Posted on 06/14/2010 10:59:45 AM PDT by markomalley
Former Sunday school teacher Melissa Huckaby used a noose to strangle 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, officials revealed today during the confessed killer's sentencing.
Huckaby, 29, pleaded guilty last month to first degree murder and kidnapping "with enhancements" to avoid the death penalty.
Today in court, a sobbing Huckaby apologized to Sandra's family, saying: "I should not have taken her from you."
"I owe you an explanation. But I still cannot understand why I did what I did," she said.
She was sentenced to life without parole.
Many of the details of the grisly crime have previously been kept from the public, sealed under a judge's gag order. The judge lifted that order and the prosecutor revealed for the first time how Sandra was killed.
Quoting the pathologist's report, prosecutor Tom Testa said Sandra had been strangled with a torn piece of cloth that had been knotted into "a noose." He said the cause of death was "homicidal asphyxiation."
Previously released court documents had revealed that Huckaby was accused of poisoning Sandra, and sexually assaulting her with a foreign object, before killing her and dumping her body in an irrigation pond.
The sexual assault charge was dropped as part of the plea deal Huckaby made with prosecutors to avoid the death penalty in May.
Huckaby today denied having sexually assaulted the girl and asked Sandra's mother Maria Chavez for forgiveness.
"She did not suffer, and I did not sexually molest her," Huckaby said. "I'm asking you, Maria, for your forgiveness. I can't imagine forgiving someone who harmed my daughter. I hope someday you can forgive me."
But according to the pathologist's reported cited by Testa, Sandra suffered a cut to her lip, an abrasion to her elbow and injuries to her genitals.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
What a waste. Clearly, she should be hanged by the neck until dead.
Interesting that ABC "News", in its laudable and prodigious efforts to be fair, balanced, impartial, and to bring us the whole truth ...
Declines to identify the "nearby church".
This, of course, is why I place such great faith and trust in the leftist secular media.
How terrible
I hate that if you confess, you avoid the death penalty. Among other things I think you get false confessions and the real murderers go free.
Although in this case I am sure they have the real murderer.
This is bizarre. What was her motive, anybody know?
Later in the article, the church is identified as Clover Road Baptist Church.
Since that is clearly a lie, doesn't that negate the deal she made to avoid the death penalty by confessing the truth?
Read the article.
No. As ugly as it may be, the deal was that she confess to the murder, not the truth.
I remember back at the time she was arrested that freepers said that she was NOT a Sunday School teacher, but her dad I believe was a pastor somewhere; I can’t remember what the diagnosis was but it was some type of mental illness - psychosis.
That’s quite an apology. She can’t even bring herself to admit what she did.
I know someone who took a plea deal on a charge of marijuana possession (a roach and a used pipe). The deal required that he tell the truth. If he was found to be lying, the deal would be off the table, and anything he said in his confession would still be admissible in court.
That, and all she thinks she owes is an explanation, which she can’t give anyway.
Different deal. Legally, since since the state has agreed to drop the other charges, she cannot be required to confess to those same charges. It just doesn’t work that way.
I’m not talking about a confession to other charges. In the case I referred to, he was given a lighter sentence in exchange for a statement under oath. If he lied under oath, he was breaking the deal. I don’t see why the same wouldn’t apply here. She lied under oath in exchange for a reduced sentence. I’m not saying she needed to confess to the sexual abuse, but she lied under oath in the statement that she gave in exchange for a lighter sentence. That’s a deal breaker.
You’re entitled to believe that if you choose, but the reality is that it’s not going to happen that way.
I believe it because it did happen that way. But you’re entitled to believe you know more about his case than I do, even though the reality is you don’t even know who he is. By all means, tell me what his sentence was, what it would have been without the plea deal, and what it would have been if he had lied under oath. The reality is the deal was contingent upon him making a truthful statement admitting to the crime he was charged with. He was not required to say anything at all about crimes he wasn’t charged with, or charges that had been dropped. But if he lied under oath, that would have been a violation of the agreement. That’s just a fact, whether you like it or not. And though you’ve made it abundantly clear you disagree, I’m still of the opinion that the court should have upheld this long adhered to standard in this case as well. I don’t believe criminals should get reduced sentences for lying under oath. YMMV
I also remember a lot of people defending her with the presumption of innocence slogan.... as if the court of public opinion equals the court of law.
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.