M
ma1234
My comments were not inflammatory or uninformed. They represent MY opinion having observed a few similar cases.
Uh-huh. Okay, whatever. Your arguments basically amount to Pickton got off because his victims were prostitutes. Which is fucking ridiculous. The police's negligence in these cases was a tragic mix of circumstances - yes, including some indifference, likely brought on by the sheer volume of similar "missing persons" cases police are required to handle on a daily basis. I am no "police booster" by any means - but to equate the police fucking up with the police being glad to see prostitutes murdered is obscene beyond belief. And you, quite frankly, are a fucking tool if that's what you believe.
I reiterate - first degree murder, despite "how many similar cases you've seen"
is a difficult charge to convict. The fact the jury acquitted him of FDM reflects not whether they necessarily believe he planned it - but only that there did not exist enough evidence to convict beyond a resonable doubt.The jury does not live up to its duty if it convicts without the proper evidence - because that conviction will then easily be overturned on appeal.
Start dealing with facts, and not with inflammatory rhetoric.
Last edited:
M
ma1234
M
ma1234
And I am sick and tired of tiptoeing around rude people like you who won't let me express my opinion.
The law in Canada is quite clear. Unlike some U.S. jurisdictions, there is no such thing as consecutive sentences for murder. The approach in this country is simply that, since the sentence for murder is life imprisonment, there can be nothing consecutive to it.
In terms of sentencing, the difference between first and second degree murder relates only to the time that must be served before the person is eligible for parole. It is a minimum of 25 years for first degree murder and between 10 and 25 years for second degree murder. Eligibility for parole and granting of parole are two entirely different things.
Practically speaking, having been convicted of killing six women, the likelihood of Robert Pickton ever being granted parole is somewhere between zero and none.
M
ma1234
Bunch of bull.
The Green River murder has been convicted on 48 counts of aggrevated murder and didn't get the death penalty. He was killing prostitutes.
Believe me, had he killed 48 suburban houswives or doctors', lawyers' wives he would be on death row.
Gary Ridgway's lawyer arranged a plea bargain in exchange for help in locating other victims.
Next?
M
ma1234
What's your point? Is he on death row?Gary Ridgway's lawyer arranged a plea bargain in exchange for help in locating other victims.
Next?
My point, you dim-witted shitbag, is that his plea bargain had nothing to do with who his victims were.
Had his victims been, um, "suburban housewives", I do believe the police and prosecutors would have been just as enthusiastic about cutting a deal to get information on the remaining victims.
Go read some books or something, and put the fucking XBOX away.
M
ma1234
Then stop being an annoying, uninformed, ignoramus.
Or, try refuting my original point. Why won't you do that?
Could it be because you CAN'T?
M
ma1234
I don't talk to obviously drunk raving maniacs.
I made the mistake to believe you are humanoid.
Bullshit on you! All you offer is opinion and rhetoric.
What has the Green River murderer's sentence got to do with this jury's verdict? The amount of time this jury took to reach a verdict shows that they took their job very seriously and didn't jump to conclusions.
If one were to suggest that the verdict of second degree murder might have been a compromise to reach a unanimous verdict, that is certainly a possibility. We will never know. It is a crime in Canada for jurors to discuss their deliberations with anyone.
Given the complexity of the evidence and the requirement for a unanimous verdict, only one member of the jury had to hold out against a conviction for first degree. It could even be that one or more jurors believed that a verdict of manslaughter was the appropriate verdict, and was persuaded to go along with a verdict of second degree.
Hopefully this will put this issue to bed;
First Degree Murder
From the Canadian Press
The Crown and defence will make arguments Tuesday about the minimum sentence before parole eligibility, and the court will hear victim impact statements as well.
'Ultimately, it's not that surprising," said Alan Young, a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
Young said that perhaps the jury had difficulty being convinced the murders were planned and deliberate - an essential element to find a person guilty of first-degree murder "even though in all likelihood they were (planned and deliberate)."
Young said jurors might have been stymied by a lack of direct evidence on the mode of death.
Three of the victims' heads were found in buckets with gunshot wounds but the jurors never heard conclusive evidence of who fired the gun.
Both Young and Vancouver defence lawyer Mark Jette believe there is no chance that Pickton will ever be paroled.
"You don't need first-degree when you have six second-degree murder convictions," said Young.
Jette noted that some of the Crown's key witnesses had credibility problems because of their drug-addicted lifestyle.
"They may not be reliable and the jury may struggle," he said.
Jette said the "planning and deliberate" aspect that must be present in a first-degree conviction requires a high degree of criminal intent.
"And maybe they concluded that he is not capable of planning but had the required intent to murder," Jette said.
In Pickton's case, the jury declined to recommend a minimum date for parole consideration, leaving it to the judge to impose a sentence after he hears arguments from the Crown and defence on Tuesday.
