LI Mother Of The Accused TIME
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gretchen Woodard tells TIME of her son Mitchell's troubles and his version of the Jonesboro massacre By NADYA LABI He didn't look real good," says Gretchen Woodard of her 13-year-old son, Mitchell Johnson. She had just seen him at the Craighead County Detention Center in Arkansas, where he and his partner, Andrew Golden, 11, are in solitary confinement, awaiting an April 29 court hearing into the Jonesboro massacre. For now, though, Gretchen is thinking about smaller matters. Her son is "thin, sallow and dehydrated, with very dry, cracked lips," she says. "I begged him to drink." But Mitch, she says, is not taken with the prison's beverage selection: tap water, milk and, on a good day, Kool-Aid. He is terrified and confused, she says, able to provide few clues to his mother to explain the horror that he and Drew Golden are accused of inflicting on the Arkansas community. Last week Jonesboro was still deep in mourning as almost 8,000 people gathered at Arkansas State University to remember the four girls and one teacher murdered on March 24. A clear picture of Mitchell Johnson has been obscured by his disparate identities--choirboy, volatile romantic, school bully. To those images must now be added the ravages of family turmoil and rootlessness. But was Mitch the instigator of the shootings at Westside Middle School, as Drew's grandfather has cast him? Gretchen Woodard has another version. She told TIME her son says it was Drew who proposed an attack last month. Mitch had said no, Woodard says, but then on the bus ride home from school the afternoon before the fatal assault, Drew approached Mitch again. "Mitch told me he never meant to hurt anybody and he didn't take specific aim," says Woodard. "He just meant to scare 'em, I guess. But then something went terribly wrong." She learned of the shooting from two back-to-back phone calls. "Don't you know?" demanded the first caller. Then her son Monte, 11, rang: "Mom, you have to come get me. Mitchell shot some kids." Their mother tells her story from her weather-worn mobile home on a dirt road northwest of Jonesboro. Next door is Brand Custom Hauling--the company that employs Gretchen's third husband, Terry Woodard, as a heavy-equipment operator. In the house a bobtailed cat prowls the kitchen counter while Trigger, the pet guinea pig, snoozes in its cage. "The hardest thing for me is that this was the happiest any of us had ever been," says Woodard. On the morning of the shooting, Mitch had sat at her circular kitchen table, slumped in her spindle-back chair, chuckling with his stepfather over how an old woman grabbed his ear during a visit by his church group to a local nursing home. Mitch, who had been troubled since Gretchen's divorce from his father, Scott Johnson, in 1994, had seemed happier; he had brought home A's in music, choir and phys ed in January. He had even made three different middle-school teams, becoming a Westside Warrior in football, basketball and baseball. Gretchen chooses not to talk about another story that surfaced last week from her son's past. According to a sheriff's report in Minnesota, where the family had originally lived, Mitch had admitted sexually touching the two-year-old granddaughter of his father's fiance, during the boy's summer vacation in Minnesota last year. Mitch told his friend Andrew O'Rourke, 13, that the situation had been "misunderstood"--he was only trying to help the toddler pull up her pants after she went to the bathroom. But Mitchell also told authorities that he "put his finger inside of her once." The girl corroborated that statement, pointing to an anatomically correct doll. Mitch was ordered to undergo psychological counseling. For his mother, even the dilapidated domesticity of Arkansas was an improvement over Minnesota. By the early 1990s, her marriage to Scott Johnson was failing, and home life had become something of a health hazard. "There was dog crap on the kitchen floor," recalls an occasional visitor to their farmhouse in Grand Meadow. "Rotting food was lying on the counter for weeks. The yard was not cleaned or mowed." As for Mitch, the visitor recalls once finding him asleep behind some paneling in the house. He says, "He didn't look like someone I wanted my kid to play with. His clothes were dirty. If I had more kindness, I would have cleaned him up." In 1993 Scott Johnson was arrested for stealing meat at the grocery where he worked, and was dismissed. He and Gretchen divorced a year later. While her husband tangled with the law over the gross misdemeanor, Gretchen, who was a corrections officer at a federal-prison medical center in nearby Rochester, befriended Woodard, a felon who had been convicted in 1990 of drug and firearms charges. In 1995 he won a "supervised release" from a halfway house and moved to Jonesboro with Gretchen and her sons. This time around, she chose to be a homemaker, and they set up house on
LI Dad: Jonesboro Suspect Was Molested
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dad: Jonesboro Suspect Was Molested NEW YORK (AP) -- One of the two boys accused in the schoolyard ambush in Arkansas said he had been repeatedly sexually molested when he was a younger boy in Minnesota, according to his father and his attorney. Thirteen-year-old Mitchell Johnson said he was abused when he was 6 and 7 years old, his attorney, Tom Furth, said in an interview recorded for broadcast Monday night on ABC News' ``20/20.'' Mitchell and Drew Golden, 11, face five counts of murder and 10 counts of first-degree battery each in the March 24 shooting outside a middle school in Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and a teacher were killed. In a transcript of the interview, Furth and Mitchell's father, Scott Johnson, described Mitchell as angry about the abuse and remorseful about the shootings. They said he has received death threats. Johnson said he only learned last week about his son's alleged abuse, two days before the Sunday interview. The attacker was ``a family member of the day care where he was placed,'' Johnson said. At that age, Mitchell lived in Grand Meadow, Minn., a small town about 95 miles south of Minneapolis. His parents divorced and he later moved to Jonesboro with his mother. ``Mitchell Johnson is very angry about some things that have happened to him in his past,'' Furth said. ``And he's 13 years old, and he doesn't know how to handle some of these things and he doesn't know how to cope with some of these things.'' Neither Furth nor Johnson returned messages Monday seeking further comment on issues raised in the interview. In the transcript, Johnson appears to confirm earlier reports that Mitchell was charged with molesting a 2- or 3-year-old girl while visiting Minnesota last summer. Asked what he could say about the incident, Johnson said only: ``That his actions were inappropriate and that I took him to the authorities.'' ``I thought he would get help,'' he said. The record of the case is closed because Mitchell is a juvenile. Furth said Mitchell is hated in Arkansas and his family fears for his life because of death threats. Some letters said Mitchell wouldn't make it out of a detention center alive, Johnson said. ``I have a very unpopular client in this country, and that's because people don't know the answer to why (the shootings) happened,'' Furth said. Johnson also read a letter he said Mitchell wrote three days ago. It was unclear to whom the letter was addressed. ``Hi. My name is Mitchell,'' Johnson read. ``My thoughts and prayers are with those people who were killed, or shot, and their families. I am really sad inside about everything. My thoughts and prayers are with those kids that I go to school with. I really want people to know the real Mitchell someday. Sincerely, Mitchell Johnson.'' If Mitchell is found guilty and sentenced to a detention center, he likely would be released at age 18. Johnson said he didn't think five years of detention was enough, but when asked what would be enough, he said: ``I don't have an answer for that. What is enough for five lives? I don't think my son should die.'' -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: Deadline Nears for Whitewater Panel
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Deadline Nears for Whitewater Panel LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- The federal grand jury investigating President Clinton's dealings in Arkansas reconvenes Tuesday with the deadline for its term running out for Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr suggested two weeks ago that he might not need another grand jury here. The panel, set to expire May 7, was empaneled two years ago to continue the work of the original Whitewater panel seated in 1994. The Whitewater investigation has produced charges against 17 people, leading to 15 convictions including former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and James and Susan McDougal, Clinton's former Whitewater business partners. The current grand jury has produced no indictments. Recent grand jury witnesses have signaled prosecutors' focus on legal work that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton did in the mid 1980s related to a failed real estate development south of Little Rock called Castle Grande -- the brainchild of McDougal. The investigation had cost taxpayers $35 million by the end of September, according to an audit of the independent counsel's expenses by the General Accounting Office. Starr would not say Monday whether he would ask for another grand jury or whether he was winding down his operations in Arkansas. ``We're just continuing with our work. The assessment process is under way,'' Starr said outside his Little Rock headquarters. Tucker, who is cooperating with prosecutors after pleading guilty to charges unrelated to his 1996 Whitewater conviction, spent six hours before the grand jury last month and said he would be back. Sources familiar with the case say Tucker, whose dealings with McDougal led to their convictions on bank fraud and conspiracy charges, may have information about Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the project. Mrs. Clinton has said in sworn statements she recalls almost nothing about her work on the project. Little Rock businessman Seth Ward and McDougal owned the Castle Grande development, which failed at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $4 million. The development was financed almost entirely with loans from McDougal's savings and loan. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Terry Nichols Sued for Millions
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry Nichols Sued for Millions DENVER (AP) -- Seeking to make sure Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols never earns any money off his crime, victims of the bombing and government lawyers on Monday sued him for millions. Lawyers for Oklahoma and the Justice Department filed a brief in U.S. District Court asking for $14.5 million in restitution and a $25,000 criminal fine. Two victims of the bombing, in a separate filing, asked for unspecified restitution. Last month, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch delayed setting a sentencing date because of a dispute about restitution. Government attorneys want Matsch to require Nichols to repay victims as part of his sentencing. Nichols' attorney said he can't afford it. Nichols could conceivably make money off book, television or other rights to his story. ``America continues to be fascinated by the Oklahoma City bombing, the most deadly terrorist act in American history. It is by no means farfetched to believe that defendant Nichols could thus profit from his crime by cashing in on his celebrity status,'' said the motion filed by Marsha Kight, whose daughter, Franki Ann Merrell, 23, was killed, and Martin Cash, who suffered severe, ``life-altering injuries'' in the blast. ``Simply stated, notorious criminals stand to make money after the conviction merely by trading on their notoriety,'' the motion read. Before the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 and injured hundreds, Nichols worked as a gun dealer and on a ranch. Nichols, 42, was convicted Dec. 23 of conspiracy and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter. The jury deadlocked on whether to impose the death penalty, which leaves his sentence to Matsch. The maximum he could now receive is life in prison without parole. Bomber Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I grew up with guns and rifles around me too. And hunting was just something that my dad, uncles, and their friends did. My dad made sure we all knew how to handle guns and shoot when we were really young. But I think it was a different time. You didn't hear of kids shooting each other, or even the drive bys, etc that are going on now. :( I just read the TIME article and the mother certainly isn't helping the situation any, IMO. Of course I don't know how I would act if it were one of my kids that had done this, either. Another article that I just read says that the boy was sexually molested when he was young. The living conditions that these people lived in certainly aren't all that good either. What is strange is that you hear on television that the people in the area don't want these kids treated as adults, they almost forgive them for what happened. And then you read in the papers and such that the kids are getting death threats. It really is a sad situation, and the worst part, IMO, is that no matter what happens neither kid is going to get help, and will probably come out of juvenile detention in 4-7 years a lot worse than when they went in. Sue Hi Sue It is true about growing up with guns in this neck of the woods. Hunting is almost a given if you ask someone their hobbies. It is not unusual to go into someone's house and the first thing you see are the hunting and fishing trophies (mounted of course). I think that is why it is so shocking to many in this area when they read of guns being used to kill others. Not that it doesn't happen, of course. We have a murder right now that is going to trial where two young men went over and shot another young man. I guess the only difference is that the feeling is "lock'em up and throw away the key." The stories here are about the same--some say he was an angel; others he was a little devil. One reason may be that the father lived in Grand Meadow and the grandparents in Spring Valley, I believe. Maybe Mitchell behaved differently in each community. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Arkansas--MN connection was Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I didn't read the story. I have it here but just haven't had the time, but will tonight. I don't think that anything should have been released to the public about these kids. I especially don't think that their pictures should have been put on the front of the magazines. Sure enough some kid is going to see that and think he can become "famous" if he tries something like this. Hope to God I'm wrong about that one. :( Sue Hi Sue I guess the parents and grandparents have decided the best thing to do under the circumstances is be truthful about the incident. Did you read Newsweek--Tom said he was mentioned in there. He was awfully embarrassed after everything mushroomed like it did. Of course, there are two versions to the sexual story. I know the records are supposed to be sealed but I would imagine there are provisions that allow them to be opened. I know if you commit a felony in our state at a very young age, it can be reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed, but if you get in trouble again it is opened and is used as a felony in sentencing you (or something like that). jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Court refuses to review Noriega case
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wondered what ever happened to this guy. Sue WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) _ The Supreme Court has refused a request from former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to review his Miami drug conviction. Now in a U.S. prison, the once-wealthy Noriega claimed in a pauper's petition that the U.S. government may have entered into an agreement with Colombia's Cali cartel to obtain a key witness's testimony, and that the witness received a $1.25 million bribe from the cartel. The Supreme Court refused review today without comment. Noriega claimed ``the government's failure to reveal its deal with the Cali cartel'' violated Supreme Court precedent on the suppression of evidence that tends to show a defendant is innocent. The Justice Department opposed Noriega's petition, saying Noriega helped the Medellin cartel, a former Cali rival, ship ``significant quantities of cocaine through Panama to the United States'' from 1982 to 1985. The dictator was toppled and captured by invading U.S. troops in 1989, and brought back to the United States for trial. The department said in papers filed with the Supreme Court the U.S. government has traced $23 million in Noriega money in banks outside Panama. Department officials say although two Cali cartel members testified to the existence of the bribe during post-trial hearings, the witness denied it and no evidence has emerged to support either version. The lower courts agreed with the Justice Department that knowledge of the alleged bribe could not be imputed to U.S. prosecutors, even if the alleged bribe existed. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: The killing season was Re: LI Jones case thrown out
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I might give them an idea of what is real, that is for sure. It certainly isn't like any television show. :( I thought it really gave an inside story of why these kids (adults) became gang members, etc too. Made me understand it a lot more. Not condone it but understand it. Sue Hi Sue I think his explanations fell right in line with what a number of researchers are finding. Everyone wants approval and support--if they can't find it elsewhere, gangs fill the bill nicely. It has everything going--rituals, special names, feelings of belonging, solidarity, etc. etc. What more could a young, driftless person want? Also, the economic and power factors seemed to be two of the underlying threads in the book which I thought really good about the book. You could really pick it up when you read what the suspects, witnesses and alive victims said. I am thinking of recommeding it to LE students. Some of them are so starry-eyed about becoming police officers--maybe reading of the paperwork, etc. will bring them down to earth : ) jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI tammy wynett
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bob: What happened? She wasn't all that old was she. I know her husband George died of alcohol abuse, a long time ago. That is sad. She was one of the best. Sue hi all i just heard on the news that tammy wynett passed away about three hours ago.she was one of the greats and will be missed by millions around the world. bob,wa -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Monday's Jokes
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -= Top Ten Paula Jones' Lawyers Top Ten Excuses =- 10. Got tired of being paid with cases of hairspray. * 9. We're not actually lawyers, just really big fans of "Ally McBeal." 8. Bad idea to have Paula try on that glove from the O.J. trial. 7. Jacoby pulled his weight, but Meyers sucked. 6. We're pretty sure Bubba banged the judge's gavel, if you know what we mean. 5. That smooth-talkin' hillbilly's got everyone hornswoggled. 4. Forgot to cover up Paula's "Show me the money" tattoo. 3. El Nino blew away dozens of crucial documents. 2. Who can concentrate on all those dull legal papers when Jerry Springer is on? 1. Frankly, we're not very good lawyers. --- Cocky Engineer -- Reaching the end of a job interview, the Human Resources Person asked a young Engineer fresh out of MIT, "And what starting salary were you looking for?" The Engineer said, "In the neighborhood of $125,000 a year, depending on the benefits package." The interviewer said, "Well, what would you say to a package of 5-weeks vacation, 14 paid holidays, full medical and dental, company matching retirement fund to 50% of salary, and a company car leased every 2 years - say, a red Corvette?" The Engineer sat up straight and said, "Wow! Are you kidding?" And the interviewer replied, "Yeah, but you started it." -- Phone Call to God The Chief Rabbi of Israel and the Pope are in a meeting in Rome. The Rabbi notices an unusually fancy phone on a side table in the Pope's private chambers. "What is that phone for?" he asks the pontiff. "It's my direct line to the Lord!" The Rabbi is skeptical, and the Pope notices. The Holy Father insists that the Rabbi try it out, and, indeed, he is connected to the Lord. The Rabbi holds a lengthy discussion with Him. After hanging up the Rabbi says. "Thank you very much. This is great! But listen, I want to pay for my phone charges." The Pope, of course refuses, but the Rabbi is steadfast and finally, the pontiff gives in. He checks the counter on the phone and says: "All right! The charges were 100,000 Lira. ($56) The Chief Rabbi gladly hands over a packet of bills. A few months later, the Pope is in Jerusalem on an official visit. In the Chief Rabbi's chambers he sees a phone identical to his and