Archive for Saturday, May 12, 2007
Rose faces up to 122 months for involuntary manslaughter
District attorney wanted felony murder conviction
May 12, 2007
Advertisement
Jason Rose found guilty on several charges, but not murder
Jurors reach a verdict in the case of a Lawrence man charged with setting one of the most destructive fires in city history. Prosecutors may have gotten a conviction in the case, however it wasn't the one they were hoping for. Enlarge video
Rose trial verdict
Jason Rose and his attorney Ron Evans listen to the verdict being read out. Enlarge video
Bingham on Rose verdict
Nancy Bingham, mother of Boardwalk fire victim Nicole Bingham, discussing the jury verdict. Enlarge video
A jury on Friday convicted a Lawrence man of setting a deadly apartment fire in 2005 but stopped short of convicting him of first-degree murder - a verdict that the county's top prosecutor said was "inconsistent."
After nearly two days of deliberations, jurors found Jason Allen Rose guilty of three counts of involuntary manslaughter, one count of aggravated arson and seven counts of aggravated battery in connection with the October 2005 fire at Lawrence's Boardwalk Apartments.
Rose, who showed no emotion when Judge Jack Murphy read the verdict, will be sentenced June 18. He faces a maximum sentence of 122 months in prison, although he will get credit for the 19 months he's already served in custody. He's also eligible for 15 percent off the sentence if he doesn't have disciplinary problems in prison.
Rose had been charged with first-degree murder under the state's "felony murder" law, which would have carried a penalty of 20 years to life in prison. To prove that charge, prosecutors didn't have to convince jurors that Rose meant to kill anyone, just that he committed an "inherently dangerous felony" - in this case, aggravated arson - that led to the deaths of Nicole Bingham, Yolanda Riddle and Jose Gonzalez.
By convicting Rose of aggravated arson, jurors signaled that they believed he set the fire. But instead of finding him guilty of "felony murder," they found him guilty of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.
"There's a little bit of a fiction that's gone on here with regard to what the law is," District Attorney Charles Branson said in a news conference afterward.
Branson said that his office objected to Murphy giving jurors the option of convicting Rose of the lesser homicide charge.
"We achieved the most difficult charge to prove, aggravated arson, but the jury saw fit not to convict on the felony murder charge," he said. "It is inconsistent."
Defense attorney Ron Evans said, "I'm pretty happy. ... Jason wanted an acquittal, but this is the next best thing to it."
Nancy Bingham, mother of fire victim Nicole Bingham, said as she left the law enforcement center that she was comfortable with the jury's decision.
"My job now is just to accept things the way they are," she said. "The jury had to weigh all that evidence and come up with some hard decisions."
Jurors left the law enforcement center without stopping to grant interviews.
Rose's former pastor, the Rev. Leo Barbee of Victory Bible Church, said after the verdict that he thinks Rose is innocent.
"I think there's too many unanswered questions," he said. "My prayer is that the person who really did it will come forward. ... I'm saddened."
- Staff writer Mike Belt contributed to this report.
12 May 2007
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
doc1 (Anonymous) says…
So because he is in Douglas County he will likely get 12 months and then probation out of all of this. Hope I see this guy on the street when he gets out.
12 May 2007
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
Hate to burst your bubble doc1, but given the coverage and local feelings about this case, such an egregious deviation from state sentencing guidelines isn't going to happen. The judge doesn't want the negative press, and the judge especially doesn't want a scenario such as the one you implied in your own post where you came very close to making an open threat in a public forum.
12 May 2007
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I can not think of a better jurist to do sentencing than Judge Murphy. I can assure you that his decision will be straight by the book and favor neither the defense nor the prosecution. His handling of this trial has been exemplary.
12 May 2007
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I too wanted Rose convicted of felony murder, but Branson's complaints are bogus. If the jury didn't return a verdict he wanted then it only means the prosecution failed to prove its case on that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The last minute witness in the first trail and the DA's insistence on putting her on the stand caused the first mistrial. Considering how weak the blogger witness was on the stand I can only conclude the first trial wasn't going any better and they were looking for a mistrial in an attempt to reorganize what they knew was a weak case.
