Monday, 20 April 2009

The Trial of Angie Zapata





I wonder how the prosecution is going to explain the forensic evidence. They claim that Angie had oral sex with her killer - but the forensic evidence says otherwise. They claim that her killer didn't know her status - though he was present at a court appearance 36 hours before, when her status was revealed in public. They claim that it all happened in seconds, and that the killer then just ran. But if so, how to explain the victim's purses and debit cards that he gave away or used?

And no, I'm not making a mistake here. There are two prosecutions going on here. One of the killer, and one of his victim. Because the only chance the killer has to get off scot-free is to convince the jury that he was the victim here. That it's not as if he killed a law-abiding citizen, but a "transgender", someone who by their very existence is a deceiver and a sex criminal. A rapist - even if they're celibate.

As can be seen in the CNN comments in the previous post, of the 234 responses, moderated responses to remove the trolls, fully 10% agreed with that proposition. That despite the forensic evidence to the contrary, that they must have had sex, because that's what those deceiving Transsexuals do, gulling poor innocent straight men into icky homosexual activities. And if those opinions are an accurate reflection of the jury's, then there'll be a hung jury, and he'll walk on the murder charge. That happened twice in the Gwen Araujo murder, and it was only on the third trial that the killers got convicted - not of murder, but manslaughter. Given that the killer is likely to be put away for a long, long time because of the "3 strikes" rule with another 2 felonies added to the 7 he's already committed, no further trial may be scheduled.

But most importantly to him, the killer also gets to live. Because if he's found to have knowingly associated with a "gay", then the Senora gang he's a member of will deal with him in prison. Fatally.

Personally, I think it more likely that if the defendant "snapped", it was because Angie did not "put out" for him. How dare she refuse, when she's a subhuman tranny? I think it more likely though that this was a planned robbery-murder. He's robbed others under similar circumstances before. But this time he gets to kill as well. Because it's not like she was a "law abiding citizen", Transsexual women get killed all the time, and no-one says anything about it. So what's the big deal? All he did was beat a tranny to death, he didn't take a gun and shoot a schoolteacher.

And if 2 people on the jury agree, he walks. I don't think the commentators on the TV know that that happens in such cases. Maybe if they look on the CNN comments, they may realise that though.

7 comments:

Nicole said...

And if 2 people on the jury agree, he walks. I don't think the commentators on the TV know that that happens in such cases. Maybe if they look on the CNN comments, they may realise that though.Were the other two cases you've mentioned covered on television?

If not, and such a result in this trial will astound these television commentators, is it likely that if he walks, these commentators and the viewers they influence will finally understand whats going on here, to transsexual women, and in some way help to create a public outcry?

jessie-c said...

I'd love to see the day when a "Trans (or Gay) Panic" defense will be automatically entered as a Guilty plea.

Lloyd Flack said...

One thing I don't unerstand about the forensic evidence. I thought the murderer claimed that he had had oral sex with her the previous day. If this was the case what forensic evidence would you expect to find?

sumptos devil s advocate said...

Is it true that on the first video at 7:09 a voiceover says "You bastard!" or am I just crazy?

Zoe Brain said...

SDA - there is some impassioned commentary on the videos, which is unfortunate. And un-neccessary, as it merely states the obvious.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder how the prosecution is going to explain the forensic evidence."

Don't you mean to refer to the "defense" here?

thanks for the post,

-- BS

Nica said...

Altho Scopes was convicted in the courtroom, evolution was acquitted in the court of public opinion and bigotry exposed. Good point.

Something Zoe said about giving a fool enuf rope or somesuch...