[tiamat]

tom h wrote:

The only other factor is that instead of confessing the crime of passion immediately after it happened, they drove the body into the mountains and tried to hide it.

---

And that right there is a bunch of why it is murder.

That and the two other defendants who also happen to be involved in this case.

Let's go with your scenario. Let's say the "pervert" WAS permiscuous. Doesn't the killer have any self-control? Why is he jumping into the sack with someone he knows nothing (really) about? Does this absolve the killer from his actions? Like the action of screwing this person he just met? Or from the later killing? I think not.

[tom h]

I think your rant justifies the fact that passion -- e.g., passion laced with anger -- was a significant part of the act.

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.