Wednesday, April 19, 2006



Here's what Cathy posted to the comments section of Skelly's blog...

(Skelly quoted me re:) "I have every reason to believe…" I like that, very expert-sounding, but in fact, his defense attorney hasn't said anything of the sort.


"Aren't you inferring things that were not said? He didn't say that the defense attorney had said anything specific. He said that he "believed" that she would make a specific recommendation. Turns out he was right doesn't it? The defense attorney did exactly as he thought she would. Based on his experience he was able to predict exactly what would happen. I'm not sure why you or anyone else would take offense with the fact that the man had an opinion. Unless of course it's because his opinion shed a negative light on the position you hold in the legal system.

Sorry but being a Defense Attorney does not exempt you or anyone in your profession from criticism. If you are so bothered by it why not take it up with the multitude of Defense Attorneys out there who give the profession a bad name? Your time might be more productively spent doing that instead of ragging on some man who genuinely cares about his BIL. Go rag on those who might actually bring about change in the system instead of someone who no longer trusts the system due to a negative history with it.

"add the posting relative's speculation and expert opinion that bipolar is an affirmative defense,"

At no time has it been insinuated or even outright stated that bipolar is a defense. In my opinion you have quite the talent for twisting words around to make them mean what you want. The mere fact that he mentions that his BIL is bipolar does not translate into he should be given special treatment because of the fact. You pulled that implication out of thin air.

You know what impresses me? The fact that you are an over-worked Defense Attorney who has so much time for cruising the internet. Maybe the "unseemly amount of time" you spend searching the internet would be better spent working on that heavy case load you have. I'm sure your clients would appreciate your unseemly interest in their cases. But, hey, if you would rather search the internet and rag on people who are concerned about their relatives that is your business. Just as it is his business to be concerned and to express his concerns.

Seriously, don't you think this entire post and the question of whether or not you should have shared what you had found with the other attorney a bit sophomoric? It smacks of something you would expect from a high school kid, not an adult and especially not a member of the profession you are in. I would think you people would have better things to do than spend time discussing the fact that a perfect stranger has a negative opinion about your chosen profession. Then again, maybe you don't huh?
Cathy | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 12:39 am | #


Thank you Cathy! Thank you...

I wasn't sure I was making sense with my posts and I thought we were in this alone.

Thank you.

On a side note, I did have a fleeting bit of encouragement today but it fell through re: a possible ear... someone who I thought might listen. Oh well.

An update: I went to bpbil's arraignment today. He tried to dismiss Ms. Murphy as his public defender but the judge wouldn't allow it. Although the judge did offer Ms. Murphy an opportunity to "remove herself" from representing bpbil... she refused. She wanted to remain as his counsel.

...this is a travesty. An attorney who refuses to work with "the accused"... an attorney who will not discuss his case with him yet is force fed to him by the court! By the judge!

After she stated she wanted to remain as his counsel the judge then announced (with a chuckle) "Then you're still his counsel!"

It's all a sham...

After that he proceeded to chastise bpbil... telling him that the judge hearing his case would most likely "lock you up and throw away the key" based upon his prior criminal history.

Now that's an unbiased statement, eh?

Obviously, the judge was close to intimidating bpbil into copping the plea of guilty for something bpbil claims he didn't do... Innocent until proven guilty???

I will say bpbil continued to profess his innocence to the judge... something he's never done in the past. It fell on deaf ears.

When bpbil opted for a trial the judge told him he was entitled to a trial but he was obviously annoyed.

I know. I watched the proceedings through that point. Prior to hearing bpbil the judge was very animated, jovial, even entertaining at times. He was fun to watch... until bpbil appeared (on camera) and opted to "dismiss" his attorney. Then the judge's mood changed. It was no longer that pleasant, everyday jovial judge mood but an almost threatening, annoyed, chastising judge mood.

"You're going to lose" attitude by the judge followed by the affirmative nodding of Ms. Murphy, bpbil's "public defender".

They're willing to send bpbil up for years on misdemeanors... "lock him up and throw away the key... a long, long time." because he has a "bad record". Not based on the merits or facts obtained but based upon his prior history! Things he's already served time for that has nothing to do with these... allegations.

Piss poor follow up on the allegations though!

Where's the justice here.

Coupled with this was another charge of assault... three days prior, on March 19th. It's obvious they're going to try to bury bpbil in the system.

My question is if there was an alleged assault on the 19th of March... three days prior to the "original" charges why did his wife wait so long to report it? Why wasn't it reported at the time... much like the other ones were reported. Was she fabricating this assault much like the assault she admitted to "J", Donna (J's now deceased mother who actually despised bpbil's wife) and I to having fabricated back in 2002? Admitted over and over and over again... with what we thought was genuine remorse.

There are witnesses as to what bpbil was doing on the 19th of March and it had nothing to do with associating with his... wife... who is far, far less a person than bpbil's son's mother... the addict and alcoholic from Georgia.

No one seems to be asking these questions... no one seems to be following up on this information to confirm whether or not these assaults actually did occur. But then again, why would they? They have a convicted felon accused of a crime here. He has to be guilty! Look at his record.

They're simply taking his... wife's... (that's so damned hard to say... "his wife's." I can't believe he married that thing) word for everything.

I'd say put him on the box... polygraph him. He's offered to do it... so do it!

Then, offer it to her and her... offspring and trolls.

For what it's worth.

No comments: