Is It Restraint or Is It Murder?

Ronald Stolberg is currently on trial for murder in the asphyxiation death of his 54 year old wife.  His defense attorney, William Hedrick, claims his 49 year old client merely attempted to subdue his wife during a late night argument, but accidentally killed her and didn’t realize she was no longer alive even though he walked over her dead body to report to work the following morning.  You can read more here:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130521/news/705219794/

William Hendrick – “Ronald Stolberg made a mistake.  He wasn’t trained in how to subdue someone and was trying to keep his wife from hurting herself.”

“Ronald Stolberg made a mistake” – Was the mistake killing his wife or reporting to work while leaving her body to rot on his floor while he pretended nothing was wrong?  Or was the mistake calling his mother later in the day to finally admit to someone what he had done?

“was trying to keep his wife from hurting herself” – Really?  By preventing her from breathing?  For an excessive amount of time?

William Hendrick – “There was more going on here than someone murdering his wife.  Yes, Ronald tried to subdue his wife, to restrain her. His attempts to restrain her failed immensely.”

“There was more going on here than someone murdering his wife.” – What else was going on?  If the defense is claiming the defendant was trying “to subdue”, why does the defense attorney state here “murdering his wife”?  This is significant because it shows us the defense attorney believes “murdering” was “going on here”, not subduing.  The defendant may have been attempting to subdue his wife to ease the murder, but subduing was not the primary act.

“Yes, Ronald tried to subdue his wife” – Yes, Ronald did try “to subdue his wife” as he murdered her.  We know this because the defense attorney just told us Ronald was engaged in “murdering his wife”.

“His attempts to restrain her failed immensely.” – But his attempts to murder her were a complete success.  An objective observer might note the efforts at restraint were a complete success as Ronald was able to restrain his wife long enough to prevent her from breathing until she died, at which point restraint was no longer necessary.

What have we learned?

We have learned there is more going on here than a worthy defense based on truth as the defense attorney blames the dead woman for her own murder because she caused his client to fail “immensely” at his attempts to restrain her.

Can the Truth Be Denied with Reasonable Doubt?

Chris Harris has been convicted of five first degree murder charges in the deaths of a family he claimed were his friends.  You can read more here:

http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/crime/jurors-continue-deliberations-in-ill-5-dead-case/nX7zK/

In an earlier article, we examined statements by his defense attorney, Daniel Fultz, who claimed reasonable doubt existed in the case and theorizing the 14 year old son of the murdered family was caught in the middle of a killing frenzy by his client, who then killed the boy in self-defense.

Yet, the blood evidence and boy’s body indicated more than 50 blows with a tire iron, bringing into doubt any statement about “self-defense” from a grown man in the prime of his life who greatly outweighed the boy.

What did the defense attorney have to say about the fact the boy was so severely beaten he most likely could not move throughout most of his final ordeal in relation to his claim his client killed the boy in self-defense?

Daniel Fultz, defense attorney: “That fact that someone hit him repeatedly is problematic.  It can’t be denied.”

“Problematic” – for whom is the “fact” “problematic”?  For the defense attorney and his client since their “theory” doesn’t fit the facts of the case.

“That fact” – the word “that” indicates the defense attorney is uncomfortable with the “fact” and wishes to distance it from himself, probably because it causes him problems.  This is also a verbal attempt to minimize the “fact”, which does not agree with his stated theory.

“someone hit him” – We all know who “someone” is because even the defense’s theory places the tire iron in the defendant’s hand, who admitted to hitting the boy severely enough to kill him.

“It can’t be denied” – This is a true statement.  Unlike defense theories about reasonable doubt, facts cannot be “denied”.  This is the reason the “fact” is “problematic”.

What have we learned?

We have learned reasonable doubt does not hide the truth.