Jump to content

UT student murder trial (Haruka Weiser)

bschoolprof

By bschoolprof
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

chainsaw

chainsaw 10247

Posted
Posted
On 6/22/2018 at 4:45 PM, bschoolprof said:

DNA evidence IS circumstantial.  They could have had consensual sex, she gave him her belongings, and then the mystery drifter lying in wait killed her.  

True, but what I mean is that it would make it impossible for him to argue that he never touched her body.  What I meant by circumstantial evidence is that he is going to be convicted based on the circumstances that he was around before she died, that he was caught on video noticing and following her, and he was found later with her stuff.  The actual crime (murder) is still a black box.

You're right that murder is still a black box with the semen, but it makes it much harder to create reasonable doubt that he killed her.  He wouldn't be able to deny that he ever touched her.  Now it's a much bigger black box for the prosecution to have to ask the jury to color in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
Posted

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, right?  Not beyond all doubt.

Lacking some exculpatory evidence I think it is reasonable to believe he was the one who did it based on the evidence we do have.

I know this is going to sound like a TV show but couldn't there be other non DNA evidence to put him at the scene like a torn shirt fragment or footprints that match his shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, right?  Not beyond all doubt.

Lacking some exculpatory evidence I think it is reasonable to believe he was the one who did it based on the evidence we do have.

I know this is going to sound like a TV show but couldn't there be other non DNA evidence to put him at the scene like a torn shirt fragment or footprints that match his shoes?

Yeah, the defense is still a ways from acquittal, it sounds like, but removing a brick from the wall or expanding the black box a bit is the defense's job and they seem to be doing it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10247

Posted
Posted

That's where the defense lawyers get to do their magic.  They can dream up a bunch of possible scenarios, and from there choose the most realistic scenarios, that point to someone else having killed her.  The prosecution will have to "box out" every other person in the world from having been present along Waller Creek.  But unless something has changed dramatically since my last visit to DKR, the creek is pretty much a surveillance blind spot.  Remember early on people thought the Austin bomber was getting around using the creeks to avoid detection?

Anyone sitting on that Austin jury will probably know that Waller creek (especially near downtown) attracts a bunch of hobos and crazies.  It's not far fetched to imagine one of them wandering up to campus, along the creekbed.  Especially not since the prosecution will more or less be making that same argument about Criner, minus the creek stuff and plus a bicycle.

It's a believable story, that a hobo would make his way to campus, see a young girl, impulsively try to assault her a much smaller person with a tiny build, and she wind up dead.  Do we know how much time passed between the first video and the second video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10247

Posted
Posted

I was able to answer my own question.

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307469204/Meechaiel-Criner-Affidavit

 

Quote

The video then showed him return to the van at approximately 9:38 pm.  As the suspect returned to the location on his bike, the figure of a female dressed in all black and looking at her cell phone could be seen walking toward the alumni center.  As the figure passed the suspect and continues toward the bridge, the suspect watched her, puts the kickstand down on the bike, reaches into the back of his pants with his left hand and pulled out what appeared to be a shiny rigid object.  The suspect then followed the female across the bridge and onto the sidewalk that extends behind the Alumni center and runs along the west bank of Waller Creek.

The suspect is not seen again until 11:47pm.

That's a pretty fucking huge window of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Dennis Taylor

Dennis Taylor 19294

Posted
Posted

sounds like this is going to the jury soon...can't believe there has been nothing on here in so long. from reading the twitter updates from the statesman guy, Criner has an absolutely implausible story about his activities that night. I hope weiser's family gets a swift verdict    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26439

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, VinyVango said:

His testimony and presentation as a witness definitely increased his odds of never being hungry or homeless again.

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/don-like-odds-trial-criner-says-did-not-kill-weiser/XeRzKxJD1aBdy4ILDDcuwI/

He said he’s bad with dates and spelling and acknowledged that a speech impediment makes him difficult to understand, but boasted about reading every book in the school library in his two years at a high school in Texarkana.

Sounds like someone who thinks he's too smart to get caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
po elvis

po elvis 2137

Posted
Posted

i could get on board with reasonable doubt based on it could have been somebody else and Criner just found Weiser's stuff that had been dumped by the killer. Except that the same glasses Criner wore were found near the body and the guy in the videos was wearing a banana that Criner would wear.  That would tilt it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i could get on board with reasonable doubt based on it could have been somebody else and Criner just found Weiser's stuff that had been dumped by the killer. Except that the same glasses Criner wore were found near the body and the guy in the videos was wearing a banana that Criner would wear.  That would tilt it for me.

I'd have him try the glasses on in open court, just to be sure. What could go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miguelito

miguelito 11451

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i could get on board with reasonable doubt based on it could have been somebody else and Criner just found Weiser's stuff that had been dumped by the killer. Except that the same glasses Criner wore were found near the body and the guy in the videos was wearing a banana that Criner would wear.  That would tilt it for me.

