@done: I think most ppl that read the article conclude that Warren stole the earrings. I'm just saying that the defense's initial phrasing of their argument didn't come close to raising reasonable doubt. I figured they'd at least have a chance if they could prove she wasn't wearing earrings and the EMT's dumped her purse.
But yeah, Warren, in all likelihood, stole those earrings. I'm not 100% sure of it like I was before, but I'm still leaning in that direction.
@JoshI: What was positive? Warren got off drugs? He wasn't supposed to be on drugs in the first place! Most of us don't need to kill someone before we correct our course back into mainstream society.
@Anonymous: That's an interesting theory you've got on the earrings. If she put the earrings in her purse, and then the EMT's dumped it, it's not totally implausible.
It would be interesting to know if "Sweet Man" remembered the victim wearing earrings.
I'll also give you this - it's weird the gf signed the pawnshop ticket. I know I wouldn't put my name on a pawn ticket for wares provided to me by a drug addict. The mere thought of it staggers the imagination. So, I suppose the GF's story has some holes, too. Shouldn't her suspicions have been aroused when Warren asked her to pawn them in her name? There are certainly parts of her story that don't make sense.
Plus, if Warren did orchestrate the whole thing, why would he go along for the ride? It's not like the security cameras were hidden (at least I assume they weren't), and even if they were, why would he want to participate in a transaction he knew to be illicit? Certainly he knew the police would be watching him, and pawning the victims earrings a couple of days later would be an unbelievably stupid move.
So, I guess your theory isn't totally outlandish. Bravo!
@Anonymous: I suspect that your part of Warren's camp, and perhaps even his legal team. So I respect your opinions, and by no means do I project Mr. Ullom's negative character attributes on to you. If you are a part of his legal team, I know you're just doing your job.
I attempted to explain why I believe Warren stole, then orchestrated the pawning, of the earrings. However, I failed to address a couple of your points, so here it goes.
If the pawnshop employee suspected the girlfriend didn't own the earrings, then that tells me his or her instincts were well honed - We know, for a fact, that the gf didn't own the earrings. By virtue of that fact, we also know that the gf knew she didn't own the earrings. So it makes sense that her demeanor at the time of pawning may have suggested that. We'll assume she wasn't a hardened criminal, so her manipulation craft may haven't have been sufficient to lull the shopkeep into complacency.
Perhaps she suspected Warren didn't get the earrings from an ex-girlfriend, and that they actually came from Rachel. Because the gf was young (I assume), and under the spell of a possible sociopath, however, she didn't confront the issue directly. She acquiesced to the domineering persona of her wannabe rockstar boyfriend, and was merely along for the ride.
Warren didn't want to admit to stealing the earrings because if he did so, his whole victim story would fall to pieces. He works people, get it? He always has an angle. He uses trumped up nonsense stories like this to ensure he has a loyal following of supporters. Meanwhile, he uses them to satisfy his own interests, completely disinterested in their well-being. He is, in all likelihood, a sociopath. That being the case, he should get along fine in prison, where he'll commiserate with many like-minded individuals.
I garnered all this from the media's reports, mind you. I also scanned the comments to the stories, and noticed that his supporters voiced an unyielding loyalty to him. Considering he's a former drug addict that killed someone, I have to assume that he used his sociopathic powers of persuasion to rope them in.
The earrings issue was never pressed by the State, so who knows? The biggest problem I have with the defense's argument is that it doesn't absolve Warren of responsibility; it just makes him a co-conspirator with his live-in girlfriend.
In order for the defense's theory to pan-out, they'd have to rebut the State's evidence that Warren knew the earrings belonged to Rachel. The State would present evidence that Rachel wore the earrings every day, and never took them off. We know she was wearing them on the night in question because they were left at Warren's apartment. They had to be screwed off, so the State would illustrate that exercise to show the jury that it's highly unlikely they fell off. We know the girlfriend didn't remove the earrings because she wasn't there. That leaves Warren. If Warren removed them, then he knew they belonged to Rachel.
Or maybe they did fall off, and Warren never noticed them before this happened. Did they fall-off when she was passed-out? Highly unlikely if not impossible when taking basic Newtonian physics into account. Perhaps they fell off when the paramedics tended to her. The earrings are distinct items, however, so the jury would have to believe that BOTH earrings fell off when Rachel was tended to by the paramedics. It's hard to believe that $3000.00 diamond earrings detach at the slightest molestation of the person to whom they're attached (particularly the screw-on variety).
So is it reasonable to believe that Warren never saw the earrings on Rachel, and had nothing to do with their removal from her earlobes? Not really.
Then, of course, the jury would have to believe that Warren's girlfriend was a thief. Maybe you could drum-up some motive stemming from jealousy, but that's a tall order. On the other side of the equation you have a guy that the jury knows was a serious heroin addict at the time.
I realize the defense had to come up with something, but I don't think the facts leave a reasonable doubt on the earrings issue. I know it makes Warren look a great deal worse, but the facts are the facts. I think the drugs seriously skewed his moral compass, at best. At worst, he's just a cold-blooded opportunistic criminal. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
@Anonymous: I guess since he wasn't under arrest when they questioned him (or at least I assume, otherwise the judge was wayyyyy off in his ruling), then they didn't need to Mirandize him.
It's too bad Warren didn't know that you never, ever, talk to the police. It doesn't matter if you're in custody or not - simply never talk to the police. Geez, particularly if they're asking about a body found in your apartment. Did he think they were planning a surprise party in his honor?
Like I said, probably doesn't matter. They had cooperation from "Sweet Man," and his girlfriend. Not to mention the surveillance camera tape at the pawn store. BTW, you may not want to admit it, but it's kinda unlikely that the earrings "fell" into Warren's hands. Even if they did, don't you think he shoulda assumed they belonged to the girl, rather than immediately run to the pawn shop with them? Meh, I'm not sold on his innocence with the earrings.
Really weird that the D.A. gave a guy 10 years for executing someone in the middle of the street (based on your description). If that's an accurate description, then that's pretty indefensible for the D.A.'s office. Could you link to a news story about that? That sounds kinda outrageous...
@Anonymous: Informative post, particularly the bit about the police investigation.
You focused on the wrong thing regarding that investigation, however. It's not outrageous that the police lied - that's what they do, e.g. undercover sting operations. What's outrageous is that Warren requested an attorney and they continued to question him anyway...that is key.
When you listened to the tapes, did he UNEQUIVOCALLY request a lawyer? By that I mean, did he say "I want a lawyer," or did he say "...I dunno, do you think I might need a lawyer?" The latter is not unequivocal, and the cops could've kept questioning him if that's along the lines of what he said. If he said, however, "I want a lawyer," and the cops kept on going, then any statements he made after that point wouldn't have been admissible at trial.
May not matter, of course. They had a lot of evidence against him before the interview.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation