GUILTY NC - Kathy Taft, 62, Raleigh, 6 March 2010 - #6

[borndem]

Anybody here going to follow the Sandusky trial?

I've never followed this kind of trial, so I probably should, just to see another side of jurisprudence. And there is a lot, I think, we don't know, as is usual. (volume is now 'way down on the courtroom...)

Will it be on IS or where? IS drives me nuts, mostly, but I would tune in unless something else better looms. I don't know of anything cooking right now other than that...

 

[Boodles]

We wouldn't be listening to this endless saga of 'poor Jason' if the DP had not been put on the table. That's the only reason this is happening. Otherwise, it all would have ended last week with LWOP. The defense it doing its job which the law requires it to do.

Thus, the ad nauseum poor JW crap.

Does the defendant get to make a plea for his life before the jury is released?

 

[NCEast]

The crime is done. There can be no winners here, now that he has been convicted. Since nobody wins, I look for the consequence with the least pain to the victims and society. I realize I'm pretty alone on this forum with this opinion. But JW being locked up forever keeps society safe and prevents more torture for the victims' and JWs family (who I feel are also secondary victims).

I don't care if JW does the 12 steps and embraces sobriety, finds God or resolves his mental health issues. I don't give a rat's butt about him or his welfare as long as he can't hurt anyone else.

I do care about closure for the families, their healing and moving forward to the extent possible.

But I think it's possible the jury could find for the DP. Things happen here in NC that surprise me! If the DP was carried out quickly, I would be less averse to it. But since it's such a clust**-* process, it just backfires and quashes any ability to get closure. I hate it. We should either mean it and execute it, or don't pose it as an option.

And please give all the money which would be used to pay for the endless appeals to the school system.

Excellent thoughts here Boodles.

 

[Boodles]

I don't want to bring focus to this, but I have to ask. Did I imagine it or did I hear that MW is now living at back at home with a drug addiction problem?

 

[gracielee]

gracielee, you are the best :rocker:

I will follow the Sandusky trial. You bet. I plan on stalking you around WS mwahahahaa :woohoo:

:floorlaugh: I've got my own stalker! :woohoo:

:seeya:

I always wanted my own stalker.

:great:

In fact, I think we are on our way to filling up a coaster.....

:rollercoaster:

:razz:

If this lawyer *uses* 'mental illnesses' one more time

:banghead:

IMO, it gives those of us who have worked extremely hard to overcome, a big old slap across the face :moo::moo::moo:

 

[borndem]

That's why I think the DP is worse for the victims. Because it's a never-ending cycle of revisiting the decision, and always hanging over their heads.

I do wonder whether JW will appeal if he receives LWOP, or will he just accept the consequences. I would hope the latter; I am probably naive.

I hope I don't jinx things, but I don't see an appeal. I really can't see his parents wanting to go through this again -- he apparently has adjusted fairly well to his incarceration, and we know that although he is certainly imprisoned, he has probably found some way to get through each day. He looks healthy enuff; his family is near by; and medical professionals are also nearby so that he can't fall too far off the beam.

He has tomorrow to look forward to -- Kathy doesn't. And her folks don't get to visit her once a week.

 

[gracielee]

I've never followed this kind of trial, so I probably should, just to see another side of jurisprudence. And there is a lot, I think, we don't know, as is usual. (volume is now 'way down on the courtroom...)

Will it be on IS or where? IS drives me nuts, mostly, but I would tune in unless something else better looms. I don't know of anything cooking right now other than that...

I was hoping perhaps a 'local to the case' channel would carry online coverage. I just can't stand IS.

My interest in crime has usually revolved around crimes against children, and crimes of local interest.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm okay with a LWOP sentence in this case.

Whatever the jury decides I'll accept. But it's not about JW's level of comfort or discomfort (which the defense is exaggerating), or his family's feelings and I don't find those arguments compelling. Trying to make the jury feel guilty seems wrong to me. They have to make a decision and it's JW's fault they are there in the first place. Give them good reasons to vote for LWOP that doesn't insult them!

Boodles, who's "MW?"

 

[seattlechiquita]

They better not let him work in the prison kitchen.....or garden if they grow zucchini. I hadn't heard about the prison wine infraction. Hmmmm

OH EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW :sick:

 

[seattlechiquita]

I was hoping perhaps a 'local to the case' channel would carry online coverage. I just can't stand IS.

My interest in crime has usually revolved around crimes against children, and crimes of local interest.

Mine is mostly surrounding crimes against women, children, and the mentally ill.

 

[gracielee]

We wouldn't be listening to this endless saga of 'poor Jason' if the DP had not been put on the table. That's the only reason this is happening. Otherwise, it all would have ended last week with LWOP. The defense it doing its job which the law requires it to do.

Thus, the ad nauseum poor JW crap.

Does the defendant get to make a plea for his life before the jury is released?

I agree, to a certain extent, but I do think the defense attorney has the option of finding a 'better track' then the 'poor mentally ill jason'. JMO Were I the defense attorney, I think I'd 'line my ducks up' in a bit of a different row. Something along the line of 'yes, my client committed this crime, and yes, it was a horrible crime, and the poor victim was totally vulnerable and innocent at the time she was assaulted.....but in our country we reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst.' 'My client had never committed a violent crime before, he was under the influence of various substances at the time of the crime.' 'He has shown himself to be far different in the controlled setting of a prison. yadda yadda yadda......

JMO

 

[Boodles]

Mad, the sister.

 

[Madeleine74]

I've followed 3 (well 4) other DP cases:

- Scott Peterson
- David Allen Westerfield
- The 2 murderers of the Petit family

In each of those 4 cases I felt strongly that the DP was the exact right sentence based on the crimes.

In the Williford case, I think LWOP would be an appropriate sentence if the jury decides that.

 

[laces]

I've followed 3 (well 4) other DP cases:

- Scott Peterson
- David Allen Westerfield
- The 2 murderers of the Petit family

In each of those 4 cases I felt strongly that the DP was the exact right sentence based on the crimes.

In the Williford case, I think LWOP would be an appropriate sentence if the jury decides that.

Agree with you exactly on all of the above. Sometimes, though, it seems like death is too good, especially in the above cases. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is when the accused continues to protest his innocence long after the cell door closes. I know that there have been mistakes made in the past.....but seriously. Westerfield needs to quit his whining.:twocents:

 

[laces]

and good morning and good afternoon everybuddy. xxxooo

 

[gracielee]

I've followed 3 (well 4) other DP cases:

- Scott Peterson
- David Allen Westerfield
- The 2 murderers of the Petit family

In each of those 4 cases I felt strongly that the DP was the exact right sentence based on the crimes.

In the Williford case, I think LWOP would be an appropriate sentence if the jury decides that.

I was extremely disappointed the DP wasn't handed down in the Channon Christian crime, can't recall the name of the poor guy? And those Wichita home invaders/rapists/killers, were they the Carr brothers? I'm sorry, some days I'm so bad with remembering names. :banghead: But I usually remember 'the worst of the worst' crimes.

 

[borndem]

Arrrrggggghhhhh!

My brain is already in a knot and the good Judge Gessner is nowhere near done. This is impossible, cruel & unusual. Acccccccccccckkkkkk.

"Uncle, uncle!! I give up, Foreperson.... just put me with the majority. I can no longer think & someone is gonna have to help me find the rest room because I can no longer read."

I knew this was gonna be punishment for the jury, just like it was punishment for the principles to discuss and fashion it.

Can the jury just take an up or down vote & be done??

 

[Boodles]

No one can ever say this dude's rights weren't protected to the nth degree. GEEZ!

Borndem, I agree. This is cruel and unusual punishment of the jurors!

How many *#!% proposed mitigating circumstances are there?

...the defendant drooled at age 6. If you find this to be a mitigating circumstance.....

 

[seattlechiquita]

Hmmmm.... break?

 

[borndem]

Yup, I started out LWOP, but the longer the defense argues these poor mentally ill jason, poor jason's family, poor jason's granny, yadda yadda yadda......I could easily be swayed to go for the DP.

Hmmmmm, I haven't said "Yes," to one mitigator yet. Not one.