12 May 2007
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Branson seems to be under the misapprehension that jurors are under some obligation to follow the law.
While the law limits the extent of their action, under the Anglo-American judicial system, a jury's obligation is to justice, not the law, despite what the standard jury instructions say. (Yes, the Supreme Court has confirmed both that the judge can demand that the jury follow the law, AND that jurors can vote to acquit regardless of the law and the evidence, and that there is no appeal from a jury's acquittal.) This is why the right to “trial by a jury of your peers” is very important!
12 May 2007
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anonymous25 (Anonymous) says…
So when did we start caring about the bad press. Almost everyone in this city and the victims families all expected him to go to jail for life. I'm sure if the victims that died were rich white men then he would have gone to jail for life. He killed them plain and simple. He didn't care..You can tell by his face that he is a crazy and demented kid. Who were these Jury members and what the hell is wrong with this city? He'll be out in a year for good behavior. But he'll burn down another house again.
12 May 2007
at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
If you weren't on the jury you have no idea what exactly they were presented with as evidence. Nor do you have the knowledge of all 12 people's backgrounds, intelligence levels, rationality, etc.
Mrs. Bingham has had the best response. She sat there all day, every day. She knows what evidence was presented. She knows what witnesses said or didn't say. She knows what experts did or didn't say.
Sure the kid is messed up, so all you perfect citizens probably can't say without a doubt what this messed up kid actually did. He admitted to it — two completely different ways and denied it several other different ways. All on tape. So do messed up kids lie? Yes. Do messed up kids tell the truth? Yes.
12 May 2007
at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Punk got off easy. Perhaps the rest of the victims should now sue the city Prosecutor's office for doing such a poor job that he got by with murder.
12 May 2007
at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
I think people are a little confused when they pin the failure to get felony murder on the DAs office. The article is horribly written, you would think with two writers they could have done a better job.
If you commit a felony such as robbery, kidnapping or in this case arson, and a person dies as a result of the crime or the activities immediately following (for example the attempted flight), under Kansas Law, felony murder is supposed to be automatic. That is the inconsistency that Branson is referring to. There shouldn't have even been an option for manslaughter, the presence of a felony such as arson automatically rules manslaughter out. Its called the “Felony Murder Rule” or as stated above “felony murder” law.
Branson and his office did exactly what they needed to do. They proved that he set the fires, he was found guilty of aggravated arson, a felony. It should have been guilty of felony murder or innocent. The “out” given to the jury, in the form of manslaughter charges, by Judge Murphy was inappropriate and classic Douglas County.
This just shows, if you give a Douglas County jury an “out”, they will take it. In any other county in Kansas, the verdict would have been guilty of felony murder. Lucky for him he was in Lawrence.
Ten years won't help what is obviously a troubled young man. Either lock him away forever or get him some actual help. I am curious as to what he will actually get.
12 May 2007
at 8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Maybe we should sue the judge too. Just like Paula “You facilitated your own rape” Martin. However, there is a pretty dang big chance that Jeopardy has been attached.
12 May 2007
at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lionheart72661 (Anonymous) says…
well since my last comment was removed i'll put another and exercise my freedom of speech. I don't know if this Rose guy was mentally instable but evidently the courts said he was stable enough to stand trial. the bottom line is this. This guy intentionally set a fire to an occupied apartment building, notice the word occupied. Now in my eyes that is intentional murder,but i know this one thing to be true. He may not pay fully for his crime now but one day he will have to answer for it. So yes he will do a little jail time now and i'm not trying to judge him either but unless he has a true and honest and sincere change of heart there is one that is the ultimate judge.
