TX- Jocelyn Nungaray,12 strangled, left under bridge. Houston June 17, 2024

[Yuletide]

I don't think it is ok for men in their 20s to be flirting with, let alone kissing, a 12 year old girl, ever.

Not under any circumstances whatsoever. Absolutely not!

 

[mickey2942]

I don't think it is ok for men in their 20s to be flirting with, let alone kissing, a 12 year old girl, ever.

No. It is not. I was not blaming the victim or approving of the actions of adults. Sometimes, context is difficult to convey in writing.

 

[DoctorRose]

I am guessing that is why the perp said she was tied up AFTER being strangled. Now the DA has to prove she was restrained prior to death in order for the death penalty to stick. So they wait for test results. Eventually, the death penalty will be charged, in my opinion

I thought in the Delphi IN case it was considered kidnapping that the guy told the girls to go “down the hill.” Would the same not be true for them saying “come over here under this bridge”? In other words even if they didn’t bind her to get her there why isn’t it still kidnap?

 

[Trebor5591]

Probably would only get charges reduced for one, if either. The one who didn't speak first, is probably getting the needle. moo

Only one of them strangled her. That's the one who should get the DP, in my opinion. The one who didn't needs to speak up. IMO

 

[mickey2942]

I thought in the Delphi IN case it was considered kidnapping that the guy told the girls to go “down the hill.” Would the same not be true for them saying “come over here under this bridge”? In other words even if they didn’t bind her to get her there why isn’t it still kidnap?

Agreed. Once someone is tied up, or held against their will, it should definitely be considered "kidnapping".

 

[Yuletide]

I thought in the Delphi IN case it was considered kidnapping that the guy told the girls to go “down the hill.” Would the same not be true for them saying “come over here under this bridge”? In other words even if they didn’t bind her to get her there why isn’t it still kidnap?

If she went willingly, I really don’t know.

 

[Yuletide]

I thought in the Delphi IN case it was considered kidnapping that the guy told the girls to go “down the hill.” Would the same not be true for them saying “come over here under this bridge”? In other words even if they didn’t bind her to get her there why isn’t it still kidnap?

In the Delphi case LE heard one of the girls say “ he has a gun”. They didn’t play that part of the audio for the public.

 

[AugustWest]

I thought in the Delphi IN case it was considered kidnapping that the guy told the girls to go “down the hill.” Would the same not be true for them saying “come over here under this bridge”? In other words even if they didn’t bind her to get her there why isn’t it still kidnap?

It is still kidnapping. A victim under the age of 14 is restrained by "any means, including acquiescence of the victim..."

Texas Kidnapping Statute: PENAL CODE CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, ANDSMUGGLING OF PERSONS

 

[Chimera]

I am wondering if this vile pair had other crimes in their past ?
Considering the brutality of what happened to poor Jocelyn.
May justice be swift !!!
Omo.

 

[PrairieWind]

If she went willingly, I really don’t know.

What is willingly? Did she really want to go under that bridge with these two men? Of course not. Did she want to stay there two hours? No. She apparently bit one of them, so presumably she was trying to escape but not free to do so. You don't have to tie someone up or point a gun at them to kidnap them.

 

[PrairieWind]

Only one of them strangled her. That's the one who should get the DP, in my opinion. The one who didn't needs to speak up. IMO

Well it only takes one to strangle a 12 year old. They both participated in getting her to that point, abducting her and holding her assaulting her. I don't think it makes any difference which one actually killed her, they are both responsible. If one had really wanted to save her, they could have done so. He could have grabbed the other and told the girl to run. But he didn't do that. They are both equally liable for her death. The DA has ample evidence and so i don't think it is really even necessary to give one a deal to testify against the other.

 

[Yuletide]

What is willingly? Did she really want to go under that bridge with these two men? Of course not. Did she want to stay there two hours? No. She apparently bit one of them, so presumably she was trying to escape but not free to do so. You don't have to tie someone up or point a gun at them to kidnap them.

None of us know what those two evil beings said to get her to go with them. I believe I read that LE stated there was additional recording footage they located aside from the Circle K footage that showed the three of them walking to the bridge and then two hours later only the two men emerged. I concluded that they would have said they drug her or forced her under the bridge if she had not gone willingly. Instead LE said they lured her. From that I concluded that they tricked her and somehow earned her trust. It is sickening. And of course I would never believe that she wanted to go under the bridge and stay for two hours and be subjected to what she went through. I think she didn’t recognize the danger she was in until under the cover of the bridge. Those creeps tricked her. Pure evil

 

[dm799]

They aren't migrants. They're illegals. Wish DM would get that fact straight.

Not to defend the hate rag that is the DM, but they literally are migrants.

 

[mickey2942]

Well it only takes one to strangle a 12 year old. They both participated in getting her to that point, abducting her and holding her assaulting her. I don't think it makes any difference which one actually killed her, they are both responsible. If one had really wanted to save her, they could have done so. He could have grabbed the other and told the girl to run. But he didn't do that. They are both equally liable for her death. The DA has ample evidence and so i don't think it is really even necessary to give one a deal to testify against the other.

There was a case in Nevada, in which one person was the perpetrator, the other one just watched. The one who watched the rape and killing was not charged. They couldn't find any law that he broke at that time to charge him with.

In Strohmeyer case, ‘bad Samaritan’ David Cash led to new law

While little Sherrice Iverson’s death 20 years ago was heinous, and Jeremy Strohmeyer’s confession was chilling, a third player in the high-profile case proved controversial: David Cash...

www.reviewjournal.com

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Not to defend the hate rag that is the DM, but they literally are migrants.

don't migrants work as laborers?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

don't migrants work as laborers?

Where were these two working being out at 2a.m.?

The D.M. could split the difference and call them illegal migrant workers, if indeed they were working.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

There was a case in Nevada, in which one person was the perpetrator, the other one just watched. The one who watched the rape and killing was not charged. They couldn't find any law that he broke at that time to charge him with.

In Strohmeyer case, ‘bad Samaritan’ David Cash led to new law

While little Sherrice Iverson’s death 20 years ago was heinous, and Jeremy Strohmeyer’s confession was chilling, a third player in the high-profile case proved controversial: David Cash...

www.reviewjournal.com

Have they changed that law since?

 

[mickey2942]

Have they changed that law since?

Yes. In the article I posted, it is a crime to watch any Criminal act against a child and not report it. California has a similar law.

Disgusting, isn't it? That there needs to actually be a law that people are required to report seeing a crime perpetrated on a child?!

 

[Bounceycat]

Where were these two working being out at 2a.m.?

The D.M. could split the difference and call them illegal migrant workers, if indeed they were working.

It was reported they worked in construction, as they'd asked their boss for money to try to skip town.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Where were these two working being out at 2a.m.?

The D.M. could split the difference and call them illegal migrant workers, if indeed they were working.

Why is that important? The case is the case regardless. They're literally migrants, so the DM didn't get it wrong.