News conference right now in SLC.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 01:11PM by cl2.

So sad. I ache for her family.

Either can I. As a parent, I always dreaded that it could happen, but luckily enough for me it hasn't. What agony.

I hate to think about her final hours, poor thing.

Thank you for letting us know.

I hope he gets the firing squad.

Strange.

so he is familiar with the Logan area. They didn't say how they found her body.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 01:34PM by cl2.

It isn't that strange. He abducted her from the Salt Lake area. He raped her, tortured her, then murdered her. The Logan Canyon is as good a place as any for a psycho to hide a body he thinks will never be found. And isn't that far a drive from either SLC or from Provo.

The guy was on a testosterone high. Isn't that the way it is for psychos when they murder someone? It's the thrill of the kill that keeps them hunting for more. Like Ted B-undy.

One assumes that investigators realized that the remains in the backyard burn pit did not constitute her entire body. Hopefully they did not make any deal with the perp...

Had they made a deal, that can be abrogated upon the introduction of new information and evidence. And if there are two different victims, then those are two cases, two jurisdictions. Prosecutors would collaborate, and decide whether to combine them or proceed separately and/or sequentially.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 01:43PM by caffiend.

I'm working with the info in the OP...

Why you gotta complete things?

Right now, based on posters' remarks, all we have is remains of one, or two women, sixty miles apart.

It looks like the things burned in the man's yard may have been her personal effects--"several charred items that were consistent with personal items of Mackenzie Lueck"--while the body itself was found in Logan Canyon.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/us/mackenzie-lueck-investigation/index.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 03:38PM by Lot's Wife.

was that of MacKenzie. I don't know how they ended up finding her body. I also hope they didn't make a deal with him.

The only possible deal they could have made is to remove the death penalty from the table, similar to what they did with that uncle up in Logan.

I have no problem with that sort of negotiation since I'm opposed to the death penalty anyway. However, there is a secondary motive on the part of a prosecutor that shouldn't be ignored. Simply that it is a lot easier to prosecute for murder when law enforcement has recovered the victim. If the choice is between going to court with less evidence but the death penalty on the table or more evidence with the death penalty off the table I think the right choice is to make a deal.

I hope they didn't remove the death penalty.

Maybe they kept him awake for a long enough amount of time he started to speak from sleep deprivation.

They found her DNA in his backyard, enough to charge him with some crime to hold him. They needed her body to be able to charge him with murder. That's the way SLC DA works. The Susan Powell case was a strong circumstancial evidence case that could have won a successful prosecution had the DA brought it to trial. It lacked the resolution to make an arrest of Scott Powell that is what led to his murdering his two little boys when he did, because they didn't take him into custody despite overwhelming evidence. Even their little boys told authorities how they went with their mommy when he drove them into the desert to dump her body into some abandoned mine shaft.

The Martin MacNeill case would never have been brought were it not for his daughters working hard to bring their father to justice for murdering their mother. The Utah district attorneys lack the skills or oversight to do detective work without a clearcut case.

Now they have a body, so it will be easier for them to bring this defendant to trial and get a conviction, and justice for the family. Otherwise, they'd sit on it with only the circumstantial evidence they collected up until today.

He is a would-be serial murder and should die by firing squad. He has no redeeming qualities.

Who knows who he may have murdered before this young woman?

Yeah and he was made an American citizen. He should be stripped of that and deported back to Nigeria after a few decades in prison.

On second thoughts, maybe he can serve time in a Nigerian prison instwad. I imagine they're lovely.

He'll either die in prison in Utah with a life sentence, or be executed by firing squad. Either way he'll never get off that island for Nigeria. He's hellbound from here on out.

He'll get his due process, and then rot in prison where he belongs. Where he won't be able to inflict anymore harm on any more victims.

Dying by firing squad would be too kind to him, I think. He should be made to suffer first for what he's done.

Amyjo Wrote:

>
> Dying by firing squad would be too kind to him, I
> think. He should be made to suffer first for what
> he's done.


