VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #2

[tapu]

aside: it's amazing how we've managed to sustain this conversation--there are 12 people on here right now! At 3:00 on a work day. If we ever get some actual information, we're going to have to rent a hall!

 

[AndresEscobar]

But most girls don't have a wood maul sitting around their bedroom (well, 'funny' but true, perhaps Emma did, as 'decoration'). But, assuming the wood maul was stored in the garage and/or a shed and/or outside, the time it took to go get the maul shows intent by law. Nancy Grace always points out (ad nausum) that intent can be in the snap of the fingers, while choosing to reach for a weapon, much less making a specific trip to other parts of the house.

Again, thats supposing he had to find the weapon. In that scenario, I would agree that finding the weapon would provide a stronger basis for intent than he simply "waited for them to fall asleep", but it's not proof of intent. The wood maul could have been in the house and he could have instinctively reached for it. Intent is a really muddy area of law, and the required intent for first degree murder is very tricky.

Nancy Grace aside, let me be clear: I'm not saying this wasn't premeditated murder. I'm saying premeditation is a legal term that is being thrown around here inaccurately, and based on the facts that we've been presented, we cannot say that there is proof of premeditation.

 

[dangrsmind]

You know I was thinking, maybe he was there long before 4AM? He could have just been stuck in that ditch for a while wondering what to do next until police showed up.

True. And it occurs to me again that since we only know the police believe they have the murder weapons, but not where they found them. If he was out there for a while he might have stashed the evidence in an area away from those houses before trying to turn around. We don't have enough information again.

 

[dangrsmind]

Hi, i'm new here and have been following this story from the beginning, i think. I was wondering why Sam made the phone call to the police too, saying he heard a noise. You would have thought, he would have had the owners make the call. You would have thought the LE had inquired about the owner of the home, why they had not made the call or where were they? Now, If I was staying at a friend's home, I would surely have awakened them and mentioned the noises and then made a phone call. When cops come to investigate, they also ask if others are in the house, etc. I find this interesting that it is not mentioned at all. Do you get what I am asking?

Welcome maunsapt.

I agree. It is mysterious.

There would be lots of things required to set up the scene to make it look like an unknown intruder was the murderer. For example, you'd want to create an obvious site of forced entry to make it look like someone broke in from outside the house. Both calling the police to the scene and moving the bodies around are problematic in this version of the story in my opinion.

 

[AndresEscobar]

To clarify my premeditation comments: the prosecutor in this case probably will argue premeditation by saying: he decided to kill them. He waited for them to go to sleep. Then he snuck out to the shed, where he chose from a wide variety of weapons. He settled with the maul because it would do the most damage. He snuck back into the house, into the sleeping girls room. He looked at her, then he killed her.

The Defense is going to argue an entirely different scenario. Maybe the maul was in the house. Maybe they were joking around with it earlier and left in the house -- say there is a digital camera on the scene with a picture of them with the axe (they took all kinds of photos like this).

Absent a confession, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he premeditated this murder. That's why we as "websleuths" can't say we've "proved premeditation": we don't have access to the right information. Yet.

 

[gxm]

I'm sorry to argue this with you, but we do not know that there was premeditation. Premeditation is a legal term, and there must be a basis to prove premeditation beyond that it "possibly" or "looks to be" premeditation. We do not know the facts of this case well enough to conclude that this was a premeditated murder.

The flaw with the scenario you're proposing proving premediation is you're using the statement McCroskey made to a cab driver then adding in your own supposition (that instead of "left the house" he meant "killed her") as the basis. First, there is no way to verify anything McCroskey said to the cab driver is true. Second, even if it is true, or partially true, it still does not prove the requisite intent, premeditation.

There could have been a second text, or he could have read something on myspace, or in a diary, or he could have just realized she had lied to him, which could have put him into the rage to cause these murders. If something set him off and he killed all three women in a fit of blind, uncontrollable rage, legally it's not premeditated murder.

Yes. I'm speculating. That's what we're all doing.

IMO, Sam used facts but just omitted the murder portion. This was his way of keeping his story straight. He stuck to the truth and left out the worst details.

