None of that is in the Washington Post story linked in the OP and in fact what is written there contradicts what you wrote:
So were did you get this about the victim being tortured and Mrs. Esparza’s seeing it and being cavalier?
Again, the story linked in the OP says nothing about torture or about Mrs. Esparza seeing it happen; where did you get your information?
3rd time now: the only article linked in this thread does not say what you say:
She was forced into the marriage; she did not force the marriage, according to her husband. Where did you get your information?
4th time: she accused the victim of rape before she or anyone else had committed any crimes, according to the story in the OP. What information are you basing your assertion on here?
I’m not sure how you arrived at what I think is a sound conclusion based on what seems to be completely erroneous information but there it is.
This is wrong and a common mistake. If you confess to me that you committed a murder, and then we get married, that confession does not suddenly fall under marital privilege. We may now be married, but communication between us before we were married does not retroactively become protected. People have gotten married with the mistaken belief that it does, but they are wrong. TV gets it wrong a lot too, so it’s not surprising that people make this mistake.
My point about this is that she may have kept silent under the mistaken belief that she had a right or even obligation to, when that was not the fact, and she was actually guilty of obstruction. If that’s the case, it doesn’t erase her guilt, but could be a mitigating factor. I mean, it explains her actions. It’s not an excuse, but it’s a reason. It also could factor into a relatively light sentence, and the part of the story that says she maintained her innocence, but suddenly capitulated and accepted the six-year sentence. Someone may have explained the law to her.
Also, FWIW, the marital privilege survives divorce. Anything private you tell me while we are married is still private even after we are divorced. Communication subsequent to the divorce is not privileged, but communication during the marriage remains so.
People who are asserting things like the fact that she witnessed the murder, where did you get this information? It’s not in the OP’s link. If you found another article, with different information, could you post a link?
Or someone might have denounced her in exchange for a lighter sentence on an entirely unrelated crime. I’m actually quite curious as to what exactly prompted the re-opening of such an old case, and what changed between 1995 and today TBH.
The statute of limitations isn’t just based on the assumption that the perpetrator has somehow “made good” in the intervening time. It’s also based on practicalities of justice. As time passes, it becomes harder and harder to get good information about a crime. If you ask me where I was last Thursday, I can tell you. If you ask me where I was two years ago last Thursday, well, I might be able to check various records and figure it out. If you ask me where I was ten years ago last Thursday, though, I can probably give you a city and state, but I might not even be able to do that (most summers during that time span I visited family-- Did that date fall during one of those trips?). And that lack of information makes it really difficult to give anyone a fair trial.
Indeed. And that also applies to the status of physical evidence & records, too. In this case for instance, the murder victim might have raped her, or he might not. At this point there’s really no way to tell either way ; even though that’s quite an important mitigating factor in the accessory to murder charge.
“Oh, good grief” is right. “She”, “her” and “Ms” also identify the subject as having a vagina. :rolleyes:
Would you two have us use “it” instead?
Frankly I think it’s demeaning to women for SJWs to assume that anything identifying them as such is demeaning. What is it about women that making someone aware of their sex supposedly lessens their significance?
And as long as I’m here, what’s the deal with LHoD authoritatively instructing us (f-word and all) as to which words we need or are allowed to use? My response to such a demand would be to roundly ignore it, and deservedly so.
Um, what? Justice isn’t just about societal protection or rehabilitation, though both should be goals of a justice system.
A justice system is precisely instituted to try, as best as can, set right to wrongs, and to enforce societal morality. Time can make it so that sufficient evidence to conduct trials ethically and fairly no longer exists, but when that isn’t a factor time and a good life lived since doesn’t make it right for a murderer to not have to pay some price for their crime.
We have a justice system precisely to make it so vigilantism is illegitimate.
a) Pointing Ramirez out in the bar
b) Being present for Ramirez kidnapping
c) Being present during the violence committing against Ramirez (seeing him beaten and tortured, hanging from the ceiling of an auto shop)
Then for over 15 years she lied to police about it. I believe that would normally be seen as a type of “aiding and abetting” both before/after the fact, which is usually punished pretty harshly, potentially evidence of a conspiracy to murder (and that’s just what I’ve read based off of Esparza’s own testimony.) I suspect the prosecutors probably made an argument that she was part of the murder conspiracy, successfully, to a jury.
And the fact it was “Weeks later” make it worse. I mean, if she had called her BF in tear then & there, they drove over and beat him in and in the course killed him… that would be a different kettle of fish. But planning it for weeks, and the slow torture means she was very much guilty. And did she report the rape to the police?
Thank you. It did not answer all my questions regarding Blake’s post, but it was an excellent article and did include a lot of information lacking in the OP’s article.
What evidence is there that she was present for the planning? Everything I’ve seen so far indicates that she was not present for the planning and had nothing to do with the torture other than seeing it and not reporting it. Where have you read differently?
She called her BF weeks after, which means she was planning revenge. What sort of revenge she was planning is unknown, but since she watched and didnt try and stop it, I think we can draw the conclusion she planned the torture too.
The sentence sounds just right to me. She didn’t kill the guy in self-defense, which would have been justifiable. She wasn’t directly involved in the torture and killing, only peripherally, so 6 years sounds fine.
Under the law in most states I believe the “aiding and abetting” concept states that “anyone who aids or abets a crime may be charged directly with the crime, as if the charged had carried out the act.”
She did not have to point the victim out to her angry ex boyfriend, she didn’t have to lie to police (thus protecting the ex from prosecution for 15 years) all of these are things which I think do quite a bit to help convict her as an accomplice. An “aider and abettor” is sometimes called a “principal in the second degree”, meaning they are viewed legally as equivalent to the principal in terms of their criminality. But prosecutors will often be more interested in cutting plea deals with accomplices to insure conviction of the principal. An “accessory after the fact” is usually punished less seriously than an accomplice (who in most states is viewed as essentially being just as criminal as the principal), but the prosecution would argue since she pointed Ramirez out, and was present for his kidnapping, she was no simple accessory after the fact.
I haven’t found out the specifics involved, but in reading the timeline of this case as I understand it, the prosecutors eventually were able to get Esparza to admit her knowledge of the crime. They initially offered her a deal: three years (likely 18 months with good behavior) if she plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and testified against the principals. She refused. They then found “another witness who implicated her in the killing itself”, I don’t know the full details there, and since Esparza ended up pleading guilty instead of being convicted after a full trial, it’s possible that the testimony or whatever that person said isn’t publicly available (but it might be, I just haven’t found it.) The fact that she ended up later pleading guilty and taking a worse deal (six years instead of three) suggests to me her lawyers found this new witness who was willing to testify against Esparza probably had pretty damaging testimony. But at the end of the day, Esparza chose to plead guilty so we don’t know her motivations fully, she claims it was for her family since she couldn’t risk a life sentence (but why refuse 18 months then, back before the new witness came forward? :dubious: )
Also, she even conceded to police that she thought her ex would “rough Ramirez up”, and that’s what she confessed, it’s not all that unreasonable in my opinion to view her as a murderer. I think legally the prosecutors had a decent chance of conviction on the murder charge.
Even back in 95 when this went down the first police detective who interviewed her warned her that if she knew something, she needed to come clean, and that a murder case never goes away. She chose for a decade and a half to act as if that was not the case.
Yeah, DrDeth is a little incorrect at least in what’s been reported. Esparza says that Gianni called her up and asked to come visit (they had remained somewhat friendly after their breakup.) She wanted him to come because she needed a shoulder to cry on because of the alleged rape (again, this is all her side of the story, we will never know Ramirez’s because he was tortured to death), she told him about the rape and they spent the day together and I believe at that time she mentioned the man who she claims raped her’s name, and a little information about him. Later she claims Gianni asked her to come to El Cortez, and when they get there he asks her to point Ramirez out, which she does. She admits that she thought he would “rough Ramirez up.”
Based on Esparza’s testimony there is no evidence she “planned the crime”, but you aren’t required to be 100% equivalent to the principal of a crime to be considered an accomplice (and thus fully criminally liable.) She aided and abetted by pointing Ramirez out, and she did nothing when he was kidnapped and then tortured and killed. She then didn’t report it to the police for 15 years.