Judge rules there will be no death penalty in Carnation killings
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- On Thursday a judge ruled the man and woman accused of murdering six members of a Carnation family will not face the death penalty.
Relatives of the murder victims have waited five years for justice, and Thursday's ruling means they will have to wait even longer.
After the decision was made, a King County prosecutor called Pam Mantle to assure her his colleagues would fight the judge's decision to throw out the death penalty against Joseph McEnroe and Michelle Anderson, who are charged with murdering six members of her family.
"You put your trust in this justice system. I believe in it, and keep getting let down," Mantle said.
Anderson and McEnroe allegedly killed Anderson's parents, Wayne and Judy Anderson; her brother, Scott; his wife, Erica; and their children, 5-year-old Olivia and 3-year-old Nathan.
Erica's brother, Joe, is furious at Thursday's decision.
"I don't believe in capital punishment, but if anybody should get capital punishment it should be those two," he said.
Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell ruled that prosecutors erred in considering the strength of their evidence to prove guild against the accused killers. Ramsdell blindsided the Mantle family when he wrote that prosecutors should only have weighed if mitigating circumstances guided their death penalty decision.
"We would expect the justice system is there to protect society from animals like this. It became obvious to us today that that's not the case," said Tony Mantle.
McEnroe's trial was set to start this spring, and the Mantles say Thursday's ruling could push it back two years, if it happens at all.
"We would like to see some kind of closure," Tony Mantle said. "We really believe we are entitled to hear 12 people say guilty."
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg issued a statement saying his office believes the ruling was wrong and will appeal on behalf of the lives lost and because the possible future impact on future cases.
Relatives of the murder victims have waited five years for justice, and Thursday's ruling means they will have to wait even longer.
After the decision was made, a King County prosecutor called Pam Mantle to assure her his colleagues would fight the judge's decision to throw out the death penalty against Joseph McEnroe and Michelle Anderson, who are charged with murdering six members of her family.
"You put your trust in this justice system. I believe in it, and keep getting let down," Mantle said.
Anderson and McEnroe allegedly killed Anderson's parents, Wayne and Judy Anderson; her brother, Scott; his wife, Erica; and their children, 5-year-old Olivia and 3-year-old Nathan.
Erica's brother, Joe, is furious at Thursday's decision.
"I don't believe in capital punishment, but if anybody should get capital punishment it should be those two," he said.
Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell ruled that prosecutors erred in considering the strength of their evidence to prove guild against the accused killers. Ramsdell blindsided the Mantle family when he wrote that prosecutors should only have weighed if mitigating circumstances guided their death penalty decision.
"We would expect the justice system is there to protect society from animals like this. It became obvious to us today that that's not the case," said Tony Mantle.
McEnroe's trial was set to start this spring, and the Mantles say Thursday's ruling could push it back two years, if it happens at all.
"We would like to see some kind of closure," Tony Mantle said. "We really believe we are entitled to hear 12 people say guilty."
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg issued a statement saying his office believes the ruling was wrong and will appeal on behalf of the lives lost and because the possible future impact on future cases.
Registered democrats.
Â
It seems more and more that criminals have more rights than the victims. Guilty is guilty even if someone forgets to dot all their I's and cross their T's.
Were they on meth?
Life in prison with 3 hots and cot. sounds terrible. Oh free heath care too. Why even have the death penalty?
I believe the law says that you can get the death penalty if there were aggravating circumstances, murder for hire, political leader or a common theme. Common theme is said to be too broad therefore uncostitutional. Therefore no death penalty. Beside Washington won't put a woman to death and therefore noone will allow us to put a partner to a woman to death in the same crime.
Girls are special....
Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell needs to be removed. How can that be made to happen?
@oldster70 Removed for upholding legal protections? Yeah, who needs those pesky things.
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth What legal protections? The right of equal protection. It's in the constitution. Kind of a big deal. You should try reading it sometime.
Â
I do enjoy how you invoke the constitution while declaring people guilty (and demanding their punishment) before they ever stand trial. Go take a civics class.
Â
This is enough to make me sick. A most cold hearted, foul, sick multiple murder, and this judge doesn't think it warrants the death penalty. He's nucking futz.
 @SargeMcC Anyone who murders a child should face the death penalty, no debate.
"Anderson and McEnroe allegedly killed Anderson's parents, Wayne and Judy Anderson; her brother, Scott; his wife, Erica; and their children, 5-year-old Olivia and 3-year-old Nathan."