And, even if he killed Emma in a momentary rage, he would have had to make the decision to kill the other three as he had no reason to be enraged with them. And simply the act of going to get the large maul, which probably wasn't kept in the house, shows intent IMHO.

As mentioned before, intent can be formed in moments; it doesn't require hours of careful planning.

 

[gxm]

Again, thats supposing he had to find the weapon. In that scenario, I would agree that finding the weapon would provide a stronger basis for intent than he simply "waited for them to fall asleep", but it's not proof of intent. The wood maul could have been in the house and he could have instinctively reached for it. Intent is a really muddy area of law, and the required intent for first degree murder is very tricky.

Nancy Grace aside, let me be clear: I'm not saying this wasn't premeditated murder. I'm saying premeditation is a legal term that is being thrown around here inaccurately, and based on the facts that we've been presented, we cannot say that there is proof of premeditation.

I'm not mindlessly throwing the word around. It is my opinion, based on the evidence so far, that Sam waited for the women to go to sleep and then killed them. It will most likely be a DP case in a state that follows through with capital punishment, so there's little doubt the defense attorney will argue this and I can't wait to hear the scenario he comes up with.

 

[gxm]

You know I was thinking, maybe he was there long before 4AM? He could have just been stuck in that ditch for a while wondering what to do next until police showed up.

That's an excellent point.

 

[AndresEscobar]

(respectfully snipped)

Nancy Grace always points out (ad nausum) that intent can be in the snap of the fingers, while choosing to reach for a weapon, much less making a specific trip to other parts of the house.

Also, re: Nancy Grace. I know I don't have to tell you that Nancy Grace is a television persona and therefore her legal claims aren't always accurate for a variety of reasons. In this instance, she's applying a blanket statement to a situation that is very fact sensitive, and therefore blanket statements aren't appropriate.

She is correct that intent can be (and often is) in the snap of a finger. And choosing to reach or find a weapon, or to go to another part of the house is indicative of intent, not proof of intent.

Often in strangulation cases, the prosecution argues that the perpetrator achieves the requisite intent for first degree murder (premeditation) while he/she strangles the victim, during the time it takes them to die. This works in some instances, and fails in others.

The crime scene itself is very important as to whether McCroskey is convicted of first degree murder and is then up for the death penalty.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I'm not mindlessly throwing the word around. It is my opinion, based on the evidence so far, that Sam waited for the women to go to sleep and then killed them. It will most likely be a DP case in a state that follows through with capital punishment, so there's little doubt the defense attorney will argue this and I can't wait to hear the scenario he comes up with.

Honestly, the defense's job in this instance is to save McCroskey's life. Based on the high emotion surrounding this case, and what we know so far, I'd suggest he plead guilty and hope for life in prison.

I think the most damning part for McCroskey is the "Jesus told me to do it" comment.

 

[gxm]

FWIW, and not that I'm a fan but Nancy Grace does actually have a legal background.

Nancy Grace joined Court TV from the Atlanta Fulton County District Attorney's Office where she served for a decade as special prosecutor of felony cases involving serial murder, rape, child molestation and arson.

Grace gave up career plans to become an English professor after the murder of her fiancé. She enrolled in law school, eventually becoming a prosecutor and an outspoken victims' rights advocate. Grace helped staff the hotline at an Atlanta battered women’s center for 10 years."

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/grace.nancy.html

 

[gxm]

Honestly, the defense's job in this instance is to save McCroskey's life. Based on the high emotion surrounding this case, and what we know so far, I'd suggest he plead guilty and hope for life in prison.

I think the most damning part for McCroskey is the "Jesus told me to do it" comment.

ITA. His lawyer is apparently a well regarded DP attorney and I can't imagine him letting this go to trial unless the prosecution won't take a deal. LWOP is about as good as Sam is likely to get. JMHO.

 

[AndresEscobar]

FWIW, and not that I'm a fan but Nancy Grace does actually have a legal background.

Nancy Grace joined Court TV from the Atlanta Fulton County District Attorney's Office where she served for a decade as special prosecutor of felony cases involving serial murder, rape, child molestation and arson.

Grace gave up career plans to become an English professor after the murder of her fiancé. She enrolled in law school, eventually becoming a prosecutor and an outspoken victims' rights advocate. Grace helped staff the hotline at an Atlanta battered women’s center for 10 years."

