SOCRACTIC SEMINAR - EXTENDED
SATURDAY CLASSES ONLY
The story of Nora Parham, a woman hanged in the early 1960’s for burning her lover to death, stands out as an unusual tragedy in Belize’s history – a tragic warning of the sordid end that domestic abuse can bring to relationships and more so, the long lasting psychological damage such travesties can have on the lives of surviving children.According to Sandra Trapp, daughter of Kitchel Trapp, Nora was an uncontrollably jealous woman who despised it when Trapp spoke with other women. She was the abusive one, and she used to throw tantrums, hit him and stone him with things.
Nora Parham was reportedly executed at the age of 36 on June 5, 1963 – the first and only woman to have been executed by our state.
Ramos, A. (2009, March 19). Was nora parham voliently jelous? Amandala .Retrieved October
10, 2009, from http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=8349
- Was Nora Parham violently jealous?
- If you were part of the jury to decide on the fate of Ms. Parham, given the evidence presented in court, how would you vote and why?
Lisa
ReplyDeleteReading about Sandra Trapp the daughter of Kitchell Trapp, the account was not convincing. It was conflicting information about Nora Parham and her father; I would say that her statement about what she saw would only go so far. What about Nora Parham's children who were always there to see what was happening? I would need to hear their side of the story. Sandra Trapp only visited her father, but did not live there, and therefore she might not have seen what he did to provoke Nora to behave in such a manner. I think her account is one-sided and conflicting. As human beings we are all jealous by nature but we might not know how this woman was provoked by her husband. I think anger and frustration are better words to use.
I would have voted for manslaughter instead of murder. This trial was hastily done and not much time was given for more witness’s accounts leading up to the incident. Not even her children were called to testify on their mother’s behalf.
They did not even have a fire chief to say whether the fire was deliberately set or where the fire was concentrated, no such effort was made based on the evidence, I would say she was not guilty of murder.
After reading this article I think that Sandra Trapp is very bias. She didn't live with her father and didn't know what was going on their home. I think that she is just trying to defend her father's actions instead of realizing the truth. Most women are considered to be jealous but that doesn't mean that they will go out and kill someone unless they have been provoked for example literally seeing the man kissing or fondling another woman. I strongly believe that Nora wasn't violently jealous but rather an abused woman who had had enough.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the case and listening to points raised by my class mates I agree that this case wasn't investigated properly. It was too swift and was based on strictly testimonies and not circumstantial evidence. The testimonies don't add up. Because of this I would have voted that she received pardon and let her serve a lesser time like the other woman who had committed a similar crime weeks after and only got 8 years. If this case had occurred in our time I would have voted for man 1 which states that she didn't commit the crime but was rather an accessory because she threw gas on him.
Based on the two article written by Ramos, A. (2009, March 19) and (07/04/2009), have come to the conclusion that we will never find out the truth of what truly took place between Parham and Trapp in 1963. We can only try to comprehend what happened based on what the articles are saying and based on the many accounts of people who were present at that time of the incident. On the other hand, I don't believe that Nora Parham was violently jealous because based on my readings I didn't find any evidence to support such statement so I disagree with what Sandra Trapp had to say about Ms. Nora Parham. On the contrary, evidence was found in the article that suggested that Trapp was the violent and abusive one. As mentioned by one witness namely Eric Williams, he recall an incident whereby Trapp kicked Nora down some stairs. Another witness, P.C. Hugh Donald Sanchez recall Nora Parham complaining several times of Trapp's abusive behavior towards her but yet nothing was done.
ReplyDeleteIf I were apart of the jury to decide on the fate of Ms. Parham given the evidence presented in court I am saddened to say that I would have found her guilty. I say this because the evidence presented in court suggested that in his statement Trapp stated that Parham locked him up in the latrine and lit him up and this was presented to the jurors, I believe that it was this said statement that caused Nora Parham her life. I believe that if the correct statement was given to the jurors which stated that Trapp said he was the one who went in the latrine and lit the cigarette which caused the fire then the jurors would have found her not guilty. However, the jurors were not told about the changing of Trapp's statement by Police. This was a devious act committed by the police officers who were in charge of this case. They were wrong to have changed the statement and the system failed Ms. Nora Parham. It is sad to say that these corruption by police officers still exist today. There are plenty of corrupted police officers who commit crimes to protect others and themselves. Ms. Nora Parham was a victim of our judiciary system,and this same pattern continues up to present but Ms. Nora Parham had to pay a high price. Many police officers today are involved in things like changing people's statements and many other wrongful acts that causes innocent people to be convicted and guilty people to be set free. It is sad to know that a woman was hanged wrongfully at the hands of police officers who were corrupted and who didn't conduct a proper investigation and didn't give Ms. Nora Parham a fair trial.
Good commentaries Lisa and Michele! Are you guys saying that Nora's lawyer did a poor job in defending her? What other strong evidences could he had used to help with Nora's defense?what's your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteHi Lisa, I strongly agree with your opinion as it pertains to Sandra Trapp. She is the daughter of Mr. Trapp, so more than likely she would defend her father and like you mentioned she didn't live there permanently so therefore she wouldn't be able to give detailed accounts of all that was taking place but only on what she saw based on her visits which would not be valid in my opinion. As it pertains to how I would vote, I wish I could say not guilty based on what I gathered from the articles read but based on the evidence provided back then they were very few for me to say that I would have found her to be innocent especially based on the statement read in the court that Trapp statement said she locked him up in the latrine and lit him on fire. However, if evidence was presented as what was stated in the article that the statement were changed, no doubt in my mind I would have been able to vote her not guilty. However, this information was not provided back then that's why in my view I think I would have voted similar to the jurors back then. On the contrary, I believe looking back at the case and reading the articles it is plain to see that she was innocent and merely a victim.
ReplyDeleteLisa
ReplyDeleteI think Nora Parham’s lawyer did her an injustice. He needed to have brought out evidence that could have possibly cleared her of murder. For example the fire chief could have been called as a witness. He could have given them important and crucial information on how the fire started and if it was deliberately set? Or did he do himself and injustice by smoking or lighting a cigarette after being doused with gasoline?
I agree with Melanie that Nora was a victim but I believe that Nora was not totally innocent. She contributed to his death one way or another. She was not guilty of murder but manslaughter. If she had not doused him with gasoline, he would not have caught fire.
Melanie,
ReplyDeleteYou have a throughout analysis.
Over this year, there seems to be some serious accounts coming forth over this case as reflected in the Amandala. The Museum of Belize features Nora Parham's case- an incredible story. Should there be a new court case to vindicate the legacy of Ms.Nova Parham?
Lloydia said...
ReplyDeleteI am sure that many rumors went around town of Trapp being abusive to Nora. So Trapp probably gave the excuse of Nora being jealous and being the abuser to his daughter, because he wanted to look good in her eyes. Both Mr. Trapp and Ms Parham are to be blamed for what happened. They both stayed in a relationship that should have been ended a long time ago.
Like most people in relationships, Nora was probably jealous. However, to say that she was the abuser is difficult for me to believe. Mr. Trapp being a police officer was definitely stronger and more influential in the society, therefore he was able to use the law to deal with her if she was abusive, and to have the law twisted in his favor.
If I were a part of the jury I would have found Ms. Parham guilty of manslaughter. Nora was a battered woman and Mr. Trapp confessed that he used to hit her. Nora had also made several reports of the abuse she received. Like any normal human being, one day she got enough and couldn't contain herself anymore. Nora was provoked by Trapp for a long time and that night she snapped. His abuse triggered her action. Her action was probably the cause of his death, but Mr. Trapp brought it upon himself. Abusive relationships can cost people their lives.
Hi Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Ms. Parham's children should have been called upon to testify on her behalf. I am positive that they were present during those abuses. Also what about her friends? They must have known too. I believe her lawyer didn't do much in defending her either. I am not sure the fire Chief would have been able to help much. Remember we are talking about 1963. Was the Fire Chief trained extensively back then? I don't think so. Just recently our country has started to formally train the staff at the fire department. Even our forensic office is still in infancy. Also back then police officers were preferred citizens, therefore the law would always rule in their favor.
I don't believe Nora Parham was violently jealous since there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that.However, it is evident that Nora was the victim of an abusive cop who felt secure in commiting such sever acts against Norma. I believe he felt as though he was higher than the law since in the General News article on page 5 which states that Nora had made reports to PC Hugh Donald Sanchez 8 or 9 times and nothing was done to help her.The article from the Amadala was bias. There is continous discrepencies in the surfacing of the Nora Parham story.This one article in particular shows only accounts for what Kitchell Trapp's daughter(Sandra Trapp) witnessed.For Sandra Trapp to say that Nora was jealous is expected. Who would speak negative about their dead father and besides she didn't reside with the couple.
ReplyDeleteI believe the entire system continues to fail. Similarly to nowadays, the system failed Nora.
First,her lawyer failed her tremendously. Why didn't the lawyer speak against an all men jury in such a senstitive case as this?
Secondly, he failed to insist that one of the children, who resided at the residence, testify. Who would have been a better witness than one of their children. The children lived in this situation and saw what was happening.
And lastly, the lawyer failed to call on other key witnesses such as Agripina Espejo who knew that the statement was changed. This one piece of vital information could have swayed the decision of the jury.
If I was on the jury I would vote for guilty of manslaughter and if I was the judge I would granted her a fine of $10,000 or an eight year sentence.
Such a decision would have been made for several reaons:
1. The evidence presented in court were all proving that she was guilty. The only piece of evidence that was from Kitchell Trapp was against her. I am aware that the evidence for Mr. Trapp was changed. However, the one woman who witness that did not appear on the stand. Therefore, the jury back then was ignorant to this fact and had no choice but to take that evidence into consideration.Her lawyer didn't do an intensive research.
2. Secondly, from the evidence that was submitted by Haver on page 5 of the General News article, Nora had reportedly made threats that she would boil lard and throw it on Trapp. Haver further went on to cite four threats made by Nora. Hence she had intentions to commit the crime.
3. She was the victim in this situation and considering her eight fatherless children I would have only given her a fine or an eight year sentence so that she can start to self heal and gain her dignity and pride once again and help her children who were psychologically damaged from such an abusive home to resume life.
Hi Melanie,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with two of your comments. First it's true that we may never find out the complete truth since the only persons who can provide us with the total truth are Nora and Trapp, who are both dead.
Secondly, I agree that Nora's fate was in the hands of that piece of evidence that was changed by corrupt police officers who have no repect for the highest authority in this land. It's a shame and disgrace how the ones who make commitment to law and order would turn to disorder and dishonor.
From then on Police Officers have braned themselves as being corrupt.
It's total madness when thinking of how a possible innocent abused woman fell at the hands of dirty cops.
I really dont believe that Nora Parham was a jealous woman. No evidence in the article really states that she was violently jealous, instead enough evidence is presented that she was physically abused by Trapp. I believe that Nora was treated so unfairly to the extent of being prosecuted and not really having enough evidence that she indeed lit her lover on fire. I feel that enough evidence was intentionally not found since it was a cop involved in this case. Nora's case could have been dealt differently since its stated in the article that they changed Trapps's statements where he said that after Nora splill the gasoline on him, he went to the latrine and he lit his cigarette that was when he caught fire. I strongly believe that more investigations could have been conducted before sentencing her to death. The jury also failed to understand that Nora also was a victim of domestic violence and nothing was done to Trapp when he did such acts. All the jury did was base sentence on the fact that Nora Lit him. One of my classmates even went further to investigate that Nora was pregnant when prosecuted. How could a jury still sentence her to death???? If i was part of the jury i would have the case investigated further before i vote aginst or for Mrs. Parham.
ReplyDeleteHi Michele
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you in saying that Sandra was bias. I agree that she is just defending her dad and failing to accept that her father was a violent man. I also agree with your statement that a woman's jealousy wont have you reach to the extremes in killing your partner.I have analyzed the article and really find it an injustice as you mentioned for Nora Parham to have been prosecuted without enough evidence to proof that she was guilty. I most admit that this s case really moved me and its sad that even today there are some cases that are not investigated properly and many innocents end up paying for a crime they have not committed.
I think her lawyer should have been the one to be hanged. I know it's an extreme but come on. There was no testament from the Chief of the fire station as Lisa previously mentioned. Because if she had locked him up in the latrine would have been burnt and he would have received burns to his face as well as his body. Also what happened to his clothes? There are way too many gaps in the story.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think that by running to get assistance for him proves a lot about Nora's intention. If she had "intentionally" planned to kill him then she wouldn't have ran to get help. All of this was ignored by the Crown counsel.
I agree with Melanie that we may not be able to know the truth about what happened between Nora and Trapp and I think that there should be a retrial of this case. In my opinion her family should receive some sort of compensation if the retrial proves that she was wrongfully accused. A retrial will hopefully assist to bring some closure to her eight children and allow for a more accurate version of the story to be told.
According to Sandra Trapp, daughter of Mr.Trapp, Nora was a jealous woman. From reading the article about Nora Parham, I am strongly opposing Sandra Trapp's accusation of Nora. I believe that Nora wasn't violently jealous of Trapp because of the many times she left because of his violent behavior and he was the one who kept coming back for her. There was no evidence to prove her jeolousy. Nora was a woman who may be seen as violently abused and unsafe in the relationship as witnessed by one Eric Williams and the many reports she made to the police. Sandra Trapp did not live with her father to observe his behavior. She did not know what happened behind closed doors. As humans, we would most likely not to display any negativity that occurs in the home when others are around and that might be the case with Trapp.
ReplyDeleteBased on the article read, I believe that Nora Parham was just an innocent woman who was a victim of domestic abuse by a person who had higher authority in the eyes of the society in those days. She was victimized of her rights as a human being. The rights of her children were being abused as well. I believe that she was not given a fair trial and they did not give her any pardon for lesser time. But sad to say I would have voted guilty because of the concrete evidence brought before her in court. The investigation was not thorough and it would have been difficult to find her not guilty even though in my heart I believe she was not.
As a child growing up, I believe that our law system is messed up. I had watched my innocent sister gone to jail for a crime she did not commit. She was harassed by police officers and investigators to twist her story, but she did not and they twisted her story. My sister was accused of drowning her baby in a bucket of water. The baby fell into the bucket of water and they twisted her story. She was in jail in and out of trial for one and a half year until she was found not guilty.
Hello Roxanna
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your point about the evidence was intentionally not found since it was a cop that was involved in the case. The cops in those days were praised, and anything that they did that was negative was viewed as something positive to them because they were a part of the law. You also made mentioned that the jury failed to understand that Nora was a victim of domestic violence, but was such evidence presented before the jury? I also agree that if they had found her pregnant why not give her a lesser sentence than death. They had took away two lives instead of one if that case of pregnancy was true.
Hugo said: October 15th 2009
ReplyDeleteNora like most normal human beings must have been jealous but not to the extreme of killing her husband especially knowing that she had small children to take care of. Moreover, she could not have been violently jealous because there was no explicit evidence given in court at the time of the case that impulse her. The only testimony given against Nora was prior to Ketchell beating her with a stick and she retaliated by throwing the gasoline at him and then stoning the empty can at him. The statements that were given in court were verbal threats that witnesses had testified against her. No mention had been made of her being abusive to her husband until recently that Sandra Trapp, daughter of Ketchell Trapp makes mention of it in the Amandala newspaper. Besides how could she have known if she was not living with them in their house?
Having seen and heard the evidence presented in court, I am definitely sure that I would have voted for the charge of Manslaughter or best free Nora of all charges of murder. Nora Parham lived in an abusive relationship. There is evidence to prove that. Quite often had neighbors’, friends and lookers on, seen this woman being mistreated; Eric Williams, PC.Hugh Donald Sanchez and even Ketchell Trapp’s dying declaration admitted to hitting her prior to the incident. I would also have considered the different pleas made by different organizations on her behalf. The more than 2,462 persons who had signed the petition for her stay of execution were vehemently instrumental for consideration. Most notably was the fact that she had eight children and all who were ages 15 years to 14 months, the period in the life of children when they most need their paternal parents. I am also compelled to believe that maybe the jury were either influenced or coerced in their decision or reacted merely by their emotions without analyzing the evidences conscientiously.
I believe that Sandra Trapp was completely one sided about the entire situation! Being the daughter that lost her father to another woman, she probably already had some sort of hatred towards Nora! In being an outsider to the house-hold, she probably only got to saw about 20% of what went on in there! I do somewhat agree with her though, I believe no form of jealousy should result in hitting. Ive personally whitnessed that some women constantly beet on their men, living with the impression that men arent supposed to fight back. Not that I am one of these men but some do fight back and they leave a more lasting mark.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that what Nora did deserved the ultimate death sentence with the charge for 'murder'! It was somewhat clear that she had no intentions for killing her husband just by the way she reacted! She actually rushed over to the police station and begged for help, stating that her husband was in trouble! she should have been charged with something more in the nature of participating in the act of murder, man-slaughter or something less harsh! going back to the mere fact that she is housing eight kids, she should been given a lighter sentence like 10 years in prison and another 5 years under house arrest! this would allow her a part of her sentence to be with her children!
Hi Michelle!
ReplyDeleteI liked your analasys on the aricle! in the end of your article you brought out exactly what I was trying to say but couldnt find the right words! I aslo agreed with your statement that was about the case being only about testimonies about previous acts and not of the actual case! But u also have to realise that what she said was also just a testimony! the only 2 that actually knew the entire factual story was Nora and her husband! From what I read I dont believe that the kids were there @ he actual incident!
Was Nora Parham violently jealous? , Jealous? I don’t think so. Nora displayed anger and frustration towards Trapp because of his accusations and behavior towards her. Anyone in her shoes would display frustration. ‘Violent’, again there is no proof demonstrating physical violence from her part. The fact that she threw the gasoline on Trapp was a normal reaction from anyone when being attacked.
ReplyDeleteGiven the evidence, Nora Parham was guilty of nothing at all! The threats she had made before were merely out of frustration. Obviously, she loved Trapp. After forgiving Trapp so many times she must have been deeply in love with him! Women always find excuses for not leaving abusive partners but it’s my opinion that the simple fact of not leaving is love. Nora did not kill Trapp, no one saw her doing it and there was no evidence demonstrating that she did. Like I mentioned before Nora threw gasoline on Trapp because he was attacking her, provoking her, that doesn’t mean she killed him. Remember she had forgiven him so many times so why will she kill someone she loves? With this in mind how can a jury find her guilty without evidence? And worst give her a death sentence. Where did the previous statements she had made to the police got to? What happened to Nora was plainly a wrongful conviction!
Hugo I couldn’t agree with you more. What does Ketchell Trapp know she wasn’t living with her dad? I would have loved for Trapp’s ex (Ketchell’s mom) to come through and give a little information on her life with Trapp. Nora was abused by her husband and where are all the complaints she had made about her husband? The jury was obviously influenced in their decision. And the fact that there were 12 men as jurors’ and no woman present it definitely did not give Nora a fair chance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA comment thrown to everyone!
ReplyDeleteHow many believe that the case of Nora Paraham should be reopened? Maybe with today's judicial system, a fair trial can be done to clear her name.
Ms. Nora was abused and she have put up with Trapp time after time. She even left and he went for her, it was her mistake to go back but we don't know the real reason why she went back. Maybe she was threatened or it was just believe she had and faith that he could change. Unfortunately it wasn't change. She wasn't jealous, she had had enough. As women and men we all have a feel of jealousy for our spouse, but I don't think Nora had reach the maximum scale of jealousy or she would have had the strength to left the first time. As we discussed in the seminar there wasn't any history of her first spouse. She would have done the same to him.
