Tragedy in Tom Brennan Essay Example for Free

Tragedy in Tom Brennan Essay Question: It is impossible to avoid conflict in life, but this tragedy was preventable. Do you agree? Do you believe that tragedies only happen to others? In the novel ‘The story of Tom Brennan’, by JC Burke, she highlights in the most severe way that tragedies do occur. My opinion to the matter at hand is that tragedies do happen. There will always be unavoidable conflict andI agree with the first statement in the paragraph. If you think about the events that took place in the novel, you will understand that the story line is not a happy one. As described by JC Burke, the novel outlines grief in many instances, sadness in the way of Nicole and Luke’s families. Although these emotions are outlined there is still bright and happy emotions involved. It is impossible to avoid conflict; it is just a matter of the amount of tragedy you receive. The amount of conflict you receive can also reflect on a person’s personality, how they respond and handle otherwise terrible issues. If you can stay strong through the tough times in life, you can overcome the obstacles that are thrown at you. There are many stages a person goes through during times of tragedy; it varies between people, religions and races. Some of the stages are depression, being so sad you can’t find any way out. Anger is another, showing you miss the person/s so much rage takes over your life. These are just some of the stages one goes through during tragedy. Obviously the accident in the novel is a tragedy, however there was definitely negligence involved in the events that took place on the night of the accident. Daniel was intoxicated and the passengers knew that so I question the judgment of them, never the less the responsibility lies with the driver and in this case it is Daniel. His actions leading to the death of his friends Nicole and Luke were unacceptable, also his actions lead to the impairment of his cousin Fyn. His cousin Fyn was one of his great friends, they did everything together, played for the same rugby team, training alongside each other and just generally having a great time. Now though Fyn is not capable of doing the things he ones was able to do. He will no longer share his passion for rugby he once had, although he would give anything to play there is nothing he can do.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder :: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD

Journal According to Sigmund Freud, events and emotions that are particularly disturbing are repressed into the unconscious. Often times this theory is true, but for people suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, they only wish that it were true. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. People with PTSD have persistent frightening thoughts and memories of their ordeal and feel emotionally numb, especially with people they were once close to. They may experience sleep problems, feel detached or numb, or be easily startled. PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes. People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. PTSD symptoms seem to be worse if the event that triggered them was deliberately initiated by another person, as in a mugging or a kidnapping. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again. PTSD affects about 7.7 million American adults,but it can occur at any age, including childhood. Women are more likely to develop PTSD than men, and there is some evidence that susceptibility to the disorder may run in families. PTSD is often accompanied by depression, substance abuse, or one or more of the other anxiety disorders. Many people with anxiety disorders benefit from joining a self-help or support group and sharing their problems and achievements with others. Internet chat rooms can also be useful in this regard, but any advice received over the Internet should be used with caution, as Internet acquaintances have usually never seen each other and false identities are common.

Discourse Analysis on Winston Churchill and Tony Blair

Section 1 1. 1 In this essay, I will be conducting a discourse analysis on a speech made by Winston Churchill in the 1940s, when he informed the British public that they will be entering war. I will use sociological research which examines the discourse of politics to supply context for this speech. My research topic is to discover in this essay is how Prime Ministers use persuasive techniques to win the support of the people.To achieve this, I will be comparing Churchill’s speech to Tony Blair’s speech in 2003 when he declared war on Iraq, to see what changes and similarities of discourses there are, regarding persuading and gaining the support of the people. 1. 