GUILTY MA - Conrad Roy, 18, urged by friend, commits suicide, Fairhaven, 13 July 2014 #2 *guilty*

[Hiandmighty]

Maybe so, or they feel it needs to be clarified by the courts...

 

[KaaBoom]

They are mistaken, are they not? Didn't you say there is a law in MA against aiding and assisting a suicide?

A few pages back my only confusion (as clearly stated kindly) was in trying to understand how you say otherwise (there is a law against aiding/assisting in suicide).

It seems this might be important to the appeal process considering the defense attorney, multiple news agencies, multiple legal talking heads, and now the ACLU are all stating there is no law in MA against aiding and assisting in a suicide.

Could be what makes this be overturned (no law against suicide aiding and assisting) because it is the only way she can get out of the "Get back in the truck" statement which was the crux (in part) of the judge's ruling.

Matthew Segal, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, released the following statement:

Mr. Roy’s death is a terrible tragedy, but it is not a reason to stretch the boundaries of our criminal laws or abandon the protections of our constitution.
There is no law in Massachusetts making it a crime to encourage someone, or even to persuade someone, to commit suicide. Yet Ms. Carter has now been convicted of manslaughter, based on the prosecution’s theory that, as a 17-year-old girl, she literally killed Mr. Roy with her words. This conviction exceeds the limits of our criminal laws and violates free speech protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.
The implications of this conviction go far beyond the tragic circumstances of Mr. Roy’s death. If allowed to stand, Ms. Carter’s conviction could chill important and worthwhile end-of-life discussions between loved ones across the Commonwealth.
​

Their opinion totally baffles me. I think even people with very limited understanding of the law, understand that there are limitations to free speech, that have existed for at least 100 years. Example: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I understand that they have an assisted suicide agenda, but I think they need to study the laws better.

 

[Renee110]

my take is that she was 'crying' until the second the judge said the word 'guilty' and then suddenly all emotion left her face ... I think it was an act, somehow thinking that she could manipulate the judge right up to the last second

I'm with you. After he said GUILTY, and then he said you are a youthful offender and you are ??? (sounded like adjudgshul..what WAS that?) at this time and her face completely changed and she turned to her family and actually makes a face at her family. She has shown no emotion that I ever saw during her trial and I really feel she is incapable of it. I think you are very correct in that she believed her crying act would sway his decision and she dropped that act as soon as guilty was spoken.

 

[HRP]

Martin W. Healy, chief legal counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association, agreed that the outcome of the case could have widespread impacts but also affirmed the judge’s decision.

“The verdict represents the application of centuries old common law principles and the interplay with today’s wide spread use of communication through social media. The case will have national implications and is a clarion call that seemingly remote and distant communications will not insulate individuals from heinous acts that could rise to the level of criminal culpability.
“The defendant’s fate was sealed through the use of her own words. The communications illustrated a deeply troubled defendant whose actions rose to the level of wanton and reckless disregard for the life of the victim.”

http://wpri.com/2017/06/16/aclu-carter-conviction-violates-free-speech-protections/
​

 

[Hiandmighty]

I agree with that statement

 

[rosesfromangels]

I think they will have to keep her away from the inmates because those chicks will beat the doo-dah out of her.

 

[Safeguard]

I'm kind of astonished that anyone would see this as anything less than outright murder. Evidence clearly shows that Conrad would be likely be alive today, if not for the actions of Michelle.

Also...I would implore people to please, please ASK to see your child's phone periodically! I know Conrad was an older teen, but even still. ASK! If they live under your roof, You have to talk about the phone! Even if your child is not ill, just a convo and a polite request to look into their virtual word, can be eye-opening.

 

[gitana1]

Oh well to late now!

I like Judge Moniz and believe he saw this whole sordid picture quite clearly which I am happy with.
So we will be waitingggggggggg again it looks like.

I wonder how her parents are going to manage her until then. She could just take off who knows. And now she definately had NO friends. I would think that she not really be left alone.

My thoughts are with Conrads family today.

BBM. For some reason that one simple sentence made me tear up.

They are mistaken, are they not? Didn't you say there is a law in MA against aiding and assisting a suicide?

A few pages back my only confusion (as clearly stated kindly) was in trying to understand how you say otherwise (there is a law against aiding/assisting in suicide).

It seems this might be important to the appeal process considering the defense attorney, multiple news agencies, multiple legal talking heads, and now the ACLU are all stating there is no law in MA against aiding and assisting in a suicide.