ReplyDeleteThose jurors were bias and discriminatory because she was a woman who was accused of murdering a police officer. If I was on that jury, first of all there was a piece that the magistrate didn't want the children to testify only in writing, I would have requested for at least the eldest to testify if I had that right. By right the attorney for Ms. Parham should have done that. He was a lousy attorney. I would have definitely given Ms. Parham pardon. If she did killed him which I still don't believe it was because of depression of constantly being abused. My decision would also be based on the children. It was unfair to take their mother away from them at such young age.
I read the article from the Amandala about the daughter of Mr. Trapp. She is his daughter of course she will say any for her brother who will go against a family member. That is expected so I don't believe a word she said. By the way she didn't live with her father she didn't know what was jumping in that home. She needs to hush.
1.) Clearly Miss Sandra Trapp was taking her father’s side. I don’t know anyone that was thrown in a predicament would not try to make their father look loving after all he would always be her father now if the boys was saying the same thing now then I would believe after all they were the ones who were there. I believe that Nora Parham was a victim of circumstances. She was caught between a rock and a hard place. Was she jealous? I am not sure, but I can tell you she sure loved her man! As we all know a woman in love tend to do some questionable things that someone would look at it and say what the hell. Nora was indeed a victim of abuse, maybe this is where the jealousy came into effect and manifested her true color. To understand if Nora was violently jealous we need to put our self in her shoes. Imagine being really mad with your partner or in a jealous rage. What is the first thing you do? On top of that just throwing all the shit you have to put up with and top it off with a bust ass every now and then. That will only cook up temporary insanity. So I would not say she was violently jealous but she was not herself, her sanity had left her for a while.
ReplyDelete2.) As we all know as a jury you are sworn in to be fair. I would in actual voted guilty, not of murder but of man slather. She was not herself at the time of the incident. I mean if someone hit you in the head with a 2by4 I and not sure how you could have think straight. I believe her instinct (fight or flight) took into effect and she decided to stop run, enough is enough. So she killed him as a way of emancipating herself from the said abusive relationship. If you ask me if she killed him, my answer would be 100% without doubt YES. Did she deserved to die for it hell NO. But as they say, you killing a cop is worst than kill a gangster .They will kill you back, only that they will do it legally. Nora was killed to set an example to other women at that time (don’t kill a cop) that was it.
3.) Base on what Melanie stated I would like to agree with some of her points. Firstly with the guilty verdict, anyone who got what the police brought in as evidence would have found Miss Parham guilty. That was indeed the straw that broke the camel back. The police simple spoon feed the jurymen what they wanted them to believe. Was it their fault? I believe that if they had give there correct statement that Mr. Trapp had give on his dying bed Nora would have been found not guilty. Nora was a victim of the police department and their selfish act by getting justice for their falling comrade. Secondly the way in which Nora case was dealt with was way hasty she was found guilty by an all men jury and was represented by an useless attorney who clearly was not doing his job. Finally the justice system failed her. I am sure if the jurymen knew that Miss Parham was going to get the death penalty they would have given her a lesser charge. The judge (C.J. Innis) was not being honest also when he assured the jury before they delivered the verdict of guilty of murder that a plea for mercy could be considered. He went back on his word by not granting mercy.
ReplyDeleteNowhere in the article states nor suggests that Nora Parham was violently jealous. I think Nora was more frustrated and tired of the life that she was living. She wanted to get away and eventhough she tried Mr. Trapp will convince her to go back.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t have allowed Mrs. Parham to be hanged. I strongly belief, that her sentence was unjust and discriminatory. Through out the article the issue was more about Mr. Trapp and what was suspected Mrs. Parham did to him. At no point was her abusive relationship brought up. Let’s not forget that because of that was probably the reason why Mrs. Parham did what she did. Even though I did not find anything in the article to convince me that she really killed her husband. The entire evidence was just manipulated by the higher authorities at the time just to defend one of his own. It would be very interesting if this case was brought back so justice can be given to the soul of Mrs. Nora Parham.
Lisa mentioned in her response that Mrs. Parham’s lawyer did her an injustice. I totally agree hence why I stated that the issues were more about Mr. Trapp. The lawyer could’ve brought in more evidence and witnesses to declare on how Mr. Trapp physically and emotionally abused Mrs. Parham.
ReplyDeleteBased on the evidence provided,I would find Nora quilty but not of murder instead of manslaughter. Simply because there are other factors to consider such as her children, the evidence of provocation and domestic abuse. In addition I don't believe that she was violently jealous she was just fustrated becasue of the years of torture and abuse enstilled upon her by her husband.
ReplyDeleteHi Michele, I agree with your comment and share the same refection that the case was not dealt with fairly. Hence the case only took one week for them to reach a verdict, having 12 men on the jury and not taking into consideration the evidence and alibi of the witnesses. Also if they dealt with the case thoroughly then the petition would have reached in time and made a difference in her verdict.
ReplyDelete1. In the case it didn't mention anything of Nora Parham being jealous of her common - law -husband. Mr Trapp was the one who was jealous of Nora. One officer mr. Williams reports that he witness Trapp beating on Nora at a niteclub where he was working at the time. Nora Parham was not a jealous woman but instead a woman who suffered from domestic abuse.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a part of the jury i would have voted her guilty. the reason for this is that the evidence presented in the court was bias against her. From the beginning Ms. Espejo mention that the satement used in the court was changed and it was not the one Mr. Trapp gave on his death bed. A lot of key evidence that could have helped Ms. Parham in the case was not use. The persicution presented the case showing Nora Parham as a jealous cop killer. They refuse to see the wrongs that Mr. Trapp had done to Ms. Parham. The case was design for Nora to be made an example of, she never had a fair chance.
I agree with both Michelle and Sherie on the case of Ms.Parham, because of the quick convition. Also the bias nature of the jury for having 12 men dealing with the case. Not taking into consideration Nora's 8 children who where left without both parents and became orphans. If the court was not quick to hang Ms. Parham to prove the point of her being a cop killer, the petition would have reached in time to spear her life.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Geban
ReplyDelete1. The article on Ms. Nora Parham posted on the 19th March, 2009 written by Adele Ramos, states that Ms Sandra Trapp the daughter of Mr. Trapp was a frequent visitor of the Trapp’s home. Sandra said that “Nora was an uncontrollably jealous woman” who use to despise when Trapp mingle with other women. She also states that Ms Nora was the abusive one in the relationship that would start up quarrels to fight and hit Trapp. Sandra said that on her visits Nora was also nice. I believe that Nora was not a jealous woman because she had been in relationship before, so I don’t think she had no reason to be, because she had her children to look out for. At the time of her visits Sandra was a child when she went over, and she did not visit all the time to see them fighting, so how could she say that Nora was jealous and abusive and that she locked her father in the outhouse. I don’t believe she was jealous as stated above, but she grew frustrated with her life style and being abuse. She began to show sign of anger and had to release it at some point. Ms Parham was executed without sufficient evidence that she had inflicted such pain of dearth on Trapp. They were many reports stating that Trapp had been abusive but in circumstances the case was not a fair trial.
2. If I was part of the jury to decide on the fate of Ms Nora Parham given the evidence presented in court, my vote would have been not guilty because Nora was innocent and wrongfully accused for the death Mr. Trapp. Nora was repeatedly abused by Trapp. She reported it but because Trapp was a police officer she had no say. Leading up to his death, Nora and Trapp was in and argument. For self defense, Nora poured gasoline on Trapp between the time of conflict. I believe that Trapp was the one who lit himself on fire unaware that gasoline was on him when he went to the out house to cool down to smoke his cigarette. Nora’s trial was bias because the jury was all men. She tried to defend herself but was not believe so she was branded with name “cop slayer” bin that Trapp was a man of the law up to the time of his death. I therefore believe that it was not a fair trial and there was not sufficient evidence and witnesses for her to be sentence to be hanged.
Nicole Yarde
ReplyDelete1. In the article written by Adele Ramos posted on 19/03/2009. It does state that Sandra Trapp whom is Trapp’s daughter who stated that Nora Parham “was an uncontrollably jealous woman who despite when Trapp spoke with other women”. She also said that Nora was the abusive one. She also said “that apart from that, “Nora was a really nice woman”. So I believe that Nora was jealous but not violent. Sandra Trapp was a little girl how could she have known what was happening because she only visited for sometime and she did say Nora was nice maybe she was just there at the time when they had an argument. Also when Nora tried to defend herself and she felt that Nora was being abusive. I also believe that everyone gets jealous at times and it does not mean your going to kill the person. Nora Parham was provocated into hurting Trapp because Nora decide to defend and fight for herself because she was being abuse and the situation go of hard which bad to the tragic death of Trapp.
2. If I was part of the jury to decide on the fate of Ms. Parham given the evidence presented in court I would vote not guilty because I believe that Nora tried to defend herself from being abuse by Trapp, so she pored the gasoline on him and he was the one whom lit himself on fire because he was lighting a cigarette and forgot about the gasoline on him. The courts tired Nora’s case as a “cop slayer” and fail to see that was a woman of domestic abuse. She was not given a fair trail with the dying declaration of Trapp changed and their all male jury whom only focused on Trapp’s situation and tragic death. Also not enough evidence or eye with nesses was used to defend Nora’s life.
Hi Ryan
ReplyDeleteI do believe that that Ms Sandra Trapp was taking up for her father because she loved her dad and saw the good he did for her. To tell you the truth I would not want to be in Nora’s shoe because I think I would have loosed it long time if I was taking care of eight kids and the man I love would constantly abuse me. I don’t think she killed Trapp but had anger and was frustrated and the thought might have cross her mind but never a day to take the bread out her children’s mouth.
