The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is “Jury deliberates case against Michigan grandmother” (Web-site/URL:

“A woman “HUNTED DOWN” her teenage grandson in her suburban Detroit home and shot at him 10 times over a six-minute span, IGNORING his desperate pleas for help to a 911 dispatcher, a prosecutor told jurors Monday, urging them to convict her of FIRST-DEGREE murder”, obviously an EXTREMELY SERIOUS chargeAlso “hunted down” clearly suggests that this murder was METHODICALLY/METICULOUSLY PLANNED.

“Summing up his case against 75-year-old Sandra Layne, prosecutor Paul Walton again played Jonathan Hoffman’s 911 call last May (2012)in which he said his grandmother had just shot him”. “I’M GOING TO DIE“, the 17-year-old said before he was shot again WITH THE DISPATCHER ON THE LINE“. THIS IS HORRIFYING and reminds us of the JOSH POWELL murder case (Web-site/URL:

“Layne testified that she was afraid of her grandson and acted in SELF DEFENSEShe said she shot him AFTER HE STRUCK HER during an argument over money that he had demanded from her so he could flee Michigan. “A drug test earlier that day (March 18, 2013) had detected so-called synthetic marijuana, which could have triggered a parole violation”. WOWThe “self-defense” argument is reminiscent of the TRAYVON MARTIN case (Web-site/URL: 

“Walton reminded jurors that Layne DIDN’T report any injuries to police when they arrived at her home during the shooting“. WHY NOT?

Walton continued: “NOT I was afraidI acted IN SELF-DEFENSEHE CAME AFTER MEI SHOTI KILLED— those are her first statements to law enforcement. … She HUNTED DOWN Jonathan Hoffman because he wouldn’t listen (?)” “wouldn’t listen”Is that a reason to KILL SOMEONE?  Supporters of the INSANITY defense will say YESbut that’s beyond the scope of this analysis.

“He called it a “MASSACRE“. “Walton said Hoffman had made plans to attend a bonfire that night with friends, not escape in Layne’s car”. ”Her glasses AREN’T askew. Her makeup ISN’T smudgedNO injuries to her face. … IF there’s a self-defense claim hereit belongs to JONATHAN HOFFMAN,NOT Sandra Layne”BINGO.

“Defense attorney Jerome Sabbota urged jurors to acquit Layne, asking them to view the incident through the eyes of a woman in her 70s. He said Layne was taking care of a teenager who had USED DRUGS and brought strangers to the homeHoffman’s parents were divorced and living in Arizona during his senior year of high school”“Is there REALLY a motive to murder her grandsonWhat does she gain? She KILLED a child she was trying to PROTECT and trying to SAVETHAT’S A TRAGEDYOnly ONE reason she did what she did: FEAR (?)” “fear” of an UNARMED person?LAYNE HAD A GUN. Hoffman was DEFENSELESS.

“Sabbota also played a 911 recording for the jury, a call that Layne made to police two months before Hoffman was killed. Sounding desperate and anguished, she said she needed help because her grandson wanted to run away from her home”. “Does she sound CALMCOOL and COLLECTEDDoes she sound like Tony Soprano?”

Finally, “Oakland County Judge Denise Langford Morris told jurors that acquittal based on self-defense could be appropriate if Layne “HONESTLY and REASONABLY (?) believed” that her life was in danger — even if she was wrong”. What is “honest and reasonable” in this case? Again this is open to INTERPRETATIONS (Web-site/URL:

People can defend Sandra Layne all they want and Hoffman can claim SELF-DEFENSE all she wants but the bottom line is: Jonathan Hoffman is DEAD which is enough evidence for a MURDER charge or MANSLAUGHTER at the very least. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s