Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/28/2003 1:48:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 4:47:23 PM EDT by clean_cut]
This is not a current news story, but dates back to 1993 in Texas. I have pasted the account below. This is an example of the justice system going wrong. The accused molester was the woman's husband and the child's father - a sick man. I have omitted graphic accounts of what he did.


On January 6, 1993, Dolores Markee, killed the sexual molester of her daughter then age three. Ten months later, Dolores was tried, convicted and sentenced to 58 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Dolores has never been in any kind of trouble with the law prior to this in her entire life. She was charged with murder for the shooting of her daughter’s sexually abusive father (George Paouris). The circumstances surrounding her deed, are anything but typical.


Dolores married George Paouris, decedent, in 1984. George was in the Greek Navy. During their marriage, they lived in several places in the United States and then moved to Greece.
George’s behavior deteriorated with heavy drinking, verbal abuse, and jealousy.


In May 1991, at the end of one of Raquel’s visits with George, Dolores discovered evidence of sexual abuse. Dolores observed Raquel (32 months old) “touching” herself in a sensuous and seductive manner. Raquel told Dolores that “daddy showed her how to do that.” (Omission) Dolores took Raquel to the hospital and they reported the incident to the police department. Dolores and Raquel were referred to Child Protective Services, and the District Attorney’s Office.


Dolores was advised to withhold visitation to protect Raquel. Subsequently, George filed for reinstatement of visitation. The District Attorney’s Office decided not to proceed with the case involving the May 1991, allegations because Raquel was “not old enough to testify.” Dolores withdrew her sponsorship of George’s petition for citizenship. George remarried in July 1991, one week before his time to be deported.


Incredibly, in July 1992, Dolores lost custody of Raquel to her abusive father, George. Judge Carlton Spears said, in his opinion, the sexual abuse did not occur, and because George was “just under indictment” that, could not be used against him. The Assistant District Attorneys were not allowed to testify on Dolores’ behalf due to the pending criminal charges against George.


The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the transcripts of Judge Carlton Spears’ decision, and did not change their opinion regarding the strength of their case against George. However after George got custody of Raquel her whole personality started to change and she would not talk to the District Attorneys about the sexual abuse even after repeated efforts by the District Attorney’s Office.


On January 6, 1993, Dolores and Raquel met with the District Attorney. Dolores was informed that the State could not proceed with the case against George because Raquel was, “Afraid to talk.” Back at her home, Raquel told Dolores that George had sexually abused her the previous night, “Daddy put his hand in my pajamas and I didn’t like it.” “Mommy, I couldn’t breath!” Dolores was due to return Raquel to George that same evening.


After seeking all avenues to protect Raquel, with little to no success, confrontation with the abuser, George, was the only thing left. Dolores went to question George about the abuse, taking a gun because of her fear or him. After a discussion with George outside his house with no results, Dolores turned to leave. Then George told her that he had “solved his immigration problems, the girl (Raquel) would live with him forever, the court was on his side and he could do what ever he wanted to Raquel or Dolores!” Dolores knew what he meant and pulled the gun from her pocket and fired hitting George nine times including the genitals. Dolores waited for the police to arrive and told them over and over, “He molested my baby.”


George was killed in a crime of passion. Dolores’ efforts were to protect Raquel. George sexually abused Raquel. He was going to do it again and again and there was nothing anyone was doing to stop him.


So why was Dolores sentenced to fifty-eight years for protecting her daughter? Perhaps it was due to not accepting a 20 year plea-bargain offered by the State. Undoubtedly it was due to the “motion in Limine” filed by the State that prevented Dolores’ attorneys from questioning witnesses regarding their opinion whether George was the perpetrator of sexual abuse upon Raquel. The motion in Limine prevents anything negative about the deceased being used in court.


The jury never got to hear the child victim advocates and the three District Attorney testify about their opinion that Raquel had been sexually abused by George. Additional proof of the Raquel’s sexual abuse, not provided to the jury, includes a police report by officer Peterson where Raquel told the officer that George had sexually abused her.


Was killing George a good thing? No! Dolores tried for over eighteen months to get the “system” to help protect her daughter. Was letting George continue to sexually abuse Raquel a good thing? Absolutely No! If Dolores did not protect Raquel from sexual abuse she would be not better than the sexual molester. The difference, Dolores would have been prosecuted for child neglect.


Only in Texas can you kill someone for breaking your garage windows, or kill someone for trying to steal you pickup truck; but you cannot protect your child from sexual abuse.

