Aug 28, 2011

Judge Blue Denies Komisarjevsky motion to Suppress confessional statements made to Police after Arrest.

Michaela Petit
Judge Blue has formally denied Joshua Komisarjevsky's motion to suppress all statements that he made to the Cheshire Police, following his arrest  fleeing the Petit murder scene. 

Komisarjevsky waived his rights to remain silent that day, as he has done many times throughout his extensive criminal past - a past that included arrests for at over forty felony's prior to the Petit murders. His past crimes ranged from arson ( he set fire to an abandoned gas station as a juvenile) to multiple breaking and entering, where he went so far as to use night vision goggles in order to stalk his victims and the layouts of their homes.
I've stopped linking to, nor describing in detailed terms, the never ending motions cranked out by the Komisarjevsky defense team, for the following reason;

Few of the motions are genuine. 

It has become increasingly apparent that many of these "motions" are simply maneuvers to get around the gag order on this case, in an attempt to air this sociopath's latest connivance's via the media.

The media, including the Internet and blogosphere, have been reporting on the basics of every motion filed on this high profile case, and as such, the defense has used this as a platform to publicize whatever they re selling that week as the "truth"

 I will continue to report and link to the presiding Judges rulings and decisions regarding the defense's motions, as long as the ruling does not contain too much verbiage of the defense's original "motion" Attorney's Donovan and Bansley motions are largely comprised of admitted murderer, Joshua Komisarjevsky's latest whining, manipulations and attempts to distort the truth,

The truth is this:

On July 22 2007 Joshua Komisarjevsky targeted the Petit  family of Cheshire Connecticut for a home invasion, motivated by sexual assault and if he was lucky, robbery. He knew he needed a second man in order to bring an entire household under control, thus he solicited burly Steven Hayes as his muscle, using Jennifer Petit's attractiveness as a lure.

As such, if not for Komisarjevsky,  Michaela, Hayley and Jennifer Petit would be alive today, and William Petit would not have been beaten over the head with a baseball bat sustaining traumatic brain injury, severe blood loss and shock. He also would not be living with the emotional devastation caused by losing his entire family, their home and uultimately, his career as a superb healer. (he was a practicing Doctor of endocrinology prior to the murders,but has not returned to practice since)

Komisarjevsky in effect hand picked his victims, following them back to their home over a mile from a supermarket parking lot where mother and daughter were shopping for what was to be their last dinner.
 He has admitted attraction to Michaela Petit who was only 11 years old at the time of her sexual assault and murder.

He staked out the Petit home for break in potential. And he immediately called in a burly friend in crime (whom he had begun teaching the ropes of home robberies to) luring him in by describing the attractive Mrs Petit, who he knew to be Steven Hayes approximate age and a woman that he would be attracted by the idea of and thus help fulfill his master plan of a full out home invasion, kidnapping and rapes, in this case with a girl who just entered puberty early at eleven.

The same little  girl he took nude and semi nude cellphone photos of after tying her to her bed amidst her stuffed toys.

The same little girl he forced to shower after raping to try to rid her body of  his DNA.  Fortunately, the fire the men set died out upstairs as it became oxygen deprived in the top level where the girls bedrooms were and where they died Michaela still tied with her hands above her head, her body had been sprayed with gasoline whiles still alive, but much less so than her sister as the men had almost used it all up on Mrs Petits now deceased body strangled by Hayes, purportedly ordered by Komisarjevsky who wasn't certain if shed tipped off police and wasn't taking chances if the cops moved in after her trip to the bank with Hayes.

I will never get it out of my mind the moment that these thugs turned on Jennifer Petit who had given them everything they'd asked for and her trusting nature believed that they would do as they'd promised. This wasn't the case as we all know, and as she likely walked back into her home praying the men just leave with the money, they both turned on her tying her down including her throat, with Hayes raping her, as I believe either komisarjevsky the one calling the shots, had held him back from raping her, because he needed her compliance up until the point that she withdrew the 15000,00 for her family's safety.If she were made privy to the brutality ie via rape by one of these men, she would have bolted at the bank.

As such this was far more sinister than a plain old robbery, or even rape and I felt this from the moment I heard certain details about the crimes, prior to the gag order being imposed.

Aug 17, 2011

"The Threat Of Liberal Judicial Activism Reaches New Heights"

Yet another well written article written by Lester Jackson, the same writer that wrote a fantastic essay about the current state of our Country's Justice system" entitled The Modern Elite Ruling Class Notion of Justice"  
found in it's entirety in my June archives. 
--And I must say - he nailed it .  I wished that I'd written it.

It embodied  so well everything that I believed  part and parcel of the basic issues inhibiting our criminal justice system/.This includes the purposely crippled death penalty and the latent hypocrisy strewn throughout much of the Anti-Death Penalty arguments, particularly those made by abolitionist/ lawyers, who in effect. hijacked the death penalty system, rendering it near-unworkable in so many states, that the state winds up scrapping it, replacing it with life w/o parole, having disastrous effects on peoples safety from violent crime.

These subjects are rarely written about, other than superficially;  If it' is mainstream media, we might be given the results of a state-wide poll concerning  the death penalty,or the death penalty might be mentioned as an aside within a larger context, such as; how a certain high -profile case has brought the issue to the forefront of the state's conscience, as well in the state of Connecticut where our judiciary committee and legislature, have been chomping at the bit to abolish almost sadistic in its tireless obscenely timed efforts.

For example just this year the Connecticut Judiciary Committee decided, seemingly out of the blue,( for the second time in two years) to surreptitiously draw up and vote on yet another  death penalty abolishment Bill - a pet project of theirs for year, their most recent prior efforts resulted in a close vote that was promptly vetoed by then Governor Jodi Rell.

From there the bill was to be sent to the General Assembly, the second step for any crime based legislation to become law, and if it passed muster there, the bill would then be voted upon by the traditionally much more intelligent and discerning Connecticut Senate. Partisan politics notwithstanding, our Senators are generally speaking, an intelligent lot, and a fair number will and do cross party lines for such serious matters..

Note; The reason I cited the Judiciary's decision as obscenely timed is because at that exact moment in time, a trial was about to begin; The long awaited trial for one Steven Hayes" one of the two men charged in the murders, rape and robbery of three members of The Petit family in July 2007,.Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky were caught fleeing the Petit Family home in the Petit  family car, as eleven year old Michaela and 17 year old Hayley Petit were trapped  inside their house, burning to death from a gasoline fueled fire that led straight to their bodies which were tied hands and feet to their beds.

Their mom 48 year old Jennifer Petit had already been strangled to death by Mr Hayes seconds after he raped her, and both men set fire to the house, being certain to douse the girls and Mrs Petit's body with accelerant, hoping to insure the destruction of both men's DNA and murder all witnesses.

Adding to the tragedy, Hayley managed to somehow break free of her bonds, but was no match for a fire that the fire department described as violent and snake like and poor Hayley covered in gasoline was directly in it's path. She collapsed on the stairs while Michaela died a terrible death, struggling desperately to get free from her binds..

Their father William Petit Jr, who was badly concussed, suffering TBI and severe blood loss, testified hearing strange thumps above him and a terrible moaning. yelled up from the basement something like Hey from where he lay tied beaten and bloodied. One of the men, identified by Petit as  Komisarjevsky, the younger man who did all the talking,yelled down "don't worry it'll all be over soon"

"It will all be over soon"

Those words are Joshua Komisarjevsky's undoing.

Petit described the man's tone as sinister and ominous now, whereas before Komisarjevsky's tone had been placating and reassuring  " we only want the money, just don't try anything and no one will get hurt'

It' is fittingly ironic that Joshua komisarjevsky, mastermind of the home invasion, scheduled to be tried next month, basically hung himself  by behaving as the textbook cruel, arrogant ego-centric sociopath that he is..

In his evil mind,  there was no longer a need for pretense, he'd gotten the money from Jennifer Petit , he'd raped 11 year old Michaela, as was his main motive for the break-in, and he'd intended for Dr Petit to die in the fire along with the two girls. However, his words to Bill Petit and the way that he had said them propelled Petit to draw the very last of his adrenaline break his hand binds and hop up the cellar steps to reach a neighbor to call 911. feet tied head bludgeoned by komisarjevsky's baseball bat beating upon entry to the house, he knew he was no match for two men, he needed to get the Police to his home fast.

