GUILTY WI - 12-Year-Old Girls Stab Friend 19 Times for Slenderman, Waukesha, 31 May 2014 #2

[MyBelle]

It may vary by state, but in my state, trying this case as a juvenile would give the judge more flexibility in getting the defendant needed mental health treatment. Trying the case in the the adult system would significantly limit the judge's options. Any Wisconsin lawyers able to give us insight into this?

If that is true in Wisconsin wouldn't the attorney mention it to the media? He mentions only wanting to keep it away from the media and the public.

Judge Michael Bohren ordered a competency hearing for Geyser on Aug. 1 at the request of prosecutors. He also sought another examination of Geyser that focuses on her mental state at the time of the alleged stabbing, her attorney Anthony Cotton said.

Cotton said he believes it would be appropriate for the case to be moved to juvenile court, away from the media and public.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...sin-girls-slenderman-20140702,0,4845121.story

 

[AnaTeresa]

If that is true in Wisconsin wouldn't the attorney mention it to the media? He mentions only wanting to keep it away from the media and the public.

Judge Michael Bohren ordered a competency hearing for Geyser on Aug. 1 at the request of prosecutors. He also sought another examination of Geyser that focuses on her mental state at the time of the alleged stabbing, her attorney Anthony Cotton said.

Cotton said he believes it would be appropriate for the case to be moved to juvenile court, away from the media and public.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...sin-girls-slenderman-20140702,0,4845121.story

I don't think statements to the media are really all that comprehensive. Plus, the flexibility that judges have in the juvenile system is in part because the cases are out of the media spotlight and intense pressure. In the juvenile system, judges have more flexibility to look at the individual and tailor punishment and rehabilitation to them as an individual, and they are more likely to use it because there isn't that media spotlight. So I don't see his statement to the media about why he wants the case moved to mean that's the only reason.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think statements to the media are really all that comprehensive. Plus, the flexibility that judges have in the juvenile system is in part because the cases are out of the media spotlight and intense pressure. In the juvenile system, judges have more flexibility to look at the individual and tailor punishment and rehabilitation to them as an individual, and they are more likely to use it because there isn't that media spotlight. So I don't see his statement to the media about why he wants the case moved to mean that's the only reason.

Thanks. In that same article it mentions documents that have been sealed so if that can happen in adult court, I'm not sure why it would need to go into juvenile court. I don't know Wisconsin or what kind of flexibility juvenile court would offer a Judge that he doesn't have in adult court. For whatever reason, their lawmakers decided for some violent crimes, everyone over the age ten must start in adult court. I think the degree of violence, pain and suffering inflicted will keep these cases in adult court but we will certainly see how it unfolds.

 

[ICS]

In that same article it mentions documents that have been sealed so if that can happen in adult court, I'm not sure why it would need to go into juvenile court. I don't know Wisconsin or what kind of flexibility juvenile court would offer a Judge that he doesn't have in adult court. For whatever reason, their lawmakers decided for some violent crimes, everyone over the age ten must start in adult court.

The law regarding charging those 10 or above as adults came about as a result of gang violence perpetrated by minors. It seems that it had become common for minors to be involved in violent gang crime in the knowledge that they would not be locked up for life as would be the case with adults. The law of course makes no distinction about the context of the crime - that presumably comes down to the DA and the judge.

I found a document that is relevant to the discussion: Prosecution of Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court

It seems that the court that initially deals with a case is crucial:

- if the case originates in adult court, the age at which a juvenile can be charged as an adult is 10, but
- if the case originates in juvenile court, it can only be waived to adult court if the defendant is 14 or older

This suggests that it MUST be possible to do either, and that the judge has discretion. As the girls are 12, had the case not originated in adult court, it could never be heard in adult court. The girls' attorneys will be seeking a "reverse waiver", which would put the case in juvenile court. Due to the above document, however, it COULD still be waived back to adult court because that's where it originated.

