GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

If this crime doesn't qualify as "heinous" then I can't imagine what does.
 
Kapua said:
If this crime doesn't qualify as "heinous" then I can't imagine what does.
Click to expand...
I agree, but Kim and Brooke have both pointed out the difficulties.

1) Under the law, Anything done to Joshua does not count other than as Charli was aware of it and suffered. So she had to be alive and conscious when her baby was stabbbed.

2) Abuse of a corpse is not a crime in Hawai'i and does not count. Charli did not feel what he did to her after he murdered her, although it depends on what you believe happens to the soul. But the law does not allow for post-mortem awareness.

Rivera has to get all twelve jurors convinced that Steven tortured Charli and stabbed her womb while she was alive. But there was no witness as to when he did what, and there was no blood evidence that proves she was alive when he stabbed her.

The forensics said that the blow to her jaw that fractured it occurred at or very near time of death, so it is "possible" that a single blow killed her, and that the rest was done after. I don't think so, but I'm not a juror.

As far as I can make out, second degree murder means he committed acts intended to end her life, and he did in fact cause her death. That's a crime that allows for parole, sadly.

For the enhanced, he needs to have caused her pain, anguish, or suffering through cruel acts that were beyond what was needed to murder her. Overkill. I think he did, but there is no witness, no confession, only holes and slashes in clothing. It could be tough.

This is why Brooke is so mad that Rivera refused to charge him with kidnaping. The kidnaping would have provided the necessary story of her suffering, knowing what he intended as he drove her out there. But Rivera did not really make any claims about what exactly happened.

The family does not consider it to be a slam dunk, from what they write.
I hope he gets the enhanced sentence. I totally believe he should. I think everyone immersed in the crime believes that, but the jury could go either way.
 
Seems like more went on Thursday that I missed and didn't see commented on here: Steven did speak to the judge a little more and it was covered by KHON.

http://khon2.com/2016/12/28/lengthy-maui-murder-trial-not-over-even-with-guilty-verdict/

http://khon2.com/2016/12/29/capobianco-may-testify-during-sentencing-phase-of-murder-trial/

Im not clear if the motion for Judgent of Acquittal I mentioned yesterday was heard today (Friday). Kim posted she was going to court for it, but there was no video posted.
 
Capobianco: ‘I will not be testifying’

WAILUKU — Convicted murderer Steven Capobianco said Friday that he doesn’t want to testify during the next phase of his trial next week.

“I have made a decision,” he said when 2nd Circuit Judge Joseph Cardoza asked if Capobianco had decided whether or not he wanted to testify. “I will not be testifying.”

http://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2016/12/capobianco-i-will-not-be-testifying/
 
I see a change in his demeanor. The charade is over.
 
HGO, I was not in court and I wonder about the video too.
 
heartgoesout said:
Happy New Year Websleuth friends. :loveyou:
Click to expand...

Happy New Year! May you all have a blessed year!

I am hoping that the Capobianco jury will vote guilty in the next phase.

And that Hawai'i laws will change so that future crimes of this nature will be first-degree murder charges.

Also, a friend posted that there have been very heavy rains in East Maui. Hoping that what has been hidden will be revealed.
 
Now that Steven has decided, and is going with what would be his counsel's advice, I think all the more that he initially was going to testify. Apo was desperate to buy that night of consideration and a chance to talk him out of it, which he got and apparently did dissuade Steven. Too bad.

I think that Steven presents as a well spoken and calm person who could potentially make the jury feel he is not the guy to commit deliberate torture. But he would not hold up on the cross examination. He would be in the hot seat and unable to squirm out of it, while being asked to admit to the murder itself in order to convince them it was not a heinous murder. Would not work.
 
Sc does not present as calm to me, Pua. Controlled, rather.
But I get your valid point. I was so hoping he'd testify.
 
Mamamerced said:
Sc does not present as calm to me, Pua. Controlled, rather.
But I get your valid point. I was so hoping he'd testify.
Click to expand...
You are right, MM, great distinction.
I think a better word for the impression he gave me when he explained to the judge why he needed more time would be rational. And a rational person should have/could have worked through any problems that Charli's condition presented, without violence. He's full of contradiction.

His psyche is such a hot mess, it's amazing that his abnormality does not show whenever he speaks, but I guess that is a function of his abnormal control. And then every so often his eyes shoot out a look that reveals the monster. That's quite a good still shot that Maui News got of him.
 
Yes, those eyes! He always seems to be sneaking a peek from his hidden, tormented, subterranean psychic cave. That to me is the true SC.
 
Mamamerced said:
Yes, those eyes! He always seems to be sneaking a peek from his hidden, tormented, subterranean psychic cave. That to me is the true SC.
Click to expand...
what a great phrase --
subterranean psychic cave.
Perfect.
So sad that Charli didn't get that the creature in the grotto was the real Steven. She must have seen the monster at times, knowing him for so long. But as a good and empathic human being, she may have thought that he could be fixed if he were loved enough. (I've made that mistake more than once.)
 
As much as I'd like to hear what he has to say, I'm glad he is not testifying. Plus I don't think he'd say all that much anyway. Remember his seemingly helpful, soft spoken tone while speaking to Det. Loo? I'm still nervous a jury could be swayed by someone that doesn't sound or look like a monster, considering they were originally a hung jury.
Would he lose it on the stand and show his true colors? I don't think so, he didn't with Loo in police interrogation.
I think, he thinks, he is smart enough to fool the jury and I don't want to take that chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 703 (members: 164, guests: 539)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
539
Total visitors
703
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,447
Messages
18,239,595
Members
234,372
Latest member
lortodwill
Back
Top