"This is not a person to get life and minimum 15 or 20 (years)," said Jette. "There is a very high likelihood of 25.
"It's up to the parole board anyway and frankly he won't ever get out."
Gordon Rose, a psychology lecturer at Simon Fraser University and an expert on juries, said his studies indicate that "people just don't understand the instructions."
The Pickton jury listened to the judge's instructions for four days - an unusually long time.
While Rose did not study the Pickton jurors, he said people he's interviewed previously believe a person must have a motive to be convicted of first-degree murder.
"No motive and it's second-degree murder. That's a common response," Rose said.
He said others believed that if there is direct evidence then the verdict must be first-degree while some have the impression a first-degree conviction could only result if there was a weapon involved.
The only direct evidence in the Pickton trial came from Lynn Ellingsen, a drug addict who testified she walked into the pig slaughterhouse adjacent to Pickton's trailer and saw him butchering a woman hanging from a hook.
Three of Pickton's victims were shot in the head but the bullets were too damaged to be traced to any weapon, although a .22-calibre handgun was found in his trailer.
First Degree Murder
From the Canadian Press
The Crown and defence will make arguments Tuesday about the minimum sentence before parole eligibility, and the court will hear victim impact statements as well.
'Ultimately, it's not that surprising," said Alan Young, a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
Young said that perhaps the jury had difficulty being convinced the murders were planned and deliberate - an essential element to find a person guilty of first-degree murder "even though in all likelihood they were (planned and deliberate)."
Young said jurors might have been stymied by a lack of direct evidence on the mode of death.
Three of the victims' heads were found in buckets with gunshot wounds but the jurors never heard conclusive evidence of who fired the gun.
Both Young and Vancouver defence lawyer Mark Jette believe there is no chance that Pickton will ever be paroled.
"You don't need first-degree when you have six second-degree murder convictions," said Young.
Jette noted that some of the Crown's key witnesses had credibility problems because of their drug-addicted lifestyle.
"They may not be reliable and the jury may struggle," he said.
Jette said the "planning and deliberate" aspect that must be present in a first-degree conviction requires a high degree of criminal intent.
"And maybe they concluded that he is not capable of planning but had the required intent to murder," Jette said.
In Pickton's case, the jury declined to recommend a minimum date for parole consideration, leaving it to the judge to impose a sentence after he hears arguments from the Crown and defence on Tuesday.
"This is not a person to get life and minimum 15 or 20 (years)," said Jette. "There is a very high likelihood of 25.
"It's up to the parole board anyway and frankly he won't ever get out."
Gordon Rose, a psychology lecturer at Simon Fraser University and an expert on juries, said his studies indicate that "people just don't understand the instructions."
The Pickton jury listened to the judge's instructions for four days - an unusually long time.
While Rose did not study the Pickton jurors, he said people he's interviewed previously believe a person must have a motive to be convicted of first-degree murder.
"No motive and it's second-degree murder. That's a common response," Rose said.
He said others believed that if there is direct evidence then the verdict must be first-degree while some have the impression a first-degree conviction could only result if there was a weapon involved.
The only direct evidence in the Pickton trial came from Lynn Ellingsen, a drug addict who testified she walked into the pig slaughterhouse adjacent to Pickton's trailer and saw him butchering a woman hanging from a hook.
Three of Pickton's victims were shot in the head but the bullets were too damaged to be traced to any weapon, although a .22-calibre handgun was found in his trailer.
It'd sure be interesting to get a look at all the specifics of the evidence, to see where the gap was that prevented them from convicting on the original charges.
According to the reports on CKNW, about half the jury looked really pissed off leaving the courthouse. These people also looked at Pickton like they would be happy to personally kill him. So the most likely scenario is that second-degree murder was a compromise. Perhaps if the witnesses that said they saw Pickton carving up women, or that he told what he was feeding his pigs were more reliable, they might have convicted of first-degree murder.
However, Judge Williams could rule that Pickton's parole eligibility is 25 years, just the same as first-degree, because of aggravating circumstances like heads in freezers. Also, although it doesn't apply here, Parliament has increased the period of parole ineligibility for multiple second-degree murders to 15 years.
In addition, Pickton's name will go on the (short) list of people (such as Olson, Bernardo) that no parole board will risk releasing because of the immense political backlash.
However, Judge Williams could rule that Pickton's parole eligibility is 25 years, just the same as first-degree, because of aggravating circumstances like heads in freezers. Also, although it doesn't apply here, Parliament has increased the period of parole ineligibility for multiple second-degree murders to 15 years.
In addition, Pickton's name will go on the (short) list of people (such as Olson, Bernardo) that no parole board will risk releasing because of the immense political backlash.
