Thoughts on MCET testifying, whether she went willingly (I prefer intentionally which does not imply will) and TC trial.
The lawyer stated on a NG podcast that he thought MCET could recover and become a great witness (paraphrase)
So the outcomes are
1) she does not testify (still need to inlcude this) - there is stil enough to convict - boom TC is done
2) MCET does testify, she states that she asked TC to take her home.,"friend" refused, either because she would be late for work (her statement) or not enough gas (per CB video). Either way she says she wanted to go home. TC abducted her to AL and beyond. boom - TC is done
3) MCET does testify, says TC pulled gun and said get in car, abducts her to AL and beyond- boom TC is done.
4) MCET testifies and she lets him off the hook, loves him and wanted to be with him. Hard to write these words. Pros will not let this one happen.
DAHfense says she was not under force or threat. There were only two people there, MCET and TC. A jury will believe her.
3 of 4 he goes down IMO. There is very little way out for him
I know TC is being charged with a
different crime but I wanted to point out that he would also be guilty of kidnapping based on the
United States federal law:
§1201. Kidnapping
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines,
inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when-
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
*snip irrelevant parts*
shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.
Inveigles: persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or flattery.
Literally what TC did and easily proven, IMO.
Interstate commerce simply means trade or transport between states. He transported her between states and that is easily proven as well.
I think regardless of whether ET will testify and regardless of what she says if she does testify, he's going to be convicted. There's too much evidence and he's painted himself into a corner by talking too much now that he's been captured.
ETA: I just found this as well:
(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a
rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended.
Rebuttable Presumption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption
So unless someone comes forward with evidence proving otherwise, it is assumed to be true. I'm not sure what evidence they could possibly have that would prove he didn't take her over state lines, lol.
