The basis of the prosecution's case was that it was a hate crime. They said Gary and Billy specifically targeted him because he was gay. Any time you want some reading material, I've got some of the trial transcript, depositions and the entire police investigation file.
I guess I didn't realize that hate crimes had been called hate crimes and prosecuted as such for that long.
It bothers me that you and the other poster speaking in favor of Billy both said the crime wasn't brutal because he was only stabbed one time. This is what the victim's daughter said.
He had been beaten, sliced on his face and stabbed through the heart with the biggest butcher knife we had in our kitchen.
I think she feels it was brutal. I don't know if there is a specific number of wounds necessary for a killing to be brutal. They all seem kind of brutal to me.
bru?tal
/ˈbrutl/
Show Spelled[broot-l]
adjective 1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse: brutal language.
3. harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.
4. taxing, demanding, or exhausting: They're having a brutal time making ends meet.
5. irrational; unreasoning.
Originally Posted by beli
Wait, weren't they hanging out in the area known as 'the gay loop'? Sounds to me like they were cruising gay bars in order to find someone to rob. It wasn't like he wandered in to a bastion of heterosexuality, sat at a bar talking about tits and asses, and then asked the guys if they wanted to come over and watch, I dunno, basketball, and then when they got there started lisping and being like 'oh you know what makes shooting guns and looking at porn of huge titted women better? Rubbing each other's dicks while we do it.'
You slept with mike so he would ban me. change your sig..the pretentious look how hipster face is so old ooh you like guys with glasses..ooooh
not that it matters, but here in dsm we call it the fruit loop.
i don't know what they'd be doing down there unless the intention was to target a queer person. i'm pretty sure the first time i heard this story was down on the fruit loop, and i totally forgot about it. tragic on many levels, imo.
not that it matters, but here in dsm we call it the fruit loop.
i don't know what they'd be doing down there unless the intention was to target a queer person. i'm pretty sure the first time i heard this story was down on the fruit loop, and i totally forgot about it. tragic on many levels, imo.This is why I'm surprised the hate crime mattered to the jury. Where did they find 12 people in the middle of Iowa in 1988 who gave a damn that someone killed a gay guy? I'm sorry if I'm sounding really dumb or homophobic or like some hich here or something, but I don't get it. I mean, we have gay marriage here, but find me 12 random people who won't make jokes about it and really do think it's okay.
pretty much everyone i know is gay friendly, other than a few dickfaces i work with. but i run in the same circles as a lot of queer folks, so maybe there is a lot more gay-hate out there than i realize. gay marriage is legal here, but the second they got the opportunity to oust the judges who made it legal the state did, and it was a sad day. i can't really speak for the state of queer hatred in 1988 since i was only 8 years old when this happened.
[QUOTE=deeply shaded;3144351]I guess I didn't realize that hate crimes had been called hate crimes and prosecuted as such for that long.
It bothers me that you and the other poster speaking in favor of Billy both said the crime wasn't brutal because he was only stabbed one time. This is what the victim's daughter said.
He had been beaten, sliced on his face and stabbed through the heart with the biggest butcher knife we had in our kitchen.
I think she feels it was brutal. I don't know if there is a specific number of wounds necessary for a killing to be brutal. They all seem kind of brutal to me.
bru?tal
I would have to look at the autopsy report, but I believe he had been punched in the nose, there was a scratch or nick of some sort on his face and then thr stab wound to his chest. There was a fight (I believe the prosecution said it was then trying to steal his wallet, but my understanding is they were fighting because he was led to believe by Gary there would be sex and Billy freaked out because of his past experiences, the fact that he had something like the equivalent of 60+ drinks in him, as well as the amyl nitrate Mr. Eaton have given him. He also had a bad cold and had taken cold medicine as well.). As I've said, there is more to the story than was reported. Btw, Mr. Eaton was in his bed naked with a pair of silk underwear on when he was killed.
I believe if Billy and Gary had called the police after the fight and death, they would not have gotten life, if anything. Instead they panicked, stole stuff and tried to cover it up.
I do not want to post details on here that would upset the Eaton family, but if you want to PM me, I will talk about it more.
And yes, murders are brutal per se, but IMO some are different. What Billy did is completely different than someone premeditating and carrying out a murder, etc.
And this is my opinion, not Billy's.
Yes, they met him there. Apparently, Billy and Gary went there after hours to get alcohol ("perfect" place for underage boys to get alcohol.). Apparently, they had stolen from another man at some point as well.
Billy was in the car while Gary got in Mr. Eaton's car and talked to him. He then came back and told Billy they were going to go party at his house with booze and his daughter and her friends from Valley High School, which is my understanding in another world than East High School, where Billy went.
60 plus drinks and he'd be the one that was dead.
Seriously, even if it was water.
