| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2007 6:39:17 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
New thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1910919/posts?page=1 |
Posted on 04/07/2007 3:14:35 PM PDT by mom4kittys
Thread Number 3
VA’s lawsuit is a step in the right direction. HK$ is going to be one busy boy what with his lawsuits and lawsuits against him, and him and LB kissing in the tree (this is the first I heard of that. Then there is Lincoln complaining that a beautiful woman made sexual advances towards him. What does this babe magnet Lincoln look like?
He’s the black guy on the left side at the front page of mrcontroversy.com .
Even Greta didn’t seem to believe that Rita made advances to him. I don’t know what Lincoln looks like, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he and the nannies have been paid off. It seems to me that the nannies have changed their stories several times.
WE know ABSOLUTELY that he lied in Seidlin's Court when he testified "specifically" that Anna hadn't had methadone for "5 months". Clarifying it with "I think" or any such statement does not erase a "specific".
Therefore, we know "absolutely" that Howard committed perjury...and once you tell one lie...it starts to unravel.
Then there is the other "lie"...the commitment cermony...
Then there's the BIG lie..."I am the father" of Dannielynn.
Then there's the lie by Bonnie..."Howard's parents have been supporting him.
Then there's KE's lies that she HAD to get to return to Ca on business....just a few hours before Anna died.....and likewise for Daniel's death.
Then there's Larry with his "loved her too much"...Anna didn't want a husband...she wanted a "one night stand"..aka...a sperm donor. And I now think that Larry's story about the ten karat diamond was as phony as he is. I think the Jan 6, 2006 agreement to "shut his mouth" is the key. Excepting that I don't believe it had Anna's signature on it and that would make it invalid.
I think what Howard "HAD" on Larry is the fact that he WAS a "sperm donor"....and of course, lewd is the world of Howard. Videos became his obsession "because Old man Marshall videod his will and spelled out "exactly" what Anna would get.
thought this was appropo to your post about lying:
“... In a criminal proceeding, if a witness tells one accounting and then recants, and then tells what he now says is the truth (usually in the face of some evidence from another source, which would be incriminatory), you look for the reason he told the first lie.
” Invariably, the sequence makes sense, because while the first accounting was exculpatory (describing innocence), the second story (the truth) will be in some way incriminating (non exculpatory), therefore explaining or demonstrating the reason or need for the original lie.
” So the logic to be applied is that when you have two stories, and the first one is recanted for the second, but both are exculpatory, then you also suspect the second, because a recanted exculpatory alibi should logically be replaced with a story which confesses to, at least, some criminal activity (for example, accidental death and hiding a body or something worse).
” It is important to consider that in the practice of studying testimony and applying logic to the way witnesses testify, especially concerning their own alibis, suspects who provide an exculpatory alibi and then recant that story, have traditionally done so because the truth (which they were trying to hide with the first story) describes their involvement in a crime.
“ “False exculpatory statements are properly admissible as substantive evidence tending to show consciousness of guilt.” United States v. Hudson, 717 F.2d 1211, 1215 (8th Cir. 1983) and cases cited therein. This Circuit has repeatedly held that an instruction of this nature: “is properly given when a defendant . . . offers an exculpatory explanation which is later proven to be false.” Wells, 702 F.2d at 144; Hudson, 717 F.2d 1211; See also Rizzo v. United States, 304 F.2d 810, 830 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 890 (1962), and cases cited therein. See further, Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 620-21 (1896) indicating that such conduct formerly gave rise to a “presumption” of guilt.
“... “Why was the lie so complicated?” Experienced interrogators know that such a complicated lie often provides valid reasons for suspicion of something hidden. A complex lie, when a simple one would have sufficed, is often an indication that the prevaricator is wanting to convey information to explain away circumstances which might come out later, such as an injury subsequently discovered on the body of a victim. “She fell when getting out” might have been offered to provide a reason for an head contusion or cut, which might have been anticipated as being discovered later in an autopsy.
” Irrespective of a cover story being logically excusable and told “just out of embarrassment,” ... they misdirected for a very long time...the lie wasn’t told simply and, most important, the lie wasn’t abandoned quickly. It was only after...days had passed and they were ....shown the surveillance video tapes... You have to ask, “Why?”
“...”When a defendant voluntarily and intentionally offers an explanation, or makes some statement before trial tending to show his innocence, and this explanation or statement is later shown to be false, you may consider whether this evidence points to a consciousness of guilt. The significance to be attached to any such evidence is a matter for you to determine. The instruction is aimed at pretrial fabrications, and is not generally appropriate for casting doubt on a defendant’s trial testimony.” United States v. Clark, 45 F.3d 1247, 1251 (8th Cir. 1995).
