Hey, there! Log in / Register
Accused pizza killers ordered held without bail
By adamg on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 1:51pm
The three people charged with murdering a Domino's delivery man were ordered held without bail at their arraignment today, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Michel Andre St. Jean, 20, of Hyde Park; Alexander Emmanuel Gallett, 18, of Hyde Park and Yamiley Mathurin, 17, of Mattapan, are charged with stabbing Richel Nova, 58, to death last Wednesday night and then making off with $100, the pizza they'd ordered and his car. They pleaded not guilty at their arraignments in West Roxbury District Court. According to the DA's office:
When Nova arrived with the delivery, [Assistant District Attorney Jennifer] Hickman said, Mathurin lured him around back and inside by telling him that her wallet was inside. In fact, prosecutors allege, her two co-defendants were lying in wait with knives, prepared to kill him and take his money. They attacked almost as soon as he entered the residence.
Nova suffered multiple stab wounds to his chest, back, and throat that left him mortally wounded. Based on evidence at the scene and post-Miranda statements by all three defendants, investigators believe that they rifled through Nova’s pockets as he was dying.
Gallett, Mathurin, and St. Jean left the scene with Nova's cash and the pizza. They drove away in his car, which showed signs of a cleaning attempt when investigators located it the next day. Under an adjacent vehicle, investigators found a pizza box that still contained three slices of pepperoni pizza.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Wow.
They didn't try to cash in on the car.
They probably got less than $100 from his pockets.
They didn't even finish the DAMN PIZZA.
That is so pointless and so vicious at the same time.
I hope they die in prison. If they think a person is worth only pocket change and 5 slices of pizza, then I hope their fellow inmates treat them accordingly.
You mean you hope that the
You mean you hope that the guilty person(s) die in prison?
Read the news.
They used St. Jean's phone number as the callback to order the pizza, they got Mathurin on a surveillance video at the house, and when St. Jean was confronted, he rolled on the other two.
On top of that, Mathurin's uncle admits he knew she was there but he said she didn't do any of the actual stabbing.
Not only do you not have all
Not only do you not have all the evidence that would come out at trial, but you don't know how much of what you think you know is true, and what you do know is so bewildering that... you're angry *because* it's bewildering.
Sounds like a good time to take a step back and wait and see.
Can you just write all the comments
Maybe it would be better if you just wrote all the comments on these crime stories.
Commissioner - the Batsignal!!
What prison is strong enough to contain these criminal masterminds?
Reply to comment
I'm not sure where you thought you were going with the comment you posted. It's not funny. Think of the enormity of what happened. Then put yourself in the place of the victims family. This is a very serious matter. It's not a friggin' joke.
As a heart attack
I am being serious, pal. These are the king of supercriminal geniuses who will bust out of our lockups as easily as you roll out of bed. They will be back on the street soon, planning their next daring heist - gunning down old Chinese women in the South End for their shopping cart full of beer cans or detonating an IED on Melnea Cass to separate the Teen Challenge guys from their brimming can of nickels.
hey
you just don't know what your saying.... they have not judge none of them yet so shut up yah people just hear a news and start talking slick thats just wrong. Where their at right now the less thing they want is judging............
I have judged them celanie.
They are pieces of garbage that do not belong on this planet.
Federal charges?
I'm surprised that they haven't been arraigned on federal carjacking charges. Is this in the works?
good question
The difference between the crime of carjacking and auto theft may be taking by force of a vehicle which is occupied. IANAL. Regardless, murder is more serious offense than both auto theft and car jacking and comes with a stiffer sentence.
I don't see a link that describes all of the charges. Adam, do you know if there is one?
All the charges
Listed here.
murder, armed robbery, breaking and entering
ALEXANDER GALLETT (D.O.B. 4/28/92) of Hyde Park; his girlfriend,
YAMILEY MATHURIN (D.O.B. 2/25/93) of Mattapan; and
MICHEL ST. JEAN (D.O.B. 8/3/90) of Hyde Park were formally charged in West Roxbury District Court with
"They drove away in his car" but still not charged for car theft?
I don't think facts supports carjacking but why not car theft?
