VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #3

[tapu]

You are one of the least stupid people I have met in recent memory.

I think there might be a difference between say writing poetry about killing random people vs. sketching locations to fire from that you later eventually used to kill random people.

We can't start jailing people for writing poetry can we?

We wouldn't jail people for writing poetry, but we would jail them for premeditated murder if they murdered people and it were found that they'd been writing about doing just that, explicitly, for some time beforehand. I mean, hey, maybe we wouldn't-- but am I the only one that thinks writing that you're going to kill people and then killing them makes it seem like you sort of planned it?

 

[gxm]

I'm trying to construct some of these confirmed facts here into coherent arguments for both sides but they seem to still go both ways. You could say: see, he was spurned, he must have plotted this murder for days. But, he was visibly nonchalant at the concert and didn't arose anyone's concern. And he was with some other girl . . . I almost wonder, based on the OK Cupid profile, the other girl at SFTW, if he had a few little internet girlfriends.

It also seems like Emma was being cruel to him on the ride home. But, why did it take him so long to do it, if he planned it out? What was the significance of that night, the 15th, as opposed to the 14th? The 16th? Presumably, he would have had similar opportunities. They certainly slept on the 14th.

One of the most difficult aspects of this crime, for me, is that Sam didn't wait until Mel had left. Mel, it appears, had nothing to do with his failed romance with Emma. Why take her out too? If he had just waited till she was gone, he might have made it back to Cali.

 

[tapu]

I do see what you guys are saying, and I appreciate all the extra words you put into it. I would think that it is a topic remaining open to lengthy logical, if not legal, debate....

 

[tapu]

One of the most difficult aspects of this crime, for me, is that Sam didn't wait until Mel had left. Mel, it appears, had nothing to do with his failed romance with Emma. Why take her out too? If he had just waited till she was gone, he might have made it back to Cali.

By the time they got back to VA, it was probably more than just Emma that Sam was detesting and blaming. The girls would have been hanging together about all that, and in Sam's darkening view, even the parents may have seemed all part of the unified, jolly picture. They may have represented a world that shut Sam out and ridiculed him, looked down upon him.

 

[gxm]

I keep trying to make this point without sounding like i'm lecturing, but the content of Sam's music is largely irrelevant as to proving specific intent of premeditation. It doesn't matter that he sang about killing people. What does matter is did he plan to kill Emma, Mel, Ms. Kelly and the pastor.

Am i making sense? You have to have the specific "malice aforethought" in relation to the people you killed. You have to decide to kill the people you killed.

So, writing or rapping about killing people in general does not prove that Sam premeditated murdering these four people.

Now, if he had written our plans in those notebooks to kill Emma, Mel, and Emma's parents, that is highly relevant to premeditation.

And I think you are misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make. That point is that a jury (the folks who decide the case) may choose logic over legalese and decide that a man preoccupied with the thought (malice aforethought) of bludgeoning people to death is guilty of premeditation when he does in fact finally act on those impulses that he himself had publicly declared for a lengthy amount of time. It's going to be VERY HARD to convince a jury that the idea of bludgeoning Emma, Emma's parents and Mel just came to Sam all of a sudden in a split second.

 

[gxm]

Specific intent.

The specific intent IMO is the mode of murder. Wanting to feel the splatter of brains and blood (which IIRC is something Sam wrote about), enjoying the act of beating the life out of someone. That is the specific intent.

 

[PAXIMUS]

What if you are a romance novelist and you write of a murder that takes place between lovers. 5 years later you are involved in a bad relationship and someone gets killed in a strangely similar manner to what you wrote it your book but the evidence clearly suggests it was a heat of the passion type thing and you writing of it was strictly a coincidence, but a zealous prosecutor wants to use your writing to prove premeditation even though its pretty clear there is NO WAY possible you could connect what you wrote 5 years earlier to this murder.

The difference is 5 years in prison or life without parole.

We have legal standards to protect us.

IF sam wrote his music with the specific and rational intention of killing NOT JUST PEOPLE but EMMA etc specifically, then it may be admissable, but you would waste the courts time trying to prove that, its impossibe to prove, but it is not hard nor impossible to prove that he made a rational decision to murder the MOMENT he went looking around for a weapon, picked up the maul and set it aside and waited for the right time to use it. Thats easy to prove. You cant prove what he was THINKING and what his INTENTIONS were WHEN HE WROTE HIS MUSIC, that is impossible. The act of writing music isnt a crime and there is no way you can prove what his intentions were when he was writing it.

I will be SHOCKED if the defense allows the state to introduce the music Sam wrote. Any first year law student can write a motion to get that tossed. But I dont know VA law so its hard to say for sure, every state is different, thats why we have state bar exams, you have to know this stuff to try and case in any particular state.

NOW if the defense decides to introduce the occult, satanism and horrorcore as a means of saying Sam was influenced by these evil things THEN the defense would be OPENING THE DOOR for the state to introduce Sam's songs and argue he was a writer and producer of it HIMSELF. So the defense has to be very careful here.

Let me tell you one thing, lawyers arent cheap for a reason, its not an easy ****ing job and there are alot of decisions you have to make with someone elses life on the line, its no fun.

 

[smartie74]

It really depends on what the judge will allow since state laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder.

GENERALLY speaking it only applies when the specific, intentional and rational decision is made to MURDER. The fantasies you suggest would not be admissable unless you have a very incompetent attorney.

It could be SECONDS or days or weeks but a rational and intentional decision would have had to have been made and this decision PROVEN in court, that this person was going to kill someone else.

If Sam's attorney is any good the jury will never hear about the songs he made. However, that does depend on what the judge will personally allow, I would argue to have it tossed as it is frankly irrelevant to the case and has nothing to do with the murder. There is no evidence to suggest he had any plans to kill anyone WHILE HE WAS MAKING THE SONG so therefore to introduce such would taint the jury and set Sam up for a nice appeal.
IF the maul was IN THE ROOM and an argument broke out and he grabbed it (weapon of opportunity) and killed whoever was in the room, that would likely not be premeditated murder but rather "heat of the passion." But once Sam made a rational and intentional decision to GO LOOK FOR A WEAPON to be used to kill Emma etc, he premeditated the murder.

In the case of SAM the premeditation would likely begin, legally speaking, the moment he decided to walk to the woodpile and pick up the maul.

Just a question, say that the maul was used to cut kindling and it was leaning against a fireplace inside and they were in that room and he just grabbed it to start the terror. Would that be considered premeditation?

 

[tapu]

Just a question, say that the maul was used to cut kindling and it was leaning against a fireplace inside and they were in that room and he just grabbed it to start the terror. Would that be considered premeditation?

I think that in that case, it would very much be a point of contention, and could be decided that it was not premeditation. There's where you'd really need the good lawyer.

 

[PAXIMUS]

The specific intent IMO is the mode of murder. Wanting to feel the splatter of brains and blood (which IIRC is something Sam wrote about), enjoying the act of beating the life out of someone. That is the specific intent.

Well technically the specific intent would apply to THE MOMENT SAM SAID TO HIMSELF "OK I AM GOING TO KILL THEM/HER/HIM etc." That MOMENT and WHEN it happened and what PRECEEDED it is what will determine premeditation.

Doesnt matter what he wrote about as you cannot prove at the time he wrote it that he intended to MURDER THOSE PEOPLE. The act of writing is not a crime, you can write whatever you want. IF you can prove that at the time he wrote his music that he was THINKING, "I am gonna do this to Emma, Mel etc" then ok, but you cant prove that, it is impossible. How can you prove that?

 

[tapu]

yeah, you nailed it

 

[PAXIMUS]

Just a question, say that the maul was used to cut kindling and it was leaning against a fireplace inside and they were in that room and he just grabbed it to start the terror. Would that be considered premeditation?

Maybe not, if he didnt think it over FIRST and just GRABBED THE FIRST WEAPON OF OPPORTUNITY in the heat of an argument and started swinging I could absolutely get him murder 2 on that.

But then you have the case of swinging at one person, killing them and then MOVING TO THE NEXT PERSON, THAT would perhaps show premeditation for the SECOND MURDER unless he was swinging blindly and out of control and just hit whatever was in his way in a fit of rage.

DOESNT MATTER where the weapon is what matters is DOES SAM SEE THE WEAPON AND THINK "OK I am USE gonna THAT to kill this *****." OR does he simply GRAB IT because its the NEAREST THING IN REACH, while in a fit of rage and start swinging it. If a LAMP was closer than the MAUL and he grabbed the MAUL you could argue PREMEDITATION then because he should have grabbed the lamp and smashed it over her head but he BYPASSED THE LAMP and made a rational decision to use the MAUL sitting right over there INSTEAD.

In the end it all depends on the judge and how well you argue your point, you could say WELL THERE WAS A PILLOW closer than the MAUL he could have SMOTHERED her but INSTEAD went for the MAUL which was further out of reach than the pillow therefore the use of the maul shows premeditation. The judge may buy it, may not. They are all different. You can argue all sorts of ****.

You see?

 

[dangrsmind]

Well technically the specific intent would apply to THE MOMENT SAM SAID TO HIMSELF "OK I AM GOING TO KILL THEM/HER/HIM etc." That MOMENT and WHEN it happened and what PRECEEDED it is what will determine premeditation.

Doesnt matter what he wrote about as you cannot prove at the time he wrote it that he intended to MURDER THOSE PEOPLE. The act of writing is not a crime, you can write whatever you want. IF you can prove that at the time he wrote his music that he was THINKING, "I am gonna do this to Emma, Mel etc" then ok, but you cant prove that, it is impossible. How can you prove that?

