GUILTY CT - Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, & 2 daughters killed in home invasion, 23 July 2007

New Posts

PrairieWind said:
Komarsarjevski's statement is in the motion itself, which now back in the public record.
Click to expand...


that is only part of what he wishes to say, that statement in the motion was used to illustrate the argument the defence was making, he has much more he wishes to say,

the judge has yet to rule on the motion either allowing or denying him releif from the gag order
 
I wonder what the judge will now do about the parts of the statement that were reported in the media,
 
J.K's actions pretty much said it all. Is he now claiming he is innocent of being in that house and doing all the things he is alleged to have done?
 
Madeleine74 said:
J.K's actions pretty much said it all. Is he now claiming he is innocent of being in that house and doing all the things he is alleged to have done?
Click to expand...

he is willing to plead guilty to most of the charges in a plea deal that would mean he did not get the death penalty, the state will not accept this deal and therefore it is going to trial,

I don't know if he will plead guilty to any charges if it goes to trial,
 
If he was in that house and he participated in those crimes, he is culpable. And whatever punishment that nets him as a result of his actions, up to and including the DP, is warranted. Those crimes are among the 'worst of the worst.' The state has the DP and it is, IMHO, an absolutely reasonable use and application of said penalty, based on the nature and outcome of this crime.

And Dr. Petit not only has every right to want the DP, he is morally right in seeking the fullest extent the justice system can exact on behalf of his executed family.
 
Madeleine74 said:
If he was in that house and he participated in those crimes, he is culpable. And whatever punishment that nets him as a result of his actions, up to and including the DP, is warranted. Those crimes are among the 'worst of the worst.' The state has the DP and it is, IMHO, an absolutely reasonable use and application of said penalty, based on the nature and outcome of this crime.

And Dr. Petit not only has every right to want the DP, he is morally right in seeking the fullest extent the justice system can exact on behalf of his executed family.
Click to expand...


I don't think he is morally right in asking for the DP, murder is murder whether it was committed by Komisarjevsky or the state, he is not denying his part in the crimes hence his willingness to plead guilty for no DP
 
We'll have to agree to disagree on Dr. Petit's rights and moral code. His family was massacred in this crime. I support whatever he wants, within the laws of his state. I'm also not opposed to the DP and it is within the scope of that state's laws.

I'm not going to debate this. His family. His opinion. His right.
 
I would argue that Dr. Petit is morally courageous in insisting on a death sentence here. By definition DP is not murder.
 
PrairieWind said:
I would argue that Dr. Petit is morally courageous in insisting on a death sentence here. By definition DP is not murder.
Click to expand...

I think it is murder, it is the taking of a persons life at the hand of another, to me that is murder,
 
"Murder" is the unlawful killing of another person. The death penalty is an authorized sanction for certain crimes. It is conducted in as humane a way as possilbe. I have a hard time comparing lethal injection to what Hayes and Komirsarjefky did to the Petit family.
 
The DP debate is a hot issue but I believe that Dr. Petit is making a statement on behalf of his family. Other than that I as well won't debate it.
 
I understand both sides of the DP debate, I have to say if it was my family, I would be hoping for it. What I like best about the DP is it keeps the person in a cell all alone 23 hours a day. He will not be out making friends in the general prison population. We all know getting the DP means he will appeal many times and live many years before seeing death.
 
Yes, the majority of DP inmates will die of natural causes or at least a cause other than the state putting them to death. So a DP conviction these days seems to be more of a life sentence with greater restrictions. Look at CA, for an example of that. TX and FL move 'em along faster, but most states it's at least 15+ yrs, on average, if ever.
 
Joe, I dont really care whether JK's attorneys get to talk or not. I think it actually hurts their case though, tips their hand. If I was the judge, before allowing any statements to be made public, I would require them to be reviewed and approved by the defendant himself. And keep in mind, if the gag order is lifted for the defense, does it also get lifted for the DA's office and police? I think from a legal standpoint, its better to keep both the state and defense gagged until trial.
 
PrairieWind said:
Joe, I dont really care whether JK's attorneys get to talk or not. I think it actually hurts their case though, tips their hand. If I was the judge, before allowing any statements to be made public, I would require them to be reviewed and approved by the defendant himself. And keep in mind, if the gag order is lifted for the defense, does it also get lifted for the DA's office and police? I think from a legal standpoint, its better to keep both the state and defense gagged until trial.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that they should all be gagged, and that includes Dr Petit and other family members, if Dr Petit can say inflammatory things about Komisarjevsky then freedom of speech should allow Komisarjevsky the right of reply,

Dr Petit and family should also be precluded from discussing the case if everybody else is gagged
 
The difference is that Dr. Petit is not a party to this case, so I'm not sure the court even could gag him. But remember, a large part of the statements by Dr. Petit have been in the course of trying to keep the legislature from repealing the death sentence. So if he is going to be gagged, if I was Dr. Petit I would demand that an injunction be issued to prohibit any change in the law until after trial/sentencing. And that of course is wll outside the Court's authority. Its a tangled web that gets weaved when gag orders come into play. I know the defense team wants to make sure JK gets a fair trial as is constitutionally required. But there is no right to get a "fair shake" in the media and in public opinion. Casey Anthony was as vilified in the media as JK, if not more so. And that jury largely acquited her. So you cant say that bad press equals unfair trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 4,460 (members: 175, guests: 4,285)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
4,285
Total visitors
4,460
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,607
Messages
17,971,659
Members
228,842
Latest member
curiouscanadian
Back
Top