Discussion in 'Cold Cases' started by Doyle, Jan 15, 2004.
I've been waiting for this verdict.
Why not guilty of murder?
I guess what you might not understand, though, is that Richard Tuite used to hang around Downtown, Oceanside, Carlsbad and Escondido. We're talking 30-60 miles from place to place. Not quite wandering in circles, exactly, but going from place to place in the same county, where ever he felt comfortable at the time. Again, a semantics thing. Most of our homeless are considered transient, even though they sleep in the same parking lot every night, and maybe move three block from morning to night.
If your family won't let you sit around the house and watch you do drugs, you are still homeless, wouldn't you say? You don't have a home to sit and do your drugs in. But that is beside the point. He did not live there, did not get a shower there, and while I have no idea if his family gave him money, I can tell you where a lot of homeless people get their drugs (whatever their choice). They panhandle, roll other druggies and homeless, use what is leftover from someone else, etc.
I'm not familiar with the area you live. Does your city have the massive amounts of homeless that Southern California does? Many of the homeless here have families they could go to, but they are mentally ill, and CHOOSE to live on the streets. (definitely not all) They are still considered homeless, by San Diego standards.
P.S. I see what you are saying, and living here, and seeing what I have (five days a week for 10 years a while back) I cannot agree that he was not transient or homeless. From how he chose to live, he was.
A jury of eight women and four men has found former transient Richard Tuite guilty of manslaughter in the 1998 killing of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe of Escondido.
The panel deliberated since May 13 in the Jan. 20, 1998 stabbing death of Crowe following a trial that lasted 3 ½ months.
After first finding Tuite, 35, not guilty of first- and second-degree murder charges, the panel found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter, finding Tuite used a "deadly and dangerous weapon," a knife, to kill the girl.
Actually... at the risk of having tomatoes thrown at me... it was probably a verdict that was as close to justice as this case could ever see. I'm quite sure the jury saw him as mentally ill, and obviously confused about the target of his actions. BUT... the fact remains that he did have a target... Tracy... and had he been correct on the residence his actions would definitely have meant intentional murder of her. But the question of WHY he would kill Tracy, his only true friend that had stood by him, is what can never be answered unless Richard himself accurately remembers and will say.
If he had been correct on the residence that night, and Tracy had been there... would he have killed her? Tracy would have known who he was and known his history of alternate reality. She most likely would have calmed him down and found out his intentions in looking for her. But since he was wrong, and Tracy was actually Stephanie, chances are Stephanie had no idea who he was or why he was there. She may have totally froze... not reacted at all to save herself or question him. In his drugged state he might have felt this was a snub from Tracy and that triggered a rage. Or maybe Stephanie DID react. She might have asked him who the hell he was and told him to get out of her house... even attempted to scream for help from other family members. This reaction also could have caused him to be very hurt, or betrayed, since he thought the girl right there in front of him was his friend, and was now pretending not to know him! She also was acting aggressively by ordering him to leave. With the help of meth, this might have also been enough to turn a "visit" into a murder, because of the rage that would build disproportionately due to the drug's influence.
In any other murder trial where the same circumstances existed, voluntary intoxication would not have qualified as mitigating. But since the jury... (and apparently a good deal of the professional people involved in the case as well)... was under the impression (flawed impression IMO) that Richard Tuite was a victim of the serious mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia, Richard's actions that night could be classified as mitigating, making the charge of manslaughter valid.
I can accept the verdict of voluntary manslaughter. I don't think more than that was proven by the prosecution. The blood on Tuite's shirts was the convicting evidence for me.
I don't think anyone involved with the case contests that Tuite was a transient and that he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. He wasn't convicted because of those facts, though. He was convicted on the blood evidence.
The blood evidence may have been the key to conviction... but it wasn't what separated a manslaughter verdict from a murder verdict.
Transient or not... of course no one could contest that Tuite was previously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. But true paranoid schizophrenics don't get better without anti psychotic medication. But Richard Tuite did! He would have total lucidity where there was no doubt he was in touch with reality without the aid of any anti psychotic medication. His bouts of psychosis and paranoia directly related to his binges of meth amphetamine use. Over time some brain damage would, of course, occur. But that brain damage would not present as paranoia, or loss of reality, consistent with true schizophrenia. Instead it would more resemble Alzheimers.
Mental illness diagnoses are by far the most likely to result in misdiagnosis... especially when the ill person is given this diagnosis in a prison or jail setting. To blindly accept such mass produced diagnoses, would have us to believe that half the prison population suffers from psychosis... when in fact most suffer from personality disorders that are in no way a form of psychosis at all.
Tuite's mental medical history was documented from at least the time he was 20. He was age 34 at this trial, and still suffering from chronic schizophrenia. The prosecution did not contend otherwise.
Dr. Mark Kalish testified on April 8 that based on his analysis of Tuites' extensive medical evaluations between 1994 and 1998 he agreed with the conclusion that Tuite suffers from schizophrenia and organic brain syndrome.
Tuite wasn't just diagnosed at trial for the sake of his defense.