learns it also is a direct line to the Lord. The Pope remembers he has an urgent matter that requires divine consultation and asks if he can use the Rabbi's phone. The Rabbi gladly agrees, hands him the phone, and the Pope chats away. After hanging up, the Pope offers to pay for the phone charges. This time, the Chief Rabbi refuses to accept payment. After the Pope insists, the Chief Rabbi relents and looks on the phone counter and says: "1 Shekel 50!" ($0.42) The Pope looks surprised: "Why so cheap!?" The Rabbi smiles and says, "It's a local call." --- "Two Irishmen on the Bridge" There are two Irishmen on the Forth road bridge in Edinburgh. One has a budgie on his shoulder, and the other has a parrot and a shotgun. The first takes a flying leap and unfortunately crashes to his death in the icy cold waters of the Forth. The second follows and halfway down he pulls out his shotgun and shoots the parrot but this does not prevent his death as he also crashes into the icy cold waters of the Forth. They both meet up again as they go through the Pearly gates. The first chap says, "I'm not trying that 'budgie jumping' again!" The second says, "And I'm never trying that 'parrot shooting ' either!" - The Top 15 Signs You're Engaged to a Former Child Star 15 Every time you make love, she refers to it as "a very special episode." 14 His agent calls to negotiate the pre-nup and demands a percentage of the wedding gifts. 13 Instead of reporting the engagement of "Master Ronald Schmitz" to "Miss Leslie Hanover," the media reports the engagement of "Corky" to "Gidget." 12 He's got so much youthful energy and enthusiasm, all that cocaine hardly affects him at all. 11 Your high school Sex Ed class said nothing about putting cans of paint over the door or lubricating the stairs with honey. 10 Sulks in the corner if she doesn't get "top billing" in bed. 9 Always stops to bow to the surveillance camera during convenience store robberies. 8 Oscar on the mantle is dressed as Malibu Barbie. 7 Every time the two of you "get nasty" on the couch, she always calls you "Mr. Casting Director." 6 She refers to your manly part as "Mr. French." 5 Reminisces about lavish vacations at Neverland. 4 "Dinner with your parents? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, woman?!?" 3 Eve Plumb jukes the Olsen twins, stiff-arms Susan Dey and skies over Erin Moran to catch the bouquet. 2 You may be saving money on security systems, but your dental bill
LI Johnson: Friday update Apri 03, 98
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The defense for Suzanne Johnson closed its case by calling Johnson's daughter, Cindy Vaughan, to the stand. She tearfully told jurors that her mother was a wonderful caretaker who would never hurt a child. In fact, Johnson helped Vaughan raise her own child. According to Vaughan, she never saw her mother angry with an infant. She also said Johnson told her she was concerned about Jasmine Miller because she thought the infant was not eating enough. But, said Vaughan, her mother never told her she was angry or being driven nuts. Vaughan related how when she was on the phone with her mother, she could hear Jasmine crying, and Johnson would try to console her by calling her "sweetie," "honey," and rocking her. Vaughan believed that Johnson loved Jasmine. Vaughan also said Johnson was very calm and would take charge when confronted with a stressful situation, and gave an example of how Johnson handled an infant who suffered a seizure while in her care. However, after Vaughan's testimony, the state presented two rebuttal witnesses to describe a 1993 incident where a young child in Johnson's care had a fractured arm. James Wilkins of the County child protection service agency told jurors that a little girl in Johnson's care had a fractured arm in 1993. However, it was never determined whether the injury actually occurred at Johnson's house. The investigation was inconclusive. Sue Tyner, a daycare licensing consultant for the State of California, also testified about the 1993 fractured arm incident. She described her interview with Johnson at the time, where Johnson said the child had not been herself when she arrived at her house that day. Tyner reiterated that the investigation was inconclusive. The parents of this little girl testified today, I'll put what they said in tomorrow summary, another witness was also called today, a policewoman who use to let Johnson watch her child, she took her out of Johnson's daycare when she felt Johnson wasn't feeding her, example she would give her milk (she breast fed) and a change of clothes and necessities for a baby, when she would go to pick her baby up, she would get the same amount of milk back, and Johnson would tell her the baby slept all day and didn't want to eat. Yet that is part of tomorrow's summary, I'll get into more detail in that summary. The state's rebuttal case concluded today and the judge gave the jury his instructions on what they are to consider, (2nd degree murder is the most they can find her guilty of), closing arguments are Tuesday. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Noe Investigation
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: Tomorrow night on Dateline 10 pm NBC they are going to have the story of the Noe investigation. Sue -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI COTD: Brisbon, Henry
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first two victims credited to Henry Brisbon were James Schmidt, a Chicago businessman, and his fiancee, Dorothy Cerny, both 25. While traveling on Highway 57, in Cook County, on the night of June 3, 1973, Schmidt and Cerny were stopped by a gang of four men, dragged from their vehicle and forced to lie down on the grassy shoulder of the road. Brisbon was identified as the triggerman who killed them both with close-range shotgun blasts as they lay helpless on the ground. Conviction on a charge of double murder earned Brisbon a sentence of 1,000 to 3,000 years, but the prison term was less impressive than it sounded. Actually, Brisbon could have been paroled in just eleven years, but he was not content to wait. On October 19, 1978, he used a sharpened soup ladle to stab inmate Ronald Morgan at the Statesville penitentiary, striking without apparent motive. While awaiting trial for that murder, Brisbon took part in a 1979 riot and was transferred to the maximum security lockup at Menard. Brisbon was convicted of Morgan's murder on January 22, 1982, and a month later he was sentenced to die. Leaving the courtroom after pronouncement of sentence, Brisbon told his guards, "You'll never get me. I'll kill again. Then you'll have another long trial. And then I'll do it again." As good as his word, Brisbon tried it again on February 15, 1983. Slipping out of handcuffs and breaking away from a guard on death row, he used a piece of sharpened heavy-gauge wire to stab convicted killers William Jones and John Wayne Gacy. (Neither man was seriously injured.) At this writing, Brisbon is awaiting execution -- and, undoubtedly, preparing for his next attempt at homicide. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re:School days, school days..