13 May 2007
at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
reality_check411 (Anonymous) says…
I have been recently reading the comments posted on this certain topic. Let me start off by saying everyone is intitled to their own opinion. The way you present that opinion on the other hand effects your reactions. I do not know who any of you truly are, and I mean no disrespect out of any comments henceforth. In regards to ragingbear i find your attitude towards Mr. Kidder to be appauling. This is a place to have respectable conversations and perhaps debates. You may know a little bit about Jason, but I guarantee not as well as I. I do also want to say if you a victim in this fire I send my appologizies for your pain and suffering, both mental and physical. I have to say something about this case has not yet come out. In my beliefs someone knows a lot more than they are admitting to. There are too many pieces of this puzzle missing. I still do not know if he set the fire. After hours of interrigation he confesses, many stories. What you may not understand is that in his mind he wanted to get away from the situation. Even after many times of him denying his involvment they kept telling him that he did do it. This registered something in his mind. He knew that until they heard what they wanted to hear he was not going to be left alone. Maybe some of you think this is some pathetic accuse, but I will have you know that is who he is. It is a deffense mechanism. He was scared, like the deffense mental examiner verified, he is a 7 year old in a young mans body. His mind is scared. All his life he's had to be scared. People do different things in different cituations when they are scared. Something doesn't add up, and I plan to find out what exactly that is. If someone has any information regarding this case please do contact me. Let me end noting that no one knows 100% of what happened with Jason that night. No one ever will, there is no time machine. All we know is what he said, whether creditable or not. All I ask is before you make your rude comments think about what your saying.
13 May 2007
at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
The expert did not say he was a 7 year old in a man's body. I was there. She did say his IQ testing and achievement levels weren't that far off therefore does not qualify him LD.
Who are you? Mr. Kidder with a new screen name? I agree we don't know the whole story.
13 May 2007
at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
You can get experts to testify that the sky is made of magic pixie dust too. Doesn't make it any more true. Where was the prosecution's rebuttle witness? Yet another example of our pathetic justice system. Not only do people get screwed left and right, but people that need to be behind bars end up getting 6 months and a fine.
13 May 2007
at 10:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
I think the defense expert did more for the prosecution than the defense, is that what you mean regarding a rebuttle?
13 May 2007
at 10:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
21-3201. Criminal intent.
(a) Except as otherwise provided, a criminal intent is an essential element of every crime defined by this code. Criminal intent may be established by proof that the conduct of the accused person was intentional or reckless. Proof of intentional conduct shall be required to establish criminal intent, unless the statute defining the crime expressly provides that the prohibited act is criminal if done in a reckless manner.
(b) Intentional conduct is conduct that is purposeful and willful and not accidental. As used in this code, the terms “knowing,” “willful,” “purposeful,” and “on purpose” are included within the term “intentional.”
(c) Reckless conduct is conduct done under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to the person of another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger. The terms “gross negligence,” “culpable negligence,” “wanton negligence” and “wantonness” are included within the term “recklessness” as used in this code.
21-3401. Murder in the first degree.
Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed:
(a) Intentionally and with premeditation; or
(b) in the commission of, attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto.
21-3404. Involuntary manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being committed:
(a) Recklessly;
(b) in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight from any felony, other than an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto, that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety or a misdemeanor that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety, including acts described in K.S.A. 8-1566 and subsection (a) of 8-1568, and amendments thereto, but excluding the acts described in K.S.A. 8-1567 and amendments thereto; or
(c) during the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
13 May 2007
at 10:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
21-3718. Arson.
(a) Arson is: (1) Knowingly, by means of fire or explosive:
(A) Damaging any building or property which is a dwelling in which another person has any interest without the consent of such other person;
(B) damaging any building or property which is a dwelling with intent to injure or defraud an insurer or lienholder;
(C) damaging any building or property which is not a dwelling in which another person has any interest without the consent of such other person; or
(D) damaging any building or property which is not a dwelling with intent to injure or defraud an insurer or lienholder;
(2) accidentally, by means of fire or explosive as a result of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of K.S.A. 65- 4159, and amendments thereto, damaging any building or property which is a dwelling; or
(3) accidentally, by means of fire or explosive as a result of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of K.S.A. 65- 4159, and amendments thereto, damaging any building or property which is not a dwelling.
21-3719. Aggravated arson.
(a) Aggravated arson is arson, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3718 and amendments thereto:
(1) Committed upon a building or property in which there is a human being; or
(2) which results in great bodily harm or disfigurement to a firefighter or law enforcement officer in the course of fighting or investigating the fire.