Â
If this is not a case for the death penalty, what crime would qualify? Â
@Princessnumnums The scope of the crim committed had absolutely nothing to do with the judges decision. You should probably try reading it.
Why is this the judges discretion? Â Shouldn't this be up to the jury? Â
Remember, we elect our judges --- remember the name  Jeffrey Ramsdell
The judge and the jury have two distinct jobs. Making sure the proper procedure is followed, and ensuring that the constitution is upheld is not the jury's job, it's the Judges.
 @JCCBlvu Judge Ramsedell ran unopposed in 2012 for Superior Court Dep't 9. Superior court judges have a four year term. He will be up for re-election until 2016 and then is the opportunity to make your vote count.
@al_wa @JCCBlvu We will probably forget about it by then & when someone reminds us, we will ask for proof
@choliscott Anyone up for a public vote can be researched. I research every name on my ballot before I completely fill in the bubble. An informed voter is the best possible way we have to keep people like this out of office.
Now they probably think they can plead guilty because now they know they won't die...GRRRRR!!!
I still can't believe it took 5 YEARS for this to finally come to trial. I mean, I CAN believe it because I'm sure there was a truckload of paperwork filed in this case by the attorneys. It is truly a sad commentary on our society when the criminals have more rights than those who were victimized. It's no wonder there is no motivation to work for an honest living, be kind to your neighbors or just be plain compassionate.Â
"Precedence" has ruined the justice system.... With that being said protect your own at any cost necessary.... I would make it my life mission to see these scumbags gone if something like that were to happen to my loved ones...
Precedence has ruined the justice system? Without stare decesis you couldn't have a functioning justice system.
OK lets just lock them up in a 6x6 cell and feed them bread and water for the rest of their lives. Justice served.
Good grief. The wheels of justice, or, no justice, in this case- turn so flippin' slow.
Thank you Norm Maleng. The FACT that Gary Ridgeway avoided the death penalty for upwards of 50 murders means that no other prosecutor can ever attempt to serve real justice against the monsters who commit these crimes! It's sickening to think that callous murderers have more rights than law abiding citizens and the victims of these heinous crimes!
 @takncarabizniz Exactly.  I stated just that when the plea was struck allowing Ridgeway to live.  But your Honor, he killed 50+, whilst my client only 5. Any prosecutor seeking a death sentence, as things exist now, will be risking mistrial and/or endless appeals. A successfully prosecuted capital punishment trial successes will end at sentencing, because it will NEVER be carried out.
Joe doesn't believe in Capitol Punishment, except for these two? Wow. way to stay true to your beliefs.Â
Â
The death penalty is on its way out, most modern countries and many states have already banned it. We are not China or Syria.
I see what he means. He does not believe in capitol punishment but since this state allows capitol punishment, how do these two not qualfiy? I feel the same way. Of course, it is a complicated answer and one that no one likes (or should!).
Â
Oldster70 - It costs more to try someone and successfully execute them than for taxpayers to house them the rest of their life. So if expenditure of tax dollars when it comes to this issue is your primary concern, you should celebrate this news.
 @floggingnotblogging Yes, I know. Just venting I guess........
@oldster70 understood. This case is extremely aggravating no matter your up inion.
 @floggingnotblogging never let facts get in the way of an Old Testament slaying. Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Â
Of course these people did a despicable act. 40 years in the pen is a good punishment.
The baseline static is true. But give how this series of executions on innocent victims occurred these two have a higher likelihood to reoffend than the "vast majority". If I recall, John said "I'm sorry" to one of the little kids before shooting the kid in the head. But hey, with your "facts" it's only a calculated risk :S.Â
@webby The vast majority of convicted murderers do not reoffend, either in prison or once they are released. Facts are the darndest things.
But what's the potential for them killing again in prison? Maybe a guard or another inmate? These two killed children, and entire family, her own family. So what's the potential for the killing again in prison?
@calapete
So you want to warehouse totally worthless scum at taxpayerâs expense? That money could be put to a worthwhile cause, like transfer stations or sewage treatment plants.Â
"You put your trust in this justice system. I believe in it, and keep getting let down,"
I am sorry Mrs. Mantle, but you will have to get used to it. There is almost no justice left in the justice system. It is all about maneuvering and dissecting every word to chalk up another win for the attorneys, so they may further their career. Just just because Mr. Ramsdell is a judge, does not mean he has good judgment.
