GUILTY TX - Haruka Weiser, 18, found murdered, UT-Austin campus, 3 April 2016 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

tlcya said:
One could make the argument that a homeless person who is said by those who know him to be mentally unstable or "slow" may have happened upon the body and taken items belonging to the victim. The surveillance video suggesting he saw her alive and followed her would seem to refute that idea but is not exactly proof that he was involved in her murder. I am interested in the results of testing the possible biological material. They may offer more concrete evidence of direct involvement depending on what they are and where specifically collected.

Arrest Affidavit
Click to expand...

I don't know Texas law specifically on search and seizure, but it sounds like almost all the evidence they have on him could be challenged in court as inadmissible as they obtained it and went through it apparently without a warrant and he was not under arrest at the time. They took the bike for "safe keeping" and they apparently went through his possessions for "transport," though they may have a back way into this saying they would have found that evidence anyway once the FD notified them and they searched through the trash and they may be able to make a case just with what was found in the trash and what was found in his locker with the warrant plus the police cam video of him when he was being transported.
 
SpanishInquisition said:
I don't know Texas law specifically on search and seizure, but it sounds like almost all the evidence they have on him could be challenged in court as inadmissible as they obtained it and went through it apparently without a warrant and he was not under arrest at the time. They took the bike for "safe keeping" and they apparently went through his possessions for "transport," though they may have a back way into this saying they would have found that evidence anyway once the FD notified them and they searched through the trash and they may be able to make a case just with what was found in the trash and what was found in his locker with the warrant plus the police cam video of him when he was being transported.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that they went through his belongings without a warrant? It doesn't say they went through his possessions for transport. It says his bags were seized for transport, which is standard procedure done for safety reasons. The bike was taken for safekeeping for Criner by the fire department while he was transported to the shelter. It was later seized by police after probable cause was established by the identification of her duffel bag by her friend and the evidence police found at the fire scene. There is nothing that can be successfully challenged in any of that.
 
This is such a sad case all around. Reading the statements from his sister and grandma make me sad. OF COURSE it does not excuse anything he's done, but his story is tragic and he's been failed so many times in his short 17 years. Nobody wants to believe someone they love is capable of killing. Denial would be my first instinct as well. Yes, some people have worse things happen to them and still manage to make a life for themselves, but some do not. No matter how much they WANT to, they just can't pull their life together. Too many demons - whether it be drugs, abuse, or mental illness.

It's possible to think the crime committed was absolutely horrendous and unforgivable while at the same time feeling extreme sadness for all the failures the suspect has lived with. So tragic on both sides and paralyzes me in fear to know any one of our kids could become a random act of unspeakable violence.

As more info comes out, I'm still not convinced murder was his intention. With the comments about him snapping, I think she fought back and that enraged him and he snapped. I'm not even sure there is a "weapon" that was used. We heard he was seen pulling something out of his pocket (possibly a knife) but there is no indication that there was blood anywhere. His pants seemed completely clean after the fact and he was reportedly still wearing them on Monday. Surely the fire dept would find it suspicious if there were blood all over his pants. I think he snapped and just beat her (terrible to think, I know) which would also make it hard to identify her. Just my speculation of course.
 
Scout said:
Where are you getting that they went through his belongings without a warrant? It doesn't say they went through his possessions for transport. It says his bags were seized for transport, which is standard procedure done for safety reasons. The bike was taken for safekeeping for Criner by the fire department while he was transported to the shelter. It was later seized by police after probable cause was established by the identification of her duffel bag by her friend and the evidence police found at the fire scene. There is nothing that can be successfully challenged in any of that.
Click to expand...

By went through I meant sorted, not that they opened them up and saw the laptop and whatnot. All his property that was seized for non-criminal purposes is now being used against him criminally. I don't doubt that things like this are done for safety, but I'm questioning subsequently using what was non-criminally seized against someone. It sounds like he should have been arrested - irrespective of it subsequently coming out about the murder - for arson or something else and him investigated both criminally and psychiatrically and if LE knew at the time they responded they knew what he was burning, that doubly should have got them to investigate. It's not like this is NY in winter and even if it was NY in winter, you'd want to check out anyone setting fires inside buildings to see if they're at a minimum a danger to the community and if you found out what they were burning was specifically a student's backpack and the contents inside plus shoes that clearly aren't theirs, you'd really want to find out the circumstances as to how they got the backpack and why they're burning that valuable property when they're destitute...given that he had a girl's bike, my suspicion would have been that the backpack and bike were from the same person and that it was very odd to destroy that property that was likely stolen.
 
SpanishInquisition said:
By went through I meant sorted, not that they opened them up and saw the laptop and whatnot. All his property that was seized for non-criminal purposes is now being used against him criminally. I don't doubt that things like this are done for safety, but I'm questioning subsequently using what was non-criminally seized against someone. It sounds like he should have been arrested - irrespective of it subsequently coming out about the murder - for arson or something else and him investigated both criminally and psychiatrically and if LE knew at the time they responded they knew what he was burning, that doubly should have got them to investigate. It's not like this is NY in winter and even if it was NY in winter, you'd want to check out anyone setting fires inside buildings to see if they're at a minimum a danger to the community and if you found out what they were burning was specifically a student's backpack and the contents inside plus shoes that clearly aren't theirs, you'd really want to find out the circumstances as to how they got the backpack and why they're burning that valuable property when they're destitute...given that he had a girl's bike, my suspicion would have been that the backpack and bike were from the same person and that it was very odd to destroy that property that was likely stolen.
Click to expand...

I know they said seized, but I'm thinking that was just for the transport to LifeWorks. I don't think they kept it because obviously the laptop was found at LifeWorks, so they must have given it back when they dropped him off.
 
SpanishInquisition said:
By went through I meant sorted, not that they opened them up and saw the laptop and whatnot. All his property that was seized for non-criminal purposes is now being used against him criminally. I don't doubt that things like this are done for safety, but I'm questioning subsequently using what was non-criminally seized against someone. It sounds like he should have been arrested - irrespective of it subsequently coming out about the murder - for arson or something else and him investigated both criminally and psychiatrically and if LE knew at the time they responded they knew what he was burning, that doubly should have got them to investigate. It's not like this is NY in winter and even if it was NY in winter, you'd want to check out anyone setting fires inside buildings to see if they're at a minimum a danger to the community and if you found out what they were burning was specifically a student's backpack and the contents inside plus shoes that clearly aren't theirs, you'd really want to find out the circumstances as to how they got the backpack and why they're burning that valuable property when they're destitute...given that he had a girl's bike, my suspicion would have been that the backpack and bike were from the same person and that it was very odd to destroy that property that was likely stolen.
Click to expand...

It seems you might be assuming that police kept his belongings after they transported him to the shelter. That isn't the case. They seized his bags for transport. They had no right or reason to keep his bags at that time. And if they had kept them, they could have shown Haruka's bag to her roommate and friend rather than showing a still shot from the video. His belongings (except for the bike) were at the shelter with him when he was arrested. The room was secured and a search warrant was obtained before the room was searched and the items were collected as evidence.
 
mrsu said:
I know they said seized, but I'm thinking that was just for the transport to LifeWorks. I don't think they kept it because obviously the laptop was found at LifeWorks, so they must have given it back when they dropped him off.
Click to expand...

This is correct. It's standard procedure for safety reasons to search a person and secure any belongings prior to transport. Police will not risk transporting someone who has anything within reach with which they might harm the officer or themselves.
 
eileenhawkeye said:
Can you name some?
Click to expand...

I don't remember the names and place. But there was this college student she went to meet her friends for dinner, could not find the restaurant, her phone died and she was seen on security camera walking with this guy.....she was brutally raped and murdered by this person seen on security camera
 
you may be recalling the case of Hannah Graham. She crossed paths with a man she didn't know. He turned out to be a serial predator and she paid with her life. In Hannah's case, she was not on campus but yes, the encounter was completely random. A crime of opportunity. However, in Hannah's case she was abducted and murdered elsewhere.

The Websleuths case forum is here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?545-Hannah-Graham
 
SpanishInquisition said:
By went through I meant sorted, not that they opened them up and saw the laptop and whatnot. All his property that was seized for non-criminal purposes is now being used against him criminally. I don't doubt that things like this are done for safety, but I'm questioning subsequently using what was non-criminally seized against someone. It sounds like he should have been arrested - irrespective of it subsequently coming out about the murder - for arson or something else and him investigated both criminally and psychiatrically and if LE knew at the time they responded they knew what he was burning, that doubly should have got them to investigate. It's not like this is NY in winter and even if it was NY in winter, you'd want to check out anyone setting fires inside buildings to see if they're at a minimum a danger to the community and if you found out what they were burning was specifically a student's backpack and the contents inside plus shoes that clearly aren't theirs, you'd really want to find out the circumstances as to how they got the backpack and why they're burning that valuable property when they're destitute...given that he had a girl's bike, my suspicion would have been that the backpack and bike were from the same person and that it was very odd to destroy that property that was likely stolen.
Click to expand...

They didn't sort through his things after the fire. They took him to the shelter with his things. Only after he became a suspect in the murder they looked through his things. By that time they had a search warrant.
 
SpanishInquisition said:
By went through I meant sorted, not that they opened them up and saw the laptop and whatnot. All his property that was seized for non-criminal purposes is now being used against him criminally. I don't doubt that things like this are done for safety, but I'm questioning subsequently using what was non-criminally seized against someone. It sounds like he should have been arrested - irrespective of it subsequently coming out about the murder - for arson or something else and him investigated both criminally and psychiatrically and if LE knew at the time they responded they knew what he was burning, that doubly should have got them to investigate. It's not like this is NY in winter and even if it was NY in winter, you'd want to check out anyone setting fires inside buildings to see if they're at a minimum a danger to the community and if you found out what they were burning was specifically a student's backpack and the contents inside plus shoes that clearly aren't theirs, you'd really want to find out the circumstances as to how they got the backpack and why they're burning that valuable property when they're destitute...given that he had a girl's bike, my suspicion would have been that the backpack and bike were from the same person and that it was very odd to destroy that property that was likely stolen.
Click to expand...

You should read the affidavit. They saw the laptop after he became a suspect in the murder and they had the search warrant.
 
mrsu said:
This is such a sad case all around. Reading the statements from his sister and grandma make me sad. OF COURSE it does not excuse anything he's done, but his story is tragic and he's been failed so many times in his short 17 years. Nobody wants to believe someone they love is capable of killing. Denial would be my first instinct as well. Yes, some people have worse things happen to them and still manage to make a life for themselves, but some do not. No matter how much they WANT to, they just can't pull their life together. Too many demons - whether it be drugs, abuse, or mental illness.

It's possible to think the crime committed was absolutely horrendous and unforgivable while at the same time feeling extreme sadness for all the failures the suspect has lived with. So tragic on both sides and paralyzes me in fear to know any one of our kids could become a random act of unspeakable violence.

As more info comes out, I'm still not convinced murder was his intention. With the comments about him snapping, I think she fought back and that enraged him and he snapped. I'm not even sure there is a "weapon" that was used. We heard he was seen pulling something out of his pocket (possibly a knife) but there is no indication that there was blood anywhere. His pants seemed completely clean after the fact and he was reportedly still wearing them on Monday. Surely the fire dept would find it suspicious if there were blood all over his pants. I think he snapped and just beat her (terrible to think, I know) which would also make it hard to identify her. Just my speculation of course.
Click to expand...

He might not have said "I am going to find someone to murder this night" but that doesn't mean at some point, he decided he was going to kill Haruka. Premeditation doesn't have to mean hours or days in advance....it could just be a few minutes before. Unless Haruka's death was extremely quick, he would've had many opportuntities to stop what he was doing. At some point, his intention would've become to kill her. For example, if you get into argument and punch someone and they hit their head, maybe you could argue you didn't intend to kill them but if you keep punching someone over and over, well, that's another story.
 
tlcya said:
you may be recalling the case of Hannah Graham. She crossed paths with a man she didn't know. He turned out to be a serial predator and she paid with her life. In Hannah's case, she was not on campus but yes, the encounter was completely random. A crime of opportunity. However, in Hannah's case she was abducted and murdered elsewhere.

The Websleuths case forum is here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?545-Hannah-Graham
Click to expand...

Not Hannah, this happened 4-5 years back. The guy who killed her was a white male and he was either a construction worker, carpenter something like that.
 
Scout said:
Killing someone in the commission of another felony is first degree murder regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Texas uses term "capital" murder for such situation. It doesn't matter if intent was to murder or not.
"The defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony (other than manslaughter) and in performing that felony, committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual." - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-first-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.VIVoBfnM.dpuf
 
peacehope said:
Not Hannah, this happened 4-5 years back. The guy who killed her was a white male and he was either a construction worker, carpenter something like that.
Click to expand...

:welcome:
 
mrsu said:
This is such a sad case all around. Reading the statements from his sister and grandma make me sad. OF COURSE it does not excuse anything he's done, but his story is tragic and he's been failed so many times in his short 17 years. Nobody wants to believe someone they love is capable of killing. Denial would be my first instinct as well. Yes, some people have worse things happen to them and still manage to make a life for themselves, but some do not. No matter how much they WANT to, they just can't pull their life together. Too many demons - whether it be drugs, abuse, or mental illness.

It's possible to think the crime committed was absolutely horrendous and unforgivable while at the same time feeling extreme sadness for all the failures the suspect has lived with. So tragic on both sides and paralyzes me in fear to know any one of our kids could become a random act of unspeakable violence.

As more info comes out, I'm still not convinced murder was his intention. With the comments about him snapping, I think she fought back and that enraged him and he snapped. I'm not even sure there is a "weapon" that was used. We heard he was seen pulling something out of his pocket (possibly a knife) but there is no indication that there was blood anywhere. His pants seemed completely clean after the fact and he was reportedly still wearing them on Monday. Surely the fire dept would find it suspicious if there were blood all over his pants. I think he snapped and just beat her (terrible to think, I know) which would also make it hard to identify her. Just my speculation of course.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what fire department would or wouldn't have found suspicious. Blood splatter isn't always obvious if there are small drops on dark clothes. Regardless, he should have been arrested for that fire. As for murder being intent or not, it's irrelevant per TX law. If he killed someone during commission of a felony (robbery) then he would be guilty of capital murder. Would be eligible for death penalty if he were an adult.
 
Scout said:
Killing someone in the commission of another felony is first degree murder regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

In Texas would he be charged with felony murder or first degree murder?

The reason I ask is the murder cases I have seen where the suspect was in the middle of committing one or more felonies.....i.e felony aggravated rape or felony armed robbery and the victim was murdered they were charged with felony murder.

imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 482 (members: 194, guests: 288)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
288
Total visitors
482
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,590
Messages
18,241,923
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top