Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (66 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (1 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Bucks Row Project - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Pub Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2017, 05:36 AM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,422
Default Woman Found Guilty of Manslaughter in Texting Suicide Case

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/mic...ase/index.html

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:32 AM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,496
Default

I think this is an interesting case, with a technological twist. She knew he was suicidal, encouraged him to kill himself, and kept silent about his death after she'd heard his last breaths via phone. She is guilty of something, certainly, but was her behavior direct enough to count as manslaughter?

Such a waste of two young lives.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:35 AM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,422
Default

Hello Pat,

You are quite right that it is indeed an interesting case. What the woman did is beyond belief but ultimately it was the decision of the boy himself that caused his death. The implications here are enormous.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2017, 03:26 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
I think this is an interesting case, with a technological twist. She knew he was suicidal, encouraged him to kill himself, and kept silent about his death after she'd heard his last breaths via phone. She is guilty of something, certainly, but was her behavior direct enough to count as manslaughter?

Such a waste of two young lives.
Well the system thought it was enought to count as manslaughter I think her failure to act was the straw.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:06 PM
Ginger Ginger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 454
Default

I've got very mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I hold suicide to be a very basic human right (it's how I intend to die when it's time, assuming nothing unexpected happens first), so that if someone does wish to kill himself, I don't think there's any duty of a bystander to stop him. I think the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agrees with me in this.

The problem here is that I don't think he really wanted to die, and I think everyone else pretty much agrees with that. She talked him into doing something he didn't want to, something that has irrevocable consequences. So, should that be a crime?

She didn't stand to make any tangible profit from it, nor did she (I think), tell him any lies, so I can't really see it as a confidence crime. I suppose what it comes closest to is abusing a position of trust. I'm sure that a crime has been committed, and that it ought to carry a substantial punishment, but I'm not at all sure that manslaughter is what that crime should be. In American law, at least, manslaughter is a reckless act that results in an unintended, but reasonably foreseeable, death. This wasn't that.

However, given that the prosecution was able to make a successful case for manslaughter, and given that the victim's death obviously helped to gratify her desire to be seen as bereaved, I wonder that the DA didn't go on to argue for "depraved indifference", which elevates manslaughter to murder? I think he had an open and shut case for it. I wonder how much he believed it was really manslaughter?
__________________
- Ginger

Last edited by Ginger : 06-19-2017 at 02:15 PM. Reason: Afterthought
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-26-2017, 07:55 AM
Svensson Svensson is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London
Posts: 3
Default

I always thought the main difference between manslaughter and murder was intent to kill. She certainly had intent. However, given that the prosecution went for manslaughter probably shows how difficult a murder conviction would have been to achieve. Probably the right decision by the prosecution as well as the Jury (says me, who hasn't actually bothered to read any of the evidence.... )
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-26-2017, 02:15 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svensson View Post
I always thought the main difference between manslaughter and murder was intent to kill. She certainly had intent. However, given that the prosecution went for manslaughter probably shows how difficult a murder conviction would have been to achieve. Probably the right decision by the prosecution as well as the Jury (says me, who hasn't actually bothered to read any of the evidence.... )
Intent would be hard to prove.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-27-2017, 04:41 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,161
Default

I've been arguing this case with friends since the beginning. While I agree this chick is a foul piece of work, it gets even more complicated when you consider that they charged and convicted her of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter.

Considering Involuntary manslaughter is killing someone without HAVING intent to do so, how do you contort the law to make it fit this scenario?? So she talked him into killing himself, but had no actual intent for him to die?

This is a case where people so strongly condemn what she did, they WANT it to be criminal, but unfortunately it's just not, and they bent the law out of all shape to make it fit.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-27-2017, 06:40 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
I've been arguing this case with friends since the beginning. While I agree this chick is a foul piece of work, it gets even more complicated when you consider that they charged and convicted her of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter.

Considering Involuntary manslaughter is killing someone without HAVING intent to do so, how do you contort the law to make it fit this scenario?? So she talked him into killing himself, but had no actual intent for him to die?

This is a case where people so strongly condemn what she did, they WANT it to be criminal, but unfortunately it's just not, and they bent the law out of all shape to make it fit.
I couldn't agree more!!! is she a piece of s**t...probably...but what she did is immoral not illegal....and seriously.....INVOLUNTARY manslaughter is just wrong....but I guess they figured that they could get a jury to agree to...because the jury are not legal experts...sadly, her defense did a BAD job of explaining to them the meaning of the term...or maybe they just didn't care and Ally is right, they just wanted to convict even if they legally shouldn't have....I know many people say who cares she is getting what she deserves, but what this does is make a legal precedent which can be used to abuse the system!!

Steadmund Brand
__________________
"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:17 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steadmund Brand View Post
.but I guess they figured that they could get a jury to agree to...because the jury are not legal experts...sadly, her defense did a BAD job of explaining to them the meaning of the term...or maybe they just didn't care

Steadmund Brand

Oh it's far more horrifying than you can imagine. She wasn't tried by a jury. She waived a jury trial and it was a strict conviction by a JUDGE. A JUDGE looked at this bullshit and found her guilty. Which honestly pisses me off any more. Her defense did the right thing in putting this before a judge thinking a judge would see that it was a bullshit trumped up charge ...and the judge went with emotion instead of law.

Honestly this trial was a freaking travesty. I would completely understand if the boys parents and family beat the living **** out of her and honestly, if I were on THAT jury I probably wouldn't convict, but the fact that a judge looked at this and went... yeah, involuntary manslaughter, that's the ticket. She talked him into dying, but didn't intend him to die....? Er, what now?

If this isn't overturned on appeal, let's just all move to Russia. Law has no meaning any more. Why bother pretending that it does....
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.