What a guy! https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/t4466 Runboard| What a guy! en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:19:57 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:19:57 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48876,from=rss#post48876https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48876,from=rss#post48876quote:katie5445 wrote: I preferred books by those who participated in the trial. Interesting. You prefer books by people who likely felt a need to attempt to defend what they did during the trial rather than a book by an outside observer with no ox to gore. I haven't read any of their books. It might be worth checking some of them out though to see what happened from their own personal point of view. Bugliosi provided an objective view of the proceedings from an outsider's viewpoint but also the viewpoint of one of the best prosecutors in the history of California as well as one of the better defense lawyers when he decided to switch sides. His book is full of inside information also. He had access to lots of evidence including Simpson's conversation with detectives soon after the murders. And of course he had access to the trial transcript and probably the TV broadcast of the trial so it wasn't as if he was just pontificating about what happened based on hearsay. To put it mildly the book is not a dry or dull commentary about the trial or the ridiculous verdict. About the only thing I disagree with him about is his implication that a better prosecution could have gotten a guilty verdict from that jury. You couldn't have gotten a guilty verdict from that jury with a video showing Simpson committing the murders. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 07 Nov 2019 02:55:22 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48874,from=rss#post48874https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48874,from=rss#post48874I preferred books by those who participated in the trial.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Thu, 07 Nov 2019 02:13:44 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48871,from=rss#post48871https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48871,from=rss#post48871quote:katie5445 wrote: I think you are missing what actually happened and you have made such statements in the police were "careless and over confident, well ya and that the DNA they trampled all valid blood evidence. I was not extremely biased for Simpson, like most thought he is and was guilty. It was a mess long before the jury. Try that case now instead of 25 yrs. ago, that DNA would have been clean and he'd still be in prison. I would highly recommend that you read Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Outrage" if you want to know the full story of what happened, including the truth about alleged contamination of evidence. It covers the case in detail. Even if the jury believed the blood evidence had been contaminated what about all the blood that was found in Simpson's car? How many people drive around with a car containing blood drops? Even without the blood evidence there was still plenty of evidence including Simpson's inconsistent accounts of how he received cuts on his hand. Usually when you cut your hand you do something to stop blood from dripping all over the place. Why didn't Simpson do that? There was plenty of evidence indicating Simpson was guilty of murder including that slow car chase on the highway. Why would an innocent man have pulled a ridiculous stunt like that? The problem was a biased and very stupid jury which hated the prosecutor Marcia Clark. They weren't going to convict him regardless of the evidence. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 05 Nov 2019 23:59:45 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48864,from=rss#post48864https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48864,from=rss#post48864I think you are missing what actually happened and you have made such statements in the police were "careless and over confident, well ya and that the DNA they trampled all valid blood evidence. I was not extremely biased for Simpson, like most thought he is and was guilty. It was a mess long before the jury. Try that case now instead of 25 yrs. ago, that DNA would have been clean and he'd still be in prison.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Mon, 04 Nov 2019 02:10:19 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48849,from=rss#post48849https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48849,from=rss#post48849With that same incompetent jury Simpson would not have been found guilty of murder no matter how good the DNA evidence was. They would simply have continued to claim the police planted the evidence, a ludicrous idea. Only people extremely biased in favor of Simpson and extremely indifferent to the victims would ever have believed that. Simpson left so much evidence all over the place that if anything the police were careless and overconfident. Also, there was so much of it that they may have mishandled some of it just due to the quantity and needing to keep track of it all. They certainly didn't need to do anything to try to frame him. Nor would any of them have done that jeopardizing their careers and pensions. They could have gone to prison. That case is a great illustration of just how ridiculous our jury system is. It was totally absurd and morally wrong to let a vicious murderer off the hook just because one cop had used the N word. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:40:45 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48841,from=rss#post48841https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48841,from=rss#post48841DNA was new to criminality and yes they ruined the DNA by contamination, all of it was trampled on, touched, moved. What they found was not "lots" of blood but plenty enough for DNA, if not contaminated and they did, once again fact. The first DNA used was in 1987 in the UK for conviction, the US had I think around 1989 using it in a handful of cases, which no one cared about. With OJ people cared. If they did it right, just a few short years later and the right way, OJ would be serving a life sentence. The Ford Bronco chase, that is not an admittance of guilt but I do think Al Cowlings helped him murder his ex and Goldman. OJ couldn't have taken both down like that on his own. Goldman may have been smaller but he was skilled in martial arts and I don't think OJ could have taken them both down in the manner he did without aid. Also OJ was 47, Goldman 26, my dad told me once for some weird reason, 40 against a 20 something, one good punch in 5 min. I win, after that, I'm toast.