The issue I see with trying juveniles as adults is twofold:

- there is less (or no) emphasis on therapy and rehabilitation in the adult system. It is far less likely that the two would be able to become functional members of society on their release

- while the court may have deemed the girls to be "adults", the rest of the world does not, including the media, who see a juicy story. As we have seen, within a few days, the names and pictures of the girls and their families were spread around the world, along with various sensationalized bits cherry-picked from the criminal complaint. The comments section of newspaper articles and forum posts became a kangaroo court in which the righteous (having proclaimed this could never happen with their children), found the defendants guilty, and in some cases sentenced them - and even their families -to death. Contrast that with the girl in Ohio who stabbed her mother. As the age is 14 in Ohio for being charged as an adult, we did not learn her name, see her photo, or the names and photos of her family.

It feels that the prosecution in this case is in part driven by public sentiment, not the law. In particular, I thought that some of the comments of the DA, Brad Schimel, could be viewed as prejudicial.

In 6 days we may know a lot more.

 

[MyBelle]

The law regarding charging those 10 or above as adults came about as a result of gang violence perpetrated by minors. It seems that it had become common for minors to be involved in violent gang crime in the knowledge that they would not be locked up for life as would be the case with adults. The law of course makes no distinction about the context of the crime - that presumably comes down to the DA and the judge.

I found a document that is relevant to the discussion: Prosecution of Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court

It seems that the court that initially deals with a case is crucial:

- if the case originates in adult court, the age at which a juvenile can be charged as an adult is 10, but
- if the case originates in juvenile court, it can only be waived to adult court if the defendant is 14 or older

This suggests that it MUST be possible to do either, and that the judge has discretion. As the girls are 12, had the case not originated in adult court, it could never be heard in adult court. The girls' attorneys will be seeking a "reverse waiver", which would put the case in juvenile court. Due to the above document, however, it COULD still be waived back to adult court because that's where it originated.

The issue I see with trying juveniles as adults is twofold:

- there is less (or no) emphasis on therapy and rehabilitation in the adult system. It is far less likely that the two would be able to become functional members of society on their release

- while the court may have deemed the girls to be "adults", the rest of the world does not, including the media, who see a juicy story. As we have seen, within a few days, the names and pictures of the girls and their families were spread around the world, along with various sensationalized bits cherry-picked from the criminal complaint. The comments section of newspaper articles and forum posts became a kangaroo court in which the righteous (having proclaimed this could never happen with their children), found the defendants guilty, and in some cases sentenced them - and even their families -to death. Contrast that with the girl in Ohio who stabbed her mother. As the age is 14 in Ohio for being charged as an adult, we did not learn her name, see her photo, or the names and photos of her family.

It feels that the prosecution in this case is in part driven by public sentiment, not the law. In particular, I thought that some of the comments of the DA, Brad Schimel, could be viewed as prejudicial.

In 6 days we may know a lot more.

I believe the victim is the only one with a right to privacy because of her age. I really don't care about any sensationalism about her attackers because they confessed to a horrific crime. If they had not confessed or if they had not been the source of the Slenderman information given to police, I'd feel differently.

As I understand it, the prosecution charged both girls with specific felony charges to ensure this case originates in adult court. I'm not sure where you get the idea the prosecutor only did so because of public sentiment or media sensationalism. I believe the prosecutor's decision was based solely on the horrific nature of the crime, that it was premeditated and that they confessed. I don't believe the defendants' ages or gender played any part in that decision. I think their community and classmates have every right to know their names.

There was a case in Florida several years ago with a 12-year-old boy, Cristian Fernandez charged as an adult with the murder of his little brother. The judge eventually issued a gag order after much media scrutiny of his life and family. Cristian's case eventually landed in juvenile court and this case may, too.

JMO


http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...ezs-mother-pleads-guilty-death-2-year-old-son

 

[Lovejac]

This is lovely..

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/0...-victim-anonymous-purple-heart-gift?hpt=hp_t2

What a beautiful thing to do. That story gave me good goosebumps.

 

[ICS]

Great discussion MyBelle :great: This case has sparked some fascinating debate.

I believe the victim is the only one with a right to privacy because of her age.

And because she is the victim.

I really don't care about any sensationalism about her attackers because they confessed to a horrific crime.

With respect, alleged crime. Innocent until proven guilty. While there seems to be no doubt that they did it (and I believe they did)... tremendous damage has already been done by the publicity, both to the defendants themselves and to their families.