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/grace.nancy.html

Oh, i know she has a legal backround, I was just saying on her show she tends to explain things in a way much simpler than it actually is in criminal law. The doctrines are convoluted (especially intent), and she waters them down for her show.

She also a bit of a prosecutors bias. I guess It's obvious I work in defense. :innocent:

 

[AndresEscobar]

ITA. His lawyer is apparently a well regarded DP attorney and I can't imagine him letting this go to trial unless the prosecution won't take a deal. LWOP is about as good as Sam is likely to get. JMHO.

Oh, yeah, unless McCroskey sister's theory turns out to be true, he's going away forever.

I'm interested in whether his attorney is moving for a change in venue. Or, since he must be, I'm curious as to how that motion is decided.

 

[Heroine]

True. And it occurs to me again that since we only know the police believe they have the murder weapons, but not where they found them. If he was out there for a while he might have stashed the evidence in an area away from those houses before trying to turn around. We don't have enough information again.

I kept going a bit past those 2 driveways and found this barn right around the corner. We don't really know how many times he drove up and down that road either before maybe making a decision where to do the dumping, so he could have turned around at the end of the road a couple times before trying to turn around in the ditch. (which would explain why someone called in a suspicious car report) Anyway this barn looks like a pretty darn good place to me, It's old, unused, right at the edge of the road, so that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.
This road is full of crap like this. Only a few houses and most of them have long driveways way off the road. And there are a ton of those abandoned driveways and quite a few unused barns. Edited to say that from those 2 driveways and all through this section there aren't any signs of civilization. Unless of course we're now considering cows civilized.

 

[dangrsmind]

Honestly, the defense's job in this instance is to save McCroskey's life. Based on the high emotion surrounding this case, and what we know so far, I'd suggest he plead guilty and hope for life in prison.

I think the most damning part for McCroskey is the "Jesus told me to do it" comment.

A few years ago I served as an alternate juror on an attempted murder trial. The accused ended up being found guilty (correctly IMO) of a lesser charge, attempted manslaughter, not because he didn't very likely go to the location with the intent to kill the victim, but rather because the prosecution failed to present the necessary evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot of evidence involving weapons, blood splatter, jail house phone recordings and more. But none of it proved this point.

 

[tapu]

I kept going a bit past those 2 driveways and found this barn right around the corner. We don't really know how many times he drove up and down that road either before maybe making a decision where to do the dumping, so he could have turned around at the end of the road a couple times before trying to turn around in the ditch. (which would explain why someone called in a suspicious car report) Anyway this barn looks like a pretty darn good place to me, It's old, unused, right at the edge of the road, so that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.
This road is full of crap like this. Only a few houses and most of them have long driveways way off the road. And there are a ton of those abandoned driveways and quite a few unused barns. Edited to say that from those 2 driveways and all through this section there aren't any signs of civilization. Unless of course we're now considering cows civilized.

Ehh... you're not out there by yourself prowling around, are you, sistah? You're kinda skeevin' me here.

 

[AndresEscobar]

A few years ago I served as an alternate juror on an attempted murder trial. The accused ended up being found guilty (correctly IMO) of a lesser charge, attempted manslaughter, not because he didn't very likely go to the location with the intent to kill the victim, but rather because the prosecution failed to present the necessary evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot of evidence involving weapons, blood splatter, jail house phone recordings and more. But none of it proved this point.

Yeah, this is the point i'm trying to make: the burden of proof of premeditated murder is a high hurdle, it's very difficult to prove.

 

[Heroine]

Ehh... you're not out there by yourself prowling around, are you, sistah? You're kinda skeevin' me here.

Not unless you consider google maps prowling....haha! Google maps are the greatest, you can see everything as if you were there. Besides I'm just doing a little detective work here.... give me a break! haha! I have thought about riding down that road though, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Edited to say don't get jealous, you can prowl too!

 

[tapu]

Not unless you consider google maps prowling....haha! Google maps are the greatest, you can see everything as if you were there. I have thought about riding down that road though, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Oh--ha! I knew you had been doing the Google map thing, but that last one sounded so real, rather than... virtual. Cool....