As soon as the verdict was announced, Kathy Wone shrieked and ran out of the courtroom crying hysterically.
The judge took an hour going through her logic and reasoning. She found that the knife found was the murder weapon and it was not the knife missing from the knife set. She also found that there was no intruder into the house that might have done the murder. She found the Joe Price wiped off the knife and pulled it out of the chest of Robert Wone.
Despite all these facts, the judge couldn't reach the threshold of reasonable doubt, and so is forced to find the defendants Not Guilty.
The judge reminded the court that she was the fact finder. She commented on Joe Price being arrogant and unhelpful and Dylan being detached and arrogant. She declared both of their behaviors as "abnormal."
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
6.24.2010
The Robert Wone Trial: The Best Lawyer in the Room
Hands down, the best lawyer in the room in the Robert Wone trial was the judge. Judge Liebovitz peppered the attorneys before her with questions, even interrupting their closing arguments frequently. She reminded the attorneys about questions about laying the proper foundation for the introduction of evidence and rounding out the foundation for expert witnesses. In the testimony of Dr. Farzad Najam, it was the judge's questions that revealed he had never been an expert witness before and that his opinion about the lack of bleeding externally from the victim, Robert Wone, was in reference to the stab wound to the heart and not the two stab wounds to the abdomen.
Today, the judge focused on when the conspiracy could have begun at its earliest or latest in questioning the prosecution. The scream, replied the prosecutor Kirschner, would be the latest. By the time of the 911 call, the defendants were speaking collectively. Aside from that, Econo-Girl noticed in the videotape played at trial that Mr. Price exclaimed "We didn't kill him!" during his interrogation with the police, speaking collectively.
The prosecution claimed the evidence that Mr. Ward was a conspirator was in the 911 call on the night of the murder. His statement was implausible, his discovery of the back door being ajar when he couldn't even see it, and his being silenced by Mr. Price with a glare in the living room when the police were there that night talking to them about what happened demonstrated that.
For Mr. Zaborsky, the indicators of a conspiracy were statements made after what the prosecution calls the "Mercedes meeting" in the parking lot of the police station the night of the murder. He became a conspirator after the scream by calling 911 and reading from a script because it's clear he spoke with Price.
The prosecution argued that the judge would have to find a communication that something bad happened from two of the defendants to the third. He stated that it would not have to be a communication of a specific fact to constitute obstruction of justice.
Bernie Grimm's closing statement pronounced the name of the victim incorrectly throughout. At least he was consistent. He stated that there was no evidence one way or another how this murder happened. He claimed that if a person didn't know the actual truth and they said something different from the truth, it was not a lie. He pointed out that Mike Price, his client, had his brother arrested for breaking and entering and this action demonstrated that he did not have a blind sense of loyalty that would cause him to lie to others in the event of murder.
Thomas Connelly's closing statement argued that Mr. Zaborsky never knew or talked to anybody or entered into any agreement. He cried when the police got there and "he simply doesn't know what happened." The attorney further argued that omitting information in talking to the police is not obstruction of justice unless the fact is material and significant.
Attorney Schertler's closing argument was engaging and troubling. "This case is built on assumption, speculation and innuendo." He pointed to the time frame 10:30 to 11:49 p.m. on the night of the murder. "If you don't know what happened, you can't prove they lied." "Nothing about the state's case is inherently credible." "There is a void in the evidence they just can't fill."
Talking about uncertainty about the charges against the defendents, Mr. Shertler said to the judge "I think we can see your lack of certainty by the questions you've been asking." Do you think this made her happy? She was asking everybody tough questions. This guy had some issues with the judge. You don't talk to judges this way. I know he used to be her boss. But still.
Counsel claimed that you cross the line when you make an affirmative answer which wasn't true, otherwise it is not an obstruction of justice.
Speaking of crossing the line, Schertler really did it after that. Dismissing Dr. Goslinoski's testimony as so refuted as to not be worth discussing, Judge Liebowitz became really annoyed. "She is the only person who testified who wasn't paid to be there. She was getting paid the same no matter what. SHE DOESN'T GET PAID TO CHANGE HER OPINION." That remark was a slam to Mr. Schertler, who used to be a prosecutor and now was a defense lawyer, presumably because it paid better.
Not stopping there, Mr. Schertler said there was no evidence on whether Mr. Wone was moved or not, which was not true. He claimed "this case borders on the Kafkaesque." He finished saying there is no evidence Mr. Ward knew more and lied to the police or saw or heard something and lied to the police about it.
The prosecution's rebuttal was argued by Ms. Lieber who did an outstanding job. She said that the defendants provided details contradicted by evidence. She painted a picture of a super ninja who scaled an eight foot fence, entered the house, stole a knife, killed Mr. Wone and then left without taking anything. As to the circumstantial nature of the case, she pointed out that it was a conspiracy case without an insider testifying. As such, it will be by necessity a circumstantial case. Very fine performance.
At last, the trial ended. And the judge treated us with a promise that she will render a verdict next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
Today, the judge focused on when the conspiracy could have begun at its earliest or latest in questioning the prosecution. The scream, replied the prosecutor Kirschner, would be the latest. By the time of the 911 call, the defendants were speaking collectively. Aside from that, Econo-Girl noticed in the videotape played at trial that Mr. Price exclaimed "We didn't kill him!" during his interrogation with the police, speaking collectively.
The prosecution claimed the evidence that Mr. Ward was a conspirator was in the 911 call on the night of the murder. His statement was implausible, his discovery of the back door being ajar when he couldn't even see it, and his being silenced by Mr. Price with a glare in the living room when the police were there that night talking to them about what happened demonstrated that.
For Mr. Zaborsky, the indicators of a conspiracy were statements made after what the prosecution calls the "Mercedes meeting" in the parking lot of the police station the night of the murder. He became a conspirator after the scream by calling 911 and reading from a script because it's clear he spoke with Price.
The prosecution argued that the judge would have to find a communication that something bad happened from two of the defendants to the third. He stated that it would not have to be a communication of a specific fact to constitute obstruction of justice.
Bernie Grimm's closing statement pronounced the name of the victim incorrectly throughout. At least he was consistent. He stated that there was no evidence one way or another how this murder happened. He claimed that if a person didn't know the actual truth and they said something different from the truth, it was not a lie. He pointed out that Mike Price, his client, had his brother arrested for breaking and entering and this action demonstrated that he did not have a blind sense of loyalty that would cause him to lie to others in the event of murder.
Thomas Connelly's closing statement argued that Mr. Zaborsky never knew or talked to anybody or entered into any agreement. He cried when the police got there and "he simply doesn't know what happened." The attorney further argued that omitting information in talking to the police is not obstruction of justice unless the fact is material and significant.
Attorney Schertler's closing argument was engaging and troubling. "This case is built on assumption, speculation and innuendo." He pointed to the time frame 10:30 to 11:49 p.m. on the night of the murder. "If you don't know what happened, you can't prove they lied." "Nothing about the state's case is inherently credible." "There is a void in the evidence they just can't fill."
Talking about uncertainty about the charges against the defendents, Mr. Shertler said to the judge "I think we can see your lack of certainty by the questions you've been asking." Do you think this made her happy? She was asking everybody tough questions. This guy had some issues with the judge. You don't talk to judges this way. I know he used to be her boss. But still.
Counsel claimed that you cross the line when you make an affirmative answer which wasn't true, otherwise it is not an obstruction of justice.
Speaking of crossing the line, Schertler really did it after that. Dismissing Dr. Goslinoski's testimony as so refuted as to not be worth discussing, Judge Liebowitz became really annoyed. "She is the only person who testified who wasn't paid to be there. She was getting paid the same no matter what. SHE DOESN'T GET PAID TO CHANGE HER OPINION." That remark was a slam to Mr. Schertler, who used to be a prosecutor and now was a defense lawyer, presumably because it paid better.
Not stopping there, Mr. Schertler said there was no evidence on whether Mr. Wone was moved or not, which was not true. He claimed "this case borders on the Kafkaesque." He finished saying there is no evidence Mr. Ward knew more and lied to the police or saw or heard something and lied to the police about it.
The prosecution's rebuttal was argued by Ms. Lieber who did an outstanding job. She said that the defendants provided details contradicted by evidence. She painted a picture of a super ninja who scaled an eight foot fence, entered the house, stole a knife, killed Mr. Wone and then left without taking anything. As to the circumstantial nature of the case, she pointed out that it was a conspiracy case without an insider testifying. As such, it will be by necessity a circumstantial case. Very fine performance.
At last, the trial ended. And the judge treated us with a promise that she will render a verdict next Tuesday at 11 a.m.
6.22.2010
The Robert Wone Trial: "It's Been Four Years of Hell"
That's the mother of a defendant Victor Zaborsky, not of Robert Wone. She's an upbeat, plump, sturdy blond with a determinedly cheerful smile. "He's our son," she told people waiting in line for the court doors to open. The experience become different when you are confronted with the obvious pain of a mother who seems like a very nice, respectable woman. My mind isn't changed, and my sympathy for the family of Robert Wone is not lessened. It just makes it harder to feel hostility towards the defendants.
Waiting for the trial to start, the line must have started 40 minutes before the doors opened. As usual, the press arrived late and were surprised that they were expected to stand in line with everybody else. The order for getting in the doors was family first, then lawyers and their hangers-on, and then the general public. The mysterious monochrome woman was there again today. While waiting, me and the women near me distracted ourselves with the good-looking sheriffs walking the hallways. And yes, DC has some very good-looking sheriffs.
The parents of both Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward were in the gallery today, and seated two rows behind them were the family of Robert Wone. Members of the Wone family left during some of the more grisly testimony.
Today's testimony was about Robert Wone's heart and how reasonable it was that not much blood was found.
Tracy Weaver was the first witness. She placed Wone in the medical unit and on a monitor. He was PEA, pulseless electrical activity. Her testimony that his arms were cold was not allowed.
The next witness was Dr. Fazad Najan, Associate Director of Cardiac Surgery. There was a Rule 16 objection and the ruling was that no PEA testimony was allowed because the defense didn't mention it earlier. There was another Rule 16 objection where blood in other parts of the body was not mentioned in the disclosure. The judge ruled that it addresses a matter that the prosecution already raised so the testimony was allowed.
Rule 703 objection because Dr. Najan was asked about his talking to colleagues about this case. The objection was overruled because the defense is not proving the matter asserted: i.e., that the other colleague agreed with Dr. Najan, but only his diligence. Right after that, counsel asked "Was that opinion consistent with yours?" "Yes" was the reply. The judge was very angry. Defense counsel went ahead and used the hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The judge commented on it and counsel basically ignored her and just continued with examining the witness. Not a banner day for the defense.
Dr.Najan essentially testified that a knife wound to the heart would not necessarily mean a lot of blood. The heart is covered by the pericardial sack which covers the lung also, the pluram and bony structure. As such, one would not see external hemmorage. It's all in the trajectory of the cut, not its size. The prosecutor got Dr. Najan to admit that it could have been more than 5 seconds until Mr. Wone passed out. He also admitted that his analysis did not extend to the wounds in the abdomen. So his nifty, stab-in-the-heart-but-don't-bleed theory doesn't really apply to what happened to Mr. Wone.
The the judge piled on. I just want to take a moment to note how smart Hon. Judge Liebovitz is. Wow. She's got to keep all this stuff in her head and keep the trial running. When one side or the other makes a motion, she immediately recalls the motions they made earlier in the trial. It's really impressive. Today's performance doubles that.
The judge asked a few questions that should have been asked by the prosecutors. "Have you ever testified as an expert witness before?" she asked. "No," Dr. Najan replied. More questions along this line, all answered no.
Then the judge asks if Dr. Najan has an opinion as to which wound was inflicted first. "No," said Dr. Najan. This is critical because all of the defense's testimony has been about how a person stabbed through the heart would lose consciousness almost immediately. No testimony has been given about if the other wounds happened first and if that would lead to sudden loss of consciousness. And no testimony about why those wounds would not cause external bleeding.
Dr. Najan further testified that if the the abdominal wound was first, he had no opinion as to the quantity of blood.
On cross, Dr. Najan testified that if someone were stabbed in the heart like Mr. Wone, he could pass out instantly, like in a snap of the fingers. The prosecutor even snapped his fingers for effect, and Dr. Najan agreed that a person could lose consciousness that quickly. After further questioning, Dr. Najan testified that an adult heart pumps out 50-60 cc's of blood per beat. Counsel reminded the witness that he said that it took 250cc's of blood in the pericardial for that to happen. "Wouldn't that take longer than a few seconds?"
Tracy Weaver was called to the stand again and was not allowed to testify about her observation that there was so little blood on Mr. Wone when she loaded him into the ambulance.
Today was a lot of technical information, a little rough to follow. I may have some spelling for the medical terms wrong. Oh, well. Got started late because of a dinner guest.
Waiting for the trial to start, the line must have started 40 minutes before the doors opened. As usual, the press arrived late and were surprised that they were expected to stand in line with everybody else. The order for getting in the doors was family first, then lawyers and their hangers-on, and then the general public. The mysterious monochrome woman was there again today. While waiting, me and the women near me distracted ourselves with the good-looking sheriffs walking the hallways. And yes, DC has some very good-looking sheriffs.
The parents of both Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward were in the gallery today, and seated two rows behind them were the family of Robert Wone. Members of the Wone family left during some of the more grisly testimony.
Today's testimony was about Robert Wone's heart and how reasonable it was that not much blood was found.
Tracy Weaver was the first witness. She placed Wone in the medical unit and on a monitor. He was PEA, pulseless electrical activity. Her testimony that his arms were cold was not allowed.
The next witness was Dr. Fazad Najan, Associate Director of Cardiac Surgery. There was a Rule 16 objection and the ruling was that no PEA testimony was allowed because the defense didn't mention it earlier. There was another Rule 16 objection where blood in other parts of the body was not mentioned in the disclosure. The judge ruled that it addresses a matter that the prosecution already raised so the testimony was allowed.
Rule 703 objection because Dr. Najan was asked about his talking to colleagues about this case. The objection was overruled because the defense is not proving the matter asserted: i.e., that the other colleague agreed with Dr. Najan, but only his diligence. Right after that, counsel asked "Was that opinion consistent with yours?" "Yes" was the reply. The judge was very angry. Defense counsel went ahead and used the hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The judge commented on it and counsel basically ignored her and just continued with examining the witness. Not a banner day for the defense.
Dr.Najan essentially testified that a knife wound to the heart would not necessarily mean a lot of blood. The heart is covered by the pericardial sack which covers the lung also, the pluram and bony structure. As such, one would not see external hemmorage. It's all in the trajectory of the cut, not its size. The prosecutor got Dr. Najan to admit that it could have been more than 5 seconds until Mr. Wone passed out. He also admitted that his analysis did not extend to the wounds in the abdomen. So his nifty, stab-in-the-heart-but-don't-bleed theory doesn't really apply to what happened to Mr. Wone.
The the judge piled on. I just want to take a moment to note how smart Hon. Judge Liebovitz is. Wow. She's got to keep all this stuff in her head and keep the trial running. When one side or the other makes a motion, she immediately recalls the motions they made earlier in the trial. It's really impressive. Today's performance doubles that.
The judge asked a few questions that should have been asked by the prosecutors. "Have you ever testified as an expert witness before?" she asked. "No," Dr. Najan replied. More questions along this line, all answered no.
