[QUOTE=brazil84]
Do you have a cite for that? TIA!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Denver Post]
During the past two years, Masters’ appeals attorneys have argued that Masters, as a 15-year-old, could not have inflicted the meticulous wounds to Hettrick’s genitalia and nipple. They have pointed to another sex offender who also lived nearby, Dr. Richard Hammond, as the possible killer, given his sexual obsessions and surgical skill. Evidence linked to Hammond, however, had been destroyed by Fort Collins police.
Quick made a point Friday of saying that Hammond is not the alternate suspect behind the genetic material found on Hettrick’s clothing.
[/QUOTE]
One could always read Masters’ appeal to find out about the evidence that ended up convicting him:
Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979
It appears that the defendant was mentally unstable and had the same weapons used to commit the crime (A knife with a 5" serrated blade and a scalpel). He also told the police that the victim was wearing pink shoes. When the victim was found, her pants were covering her feet, and she was wearing pink socks. Judging from the appeal, the jury didn’t make a patently bad decision, based on the evidence that they were presented.
I have read that Dr. Hammond and Hetrick were social acquaintances, but I can’t find a cite because of the huge volume of hits Google is returning today.
I have read that Dr. Hammond and Hetrick were social acquaintances, but I can’t find a cite because of the huge volume of hits Google is returning today.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. Well, anyway, based on what you’ve provided I would not call Dr. Hammond a stronger alternate suspect.
[QUOTE=Jayn_Newell]
Reality check. NO ONE besides you has claimed that the kid was convicted for merely wearing black.
[/QUOTE]
What’s the OP’s title " Kid guilty of dressing in black to be freed after 8 years in prison". So, no one besides the OP, you mean.
brazil84: thanks, good cite. Nice to see someone who can research.
Zebra: good point. Masters was what- 30? when he was convicted? And the Police certainly can’t be blamed for being in a hurry to convict somebody, anybody.
I have to admit that the evidence wasn’t all that great, and the Police and DA did some rather sketchy things, too. Still, there* was *evidence.
However- the OP did write his own title "Kid guilty of dressing in black to be freed after 8 years in prison"
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
What’s the OP’s title " Kid guilty of dressing in black to be freed after 8 years in prison". So, no one besides the OP, you mean.
[/QUOTE]
So, you tell us what else he was guilty of. Not what he was convicted for. Not what there was evidence for. You tell us what he was guilty of.
Seriously, with all your claims about fighting ignorance, you have no reading comprehension at all.
It obviously hasn’t occurred to DrDeth that the OP might have used that title because “Kid guilty of being goth, finding the body, and having violent drawings in his room to be freed after 8 years in prison” is too long for a thread title, so he used a little creativity in shortening it. Nowhere in the OP did it state that Masters was actually found guilty only because he dressed in black.
Have we instituted a policy that thread titles must clearly and completely describe the OP? If we have, a lot of us are in big trouble.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
So, you tell us what else he was guilty of. Not what he was convicted for. Not what there was evidence for. You tell us what he was guilty of.
Seriously, with all your claims about fighting ignorance, you have no reading comprehension at all.
[/QUOTE]
He wasn’t guilty of anything, he’s been exonerated- haven’t you read the thread at all?
[QUOTE=LurkMeister]
It obviously hasn’t occurred to DrDeth that the OP might have used that title because “Kid guilty of being goth, finding the body, and having violent drawings in his room to be freed after 8 years in prison” is too long for a thread title, so he used a little creativity in shortening it. Nowhere in the OP did it state that Masters was actually found guilty only because he dressed in black.
Have we instituted a policy that thread titles must clearly and completely describe the OP? If we have, a lot of us are in big trouble.
[/QUOTE]
I asked the Op exactly what the evidence was that the Jury heard. He has no idea, and can’t be bothered to look it up. :rolleyes: That’s the issue.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I asked the Op exactly what the evidence was that the Jury heard. He has no idea, and can’t be bothered to look it up. :rolleyes: That’s the issue.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s the issue, then why do you keep insisting that the OP stated that Masters was convicted “only” of dressing in black after it has been made clear that the the conviction was based on other factors?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I asked the Op exactly what the evidence was that the Jury heard. He has no idea, and can’t be bothered to look it up. :rolleyes: That’s the issue.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve looked it up. read it, and posted it repeatedly in this thread. If you want a fucking transcript, this is the wrong place to get it.
Now that Masters’ conviction has been vacated and he is free and unlikely to be retried, what exactly is your fucking problem?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
He wasn’t guilty of anything, he’s been exonerated- haven’t you read the thread at all?
[/QUOTE]
That. Is. The. Fucking. Point. “Dressing in black” was just shorthand for being goth, which is essentially why he was found guilty. Everyone in this thread except you seems to grasp this.
What part of “the police based their investigation on the assumption of his guilt and rigged the evidence to convict him, all because he happened to be goth like umpteen other million teenagers” are you having trouble with? It doesn’t matter what evidence the jury had at that point, because it had already been slanted in favour of finding Masters guilty by the time they heard it.
Is it just me, or are we having an unusual amount of stupid roaming around here these days?
[QUOTE=Jayn_Newell]
That. Is. The. Fucking. Point. “Dressing in black” was just shorthand for being goth, which is essentially why he was found guilty.
[/quote]
What percentage of goth kids keep survival knives and scalpels around?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
What percentage of goth kids keep survival knives and scalpels around?
[/QUOTE]
I know a number of people (goth or otherwise) who keep knives and other bladed objects around–actually, growing up in a rural area it was just plain common (knives are pretty useful, ya know). Hell, I have some myself. Scalpels are a bit different though.
Look, I’m not saying there wasn’t evidence to suggest he did it. I’m just saying that evidence that suggested he didn’t was ignored, mainly because he wore black, liked to draw and for whatever reason liked to keep knives around. To me, he sounds like he was a fairly typical teenager.
[QUOTE=Jayn_Newell]
I know a number of people (goth or otherwise) who keep knives and other bladed objects around–actually, growing up in a rural area it was just plain common (knives are pretty useful, ya know). Hell, I have some myself. Scalpels are a bit different though.
[/quote]
Well, that’s a problem with the “he was convicted only because he was a goth” argument. There was other evidence against him too. Probably he shouldn’t have been convicted, but this is NOT a situation involving a defendant who is clearly innocent.
That’s not exactly what you said before. What you said before was that essentially he was found guilty because he was a goth. To me, this is an overstatement.
As I said earlier, it’s quite a coincidence that a woman is murdered in a sexual fashion by a lefty who uses a serrated knife and a scalpel, and there just happens to be a lefty who owns a serrated knife and a scalpel, who has fantasies about murdering women in sexual fashions, living within eyeshot of the crime scene; and who admitted to seeing the body but not reporting it.
The fact is that there was a lot of circumstantial evidence against Masters. Yes, he probably should not have been convicted. But that’s different from saying that he did not commit the crime or saying that there was essentially no evidence inculpating him.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
WThat’s not exactly what you said before. What you said before was that essentially he was found guilty because he was a goth. To me, this is an overstatement.
[/QUOTE]
I think at this point we may simply be splitting hairs. I didn’t come here to argue with you over semantics, and I don’t really feel like continuing this. My main point was that being a goth made him stand out, and so people jumped to conclusions. Understandable, somewhat, but the real shame was that the police did the same, and focused on him when building their case.
I have to admit I feel sorry for him as a teenager. Being different in a small community just plain sucks.
