I would love to help take care of this guy. People like this need to be systematically tortured until they reveal all of the crimes that they have committed. It would be nice for some families to have closure. Once law enforcement has the information that they need they should take him out to a field and beat him to death.

Wouldn't that reduce you/law enforcement to the same level as the criminal? I don't know the answer, but I don't think beating him to death is it.

duncancl

I would love to help take care of this guy. People like this need to be systematically tortured until they reveal all of the crimes that they have committed. It would be nice for some families to have closure. Once law enforcement has the information that they need they should take him out to a field and beat him to death.

You're as revolting as this criminal. Sorry to burst your self-righteous bubble.

Conscience be thy guide!

Crazy scary eyes.

This creature should have been locked up long ago, when he assaulted his then wife. They should have sentenced him back then. At this point, he should NEVER BE LET OUT OF JAIL. There is no doubt that he will be found guilty of this crime, and maybe the dissapearance and possible murder of his former 'missing' wife. He is the ultimate danger to any community in which he roams, not to mention other communities within 100-miles.

@Wanda, read that again. "court records show a Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict him." Judges don't generally indict. Someone dropped the ball back then, regardless.

Wanda, being retired law enforcement, I can tell you with certainty that the judge had nothing to do with it although I like nothing better than to call then out for some of their stupid decisions. He was "let go" by a jury of his peers, that's what a Grand Jury means. I do however find it odd as a "no bill", which means the Grand Jury failed to return an indictment, is rare as you can literally indict a ham sandwich. The one to blame in that case would be the prosecutor of record or a really poor investigation by the law enforcement agency of record. A Grand Jury indictment only means that the there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the accused in fact committed it. It's a long, long way from a conviction. Hope that explanation helps. Also just because the Grand Jury returns a "no bill" doesn't mean the charges can't be refiled, double jeopardy does not attach in that case. Folks need to study the law more then they would n\know who to put their efforts towards getting rid of.

it said a tarrant county grand jury, not a tarrant county judge.either way it is absurd and i hope they never sleep well another night of their lives.

Indictments are handed down by a grand jury, not a judge.

Also, we don't know what evidence was presented, or if the woman was able to identify her husband (or even willing to). I can't imagine that if the victim had said, "My husband beat me and cut my throat" that the grand jury would have declined to indict. Maybe she never saw who it was, but suspected her husband. I would not judge these people too harshly, they can only base their decision on the evidence provided by prosecutors, which incidentally does not include a window into the future. It is unfair to look back in hindsight and condemn people you don't know based on information you don't have.

It's ok Wanda, I've read things wrong before too. I'm sure everyone has. I'll never get why so many people have to jump to correct though. The very first person did the job guys, so if you're jumping on poor Wanda here to read more thorough, maybe you can too. We all feel the same way about the lack of indictment. This kind of thing happens ALL the time. Except for people who smoke Marijuana, because they're the real dangerous ones.

Wow, I bet those who served on the jury are kicking themselves now for their part in allowing this monster to be free.

I bet those on the jury didn't have enough facts or evidence to hand down an indictment... I am guessing they might wish that they had.. but I doubt that they blame themselves for anything else.

Wanda, if you are going to comment, please be sure that you have read and understood the entire article, so your comment makes sense. Just a little constructive advice.

hulahoopinrocker writes:

This kind of thing happens ALL the time. Except for people who smoke Marijuana, because they're the real dangerous ones.

What an odd thing to say.

Wanda, 1. as pointed out, it was a grand jury decision, and 2. the wife (it is reported elsewhere) refused to cooperate when she went back to her husband after forgiving him for cutting her throat from ear to ear and leaving her to die. Your condemnation of some unnamed and unreferenced judge is just plain ignorant.

freedman ~~ I think the marajuana statement was meant to be 'sarcastic'. They let violent rapists, molesters, wife beaters etc, off quite easily, often times with the very minimum of sentenances, while those who are found in possession of drugs/marajuana, are set up to rot in jail. It's somewhat upside down.

