You don't kill 5 people, 1 being a sheriff who you also kidnapped his daughter and showed yourself to his wife and expect to get away with it. They should have at least made it so there wasn't evidence so you could really feel like she got revenge. But there is definitely enough proof to put her away for life. I don't care how much evidence she hides, any average forensics team and detectives could put it together.
shareInsanity Defense is your friend...
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
<Insanity Defense is your friend...>
I seriously doubt that that would work. She knew the difference between right and wrong, and in most states, that is the legal test for insanity.
Any relatively competent defense team would point out the horrific degredation, torture, and abuse she suffered at the hands of her victims and compare it to the torture that battlefield survivors go through. Call it shell shock, PTSD, dissociation, or whatever, all it would take is the graphic details of what she endured and the testimony of a respected psychiatrist regarding her mental stability to secure her a not guilty verdict. Unless the jury is comprised of all men who hold the same regard for women as her assailants did, the worst she could hope for is a hung jury, and she could even get an acquittal and a medal from NOW.
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
I think the worse part would be tryong to adjust to normal life after all this.
Just because we lose today's battle doesn't mean we've lost tommorow's war.
<Any relatively competent defense team would point out the horrific degredation, torture, and abuse she suffered at the hands of her victims and compare it to the torture that battlefield survivors go through. Call it shell shock, PTSD, dissociation, or whatever, all it would take is the graphic details of what she endured and the testimony of a respected psychiatrist regarding her mental stability to secure her a not guilty verdict. Unless the jury is comprised of all men who hold the same regard for women as her assailants did, the worst she could hope for is a hung jury, and she could even get an acquittal and a medal from NOW.>
This reminds me of what the noted Harvard Law School professor Alan Derschowitz said. "You have to be crazy to plead insanity." This somewhat tongue-in-cheek statement is a reference to the fact that despite a few well-publicized examples, insanity defenses rarely work. A defense team would undoubtedly consider this, but in spite of what you seem to think, there is no guarantee that the jury would buy it. I would think that Jennifer's actions could just as easily be explained by a desire for revenge, rather than a product of insanity. The prosecution could also emphasize the horrendous nature of the crimes committed against Jennifer, and ask the question 'What normal person would not seek revenge for this?'
But then the defense has also to deal with the murder of the sheriff's wife and daughter. That strikes me as very hard to defend even if the other killings could somehow be justified. Which of course they can't. There is also the murder of Matthew, which I think was nothing more than the elimination of a witness.
One thing to keep in mind is that while the defense will no doubt call it's psychiatrists to testify, the prosecution also has psychiatrists that they can call upon as well, many of whom are just as respected as those that the defense calls.
Also in many states, insanity is a defense that you can use only if you admit to the act itself, and the burden of proof then shifts to the defense. Self defense is another example of this.
No; because it rarely works, the insanity defense is not the magic get-out-of-jail-free card that some seem to think that it is. But it might just be the only real option that the defense would have in a case like this.
The prosecution could also emphasize the horrendous nature of the crimes committed against Jennifer, and ask the question 'What normal person would not seek revenge for this?'
[deleted]
Sure didn't make it easier for the sheriff in the end. Ouch!
Yea but I doubt it would work in court. She'd be found guilty but her sentance would be minor.
shareI think she could use it, have you been brutally gang raped? I'm guessing not, that can make you crazy! All they put her threw, a insanity defense would work. And they would argue that at the time she wasnt thinking about wrong and right, she was thinking that they had to pay. I highly doubt they would investagate, it in the middle of nowhere. Who knows she could have killed herself in the end, you never know. And why are we getting so hyped up about a movie? I know it happens in real life, but never heard anyone get revenge like this!
share
I think she could use it, have you been brutally gang raped? I'm guessing not, that can make you crazy! All they put her threw, a insanity defense would work. And they would argue that at the time she wasnt thinking about wrong and right, she was thinking that they had to pay. I highly doubt they would investagate, it in the middle of nowhere. Who knows she could have killed herself in the end, you never know. And why are we getting so hyped up about a movie? I know it happens in real life, but never heard anyone get revenge like this!
And a spelling lesson.
shareInsanity doesn't set you free... you end up locked up in a nuthouse for the rest of your life. From what I have read, it's as bad or worse than prison in most cases.
shareNo, I really don't think insanity defense will work. I think she might be mentally hurt but cannot be argued that she is insane.
She staged for every torture for each guy so it was planned, cannot plead for temporary insanity either.
I don’t think she cares about going to jail that much at that point though. If she just let those guys go and some of them might be set free after a few years…those thoughts will probably drive her insane later on anyway.
Insanity doesn't set you free... you end up locked up in a nuthouse for the rest of your life. From what I have read, it's as bad or worse than prison in most cases.Yea andrea yates is still locked up. As for better or worse I think prison is worse. just about every violent criminal in lock up is a narcissist waiting to pick a fight. share
IF she got caught that is, she could prolly plead insanity and maybe go to a mental institution. The poor woman would would probably be messed up for life after this. I dont think they would send her to prison. She would probably be scared of everyone, the aftermath is what would be so bad I think.
Just because we lose today's battle doesn't mean we've lost tommorow's war.
<IF she got caught that is, she could prolly plead insanity and maybe go to a mental institution. The poor woman would would probably be messed up for life after this. I dont think they would send her to prison. She would probably be scared of everyone, the aftermath is what would be so bad I think.>
No; like I said earlier, insanity defenses are not often tried and even when they are attempted, they rarely succeed. And if she were convicted of Murder One, she would in most states, at a minimum, go to prison for life. In a lot of states, she would face the possibility of the death penalty.
Prison is exactly where she would go.
I think that this is an instance where even if she gleefully detailed the specifics of what she did to the men and danced a jig as she led the authorities to their bodies, there would be such a media circus in her favor surrounding the case that she'd probably get off with, at most, court-ordered psychiatric treatment. If she was sentenced to prison, the public outcry for her release (aided by social media and the internet) would be enormous, and the political pressure would be insane.
No, at most, she'd probably get a token punishment.
Normally, I frown upon the idea of political pressure being used to manipulate the criminal justice system, but this is an instance where I'd make an exception.
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
You seem to forget that she also killed two totally innocent people: the sheriff's wife and daughter. Assume that what you say is true about her killing the men. (It isn't, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. Give the devil his due.) Do you for one second think that she would get a pass from the media or anyone else, for the murder of the woman and little girl? If you do, then you are living on a different planet.
No; even if she were by some fantastic chance given a pass on the murder of the men, she would still be guilty of the killing of the two totally innocent people and the killing of Matthew as well.
For these, she would go to prison for life, or quite possibly face the death penalty.
gary_overman: Where do you get the notion that the wife and daughter are dead? Jennifer didn't kill them. Were you possibly watching another movie? No, the worst thing that she did to the wife and daughter (aside from the whole "anal-raping the sherriff with his own shotgun and setting him up to die" thing) was to take the daughter under false pretenses. Once she had the sherriff, she told him that his daughter was safe. So where is this thought of the wife and daughter being dead coming from?
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
It stands to reason: Jennifer told the sheriff's wife her real name and both the wife and daughter can identify her. Besides, what would hurt the sheriff more than knowing that his wife and little girl were dead because of what he did?
Jennifer does not reassure the sheriff that his little girl was safe. I just watched the ending again and this does not happen.
While I concede that the wife's and daughter's deaths are not shown, like I said before, they are the only people who can identify her. Killing them is realistically her only option. What does she have to lose by killing them? After all, the state can only put a needle in her vein once.
You keep using the term "it stands to reason" when reason went out the window the minute those assclowns tortured, gangraped, and tried to kill her.
Yes she told the mom and daughter her real name. However (to borrow your phrase), it stands to reason that she was in such a cracked state of mind and so single mindedly focused on revenge that she didn't care if anyone could identify her or not, so long as the five idiots (I refuse to call them men) were dead. Still, despite her going all axe crazy, she was all about revenge, not random carnage. Killing the pregnant wife and daughter not be on the agenda, as they would become the same thing she was: innocent victims of a heinous crime.
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
What was Jennifer after? We both agree, I think, that it was revenge. That is the whole point of the movie, isn't it? Given this, plus the fact that both the sheriff's wife and daughter could identify her, what do you think would hurt the sheriff more than anything else and keep Jennifer fairly safe at the same time? This, it strikes me as a prudent thing to do from an identification standpoint. It was also an additional torment to put to the sheriff, to kill his wife and daughter.
She could kill two birds with one stone, to coin a phrase.
No, I think that it is very probable, although I concede not 100% certain, that Jennifer killed the sheriff's wife and daughter.
Afterwards, she could then disappear once more, as she was already a missing person. Leaving the wife and daughter alive would have made this difficult, if not impossible.
I really really don't think she care about if she is going to jail or what. If the movie does not say she killed his wife and daughter, it means she did not. We can guess all we want but she did not because the movie did not say.
If you have a chance to talk to the direct or writer, they will tell you the same thing.
Everything you say is your assumption. If I were in her position, I would actually kill myself after everything that happened. My assumption is that either she actually wait for policy to capture her or she will kill herself because she should have died after the rape. In fact, the chance of her surviving in the wood for so long without clothes, help and money is actually not possible.
I would believe there is a helper during her survival than your assumption that she would kill wife and kid.
