Bouncer's Lawyer: He's not crazy.

[JellyBean]

*snip*

The lawyer representing a Manhattan bouncer linked to the killing of Imette St. Guillen yesterday all but ruled out an insanity defense if he is charged, while also stating his client would not testify before a grand jury now weighing his murder indictment.

O’Donnell has insisted his client is innocent and is being used as a scapegoat by police scrambling to solve a high-profile homicide. “He’s not going to testify at the grand jury,” O’Donnell said. “No chance.”

From here :
http://news.bostonherald.com/stGuillenMurder/view.bg?articleid=130737


Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/nyregion/16dead.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Court and Parole Transcripts Hint at Personality of a Suspect With Many Names

*snip*
The prisoner was angry. He was to appear before Justice Eugene P. Bambrick in Part K-11 of State Supreme Court in Queens to be sentenced for drug possession, but he would not enter the courtroom.
"He says he's not going," the court officer said, according to the minutes of the sentencing hearing, on a two-year-old drug charge, that January day in 1989. The prisoner, Damon Wells, was angry because his sentencing hearing was not being adjourned, and he could therefore not be married before going to prison, his lawyer, Robert Klein, explained.

JellyBean

[LovelyPigeon]

his client would not testify before a grand jury now weighing his murder indictment.

I'm under the impression that the subject of indictment never testifies before the grand jury weighing indictment against him/her. Is that a common thing to happen in NY?

[newtv]

*snip*

The lawyer representing a Manhattan bouncer linked to the killing of Imette St. Guillen yesterday all but ruled out an insanity defense if he is charged, while also stating his client would not testify before a grand jury now weighing his murder indictment.

O’Donnell has insisted his client is innocent and is being used as a scapegoat by police scrambling to solve a high-profile homicide. “He’s not going to testify at the grand jury,” O’Donnell said. “No chance.”

From here :
http://news.bostonherald.com/stGuillenMurder/view.bg?articleid=130737


Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/nyregion/16dead.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Court and Parole Transcripts Hint at Personality of a Suspect With Many Names

*snip*
The prisoner was angry. He was to appear before Justice Eugene P. Bambrick in Part K-11 of State Supreme Court in Queens to be sentenced for drug possession, but he would not enter the courtroom.
"He says he's not going," the court officer said, according to the minutes of the sentencing hearing, on a two-year-old drug charge, that January day in 1989. The prisoner, Damon Wells, was angry because his sentencing hearing was not being adjourned, and he could therefore not be married before going to prison, his lawyer, Robert Klein, explained.

JellyBean
piece of work this guy is- and I can recall just the other day - the day of the lineup he said the police were being really fair and he was thankful...he did not expect them to find the blood on the ties so was being especially gracious because he thot he would walk- but they should get that clip of his lawyer saying that-heard it with my own ears.

[Voice of Reason]

I'm under the impression that the subject of indictment never testifies before the grand jury weighing indictment against him/her. Is that a common thing to happen in NY?
They often do testify. Whatever they say cannot be used at trial, and since grand juries are secret, it is supposed to "stay" in the room. It is a suspects only chance to tell his side of the story since most don't testify at trial.

EDIT TO ADD: I wonder if he is opting against testifying at the grand jury hearing because this case is so high profile. Perhaps he fears leaks or unfair judgment of him. Also, his lawyer may think that the cops don't have enough, and so if he just sits back, perhaps he thinks they won't indict? Although I doubt that...they can indict a ham sandwich, right?

[strach304]

I'm back, there are many statements his lawyer is making to the press that are untrue and might just be proved soon enough so like Littlejohn he should shut up before he makes enough people irate enough to call him on the carpet. DL is by no means stupid is why he will not be testifying at his grand jury, he knows there's a lot of info out there about him he just doesn't know yet what else is coming at him as of yet.

If you go back to some of the early posts you'll see where I already brought up his reasonings or so he said at the time for his many aliases and alter-egos so regardless of what his lawyer is saying DL has always had the multiple personality disorder excuse in his mind and now it would seem over the years he's just added more. Never thought it would work for him then nor now but you see he thinks he's so much smarter than the professionals. Of course he won't be happy when his lawyer tells him it won't fly. I could certainly testify as a character witness that he's insane though. :(

[T'sNana]

I have never seen attorneys and/or clients giving so much press time as I have lately. I heard Rita Cosby interviewing him the other night (I'll see if I can find the quote/link/transcript) and she asked if she felt he was innocent and the attorney just said that he would represent him to the best of his ability like any other client....to me, that is telling. I know that a lot of criminal defense attorneys don't want to know if their clients are guilty or innocent or they don't even try to think about it...they just defend them. He said he saw no scratches on his neck either.

ETA: From Rita Cosby


COSBY: Do you—again, does he say he had nothing to do with Imette‘s—you know, the rape, the torture, any of those angles of that night?

O‘DONNELL: He‘s going to plead not guilty, and I am going to defend him to the best of my abilities.

COSBY: Where was he that night? When we spoke on the phone, you said he went to work, and he went home. Is that accurate? Has he changed his story?

O‘DONNELL: Well, he went to work and he went home, just like he did the following night. There was no change in his behavior the following night. There were no scratches, and I see that there...

COSBY: No scratches? There‘s been reports that there was a scratch on his face. No scratch, no wounds?

O‘DONNELL: I didn‘t see any scratches, and I know that the police strip searched him and took pictures. I‘d like to see those pictures.

COSBY: But you—you understand—and you‘ve seen him? No scratch on his neck, no visible scratch on his neck?

O‘DONNELL: Nothing at all.

COSBY: Nothing—and you‘re sure of that? He‘s even—you‘ve verified that yourself?

O‘DONNELL: I‘ve seen it—I saw it with my own two eyes.

COSBY: And there is nothing visible, from what you‘ve seen.

O‘DONNELL: Nothing.




http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11842090/

[txsvicki]

So, basically the lawyer is saying that he didn't see the scratches. He's not saying that they aren't there or that he searched for them. He hadn't even seen the nude photos or probably looked at the back of the creep's neck under the neck of the shirt.

[Mygirlsadie]

He would not enter the courtroom? So why did he even have that choice? Why do prisoners have rights? IMO if you do something so criminal and disgusting you forfeit all your rights.



*snip*

The lawyer representing a Manhattan bouncer linked to the killing of Imette St. Guillen yesterday all but ruled out an insanity defense if he is charged, while also stating his client would not testify before a grand jury now weighing his murder indictment.

O’Donnell has insisted his client is innocent and is being used as a scapegoat by police scrambling to solve a high-profile homicide. “He’s not going to testify at the grand jury,” O’Donnell said. “No chance.”

From here :
http://news.bostonherald.com/stGuillenMurder/view.bg?articleid=130737


Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/nyregion/16dead.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Court and Parole Transcripts Hint at Personality of a Suspect With Many Names

*snip*
The prisoner was angry. He was to appear before Justice Eugene P. Bambrick in Part K-11 of State Supreme Court in Queens to be sentenced for drug possession, but he would not enter the courtroom.
"He says he's not going," the court officer said, according to the minutes of the sentencing hearing, on a two-year-old drug charge, that January day in 1989. The prisoner, Damon Wells, was angry because his sentencing hearing was not being adjourned, and he could therefore not be married before going to prison, his lawyer, Robert Klein, explained.

JellyBean

[nanandjim]

They often do testify. Whatever they say cannot be used at trial, and since grand juries are secret, it is supposed to "stay" in the room. It is a suspects only chance to tell his side of the story since most don't testify at trial.