Hi Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Sandra Trapp was defending on her father’s behalf and not Nora. She was a child at the time and only visited sometime and she did say Nora was nice. Her children should have been given a chance to defend their mother. Even with Trapp died Nora was still being abuse by the court with a 12 men jury. She was provoked by Trapp so she became frustrated. Nora could have being jealous if she wanted because people do get jealous at times but it does not mean that your going to kill them. I do even believe a fire chief was question about the fire because of the year 1963.
Aretha Witty
ReplyDeleteI believe that Nora Parham was not jealous because there was evidence that Nora was abuse by her husband specifically when she was kicked down a stairs in public. I believe that she was a victim of domestic violence. Sandra Trapp is the daughter of Kitchel; she will say anything in favor of her father. Moreover; Nora was her stepmother and Sandra would say anything to make it seems like its Nora’s fault.
If I were a jury to decide on the fate of Ms. Parham I would not vote against her. I would not voted against her because I believe she was acted on self defense. Based on the evidence she was suffering from abuse and had several reports with the police complaining about the brutal abuse that Mr. Trapp had put her through. Another reason why I would have voted against the jury was because of her eight children that she had. It would be unfair for eight children to grow up without a mother and a father. Their father was already dead and to have their mother put to death I believe it would be unfair for the children they are innocent children that are in the middle of abuse
Hi Keisha,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you one hundred percent that Nora was not jealous. She was living with this man in an Abusive relationship and she got tired. Yes she did leave him, but went back, someone who is jealous would not leave they would say no matter what the cost may be. And Sandra is the daughter she will always defend her father even if she knows that he was the wrong one. I also believe that sander did not like Nora and it is normal for step daughters not to be to fun of their step mothers, I think that she was discriminated as a woman and with her accused being a policeman in 1963,the juries were all men and of course they would voted against Nora
thanks
There are always two sides to a story and in some cases more. I have read from a witness on Nora’s behalf and I have read one on behalf of Ketchell Trapp. While no fisherman is going say that his fish is stink, I think we need to read between the lines. There is no evidence supporting the fact the Nora was violently jealous. Although, Sandra Trapp said that Nora was violently jealous and would often “throw tantrums” or “stone him with things”, I don’t believe that she knew the entire story. While she might have seen a disagreement between Nora and Trapp, she did not know the real reason behind these arguments. This is because Sandra did not live with her father. I think that Sandra saw a frustrated woman who was defending herself. On the other hand there is evidence showing that Trapp was very abusive. The news media need to get in contact with Nora’s living children and get their side of the story.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a part of the jury I would have voted not guilty. My reason would be that Nora was an abused woman pushed to the edge. She had no other means to survive and that is why she stayed with Trapp. He was aware of this and used it to his advantage. As recalled by Sandra Trapp, she saw Nora stone her father with things when she got angry so on that dreadful day when Trapp came after Nora, she did the same thing. She threw the gasoline on him from the iron because that was her way of defending herself. Secondly, I would have considered Nora’s eight children. I am a very sympathetic person and the fact that she had eight children would ease my heart. While there are those that would say that pity has nothing to do with it, I have to say that at the end of the day we are all humans and there is no way that anyone would know why I voted not guilty. Thirdly, Nora was given an unfair trial. The evidence was one sided and her lawyer and the judge failed her.
We are confronted with many obstacles and it is left up to our discretion to believe what we think is right no matter what. The lawyer could have presented a fair and excellent case and I would still vote not guilty.
Sherane
Response to Vicky’s blog
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with Vicky on some areas, I disagree with her on others. I don’t believe that Nora was violently jealous and I do believe that her throwing the gasoline on Trapp was a normal reaction from someone being attacked. I also agree that Nora is guilty of nothing at all. Additionally, I do agree that women find many excuses not to leave abusive men and often return to the abuse and forgive them. However, I do not think that she returned because she loved Trapp. I believe that she had no other choice. She was not working and could not afford to maintain eight children on her own. When she left Trapp she went to stay with a friend. I think Nora stayed because of her children and the fact that she loved them, not Trapp.
I do not believe that Nora Parham were violently jealous because after reading the article she could burn Trapp with hot lard a long time ago as she had threaten him with.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article if I were part of the jury I would have voted guilty of nothing at all. Espejo stated that she heard Trapp declaration saying that Ms. parham did not catch him fire, he insted when to the restroom after the scuffle. He lit a cigarette caught fire, so then Nora was wrongful convicted because of the change in statement from the police in case. Mr Rosado testified in court that he noticed on Nora left shoulder wound about 8 days old. This means that Nora was physical abuse by Trapp it does not matter if it is one day old or one hundred days old abuse is abuse, it doesn't matter how you look at it. Also P.C. Hugh Donald Sanchez had testified that Nora had complained 8 to 9 times and they did nothing help her. Sol Gen could not specifically cite any witness that saw Nora burn Trapp.
Response to Sherane
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sherane that no fisherman will say that their fish is stink. I also believe that Sandra Trapp do not know the whole story about what was going on between Nora and Trapp or she is being brain was with maybe good memories of her father or some one who raise her had told her horrible thing about her stepmother. I would like to hear more from Nora children and what they have to say on this matter. I truly feel that Nora was unfair treated and the 12 male jury did not make things any better. They children really need look into this matter and try to restore their mother name.
Nora Pahram was not violently jeolous. The jealousy which she had was natural. However, it was misinterpreted by others who witnessed their heated arguments and physical conflicts. In addition, Nora couldnt have been violently jealous because she was a mother figure to her children which was personified as through her role model qualities within her household responsibilities and dedicaton as a common-law wife. Nora Pahram was simply a woman who was constantly being provoked by Trapp which causes her impulses to react uncontrollably without thinking.
ReplyDeleteFuthermore, if i was on the jury and the evidence of the case was presented to me, i would find Nora guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter. I would do this because not only was Nora Pahram accussed of murder, but she was also a victim of domestic violence which was being repetitively inflicted by the murder victim.
Hi Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Sandra only visited a few times at her father's home so there was limited time for her to witness Nora being abusive. Like you mentioned, where was the testamonies of the children who actually lived with them. There are multiple sides to every story. Remember Trapp stated that he gave her couple blows and he went to the bathroom and lit a cigarette. Why wasnt this mention in court? Why was Nora's children not presented in the court to give their views. Eveyone has a right to a fair trial. Nora was not given the opportunity to do so.
Hey Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you stated that the trial was hastily conducted. I don’t think that Nora Trapp should have been treated in such a manner. The article in the Amandala written by Ms. Adele Ramos recounted that Ketchell Raymond Trapp, 37, was a policeman who was allegedly very abusive. I think that she was not supposed to be found guilty of murder or any other criminal offences, because according to Nora’s statement it was during the scuffle that she threw the gasoline on him. Maybe if she had a glass of water in her hand she maybe would have thrown that too. I think that any frustrated woman who was being abused for years wanted to defend herself from another blow to the head. I don’t think that she wanted to light him on fire and the statement given by the Trapp not say whether she lit him on fire or not. It did mentioned that he lit a cigarette while inside the out-house. Now I don’t think that she thought that he was going to smoke inside the out-house.
Indeed the reports recorded by the police were insufficient because, it lacks information: where were the children at the time of the incident, and if the latrine was found locked from inside or outside (if it was). Nora’s lawyer was weak.
I strongly believe that Nora got an unfair trial because; the jury was made up of 12 men. It only took a week to place a verdict on a matter that had so many discrepancies. Trapp was abusive and the police’s reports were not clear. The people who went to the stand and spoke on behalf of Nora were women. Then those who spoke against her were all males. She couldn’t have walked away a free woman. It was like a conspiracy for her to be hanged. Clearly we can see that the reason why Trapp was treated in such a manner was because her common-law husband was a policeman. The article also states on page 6, “the Sol Gen did not specifically cite any witness that could say they saw Nora burn Trapp.”
In the other trial noted in the article states, “ Another woman who committed the identical crime just weeks later received only an eight year sentence.”
Also I believe that with all the reports given by eyewitnesses that Trapp was abusive he should not have received a police funeral.
Hi Mr. Tucker,
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Nora was violently jealous, because Trapp’s fellow police officers would have brought that out in the courtroom. It is only her daughter whom did not live with them is claiming that her mother was jealous. I believe that Trapp would have confided to someone that he was getting “woman fum fum.” None of the police officers who testified mentioned Trapp had showed up at work with bruises to the face, Nora showed up and kicked down a flight of stairs while at a night club or she took his whole pay check and did not feed him.
If I was a member of the jury, I would have voted not guilty. She threw the gasoline, but no one saw her lit the match. She did not even had to admit to the police that she threw any gasoline on him. I think that it was not wise for him to smoke a cigarette after being doused with gasoline, but maybe he was focusing on the other blows he was going to inflict on Nora.
Evidence showed us that Nora Parham had violent tendencies; she threatened to burn Trapp with hot lard, she argued with Trapp over monetary issues, and finally in her own account she threw gasoline on Trapp. These in my mind make a sound case that she was violent. Now whether this violent tendency was as a result of jealousy, I feel is premature to assume. I more strongly believe her violent behavior was as a result of self-defense. Whereby Trapp was the aggressor, whom acted violently towards her and she reacted in a violent manner as well.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that after Nora threw the gasoline on Trapp, she herself also lit him on fire; there is no doubt in my mind about this. What is also not questionable is why she threw the gasoline and lit him fire, reason being he have been known to physically abused her and she reacted in self-defense. With these in mind, if I were a part of the jury I would have gone with guilty of manslaughter.
Hi Monique Jenkins Villanueva,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true we may never know the complete truth, the circumstantial evidence did pile up against Nora. A single eyewitness account, which was never admitted as evidence, states that a police officer changed Trapp’s dying statement. Before we make bold acquisition about our justice system and men that put their lives on the line to protect the lives of others, we must first question the viability such an eyewitness account, and reflect deeply in our hearts on the following questions.
1. How was she able to attain such an account?
2. Why was this account not considered as evidence?
1. In my point of view Ms. Nora Parham was not the one who was jealous; Mr. Trapp was the jealous and the insecure one in the relationship. I say this because only an insecure person feels that beating your partner make you feel better about yourself. “God only give you what you can bear” a saying that goes well with this story. Nora had been abuse verbally, physically and maybe even sexually over and over again. That night was the last straw no more of this abuse.
ReplyDelete2. Being a part of the jury and hearing the evidences presented in court I would have found Nora guilty but not of murder. Even with the threats that were made by her. Certainly I would not have put her to be hang considering her children and who are we to but anybody to death, we are not God only He can and should be the Judge. Nora was mistreated like an animal and not as a child of God.
Hi Ishana
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement 100% people say that when you become a mother my feeling, mood and life changes for the mother. She wanted to be a positive role model to her children and not have them live through what she had been through for them to survive. Being a victim of domestic abuse would and should have played a role in the court room. “Innocent until proven guilty” they could not have found Nora guilty without the proper evidence. Give her a fair trial!
Hi Lisa
ReplyDeleteI support your comment. The processing that the court went through and the swift sentencing was so unfair. It was a very harsh sentence based on little evidence that was very shallow. They needed much more time than they did to sentence Ms. Parham. They should have given the children a chance to give their story. Others say that there wasn't any thing mentioned that the children were there when the incident occurred, but there had to be other times which could still be evidence that she was going through something. The children definitely knew something. As you and I share the same views, Trapp's daughter didn't live with Nora's family she knew nothing about what had happened in the past to push Nora to the limits. I don't know if rekindling the Nora Parham's case makes a difference. It all depends on how the family sees it but to me it makes no sense because that will not give any satisfaction. It won't bring back my mom.
1. According to the article I believe Ms. Nora Parham was not violently jealous but was reacting to the abuse she was receiving by Mr. Trapp. Ms. Sandra Trapp is the only person based on the articles I have read that had testified of Ms. Parham being jealous and violent and very few times would we find people that would say negative things about a close family member. However after reading the different articles there were several people testifying about Mr. Trapp abuse to Ms. Parham.
ReplyDelete2. Even though I believe there was not enough evidence presented in court if I were the jury and would have to decide on the fate of Ms. Parham based on the little evidence given I would find her not guilty There were a number of people testifying of Ms. Parham innocence some of which includes Mr. Williams who stated that he could remember seeing Mr. Trapp kicking Ms. Trapp down a flight of stairs. Another statement from Espejo stated that the statement was changed and also the fact that Mr. Trapp was found naked at the time of the incident. By listening to the last statement it could indeed be that after Ms. Parham throw the gas on Mr. Trapp that he took off his shirt and thinking he was alright went to the bathroom and set himself accidentally on fire after lighting a cigarette. However this case should have been investigated further and more evidence should have been presented. Ms. Nora Parham should had been given a fair trial and the case should have not been dealt with in the manner it was just because Mr. Trapp was a Police Officer.
Miss Sandra Trapp will say anything on behalf of her father in order to justify his violent behavior with Mrs. Nora. I personally believe that Nora P. would not jealous a man that mistreated her and kept her living in hell; if she was so violent as Sandra P. states, then, Nora would have threw the iron at him, but she did not, she simply threw the gasoline on him on self defense because he was hitting her.If she was violently jealous she would have defended her self any time he attacked her and abuse her physically, emotionally, and maybe verbally.Nora never went away from the house because of jealousy, but because of mistreatment and abuse. BELIEVE THAT WHENEVER SHE WAS ANGRY SHE SPOKE SAYING THAT SHE WOULD GET EVEN WITH HIM;AND THESE SAME WORDS WERE USED AGAINST HER LATER ON.I personally believe that she was an innocent woman that was treated as an animal and that as a human being.If I was a part of the jury I would have vote against her as manslaughter, I would have thought about the children that would stay without parental love and care.
ReplyDeleteNora was simply abused by her common law husband, and by the law.
Francisca sat.classes
EVELYN K.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Ms. Nora Parham was violently jealous. If this man was always beating on her why would she jeolous of him? I am speaking from my point of view. If a man was beating on me, all that I would be thinking about is how to get away from the abusive relationship. I wouldn't care if someone l=else wanted him. It probably would have made my get away easier.
If I was on the jury I would have taken into consideration probably that she was only living with mr. Trapp because of a dependency on him after the constant abuse she sufferredat the hands of Mr. Trapp . She propably had no way to go with four children and he probably wouldn't allow her to leave with the children anyway.
The evidences that was presented in the court was not concrete enough to have caused her to be hanged. I would have voted for ms. Parham to received a sentence of manslaughter instead of murder. I would have been concerned about the welfare of her eight children.
There were not enough evidence to show where ms. Parham was at the time of the fire and no one saw her actually lit a match that would have caused the fire to ignited on Mr. Trapp.
I agreed with Lisa and Michele who said that Ms. Parham should have gotten convicted of man slaughter instead of murder. Michele stated that Mr. Trapp's daughter was noy living with the couple so she has couldn't have known what Ms. Parham was going through. Lisa on the other hand brought up a good point when she said that Ms. Parham's other children that she had with Mr. Trapp was not given a chance to speak on behalf of their mother, Knowing that they lived in the same house.
To sum up my comments I would say that my decision to vote for manslaughter is because of insufficient evidence regarding this case.There were no eye witnesses who saw Ms. Parham set Mr. Trapp on fire.
(woman).
Response to Aretha Comment
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that Ms. Sandra Trapp was on her father's side by stating that Ms. Nora Parham was violently jealous. She was probably just a child at the time of the incident and did not live with her father either so she were not there all the time to witness everything that had occurred between Ms. Parham and Mr. Trapp so she will not be able to say if Ms. Parham was violent and jealous or if she was just reacting to the abuse she was receiving. I also believe like most people she did not quite know what went on between Ms. Parham and Mr. Trapp but instead of trying to put the little bit of information together based on the statements given she is just saying what any daughter that loves their father would say.
1. I believe that Ms. Nora Parham was being a typicla human being. Whether we want to accept it or not we are jealous individuals. But did this jealousy lead to her being violent person to the extent she would kill Mr. Trapp I think not. In my opinion her violent tendencies came from the years of being abused in her relationship.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a member of the jury and I had to decide Ms. Parham faith based on only the evidence presented in court I would have had to find her guilty. As jury you can only go on the evidence that is presented to you. But, to find her guilty of murder I would not have voted for that but guilty of self defense and I would have definately voted for her NOT to be hanged but be given pardon and serve her time in jail because of the eight children she left behind. I also believe if her lawyer had done a better job of gathering evidence in order to be ready to defend her Ms. Parham would have been given fair trial.
Hi Keisha, I agree with what you said based on the evidence only eventhough it was biased you had to vote her guilty because as juror you know no better. Yes, alot of key evidence was left out that could have helped Ms. Parham in her case. Yes, the prosecution and even her defense attorney did over look all of the abuse Mr. Trapp had done to Ms. Parham and simply treated her as cop killer. As a result of this she was never given a fair trial and they used Nora as example to show all other persons that they should not kill a cop no matter what the circumstance.
ReplyDeleteHI Aretha
ReplyDeleteI agree with you totally.
There are no evidences to prove that Nora was abusive, especially knowing the type of job that Mr. Trapp had.
She was simply the victim that couldn't survive.
According to the article read, it did not presented any piece of evidence that indicated or prove that Nora Parham was violenty jealous. It did however made mention that Nora had left Mr.Trapp on several occassions as a result of domestic violence. The article also made mention that Mr. Trapp would go and look for Nora and talk her into coming back home with him. There was no mention of Trapp having an affair with anyone for Nora to become jealous. Form the article read it presented evidence that Nora had created some form of"hate" towards Trapp due to their domistic problems which could in a sense had created some form of jealously in Nora just before the main incident occured.
ReplyDeleteEven though the evidence presented in the case told a different story, from which many of us would disagree, I strongly believe that Nora was an innocent woman, that was just a victim caught up in domestic abuse, and at the same time was confused about how to deal with her own situation, since everyone she had turned to had neglected to help or advice her of what to do. However, based on the evidence, if I was a member of the jury I would have voted guilty, because all the evidence were leading that way, and not in her favour. I honestly believe that Nora was taken advantage of and her rights as a human being in the eyes of the law was disregarded.
In Response to Jamael
ReplyDeleteThe part that Nora throw the gas on him is stated in the article, however the part that she lit the match and lit Mr. Trapp on fire herself I would have to disagree with you. If she had left him so many times, why now will she go to the extream to put herself in so much trouble. Kowing she will not get away with killing a cop, i also would believe that the thought of her 8 children had to have cross her mind before she could think of doing such a thing.
Denise Bucknor
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Nora was violently jealous. We know for a fact from all accounts that she was being abused by Mr. Trapp.Eyewitness Eric Williams a security officer, said he saw Trapp kicked Nora down a flight of stairs.
Referring to Sandra Trapp's story, How do we know that she is telling the truth? I believe that she was making up the story because it was her father and she wanted to defend him. Yes, she was around only on visitations, and might have witnessed an occasions where Nora felt frustrated and pushed to the limit but there was no evidence to show that Nora was violently jealous.
I also believe that anyone being constanly abused would react the same way by hitting back and throwing things.
2. If I was a part of the jury I would vote not guilty. I don't believe that there is sufficient clear evidence to suggest that She killed Mr. Trapp. When the verdict was decided on, a lot of statements of eyewitnesses were not taken into consideration.Ketchell Trapp himself before he died said that Nora did not intentionally throw gasoline on him.