"anyone who steals or tries to steal a motor vehicle by putting a person in fear or by assaulting the person is guilty of Carjacking, a felony"
They didn't put him in fear or assault him to steal his car, they stabbed him to death to take his pocket change, then took his car for a ride and left it in a parking lot.
Some auto theft charges are for suspects who intend to keep the car, but aren't there other auto theft charges applicable given the facts in this case?
Because of the Armed Robbery charge.
When you are charged with robbery of any kind, you don't add on the additional charge of larceny or receiving stolen property. I am assuming that is why you do not see any carjacking or motor vehicle theft charges.
Wouldn't that them be 2 counts of armed robbery?
I think there is a reason the DA did not charge them with auto theft but I can't figure it why. I was looking for the elements of the crime of auto theft in MA and didn't find what I was looking for.
Without addressing strategy
Without addressing strategy in this particular case, looking at an unrelated, resolved homicide case might be instructive: In a different multiple defendant murder/robbery trial (http://www.mass.gov/dasuffolk/docs/6.11.09B.html), the armed robbery charge reflected theft of cash, an ATM card, and car keys, while the larceny of a motor vehicle charge reflected the theft of one victim's car.
Eeka, the kidnapping/carjacking issue is addressed here, too: the killers carjacked one victim by taking control of his vehicle at gunpoint, but kidnapped him by forcing him to drive them to another location.
Bear in mind also that all murders in Massachusetts are adjudicated in Superior Court. The mechanism for transferring a case from district court (where this case is currently pending) to Superior Court is the grand jury indictment. The grand jury has more time to hear more evidence from more sources before returning indictments than police do before seeking a district court complaint -- that a charge is obtained in district court doesn't mean it will be tried if the case is indicted to Superior Court; likewise, that an offense isn't charged in district court doesn't mean it won't be tried in Superior Court.
Usually if several items are stolen from one person at one time.
there is one larceny charge or count. Sometimes you can steal somones keys, and then go steal their car and you can charge them with 2 counts. But in a case like this they stole his keys, pizzas, wallet, car, and whatever else. They would all fall under one count.
Carajcking?
IANJakewark, but doesn't carjacking have to entail taking the car somewhere with the operator still in it (presumably with the belief that s/he will be harmed if s/he doesn't cooperate)?
No, read here.
No, read here.
carjacking
In MA, the victim does not need to be in the vehicle for a carjacking. There are two elements for carjacking:
1. The suspect intended to steal a vehicle
2. The suspect assaulted, confined, maimed or put any person in fear for the purpose of stealing a vehicle.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-21a.htm
I did not know that
What would they do to differentiate between the person being in it and not, then? Kidnapping charge too?
Confining and/or transporting
Confining and/or transporting a person against his or her will could add a kidnapping charge. I don't have the citation or remember the details, but if I recall correctly there was actually a case a few years back that distinguished carjacking and kidnapping, with the SJC explicitly finding that they had separate elements.
Yea I guess it would all depend on the situation
If you held them against their will before you stole the car you could probably have both charges.
But usually the amount of violence in these crimes is the deciding factor in terms of how much prison time is dished out. The guy who pistol whips an old lady who is walking back to her car and grabs her keys might get more time in prison than the guy who points a bb gun at a guy stopped at a red light and forcing him out of his car.
Who Knew?
I heard these three had no police records but I just find it very hard to believe that people involved with them at home, at school or in some part of their lives didn't know they were troubled. We need the network and resources to get to these kids BEFORE they kill.
Should a defendant have to show his face at arraignment?
I'm usually not one for more laws, but we need strong legislation that either requires everyone charged with a crime to show their face at arraignment or allows everyone charged to hide their face.
I see one of the three defendants in this case had a white hooded sweatshirt pulled up and around his face, covering everything but his eyes. In other cases (usually in Boston,) I see that defendants aren't even required to come into the court room and instead peek through an open door or window. How is this fair? I realize defense lawyers often argue that the identification process taht led to their client being charged was faulty, but this is getting ridiculous.
How is it not fair? Nothing
How is it not fair?