Hopefully nobody's Carmen Miranda rights were violated.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22672

Posted
Posted
On 6/20/2018 at 2:42 PM, Red Six said:

To be fair, he has two of the top attorneys in town.

 

One of them walked a guy on a murder a couple of months back.

 

The other one pissed off a Shaggy poster (can't remember his name) when she defended the guy who stuck a gun in his pregnant wife's face, and the jury did not find him guilty of aggravated robbery.

best in town?  aren’t they public defenders?  how can a homeless dude get good defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6339

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i could get on board with reasonable doubt based on it could have been somebody else and Criner just found Weiser's stuff that had been dumped by the killer. Except that the same glasses Criner wore were found near the body and the guy in the videos was wearing a banana that Criner would wear.  That would tilt it for me.

And a) the backpack worn by the suspect in the video (that defense has essentially stipulated is her killer) has the same unique markings and coloring as the backpack found on him after the fact and photographed in his shed/room at DKR before the fact, and b) the rope/strap used to strangle her is the same type of toe strap (for crew apparently) found in his DKR shed.  He's guilty af.   

Edited by bschoolprof
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VinyVango

VinyVango 707

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Why rely on the images?  They didn't hold the two ropes up in court?

most likely cops didn't grab the ropes and they were noticed in the photos by someone later down the line who understood their possible relevance (after they were gone)…

also possible the ropes weren't a close match and weren't procured for that reason.

On an different note, I vaguely recall back when they first nabbed this kid that there may have been a reference about him having some psychological diagnoses... I assume the option of insanity / not being able to form the requisite intent was considered and/or pursued by his defense team... so, I wonder what good could come from putting him on the stand... especially if he is the type who acts cocky or laughs when nervous (which jurors are likely to interpret as guilt even if he's innocent).  I assume he was insistent on testifying regardless of advice of his counsel.

The amount of circumstantial evidence is pretty damning if the main alibis are "I found it in a dumpster" and "those just coincidentally look like my glasses, bike, etc..."  I was thinking his alibi was going to be stumbling upon the body and stuff shortly after the assault/murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Six

Red Six 131

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, futureman said:

best in town?  aren’t they public defenders?  how can a homeless dude get good defense

Not just anyone can be appointed to try a capital murder. His attorneys are two of the smartest, most tenacious lawyers in the courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lhorn

Lhorn 5080

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Red Six said:

Not just anyone can be appointed to try a capital murder. His attorneys are two of the smartest, most tenacious lawyers in the courthouse.

I’m sure when this case makes in on Dateline the defendant will be described as THE MOST innocent man they’ve ever defended in a career of defending completely innocent people and that his treatment is actually the most heinous crime of this whole event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31996

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Red Six said:

Not just anyone can be appointed to try a capital murder. His attorneys are two of the smartest, most tenacious lawyers in the courthouse.

Certainly true of a death penalty case, but this is the rare capital case where death is off the table.

I had forgotten, if I ever knew, that Criner was 17 when this happened.  Given his pretty obvious mental frailty, I rather seriously question trying him as an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly true of a death penalty case, but this is the rare capital case where death is off the table.

I had forgotten, if I ever knew, that Criner was 17 when this happened.  Given his pretty obvious mental frailty, I rather seriously question trying him as an adult.

I think he was a runaway from a youth facility or something like that who was living on the streets, iirc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6225

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

He's gonna skate.

I haven't really been following the trial, but my impression is that he actually might be nuts enough to not realize he killed her.  I don't usually dig the insanity plea, but this kid just might be truly wacked out beyond hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted
Just now, DaysOff said:

Having served I have zero faith in the jury of your peers shit. Tossup the skates because morons.

A really, really good attorney told me once that if you are ever on a murder jury, it means both sides think you are a Forrest Gump caliber moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lhorn

Lhorn 5080

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, phdhorn said:

I haven't really been following the trial, but my impression is that he actually might be nuts enough to not realize he killed her.  I don't usually dig the insanity plea, but this kid just might be truly wacked out beyond hope.

He was aware enough to try to destroy evidence. He was aware enough that he knew her computer had value. 

I can believe that his sense of right and wrong might not be what yours and mine are but I think he knew what he was doing and had a sense that it was wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10247

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, phdhorn said:

I haven't really been following the trial, but my impression is that he actually might be nuts enough to not realize he killed her.  I don't usually dig the insanity plea, but this kid just might be truly wacked out beyond hope.

I honestly don't know what they deliberated for so long about.  My thinking was that the longer they needed, the worse for the state.  But hey justice was served so I can't complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...