14 May 2007
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shirinisb (Anonymous) says…
Great, this SOB will probably serve a few years. What a way to send a message. I'm not a betting woman but I would put money on the fact that he'll commit arson again when he gets out.
14 May 2007
at 3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
will someone please explain why my comment was removed? am i not allowed to voice an opinion here? it had no foul language, just expressed my disapointment in the outcome of the trial..
15 May 2007
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prioress (Anonymous) says…
m1983: Quit whining. The LJW owns this sandbox and can do whatever they want. Want “free speech?” pay for your own discussion site. As for the trial, I thought the verdict was pretty darned just, given the circumstances and the facts presented.
15 May 2007
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lionheart72661 (Anonymous) says…
hey prioress, like i put in my first comment that was removed also with no foul language and not harping on any one individule like you just did, would you still feel that it would be just had you been living there or one of your friends or family members perished or were injured in the fire. Like i stated earlier, God will be the ultimate judge in this. I only hope this young man has a sincere change of heart. so don't go having comments removed. this is a public paper which we do pay for so there is a fact for you.
15 May 2007
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prioress (Anonymous) says…
Well, some may pay for the paper, but it's still their playground. I'm sorry for the loss, but due process and the court system is not based on our emotions. If it were, we'd be in much worse shape than we are now, on this case and many others. Is is possible one of the skygods is paying attention to local news; if so, she will have the last word, won't she?
15 May 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
thanks for being so nice priores, and if you feel that the outcome of the trial is just, you obviously weren't directly effected by Jason Rose's actions.
15 May 2007
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
marquisdesade, the fact is, Jason is not 7, he's 20, and because of that, there is responsibility for his actions. It's unfortunate that he's had a rough life, but he set a fire that killed 3 people..
i agree, the state, the foster care system he was under, etc dropped the ball, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for taking lives of others. i honestly don't care about his mental capacity, because at the same time they're saying he is mentally about 7 years old, he's functioning normally to other people, like his pastor,etc..
15 May 2007
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
he set the fire.. the social worker may have dropped the ball, but i still stand behind the fact that there is a level of accountability for the actions you take. many people with similar upbringings and circumstances live life without killing other people..
15 May 2007
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
“m1983 (Anonymous) says:
thanks for being so nice priores, and if you feel that the outcome of the trial is just, you obviously weren't directly effected by Jason Rose's actions.”
Well, interestingly, I don't think anyone could be more affected by Jason's actions that Nicole's mother, right? And apparently, she thinks the sentence was just.
I get so sick of hearing people blame social workers. You want more effective social workers? Support them and the work they do. As it is now, this is a field that is incredibly underfunded, undervalued and underpaid. Social workers have one of the highest on the job murder, assault, rape, arson, theft rates. Higher rates of divorce and suicide than average. Skyrocketing case loads…..and you wonder why the best of the best don't generally do that job? I have a master's degree, four years of experience in child welfare, an excellent professional reputation, yet I work 50 hours a week for 40 hour compensation. Schwann's delivery driver's starting out make more money and have less hours than an experienced master's level social worker.
15 May 2007
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
As I recall, it was never stated by the prosecution that Jason was mentally retarded. However, he was in fact, borderline mentally retarded and socially (in terms of social development) he was much younger than 20 years old.
15 May 2007
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
Crispian, It's an open discussion, and everyone has the right to think what they want. I am thinking it's not just, and as I recall Nancy accepts what the jury decided… I don't think anyone here is diagreeing about his mental capacity being younger than 20…. All I am saying is that he should face the consequences for his actions. 120 months max, not including the 19 he's already served, plus the option of getting 15% off if he's good is a load, and unless he changes significantly, in 6-10 years, you may see the same thing again.
15 May 2007
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
marquisdesade- i agree
15 May 2007
at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
He actually tested just a few years younger than he is according to the defense expert. She also stated that his IQ and achievement levels match which means he does not qualify for LD - Learning Disabled. Might we also remember that this guy bought his own car and had a job at a cash register
I too am scared that unless he gets the kind of help he needs specific for fires he will at some time resort to this again. I hope that all those adults who testified in his defense and have visited him in jail several times will step up and support his mental health and help him get help since he is his own man now.
