Wendy Murphy- Judge, Jury, and Executioner

Longtime readers are aware of my complete hatred of “Hang ’em High” Nancy Grace, the idiot former prosecutor who has never found a defendant innocent, and does everything she can to prejudice the public in her show trials on CNN (past posts on the disgusting Grace can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Believe it or not, there is actually someone I like less- Wendy Murphy. The difference, of course, is that Murphy gets less face time, but when she does, she never fails to thrill. Check out this exchange on Anderson Cooper in an exchange about the Massachussetts double murder:

COOPER: But — but — but, also, I mean, the crime scene, they — you had people coming and going, friends and family and police searching the house multiple times. It’s not even clear — I mean, they — they — they looked in the bedroom. They didn’t find the bodies. Someone, a clever defense attorney, could argue, well, they were moved there.

MURPHY: Oh, come on.

WEINTRAUB: They might even tell the truth, Anderson, and they might say that the — that the bodies were there. The police didn’t lift the covers of the blankets and see the mother and the child. It’s not a very bloody scene.

It’s a small-caliber weapon. And, you know, if we learned anything from Scott Peterson, we have learned that this guy should just keep his mouth shut, and he should exercise the right of privilege and not voluntarily return. There’s a lynch-mob mentality, as you can hear from Wendy…

(LAUGHTER)

WEINTRAUB: … waiting for his return to the United States.

COOPER: Wendy, you said, “Oh, come on.”

MURPHY: Oh, look…

WEINTRAUB: This man should stay with his parents.

MURPHY: Look, first of all, the fact that the police didn’t see the bodies is because he covered them in a bug puffy blanket before he fled the country.

And if there is one thing we learned from Scott Peterson, I think it’s that the guilty guy’s behavior after the crime is damning evidence. It doesn’t mean he’s socially unacceptable, Jayne, to take off, to leave the country, to run like a chicken, to remain silent, and not to attend the funeral.

And just like that, Wendy has decided that not only is Neil Entwistle guilty, but she knows how he did it.

This isn’t about being suspicious about Entwistle- I think he probably was involved in the murders. This is about Wendy Murphy and her willingness to plant bullshit into the public well. She has no facts, no idea what happened, and this is a life or death case for Neil Entwistle. There should be a way to disbar lawyers who behave this recklessly and carelessly.






58 replies
  1. 1
    Jay C says:

    There should be a way to disbar lawyers who behave this recklessly and carelessly.

    Well, John, you know there are systems in place to do just that: most states’ Bar Associations have strict codes on what lawyers should and should not do, and mechanisms to discipline those who stray.

    Unfortunately, they just do not seem to apply to any lawyer who is paid to appear on television. Wonder why?

  2. 2
    von says:

    So far as I’m concerned, it’s “digraced former prosecutor Nancy Grace.” See this comment (http://www.law.com/article.jsp.htm) on an opinion by the 11th Circuit regarding Ms. Grace’s past run-ins with the ethical rules governing attorney conduct (yes, such rules exist).

  3. 3
    Krista says:

    She’s scary as hell. CNN should be ashamed to have such a vile person on their programming. I never watch CNN anymore because of crap like that.

  4. 4
    Pug says:

    Wendy Murphy is awful.

    Nancy Grace has real issues.

  5. 5
    Mark says:

    You write:

    This isn’t about being suspicious about Entwistle- I think he probably was involved in the murders. This is about Wendy Murphy and her willingness to plant bullshit into the public well. She has no facts, no idea what happened, and this is a life or death case for Neil Entwistle. There should be a way to disbar lawyers who behave this recklessly and carelessly.

    Didn’t you just do the same thing – accusing this guy of being involved in a murder – albeit less subtle?

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    And just like that, Wendy has decided that not only is Neil Entwistle guilty, but she knows how he did it.

    She does? Maybe *she* was involved in the murders… Maybe some enterprising defense attorney should subpoeana her and find out what she really knows… :)

  7. 7
    Pooh says:

    Mark, an indictment is saying just that “We think he did it but we haven’t proven it yet”.

    Jay, Bar associations are really, really bad about imposing discipline unless you do something silly like sleep with a client.

