True, and that is what probably happened.
But will they be able to prove that beyond a reasonsable doubt? Also wouldn't his trial on the jogger crime be separate from AS trial? The defense will want to separate them especially all the gruesome evidence of dismemberment. Rules of evidence could potentially mean some of the evidence in JR trial could be prejudicial to him in jogger trial.
I hope they have some sort of diary or computer entry where he talks about the jogger attack. Also maybe he confessed what he was going to do to jogger.
It just it seems hard to show murder. Usually these perps escalate in crime so who knows what he intended to do. I believe he left for Virgin islands 2 days after jogger attack so his time frame to do the attack was limited.
Also I assume mom and brother would have been home Memorial Day. If brother want on trip (maybe went w dad?) they would have been packing the next day. So he would have had only Memorial Day to do all he needed to do. And he did not have car w jogger. I wonder where he was planning to take her. Mom had to have been out and he probably would have taken her to home, unless he just planned sexual assault. That is what defense could argue. He didn't have the time and space that he had w JR to do murder (of the gruesome nature) on jogger.
The jogger trial could b crucial in getting him to serve literally life. I am not sure what max sentence he can serve for JR, but they said on NG it was 40 years. So that gets him out at 57. So they have to have all of these other crimes to hopefully add up another 20-25 years to ensure he really gets life.
This guy could be a model prisoner and they want to take no chances some parol board 40 years from now lets him loose. Since when do they charge murderes w theft of a $50 (if that) backpack? They never charge for theft of jewelry, cell phone, etc which murderers often take, I don't think. They just want to add as many little crimes as possible to extend the sentence.
You make some very interesting points. There's another problem, and that is that life without the possibility of parole is not an option for a youth offender. If he has a sentence of 57 years, that would put him in prison without the possibility of parole until the age of 74. I think that is a problem because life expectancy ... a huge variable ... is 74 for some people. If Austin had a grandfather that died of heart disease at the age of, for example, 57, it might be argued that Austin's life expectancy is 57.
You make a very good point about the cases being separated. That seems like a very good defense move. In fact, the attack on the jogger may be a case that could successfully be argued as belonging in youth court. Without the subsequent case of abduction, murder and dismemberment, that case, viewed in isolation, may be considered one where appropriate counseling and monitoring would mitigate any potential for further violence.
I think it will become a very interesting legal argument, and since it is one of the first major tests of the new law that is intended to see youths tried as youths for crimes where the youth can be rehabilitated, I think the Judge has to tread carefully ... careful regarding precedents that could undermine the intent of the change in law ... which could open a can of worms in terms of appeals.
Regarding the attack on the jogger, I think the argument of murder could be made in the sense that a toxic substance was used ... and any toxic substance can be fatal, depending on the dosage. Still, without proof of the type and amount of toxic substance, assumptions are required ... and assumptions are not really admissable.
Another problem is that the jury pool is probably already tainted, so a change of venue will be required. The more I think about it, the more I see this as taking years to wind through the court system.