As I understand it, the prosecution charged both girls with specific felony charges to ensure this case originates in adult court.

They were charged with first degree intentional homicide. In Wisconsin, this automatically means adult court for those over 10 regardless of the prosecutor's views, and the actual outcome.

I'm not sure where you get the idea the prosecutor only did so because of public sentiment or media sensationalism.

Not the fact that they were charged as adults - that's the law. It was what was said initially in public comments by certain officials representing the State of Wisconsin. They were discussing possible sentencing for a case in which the defendants have not even entered a plea yet, yet alone been found guilty.

Regardless of their ultimate guilt, I maintain that making such statements is prejudicial because it lends official credence to the defendants' guilt before they have been tried. On some forums people thought they had already been tried and sentenced.

I believe the prosecutor's decision was based solely on the horrific nature of the crime, that it was premeditated and that they confessed. I don't believe the defendants' ages or gender played any part in that decision.

First degree intentional homicide was the sole reason for the decision.

I think their community and classmates have every right to know their names.

The kids and families close to the case already knew. I'm not sure why you'd think they have that right before a plea has even been entered? What would they do with that information?

Some truly nasty things have already been sent to the suspects' families as a result of the information publicized. This publicity would have been vastly diminished if they were "real" adults, as there would have been no lurid story to publish.

I'm honestly not being an apologist for these girls. I believe that what they allegedly did is appalling beyond belief, and frankly, incomprehensible. But charging them as adults - thus allowing the media access - results in a different situation for them than it would for real adults, precisely because they are NOT adults! And the sensationalism so caused does huge damage to the defendants and to their families... before so much as a plea has been entered.

What I would have been OK with is what the court eventually did - NOT publicizing the names and their images until such time as it was determined which court would have jurisdiction. That has been done now, but it was too late. The world already knew.

 

[MyBelle]

Great discussion MyBelle :great: This case has sparked some fascinating debate.



And because she is the victim.



With respect, alleged crime. Innocent until proven guilty. While there seems to be no doubt that they did it (and I believe they did)... tremendous damage has already been done by the publicity, both to the defendants themselves and to their families.



They were charged with first degree intentional homicide. In Wisconsin, this automatically means adult court for those over 10 regardless of the prosecutor's views, and the actual outcome.



Not the fact that they were charged as adults - that's the law. It was what was said initially in public comments by certain officials representing the State of Wisconsin. They were discussing possible sentencing for a case in which the defendants have not even entered a plea yet, yet alone been found guilty.

Regardless of their ultimate guilt, I maintain that making such statements is prejudicial because it lends official credence to the defendants' guilt before they have been tried. On some forums people thought they had already been tried and sentenced.



First degree intentional homicide was the sole reason for the decision.



The kids and families close to the case already knew. I'm not sure why you'd think they have that right before a plea has even been entered? What would they do with that information?

Some truly nasty things have already been sent to the suspects' families as a result of the information publicized. This publicity would have been vastly diminished if they were "real" adults, as there would have been no lurid story to publish.

I'm honestly not being an apologist for these girls. I believe that what they allegedly did is appalling beyond belief, and frankly, incomprehensible. But charging them as adults - thus allowing the media access - results in a different situation for them than it would for real adults, precisely because they are NOT adults! And the sensationalism so caused does huge damage to the defendants and to their families... before so much as a plea has been entered.

What I would have been OK with is what the court eventually did - NOT publicizing the names and their images until such time as it was determined which court would have jurisdiction. That has been done now, but it was too late. The world already knew.

I'm still not sure of your complaint. A prosecutor always makes negative statements about someone charged because the prosecutor believes they are guilty and this was a horrific crime with a confession. I'm not sure why you are taking such umbrage to it. The community had every right to know their names due to the nature of the crime. It happens in every case I've followed. Sometimes a judge will order a change in venue because of the pretrial publicity, which is his job to decide and that could happen in this case. You mention the families but justice isn't about the families of the defendants, it is about justice for the victim and the people the prosecution represents, imo. Unfortunately, they become targets of nuts who like to be bullies.