  8. 8
    John Cole says:

    Mark-

    I would have no problem with Wendy saying she thinks he did it- she is entitled to think whatever she wants. My problem is with her declaring HE DID DO IT, and claiming “Look, first of all, the fact that the police didn’t see the bodies is because he covered them in a bug puffy blanket before he fled the country” as if that is established fact.

  9. 9
    Don says:

    She’s clearly a turd, but turds have always existed in the world. The really distressing thing is how much time and visibility the networks are giving the turds. It’s their slimy editorial control that’s the really repugnant behavios.

  10. 10
    scs says:

    John, I don’t think you realize how these legal TV shows work. Let me explain it to you. They have a legal issue they want to discuss on air with the anchor and they usually invite several people to do it. Some are supposed to put out the defense side, like real life defense lawyer Jayne Weintraub, others are supposed to put out the prosecution side, like real life prosecutor Wendy Murphy. This heated debate between the defense lawyers and the prosecutors is supposed to be almost like a mock trial and provide viewers with a lively look at all sides of the issues. As this is not a real court of law, and only a TV show, Wendy is allowed to give any damn opinion she wants, as long as she doesn’t put out false facts. And in my opinion, she usually calls it like she sees it, unlike the defense lawyers who usually stretch all credibilty in trying to come up with improbable possible defenses.

    You know I think it is deeper than this. I think you specifically don’t like Wendy Murphy and Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace because they take a tougdh stance on crime against women and children, which to you seems to be a non-issue to you and not worthy of strong public condemnation. If you’ll witness the light sentence given to the child rapist in Vermont recently, many people also still seem to think such violence is a non-issue, and I give thanks that we have people like Wendy Murphy speaking out strongly for such victims.

  11. 11
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Wendy is allowed to give any damn opinion she wants, as long as she doesn’t put out false facts.

    Which she did.

    I think you specifically don’t like Wendy Murphy and Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace because they take a tougdh stance on crime against women and children, which to you seems to be a non-issue to you

    Wow, talk about your gross speculation. Are you, perchance, Wendy Murphy? The debate continues to rage–scs, idiot or troll.

  12. 12
    Krista says:

    scs – Funny, from what I’ve seen, I think that Wendy Murphy and Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace are just loudmouthed, pigheaded douchebags, and wasn’t all that familiar with their stance on crime against women and children. So does that make me a heartless misogynist as well?

  13. 13
    Steve says:

    A “tough stance on crime against women and children” means that anyone accused of a crime against women or children must be guilty. Suggesting that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, or that it’s wrong for TV pundits to prejudice the jury pool, are signs of being “soft on crime.” That’s fucking brilliant.

  14. 14
    scs says:

    Steve, we have freedom of speech, last time I checked.

  15. 15
    scs says:

    or that it’s wrong for TV pundits to prejudice the jury pool,

    If you feel that way, then why not ban all crime/legal shows that discuss upcoming cases? As these shows are on the media and of course reach the public, they will always end up discussing evidence that will “prejudice the jury pool”. Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and polluting the jury pool? Anyway, we already have a system for that: it’s called libel and slander laws. If the TV prosecturos cross the line, they can be held accountable for that later. That is what Gary Condit tried to do to Dominick Dunne recently, and not very successfully either if I remember.

  16. 16
    Pb says:

    Krista,

    Oh, they take a hard stance on crimes against all sorts of rich, white, cute, all-American women and children who were on vacation, or in persistent vegetative states, or otherwise horribly or bizarrely exploited (mix and match or pick any three). Some might say that they’re being cynical opportunists pandering to the lowest common denominator by exploiting biases and societal prejudices in a base, racist, sexist, classist fashion, but that really doesn’t recognize the heroic work they’re doing in the media to alert us to the horrible plight of rich, well-off white families and the occasionally bizarre and tragic circumstances of their inner lives.

  17. 17
    Steve says:

    Where did I suggest the government should ban anyone’s speech, scs? Please clarify.

  18. 18
    scs says:

    Where did I suggest that “A “tough stance on crime against women and children” means that anyone accused of a crime against women or children must be guilty”, Steve? Please explain.