I agree, but isn't such essentially true for all of those eligible for the death penalty? Doesn't it make a case for not executing the most heinous of criminals, and if we're not going to execute the most heinous of criminals, should we really execute any of them?

Executions are very expensive, if states can even get them done. It’s almost a waste of time to go to the trouble when life in prison is so much cheaper. Besides, once on the inside this guy’s toast.

Absolutely.

And what that is has been the subject of very extensive moral, philosophical, and legal debate. We could go on quite a bit, but then, there goes the thread.

I myself don't think firing squad is cruel and unusual--it has been used in many nations, cultures, and periods. If your curiosity runs morbid, search "executing Nazi spies firing squad" and there are on-line videos. I'm kind of hard-boiled about all these things.

What does interest me is that Utah has (if I understand correctly) a condemned prisoner's option for firing squad. I can't argue this factually, but it strikes me as a religious/legal/cultural legacy from the old Blood Atonement doctrine, that a malefactor can enjoy some spiritual solace by "having his blood spilled on the ground."

I'd just as soon deprive these fiends of such terminal comfort and hope. Then again, if it were up to me, Osama Bin Laden's body orifices would have been stuffed with bacon before tossing him off the aircraft carrier deck.

The law is complex in Utah. Firing squad used to be an option, for the historical reasons to which you allude, but was then prohibited several years ago. The state then admitted it as a backup procedure if the chemicals for lethal injection are for any reason unavailable. But barring that eventuality, I think it is now illegal.

On the role of capital punishment in general, I agree with you. I don't think those who commit premeditated or other aggravated crimes deserve any mercy, but life in prison is in some ways a greater burden.

Dos pesos.

The "backup" firing squad provision sounds like a backdoor way to reintroduce it. There must be a plethora of fatal chemicals that can be used, combined with a powerful soporific. I wonder if hanging is still allowed anywhere..?

Regarding capital punishment: One the one hand, there are provable cases of executed prisoners later exonerated; OTOH, if the likes of Tsarnev are executed, the chance of some bleeding heart pardoning him always remains. My foot-on-both-sides-of-the-fence solution: allow capital punishment, but only when physical evidence substantially outweighs eyewitness testimony. Nobody should be executed on the basis of eyewitnesses alone.

dos kronor



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 12:33AM by caffiend.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "backup" firing squad provision sounds like a
> backdoor way to reintroduce it.

Possibly. Or a sop to the TBMs who know of blood atonement, who are not numerous. I guess it could happen again but I am somewhat skeptical.


-------------
> Regarding capital punishment: One the one hand,
> there are provable cases of executed prisoners
> later exonerated;

That's a point I should have addressed earlier. False convictions are not rare, and society should bend over backwards to allow mistakes to be rectified. If pressed, I'd probably say that fact alone militates in favor of an across-the-board ban.

I'd add that as far as I know--having spoken to an attorney who prosecutes serious criminals--executing people is much more expensive than imprisoning them for life. Not that that matters in comparison to either the seriousness of the crime or the possibility of the innocent being convicted.


-------------
OTOH, if the likes of Tsarnev
> are executed, the chance of some bleeding heart
> pardoning him always remains.

I think it is easy to exaggerate the effect of this sort of thing. The uproar in the country would be overwhelming.

Liang fun

I post the following for those who do advocate capital punishment, sometimes with dramatically morbid details, which are understandable with a gruesome case such as this.

I writr as one who favors capital punishment, provided it is applied to a select few crimes (e.g. political assassination, murder of a first responder in performance of his duties, homicide with rape or torture, etc.) and if there is irrefutable physical and/or video evidence (not witness testimony alone).

That said, here is an article relating an execution in Saudi Arabia. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/the_morning_they_beheaded_the_drug_smugglers_it_wasnt_pretty_believe_me.html

For what it is worth, I oppose the death penalty. Too many wrongful convictions, not enough equality before the courts.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For what it is worth, I oppose the death penalty.
> Too many wrongful convictions, not enough equality
> before the courts.

Strip him of US citizenship and return him to his native Nigeria with no prospect of re-entry to the States.

