Posted on 07/26/2005 4:30:27 PM PDT by SmithL
Hayward -- One of three men accused of killing a 17-year-old Newark transgender nearly three years ago testified today that he participated in the attack after learning that Gwen Araujo was not the woman he thought he'd had sex with.
Testifying for the first time at his retrial on murder charges, Jose Merel, 25, said he was disgusted when friends at a party revealed that Araujo, who called herself Lida and with whom Merel had previously had anal sex, was biologically male.
"It's hard to explain," Merel said in a Hayward courtroom of the way he felt on Oct. 3, 2003. "Your whole life you think you're a heterosexual. Then you get pleasure from a homosexual. It disgusted me."
Merel did not testify at the first trial, which ended in June 2004 with the jury deadlocked on charges against him and two other men, Michael Magidson and Jason Cazares, both 25. The case, and the mistrial, outraged the transgender community.
The retrial began last month.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The jury may only consider the charges brought forth by the government; they cannot agree to invent their own charges they believe is more suitable. When have you ever heard differently?
clue number 1
Actually, what I said is that the star witness was an uncorroborated liar and that's all the strength in the world based upon jury instructions to the same regard.
(Booming voice from the heavens): "Reasonnnnable... Doooubt."
The district attorney needs to pursue charges of 2nd Degree Murder. It's all about what you can prove in court.
they should have been allowed to consider a lesser charge.
I am not sure of the decision making process as to who is responsible for such determinations, be it the DA or the Judge, or both. But I have served on a jury and there were multiple charges:
Vehicular manslaughter, with reckless endangerment, Vehicular manslaughter and a third lesser charge (I do not recall that third charge).
In our instructions we were told we should start with the most serious charge and if we did not agree we could consider the lesser charges. We argued for three days and finally agreed on Vehicular manslaughter.
This also was in California, as was the crime we are discussing. It seems to me that if we could consider a lesser charge, then this jury should have also been given this option. The mistake was either by the DA the Judge or both.
There is no doubt because of the activist nature of the Homolobby in this area, that the DA went for the jugular. This may have been his mistake.
I think we both agree, that these four guys should be in jail and our discussion is one of dealing with the finer points and not with the general principles involved here. I also appreciate that your tone, for the most part, has matched mine. That of trying to be civil and not insulting. Intelligent people should be able to have that type of dialog. I see that some here have not been able to do so, which reflects negatively on them.
There's the problem.
he he guess
Does that justify its murder? No, but this 'memorial' makes it seem like a wonderful person.
You have liberal hippy parents who are all about doing what feels good, and they give you permission to pierce your foreskin, have sex changes, abortions... whatever make you 'feel good'. That's how.
My understanding of the Darwin award qualifications is that the candidate for the award has to be a member of the Gene pool. Considering that the victim here was neither male nor female, but some vague ambiguity between the two, I don't think we can positively say that he-she-it was ever a member of said pool.
"You have liberal hippy parents who are all about doing what feels good, and they give you permission to pierce your foreskin, have sex changes, abortions... whatever make you 'feel good'"
You make a good point. Deviant "feel good" behavior helps these type of people escape from their true pain, mental anguish in the form of extreme measures, so much so they view it as a release from their inner madness. I feel both pity and disgust towards such damaged people.
Courts have long held that passion, related to the act of sex, is a mitigating factor. Wives kill husbands when they learn of affairs. Women pursue rapists and take care of them. These might happen days or weeks after the dirty deed but the accused is not convicted of first degree murder.
The press accounts are not telling you that the "it" taunted his lovers. That too is a mitigating circumstance.
Just because a guy got his rocks off doesn't mean that he has no business being angry at being misled. Especially by a homosexual.
Eddie "Gwen" Aurajo was not a girl or a woman. He was a man with a perverse, homosexual desire. And a million liberal psychotherapists who claim otherwise will not change this fact. He didn't deserve death but, like the gal who walks in a dangerous part of the city wearing a miniskirt, he took serious risks and died as a result. Just because he felt like a woman didn't mean he had to be promiscuous. Read the articles. They all talk about his rampant promiscuity.
Men, we must take responsibility for our actions. It's not like the fools were not aware there are shemales in this world. If you don't want to have sex with a chick with dick, then you are the one that have to make sure you don't. It is not the responsibility of strangers to protect you from yourself!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.