Link Posted: 11/28/2003 1:59:02 PM EDT
Undoubtedly it was due to the “motion in Limine” filed by the State that prevented Dolores’ attorneys from questioning witnesses regarding their opinion whether George was the perpetrator of sexual abuse upon Raquel. The motion in Limine prevents anything negative about the deceased being used in court.
View Quote
As politely as possible (trying not to be the mod that sets the bad example for everybody else not to follow), what in the HELL kind of shit is this? Any lawyers care to weigh in here?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 1:59:13 PM EDT
I would do anything to get on that jury, and there is no way in hell I would convict. Period.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 1:59:39 PM EDT
Is this woman still in prison?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:10:24 PM EDT
One thing for sure....he's not molesting her anymore. I bet hell's hot.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:14:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 2:16:54 PM EDT by FLAL1A]
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Undoubtedly it was due to the “motion in Limine” filed by the State that prevented Dolores’ attorneys from questioning witnesses regarding their opinion whether George was the perpetrator of sexual abuse upon Raquel. The motion in Limine prevents anything negative about the deceased being used in court.
View Quote
As politely as possible (trying not to be the mod that sets the bad example for everybody else not to follow), what in the HELL kind of shit is this? Any lawyers care to weigh in here?
View Quote
I can't tell whether this motion was decided correctly, but I can tell you what it means. "In limine" is Latin for "in [or 'at'] the doorway." A Motion in Limine is a motion to prevent the raising of specified issues during a proceeding. For example, in a rape case, a prosecutor might seek to exclude evidence that the victim was a tramp, even if it were true, because prior conduct wouldn't disclose whether she consented on the occasion in question. This is called "legal relevance (or irrelevance)." To be legally relevant, the probative value of evidence must outweigh any prejudicial impact. This is why you can't (except in narrow circumstances) introduce evidence of unrelated prior criminality in a prosecution to prove that the defendant is likely to have committed the charged offense. While it is factually more likely that a thief would have done a robbery than a non-thief, the law considers that the prejudice ("What the hell, he's a thief. Fuck 'im.) outweighs the limited extent to which the prior thefts prove guilt of [i]this[/i] robbery. Here, the judge decided that the evidence of the victim's prior molestation (which looks to have been pretty thin) was more prejudicial to the prosecution than it was legitimately probative of innocence (i.e., that the killing was justified, or at least unpremeditated). Bear in mind that she had failed to convince at least 1 family law judge that the dead guy was a molester. Family law judges are usually very sensitive (excessively so) to such claims. It is [b]VERY[/b] important to remember that this story is only outrageous if the guy was actually a molester, and we don't know whether he was or not. The proper consideration is the fact that the evidence the defendant had available was too weak to cross the very threshhold of admissibility on her behalf - as a defendant, who receives the benefit of every doubt in such matters. That said, it should surely have been admissible in sentencing (which in TX I think is done by juries) as mitigation. OTOH, it is all hearsay, and from the story wholly uncorroborated - IOW, we only know that the shooter [i]says[/i] that her daughter made these comments. I know if I were on trial for murder I'd like to be able to come with a story that made the dead guy sound like a child molester. If that's all I had - a story - it's likely a jury would never hear it, and they probably shouldn't.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:22:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 2:23:22 PM EDT by clean_cut]
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Undoubtedly it was due to the “motion in Limine” filed by the State that prevented Dolores’ attorneys from questioning witnesses regarding their opinion whether George was the perpetrator of sexual abuse upon Raquel. The motion in Limine prevents anything negative about the deceased being used in court.
View Quote
As politely as possible (trying not to be the mod that sets the bad example for everybody else not to follow), what in the HELL kind of shit is this? Any lawyers care to weigh in here?
View Quote
I can't tell whether this motion was decided correctly, but I can tell you what it means. "In limine" is Latin for "in [or 'at'] the doorway." A Motion in Limine is a motion to prevent the raising of specified issues during a proceeding. For example, in a rape case, a prosecutor might seek to exclude evidence that the victim was a tramp, even if it were true, because prior conduct wouldn't disclose whether she consented on the occasion in question. This is called "legal relevance (or irrelevance)." To be legally relevant, the probative value of evidence must outweigh any prejudicial impact. This is why you can't (except in narrow circumstances) introduce evidence of unrelated prior criminality in a prosecution to prove that the defendant is likely to have committed the charged offense. While it is factually more likely that a thief would have done a robbery than a non-thief, the law considers that the prejudice ("What the hell, he's a thief. Fuck 'im.) outweighs the limited extent to which the prior thefts prove guilt of [i]this[/i] robbery. Here, the judge decided that the evidence of the victim's prior molestation (which looks to have been pretty thin) was more prejudicial to the prosecution than it was legitimately probative of innocence (i.e., that the killing was justified, or at least unpremeditated). Bear in mind that she had failed to convince at least 1 family law judge that the dead guy was a molester. Family law judges are usually very sensitive (excessively so) to such claims. It is [b]VERY[/b] important to remember that this story is only outrageous if the guy was actually a molester, and we don't know whether he was or not. The proper consideration is the fact that the evidence the defendant had available was too weak to cross the very threshhold of admissibility on her behalf - as a defendant, who receives the benefit of every doubt in such matters. That said, it should surely have been admissible in sentencing (which in TX I think is done by juries) as mitigation. OTOH, it is all hearsay, and from the story wholly uncorroborated - IOW, we only know that the shooter [i]says[/i] that her daughter made these comments. I know if I were on trial for murder I'd like to be able to come with a story that made the dead guy sound like a child molester. If that's all I had - a story - it's likely a jury would never hear it, and they probably shouldn't.
