News

Jury weighs facts in Hamilton strangling case

By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
Published: March 26, 2008

HAMILTON — Jurors in the trial of a South Shore man charged with attempted murder in the strangulation of a Hamilton woman last June began deliberating yesterday, deciding between two very different theories.

Depending on which theory the jury accepts — was it a cold-blooded attempt at murder or a bizarre sexual fetish being acted out by two consenting adults — John Carey could face more than 50 years in state prison.

"The defendant attempted to turn his fantasy into reality, and it became Rosemary Diskin's worst nightmare," prosecutor Kim Faitella told jurors yesterday during closing arguments in Newburyport Superior Court. She pointed to more than 400 graphic images on Carey's computer, of women in various stages of strangulation — and death.

"Those are what was in his mind when he drove to Rosemary Diskin's house on June 6, 2007," the prosecutor said.

There is no dispute that Carey, who is charged with attempted murder, home invasion, and multiple counts of assault and battery, went to the Diskin home that night, argued his lawyer, Kirk Bransfield. But he went for a very different purpose, the lawyer said.

"He didn't go into this house to hurt anybody," Bransfield argued. "He went there to have sexual relations with Rosemary Diskin. He did not go there to kill Rosemary Diskin."

Bransfield called the state's suggested motive "far-fetched" and said that while Carey's sexual proclivities "may be disgusting," they are not illegal.

"The only thing the commonwealth has proved is that he had an odd sexual proclivity."

But that, countered Faitella, was exactly what drove Carey, 48, of Braintree, to Diskin's Appaloosa Way home that night, as she cooked a dish for a school event her son was attending.

"He was going to fulfill his ultimate sexual gratification," Faitella argued, pointing to Carey's membership in a club called "Necrobabes" and his Internet searches for information about asphyxia.

And even as Diskin's young son came into the kitchen, he wasn't going to let go of what he had, Faitella said.

Bransfield reminded jurors that Diskin let Carey into the home that night — though Faitella argued that if Carey came there with the intent to harm her she could not be considered to have consented to him coming inside.

He also cited inconsistencies in the accounts offered by Diskin and her son, who was 12 at the time. For example, Diskin said she was grabbed while facing Carey, the necktie placed around her neck and twisted in front.

Her son testified that he saw Carey behind his mother, who was bent down with Carey straddling her.

Diskin also said she yelled to her son to grab a knife and stab Carey. Her son said he just remembers his mother yelling, and then he went to get the knife himself.

And Diskin told police that night that her son had kicked and punched Carey — something she couldn't have actually seen if she was facing the opposite direction, Bransfield said.

While prosecutors do not have to prove a motive, Faitella suggested that Carey chose Diskin because he knew he could get into her house.

And Faitella suggested that after he left and learned that police were looking for him, he deliberately chose not to go home that night, instead staying with friends.

Bransfield, meanwhile, also challenged the Diskins' assertion that their marriage was not in trouble at the time — Tim Diskin had been living in Arlington at the time, the lawyer said.

"They lived essentially separate lives," Bransfield argued. "They're telling you their relationship is solid so there's no reason for Rosemary Diskin to be seeking comfort or sexual relations outside the marital bed."