It seems the writing would have to be a lot more specific than his music was, however disturbing it is in hindsight. Again, if he was writing plans for how the murder would be conducted (i.e. step 1 attack girls, step 2. attack mother, ...) that might be an entirely different matter. Makes me wonder again what was in that notebook.

Just referring to my experience as a juror here, IANAL.

 

[gxm]

It really depends on what the judge will allow since state laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder.

GENERALLY speaking it only applies when the specific, intentional and rational decision is made to MURDER. The fantasies you suggest would not be admissable unless you have a very incompetent attorney.

It could be SECONDS or days or weeks but a rational and intentional decision would have had to have been made and this decision PROVEN in court, that this person was going to kill someone else.

If Sam's attorney is any good the jury will never hear about the songs he made. However, that does depend on what the judge will personally allow, I would argue to have it tossed as it is frankly irrelevant to the case and has nothing to do with the murder. There is no evidence to suggest he had any plans to kill anyone WHILE HE WAS MAKING THE SONG so therefore to introduce such would taint the jury and set Sam up for a nice appeal.
IF the maul was IN THE ROOM and an argument broke out and he grabbed it (weapon of opportunity) and killed whoever was in the room, that would likely not be premeditated murder but rather "heat of the passion." But once Sam made a rational and intentional decision to GO LOOK FOR A WEAPON to be used to kill Emma etc, he premeditated the murder.

In the case of SAM the premeditation would likely begin, legally speaking, the moment he decided to walk to the woodpile and pick up the maul.

I agree with your last paragraph. And IMO the reason he chose the maul is because that is the method of killing he had long fantasized about. It all follows one path from the adolescent preoccupation with violence to the culmination of the murders. As with any serial killer, and IMO Sam is a serial killer with a (fortunately) short career, the only real "intent" is murder and with serial killers it is often murder of a specific kind.

 

[NativeGirl]

Just another comment/thought...

Apparently Sam and some other girl are making out at the concert. First of all, I can understand listening to horrorcore to some extent, but really it has to be the worst make out music ever. So I think this is a little strange right off the bat.

What happened with this girl?

Why didn't he go with her or try to hook up with her further after STFW?

I think he just used this girl, to try to make Emma Jealous and maybe this will make Emma come back to him??

just a thought....

 

[gxm]

I think that in that case, it would very much be a point of contention, and could be decided that it was not premeditation. There's where you'd really need the good lawyer.

IMO, I think it would be very hard to convince a jury that a maul happened to be handy in every room a victim was in. There were four victims but I doubt there were four mauls conveniently located next to each victim.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Sure but this is all a moot point as there is little doubt that there is premeditation in this case as it is hard to argue heat of the moment when 3 are dead and a 4th at a later time. Had he stopped after he killed EMMA maybe this would be a succcessful defense but he went from MOM to EMMA to MEL to DAD, alot of thinking and decision making involved in that.

 

[PAXIMUS]

IMO, I think it would be very hard to convince a jury that a maul happened to be handy in every room a victim was in. There were four victims but I doubt there were four mauls conveniently located next to each victim.

Right, such an argument would only work if he killed one person or 2 or 3 but all at the same time in the same fit of rage swinging blindly and out of control and not moving from room to room or person to person. It is unlikely he would kill more than ONE this way because the other people would get the **** out of there and IF HE WENT AFTER THEM premeditation comes in to play then.

 

[gxm]

Sure but this is all a moot point as there is little doubt that there is premeditation in this case as it is hard to argue heat of the moment when 3 are dead and a 4th at a later time. Had he stopped after he killed EMMA maybe this would be a succcessful defense but he went from MOM to EMMA to MEL to DAD, alot of thinking and decision making involved in that.

And, to the best of our knowledge, he killed them all in the same manner. It is just my opinion, but I think Sam was a budding serial killer with a signature behavior. Which is why I think his writing and graphics are pertinent to the murders.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I agree with your last paragraph. And IMO the reason he chose the maul is because that is the method of killing he had long fantasized about. It all follows one path from the adolescent preoccupation with violence to the culmination of the murders. As with any serial killer, and IMO Sam is a serial killer with a (fortunately) short career, the only real "intent" is murder and with serial killers it is often murder of a specific kind.

I am not sure I agree he is a SERIAL KILLER as I am not sure what the exact definition of such would be, personally I think he was too sloppy to be a serial killer as a real serial killer seems to have everything planned out TO THE SECOND and follows a very strict game plan. Sam was all over the place and had no idea WTF he was doing or would do next. You could argue he was a serial killer but not a very good one I suppose.

I think he was a kid who snapped and had he not been put in that EXACT situation he may have went his whole life without killing, I think we had just the RIGHT INGREDIENTS in this case to make him snap and kill BUT that is only my opinion and you may be right.