medved
07-27-2005, 10:14 PM
Anybody been following or have any opinions on that one??
http://www.courttv.com/trials/johnson/063005_sentence_ctv.html
From what I read it sounds like a horrific miscarriage of justice. What was involved was basically a quasi-professional hit, and I don't know of a way to picture a 16-year-old girl doing that. In other words, if a woman killed the two people in question, it was Annie Oaklie or Ma Barker or Vasili Zaitsev's granddaughter, and not some 16-year-old girl who's into volleyball.
Basically the girl's father committed suicide by threatening her new boyfriend, a member of MS13 or something like MS13 with being charged with statutory rape for an affair with a girl three years younger than him; there was zero forensic evidence connecting the girl with the crime, unknown fingerprints on the murder weapon, and they somehow find the twelve stupidest jurors in Idaho and convict the girl, and the judge sentences her to life without parole.
The murder weapon was a 264 winmag rifle which belonged to a tenent who lived in a guest house. The killer shot the girl's mother through the head at point blank range which vaporized half the material of the woman's head and had to cover the shooter with blood and gore, and then calmly and nonchalantly chambered another round and shot the father as he came running out the shower to see what just happened.
That can't be somebodys first murder for the same reason people don't learn to ski by going down the expert slope. If the girl did it, they have to figure out how she LEARNED to do shit like that, in other words, who else she'd killed prior to age 16.
The shooter had to have hearing protectors on, but they weren't found. Makes sense if the shooter was a gang member and took his own hearing protectors with while leaving the murder weapon which he clearly didn't need on him. Again, if the girl did it, that makes no sense; why would she hide a set of hearing protectors while leaving the murder weapon around in plain sight?
I mean, if I'm on that jury, the government's case would strike me as an insult to my intelligence and I'd tell them that.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/johnson/063005_sentence_ctv.html
From what I read it sounds like a horrific miscarriage of justice. What was involved was basically a quasi-professional hit, and I don't know of a way to picture a 16-year-old girl doing that. In other words, if a woman killed the two people in question, it was Annie Oaklie or Ma Barker or Vasili Zaitsev's granddaughter, and not some 16-year-old girl who's into volleyball.
Basically the girl's father committed suicide by threatening her new boyfriend, a member of MS13 or something like MS13 with being charged with statutory rape for an affair with a girl three years younger than him; there was zero forensic evidence connecting the girl with the crime, unknown fingerprints on the murder weapon, and they somehow find the twelve stupidest jurors in Idaho and convict the girl, and the judge sentences her to life without parole.
The murder weapon was a 264 winmag rifle which belonged to a tenent who lived in a guest house. The killer shot the girl's mother through the head at point blank range which vaporized half the material of the woman's head and had to cover the shooter with blood and gore, and then calmly and nonchalantly chambered another round and shot the father as he came running out the shower to see what just happened.
That can't be somebodys first murder for the same reason people don't learn to ski by going down the expert slope. If the girl did it, they have to figure out how she LEARNED to do shit like that, in other words, who else she'd killed prior to age 16.
The shooter had to have hearing protectors on, but they weren't found. Makes sense if the shooter was a gang member and took his own hearing protectors with while leaving the murder weapon which he clearly didn't need on him. Again, if the girl did it, that makes no sense; why would she hide a set of hearing protectors while leaving the murder weapon around in plain sight?
I mean, if I'm on that jury, the government's case would strike me as an insult to my intelligence and I'd tell them that.