Irma Dyer
ReplyDelete1. Having read the report about Nora and Mr. Trapp,there were menton or suggestion that Nora was displaying violently jealous. Mr. Trapp on the other hand was the one who was evidently having jealous problems with Norra. This was evident when eyewiteness heard him quarelling with Nora accusing her of giving him 'shell eye pickney',so clearly Trapp was the one feeling insecure and jealous. That is why i believe that he was abusing Nora. Speaking from a woman's point of view it is natural to feel jealous especially when you are in love with someone. Perhaps Nora was jealous at some point in the relationship, afterall, they have been living together for 7 years. I don't believe her jealousy was as substantial as the picture Sandra Trapp wanted to paint. I believe that Sandra knew that Nora was persecuted innocently and that people were saying all kinds of mean things about her father. She didn't like it and decided to defend her father and make up the story.
2. If i were one of the jury I would have found Nora not guilty. Innocent and free of all charges. When you are a juror in order for you to find someone guilty of murder, there must be no reasonable doubt. It was quite evident that this case had reaonable doubts. Just to mention a few, If Nora had locked Trapp in the latrine and set it on fire, the entire latrine would have burnt down. Why wasn't that mentioned in the case? Secondly, if she did it, why would she ran on the street to get help for him. I believe that this case was outright biased and unfair. Nora should have never got convicted of murder. trapp got a dose of his own medicine. He was the one who caused his own death. He was the one foolish to light a match knowing he had gasoline on him.All because of his bad habit (smoking cigarette).
Hello folk! I am so elated by your responses. By the way, I am reading all your comments.
ReplyDeleteWe should advocate for a retrial- what you think? Anyone wants/group to write the Editor of Amandala?
- Thanks for taking the time to blog.
October 19, 2009
ReplyDeleteHugo said:
Hi Vicky
I certainly agree with you. I am sure that this case could definitely be opened and a fair trial would prevail. After analyzing and reflecting with the deliberate conviction handed down on Nora and the hedonistic sentence imposed by white colonialists of the time, one can attest that Nora deserves a second trial. Even though, she has departed unjustly from this life, her memory and her reputation can still be restored in the society, for the sake of her children and the many women who have suffered and died as a result of domestic abuse.
Eloisa Responding
ReplyDeleteDomestic disputes are more complicated than battered women portray. This is the case of Nora Parham. We cannot understand it fully unless we are a life testimony to the physical and verbal abuses. Sandra Trapp was an outsider/observer who didn’t know what was transpiring in that relation. Her comments are bias, and I fully comprehend her. She lost a love one and that is painful. But, after viewing the article several times, it made no mention from any witness that Nora was jealous because Mr. Trapp was unfaithful or had other affairs.
If I was a juror in this particular case and being provided with the evidence that was submitted, I certainly would have condemned Ms. Parham but with a lesser charge, I would have taken in account the innocent children who are the real victims in this case. But now that new information is brought forward I believe that the law was not fairly applied and it was not a “fair trial.” There was not a single witness to present to the court history of past abuse inflicted to Nora by her common-law-husband. If history of abuse was presented to the jury to explain the reasonableness of Nora’s conduct on that sad day; the verdict would have been different. In Her statement Nora declared that she threw gasoline on Trapp after he had hit her. Her reaction was an act of self-defense, which later led to Mr. Trapp being set on fire. Mr. Trapp demonstrated the characteristics of a substance abuser. Mr. Williams attest to this unreasonable abuse; when he recounted the incident of Mr. Trapp kicking Ms. Parham down a flight of stairs. There was also evidence of continuous reports made to the police by Nora.
This case was unjust and unfair. I firmly believe that Ms. Parham was dealt with severely and without mercy, because Mr. Trapp was a “COP”, There is evidence in the article which stipulated a case that occurred weeks later. The perpetrator was given a minimum sentence of eight year!! This clearly indicates the high level of corruption and manipulation of the justice system.
Eloisa DelCid said……
Hi Melanie
I do agree with your comment that with the evidence given; Nora would have been convicted. But the statement you made concerning Mr. Trap official statement presented to the court. It was Ms. Espejo who made that declaration. I have not seen a “quoted-unquoted” version of that statement. Maybe if itt is somewhere, it will shade more light into the story.
Hi Lisa,
I am absolutely in agreement with your point of view. If there were more witnesses to testify, the case would probably had been different. But the police were simply abusing their power and taking revenge. That is how is see it!
Eloisa said……
Hola Mr. Tucker, You asked the question whether the lawyer was efficient, and I wondered whether there was a defense lawyer in that court. Maybe she was not granted one. Remember she was labeled as “COP SLAYER”. This case seems unreal to me and I visualize it as a “TheWild West,” where people were killed without mercy. I am so glad I am living in this era where women are empowered.
1. There is little evidence to suggest that Nora Parham was violently jealous. So far from the accounts that I have read Sandra Trapp is the only person that is saying that Nora Parham was jealous and abusive to Ketchell Trapp. Probably, there were fights between the couple and of course Nora became frustrated because of the constant physical abuse so probably she started to fight back. I would need to hear more accounts that support Sandra Trapp’s comments that Nora was abusive to her common-law husband, Ketchell Trapp. Until then, I am not convinced that she was jealous and abusive.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a part of the jury I would have found Nora Parham guilty of manslaughter. I believe that she had endured years of physical and mental abuse from Ketchell Trapp. I think that she was tired of living that way and she probably developed hatred and disgust for him. I believe that she did throw gasoline on him but I’m not sure that she lit the match. Basically, there was no evidence or eye witness to support the fact that she lit the match and threw it on him. Thus, I think that she should have been punished for the act of throwing gasoline on him but I don’t think that she was entirely responsible for his death.
Reaction to Michele’s comments
I strongly agree with Michele that Sandra Trapp could not have known was occurring in Nora’s and Ketchell’s home because she was not living there. In order to make such comments one would have to be present at all times to give a true picture of what was occurring in Parham’s household. I also agreed with the point where Michele states that the trial was mostly based on testimonies rather that circumstantial evidence. It seems that the jury made their guilty verdict based only on testimonies because there was no evidence or witness to state that they saw Nora threw a match and lit Ketchell Trapp on fire. I do believe that the swift manner in which the trial was conducted was also evident that the trial was unfair. It was based mainly on the fact that a cop was killed and they had to punish the person they thought was responsible for that serious crime.
Hi Hugo,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we join together along with Mr. Tucker and write to the editor of the Amandala asking for a retrial- what you think?
Hi Jamael,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you when you say that Nora was violent. I think that what she did and said are normal reactions if you are in an abusive situation. The question asked, "do you believe that Nora was violently jealous?" No. There is no evidence to show that she was jealous over Mr. Trapp.I wouldn't even say that she was violent.
I believe that Nora Parham was not violent. In the article she is presents as a nice up standing citizen. It clearly states that she was the victim of abuse. This evidence can be found on page one paragraph five, whereby there was a witness Nora been abuse. According to Eric Williams, while working at a night spot as a security officer he witness Trapp kick Nora down a flight of stairs which lead to face injury. The article also mentioned that Nora stated that Trapp came in the bedroom with a stick in his hand and hit her in the head, when he was going to hit her again she through the gasoline on him. Trapp also admitted that on the night in question he gave Nora a couple blows; this sound like a victim of abuse that decided to take a stand to not take the abuse anymore. There is no evidence to show that she was violently jealous, it is clear that Trapp was the violent one.
ReplyDeleteIf I was part of the jury given the evidence I would vote not guilty. The evidence given stated that she did not light the match but lock the toilet door. Given the evidence the question comes to mind, how did he get out if the door was locked? There was no mention of her letting him out, so how the he get out and why did she run for help. My understanding of the evidence presented is that they were having a fight and Nora through gas on Trapp and he lit a cigarette; which causes him to set himself on fire. Therefore there is no hard evidence to that supports her being guilty.
Acoording to Jamael Nora was violently jelious and guilty of muder. I dissagree with him for the mare fact that when someone is in a abusive relationship it is normal for anger to take over, therefore she made ideal comments towards him. Nora was just acting as mormal abuse women do. Also there is no evidence given that she was the violent one. But for trapp their was witness to his abuse towards Nora.
ReplyDeletesamanta soberanis, saturady
ReplyDeleteBased on the two articles presented by Ramos, A. )2009, March 19) and (07/04/2009), i have come to conclude that as of to date no one really knows the true happening of what really went on in the lives of Nora Parham and Kitchell Trapp in 1963 which led to the murder of Trapp. the only evidence which we rely on at this time is those presented by the witnesses in court. in my view, i do not believe that Nora Parham was a violently jealous prson because there is no offical facts which states the anyone saw her do anything to Trapp except for Trapp's own daughter Sandra Trapp. with the alligations made by Trapp's daughter, Sandra Trapp, i can stronly say that i disagree with her. furthermore, my reasons for not agreeing with Sandra Trapp is becuase she mentioned that she did not live with her father. so, my quetions is, if she did not live with her father then how can she vouch that Nora was the violent one and not her father when she was not present. on the contrary, Sandra was only three years old at the time of the incident. The only witness who can testify ti violence bwtwen the two is mr. Eric william who said the he saw when Trapp stamp Nora down the stairs when she was at a night club. he said that Nora's face was bleeding when she got up and nothing was done about it. neither was there anything done about the reports made by Nora to the police about physical abuse by trapp. why? He was a COP. The senario here was that Nora built up frustration and anger after being hit with a stick to the head.