Another thing is that the main purpose of the writer, I believe is focusing on the revenge against the brutal act from the gang, nothing toward anyone else, especially other women, I will stress more specifically, innocent women. It is just simply not that point of the movie.
"You seem to forget that she also killed two totally innocent people: the sheriff's wife and daughter."
...she did???? Is that in an alternate ending?
It never mentioned if she killed the wife & daughter. That's left to our imagination but I don't think she did.
sharethere would be such a media circus in her favor surrounding the case that she'd probably get off with
Who the FUCK are you to decide what is a “proportionate” response to GANG RAPE, Poindexter?
shareLook guys we have a know all law man over here *rolls eyes*
shareSure, if they catch her.
Sheriff and co. burned all traces of her to cover up their own crimes and just scoff it off as another missing persons case. Maybe if she decided to re-enter society under the same identity as before, you may have a point... but considering her extreme circumstance, I don't there's going back to the same old her ever since the raping.
She'd probably just live a low key life under a new identity; new life perhaps.
Good point. I gather that it was quite some time after the attacks, like weeks, that Jennifer came back after the men, so any evidence in her body would have long since disappeared.
One point that I wonder about is what happened to the video recording that one of the perpetrators made of the rapes? I know the sheriff was furious that it had been made.
I'll watch the movie once more and find out what happened to it.
[deleted]
I think this would be one of those unique unusual court cases that would get a lot of public attention. Because of that it would be hard to find a jury. Let alone Jennifer getting lots of money for book deals and a Lifetime movie.
Also, no one brought up the tape. She had the original. She stole it from fatty pigging out redneck. She probably either made a copy or just mailed a blank tape to the sheriff's wife. So that tape would be in evidence. Talk about jury sympathy, that is if it goes to trial. There might be some massive plea bargain, who knows. The WHOLE police department could be corrupt and this just might open a whole Pandora's box. That little hick town's version of a sex scandal. Maybe other girl's bodies will be found as they comb the woods collecting evidence of Jennifer's crime done to her, and her subsequent rampage.
Even without all of that, there is plenty of evidence that would show she acted in duress and that she had no choice. I'm sure the old man's death will be traced back to that cop, and of course any evidence of burning and destroying her property. (They sure didn't get rid of all those car parts in a month). Her defense would have a field day.
The best she'd get, and this would be best, is a year or 2 in a psychiatric facility. She needs help to move on from this.
As for the sheriff's family. Well, Jennifer didn't "kidnap" the daughter. The mother gave her permission to take the daughter to find other classmates. My guess is the daughter was dropped off at school with her friends, and Jennifer went to the park to capture the sheriff. Yes the mom thought her daughter was going to the park, but the daughter could easily call home from school and Jennifer could make an excuse "I'll be right back" or something.
That's my .02 adjusted for inflation. Steve
The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes
<I think this would be one of those unique unusual court cases that would get a lot of public attention. Because of that it would be hard to find a jury. Let alone Jennifer getting lots of money for book deals and a Lifetime movie.>
There are the so-called 'Son of Sam' Laws that would prevent this if she is convicted. If she is acquitted then she can do it.
<Also, no one brought up the tape. She had the original. She stole it from fatty pigging out redneck. She probably either made a copy or just mailed a blank tape to the sheriff's wife. So that tape would be in evidence. Talk about jury sympathy, that is if it goes to trial. There might be some massive plea bargain, who knows. The WHOLE police department could be corrupt and this just might open a whole Pandora's box. That little hick town's version of a sex scandal. Maybe other girl's bodies will be found as they comb the woods collecting evidence of Jennifer's crime done to her, and her subsequent rampage.>
Please see the post previous to yours. I mentioned the video recording.
<Even without all of that, there is plenty of evidence that would show she acted in duress and that she had no choice. I'm sure the old man's death will be traced back to that cop, and of course any evidence of burning and destroying her property. (They sure didn't get rid of all those car parts in a month). Her defense would have a field day.
The best she'd get, and this would be best, is a year or 2 in a psychiatric facility. She needs help to move on from this.>
How was she acting under duress? Who forced her to do this? This was not duress; it was revenge, pure and simple. Besides, even if she were acting under duress, that is not a defense in most states against homicide.
<As for the sheriff's family. Well, Jennifer didn't "kidnap" the daughter. The mother gave her permission to take the daughter to find other classmates. My guess is the daughter was dropped off at school with her friends, and Jennifer went to the park to capture the sheriff. Yes the mom thought her daughter was going to the park, but the daughter could easily call home from school and Jennifer could make an excuse "I'll be right back" or something.>
I'll have to concede that my theory of her doing away with the sheriff's family was speculation on my part. But it still makes sense from a revenge standpoint as well as elimination of two potential witnesses.