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue LOL--we didn't lose her underwear, she did. The elastic on the waistband must have gave way and she was monitoring the convocation. Down they came around her ankles, her mouth dropped and of course those of us who had seen this happen said quite loudly--Oh Sister Josephina, be careful you don't trip. Of course everyone around turned to see. Somehow I think that all the mischevous makers of that time were all in my class. We were the last graduating class from the old' mansion as they were building a brand new school in the suburbs, so maybe we wanted to leave more of a mark on the history of the school. : ). We did do some silly things though--we had to I guess, there were no boys at the high school, as Catholic high schools then were all segregated by sex in MN, except for St Michael's. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: Ok Now you have to tell me how you lost the nun's underwear. That I have to know. BG The Catholic schools I went to certainly were not as much fun as that. :) Sue Hi Bill LOL--those nuns could be wily couldn't they. But, in high school we had some that were a little different in their own way. Of course, we were somewhat cruel now that I think of it. We painted a chicken's toes with nailpolish when the biology teacher passed a leg around so we could see how the tendons, etc. worked. By the time she got it back, she was livid. We locked her out of the classroom one day and then played dumb after she got the janitor to open the door. When she lost her underwear at a convocation, instead of being quiet we called attention to her. What terrible teens we were. There are so many stories that so many people have about the silly things we did in school. It is too bad that for many there will not be those fun memories. Wish there was more that we could do about that. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows wrote: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all Just on the news this morning. Said he was abused repetitively by a relative of the day care center he was in when 6 and/or 7. That's is really all I heard--imagine there will be more. jackief Mornin' jackie, I'm surprised it took this long for the defense to put this story out. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI tammy wynett
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: She'd been ill and passed away in her sleep, I only really new her from "Justifeid Ancient" but she was pretty cool. Steve -Original Message- From: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 5:16 AM Subject: Re: LI tammy wynett Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bob: What happened? She wasn't all that old was she. I know her husband George died of alcohol abuse, a long time ago. That is sad. She was one of the best. Sue hi all i just heard on the news that tammy wynett passed away about three hours ago.she was one of the greats and will be missed by millions around the world. bob,wa -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Arkansas/Mitchell Johnson was Re: LI Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue I just heard about the alleged sexual abuse of Mitchell. Posted before I read your other posts. Boy, there is sure a lot of stuff on the history of the family coming out, and like always--nothing was done at the time. But, you never really know if you should interfere so guess you can't say anything now. I know Tom (my colleague) now questions himself as to whether if he had done more, this tragedy wouldn't have happened. So I image many are feeling that way. As far as the reactions by those in Jonesboro, I guess it is like any other terrible crime--there are two extreme camps and a lot of people in the middle wondering really what did occur tp trigger this and what the best possible way of dealing with it is. I guess, like Mitchell's father, I do not think Mitchell could or would be rehabilitated in five years and should not be released when he turns 18. I only wish people would begin to question what rehabilitation actually exists for juveniles when they are sent to juvenile correctional facilities. Perhaps, out of this tragedy something positive could happen--it sure hasn't happened when these horrendous crimes have been occurring in our inner cities--just sweep it under the rug, until it really hits 'middle-class' America. Sorry to be cynical, here, but it sure seems this is the pattern in history. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I grew up with guns and rifles around me too. And hunting was just something that my dad, uncles, and their friends did. My dad made sure we all knew how to handle guns and shoot when we were really young. But I think it was a different time. You didn't hear of kids shooting each other, or even the drive bys, etc that are going on now. :( I just read the TIME article and the mother certainly isn't helping the situation any, IMO. Of course I don't know how I would act if it were one of my kids that had done this, either. Another article that I just read says that the boy was sexually molested when he was young. The living conditions that these people lived in certainly aren't all that good either. What is strange is that you hear on television that the people in the area don't want these kids treated as adults, they almost forgive them for what happened. And then you read in the papers and such that the kids are getting death threats. It really is a sad situation, and the worst part, IMO, is that no matter what happens neither kid is going to get help, and will probably come out of juvenile detention in 4-7 years a lot worse than when they went in. Sue Hi Sue It is true about growing up with guns in this neck of the woods. Hunting is almost a given if you ask someone their hobbies. It is not unusual to go into someone's house and the first thing you see are the hunting and fishing trophies (mounted of course). I think that is why it is so shocking to many in this area when they read of guns being used to kill others. Not that it doesn't happen, of course. We have a murder right now that is going to trial where two young men went over and shot another young man. I guess the only difference is that the feeling is "lock'em up and throw away the key." The stories here are about the same--some say he was an angel; others he was a little devil. One reason may be that the father lived in Grand Meadow and the grandparents in Spring Valley, I believe. Maybe Mitchell behaved differently in each community. jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: The killing season was Re: LI Jones case thrown out