2 The consideration of the audience and their specific thoughts and feelings is certainly an essential theme when making a speech. Politicians use the spoken word to rule, inform, strengthen and communicate with the public in order to implement their own, or their party’s politics.As van Dijk puts it, â €Å"social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context (2001: 352). † If we are the people who vote to put these politicians in power, we ought to become more aware of the strategies and tactics behind their speeches. This will give us more opportunity of making a fair judgement of the real meaning of the message, rather than the persuasive and deceiving language that often clouds our judgement.I will be using critical discourse analysis and rhetorical political analysis as it is an approach that is suitable for written texts and helpful for discovering institutional meanings that lay hidden within rhetorical strategies. This method will facilitate me in finding the ideological dimension of discourse within the speeches I am analyzing (Cameron 2001:123). 1. 3Using critical discourse analysis I will analyse how the language used in political speeches functions as a type of social practice tha t â€Å"constructs the objects of which it purports to speak (Cameron 2001:123)†.We can apply critical discourse analysis to expose the ways discourse is interwoven with society and culture, Wodak notes â€Å"society and culture are shaped by discourse, and at the same time constitute discourse (Wodak 2000:146)†. The use of language can reproduce or transform society and culture and it can also be ideological. A way to discover its ideological qualities is by exploring their â€Å"interpretation, reception and social effects (Wodak 2000:146)†. By xamining speeches made by Winston Churchill and Tony Blair, I will seek to find the ideological messages that lie beneath their rhetoric language and uncover in what way their statements have persuaded the British public and if their discourses have gained the public’s support. 1. 4We now turn to the second indentified approach outlined in the introduction, rhetorical political analysis. It particularly focuses o n the character and nature of rhetoric and its position in political analysis. Rhetorical style is concerned with the arrangement of the narrative.Johannesson (2000:65) refers to numerous ways of forming a classical rhetoric speech; both Churchill and Blair use ‘disposito’, giving their argument structure; and ‘narratio’, giving the listener essential background information. Historically, rhetorical has been used since the ancient Greek and Roman times and the Great philosopher Aristotle wrote a rhetoric textbook where he established the goals of this discipline. The old laws of the rhetoric lived on in the modern world mostly in politics, and the battles of the Second World War were not just fought on land, but also on the air by great orators such as Hitler and Churchill.Both Churchill and Blair use many of the classic rhetorical structures when delivering their speeches which I will examine further in the next section. Section 2 2. 1 On the 13th May 1940 was Churchill’s first radio broadcast as Prime Minister with the direct audience being the British public. This was a live broadcast, with the objective to inform the nation of the upcoming attack on Britain by the Germans. It becomes apparent that Churchill’s key intention here is to persuade the nation in becoming actively involved in the war.His reasons of calling upon the nation as a whole were because all men were needed to fight, not just those who were in the army. Churchill was possibly attempting to involve every individual in the war, as his speech shows, â€Å"There will be many men and women on this island who when the ordeal comes upon them, as come it will, will feel comfort and even pride that they are sharing the perils of the lads at the front. † (13. 05. 40. ) He convinces the country to remain optimistic by saying â€Å"We may look with confidence to the stabilization of the front in France. † (13. 05. 40).On the 4th June 1940, Churchi ll spoke to the House of Commons; who were his target audience, however there was also the wider audience of the nation. Conscious that the speech would be made public, Churchill did not exclusively turn to the audience – members of the House of Commons but rather he was addressing the outside audience with a clear goal to diminish the will of resistance among the British and conveying out a message to the USA to join the war with Britain. The speech made by Tony Blair to the House of Commons on 18th March 2003, was most likely one of the most important speeches of his years as the Prime Minister.This was a speech with the sole intention to persuade his audience – Parliament – to vote for Britain to participate in the war in Iraq. Blair would not have been able to declare war without having the support of the Parliament, therefore it was crucial to gain their vote. The main audience of Blair’s speech in 2003 were the British public. During this live broad cast, Blair told the nation that military action had already begun in Iraq. He attempted to convince the British public that he had made the right decision in sending troops to fight, thus trying to justify his actions.Although the people of Britain were the direct audience, it is possible that Blair was reaching to a wider world wide audience. In his speech Blair addresses the people of Iraq directly saying â€Å"I hope the Iraqi people hear this message, our enemy is not you, but your barbarous rulers. † (20. 03. 03) Even though Churchill and Blair’s speeches are slightly different concerning their goals, both use similar methods in order to persuade the British public. In the following sections I will analyse and consider the persuasive techniques I feel are of most significance.They include the use of personal pronouns, rhetorical style, repetition and parallelism with a brief discussion of the delivery of speech. 