I found this article in my archives today of all places.
Having recalled that this Post generated a lot of controversial commenting, I thought it more deserving then residing in dusty old draftswille, in fact I don't know how it wound up there.
From today's vantage point, many months later, as we now enter the penalty phase of Steven Hayes trial, which commences tomorrow morning, the piece has an even bigger punch than it did when first written:
As much as this columnist expressed what seemed a genuine respect for veteran public defender Thomas Ullmann, by doing so within this frame of reference, she almost seemed to be willing him not to pull a redux of the Michael Ross debacle with Hayes ie When Ross, like Hayes, wished to take accountability for his crimes and Ross's over- zealous public defenders, simply and quite literally-would not allow it.
At the same time, the writer seemed resigned to the fact that, her admiration for Ullmann not withstanding, the Hayes case was already heading in the same direction at that very moment.
She was right of course.
Attorney Ullmann and Culligan and their team of tax paid minions, fought tooth and nail to disallow Hayes from doing what was his absolute right to do:plead guilty to the crimes that he was accused of AND INDEED committed.
Every legal parlor trick in the book was brought out: first his competency was questioned, then when he was found to be competent, Ullmann and Culligan threatened that if need be, they would break the attorney/ client privilege and share information with the court that Hayes had made to them, within that pact, that would supposedly influence the court regarding the finding of his own ability to represent himself and declare himself guilty.
He gave in his lawyers in the end and reversed his plea back to Not Guilty and Ullmann got to walk away thinking himself a hero for refusing to" let Steven Hayes' commit state assisted suicide." This after he stated that a life in prison on death row is worse than the death penalty itself.
Which is it Mr Ullmann? Or are you suggesting he deserves worse than the Capital punishment that was in fact LAW when he and Komisarjevsky with full aforethought and Mal intent, set about breaking into the Petit household with their primary motive sexual assault
ie their phone texts prior to the crimes had Hayes chomping at the bit to start the evening's rape and carnage"Hold your horses dude:" HAYES REPLIED Dude my horses are ready to bust out !!!"
This was a clear sexual reference and illustrates beyond a doubt that the two men had discussed raping Michaela and likely Hayley, according to Kmisarjevsky's interviews with writer Mike MacDonald who he surreptitiously met with in prison for "interviews" based on Komisarjevsky;s version of the crimes, he in effect sold Hayes on the home invasion cajoling him and titillating his evil side telling him how attractive the girls and Mrs Petit a young blond shapely mother of both teens. He'd spotted then stalked the family at an area supermarket and followed them home with his pedophilia lust trained upon Michaela only eleven years old.
Tragically all we are left with is a 20 20 hindsight and a murdered mother and her two young daughters. We cannot continue to forget that Dr Petit was severely assaulted in this so called home invasion which is clearly a set of sex crimes whereupon the family member who poses the most threat is removed first Mr Petit was the only man of the house asleep on the sunporch when the men stalked the house intent upon their mission. Rape pillage and Burn the evidence.
4 comments:
yes the judge asked anyone if they wanted to confess...to their telephone ringing, wow talk about stretching the truth...
"Wow" Something tells me your'e a lawyer Mr. "Anonyomous."
This, judging from the way that you reflexively assume that any untruth is purposeful, with devious intent.
In any event, that was what is called an HONEST mistake, And as I strive to be an HONEST human being, I will admit to it right here and OWN IT. As well I will remove it from my blog, while I do some further investigating -
Because For now, I will follow the assumption that you are indeed correct, and that the phone ringing in the courtroom is what prompted Judge Blue's sudden exclamation "Does anyone want to confess?" which just coincidently followed some particuarly brutal details of the Petit family crimes.
TRUTHfULLY, it made little sense to me when I read what Judge Blue said in a "tweet",and your explanation, if true, brings some clarity to the whole thing actually.
This was one of the day's that I did not attend the trial personally, and as such, relied for the first time ever, on the days courtroom tweets- this from a variety of reporters who were tweeting"
As I recall, it was mostly, MOSTLY helen ubinas (ie notesfromhel) of the Hartford Courant who I followed becuase she seemed to have to make the most observations,
Now, this may be a perfect example of why relying on tweets is not a good idea, even when in a pinch for time, but ultimately, I was experimenting and it was my decision to do so, albeit in retrospect quite possibly not a great one.
This said... I saw this statement/question made by Judge Blue within a tweet, and it was not accompanied by way of explanation with the fact that a cell phone rang only a moment before..
So there you have it "ANONYOMOUS" It APPEARS that I read something that was said during the trial out of context VIA A live TWEET FROM THE courtroom, it seemed bizzarre at the time and my instincts told me to make certain that it actually happened the way it read, but I didnt follow through and as such made the wrong inference re the comment from Judge Blue.
But, please note that I didnt pull my mistaken assumption out of nowhere, nor did I purposefully "stretched the truth" as you implied a sinister motive to my error: Steven Hayes had tried - TRIED- to Plead GUILTY to all of these criminal charges Just months prior to all of this. But thanks to his over-zealous anti-death peanlty activist public defenders, who vowed that THEY KNEW what was best for Mr Hayes, rather than Mr. Hayes. So along with the Petit and Hawke family's and the rest of the traumatized people of this state and beyond, we are all being being forced to re-live this horror.
Do You have any daughters Mr Anonyomous? I wonder how you would feel if this were your wife, your chilren- who were raped, murdered tormented for hours. Thinking about this, as unpleasent and horrible as it may be, is the only way you and others like you are going to GET THIS.
Certain religions believe that anyone who aids or enables evil against another human being including defending or shielding them via their " career" ie what they do for a living, is morally and karmically as responsible as the evil-doer themself.
This makes perfect sense, and hiding behind the MIS-USED and twisted rhetoric that: all's fair under the EVER widening umbrella that "everyone deserves a FAIR- (which has somehow turned into "VIGOROUS defense" Which Translated in lawyer-speak means... no matter how we go about it, who we re-victimize, how many lies we tell,how much evil we perpetuate- via the example of non-accountability) is nothing but evr augmenting self-rationalizing BS.
WOW, you are amazing, I post one sentence and from that you guessed that I am, male, a lawyer, a liberal, anti-death penalty, and in favor of the state having to re-live this horror....as well as being PRO MURDER, pro crime, and anti-victim...but sadly all your guesses are incorrect, I am in fact not a lawyer, not a liberal, not anti death penalty, and certainly not pro crime. Now with that said, I assumed you were in court when the judge said what he said, so I apologize for saying you were stretching the truth, had I known you were simply following those stupid and often inaccurate tweets I never would have said anything. But also to ask me how I would feel if this had happened to my family is rather mean don't you think? No human being wants this to happen to any single person and especially not an entire family...But this is the comment made whenever people think you are disagreeing with them about this case, it shows up in almost every blog.
My views are irrelevant, but in this case, death penalty is the proper verdict, but I also believe that if we are going to execute someone they should have a fair trial and vigorous defense, after all we are not a third world country. And whether or not this thing pleaded guilty to the charges, a trial for the penalty is mandated under our laws, so you can't blame the defense for this, blame the legislators, and while you at it ask them for a workable death penalty not the stupid one we currently use.
LOL...very entertaining
Post a Comment