The police Confession  from Hayes and other evidence show that the men were aware when Bill Petit escaped from the cellar just a few minutes later, feet still tied literally rolling unable to crawl, to his neighbors house, the men were upstairs near a window when they saw and heard Petit, and according to Hayes Komisarjevsky began yelling at Hayes" the guy got out dammit!"he got out!" hurry up the cops are coming!

And yet the men still chose to murder the two young girls anyway by setting them on fire. The jig was up, they were most certainly going to be identified by Petiit, who had seen their physiques, heard their voices, they both had heavy criminal records, would be able to identify them.

Only moments earlier Dr Petit tied up in his cellar had heard his wife being raped and strangled, unbenownstto him at that time, and Joshua Komisarjevsky, so non plussed by the rape and murder that he'd just witnessed, couldn't resist taunting the man of the house, husband to the woman he'd just seen violently raped and strangled. He just had to relish what he imagined were his last moments of power over the soon to be dead Dr Petit.  Although as a perfectly predictable sociopath, he later claimed to police and within letters and journals confiscated by prison guards that Hayes was responsible for escalating the crimes to murder, this when it was so obvious that he was the one calling the shots, he was the one who targeted the women in the first place.
In the historically largely Democratic Connecticut, for the first time in twenty years like it or not woke up to find ourselves being Governed by a  Democrats this as the result of a precariously close vote whereupon a very unusual  situation involving a substantial number of  "missing, empty voting ballots in a city north of Fair field ,called Bridgeport. The city, it should be mentioned, had been rife with dirty politics and corruption -corruption which has had the trickle down effect, burrowing it's way into the Bridgeport Criminal Court system, a veritable revolving door for violent criminals.

When people say   "but what can we do about all of this after all we're just one or two, or three -  people?

 One answer  first of all , you can vote  , not only  in the larger election such as State Governor et al but just as  for your lawmakers ; local  assemblymen and women, as well as your State Senators
The people who comprise the Connecticut Legislature.

These men and women have a ridiculous amount of power, especially when you consider that the majority of house members are Lawyers, whether in active practice or not. Lawyers, with Lawyer friends. 
Find out their voting records in the past if they've served before on the state legislature. If they are a newbie running for office in you're city or township, find out  their stance on important criminal justice issues such as The Death Penalty, a subject that within the past four years, has been at the center of huge divisiveness between the residents of  Connecticut and its mostly democratic legislators who do not seem to care what the people want but rather they continuously vote to abolish the DP from some unrealistic armchair philosophy that includes the notion that it costs too much because the very same democratic party has crippled its actual implementation with a ludicrous and endless appeals process.  This is Irony at its worst. 
Specifically how have they voted on any and all crime bills?  Have they taken a proactive and tough stance against crime for the people of Connecticut, or have they just gone along with their parties majority?
The majority that is mostly responsible for lackadaisical approach to crime would be the seemingly ever-reigning Democrats n the Connecticut legislature.

Watch them operate during the now televised coverage of all Legislative sessions, which are now televised by law' One can garner a very good view into who the players are, who  has control within the house, and the Senate  All of This despite some obvious posturing for the camera's         

And how do we decide such a formidable decision?    I have discovered via my Blog and my lobbying efforts, that many people care very much about issues that affect crime, sentencing and public safety - they are often simply unsure of the process and how they can induce change.

There is nothing wrong with being uncertain of how local and State legislation works, but the shame is in not finding out and getting more involved,  because these "lawmakers" may invariably decide the fate of you or someone you love by being either soft or tough on issues involving crime and sentencing.
Watch listen learn. Ask questions of a friend or acquaintance who is in the know regarding the machinations of local politics as well as the Connecticut court systems.

And now that I have managed to once again pontificate ad nauseum.  in bold print below is the article by Lester Jackson that incited this post in the first place.

In making the case for judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out that judges take a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Until last month, it would have been unnecessary to stress that he was obviously referring to actual laws, not the unfulfilled fantasies of a lone member of Congress. Nevertheless, on July 7, in a case largely ignored by the media, dissenting Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Soto mayor and Kagan carried judicial activism to new heights by advocating a stay of execution on the basis of an imaginary law. They thereby revealed themselves to be so desperate to save barbaric murderers that they unashamedly and brazenly sought to apply un-enacted legislation introduced on June 14 by one senator, Patrick Leahy, with not a single cosponsor and by no representative at all. They had to know that this was not going to pass, because it had never been seriously considered in over seven years -- even when those least unlikely to vote for it controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.

