GUILTY GUILTY VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #9

[dangrsmind]

the "Jesus told me to do it" thing will probably be inadmissible unless the defense really wants to let that in, which I think would backfire.

Without going into too much evidentiary law, not everything or anything he says to the doctors is automatically admissible.

Well, that's good news for Sam's case I think. Hard to explain that comment away as "funny" or whatever without also admitting to having killed four people IMO.

 

[tapu]

Well... the obvious path is for the defense to use the Jesus remark to fulfill the second part of M'Naughten. Of course, that's not enough without expert analyst testimony.

 

[dangrsmind]

Well... the obvious path is for the defense to use the Jesus remark to fulfill the second part of M'Naughten. Of course, that's not enough without expert analyst testimony.

Right, but then, as I understand it here from Andres, they're going to have to bring that statement as evidence because the prosecution can likely be stopped from doing so. Seems like a risky move too.

 

[dangrsmind]

Another question for the lawyers...

Jury selection.

Are the defense attorneys going to be able to question potential jurors about their religious beliefs? To what extent can they keep practicing Christians off of the jury? Because certainly some potential jurors might find McCroskey's statement and his music (Burning Churches) fairly offensive.

 

[ziggy]

Well... the obvious path is for the defense to use the Jesus remark to fulfill the second part of M'Naughten. Of course, that's not enough without expert analyst testimony.

snipped from McNaughton rule.."it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

Even with expert testimony, the state will show, through circumstantial evidence, that Sam was aware of the nature and quality of his act and that he knew right from wrong. Even if you are acting under a belief that God is telling you what to do, you are still capable of knowing that society think it a wrong and that's the tricky part. And then of course, not matter what the experts say, it is still for the jury to decide to believe them or not ya know?

Andres is right to warn us that although we may not see a huge push for NGRI, Sam's defense attorney is going to use whatever mental problems Sam might have to try and MITIGATE his crime or to lessen the punishment.

After reading more, I think that is the basis for the evaluation and a necessary move by a competent attorney.

 

[tapu]

I wonder if the case could be made that his immersion in horrorcore put him in a mental place where he couldn't distinguish right from wrong when it came to killing. I can even see them using some of the stuff Sam may have done after the murders to show how he was "livin' the dream." The nightmare, whatever.

Just pondering....

 

[ziggy]

I can see that happening...I can see an expert saying that crossed the line between all his horrocore fantasy stuff and reality and that he wasn't able to distinguish between the two.

Still, it would be more for the effort of saving him from the chair/needle than mitigating murder charges imo.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I wonder if the case could be made that his immersion in horrorcore put him in a mental place where he couldn't distinguish right from wrong when it came to killing. I can even see them using some of the stuff Sam may have done after the murders to show how he was "livin' the dream." The nightmare, whatever.

Just pondering....

That would be a fun and interesting defense to try but since this is a possible DP case I would not risk Sam's life trying to pull such a rabbit out of my hat. I personally would not even try an insanity defense in this case but I would put all the experts pertaining to both a 'horrocore delusion' and insanity defense on the stand only for purposes of getting the DP off the table and getting a lighter sentence. I would not put the jury in position where all they have to choose from is NG by reason of insanity or guilty and sentenced to death.


I dont know the material facts/evidence of the case well enough to come up with a real defense strategy at this time, I dont know if the defense is going to come right out and admit that he did commit the murders and then explain his reasons for doing so which would then include the introduction of mental health issues etc or whether they will play their cards close to the chest and never admit to anything and simply make the state prove he did it, which I dont think the State will have a problem doing so it may be better off stipulating right off the bat that yes he did kill them but here is why, this may be the only way to save Sam's life. An acquittal is out of the question unless the state really mishandled things or bungled the investigation to the point of embarrasment and I see no evidence for that.

Playing things too close to the chest and being tight lipped and never admitting to the murders will make Sam appear cold to the jury so I do think the defense is going to have to just admit it and then spend their time putting on a case explaining why he did it, what led to it, his mental health issues and the horrorcore connection etc.

On the other hand, I have been speaking to someone who is in contact with Sam and I am not really at liberty at this point to diclose whats been said, but just from how Sam is acting it almost seems to me that he feels he needed to do this for some reason so we cant dismiss the idea, however far-reaching and remote that something may have went down inside that house that led to this and it was not as simple as Sam losing it and murdering them all for no good reason. It would certianly be hard IMO to argue justifiable homicide here but we dont know what went on in that house. This is all pure speculation on my part and I have no real evidence to suggest this is how Sam feels, it is only a feeling I get from reading the letters he has sent others and hearing of how he his responding to all of this. I very much get the impression that Sam really, really wants to share his side of the story with everyone but simply cant do it at this time and I have to assume that his story will consist of something of more substance and importance than "She pissed me off and I wiped them all out in a fit of rage." I sense he has something to tell us that may make is all rethink everything we have considered up to this point but again that is only my reading of the situation and I may be way off.

