|
Post by checkmate on Jul 11, 2007 18:11:34 GMT -5
I understand that to indict someone there must be MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY. Going with the "person of interest" (not the GBI's term) for the moment, I want to throw out some possible motives sp could have had. See if you agree or can add some, too. 1. A 3rd divorce would be quite embarrassing in the community. 2. Was about to lose all control over Theresa (controlling / abuser). 3. Was about to have to hand over $20,000.00 for the "family" home and property. 4. If he, in fact, thought that the divorce papers had been signed already, saw an OPPORTUNITY to acquire the property WITHOUT paying the money. 5. Have Theresa "disappear" and slander her name by saying she ran off with her lover. This would make him appear "better" than her and vengeance for dumping him. 6. Collect on insurance. ( don't know if there was any, but if there was ..... ) 7. Had just buried his father (2 weeks prior) and was more emotionally disturbed than usual.... and "lost it" that night. I think money is always a good place to start looking, but this case has SO many facets to it that it is probably a combination of a lot of things. What do you think.... possible? Any others?
|
|
|
Post by romegasir on Jul 11, 2007 22:29:28 GMT -5
sorry checkmate, hate to be argumentative, but have to be factual. Do not need motive for a murder case or conviction. Of course you'd have to prove opportunity otherwise the lack of opportunity would be an affirmative defense and would lead to a directed verdict from the judge of Not Guilty.
|
|
|
Post by checkmate on Jul 13, 2007 7:47:47 GMT -5
Motive (law) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people and induce a certain action. Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.
The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated. "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.
Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act.
Moreover, most common law jurisdictions have statutes that provide for degrees of homicide, based in part on the accused's mental state. The lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter, for example, traditionally required that the accused knowingly and voluntarily kill the victim (as in murder); in addition, it must be shown that the killing took place in the "sudden heat of passion," an excess of rage or anger coming from a contemporary provocation, which clouded the accused mind. Homicides motivated by such factors are a lesser offense than murder "in cold blood."
Means, motive, and opportunity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Criminal procedure, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.
Intent
Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to act (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs.
In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").
Semantics? Maybe. Unless we're talking Manslaughter, I think motive comes into play here strongly, (and will be used in the trial, if we get that far). Intent, certainly, but what caused the intent? Not opportunity................opportunity ALLOWED the motive and intent. MOTIVE had to be present to induce INTENT which looked for an OPPORTUNITY.
Perhaps these legal terms fall into a "gray area" for the "unwashed masses" and unschooled, but it seems to me, that unless an act is a total accident, EVERYTHING has motive and intent. One doesn't brush one's teeth from opportunity alone.......asks my 7 year old......there's opportunity all day long.... there is first inspiration (motive) then action (intent). (For my 7 yr. old, "motive" is to avoid loosing Sponge Bob for a day! That seems to be effective enough as to cause "intent" i.e. action of putting toothpaste on the brush and some attempt at getting the job done.)
|
|
gagal
Friends of Theresa
Pray4Theresa
Posts: 140
|
Post by gagal on Jul 13, 2007 8:45:40 GMT -5
Hey checkmate - you're right in all the definitions but what Rome is saying is that it isn't a requirement in a trial to prove motive. Of course to every crime there is a motive, but it doesn't have to be known or proven to get a guilty conviction. On the other hand, it is definitely easier to get the conviction if you can prove motive because that just makes it easier for the jury to "swallow" and convince themselves that yes that person committed the crime. Sometimes, if we don't understand the "why" it's harder for us to believe it actually happened.
In this trial, I agree that motive will play a big factor but it doesn't have to be proven. Take for a example a "happy married couple" and the wife is found shot to death. The gun found at the scene was the husband's gun, he has no alibi for the time of death, they find his clothes that have been washed but still find traces of her blood on them, they find traces of her blood in his vehicle, and he has gun powder residue on his hands. The police can find no affairs, no financial issues, no one that says the couple ever fought, no evidence on his computer of anything illegal going on, no drug history, etc. They find absolutely no motive but this doesn't mean they can't take it to trial.....it will leave the jury wondering why did he do it and will make them want to see more evidence but it still doesn't have to be proven why.....
Hope this helps what he was trying to say. ;D
|
|
|
Post by romegasir on Jul 13, 2007 9:06:13 GMT -5
Checkmate, Gagal said it eloquently. And to play a legal game, intent is one of the elements that defense attorneys LOVE to play with. Jurors tend to believe that Intent means that the person Intended the results and consequences of their actions. The judge tells the jury differently at the end of the trial when the judge is "charging" the jury, but juries always argue over "intent" when they get in the jury room. What Georgia says about intent is that the State does not have to prove that the defendant SET OUT to violate the law, only that the defendant intended to do that act that was the violation of the law. In other words, the State doesn't have to prove that you got on the highway and said to yourself "Today, Im going to speed"...All they have to prove is that you got on the road and pressed the accelerator to a point that caused your vehicle to travel over the speed limit, whether you knew you were speeding or not. I always thought the craziest law was involuntary manslaughter. Seems like it was made up to ensure that SOMEONE is punished if there is a death. It actually says that if a death occurs because you are performing a LAWFUL act in an UNLAWFUL manner and have no intent to harm the person who dies, then it's a misdemeanor Involuntary manslaughter.
|
|
billcannon791
Friends of Theresa
Crusing for the most high God
Posts: 54
|
Post by billcannon791 on Jul 13, 2007 22:09:33 GMT -5
sad but true on all parts of the law
|
|
|
Post by checkmate on Jul 14, 2007 6:12:05 GMT -5
It is appears that motive is the Siamese Twin of intent....but, that motive is much harder to prove, due to its ambiguity, and the fact that it can only be found inside the head of the defendant, making it nearly impossible to "brush for finger prints", so to speak.
Motive may not be required to be proved by law............but I can sense, in this case, that it will be required by a jury for a guilty verdict.
When I first came accross this story ..... "WHO... wanted this person gone?" was the number one question. All wraped up in the words "who " and "wanted" was motivation. In other words, WHO had MOTIVE to want this person gone?
Perhaps intent innately has motive enough for law, but, regardless, WHY must be answered in a juror's mind.... and to me, WHY = MOTIVE.
|
|