  19. 19
    scs says:

    A “tough stance on crime against women and children” means that anyone accused of a crime against women or children must be guilty

    Actually I think if Wendy Murphy just read what you just wrote, you might be up for a little libel case yourself. Okay, kind of joking there, but there is a small point to that. I have never seen Wendy Murphy declare guilt willy-nilly. She only declares her opinion of guilt based on how she sees the evidence and I think she supports her ideas very well. Let’s face it, this suspect who fled to England has a lot of factors to point to his guilt. Why is Wendy Murphy not allowed to point out this evidence, and give her opinion on what it means, in regards to his guilt or innocence? If you wish to silence her opinion and her right to speak freely, that is in effect suppressing her freedom of speech under the guise of “not tampering with the jury pool”. In the meantime, we have so many cases where defense lawyers are at the same time smearing the victims, or floating laughably improbable defense scenarios (remeber the satanic cult theories floated by the defense in Scott Peterson?) and yet that is “okay” to many it seems, and not “tampering with the jury pool”. Again I’m glad we have people like Wendy Murphy to speak out for the victims.

  20. 20
    scs says:

    And as to what a tough stance on crime means, it doesn’t mean everyone suspected is guilty. People who are tough on crime against women and children believe in loudly publicizing crimes against women and children, not deriding it like PB did above, they don’t support smearing the victim, or half-lies put out by defense lawyers, it means being able to honestly evaluate the facts publicly, not being put in fear of “tampering with the jury pool”, and it means they believe in strong sentences for sex and abuse crimes. That’s what it means Steve.

  21. 21
    Steve says:

    Maybe you don’t know this, but I don’t work for the government. If I think someone’s opinion sucks, that does not mean I am trying to “in effect suppress their freedom of speech.” In fact, when someone has no support for a dumb argument, usually the last card they pull out is “well, I have the freedom of speech to say it.” Gee, of course you do.

    John said that he doesn’t like this woman going on TV and saying the guy definitely did it, and presenting possible theories of the evidence as settled fact. You said “you just don’t like her because she takes a tough stance on crime against women and children.” From this, I infer that you consider declaring someone guilty on national TV as “taking a tough stance.”

    Frankly, I think it was an utterly inappropriate ad hominem against John, equivalent to saying “I think the reason you’re against the war is because you don’t like the idea of punishing terrorists.” Just a cheap smear. Oops, now you’ll say I’m trying to suppress your freedom of speech too.

  22. 22
    Steve says:

    Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and polluting the jury pool? Anyway, we already have a system for that: it’s called libel and slander laws.

    You’ll concede that you don’t know very much about the law, right?

  23. 23
    Mona says:

    John Cole, I so totally agree with you about Grace and Murphy. I believe it was Murphy on The Larry King show a few months ago, when he was interviewing a man who had been freed from prison after DNA evidence showed he did not commit the rape for which he had been convicted.

    Murphy was having none of this “DNA proves innocence” stuff. No, she said it is not some silver bullet, and she suspected that the falsely convicted guest may actually be guilty, if there was more than one person involved. The poor soul who had spent, like, 9 years in prison looked both sick and angry when she said that.

    Geraldo had it right about Grace and that coven over at Court TV: He calls them the Witches of Eastwick.

  24. 24
    Pb says:

    scs,

    People who are tough on crime against women and children believe in loudly publicizing crimes against women and children, not deriding it like PB did above

    Keep on going with the inaccurate characterizations, scs, it’s apparent that you don’t want anyone to take you seriously. I was leaning towards idiot before, but now I’m thinking maybe troll. I mean, could you really be too stupid to understand what I was deriding? And in a discussion where you yourself talk about slander and libel laws? No, that’s just too rich–no flamefest for you.

    Steve,

    I agree, her original smear of John was way over the line. And I attack John all the time, but only for things that he actually says or does. However, then going on to mention people like *O’Reilly* as some sort of selfless, heroic champion for women and children–that’s just beyond parody.

