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

[AndresEscobar]

The signature murder method is the specific intent. Sam enjoyed bashing people's heads in. The objective doesn't need to be person specific, the objective can be mode of murder specific.

Until we have more evidence to mull over, I'm currently of the mind that Sam was enjoying his murder spree. It was the culmination of years of fantasizing and that's why he stayed in the house and didn't run. He was having too much fun.

"Specific intent" is a legal term. It actually has nothing to do with the murder method or whether he enjoyed it. In fact, if he did enjoy it, that may open the door for an insanity defense.

Also, GXM, please take my responses with all the respect possible. I'm not picking on you or anything, just arguing from my legal background. Thank you for making me keep my brain working and I enjoy trying to solve these hypotheticals you put forth.

 

[AndresEscobar]

If there was staging, desecration, videotaping after the murders, what role would that have in Sam's trial, I wonder...?

It would be very bad for Sam.

 

[gxm]

Well, the defense will have to argue against premeditation to save Sam's life. And, while premeditation is strongest for the father, all they have to prove is he didn't premeditate three of the murders to save his life.

IMO, only Emma's murder might be arguable regarding premeditation. Emma's mother and Mel had nothing to do with the failed romance. Even if he killed them to cover up Emma's murder, that's still premeditation.

But IMO all the prosecution has to present is that Sam enjoyed killing people and that was the specific intent of his crimes: the thrill of bashing someone's head in.

 

[tapu]

With regard to sentencing. But it wouldn't play much of a role in determination of guilt, right? Or degree of murder, more to the point?

 

[PAXIMUS]

This has been a great group of sleuths, I dont think I have ever seen such a great group come together on this forum before. We may have to have a renuinion someday.

It will be sort of sad when it is all over as I have enjoyed all of you.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I wanted to post this the other day when I read the warrants and such but for some reason I did not. I'm not sure how deeply we should read into the scene "may have been photographed or videotaped" supposition by the police officers. Though, while I agree its very possible, it might have been put forth to merely to "get" all these digital media items with the warrant.

The photographs they took during the time Sam was with Emma will be very useful for the prosecution and the defense.

 

[gxm]

"Specific intent" is a legal term. It actually has nothing to do with the murder method or whether he enjoyed it. In fact, if he did enjoy it, that may open the door for an insanity defense.

Also, GXM, please take my responses with all the respect possible. I'm not picking on you or anything, just arguing from my legal background. Thank you for making me keep my brain working and I enjoy trying to solve these hypotheticals you put forth.

No problem. I don't mind a good debate.

My point is that the average juror will not give a damn about the legal definition of intent. The fact that someone decides/premeditates a murder based on the thrill of bashing the victim's head in will be enough "intent" for the average person. The defense is fighting a HUGE uphill battle unless as mentioned earlier Sam is dealt a forensic miracle. That's why I think the best thing an attorney can do for Sam is to keep this one from going to trial. Once the prosecution starts showing the photos of the crime scene, it will be all over for Sam. I'm not talking about the legal aspect/argument, I'm talking about the average person's emotional response.

As I've said before, my heart sank when I heard the "Jesus made me do it" remark. I'm not pro-DP. And IMO, Sam sealed his fate by uttering those words about a murder case that will be tried in southern Virginia.

ETA: IMO, the only other tactic besides a plea bargain, would be an insanity defense. IANAL, but that's where I'd go with this one if I were forced to trial.

 

[AndresEscobar]

IMO, only Emma's murder might be arguable regarding premeditation. Emma's mother and Mel had nothing to do with the failed romance. Even if he killed them to cover up Emma's murder, that's still premeditation.

But IMO all the prosecution has to present is that Sam enjoyed killing people and that was the specific intent of his crimes: the thrill of bashing someone's head in.

Maybe. But, we don't know the facts. Say they were all sleeping in the same room for some reason. Or Emma's mom burst in on him while sam was in the middle of his murderous rage. Premeditation is so fact sensitive that, without more knowledge of what happened, we can't be sure.

I could sit here and construct ways where Sam didn't premeditate the murder of the 3 women, and where he did. But I'm just making suppositions.

 

[AndresEscobar]

No problem. I don't mind a good debate.

My point is that the average juror will not give a damn about the legal definition of intent. The fact that someone decides/premeditates a murder based on the thrill of bashing the victim's head in will be enough "intent" for the average person. The defense is fighting a HUGE uphill battle unless as mentioned earlier Sam is dealt a forensic miracle. That's why I think the best thing an attorney can do for Sam is to keep this one from going to trial. Once the prosecution starts showing the photos of the crime scene, it will be all over for Sam. I'm not talking about the legal aspect/argument, I'm talking about the average person's emotional response.

As I've said before, my heart sank when I heard the "Jesus made me do it" remark. I'm not pro-DP. And IMO, Sam sealed his fate by uttering those words about a murder case that will be tried in southern Virginia.