Could be what makes this be overturned (no law against suicide aiding and assisting) because it is the only way she can get out of the "Get back in the truck" statement which was the crux (in part) of the judge's ruling.

Matthew Segal, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, released the following statement:

Mr. Roy’s death is a terrible tragedy, but it is not a reason to stretch the boundaries of our criminal laws or abandon the protections of our constitution.
There is no law in Massachusetts making it a crime to encourage someone, or even to persuade someone, to commit suicide. Yet Ms. Carter has now been convicted of manslaughter, based on the prosecution’s theory that, as a 17-year-old girl, she literally killed Mr. Roy with her words. This conviction exceeds the limits of our criminal laws and violates free speech protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.
The implications of this conviction go far beyond the tragic circumstances of Mr. Roy’s death. If allowed to stand, Ms. Carter’s conviction could chill important and worthwhile end-of-life discussions between loved ones across the Commonwealth.
​

Hi friend. I know it's super confusing and I may not be great at explaining my thought process!


There is no particular statue that outlaws assisting suicide just as there is no particular statute outlawing stabbing someone in the heart with a pen. But they are both homicide.


For example, right now, until and unless the state passes a law to the contrary, if a man shoots his wife in the head on purpose because she is terminally ill and asked him to- that's murder.


If a person holds a gun to a child's head and says to his mother, "if you don't jump off this bridge I'm going to shoot your child to death", and then she jumps off a bridge, that's murder.


If a person tells a crazy, delusional man who fears the CIA that the CIA is coming to torture him to death and he needs to take poison and end his life to avoid the pain, and then the man takes the poison and dies, that's some form of homicide.


If a person bullies a depressed young person who has expressed suicidal ideation, into killing them selves, and instructs and commands them, that's, as we have seen, involuntary manslaughter.


The specific acts don't have to be outlawed. If they together satisfy what are known as the "elements" of the crime- here the elements are: 1) wanton and reckless conduct; 2) that caused a death - that's enough to convict for the crime. The specific method or specific act is irrelevant.


I know there are people and groups and experts arguing that this is some crazy precedent that chills speech. I disagree. The state met their burden and proved both elements.


If someone tells someone who keeps threatening suicide, "Fine. Just go kill yourself already! I'm sick of hearing about it!" That's nowhere near close enough to rising to the level of a crime without much more.


If someone is present while a terminally ill spouse takes a morphine overdose on purpose and dies, yet does nothing, again, unless they did something reckless which caused the death, like went out and illegally purchased fatal doses of morphine and handed it to the spouse, no homicide has occurred.


Conrad was not terminally ill. He had his life ahead of him and his mental issue were treatable. She took advantage of his weakened mental state, and worked tirelessly to compel him to do what ultimately he really did not want to do. And that was to kill himself. That's homicide under the very narrow circumstances presented here. It's involuntary manslaughter and I don't think it will be successfully overturned.

 

[The Farm]

A very good friend of mine just called me from Colorado. She not only saw it on ABC world news tonight but also on her local.
She asked me why they did not take her away right there, I told her she has to come to Websleuths to find out....lol
Also told her if you want to read horror to read her text to him and to have a box of tissues. Not only will you cry for Conrad but you will want to throw MC in his place.

 

[LinasK]

Finally some justice in this world!! R.I.P. Roy, your killer is going to serve some time.

 

[HRP]

BBM. For some reason that one simple sentence made me tear up.




Hi friend. I know it's super confusing and I may not be great at explaining my thought process!


There is no particular statue that outlaws assisting suicide just as there is no particular statute outlawing stabbing someone in the heart with a pen. But they are both homicide.


For example, right now, until and unless the state passes a law to the contrary, if a man shoots his wife in the head on purpose because she is terminally ill and asked him to- that's murder.


If a person holds a gun to a child's head and says to his mother, "if you don't jump off this bridge I'm going to shoot your child to death", and then she jumps off a bridge, that's murder.


If a person tells a crazy, delusional man who fears the CIA that the CIA is coming to torture him to death and he needs to take poison and end his life to avoid the pain, and then the man takes the poison and dies, that's some form of homicide.


If a person bullies a depressed young person who has expressed suicidal ideation, into killing them selves, and instructs and commands them, that's, as we have seen, involuntary manslaughter.


The specific acts don't have to be outlawed. If they together satisfy what are known as the "elements" of the crime- here the elements are: 1) wanton and reckless conduct; 2) that caused a death - that's enough to convict for the crime. The specific method or specific act is irrelevant.


I know there are people and groups and experts arguing that this is some crazy precedent that chills speech. I disagree. The state met their burden and proved both elements.