These defendants have far more to worry about than the news media coverage, imo. The media releasing their names has nothing to do with their innocence or their guilt and a judge will instruct a jury. But I think it will be many, many years before they ever see the light of day as far as freedom goes because they did confess. They concocted a defense that I do not believe.

JMO

 

[ICS]

@MyBelle:

My concern is that the side effect of the suspects being treated as adults while not being adults leads to a radically different level of press exposure. The result is unnecessary anguish for those involved that cannot be undone.

When there is a chance that such a case could be tried in a juvenile court, the default should be that the anonymity of all concerned should be preserved. Ultimately this IS what the court deemed necessary, but it was kind of farcical to impose restrictions after the names and images of all involved had been seen around the world.

I still don't know what really happened on that day. Neither do any of the rest of us. We don't have all the information. That will be determined by the legal process which will make the appropriate judgment.

 

[ICS]

There was a meeting between the prosecution and defense attorneys to discuss Friday's hearing:

- they will hear AW's request for access to MG's competency report

- they will hear MG's motion to reconsider the mental examination which was stayed after objection by MG's attorney (because a plea hasn't been entered, and asking MG questions about the attack to determine her state of mind would violate her 5th amendment rights)

- the findings of MG's competency report (in which both state and defense doctors found her incompetent) will be reviewed. As the reports were in agreement, I believe this would be to determine when and how she may become competent to stand trial. As this could be an indeterminate length of time, MG's attorney wanted the to have proceedings continue regardless, as until they do, the trial cannot be moved to juvenile court (assuming it does get moved).

I'm curious as to whether it will become apparent how the defense attorneys intend to proceed: keep the trials together or have one defendant blame the other for what happened. While AW did seem to put the blame for the actual stabbing on MG, she didn't help herself either by saying she hadn't wanted to do it, didn't realize MG was serious, etc.

 

[JoeFromLB]

A judge has ruled that one of the two girls is not competent to stand trial. Doctors have a year to restore her to competency. If they can't, she will continue to be held in a "treatment center".

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article844430.html

 

[ICS]

The court ruled MG to be incompetent but likely to become competent. When asked if she were competent of incompetent, MG made no reply. She has been remanded to the care of the DHS (hospitalized), and proceedings against her have been suspended until a review on 12th November.

The order for the medical examination to assess MG's state of mind during the attack - which had been stayed - was vacated by the court who agreed that her constitutional rights would be compromised.

MG's attorney had asked to proceed regardless of competency, as the preliminary hearing and reverse waiver hearing cannot be held while if proceedings are suspended. His hope was to get MG medical treatment and have her case sent to juvenile court. His request was denied as it is contrary to Wisconsin statute.


AW's attorneys were unsuccessful in getting access to MG's competency report, to which MG's attorney had objected. This suggests that there was deemed to be nothing in the report that AW's defense would need to help her case.

The preliminary hearing for AW is scheduled for September 17th and 18th. This hearing is to establish whether there is probable cause to believe that the allegations against her are likely to be true. If they are not, the case can be dismissed, although other charges could be brought against her.

If probable cause is found (which seems almost certain) the court then has to decide whether to retain jurisdiction or to hand it off to juvenile court. This decision is based on a "preponderance of evidence" of the following (meaning more likely true than not true):

1. She wouldn't get the treatment she needs in the adult system

2. The seriousness of the offence is not depreciated by being so transferred

3. Retaining jurisdiction is not necessary to deter other juveniles from committing the same crime

(from WI statute 970.032)

I can see that #1 could likely be true due to her age - treatment in the adult system is aimed at... adults, not children.

Item #2 would be the one that is most likely to be found false.

Item #3 is likely to be found true due to the bizarre and unique nature of the case when compared with, say, gang violence, which was the motivation behind the law of treating juveniles as adults in homicide cases if 10 or over.

Regardless, the case could come back from juvenile court to adult court because it originated in adult court.

I wonder if AW was able to trigger psychotic episodes in MG at will. Not control them, but trigger them. Regardless of the fact that she (allegedly) did not do any of the actual stabbing - or even hold the victim down according to her account - she does come across as the one in control. In fact, MG was not going to proceed until AW told her to.