On the other hand, if i were apart of the jury to decide on the fate of Nora Parham, given the evidence presented in court, i would have voted GUILTY BY MANSLAUGHTER.the reason why i say this is becuase the evidence presented in court were from witnesses who were all associated with Mr. Trapp. there were no witnesses on the part of Nora. another reason why i would have voted gulity by manslaughter is because yes, Nora had an anger bulit up inside her after what has happened but the fact is that she did end up hurting someone so died from the contribution of the gasoline that she threw. Throwing the gasoline made he add to the situation so, she would have till being cahrge for something but not murder. As, the saying goes, provacation brings muderation and this is what happened. moreover, Nora did not get a fair trail becuase at the end of the court session the Solicitor General distinctly stated that he do not have any body who can actually vouch that they saw Nora lit Trapp on fire. Now, if the solicitor General is saing this and he is the one who is defending the state waht more information than that could these juriors wanted to her. from the time, he said he didn't have any body who actually saw her, the verdict should have been drop from murder wher it stand at the time to manslaughter.
In our country today these same situations are happening. when police officers are being nurder by a civilian when these civilians are caught they are being beaten to the fullest and what happend after, NOTHING. i belive that the same way civilians are being treated towards a police muredr, the same way the police officres should be treated when the live a civilian is being taken. Individual staetments are still being change as of today and the justice system is still not giving justice to those who deserve it. Innocent people are being sent to jail for things that they have not done and tose who do the criminal act are being set free to do the same thing to other people again.
Hi malanie, i strongly agree with your opinion as it pertains to Sandra Trapp's aligation that Nora Trapp was violently jealous. i agree with your staement becuase as you mentioned, there were no evidence to say that Nora was violently jealous. another reason is becuase yes as you stated again, the only evidence of abuse or violent found in the articla was geared towards Mr. Trapp. also, because the only witness who could have staed that they saw violent, state that it was Trapp who was violent when he saw him stamp Nora down the stairs. so, i agree with you fully on your statement as to why Nora was not violently jealous.
ReplyDeletehowever, i nannot agree with you that the verdict should have been murder as it stands. the reason for me saying this is becuse you staed that the evidence presented ny the witnessess in the case documents stated that Nora locked Trapp in a latrine and lit him up. as you can note in the same case documnet it aslo stated that the stament was change by the police and no one would hear what one of the other individuals had to say pertaining to the statement. also included in the documents was Trapp's testimony on page 3 which states that he did said the be hit nora and it was then that she threw the gasoline on him. Now, if someone had hit you and the only thing you have in your possesson to defend yourself is z bottle or pan of gasoline, i know you wouldn't have think twice but to stone that person with it either. You also said that it was a devious act committed by the police officers who change the statement. so, if you are saying that it was wrong for them to do that, them more than likely your verdict should have also been gulity of manslaughter and not murder. Not to say you are wrong though, it's just my opinion. i also agree with you as to how our justice system is functioning today becuase we as Belizeans know that there are people who are being wrongly accused by our justice system just becuase they are either not prepresented by an attroney or some false statement is being presented against them.
furthermore, today we have court of appeals and so on as opposed to the days of Nora and Kitchell and the wrong doing is still taking place. Good comment though girl!
Nora Parham is not a violent or jealous person. I believe that it's otherwise- Trapp is the jealous and violent one. A jealous person is not one who would endures abuse and still be inlove with a guy who is abusive and probably a womanizer, evnthough it's not stated anywhere in the article. It is just the norm for policemen to have many mistresses. I believe that most men who cheat are generally jealous, violent and abusive.Because of their insecurities, they become violent and abusive to their partners. Nora Parham is just one victim in this scene. The statement that was presented by Sandra Trapp was bogus. I believe that she was just defending her dad and want the peoples' empathy. I agree with Michelle on the part where she stated that Sandra is bias. In addition to this, Lisa mentioned that Sandra's story is not convincing but rather conflicting. This I agree with. It's hard to believe a person like Sandra being that she doesn't live with this particular family. Yes, she is his daughter from another woman and probably she too holds alot against Nora.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to judge rightly because we don't know the truth. The judgements we make most of the time are not accurate, rather accusations. These accusations in most instances lead innoccent people behind bars or end up and become meat for the gallows. Had I been apart of the jurors who sat to decide on Nora's fate, given the evidence presented, probably I would have been the only one to present a verdict of not guilty and guilty of nothing at all. I say this because there is no hard evidence in the article or any article related to this case that states Nora took the lighter or match and started the fire. The person who lit the match in this scene was Trapp. Yes, there is evidence that was stated by Nora, that she threw gasoline on him, but this doesn't really support the fact that she is guilty of murder. She had been provoked, scared and in her defense threw on him what was available at the time. Gasoline was available at the time. It could have been something else. What if she was in the kitchen- it could have been water,pot, spoon, or anything. In addition to this detail, she didn't have the gasoline intending to throw at Trapp but for one purpose, to iron. Also in the summation of the case, the Sol Gen did not specifically cite any witness that could say they they saw Nora burn Trapp. I believe that in a murder trial, there should be eyewitnesses to the scene and should have said their parts. The trial was swift and hastily conducted. This only proved that the people who passed the sentencing of Nora to death didn't care about her, the children, or those people who voted on her behalf to be pardoned. This is crazy. Those "judges" back then will rot in hell. This is a very sensitive case, one that really get me sad and angry. This outrageous act of our judicial system is an ongoing process. We might not see a change until God's kingdom comes.
1. According to the account, anecdotes cited jealousy as the main cause of quarrels. However, witnesses cited more specific sources of the conflict such as accusations of "shell eye" babies by Trapp, as well as, disputes over money. Based on this piece of data, I can say that Trapp was violently jealous and not Nora Parham. Even Sol Gen Havers, in his submission to the court, he suggested that Nora quarreled with Trapp because he did not give her money for fineries and that Nora complained about beatings. These beatings could have been for the "shell eye" babies. Nora was simply frustrated and fed up of being beaten. There was no part of the account that suggested Nora was violently jealous.
ReplyDelete2. Listening to Parham's statement where she said, "He came in the bedroom with a stick in his hand and hit me on my head. When he was going to hit me another hit, I threw the gasoline on him.” I can say that she acted in self-defense and the pan of gasoline was all she had at that point in time. She knows Trapp's abusive behavior so to escape from the hit; she threw the gasoline on him. Also, anyone who is hurt or threatened will naturally send threats to defend himself or herself, even animals in the wild do that. Moreover, in his summation of the case, Sol Gen Havers did not specifically cite any witness that could say they saw Nora burn Trapp and the fact that I could arrive at one of three possible verdicts, I would vote guilty of nothing at all. The fact that Nora locked him up and set him afire was hearsay. I would also argue that the trial was too swift. More time was needed to study the case further.
Hi Jamael,
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with you on the part where you mentioned that Nora indeed threw gasoline on Trapp and lit him a fire. Indeed Nora threw gasoline on him but on self defense. There is no evidence in the article or from any eyewitnesses that say Nora was seen lighting the fire on Trapp. I find your statement bias. Reason for my thought is that you are siding with Trapp. In every relationship there are the positive and negative parts to both parties. Ofcourse, Nora mentioned on several occassions one getting even with Trap but this is not enough to prove that Mr. Police is always right and Nora is a violent Murderess. As human beings, we say many things when we are provoked, scared, sad, hurt, or even to bring up our self esteem when we are down.But it doesn't mean that we are going to carry it out.
Jams, this is my honest opinion about our judicial system- it is unjust. There is law in Belize but many of these laws are broken by the people in the judicial system and by government officials. They commit the greatest crimes and always walk away as free men and women. Also police officers don't put their lives front line for us. We are presently living a life of survival of the fittest.
Hello Sherane,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Sandra. She does not know the things that happened in that household. What she may have seen are the results of the abuses that Nora had suffered. Her statements have no substance to me now or even if I was one of the jurors back then. Also I must agree that she does not live with her father and so does not know him well.
Based from what I have read Mrs. Parham is not jealous. Those are only acccusations cited from Trapp's daughter. Sandra was a little girl who was living away from the family.She knew little of her father's relationship with Nora. Due to the recurrent abuses Nora retaliated and unfortunately ended up in a defenceless situation. It wasn't jealousy that transpired the incident. Mr. Trapp orchestrated the whole incident and all Nora was doing is defending herself. On that specific day there was no witness to prove that she lit Mr. Trapp on fire. True, maybe she threw the fuel on him but no one saw what happens after. Most of us may wonder why she didn't leave. I guess she was tolerating the abuses because she feared that resistance might only intensify the situation. Staying in the relationship is the only thing she could do and in her case it is due to lack of independent financial resources and family and institutioal support.
ReplyDeleteI would have voted self defense. Nora made several complaints against her comon law and the law was reluctant to listen and protect her. Mr. Havers even stated that Mr. Trapp was not perfect which proves that he was guilty of some misdeeds. Policemen are known for committing crimes and getting away. If you can recall there were several crimes policemen were involved in recently and are not being charged. Nora has been abused over and over and there was noone there for her. So I'm sorry, "SELF DEFENSE'.
Hi Charles,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mrs. Parham is innocent. She was defending herself. Things must have escalated that night for Mrs.Parham to react violently. Mr. Trapp was an abusive man. Sandra is miscalculating the tragedy and her father's life with Mrs. Parham.
First of all, this entire case was he said, she said. There was no evidence that Nora Killed/burned Trapp. As far as being jealous, again that is he said, she said. Sandra Trapp did not live in the same home as her father. She was not there on a regular basis to see the actual living situation. If it was the opposite, then she could say something. Probably Sandra witnessed one incident whereby Parham reacted negatively and she ‘assumed’ that that was the everyday living situation. Now the other children who were actually living there could say what happened and what did not happen. Sandra could have just said that Parham was jealous in spite of her father’s demise. She probably wanted to say something to make sure that her father’s ‘killer’ suffer.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it was quite obvious that the crime was not fully investigated. As part of the jury, that point should have made a difference in the final outcome of the case. Since there was no real evidence, there was no way she should have suffered such cruel and inhumane consequence. As, part of the jury, I think I would have done what I could to try to convince the other jurors to be somewhat lenient in the final outcome. They should have taken into mind what Parham went through and what led to the incident. She should not have been convicted of murder but probably manslaughter.