View Quote
FLAL1A, I left out this paragraph for the sake of brevity. There was documented medical proof. "The medical sexual assault examinations were not presented to the jury. The examination of Raquel on October 1991, indicates physical findings consistent with manipulation of the genital area, and that Raquel told medical personnel of oral-genital contact by George. The prosecutor told the jury “you never heard any testimony from anyone, other than Dolores, that Raquel was molested.” How could they? The state did not allow the testimony, by filing the 'Motion in Limine.' "
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:27:59 PM EDT
Wonder how many of you who were harping on the "gay-library-magazine" vandals will weigh in similarly here. [devil's advocate]She [b]did[/b] break the law. There are proper channels for punishing law breakers. Vigilantism is not tolerable.[/devil's advocate]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:42:21 PM EDT
The Child is now a teenager. I wonder if she would be allowed to appear at Parole hearings on her mothers behalf?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:48:12 PM EDT
Motive/Means/Opportunity--what was the jury told about motive? As a juror, I'd like to know why someone was killed. What a cluster-fuck.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:54:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 2:59:24 PM EDT by FLAL1A]
I am puzzled that the shooter's story didn't come in at the sentencing, where just about anything - literally including "She was a quiet baby and never gave me any trouble" and "He's very good at painting by Numbers" is typically admissible. Though my explanation of the Motion in Limine procedure didn't say so, people are usually allowed, even in the guilt phase of a trial, to explain [i]why[/i] they did the crime, as long as they admit doing it. At the margins ("I robbed the liquor store because I needed rent money") this generalization breaks down, but in homicides, it's very rare for a defendant not to get the chance to say why, if he admits causing the death. One last thing, which I offer merely as fact and not as an advocate for anything (about this case I know only what's in this thread): Having handled many cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, the number of findings (both medical and psychological) which are "consistent with sexual abuse" is nearly infinite, and most, if not all, of them are equally consistent with purely innocent events.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 2:56:57 PM EDT
Well, if he did it then he deserved more than a bullet. BUT, what if he didn't? Women frequently accuse men of some kind of abuse without any foundation for the claim. Children are often brought into the middle of this and are used by one of the parents for their own ulterior motives. I should know. I am one of the people they bring their kids to in order to attempt to establish a foundation for their accusation. If you saw the shit people try to pull you'd understand where I am coming from. I am the original skeptic. And with damn good reason, I can assure you all. One thing's for sure: We'll never hear George's side of the story will we?
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 3:12:37 PM EDT
I used to live in Texas and they had some strange laws. For example you could drink beer and drive. If you were caught smoking pot, you got a manditory 20 year sentence, more than if you had raped a woman. Most murders (in any state) get paroled in an average of 8 years. If you kill someone high-profile, all bets are off. Sounds to me like this poor woman got a lawyer that should have never been a lawyer.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 3:24:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Railman44: Sounds to me like this poor woman got a lawyer that should have never been a lawyer.
View Quote
Sadly, that's my guess too.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 3:26:53 PM EDT
Shame it isn't in California. Schwarzenager pardoned a woman for a similar "crime" today.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 3:43:36 PM EDT
Considering in Texas it is legal to use deadly force to protect property (Only at night ??) and in many jurisdictions to protect others from an immediate threat I wonder why there is no mention of that defense. Or any attempt at jury nullification. Was there any appeal based on the failure to allow the evidence? why didn't some advocacy group get involved here. Then again we sure aren't seeing the whole story here, so it may have been tried. Where was the child? what reports had been made to Child Services, other medical reports, was there an imminent threat to the child, did she bushwhack him? Did she empty the gun reload and start shooting again? In any case taking the law into your own hands is fraught with peril and very likely involves criminality on the person's part. In any case, the magnitude of the sentence implies that nobody anywhere believed her defense.
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:02:47 PM EDT
she should get a medal
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:27:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: Is this woman still in prison?
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 4:42:05 PM EDT
Check this link out. It's one of those prison personals. There's a pic of her in it. I [i]think[/i] this is her - the age matches. [url]http://prison-penpals.com/photo/pwmo468.html[/url] Would you date this woman? Also, here is another website about her. [url]http://www.patrickcrusade.org/dmarkee.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 11/28/2003 6:52:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2003 6:54:41 PM EDT by drjarhead]
Originally Posted By PaDanby: In any case, the magnitude of the sentence implies that nobody anywhere believed her defense.
View Quote
Well, we agree on something. Maybe you should reconsider[;)] For 3 years I've listened to you guys bitch about the underhanded shit their wives pull, etc, etc. Seen it plenty with friends and family, seen it professionally and been on the receiving end of plenty of underhanded female bullshit at work. Hell, most women I know can't stand working with one another due to all the back stabbing bullshit that goes on. Now all of a sudden everyone thinks some guy deserved to be murdered based on one person's accusation. And I ain't talking about the kid here. Who knows what kind of crap Mommy planted in her head. Alot of the story is not being shown, and never will be since a mag full of bullets silenced it. I really think you guys ought to reserve judgement on this one. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Top Top