November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

Trial hears ‘gay things must die’ tape


(Greeley, Colorado) The jury in the trial of a man accused of beating to death an 18-year-old transgendered woman listened in shock Tuesday to taped telephone conversations of calls he made while in jail.

Allen Ray Andrade is charged with murder as a hate crime in the killing of Angie Zapata.

In a call to his girlfriend Felicia Mendoza taped by jail authorities without his knowledge, Andrade tells Mendoza that “gay things need to die.”

In call, he jokes about his “celebrity” status, saying he he would sell his story for the right price.

“Give me money and I’ll sell my story – for $50,000 I would,” he was recorded telling her.

During cross-examination by Andrade’s attorneys, Mendoza said it was the first time she heard Andrade say anything derogatory about gays.

The defense maintains that Andrade “snapped” after finding out the teen was biologically male. But prosecutors argue that Andrade knew Angie Zapata’s secret for at least 36 hours before the slaying – and killed her not in a sudden rage but because he disliked gays and transgenders.

It is the first case in which the state’s hate crime law has been applied in a case involving a transgendered person.

Colorado added gender identity to its hate crime law in 2005. It is one of only 11 states across the country that include transgender protections in their hate crime laws.

Zapata’s bloodied, battered body was discovered in her Greeley apartment by her sister on July 17, 2008.

Andrade allegedly told investigators that he met Zapata through MocoSpace, a social network designed primarily for cell phone users. The two met July 15 and spent the day together. Andrade allegedly told investigators that Zapata performed oral sex on him but wouldn’t let him touch her. When he discovered she was biologically male he killed her.

In the taped confession, he allegedly told investigators that he grabbed Zapata’s crotch area, felt male genitalia and became angry. He told investigators that he took a fire extinguisher off a shelf, struck Zapata twice in the head and thought he “killed it.”

But the jury will not hear the confession, because Judge Marcelo Kopcow ruled it inadmissable.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • Roger Ramjet Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
    • “unclestan SAID…. when your declaration of independence states that all “men” are created equal…”

      Yes it says all “Men” were created equal. It does not say all “Persons” were created equal. And therein lies the great Misogynist and Homophobic nature of the average idiotic American. Our founders should have written all “Persons are created equal”.

  • Mark Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
    • I’ll buy his story!
      not for 50 grand.. much much cheaper! 55 cents.. the cost of a bullet.

  • drewski Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
    • Unless the call was privileged (attorney or clergy), it was most definitely recorded and there was most assuredly no expectation of privacy. Prison mail is opened for the same reason. There’s no reason to exclude the call as evidence.

      Don’t tell me he didn’t know. She went down on him and it didn’t seem strange that she wouldn’t let him touch her? Please–heard the same story too many times on Jerry Springer.

      FYI, I first heard about this last Friday. I was driving back from my ex’s place, it was a fairly long drive (25 miles) on the freeway, and the story was being discussed by the crew of an afternoon-drive show (on WMMS–might be on their website, haven’t looked). One of the guys in the studio was saying it shouldn’t be considered more than manslaughter, because Andrade was “tricked” and “he wasn’t lookin’ to be with a dude, that’s like rape.”

  • PirateCapnLady Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
    • From what I remember, the confession was ruled inadmissible because Andrade at one point in his interrogation said he refused to talk to to the investigators anymore. They kept questioning him and then he gave his confession. The judge ruled that since he originally said he wasn’t going to say anymore (which I think was taken as a “I won’t talk without a lawyer”), his confession was ruled inadmissible. Hooray for technicalities.

  • stashu Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 am
    • I thought that prisoners could not expect privacy related to their phone calls unless they were talking to their lawyer.

  • unclestan Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 am
    • why on earth do you need so many laws to cover so many people when your declaration of independence states that all “men” are created equal. if a person kills another person for whatever reason and is found guilty how much further does it need to go?

  • vanndean Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 am
    • The phone call he made from the jail was recorded without his knowledge but it is admissible at trial. The ruling that the judge made was not concerning that tape but the “taped confession he made to officers that he had killed “it”.
      This article does not make the reason clear as to why the judge so ruled but in other coverage it was brought out (and I think this is the way that the story went) that the defendant had stated that he was through talking without a lawyer and the police keep asking questions after he had made such a statement so the confession was ruled as inadmissible.

  • KaninZ Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 am
    • I think the death penalty should be used only under certain circumstances. This would be one of them.

      He took a human life and he isn’t repenting, he’s shopping for a movie of the week deal.
      If they don’t want to spend the money for the electricity to fry this filth I will gladly donate a bullet.

  • Patrick in Connecticut Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
    • how horrible to dehumanize an entire group of people…and to want to kill all of them…what an awful state of mind

  • Bobby Said: April 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 am
    • It? Killed it? “It” was a human with a family, friends… How can we, as a “civilized” culture view any person as an it? Are we that screwed up? “It” was a person.

  • Tristan Robin Said: April 21st, 2009 at 10:34 pm
    • I’m sure it was inadmissable because it was a taped phone without a warrant.

      It doesn’t say there was no warrant, but if it was in a jail, it’s public phone and you can’t get a warrant to tap a public phone, as it interferes with the privacy of others.

      HOpefully, they’ll nail this creep without the tape.

  • Jessi Said: April 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
    • fry the phobe

  • Dermot Said: April 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
    • Wow, referring to human life as “it”. It’s hard to think of something more caricaturistically disregarding of the value of human life.

  • Jonathan Said: April 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
    • “But the jury will not hear the confession, because Judge Marcelo Kopcow ruled it inadmissable.”
      =====

      One question: Why?

  • Gerald Callaio Said: April 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
    • WHAT A HORROR STORY;THIS JUDGE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED/RECALLED!!!

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook