Accused killer was 'disgusted' that transgender teen was male

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/26/5 | Kelly St. John

[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.

[Michael.SF.]

I read through about half of your referenced link and note that it does not conflict with anything that I stated in regards to the commission of the crime. Based on the jury instructions, the jury had to rule unanimously, one way or the other against first degree before even considering the other charges.

That seems a bit absurd on the face of it, but I am not a lawyer. Based on some of the comments here, many are willing to let these guys walk. That is also absurd.

Surely you cannot argue that a crime was not committed?

[Michael.SF.]

What ever If I were on a jury I would turn the killer loose.

And I wonder, if you had been at the 'party' what would your reaction have been?

Would you have cheered the guys on as they gave him 'what he deserved', would you have meekly walked away because it was not your issue, or would you have helped carry the body to the car?

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

More on this repellant tale. So much to be learned.

1. Anal sex between a man and a woman is also perverted and disgusting.

2. By rejecting the tradition of "stay chaste until marriage, and faithful within marriage", innumerable, unimaginable problems ensue.

3. It's really better not to kill people unless they are threatening your or someone else's life.

4. Just in case, it's better not to embark on a program of (2) after ingesting drugs and/or alcohol. Just a thought.

5. Transsexualism is not a happy life. Get treatment, it's available.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Based on the jury instructions, the jury had to rule unanimously, one way or the other against first degree before even considering the other charges. That seems a bit absurd on the face of it..."

Michael, what country do you live in where the defendents are guilty of 1st Degree Murder based upon a simple majority vote of the jury? Good grief.

"...Surely you cannot argue that a crime was not committed?"

Surely you cannot presume that I said any such damned fool thing?

What the hell?

[The KG9 Kid]

I'll give you a hint: The District Attorney pinned his entire case upon the sworn testimony of a pathological liar who he cut a plea deal with.

On cross-examination, the witness admitted to fabricating key points of the prosecution's case.

Some of you desperately need to do more research about this case.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I'll give you a hint: The District Attorney pinned his entire case upon the sworn testimony of a pathological liar who he cut a plea deal with.

This is the first time I have heard this. Also, the autopsy and the place of death provided a great deal of evidence.

[The KG9 Kid]

I provided a link to a juror's recounting of the events in the trial.

Some of you said that you read it halfway, some said it's the first you heard of the false testimony in the trial.

The old adage about 'leading a horse to water' comes to mind.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Actually homosexuals don't like transsexuals, but you would know this if you have done some research.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I provided a link to a juror's recounting of the events in the trial

Could you point out where it was stated in those ten pages in that link your posted.

[little jeremiah]

I don't get close enough to homosexuals to know their personal likes and dislikes.

As far as the homosexual agenda is concerned, the promoters always lump together "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendered, Transsexuals and Questioning" etc.

They march in parades together, and in hate crimes bills and such transsexuals and transgendered [sic] are always added in the list.

So whether actual homosexuals dislike the trans crowd is of little import. They're a gang together, as far as their impact on normal society.

[The KG9 Kid]

Read all of page 5:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2005-05-11/news/feature_5.html

[winodog]

I had a girlfriend who had a very close friend who dressed like a woman and took whatever they take to have titties. Heshe was pretty nice but he decieved a lot of people and he was very good at convincing drunk men they were getting laid properly. Anyway one night she took the wrong man home and he killed her with a knife when he discoevered what she had done. She was warned repeatedly that this was gonna happen and she had been beat up before but could not stop.

[Paul C. Jesup]

As far as the homosexual agenda is concerned, the promoters always lump together "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendered, Transsexuals and Questioning" etc.

The only ones lumping them together is you and the GLBT. But the actions of the GLBT would lead most to believe that they would like to be just the GLB without the T.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It seems Nabors' girlfriend and mother did not think that big bruise on his forearm the morning of the killing came from baseball.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... It seems Nabors' girlfriend and mother did not think that big bruise on his forearm the morning of the killing came from baseball."

I hope this settles the issue of my observation that the prosecution used a pathalogical liar as their sole uncorroborated witness in their failed attempt to bring a verdict of 1st Degree Murder against the defendants:

"... After all, when describing Lida's death, Nabors had told a different story every time. He gave two different statements to police detectives, and wrote a third account in a jailhouse letter to his girlfriend. We heard version number four. The most difficult thing about accepting his stories was his tendency to add what Serra called "authenticating detail" -- taking a true story but adding something extra to make it more vivid. In the case of Lida's death, Nabors' details were the difference between first- and second-degree murder.

(California Jury Instructions - Criminal, Section 3.18): "You cannot find a defendant guilty based upon the testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." (CALJIC 3.18, Adobe Acrobat .PDF - 6,484 bytes)

[Paul C. Jesup]

Do you want these people to get away with a brutal murder?

[The KG9 Kid]

Alright, I've been speaking plainly with you this whole time, but now I have to declare that you're being deliberately ignorant. You obviously are unable to understand written law in simple English and are now jumping to misconclusions about my belief system.

What I am saying is that the District Attorney prosecuting the case did not have sufficient proof requiring conviction of 1st Degree Murder. The jury deadlocked because of this mistake.

You see, Paul, the DA states the charges, and then proves the charges according to the statutes in the criminal code. The jury hearing the case is instructed on how to deliberate the evidence produced at the trial. That's how criminal court works.

Somehow, you've taken my posts explaining this process in detail and are now presuming that I am happy fer them young fellers what kilt themselfs a faggot.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Somehow, you've taken my posts explaining this process in detail and are now presuming that I am happy fer them young fellers what kilt themselfs a faggot.

Now that was uncalled for. Also, I did read the article to the link you posted and replied with parts from it that article that leads itself to disagree with your assessment.

Now you keep saying that this brutal murder was not a 1st Degree murder because a witness was proven to be liar. That is a very weak agruement.

Also, this was not a 'crime of passion' because it was more than one single event/action.

Now if the murder happened during sex, this could be argued as a 'crime of passion'. But this is not the case.

The victim was tortured, murdered and dumped. And you seem to take every chance to defend those that had the most motive, means and opportunity to do it. Now I am asking you Why?

[sandbar]

>>>Yeah, keep lecturing to your mirror. It's working wonders for you. ;)>>>

How old are you? 8?

I know you are but what am I??? :op''''

[Michael.SF.]

We are one for one. In our misunderstandings of each other:

Michael, what country do you live in where the defendants are guilty of 1st Degree Murder based upon a simple majority vote of the jury? Good grief.

I did not mean that the way you have interpreted it. The instructions said they could not move to a lesser charge unless they agreed unanimously one way or the other on first degree. That was the log jam in the jury. I contend that if they could not agree unanimously on first degree, they should have been allowed to consider a lesser charge. If I was on the jury, I would argue strongly for first degree. But if deadlocked, I would vote for second degree rather then have these guys walk.

Surely you cannot presume that I said any such damned fool thing?

No, you did not, but others here have. I had those other posters in mind when I made that comment.