There was a very similar case several years ago where a young man had come to meet a girl in a similar manner and went to visit her and her family and upon arriving he had found out that the parents were sexually abusing the girl and the siblings and apparently tried to molest him as well and he was so repulsed by it that he wiped the entire family out including the siblings who simply got caught in the middle of the murder of the mother and father and lost their lives along with them. I recall this case was in Austrialia I believe and the kid did serve some time but it wasnt as much as one would first assume.

There is no reason to believe anything like this played a role in this case but again without knowing all the facts and exactly what went down inside that house and what Sam has to say for himself regarding why he feels this had to happen, we really do not have much to go on.

I will say this much, from day one until now I have been unable, no matter how hard I try, to see Sam as a cold blooded killer and I still think there is more to this case than meets the eye and we are all going to be in for some very interesting twists and turns along the way once the trial starts and I am pretty sure at this point that there will be a trial and this will not be plead out.

 

[AndresEscobar]

Another question for the lawyers...

Jury selection.

Are the defense attorneys going to be able to question potential jurors about their religious beliefs? To what extent can they keep practicing Christians off of the jury? Because certainly some potential jurors might find McCroskey's statement and his music (Burning Churches) fairly offensive.

Well, during Voir Dire they can ask questions and strike jurors. More importantly, though, Sam's music will be limited if not completely barred from the trial. I really don't see any probative value to playing "Burning Churches" in the court room besides to prejudice the jury.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

it takes away it's power. The gay community is another good example. They take words like "Queer" and use them as way of empowering themselves instead of degrading themselves. With regard to women, there's a book entitled C*** (pejorative for women, and a womans vagina) that discusses the etymology and history of that pejorative, and how it shouldn't be such a negative word.

ETA: while Oprah might think its wrong, and I certainly respect Oprah, I don't necessarily think everything she says is right.

No one has ever called me the "c" word, not to my face anyway. If they did, I would disassociate myself from them immediately. I've been called a "b" a couple of times. Doesn't carry the same weight and may have been warranted.:crazy: Thanks for the example though; I stand with Oprah. I don't think we should degrade ourselves or one another. Gain power by elevating behavior not joining the ignorant. imo.

Adding - now I'm curious as to why the "c" word is so derogatory. In the Army they used to wear a cap know as an overseas cap. The nickname for it was the "c" cap.

 

[dangrsmind]

Well, during Voir Dire they can ask questions and strike jurors. More importantly, though, Sam's music will be limited if not completely barred from the trial. I really don't see any probative value to playing "Burning Churches" in the court room besides to prejudice the jury.

It sounds like you think the defense can introduce some of his music but exclude the rest. Could they play The Voices but block Burning Churches and Murderous Rage?

 

[dangrsmind]

That would be a fun and interesting defense to try but since this is a possible DP case I would not risk Sam's life trying to pull such a rabbit out of my hat. I personally would not even try an insanity defense in this case but I would put all the experts pertaining to both a 'horrocore delusion' and insanity defense on the stand only for purposes of getting the DP off the table and getting a lighter sentence. I would not put the jury in position where all they have to choose from is NG by reason of insanity or guilty and sentenced to death.


I dont know the material facts/evidence of the case well enough to come up with a real defense strategy at this time, I dont know if the defense is going to come right out and admit that he did commit the murders and then explain his reasons for doing so which would then include the introduction of mental health issues etc or whether they will play their cards close to the chest and never admit to anything and simply make the state prove he did it, which I dont think the State will have a problem doing so it may be better off stipulating right off the bat that yes he did kill them but here is why, this may be the only way to save Sam's life. An acquittal is out of the question unless the state really mishandled things or bungled the investigation to the point of embarrasment and I see no evidence for that.

Playing things too close to the chest and being tight lipped and never admitting to the murders will make Sam appear cold to the jury so I do think the defense is going to have to just admit it and then spend their time putting on a case explaining why he did it, what led to it, his mental health issues and the horrorcore connection etc.

On the other hand, I have been speaking to someone who is in contact with Sam and I am not really at liberty at this point to diclose whats been said, but just from how Sam is acting it almost seems to me that he feels he needed to do this for some reason so we cant dismiss the idea, however far-reaching and remote that something may have went down inside that house that led to this and it was not as simple as Sam losing it and murdering them all for no good reason. It would certianly be hard IMO to argue justifiable homicide here but we dont know what went on in that house. This is all pure speculation on my part and I have no real evidence to suggest this is how Sam feels, it is only a feeling I get from reading the letters he has sent others and hearing of how he his responding to all of this. I very much get the impression that Sam really, really wants to share his side of the story with everyone but simply cant do it at this time and I have to assume that his story will consist of something of more substance and importance than "She pissed me off and I wiped them all out in a fit of rage." I sense he has something to tell us that may make is all rethink everything we have considered up to this point but again that is only my reading of the situation and I may be way off.

