Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean caught!!

[raisincharlie]

http://www.enctoday.com/news/laurean-64680-jdn-court-murder.html


"Mr. Laurean pleads not guilty," Laurean's attorney Dick McNeil told the court. Laurean remained silent throughout the brief hearing Monday afternoon.
Both parties in the case agreed on a July 20 pre-trial conference where motions and a tentative trial date will be set.
March 15, 2010, was suggested by the prosecution for the beginning of the trial. McNeil said he is still collecting evidence through trial discovery and had a lot of work to do, but he should be ready by then.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

What you say makes the most sense to me, my bolding of a particular point I like. It doesn't make sense that he would kill her if he knew for sure that he wasn't the father. It just doesn't. It's obviously not impossible, but this seems to be a killing with rage or at the very least a certain brutalness to it--an emotional aspect to it, at least to me. If he knew for sure he wasn't the father, aka never had any contact with her, why kill her? Why kill her while she was pregnant? Eventually the story would come out, stuff would blow over, a test would take place and prove he wasn't the father.....eventually, at some point, life would go on. Even if he had a murderous rage, why take it out on a child? Unless he had a vested interest, aka he thought there was a chance he was the father.

Most pregnant women that are killed are killed by someone close to them, almost always a husband, a boyfriend, a former lover. Unless the rape accusation was true, or if they did have consensual contact, then IMO he thought there was a darn good chance that baby was his, his house of lies would fall, stuff would really hit the fan, and he had to get rid of it. This really is the most "logical" to me in my opinion.

I really don't think murder ever makes much sense and this one certainly has many twists and turns. Even DA Hudson said as much.

For Hudson to put forth that theory to the jury he has to have a good faith basis for doing so. I just do not see how he is going to prove to that jury that Laurean "thought" the child was his. Everything that we know speaks to the opposite. At the very first of the rape allegation he offered to take a LDT and he stated he had had no sexual contact with Maria. That was over a year and a half ago. Still to this day with Gabriel belonging to a mysterious Mr. Whomever it reinforces his statement he first made.

I don't really know what happened in this very puzzling case. It is one of the most intriguing I have kept up with in the last few years. There are so many things that are mind boggling in this case and it is those unknowns I hope we learn.

Why would an accuser go to the home of the man she had accused of rape? Why go there twice? Why go there at all? She wasn't kidnapped or they would have tacked on those charges also. I have racked my brain trying to think of one other case where an accuser went to the house of their alleged rapist willingly. I can't think of one other one.

I do think the unknown father will become relevant in this case. Did CL know he was a scapegoat for the real father? Does he know who the father really is? Why would a man not claim is own child? The only logical reason to me is this man is very much married and possibly as Mary Lauterbach said her daughter told her he was a superior officer. It is even written on the missing person report from the local police "incident with a superior officer" (paraphrasing)

So I really don't know what happened. He may have had such anger against her because she had falsely accused him.... ruining his career and hurting his marriage but he didnt make her come there. So it still does not explain why Lauterbach would come to his own home in the first place knowing he was all alone there. She had to travel miles in her own vehicle to go to his home. That part is what is totally illogical.

imo

 

[panthera]

http://www.enctoday.com/news/laurean-64680-jdn-court-murder.html


"Mr. Laurean pleads not guilty," Laurean's attorney Dick McNeil told the court. Laurean remained silent throughout the brief hearing Monday afternoon.
Both parties in the case agreed on a July 20 pre-trial conference where motions and a tentative trial date will be set.
March 15, 2010, was suggested by the prosecution for the beginning of the trial. McNeil said he is still collecting evidence through trial discovery and had a lot of work to do, but he should be ready by then.

Thanks so much for the update! I've been following another case right now and completely forgot about his court appearance today. At least it doesn't appear the defense is trying to stall and delay the trial. That's a good sign! MOO

 

[LaLaw2000]

March 15, 2010 seems so far away. At least there will be pre-trial hearing in July.

I think of Maria and little Gabriel often and simply cannot wait to see justice for them although it will never be enough because it cannot bring them back.