Malvo to D.C. sniper: 'You made me a monster'

[pboily]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/05/23/1593843-ap.html

[...] On the witness stand Tuesday, Malvo said Muhammad fired 10 shots and Malvo three. Muhammad then quizzed Malvo on whether he had been improperly convicted in 2003 for one of the killings in which Malvo now says Muhammad pulled the trigger.

“No, I’m not innocent. I took part in that shooting. I’m an accomplice,” he said. [...]

Just thought I'd point something out that we don't see everyday. A guilty party who was clearly lead astray (with disastrous consequences) by someone else and yet still acknowledges his own guilt. While there is a high likelihood that this is a strategy dreamt up by his defense attorneys, I have no doubt that he really believes what he says.

It is much more than unfortunate for everyone involved that the realization that he is a monster (and a guilty one at that) came after the crime. Consequences, consequences. Still, it takes guts to say so. I don't think I could.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

When the guilt of their client isnt in doubt, trying to explain his actions by painting him as a victim or dupe is standard operating procedure. His attorneys are trying to ensure he doesnt get the death penalty. They even did it with Moussaoui.

 

[Xanikk999]

Hes just trying to find an excuse for what he did. Typical "blame it on the other person" excuse!

He obviously knew shooting people dead is wrong. Even a 6 year old knows murder is wrong.

 

[pboily]

When the guilt of their client isnt in doubt, trying to explain his actions by painting him as a victim or dupe is standard operating procedure. His attorneys are trying to ensure he doesnt get the death penalty. They even did it with Moussaoui.

While there is a high likelihood that this is a strategy dreamt up by his defense attorneys, I have no doubt that he really believes what he says.

yep, but still...

 

[Cuivienen]

Hes just trying to find an excuse for what he did. Typical "blame it on the other person" excuse!

He obviously knew shooting people dead is wrong. Even a 6 year old knows murder is wrong.

He's already convicted for life in prison without parole in Virginia, so anything he says doesn't help.

(These are the trials in Maryland, where some of the shootings took place. Malvo and Muhammad both have maximum sentences in Virginia already - life without parole for Malvo as a minor and death for Muhammad.)

 

[pboily]

Hes just trying to find an excuse for what he did. Typical "blame it on the other person" excuse!

He obviously knew shooting people dead is wrong. Even a 6 year old knows murder is wrong.

“No, I’m not innocent. I took part in that shooting. I’m an accomplice,” he said. [...]

That's a fairly atypical way to "blame it on the other person", I'd say...

 

[Che Guava]

When the guilt of their client isnt in doubt, trying to explain his actions by painting him as a victim or dupe is standard operating procedure. His attorneys are trying to ensure he doesnt get the death penalty. They even did it with Moussaoui.

Except in this case, it actually seems likely....

 

[Bozo Erectus]

How old was he when the shootings took place? 16 or 17? When I was that age, nobody could have convinced me to shoot someone.

 

[jonatas]

How old was he when the shootings took place? 16 or 17? When I was that age, nobody could have convinced me to shoot someone.

99% of people wouldn't. But here the idea is also whether he would have done it on his own.

 

[Cuivienen]

When the guilt of their client isnt in doubt, trying to explain his actions by painting him as a victim or dupe is standard operating procedure. His attorneys are trying to ensure he doesnt get the death penalty. They even did it with Moussaoui.

He already can't be given the death penalty. Virginia didn't give it to him, and, IIRC, the death penalty in Maryland cannot be applied to minors, even if tried as adults. (He was 17 at the time of the crime.)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

He's pretty damn lucky. Or maybe not. He's going to be in jail a looooong time.

Jonatas, maybe Muhammad wouldnt have done the shootings either if he'd been alone, we'll never know. But its immaterial, we do know that they both committed these crimes, thats the main thing.

 

[jonatas]

Jonatas, maybe Muhammad wouldnt have done the shootings either if he'd been alone, we'll never know. But its immaterial, we do know that they both committed these crimes, thats the main thing.

Yes, they both committed those crimes. I'm just saying that if you look at the dynamics of a relationship like this one (a criminal one), often there can be a dominant figure who can influence the other tremendously. This doesn't absolve the other person at all, but is part of the process of assigning level of guilt and punishment.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm rather ignorant of this case. Was there a motivation ascribed to the shootings?

 

[pboily]

I'm rather ignorant of this case. Was there a motivation ascribed to the shootings?

he wanted to get back at his ex-wife who took his children to DC.

 

[Atlas14]

He shot (sniped) people from a peephole drilled in the trunk of a car. He's guilty of murder, and it was a series of cold blood murder of conscious killing, he knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. They even sent a threat to our specific county saying our schools were NOT safe, and they would turn to our county at any time. These threats indicate deliberate intimidation factors being employed and that they weren't just playing around.

 

[The Yankee]

99% of people wouldn't. But here the idea is also whether he would have done it on his own.

That sounds like an opening for yet another insanity defense.

 

[jonatas]

That sounds like an opening for yet another insanity defense.

Well I'm not making that implication. What I'm saying is that there have been serial killer "couples" before, where there was definitely a dominant partner. Doesn't take away any guilt if you've murdered someone.

 

[The Yankee]

Of course not...but...whatever. It goes on the public record if found as such. Doesn't really change a thing in this case.

 

[7ronin]

Whether he was influenced or dominated or whatever are matters of mitigation. They do not have any bearing on the essential elements of the case: namely that Malvo wilfully and with premeditation from a place of hiding unlawfully killed another human being(s). Mitigating circumstances are typically brought up during the sentencing phase of a trial.

The fact that he committed the crimes with Muhammad only matters if they are also charging him with conspiracy. Likewise Muhammad's conviction is irrelevant.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

They even did it with Moussaoui.

Wasn't there a recent audio tape from Bin Laden himself saying Moussaoui had nothing to do with it? Seems to me that Moussaoui is the complete opposite to the description by the OP. Moussaoui is someone who had nothing to do with the attack but wanted to claim he was.

That's IMHO of course. I don't know enough about the evidence against Moussaoui to claim he was rightly or wrongly convicted.

In so far as the Sniper is concerned I don't think it matters whether he was led on or didn't know what he was doing. A reasonable person would know it was wrong and therefore jail time awaits.