|
Wade begins life away from bars
Saturday, December 18, 2004 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage, Alaska - A man once charged with murder walked out of jail
today. Four years after the murder of Della Brown, Joshua Wade is a
free man. Although Wade was convicted of tampering with evidence, the
Anchorage jury found him not guilty of raping and murdering Della
Brown.
In September 2000, Della Brown's life ended in a dark and dirty Spenard
shed. Today, at exactly 7 a.m., the man accused but never convicted of
her murder and rape, began life again. Joshua Wade began a life without
bars, as he walked away from the Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility.
Wade spent over 52 months in jail, after being convicted for tampering
with evidence by showing Brown's body to friends. He was charged with
her murder as well, but on that charge, the jury was not convinced.
Wade's attorney at the time claimed his client was a scapegoat.
"He was an easy suspect because he'd been claiming credit. They
could arrest him quickly and make great accusations against him, which
when finally they were examined by a fair and impartial jury, turned to
be without matter," Wade's lawyer Jim McComas said, in April 2003.
But many were convinced he did it, including Brown's mother, Daisy
Piggot. "I am a 100 percent confident he did it," Piggot said.
In April 2003, the police were also confident that Wade committed the
act. "At this point, we think we have found the person who committed
this murder . . . and that's Joshua Wade," Anchorage Police
Department spokesman Ron McGee said.
And Kari Brady, who prosecuted Wade, says, "We know it because Joshua
Wade told at least seven people."
And many in the community also believe Wade is a killer. Della Brown's
murder and Wade's acquittal enraged the Native community, who are still
reeling from five other murders of young Native women in the Anchorage
area. It sparked protests and one hunger strike.
Anchorage police spent today patrolling the streets around the jail, as
Wade exited his home of just over four years. But there were no sign of
protestors.
Wade has maintained that he didn't kill Della Brown. He says he bragged
about it after finding her body to impress friends.
In total, Wade served two-thirds of his five-year tampering sentence.
The extra 11 months were for violating his probations on an earlier
weapons conviction.
Since Wade served flat time, it means he will not have to undergo any
court ordered counseling. However, when he reports to probation
officers Monday, they have some latitude as to what they can require of
him.
|
| |
| |
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
Wade begins life away from bars
Saturday, December 18, 2004 -
So the real truth behind the story comes out now eh?
Well that sheds some new light on the affair.
Then it would appear that the prosecution charged the man with murder hoping
that it would stick.
As the prosecutor had no other viable person to pin it on.
"Well he has the body so therefor he must be the murderer.".
I wonder if "Columbo" would have figured out who done it?
|
| |
| |
In article <cq33qa0qbo@news3.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
So the real truth behind the story comes out now eh?
Well that sheds some new light on the affair.
Then it would appear that the prosecution charged the man with murder hoping
that it would stick.
Ummm, RIchard, the prosecution always hopes the crimes they charge someone
with stick. If they didn't want the charges to "stick" (i.e., lead to a
guilty plea or conviction) they wouldn't bring those charges in the first
place. Duh.
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <cq33qa0qbo@news3.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
wrote:
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
Wade begins life away from bars
Saturday, December 18, 2004 -
So the real truth behind the story comes out now eh?
Well that sheds some new light on the affair.
Then it would appear that the prosecution charged the man with murder
hoping that it would stick.
Ummm, RIchard, the prosecution always hopes the crimes they charge someone
with stick. If they didn't want the charges to "stick" (i.e., lead to a
guilty plea or conviction) they wouldn't bring those charges in the first
place. Duh.
Prosecutors, will, and frequently do, charge the defendant with seemingly
related items hoping that they will hang the defendant for something.
More than likely, the murder charge was top priority with the "tampering of
evidence" being a secondary charge.
Since they lacked the evidence for murder, the secondary charge was included
because they knew that would happen.
There is no statute of limitations on murder so it is quite possible that at
some later date, the man could be tried once again if enough evidence is
gathered to warrant a second trial.
|
| |
| |
Uh Richard, you might not be aware of this but once a defendant stands
trial and is acquitted under the law double jeopardy attaches. He
could walk into the police precinct and tell them that he was guilty
and that the jury screwed up, and the police couldn't do anything
because he was already tried and acquitted.
|
| |
| |
In article <cq4io20fae@news1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
Larry wrote:
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
Wade begins life away from bars
Saturday, December 18, 2004 -
So the real truth behind the story comes out now eh?
Well that sheds some new light on the affair.
Then it would appear that the prosecution charged the man with murder
hoping that it would stick.
Prosecutors, will, and frequently do, charge the defendant with seemingly
related items hoping that they will hang the defendant for something.
And what do you base this on? Do you know any prosecutors?
Virtually every murder has "seemingly related" charges. If you kill
someone with a gun, there will be murder + weapons charges. If you kill
someone after threatening them, there will be murder + menacing charges.
See how it works?
Besides, even if prosecutors want to charge someone with a crime, the
grand jury must also agree and indict on that charge. We can't just
charge whatever we want to.
More than likely, the murder charge was top priority with the "tampering of
evidence" being a secondary charge.
Gee, that seems likely. The more serious charge is the top priority. So?
Suppose he is guilty - he killed someone, then threatened a witness.
Which crime would you want the prosecutors to focus more attention on?
Since they lacked the evidence for murder, the secondary charge was included
because they knew that would happen.
How do prosecutors know what will happen? Especially when (you say) its a
made up charge to begin with? You're talking yourself in a circle.
Prosecutors make up 2 charges, neither of which is true, because they
"know" the less-serious charge will stick? That makes no sense. And this
guy admitted to a half-dozen people that he killed her. And he admitted
to making the admissions. Sounds like it was a distinct possibility that
a jury might have convicted him.
There is no statute of limitations on murder so it is quite possible that at
some later date, the man could be tried once again if enough evidence is
gathered to warrant a second trial.
Some states DO have statutes of limitations on murder. But that's not an
issue here. Even if Alaska has no statute of limitations, the same person
cannot be tried twice. It's called double jeopardy. Without a SoL, they
could have charged him whenever they wanted to. But once he was charged
and tried, he can never be charged again. Let me know if you want me to
further explain the difference.
|
| |
| |
In article <larry-1912042101110001@192.168.2.4>, larry@x.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <cq4io20fae@news1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
Some states DO have statutes of limitations on murder. But that's not an
issue here. Even if Alaska has no statute of limitations, the same person
cannot be tried twice. It's called double jeopardy. Without a SoL, they
could have charged him whenever they wanted to. But once he was charged
and tried, he can never be charged again. Let me know if you want me to
further explain the difference.
You know, Richard, I see you've posted this after I previously mentioned
double jeopardy, as did another poster. Really - let us know if you don't
understand the concept and we can explain it to you.
|
| |
| |
|