Jeffrey Maxwell was charged with aggravated kidnapping in that case in 1987, but court records show a Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict him, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

The Grand Jury let him off. What I'd like to know is how many women were on the Grand Jury for that particular offense? Am I hearing Good Old Boys Club? Now if a woman had abducted and cut a man's throat, in Texas, especially with the name "Martinez" Maxwell I feel confident that she might have done some time.

The fact that they did not indict him is just because they felt there was not enough PROOF to indict. It is funny that all you people yell because you think Texas will execute innocent people, but in a case where they could not PROVE a person committed a crime, you yell anyway. Hind sight is 20/20, and with that he looks very suspicious. But just wait and until they re-investigate it. Hopefully, if he DID do it, he will disclose the location of the body so that the family(ies) can have closure.

They DO have ample evidence to indict him for the woman who ran out of his house. But for his wife, since they cannot find the body, it will be hard. Also, there is no evidence as of yet linking him to the third missing woman, other than similarities in MO.

Actually, Vera, a woman with the name Martinez would have been executed by now.

For all of you who are feeling smugly superior to those who would give this guy back what he did to his victims:

Do you consider yourselves Christians? Take time to read the Bible? You should. I am not a literalist. However, I believe the Bible is filled with insights as to the nature of people. The ancient Israelites were not blood-thirsty and low-functioning. They lived very much in touch with the natural world which formed their societies and out of which they developed their moral code. (As well as borrowing from other peoples)

The original moral codes were gritty, earthy, and practical. The way they were observed may not sit well today with people who long ago gave up any connection to the natural world and whose philosophy reflects that disconnect. That does not make codes and punishments wrong.

An eye for an eye is not barbaric or cruel. Execution of sociopaths is for the better of the society. Look around, people. Our state and local governments are broke. We cannot afford the false salve to conscience of ware-housing sociopaths. Nor dare we risk allowing them loose without also allowing citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

The comments based on an eye for and eye are an expression of our deepest need for protection from sociopaths and our need for an expression of revulsion to the horrors sociopaths inflict on their victims. These comments make sense in the real world.

Jkatze, I consider my self Christian and have taken the time to read the Bible. What version of the Bible has the asterisk next to the 5th Commandment? You know, the one where it says, "Thall shall not kill, unless the guy is a sociopath."

Didn't think so. So much for you using Christianity to justify executions. Remember, pro-life means ALL human life, including both the unborn and sociopaths.

The original moral codes still in use today across the Middle East allow for the killing of women who were raped as they bring shame to the family name. Gritty indeed. I guess that's "practical" if you're looking to get out of paying a dowry.

And eye for an eye is barbaric, cruel, and was proven to be ineffective. After centuries of implementation, there were too many innocent blind men walking around who were a burden on society (could no longer work). You've stated that gouging a person's eye out is not barbaric or cruel. Really? I believe that statement alone invalidates any other point you may have tried to make.

I'm sure the mullahs in Iran agree with you. You seem to think similarly to how the Iranians institute justice.

Ya know Vera you shouldn't make comments on things you don't understand.. Go back and REREAD the ENTIRE article then see if you are smart enough or qualified enough to comment on such things.

Jkatze & harold: Not that a comparative religion discussion belongs with this story; but you are both wrong.

Jkatze: Christians follow the new testament. The new covenant revealed by the Christ essitially supplants the original covenant (Judism) as told in the old testament.

Harold: Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the 5th (sometimes 6th) comandment is not "Thou shall not kill." This is a common misconception. It is "Thou shall not do murder" there is a signifigant difference. The comandment allows killing in warfare, criminal punishment, and self-defense. Additionally the comandments are also Old Testament, If you want to make a "Christian" argument, then use the teachings of the Christ, not the laws of the Torah.

If you are going to utalize theology (particularly in a discussion it does not belong in) please get it right.

Adam.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!

really for stone cold cases like this where evidence is not even needed the local public needs to just step up and demand a shotgun trial. California is going to be letting criminals go pretty soon when half of them should just be put down.

And hey if thats to inhumane then go australia and drop them on some island with a few supplies and leave them to their own devices.

honestly, responses like this make me glad we have a trial/jury system, as flawed as it is.

hey jerkin-off maybe he should live with you.

sigh...

tom-828294 (and everyone else who wants to convict on reading a story from an organization that - let's be honest - doesn't exactly have the highest standards), here's an example of my point. try to keep up.

let's say that i'm not trying to prove a point and i call you a fat, lazy, couch-potato, wife-beating, womanizing transvestite. some people might call that libel. or slander. or even an insult. taken out of context, it very well might be. but it's not. it's me illustrating a point. the problem is, it's recorded on the internet, it's got your (user)name tied to it, and it's here forever.

let's say that years from now, someone does a search for tom-828294 and they find this article and they take small pieces from it to put into their own article. suddenly, tom-828294 is a fat, lazy, couch-potato, wife-beating, womanizing transvestite, and millions of people read this. and a small percentage of them, let's say those who didn't finish high school, take it as gospel.

it's not fair, sure, but those who believe it have been influenced into believing something that was originally used to illustrate a point, because they have a weak mind. in their mind, you really ARE a fat, lazy, couch-potato, wife-beating, womanizing transvestite, because they read it on the internet. and everyone knows... the internet never lies.

had they taken the time to get the whole story, instead of reading what one person decided was enough for them to read, they may come to a completely different conclusion. but no, to their weak minds, the small snippet of a story was enough for them.

does that make sense? i can type slower if you like.

Cool Clothes,

I understand your point, but you calling someone names is different from a women running out of this man's house while he is in the middle of being questioned by police. So it really doesn't matter if my two year old son wrote the story, he was still caught red handed. So enough with your smug, smarty pants remarks. And if you feel like the stories on this websites are below your standards, why are you on here reading and commenting on them?

Jerkin, I'm afraid it's YOU who are missing the point here. You're comparing apples to oranges to try to win the argument. Your example is an ACCUSATION, and that would have to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt before I would believe it and convict. This case (in the article) involves a man who was caught in the act. The woman is still alive, came running out of the house while the cops were there, was beat to crap, and said "he did it." He even had a torture dungeon in his house where she'd been restrained. There IS no reasonable doubt, and no, I don't give a damn if he claims insanity or not, a bullet between the eyes is the way to go. Save the money to investigate the stupid members of the Grand Jury who let him walk the first time they had him. Their incompetence for not letting him go to trial resulted in another possible murder, as well as what this woman went through.

you assume WAY too much. based on the article, it's easy to assume he's guilty. but i'm not a judge. i don't get paid for it, and i don't want to be.

having said that, do i think he's guilty? yes, at least of this offense, and based PURELY on this one article alone. but i know nothing about this man, and i know even less about the woman who ran out of his house. i wouldn't want him around my family. or yours, for that matter.

but saying he's guilty of the other offenses, knowing absolutely nothing about them except what's mentioned in the article? thanks, but no. a grand jury refused to indict him. why? i don't know. but i'm willing to bet they had a LOT more information then than we do.

as for my comparison, it still applies. the parallels are there. the specifics aren't as severe, but it's not hard to see that a small piece of information from a bigger story is more than enough to convict.

take it for what it is... like it or don't. i'm not sure i could care less.

Off subject but right on the mark, CoolClothes! And it's something that has bothered me for a loooong time. Unfortunately it is so true in all scenarios now ... judicial, religious, political, social, environmental, business, finance ... and so on!! One person (be it a media representative, a political figure, or a Facebook member!) can state his "opinion" in a blog, an article, on FB ... wherever! ... "it's recorded on the internet" forever. And some people reading that opinion at a later date will indeed take it as "fact", pass it on and thus, create an inaccurate monster (aka known as rhetoric sometimes). And it's gotten so bad that even those of us who DO research facts don't always know what IS fact. What a shame when you can no longer find the truth!!

Well said. When someone is in-your-face guilty of such heinous crimes, there should be public hangings or better yet torture.

So why is this pervert criminal Tom not in prison?

ha!

;-)

JerkInCoolClothes- I agree with you man. People read a story and want to put someone down just because. They dont care what the facts are, or if someone is innocent (clearly this guy wasn't for the kidnapping). Innocent people are put into prison, falsely accused of murder and later evidence comes out to prove it. So all you a-holes that say put a bullet between his eyes without a trial, well i just hope you never have to face a conviction when you are inncoent, cause ill be first in line to say "Ya kill that mofo, Msnbc said hes guilty so its true"

Jerkin; "take it for what it is... like it or don't. i'm not sure i could care less."

Now do I believe the opinion you spent so much time and effort to express in two substantial posts, or do I believe "I'm not sure I could care less"? Just kidding, it's obvious why a person would end a comment with this.

"a grand jury refused to indict him. why? i don't know. but i'm willing to bet they had a LOT more information then than we do"

I didn't either, but this is from Frank from Texas, comment #18, who is obviously familiar with the original case. Apparently they DID have a lot more information than you or I. Now this p!sses me off even more!

"a grand jury, in Fort worth, texas did not indicted , for kidnapping his exwife. She was a latin woman. so I guess the aholes in texas, just said he was a good old boy having fun and he did not mean any harm . no wonder the rest of America looks at Texas as being the a hole of America . God bless Texas"

This is the woman whose throat he slashed, and they DIDN'T INDICT? I just can't abide obviously guilty people getting away with their crimes, which happens way too much. There was a recent case in Massachusetts (near my state) of a convict with 3 LIFE SENTENCES who was granted parole. PAROLE, WITH 3 LIFE SENTENCES!!!! Within a month, he was robbing a jewelry store, happened upon by a cop who was days from retiring, and he killed the cop in a shootout. The only good thing is, they shot each other, and the criminal died too. The parole board has been fired. They should be charged and convicted of accessories to murder! THIS, and the Fort Worth Grand Jury, is the sort of incompetence I'm talking about. In both of these cases, a .50 bullet would have saved innocent lives.

Heck Billy,Why waste the .50 cents, ropes are re-usable!

billy,

I am in total agreement. While with other states the death penalty may take years before it is exercised, at least in Texas the @!$%#er will hopefully be thrown into the express lain.

Sounds like we might as well convict everybody since we already do.

Some of you might benefit from 1984. It's in there.

Hey Jerk? Did you not see the part that he CONFESSED to this particular crime? That alone should get him some "special" treatment. Do you really think, considering his criminal background, that he just started doing these things? That this was his "first"?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.. Hurrah to Sheriff Larry Fowler for having enough class to NOT describe, in detail, the "house of horrors"... I am sure the public has imagination enough, to figure out what this animal put that lady through.

If you havent noticed mssuzieq, we agreed that he was caught red handed but that doenst mean you can just curb the judicial system. Special treatment should never be used, unless you would like it done to you as well. Its weird to think that texas is a very religious state, yet they act like this. Im not against the death penalty like some would assume, but I believe in our judical system more than I do the mob mentality.

Please watch the movie Starship Troopers. It is a silly little futuristic movie, but in it society has retreated to the punishment of public hangings and public floggings. I believe this kind of punishment should be brought back and fully utilized. It is a way different world where justice is metted out in a prison system seldom seen by the real world. Bring it out in the open, let young teenagers and twenty-somethings see the REAL repercussions of committing a heinous crime or crimes. Watching someone be hanged to death or even publicly flogged makes a hell of an impact on a young person's mind. It is also quite cost conservative.

I have always failed to see why executions in this country have to be humane or painless to the guilty party when I am sure their victim's deaths were not! Your execution should be under the same conditions as your victim's. If you raped and murdered them by strangulation then you should be raped and killed by strangulation...period!

Pete.. I was directing my comment to those that did not feel that his confession was sufficient evidence of his guilt... ie.. Jerkin..:

you assume WAY too much. based on the article, it's easy to assume he's guilty. but i'm not a judge. i don't get paid for it, and i don't want to be.

suzie, it's late, so i'm not going explain this to you if you haven't yet figured out where i stand on this. do yourself a favor... search this page for my name (JerkInCoolClothes) and read each of my comments, starting with the very first one on this page (#1.1). then keep reading the post that you took that snippet from.

i should mention that your taking a snippet of text out of a post i wrote RIGHT AFTER i wrote a post about taking a snippet out of an article and then making up one's mind based on that one snippet alone is beyond ironic - i know, it's difficult to follow... just nod and smile, you'll be fine.

oh, and you've proven my point, so i suppose i should thank you for that.

Arrogance only serves to alienate and irritate everyone involved.. but you are correct, I did not read EVERY single post you put up.. my apologies for that..

Your "nod and smile" comment was uncalled for and insulting and puts you at the top of the ignore list. There are other ways to get your point across without your sarcasm.

Realist- So whos gonna do the rape and murdering of the criminal? Dont you think its wrong to put someone in the position to have to commit such an atrocity to another human? Then next your gonna suggest we put someone there that enjoys doing it, which is even worse! Also, how do you say that making teenagers watch hangings is "quite conservative"? People like you make me wonder where our society is heading.

"There are other ways to get your point across without your sarcasm"

You're right, there are, but I read through Jerk's comments and I see more frustration than arrogance. I wouldn't take his insults personally. He strikes me as the older "get off my lawn!" lonely, retired professor type from the Northeast. But what do I know?

@Jerkin -- when the victim has self-identified -- spoken in front of cameras to the public, etc. If the victim is killed, the name is used.

i see they've edited the article and removed her name...

Mr. Jerkin, you are giving an example of slander when there is ample evidence of torture and attempted murder. The evidence is that the woman ran out of the man's house to police. She had been tortured and assaulted for weeks, had restrain marks on her wrists and two blackened eyes. And you think he is being slandered?

Hope you are never on a jury because you would need to see the actual act played out in real time and maybe even then you wouldn't believe your lying eyes!

FYI: They always remove the name of the victim unless the victim permits their name being used. If the person is murdered then they use the name.

Wow Vera! The slander comment JerkIn made was a comparrison about how people read something online and they are ready to put a man to death because they believe everything stated in the article without knowing its origin. He clearly says that he thinks the man was guilty of kidnapping this women.

Innocent until proven guilty, even in the face of damnable evidence.

My tendency is to believe in his guilt while acknowledging that fantastic circumstances beyond my knowledge can exist; perhaps he had returned from extended vacation to find intruders using his home as a crime site. I know, that's not likely, but the potential exists. That's why the grand jury examines the examination of the prosecutor and investigators and why a jury at trial decides the verdict. Note that the verdict does not necessarily have anything to do with the truth.

Why are we all so certain that this grand jury wasn't doing their jobs? There are thresholds that evidence must meet. If the jury didn't believe the evidence met that threshold, they couldn't indict. From all this article said, there is no indication that he SHOULD have been indicted. He's suspected of doing something, but the article gave no indication that there was any concrete evidence he did it. Am I protecting him? No, I'm protecting his rights because I'd want those same rights if I were accused when someone suspected I did something. Do I want him put away for a long time or worse? You bet. But I also want to be sure that it was for the right reasons. It may not be perfect, but it's the best system we've got, and likely the best anyone's got.

There is actually an even better possible reason for this... if the rules of evidence are not met, a mistrial is almost a given. In that instance, you would have a man that probably committed a heinous act being loosed on a "technicallity." Although the details are missing with regards to this case, perhaps the indictment was stalled to give proscecutors more time to gather more compelling evidence.

Back in1987, they didn't have much DNA capability, but they do now. That's why a lot of cold cases ARE being solved (not to mention wrongful convictions overturned). So many items can be used to get DNA evidence, IF the original investigators happened to save such an item back then (which they many times did, not because they were psychic and could 'see' the advent of DNA, but because they routinely saved everything related to an unsolved case). There's a good chance they might solve it now that they have a suspect.

I caught that too, Kat. I think the part about her surviving was an error, because they first said his wife 'disappeared' and was later found dead. I'm not sure, because there were 3 women mentioned, including this one who DID survive. I have to read it again, but I believe they screwed up the details. Yeah, if that woman had lived, no way should he have walked!

The wife whose name was Martinez Maxwell survived in 1987. That is when the Grand Jury was convened. My impression is that he remarried and the next wife is the one who permanently disappeared. The first attempted murder was probably a practice run!

Kat, there is no way WE can know what the Grand Jury worked with. Did she see her attacker, or was she blind sided? Did she follow through with a complaint to police, or withdraw charges? Did she refuse to testify against him? Many victims of spousal abuse do back out of complaints, or refuse to testify when beaten or even nearly killed. Remember, this guy sounds like a control freak. He probably had her convinced that SHE deserved what she got. The sad thing is, abusers never stop, they keep on until the victim is dead, then go on to another, and follow the same pattern.

Frank, you apparently have information on this story that the rest of us don't. Thank you, you just answered Kat's comment above, and she was right. I commented that I thought it was a mistake in the story.

So she DID live, and the Grand Jury DIDN'T indicte???? I said (tongue-in-cheek) in a comment way above that the Grand Jury members should be investigated for incompetence. Guess I was more right than I realized.

And no, usually Texas (or Texans) gets it right as far as most people are concerned.

I have no idea what prompted you to respond you had nothing to input to the conversation except use this opportunity to slam my and many others "great state" I hope you are no longer a resident of my great state and if you are please take I-35 N and don't return. As for what happened, sounds to me like the judge either did not have all the facts or made a absolutely terrible decision, either way this man needs to be punished to the extent of the law which is the death penanlty.

You KNEW this woman, Frank? I know a lot of people with Latino sir-names who have very little Latino blood. So you think just because her name sounds Latino that she was persecuted by not indicting her husband? IF you are really from Texas, you should know, that Latinos are a big part of who we are. The majority of people don't have any ill feelings to any Latinos in general, they just want the illegal immigrants to go back home and try it the legal way.

Chip on your shoulder Rob? I don't think anyone said anything about "men only", but it most certainly is "men mostly."

As a man, I don't identify with this killer in any way, but it sounds like you do.

See, they're gettin' mad - men in skirts that is - lol

People who say stupid, unnessecary things tend to rile up MOST people.

Your vivid imagination for violence puts you only one step from this lunatic: acting upon it.

Just...what

my sentiment also.

YouJust:

You must be a male.

Welllllllllllllllllll, I don't know if it is still on the books, but in Texas your wife was just so much more of your property...which led to women in general being treated as second class citizens. Used to be, and I don't know if it is still on the books, I'm told that if you found your wife cheating on you, you could shoot her, kill her, with impunity...no time served...nothing...she deserved it.

Could be this judge just figured the woman "brought it on herself". That is in fact still much of the thinking beneath the surface of rape cases.

As I said above...before ya'll start belly-achin'...those items were what I was told.

M. Forrest -

I don't know from what rock you crawled out from under but certainly nothing was "still on the books" when these crimes were committed. Really? Not only do you still believe these types of tales to be true, you're motivated enough to pass them on! I guess you also think we Texans still ride horses to work.

White, male, Texan, par for the course.

It was at Austin that I decided to leave the Texas Experiment behind. Still trying to get a bro out though.