  25. 25
    scs says:

    By the way since this is kind of a legal thread I looked up the actual Texas ventillator law everyone kept pointing to in the Terri/Haleigh threads. Here are excerpts from the actual law.

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us.....166.046.00

    Texas Fultile Care Law

    § 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR TREATMENT DECISION.

    If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient’s advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician’s refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee

    (d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care facility, the facility’s personnel shall assist the physician in arranging the patient’s transfer to:
    (1) another physician;
    (2) an alternative care setting within that facility; or
    (3) another facility.

    (e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d).

    Now I think some postings I saw where the patient was conscious and they pulled the plug anyway are a little exaggerated. That is why you can’t trust the blogs to give you your facts, you have to look them up yourself. As you see from the law, the doctors and a panel have to come to a decision on the prognosis of the patient. If the prognosis is negative, then they can refuse care. The patients family can, if they want to and can afford it, can transfer the patient elsewhere to continue treatment.

    This is different from Terri’s case in several ways. First of all, a panel of doctors and ethicists at the hospital have to come to a consensus. Part of this consensus would be to determine that the patient is not minimally conscious, because, as far as I know, it is illegal to refuse care from a patient who is minimally conscious. As responsible doctors, this would include the relevant tests to come to this conclusion, today including PET scans and MRIs. Terri was allowed to die after the classification of minimally conscious was adopted and was not properly checked for that condition before her death. THAT is the difference. Contrary to what I’ve heard, the law as crafted seems to be a reasonable law. Now whether it is being applied reasonably, I cannot say, and may be up to the courts to decide.

  26. 26
    scs says:

    You’ll concede that you don’t know very much about the law, right

    Well no I’m not a lawyer like I believe you are. Please educate me if I am mistaken.

  27. 27
    scs says:

    Suggesting .. that it’s wrong for TV pundits to prejudice the jury pool, are signs of being “soft on crime.”

    If I think someone’s opinion sucks, that does not mean I am trying to “in effect suppress their freedom of speech

    When you suggest something is wrong, it means you don’t think it should occur. When you are implying that Wendy Murphy giving her opinion of TV, even if it is highly negative of the suspect, is wrong and shouldn’t occur, you are in effect wanting to silence her to call it like she sees it. If you had your way, you would in effect infringe on her freedom of speech. I have my right to express my opinion that you are infringing on her freedom of speech, right? Okay now we are going in circles…

  28. 28
    scs says:

    I was leaning towards idiot before, but now I’m thinking maybe troll

    Thanks PB/DougJ/Barbar. I got a promotion. Hurray!

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Now I think some postings I saw where the patient was conscious and they pulled the plug anyway are a little exaggerated.

    You can think whatever you like, but you’d be wrong. I invited you before to do some research into one specific case, or at least look at my previous posts on the matter, but apparently you couldn’t even do that. However, the rich white women in persistently vegetative states are still safe, and that’s all Fox tells you about, so who cares, right? Ugh.

  30. 30
    scs says:

    Sorry DougJ, I don’t have all day to look up your posts, as educational as I’m sure they’ll be. Maybe later I will, though.

  31. 31
    Steve says:

    The point I was making is this. True statements are obviously not actionable as either libel or slander, but you can pollute the jury pool by making 100% true statements. An obvious example would be if the judge ruled that a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible, but you went on TV before the jury was selected and said “the jury won’t be permitted to hear that the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the gun.”

    What John refers to here is more subtle but equally as dangerous. To state as fact that the accused covered the bodies in a blanket before he left the country, when no such thing has been established, that’s the kind of thing that makes it harder to get a fair trial. But you get better ratings if you shriek “He did it, he’s the guilty one!” than if you drone on about how “the acts the defendant is alleged to have committed including the following…”

    In my opinion, the media has an obligation to act responsibly and not to whip the public into some kind of feeding frenzy against someone who’s guilt hasn’t been proven. Now that’s just my opinion, and in this age of Geraldo, maybe the horse has left the barn for good. But as a lawyer, you have an additional duty to the legal system beyond what an ordinary member of the media has.

