GUILTY NC - Kathy Taft, 62, Raleigh, 6 March 2010 - #6

New Posts

gracielee said:
I think there will be a verdict in the JW case tomorrow. JMO but after the testimony of Dr. Nicole Wolfe, I feel pretty good about predicting a 'guilty' of first degree murder.
Click to expand...

I hope and pray the jury paid as much attention to Dr. Wolfe as we did. She was absolutely one of the best prosecution witnesses ever and if I am ever on trial for anything I want her on my side!
Do the jurors know that JW has already pleaded guilty this? I am so darn confused with this case, the JE ongoing mess this afternoon, phone calls, and then a man was here trying to sell me replacement windows. My brain has filled up. Do do they know he has made an open plea of guilty? Did he do it in front of them when the trial began?
 
NCEast said:
I hope and pray the jury paid as much attention to Dr. Wolfe as we did. She was absolutely one of the best prosecution witnesses ever and if I am ever on trial for anything I want her on my side!
Do the jurors know that JW has already pleaded guilty this? I am so darn confused with this case, the JE ongoing mess this afternoon, phone calls, and then a man was here trying to sell me replacement windows. My brain has filled up. Do do they know he has made an open plea of guilty? Did he do it in front of them when the trial began?
Click to expand...

It would be my opinion that the jurors know he's guilty of the crimes because his attorney conceded that 'he did it', 'he simply was out of his mind and couldn't plan or control what happened'.
 
seattlechiquita said:
What do you mean a plea? He pled not guilty to the charges, right?
Click to expand...

I think he plead guilty as soon as the trial began.
But the degree of the offenses were what the trial was all about. The state had to prove the degree--1st vs 2nd, etc. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
NCEast said:
I think he plead guilty as soon as the trial began.
But the degree of the offenses were what the trial was all about. The state had to prove the degree--1st vs 2nd, etc. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

wtf? No way :what: how did I miss this?
 
Not Guilty due to Diminished Mental Capacity is the plea (not "out of his mind" or as it's known, "insane"). His lawyers concede he did the actions but they are saying he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't have the mental capacity to form the necessary intent. He did not plead "guilty" in the way it's being thought of. If he had, there wouldn't have been a jury trial.

That was the whole point of the psychologist / psychiatrist faceoff. Defense side says he didn't form intent because he was diminished (due to alcohol, drugs, mental illness). State side (Dr. Wolfe) says he was able to form intent and whatever his level of inebriation that night and whatever other mental issues he had, he was neither "insane," nor "diminished enough" in his capacity to form intent and carry out a plan.

Remember Saacks said in his closing that this case comes down to the degree of his impairment. Saacks said the state doesn't disagree that JW was intoxicated and high on whatever, but that doesn't mean he had diminished capacity to form intent. Then Saacks listed examples of all the ways JW did form intent and did carry out a plan, even though his planning may have been only mere minutes long.
 
seattlechiquita said:
wtf? No way :what: how did I miss this?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, between migraines and too many phone calls and drop-in company, compiled with the Edwards verdict (most of us watching this JW trial are in NC where the JE trial was also held),,,,,my brain has filled up and just can't hold any more. So I may be wrong but I think he openly pleaded guilty early on and it was up to the state to prove intent and degree on the rape and murder charges. Born and Mad will get it straightened out as soon as they show up again.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Diminished Mental Capacity is the plea (not "out of his mind"). So it means he did the crime but they are saying he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't have the mental capacity to form intent for the charges. He did not plead "guilty" in the way it's being thought of. If he had, there wouldn't have been a jury trial.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mad74.
I am definitely in diminished capacity mode at this very moment.
 
Madeleine74 said:
No verdict today. They'll spend the first 30 min to 50 min decompressing and sharing feelings because they haven't been able to do that with anyone. Maybe they'll spend all the way until 5pm doing that. Then they have to read through all the charges and the law. That will take at least an hour. Then start discussing it. Might debate some things. I think the 2nd degree vs. 1st degree is where there will be the biggest discussion. Also on the matter of did he go into the house intending to commit a rape. That's a sticky one. I'd have to discuss that one myself because I don't know. He intended it once he walked into the BR, but upon breaking into the home was that the intent? Not sure.

Probably a verdict by end of day tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points, Madeleine -- I was going to post that they may let him slide on the 1st Burglary due to the "for the purpose of rape" part. But to counter that, IF he really went upstairs first, Saacks may be right -- bedrooms up there. If, OTOH, he had been there before, maybe JG had some kind of stash up there, and something spooked him. :waitasec: Either way on the burglary per se, the penalty even for 1st is potato-lets.

I don't see how they can get around the rape, and there is no "2nd" for that one. And then the felony rule kicks in for the Big One.

Dum de dum dum, dummmmmmmm. For those of us who remember, even vaguely, Sgt. Joe Friday and Dragnet, and No, kids, Sgt. Friday was not a transvestite.... remember, that was JW.
icon10.gif


Verdict on Monday by or before lunch time.
 
borndem said:
Gee Whillakers, Beav, what a big surprise. Doh.
Click to expand...

I'm dying to find out what the make up of the jury was in that trial. If anybody knows, or finds out, please let me know privately. It could not have been a jury of his peers as it were.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Not Guilty due to Diminished Mental Capacity is the plea (not "out of his mind" or as it's known, "insane"). His lawyers concede he did the actions but they are saying he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't have the mental capacity to form the necessary intent. He did not plead "guilty" in the way it's being thought of. If he had, there wouldn't have been a jury trial.

That was the whole point of the psychologist / psychiatrist faceoff. Defense side says he didn't form intent because he was diminished (due to alcohol, drugs, mental illness). State side (Dr. Wolfe) says he was able to form intent and whatever his level of inebriation that night and whatever other mental issues he had, he was neither "insane," nor "diminished enough" in his capacity to form intent and carry out a plan.

Remember Saacks said in his closing that this case comes down to the degree of his impairment. Saacks said the state doesn't disagree that JW was intoxicated and high on whatever, but that doesn't mean he had diminished capacity to form intent. Then Saacks listed examples of all the ways JW did form intent and did carry out a plan, even though his planning may have been only mere minutes long.
Click to expand...

Thank you Maddy, you are so right. I shouldn't even try to post when I feel so crappy. While it's me who's 'out of my mind', :please: JW simply was diminished. :banghead:
 
seattlechiquita said:
wtf? No way :what: how did I miss this?
Click to expand...

The plea was Not Guilty. If he had pleaded guilty, we would not have had the trial.

Telling your attys that you did it is not pleading G to 1st Degree Murder, Rape & Burglary.

So here we all are...
icon7.gif
 
gracielee said:
Thank you Maddy, you are so right. I shouldn't even try to post when I feel so crappy. While it's me who's 'out of my mind', :please: JW simply was diminished. :banghead:
Click to expand...

But you were right Glee, even if you are out of your mind :)
 
borndem said:
The plea was Not Guilty. If he had pleaded guilty, we would not have had the trial.

Telling your attys that you did it is not pleading G to 1st Degree Murder, Rape & Burglary.

So here we all are...
icon7.gif
Click to expand...

Well I know that. I'm not quite that diminished ***my red faced icon didn't appear)
But I was thinking he pleaded guilty at the outset.

Oh it did, but in the wrong place. Why is it way up in the left hand corner?????
 
I know, I know....what I was remembering was that he had admitted to raping and murdering KT. But not pleading to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 101 more.
Total: 880 (members: 102, guests: 778)

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
778
Total visitors
880
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,479
Messages
18,048,402
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top