Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I don't know if anyone has been watching for the outcome of the Jessica Lunsford murder trial?

The verdict was guilty, and today Couey was recommended 10-2 to the death penality by the jury.

All the time I kept hearing the *Talking Heads* on those all-day cable shows mentioning- no, emphasizing- that Jessica had been buried alive.

I'll tell you this- I don't believe it. I never did.

I live in this state. I watch the news. Usually I am up pretty late so if there's breaking news, like when her body was finally uncovered- I see it on local TV.

The story that Couey gave about burying her alive came much later. My opinion has been that he threw that in to make the parents suffer more and to exact some measure of personal sadistic pleasure by adding that detail. Over time he may even have come to believe it- it might feed his new fantasy or he might think it would make him appear more of a bad-guy.
(I do admit that there is a small possibility that this kind of info was kept back from the public- or in trying to spare the parents this added atrocity.)

I Googled the autopsy report, but couldn't find it. The closest I came was the Deposition given the court, dated 23 March 2006, by the physician who did the autopsy, upon oath.

Some info gleaned there:
Because of moderate decomposition there were restrictions on what he could say definitivley.

--The body had been deceased 3 weeks or so when uncovered.
--The death occurred sometime during the first week.
--The hands were bound together but not the feet- and there was no subcu bruising- and no defence marks. [It didn't appear that she had struggled within her binds.]
--No petechial hemorrhaging
--no broken nails, tho they had by then mostly seperated from her fingers
--The injury of the rape was within 6 hours of death
--No neck injury
--No drugs or alcohol ingested. Any alchohol in her blood was due to decomp. She had traces of nicotine and cocaine smoke on her clothing that mixed with her bodily fluids in decomp
--COD suffocation, 3-5 minutes in the garbage bags.

It turns out that the opinion that Jessica Lunsford was *buried alive* is based soley on the confession of Couey, which Dr. Cogswell admits was *consistent*- meaning the Dr. is saying that once Couey claimed Jessica was buried alive he continued to claim that and did not retract it or change it.

Well, for some reason I don't believe the murderer.

Anyway- the whole thing has been a long horrible nightmare for the girl, the parents and the community where it happened and also where the trial was staged.

I'm providing some of the testimony of the deposition where it is obvious the Dr. made no medical determination that Jessica was buried alive.
(An oddity about ths document is that the victim's name is redacted- however they missed a spot. On page 39 her full name appears.)

Don't believe everything those Court TV hosts have to say. They are as sensational as The Enquirer!

More:



The "investigation information" means the confession.

Deliberations ran under an hour - the vote was 10/2 in favor of the death penalty. (Unamity is not required apparently, possibly because their role in the penalty phase is just advisory.) I saw most of the trial, and from the evidence the state presented, I think the verdict was correct.

But..if I understood correctly mental illness still might be a factor in the ultimate punishment: If the defense presents a motion to set aside the death verdict based on retardation, the judge will appoint two or perhaps three qualified independent folks, and they will pass judgment on the man's mental capabilities "Is he, or is he not?"

Things will proceed from there. If nothing more is raised... well, he goes to death row.

The M'Naughton Rule was developed circa 1840s in England when a man tried to shoot Queen Victoria because he believed the Queen was persecuting him. Completely loony! The verdict was "guilty but insane".

Nobody said this guy was insane. I don't know much, but it seems he was quite capable of rational action in committing and hiding his crime.
There's no cause to question a death penalty, only a lesser amount.

Circa 1912 in France there was a call to abolish the death penalty. This was squelched when Clemenceau got up and said to abolish the death penalty let it start with the murderers.

Let the punishment fit the crime?
PS
Or is killing someone ipso facto proof of mental illness?

http://uk.geocities.com/becky62655@btin ... eeler.html

...a legal defence of insanity, which was governed by the McNaughten Rule. This had arisen from the case of Daniel McNaughten who in 1843 tried to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, against whom he had an imaginary grudge, but instead shot his secretary, Mr. Drummond. The court found him not guilty of the crime by reason of insanity, because at the time it occurred he either did not know what he was doing or if he did he did not know that it was wrong. In McNaughten's case it was found that he didn’t know what he was doing at the time of the shooting.

I know this and remember it because we are descended thru Sir Robert Peel's niece.

I trust and believe your quote.
The last book I read on this, Gerald Sparrow's "Vintage Victorian Murders" mentioned it was Queen Victoria. Another legend sounding better than the truth? Who remember Bobby Peel today?

His name was adopted for the reformed Metropolitan Police (bobbies, or peelers).