Foerster murder trial

[rustled]

I STILL THINK IT TAKES SOMEONE WITH NO SOLE TO DEFEND SOMEONE LIKE THAT.what if she got him off then what

Probably easier without one, especially with people saying things like this. Now it's up to the jury to do their job.

It will be manslaughter. What a flippin joke of a justice system.

Isn't any death that occurs as a result of a sexual assault automatically first degree? He's admitted that intent, so wouldn't it have to be first degree?

[W105]

I believe it will be murder in the 1st...the Crown did a stellar job in closing statements...it was logical and stated in just plain true facts...all I got from the Defense's closing statement was he was "stupid"...BUT he wasn't that "stupid" to single her out, attempt to pick her up, stalk her, then kill her when he was surprised she wasn't the easy victim he thought she was (she fought hard to live) then go and get rid of the evidence...that is not "stupid" ...that is cold and very calculating...he was hunting for a victim..even his own Family knew he had "urges"...I wouldn't doubt if he wasn't caught, he would have become a serial killer...

[Silverstarqueen]

It would be twisty logic (the type defense lawyers use) to say something like he was hoping to get lucky and oops she ended up dead (after strangulation and brutal beating), but he didn't really mean to kill her. As far as defending him, that's his lawyer's job, if she didn't do it someone has to, that's the rules of the legal system. You can't have someone coming back later saying, I didn't have a lawyer so my conviction should be thrown out. Should he have admitted outright the whole truth? Morally yes, but the legal system allows him to his day in court, and a defense. Far more than Taylor was given before her execution.I think the jury should deliberate just about the same five minutes that it took him to kill Taylor.

[nextimeround]

Well the jury's now sequestered. Hope they come back with a quick decision but I have to guess if it's more than a little while then there are jurors who are not in agreement. Does anyone know what happens if they can't come up with a unanimous decision?

[Silverstarqueen]

Well the jury's now sequestered. Hope they come back with a quick decision but I have to guess if it's more than a little while then there are jurors who are not in agreement. Does anyone know what happens if they can't come up with a unanimous decision?

It has to be unanimous(to get a conviction), so either they agree to first degree, or the first degree jurors have to agree to downgrade to whatever the others are thinking, second degree, manslaughter, all the way to aquittal. You can even have jurors come out saying, we knew he was guilty of something, but couldn't agree on what that was. If it's a hung jury, i think he is not guilty. But really in this case they have to find him guilty of something. I just cringe to think of it being downgraded at all.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

I STILL THINK IT TAKES SOMEONE WITH NO SOLE TO DEFEND SOMEONE LIKE THAT.what if she got him off then what

As far as I know she has to wear footwear in the courtroom..

[Andy S]

If the jury does not get hung, as a previous poster explained, the outcome may well be an agreement of manslaughter. Credit for ~in custody time~ is what 2 to one ..? So 2 years = 4 years credit against a lockup sentence of say 10 years (I don't know, what's the max for manslaughter ?)
However.. DNA left at the crime scene by Foerster was not in any database. A match was made with DNA taken from a female victim of a sexual assault that occurred in Kelowna in 2005. That victim met with a police artist who created a drawing of the man who had attacked her (nice sideburns Matt).. and .. Foerster will have a separate trial for that assault and a home invasion in 2004 in Cherryville where another young woman was attacked.
I'm a cynical and harsh *bleep* here in the forum - Dangerous Offender status is always a review possibility, but I'm probably being over reactionary.

[wanderer]

If the jury does not get hung, as a previous poster explained, the outcome may well be an agreement of manslaughter. Credit for ~in custody time~ is what 2 to one ..? So 2 years = 4 years credit against a lockup sentence of say 10 years (I don't know, what's the max for manslaughter ?)
However.. DNA left at the crime scene by Foerster was not in any database. A match was made with DNA taken from a female victim of a sexual assault that occurred in Kelowna in 2005. That victim met with a police artist who created a drawing of the man who had attacked her (nice sideburns Matt).. and .. Foerster will have a separate trial for that assault and a home invasion in 2004 in Cherryville where another young woman was attacked.
I'm a cynical and harsh *bleep* here in the forum - Dangerous Offender status is always a review possibility, but I'm probably being over reactionary.

I think they've done away from the in custody credits so that will give him a little extra time locked up. I hope it isn't hung and they are able to agree on 1st degree, but I'm pessimistic too.

[Ken7]

I must admit I have not read each post here, nor have I read the news each day. However from the wishes of many, I post a link.
The elements required in order to convict someone of 1st Degree Murder. If lucky, 2nd will be the verdict from what I've seen on the TV media reports I'm thinking.

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyer ... 1_2_en.asp

[the truth]

question. would it be possible to convict him under the- dangerous offender act of canada-good chance he would do more time in jail then

[onefishtwofish]

While Helps told the jury she can’t argue with what Foerster admitted to police, she opined her client was essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place and agreed to questions that were closer to the actual truth, as opposed to those that would make him out as some kind of predator – which she says he is not.

Are you kidding me??? That's EXACTLY what he is!

[rustled]

question. would it be possible to convict him under the- dangerous offender act of canada-good chance he would do more time in jail then

One would hope so--maybe make it harder for him to fall through the cracks on release, too.

[Silverstarqueen]

I think you have to have more than "just" one murder and a couple of sexual assaults for Dangerous offender. Unless he's hiding more bodies (Was Taylor the first?), he may be a predator, but he's a "fledgling" predator. So all they can do is temporarily clip his wings. At some point they will have to release him, say in 15 or so years. maybe under supervision, but that doesn't last forever,and for good behavior it might be checking in once a week or once a month. He can go back to his old ways, but he will be much much more careful. I don't believe these guys change their mental makeup just from being in jail for 15 or 20 years.

[kurtan]

The jury has made up their minds...anticipation..

[Bpeep]

Justice is served.