You slept with mike so he would ban me. change your sig..the pretentious look how hipster face is so old ooh you like guys with glasses..ooooh
Sounds to me that there was a lot of excuse making to me. D
Alcoholic, cold medicine, sexually abused. Blah blah blah. He stabbed someone with a giant butcher knife. That's really all the info I need.
And you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not making excuses...just giving facts. If you don't believe me about the number of drinks, I would be more than happy to email you a copy of the deposition and court testimony regarding that issue.
What was he drinking? That's a lot of drinks. Not calling you a liar, just saying it doesn't seem possible to me, unless they were very tiny drinks.
How are you trying to get him released? He's not innocent, he wasn't a minor at the time, no new information, right? What can you use?
I would love to see proof that he had sixty drinks. It seems you are indeed making excuses. You told us how much he drank, and a myriad of other things that he had going on as if that somehow excuses that he took a life.
To be fair, I don't think she's excusing him as much as explaining his excuses.
The main issue I have is not believing that he would regret his decision, but rather, not understanding why that means he should be let out. I'm sure plenty of people in prison are like DOH I SHOULDN"T HAVE DERN DAT.
You slept with mike so he would ban me. change your sig..the pretentious look how hipster face is so old ooh you like guys with glasses..ooooh
I will dig up the transcripts tomorrow. The psychologist gave an estimated blood alcohol. I don't remember what it was, but I remember looking it up online and finding out he should have been dead.
I suppose you could say I am making excuses. However, my OPINION (mine, NOT his) is that he isn't the only one to blame that night. He is responsible for the death, but the circumstances that night were not his alone. Again, I don't expect all of you to understand because you don't know the things I know and you don't know him.
As far as him getting out, there are two options...newly discovered evidence and commutation. Both are a long shot. I believe if anyone deserves a commutation, it is him. He has done everything possible to better himself in prison. He would not reoffend (I'm sure you'll get a laugh out of me saying that).
I've never had a family member or friend murdered, but I would like to think that if the person who did hit had spent almost 24 years in prison for the crime, had turned his life around, was remorseful and was doing what he could to mentor other inmates, could be considered "rehabilitated" and let free to do some good in the outside world. After all, you cannot bring the deceased back, but you can do everything in your power to turn that horrible thing around and make something good come from it (helping others to not make the same mistake). Again, these are my thoughts, NOT Billy's. He doesn't know what I'm posting!
I'm not that forgiving. I watched a show on Karla Faye Tucker last night and all that whiny ass stuff about her finding God and being such a wonderful person made me want to jam the needle in myself.
If he would have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, he would be out by now. If I remember right, the jury was not allowed to find him guilty of anything except 1st degree because they used the wrong jury instructions. His defense attorney knew they were wrong, but didn't object because she told Billy it would basically be a "gimme" for an appeal. He did appeal, but stopped it because he felt he belonged in prison for what he did.
I can appreciate that he is remorseful. It would be interesting to read the transcripts. If I get a chance, I may look into it.
I dont know that it is too uncommon for older gay men to try to seduce teenage boys by plying them with alcohol and drugs, happened to me and some friends when we were in 10th grade. Nothing happened and our retribution was severely vandalizing the guys house. It was poor judgement that put us in the situation in the first place. This case seems different az these guys went looking for gay people, probably with the goal of robbing or taking advantage of them. People will be people but nobody deserved to die. The fact that the killer now has remorse isnt going to bring the victim back to life. There were plenty of other responses they could have made other than killing this guy.
Did you read this? They went to a gay bar. The reason the case went the way it did was because it was pretty obvious they were cruising a notorious area for gay men to take advantage of.
You slept with mike so he would ban me. change your sig..the pretentious look how hipster face is so old ooh you like guys with glasses..ooooh
I have a confuse, did you read what I wrote? That was exactly my point. A quote from my post...
In our case the older guy was looking to victimize us, in this case, these guys were looking to victimize a gay guy.This case seems different az these guys went looking for gay people, probably with the goal of robbing or taking advantage of them.
Last edited by PCP777; 11-14-2011 at 05:17 AM.
My bad, I didn't see the second part of that.
You slept with mike so he would ban me. change your sig..the pretentious look how hipster face is so old ooh you like guys with glasses..ooooh
NOT defending any murder. And if you read the court transcript - Mr. Titus did NOT stab the victim. He is in prison because of the "felony-murder" law. He was at the scene where a felony was committed therefor he is sentenced the same as the person who actually committed the crime. Example: Four people plan to rob a jewelry store and one is outside driving the get away car. One of the guys inside decides to start killing people so since the driver - who never went in the building, never touched the gun is also sentenced for murder. The operative word here - PLAN. The guy sitting in the getaway car PLANNED to rob the place and knew guns were involved so when people were killed it was something he should have been aware that could happen. Titus and Green had no PLAN that night - no intent- how could they when they didn't even know the man? So when Green decided, for whatever reason to stab the victim was Titus suppose to have formed intent in that second? I don't think so - he wasn't even in the room.