Didn't know where to put this. Is anyone else going to watch the program tonight? This case is so intruiging. Don't throw tomatoes at me but I'm not 100% convinced that Tuit is the perp. (Ducking just in case.) Anyway, you can tell that I have no life-no boyfriend-no husband to be staying home on a Saturday night. :boohoo:
Nevermind. He's guilty. :loser: :loser: :loser: Anyway, Stephanie seemed like such a sweetie. Thank God she got her justice.
What convinced you?
The police really botched the interrogation of those three boys, any defender worth his salt could have gotten that case thrown out based on those interviews. It seems that the transient did do it, but I can't help but think he would have more blood on his clothes from the violent nature of the crime. That just doesn't add up that he would have only a few specks of blood here and there, however, they were her blood spots. I don't buy his defenses theory that the blood was transposed there from the tripod of a camera, thats nuts. This is a strange case, that even though has been closed, still has some questions. IF I were on that jury I think I would have had some doubts, but I believe for now they got there man. THe first prosecuting attorney who went after the three boys seemed overwhelmed by the case in my opinion. The lady who represented the boys seemed to be a really crafty and smart lawyer. Very passionate about her work. If i were on trial I would want her defending me!
Filed January 14, 2010.
THOMAS, Circuit Judge.
This civil rights case arose from the investigation and prosecution of innocent teenagers for a crime they did not commit. Michael Crowe, Aaron Houser, and Joshua Treadway were wrongfully accused of the murder of Michael's 12-year-old sister Stephanie Crowe. After hours of grueling, psychologically abusive interrogationduring which the boys were isolated from their families and had no access to lawyersthe boys were indicted on murder charges and pre-trial proceedings commenced.
A year later, DNA testing revealed Stephanie's blood on the shirt of a transient, Richard Tuite, who had been seen in the Crowes' neighborhood on the night of the murder and reported by several neighbors for strange and harassing behavior. The shirt had been collected as part of the initial investigation, but never fully tested. Charges against the boys were eventually dropped, and Tuite was convicted of Stephanie's murder.
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to: (1) Michael and Aaron's Fifth Amendment claims; (2) Michael and Aaron's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims; (3) Michael's Fourth Amendment claim that police lacked probable cause to arrest him; (4) Aaron's Fourth Amendment claim that the warrant authorizing the search of his home was not supported by sufficient probable cause; (5) all otherwise surviving Fourth Amendment claims against McDonough; (6) all otherwise surviving claims against Blum; (7) the Crowes' deprivation of familial companionship claim based on Michael's arrest; and (8) all otherwise surviving claims against the Cities of Escondido and Oceanside. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as to: (1) Aaron's Fourth Amendment claim that police lacked probable cause to arrest him; (2) Michael's claim that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching him; (3) the Houser's deprivation of familial companionship claim; (4) Michael and Aaron's defamation claims against Stephan; (5) and Aaron's defamation claim against Blum. Additionally, we affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment as to: (1) Cheryl, Stephen, and Shannon Crowes' claims that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching them; (2) Cheryl and Stephen's Fourth Amendment claims that the warrant authorizing police to draw blood samples were not supported by probable cause; (3) Cheryl and Stephen's Fourth Amendment claims of wrongful detention; and (4) the Crowe's deprivation of familial companionship claims based on the placement of Michael and Shannon in protective custody. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Full opinion: click here
I remember watching a made for TV show about this case. The way that Michael was treated was horrible. I remember the other boys being accused but don't remembr them being a big part of the show. I guess they focused on Michael and his family.
I'm glad that his parents are bringing this suit against the people who abused the law by keeping that boy in that room for hours on end until he could barely focus. I remember his parents wondering what was going on but no one would take them to their son. It really was horrible. Sometimes money is the only way that changes are made. LE should never be able to do what they did to Michael or to anyone else...adult or child. They do it all of the time though. I think some LE get carried away with the power that they hold.
I hope those detectives got fired but I doubt that happened.
SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A transient whose conviction in the killing of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe was reversed by a federal appeals court will be retried on a voluntary manslaughter charge, a prosecutor told a judge Wednesday.
Richard Tuite, 43, had been serving a 17-year prison sentence when the appeals court last year reversed his 2004 manslaughter conviction, ruling the trial was unfair because a judge limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
Thank you, Sharyne. I knew about the boys' coerced "confessions", but I had no idea the legal history of this case had continued to be so convoluted.
Anybody else remember what was found in the family attic?
No. Do you?
I was under the impression from TV shows that the prosecution had a slam-dunk case against the transient. Now I read that his blood-spattered T-shirt (the slam dunk) was improperly stored with other blood-stained items from the crime scene.
And the jury in his trial couldn't even agree to convict him for murder, settling for a "compromise" verdict of manslaughter instead.
What a mess!
I have made all my sons watch the "Interogation of Michael Crowe" . I am very PRO victim, but NOT at the expense of innocent persons being coerced into false confessions.
This is my "go to" case for why innocent persons should ALL invoke their right to a lawyer.
Refresh my memory?