On what basis?

He originated in Nigeria. A western country did him a favor and now that favor should be retracted. There is no reason why he should continue to pive in the USA as an alien criminal.

Well, as a Canadian who writes the word "colour," thinks he is "different to" people in the United States, and says another person "has the cheek to" do something bold; as someone who styled himself CanuckExmo and LogicalCanuckExmo, I guess it is asking too much to expect you to have a rudimentary understanding of the US constitution and constitutional law.

His crime does not obviate his citizenship. Sorry.

"have a rudimentary understanding of the US constitution and constitutional law."

If these prevent deportation of violent criminals, murderers, rapists, then they should be changed. Ditto the rescinding of US citizenship. It is not as if they haven't been changed again and again in the past.

It is not a sacred, immutable or infallible document.

There is absolutely no benefit to keeping them. After serving twenty years and/or gaining parole, he can be returned to Nigeria sans passport. The Nigerian authorities will not treat him so gently.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His crime does not obviate his citizenship. Sorry.

Change it then! Gaining citizenship of another country is a privilege not a right, and a vile crime like this is more than enough reason to retract it.

His property should all be confiscated and the proceeds given to Lueck's family.

You're coming dangerously close to apologizing for what he did.

That's not how it's done here.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not how it's done here.

It's how it can be done and should be done.

If the man got into debt or a drunken argument, that might be different, but you have here a full blown premeditated sexual assault and murder.

You don't need to keep those type of people in the USA. You owe them nothing.

Should we forward your comments to the proper authorities, or do you prefer contacting them directly so that can get a first-hand look at your news and views?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should we forward your comments to the proper
> authorities, or do you prefer contacting them
> directly so that can get a first-hand look at your
> news and views?

Why don't you have the courage to campaign for such a change?

What benefit is there to a) keeping him in the USA and b) letting him keep US citizenship? None.

It doesn't take "courage" to augment the power of the state to throw people you don't like them. It takes courage to insist that the murderer be given due process of law in spite of his well-deserved infamy.

Your way--ignoring the constitution when you don't like the outcome--is not courageous, it is pusillanimous.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't take "courage" to augment the power of
> the state to throw people you don't like them.

Can you describe what he did to this young woman please? It is not an issue of liking or not liking the man, he is clearly a dangerous criminal (and the evidence seems to be very damning) and should be treated as one.

>It
> takes courage to insist that the murderer be given
> due process of law in spite of his well-deserved
> infamy.

Yes, try him. Investigate the evidence. On the off chance he might be innocent, but I doubt it considering what I've heard. Imprison him and strip him of citizenship and then deport.

He forfeited many of his citizen's rights when he committed the crime. Felons lose many of their rights. He should lose American citizenship.

Your insistence that he stays an American is bizarre.

> Your way--ignoring the constitution when you don't
> like the outcome--is not courageous, it is
> pusillanimous.

Change the constitution then. The USA has done so many times before. In this case it would be injurious to the safety of American citizens.

It also sends out a message to anyome applying for US citizenship with a criminal past.

Thanks for chiming in. I'm sure someone will be in touch. Rewriting the constitution will take time. Polish your quill.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for chiming in. I'm sure someone will be
> in touch. Rewriting the constitution will take
> time. Polish your quill.

Yes, far better to keep murderers,

I know it says at the base of the Statue of Liberty to bring "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore", but I think if the refuse falls under the category of murdering rapist, war criminal or bank robber, then maybe it should be sent back to its teeming shore.

There is NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER to keeping this man in the USA.

Ride that horse right to the glue factory, hoser.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ride that horse right to the glue factory, hoser.

What is the benefit to you of him retaining US citizenship and staying in the USA?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might get me thrown out of America.

Besides, it's very personal...

The benefit to EOD is that EOD's citizenship is then guaranteed. The moment the state starts ignoring its constitutional restraints, everyone's citizenship is degraded.