Once again, I am so sorry the VICTIM's family is having SO MANY YEARS TAKEN FROM THEM in their wait for Justice... Â And once again, justice falls flat to the MURDERED VICTIMS. Â I'm sorry there are so many in our society that put NO VALUE ON THE VICTIMS, who can only put so much effort and only give value to the lives of the MURDERERS... Â What a twisted, backwards society we do live in.
I thought it was the prosecutors responsibility to determine whether or not to seek the death penalty. Looks like the judge also has a say. Does it ever happen in reverse, when a judge insists on the death penalty after the prosecutor seeks life?
I wonder if all of those railing against Ramsdell as an "activist" or "liberal" judge who's crusading against the death penalty have any idea that previous attempts by the defense to take the death penalty off the table were denied by Judge Ramsdell himself.Â
 @jaolson28 More precisely, Judge Ramsdell ruled in 2010, that the death penalty for multiple victims allegedly killed in a common scheme â "have long been recognized as constitutional."
 Ramsdell also stated the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty was not improper.
Â
 There was no basis in law for removal of the death penalty in this case. What has changed??
Â
Judge Ramsedell ran unopposed in 2012 for Superior Court Dep't 9. Superior court judges have a four year term. He will be up for re-election until 2016 and then is the opportunity to make your vote count.
What changed? The prosecution made a different argument (namely that the consideration of strength of evidence violated the defendants rights to equal protection.) The judge agreed with them on this argument, while he did not agree with their previous arguments. Is that really so hard to understand?
 @jaolson28  @al_wa How does insulting everyone serve you ?
@al_wa Explain how this is legislating from the bench, and explain how "placing the deceased right to justice above the defendants rights for equal protection" doesn't turn our system of justice completely on it's head.Â
Â
I thought Americans had a pethetic understanding of how their government works. I'm now convinced that the average Americans understanding of the legal system is even worse.
 @jaolson28 Understanding is not the issue. The prosecutor clearly understands, but simple does not agree. A Judges ruling are not absolute and subject to review. This is not the first time a judge attempted to legislate from the bench. I am inclined to place the deceased right to justice above the defendants rights for equal protection. They murdered six people and this judge has already ruled the death penalty was proper.
 @jaolson28 it's mob rule in here today. understanding is in short supply... If you tried to take guns away from most of these folks they'd be shrieking "uphold the constitution!!"...
If these two very deserving individuals don't get the death penalty, you might as well just get rid of it and avoid these types of controversies all together.Â
If looks could kill these two would be the only human beings left alive. These two take "ugly" down not just a notch, but down to the the dungeon's basement. I recommend a mercy execution. Too bad my recommendation carries no weight in this case.
I'm not a lawyer and so I don't pretend to know if the judge or the prosecution erred. But I am convinced that far too many of these criminal cases are decided on the basis of a technical issue rather than guilt or justice. If ever a case warranted the death penalty this one does. The decision made by this judge needs to be overturned!
 @maddog You admit that you don't know if the judge erred or not, but then demand it be overturned?  The legal process isn't just something that can be carried out all willy nilly, on a case by case basis.  You don't get to pick and choose which legal protections apply to your favored groups of people and which ones apply to those you don't think deserve them.  If they can ignore procedure when it comes to this case (procedure that is there for the protection of all of us) then they could ignore procedure for anyone, whenever they wanted.A fair system of justice necessarily has to treat everyone the same.  That includes people accused of murder.
@jaolson28 If this discussion pertained to procedures regarding the determination of guilt or innocence, I could agree with you wholeheartedly. But it doesn't. And it doesn't pertain to protections or the lack of protections of any "favored" or "disfavored" group. It pertains to the right of the people to seek an appropriate penalty for an extremely vicious and brutal act.... the execution of six people, including two children. Since I admit that I am convinced of the defendants guilt even before the trial, I can also say that it was an act made even more extreme when you consider that it was made by the defendant (and her boyfriend) against her own mother, father, and other members of her own family. Again, Yes, this decision should be overturned and I hope that it will be.
@jaolson28 Although you would benefit from Spellcheck in this application, you're obviously an intelligent woman judging from the ideas that you have expressed in the multiple posts that you've made on this subject.
Â
You seem to have some degree of self-proclaimed expertise in the law. No one seems to understand government or law except for yourself.  But, despite your expertise and intelligence, you are very definitely on the opposite side of popular opinion in this case.
@maddog It absolutely is about the right of equal protection. You want the judges order reversed because you "feel" it's what should be "right." Judicial decisions, however, should never be based on what feels good, but on the law.Â
Â