TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #12

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only advantage Vanessa has over GT is that her size and sex make it easier to say she was afraid to fight the four big men. IMO

Her DNA on the binds could be explained by the fact that they were made from her bedsheets. The defense will undoubtedly point out that Daphne's DNA was found, along with LD's and Channon's, on those bed sheets, so they're even that way, I think.

But personally, I'd rather see her fried than GT. Her interrogation was more chilling than any of the men's, to me. She not only lied repeatedly, but she was utterly emotionless, and as a female, who should have had some measure of sympathy... it was just more chilling.

I also believed from the first time I read it that she was the one who inflicted the blunt-force trauma and raped Channon with an object, out of jealousy.

So, I don't think I even want to cut her a deal to talk, unless it's for a LWOP instead of death (I doubt she'd get death anyway.) Boyd already has 18 years, and will surely get at least 20 more if they just get him before a jury.

...just thinking out loud...
 
I'm not sure why Boyd hasnt been charged, but I have some ideas. For some reason, the feds charged Boyd quickly and tried him. So there was no need for the state to charge him in order to keep him incarcerated; they can take their time. Remember, if the state charges him, they must give him a speedy trial. This way they can see what happens in the other trials, to try to get more evidence against him (since the existing evidence -minus the statements of the other defendants which can't be admitted - isn't very strong). My other theory is that Boyd has some sort of deal with the feds that may prevent another trial.

Re my bold:
Who knows, but I have read that he told the
Knoxville PD where Davidson was hiding out, so they might have been the ones who cut the deal.
 
The only advantage Vanessa has over GT is that her size and sex make it easier to say she was afraid to fight the four big men. IMO

Her DNA on the binds could be explained by the fact that they were made from her bedsheets. The defense will undoubtedly point out that Daphne's DNA was found, along with LD's and Channon's, on those bed sheets, so they're even that way, I think.

But personally, I'd rather see her fried than GT. Her interrogation was more chilling than any of the men's, to me. She not only lied repeatedly, but she was utterly emotionless, and as a female, who should have had some measure of sympathy... it was just more chilling.

I also believed from the first time I read it that she was the one who inflicted the blunt-force trauma and raped Channon with an object, out of jealousy.

So, I don't think I even want to cut her a deal to talk, unless it's for a LWOP instead of death (I doubt she'd get death anyway.) Boyd already has 18 years, and will surely get at least 20 more if they just get him before a jury.

...just thinking out loud...

:clap: 1,000% agree. (100% wasn't enough!)
 
PW, or anyone else, could the judge knock the verdicts down to facilitation? Or, is he limited to accepting either the jury's verdict as it stands or the defense's motion for full acquittal as it stands?

Muffet, i'm not a criminal lawyer, just civil/business law, and law school was a long time ago. But I do beleive that the judge could find facilitation or any of the other lesser included offenses.
 
The only advantage Vanessa has over GT is that her size and sex make it easier to say she was afraid to fight the four big men. IMO

Her DNA on the binds could be explained by the fact that they were made from her bedsheets. The defense will undoubtedly point out that Daphne's DNA was found, along with LD's and Channon's, on those bed sheets, so they're even that way, I think.

But personally, I'd rather see her fried than GT. Her interrogation was more chilling than any of the men's, to me. She not only lied repeatedly, but she was utterly emotionless, and as a female, who should have had some measure of sympathy... it was just more chilling.

I also believed from the first time I read it that she was the one who inflicted the blunt-force trauma and raped Channon with an object, out of jealousy.

So, I don't think I even want to cut her a deal to talk, unless it's for a LWOP instead of death (I doubt she'd get death anyway.) Boyd already has 18 years, and will surely get at least 20 more if they just get him before a jury.


...just thinking out loud...

