PDA

View Full Version : A Horrific Crime Beyond Words


HometownGal
02-18-2010, 04:44 PM
O M G :jawdrop:

After viewing this video, I am left horrified, angered and just speechless!!! :mad: Another evil SOB who shouldn't be afforded a trial. DIE bastard. :mad:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/22599147/

devilsdancefloor
02-18-2010, 04:57 PM
we could always tie his hands and feet and find the nearest bridge. what a evil SOB he deserves the worst. Hopefully in jail they will find a nice little hole for him and that is still to kind

Indo
02-18-2010, 04:59 PM
OK. So I'm a little confused.

He abducted the baby from its grandmother and then threw it off the bridge?
Sooooo...if he didn't want the baby, why abduct it?
Or, if he does want it, he lied about throwing her off the bridge(?) to throw the police off of the trail of where the baby really is...but then he got arrested and confessed to a very serious crime. (Something tells me that this isn't the situation)

Or he intentionally wanted to kill the child so that he wouldn't have to pay support for it (as if he was going to in the first place). This is my guess. Yes. He needs to join the child at the bottom of the river...

I just don't understand some people. Really. What is it in this guy's head that made him believe that this was a viable option to dealing with his problems?

Preacher
02-18-2010, 05:14 PM
OK. So I'm a little confused.

He abducted the baby from its grandmother and then threw it off the bridge?
Sooooo...if he didn't want the baby, why abduct it?
Or, if he does want it, he lied about throwing her off the bridge(?) to throw the police off of the trail of where the baby really is...but then he got arrested and confessed to a very serious crime. (Some thing tells me that this isn't the situation)

Or he intentionally wanted to kill the child so that he wouldn't have to pay support for it (as if he was going to in the first place). This is my guess. Yes. He needs to join the child at the bottom of the river...

I just don't understand some people. Really. What is it in this guy's head that made him believe that this was a viable option to dealing with his problems?

My guess...

It was a powerplay between him and the mother of the baby. It was all about him getting the last word to "Prove" himself over her.

Yes. People are that screwed up.

HometownGal
02-18-2010, 05:54 PM
My guess...

It was a powerplay between him and the mother of the baby. It was all about him getting the last word to "Prove" himself over her.

Yes. People are that screwed up.

That is what I think happened, too, as the mother of that poor little girl was reportedly at the Courthouse at the time trying to obtain a PFA on that sick SOB.

This is one of the reasons I stayed away from family law during my paralegal career - it was just too much for me to take watching parents using their kids as pawns and paybacks. :shake02:

steelerdude15
02-19-2010, 12:48 AM
Man that's a sad story. This guy was messed up and it was good that the mother was trying to protect herself and the baby, but was in the middle of it. This guy should be locked up forever.

Galax Steeler
02-19-2010, 03:45 AM
That is terrible as HTG stated there should be no trial. He just needs to die.:banging:

TroysBadDawg
02-20-2010, 10:55 AM
And some LAwyer will take his case and do his hardest to get him off saying he had a bad childhood or he is add or some such. They should disbar those lawyers also.

SteelersinCA
02-20-2010, 11:15 AM
And some LAwyer will take his case and do his hardest to get him off saying he had a bad childhood or he is add or some such. They should disbar those lawyers also.

Yes the Constitution should be thrown out the window when we as a collective decide the defendant deserves no trial. :rolleyes: And those attorneys that swear to uphold the Constitution should be disbarred because they are doing what they swore to do. double :rolleyes: While we're at it let's go back to the wonderful collective and re-institute slavery, and women not voting. :coffee:

steelreserve
02-20-2010, 03:07 PM
Yes the Constitution should be thrown out the window when we as a collective decide the defendant deserves no trial. :rolleyes: And those attorneys that swear to uphold the Constitution should be disbarred because they are doing what they swore to do. double :rolleyes: While we're at it let's go back to the wonderful collective and re-institute slavery, and women not voting. :coffee:

I think the point is, there are a certain set of attorneys whose goal is not so much to find the truth and seek justice as to make ridiculous excuses just for the sake of winning. Sadly, that's perverted the judicial system enough that it sometimes works, which only encourages those types of lawyers to try it more. Hey, you've got nothing to lose, might as well play the lottery.