If someone tells someone who keeps threatening suicide, "Fine. Just go kill yourself already! I'm sick of hearing about it!" That's nowhere near close enough to rising to the level of a crime without much more.


If someone is present while a terminally ill spouse takes a morphine overdose on purpose and dies, yet does nothing, again, unless they did something reckless which caused the death, like went out and illegally purchased fatal doses of morphine and handed it to the spouse, no homicide has occurred.


Conrad was not terminally ill. He had his life ahead of him and his mental issue were treatable. She took advantage of his weakened mental state, and worked tirelessly to compel him to do what ultimately he really did not want to do. And that was to kill himself. That's homicide under the very narrow circumstances presented here. It's involuntary manslaughter and I don't think it will be successfully overturned.

I do appreciate you giving the details above, but I have a first hand experience on hearing how vital my suicide would have been to my violent ex's upcoming trial. And I wasn't confused on various scenarios of assorted violence, but thanks for sharing them anyway.

I decided to copy and paste (from an earlier post on this thread) when I asked for clarity on what I found confusing. Then, and now, as I discussed before, the defense has always stressed how assisting/aiding another's suicide is not against the law. It seems to be more important today than ever because it is in practically every report currently and is said by nearly every talking head on the news.

Here is the copy and paste:

Thank you for the explanation of suicide laws in Massachusetts. I will be honest, I still am not clear on how it can be illegal and unlawful to assist or aid in a suicide (common law), but is not unlawful or illegal because there is no statute against assisting or aiding in a suicide.

This may be a dumb question (I think it might be), but is it the court chosen which reflects which law is used (common law or statute)? In other words, is common law not applicable in this court and only statute? Are they separate (common law vs statutes)? (I'm sorry, I just don't really grasp this, maybe it's because it's from my point of view in believing a loved one could aid me to go off myself via words, actions, inferences (as was done), that I think it's a loophole to hiding killing someone (and if done by a sociopath/psychopath, their coaxing and encouragement would have a benefit to that sociopath/psychopath).

This case is heading toward violins and big puppy dog eyes with giant tears for Michelle I assume. Based on focusing on her bullied past, her psychotropic meds causing havoc in rational thinking. She will be the victim of her meds and peers who snubbed her, and perhaps some family members and even the pet dog (if she has one) who didn't wag its tail. "Her meds made her do it", "Her depression and her own suicidal thoughts made her do it", "Her seeing suicide as "freedom" and "peace" made her do it". "She, herself, was mentally ill and in need of help." All speculation and opinion and I would say there will probably be some statement released (I am guessing) that will say: "She is on suicide watch".

As for sociopaths and why and how. My belief is that it has nothing to do with parenting (in regard to their lack of or zero empathy). They exist in great numbers and come from all socioeconomic groups. They are not a "rare breed" out there, with only the ones that mess up making the news. They are so brilliant in mimicry and manipulation, those who are caught are the exceptions.

My belief in sociopaths/psychopaths (who are many) is that those who have EMPATHY (who are few) are the rarest breeds of all. If you have empathy, true empathy, YOU are the jewel. Empathic peoples of the world are the minority--and a small one getting smaller and smaller. The majority, the sociopathic/psychopathic members of society (at all levels) have no idea how or why or what an empathic individual "feels". Of course, this is my opinion.

As for the outcome of the trial, I think she'll get away with a slight slap on the hand, if that.

And there will be a movie made about this story, no doubt, which makes one wonder, how much $ will she make from this story?​

Last edited by HRP; 06-11-2017 at 07:11 AM.

----

​

 

[HRP]

Kari Hong, an assistant professor of law at Boston College, said Carter could serve what's known in the state as a "hybrid" sentence.
That would allow Carter to serve part of her sentence under the juvenile system, which aims to rehabilitate, and part under the adult system, which aims to punish offenders.
--
The verdict is not likely to hold up in appellate courts, Hong said. She predicted the verdict will be overturned on causation, which would lead to state lawmakers introducing a new law to criminalize the act of encouraging suicide.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-whats-next/index.html

 

[MsJosie]

But she wasn't convicted. Michelle is convicted. There is a difference.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Not of murder but she was convicted....and money talks.

 

[MsJosie]

I'm with you. After he said GUILTY, and then he said you are a youthful offender and you are ??? (sounded like adjudgshul..what WAS that?) at this time and her face completely changed and she turned to her family and actually makes a face at her family. She has shown no emotion that I ever saw during her trial and I really feel she is incapable of it. I think you are very correct in that she believed her crying act would sway his decision and she dropped that act as soon as guilty was spoken.

