Acquitted Murder Suspect's Confession Means Little

Here is a case where we get to see the "double jeopardy" law in effect. What is your reaction? Should we re-think this "provision" or is it too slippery a slope? Thoughts?

A central Vermont man who was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal 2002 shooting of a co-worker outside a pizza restaurant in Waitsfield called police and confessed to the crime last month — but there’s nothing state authorities say they can do about it.

Turnbaugh said at the time that state police were “a bunch of sore losers.” He added, “The killer’s still out there.”

How would you feel if this man killed someone you knew and loved and was still walking around?

Admitted Murderer Goes Free

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


The second amendment > Police

reply to post by BrianC


The right to bear arms is trumped by police? What does that have to do with a dude killing someone and then not being able to be tried for it??

Ah

He may not have to worry about the Law but what about the rest of the population? There are usually a couple people out there who are willing to go the distance to make sure justice is served. I just don't think he will have the last laugh on this one, and nor should he.

Really starting to wonder if anyone on this site actually reads the source articles from the OPs. Anyway, the guy is apparently crazy. He always claimed responsibility for killing the kid. He also confessed to being responsible for the 9/11 attack. His lawyers at the trial argued that the only reason he falsely confessed was because he is nuts, and the jury agreed with them. Now he is doing the same thing again. It's not like he got off and now he is rubbing it in people's noses. No one is thinking about relaxing the protection against double jeopardy.

So the civil rights of normal, law abiding citizens are being taken away by the minute and yet the criminal protections are untouchable!

Beam me up Scotty!

reply to post by dave0davidson


Not sure what this means?? He was found NOT GUILTY by his peers. The jury was out to lunch. What does it have to do with it? Did you read the article?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Yes I read the article. But I think you and I are the only ones who did. What does the jury was out to lunch mean? Now I'm confused. Maybe if I try to re-word my post.

A crazy man confesses to a murder he didn't commit. He also confesses to the 9/11 attacks.
His lawyers argue that there is no evidence that he committed the murder except the confession of a crazy man.
The jury agrees with them and finds him not guilty.
Years later he calls police and confesses again to the same murder.

For some reason people respond to your thread about the article as if the man is in fact truly guilty and he confessed again to thumb his nose at the police or something. It seems to me that they must not have read the article at all.

Originally posted by dave0davidson
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Yes I read the article. But I think you and I are the only ones who did. What does the jury was out to lunch mean? Now I'm confused. Maybe if I try to re-word my post.

A crazy man confesses to a murder he didn't commit. He also confesses to the 9/11 attacks.
His lawyers argue that there is no evidence that he committed the murder except the confession of a crazy man.
The jury agrees with them and finds him not guilty.
Years later he calls police and confesses again to the same murder.

For some reason people respond to your thread about the article as if the man is in fact truly guilty and he confessed again to thumb his nose at the police or something. It seems to me that they must not have read the article at all.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off that strong...perhaps I was confused - it is a professional hazard for me...the facts are in this case:

man commits murder; confesses, jury still lets him off.
Later, man calls in and again confesses, this time with more incriminating evidence.

That's all there is - he IS guilty of MURDER - just not in the eyes of the law. Where did we diverge?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Oh I see what you're saying. I didn't really get that from the article. This is the part that stuck out to me, it's from the 2nd page.

Sorrell credited defense lawyers Kurt Hughes and Frank Twarog with being able to raise the reasonable doubt necessary for acquittal. Hughes and Twarog contended the evidence was inconclusive. They noted that Turnbaugh, who has a history of mental illness, was the type who would make self-incriminating statements even though he was not involved in the crime. Hughes told the Burlington Free Press on Monday that Turnbaugh’s confessions arise from his mental state. “He said the same thing before the trial. It is part of his mental illness, and he also claimed responsibility for 9/11,” Hughes said. “The jury rightfully did not put a lot of stock in his statements.

reply to post by dave0davidson


The jury just bought the story. Good defense, obviously. Guilty though as the day is long. And free due to our laws. Should a blatant oversight be re-admitted? I have no dog in the fight but I am curious - thanks for the input!

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Well as to your question about should a blatant oversight be re-tried...

I would have to say no. I'm a big advocate of keeping the rights we have. (the few that are left anyway lol) Even if it was 100% conclusive he did it, it would be a slippery slope to start down.

reply to post by dave0davidson


I agree. But isn't there something to the Human Condition that says "we know we are wrong" and occasionally you can correct it? I a not for flexible law or some such. I just think there needs to be common sense now and then...

CJ