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:12:33 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48833,from=rss#post48833https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48833,from=rss#post48833quote:Lets compare, there are more women than men in this country, yet men make up 92.9% of those in prison and women 7.1.-katie Yes, because men commit many more crimes than women do. quote:Take African Americans, 13% of the population, yet the incarcerated is 34%, five times more than whites. African American women, twice as many as white women. Same reason. quote:The OJ case was won for several reason the biggie, the DNA which was quite new in crime cases was contaminated and that is a fact and ton of blood, I don't think so, they couldn't even find the vials of blood they drew and sent to the lab and there was Furhman, there were so many screw ups, I wasn't surprised by the jury. I thought he was guilty but you have to have more than "I think." They had a lot more than "I think." They had lots of blood evidence which wasn't all contaminated, assuming any of it was, they had a guy who got into a Ford Bronco and went on a scenic tour of LA while trying to decide whether or not to flee the country after figuring his goose was cooked due to all the evidence against him(He didn't need to worry about that too much in goofy La La Land as well as when one considers our jury system's track record). Then of course you have the little factor of his deeply cut finger about which he at first claimed ignorance. Of course he later changed that to it was cut by a cell phone or some such nonsense. Do you believe the police cut his finger? Not even the defense made that claim. The guy was obviously guilty of two counts of murder but all it took for him to avoid punishment for those vicious murders was picking one of the dumbest and most biased juries in the history of California and that's saying something. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:19:52 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48827,from=rss#post48827https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48827,from=rss#post48827Lets compare, there are more women than men in this country, yet men make up 92.9% of those in prison and women 7.1. Take African Americans, 13% of the population, yet the incarcerated is 34%, five times more than whites. African American women, twice as many as white women. If there was equal justice for any minority( and women being the majority) there would be a decline in the prison population of 40%. The OJ case was won for several reason the biggie, the DNA which was quite new in crime cases was contaminated and that is a fact and ton of blood, I don't think so, they couldn't even find the vials of blood they drew and sent to the lab and there was Furhman, there were so many screw ups, I wasn't surprised by the jury. I thought he was guilty but you have to have more than "I think."nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:03:30 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48819,from=rss#post48819https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48819,from=rss#post48819Think about it, pixie. Even if she had ineffective counsel all it took was one cop claiming that a woman confessed to him. There was no other evidence! No video of the confession, no audio and no written confession. Don't you think her defense counsel might have mentioned those rather relevant facts? Now compare that to the O. J. Simpson case where not only did cops find a ton of blood and other evidence against Simpson but there were a plethora of cops presenting evidence against him, not only just one. What did the jury supposedly believe? That because one cop had used the N word that whole group of cops plotted against Simpson and planted evidence to convict him of murder. Utterly ridiculous. Those two cases are great examples of jury stupidity in the extreme. In the case of Milke extreme prejudice and jury bias favoring Simpson in his case. Neither verdict made any sense at all. Women should be very concerned. All that may be required to send them to prison is just the word of one cop that they did something against the law and confessed it to him. In Milke's case that was her allegedly committing murder. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:43:11 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48814,from=rss#post48814https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48814,from=rss#post48814 Jody Arias said she put the camera in the washer and turned it on because she believed that the digital camera images would be ruined. she was wrong, it was premeditated murder because she drove from California to Arizona with her license plate on backward in hopes that nobody would be able to write her license plate down, she also had gas tanks, so she wouldn't have to stop and fuel up while in Arizona. She was pulled over and cited by the police for putting her license plate on backward. regarding, the other case. why are you blaming the juror's ? they didn't know the character of the police officer. the judge had to allow the policeman's testimony. Her attorney could of objected. It sounds more like she had ineffective counsel. nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:18:14 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48810,from=rss#post48810https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48810,from=rss#post48810The Milke case is not similar to the Arias case except in the way that prosecutors and juries demonstrated prejudice against the female defendants. The Milke case all