Sep 30, 2009

Man charged in Connecticut home invasion wants co-defendant prosecuted for talking to writer

I never thought I'd agree with one of the defense attorneys for these two men, but regarding
this one issue, I am in absolute agreement, although clearly for very different reasons.
Komisarjevsky should be held in contempt of court for breaking the gag order on this case, but more importantly his attorneys should also be held accountable-a notion that is fast becoming extinct in our Connecticut judicial system-accountability.
The attorneys for komsiarjevsky were, according to the author, Brian Mcdonald, aware of the book and the meetings and letters he was exchanging with their client for the purposes of the book.
And The reasons that I was already convinced that they knew about this book are multifold;
About a month ago there was an article in the Hartford Courant about this VERY Book coming up for publication in late September. The article and the proposed book had people in an uproar--and there was a great deal of attention given the fact that it was based on one josh komisarjevsky's versions of the events of this horrible night.

I remember my interest being quite piqued by the "coincidence" that here was a book from the narrative of komisarjevsky and just weeks ago this same defendant"s attorneys were trying to get segments of his "confession" read at a recent hearing re the Petit crimes. The judge saw fit to seal the confession" as he undoubtedly saw through the attorneys true motivation,which was to get testimony proclaiming his clients innocence without his client actually testifying and injecting this all into the court of public opinion before this guys trial or jury selection.

In fact I distinctly recall hearing komisarjevskys lawyer recently saying if "josh'confession is to be believed, he is guilty of felony murder but not capital murder(the distinction of course matters a great deal as only capital murder may carry a death penalty sentence.They have been reiterating from the start that their client, although guilty of many things, did not kill any of the Petit family members.

Now if the attorneys for JK truly knew nothing prior to the article in the courant, (which I don't believe for a moment) they certainly had ample enough time to investigate the book at that point which was then slated for a Sept 29th publication-a month from the date of this article-And they most certainly could have tried to take some kind of legal action halting its publication pending an investigation into a violation of a court ordered gag concerning the case.

Of course they did no such thing. I contend it was because they knew about the book and they knew that it was in fact a version of their clients "confession" which in effect discounted all responsibility for the murders themselves not to mention the added bonus of supplying plenty of sympathetic background on komisarjevskys childhood in order to lay the foundation for the tired old 'sexually abused found out hes adopted becomes drug addicted teen then disturbed young adult defense. In other words ... "of course this guy wound up breaking into homes look at what a terrible childhood he had" yada yada ya.
You'll recall that komsiarjevsky had no drugs in his system the night of the murders, this means that this guy was probably staying clean for his parole urine tests because he could be violated and sent back to prison if he was caught using drugs. This means that these crimes were fueled by nothing but a despicable desire to control and exert power over defenseless women-and children as poor little Michaela Petit-the object of komisarjevskys lust and domination- was only 11 years old.

Komisarjevskys attorney had the nerve to say, a day or so ago I've never SPOKEN
with Mcdonald ..l guess I'm gonna have to read this book now" Absolute BS and typical lawyer-speak-to boot. You ll note that he doesn't say anything really when stating that he's never spoken to the author- This doesn't mean anything at all yet it could sound as if he didn't know of McDonald's existence-which he didn't say-because it isn't true.

The author shared in interviews with the media recently that once the dept of corrections learned he was a writer-writing a book on the crimes with komisarjevskys help-they took him off the visiting list at the prison. He added that they took komisarjevskys parents off the list at that same time, presumably as a punishment and or because they couldn't trust that his parents wouldn't act as a go between for the author and komisarjevsky. The author adds that he felt it was probably"his fault" that Komisarjevskys parents were taken off the list.

Obviously komisarjevskys lawyers knew about his visitor list being restricted -especially as they were probably the only ones allowed to visit after these episodes with the violations.
This happened many many months prior to the book being published and again that left plenty of time for his lawyers to take action preventing this book from being published.
But they did nothing of the kind-in fact they acted as if there were no book and indeed when the book was released they insulted all of our intelligences by in effect saying"huh what book?
Why would we allow our client to help co author a book when his trial hasn't even come up?"
Why indeed.

