Posted on 07/27/2004 10:15:01 AM PDT by Bonaparte
I just hope they can find her body for the sake of the family and the investigation.
My guess is that Fox is the only one to report the confirmed police comment about a "rage killing" because Fox was the only one to get that scoop.
76-5-202. Aggravated murder.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes aggravated murder if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the following circumstances:
(a) the homicide was committed by a person who is confined in a jail or other correctional institution;
(b) the homicide was committed incident to one act, scheme, course of conduct, or criminal episode during which two or more persons were killed, or during which the actor attempted to kill one or more persons in addition to the victim who was killed;
(c) the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim and the actor;
(d) the homicide was committed while the actor was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, aggravated robbery, robbery, rape, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, forcible sodomy, sodomy upon a child, forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, child abuse as defined in Subsection 76-5-109(2)(a), or aggravated sexual assault, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated burglary, burglary, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, or child kidnapping;
(e) the homicide was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest of the defendant or another by a peace officer acting under color of legal authority or for the purpose of effecting the defendant's or another's escape from lawful custody;
(f) the homicide was committed for pecuniary or other personal gain;
(g) the defendant committed, or engaged or employed another person to commit the homicide pursuant to an agreement or contract for remuneration or the promise of remuneration for commission of the homicide;
(h) the actor was previously convicted of:
(i) aggravated murder, Section 76-5-202;
(ii) murder, Section 76-5-203;
(iii) aggravated assault, Subsection 76-5-103(2);
(iv) mayhem, Section 76-5-105;
(v) attempted murder, Section 76-5-203;
(vi) kidnapping, Section 76-5-301;
(vii) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1;
(viii) aggravated kidnapping, Section 76-5-302;
(ix) rape, Section 76-5-402;
(x) rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.1;
(xi) object rape, Section 76-5-402.2;
(xii) object rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.3;
(xiii) forcible sodomy, Section 76-5-403;
(xiv) sodomy on a child, Section 76-5-403.1;
(xv) aggravated sexual abuse of a child, Section 76-5-404.1;
(xvi) aggravated sexual assault, Section 76-5-405;
(xvii) aggravated arson, Section 76-6-103;
(xviii) aggravated burglary, Section 76-6-203;
(xix) aggravated robbery, Section 76-6-302; or
(xx) an offense committed in another jurisdiction which if committed in this state would be a violation of a crime listed in this Subsection (1)(h);
(i) the homicide was committed for the purpose of:
(i) preventing a witness from testifying;
(ii) preventing a person from providing evidence or participating in any legal proceedings or official investigation;
(iii) retaliating against a person for testifying, providing evidence, or participating in any legal proceedings or official investigation; or
(iv) disrupting or hindering any lawful governmental function or enforcement of laws;
(j) the victim is or has been a local, state, or federal public official, or a candidate for public office, and the homicide is based on, is caused by, or is related to that official position, act, capacity, or candidacy;
(k) the victim is or has been a peace officer, law enforcement officer, executive officer, prosecuting officer, jailer, prison official, firefighter, judge or other court official, juror, probation officer, or parole officer, and the victim is either on duty or the homicide is based on, is caused by, or is related to that official position, and the actor knew, or reasonably should have known, that the victim holds or has held that official position;
(l) the homicide was committed:
(i) by means of a destructive device, bomb, explosive, incendiary device, or similar device which was planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, or was mailed or delivered; or
(ii) by means of any weapon of mass destruction as defined in Section 76-10-401;
(m) the homicide was committed during the act of unlawfully assuming control of any aircraft, train, or other public conveyance by use of threats or force with intent to obtain any valuable consideration for the release of the public conveyance or any passenger, crew member, or any other person aboard, or to direct the route or movement of the public conveyance or otherwise exert control over the public conveyance;
(n) the homicide was committed by means of the administration of a poison or of any lethal substance or of any substance administered in a lethal amount, dosage, or quantity;
(o) the victim was a person held or otherwise detained as a shield, hostage, or for ransom; or
(p) the homicide was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner, any of which must be demonstrated by physical torture, serious physical abuse, or serious bodily injury of the victim before death.
(2) Aggravated murder is a capital felony.
(3) (a) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of aggravated murder or attempted aggravated murder that the defendant caused the death of another or attempted to cause the death of another:
(i) under the influence of extreme emotional distress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse; or
(ii) under a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification or excuse for his conduct although the conduct was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances.
(b) Under Subsection (3)(a)(i), emotional distress does not include:
(i) a condition resulting from mental illness as defined in Section 76-2-305; or
(ii) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.
(c) The reasonableness of an explanation or excuse under Subsection (3)(a)(i) or the
reasonable belief of the actor under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then existing circumstances.
(d) This affirmative defense reduces charges only as follows:
(i) aggravated murder to murder; and
(ii) attempted aggravated murder to attempted murder.
Amended by Chapter 166, 2002 General Session
Last revised: Tuesday, July 13, 2004
I want to know why he wasn't able to obtain a mattress at the first store. From what I understand he never even tried the mattress out at the second store where he bought it so why didn't he get one at the first store? Was it a hardware store he went into? :-)
Is this the first store he went to purchase a mattress? That Sunday night? I thought they were at a party until 8:30-9:30. How late would this store have been open? Especially on a Sunday?
Interesting. Does that make it three mattress stores altogether (so far), one Sunday night and two Monday morning prior to his reporting Lori missing?
regarding your post #143, question #2:
Seems apparent to me that Hacking needed to acquire that new mattress to replace the one which he disposed of to remove crime scene evidence. That scenerio really make me suspicious of the husband.
Do I correctly understand that the box spring was not replaced and it was just the mattress? I think I read, or heard that bedding was removed by police and blood stains could be seen on the bedding - perhaps that was the original box spring?
To All,
Sounds just like the Laci Peterson sad story. She won't be found because she probably went for a jog with Laci who was walking her dog.....................
So very sad. Hope and prayers for her family and quick resolution.
Calling from the mattress store, telling Lori's coworker her clothes are still here, was really stupid. But Mark is a stupid person. He's lived his life (or most of it) on bald faced lies.
There's not point in trying to make the timeline work. He was obviously running around trying to cover things up, telling inconsistent stories in the process.
He probably killed her late at night, and spent the rest of the night cleaning the apartment. It was clean when the police got there the next morning, but Luminol showed blood.
It's interesting that his lawyer is not asserting his innocence. I just hope he doesn't expect his father to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a phoney defense. I hope the lawyer is just there to negotiate a plea bargain, or something.
He went to R.C. Willey first. R.C. Willey won't let you take things off the showroom floor. They deliver. He left R.C. Willey because they wouldn't let him take a mattress with him.
I've been through this with R.C. Willey before, when I needed a sofa in a hurry. No, I didn't kill anyone on the old sofa. I was having company that night, and my old sofa was very sad looking.
Maverik is a convenience store, like 7-11. They don't sell mattresses.
"I want to know why he wasn't able to obtain a mattress at the first store. From what I understand he never even tried the mattress out at the second store where he bought it so why didn't he get one at the first store?"
The first store was just a showroom that delivered the product from a warehouse somewhere else later on. When he found out he wouldn't be able to take a mattress away with him right then, he left.
Works for me. The case this guy will be so tight, it will probably only take fifteen or twenty years to execute him.
From what I've read, he didn't "try out" the mattress he wound up buying and I've heard of no other mattress (at that store or at the one before it) that he did test drive.
The first store he entered on Monday morning, probably around 9:15 or 9:30 was Willey (Willey's?) Furniture Store, 23011 W. 300 West, Salt Lake City. He left because he was told he couldn't take it with him right away. Then he went to another place nearby (one article said it was "across the street") which was Bradley's Sleep Etc, 2255 S. 300 West, SLC. Neither store sold hardware, according to what I've read.
This is much fishier than the Peterson murder. Every bit of arguably incriminating evidence in the Peterson case - of which there isn't much - has a reasonable explanation. Moreover, though a number of witnesses contradict key elements of the district attorney's argument (most notably the witnesses that claim to have seen Laci walking to dog that morning and the one who claims to have previously seen her at the boat warehouse) I haven't heard of any witnesses that claim anything similar about Lori Hacking.
All the evidence points to Mark Hacking killing his wife; the evidence in the Scott Peterson case is all over the place, at best.
And, what the heck was Scott Peterson's motive? I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for that. Mark Hacking has a perfectly obvious, self-evident motive. What was Scott's motive? Was it the affair? What for? It wasn't even that torrid of an affair. All kind of guys have affairs and they don't pop off their wives. Was it that silly pawn-the-ring theory? LOL
And, let's say that Scott killed his wife in a fit of rage for some reason (e.g., she discovered the affair, or whatever): Where's the luminol evidence? The Hacking home was covered in blood stains; the Peterson home had nothing. Where were the bruises or scratches or other signs of struggle? Witnesses have testified that Scott had no sign of injury and there was no sign of fighting in the home. There was a big deal made early on about some rags recently used for cleaning, but the Luminol would still have revealed any blood stains. There was nothing.
A big deal was also made of Scott's emotional facade in the days after the disappearance, but now it's come out that he went on heavy tranquilizers immediately afterward. It was said that the boat was a big, huge secret but there's the witness who says Laci was at the storage place in the weeks before.
I'm not saying Scott didn't do it somehow or that he might not have arranged it for some mysterious reason, but the prosecution case is riddled with holes and if Scott's not acquitted I will be shocked (unless there's some major revelation we don't yet know about).
And another thing: What about the van with the two men that was reported lurking around the area and that a witness claimed to have seen outside the Peterson home on the day of her disappearance? And, what about this rash of petty thefts and break-ins both beforehand and afterward? I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for why those avenues of investigation had been ruled out.
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.