by itself shows how prejudiced jurors tend to be toward women. Twelve people saw fit to find a woman guilty of capital murder and even sentenced her to death row based on the flimsiest of evidence. Either they were so stupid that they didn't believe a cop anxious to solve a case and garner brownie points couldn't lie, highly doubtful, or they didn't care and really wanted to find Milke guilty of murder enough to simply assume she was guilty. Either way they were obviously incompetent and far too dumb to be on a jury. In the case of Jody Arias, do you believe that she would have tossed a camera with incriminating pictures on it into a washing machine if she had carefully premeditated the murder of her victim? Where they found that camera strongly suggests it was second degree murder, not carefully planned at all but more of a spur of the moment crime. Regardless, it's not significantly different from other murders in Arizona that did not result in life sentences with no parole. Of course those cases involved men murdering girlfriends. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sat, 26 Oct 2019 23:15:04 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48805,from=rss#post48805https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48805,from=rss#post48805I don't see how the cases are alike at all. Milke case, a cop saying she confessed to the killing of her four year old son for insurance policy she had on his life. Jody never confessed, she denied being there until they found the camera she threw in the washing machine, that incriminated her being at the crime scene in the shower, with a knife. Jody's case, a district attorney had an affair with a blogger. nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Fri, 25 Oct 2019 03:04:49 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48801,from=rss#post48801https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48801,from=rss#post48801quote:mais oui wrote: quote:she's no worse than men in Arizona who murdered their girlfriends who were convicted of something legally classified as less serious than first degree care to find a similar example? multiple SERIOUS knife wounds followed by shooting - AND displays the degree of forward planning suggested by the earlier theft of the murder gun from a family member had she stabbed him (even a couple of times) I would agree with you the sentence would have been harsh, but she stabbed him at least 27 times and damn near cut his head off! and then not content got the gun (which she almost certainly stole earlier in preparation) and shot him in the head - just to be sure. Cold blooded, callous, premeditated MURDER I've mentioned an Arizona case in the past. According to you it happened too long ago to be relevant as if human nature and the state of Arizona had changed that much since then. I don't believe either has changed enough to make that case irrelevant. Jimmy Lee Gray not only strangled his 16 year old girlfriend, he also cut her throat and for that murder he received a grand total of seven years in prison after being convicted of second degree murder. quote:had she stabbed him (even a couple of times) I would agree with you the sentence would have been harsh, but she stabbed him at least 27 times and damn near cut his head off! and then not content got the gun (which she almost certainly stole earlier in preparation) and shot him in the head - just to be sure. Cold blooded, callous, premeditated MURDER Just the opposite. Hot blooded, prompted by extreme anger, a classic crime of passion involving overkill. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:44:52 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48799,from=rss#post48799https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48799,from=rss#post48799quote:she's no worse than men in Arizona who murdered their girlfriends who were convicted of something legally classified as less serious than first degree care to find a similar example? multiple SERIOUS knife wounds followed by shooting - AND displays the degree of forward planning suggested by the earlier theft of the murder gun from a family member had she stabbed him (even a couple of times) I would agree with you the sentence would have been harsh, but she stabbed him at least 27 times and damn near cut his head off! and then not content got the gun (which she almost certainly stole earlier in preparation) and shot him in the head - just to be sure. Cold blooded, callous, premeditated MURDERnondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:16:46 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48797,from=rss#post48797https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48797,from=rss#post48797I don't consider Arias some sort of saint but she's no worse than men in Arizona who murdered their girlfriends who were convicted of something legally classified as less serious than first degree murder. The overkill and extreme trauma she inflicted on her victim is evidence of what's known as a crime of passion. The fact that she apparently stole a gun only indicates that she may have been considering murder, not that she planned to murder Travis. All of the behaviour she engaged in that supposedly indicates first degree murder occurred does not prove she committed first degree murder, only that she was very angry at him and contemplating murder. The reality is that she murdered someone and should spend exactly the same amount of time behind bars that men who murdered their girlfriends in Arizona should be locked up. But she will remain locked up while they will be set free probably just about as soon as a parole board can free them. That's not equal justice under the law but it does indicate how biased in favor of men the state of Arizona is.