you all remember the case where the lawyer killed the neighbor based on what the 2 yr old said?

[waggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law....mistake.ap/index.html

BRIDGEORT, Connecticut -- A lawyer who stabbed his neighbor to death because he thought the man had molested his 2-year-old daughter was sentenced Friday to 12 years in prison for first-degree manslaughter.

"It's a Shakespearean tragedy brought into the real world," Judge Richard Comerford said at the sentencing. "Something was set into motion in this man's mind -- real or perceived. It was very real to him."

Jonathon Edington, 29, attacked neighbor Barry James in the man's bedroom last year after his wife told him she thought James had molested their daughter. Officers said they found Edington washing the victim's blood off in a kitchen sink.

Fairfield police also investigated the molestation allegation and said they found no evidence to back it up.

They said Edington's wife, Christina, refused to cooperate with the investigation into the slaying, and prosecutor Jonathan Benedict has said a defense psychiatrist determined Edington's wife suffered from postpartum depression.

Defense attorney Andrew Bowman said his client was not in his right mind when he attacked James.

"He is a good and decent man who suffered such a traumatic event in his life that he lost control," Bowman said.

Edington and his wife entered court holding hands. After the sentence was read, Edington, who had been free on bond, was handcuffed and led away as Christina Edington fell to her knees.

The judge issued a 20-year sentence, but suspended eight years of that, leaving 12 years to serve, plus five years probation.

James' parents, Rita and Charlie James, filed a victims' statement with the court saying, "We will never be the same."

"A terrible tragedy has happened for nothing, but it has destroyed all that we have," they wrote.

Also Friday, an attorney for the Jameses served Christina Edington with a wrongful death lawsuit, accusing her of triggering the stabbing and making up the abuse claim. A similar lawsuit is pending against Edington.

Christina Edington did not comment as she left the courthouse. E-mail to a friend




looked for the original thread where a bunch of idiots said he would get off and the guy deserved to die.

I have a feeling the wife set it up. anyway he gets 20 years with 8 suspended.

fair punishment. though wonder how the wrongful death is going to be.


http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ab=arc&highlight_key=y

found it heh

 

[SinfulWeeper]

He'll be out far quicker then 12 years. 1/3 is shaved off for good time if he does not be a bad man in jail, and as his first offense. He likely will be put in a minimum (medium at worst) security prison as security ratings for most states is done on a point system depending on severity of crime and past criminal history.
Then there is also a SIS release which first time felon's can take part in. After they serve I think a tenth of their sentence they can get released on their own but have to obey a very strict schedule with very frequent visits to the probation officer and can effectively have that felony removed. Hard to say if he'll go for SIS though.

His point rating will most like put him on minimum security in any case. After he does some time, maybe a year or two. He'll be put in a half-way house I am most certain.

 

[axelfox]

based on the wife or the 2 year old?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: axelfox
based on the wife or the 2 year old?

2 yr old.

the 2 yr old said some stuff to the mother. the mother told the husband. he went nuts and killed a innocent man.

here is the orginal article.

FAIRFIELD, Connecticut (AP) -- A lawyer climbed through a neighbor's bedroom window and stabbed him to death after being told by a family member that the man had molested his 2-year-old daughter, authorities say.

Barry James, 58, was stabbed in the chest nearly a dozen times Monday. The lawyer, Jonathon Edington, 29, was charged with murder and burglary and was released on $1 million bail Wednesday.

Capt. Gary MacNamara said that police had not received a complaint about the child being assaulted before the killing, and "we have no indication it's true or not true."

Edington's attorney, Michael Sherman, said the information came from Edington's wife. "The daughter gave the mother information which was alarming and disturbing. The mom relayed it to her husband. That was the spark," Sherman said.

James' 87-year-old mother discovered his body. When officers went to Edington's home, they found him standing by his kitchen sink with what appeared to be blood on him, and a large kitchen knife next to him on a counter, authorities said

"He's in shock," Edington's attorney said. "This is the most unexpected turn of events one can imagine with this young man's background."

