A chat room helped Westerfield prosecutors

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 12/12/02 | Alex Roth

[cyncooper]

You might want to check out your new buddy's Catholic bashing on another thread.

[spectre]

I don't EVEN know feta, what's her name?..but if you are talking Catholic bashing, you got my attention!

sw

[spectre]

Well, I read it. Although I AM a Catholic, I haven't been very proud of the Church lately...go figure. Sort of ties in with the sexual abuse issues we've been talking about, albeit not directly related.

We do need to some house-keeping in that department, wouldn't you agree?

sw

[cyncooper]

We do need to some house-keeping in that department, wouldn't you agree?

I do not think what has gone on should have been tolerated one bit and am glad to see standards finally being applied and perpetrators and their enablers called to account and face the consequences from the Church AND the law.

I did not care for the comments made by g-f.

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm convinced they followed FR too..

jaded, spectre, cyncooper, redlipstick: This is going to sound lame, but dont' ya'll ever get tired of getting into arguments?

[Freedom2specul8]

"Woody and I are still convinced it's scratch marks," Dusek told the audience. "What else could it be? But we didn't have proof."

[Freedom2specul8]

Have any of you ever heard them discuss the tiny chain gouged him theory?

[Freedom2specul8]

"If it were really true he would have confirmed it"

He can't confirm it..only dw's atty's can confirm it with dw's permission..

[spectre]

"Don't you all ever get tired of getting into arguments?"

Oh, please Saint Kimmie....coming from you, it's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, LOL...Maybe you've had an awakening and are ringing the bell for the Salvation Army these days?

But to answer your question, well, I don't call them arguments. Maybe a heated discussion or a debate. This IS the Smokey Backroom, what do you expect?

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

A funny one Spec, wrong but funny. :)

If you were the judge in the smokey back courtroom, I would say (similar to what I've said a hundred zillion times on these threads) Your Honor, Let the record reflect that I said it would sound "lame". Granted Your honor, this isn't a real debate because real debates do not include personal attacks, taunts and excuses for bad behaviour... (and the newest form of attack..threats)

On a serious note, the smokeybackroom, while serving an obvious purpose, is really a sad thing...if you look at the big picture.

[Freedom2specul8]

"My guess is that Reddipstick is Kim Van Dam from Tallahasee and Cyncooper is just a family friend.--demsux"

"Whoa kitty, pull your fangs back. I wish all this hatefullness would stop. If we all could remember attack the issue, not the person discussing it with you."--UCANSEE2

Can you see it :^D

[spectre]

Kim, it is only out of respect for myself, that I don't say all I want to about your post. It was, IMO, an perfect example of a seemingly innocent "bait" by the master of the baiters...congraulations, you hold that title.

Trust me, Kim, those of us on both sides of the isle on these threads, are thick skinned by now. YOU should know that.

Aren't you carrying the sweet, innocent, act just a bit too far? It's sooo out of character for you, Kim. Why are you trying to play Admin Mod and tone down the discussion? What's in it for you?

PS..I have never been so naive to assume that when I insult someone, they don't have the privilege of reciprocating.

sw

[Valpal1]

Jeez, I totally missed seeing the ping to this thread yesterday, got buried in a flurry of posts arguing with some anti adoption poster on another thread.

So glad to have seen an article on the luncheon. Guess it's time to check out websleuths to look for any other first hand reports.

[Jaded]

What chain? One of the theories about the scratches was getting scratched from the wheel wells from trying to dig out.

[Jaded]

It's pretty wide spread across the threads these days. So, we haven't cornered the market on it, come to think, we weren't the first threads to do it either.

[demsux]

Do not post to me anymore...I have no interest in communicating with you.

[Jaded]

Here's an interesting take on it, link to full article follows...


Plea bargaining evolved the same way, Langbein explained. As our official system of justice became larded with more and more protections for the accused, actually going through the process of catching, prosecuting, and convicting a criminal the official way became impossibly burdensome. So, the government offered the accused a deal: You get a lighter sentence if you save us the trouble of a trial. Or, to put it in a more sinister way: You get a heavier sentence if you insist on asserting your constitutional rights to a trial, to confront your accusers, to privacy from searches without probable cause, to avoid incriminating yourself, etc.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2075319

And I thought I was cynical.

[cyncooper]

Or, to put it in a more sinister way: You get a heavier sentence if you insist on asserting your constitutional rights to a trial, to confront your accusers, to privacy from searches without probable cause, to avoid incriminating yourself, etc.

Or put another way, by pleading guilty one accepts responsibility for the crime they committed and the lighter sentence is acknowledgement of this mitigating factor.

If the accused chooses a trial by jury and is subsequently found guilty then the sentence does take remorse and other factors into account.

[Jaded]

Not accepting a plea can also mean that you didn't do it.

There were a few LE out in forum/newgroup land who said that juries were strange animals in that they were unpredictable. We as a society have reverted back to mob rule and someone has to pay dammit mentality, and since someone was arrested they will pay. It happens more than you think.