I wonder if the exhortation "Go crazy, go ballistic" and then "Kitty, now" were AW's way to trigger psychotic behavior - she literally meant "go crazy". If so, AW's going to be doing some serious time due to her likely psychopathic behavior. As for MG, it may be found that with treatment, and without the influence of AW (or someone like her) the event would never have happened.

Finally, we don't know if the court will ultimately discount the alleged influence of Slenderman as a motivator for both girls, as opposed to a motivator for one, and a tool for the other (AW). The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that AW will be found to be the person that drove this thing along, and most importantly, didn't stop it when she could have done so.

ETA

MG's bizarre behavior

https://www.reviewjournal.com/trending/girl-slenderman-stabbing-may-not-understand-crime

 

[AnaTeresa]

From the above link:

Geyser said during the evaluation that she sees unicorns, has mind control powers and believes Voldemort, a villain in the “Harry Potter” book series, gave her directions and Slenderman is real, Lundbohm testified.

I'm unsure if they will be able to restore her in a year. She sounds very deep in a psychotic state.

 

[ICS]

I'm unsure if they will be able to restore her in a year. She sounds very deep in a psychotic state.

She does. The psychiatrists concurred that she was not faking. One of the psychiatrists - Ken Robbins - was the person that assessed Jeffrey Dahmer. It so happens that he works for the Milwaukee forensic unit.

One has to wonder how her condition has deteriorated since her arrest. She's gone from non-obvious symptoms prior to the attack to a state of complete psychosis. It does sound as though a small part of her was fighting this descent, even during the attack. Had she received immediate medical attention, perhaps that would be different. At present it seems possible that she was literally not in her right mind during the attack. The confused and sparse nature of her confession bears this out - it almost sounded like she had been told about it afterward.

It will be interesting to see if there actually was anyone that was aware of her worsening mental state. I think that P.L. certainly knew, but didn't have the maturity and experience to realize the ramifications and report it, even though the behavior (and the things MG said to her) may have been frightening.

I'm not sure if AW knew except that the Slenderman stuff was deeply important to MG, and was a way to connect with her. To AW, the "plot" may have started as a grisly game that became more and more involved. It seems possible that MG always took it seriously. The damning fact for AW is that she was not shocked by the idea when it was presented to her by MG (she was "surprised but excited"), and that although she was alarmed that it was actually happening, she didn't stop it... quite the opposite. This almost naive lack of concern about killing someone may be the mark of emerging psychopathy - she academically knew it was wrong, but she didn't feel that wrongness.

I think P.L. must have known something of this nature had been discussed, but she trusted that it was not something that MG and AW would actually do. As I've said before, it still isn't clear why she didn't run away, if the account of AW is accurate. I'm not sure that MG's account is accurate.

One interesting comment from one of the psychs is that MG needed to "grow up". Considering that they are children being charged as adults this is ironic, although I think the comment meant she was immature for even a 12 year old.

I feel so deeply sorry for all of the families - the victim's and those of the suspects. I do hope that they are able to somehow extract something positive from this that might help others to recognize encroaching mental illness before tragic events like this occur and end up in the criminal justice system.

 

[tlcya]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/girl-accus...ng-talks-unicorns-voldemort/story?id=24796126

I can't say it any better than you just did ICS, especially the snipped respectfully portion of yours.

I feel so deeply sorry for all of the families - the victim's and those of the suspects. I do hope that they are able to somehow extract something positive from this that might help others to recognize encroaching mental illness before tragic events like this occur and end up in the criminal justice system.

 

[ICS]

Thanks Ausgirl.

That link you posted had details I hadn't seen elsewhere.

Of particular note was the "mallet" that her parents sad she had taken to school - presumably this was the "sledgehammer" incident referred to in an early report. I have a daughter about this age and I have to say that I would have been extremely concerned if she had done the same. Of course, her parents probably WERE concerned: this could be important evidence of early onset of her mental issues. I feel certain that this will be crucial in establishing that she does and did have a mental disorder, as opposed to faking one to avoid a long sentence (although according to statute, she could get the same time - 65 years - in a mental hospital if found not guilty due to mental disease or defect ).

It looks very likely that the trials will be split now unless AW's defense successfully raises competency for her also. As it stands, her case is proceeding to trial in mid-September. MG's issues could affect her case either way:

- favorably, as she wasn't aware of MG's issues and the danger she was unwittingly provoking by playing what she thought was a role-playing game

- unfavorably, as she was trying to get rid of MG's current best friend and thought that MG would actually kill her if given a suitable reason involving MG's beliefs and psychotic episodes

 

[Ausgirl]

Just as an aside, I thought you all might be interested in this very interesting doco on the Mary Bell case, which includes interviews with her victims' family members, people who knew Mary and Norma, police and court officials, and also a clip of an interview with her mother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moFhGzE_xRI

Of course there are many differences between these two cases, but of interest is that Mary did actually kill in tandem with another girl, who was deemed too "simple minded" to face punishment, and was acquitted. As with so many other tandem killer cases, there was a clear distinction between the two girls, with Mary being intelligent and extroverted, and Norma being less intelligent and more introverted, and thus seen to be a child who was 'easily led' (though she participated heavily - and by all accounts, quite cheerfully - in the murders). The more I learn about the case at hand, the more I wonder about the dynamic between MG and AW.

Just some food for thought.

 

[ICS]

The more I learn about the case at hand, the more I wonder about the dynamic between MG and AW.

One of the reports I read said that MG was both "immature" AND had a mental condition that had not been diagnosed. One of the psychiatrists said she needed to "grow up".

I will say that the small amount of online activity purportedly uploaded by her IS quite immature. I can't really post it because it would reveal the identity of the victim. MG set up a Google+ account under a pseudonym. This by default gives you a YouTube account also. She used this account to comment on a Star Trek video, but then admitted in a comment that the name of the account wasn't her own. To paraphrase:

"... by the way, [pseudonym] isn't my real name, Morgan is. But I can't create an account in my own name because I'm 11."

The grammar (e.g. "...isn't my real name, Morgan is"), and the fact that she gave out her real name and age (without being asked) suggests a certain naivete regarding safeguarding her identity and online activity. As she didn't simply lie about her age, instead using a pseudonym, I wonder if her parents were monitoring the Internet for activity?

She then used this account - in April of this year - to poke fun at the victim's "mainstream" choice of music - Katy Perry. After 3 such posts (none of which were replied to by the victim), she left a final post telling the victim not to take it seriously, it was just her (MG) being a weirdo and trying out a new Internet personality.

So it could well be that there is a large maturity gap between MG, and AW who is older by 6 months. AW's activity shows her to be very Internet savvy: you wouldn't guess her age from her writing, due to the accurate spelling, correct grammar (mostly) and restrained use of Internet slang compared with other girls her age. Added together, there could be a couple of years maturity gap between the girls.

The prosecution has, of course, suggested that the interests MG claims were not new - she had had them for some months prior to the attack. In fact, her symptoms seem to have started (or been greatly exacerbated) at the time of her arrest. Personally, I think the attack and arrest finally pushed her over the edge to an almost permanent state of psychosis. There was some indication that she was fighting an inner battle with her rational self.

I'd say things are looking pretty grim for AW, unless her defense pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

 

[ICS]

The victim will be returning to school on time to start 7th grade.

I can't imagine how incredibly weird/difficult that could be. Wow.

http://www.wkow.com/story/26394659/...tabbing-victim-will-start-school-year-on-time

 

[OkieGranny]

Another young girl with a Slender Man connection:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...r-suspicious-home-fire-in-port-richey/2196079

Authorities say a fire that tore through a home early Thursday morning was set by a 14-year-old girl who was angry at her family after an argument. The girl's mother and 9-year-old brother, who were in the home when the fire started, woke up to a smoke detector and made it outside at about 1:43 a.m...

She was arrested on one count of arson and two counts of attempted murder.

The press release notes that, during the investigation, the girl said she frequents websites creepypasta.com and souleater.com, which are both associated with Slender Man, the fictional internet character who was said to be the motivation behind two 12-year-old Wisconsin girls stabbing and nearly killing a classmate earlier this year.