I also hope the people who minimized his issues — fires, urinating on clothes, conduct issues — realize that they did this kid no favors. There is a lot more in those files than was even addressed. Please now and in the future get troubled kids the help they need so things like this don't happen again.
I don't think any social worker remotely goes into the field for the money. They are trying to make a difference. They are absolutely overworked as are police, firefighters, teachers, etc.
Drop the low IQ stuff. It didn't work for the defense.
15 May 2007
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
Marquisdesade,
I mostly agree with your last post.
The jury did decide involuntary manslaughter which is defined as reckless. The difference between it and 2nd degree murder was the disregard for human life. Now don't attack me other posters. Just stating the facts.
Here come the disregard for human life blasts!!!!! And let me just say up front I agree.
15 May 2007
at 6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
And juries who make decisions are always right, 100%, all the time?
Yes, he will have to abide by the decisions of this particular jury. But that's a different matter entirely.
I work with developmentally disabled adults. I don't suppose Jason is much different from one of the people I work with, whether he was diagnosed or not.
It might surprise you as to what the state allows DD people to do. I know several who have their own place, have a job, a car, and drive themselves.
But when it comes to taking responsibility for their own behavior, it's often a different matter entirely. Most DD people have case managers or social workers who try to get any charges against them dropped, no matter what those charges are. And most times, they're successful.
Do you know this boy personally, Bitter? And by the tone of your posts…the name certainly suits you…
15 May 2007
at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
No I do not know the guy personally. No personal attacks on here right? I am not bitter about this incident at all, it was a previous and unrelated.
I began posting because of people posting misinformation like this person said this or this expert said that which I know not to be correct.
15 May 2007
at 6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
I didn't choose your screen name…you did. I only commented that you sound bitter. How is that a personal attack? It's an observation, nothing more.
How do you know all of this for a fact? Did you attend the trial? If so, I'll apologize now.
15 May 2007
at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
apology accepted
15 May 2007
at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Did you attend the trial, Bitter?
15 May 2007
at 7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
yes
15 May 2007
at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
you know. there are a TON of people, marquisdesade that work at fast food restraunts, because of their learning/development issues, and are in remedial classes in HS.. it's actually part of the norm today, but you don't see them burning down apartment buildings..
his day to day activities shows he is capable of functioning .. sure, he needed extra help in areas, but so do alot of other people.. his capability to do all of this, plus actually hold relationships with people shows that he's more there than ya'll are giving him credit for, and he's definitley above the mental level of a 7 year old..
what i am trying to say is, someone else who functions at this same level, with the same issues is not burning down apartments. it's not an excuse.
15 May 2007
at 7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Okay, so you attended the trial.
But then the only things you know about the boy are what you heard in court. If you don't know him personally, then you have no idea what kind of life he's led or what he's capable of.
15 May 2007
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
7 year olds have relationships with other people, m1983. What's your point?
15 May 2007
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
out of the entire post, that's what you pulled.. you're missing it.. they said he was functioning just below average aka “slow”.. in my opinion a 20 year old that's slow, is not on the same level as a 7 year old, he's just below average. and even if he's on the same level as a 7 year old, there's really no reason from any of that, that would excuse his behavior.. 7 year olds may catch things on fire, but they have the knowledge of right and wrong, and if they know someone might be hurt, or it's something dangerous, they act on it, where as Jason just walked across the street and watched.
15 May 2007
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
I had said the defense's child development expert did a lot of testing on Jason. She found that he was a few years delayed — I think she said 2 or 3 years delayed. She tested and found that in November 2005 he did not qualify for LD. Yes, he had an IEP in school. She seemed to be quite the expert in this area. Not saying that the teachers were wrong just that she might have more understainding of this area and many many degrees too
15 May 2007
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
Bitter thankyou! i was trying to explain what you just posted..