I am thoroughly disgusted as a human being and a writer by this book. I find it particularly offensive that the author-and I use that term loosely as the book is written poorly and even edited badly, knew what he was dealing with and knew how painful this would be to the surviving victim and the families-and he did it anyway.
You can see that it was a rush job with little concern for truth or quality. The publisher and writer were trying to make a fast buck off senstationalizing a vicious crime that left two girls and their mother dead and a state traumatized and heartbroken. We've had two years to heal and this book has ripped the scab right off our collective wound. And the crimes haven't even been tried in a court of law yet. There has been no justice to help ameliorate the pain, not even a date set for a trial for either defendant.

The authors recent assertions that he had no idea when the case would be tried and just
did his job and "wrote the book"and the rest was the publishers problem"-doesn't hold water.

As a writer of this kind of content-true crime-you have a responsibility to both the deceased victims and especially any surviving victims. And you most certainly do not ever hamper the judicial proceedings for any murder case that has not yet been resolved criminally. Period.
It's called human decency-professional and personal integrity. This man has shown none and may it sit on his soul for eternity along with the attorneys in this case who have behaved so badly.

The writer and publisher of this book have not only compromised the outcome of the trials and quite possibly whether or not justice will be served in this case- they have given a forum to a socipath and a murderer. Within this they have gifted the notoriety that he craves and the ability to reach out to an unlimited amount of people who are not able to discern truth from lies-who are not savvy to the manipulativeness and easy deciet akin to sociopaths, and therefore allow his version" to stand as truth to the masses .

As someone who has studied sociopaths ad nauseum It is easy for me to see through this book
to see through Joshua komisarjevsksys motivations and his seemingly random descriptions- within the story of"his life"as well as the events surrounding the crimes against the Petit family. Nothing is random in what this man chose to "share" with the author and the readers of this book who remember encompass his ultimate jury pool. The same jury who will decide his fate. Each and every nuance used to describe happenings of the evening and morning of July 23rd 2007 were so used for a specific reason and a desired effect.

One cannot help but notice that every piece of information that Komisarjevsky chose to "share"
bout these crimes were connected to pre-existing key evidence that was of the most damning nature towards him. Many of these things were already known by the general public via the introduction of heavily redacted warrants that were published in the local newspapers -others were heard about through law enforcement testimony/leaks and via other evidenciary findings In other words Komisajevsky knew these things were out there and really making him look bad and so he sought to "explain"them away through this book.

An example is that we knew that the Petits 17 year old daughter Hayely was beaten during the crimes, Dr Petit has made mention of this within a statement to the press; komisajevskys just happens to relate a scene in the book where Hayley has gotten to her cell phone and tries to call 911 (heartbreaking to read ) and he is "forced"to call Hayes in to wrestle her back onto the bed.

This is an obvious attempt to make some kind of excuse for beating and torturing Hayley Petit, as otherwise he would seem a simply despicable sadist -something he is trying like hell to avoid and indeed instead pin that persona on his co-accomplice Steven Hayes who is frequently described by komisarjevsky as the more violent and evil of the two,
(If there could be such a distinction in the first place.)

Another example is a vivid description he gives of his co accomplice hayes maniacly laughing as he existed the flaming home on sorghum.Drive. We had all read police eyewitness testimoney that said that both men were laughing as they ran out of the burning house. I remember this well as it was yet another piece of evidence that proved these men were utterly despicable and callous towards their victims, who they'd just left to die tied to thier beds in the fire.

Komisarjevsky thought he'd get rid of that picture of him that the public had in one fell swoop by simply rewriting history;hed paint himself as "horrified" by his co- accomplice's maniacal laughter as he ran out of the house thereby " explaining" that it wasnt him that was laughing--it was hayes-he was"the bad one".komisarjevsky was just there.

The Trouble with komisarjevsky is that he is a sociopath after all and as such, he gives himself away despite himself- sharing things like " Hayley looked at him with defiance throughout the entire ordeal" I believe that this is why he likely got violent with Hayley-she wouldn't submit and was obvious with her disgust and loathing of him. This infuriated him as the entire set of crimes was about him feeling power and control,which he also gives away despite himself early on in the book when he states that right before hitting poor Dr Petit with the bat as he slept, he couldn't wait to " be in control of the entire domicile"

I simply cannot wait until these men get their due.

Man charged in Connecticut home invasion wants co-defendant prosecuted for talking to writer

For more information about this book see yesterdays post.

No comments: