Such a Good Boy: How a Pampered Son's Greed Led to Murder: Summary

During juvenile court proceedings, three teenage boys admit to sexually assaulting Audrie and possessing photos of the assault--both felonies. As a result, two of the boys are sentenced to thirty days in juvenile detention to be served on weekends, and the other receives a sentence to serve forty-five consecutive days in juvenile detention. Because the assailants are considered minors at the time of the crime, they are not publicly identified, and their convictions remain concealed.

hardship out of anyone. She has a still-born baby. This was the one thing in Rose of Sharon?s

The two boys were found and were asked about the situation, but they were never found guilty of raping the girl and were let go. After this the stepfather was put under suspicion himself of the crime because his stepdaughter had told someone that he had committed the crime, and he was tried and found guilty of the rape of L.H. (Cornell).

Two more boys, LeAlan and Lloyd, decided to investigate the crime and interviewed Kay Hanlon, a prosecutor. Hanlon stated, “I really believe in responsibility for your actions…even though you’re 10 or 11, you know right from wrong. You know that when you

Right away, the case was surrounded by a large amount of controversy. For example, George’s family never gave up on maintaining his innocence. However, the families of the young girls still believe George was guilty and deserved his execution. These views

Our client, Windsor Hadley, and her companion Jackson Conway are high school sweethearts who have reunited. Windsor’s parents never approved of her relationship with Jackson and informed her that if she married him, they would remove her from their wills.

This ruling tallied with the opinions of some of the legal professionals involved in the case. While there was a lack of evidence to convict the defendant and the audience believed him to be not guilty, the crown was focussed on procuring a conviction. The audience was led to believe the accused was innocent, therefore the ruling was appropriate as it upheld common notions of justice. As this was the defendant’s second murder charge - the first of which he spent time in jail- the crown was seeking the death penalty. While in Canada we do not have the death penalty as a sentence for serious crime, if convicted the accused would be facing life in prison. Whether or not the sentence the crown sought was appropriate depends on the opinion of the individual audience members and the legality of the death penalty in their location. This author, being against the death penalty, believes the sentence sought to be inappropriate and morally reprehensible. However, if the sentence had been a life in prison it would have been more appropriate as the defendant was being charged with a second murder. The conviction rates for murder are 50% (Dumas, 2015: Week 2) as well, the maximum sentence in Canada is life in prison and in some American states the death penalty. Therefore, the crown was seeking the most severe punishment that was acceptable by the law. In this instance, the jury ruled the accused to be innocent of

Dudley and Stephens, the judges decided that the most appropriate form of punishment for Dudley and Stephens was to sentence them to death. Given that the circumstances in this case are almost identical in comparison to the Speluncean Explorers, my views don't change too much. If the defendants didn't kill the boy, they could have all died; now, that they did kill the boy, they're going to die. The outcome for the defendants don't really change for them. I do believe that they should receive some sort of punishment, just like my opinion on the Speluncean Explorers, but being put to death is too extreme, since their original intent was not to go off murdering innocent

Police were called to reports of a fight at Spalding House on Turnham Road around 6.15pm, where they found the victim and another teenage boy with stab wounds.

She did have a living will which stated that if anything happened to her that she did not want to be on life support and did not want to be resuscitated. She actually had it registered through her health care provider which is Aurora that asks patients if they want to fill out a living will. Her wishes were granted when she had passed, but unfortunately when she past the son that was living with the mother drained all of her accounts and started selling off her stuff even before his brother got there. His brother Jack told him that his mother never had a will and since he was living in the house with her that he had every right to keep the money and do what he wanted with his things. John the youngest of the brothers took his brother to court because he never asked if he could sell her things and take all of her money. It turned out that she did have a living will along with the finance and property laid out on how all of her assets would be split up and who got what. After about three months one of their mothers friends you had kept the will and gave it to both Jack and John. Needless to say that John won his case and was ordered to pay back half of everything that he took and for the items that he sold. When people do not have living wills or any kind of wills it can cause problems in a family on what they should do and who should get

there was no rape. Since the boys were tried as adults, the public was made known of this instance. All social media will depict these boys as people who was charged of rape, and make it hard for them to be employed in the future. This will ruin the innocent boys’ reputation and future.

2. She wishes to buried next to Dad and she has given the plot deed to Will.

Jackie Kennedy Onassis left gifts to Mellon, Tempelsman, and Forger, but she listed them in her will as “friends”. Because they predeceased the testator and no alternative beneficiaries were stated for their gifts, one must look to see if there is an applicable Stage 2 anti-lapse statute. Under both Stage 2 and Stage 3 majority rules, anti-lapse statutes do not protect “friends”; therefore the gifts would fail. It is possible that First D could be construed as naming Jackie’s children as alternate beneficiaries if First A, B, & C failed, so the testator’s surviving children would take these gifts.

possession of his property still owns it and will get it back later depending on their agreement.

He said that over the years, he gave away his shares to his wife and children to provide for them after his death and to avoid estate duty. He said a 'mutual understanding', grounded in filial piety, was in force - that, even with a minority stake, he could manage the companies and have a final say.