On May 20, 1994, Humberto Leal Garcia raped and murdered 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, whose skull he crushed and whom he left with a long stick protruding from her insides. Although he had lived in the United States since before he was two years old, Leal sought to avoid execution by taking advantage of the fact that he was a Mexican national who, he contended, should have been informed of a treaty right to Mexican consular assistance. No claim was made that he had in any way been prejudiced by lack of such assistance or that he was anything but clearly guilty as charged. (Indeed, he confessed when he was finally executed.)

A mere three years earlier, the Supreme Court had rejected an identical claim. Jose Ernesto MedellĂ­n, a Mexican national who had been in this country since preschool (4), had bragged about brutally robbing, raping, and murdering two girls, 14 and 16. The Court cited congressional refusal to pass a law required to enforce a consular consultation right. As stated by the Leal dissenters, the Court had "held that, because Congress had not embodied our international legal obligations in a statute, the Court lacked the power to enforce those obligations as a matter of domestic law." But they went on to assert that Leal's applications "do not suffer from this... legal defect" thanks to Leahy's bill.

It is noteworthy how easily the Leal dissenters slithered from lack of a statute to pending legislation, inviting the gullible to believe that the latter is a substitute for a duly enacted law. Their claim that it had a good chance of passing was obviously disingenuous, refuted by the lack of even one cosponsor and the failure to pass it since the need for it first became apparent seven years earlier.

The real aim of this artful exercise is transparent. Justices opposed to capital punishment (which has overwhelming public support) seek to sabotage it at every chance. Opponents routinely resort to absolutely anything to delay executions. There is no argument or ruse too preposterous (47) for them to try.

Here, the dissenting justices sought to grant "alien" murderers a right not possessed by citizen murderers: to call their "native" country's consulate even if, like citizens, they were raised and educated in the United States. This would be one more weapon to employ in the death penalty opponents' long term strategy of endless delay. If granted, would it surprise anyone if the same justices pivoted to seek a bar to executions of American citizen murderers on the equal protection ground that they lacked a right enjoyed by aliens?

In the end, the Leal case was shockingly significant, not because of its particular extremely gruesome facts barely touched upon here, but because of what it revealed about those at the apex of the legal system. Four justices proclaimed themselves disposed to implement, as if actual law, any pending legislation that suits their fancy -- even if proposed by but one legislator, one percent of the Senate or 0.19% of the entire membership of Congress.

It is, of course, nothing new for critics, including justices themselves, to accuse the court of rewriting law, twisting and torturing it beyond recognition. But, until now, there was at least a pretense of making decisions based on actual law. Resort to such pretense is bad enough!

Now, however, the United States is but one justice away from a majority so arrogant and incapable of embarrassment as to see no need even to resort to this pretense in usurping the democratic process. We are perilously close to five imperial justices so hell bent on ramming their unpopular personal values down the throats of an unwilling public that they will enforce laws that they themselves acknowledge do not exist -- in this case, for the benefit an unspeakably barbaric murderer.

Really! Do such justices have anything but contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the legislative process, contempt for the Constitution that clearly specifies that process, contempt for self-government and, ultimately, contempt for the American people?

And is the time coming for the people to reciprocate that contempt? Repeatedly, justices have expressed concern for the Supreme Court's legitimacy and public confidence, lest they be perceived as merely imposing their own subjective views rather than impartially and objectively applying the law. What will happen to that legitimacy and confidence if more Leal type dissenters are appointed?

The Leal dissent has exposed, in very raw form, just how critical the 2012 election will be. The nation is one justice away from a majority that sees no need even to pretend adherence to actual law in seeking to impose their own subjective values.

From time to time, there are calls for making Supreme Court nominations a major issue in presidential elections. These calls have never been really met.

This time, the presidential candidates should wake up. They should be talking seriously and often about justices who have contempt for the law, so that the American people will also wake up to the danger.

