Call Girl Charged With Manslaughter in Google Exec's Heroin-Overdose Death

SAN FRANCISCO -- Police have charged a call girl with manslaughter in the heroin overdose death of a Google executive on his yacht.

Alix Catherine Tichelman, 26, is accused of supplying heroin to one of her clients, Forrest Timothy Hayes, 51, and then failing to help him after he suffered an overdose and fell unconscious.

Hayes died Nov. 23 on his 50-foot yacht, Escape, in the Santa Cruz harbor, according to Santa Cruz police Deputy Chief Steve Clark.

Santa Cruz police said Tichelman had an "ongoing prostitution relationship" with the victim.

Footage from a security camera on the yacht showed Hayes "suffering medical complications and going unconscious," police said.

Instead of calling for help,Tichelman gathered her belongings including the heroin and needles, stepped over Hayes' body to finish a glass of wine and lowered the blinds to conceal the body, police said.

"She showed no regard for the victim. She showed no attempt to even try to render aid or get aid there to assist him," Santa Cruz Police Deputy Chief Steve Clark told KXTV-TV in Sacramento.

The boat's captain found Hayes' body the following morning.

Authorities said they lured Tichelman back to Santa Cruz by posing as a client and offering her $1,000 for sex. She had been living with her parents in Folsom, Calif.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, I wonder if they can hang any crime on Tichelman.  Ordinarily, for a person to have the duty to come to the aid of a sick or injured party, there must be a special relationship.  For example a parent with a child.  Or a caretaker with an elder person.  

A prostitute and her John?  I see no circumstances that give rise to a special relationship.

@Nems: Entrapment goes to the essence of the crime...e.g., providing quantities of dope to someone who wants to resell it.  It's more complicated than that, but in this instance the cops were just trying to trick her back into the jurisdiction (perhaps Sacramento County refused to prosecute for the reason discussed above).  In any event, cops lie all the time, and not every lie is illegal.  Lol.  Perhaps low-down, dirty bastards...but not entrapment.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, I wonder if they can hang any crime on Tichelman.  Ordinarily, for a person to have the duty to come to the aid of a sick or injured party, there must be a special relationship.  For example a parent with a child.  Or a caretaker with an elder person.  

A prostitute and her John?  I see no circumstances that give rise to a special relationship.

@Nems: Entrapment goes to the essence of the crime...e.g., providing quantities of dope to someone who wants to resell it.  It's more complicated than that, but in this instance the cops were just trying to trick her back into the jurisdiction (perhaps Sacramento County refused to prosecute for the reason discussed above).  In any event, cops lie all the time, and not every lie is illegal.  Lol.  Perhaps low-down, dirty bastards...but not entrapment.

Raggamuffin wrote:She stepped over him and finished her wine? I don't get why people are sympathising with her.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:She stepped over him and finished her wine? I don't get why people are sympathising with her.  

It's not sympathetic.  It's just that she didn't do anything illegal.

If you want, judge her as a moral misfit.  But not as a criminal.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes, I wonder if they can hang any crime on Tichelman.  Ordinarily, for a person to have the duty to come to the aid of a sick or injured party, there must be a special relationship.  For example a parent with a child.  Or a caretaker with an elder person.  

A prostitute and her John?  I see no circumstances that give rise to a special relationship.

@Nems: Entrapment goes to the essence of the crime...e.g., providing quantities of dope to someone who wants to resell it.  It's more complicated than that, but in this instance the cops were just trying to trick her back into the jurisdiction (perhaps Sacramento County refused to prosecute for the reason discussed above).  In any event, cops lie all the time, and not every lie is illegal.  Lol.  Perhaps low-down, dirty bastards...but not entrapment.

Seems to be how most of our "terrorist busts" happen as well. Tell an angry person you can help them blow up a building and see if they bite.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not sympathetic.  It's just that she didn't do anything illegal.

If you want, judge her as a moral misfit.  But not as a criminal.

She supplied heroin - I think that's illegal.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She supplied heroin - I think that's illegal.

Well, now you are thinking it through rationally.  That's a good thing.  She might be arrested for trafficking in drugs, and for prostitution.  But they have no evidence for the mens res to commit homicide.

What killed the man appears to be a totally voluntary act.  Or, as they say, accidental.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, now you are thinking it through rationally.  That's a good thing.  She might be arrested for trafficking in drugs, and for prostitution.  But they have no evidence for the mens res to commit homicide.

What killed the man appears to be a totally voluntary act.  Or, as they say, accidental.

I read that she injected him with the stuff.

I hope they get her on something. Her behaviour was disgusting, whether it was legal or not.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I read that she injected him with the stuff.

I hope they get her on something. Her behaviour was disgusting, whether it was legal or not.

The article says she "supplied" the drugs, not that she injected them.  If she had sole and independent control over the dosage and administration of the needle, there might either be a special relationship or a basis for a direct charge of homicide.  

This situation is complicated in that this is not a bullet; drugs are ambiguous...they kill you, yet people love to take them.  One would have to show she had the mens res specifically to kill the man.  That's hard.

Christie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The article says she "supplied" the drugs, not that she injected them.  If she had sole and independent control over the dosage and administration of the needle, there might either be a special relationship or a basis for a direct charge of homicide.  

This situation is complicated in that this is not a bullet; drugs are ambiguous...they kill you, yet people love to take them.  One would have to show she had the mens res specifically to kill the man.  That's hard.

And yet other articles are saying she injected him with heroin, here is just one I found:

SANTA CRUZ — A high-end prostitute injected lethal doses of heroin into a former Google executive before callously stepping over his body, downing a final swig of wine and then leaving him to die about his yacht, officials said.

She appeared in court in Santa Cruz on Wednesday morning in handcuffs and a red jumpsuit and was charged with manslaughter. She is also charged with administering heroin and possessing heroin.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/hooker-accused-in-google-execs-overdose-death/

Original Quill wrote:

Christie wrote:

And yet other articles are saying she injected him with heroin, here is just one I found:

SANTA CRUZ — A high-end prostitute injected lethal doses of heroin into a former Google executive before callously stepping over his body, downing a final swig of wine and then leaving him to die about his yacht, officials said.

She appeared in court in Santa Cruz on Wednesday morning in handcuffs and a red jumpsuit and was charged with manslaughter. She is also charged with administering heroin and possessing heroin.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/hooker-accused-in-google-execs-overdose-death/

Agreed.  As we see, newspapers can be careless.  I would like to see the charge or indictment.  It makes a big difference whether she 'supplied' or 'administered' the drug, including determining the dosage.  How would they know, as the only independent witness is dead?

BTW, as the woman was the only living witness, there's a clue why they wanted her back in Santa Cruz County.  I sure hope she keeps her fooking mouth shut and hooks up with a lawyer.

Christie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Agreed.  As we see, newspapers can be careless.  I would like to see the charge or indictment.  It makes a big difference whether she 'supplied' or 'administered' the drug, including determining the dosage.  How would they know, as the only independent witness is dead?

BTW, as the woman was the only living witness, there's a clue why they wanted her back in Santa Cruz County.  I sure hope she keeps her fooking mouth shut and hooks up with a lawyer.

Apparently there was surveillance footage from aboard the board which showed how it happened.

Surveillance video from Hayes’ yacht shows the overdose and its aftermath, police said: Hayes showed medical complications and lost consciousness. Tichelman, instead of helping, picked up her things — including the heroin and needles — and tidied up the boat.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/09/google-executive-yacht-overdose/

Original Quill wrote:Gd thoughts and ideas, Christie.