Sharon Collins — One Hand Convicted Of Clapping
Posted on Monday, November 3, 2008I don’t understand this.
Sharon Collins and Essam Eid were charged with conspiring together to murder PJ Howard and his sons Robert and Niall.
The State failed to prove that Essam Eid conspired with Sharon Collins, and entered a nolle prosequi, but Sharon Collins was still convicted of conspiring with Essam Eid.
Do you get the logic of that? I have to admit, I can’t see it. There are no other conspirators in the case, and therefore it seems to me that you have to prove they both conspired.
It seems to me that if you fail to convict one of them, it makes no sense to convict the other. After all, nobody can commit a conspiracy on their own.
What am I missing? I don’t get it.
Stumble it!
.JPG)
November 3rd, 2008
Perhaps Essam Eid and Sharon Commins are the same person, like Kyser Sozé. She looks a bit of a gimp. A bit weird her husband’s victims statement though. Weirder still the gards never asked him for one.
November 3rd, 2008
Sounds impeccable to me.
But surely the judge could not allow an internally inconsistent verdict.
Maybe there is something we are both missing here.
No doubt the paper of record will explain it all to us.
November 3rd, 2008
M’sieur le Craic — That’s probably the most sensible interpretation of this ludicrous case I’ve heard yet. Keyser Söze by God. Why didn’t anyone else think of that?
But the victim impact statements are also a bit troubling, aren’t they? I mean, since nobody was actually murdered, or even assaulted, it’s hard to see what impact the crime had on them, and I have to tell you, I think the two sons’ statements were complete bullshit.
Benny — I don’t know. Le craic’s theory seems solid enough. Sharon Collins and Essam Eid are both actually Keyser Söze. I can see nothing wrong with his logic.
November 3rd, 2008
Wasn’t she convicted because she believed she was hiring a killer, and the vegas dealer got off because they prooved he was only interested in getting the hitman money under false pretenses and not actually planning on doing the triple murders. Having said that how is his sentence the same as hers “6 years”. She should have gotten much more than him i.m.o., matbe 4 for him and 6 or 7 for her.
November 4th, 2008
The question isn’t why anyone was convicted.
The question is how.
As I understand it, a conspiracy can only take place once two or more people are involved. Therefore, if the prosecution failed to prove that one of those people conspired, it seems to me that they failed to prove a conspiracy took place, regardless of what Sharon Collins believed.
Yes? No?
November 4th, 2008
She believed she was arranging for her husband to be killed by another and this was proved. It was not proved that he was fully a party to it.
November 4th, 2008
But surely it takes two to have a conspiracy?
Was this a thought-crime?
November 4th, 2008
You’re right Bock. The fact that she planned to do away with them is in and of itself wrong but it cannot be thought of as an actual crime until she does it. If he didn’t conspire then therefore neither did she. Q.E.D. as they used to say in my day.
November 4th, 2008
Speaking of thought crime Bock, what do you make of this ?
http://perezhilton.com/2008-10-25-headline-of-the-week-weak-263#more-34488
November 4th, 2008
How should we deal with stings then?
November 5th, 2008
Sounds like she was duped - surprising as she also sounds an astute individual, buying a marriage certificate from Mexico and using the internet to find hitmanforhire.com…….
The moral of the story is if you want something doing, do it yourself.
Not that I’m condoning it you understand !
November 5th, 2008
Bonzer is correct!
November 5th, 2008
Correct about what? If I believe I killed you, am I guilty of murder?