If they don't wake up in 2012, they surely will wake up in 2013 to a Supreme Court that a majority of Americans do not respect because the majority of the Court lacks respect for them. In turn, that will call into question the very legitimacy of judicial review for which Chief Justice Marshall so eloquently laid the ground

Lester Jackson
C/o The American Thinker

Aug 12, 2011

Countdown to September 11th/ Recollections

As the tenth anniversary of September 11th draws near, the memories of that terriible day creep more and more into my thoughts, pulling on my already - world - weary heartstrings, and  that place inside of me where all of my anger, regret and deeply rooted pain for all victims of violence resides.

As signs of the cyclic and by now predictable, September 11th memorial preparations begin to   I can't help but marvel over the seeming majority of Americans that seem to have rather adeptly compartmentalized their feelings memories etc regarding this tragedy, as if in a a box, to be opened annually upon request of the media.

An obligation almost, very nearly foisted upon them  eager to be forgotten, once the fanfare, the specials, fade..And yes while time is a healer of sorts, and as human beings we take advanatge of iyd sllsying sndf buttressing affects  it almost seems blasphemous here because, well.... 9/11 was different. 

First of all, although tragic, 911 wasn't "a tragedy". 
It was an en - masse set of violent crimes.Thousands of senseless and cruel violent crimes committed against thousands of innocents. Through these crimes, thousands of hero's, martyrs and heartaches emerged 

When I think of 9/11, I think of all of the individual stories, stories of  courage, pain, fear and loss - and it feels to me as if it happened yesterday, no matter how much time passes. IAnd this is why I cannot fathom ever reaching the emotional equilibrium whereby my grieving for this event becomes relegated to one,or two days a year.

And of course there were also the changes the crimes left.
I can recall immediately seeing and feeling a dramatic shift in the way that people behaved towards one another in the months that followed 911. There was a new sense of commonality that had never been there before., a connectedness among just about everyone, this decidedly did not exist prior to the attacks. 

Also there was the en - masse  rejection of  all  things vapid  tasteless violent and unimportant.
Nowhere was this more obvious than the entertainment industry; All films depicting gratuitous violence, (especially terrorism of any kind) were quietly but determinedly censored, or rejected out of hand by Film and Studio heads. This was the first time in my life that I had ever witnessed any kind of Censorship, for any reason, in this Country. And for the first time ever, it didn't seem like such a bad thing.

People were kinder towards one another, there seemed an elemental change in what we all viewed as being important. A pushing away of monetary pursuits and obsessions, a return towards family friends and community.I remember thinking ' how ironic - these evil acts, had, in the end, unwittingly served to do good, defeating the very evil that brought them all to bear;  They bought us back full circle to the things that truly mattered.. It seemed for a time that the entire country's value system had made a dramatic shift for the better.

To be continued

Aug 5, 2011

Komisarjevsky Motion denied - objects to being called evil etc in Petit family murder memorium

Honestly, do these lawyers have a brain between the three of them? 

Great thinking guys encourage your child rapist client to continue an adversarial stance towards the sole survivor of a triple murder that he literally Masterminded! A set of brutal crimes that resulted in three innocent members of the Petit family of Cheshire Connecticut,  being sexually assaulted and murdered, including a child and a 17 year old girl, both brutally murdered by fire. 

And why all of this mayhem? 
Because Joshua Komisarjevsky decided on July 23rd 2007 that he wanted to rape an 11 year old girl whom his predatorial brain had locked onto, spotting Michaela Petit  and her mom Jennifer at a neighborhood supermarket. That is why these crimes happened, and this is who made them happen.

The murders were ultimately committed in order to destroy DNA and other evidence of the kidnappings,. rapes, assaults,  as well as getting rid of all witnesses to the crimes..

The $15,000 that Komisarjevsky extracted from Jennifer Petit, who believed that she was buying her family's safety, was merely an added bonus to these two men. They likely intitially figured that they'd grab some  jewelry,small electronics they could sell and if lucky, some cash, but the main motivation was clearly sexual assault .