“...Coupled with knowing there was no urgency, not coming forward quickly, fits a pattern of criminal behavior where activivites are done to delay, to allow a crime scene to be cleaned, a body disposed, evidence to be destroyed. sequence is probative that they were securing time before revealing the truth (or what they say is the truth). Was it to cover their tracks? It is problematic because it fits into the “modus operendi” of ... “buying time,” delaying for his own self interests.
“... Four concerns which warrant suspicion of wrong doing 1. Unnecessary complication (for someone just telling a fib to spare embarrassment). 2. Not correcting the story [immediately]. 3. Not correcting the story the very moment innocent people were [involved/accused]. 4. Prolonging their revealing of the [events leading to the death].
See, in addition to the Eighth Circuit cases cited above, United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 (1983); United States v. McDougald, 650 F.2d at 533 [noting that such instructions “have long been approved by the courts” (citing Wilson)]; United States v. Boekelmon, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240-41 (9th Cir. 1979);
source: http://scrux.com/natalee/suspicions.htm
I wonder is lincoln aka ‘bamacat’? or is that another employee there?
IIRC, Howard gave the time of 5 months prior to knowing the results of the autopsy. I mentioned several times that they were trying to get the meth out of her system...so it wouldn't match up with Danny's in any way....and IIRC, it was a massive dose of the methadone that killed him. And that's beside the fact that it is illegal in the Bahamas.
Of course, Howard at the same time effectively said that they were feeding Anna a drug which is illegal in the Bahamas. So, the methadone in the fridge was "not a setup" as Rale "professed". We know ABSOLUTELY she was getting the drug in the Bahamas...because Howard told us so. And we know ABSOLUTELY that she had taken it within 3 days of her death. And I'll bet that bottle in the fridge has Howard's and KE's fingerprints all over it.
For Howard to say only KE knew about the Methadone in the Bahamas is an absurdity.
I laughed out loud when Howard professed that "according to his calendar", he was the father. Yeh, right....my hubby kept my calendar. Tell Howard that babies come...when they're ready....UNLESS you "schedule" a Casearian. I wonder when Daniel's flight was booked to the Bahamas. I wonder when KE's flight was booked to California. I bet they were booked at the same time. I can tell you who booked them...."The Director".
“”Is he the head of a big drug ring in Hollywood?””
More like an underground Mafia comprised of attorneys, bankers and drug pushing physicians; with offshore accounts for money laundering. Would explain his *reach* and *influence* on the courts, the Bahamian immigration officials and all the other corruption we have suspected. Rather than street drugs - it probably involves importation of controlled Rx substances, real-estate scams, casinos, strip clubs, payola and shady transactions that involve large sums of money.
Regarding Billy Wayne Smith - Daniel’s dad. In Howie’s own words!
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/26/lkl.01.html
STERN: Daniel was hospitalized. He went there because he had severe back pains and depression. So he was hospitalized for approximately a week, I think. And, again, it was for depression.
KING: Was that ever serious enough that they feared suicide?
STERN: I don’t think that suicide was an issue. I think that, you know, he had a break-up with a girl and he just was having a really difficult time with it. And for some reason his back was — I guess it manifested in his back, or at least I’ve been told as such later.
KING: Has Daniel’s father been in touch during all of this?
STERN: You know, I — Anna had wanted to call Billy Wayne actually, and I was not able to get the phone number to him. So if — you know, again, Billy Wayne hasn’t seen Daniel since he was an infant. But I know that Anna did want to speak with him about that, so maybe if he’s watching he can call in and we can get the number.
KING: So she’s interested certainly in talking to him?
STERN: Yes, she does. She wants to talk to him about it.
On the matter of lying and guilt; In this statement by HK$, I always found the use of the word *elaborate* weird or telling. We have always suspected a very *elaborate* plan. What is an *elaborate* nightmare? - strange he did not use the word *horrific*, *devastating* or *unthinkable*. JMHO;)
STERN: Yes, I do. I mean, Daniel, you know, Anna was really the mother and father, but Daniel to me was a great friend, a brother. I was probably the man around him the most in recent years. And I loved Daniel. And I just — like I said earlier, I cannot believe that I’m talking about Daniel’s death. And I just — part of me just wishes I would wake up and this whole thing has been an elaborate nightmare.
still thinking - (1st cup of coffee)
and........why only “*a part of me* just wishes I would wake up” ?????????
JUST A PART of him - why not ALL of him?????
Is he on LK tonight?
I believe so. However, my horoscope states “get involved in a new hobby”.
Better drag out the needles & yarn - keep my fingers occupied;)
:)I wonder if Larry is doing the interview and if they are taking calls.I think I’ll tune in.
They had a link of photos up on TMZ of Anna and poor Daniel past away that Howard took. Very Heartbreaking. I wonder if Stern can explain that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.