I agree that the best thing Sam's attorney can do is get a plea bargain. But, I'm not sure how likely that is. However, in a death penalty case, Sam will get appeals. And, if the prosecution did not prove its burden and only related to the jury's visceral instinct rather than the actual law, the jury's verdict will be thrown out.

Also, The jesus made me do it remark will be replayed over and over in the court room, unless the lawyer can get it kept from the jury. Under the circumstances, it was one of the worst things he could have said. And, it's probably the defense biggest obstacle.

 

[tapu]

This has been a great group of sleuths, I dont think I have ever seen such a great group come together on this forum before. We may have to have a renuinion someday.

It will be sort of sad when it is all over as I have enjoyed all of you.

It makes me feel better that you said that -- I was feeling pretty silly when I had the same thought a few days ago... :blush:

 

[gxm]

This has been a great group of sleuths, I dont think I have ever seen such a great group come together on this forum before. We may have to have a renuinion someday.

It will be sort of sad when it is all over as I have enjoyed all of you.

ITA. I've followed many interesting cases but this group of sleuths is tops.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I cannot believe Sicktanick is coming out with a new record.

If Sicktanick was smart, he'd be talking to a lawyer right now.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I agree that the best thing Sam's attorney can do is get a plea bargain. But, I'm not sure how likely that is. However, in a death penalty case, Sam will get appeals. And, if the prosecution did not prove its burden and only related to the jury's visceral instinct rather than the actual law, the jury's verdict will be thrown out.

Also, The jesus made me do it remark will be replayed over and over in the court room, unless the lawyer can get it kept from the jury. Under the circumstances, it was one of the worst things he could have said. And, it's probably the defense biggest obstacle.

If he wasnt read his rights before making that statement he could get it thrown out but I am sure they read them to him at the time of arrest.

 

[gxm]

I agree that the best thing Sam's attorney can do is get a plea bargain. But, I'm not sure how likely that is. However, in a death penalty case, Sam will get appeals. And, if the prosecution did not prove its burden and only related to the jury's visceral instinct rather than the actual law, the jury's verdict will be thrown out.

Also, The jesus made me do it remark will be replayed over and over in the court room, unless the lawyer can get it kept from the jury. Under the circumstances, it was one of the worst things he could have said. And, it's probably the defense biggest obstacle.

I don't know where you're from Andres, but I'm from Virginia. And I've got a bad feeling for Sam's chances. I'd prefer to see him get life but I think he'll get the DP. Just gut, not logic.

We are in agreement at this point that, without further facts, the biggest hurdle the defense faces is the "Jesus" remark. It will be sheer brilliance if his attorneys can spin that one in Sam's favor.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I cannot believe Sicktanick is coming out with a new record.

If Sicktanick was smart, he'd be talking to a lawyer right now.

Concur, bad move.


If I was Mel's parents I would be talking to a civil action attorney.

 

[Wes]

also, it's kind of interesting that he attacks the father too, had he known the father was coming to check on them? is there anything anywhere that says the father made contact with sam prior to going there? this is really a big wonderment on why did sam kill the dad too, unless, he was still in his 'fantasy-acting out' mode of thinking and attacked him as well....jmo

I read that Mel's mom called the dad on Thurs. because she couldn't find Mel. It's likely the dad phoned the house, and possibly left a message, prior to going over there in person. That's just speculation, but I would've called first and then went.

 

[maunsapt]

where did you read the autopsy report?

i dont believe there has been an autopsy report yet, just some of the info that had recently been in the news. i was just responding to the 'If' from an earlier posting by Paximus (i believe). and adding my wonderings on them.

I believe there was the comment that Sam could have used the weapon in an act of rage after an argument,,,, i asked if that was possible, since it has been mentioned that the girls might have been asleep prior to the bludgeoning. how could he be arguing if they were asleep? .... don't want to confuse anyone ....

 

[PAXIMUS]

I don't know where you're from Andres, but I'm from Virginia. And I've got a bad feeling for Sam's chances. I'd prefer to see him get life but I think he'll get the DP. Just gut, not logic.

We are in agreement at this point that, without further facts, the biggest hurdle the defense faces is the "Jesus" remark. It will be sheer brilliance if his attorneys can spin that one in Sam's favor.

I hate the DP with a passion. Like you it really breaks my heart that the kid sealed his fate like that. If he did it, he is a monster and should be locked up but I never support the DP for any reason.

 

[AndresEscobar]

If he wasnt read his rights before making that statement he could get it thrown out but I am sure they read them to him at the time of arrest.

If he wasn't read his rights before being arrested, the police basically ruined this case.

Though, the parties could agree to have it thrown out for other concessions. Or other evidentiary reasons.

 

[Wes]

If there was staging, desecration, videotaping after the murders, what role would that have in Sam's trial, I wonder...?

Electric chair and lethal injection?