You can see a similar effect in civil law with ridiculous tort lawsuits, only that's probably advanced to an even greater degree, with the effect of injecting paranoia throughout virtually every level of society.

The common thread in both? The lawyer is free to try tactics as slimy and underhanded as he'd like with little fear of repercussions. As long as that's allowed to happen, the selfish and the slimy ones can continue to abuse the legal system with impunity.

Personally, if it was my daughter who'd gotten killed, and the defense came up with some sorry "yes, but" excuse for why it was OK that the guy killed her because he was just lashing out because of his own rough childhood ... let's just say I wouldn't waste my time trying to get him disbarred when the system is already stacked against me that way. More like gouge his eyes out with my bare hands as soon as he left the courthouse.

Polamalu Princess
02-20-2010, 03:18 PM
Just something else to make me sick. I will never understand how people can do things such as this.

SteelersinCA
02-20-2010, 04:21 PM
I think the point is, there are a certain set of attorneys whose goal is not so much to find the truth and seek justice as to make ridiculous excuses just for the sake of winning. Sadly, that's perverted the judicial system enough that it sometimes works, which only encourages those types of lawyers to try it more. Hey, you've got nothing to lose, might as well play the lottery.

You can see a similar effect in civil law with ridiculous tort lawsuits, only that's probably advanced to an even greater degree, with the effect of injecting paranoia throughout virtually every level of society.

The common thread in both? The lawyer is free to try tactics as slimy and underhanded as he'd like with little fear of repercussions. As long as that's allowed to happen, the selfish and the slimy ones can continue to abuse the legal system with impunity.

Personally, if it was my daughter who'd gotten killed, and the defense came up with some sorry "yes, but" excuse for why it was OK that the guy killed her because he was just lashing out because of his own rough childhood ... let's just say I wouldn't waste my time trying to get him disbarred when the system is already stacked against me that way. More like gouge his eyes out with my bare hands as soon as he left the courthouse.

The system is imperfect, but the best in the world. No one complains when the opposite happens. Try this: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Hundreds of people "convicted" of terrible crimes set free thanks to DNA evidence. EVERYONE is afforded the same Constitutional protections. The government must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Why not get mad at the government for letting someone go free as opposed to the lawyer for making the government prove their case. The system is set up to ensure attorneys vigorously defend their clients within the bounds of the law. If the government fails to prove their case, I do not feel sorry for them.

I think you all have a very jaded view of the court system due to media sensationalism and TV shows. There is far far less slimy and underhandedness than you wish to perceive. The OJ jury is the perfect example. They thought he did it, but the government did not prove their case. THAT JURY GOT IT RIGHT. Raise your hand if you were pissed at Marcia Clark and Chris Darden for screwing each other during the trial and not doing their job. Yes, they were in a sexual relationship during the trial.

I've noticed people only invoke the constitution when it suits them.

Bng_Hevn
02-20-2010, 04:44 PM
I think he took the kid out of anger to "payback" the mother, or to force the mother into "talking" and reconciling. Then when the kid was in the vehicle she probably started crying etc and he lost his temper.

Still is baffling why he would take the child to begin with but you're talking about, if true, a person who threw a 3 month old off a bridge. You can't reason with a person of that mentality nor can you determine their train of thought.

beSteelmyheart
02-20-2010, 08:22 PM
I can understand the imperfections of a system that wrongfully convicts people-that is a crime in itself, BUT.....
IMO there are certain clear cut situations where the criminal just needs to be taken to a small tiled room with a drain in the floor(for easy cleanup) & get a bullet to the head. No costly appeals, no 20 years on Death Row. Boom, done. Bye bye, scumbag.

SteelersinCA
02-20-2010, 08:28 PM
Interesting article on the topic, yes written by a criminal defense attorney but poignant nonetheless.

"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"

The essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice that separates the United States from virtually every other civilized nation. Think about the presumption of innocence; the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. These core elements of our system of criminal justice all flow directly from the premise that the wrongful conviction of a single innocent person is ten times worse than a guilty person going unpunished.

Many of us are instinctively patriotic; downright "'jingoistic" about the protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights: the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure of our person or effects; the right to remain silent if accused of wrongdoing; the right to be represented by counsel; the right to a trial by jury.

We take off our hats and hold our hands over our hearts when we hear the national anthem at a sporting event. We get misty eyed at images of our enlisted men and women returning from active duty. We hang our flags on Memorial Day, Veteran's Day the Fourth of July and Presidents Day.

How many of us, however, grumble disparagingly under our breath during the evening news when a photograph of a suspect is displayed during a report of a criminal investigation, based on nothing more than the suspect's race, ethnicity or socio-economic status? How many of us could truly be fair and impartial jurors in a criminal case after we have seen or read wholly unsubstantiated news accounts of the alleged incident? How many of us refrain from commenting about sensational and salacious tidbits spread about a criminal case we have seen or heard about on the news? How many of us would honestly and sincerely honor the Defendant's Constitutional Presumption of Innocence?

If you grew up in an upper middle class (or better) family and neighborhood, there may not be anyone in your immediate or extended family who has ever even been accused, let alone convicted, of a criminal offense. It's possible that someone in your family got a DUI on his or her way home from the annual company Christmas party, or maybe someone in your family got caught with a misdemeanor amount of marijuana while in high school or college. But the reality is that true, firsthand experience with the criminal justice system is rare among most middle and upper class registered voters: the people most likely to be called for Jury Duty.

We live in truly amazing times. An event can occur in New York and someone in Los Angeles can log on to a near "real time" live video feed. We can call from San Diego to Maine on our cell phones, from our cars, and tell each other the events of our day. News media like CNN and MSNBC provide round-the-clock coverage of national and international events. Cable networks provide real-time coverage of trials across the nation. All of this provides us access to information that may be deemed wholly unsubstantiated, unreliable and inadmissible at the ultimate trial of a sensationalized crime.

Thus, can we be "good jurors" in today's day and age? Are we able to decide cases based solely on evidence admitted into court, regardless of what we may have seen or heard about a case from local and sometimes national or even international news media? Often times being fed dramatized information from the day of the crime, which happened long before trial was scheduled? Moreover, do we all still agree that it truly is "Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man" or has it become too easy to ignore the reality of wrongful conviction; as long as it isn't happening to our own neighbors?

The Innocence Project has now had some 100 death sentences overturned based upon post-conviction evidence. According to their study of the first 70 cases reversed:

• Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.
• Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.
• Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.
• 34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence.
• 11% involved outright evidence fabrication.
• 37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved concealing exculpatory evidence.
• 25% involved knowing use of false testimony.

Keep in mind; these statistics involve Death Penalty cases wherein the State sought to literally kill the innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How many of those 100 innocent, wrongly accused citizens were convicted in the media before jury selection ever began in their trial? How many were wholly deprived of their Constitutional Presumption of Innocence? If we allow ourselves to make watershed decisions far "upstream" about whom is and is not deserving of the protections afforded by our Constitution, our entire system of justice becomes a hollow shell with a predetermined outcome.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Dennis Fritz at local book club meeting to discuss his book "Journey toward Justice." Dennis was charged along with Ronald Williamson for the murder in Ada Oklahoma that prompted John Grisham to write "The Innocent Man." In Dennis' book, he describes in a way that only first-hand experience allows what it was like to be accused, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for 11 years for a crime he did not commit. The fact that OUR esteemed system of "justice" is responsible for what happened to this innocent man is chilling. We all need to remember that our system of justice is what truly separates us from all other civilized nations. The way we as a community treat those accused of crimes defines us as a nation. We must treat those accused of heinous crime with blind and impartial fairness as much for them as we do for our own integrity.