Then the judge asks if Dr. Najan has an opinion as to which wound was inflicted first. "No," said Dr. Najan. This is critical because all of the defense's testimony has been about how a person stabbed through the heart would lose consciousness almost immediately. No testimony has been given about if the other wounds happened first and if that would lead to sudden loss of consciousness. And no testimony about why those wounds would not cause external bleeding.
Dr. Najan further testified that if the the abdominal wound was first, he had no opinion as to the quantity of blood.
On cross, Dr. Najan testified that if someone were stabbed in the heart like Mr. Wone, he could pass out instantly, like in a snap of the fingers. The prosecutor even snapped his fingers for effect, and Dr. Najan agreed that a person could lose consciousness that quickly. After further questioning, Dr. Najan testified that an adult heart pumps out 50-60 cc's of blood per beat. Counsel reminded the witness that he said that it took 250cc's of blood in the pericardial for that to happen. "Wouldn't that take longer than a few seconds?"
Tracy Weaver was called to the stand again and was not allowed to testify about her observation that there was so little blood on Mr. Wone when she loaded him into the ambulance.
Today was a lot of technical information, a little rough to follow. I may have some spelling for the medical terms wrong. Oh, well. Got started late because of a dinner guest.
6.21.2010
Robert Wone Trial: The Sandbox Defense
Today at the Robert Wone murder trial, little Econo-Girl sat in the middle of family members for people on trial for killing him. "This is a combination of sloppy police work and a cruel prosecutor," opined one man. Just shows you that there really are two sides to every story.
To wit, the first expert witness, Dr. Lee, a famous forensic pathologist, dug his feet in and refused to agree to the simplest idea. Honestly, it detracts from credibility when you deny basic common sense.
The second expert witness, Dr. Mayo, a famous forensic pathologist, went in the other direction and testified that getting stabbed would not prompt an involuntary reaction and that most people didn't have a physical reaction when being stabbed. You see, that makes it possible that Robert Wone wasn't drugged by the three men on trial and then stabbed, and instead was stabbed by an intruder into the house.
Then comes Mrs. Ward, mother to one of the defendants. She tells the court that the knife set to which the killing weapon belonged to her and she got it in Germany, home of good knives. She gave it to her son to use WITHOUT THE KILLER KNIFE IN THE SET. You see, she kept it the entire time in her kitchen and only realized it THIS PAST JANUARY! Wow, lucky for her son that she put it all together in time for the trial.
But the best of the day was saved for the last. The maid next door to the murder scene testified that the morning of the murder she had cleaned the house next to the house where the murder happened. She left. Before she left she noticed that the plastic cover for the sandbox was fine. She came back later, after she heard of a crime next door, and noticed that the cover to the sandbox was SMASHED! That points to again to AN INTRUDER! Using the plastic sandbox cover to STEP UP OVER THE FENCE! The prosecutor pointed out on cross that there was a table and a garbage can right next to the sandbox cover. One could observe that both were higher and sturdier and would be much better to use to climb over a fence.
And thus we have the SANDBOX DEFENSE: our guy didn't do it, some guy who jumps on cheap, plastic sandbox covers to get over a fence did it. See? Smashed sandbox cover? That proves that someone broke it, Right?
So tomorrow the defense is going to finish their rebuttal and then the prosecution will have several more witnesses. Stay tuned...
To wit, the first expert witness, Dr. Lee, a famous forensic pathologist, dug his feet in and refused to agree to the simplest idea. Honestly, it detracts from credibility when you deny basic common sense.
The second expert witness, Dr. Mayo, a famous forensic pathologist, went in the other direction and testified that getting stabbed would not prompt an involuntary reaction and that most people didn't have a physical reaction when being stabbed. You see, that makes it possible that Robert Wone wasn't drugged by the three men on trial and then stabbed, and instead was stabbed by an intruder into the house.
Then comes Mrs. Ward, mother to one of the defendants. She tells the court that the knife set to which the killing weapon belonged to her and she got it in Germany, home of good knives. She gave it to her son to use WITHOUT THE KILLER KNIFE IN THE SET. You see, she kept it the entire time in her kitchen and only realized it THIS PAST JANUARY! Wow, lucky for her son that she put it all together in time for the trial.
But the best of the day was saved for the last. The maid next door to the murder scene testified that the morning of the murder she had cleaned the house next to the house where the murder happened. She left. Before she left she noticed that the plastic cover for the sandbox was fine. She came back later, after she heard of a crime next door, and noticed that the cover to the sandbox was SMASHED! That points to again to AN INTRUDER! Using the plastic sandbox cover to STEP UP OVER THE FENCE! The prosecutor pointed out on cross that there was a table and a garbage can right next to the sandbox cover. One could observe that both were higher and sturdier and would be much better to use to climb over a fence.
And thus we have the SANDBOX DEFENSE: our guy didn't do it, some guy who jumps on cheap, plastic sandbox covers to get over a fence did it. See? Smashed sandbox cover? That proves that someone broke it, Right?
So tomorrow the defense is going to finish their rebuttal and then the prosecution will have several more witnesses. Stay tuned...
4.11.2009
Dunkin Donuts Robber Returns Cash and is Arrested
Poor kid. He robs a Dunkin Donuts and then feels bad and returns the money, only to be arrested for the initial crime.
I understand arresting him. But can't he be given a kind of break here? He's a kid, he thought better of it and returned the money. They only caught him because he returned the money.
Seriously, I think community service on this one. He made his escape on a bike, for God's sake.
I understand arresting him. But can't he be given a kind of break here? He's a kid, he thought better of it and returned the money. They only caught him because he returned the money.
Seriously, I think community service on this one. He made his escape on a bike, for God's sake.
12.16.2008
Brittany Zimmerman
The vampire jaws of Nancy Grace have found another white woman to feed on: Brittany Zimmerman.
You really can't blame Nancy Grace. She has stumbled on a winning formula: white girl in peril, white girl dead, and someone could help her if only we make them talk. Hey! You can be a part of the interrogation! Watch!
The Nancy Grace formula has the benefit of making the viewers exact revenge from the evildoers, or scapegoats, of the show. The audience becomes part of the investigating squad, with Nancy Grace at the lead investigator and the viewer as the silent cop who is loyal and ready to spring into action when called upon.
It is an empowering experience to humiliate people on t.v., even if your job is just to watch and judge. Maybe it is nice to imagine that the criminals you are afraid of can still be punished even if they escape arrest.
And if one or two of them commit suicide, they must have been guilty anyway. So no moral culpability there.
Maybe once in a while we could be concerned that a black girl is missing or dead. Just once. We have a black President, don't we? It is time to integrate our true crime genre as well.
Cable News, Cable News Ratings, Caylee Anthony, Cnn, Headline News, Nancy Grace, Nancy Grace Christmas Card, Nancy Grace Ratings, Media News, Brittany Zimmerman
You really can't blame Nancy Grace. She has stumbled on a winning formula: white girl in peril, white girl dead, and someone could help her if only we make them talk. Hey! You can be a part of the interrogation! Watch!
The Nancy Grace formula has the benefit of making the viewers exact revenge from the evildoers, or scapegoats, of the show. The audience becomes part of the investigating squad, with Nancy Grace at the lead investigator and the viewer as the silent cop who is loyal and ready to spring into action when called upon.
It is an empowering experience to humiliate people on t.v., even if your job is just to watch and judge. Maybe it is nice to imagine that the criminals you are afraid of can still be punished even if they escape arrest.
And if one or two of them commit suicide, they must have been guilty anyway. So no moral culpability there.
Maybe once in a while we could be concerned that a black girl is missing or dead. Just once. We have a black President, don't we? It is time to integrate our true crime genre as well.
Cable News, Cable News Ratings, Caylee Anthony, Cnn, Headline News, Nancy Grace, Nancy Grace Christmas Card, Nancy Grace Ratings, Media News, Brittany Zimmerman
10.07.2008
Safe Haven Laws NOW
Other nations accuse the United States of not being a nation of thinkers. The United States tends to think of everyone else as lazy, navel-gazing fools.
But I disagree with those who say Americans are not a thinking people. We are. We embrace an idea to the death - usually someone else's though.
How many times have you heard someone chant "I believe in the free market" or "I believe in a muscular Presidency"? The beliefs are put before the consequences of them.
The rampant idea is that people should take care of themselves and that parents should take care of their children. Even when it is not possible anymore, or the strain leads to death.
People who are cracking under the strain of raising children need an out. Safe haven laws allow kids to be dropped off at a hospital without criminal penalties attaching to the parents.
Isn't it better to acknowledge that occasionally someone is not up to the task of caring for children and give them an option for the care and safety of the child?
Or is it an improvement to watch one tragedy after another flash across our television screens while we shake our heads and lament what should have been.
But I disagree with those who say Americans are not a thinking people. We are. We embrace an idea to the death - usually someone else's though.
How many times have you heard someone chant "I believe in the free market" or "I believe in a muscular Presidency"? The beliefs are put before the consequences of them.
The rampant idea is that people should take care of themselves and that parents should take care of their children. Even when it is not possible anymore, or the strain leads to death.
People who are cracking under the strain of raising children need an out. Safe haven laws allow kids to be dropped off at a hospital without criminal penalties attaching to the parents.
Isn't it better to acknowledge that occasionally someone is not up to the task of caring for children and give them an option for the care and safety of the child?
Or is it an improvement to watch one tragedy after another flash across our television screens while we shake our heads and lament what should have been.
9.22.2008
Palin Hostility to Rape Victims Is Not Conservative
It's psycho.
While mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin knew that the sheriff of her town opposed city funding of rape test kits for rape victims. She took no stand on the issue. This in the state known for its very high incidence of rape and murder of women.
This issue should prompt at least some kind of question for the Governor at the Vice Presidential debates.
And all of the whoopla surrounding Palin as McCain's VP running mate will not drown out her actions on this issue. It has the potential to really hurt the Republicans in November.
Click on the title to this post to see the CNN story.
While mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin knew that the sheriff of her town opposed city funding of rape test kits for rape victims. She took no stand on the issue. This in the state known for its very high incidence of rape and murder of women.
This issue should prompt at least some kind of question for the Governor at the Vice Presidential debates.
And all of the whoopla surrounding Palin as McCain's VP running mate will not drown out her actions on this issue. It has the potential to really hurt the Republicans in November.
Click on the title to this post to see the CNN story.
8.20.2008
Granny With a Gun
CNN Video has a clip about great-grandmother Lena Smith holding a burglar at gun point until the police arrive. And it's a heart-warming, elder-empowerment story.
Now let's imagine the equally plausible possibility that she had a little bit of dementia and shot the mailman.
Seniors with guns is an increasing social issue, and one that is going to be repeatedly tragic in the coming years.
Now let's imagine the equally plausible possibility that she had a little bit of dementia and shot the mailman.
Seniors with guns is an increasing social issue, and one that is going to be repeatedly tragic in the coming years.
3.07.2008
Have YOU Seen this Criminal?
No, you haven't. Look at the video footage by clicking on the title to this post. Why bother to have security footage at all if it looks this fuzzy? If you really want to secure your property, how about video footage of high quality?
This is not a slam at WalMart. I see it all the time on the news. Some grainy footage of a crime in progress, and no one could possibly recognize who it might have been. If you want to really prevent crime, get some quality cameras in there.
This is not a slam at WalMart. I see it all the time on the news. Some grainy footage of a crime in progress, and no one could possibly recognize who it might have been. If you want to really prevent crime, get some quality cameras in there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)