    I do wish these lawyers in the media would use their powers for good and not for evil, by which I mean, educating the public about the trial process, helping them to understand how the system works, and not just playing these lurid games of seeing who can be the first to declare the suspect guilty. Maybe this guy is 100% guilty, but imagine the harm to his reputation if he isn’t.

  32. 32
    Pb says:

    Also, scs, I think you read the law exactly backwards, which doesn’t surprise me in the least–what it’s saying is that if a physician refuses to pull the plug on a patient, then *the physician’s refusal* to kill the patient will be reviewed by a committee. I don’t think that situation ever even came up, but in any case, we know the circumstances, and the result. Also, she couldn’t be transferred within 10 days because *she couldn’t afford it*. That’s the fucking topic at hand here. Educate thyself.

  33. 33
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Who the fuck are you talking to? I am not DougJ. My god, I am sick of your trolling and your callous attitude to human life. A woman died against her will, and you can’t be bothered. That truly puts the lie to everything you’ve been saying here. Never speak to me again.

  34. 34
    Pooh says:

    scs, stop talking about the law please. You are making my head hurt and I’m liable to say something that I’ll later regret.

  35. 35
    scs says:

    If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient’s advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician’s refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee

    what it’s saying is that if a physician refuses to pull the plug on a patient, then the physician’s refusal to kill the patient will be reviewed by a committee

    No dummmy, it’s saying that if the doctor’s orders to refuse the decision made by the patients or patients family. Either way, get it? Read the link if you still don’t understand. Okay, I am not going to get fragged into another ridiculous flame war with you today.

  36. 36
    scs says:

    I meant to say dragged above, but fragged may be appropriate as well.

  37. 37
    Pooh says:

    We understood the point of the quote, we just don’t understand your point. Or maybe you have no point. It’s part of your (dubious) charm.

  38. 38
    Pb says:

    scs,

    You’re right, you won’t. As I said, never speak to me again. Without me around to set you straight, you’ll just have to assume that when you post something, you’re still (a) wrong, (b) uninformed, and (c) uncaring. But you aren’t interested in ‘facts’ anyhow, let alone rational discussion, or the lives of poor, non-white people.

  39. 39
    scs says:

    But as a lawyer, you have an additional duty to the legal system beyond what an ordinary member of the media has.

    Okay, I can see where you’re coming from. You think that lawyers have a professional obligation to act a certain way in the media. I didn’t really see it like that because they are not acting in a professional legal capacity when they are TV commenators, they are just commentators who happen to be lawyers. However, I do believe it goes both ways, and we also have defense lawyers clouding up the pool as well with their smears. Isn’t that also as bad? And if we allow one, isn’t it fair to allow the other side to balance the debate?

  40. 40
    Steve says:

    I’m not really a huge consumer of cable news, so I guess I’ve just never seen a lot of defense-friendly lawyers going on these shows and saying things like “gosh, you know, that DNA evidence really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be…”

    The actual defense lawyers in the case itself, of course, always try to cast doubt on everything, but there are very strict rules for what they are allowed to say. It’s kind of a separate issue.

    To be clear, the problem isn’t simply that people discuss the evidence ahead of time, it’s that they feel the need to “make good TV” by going way out on a limb and prejudging the case, rather than simply limiting themselves to the evidence. Obviously, you and John have different opinions about whether Grace and Murphy cross this line.

    But if there are pro-defense lawyers who go around trying to claim that every single defendant should get off, that it’s a travesty of justice this person was even arrested, blah blah blah, then I agree that’s just as wrong. I personally would rather see everyone exercise a little more decorum than let it be a free-for-all in hopes that the various biases will cancel each other out.

  41. 41
    scs says:

    Okay, sounds reasonable Steve. If only everyone on here could be as reasonable as you. Later…

  42. 42
    John Cole says:

    SCS-

    First off, this:

    I think you specifically don’t like Wendy Murphy and Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace because they take a tougdh stance on crime against women and children, which to you seems to be a non-issue to you and not worthy of strong public condemnation.

    That is just a stupid, assholish thing to say.

    Second, I am not sure what is confusing you, but if you can not see the distinction between opinion and assertion of fact, this conversation is going to go nowhere. Let’s review.