Agree, agree, agree. On all counts. ;)

It positively is more chilling to me when it's a female--and I'm sorry but the moment I saw her mugshot she appeared the most hardened and evil out of any of these thugs. Mafact (matter of fact lol) I don't believe for one minute she just kindly offered Channon water and to loosen her bindings :rolleyes: I fully believe VC participated in beating and brutalized her just as you say... nope I ain't cuttin any deals either.:no: :snooty:





:parrot:
 
The only advantage Vanessa has over GT is that her size and sex make it easier to say she was afraid to fight the four big men. IMO

Her DNA on the binds could be explained by the fact that they were made from her bedsheets. The defense will undoubtedly point out that Daphne's DNA was found, along with LD's and Channon's, on those bed sheets, so they're even that way, I think.

But personally, I'd rather see her fried than GT. Her interrogation was more chilling than any of the men's, to me. She not only lied repeatedly, but she was utterly emotionless, and as a female, who should have had some measure of sympathy... it was just more chilling.

I also believed from the first time I read it that she was the one who inflicted the blunt-force trauma and raped Channon with an object, out of jealousy.

So, I don't think I even want to cut her a deal to talk, unless it's for a LWOP instead of death (I doubt she'd get death anyway.) Boyd already has 18 years, and will surely get at least 20 more if they just get him before a jury.

...just thinking out loud...

I agree. At first i thought she was pro bably just caught up in this. But as i saw the other trials, I began to realize that she HAD to be more involved. There were times she almost certainly was alone wtih Channon (when the other guys were in the SUV). And I agree that it makes much much more sense that the blunt force trauma to channon was from Vanessa than from one of the guys. Plus, she ended up with some of Channon's belongings, so right there the prosecution is further than they were wtih GT. I think the prosecution should try to get as many women on the jury for her. They will be angry that she didnt try to help another woman.
 
On Wednesday, they will begin hearing testimony about whether Thomas should receive a death sentence for his murder convictions. They could also choose to give him life without parole.

The prosecution plans to present witness-impact statements during the hearing from the Newsom and Christian families.

Dillard said he and Johnson plan to present testimony from six witnesses.

Deena Christian said she hoped the jury would return a death verdict but she said she could accept life without parole.

After sentencing, Dillard renewed the defense's motion to acquit.


(full article at link)

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/dec/08/jury-deliver-verdict-george-thomas-case/

:parrot:
 
Kiki, i was surprised to hear that the defense did not plan on calling a mental health expert witness. That is something that almost all capital defense teams do. So obviously he was seen by an expert and found to be perfectly normal mentally and intelligent.
 
Muffet, i'm not a criminal lawyer, just civil/business law, and law school was a long time ago. But I do beleive that the judge could find facilitation or any of the other lesser included offenses.

Thanks, Prairie. :)

If he can do that, it wouldn't surprise me too much if he did, at least on some of the charges. Except, I would expect him to do it before the jury decides on the penalty... or maybe he'd only do it if they choose the death penalty. :waitasec:

The problem is that, IMO, there was some jury nullification in reverse with these 46 verdicts. Not that I blame them for it all, because I believe the reason they did it was that even to facilitate crimes as heinous as these were is more reprehensible, unforgivable, and deserving of a higher penalty than what might be available - or unappealable - for facilitation.

It was notable that, in the presentment, the penalties for 1st degree felony murder (by virtue of direct action or criminal responsibility) were given to them: death, LWOP, and life. But there were no penalty options listed for facilitation.

They might have wanted to choose the verdict they knew would give them the penalty options they wanted, and with facilitation being called a "lesser charge," they may have feared being stuck with options that were inadequate.

But then, I wonder why they didn't ask what their options would be... or maybe they did and we weren't told?

I'm still googling, but so far, nothing. Except this, which is somewhat interesting:
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tsc/PDF/043/RobinsnGD.pdf

Scanning it, it looks like that guy got 25 years per count, to be served consecutively. It was upheld, but there were issues with regard to proportionality. (*In reading more carefully, the issue was with one of his cohorts, who got the death penalty, and the sentence compared to the other cohorts.)

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I'm just very curious as to how all of this is going to be treated. I admit I wish they had at least found him guilty of lesser charges on a few things, like they did Davidson - who still got death.

Doing it that way just seems to validate the jury's verdict and make the punishment more likely to be carried out without so much hassle.
 
he would, I believe, need to find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would lead to a conviction on the charge. I was reading some case dicta from TN on criminal responsibility for first degree murder. It reads in part:

“A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense, if the offense is committed by the person’s own conduct, by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally responsible, or by both.” T.C.A. § 39-11-401(a). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11- 402(2) provides that an appellant is criminally responsible for the actions of another when, “[a]cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, [Appellant] solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense . . . .” The appellant must “‘in some way associate himself with the venture, act with knowledge that an offense is to be committed, and share in the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree.’” State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)). The defendant’s requisite criminal intent may be inferred from his “presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.”

and

"A defendant convicted under a criminal responsibility theory “is guilty in the same degree as the principal who committed the crime” and “is considered to be a principal offender.” Id. at 171. Criminal responsibility is not a separate crime; rather, it is “solely a theory by which the State may prove the defendant’s guilt of the alleged offense . . . based upon the conduct of another person.” Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d at 170. Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual’s “[p]resence and companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of [an] offense are circumstances from which [his or her] participation in the crime may be inferred.” State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). No particular act need be shown, and the defendant need not have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally responsible. Id."

I find this dicta helpful and I certainly hope the judge leaves all verdicts intact for the defense to appeal. They will certainly apeal no matter what so I hope he is willing to just leave things be. It seems to be reasoanable that the jury inferred his criminal responsibility properly under the law. I also think this is so very different from, say, a fight between two people or someone who doesn't stop a friend from shoplifting. What happened here was inhuman. Who among us would not help a stranger in distress never mind a person beign murdered in a home where you were staying. That in itself is not reasonable behavior.

I hope the same hold true for the woman. I'm not sure she can play the little bitty scared girl. When did she ever express fear? A normal person who was in fear would have run from that house and called 911. Why would you stay and cook if you were so scared? Perhaps you can also reasonable infer that she and everyone else present participated by way of ensuring all would keep quiet. I haven't followed this case closely but I have wondered if the pros could have argued such a theory-that all present who were aware were invovled in order to ensure their keeping quiet. Wasn't there another girl who came over but was not allowed to see anything? Why would VC be allowed to see the victims unless she were an equal participant. I wouldn't feel bad about arguing that as I think they collectively participated and are all truly equally guilty.


PW, or anyone else, could the judge knock the verdicts down to facilitation? Or, is he limited to accepting either the jury's verdict as it stands or the defense's motion for full acquittal as it stands?
 
I was wondering if GT's mother and aunt were in the court room when the verdict came in? How did they react to it, anyone hear or see anything?

If you read VC's statements to police at first she said that GT told her he felt ashamed for what he did to Chris....for shooting him, but then she makes a comment that it was Rome that shot Chris and when questioned she quickly changes it. VC throws LD and GT under the bus she pretty much said E was not involved except she thought she heard him talking when she was in the shower but never said she saw him at the house. Then you have Rome that throws LD and E under the bus, Rome and his gang just wanted out of there, Rome and Thomas really try to protect each other in their statements. If I remember correctly Davidson pretty much blamed his brother and Thomas. I have to go back and listen to Davidson's again. The only thing I don't get with E is if he was involved in the murders why didn't VC throw him into the mix with her statements. We know she was trying to protect Rome, so she could have placed E in his spot but she didn't that just puzzles me she comes off as never seeing E at the house. Ok now I am thinking out loud. I really REALLY dislike her and hope to hell she gets death.
 
Julie, it isnt possible to recite these peoples statements wtihout "rambling." lol.
But thanks for the recap of the statments. I forget who said what. I always got the gut feeling that it was Slim and E and GT that brutalized and killed Chris. Slim just needed to get ridof him, and used it as a chance to see what George "was made of" and made George pull the trigger. I suspect much of the rape of Chris was E, since it was reported that E hated white people. If you recall, while everone gave accounts of much of what happened, NO ONE ever said anyting about Chris's rape.
 
Oh, Julie, i ws wondering the same thing about George's family members. I couldnt see them, but the camera never panned over that far. I'm sure they will be there tomorrow.
 
I was wondering if GT's mother and aunt were in the court room when the verdict came in? How did they react to it, anyone hear or see anything?

If you read VC's statements to police at first she said that GT told her he felt ashamed for what he did to Chris....for shooting him, but then she makes a comment that it was Rome that shot Chris and when questioned she quickly changes it. VC throws LD and GT under the bus she pretty much said E was not involved except she thought she heard him talking when she was in the shower but never said she saw him at the house. Then you have Rome that throws LD and E under the bus, Rome and his gang just wanted out of there, Rome and Thomas really try to protect each other in their statements. If I remember correctly Davidson pretty much blamed his brother and Thomas. I have to go back and listen to Davidson's again. The only thing I don't get with E is if he was involved in the murders why didn't VC throw him into the mix with her statements. We know she was trying to protect Rome, so she could have placed E in his spot but she didn't that just puzzles me she comes off as never seeing E at the house. Ok now I am thinking out loud. I really REALLY dislike her and hope to hell she gets death.

Hey Julie!!!! VC did everything in her statement but point the finger at Letalvis, Rome, LC...whatever you wanna call him. At the time you gotta remember she was his girlfriend and was attempting to cover for him (IMO) in her stories, but then I think she started to get confused and she started to be threatened (again, IMO) with some jail time herself if her stories didn't start adding up...and I think tha'ts when she started to include LC.

As for E, I think that he is one of the main players in this case. I think that he was behind this just as much (if not more, IMO) as LD. Boyd is significantly older than the other defendents, I think he was 34 when they were arrested?? Am I wrong in that? I think that he was more powerful (in gang related and criminal history) than LD was, and I think in some ways LD and maybe even LC were trying to "impress" him with thier actions, and because of this all are afraid to finger him completely in any of this. At least that's the only thing I can think of as to why they won't say what part he had.

IDK, just my opinions...I've been proven wrong numerous times before! :)
 
Julie, it isnt possible to recite these peoples statements wtihout "rambling." lol.
But thanks for the recap of the statments. I forget who said what. I always got the gut feeling that it was Slim and E and GT that brutalized and killed Chris. Slim just needed to get ridof him, and used it as a chance to see what George "was made of" and made George pull the trigger. I suspect much of the rape of Chris was E, since it was reported that E hated white people. If you recall, while everone gave accounts of much of what happened, NO ONE ever said anyting about Chris's rape.

I think it was only VC that made the comment she heard Slim say to G your going to have to prove yourself, but she was trying to protect her Rome. When pushed she did throw Rome under for the rape of Channon, but that is all she put on him. She never said anything about even seeing E she said the guys left by foot from what she could remember, not saying E didn't do any of it I just find it crazy that she didn't throw him into the mix. I always felt it was Slim and Rome that did the murders and rapes, I feel G was there and he deserves whatever he gets, same with VC I do feel like that others she most likely did the beating to Channon's parts and the coldness in all of them is just unthinkable.
Oh I know what I wanted to say I always thought it was Davidson that did the rape on Chris because he had just gotten out of jail and sad to say in jail, middle class young white men are owned by the bigger population if you know what I am mean it is a status thing. Slim couldn't say anything about the rape of Chris because it would put him at the seen of the crime. Chris's pants were never found so I don't think it took place in the house....still thinking out loud here.
 
he would, I believe, need to find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would lead to a conviction on the charge. I was reading some case dicta from TN on criminal responsibility for first degree murder. It reads in part:

“A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense, if the offense is committed by the person’s own conduct, by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally responsible, or by both.” T.C.A. § 39-11-401(a). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11- 402(2) provides that an appellant is criminally responsible for the actions of another when, “[a]cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, [Appellant] solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense . . . .” The appellant must “‘in some way associate himself with the venture, act with knowledge that an offense is to be committed, and share in the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree.[/COLOR]’” State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)). The defendant’s requisite criminal intent may be inferred from his “presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.”

and

"A defendant convicted under a criminal responsibility theory “is guilty in the same degree as the principal who committed the crime” and “is considered to be a principal offender.” Id. at 171. Criminal responsibility is not a separate crime; rather, it is “solely a theory by which the State may prove the defendant’s guilt of the alleged offense . . . based upon the conduct of another person.” Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d at 170. Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual’s “[p]resence and companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of [an] offense are circumstances from which [his or her] participation in the crime may be inferred.” State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). No particular act need be shown, and the defendant need not have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally responsible. Id."

I find this dicta helpful and I certainly hope the judge leaves all verdicts intact for the defense to appeal. They will certainly apeal no matter what so I hope he is willing to just leave things be. It seems to be reasoanable that the jury inferred his criminal responsibility properly under the law. I also think this is so very different from, say, a fight between two people or someone who doesn't stop a friend from shoplifting. What happened here was inhuman. Who among us would not help a stranger in distress never mind a person beign murdered in a home where you were staying. That in itself is not reasonable behavior.

I hope the same hold true for the woman. I'm not sure she can play the little bitty scared girl. When did she ever express fear? A normal person who was in fear would have run from that house and called 911. Why would you stay and cook if you were so scared?
Perhaps you can also reasonable infer that she and everyone else present participated by way of ensuring all would keep quiet. I haven't followed this case closely but I have wondered if the pros could have argued such a theory-that all present who were aware were invovled in order to ensure their keeping quiet. Wasn't there another girl who came over but was not allowed to see anything? Why would VC be allowed to see the victims unless she were an equal participant. I wouldn't feel bad about arguing that as I think they collectively participated and are all truly equally guilty.


(bbm) thanks btm, ITA. If you haven't already, it was a privilege to hear prosecution's closing arguments given yesterday, they addressed these elements as stated above. GT admitted in his interview that the plan was to expressly "JACK" (vs "steal") a car--language explicitly used for a crime which TK (prosecutor) deftly pointed out to the jury in closing entails kidnapping and/or killing victims--it is implicit in order to keep victims from reporting. GT concedes being in on these plans both beforehand AND afterward--during which time he could easily, as Price (the other prosecutor) argued, have chosen to leave and refused to be involved or even sought help.

And VC puttin pj's on, cookin and carryin on like nothin's wrong doesn't sound like "fear" to me either friend...
:rolleyes:

:parrot:
 
he would, I believe, need to find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would lead to a conviction on the charge. I was reading some case dicta from TN on criminal responsibility for first degree murder. It reads in part:

“A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense, if the offense is committed by the person’s own conduct, by the conduct of another for which the person is criminally responsible, or by both.” T.C.A. § 39-11-401(a). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11- 402(2) provides that an appellant is criminally responsible for the actions of another when, “[a]cting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, [Appellant] solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense . . . .” The appellant must “‘in some way associate himself with the venture, act with knowledge that an offense is to be committed, and share in the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree.’” State v. Maxey, 898 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting Hembree v. State, 546 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)). The defendant’s requisite criminal intent may be inferred from his “presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.”

and

"A defendant convicted under a criminal responsibility theory “is guilty in the same degree as the principal who committed the crime” and “is considered to be a principal offender.” Id. at 171. Criminal responsibility is not a separate crime; rather, it is “solely a theory by which the State may prove the defendant’s guilt of the alleged offense . . . based upon the conduct of another person.” Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d at 170. Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual’s “[p]resence and companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of [an] offense are circumstances from which [his or her] participation in the crime may be inferred.” State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). No particular act need be shown, and the defendant need not have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally responsible. Id."

I find this dicta helpful and I certainly hope the judge leaves all verdicts intact for the defense to appeal. They will certainly apeal no matter what so I hope he is willing to just leave things be. It seems to be reasoanable that the jury inferred his criminal responsibility properly under the law. I also think this is so very different from, say, a fight between two people or someone who doesn't stop a friend from shoplifting. What happened here was inhuman. Who among us would not help a stranger in distress never mind a person beign murdered in a home where you were staying. That in itself is not reasonable behavior.

Thank you, Boytwnmom. :) ITA that not doing anything to stop it was inhuman. :no:

I had thought the way they worded the part about companions in the jury instructions just wasn't as clear as it should have been:
A person cannot be held criminally responsible for the conduct of another if
that person has knowledge of the other’s crime yet fails to act, prevent the crime,
render aid, or report the crime. A person’s presence at the scene of a crime, along with
an association with the perpetrator of that crime, does not make one criminally
responsible
. Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual's presence and
companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of an
offense are circumstances from which his participation or criminal intent in the crime
may be inferred
.
Presence at the crime and association with the perp doesn't make someone criminally responsible, because it just shows knowledge (facilitation), but presence and companionship can be used to infer intent (criminal responsibility).

...It still sounds contradictory, but the bottom line does seem to just leave it up to the jury to draw their own inference, doesn't it?

So it looks like the judge's overturning of their decision would nullify their right, as it's written, to have drawn that inference....
 
but will try to listen tonight. I can't listen during the day in the office. I have so much admiration for the prosecutors here. What a difficult, tedious and not terribly well paying job. I couldn't even stand doing civil litigation never mind this. The families and these prosecutors are such fine people. It's hard to even think of them as part of the same species as the defendants in this case. The level of depravity and inhumanity here is beyond belief. I am in awe of the family and prosecutors living this every day for how many years now? Too many in any event and it's not over yet.

I'm so grateful to this jury. I feel like they saw through the empty rhetoric and could determine that all there were part of this and all, no matter their role, were equally guilty. I can't imagine that anything can really comfort these families pain but at least the verdict did nto increase the injustice.




(bbm) thanks btm, ITA. If you haven't already, it was a privilege to hear prosecution's closing arguments given yesterday, they addressed these elements as stated above. GT admitted in his interview that the plan was to expressly "JACK" (vs "steal") a car--language explicitly used for a crime which TK (prosecutor) deftly pointed out to the jury in closing entails kidnapping and/or killing victims--it is implicit in order to keep victims from reporting. GT concedes being in on these plans both beforehand AND afterward--during which time he could easily, as Price (the other prosecutor) argued, have chosen to leave and refused to be involved or even sought help.

And VC puttin pj's on, cookin and carryin on like nothin's wrong doesn't sound like "fear" to me either friend...
:rolleyes:

:parrot:
 
but will try to listen tonight. I can't listen during the day in the office. I have so much admiration for the prosecutors here. What a difficult, tedious and not terribly well paying job. I couldn't even stand doing civil litigation never mind this. The families and these prosecutors are such fine people. It's hard to even think of them as part of the same species as the defendants in this case. The level of depravity and inhumanity here is beyond belief. I am in awe of the family and prosecutors living this every day for how many years now? Too many in any event and it's not over yet.

I'm so grateful to this jury. I feel like they saw through the empty rhetoric and could determine that all there were part of this and all, no matter their role, were equally guilty. I can't imagine that anything can really comfort these families pain but at least the verdict did nto increase the injustice.

(bbm) I said something much to this effect, they provide much-needed reassurance--for the families, and for all who are watching these trials and hearing of these unspeakable crimes-- in the midst of such depravity, that there is still a standard of decency and there are still righteous, honorable people. I too am very grateful for these unsung champions of justice... they "stand for goodness" too friend... :hug:

:parrot:
 
George would have been MUCH better off if had been tried along with the other defendants.

Yep, the canard is that it hurts defendants to be tried together, but I think it would have helped Thomas too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
2,480
Total visitors
2,657

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,670
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top