2015.12.29 Discovery Docs - Batch 2

[IM4TRUTH]

Loss. Denial. Low self esteem. A rough childhood. Those are all factors (with some crimes) that can be considered when being tried for the crime. Additionally, these are factors that can mitigate sentencing for some crimes. They don't make it acceptable that you broke the law, particularly when we are talking about a murder. We aren't talking about an accessory after the fact to shoplifting. We are talking about an accessory after the fact to murder.

I like you AmazonRain! I think I have agreed with everything you have posted on this case. I like the way you continue to fight for your friend.

 

[Deleted member 159541]

I didn't say I didn't agree with you. My point was people with these issues don't see the factors as issues.

No worries ;-) My response wasn't based on whether or not you agreed it was based on my opinion after reading multiple posts about AW having what could be seen as mitigating circumstances. I respect everyone's opinion.

 

[Deleted member 159541]

I like you AmazonRain! I think I have agreed with everything you have posted on this case. I like the way you continue to fight for your friend.

Thank you. I hope people understand these are my opinions. When I know something as fact I try to indicate that but otherwise, just my opinion like everyone else. And yes, I will fight for my friend until this nightmare is over - which will only be when all those involved are convicted. Teresa had a ton of empathy for the disenfranchised - but she also called bullsh*** when she felt it was present. That is why so many referred to her as unfiltered or blunt. I just wish she knew sooner that the biggest bullsh*** artist in her life was the person she trusted most in her home. That tells you how good he is/was at the facade - I'm telling you, he is really, really good at it. Had I not witnessed certain things personally and only dealt with him and them on a superficial level I might have thought he was devoted to her unconditionally as well.

 

[human]

I am watching a pair of con artists work on an older couple. If anyone did not know the back story of this con married couple, they would think they are the most loving and considerate of people.

Now we are watching that perhaps the guy of the con couple is going to ditch his wife and go by himself to get the older woman, Hubby and I watch in morbid fascination knowing that this couple would not believe a word we said about what is going on.

The older woman is very vulnerable as her hubby of many years treats her with little respect. Spider buiidng the web

Cons ensare their victims in a cocoon of "love".

I think if somone could have sat on the outside and watched the cons go down, they would be imoressed and smoothe they are. This can't be MS's first rodeo, He is way to good at it.

I wonder what his past was in the world of shmooze. Maybe some LPN clients ?

 

[FelicityLemon]

My view on people like AW: their circumstances life history (tragedies, etc.) only help me understand (not excuse) why they might do what they do or why they might be more susceptible to bad, immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but it absolutely doesn't excuse or absolve them of their actions in the least.

TSho knew what had to be done. She seems like a strong person by herself, as opposed to AW's desperation for a man. I could be totally wrong, eh.

 

[DaleTray]

Extremely respectfully, it takes two and she was the one who was pregnant :/

In no way does that diminish his creepiness, but if she was offering, only a creepy guy would say yes.

Please, no offense or disrespect intended.

raying:

Many men just felt offended (smiling)

 

[FelicityLemon]

Many men just felt offended (smiling)

:silly:


OMG - I JUST got that! :laughing:

 

[Bobbywoo]

My view on people like AW: their circumstances life history (tragedies, etc.) only help me understand (not excuse) why they might do what they do or why they might be more susceptible to bad, immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but it absolutely doesn't excuse or absolve them of their actions in the least.

TSho knew what had to be done. She seems like a strong person by herself, as opposed to AW's desperation for a man. I could be totally wrong, eh.

Absolutely! And there are certain people that sniff out the "broken" and take advantage of them. It's a sad dance to watch.

 

[Bobbywoo]

<modsnip> Believe me, there is so much more I want to say, but to do it, would reveal my identity. I have been thinking very hard about doing it. I will finish by saying Amazon Rain has this pegged very well. AW is not the only one in her family that behaves in this manner. There are more than 2 unsolved/unpunished crimes tied directly to these people. When the heat really gets on, she will hide behind a wall of "mental illness." Believe me, they know how to protect the perps.

I appreciate you insight but it scares me that you are thinking of revealing you identity. If It was my decision, I would wait until during or after the trial. I'm a scaredy cat! Hopefully you have shared your knowledge with LE. Just be safe!!!

 

[creepingskills]

Loss. Denial. Low self esteem. A rough childhood. Those are all factors (with some crimes) that can be considered when being tried for the crime. Additionally, these are factors that can mitigate sentencing for some crimes. They don't make it acceptable that you broke the law, particularly when we are talking about a murder. We aren't talking about an accessory after the fact to shoplifting. We are talking about an accessory after the fact to murder.

AmazonRain, morally ITA, support your outrage and everyone else who feels the same way. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but IMO it is important to point out the FL statute exempts AW from being charged as an accessory after the fact. I'm only continuing this discussion because 1. I think the statute is relevant, 2. statutory exemption may explain why LE has not charged, and (most importantly) 3. I want to provide the legal context for my opinion.

Immunity provision of Fla. Statute § 777.03:
"Accessory after the fact &#8212; Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding seven years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars."

"with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment" IMO even if AW wasn't married to CWW and thus exempted under the FL statute, a prosecutor wouldn't charge where the facts show AW cooperated with LE without counsel (no legal obligation to speak with LE) and despite denying knowledge (not a crime), she did not give false statements to LE. Also, CWW told Tshomaker to get a restraining order against LE. I'm assuming he said something similar to his wife, but AW still voluntarily spoke with LE.

More FL specific legalese:

"[under the peculiar wording of the Florida Statute] to charge one as an accessory after the fact, it is incumbent upon the State to establish by its evidence that the defendant is not within the prohibited relationship outlined in the Statute" https://casetext.com/case/brooks-v-state-228

"In upholding Florida&#8217;s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized &#8220;society&#8217;s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures&#8221; and applauded the legislature&#8217;s decision to &#8220;confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.&#8221;:scared:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T... after the fact murder florida spouse&f=false

MO may have different rules, and I don't know if those rules would apply because AW was in MO, or rather the FL statute applies because the act occurred in FL...but my brain hurts. AZLawyer, your wisdom would be greatly appreciated.lease:

LASTLY (I promise) I sincerely apologize if this post is way too much detail, and I've wasted anyone's time.

 

[Timekeeper65]

I didn't say I didn't agree with you. My point was people with these issues don't see the factors as issues.

It is very unfortunate but true, Oregonmama.

I have known personally more than one person who chose wrong, even in the face of losing a child. It is easier to talk to a brick wall, than to talk those who don't want to see the light of day. I don't understand, and going on 60 years old, I reckon I never will.

Wouldn't this world be wonderful if we all treated others, like we would want to be treated?

 

[Timekeeper65]

:lol:

Many men just felt offended (smiling)

Please DaleTray don't leave.

I like your weak attempts at humor. :blushing:

Sometimes we need to smile, in the midst of what is going on here.

 

[Timekeeper65]

Well I am on the roll tonight. Creepingskills, thanks for ALL that info.

 

[FelicityLemon]

AmazonRain, morally ITA, support your outrage and everyone else who feels the same way. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but IMO it is important to point out the FL statute exempts AW from being charged as an accessory after the fact. I'm only continuing this discussion because 1. I think the statute is relevant, 2. statutory exemption may explain why LE has not charged, and (most importantly) 3. I want to provide the legal context for my opinion.

Immunity provision of Fla. Statute § 777.03:
"Accessory after the fact — Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding seven years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars."

"with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment" IMO even if AW wasn't married to CWW and thus exempted under the FL statute, a prosecutor wouldn't charge where the facts show AW cooperated with LE without counsel (no legal obligation to speak with LE) and despite denying knowledge (not a crime), she did not give false statements to LE. Also, CWW told Tshomaker to get a restraining order against LE. I'm assuming he said something similar to his wife, but AW still voluntarily spoke with LE.

More FL specific legalese:

"[under the peculiar wording of the Florida Statute] to charge one as an accessory after the fact, it is incumbent upon the State to establish by its evidence that the defendant is not within the prohibited relationship outlined in the Statute" https://casetext.com/case/brooks-v-state-228

"In upholding Florida’s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized “society’s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures” and applauded the legislature’s decision to “confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.”:scared:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T... after the fact murder florida spouse&f=false

MO may have different rules, and I don't know if those rules would apply because AW was in MO, or rather the FL statute applies because the act occurred in FL...but my brain hurts. AZLawyer, your wisdom would be greatly appreciated.lease:

LASTLY (I promise) I sincerely apologize if this post is way too much detail, and I've wasted anyone's time.

NEVER too much detail from you! :loveyou: Total respect and feeling like a sponge learning from your posts!

I will say that no matter how often and how hard AW swears 'til she's blue in the face that her husband never left the state - he's on video in Florida and she can't say he isn't. Ta daaaaaa! With denial like that, I really feel for her Mom trying to get her to see the light.

 

[Zuri]

I just listened to the AW interview and was surprised at how young she sounded. I got the impression that she is not exactly the most sophisticated person in the world.

Do you all think she recognizes what kind of trouble she could be in lying to LE or not being forthcoming? She gave a lot of denials or didn't knows in her answers.

I found it interesting that the detective thought CWW was respectful and smart and that MS was silly and immature almost. Was that an interrogation technique or was he being truthful?

 

[SeesSeas]

I referenced this statute a few days ago re &#8216;accessory after the fact&#8217;.

According to FL Statute 777.03(1)(a) and (c):
The family immunity provision only applies if the offender has committed a third degree felony.
There doesn&#8217;t appear to be family immunity when the crime of the offender is a &#8220;capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony&#8221;.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0777/Sections/0777.03.html

The 2015 Florida Statutes
777.03&#8195;Accessory after the fact.&#8212;

(1)(a)&#8195;Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(c)&#8195;Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

^^ emphasis by me

AmazonRain, morally ITA, support your outrage and everyone else who feels the same way. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but IMO it is important to point out the FL statute exempts AW from being charged as an accessory after the fact. I'm only continuing this discussion because 1. I think the statute is relevant, 2. statutory exemption may explain why LE has not charged, and (most importantly) 3. I want to provide the legal context for my opinion.

Immunity provision of Fla. Statute § 777.03:
"Accessory after the fact &#8212; Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding seven years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars."

"with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment" IMO even if AW wasn't married to CWW and thus exempted under the FL statute, a prosecutor wouldn't charge where the facts show AW cooperated with LE without counsel (no legal obligation to speak with LE) and despite denying knowledge (not a crime), she did not give false statements to LE. Also, CWW told Tshomaker to get a restraining order against LE. I'm assuming he said something similar to his wife, but AW still voluntarily spoke with LE.

More FL specific legalese:

"[under the peculiar wording of the Florida Statute] to charge one as an accessory after the fact, it is incumbent upon the State to establish by its evidence that the defendant is not within the prohibited relationship outlined in the Statute" https://casetext.com/case/brooks-v-state-228

"In upholding Florida&#8217;s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized &#8220;society&#8217;s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures&#8221; and applauded the legislature&#8217;s decision to &#8220;confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.&#8221;:scared:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T... after the fact murder florida spouse&f=false

MO may have different rules, and I don't know if those rules would apply because AW was in MO, or rather the FL statute applies because the act occurred in FL...but my brain hurts. AZLawyer, your wisdom would be greatly appreciated.lease:

LASTLY (I promise) I sincerely apologize if this post is way too much detail, and I've wasted anyone's time.

 

[Zuri]

I referenced this statute a few days ago re &#8216;accessory after the fact&#8217;.

According to FL Statute 777.03(1)(a) and (c):
The family immunity provision only applies if the offender has committed a third degree felony.
There doesn&#8217;t appear to be family immunity when the crime of the offender is a &#8220;capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony&#8221;.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0777/Sections/0777.03.html

The 2015 Florida Statutes
777.03&#8195;Accessory after the fact.&#8212;

(1)(a)&#8195;Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(c)&#8195;Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

^^ emphasis by me

Wow!
So AW could be charged by FL LE under FL law. I don't know why but I thought it would be under MO law. Thank you for clarifying this!

 

[creepingskills]

I just listened to the AW interview and was surprised at how young she sounded. I got the impression that she is not exactly the most sophisticated person in the world.

Do you all think she recognizes what kind of trouble she could be in lying to LE or not being forthcoming? She gave a lot of denials or didn't knows in her answers.

I found it interesting that the detective thought CWW was respectful and smart and that MS was silly and immature almost. Was that an interrogation technique or was he being truthful?

BBM. JMO, both. Definitely an investigative technique to elicit statements about MS's character from AW, however, I think the detective truly believed that MS was the more immature one of the two. IIRC the detective references "talking with other people" as the context for his belief. When I watched FP's interview where he talks about MS making comments about women in the office, I jumped to the conclusion that FP was one of the "other people".

And just my two cents, I'd categorize MS as more inappropriate than immature. The detective also mentions CWW being "more respectful".

 

[creepingskills]

Wow!
So AW could be charged by FL LE under FL law. I don't know why but I thought it would be under MO law. Thank you for clarifying this!

Assuming there is no spousal exception (and I think its clear that there is), I would guess FL LE would be the ones to charge if AW gave false information to FL LE, in a FL investigation. I did ask AZLawyer for help because I've convinced myself both ways, IOW I'm not sure if it would be MO or FL. I'm sorry, definitely not clarifying at all, I know!:facepalm:

 

[SeesSeas]

Wow!
So AW could be charged by FL LE under FL law. I don't know why but I thought it would be under MO law. Thank you for clarifying this!

Well, I didn&#8217;t say that &#8220;AW could be charged by FL LE under FL law&#8221;, but I presume that&#8217;s who would charge her IF she was ever charged with anything.

I doubt she will ever be charged with anything in relation to this crime.

She could have committed perjury or obstruction, although I don&#8217;t know if she in fact did lie to LE or obstruct the investigation.

I feel strongly that AW did NOT commit &#8216;accessory after the fact&#8217; because I think she was not &#8220;knowing that the offender had committed a crime.&#8220;

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0777/Sections/0777.03.html
The 2015 Florida Statutes
777.03&#8195;Accessory after the fact.&#8212;
(1)(c)&#8195;Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.