I did not place the full blame on the victim. But really, a person gets in his car one night and goes looking for a stranger or two to bring into his home AND offers them alcohol and drugs and does not believe he/she is placing themselves in any danger whatsoever? I have young children and there is NO way in hell I would ever invite intoxicated/DRUNK strangers into my home and offer them drugs to party with me while my children were asleep in the house. But then I wouldn't have illegal drugs in my house in the first place. BUT I guess that's a different world I live in than those of you who have no problem with a parent bringing strangers into the family home - intoxicated strangers THEY picked up off the street and offered illegal drugs. Certainly every parent does that! In my world parents PROTECT their children - they look ahead for ANY foreseeable and/or unforeseeable instant that could harm their child. Personally, I'm NOT picking up a couple very drunk young men and bringing them into my home if my children aren't here. So - there really IS a world - people out "there" with the mind set that it's a perfectly normal thing to do with NO expectation that it MIGHT be a bad decision? I'm NOT letting a stranger in my home much less anywhere NEAR my children.
"wait, so this guy found some random dudes, gave them some booze and drugs, they changed their minds and didn't want to have sex and killed them in their drunken/high state, but murder is murder and people are bitching?" Yes he went looking for "random dudes" but they didn't change their minds - it was never their intent to have sex just get some of the free alcohol he was offering. He took them into his home knowing they were extremely intoxicated and offered them MORE. And in the US "murder is murder"? Google how many pedophile STALKED/KNEW their victims and killed innocent five or six year old children who trusted them - murder, right? But the majority or them are released to do it again. In MY mind - a way different standard of murder - innocent, young children killed with pure intent and usually planning. Intent - the moment they decide they LIKE having sex with children and figure then killing the child shuts them up. Murder is never just murder. There are hundreds of extenuating circumstances. So who do you want set free and living in your neighborhood if you had to choose?
No I'm not blaming Mr. Eaton for his murder but it would have NEVER, EVER have happened to me - guaranteed, absolutely. WHY?? Because I will NEVER go looking for random, very drunk young men to bring into my home where my children sleep knowing I will always protect them to the utmost of my ability. I will NEVER have illegal drugs in my home to offer very drunk men I have just picked up off the street. If he really needed to pick up strangers that desperately maybe he should have thought about a motel - not his home.
I was just thinking - if he had sex with them and then ended up with AIDS and died would that be murder too?
Like I said before - these two men certainly deserved to go to prison - bad choices and consequences. But really, life in prison when there was no intent, no planning, when they were highly intoxicated and the victim offered them more alcohol PLUS illegal drugs.
Either of these guys could move in next door to me and I wouldn't worry. Of course I wouldn't be opening my home to them and offering drugs and booze but after 20-30 years I really believe the majority of people who are in prison for murder (remember Titus did not help kill the man but he was present during a felony being committed. Felony was when Titus and Green decided AFTER Green stabbed the victim that they would make it look like a robbery gone bad. Robbery = felony = felony murder rule in Iowa.
"That's why people should think before acting like monsters." And why someone shouldn't offer highly intoxicated strangers illegal drugs and alcohol and invite them into the sanctuary of your home where your children sleep. Makes it more difficult for the "monsters" to think when your giving them more drugs and alcohol.
"This is very different from what the other poster was saying. She/he was blaming the victim and acting like everyone should be given plaques for resisting the urge to rape and murder Eaton's daughter." Poster might reread or change your mindset (but I doubt it). I never blamed the victim but he did put himself in a very, very unsafe situation - in my mind anyway maybe not yours. I am certainly not acting like ANYONE should be given a plaque. If there had been any "urge" to rape and murder the daughter they would have Done JUST THAT!! What was there to stop them?? There was NOTHING to stop them from harming her EXCEPT themselves.
There is murdering/killing with intent, foresight, planning, knowledge, trickery, etc.
Some people do not want to hear it but Mr. Eaton could have totally, completely prevented his death in this situation. These two men did not force themselves into his home - they were invited, they were encouraged, he went looking for them. "But for" his desire to have sex with a stranger he picked up off the street and brought into his home he might still be alive unless this was a practice he did often. "But for" Mr. Eaton's decision to go looking for strange young men that night almost with 100% certainty Mr. Green and Mr. Eaton would not be in prison for life - they were not looking, planning, intending to kill anyone - they were looking for more alcohol - stupid, bad decision - yes, yes, yes.