When crying most people's face and eyes will get red. Their nose will get stuffy and they will keep blowing their nose. Never saw any of that. I did see her do a few side glances towards her lawyer...who should have kept his hugs and arms to to himself. Not a good actress.

 

[MsJosie]

I cannot link...on iPad....but on Mail on Line there are some pictures. One shows MC in line being checked with a wand for weapons etc. she has on short length pants and high heels. I see NO ankle bracelet at all. Does anyone else?

 

[Lilibet]

I cannot link...on iPad....but on Mail on Line there are some pictures. One shows MC in line being checked with a wand for weapons etc. she has on short length pants and high heels. I see NO ankle bracelet at all. Does anyone else?

Here's the link. The photo shows her being checked into the courtroom this morning before the verdict, so I don't think the ankle bracelet would have been issued yet. Isn't that new today, or am I missing something from before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4611368/Michelle-Carter-guilty-involuntary-manslaughter.html

 

[paul1980]

Stuff the ACLU and its statement. The ACLU is increasing run by cranks.

 

[HRP]

This is very interesting (below). I have taken excerpts, and have left the link to the full piece (bottom). It further explains what the judge was referring to in regard to two centuries old case and brings some clarity (for me, at least):

The 1816 trial for murder of George Bowen in Northampton,Massachusetts, was a short and seemingly minor affair, except that itraised a significant point of felony law that had impact for years to come.1Jonathan Jewett, an African American, faced execution for the murderof his father. George Bowen, a prisoner in the next cell who had beenconvicted of petty larceny, counseled Jewett to commit suicide ratherthan face the indignity of a public hanging. By taking this action Jewettwould also rob the sheriff and hangman of their fees, thus flaunting theauthorities. This nefarious scheme delighted the rebellious Bowen, whomthe jailers considered a troublemaker.


Jewett did take his own life by hanging himself in his cell on November8, 1815, the night before his scheduled execution. The sheriff found himthe next morning dangling by a rope tied to the grating of the jail window.Throughout his imprisonment, Bowen had constantly urged Jewett todie by his own hand, leading the jail staff to threaten to put Bowen ina dungeon. After Jewett’s death, the frustrated authorities claimed thatBowen’s advice led to the capital felony of Jewett murdering himself:thus, Bowen shared in the crime and, therefore, was guilty of murder.Two murders were involved in the Grand Jury indictment. Jewett wascharged for illegally committing suicide, and Bowen was charged not asan accessory to murder but as a participant. This case raised the interestinglegal point of guilt by advice in an act of suicide. It is cited by legal scholarJohn D. Lawson in his collection of the most important and interestingcriminal trials in American history.
According to Lawson, the Bowen case set in place a significantbenchmark for a change in common law: the state must prove beyond areasonable doubt that the suicide counselor actually “procured” or wasresponsible for the act itself. After this case, it appeared well nigh impossibleto prove factually that advice or words could actuate the felonious deed ofsuicide. Hence, this legal precedent has long since penetrated the ethicalclimate of our nation.2

---


The indictment by the Grand Jury noted two murders. First, JonathanJewett “being seduced by the instigation of the Devil . . . did hang andstrangle himself.” According to Massachusetts’ law, suicide was illegaland offensive to God, and therefore equaled self-murder. Moreover, theindictment claimed that George Bowen was also “seduced by the instigationof the Devil,” did “feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethoughtmake an assault,” and procured a “certain rope or cord,” which he:


did then and there procure to be tied and fastened, the endthereof around the neck of the said Jonathan Jewett and theother end thereof around the iron grate of a window, and thesaid George Bowen, with the rope and cord . . . then and therefeloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, the bodyof him the said Jonathan Jewett did hang . . . strangle andsuffocate and . . . then and there instantly died.
Thus, in the eyes of the Grand Jury, Bowen “did counsel, hire,persuade and procuring the said Jonathan Jewett the felony and murder ofhimself.” Never before had Massachusetts seen an indictment for “murderby counseling.” The authorities of the small town of Northampton madethemselves conspicuous once again as they had in 1806.

Link:

I can't get link to work with a copy and paste! But search part of text and it will pop up for you.




https://www.questia.com/library/jou...r-by-counseling-the-1816-case-of-george-bowen

 

[monkeypants]

I want the camera angle video from the other side of the courtroom...I can see him filming..wonder where that is

 

[monkeypants]

I'm trying to place where the ACLU is coming from...

Job security.....