This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • Lightfoot3 Jun 7, 11:28 a.m.

    "And so you should speak up for the defense. The prosecutors would have you believe that any husband is an evil maniac." - paulej


    Exactly! If the state is going to present people claiming he had a chain on her neck to yank her around, the defense needs to present people that claim they saw otherwise.


    I hate these type of trials. They are basically character assassinations with no real evidence of guilt. I don't care if he dominated her, or cheated on her (and it seems she was trying to cheat too), or her friends don't like him, or whatever. I want to see PROOF that he murdered her beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • kornfan2448 Jun 7, 9:09 a.m.

    With all the news and social media coverage, they'll have to go the African bush to find impartial jurors.

  • ncteacher22 Jun 6, 7:26 p.m.

    He will be so sad that he didn't take the deal when the next jury sends him away for much longer! DOH!

  • monami Jun 6, 7:17 p.m.

    paulej, as you stated, it's clear you didn't follow the trial closely. Regardless, you make strong statements about him (and men in NC) being railroaded. If you delved into details of the crimes, you might develop a different perspective. Instead, you assume these men are unfairly persecuted.

    Also, the subject of "circumstantial evidence" is often misunderstood/misconstrued by some as invalid evidence. I suggest studying the subject of circumstantial evidence....you may find it enlightening and compelling.

  • paulej Jun 6, 6:32 p.m.

    "I met the Abaroas once, probably two weeks before Janet's murder. I was in shock for days because I had just met them. They seemed like nice people and you never would have suspected that anything was wrong." --OpenM1nd

    And so you should speak up for the defense. The prosecutors would have you believe that any husband is an evil maniac. The truth, though, is that there is no evidence, so they have to make up whatever they can.

    Stories like yours are important to a fair justice system. If the couple appeared happy and perfectly normal, there is a good chance that they were!

  • OpenM1nd Jun 6, 5:57 p.m.

    I met the Abaroas once, probably two weeks before Janet's murder. I was in shock for days because I had just met them. They seemed like nice people and you never would have suspected that anything was wrong. This is so sad. My condolences to the families for getting dragged through this over and over again.

  • paulej Jun 6, 5:05 p.m.

    "Committing murder is easy in North Carolina. Just destroy the CSI evidence and the hard evidence craving jurors will let you walk. Wow." --Obamacare for life

    There should be hard evidence. The only "evidence" I heard (and I'll admit I did not follow the story closely) was that he had a life insurance policy on his wife, was charged with embezzlement, was financially strained, and ... that's it. So, with that, he must be a murderer?

    If a man ever finds his wife dead in NC, he'd better flea the country, because jurors in NC will blame the husband, no matter what evidence exists.

  • datenobunaga2 Jun 6, 5:03 p.m.

    "that leaves an hour, plenty of time to kill and dispose."

    Maybe if you are a professional hit man. TOday I went to do a simple deposit and knocked over the tray of slips, dropped the pen twice, and tripped on my shoe lace. Too me 15 minute just for a simple deposit. I am not so sure 1 hour is enough. Just my opinion though.

  • paulej Jun 6, 4:59 p.m.

    "I don't think you would want the person charged with her murder out and about while waiting for trial" --Proud Young Grandma

    That all depends. Is there a risk of flight? Is there a danger to the public?

    Most of the times where the person has no prior record and the state has virtually no evidence to convict the person in the first place -- nothing more than a nice, well-rehearsed performance they put on for the jury of how "he might have done it" -- then, no, the person ought not be required to sit in jail.

    Jason Young, Brad Cooper, and this man (heck, he was not even arrested for 5 years!) all fit that description. No point taking even one more day away from the man's life than necessary.

  • chercheek Jun 6, 3:53 p.m.

    He had from 7:30 (the last time he was seen by home teacher until he showed up for soccer at 9:00pm to kill Janet, dispose of his bloodied clothes, murder weapon and laptop and get to his soccer game. With the 30 minute travel time that leaves an hour, plenty of time to kill and dispose.

  • Proud Young Grandma Jun 6, 3:43 p.m.

    Correction: I meant to type jail instead of prison. I am not sure but I don't think they go to prison until they are convicted. But again, I don't know for sure.

  • buford Jun 6, 3:34 p.m.

    What happened to his hair...

  • Proud Young Grandma Jun 6, 3:34 p.m.

    With an 11-1 in favor of guilty (so 11 people must have thought there was enough evidence) the state would be foolish to not retry this case.

    CountryBoyz - many people charged, but not convicted of a crime sit in prison. There is this thing called bail - and depending on the nature of the crime it can be small, large, or none at all. If Janet had been your daughter I don't think you would want the person charged with her murder out and about while waiting for trial - or retrial (especially when 11 out of 12 jurors thought the person was guilty of first degree murder).

  • Lucas Turner Jun 6, 3:30 p.m.

    RE: monami "It's so heartbreaking for Janet's family to have another agonizing wait and trial". Yes, it's also heartbreaking that Raven, his family and son have to have another agonizing wait and trial.

  • Obamacare for life Jun 6, 3:30 p.m.

    "Yeah, agreed. They should just let the guy go, because they do not have a shred of real evidence even have how many years?"
    paulej

    lol!! Committing murder is easy in North Carolina. Just destroy the CSI evidence and the hard evidence craving jurors will let you walk. Wow.

  • Ven Jun 6, 3:09 p.m.

    Dumb all the way around. The defense will always be able to say there's doubt thanks to the hold-out (regardless of the count). They just had to wait for a true sweetheart deal - offering 20+ years with admitting guilt is as good as a life sentance, so why bother?

  • CountryBoyz Jun 6, 2:56 p.m.

    If a jury hasn't convicted him of the crime, they need to let him go. I don't know if he did it or not, but seems to be little evidence. Why would he be in prison, presumed guilty, and have to stay there six months waiting on a new trial when we should be innocent until proven guilty?

  • monami Jun 6, 2:53 p.m.

    It's so heartbreaking for Janet's family to have another agonizing wait and trial. It's wrong to reward a murderer for trying to prevent evidence from being found when he carefully premeditates his wife's murder. The plea deal was a reward. I'm glad he didn't take it. His sociopathic arrogance will catch up with him...too bad Janet's family has to wait until January.

  • kweb1013 Jun 6, 2:52 p.m.

    What a waste of time. Let's spend more money on an innocent man. the police have no real evidence.

  • paulej Jun 6, 2:41 p.m.

    "lets waste more tax payers money" --WLDPIG

    Yeah, agreed. They should just let the guy go, because they do not have a shred of real evidence even have how many years?

  • VickLo Jun 6, 2:36 p.m.

    Oh... I have seen perjury done in the most blatant way. These courts don't mind it a bit. Take that to the bank.

    He is just going to make NC spend our money.

  • jay82308 Jun 6, 2:36 p.m.

    raggy831 - I believe one of his fellow soccer players said he was at the game, but was a few minutes late. So, I guess the prosecution is insinuating that he had time to kill her before he went to the game. My biggest thing is, I want to know where the evidence is that puts him at the crime scene. Not just the circumstantial stuff.

  • Proud Young Grandma Jun 6, 2:32 p.m.

    Raggy831 - probably because there is this little thing called perjury! :-)

  • raggy831 Jun 6, 2:25 p.m.

    My question would be, if he was playing soccar why don't his buddies come forward and tell the court? Then he would be able to prove where he was.

  • Obamacare for life Jun 6, 2:10 p.m.

    The man is a sociopath, there is no way he'd agree to a plea deal as he's so delusional he probably believes in his own innocence at this point.

  • jscott13 Jun 6, 2:09 p.m.

    He did it and he made a big mistake in turning down the deal.

  • WLDPIG Jun 6, 2:08 p.m.

    lets waste more tax payers money

  • sflicker2 Jun 6, 2:00 p.m.

    I don't see anything but speculation by the police. Whereas the evidence he committed the crime.

  • luvbailey Jun 6, 1:46 p.m.

    Very dangerous decision on his part. I think the next jury will convict. Then he's in for the rest of his life.

  • federalsales2 Jun 6, 1:46 p.m.

    Why waste tax payer money again. January 13th is a long time...

  • Proud Young Grandma Jun 6, 1:39 p.m.

    I believe if the DA lets the next jury decide on either first degree or second degree murder, Raven will be convicted. He probably would have been convicted this time if other options were available. Maybe (I am just guessing here) the lone holdout didn't believe the murder was premeditated and therefore would not vote to convict on first degree murder. I guess time will tell what happens......

  • whoami Jun 6, 1:39 p.m.

    I too would turn down a plea if I was not guilty, and if the only evidence the state presented was "we cannot think of anyone else who might have done it".

  • Obamacare for life Jun 6, 1:34 p.m.

    Wonder how many soccer buddy jurors he'll get in trial #2.

Oldest First