GUILTY Ca - Shauna Haynes, 21, Found In Suitcase, San Diego, 6 April 2016 *arrest*

[Steleheart]

MOO, Things I find extremely sad as I look at their FB sites. :sigh:
- She had a bad day, but thanked God for JP a month before he killed her.
- She has about 180 friends and JP is still on there as one of them.
- In reality, Shauna had tons of friends and co-workers who loved her.
- He still has about 800 friends. These must be people who don't read the news.
- One of his friends is Shauna.
- She trusted him, mentioned him on her FB, and seemed to think he was her cool friend.
- He wanted a story book love, and was looking for it by picking up women in clubs.
- From the news, he apparently had several "love" encounters with unconscious women.

We don't know if any of those women are still alive AFAIK

 

[mrsobrien]

Following, but pretty disturbed. Not much to say yet. Just wtf...

 

[Curious Me]

Following, but pretty disturbed. Not much to say yet. Just wtf...

:wave: There you are! I was wondering if you following this on the news. Gotta say, this is one case we found out much more than we ever expected.

 

[cvaldez1975]

not offended, I was wondering what was going on but I don't quite understand

Heads up, just some advice about your broken quotes. You need to add a ending [ /QUOTE ] to close the quote. Hope you don't take offense.

Yes, it turned into much more of a wild story leading up to him flipping out on her. She must have thought they had an understanding about being club buddies, as her own FB seems to say.

Take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...763.1073741829.100008145872970&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/shauna.haynes.16

https://m.facebook.com/joshua.palmer.927?refid=13

 

[ninij9]

Wow. Picking up my jaw and gathering my thoughts.

I first clicked on this thread back when it happened because there were some missing women at the time that I imagined she could have been.

Then I thought bad choice in men, drugs, ugh.

Now it seems that he wanted more. It appears to be that girls hang around him probably because he provides drugs, (maybe just soft drugs) and booze and a party pad. It certainly isn't his good looks.

Poor Shauna didn't realise that you cannot let your guard down and be a free, pretty, sexually active female that went out to have some fun and stay alive, when a human turd like this guy is your friend.

I wish she had never become cozy with this total [unusual person].


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Curious Me]

This is all my own opinion and take on the information that has come out in this case. It'll probably be a long time until the trial starts. I just need to express some of my thoughts as a way to process the new info.

There's always the possibility that one of the unconscious women from his (deleted then recaptured) cell phone videos will see him on the news and go to the police with their story of being drugged then raped. Having those videos on his phone makes me think he was a depraved man before this happened. It's also possible some of those women may not be alive, so I think LE is still trying to find out who they are.

Something was very off in his thinking all along. You can't make people feel how you want them to feel. It's a crime to drug others into having unconscious sex with you, and taking videos they don't know you took.

He seems to expect something in his own terms for what he provides. With Shauna, he's agreeing to only be friends and club buddies, but he has hidden agendas and warped fantasies, IMO. Shauna can live with him, but she's going to have to "put out". He told someone that and that's what he was expecting for being "a friend". He agrees they're going to the clubs to look for others, but then acts like he's been cheated on. He says one thing, but means another.

This is a sad tale of crossed messages. I know he wants to claim he was in love with Shauna, but the truth is they were club buddies. He was at the clubs picking up other women. She probably thought he was like an older brother and protector, and they were both checking out the club scene. Then, his ego gets bruised, he feels scorned, he flips out...BUT THEN HE KILLS HER for not wanting some fairy tale romance he fantasized about. Makes me sick, how he claimed love, and ended up throwing her in the trash.

:cow:

 

[ninij9]

This guy scares me though. I wonder how many friend zone girls he's slipped a Micky too over time and then violated them. I'll bet quite a few. And for fear of shame (I'm guessing) they mostly will keep quiet. I don't feel as though he's killed anyone else, but if his sloppy dumb *advertiser censored* had done things differently and he wasn't caught, yeah I think he would have acquired a taste.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[DatelineFan]

I'm going to be pedantic for a moment, regarding post #366. I don't think there's any such thing as "unconscious sex". I would call that rape. I just have to say that.

I feel for Shauna's loved ones. Even the loved ones/family. I often think of the family of these awful monsters. I can't imagine how they feel when things like this come out. It's possible they aren't surprised, but that doesn't mean it's not painful.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Steleheart]

I'm going to be pedantic for a moment, regarding post #366. I don't think there's any such thing as "unconscious sex". I would call that rape. I just have to say that.

I feel for Shauna's loved ones. Even the loved ones/family. I often think of the family of these awful monsters. I can't imagine how they feel when things like this come out. It's possible they aren't surprised, but that doesn't mean it's not painful.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

There are many kind of rape. Some are more brutal than others, some are more easily perpetrated than others. ALL are reprehensible. But to say there is no such thing as unconscious sex is to deny the victims of that particular type of rape the due recognition that kind of trauma deserves. As if we were to say there is no such thing as forcible sex., it's rape.

So no rape is 'just rape'. They all carry a stigma and traumas that need to be recognized, not only for each victim, but for each perpetrator.

To classify an unwilling victim as the same as an unconscious victim does a disservice to both IMO. More so, IMO, it diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrator. It takes a particular type of weakness to drug and rape a victim. It takes a particular type of rage and violence to beat and force a victim. Those circumstances must be weighed against the perpetrator when passing a sentence upon conviction.

This is why we have classifications like aggravated, especially aggravated, attempted, etc.

I only used 2 examples and yes it's all rape, but it's not all the same - not to the victims.

JMO

 

[DatelineFan]

Okay, thank you for explaining the distinction! I understand, and agree.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Curious Me]

I used the term unconscious sex because it most closely describes what was reported.

