I didnt say she planned the actual act, but she did point the victim out to her Ex-BF, willingly and weeks later.
And, the victim here is Ramirez, not her. She is one of the perpetrators.
I also highly question claims this woman’s life is ruined. She’s a celebrity and a “cause celebre” now. She’ll probably do three years with good behavior credit. When she gets out she’ll likely get a book deal, paid interviews, etc. She’s likely to make more her first year out of prison than she would three years of her pre-prison life, and given the fact it appears a large segment of the population views her as an innocent victim ruined by America’s evil anti-woman ways, she likely will find plenty of places willing to embrace her with open arms in her chosen professional career path as well.
I didnt say she planned the crime. I say she planned revenge. Perhaps she did think he’d only be beat up. But she said nothing while he was hanging on the chains. There’s also no evidence Ramirez did anything to her, note.
I don’t know, what IS the deal with this scenario you’ve imagined? Would you like to throw some hobbits and oompa loompas in for good measure?
I’m not anywhere near telling you what you are allowed to use. But the word “murderess” is a stupid word. The sex of the killer is not relevant to the act of killing. The -ess suffix implies that the -er suffix is used for men only, which is plainly not the case, or else it implies that women need a special suffix when they’re doing something, which is also plainly not the case. The word “murderer” suffices, and archaic sexist terms are not useful.
To be entirely clear, though, if you continue to use the word “murderess” or other silly constructions like that, I won’t call word cops on you or report your post or show up in the middle of the night and put a burning dictionary on your front lawn. I’ll just say that they’re silly words.
Do you object to the word “actress”?
As a matter of fact, I think “actor” and “waiter” adequately describe jobs (although at least with “actress,” gender is generally part of how roles are filled, so it’s not as bad). But I don’t think either one sounds weird.
“Murderess,” however, is not something that I often hear, and it grates.
That said, I figured my comment was a one-off. It’s turning into a hijack. Know that I’ll give you the squint-eye if you keep using the word, and that’s all I’ll say on the subject :).
It seems the editors of every major periodical in the English speaking world disagree with you.
But what would they know?
Did you read the title of this thread before posting here? :rolleyes:
I’ve never seen anyone throw such a meaningless fit over a gendered word. Murderess, heiress, waitress, actress, all have gender neutral words, but all are common gendered words used in English. I’m frankly puzzled someone has gotten so angry at the English language.
Seconded.
There is a reason we all think that just fingering the alleged rapist would get the man killed. I understand why she did what she did. If she had no way of proving him a rapist then she was not likely to see justice. But if she gets caught, she should go to jail. We can’t let her go.
OK, if she did in fact admit to witnessing the crime, then yes, she’s due some sort of prison sentence. I don’t know the law well enough to know whether that meets her jurisdiction’s definition of murder, but it’s definitely something.
Surely she *would *have seen justice in that case.
If she had no way of proving him a rapist then there is no reason to believe he was a rapist. The man is completely innocent isn’t he? Is there any reason to believe he did anything wrong, aside from the a story told by the woman who murdered him to try to justify the murder and reduce her punishment?
There is no reason at all to believe that her victim raped her, is there? That was a nasty story she made up to slur her victim to try to avoid going to jail for murdering him.
Why is it that so many people are willing to accept a story told by a convicted murderess to avoid going to jail? Rather than being outraged by the further damage done to the victim and his family by the false accusations of rape, it’s taken as gospel truth.
The woman is a murderer who is willing to witness a man being tortured to death at her behest and do nothing to stop it.
Her victim, as far as we can tell, was a completely law abiding, hard working young man.
Yet you just accept her story and "understand why she did it " and express a belief that she could not get justice, even though there is no evidence of any injustice being done by anyone but her.
Even when a woman is proven to be a cold blooded sociopath, her story alone is proof that a rape took pace, and even when her alleged rapist is a victim of a brutal and violent crime committed by the woman, he is still guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
I see that as somewhat disturbing glimpse into the American psyche.
Do you believe that covering up for the criminals, to the extent of marrying one of them to thwart the investigation, might not also warrant a jail term?
Oh for fuck’s sake, who cares? She and her boyfriend tortured and murdered the dude – why are we so worried about “sexist terms” against her? Quite honestly, I think calling her a fucked-up psychobitch would probably be more accurate.
I was recently told in another posting that a rape accuser should receive automatic immunity for any crime she may have been committing at the time of the alleged crime in order that she feel safe reporting the rape. Perhaps crimes committed as a result afterwards if related to the rape are supposed to receive similar immunity.
I left off something in my post above. This woman did not “rehabilitate herself”. What she did was continue a crime or crimes.
Someone seriously proposed that?
So if I kill you by burning your house down after burgling it, all I have to do afterwards is *accuse *you of raping me, and I can’t get charged with the murder, arson or burglary?
I can’t see any possible unintended consequences of *that *proposal. 
Why do you say that? Or are you saying that if she couldn’t prove him a rapist then that’s all the justice she deserves?
Why would you think he was completely innocent?
How many rape cases can go either way because these cases so frequently come down to who the jury believes.
And there it is. Rape cases often come down to whether or not we believe what a woman says about being raped.
She “made up” that story before the murder. What possible reason could she have to want this guy murdered? I mean your thesis is that she told a man that she knew was violent and unstable that she was raped in order to get this violent unstable man to murder this hapless guy?
There was testimony that she recanted and told the murderers that Ramirez was not the guy when she saw him strung on on chains:
“Rojas, who says she stayed downstairs, told the police she heard Esparza scream, “crying that it wasn’t him.” Van and Kody Tran apparently didn’t believe her. According to Rojas and Esparza, they used the sight of Ramirez’s tortured body to warn the women against ratting them out: This is what will happen to you if you screw us.”
OR he was a rapist. Not that this means he should be tortured to death. Why are you so ready to jump to the conclusion that she is fabricating the story about rape?
How is she a sociopath?
She kept quiet. If she committed a crime as you say, the fifth amendment guarantees her right to remain silent.
That’s not true. We have the testimony of an eyewitness.