Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, February 1, 2007

Judge denies dismissal of Boardwalk fire case

Trial starts next week

February 1, 2007

Advertisement

The trial for a man accused of starting an apartment fire that killed three people will start next week - with the man's confession allowed as evidence.

During a motions hearing today, Judge Jack Murphy ruled that the trial of Jason Rose would begin as planned, despite a motion from Rose's attorney asking the case be dismissed.

Rose is charged with three counts of murder and one count of aggravated arson for allegedly starting a deadly fire at the Boardwalk Apartments in 2005. Rose's defense argued that there wasn't enough evidence to try Rose for the murders.

"The intent has to be for the arson, and that was clearly shown," Murphy said today.

Murphy also ruled the Rose's defense could call an expert witness to testify that Rose's confession to police may not have been accurate because of his history of abuse and maltreatment as a child.

Jury selection for the trial begins Tuesday, with evidence scheduled to be presented Wednesday.

Comments

Centrist 7 years, 7 months ago

So let me get this right.

Abuse as a child means you can say anything the rest of your life and it won't be 'accurate'.

Give me a break!

I had a ROTTEN childhood and I've never hurt anybody ... I work, pay taxes, live legally, do the right thing and treat my friends and family right.

This little so-and-so MUST pay for what HIS actions caused (assuming he's guilty of course).

He hurt and KILLED people, fer gawd's sake.

0

Centrist 7 years, 7 months ago

Defence lawyers make me sick ...

0

Richard Heckler 7 years, 7 months ago

It's like rapists who blame being stoned or drunk for their actions.

Cannot blame a dysfunctional background for making bad decisons forever.

I doubt he had intentions of killing anyone however that's how it worked out.

0

werekoala 7 years, 7 months ago

"I hate defence [sic] lawyers"

The defense lawyer is just doing his job. In this case, it is to do everything in his power to legitimately cast doubt on the partial or total guilt of the defendant, and explore mitigating factors. He'd be derelict if he didn't do this, and incidentally provide justified grounds for appeal if he failed to adequately represent the defendant's interests.

I hate your mindset - John Adams himself, noted patriot, defended the British troops who fired into the crowd at the Boston Massacre, because he felt it was important that EVERYONE get good, fair representation before the court.

I agree, this guy is guilty as all hell, and dangerous, and will in due course, despite all the attempts of the defense lawyer, be placed into custody for the rest of his life. I really can't say I'd be too hurt if he were put to death, if the trial proves that he knowingly and intentionally put the lives of his fellow tenants in jeapordy (killing 3, maiming many more).

But all of that will come through due process of law, which includes a judge, jury, subpeonas, testimonies, and yes, defense lawyers. The idea that we can dispense with a fair trial is the first step toward a police state.

0

Leprechaunking13 7 years, 7 months ago

Hahahaha you know a lot of abusive rapists that are stoners merrill? This guy has a lot of mental issues, not to let him off the hook, he's a little slower than most people and who knows what was going through his head when he was talking to police after those fires. Lets see what happens with the trial.

0

gerbilsniper 7 years, 7 months ago

Did he start the fire....i'm sure of it

did he mean to kill those people? dont believe that one bit

Murder...hardly

Manslaughter

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.