Nothing has been proven, here. If they got the right people, then they are, by all means, horrible, awful, terrible, very bad people.
But what if they arrested the WRONG people? Why should they be forced to show their face to TV cameras just because they got arrested?
Because it's a public matter
Because it's a public matter either way.
Whatever you think of the media regardless, the public has a right to know who's being charged, for what, and see the proceedings. Guilty or not guilty, the record and trial will show it.
How is it not fair?
The reason the defendant was wearing a white jumpsuit is because the police took the bloody clothing off of him that he was wearing when he was arrested. True, that isn't proof of guilt, but with the evidence of the surveillance camera film, it doesn't look good for this young man, There are laws that a defendant is presumed innocent. But to see this defendant try and hide his face when it looks certain he committed the crime annoys me.
It depends. As I understand
It depends. As I understand it, the default procedure is for felony defendants to be present and visible at arraignment.
There are exceptions, however. Defense attorneys will often request that a defendant be hidden from view: usually this is to protect them from after-the-fact IDs based on media coverage rather than observations, but there might be some other reason. Prosecutors routinely make the same request to protect eyewitness IDs -- they joined defense counsel in this request today and I've been declining booking photos for the same reason all weekend.
Ultimately, the judge makes the decision based on the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the prosecutor and defense attorney. Defendants are kept out of view in about 50% of the high-profile cases I've been around for (which makes sense, I guess, since an eyewitness ID is more likely to be tainted by widespread distribution of a suspect's photo).
As a footnote, the defendant's hood today was attached to a jail-issued Tyvek jumpsuit, not a sweatshirt (their clothes had been seized by investigators).
Just curious
Why do jail-issued Tyvek jumpsuits come with attached hoods?
ETA: Never mind
maybe the one guy was the only one smart enough
I'm usually not one for more laws, but we need strong legislation that either requires everyone charged with a crime to show their face at arraignment or allows everyone charged to hide their face.
In some countries, the press aren't allowed to report your name or show your picture until you're convicted. Why? To protect you from having your life destroyed on the assumption you are innocent until the state has proven otherwise.
There should be equal protection under the law...
I'm not taking a stance on whether or not defendants should be required to show their face, just that it should be consistent for everyone. What I find unfair is that some are paraded before us while others are allowed to hide and it's all at the judge's discretion. Doesn't seem fair to me, 'tis all.
@jakewark. Thanks for the info and clarification on the garment.
equal protection under the law
yes patently unfair that some suspects are subject to pre-judicial bad press during arraignment while other are not. I think O-FISH-L learned a new phrase, equal protection under the law, and is willing to misapply it whenever and wherever his sense of justice directs him.
Anon 4:52 pm almost gets it right
Anon 4:52. You almost got it right in the first sentence. Indeed, it's patently unfair that some suspects are required to show their faces while others, even those charged identically in the same case, being arraigned at the same time, are not.
Cullen Column
Kevin Cullen's column in the Globe today was pretty good (I usually view him as Mike Barnacle's whiny little brother without the plagiarism and rich wife issues). Here it be.
People are so outraged about this case (rightly so), mostly because they have a target to aim their hate at -- an apparent trio of lowlifes that will be easy to hate (once the media has their way with them). But when a system is to blame (not to sound like some sort of hippy retread -- "it's the system, mannnn, like...wow.") it's so much harder to direct ire and bile. Hey that's my 401K involved in that...whoops...well, you gotta break a few eggs....
Condolences to the victim's family and here's hoping the system works properly and throws these accused scumbags away for quite some time, if they are found guilty. But I refuse to get any more worked up over this case than any other less dramatic, but equally f*cked up situation in this world (that I may actually have more of a chance of affecting change over).
Just not comparable
The acts of the three people who killed Nova were ones of utter depravity. There are probably fewer lower actions they could have taken except to eat a baby.
People get fired all the time. For good reasons and bad ones. I don't agree with how the Hyatt employees were fired and making them train their lower cost replacements by lying to them is even worse.
But it doesn't come anywhere close to the premeditated murder of a person especially given the situation and manner in which it was done for such a measly reward...one in which they didn't even find value in themselves by leaving the car and pizza.
The murder itself was
The murder itself was premeditated? You know the motive?
Where's that anonymous tips number?
It's not comparable
I'm not saying that firing someone is equivalent to what happened to Richel Nova. It's more of a comment on the public reactions to these things. A heinous crime like this one elicits a strong reaction and that's good. However, the righteousness that creeps into people's voices (or posts) bothers me.
I mean, I know some of us here feel that they have every rational, correct response to every situation one could face on this earth (hey Señor Nice, Swirly, Tulips!) but there are so many disgusting, morally repugnant and unfair things that happen in this world and many of them happen out of sight or don't make good media fodder. And some of these acts we may unwittingly be a part of (despite our best intentions of living a low carbon, Gandhi-esque existence).
These three pathetic shitheels (if proven guilty) should be treated appropriately and hopefully they get harsh sentences, but directing a load of moral outrage at them seems to me an easy and cathartic way to get it out of your system and avoid all the rest of the shitty things that go on that you actually can do something about.
I think we deserve to get the
I think we deserve to get the anger and hate towards malicious, violent, vicious killers out of our systems. Why should we have to hold in a feeling of remorse, anger and helplessness at the seemingly ever growing violence going on in our city.
When I first heard this just like many other people my first reaction was "string 'em up"...."bring back the death penalty?...."I hate these people"...etc etc. natural reactions....I didn't find it necessary to write it out here at the time(but my friends have been getting an earful) But I believe a forum like this is the perfect place to vent. Universal Hub constanly (and thankfully) promptly reports alot of news that might go under the radar. We're being barraged constanly with news of sensless acts of violence in our neighborhoods and it's pissing us off, enraging may be a better word. It's depressing and saddening and sometimes people just want to vent and cry out for justice without some cyber know-it-alls (some names were mentioned) climbing up on there soapboxes and telling us the proper ways to react..or that our thoughts are morally or politically or legally incorrect. I don't care what anyone else thinks. If I want to vent and show outrage over a crime that is so horrendous I will certainly do so as should anyone else here without worrying whos moral agenda your rubbing the wrong way. In most cases I would also say "let's see what happens"..but these idiots might as well just walked into the police station and said "hey guess what we just did". Overwhelming evidence (phone records, eyewitnesses, video surveillence, undoubtedly physical and DNA eveidence at the scene and most importantly a confession.
Sorry...but I'm sold on guilty already...i don't apologize and no one else should apologize for feeling that way. I'll apologize and eat my hat if they are found innocent. I will also immediatly vomit!
Something To Consider
Any one of us who is eligible could end up sitting on a jury for this trial. Even those of us NOT in Suffolk County could sit in judgement, as their lawyers could make a strong case to move the venue given the publicity and the ties that the victim's family has to the Mayor's Office.
I agree that venting is warranted - this is scary, horrific, and senseless. However, we all need to step back and realize that we aren't going to get the whole story through the news and that the details may be sensationalized by the media to get our attention though our sense of outrage. These people need to have a fair trial, and that fair trial (which will hopefully put them away for their lifetimes!!!) needs jurors with cool heads to put an airtight seal on these monsters.
p.s. Don't courts find people guilty or not guilty? Nobody is innocent ...
Jury
I was excused from a jury just because I remembered reading about a murder on U.H. although I couldn't recall any details at all.
Considered
Sorry, but I'm not going to live life without learning what's going on around me just because I might end up on the jury for the related trial. I'm also not going to jump to early conclusions if the evidence doesn't come close to supporting it. However, this case was evidently quite the doozy of stupidity (which just makes it all the more revolting and dissonant) which has led to quite a boatload of evidence publicly available on these asshats...who even rolled on each other. Nobody does that on a capital offense unless they have a good reason. Uninvolved relatives and friends have come out and said they know that these people did this. Nobody does that if their family and friends are innocent...hell, most won't even do it if you're guilty.
My roommate knew nothing of this crime until I told him about it last night. There are going to be plenty of people who will be able to sit on this jury. I don't care if I'm not one of them. I'm sure they'll put me to good use at the end of the month when I have jury duty anyways.