Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree they did plan all along to murder everyone but, even from the criminal perspective, why oh why did they have to torture/murder that poor child? SS would have done anything to get them the $$ without them torturing his child, don't you think? And wouldn't the mere threat of torture/hurting the child be enough to make him go as fast as he could w/ getting the $$? And, really, they didn't need to involve the child at all in any of it. They could have tied him up somewhere away from the rest/out of the way and I think they still could have (if not for the pizza) gotten away with this crime and wouldn't have had to worry too much about the child being able to ID them...I doubt most kids would really be able to ID someone in a situation like this...just so unimaginably awful that they did any of this, but especially the parts involving the child

Speaks volumes about the perpetrator, doesn't it?

Their odds of ultimately getting caught increase if they don't burn the house at the end. So now you're adding the layer where they're going to escort the kid with them after the murders (again, without him identifying relevant facts about them) and drop him off somewhere, all the while not decreasing their chances of getting away from the crime scene without being identified? Come on, now.

Come on now? Really?? I'm saying that all the actions of this murderer speak volumes about him as a person. It's beyond heartless to plan this type of crime--knowing it's a family with children--and carrying it through. He wouldn't have had to consider what you wrote if he'd led a life of hard work and doing for others. Nope. He decided that burglary, torture, and murder were more his style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree they did plan all along to murder everyone but, even from the criminal perspective, why oh why did they have to torture/murder that poor child? SS would have done anything to get them the $$ without them torturing his child, don't you think? And wouldn't the mere threat of torture/hurting the child be enough to make him go as fast as he could w/ getting the $$? And, really, they didn't need to involve the child at all in any of it. They could have tied him up somewhere away from the rest/out of the way and I think they still could have (if not for the pizza) gotten away with this crime and wouldn't have had to worry too much about the child being able to ID them...I doubt most kids would really be able to ID someone in a situation like this...just so unimaginably awful that they did any of this, but especially the parts involving the child

Speaks volumes about the perpetrator, doesn't it?

Their odds of ultimately getting caught increase if they don't burn the house at the end. So now you're adding the layer where they're going to escort the kid with them after the murders (again, without him identifying relevant facts about them) and drop him off somewhere, all the while not decreasing their chances of getting away from the crime scene without being identified? Come on, now.

True, but if they hadn't killed anyone - and especially not the child - it would have just been a robbery and people wouldn't be so up in arms to find them (not to this level). Maybe they would have gotten away with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they charge the hostage holding as kidnapping, which is a federal crime. With murder associated with the kidnapping, that would make the lowlife eligible for the death penalty.

I believe the federal kidnapping statute requires a victim to be transported across state lines. There is also a Hostage Taking statute, but it has other potentially problematic requirements that might not be met here.

In any event, the fact that a state/district doesn't have the death penalty in its criminal statute is not a reason to strain to find a federal charge. If they people of the District wanted to the death penalty for heinous murder, they could have the DC Council legislate that.

[Anonymous]

Were the people with DW when he was arrested committing a crime by not turning him in? Is there a legal difference between actively hiding a fugitive and not calling the cops when you are with them?

[Anonymous]

I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree they did plan all along to murder everyone but, even from the criminal perspective, why oh why did they have to torture/murder that poor child? SS would have done anything to get them the $$ without them torturing his child, don't you think? And wouldn't the mere threat of torture/hurting the child be enough to make him go as fast as he could w/ getting the $$? And, really, they didn't need to involve the child at all in any of it. They could have tied him up somewhere away from the rest/out of the way and I think they still could have (if not for the pizza) gotten away with this crime and wouldn't have had to worry too much about the child being able to ID them...I doubt most kids would really be able to ID someone in a situation like this...just so unimaginably awful that they did any of this, but especially the parts involving the child

Speaks volumes about the perpetrator, doesn't it?

Their odds of ultimately getting caught increase if they don't burn the house at the end. So now you're adding the layer where they're going to escort the kid with them after the murders (again, without him identifying relevant facts about them) and drop him off somewhere, all the while not decreasing their chances of getting away from the crime scene without being identified? Come on, now.

Come on now? Really?? I'm saying that all the actions of this murderer speak volumes about him as a person. It's beyond heartless to plan this type of crime--knowing it's a family with children--and carrying it through. He wouldn't have had to consider what you wrote if he'd led a life of hard work and doing for others. Nope. He decided that burglary, torture, and murder were more his style.

Yes, come one, now.

Sure, the fact that someone is willing to plan a home invasion / murder speaks volumes about him as a person. The fact that such a person doesn't spare the life of a child in this scenario when doing so would greatly increase their odds of getting caught (for many reasons) is normal and inevitable.

[Anonymous]

^ the next time I was called for jury duty when interviewed I said I did not trust police, that I had been given wrongful speeding ticket...I did not want to serve again! That got me out...sad but true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Were the people with DW when he was arrested committing a crime by not turning him in? Is there a legal difference between actively hiding a fugitive and not calling the cops when you are with them?

There is no legal obligation to call the cops or report criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

If they moved the trial it would be VA or MD. Would he be eligible for death if that happened. I'm sure in that case they would most definitely move to MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

Did you tell the judge? The "he has seen my coat" quote in the context you're describing should be grounds for removal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

She was scum. I dont think that would happen in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they moved the trial it would be VA or MD. Would he be eligible for death if that happened. I'm sure in that case they would most definitely move to MD.

There is no reason to move the trial, and in any event, you can't try a crime committed in DC under MD or VA law. The only way the case could be heard in VA or MD if the charges were of a federal statute, which is doubtful.

Again though, the people of DC have spoken regarding what the punishment should be for first degree murder. If you want a harsher penalty, work to change the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they moved the trial it would be VA or MD. Would he be eligible for death if that happened. I'm sure in that case they would most definitely move to MD.

Even if they move the trial, they have to apply the laws of the jurisdiction the crime was committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

She was scum. I dont think that would happen in this case.

I don't know. I was on a similar case in DC.
Suspect was clearly guilty. One juror refused to convict under any circumstances. She categorically did not believe in convicting anyone.
Hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

She was scum. I dont think that would happen in this case.

I don't know. I was on a similar case in DC.
Suspect was clearly guilty. One juror refused to convict under any circumstances. She categorically did not believe in convicting anyone.
Hung jury.

Did she say in the deliberations that she categorically did not believe in convicting anyone?