Teenager who killed her pimp in 1994 is set free after Arnie commuted sentence

The Sob Sisters apparently feel that the victim deserved to die because the killer said he was a pimp.

Has there ever been any evidence to support this murderers story about her victim being a pimp?

If so, let's see it.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
He commuted the original sentence which allowed the possibility of parole, something that has been previously denied to her. I am really appalled with some of the comments on here about this case, she should never have been charged with first degree murder without parole in the first place.
Click to expand...

Appalled but not surprised, I'm sure. We saw similar hostility over the Trayvon Martin case. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It was okay for GZ to kill an innocent teenager and get away with it but not okay for a teenager to kill her violent pimp, got to jail for it, and get her sentence commuted.

Go figure.
 
christiefan915 said:
Appalled but not surprised, I'm sure. We saw similar hostility over the Trayvon Martin case. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It was okay for GZ to kill an innocent teenager and get away with it but not okay for a teenager to kill her violent pimp, got to jail for it, and get her sentence commuted. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that the dead man was a violent pimp?
 
Big money said:
The Sob Sisters apparently feel that the victim deserved to die because the killer said he was a pimp.

Has there ever been any evidence to support this murderers story about her victim being a pimp?

If so, let's see it.
Click to expand...

My pleasure. Here it is, the writ of habeas corpus. And note the comment on page 9:

2 The facts presented in this petition have never been disputed. As
explained, they were not presented at the trial more than 16 years ago.
Moreover, Ms. Kruzan’s initial habeas petition to the Riverside County
Superior Court, dated February 4, 2010, was summarily denied. The Court
concluded only that the petition was insufficient and did not request any
response from the State. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner
respectfully submits that the evidence overwhelmingly favors the requested
relief.
65495-0001/

Less than 100 pages and easy reading. Get back to us later with your dissent.

http://murderpedia.org/female.K/images/kruzan-sara/petition-for-writ-of-habeas-corpus.pdf
 
images
 
christiefan915 said:
As explained, they were not presented at the trial more than 16 years ago. Moreover, Ms. Kruzan’s initial habeas petition to the Riverside County Superior Court, dated February 4, 2010, was summarily denied. The Court concluded only that the petition was insufficient and did not request any response from the State.
Click to expand...

There you go, then.
 
Big money said:
There you go, then.
Click to expand...

Right back atcha.

The second ground for relief is a sentencing error that denied Ms.
Kruzan, 16 at the time of her offense, the discretion to which juveniles were
entitled under California Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), before
they were sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

This ground is made especially compelling by the fact that Ms. Kruzan’s then-defense
counsel, now-Riverside County Superior Court Judge, David Gunn, has
submitted a declaration admitting that he was mistaken in his understanding
of the law at the time of Ms. Kruzan’s sentencing, acknowledging that he
was unaware that the Court had discretion to sentence Ms. Kruzan to a
sentence other than life without the possibility of parole because she was 16
and stating that he believes the court and prosecutor were similarly
mistaken. (Tab 2, ¶¶ 7-9, at 593.)

Beyond Judge Gunn’s declaration, the probation officer’s written report unambiguously contains the same mistake
of law, erroneously stating that a life without possibility of parole sentence
was mandatory in Ms. Kruzan’s case. And beyond both Judge Gunn’s
declaration and the probation officer’s erroneous report, the trial record
independently and clearly reveals that the prosecutor and sentencing judge
had the same mistaken understanding of the law. As a result, Ms. Kruzan
was denied the exercise of discretion at sentencing to which section 190.5,
subdivision (b) entitled her.
 
Big money said:
I asked for proof that her victim was a pimp, didn't I?

You keep shoving failed legal gambits at me as if they are relevant.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Read the petition and connect the dots. "GG" is referred to as a pimp throughout the document; instances are given of his pimp actions; there is sworn testimony from others in his stable; and the document states "The facts presented in this petition have never been disputed. " Ergo, the court accepted as FACT that GG was a pimp.

Really, your denial of FACT is beneath you.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Read the petition and connect the dots. "GG" is referred to as a pimp throughout the document; instances are given of his pimp actions; there is sworn testimony from others in his stable; and the document states "The facts presented in this petition have never been disputed. " Ergo, the court accepted as FACT that GG was a pimp.

Really, your denial of FACT is beneath you.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, what the fuck is wrong with these people? She was forced to work as a prostitute from the age of eleven and he wants to know what proof is there. It also turns out that she was sexually abused from a young age as well.
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Read the petition and connect the dots. "GG" is referred to as a pimp throughout the document; instances are given of his pimp actions; there is sworn testimony from others in his stable; and the document states "The facts presented in this petition have never been disputed. " Ergo, the court accepted as FACT that GG was a pimp.

Really, your denial of FACT is beneath you.
Click to expand...

Maybe Legion is a pimp as well?
 
christiefan915 said:
:rolleyes: Read the petition and connect the dots. "GG" is referred to as a pimp throughout the document; instances are given of his pimp actions; there is sworn testimony from others in his stable; and the document states "The facts presented in this petition have never been disputed. " Ergo, the court accepted as FACT that GG was a pimp.
Really, your denial of FACT is beneath you.
Click to expand...

LOL, because they rejected her attempt at justification on other grounds, and didn't dispute her claims of being pimped, she was telling the truth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top