    This is an opinion:

    “I think he covered up there bodies after he killed them.”

    this is an assertion of fact, and with it an assertion of guilt:

    “Look, first of all, the fact that the police didn’t see the bodies is because he covered them in a bug puffy blanket before he fled the country.”

    There is a difference. I think you know that, and would rather play games, though.

  43. 43
    Pooh says:

    I didn’t really see it like that because they are not acting in a professional legal capacity when they are TV commenators, they are just commentators who happen to be lawyers.

    Immaterial distinction under rules of legal ethics. (Correct me if I’m wrong here Steve, but I don’t think I am). And even if it’s not a technical violation, it’s close enough to one that she should know better.

  44. 44
    scs says:

    Second, I am not sure what is confusing you, but if you can not see the distinction between opinion and assertion of fact, this conversation is going to go nowhere.

    Okay I see your point. However I feel that you are going way over the line to critcize Murphy, who I feel is a tireless advocate for victims. Yes the way she stated that line came off as fact, however anyone watching those show knows or should know that the commentators are engaging in a “opinion” style debate, and that items stated as facts are really opinions of the commentators. In addition, they usually have the other side to point out the opposing views. I apologize if my comment was inflammatory. You know its funny though, people are calling each other horrible names all day long here, and when I post something a little rough, I am the one called on it. I don’t know if that’s fair really. But again I apologize.

  45. 45
    Steve says:

    Immaterial distinction under rules of legal ethics. (Correct me if I’m wrong here Steve, but I don’t think I am).

    Immaterial, yes. But at least in my state, the strict rules for what you can say only apply to lawyers who are associated with the proceedings. As far as lawyers on TV, random lawyers on the street, etc., the only real ethical restriction has to do with the general rule against casting the profession into disrepute, and so forth.

    The other issue, I guess, is that disbarment or sanction typically involves state action, so there’s a line you have to walk. Still, lawyers ought to be reining each other in out of pure self-interest, if nothing else.

  46. 46
    MyTruthHurts says:

    scs said

    “If you’ll witness the light sentence given to the child rapist in Vermont recently, many people also still seem to think such violence is a non-issue, and I give thanks that we have people like Wendy Murphy speaking out strongly for such victims.”

    I’m so sick of this misinformation floating around and flowing from Fox News. It was not a simple matter of the rapist getting a light sentence, it was a matter of the very conservative, god fearing judge, understanding Vermont state law much better than you and Bill O’Rielly. The man is mentally retarded and will immediately go from jail to a mental ward, where he will be watched and monitored for the rest of his life, and if he even comes close to messing up, will be reincarcerated. The 60 days was to expediate his transfer to the loony bin. Doesn’t sound like a wrist slap to me. Nor is it an example of violence being a non-issue.

    How about a total silence on the deaths and injuries suffered by all human beings in Iraq as an example of violence being a non-issue? Or the lack of coverage of the violence suffered by many minority women and children, as an above poster alluded to?

    If you’d like to actually know the facts of the case instead of BO’s BS, please do some research on your own. The world and it’s events are complex. It is not easily digested sound bites and bullet points, shouted out by the loudest blowhard. The people you herald as righteous bearers of the truth are ignorant, self centered, media whores, dangerous and authoritarian. Wise up pal.

  47. 47
    scs says:

    The world and it’s events are complex

    Sometimes not as much as you think. You rape a 6 year old girl for 4 years, you go to jail for a looooong time. Not that complicated, man. Bill and I share this simple world view in common. And I’m tired of Bill being called a blowhard. Okay he’s a loudmouth true, but a loudmouth with a point. Without him and Fox News kicking up a fuss this child rapist would already soon be out of jail. And Bill has been instrumental in getting Jessica’s Law passed around the country which will do much more good for children anywhere keeping sex offenders off the street than any PC lib outlets ever did for children. To them the reporting of rape and murder of children seems only an occassion to toss in a joke about missing blonde white women. Again I admire people like Murphy and O’Reilly who take up this apparently “uncool” mission of trying to protect our children. I’m glad someone is doing it.