2. 2 Personal pronouns are very much linked with po wer and solidarity, therefore the choice of pronoun that each Prime Minister uses replicates this. When talking to the nation and the House of Commons both Churchill and Blair use the first person pronoun ‘I’ on numerous times. ‘I’ tends to be used by both leaders much more often when addressing the House of Commons. The other first person pronouns which were used were ‘Me’ and ‘My. ‘My’ was used when each leader was putting across their personal beliefs and opinions, such as Blair’s hatred for Saddam, â€Å"My detestation of Saddam. † (Blair 18th March 2003) ‘Me’ has similar functions to ‘I’ as it symbolises the speaker and demonstrates that he is committing himself to his pledge. Wales (1996:66) said it is usually used to refer to the speaker and third parties who may not be present in the current situation. The use of ‘we’ can be exploited to contribute the responsibilit y. The general use of ‘we’ refers to the speaker and the listener.Through the use of inclusive ‘we’ we can see how the leader’s assume to speak on the audience’s behalf, for example â€Å"We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the presence of these armoured vehicles†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Churchill 13th May 1940) Churchill uses ‘we’ inclusively numerous times to refer to himself and the people of Britain as one which in turn encourage solidarity. It is used most often by both leaders with the aim to persuade the audience to work as a team, by saying collective statements, for example â€Å"we will† â€Å"we shall† and so forth.Both Churchill and Blair tend to use ‘we’ with the double implication that they are not only speaking on behalf of their party but also on behalf of their audience. 2. 3 Churchill uses methods of persuasion through reasoning; here he aims to calm the British, arguing their brief safety using rational reasoning: â€Å"We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised. † (Churchill, paragraph 22) Its noted by Atkinson (1984:37) from his analysis of speeches that one of the most frequent means of extracting agreement is what he calls a â€Å"list of three. In political speeches lists of three are usually easy to remember â€Å"Of our country, of our Empire, of our Allies. † (Churchill’s address to the nation 13th May 1940) Throughout his speeches Churchill has a tendency to use three part lists, as it makes the speech more memorable and therefore more likely to persuade the audience. In Blair’s speech to the House of Commons, he uses a two-part list, â€Å"No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution. † (18th March 2003) In a way we can see how these lists function in the similar way to parallelism, as they serve to emphasise the point being made.Three par t lists are memorable for both the speaker and the listener as they are rooted in some cultures as encouraging a sense of solidarity and totality. The final category of persuasion is persuasion through the art of reasoning. Blair uses this method much more than Churchill. During his speech, Blair discusses a series of events to the House of Commons notifying them of Saddam Hussain’s actions. We can see how Blair felt it imperative to include factual information, as this was the only way to justify his actions for urging Britain to go to war. 2. Churchill and Blair both perform the characteristics of a strong, virtuous leader. Churchill – who led the last free European nation against Hitler, dares to confront the apparently relentless Nazi attack on Europe – in so doing so, Churchill offered hope of freedom to the British people. Churchill’s choice of words and tone were very dramatic, and he used emotionally charged words to get to the heart of the people . Churchill’s soundbite holds identical features as the Blair equivalents to his manifesto, â€Å"Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. † (4. 07. 1993).Both leader’s use the Aristotelian three main ‘means of persuasion’ through the arousal of emotion, the persuasion through reasoning and persuasion through personality and stance. Rhythm is one of the key features when analysing at the speeches, as this is what makes them flowing and thus effective. The use of lists of three memorable words and repetition of the main issues adds to the rhythm of the speech. Churchill generally uses the list of three and repetition more than Blair, therefore his speeches are more rhythmic. A very important and smart method used by both Churchill and Blair is the use of repetition and parallelism.Both Churchill and Blair used this device in order to gain their audiences support. One of the main reasons why Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons is convincing is because of his use of structural parallelism at the end of his speech, â€Å"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, We shall fight on the seas and oceans, We shall fight with growing confidence in the air, We shall fight on the beaches, We shall fight on the landing grounds†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Churchill 4th June 1940) In contrast, Blair’s does not use the structural parallelism in his speech to the House of Commons to the extent Churchill does.However Blair does use repetition to implement his point is, for example: â€Å"It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us, Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us, Dangerous because one day†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (18th March 2003) Blair also repeats the word ‘dangerous’ in order to reiterate his aim and convince his audience that if they do not agree to war, they will be facing a dangerous state of affairs.Section 3 3. 1 Comparing Churchill’s and Blair’s speeches I have shown that there are many resemblances in the way they deliver speeches such as, explaining in honesty, the seriousness of the threat and how they both describe the enemy as evil, but also in putting their causes in a global context and in terms of using rhetorical devices, they both use repetition, soundbites, contrastive pairs and the â€Å"list of three†. The â€Å"list of three† is a perfect device when declaring war.The inclusiveness and stress of national solidarity and unity is what a leader needs to communicate and restore faith with the people. The major difference between the two leaders is that Blair uses the inclusive approach towards the world and possible allies, whereas Churchill speaks more exclusively for Britain solely. This also shows the difference in the times the speeches were made, as when Churchill made his speech it would have only reached the British public.In comparison, Blair’s speech was televised globally, therefore he must address the audience more inclusively to make it relevant for the listeners. Although Blair’s speech could be said to build on the works of Churchill such as using the same rhetorical devices, being a well composed oratory and being expertly performed, ultimately, it is always the circumstances under which a speech is delivered that will give the speaker and the speech their rightfully earned respect. 3. To conclude, critical discourse analysis is a suitable method to analyse political speeches as it sees language as social practices, and as productive of knowledge which maintains power. It is particularly concerned with language used in political speeches and the media so it is not just context specific, but audience-specific. However, a disadvantage is although it had implications for individual language use, there are words and phrases they use which may not be applicable in 30 years time, as language is forev er evolving.The limits of discourse analysis is that it does not give us a representation of the persons proposed psychological state, it instead focuses on power in a social context and how this is made through language, how it is challenged and recycled. I believe the use of language analysis related to social concepts could be more expanded by having studies made into how social situations themselves cause the discourse we use, also investigating how new meanings are given to words and what social implications they have in society. Bibliography: Books:Atkinson, J (1985) Structures of Social Action: Cambridge University Press Cameron, Deborah Working with spoken discourse: Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge Seale, Clive (2004) Researching society and culture: Sage Publications Ltd; Second Edition Wodak, Ruth (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis: London, Sage Publications Wood, Linda A. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Sage Publications Articles and Websites:Egbert. J Baker: ‘Grammar As Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Contexts’ (1997) http://books. google. co. uk/books? id=L8VmSJeZCw0C&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=we+shall+fight+on+the+beaches+discourse+analysis&source=bl&ots=Kpm7QW94Mk&sig=1i_rPybz_RMBd1l_WB0nkeXWsso&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IOzqUKKeLoqU0QXYkoGQAw&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=we%20shall%20fight%20on%20the%20beaches%20discourse%20analysis&f=false (online book) Fairclough & Wodak: Critical discourse analysis  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Linguistics and English Language (1997) www. ing. lancs. ac. uk/staff/norman/critdiscanalysis. doc (online word document) Guardian: Full text: Tony Blair's speech (2003) http://www. guardian. co. uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy. iraq1 (website article) Language in use: Sir Winston Churchill â€Å"We shall fight them on the beaches†

Profile of Idaho Teen Killer Sarah Johnson

Sarah Johnson was 16 years old when she shot and killed her parents with a high-powered rifle because they did not approve of her 19-year-old boyfriend. Victims Alan, 46, and Diane Johnson, 52, lived in an attractive home that sat on two acres of land in an affluent suburb in the small community of Bellevue, Idaho. They had been married for 20 years and were devoted to each other and their two children, Matt and Sarah. The Johnsons were well liked in the community. Alan was the co-owner of a popular landscaping company, and Diane worked for a financial firm. The Crime In the early morning hours of September 2, 2003, Sarah Johnson ran out of her home, screaming for help. She told neighbors that her parents had just been murdered. When police arrived, they found Diane Johnson lying under the covers of her bed, dead from a shotgun blast that had removed most of her head. Alan Johnson was found lying next to the bed, dead from a gunshot wound to his chest. The shower was running, and Alan’s body was wet. Based on wet, bloody footprints and blood splatters, it appeared that he had stepped out of the shower and was then shot, but managed to walk towards Diane before collapsing and bleeding to death. The Crime Scene The police immediately secured the crime scene including sectioning off an entire block around the house. In a trashcan outside of the Johnson’s home, investigators found a bloody pink bathrobe and two gloves. One was a left-handed leather glove, and the other was a right-handed latex glove. Inside the home detectives found a trail of blood spatters, tissue and bone fragments that went from the Johnson’s bedroom, into the hall, and across to Sarah Johnson’s bedroom. A .264 Winchester Magnum rifle was found in the master bedroom. Two butcher knives, with the tips of the blades touching, had been placed on the end of the Johnson’s bed. A magazine of bullets was also found in Sarah’s bedroom, which was located around 20 feet across the hall from the Johnsons bedroom. There was no evidence of forced entry into the home. Sarah Johnson Talks to Police When Sarah Johnson first talked to the police, she said that she woke up around 6:15 a.m. and heard her parents shower running. She continued to lie in bed but then heard two gunshots. Sarah Johnson ran to her parent’s bedroom and found that their door was closed. She did not open the door, but rather called for her mother who did not answer. Frightened, she ran out of the house and began screaming for help. The Story Changes Her story of what happened would change several times throughout the investigation. Sometimes she said her parent’s door was slightly opened and other times she said her door was closed, but not her parent’s door. Based on the forensic evidence found in the hall and Sarah’s bedroom, both her door and her parent’s door would have to have been opened. Sarah also admitted that the pink robe was hers, but denied knowing anything about how it ended up in the trash. When first asked about the robe her first response was to say that she did not kill her parents, which investigators found odd. She said she thought the killer was a maid who had been recently fired by the Johnsons for stealing. The Murder Weapon The owner of the rifle used to kill the Johnsons belonged to Mel Speegle, who was renting a garage apartment in a guesthouse located on the Johnson’s property. He was away over the Labor Day weekend and had not yet returned home on the day of the murders. When questioned, he told police that the rifle was kept in an unlocked closet in his apartment. Infatuation and Obsession Sarah Johnson was described by neighbors and friends as a sweet girl who enjoyed playing volleyball. But another Sarah had emerged over the summer months. One that seemed infatuated and obsessed with her 19-year-old boyfriend, Bruno Santos Dominguez. Sarah and Dominguez had been dating for three months before the murder of her parents. The Johnsons did not approve of the relationship because Dominguez was 19 and an undocumented Mexican immigrant. He also had a reputation for being involved in drugs. Close friends of Sarah’s said that a few days before the Johnson’s murder, Sarah showed them a ring and told them that she and Dominguez were engaged. They also said that Sarah often lied, so they did not completely buy into what Sarah was saying about her engagement. Days Leading up to the Murder On August 29, Sarah told her parents that she was spending the night with friends, but instead, she spent the night with Dominguez. When her parents found out, her father went to look for her the next day and found her with Bruno at his family’s apartment. Sarah and her parents argued, and Sarah told them about her engagement. Diane was very upset and said that she was going to go to the authorities and report Dominguez for statutory rape. If nothing else, she hoped to have him deported. They also grounded Sarah for the rest of the Labor Day weekend and took her car keys. During the following days Sarah, who had a key to Speegle’s apartment, was in and out of the guesthouse for various reasons. Both Diane and Sarah called Matt Johnson, who was away at college, on the night before the murders. Matt said his mother cried about Sarahs relationship with Dominguez and expressed how embarrassed she felt by Sarahs actions. Uncharacteristically, Sarah seemed to accept her parents punishment and told Matt that she knew what they were up to. Matt did not like how the comment sounded and almost called his mother back, but decided not to because it was so late. The next day the Johnsons were dead. DNA Evidence DNA testing showed that blood and tissue belonged to Diane on Sarah’s pink robe, along with DNA that matched Sarah. Gunshot residue was found on the leather glove, and Sarah’s DNA was found inside of the latex glove. Diane’s DNA was also found in the blood that was on the socks Sarah was wearing on the morning her parents were killed. Sarah Johnson is Arrested On October 29, 2003, Sarah Johnson was arrested and charged as an adult on two counts of first-degree murder to which she pleaded not guilty. Nancy Grace Helped Prosecutors One of the big problems that the prosecution had with a major piece of evidence had to do with the pattern of blood splatters found on the pink robe. Most of the blood was on the left sleeve and the back of the robe. If Sarah put the robe on before shooting her parents, how did so much blood get on the back? While the prosecution was struggling to put together a viable explanation for the location of the blood on the robe, Sarahs defense lawyer, Bob Pangburn happened to appear as a guest on the Nancy Grace Current Affairs program. Nancy Grace asked Pangburn about the blood on the robe, and he said it showed possible contamination of evidence and that it actually could help exonerate Sarah Johnson. Nancy Grace offered another explanation. She suggested that if Sarah wanted to protect her body and clothing from blood splatter, that she could have put the robe on backward. Doing that would act as a shield, and the blood would then end up on the back of the robe. Rod Englert and other members of the prosecution team happened to be watching the program, and Graces theory provided them with a reasonable scenario that would result in the blood patterns that were on the robe. Court Testimony During the trial, there was a lot of testimony about Sarah Johnson’s inappropriate behavior and lack of emotions about the brutal murder of her parents. Neighbors and friends who offered comfort to Sarah on the day her parents were killed said that she was more concerned about seeing her boyfriend. She also did not seem traumatized, which would be expected if a teen went through the experience that she had inside the house when her parents were gunned down. At her parents funeral, she talked about wanting to play volleyball that evening and any sadness that she displayed seemed superficial. Witnesses also testified about the troubled relationship between Sarah and her mother, but many also added that it was not that unusual for a girl her age to fight with their mother. However, her half-brother, Matt Johnson, gave some of the most insightful testimony about Sarah, although it also proved to be some of the most damaging. Johnson described her as a drama queen and a good actor who had the propensity to lie. During part of his two-hour testimony, he said that the first thing Sarah told him when he arrived at their home after finding out his parent’s had been murdered, was that the police thought that she did it. He told her he thought Dominguez did it, which she vehemently denied. She said that Dominguez loved Alan Johnson like a father. Matt knew this was not true. She also told him that at 2 a.m. on the night before the murders, that someone had been to the house. Her parents checked the yard to make sure no one was out there before they went back to bed. She had not provided this information to the police. Regardless Matt did not believe her but did not challenge what she was saying. In the weeks after the murders, Matt testified that he avoided asking his sister about the murders because he was afraid of what she might tell him. The No Blood, No Guilt Defense Some of the strongest points that Sarah’s defense team made during her trial had to do with the lack of biological matter found on Sarah or her clothing. Investigators found nothing in her hair, hands, or anywhere else. Experts testified that with Diane having been shot at such close range, it would be impossible for the shooter to avoid being sprayed with blood and tissue and yet none was found on Sarah who underwent two complete physical exams on the day of the murders. Her fingerprints were also not found on the bullets, rifle or the knives.  However, there was one unidentified print found on the rifle. The testimony of cellmates of Sarahs who testified about some of the damaging comments she made regarding the murders was challenged. One cellmate said that Sarah said the knives were placed on the bed to throw off the police and make it look like a gang-related shooting. The defense fought to have the testimonies thrown out because the cellmates were adults and the law forbids incarcerated minors to be housed with adults. The judge did not agree, stating that if Sarah could be tried as an adult, she could be housed with adult prisoners. The defense team also questioned Matt Johnson about the life insurance money he would get if Sarah were out of the picture, insinuating that he had a lot to gain if Sarah was found guilty. The Verdict and Sentencing The jury deliberated for 11 hours before finding Sarah Johnson guilty on two counts of murder in the first degree. She was sentenced to two fixed life prison terms, plus 15 years, without the possibility of parole. She was also fined $10,000, of which $5,000 was allocated to go to Matt Johnson. Appeals Efforts for a new trial were turned down in 2011. A hearing was granted for November 2012, based on the possibility that new DNA and fingerprint technology that was not available during Sarah Johnsons trial may prove that she is innocent. Attorney Dennis Benjamin and the Idaho Innocence Project took on her case pro bono in 2011. On February 18, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court  rejected Johnsons appeal.