It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by asperetty
well, she could have gone to the police and reported her case. no reason to kill the man.
But prosecutors argued at trial that Howard no longer employed Kruzan at the time of the killing, and that a week earlier, she had moved into the Rubidoux home of one of Howard’s rivals — a drug dealer who put her up to robbing and shooting him.
On March 10, 1994, Kruzan agreed to go to the movies with the 36-year-old Howard and spend the night with him at the Dynasty Suites motel on Iowa Avenue. She packed a pistol.
“She seduced and she killed,” prosecutor Timothy Freer, now a Riverside Superior Court judge, told jurors.
Kruzan confessed to the slaying upon her arrest, four days after a maid found her purse left behind at the motel. But it was only when she testified at trial that she stated Howard’s rival had threatened her life if she didn’t shoot him, prosecutors said.
The district attorney’s office offered a plea deal that offered Kruzan possible parole but she refused, officials said then. Her defense attorney, David Gunn, also now a judge in Riverside, asked Hanks to consider a lesser sentence, citing her upbringing and life under a pimp.
It didn’t appear that anyone else, including any relatives, spoke in Kruzan’s support at her 1995 sentencing.
In imposing the maximum sentence recommend by the jury, the now-retired Hanks then said she showed “no inhibition with regard to her conduct when a pimp asked her to kill another pimp.”
Originally posted by asperetty
well, she could have gone to the police and reported her case. no reason to kill the man.
Originally posted by mackblack27
Not everyone deserves to live especially rapist scum and the guy was a rapist a pimp and a peadophile so I only hope that his death was slow and painfull but sadly it wont have been painfull enough..
Originally posted by Esger
She had motive to kill him and that was not a act of self-defense (she was not working for him anymore). Aside her "abuse" past, looks like she killed on a contract with another "dealer".
Originally posted by mackblack27
And by your rational i suppose that the guy who raped and killed the two children in soham england could also be telling the truth.... can you apply your subjective logic to that a well?
Originally posted by mackblack27
Ok as regards the thread maybe we dont know if shes telling the truth but what if she is??