And despite all of  Komisarjevsky's repeated  indignancy over such issues as the Petit family wearing small pins representing their charitable foundation, into court, and whether his family gets as many seats as the victim's family at the trial,  well this only speaks to the very evil which is at the core of this entire nonsensical motion. A motion that like the other thirty plus or so that the public defenders for komisarjevsky have continuously spewed out for months now, has cost the taxpayers of this state hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And not for nothing, attorneys Donovan, Bansford and Co: but didnt this very same client who says he's being demonized in the public by a memorial, just over a year and half ago, eagerly co-write a published book about the Petit murders?   And completely disregarding the gag order that had restrained the ploice lawyers family victims and prosecutors from discussing any details of this same set of crimes?

A book that included komisarjevsky bragging about beating William Petit while he lay sleeping on his sun porch, striking him repeatedly with a wooden bat, "'swinging 10-15  times, as hard as I could, as if chopping wood"' 

And as if this wasn't bad enough, within the very same book, Komisarjevsky, admitted child rapist, repeatedly insults the victim of his near deadly baseball Bat assault, for not escaping or fighting whilst he was suffering from traumatic brain injury severe blood loss, and zip-tied hand and foot tied to a pole in his basement with a garbage bag on his head!
Mind you. this is the man whose family members komisarjevsky raped and then murdered by burning them to death,  tied to their beds, after pouring gasoline all over thier beds and their bodies and lighting a trail of fire as he and Hayes ran out of the home laughing. These were a set of crimes that he admits without saying so explicity, would never have happened if not for his targeting Michaela and Jennifer Petit at that supermarket, following them home casing the house and calling in a pal ito help him in a night of  assault terror rape and extortion.

And now, he and his lawyers have the audacity to talk about William Petit polluting the public image of  Mr Komisarjevsky within what was a rather restrained memoriam on the anniversary of the murders of his family. 

An interesting note here is that this is the second time that Mr komisarjevsky has loudly objected to being called an animal; the last time is a matter of public record and can be found online
in the court stenographers notes of his sentencing hearing for over 25 home break -ins, break -ins
 that led to his last prison stint. Mr Komisarjevsky had the nerve then to read a statement to the court objecting to the prosecutors portrayal of him as a "wild animal".

 He was also labeled a dangerous predator by that Judge, and in classic sociopath form, despite all of his
feigned indigence in front of the court, he later bragged about the label to fellow inmates in his halfway house,(also a matter of record, and on the Internet as well as a link in my archives.)
He was apparently immedietely mocked by the other men  upon hearing komisarjesvky bragging
that the Judge had called him a "dangerous predator" 

One man present recalled another inmate scoffing "What?You?!!  You're a weird dude,  you're 120 lbs soaking wet, yeah,  you're  a real dangerous predator..."  Ribald laughter followed by the group..
With the classic fragile ego of a psychopath, that insult likely stung Komisarjevsky more than anyone present ever knew,  he probably ruminated over it for months. It may have even contributed to his lighting upon the idea of escalating his by now rote break ins, and escalating to what was undoubtedely already a seed of criminal fantasy brewing in his twisted head; breaking into the home of a desirable girl and tying her up and sexual assaulting her. After all he had proven to himself time and again how easy it was to get into these womens homes. But being shrewd he knew he'd need a second hand man to pull this off, as he actually 128 lbs soaking wet to be exact and physically he'd have a hard time overcoming any male head of household oe even a teenaged boy or strong woman as was evidenced by his struggle with Hayely Petit who he admitted he needed Hayes to help him re-subdue..

In almost every instance of the home break-in' that Komisarjevsky was being sentenced for during the aforementioned sentencing hearing, the home owners were home during the robberies,something  komisarjevsky has widely admitted to preferring for the"excitement" of knowing that the homeowner was home and oftemn just yards away-usually sleeping,as he creepy crawled through thier home.He often made sure of exactly where the victim was by stalking them from outside their homes in trees etc- using night vision goggles and other tools.

Thus... the"dangerous predator, and "animal" labels from the Judge and prosecutor, who were simply stating the obvious. He predated and behaved as a predatorial animal does and clearly continued to do so
after he was released.

And this leads us to the next all important question: How did this man, who was given 9 years plus 6 of special parole by that very judge, get out of prison in just over two years, then sent to a halfway house, unencumbered by things like bars etc and soon released back into the unsuspecting Connecticut Public via " the early release parole program,"