legal factors a Judge uses in making decisions like the Sentence. I think you hit it right on the head there, xix. Lessee, we know he had a prior for murder...

-John