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:56:52 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48796,from=rss#post48796https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48796,from=rss#post48796just so that we are all clear about who Philer is proposing for beatification... Her victim sustained 27 to 29 stab wounds, a slit throat, and a gunshot wound to the head, his jugular vein, common carotid artery, and trachea had been slashed and that Alexander had defensive wounds on his hands all of which occurred in what Arias claims was self defence! I must be apparent to every one that the attack was in at least two phases a knife attack and then a shooting SOME the knife attack might conceivably (but implausibly) have been self defence but to then set down the knife and pick up a gun means that the shooting had to be murder (attempted murder at the very least) BTW an .25 Colt pistol was stolen from her grandparents home just before the shooting the gun was never recovered BUT any one want to guess what type of gun the victim was shot with?nondisclosed_email@example.com (mais oui)Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:19:18 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48793,from=rss#post48793https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48793,from=rss#post48793quote:katie5445 wrote: I think that has a lot to do with sentencing rules, your past life seems to count for a lot. It has more to do with the concepts of first and second degree murder and of course the bias which favors white men in our criminal justice system. I don't believe Jodi Arias had any kind of criminal history but that didn't matter in her case. The prosecution went to great lengths to try to show that she committed first degree murder rather than second degree murder. But they didn't actually prove that's what it was. It showed a lot of signs of what's known as a crime of passion as well as second degree murder. If it was a carefully thought out premeditated murder it sure didn't look like one. But none of that really matters. The prosecutor and the jury wanted her to be guilty of first degree murder and so that's what they considered her guilty of. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:02:32 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48791,from=rss#post48791https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48791,from=rss#post48791I think that has a lot to do with sentencing rules, your past life seems to count for a lot. nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:46:59 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48789,from=rss#post48789https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48789,from=rss#post48789quote:katie5445 wrote: THere is a vast difference between Milke and Arias, who planned a murder, drove hundreds of miles to do it, lured her victim through sex to the shower, stabbed him 28 times, slit his throat, then shot him in the head, she is lucky to be alive, which I agreed with, I don't like putting psychos/socios to death, ain't there "fault" doesn't mean they were wrongly convicted or shouldn't be in a lock down. Arias would have had another boyfriend she turned off and another murder, Milke obviously not. I think Arias got the sentence she deserved. I just want to see men who commit the same crime against girl friends getting the same sentence. Not a much more lenient sentence which will result in them being set free within less than 20 years if not less than 10 years. That's the problem along with a prosecutor who seems to be unconcerned about that slight discrepancy within the Arizona criminal justice system. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:09:09 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48787,from=rss#post48787https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48787,from=rss#post48787THere is a vast difference between Milke and Arias, who planned a murder, drove hundreds of miles to do it, lured her victim through sex to the shower, stabbed him 28 times, slit his throat, then shot him in the head, she is lucky to be alive, which I agreed with, I don't like putting psychos/socios to death, ain't there "fault" doesn't mean they were wrongly convicted or shouldn't be in a lock down. Arias would have had another boyfriend she turned off and another murder, Milke obviously not.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:03:37 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48777,from=rss#post48777https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48777,from=rss#post48777It isn't just black people who get mistreated by the criminal justice system, katie. It's also white women like Debra Milke and Jodi Arias. That's the point. Think about what happened to Milke for a moment. There she was, a woman whose son was murdered by a man she knew who was caught and convicted for the murder. Did that man claim she put him up to it? No. There was no testimony in court from him that she had done so. There was no other evidence of her guilt other than one cop claiming that she had confessed to him! No written confession, no video, no audio confession, just that one cop claiming she had told him she was guilty of murder. And with that "evidence" a dumb, biased jury sent her to Arizona's death row where she spent 20 years before being released. Don't try to tell me that it is only black people who get the shaft from our criminal justice system. That's baloney. And whether or not Jodi Arias received the right sentence she was still discriminated against judging by all the men who committed the same kind of crime against women who did not get the kind of sentence she received. They will get out of prison. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:24:02 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48769,from=rss#post48769https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48769,from=rss#post48769That makes no sense to me, she got what she deserved and was lucky to get it. It is the person who got what they didn't deserve is what bothers me and I'm not impressed by your gender. Getting screwed over by spending years or your life in prison or the death penalty is not by gender of a bunch of white women. It is adding you are a person of a darker colour person, female or male. Justice can't be described in all 50 states or counties as the same, justice is not equal, that I do know.