There was a very similar case several years ago where a young man had come to meet a girl in a similar manner and went to visit her and her family and upon arriving he had found out that the parents were sexually abusing the girl and the siblings and apparently tried to molest him as well and he was so repulsed by it that he wiped the entire family out including the siblings who simply got caught in the middle of the murder of the mother and father and lost their lives along with them. I recall this case was in Austrialia I believe and the kid did serve some time but it wasnt as much as one would first assume.

There is no reason to believe anything like this played a role in this case but again without knowing all the facts and exactly what went down inside that house and what Sam has to say for himself regarding why he feels this had to happen, we really do not have much to go on.

I will say this much, from day one until now I have been unable, no matter how hard I try, to see Sam as a cold blooded killer and I still think there is more to this case than meets the eye and we are all going to be in for some very interesting twists and turns along the way once the trial starts and I am pretty sure at this point that there will be a trial and this will not be plead out.

Are you saying he's going to argue self defense? Because I'm not seeing it...

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Another question for the lawyers...

Jury selection.

Are the defense attorneys going to be able to question potential jurors about their religious beliefs? To what extent can they keep practicing Christians off of the jury? Because certainly some potential jurors might find McCroskey's statement and his music (Burning Churches) fairly offensive.

You don't find 'Burning Churches" offensive? How about burning "Temples", burning "Mosques", burning "Gay Bars", burning "Schools", burning crowded "theaters"; are those offensive?

In other words, people who are of different ideologies usually don't approve of burning anything.

Also I think SM's hobby will work against him in any case. Even if he has a mental illness the fact that he spent his time feeding his mind with destructive messages and writing horror filled lyrics will in and of itself work against him no matter what his defense is. imo.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I wonder if the case could be made that his immersion in horrorcore put him in a mental place where he couldn't distinguish right from wrong when it came to killing. I can even see them using some of the stuff Sam may have done after the murders to show how he was "livin' the dream." The nightmare, whatever.

Just pondering....

Then the Defense will be doing exactly what the horrorcore participants don't want them to do. They claim that even though they say, sing and preach those things, that those things are not who they are. :waitasec: They claim they talk about those things but would not actually do those things in real life. :waitasec: So the Prosecution will line up a bunch of them to tell the jury how that can never happen (of course it can but the horrorcore peeps I listened to don't want people to think that they really would do those things). Aren't they angry at SM for bringing this 'negative' attention their way? Did I misinterpret that? I'm not familiar with the Sinktanic guy. Who is he?

 

[AndresEscobar]

It sounds like you think the defense can introduce some of his music but exclude the rest. Could they play The Voices but block Burning Churches and Murderous Rage?

What they could do is introduce specific lyrics from the songs, if they wanted. I don't really see a need to. I wouldn't introduce any of the songs because their quality and subject matter aren't going to help him. Furthermore, portraying him as a "rapper" is not a point I would hammer home.

 

[AndresEscobar]

Then the Defense will be doing exactly what the horrorcore participants don't want them to do. They claim that even though they say, sing and preach those things, that those things are not who they are. :waitasec: They claim they talk about those things but would not actually do those things in real life. :waitasec: So the Prosecution will line up a bunch of them to tell the jury how that can never happen.

I don't really think horrorcore rappers are going to be that great of witnesses for the prosecution. First of all, they're not very compelling, believable, or sympathetic characters. Secondly, there is a strong "anti-snitching" ideal held in most rap communities. It would be career suicide for the horrorcore rappers.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Are you saying he's going to argue self defense? Because I'm not seeing it...

Oh no, not at all, I just somehow get the feeling that Sam has something to say about this and I sure wonder what the hell it is.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I don't really think horrorcore rappers are going to be that great of witnesses for the prosecution. First of all, they're not very compelling, believable, or sympathetic characters. Secondly, there is a strong "anti-snitching" ideal held in most rap communities. It would be career suicide for the horrorcore rappers.

True, just ask Snitchtanick himself.

 

[PAXIMUS]

What they could do is introduce specific lyrics from the songs, if they wanted. I don't really see a need to. I wouldn't introduce any of the songs because their quality and subject matter aren't going to help him. Furthermore, portraying him as a "rapper" is not a point I would hammer home.

Sam is a rapper in the same way I am an aspiring NFL quarterback.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The most notable example of this is the gay community. They use all of the negative terms others have used for them as positives within their own community. Every year for the San Francisco gay pride parade a large pink triangle is placed on Twin peaks in San Francisco. The pink triangle was used by the Nazis to identify gay prisoners in concentration camps.

An example to learn from IMO.

I don't think my cousin would go for that. He's a high Art artist, teacher and his works are displayed in prominant places. He conducts himself in the world as a gentleman. He's been out since way before most people (he's past sixty), has had the same partner since college and is wealthy in education, vocation and basically is a busy person who does positive things with his life. He's never had to go on the bandwagon to promote gayness. He's lived his truth and, frankly, we don't discuss it but there's no secret. He's never made himself the poster boy for gay people. He's proud of who he is (or should be) but not based on that he's gay. He just is. It's not the focal point of his public life.
I admire him so much.