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue Couldn't agree with you more. I really liked how he showed both sides of the issue--the lack of support for the police (financially, socially, etc.) in their efforts and the lack of knowledge of why the emergence of such gangs--or rather, not knowledge, just convenient forgetfulness of some of the important reasons. The gangs today are so different than those historically and I think the author really pointed that out. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: I might give them an idea of what is real, that is for sure. It certainly isn't like any television show. :( I thought it really gave an inside story of why these kids (adults) became gang members, etc too. Made me understand it a lot more. Not condone it but understand it. Sue Hi Sue I think his explanations fell right in line with what a number of researchers are finding. Everyone wants approval and support--if they can't find it elsewhere, gangs fill the bill nicely. It has everything going--rituals, special names, feelings of belonging, solidarity, etc. etc. What more could a young, driftless person want? Also, the economic and power factors seemed to be two of the underlying threads in the book which I thought really good about the book. You could really pick it up when you read what the suspects, witnesses and alive victims said. I am thinking of recommeding it to LE students. Some of them are so starry-eyed about becoming police officers--maybe reading of the paperwork, etc. will bring them down to earth : ) jackief -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-07 07:06:12 EDT, you write: Just on the news this morning. Said he was abused repetitively by a relative of the day care center he was in when 6 and/or 7. That's is really all I heard--imagine there will be more. jackief At this point, without some corroboration, I think the operative word is "said." Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-07 01:35:20 EDT, you write: California has the strongest gun laws in the whole country, and we still have one of the highest gun related crime rates. :( I don't know what can be done to stop it. Perhaps *enforcing* the gun laws would help? All the laws in the world won't work if they are not enforced. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI tammy wynett
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-07 00:16:22 EDT, you write: What happened? She wasn't all that old was she. I know her husband George died of alcohol abuse, a long time ago. I think she was fifty-five, something like that. I'm not a country music fan, but she was good. Cec Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI tammy wynett
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What happened? She wasn't all that old was she. I know her husband George died of alcohol abuse, a long time ago. I thought George Jones was still around. Ron Jury - Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI tammy wynett
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Thanks, I didn't know how old she was. She did have some beautiful music. :( Sue I think she was fifty-five, something like that. I'm not a country music fan, but she was good. Cec -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I think the only effective legislation must come at the federal level, for the simple reason that travel between the states is so easy and does not require any checks as is required when travelling between countries. So just because California has a tough gun law does not mean that people from other states with weak gun laws cannot bring guns to California. I do see some progress being made in this area. But it is painfully slow and so far ineffective. Perhaps some day we'll wake up to this problem. Bill On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:42:13 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: California has the strongest gun laws in the whole country, and we still have one of the highest gun related crime rates. :( I don't know what can be done to stop it. But I do know that there has to be some sort of responsibility on the part of gun owners. Since Ca enacted the law that if someone is shot or killed with a gun that is in the hands of a minor, the owner can be held liable, the rate of children being hurt or killed has gone down a lot. So maybe we are on the right track. I hope so anyway. Sue HI Sue, The original meaning in the Bill of Rights was so that the states could have their own militia, but your interpretation is correct. Since the revolution was directed against the tyranny of a big government there was a strong fear against any big government telling the individual states what to do. And, of course, slavery was a big issue. You're right, today it is meaningless with respect to private citizens taking up arms to oppose or defend against the US government, in spite of what the militia groups say. I don't think it would be feasible or possible to ban all private gun ownership, nor do I think it would eliminate crime. But I DO think we have a serious gun problem in this country and that there ARE things that can and need to be done. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Re: Reply from Iacono on the polygraph survey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 15:43:40 -0500 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I don't think anyone was discounting the polygraph if used under strict procedures and with the knowledge that many other extraneous things can affect the readings. However, putting blind faith into these things is not "my cup of tea" simply because there is still too much controversy about them. Honts, even although implicitly, verified that in he realized as a lie detector he needed more education to really be able to use them properly. This was after he had had education in administering the polygraph after training in local law enforcement and with the FBI. And, most examiners do not have the FBI training, let alone the other more advanced training. I wonder if the experts would have enough time to get on the list for a period of time?? But, it is worth asking them if I get a chance to meet them. Mentioned I had wrote to Iacono to some of the other psychology teachers here and they said "Not the, Iacono!" I was happy that he took the time to answer our questions. Well, better get off for a little bit--don't want the red glare to get too much for your eyes : ) We have another minor "court problem" now in this area--whether the hearing impaired are receiving the assistance in court they need by having a skilled signer to interpret for them. Our poor court system is taking a beating--first the release of the preadjudication records, now this. jackief HI Jackie, I think you've put the lie detector discussion in it's complete and correct context. I agree about the experts probably not having time to spend on computer discussion groups. OTOH, if they have written books they can use the opportunity to hype them. :) I think it's good that courts are constantly challenged to provide a fair venue for everyone, no matter what their disability may be. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI A look at Jonesboro through NRA crosshairs
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. :) Sue A look at Jonesboro through NRA crosshairs I suppose you think Im going to write another gun control column, dont you? You think the Arkansas killings four children and a teacher dead at the hands of a pair of barely adolescent misfits are going to send me off like a 10-cent rocket, that Im going to roll around on the floor, wailing about the need to regulate firearms. Youre wrong. The last time I wrote a column like that, hundreds and I mean hundreds of gun lovers wrote in to inform me of the error of my ways. Like a good liberal, I listened to them with an open mind, and ... they convinced me. Guns dont kill people; they prevent people from killing people. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Just a little game :)
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seek the first letter of your name.and what a surprisedoes it
suit you?
A
You are not particularly romantic, but you are interested in action.
You
mean business. With you, what you see is what you get. You have no
patience
for flirting and can't be bothered with someone who is trying to be
coy,
cute, demure, and subtly enticing. You are an up-front person. When it
comes to sex, it's action that counts, not obscure hints. Your mate's
physical attractiveness is important to you. You find the chase and
challenge of the "hunt" invigorating. You arepassionate and sexual,
as
well as being much more adventurous than youappear; however, you do
not
go around advertising these qualities. Your physical needs are your
primary
concern.