This brings up an interesting (to me anyway) plot hole. Assuming that Jennifer did mail the video to the sheriff's family. How would she know that they would not recognize her from the tape? If the family had seen the tape, surely they would be on guard and would not have let her in the house.
There are the so-called 'Son of Sam' Laws that would prevent this if she is convicted. If she is acquitted then she can do it.
I'll have to concede that my theory of her doing away with the sheriff's family was speculation on my part. But it still makes sense from a revenge standpoint as well as elimination of two potential witnesses.
Corrupting Impressionable Youths Since 1976.share
The best she'd get, and this would be best, is a year or 2 in a psychiatric facility. She needs help to move on from this. [/quote]
Thats pretty naive with a 5 body count she won't see the light of day ever. And its totally kidnapping when you misrepresent your self. Just because mom is stupid doesn't mean you can just take her kid scott free. You think I can show up in a cops uniform and just walk off with your daughter after claiming she's a witness to a crime?
[quote]Even without all of that, there is plenty of evidence that would show she acted in duress and that she had no choice[/quote]
Duress that lasts over a month? Hell in california I can't even shoot at a forcible intruder unless I demonstrate there was no way to escape in court. And whats this about having no choice a month later. I could have driven to the other side of the planet in that time. She had a whole month. She could have literally "walked" to another stat by then.
[quote]She needs help to move on from this.
She WAS a victim though crc
And i wont pretend to understand PTSD but her hiding out tending to her wounds seems fairly reasonable to me
And her crimes (while in both the original and the remake were pretty unbelievable but whatever...) were payback to a bunch of animals that mocked, stalked, abused and humiliated her
This series of movies was pretty dumb start to finish but if i was on the jury she would be off and free in 5 minutes
good thing your not on the jury. I feel for her but she stopped being innocent when she plotted and killed an innocent retard in addition to the other animals. I was incorrect to declare she wasn't a victim when I meant to say she wasn't innocent. If I was on the jury I'd have found her guilty but would have pressed for a lighter sentance. PTSD causes inpulsive behavior in an instant not this plotted 1 month plus murder.
shareYour reply is fair and thought out crc and im not trying to be a jerk here but if a lady got raped by creeps and later on wasted them i would let her slide
Also, my wifes brother did two combat (as in killing people) tours in Iraq with the Marines and he is still pretty messed up...So i am willing to bet that a regular person would suffer terribly from that sort of trauma..i couldnt send her to jail
I am aware of the tenants of PTSD and have only really seen it associated with war. I'm sure it manifests in civilians too but have yet to see it personally in a civilian. In real life I'd let her slide by looking the other way and probably woulden't turn her in, but I have no doubt that I have become a criminal at that point. I would not however do this on a jury as that would pretty much have the effect of making it perfectly legal for a woman to murder a group of men in revenge rape. Like I said if it happened under the table thats one thing but I reject codifying it in law by setting a legal precedence that women are allowed to murder a group of men in revenge for rape. I hate the whole circumstance of her rape but she went to far.
Tenets
shareMore probably to asylum.
shareAh, good thing she's an actress then.
You were curious for my signature. I love you sincerely, I really do
Okay, I just saw this movie tonight. Here's what I think -
Everyone is overlooking the way Mathew and the Sheriff were killed. If a cop investigates this crime scene and saw the bodies the way they were, what do you think they would conclude? Everyone of the victims with the exception of Mathew is bound. If the girl covered her traces at the crime scene, and considering she is still considered missing, it looks like Mathew engineered a contraption and killed the Sheriff himself. Of course him being mentally retarded would suggest he didnt know the shotgun blast would go all the way thru, killing him too.
The video of the rape would surface, in which the cops would see how conflicted Mathew was, probably causing him to flip out, torture and kill those who forced him to partake in that terrible crime. She comes stumbling out of the woods a bit later claiming to be left for dead by the rapists. Case Closed.
The Wife and daughter did see her pretend to be a teacher, though. So that leaves another gap to be explained. But I do think the rope setup with the shotgun was meant to throw off the cops.
hahahaha .....
shareClearly, or how I perceived the film anyways, was that she seemed to have suffered rape trauma syndrome (Don't know if that is a condition but it seems accurate ha ha) and wasn't plotting "Hmmm.. how can I kill all of my attackers in a completely planned and thorough way to eliminate my chances of being caught and incarcerated???". She was simply full of wrath, not logic. I don't think she thought about jail once, so it's silly to talk about how any forensics team could put it together blah blah blah, because quite frankly, she didn't care!
Tagline for the original:
"This woman has just cut, chopped, broken and burned five men beyond recognition... but no jury in America would ever convict her!"
"This isn't TV, it's real life. Can't you tell the difference?"
"Sure - I just like TV better."