Things to ponder...

Parabeagle · January 2005

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million
illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.

CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse: You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not
Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work
environment!

Shadowfax · January 2005

Man, those are keepers. I can't wait to use them.. give em all cows indeed!!!

ray a · January 2005

Speaking of lying in the court room, I was just reading that Andrea Yates guilty verdict from 2002 was just overturned. Apparently a prosecution witness lied that she killed her children after watching a Law and Order TV program that never existed. She will be released based on the technicality that prosecution used false testimony and she truly was insane.

Shadowfax · January 2005

I don't think 'released' is what will happen, just go back for further prodeedings or maybe a new trial. I agree it seems ludicrous, as I recall she admitted it, or at least called the police herself didn't she? I don't know in what world these Judges live, but it assuredly isn't the one most of us inhabit. Of course, a new trial means millions more for prosecution and defense and we get to pay the idiot Judges who make these cocamaimie decisions as well as the expense of re-trial and incarceration etc etc etc.

Parabeagle · January 2005

Whoa, there! Am I the only one who will actually admit they APPLAUD the 1st Circuit's decision?

So the program was fictitious and never existed. So the psychiatrist on the stand was an idiot and testified to something that didn't happen. Obviously no reason to grant a new trial, is there? Let's use trumped-up and falsified evidence in every case! Bring it on! x;-)

ray a · January 2005

As a matter of fact Beagle, I just talked to an FBI investigator and gave him some very interesting information about you. Expect vistors to your office real soon.

Parabeagle · January 2005

Who's Beagle?

I'm outta here! No forwarding address.

sonny · January 2005

I'll admit it Beag..I was elated. I was very unhappy with the original verdict.

Also love the ditty's above.

Shadowfax · January 2005

Yikes! I'm not sure if you and Beags are a-pullin my leg or whut. Whether on Law and Order or the Practice, it really wasn't evidence of much of anything particularly relevant, and there is error in every trial, sometimes it's just harmless error. If you are serious, would you mind sharing your concerns? From my admittedly rapidly deterioting memory, I thought her husband was a kook, she was probably crazier than a bed bug, but I don't recall having any doubt that she butchered her kids w/o regard to a tv show or whatever. I happen to be of the mind that the gore and bizarro junk Hollywood passes off as entertainment is not good fare for reasonably intelligent, reasonably well adjusted, reasonably educated folks - when it gets viewed by wackos and fruitcakes, I expect bad things to happen, and when it does, we gotta remove em from our midst. If we continue paying good money to the likes of EnimaM and the other rappers (and Gansta Gooks) who spew their vileness with impunity, we are probably as responsible for the mayhem they engender as they are (I know I know 1st Amendment), but if you havn't the will power, good sense or intellect to turn it off or at least control whatever impulse it generates, you're going to have to accept the consequences - in this case, her kids sure had too. I'm sorry she was crazy, but..at this point it is really irrelevant, in my humble opinion.

Parabeagle · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-06-05 AT 03:16PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The specifics of this particular case aside, it shows the courts understand the concept of reversible error. If you were on trial for your life and convicted in part on the basis of false information, I'm sure you would want an appeals court to overturn your guilty verdict as well.

I don't dispute she actually did the deed. What I applaud is the fact that the court acted on the fact that she was convicted based in part on false and misleading testimony. And, in the great traditions of one of the finest judicial systems in the world, she gets another crack at justice - something I think we would all want under the circumstances.

Let's go back to cows, now. x;-)

ScorpioHR · January 2005

"Let's go back to cows, now."

I'm with ya beagle, lets talk cows! The rest is mind blowing and weird!
scorpio

sonny · January 2005

My issue was back to the original verdict. It was my opinion that she should have been found guilty but insane or not guilty by reason of insanity. Having worked with people with serious and persistent mental illnesses for over 20 years, I take offense to terms like wackos and fruitcakes. It is not about will power, good sense or intellect and the exact point is some can not control the impulses that are generated be it from a TV or the darkest recesses of ones mind. That's part of the illness.

National Guard · January 2005

It's Eminem! An EnimaM goes in an a#*hole. (even if that's where you like to put Eminem)x}>

ray a · January 2005

Even though I was admittedly a little wishy-washy on the Scott Peterson poll, this one seems clear cut to me. Andrea admitted guilt. She called the police to report it. The psychiatrist's false testimony should have had no bearing on her guilt or innocence. She deserves incarceration. Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of events if after a new trial, she received the death penalty? And Shadow, I agree about the husband. If he knew his wife had severe emotional problems and had difficulties coping with those children, why didn't he do more to protect the kids and get help for his wife. I thought he was partially culpable.

Whatever · January 2005

First of all, this false testimony was not minor. The prosecution used this testimony in their closing argument. A new trial seems reasonable.
Second, I have very few times wanted in my life to throw a shoe at the the TV set..but I once caught Andrea Yates' husband being interview and he really pissed me off. He claimed that even though his wife had been hospitalized for post-partum depression more than once and her doctors recommended that she get help and not home school her children--he supported his wife in her well thought out decision that she didn't need help with kids.

ray a · January 2005

Hey Whatever, this is a red letter day. You, Shadowfax and I agree about Andrea's husband. Now if we just get Don to agree, we can have a group hug.

Don D · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-07-05 AT 10:35AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Raymond: Your total lack of grasp of this whole issue bowls me over. It is not, as you suggest, about innocence or guilt. It is about guilt or insanity. No one has contested, throughout the whole process, that she did take the lives of her children. Her defense team attempted to convince the court that she was 'not guilty by reason of insanity', a verdict which would have resulted in her being 'incarcerated' in a mental institution, rather than a common prison cell, and a verdict which in no way compares to 'not guilty'. The guilty verdict, we have to assume, resulted in part from intentional false testimony on the part of the 'traveling-shrink-professional-testifier', not an error in the trial. Intentional falsehoods are also called lies in some circles. Errors are not lies. Lies in a trial, later discovered, are expected by our society to be grounds to overturn, if in fact they were critical to the testimony and potentially central to the result of the trial.

(edit) And I won't call the husband a 'wacko'. Let's just say he was a case study.

**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

Whatever · January 2005

I thought the legal term for lies is perjury (which is a criminal offense).

ray a · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-07-05 AT 11:43AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Well Don, I apologize for giving an abbreviated opinion which has caused you so much consternation and apoplexy. I realize there are many shades of gray in this particular case, but I used language more black and white for brevity. What happens if the next jury finds her innocent due to insanity? Or, guilty but insane with a less than life sentence being eligible for parole in a few years.

Whirlwind · January 2005

While a lot of the legal details of this case have faded in my memory a bit, what remains vivid for me is my absolute disgust and incredulity regarding the husband. Not only did he support that Andrea didn't need help with the kids, he participated with her in continuing to have more babies...then, after all the horror, told reporters he might like to re-marry and have more children someday. Again, I must ask the question: Where is Lorena Bobbitt when you need her? Because, as far as I'm concerned, whether you think Andrea was criminally guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity, her husband was complicit in the deaths of those innocent children.

Shadowfax · January 2005

Well, I acknowledge that since I wasn't there it is difficult to say of what 'convicting significance' the shrink's testimony was. I understand that whatever it was it was not intentional, and I understand the shrink himeslf discovered his error and brought it to the attention of the Judge, albeit post conviction. So, in my view, the only impact of the mistaken testimony is the arguable reason of 'why' she did what she did, and has no bearing on her admitted commission of the act. Generally no two shrinks can agree on whether someone is insane or not. and it doesn't matter one whit to the butchered kids. I think the insanity is our proclivity to excuse (on some level: drunk; insane; moment of passion; irresistable impulse; lack of sufficient training in anger management techniques; abused as a kid; mom never liked him; twinkies made him do it)folks from the natural consequences of the commission of a heinous offense. Sure, it would be nice if someone's really sick that they get some kind of help, but I don't want the risk of some nut-o shrink saying they're cured and letting them out. I don't think anyone knows beans about whether or to what extent the sickness, reprssed anger, insanity or whatever you want to call it will return, and result in more victims. The overwhelming evidence here is that she did it. I may have some sympathy for her plight, but it doesn't rise to the level of risking some idiot, social engineering lunatic will let her out.
Do we have enough cows to give one to every illegal? And I was so looking forward to that group hug.

safety · January 2005

Shadow I think if you include steers and bulls with your last question the answer is yes, but, I don't agree to giving anything to someone who is here illegaly, make em pay for it or go home.

HRGirl · January 2005

OJ, Andrea and Scott are all guilty. Whether they admit it or not. OJ didn't get what he deserved, Scott did and well poor Andrea was loony and sent off to jail to rot when she should have been been sent to the funny farm.

There are always going to be mistakes, mishaps and blunders in the legal system. Aren't we all human? Wouldn't each of us want it fixed if we were involved? The fact is this one was caught and fixed...has OJ's blunder been fixed? Andrea won't be a free woman, she'll be sent to the bin and spend her days doing origami. Scott was no mistake...his verdict was right on. He's an LCB (lyin, cheatin, bas....) and every dog gets his day...his day came due!

As for the cows...I'm glad they can track them...what scares me is that they can't find the Iraqi's that have the emergency evacuation plans for the local school district in our area, I bet they left their cows in Iraq.

Don D · January 2005

Shadowfax: According to the news today, your understanding is not correct. The shrink told the court that he had interviewed her and she had mimicked the behavior she saw on a law and order program (Or another). The prosecutor used that conclusion in his final remarks to help his claim that she knew full well what she was doing and did it with a measure of copycat behavior and careful planning. Those of course were based on lies, not mistakes. The executive producer of that show told one of the defense attorneys that there had never been such a program and that's where the appeal came from.

No, Ray, innocent or guilty but insane were not among the options and will not be this time either. The jury was to consider either guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. The second one would have resulted in her going to a mental institution.

**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

JudyT929 · January 2005

I've noticed that whenever Beagle posts, it tends to get controversial, why is that? Interesting pondering. As for the Andrea Yates ordeal, I salute those who are going for a retrial. Yes she is guilty, she admits that, does she truly understand what she did? will she ever? If she ever gains any sanity the facts of what she did will likely torment her to death. I was terribly saddened when she was sent to prison and not to an insane asylum. I don't believe she is an evil person, but a very ill person.

Don D · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-08-05 AT 11:18PM (CST)[/font][br][br].

ray a · January 2005

Don must have laryngitis.

Don D · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-10-05 AT 04:45AM (CST)[/font][br][br]No, I just retracted what I had said the prior evening. I know how Beagle's left knee gets kattywampus when he gets irritated and he starts jerkin' around and lambastin' and chain smokin' and makin' noises in the bathroom. x:-)

Parabeagle · January 2005

"I've noticed that whenever Beagle posts, it tends to get controversial, why is that?"

Okay, I've been away for a week or so enjoying the Alabama sunshine and 70 degree temperatures. Came back to find that I'm being accused of posting controversial stuff? I would just like to point out that it was RAY A who hijacked an otherwise entirely humorous thread and I had nothing to do with it.

and my left knee is just fine, Don. x:-)

ray a · January 2005

I had to go back and reread a couple of posts, and you're right Beag... I did hijack your thread. Sorry about that.

Don D · January 2005

Move back Raymond; his knee's beginning to jerk. x:-)

Things to ponder...

Comments