B
You give off vibes of lazy sensuality. You enjoy being romanced,
wined,
and dined. You are very happy to receive gifts as an expression of the
affection of your lover. You want to be pampered and know how to
pamper
your mate. You are private in your expression of endearments, and
particular when it comes to lovemaking. You will hold off until
everything meets with your approval. You can control your appetite and
abstain from sex if need be. You require new sensations and
experiences. You are willing to experiment.
C
You are a very social individual, and it is important to you to have a
relationship. You require closeness and togetherness. You must be
able
to talk to your sex partner-before, during, and after. You want the
object
of your affection to be socially acceptable and good-looking. You see
your
lover as a friend and companion. You are very sexual and
sensual, needing someone to appreciate and almost worship you. When
this
cannot be achieved, you have the ability to go for long periods without
sexual activity. You are an expert at controlling your desires and
doing without.
D
Once you get it into your head that you want someone, you move full
steam
ahead in pursuit. You do not give up your quest easily. You are
nurturing
and caring. If someone has a problem, this turns you on. You are highly
sexual, passionate, loyal, and intense in your involvement's, sometimes
possessive and jealous. Sex to you is a pleasure to be
enjoyed. You are stimulated by the eccentric and unusual, having a free
and open attitude.
E
Your greatest need is to talk. If your date is not a good listener,
you
have trouble relating. A person must be intellectually stimulating or
you
are not interested sexually. You need a friend for a lover and a
companion
for a bedmate. You hate disharmony and disruption, but you do enjoy a
good
argument once in a while-it seems to stir things up.
You flirt a lot, for the challenge is more important than the sexual
act
for you. But once you give your heart away, you are uncompromisingly
loyal. When you don't have a good lover to fall asleep with, you will
fall asleep with a good book.{Sometimes, in fact, you prefer a good
book.)
F
You are idealistic and romantic, putting your lover on a pedestal. You
look for the very best mate you can find. You are a flirt, yet once
committed, you are very loyal. You are sensuous, sexual, and privately
passionate. Publicly, you can be showy, extravagant, and gallant. You
are
born romantic. Dramatic love scenes are a favorite fantasy pastime. You
can
be a very generous lover.
G
You are fastidious, seeking perfection within yourself and your lover.
You
respond to a lover who is your intellectual equal or superior, and one
who
can enhance your status. You are sensuous and know how to reach the
peak
of erotic stimulation, because you work at it meticulously. You can be
extremely active, sexually that is, when you find the time. Your duties
and
responsibilities take precedence over everything else. You may have
difficulty getting emotionally close to a lover, but no trouble getting
close sexually.
H
You seek a mate who can enhance your reputation and your earning
ability.
You will be very generous to your lover once you have attained a
commitment. Your gifts are actually an investment in your partner.
Before
the commitment, though, you tend to be frugal in your spending and
dating
habits, and equally cautious in your sexual involvements.
You are a sensual and patient lover.
I
You have a great need to be loved, appreciated... even worshipped. You
enjoy luxury, sensuality, and pleasures of the flesh. You look for
lovers
who know what they are doing. You are not interested in an
amateur,unless
that amateur wants a tutor. You are fussy and
exacting about having your desires satisfied. You are willing to
experiment and try new modes of sexual expression. You bore easily and
thus
require sexual adventure and change. You are more sensual than sexual,
but
you are sometimes downright lustful.
J
You are
LI No face on Mars :(((((
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nearly 20 years ago, a pair of images from the Viking missions to Mars revealed a "feature" on the surface in the Cydonia region that looks remarkably like a sphinxlike face. Intensive analysis by many (most notably Richard Hoagland) demonstrated a wide range of apparently significant relationships to other nearby objects. In the interim, 3 follow-up missions to Mars (2 Soviet and 1 American) failed under somewhat mysterious circumstances. I often said (only half jokingly) that something up there was throwing rocks at the various craft. Now that the Mars Global Surveyor mission is in place around Mars (with an extremely high resolution camera aboard) the "Face on Mars" community has been waiting with bated breath for high-quality, extremely detailed images (5 meters per pixel vs. 50+ meter per pixel resolution) to be returned from the same area. This has, at last, happened The images returned have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the "Face" is nothing more than an eroded mesa, just like thousands of others on the surface of Mars (or Earth for that matter). The fact that the low-resolution images from Viking look so face-like is a testment to the brains ability to extract apparent pattern and order from what is essentially random data. Much like the images you can see in ink blots or clouds. Anyone who is interested can see the Viking picture at: http://mpfwww.arc.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia_map.gif and the high resolution MGS image of the "face" at: http://mpfwww.arc.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1tp_face.gif -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Just a little game :)
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cheers "S"ue that gave me lol Best Steve "Im never gonna be a lawyer" Wright S For you, it is business before pleasure. If you are in any way bothered by career, business, or money concerns, you find it very hard to relax and get into the mood. You can be romantically idealistic to a fault and are capable of much sensuality. But you never lose control of your emotions. You are very careful and cautious before you give your heart away-and your body, for that matter. Once you make the commitment, though, you stick like glue. === Lifes a beach and I'm on it, Jah Wobble. === PERSONAL EMAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-07 11:55:53 EDT, you write: ''I only write about people's private life when it impinges on their performance as a public official. ''The bottom line is that we are not all jerks in this business. A lot of times there are stories you don't write willy-nilly about someone's private life,'' Would it were still so. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' jackie, I'm surprised it took this long for the defense to put this story out. ...Mac Hi Mac, I was wondering that myself. If I read the story correctly they are saying the kid never told anyone about this until after the murders. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Bill Afternoon Bill, I don't think it's odd at all. It seems pretty standard to try and place blame elsewhere and put that blame into play before a jury is picked. This child knew enough about guns and the results of pulling the trigger. Even if he was molested it dosen't excuse his actions on that day. It was a premeditated strike and he, IMO, knew exactly what he was doing. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, I was wondering that myself. If I read the story correctly they are saying the kid never told anyone about this until after the murders. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Bill Incredible, now even little criminals are aware that the "abuse excuse" can work to your benefit in a defense! Ron Jury - Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, (I have no idea if Nixon beat his wife or not per the title of this thread.) But responding to your question, if history has any meaning the bad as well as the good needs to be known. In the future people will deny they knew about the corruption in this administration just as people closed their eyes to that in the Kennedy administration. Once when Kennedy was asked about the unfairness of the draft, he said, "Life isn't fair." When life got a little fairer and the sons of the well-to-do were finally threatened by the draft, the awful war in Vietnam Kennedy was most responsible for ended. The loss of 50,000 young American men in Vietnam isn't unrelated to Kennedy's contempt for the lower classes as well as for the women he used like disposables. Often innocents get hurt but Caroline and John Kennedy, Jr. are adults and are not implicated in any way in their father's actions. Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: What I don't understand about these stories is what good do they do. The people who they are written about are dead, and can't defend themselves. And the children such as John Jr. Caroline, (his Kennedy book) Trisha, and Julie are still alive to be hurt by them. Certainly they aren't a part of the history that we need to know. Sue Would it were still so. Doc -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: I agree that good or bad we do need to know about what goes on in the WH concerning things such as Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Even Watergate, and yes even Whitewater. But do we really need to know things such as "Nixon Beat His Wife", "Johnson's name is on baby's birth certificate", or "Kennedy snuck women through the back door"? These people are not here any longer to defend themselves. And there is no way to prove one way or the other if these things did occur, or not. The good, bad and the ugly that is going on right now in the WH has both sides represented. Clinton is here to defend himself. Kennedy, Nixon, and the rest aren't. Nor are their wives. As for the Kennedy and Nixon children, yes they are adults. And yes they have been through a lot more than most children and as a result probably have pretty thick skins. But I would think it would still hurt to read something in the paper such as "Nixon beat his wife". And besides, is it really any of our business, especially now all these years later when it won't change anything, nor make any difference at all? But that is just my opinion. :) Sue Hi Sue, (I have no idea if Nixon beat his wife or not per the title of this thread.) But responding to your question, if history has any meaning the bad as well as the good needs to be known. In the future people will deny they knew about the corruption in this administration just as people closed their eyes to that in the Kennedy administration. Once when Kennedy was asked about the unfairness of the draft, he said, "Life isn't fair." When life got a little fairer and the sons of the well-to-do were finally threatened by the draft, the awful war in Vietnam Kennedy was most responsible for ended. The loss of 50,000 young American men in Vietnam isn't unrelated to Kennedy's contempt for the lower classes as well as for the women he used like disposables. Often innocents get hurt but Caroline and John Kennedy, Jr. are adults and are not implicated in any way in their father's actions. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI U.S. Bans Foreign Guns Permanently
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I understand that the NRA is losing a lot of it's members, and support. It would seem to me that if they went along with the banning of these weapons, that have absolutely no legit use at all, and would also support some of the gun legislation, they would in turn not only keep members and support, but might even get more of it from people who are not against weapons, but against irresponsible use of them. I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible use and handling of them. And I bet there are a lot of other people who feel the same way. Sue HI Sue, Oh, the NRA is against it, of course. They have already announced they will go to Congress to try to override the President's actions. They rely on these manufacturers and importers for tons of money in contributions to the NRA so the NRA can continue its lobbying efforts. So the NRA will oppose ANY form of gun control legislation and they carry a lot of power with the legislators. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Most say Starr should close probe: poll
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: It was Goldberg who was on Dateline. I couldn't remember her name. She was telling how she felt about the tapes and what was in them, about Monica and her feelings towards her, and mainly defending what she had done. To tell you the truth, the woman seemed very honest and up front about her feelings about the whole thing. She looks at Monica as a young *girl* in love with a married man. The fact that he is the President is secondary, if anything at all. She believes that the tapes are the true words spoken by Monica of something that did happen, and cannot fathom them not being the truth. She said she knows that truth when she hears it, and these tapes (she only heard two of them) are the truth of what happened. She admits to the fact that she is glad to be bringing Clinton down (if that happens) but that isn't her sole purpose. She doesn't believe we should have a man such as Clinton in the WH, who according to her has lied and suborned perjury. She denied outright that she belongs to the right wing at all. She defended Tripp by saying that it was her idea to tape these things, but didn't mean for her to get as much tape as she did, and was astounded and happy, "Woopee, this is dynamite", to hear what she did when she heard them. She says she is having fun with this whole thing, and enjoys being a "player". At the end Nightline said that the WH called and told them that they should be ashamed to have her on that show since she is not creditable. While working on Nixons (I think it was) election team, she infiltrated McGovern's camp posing as a newspaper reporter and gave information to the other side. The WH said that shows that she has no creditably. That basically was everything that she said. I will see if I can get the transcript for you if you want it. :) Sue Hi Sue, Darn, I missed the show. Did she give any new perspective on this thing? I also saw that CNN had some show involving Goldberg, the woman who encouraged Tripp to make the tapes. Missed that one too. :) Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