Domestic violence is more common now as it was back then. But the Jury was too swift in making there judgment on Nora Parham. There are a lot of small details that the jury should have looked at and that the evidence brought to court just did not add up. Some minor detail should have been investigated. Take for instance the article states that Nora had locked Trapp in the out house; but was he really locked in from outside? Did the officers at that time check the door to see if the lock was broken or if the door itself was broken? If that was checked then they could have made their judgment base on that. If she had lock the door that would mean that she intentionally wanted to kill Trapp.
ReplyDeleteReaction to Michele’s comments:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your comments on being bias and was defending her father without any knowledge of what was exactly happening in the home. I also agree with your point of being jealous should not lead to murder. If Parham actually or rather intentionally killed Trapp, I don’t think it will be because of jealousy. I think he provoked her enough to push her over the edge to resort to such harsh outcome. Also, as you stated, the matter was not fully investigated. Sentence was given based of hear say. That is not evidence enough to sentence someone to be hanged.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMONA RAMOS
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Nora Parham was a jealous woman but she was a victim of physical and emotional abuse and like some abusive relationship they usually end up in tragedy. I believe it was the other way around; Trapp was the jealous one in the relationship and he acted on his jealousy by abusing her repeatedly both publicly and privately.
If I was a juror I would find her not guilty of lighting Trapp afire it was a clear cut case and should not have been any trial, because he made a statement on his dying bed which prove her innocence, he said “she was getting her iron ready to iron and she took the gasoline and throw it on him, but she didn’t light the match...he had already gave her some blows, he said, and then he went to the toilet. That’s when he took his cigarette and the matches but he had the gas on him. So when he lit the matches to light the cigarette that’s when he caught fire.”
Dear Mirna,
I agree with you, I too believe that she was innocent and that the statement was change which caused her to be found guilty and ended being hanged. They did her and her children an injustice because the children were left without both parents.
DERRICK Martinez said 1. Nora Parham was not violently jealous because she was in an abusive relationship and suffered “beatings” and abuse from her husband. As a mother, she
ReplyDeletewas entitled to money to purchase food for the house and to buy her personal belongings. Nora had four children for Mr. Trapp. She deserves better!
2. If I were a part of the juror, I will voted guilty of manslaughter because she was given an unfair trial. It was swift because of a policeman was killed and only ten male jurors. Where is the equality and justice? As reported by Ms. Espejo the changing of the statement by the policeman and the abused she suffered from P.C Trapp. The 8 or 9 complaints which were made as stated by P.C Sanchez. Finally Ms. Parham had eight children. They lost a father already what will hanging Ms. Parham proved? It can be concluded Nora Parham was wrongfully convicted because of being a “cop slayer”.
Derrick Martinez, Hi Marceen I agree with you Ms. Parham suffered years of abuse verbally and physically. Mr. Trapp was the abuser and should have treated his common-law wife better. Ms. Parham deserves better as a individual and a woman.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with you Ms. Parham should not been hanged because of her children. It is true only God can judge us. He is the creator and maker of life. She was given an unfair trail. So may women go through abuse daily and the system failed them but God will delivered them because God is love.
Martha Sacasa
ReplyDeleteSir I already wrote my comment but I think I log into your other class.
Respond to Michelle
I am in total agreement with you Michelle that the daughter is totally bias. How can a woman who is constantly getting beat be jealous of the same man who is hurting her. I don't know what's wrong with the daughter. The juries were also bias. Where is the woman jury that could have voice for Nora, none. Ms. Nora was also pregnant according to the newspaper when she was put to hang. The jury didn't even consider Nora eight children, leaving them orphans. On top of that they hang an innocent pregnant woman. Who are they to take a child's life. Every child has the right to live. You also mentioned that the case wasn't look into properly. This is because Trapp was a high police man he gain his community respect according to the article. But no one knows what happen behind close doors. Nora was complaining but it felt on deaf ears. The woman was constantly provoke by Trapp. When she threw the gas at him it was because she didn't have anything else to threw at him and she was also provoke into threwing the gas at him. She was fed up with that woman abuser.
I agree to a certain extent with Llyodia in that Trapp daughter was making up the story that her stepmother was the abuser. However, i disagree that Nora should have been convicted for manslaughter. Nora was innocent and should not have been convicted for murder or manslaughter.
ReplyDelete1. I don't agree that Nora was violently jealous. She was simply domestically abused by Trapp.Ever if her daughter, Sandra, is saying that she was uncontrollably jealous; I don't think Sandra mature enough at the time Trapp died and was not able to judge the actions of her mother. I think Nora was just reacting naturally to the situation she was exposed to.
ReplyDelete2. I would vote for Nora Parham. Since we know women are constantly domestically abused by men, we should not doubt in supporting women who are going through this terrible situations. I believe men at that time were worst than those now a days. At least right now we have laws that support women. Women are always badly beaten by men. However, now a days we have " Women against violence". It was because of women who suffered liked Nora that people decided to get together and fight this problem. Unfortunately, Nora's case was different because she was living with a cop. And even now, there are women who are going through the same situation of Nora, but they are afraid the same policemen threaten them. I would vote for Nora because I know and because it was proven that she was innocent. Another reason I would vote for her is because of her 8 children. She was just treated unjustly.
Hi derrick,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that Nora was not violently jealous. As you mentioned she needed to address certain household responsibilities. And we need to take into consideration that the person saying that she was violently jealous was her own daughter, which I don't think she have the right to judge her mother. Sandra was very young at that time to be able to know what was being jealous. I think she is the one judging wrongly her mother. Maybe she needs to sit down and reflect more on what her mother was going through or maybe she needs to experience it so she could be able to judge correctly.
On the other hand, I disagree with you that if you were part of the juror you would have considered her guilty if manslaughter. I think she was totally innocent. So she not even deserved the manslaughter verdict you would have imposed her.Innocent is innocent.
I don't agree that Nora was violently jealous, this was a plain case of self defense. she was verbally and physically abused for years. in addition to her abuse she was a mother of eight plus Sandra was definately mistaken and blind to say such a thing about Nora being the aggressor. plus its obvious theres no evidence of Trapp being the real victim when there were witness of him abusing Nora. Sandra can only make an aligation nothing else. Who lives it knows it.
ReplyDeleteIf i was on the jury i would vote not guilty. simply because the evidence states that she did not light him afire, he lit the cigarette, he killed himself.
Jamael, i disagree with your comment. Nora was not violently jealous and guilty of murder. As a natural human being its just reflex for anger to take its coarse. think about it she threw the gasoline but is there evidence that she lit anything to spark or start the fire, NO. After all he was the one that lit the cigarette. I believe Nora was used as an example.
Hi Mr. Tucker,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question posed, Yes, I do believe that there should be a new court case to vindicate the legacy of Miss Nora Parham. This woman was wrongly accused and given the very harsh punishment which took her life as well as taking her away from her children lives. The least that can be done in this present time is a new court case so that her name can be cleared and her children can live in peace knowing that the world knows that their mother was not guilty of such a crime. Yes, she played a role in it because every action has a reaction but she didn't deserve for her life to be taken away. I am for a new court case and I do believe that given the opportunity she will be found free of murder.
In response to my dear colleague Ms. Samantha Soberanis, I must say that my reason for voting Miss Nora Parham guilty would be based solely on what was presented as evidence. Maybe, I missed a point but from what I recall the only statement that was made available at that time was the changed statement that was given by the police officers. I don't recall that the jurors heard the original statement by Trapp. Therefore, that is what led me to find her guilty based solely on evidence presented. However, if at that time I was told as the juror that the statement was changed by the police and the original statement made by Mr. Trapp was presented to me the juror then of course, no doubt would I have been able to find Ms. Nora Param not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that Nora Param was jealous i mean come on she was being abused how can she ever be jealous i think she probably had low self esteem too because she couldn't even put herself together to say well, "i'm getting out of this relationship" If Nora was living in todays' day i think she would probably would have gotten out of it. There are a lot of single parents these days than back then single parents who have managed to get out of abusive relationships. I think the jurors wrongfully convicted her because if they had followed up on the evidence given or obstacles to look at that may have led to the death then maybe she would have been proven not guilty. i say this because we have read the article and majority in my class agreed that she didn't commit the crime
ReplyDeletei think there should be a new court case to vindicate Nora Param. to my concern i would like to know how they would apologies to the family or what concept or steps they would take.
ReplyDeleteNora was not a violently jealous woman. They had their normal family disputes over finances and other disagreements but she was not a violently jealous woman. Ketchell Trapp was the one who was violent. It was a clear case of domestic abuse where Nora was the victim and she did not get any protection for her and her 8 children from the law or others in authority. She suffered and took her abuse and tried at numerous attempts on her own to leaver Trapp( pg. 5) Trapp even admitted to beating her in his dying declaration (pg 6 &pg.2) ) She was a strong woman and by the grace of God to withstand her abusive husband she was able to defend herself (pg 3). When he hit her, she then threw gasoline on him but he was the one to light a cigarette.
ReplyDeleteI would vote and not guilty of murder given all the evidence provided, even though she was ignored when she went to report the incidences. She also has 8 children so I will be considerate of all that information. Nora Parham defended herself, after suffering too long, by throwing gasoline on him. He was the one to set himself on fire by lighting a cigarette so Nora did not touch him.
deshawn said:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that she was not a voilent person or jealous because if she was she would have did what she us eto say out of anger alon time ago , but she didn't. All she did was keep her cool and stick in the relationship for her children because if she couldn't do it on her own.
If i was apart of the jury i would said, not guily, because with thhe evidence that she state and the truth from her common-law husband before he died was enough evidence that prove that she was not guilty.