Police had gone to the neighborhood before, when Edington called to complain that he could see James through a window, police said. "Either he was partly clothed or revealed parts of his anatomy that were inappropriate," MacNamara said.

Edington, a graduate of Syracuse University and Fordham University Law School, has been practicing patent law, Sherman said. Police said Edington has no criminal record.

Rita James declined to comment on her son's death.

James served two days behind bars in 2001 on a drunken driving charge, according to the state Correction Department.

"He had some bizarre behavior over the last month," said Darrell Maynard, a neighbor. "He drove his car through his garage, hit the other neighbor's building."

Another time a neighbor found James intoxicated on the street, Maynard said. James shouted obscenities at children, he said.

As for Edington, Maynard said: "Something had to happen that was terrible for this to have occurred." Edington "seemed like a computer geek or something. He was not anybody you would ever feel you were threatened by."

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: axelfox
based on the wife or the 2 year old?

2 yr old.

the 2 yr old said some stuff to the mother. the mother told the husband. he went nuts and killed a innocent man.

IIRC, didn't the wife take the kid to her parents house and then call the husband or something like that? I thought he never actually talked to the kid about the allegations, he just went by what the wife said.

Edit: And to everyone who said in the original thread that the father was justified in what he did, I hope someday you are wrongly accused of molesting a child. :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: axelfox
based on the wife or the 2 year old?

2 yr old.

the 2 yr old said some stuff to the mother. the mother told the husband. he went nuts and killed a innocent man.

IIRC, didn't the wife take the kid to her parents house and then call the husband or something like that? I thought he never actually talked to the kid about the allegations, he just went by what the wife said.

Edit: And to everyone who said in the original thread that the father was justified in what he did, I hope someday you are wrongly accused of molesting a child. :roll:

yeah you are right. the 2 yr old said something weird to the wife. the wife called the husband and he killed the guy.

going off the word of a 2 yr old and killing someone. just nuts.

 

[Wheezer]

Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

To a certain extent yes, but I would agree with the Judge that it's still a crime of passion (which was why he got the sentence he did). I mean, what has to be running through your head if you think that someone molesting your baby?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

To a certain extent yes, but I would agree with the Judge that it's still a crime of passion (which was why he got the sentence he did). I mean, what has to be running through your head if you think that someone molesting your baby?

And didn't bother to go on much else besides the words of his 2 year-old daughter before he goes and kills a guy? Somebody that's that rash and willing to commit murder is a menace.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

To a certain extent yes, but I would agree with the Judge that it's still a crime of passion (which was why he got the sentence he did). I mean, what has to be running through your head if you think that someone molesting your baby?

If you are a rational human being, you will not simply take the word of a freakin' 2 year old.

There is no way a child that age could tell you that someone molested them....without questions being asked of the child....I am willing to be they were leading questions at that.

You really think your child that age has been molested? The first thing you do is get that kid to a hospital to make sure they are ok...THEN you take action.

Why was it so damned important that he kill a man before he cheeked the welfare of his own kid?

I mean, that is why he did it right? to protect his child....or am I missing something here?

sounds like he was putting vengeance before his child.

If he had caught the guy in the act....yeah...I can see it...no questions asked....but that is not the case.

I stand by what I said...it was pre-meditated and he should have been charged with murder.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

To a certain extent yes, but I would agree with the Judge that it's still a crime of passion (which was why he got the sentence he did). I mean, what has to be running through your head if you think that someone molesting your baby?

Uhm, let's see, how about "I sure hope to fvck my child is OK! I better rush home and see my CHILD and console her and get her the medical attention and psychology attention she most surely will need in this trying time".

What did this guy do? Focused on himself, his perception of his pain and angst. Just like suicide, this had shit to do with anyone but the guy who committed the murder. A very selfish act.

And I have assumed since I first read the story that the wife setup the husband this whole time. The 2yr old didn't say jack, the wife "claimed" the 2yr-old said stuff. At minimum she should be an accomplice to murder.

Two victims here, the deceased and the child.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Well, regardless, of whether the wife set it in motion or not, the man should have received the full 20 or more IMO.

The wife called him so that means he was not home

-he had to drive from where ever it was to his house
-he had to locate a knife (presumably a knife from his home)
-he then had to climb through the neighbors window making as little noise as possible (not an easy task)
-he had to locate the man and kill him

The one common denominator in all that? Time...he had time to stop this before it happened.

That makes it a pre-meditated act. He should have had murder charges thrown at him.

To a certain extent yes, but I would agree with the Judge that it's still a crime of passion (which was why he got the sentence he did). I mean, what has to be running through your head if you think that someone molesting your baby?

And didn't bother to go on much else besides the words of his 2 year-old daughter before he goes and kills a guy? Somebody that's that rash and willing to commit murder is a menace.

yeap. wich was my point in the other thread. Why would you go off what a 2 yr old said? take her to the doctor and get proof. Call the police.

all he did is kill a innocent man and now his daughter is going to grow up without her father. not to mention face a huge civil suit.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Good. I'm glad he's going away, he deserves it.

BTW-I stated that in my response in the original thread too.

You don't go off killing someone based on what your 2 year old tells you. Kids have a vivid imagination and are very susceptible to suggestion, anyone with children knows this.

 

[waggy]

hmm just wonder where all the people saying he would get off and deserved to be killed are.

 

[alimoalem]

i just heard about this (through this thread). i agree the killer deserved (at least) what he got but some of you seem to be saying contradictory things...

1. some of you speak as if the 2 year old spoke directly to the father while others sound like the 2 year old told the mother who told the father. the latter one is true, right?

2. someone mentioned how it's premeditated cause the father had to come home from "somewhere" and go through all the effort that he did to commit this act. others say the mother and baby were at the baby's grandparents house and the mother called the father, meaning the father could've just been home, found the nearest knife, and gone to the neighbor's house, making it not premeditated. the latter is what happened, right? (i'm not trying to shed any guilt off the killer, just trying to understand what happened).

3. some of you say the father believed in what the baby said, others say the father believed in what the mother said. last one is correct? in the first case, he'd just be plain dumb and would need medical help cause it shows he truly lacks reason. in the second case, he's just dumb for not thinking about what the mother said before acting.


i have another question as well. the article mentioned how the cops got there when the killer was washing the blood of the victim. how did the police get notified so quickly? was there a wife/someone else in the house?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Eat right, Exercise, Die with a 6-pack.
Sounds good to me.

Oh and on topic... uh yeah, that dude was like totally overreacting... or something.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alimoalem
i just heard about this (through this thread). i agree the killer deserved (at least) what he got but some of you seem to be saying contradictory things...

1. some of you speak as if the 2 year old spoke directly to the father while others sound like the 2 year old told the mother who told the father. the latter one is true, right?

2. someone mentioned how it's premeditated cause the father had to come home from "somewhere" and go through all the effort that he did to commit this act. others say the mother and baby were at the baby's grandparents house and the mother called the father, meaning the father could've just been home, found the nearest knife, and gone to the neighbor's house, making it not premeditated. the latter is what happened, right? (i'm not trying to shed any guilt off the killer, just trying to understand what happened).

3. some of you say the father believed in what the baby said, others say the father believed in what the mother said. last one is correct? in the first case, he'd just be plain dumb and would need medical help cause it shows he truly lacks reason. in the second case, he's just dumb for not thinking about what the mother said before acting.


i have another question as well. the article mentioned how the cops got there when the killer was washing the blood of the victim. how did the police get notified so quickly? was there a wife/someone else in the house?

1) no the baby never spoke to the father. i screwed up the time and mugs corrected it. i also linked the orginal article.

2) yes it was premeditated. the guy had to sneak through the window. find a knife and kill the guy.

3) some beleive what the 2 yr old said (wich is silly). some beleive what the mother said (wich was she claim was based off the child) but they are the same.


the dead guys mother (who he was living with to help take care of her) found him and called the cops.

 

[Pepsei]

this guy even have his own wikipedia entry...

 

[Squisher]

I have a two year old grand daughter. At two years, most kids are just linking second and third words together to make rudimentary sentences, of which half the words are undecipherable unless you hear them every day.