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Mon, 21 Oct 2019 03:23:59 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48758,from=rss#post48758https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48758,from=rss#post48758quote:snowpixie wrote: OK, but they were not boyfriend girlfriend when she killed him, he dumped her. If I can't have you then nobody can have you. She killed him, when he started a new relationship. whichever sex does this, it's just plain evil, and I don't want them out of prison ever. I agree. What I object to in Arizona is Jodi Arias getting a life sentence with no parole while guys who committed the same crime against girl friends or ex girl friends will be getting out of prison, sometimes fairly quickly. That is not justice. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Sun, 20 Oct 2019 00:49:06 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48755,from=rss#post48755https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48755,from=rss#post48755OK, but they were not boyfriend girlfriend when she killed him, he dumped her. If I can't have you then nobody can have you. She killed him, when he started a new relationship. whichever sex does this, it's just plain evil, and I don't want them out of prison ever. nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:44:49 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48752,from=rss#post48752https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48752,from=rss#post48752quote:snowpixie wrote: you lost me, are you saying Jodi Arias should have got less time for murder? She should have gotten the same kind of sentence that men in Arizona have received after murdering their wives or girlfriends. Men and women should be treated equally under the law. If some state like Arizona wants to give a woman a life sentence without parole for murdering her boyfriend that's fine as long as it gives the same sort of sentence to men who murder their girlfriends. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:10:22 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48750,from=rss#post48750https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48750,from=rss#post48750you lost me, are you saying Jodi Arias should have got less time for murder?nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Fri, 18 Oct 2019 03:25:06 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48747,from=rss#post48747https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48747,from=rss#post48747Jodi doesn't have anything wrong with her that wasn't also wrong with guys in Arizona who killed their girlfriends. They were all self-absorbed criminals concerned about how they supposedly had been mistreated. But those men didn't wind up with a first degree murder conviction and a sentence of life in prison with no parole. Some of them will only serve a few years in prison. Any prosecutor like Martinez who is unaware of that discrepancy or who doesn't care about it shouldn't be a prosecutor. Couple that with his questionable behaviour while prosecuting the Arias case and he probably should be relieved of his job and have his license to practice law taken away. Men and women should be treated equally in our courts when they commit the same crime. A woman who commits murder should not get a much harsher sentence than a man who commits murder. Any prosecutor who doesn't believe that and act accordingly should not continue in that profession. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:16:15 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48746,from=rss#post48746https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48746,from=rss#post48746  Jodi Arias, is the one with something seriously wrong with her. as far as I can tell he did nothing wrong as a prosecutor. This trial took four years of his life. He was surrounded by people interested in the case, so having a sexual relationship with a blogger, for two years, during that time. isn't surprising. lying about it is does warrant further investigation, however. I Don't know if that will be enough to strip him of his license to practice law in Arizona. This seems to be pointless, but when you're in prison for life, all you got is time to stir things up and waste taxpayers' dollars. nondisclosed_email@example.com (snowpixie)Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:56:01 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48744,from=rss#post48744https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48744,from=rss#post48744BTW, the mere fact that a judge threw out some allegations against Martinez doesn't prove anything. Based on that document you cited there's enough evidence of unprofessional conduct to indicate the kind of guy Martinez is. I doubt that him being a creep and unprofessional or even any violation of the rules on his part will enable Jodi Arias to get a new trial but she probably should get another one. Even if she does, considering the system in place she'd probably see the same result. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:21:11 +0000 Re: What a guy!https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48742,from=rss#post48742https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p48742,from=rss#post48742Based on what I read about him there's a very good chance that he's a creep. One other thing I noticed has implications regarding our criminal justice system. Look at how many people admired him for his gung ho efforts to convict Jodi Arias of first degree murder and obtain the death penalty in her case. He became a very popular celebrity for trying to get her the death penalty, particularly among women. I thought it was an indication that there was something wrong with the guy but most people, the kind of people who seem to get on juries, thought it was neat. Where were those people when men who killed their girlfriends weren't even convicted of first degree murder? Sometimes not even second degree murder. Where was the concern about them getting back out of prison? There's a big double standard. Women like Jodi Arias are subjected to a different application of the rule of law than men. And that double standard is not only very popular but accepted with no recognition that it even exists. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:05:20 +0000