EDIT TO ADD: I wonder if he is opting against testifying at the grand jury hearing because this case is so high profile. Perhaps he fears leaks or unfair judgment of him. Also, his lawyer may think that the cops don't have enough, and so if he just sits back, perhaps he thinks they won't indict? Although I doubt that...they can indict a ham sandwich, right?
Also, if it is proven that he lied to the grand jury, federal charges of perjury can be brought against him.

I remember a case in Kentucky many years ago where the accused, a successful businessman, Mel Ignatow, testified at a grand jury that indicted him for murdering his fiance, Brenda Sue Shaeffer. Basically, he said that he didn't kill her and had dropped her off somewhere that evening, if I recall correctly.

Even though another woman testified that she helped him murder his fiance, the jury acquitted this guy of her murder! It was absolutely unreal.

He had sold his home to finance his defense. The new owner found film and photos that were hidden in a vent while tearing up the place to renovate. The photos showed the rape, torture and murder of his fiance. Because of double jeopardy, he could not be retried.

Well, in steps the federal government to charge him with lying to the grand jury. I think that he got 10 years for it. At least, he got something for this poor girl's murder.

So, it would be smart for LJ not to testify, especially if he committed the crime.

I found this article on Mel. I wish that there was a photo of Brenda Sue. She was much younger than Mel and beautiful. He killed her because she had planned to break up with him.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/12/02/loc_killer_faces_new.html

[strach304]

He'd be smart not to say anything as of yet not knowing what evidence they have and no idea of what their defense is gonna be based on that evidence. DL testifying now and saying one thing and then changing it to fit the evidence later would hurt his case for sure. His lawyer has already said he isn't aware of the evidence and we know the DA doesn't have to present everything right now just enough for the indictment.

[Mygirlsadie]

Also, if it is proven that he lied to the grand jury, federal charges of perjury can be brought against him.

I remember a case in Kentucky many years ago where the accused, a successful businessman, Mel Ignatow, testified at a grand jury that indicted him for murdering his fiance, Brenda Sue Shaeffer. Basically, he said that he didn't kill her and had dropped her off somewhere that evening, if I recall correctly.

Even though another woman testified that she helped him murder his fiance, the jury acquitted this guy of her murder! It was absolutely unreal.

He had sold his home to finance his defense. The new owner found film and photos that were hidden in a vent while tearing up the place to renovate. The photos showed the rape, torture and murder of his fiance. Because of double jeopardy, he could not be retried.

Well, in steps the federal government to charge him with lying to the grand jury. I think that he got 10 years for it. At least, he got something for this poor girl's murder.

So, it would be smart for LJ not to testify, especially if he committed the crime.

I found this article on Mel. I wish that there was a photo of Brenda Sue. She was much younger than Mel and beautiful. He killed her because she had planned to break up with him.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/12/02/loc_killer_faces_new.html

Wow Nan that story is unreal. I can't believe it...I mean I do believe it but it just blows my mind. Guess if it were my daughter I would of had to take the law into my own hands and probably would get LWOP but I probably wouldnt care...how sad

[fran]

He had sold his home to finance his defense. The new owner found film and photos that were hidden in a vent while tearing up the place to renovate. The photos showed the rape, torture and murder of his fiance. Because of double jeopardy, he could not be retried.

Well, in steps the federal government to charge him with lying to the grand jury. I think that he got 10 years for it. At least, he got something for this poor girl's murder.

So, it would be smart for LJ not to testify, especially if he committed the crime.

Nan, I remember this case. It was horrible, IMHO.

fran

[concernedperson]

Fellow bouncer to testify. Apparently the GJ is meeting today. At least there is another witness..

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_076113140.html

[concernedperson]

Oops, another bouncer with a checkered past. Tim Catella.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_076115314.html

[fran]

He would not enter the courtroom? So why did he even have that choice? Why do prisoners have rights? IMO if you do something so criminal and disgusting you forfeit all your rights.


You know, I saw this attorney on a show the other night and something he said really got to me.

He said, "The victim and her family deserve justice. The accused is entitled to justice."