NOT defending any murder. And if you read the court transcript - Mr. Titus did NOT stab the victim. He is in prison because of the "felony-murder" law. He was at the scene where a felony was committed therefor he is sentenced the same as the person who actually committed the crime. Example: Four people plan to rob a jewelry store and one is outside driving the get away car. One of the guys inside decides to start killing people so since the driver - who never went in the building, never touched the gun is also sentenced for murder. The operative word here - PLAN. The guy sitting in the getaway car PLANNED to rob the place and knew guns were involved so when people were killed it was something he should have been aware that could happen. Titus and Green had no PLAN that night - no intent- how could they when they didn't even know the man? So when Green decided, for whatever reason to stab the victim was Titus suppose to have formed intent in that second? I don't think so - he wasn't even in the room.
I did not place the full blame on the victim. But really, a person gets in his car one night and goes looking for a stranger or two to bring into his home AND offers them alcohol and drugs and does not believe he/she is placing themselves in any danger whatsoever? I have young children and there is NO way in hell I would ever invite intoxicated/DRUNK strangers into my home and offer them drugs to party with me while my children were asleep in the house. But then I wouldn't have illegal drugs in my house in the first place. BUT I guess that's a different world I live in than those of you who have no problem with a parent bringing strangers into the family home - intoxicated strangers THEY picked up off the street and offered illegal drugs. Certainly every parent does that! In my world parents PROTECT their children - they look ahead for ANY foreseeable and/or unforeseeable instant that could harm their child. Personally, I'm NOT picking up a couple very drunk young men and bringing them into my home if my children aren't here. So - there really IS a world - people out "there" with the mind set that it's a perfectly normal thing to do with NO expectation that it MIGHT be a bad decision? I'm NOT letting a stranger in my home much less anywhere NEAR my children.
"wait, so this guy found some random dudes, gave them some booze and drugs, they changed their minds and didn't want to have sex and killed them in their drunken/high state, but murder is murder and people are bitching?" Yes he went looking for "random dudes" but they didn't change their minds - it was never their intent to have sex just get some of the free alcohol he was offering. He took them into his home knowing they were extremely intoxicated and offered them MORE. And in the US "murder is murder"? Google how many pedophile STALKED/KNEW their victims and killed innocent five or six year old children who trusted them - murder, right? But the majority or them are released to do it again. In MY mind - a way different standard of murder - innocent, young children killed with pure intent and usually planning. Intent - the moment they decide they LIKE having sex with children and figure then killing the child shuts them up. Murder is never just murder. There are hundreds of extenuating circumstances. So who do you want set free and living in your neighborhood if you had to choose?
No I'm not blaming Mr. Eaton for his murder but it would have NEVER, EVER have happened to me - guaranteed, absolutely. WHY?? Because I will NEVER go looking for random, very drunk young men to bring into my home where my children sleep knowing I will always protect them to the utmost of my ability. I will NEVER have illegal drugs in my home to offer very drunk men I have just picked up off the street. If he really needed to pick up strangers that desperately maybe he should have thought about a motel - not his home.
I was just thinking - if he had sex with them and then ended up with AIDS and died would that be murder too?
Like I said before - these two men certainly deserved to go to prison - bad choices and consequences. But really, life in prison when there was no intent, no planning, when they were highly intoxicated and the victim offered them more alcohol PLUS illegal drugs.
Either of these guys could move in next door to me and I wouldn't worry. Of course I wouldn't be opening my home to them and offering drugs and booze but after 20-30 years I really believe the majority of people who are in prison for murder (remember Titus did not help kill the man but he was present during a felony being committed. Felony was when Titus and Green decided AFTER Green stabbed the victim that they would make it look like a robbery gone bad. Robbery = felony = felony murder rule in Iowa.
"That's why people should think before acting like monsters." And why someone shouldn't offer highly intoxicated strangers illegal drugs and alcohol and invite them into the sanctuary of your home where your children sleep. Makes it more difficult for the "monsters" to think when your giving them more drugs and alcohol.
"This is very different from what the other poster was saying. She/he was blaming the victim and acting like everyone should be given plaques for resisting the urge to rape and murder Eaton's daughter." Poster might reread or change your mindset (but I doubt it). I never blamed the victim but he did put himself in a very, very unsafe situation - in my mind anyway maybe not yours. I am certainly not acting like ANYONE should be given a plaque. If there had been any "urge" to rape and murder the daughter they would have Done JUST THAT!! What was there to stop them?? There was NOTHING to stop them from harming her EXCEPT themselves.
There is murdering/killing with intent, foresight, planning, knowledge, trickery, etc.
No one wants to hear it but Mr. Eaton could have totally, completely prevented his death in this situation. These two men did not force themselves into his home - they were invited, they were encouraged, he went looking for them. "But for" his desire to have sex with a stranger he picked up off the street and brought into his home he might still be alive unless this was a practice he did often. "But for" Mr. Eaton's decision to go looking for strange young men that night almost with 100% certainty Mr. Green and Mr. Eaton would not be in prison for life - they were not looking, planning, intending to kill anyone - they were looking for more alcohol - stupid, bad decision - yes, yes, yes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