  48. 48
    MyTruthHurts says:

    Did you even read what I said about the case? He won’t be free. He will be in a mental institution as soon as 60 days are up for an indefinite amount of time, probably the rest of his life. He will still be incarcerated. He will be off the streets so he can’t hurt anyone. Did you not understand that? Or did you chose to ignore it since it completely invalidates your point about it?

    All O’Reilly is doing is getting people riled up about like he always does. What’s the status with the War on Christmas by the way? Who won?

    Bill O’Reilly cares for no one other than Bill O’Reilly, and sometimes John Gibson. Sorry you can’t see the obvious.

  49. 49
    scs says:

    He will be in a mental institution as soon as 60 days are up

    I believe you are wrong about that. He will be enrolled in the state’s sex offender program. I do not beleive he will be living in a mental hospital. If he were, that would be civil commitment. He will be getting some program that has no record of working and still have access to the public and possibly more young children.

    And the violater’s IQ was above 80 I believe. An IQ of 70 or below is considered mentally challenged. As 100 is the average IQ, 80 is not such an uncommon IQ. Maybe about 20% of the population have an IQ below 80. In fact, if you took an IQ test of the average prisoner, I woudn’t be surprised if it borders on 80. I think you and the judge are actually engaging in prejudice against people with lower IQs. Yes their IQs may be lower than a college grad’s, but it is hardly an uncommon IQ and I highly doubt that doesn’t mean the man didn’t understand it was wrong for him and his friend to rape a 6 year old child. Do you need an IQ of 100 to understand that? Come on. He would show much clearer learning disabilites, such as limited speech, if he couldn’t understand that. If you follow that line of thinking, 3/4 of the prison would be emptied because they weren’t “bright” enough to understand their crimes.

    And as to the War on Christmas, O’Reilly won, because there were many instances were people who previously weren’t allowed to display Christman items were now allowed to do so. It just took a little publicity and people speaking up for their rights.

  50. 50
    scs says:

    Yeah a real tough program. 90 minutes a week. The children are SAFE now! Phewww.

    http://www.rutlandherald.com/a...../FRONTPAGE

    After release, an offender must continue treatment on the outside to remain free. Sessions are usually about 90 minutes once a week. Offenders must reveal what situations they have been in that trigger their sexual urges, and polygraph tests are used to monitor the veracity of their statements.

  51. 51
    scs says:

    I’m so sick of this misinformation floating around and flowing from Fox News….The man is mentally retarded and will immediately go from jail to a mental ward, where he will be watched and monitored for the rest of his life,

    I think it’s time to start watching a little Fox news my friend, because your understanding of the case from where you’re getting your news, sure left a lot to be desired.

  52. 52
    scs says:

    And PB, I just read your link about Tirhas. I think that is a false comparison and once again, I’m glad I actually read the facts because the true story is always much differnet than the propaganda from the Leftists.

    Tirhas Habtegiris had abdominal cancer that spread to her lungs. Eventually, she was on a ventilator and her cousin took care of her.

    No one who mentioned this story before mentioned that she had abdominal and lung cancer to the point where she was on a ventillator. I’m no doctor, but I know that when there is severe cancer like this, there is no chance for this women to recover. She may have been conscious, true, but leaving her there would only prolong the shortly occurring inevitable. In contrast, Terri was a physically healthy person. In fact it tooks many days for her to die after she was refused care, probably longer than it would take many normally healthy people. She had a life span of probably 20 or more years left, not maybe days or weeks. That is the difference, not her race.

  53. 53
    MyTruthHurts says:

    Scs your information just proves my point. That is, that the case, like life, is more complex than Bill O’Rielly presents to his viewers. It proves that he ignores the subtleties and unique facts of it when stoking his campaign of hate against a God loving, conservative husband and father who’s just doing his job as a judge, as he interprets it. There’s no campgain of moral relativism, no conspiricy to undo society. The media in general is not liberal at all. O’Rielly is a hate-monger, a fear-monger, authoritarian and anti-American.

    Why does Bill O’Rielly, and I’m sorry to say, you, since you admittedly “share this simple world view”, hate America so much?