It just got to me how he said it. Sounds almost elitist, 'entitled' ie 'entitlement.' Just hit me the wrong way. Separating the two, ie. deserve is of lessor value than 'entitled.'

I guess that's because it doesn't matter what he gets if he did this, it won't bring back Imette nor erase what he did (if he did) to her.

Just an observation, FWIW
fran

[docwho3]

You know, I saw this attorney on a show the other night and something he said really got to me.

He said, "The victim and her family deserve justice. The accused is entitled to justice." . . . It sounds as if he is saying that the victem & family may be deserving of justice but that they are in no way entitled to justice under the law. I personally think that with victem impact statements being allowed now that things are changing more and more to give the victems and their families more legal entitlement to justice.

I also note that having a trial seems in one small way an entitlement to justice for the victem.

[strach304]

Fran, I'm really glad you brought up your feelings about the entitlement aspect and just how that made you feel imo is one of the major factors that figure into these kinds of crimes from the criminals perspective. Over and over again during the Scott Peterson trial I kept asking myself who the hell does he think he is? That of course wasn't the first time I felt that way but it is the one case that I have never gotten past it. I see the same thing with this one even more so after the media reported statements DL was supposed to have made about not understanding what all the fuss was about, etc. I know you can't believe everything the media puts out there but this I don't doubt because it fits with the crime and his personality. He is simply the type that will take what he wants from whoever he wants it from if that is the only way to obtain it.

[fran]

Fran, I'm really glad you brought up your feelings about the entitlement aspect and just how that made you feel imo is one of the major factors that figure into these kinds of crimes from the criminals perspective. Over and over again during the Scott Peterson trial I kept asking myself who the hell does he think he is? That of course wasn't the first time I felt that way but it is the one case that I have never gotten past it. I see the same thing with this one even more so after the media reported statements DL was supposed to have made about not understanding what all the fuss was about, etc. I know you can't believe everything the media puts out there but this I don't doubt because it fits with the crime and his personality. He is simply the type that will take what he wants from whoever he wants it from if that is the only way to obtain it.

I always got that vibe from the SP case as well. Just the tilt of his head or the look on his face made me think he was thinking,'what's the big deal?' Seriously, it was like everyone was in his way and the whole trial was a nuisance. Like he was thinking, 'look, she's gone and so is the kid, get over it. Quick too because I have a life to get on with and another girl waiting in the wings.' :behindbar

I don't know all that much about this perp or suspect, but from what I've been reading, he appears to be the same way. Like calling the reporter because LE were 'bugging him' by following him. :p Now his attorney seems to be a media hound. I wouldn't doubt in the least that this attorney ends up not representing him if there is a trial.

JMHO
fran

[BirdieBoo]

You know, I saw this attorney on a show the other night and something he said really got to me.

He said, "The victim and her family deserve justice. The accused is entitled to justice."

It just got to me how he said it. Sounds almost elitist, 'entitled' ie 'entitlement.' Just hit me the wrong way. Separating the two, ie. deserve is of lessor value than 'entitled.'

I guess that's because it doesn't matter what he gets if he did this, it won't bring back Imette nor erase what he did (if he did) to her.

Just an observation, FWIW
fran

I think this is more of a commentary of how the system works (or doesn't work) in the fact that criminals are entitled to their far trial, oftentimes in the course of the criminal's fair trial, the victim is unfairly placed on trial as well.

[strach304]

Anyone who knows DL personally may say that mo'fo's crazy as a slang description and most would know what that means but since "crazy" can be misconstrued as a legal term and defense for insanity how's EVIL? I like that better anyway for this particular person since multiple meanings can't be applied. I use the word crazy sometimes as my mother did when referring to someone extremely funny as in wacky for instance, bold and there are others as well.
His lawyer doesn't know him and his history so he might be in for a little surprise himself if DL feels trapped like a rat by the evidence. We shall see.