Trial for suspect in woman’s strangling
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/sep/08/palmer-prelim-death-penalty-murder/

Investigators say they found other, earlier cellphone videos apparently showing Palmer having sex with other unconscious woman who have not been identified.

I don't know if she actually had consensual sex with him before he killed her, but I guess they have some video of him doing things to her after. Did he not rape a live body, but raped a dead body? This is such an outrageous defense argument.

Defense lawyer Katie Belisle argued that the rape allegations should be dropped because Haynes first had consensual sex with Palmer. When other sex acts were performed on her body, she was no longer alive, Belisle said.

 

[tlcya]

Trial for suspect in woman’s strangling
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/sep/08/palmer-prelim-death-penalty-murder/

Defense lawyer Katie Belisle argued that the rape allegations should be dropped because Haynes first had consensual sex with Palmer. When other sex acts were performed on her body, she was no longer alive, Belisle said.

This is such an outrageous defense argument.

RSBM - sitting on my hands over here. BBM one word - agree.

 

[DatelineFan]

WHAT? Is this lawyer out of her mind? This is so disturbing!

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Steleheart]

RSBM - sitting on my hands over here. BBM one word - agree.

IMO she's offering an empty argument.
Informed Consent would be the key word there.

A child, nope, not capable
An unconscious person, nope, not possible
An inebriated person, nope not able.
An animal, nope, not capable.

A corpse, nope, no informed consent.

Different kinds of rape but all reprehensible.

Lawyers and Judges know this. A shot in the dark with nothing else.


MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

I wish we could go back in time and say, "Shauna, he's not your friend."

 

[scapa]

IMO she's offering an empty argument.
Informed Consent would be the key word there.

A child, nope, not capable
An unconscious person, nope, not possible
An inebriated person, nope not able.
An animal, nope, not capable.

A corpse, nope, no informed consent.

Different kinds of rape but all reprehensible.

Lawyers and Judges know this. A shot in the dark with nothing else.


MOO

I agree it's a vile argument, but not so sure it's a shot in the dark -- I seem to remember a similar move in the Philip Chism case (murdered his teacher, Colleen Ritzer) where the argument concerned antemortem vs postmortem injuries. Other will be able to chime in, but I think the count may have been dropped.

best,

s

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree it's a vile argument, but not so sure it's a shot in the dark -- I seem to remember a similar move in the Philip Chism case (murdered his teacher, Colleen Ritzer) where the argument concerned antemortem vs postmortem injuries. Other will be able to chime in, but I think the count may have been dropped.

best,

s

I wonder if the legal definition of rape stipulates the victim is living?? Perhaps rape after death is abuse of a corpse or something.

I have no idea.

 

[Steleheart]

I agree it's a vile argument, but not so sure it's a shot in the dark -- I seem to remember a similar move in the Philip Chism case (murdered his teacher, Colleen Ritzer) where the argument concerned antemortem vs postmortem injuries. Other will be able to chime in, but I think the count may have been dropped.

best,

s

Similarities not withstanding, IIRC he forcibly raped her in the bathroom, put her in a trash bin and wheeled her out. Then he posed her, raped her with a tree branch and left a note " I hate you all".
Different motive, IMO. That was done for show as posing always is but yet they always "somewhat " hide the victim. He covered her with some leaves as I recall.
The only argument was regarding the branch - was she still alive or not during that particular rape. The difference being necrophilia vs unconscious rape.

Different statutes is the only argument, IMO.

In this case saying the rape charge should be dropped because violating a corpse is somehow not as bad as raping a live victim only attempts to diminish the gravity of the perpetrator's actions in SOME Eyes, but could increase the gravity of the act in others' eyes, but that would depend upon the demographics of a potential jury.

IMO Doesn't make it not rape.

Thus it is a shot in the dark.

 

[Steleheart]

I wonder if the legal definition of rape stipulates the victim is living?? Perhaps rape after death is abuse of a corpse or something.

I have no idea.

All I have found so far is;"

"n the absence of a specific statute prohibiting necrophilia, some
prosecutors have attempted to charge defendants who engage in acts of
necrophilia with rape. The Penal Code defmes rape as "an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person . . . against [the] person's
Will. " 42 The pertinent legal issue, therefore, is whether a dead body is
a "person " within the meaning of the statute." (page 9)

"Over a defense objection, however,
the trial court gave the following nonstandard instruction to the
jury: "It is legally possible to rape a dead body. Where a defendant
attempts to coerce his victim into intercourse with him, fails to accomplish
the purPose while she is alive and kills her to satisfy his desire" (page 9)


http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=facpubs

ETA I do not know if Sandiego is different than Santa Clara

ETTA: Copy/paste from a pdf = maddening.

 

[Inthedetails]

All I have found so far is;"

"n the absence of a specific statute prohibiting necrophilia, some
prosecutors have attempted to charge defendants who engage in acts of
necrophilia with rape. The Penal Code defmes rape as "an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person . . . against [the] person's
Will. " 42 The pertinent legal issue, therefore, is whether a dead body is
a "person " within the meaning of the statute." (page 9)

"Over a defense objection, however,
the trial court gave the following nonstandard instruction to the
jury: "It is legally possible to rape a dead body. Where a defendant
attempts to coerce his victim into intercourse with him, fails to accomplish
the purPose while she is alive and kills her to satisfy his desire" (page 9)


http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=facpubs

ETA I do not know if Sandiego is different than Santa Clara

ETTA: Copy/paste from a pdf = maddening.

Let them argue it out. The guy murdered, dismembered, and dumped a young woman's body in the trash - there is enough to put him away.

jmo