Comments on: Bob Dunning: Trial coverage is about justice, not the bottom line

By: natomaslbgtq

natomaslbgtq — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:52:29 +0000

My prayers are for the family of dear Claudia and Chip. My praise to those with kind words and sympathy for the victims and their families, and not in support of the murderer. Let us not forget the victims! “Live like Claudia and Chip!” They where such good people. The murderer does not deserve to live or for anyone to think he is a victim. If anyone wants to be soft on any murderer, any murders then shame on you for allowing and encouraging this to happen. These are good elderly people who only deserve good, not to be awaken and murdered in their bed by a crazy kid with a mask, gloves and dark coat.

By: Lisa N.

Lisa N. — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:47:02 +0000

I couldn’t agree more with Bob Dunning! The public should absolutely know everything. I live right down the road from the defendants house, having to pass it several times a day. Prior to the murders I was living under a false sense of security with windows WIDE open! I went out soon after and bought locks for all my windows, and talked to my children about what happened. I believe knowledge is power and even my kids need to know there are sickos (even peers) anywhere! I have taught them to trust their instincts and report anything that feels wrong to them. I shudder to think had Daniel Marsh chosen our home with my precious children sound asleep inside that night. In Daniels confession to police officers (ANOTHER IMPORTANT DETAIL TO BE AWARE OF) he said he was looking to murder again and bash their head in with a baseball bat. Before that, I thought nothing of allowing my soon to be 13 year old son to walk Putah Creek path alone to and from Montgomery Elementary school. Eh, not anymore! It’s a huge wake up call that these horrific types of things DO happen even in Davis. We are not immune. The big question we should all be asking ourselves as parents, and community members is what did we miss? Were there red flags, warnings signs that we ignored that could have potentially foreseen & thwarted Daniel Marsh in committing the heinous murders of Chip and Claudia? Could there have been early intervention therapy applied here? I am disgusted the people of Davis are not making a bigger deal of this. It’s virtually swept under the rug. I also think a civil suit should be filed again both parents for failing to successfully help their son. They knew Daniel was very ill, yet they allowed him to roam free and without consequence.

By: Rich Rifkin

Rich Rifkin — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 02:06:08 +0000

“It always strikes me as odd when people jump on the “underage” bandwagon in such a case as the Chip murders.” ……….. Before any criminal case goes to trial I think it is reasonable and wise to have the court–not the prosecutor or defense–look into the question of the defendant’s ability to make rational decisions and understand right from wrong. If a defendant is seriously mentally ill, I don’t think he ought to be held to account for his crimes. He would be, however, a grave danger to society and such persons need to be held in locked psychiatric facilities where they would get proper medical treatment. If a defendant is severely retarded, I again don’t think he ought to be held to account for his crimes. But like the psychotic, he also should no longer be free to walk our streets. Lastly, if the defendant is a minor child, the court should inquire as to his ability to understand right from wrong. In the case of a 15-year-old, barring retardation or psychosis, I think the answer must be yes. But with some very young children who do horrible acts, they are unable to understand right from wrong. And because of that, they don’t belong in the criminal (juvenile) justice system. They likely need much better parents. And where one goes for that I am not sure.

By: Noreen Mazelis

Noreen Mazelis — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 01:13:25 +0000

Well said, Fred Harvey.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:22:59 +0000

Bob says the motion to suppress should be denied, but says literally nothing to explain why. He only discusses why the hearing on that motion shouldn’t be closed. I doubt he even meant to opine on whether the motion should be denied. Those with a public forum should be cautious in discussing these things, especially since the members of the same public who read the newspaper may be called upon to serve as jurors. (That is why it may be necessary to close pretrial hearings. It’s not about the defendant’s age.)