That you do not comprehend that fact is another indication that constitutional republics with limited government are not a natural "fit" for you. And Canada isn't that different from the US. Your inclinations evince basic values that are not consonant with Western constitutional democracy of any sort.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The benefit to EOD is that EOD's citizenship is
> then guaranteed. The moment the state starts
> ignoring its constitutional restraints, everyone's
> citizenship is degraded.
>
> That you do not comprehend that fact is another
> indication that constitutional republics with
> limited government are not a natural "fit" for
> you. And Canada isn't that different from the US.
> Your inclinations evince basic values that are
> not consonant with Western constitutional
> democracy of any sort.

Most Canadian law is not fit for purpose either, and the country is headed up by a clown who inherited his job (two if you count her Maj).

The west has not been careful enough in filtering who comes to live there. He may have been convincing when he applied to be a US citizen but his subsequent behavior has shown that he should not be one.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. You would sooner have a murderer living off the state purse than deport him. Ludricrous.

You've outed yourself.

Oh yeah, you are an authoritarian.

That fact should be born in mind by everyone whenever they read your political asides. You are an enemy of constitutional rule and limited government.

When combined with your racist and misogynistic inclinations, that authoritarianism should be a real cause for alarm.

I was frantic with alarm when he used "erm" in a written response...

It was like I knew what chickens felt like when they suddenly found themselves headless!

What don't you get about being a nation of laws? We don't make up the penal code as we go along. I'm beginning to think you are some kind of Russian troll, because you don't seem to care how things work in the real world. You just want to make controversial statements.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you get about being a nation of laws?

Laws change. They always have. We don't burn witches anymore or have trial by ordeal. That's all gone. More sophisticated laws replaced them (in most cases, although questionablw ones have come along too.)

> We don't make up the penal code as we go along.

Erm, yes you do. That's how laws are made. People make them up.

And when legal codes are not fit for purpose, they can be changed such as when the American colonists rebelled against their government, and made up a new penal code.



> I'm beginning to think you are some kind of
> Russian troll,

Always the Russians! My Russian is pretty negligible beyond being able to read the Cyrillic alphabet and a course I took nearly thirty years ago.

Why would I possibly be Russian? What benefit would the Russians have out of going on a board aimed at ex-Mormons?

Most of those Russian bots and trolls are imaginary. They're just a boogeyman. I would be more worried about what Google is up to right now. It's a hell of a lot scarier. The Chinese are also far more dangerous than the Ruskies and still a Communist dictatorship which manufactures most of your electronics.

Right . . . . .

This is a perfect example of how you are at heart a statist and an authoritarian.

Constitutions protect individual liberties from the power of the state. Citizenship is defined constitutionally and by subordinate laws, again to protect the rights of the individual. Unless this murderer applied for citizenship under false premises, he is a citizen and accordingly cannot be deported. Constitutionally and legally, the man is as much a citizen as any other.

You claim to be a conservative, but whenever something occurs that you find upsetting you call for the government to step in, ignore the constitution, and do what you want. That is the definition of someone who does not want to reside in a democratic constitutional republic but would prefer that the authorities act without restraint (at least with regard to things you want).

I would add that your description of the man as "Nigerian" and "those type [sic] of people" indicates a tacit racism that renders your statism even more offensive. For it implies that foreign ethnicity or other innate characteristics cloud your views regarding the applicability of laws. The issue should frankly never come up when discussing constitutionality.

The constitution covers all citizens. The United States assuredly does owe naturalized citizens every constitutional right, for under that constitution we are all "those type [sic] of people." This is not an authoritarian country; there ares still limits on the power of the state.

At least for now.

"This is a perfect example of how you are at heart a statist and an authoritarian"

Erm no.

I am arguing that he is not paid for by the state. So not a statist argument.

I am also arguing that US authority be removed from him and he be sent back to his country of origin to be dealt with there.

You on the other hand, want to keep a violent sex offender as part of the state economy, paid for by the American tax payer. You still haven't stated what benefit to the USA there is in keeping him there.

Give him a poison pill and a sheet of directions. It won't give him the agony he's entitled to but it will save the state time and money.

The holy ghost promptings failed again.