  54. 54
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Fuck off. You didn’t give a shit, you never gave a shit, you still don’t give a shit. Texas kills a poor minority woman *against her will*, when all she wants to do is live long enough to see her mother before she dies. I can’t defend that, no matter what her condition. Apparently you can. Now live with that.

  55. 55
    Pb says:

    MyTruthHurts,

    Yep, here’s a report you’d never hear from O’Reilly–far too many pesky ‘nuance’ and ‘details’ and ‘facts’. But my particular favorite is how he repeatedly attacks Media Matters, apparently for no reason other than the fact that they tell the truth about him, and therefore, he must bully them until they shut up with their ‘facts’. However, he’s not even honest enough to just come out and say it.

  56. 56
    scs says:

    Hulett is likely to be paroled after the minimum, provided he completes counseling successfully. Hulett’s treatment will continue for up to three years after his release, Corrections said Thursday.

    Yeah, that first link made it even worse. He is only getting the 90 minutes per week counseling for 3 years. Why does another little girl have to be raped before we give him a real jail sentence? Do we do that to murderers? Do we say, “okay, well you murdered one person, but we think you’ll need counseling, so we’ll let you out in three years. But if you murder ONE more person, well, gosh that’s it. We mean it then.” Sorry, but one little girl is enough. Especially now that we know that sex offenders have the highest recidivsm rates, much higher than murderers. It’s just sickening that no one in the mainstream media seemed to give a darn about this case.

    And as to the 3 year sentence, that was given only as a result of fuss kicked up by the public and as a result, the prosecutors. It’s highly doubtful the judge came up with that because he wanted to.

  57. 57
    MyTruthHurts says:

    scs said

    “And as to the 3 year sentence, that was given only as a result of fuss kicked up by the public and as a result, the prosecutors. It’s highly doubtful the judge came up with that because he wanted to.”

    No, that’s actually not the reason it was changed. According to the article linked above, the sentence was changed because “a new Corrections Department policy allows Hulett to receive sex-offender treatment while in custody.

    ‘The court agrees that a punitive response — punishment — is a valuable and necessary component of society’s response to criminal conduct,’ Cashman said during a morning proceeding in a crowded Burlington courtroom. ‘As stated during the sentencing hearing, however, punishment is not enough of a response in some cases.

    ‘This is one of those cases,’ the judge concluded.”

    He said at the original sentencing that “the best way to prevent Hulett from committing similar crimes was quick treatment, but because Corrections would not offer counseling to Hulett in prison, the minimum term needed to be short.

    Cashman said then he would have sentenced Hulett to at least three years if prison-based treatment had been available.”

    Therefore, your assertion that the judge didn’t want to give a larger sentence is wrong, or a purposeful lie. Either way, it’s contradicted by the judge’s own statements on the case. Basically pal, your opinion is refuted by the facts.

    So it really has nothing to do whatsover with the fuss kicked up by Bill O’Rielly and people like you, so try to get over yourself and stob polishing O’Rielly’s knob. It had to do with the Judge reviewing new information and changing the sentence as he sees fit. That’s a fact. You’ll also notice the sentence is 3-10 years, with probation for life and that the judge was quoted as syaing “Those sentences ensure Mr. Hulett’s lifelong supervision by the Department of Corrections, including possible life imprisonment, if required for public protection”.

    So again, nothing to do with Bill O’Rielly and everything to do with the judge receiving new information and adjusting the sentence accordingly.

    Please stop helping Fox News spew misinformation, lies and propaganda. It hurts America, it hurts our soldiers in the field, and it gives comfort to the terrorists.

  58. 58
    Paul L. says:

    More about the wonderful Wendy Murphy and the Duke rape case.

    Press (In)Action

    Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy explained away Nifong’s lack of DNA evidence by asserting, “The real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists–and I’m going to say it because, at this point, she’s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim– . . . watch ‘CSI.’” (Murphy later compared the indicted players to Hitler, arguing, “They’ve all done very bad things. Maybe they’ve all not been convicted of rape, but they have a very ugly history of bad behavior.”)

Comments are closed.