15 May 2007
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Probably…and you could also probably find just as many experts that would have testified to the contrary.
Experts don't always agree.
15 May 2007
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
but this was the defense expert. I think she actually did a better job ultimately for the prosecution
15 May 2007
at 7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Did you know him personally, m1983?
15 May 2007
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
no, but i knew nicole bingham very well.
15 May 2007
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
crazyks, do you know him personally?
15 May 2007
at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
you know, it's obviously this is personal for you, I am not sure if you know him, or what.. I really think it's unfortunate he's dealt with all of that, and it's unfortunate that people closest to him betrayed him.. but, what I am saying is that there are many people with similar, and even worse circumstances who are able to function in soceity without killing people. he had every right to be mad, any one would be in that circumstance, but because of his anger, and him acting on it the way he did, 3 people are dead. there comes a point where he needs to take responsibility for his actions. and not justify them because of a crappy background. too many people come from worse situations and don't do what he did, anger, betrayel, lonliness, all of things don't justify the actions he took.
15 May 2007
at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
do we know that the social worker gave him that box after he moved out? Did she not look through it with him? Ms. Powell was his social worker who testified in his defense.
The police obtained a box in their search so this is not the box that he at one time admitted to burning. That box or the box Jason said he burned was never sent by his father. UPS, postal service, DHL all confirmed no box was sent through any of them which Jason had said.
15 May 2007
at 9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
i really don't have compassion for him in that sense.. sorry..
i really think the sentence is wrong, and i'm having a hard time with it.. i think if you were on the other side, you'd view it a little different.or maybe you wouldn't.. all i can say is how i feel, and whether it be right or wrong, it's how i feel.
nancy is amazing, what you saw on the video is what she's like on a day to day basis.. nicole did know she was loved, by alot of people, she had countless friends from all of the US and across the world, she was very loved and she loved others in return. BUT.. just because he wasn't and she was, doesn't make his crime any less in my mind. he started a fire that caused her to lose her life. i think at some point, people need to stop living as victims and start living their life,no matter what circumstance they've been through.. it seems like jason was loved by the pastor of his church, and from being associated with a church, i am guessing he knows he's loved by a higher power, but even if he doesn't, it in NO way makes killing 3 people justifiable.
15 May 2007
at 9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
i don't think jason is sorry.. it would make things alot different on the way i view things if he was. but he's not shown that in any way, and i really don't buy that.
15 May 2007
at 9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
can he say sorry or admit to anything now or tell what truly happened?
I guess he'd have to wait until after sentencing right?
But after that a person who has been convicted can't …I don't know the term…double jeopardy?
15 May 2007
at 9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
“people need to stop living as victims and start living their life,no matter what circumstance they've been through:.
Very well said. Using one's disfunctional background to justify hurting others is unacceptable and in some cases cowardly.
15 May 2007
at 9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
wow, did you happen to read what i wrote, maybe you would have seen that the entire post wasn't generalizing hurting people, but talking about Jason.. it seems to me you just looked for something to argue about..
mature.
15 May 2007
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
wait.. i think i misread what you wrote? oops! my apologies if i read that wrong.
15 May 2007
at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chiva (Anonymous) says…
It was a very hard decision, based soley on the evidence presented.
15 May 2007
at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
I actually liked what you said 1983.
15 May 2007
at 9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
Valkyrie_of_Reason - thanks! =]
15 May 2007
at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
jason isn't a victim in this situation, and from what i understand he did not try and alert people of the fire.. if i am wrong, i would love to see an article or more info. from what i understand, he's shown no emotion either way, accept for his random freak out earlier that evening before the fire even happend.
loss of life shouldn't be in the same category as loss of belongings. don't get me wrong, i feel horrible for those who lost everything, and those who were injured, or hurt by Jason, but it's really unsettling how casual you seem to make 3 deaths seem.. or how you seem to assume how these 3 people would feel.. you really need to watch what you say. unless you know them personally, don't go there.
i also don't really care about Jason's experience in the foster-care system. why? because i know people from similar backgrounds who are normal, functioning adults. it sounds to me like your saying, if you have a crappy, unfair or unfortunate upbringing, you're excused from the choices you make. yes, foster-care kids murder, but apparently middle-class college students do too.
you're not doing him any favors by victimizing him. the sooner he learns what he did and takes responsibility for it, the better.. otherwise, we'll be having this same convo. in a few years..
people are going to wound, hurt, and betray you, it happens to everyone.. it doesn't excuse his actions, and it doesn't justify them. they were his choice , he is NOT apologetic, it my opinion he doesn't even give a crap.. people who walk through situations in the foster care system don't want pitty, and i doubt they would back his actions up, they want acknowledgement for the success they've achieved despite the plate they were handed.. give them more credit. they are only victims if they choose to be, like Jason obviously has.
15 May 2007
at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
You are welcome 1983 - I prefer rational thinking over existentialist thinking any day of the week.
15 May 2007
at 10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
chiva,
were you on the jury?
15 May 2007
at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chiva (Anonymous) says…
Yes
15 May 2007
at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
what do you think of all this chatter?
15 May 2007
at 10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chiva (Anonymous) says…
I agree with some of it. I feel badly for everyone involved. Anyway you look at it, many have suffered, including Jason. Being a juror was by far one of the hardest things I've ever had to do.
15 May 2007
at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
anything else you can add?
15 May 2007
at 10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chiva (Anonymous) says…
From your comments you were at the trial, so maybe you would agree that the evidence was lacking and the tapes of his confession were very puzzling. It was difficult to find the truth intertwind in all the lies. Who knows what he actually set on fire in the beginning?
15 May 2007
at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
yes, yes, lots of lies…………and probably not just from Jason……..what's with all the church members!?
15 May 2007
at 10:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chiva (Anonymous) says…
They seemed a little too different. I've never been lied to so much! From what I understand it's not the first time that church has been in a court room, either. Also, the additional witness from the last trial didn't play much of a role in our decision.
15 May 2007
at 11:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitter (Anonymous) says…
left field where'd you come from?
16 May 2007
at 12:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
I didn't know any of the people involved.
But I know that in this society, just as soon as a suspect is named, everyone assumes guilt. Everyone talks just as if it was already a done deal.
Just as everyone here is talking as if he is truly guilty, as if they were actually there and saw what happened firsthand. If you weren't there, and didn't see it, then you don't really know. The only ones who do know for certain are Jason…and perhaps God, if you believe in God.
It's not like people aren't found guilty of crimes in this country every day, crimes that it's sometimes discovered years later that they didn't do, is it?
Yes, juries must make decisions based on the information they are given. But to me, just because a jury found him guilty doesn't convince me. From what I've read, from what I've heard on TV, I'm just not convinced.
All of the evidence was circumstantial, and a good lot of it was witnesses talking about Jason's past and his character. There was no physical evidence linking him to the fire.
I sympathize with the people who lost loved ones in this fire. But there's nothing I can say to make them feel any better. Only time will do that.
And if Nicoles' mom can be gracious enough to be comfortable with the verdict, and accept things as they are, then perhaps you should take a lesson from her, m1983.
16 May 2007
at 6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
Sorry marquis, haven't a clue what you are talking about - I was talking about 1983's comments.
16 May 2007
at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
crazyks.. how dare you.. why don't you get off your high freaking horse. who do you think you are to tell me how to feel about this?! seriously!
you are really full of crap, you're theory on all of this is just off, the truth is, no physical evidence is linked to alot of crimes, yet people still are found guilty for different reasons, it's not just an assumption, and if you're so compassionate about protecting those who've committed crimes, why don't you take that up for a living, instead of coming on this website and telling others how to feel..
i am really pissed off that you would even say that, people on here loose track of reality, and also the fact that this is a damn discussion board, it's not written in pen, and there is not one right way to think, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so get the hell off of mine.
16 May 2007
at 7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
m1983 (Anonymous) says…
and also.. did you talk to nancy, did she tell you she was comfortable with it? i don't recall that being said in her interview.. you sure assume alot for someone who has absolutley no involvement in any part of this.
16 May 2007
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks