Dateline NBC: The Secret and Patricia Esparza
Did you catch Dateline this past weekend? They featured the story of Patricia Esparza, who was questioned and plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the killing of Gonzalo Ramirez.
Patricia swears she is innocence and didn’t have anything to do with Ramirez’s death and that the others in the story did it. While we didn’t see the others, I can tell you unequivocally that I did not believe Patricia at all.
She was riddled with clues the entire broadcast.
I wrote about Patricia Esparza back in December of 2013 after she wrote an article for the HuffPost making her argument. Her argument is full of hotspots. Check it out by clicking on the link above.
I also talked about her here as well.
I made one comment, yesterday, but it was not there, today. I hope this one works. I agree with you on this, Eyes. In her interview with the police, she was all over the place. She would go from present tense to past tense. She would drop pronouns, and she was really unbelievable. I don’t get the sense of a person, who was as abused and trodden under, as she maintains. She seems to be a bitter person, who blames everyone else for her problems, and she doesn’t seem to connect herself to the murder case, calling it a case, not this case.
In the Huffington Post article, she says all of her problems with the murder charges is because she did not go to the police when the rape happened (a gross over-simplification). She goes on to tell how many women don’t report rapes. In spite of the rapes not being reported, not all of the abusers wind up murdered, as her abuser did. She over-simplifies her problems with an over-all statement of it happened all because she didn’t go to the police 20 years ago. I just don’t believe her story. I, also, doubt that the police would want to try her for murder, if they had proof that she wasn’t there. Because she wasn’t there, does not mean that she didn’t help plan the murder.
My first impression of her was that she’s passive-aggressive and manipulative. She seemed unable to maintain eye contact with the interviewer for any length of time. She did a lot of looking down or around. Lots of doublespeak. I’m not sure how a man can force a woman into marriage in the late 20th century. An official has to perform the ceremony any show of force would be a huge red flag.
Then there’s a certain type of person who’s unfortunately attracted to the mental health profession. They’re in it for the power it gives them over others. That’s why researching therapists is so very important. I don’t know if she was ever a practicing therapist for longer than necessary to get her degrees, but it’s hard to imagine her putting the needs of others before her own. I don’t buy her comment about why she withheld her past from her second husband. I suspect it was for purely selfish reasons. She seems sneaky.
I watched Patricia Esparza on Dateline for the first time last night as she went on and on about how she had been so wronged by people in her past life. She played the victim with every response and I found myself watching her delivery rather than listening to her words. I was wondering why I wasn’t believing a word she said, when halfway through the program I realized it was because she reminded me very much of Mechele Linehan. Eyes, your assessment of Mechele sums it up perfectly for the both of them, “She softly weeps as she wipes the tears from her eyes begging for you to sympathize with her.” Patricia didn’t have a “secret” betrayal! Like Mechele, she manipulated a murder, relocated to a distant location, reinvented a glossy new life for herself, and got away with murder until her past caught up with her. Now, like Mechele, “She softly weeps…” Yep, not buying it!
I am not sure how much we will ever know about her level of culpability in this case. There are certainly some signs that can lead one to believe she had minimal involvement in the actual murder.
I think if the jury truly followed the concept of proving guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Patricia would have easily been found not guilty.
However, if you follow American juries, they do sometimes vote guilty when there is significant amount of doubt. If she lost she may never see her child again. In hindsight yes she should have taken the three years. But it’s obvious she broke in prison with the full weight of the American justice system weighing down on her.. I think she had to take it.
This was NOT the American Justice systems finest hour. There really is a very good chance Patricia was a raped women who went to jail for a crime of passion her exboyfriend committed. For all the problems America has, it’s pretty pathetic the justice system thought destroying Patricia was worth the momentous effort.