If you check out the different television stations and their coverage of the deadlock in Washington, you can see clear bias on both sides. CNN is casting all the blame on the Tea Party and the Republicans caving into their strongarm tactics; while Fox makes it look like the Democrats have no plan to resolve the debt crisis.
All I know is that the public is FED UP with both sides and can't believe how we have to watch this sick soap opera day after day with pundits analyzing who said what and why nothing is changing while the American public is holding its breath hoping that our government doesn't default. The impact of the default has been made very clear by media on both sides - yet no amount of tweeting, e-mailing or phone calls - seems to have any impact on the shenanigans going on at the public's expense.
How this will play out in the end is the big question mark. If we have to sit through another week of this being the major headline news - with new real news happening - I think there will be an uproar in Washington. I would love to see citizens marching on Washington to display its disgust with what is happening.
I can't stand the impotence of the American public being held captive by our elected officials.Now it says that Harry Reid's plan is not too different from Boehners. Both include spending cuts - except Boehner's calls for a balanced budget.
If Pres. Obama says both parties are not too far apart, then COMPROMISE and meet the deadline. Do you hear us???
What do you think????
Saturday, July 30, 2011
See a chimpanzee lovingly nurse baby tigers in Thailand
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14354201
It's the sweetest and most improbable video that makes the coldest heart smile.
It's the sweetest and most improbable video that makes the coldest heart smile.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Great article on when you should put your smartphone off....
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=623270382&gid=1782012&type=member&item=61197655&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprdaily%2Ecom%2FMain%2FArticles%2F8833%2Easpx&urlhash=Kr8U&goback=%2Egde_1782012_member_61197655
Some others include:
* going to a museum
* at dinner time with your husband or boyfriend
* when a doctor is about to examine you
* when a dentist is about to examine you
* at a movie
* at a tennis match
* at a golf tournament
I'll think of some others I'm sure!
Some others include:
* going to a museum
* at dinner time with your husband or boyfriend
* when a doctor is about to examine you
* when a dentist is about to examine you
* at a movie
* at a tennis match
* at a golf tournament
I'll think of some others I'm sure!
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Casey Anthony trial mirrors a previous case from NY in the 1960s
Way before the Casey Anthony case in 1968 and then another trial in 1971, there was a similar sensationalist crime story in New York focused on Alice Crimmins whose two children (Eddie and Missy) ended up dead under suspicious circumstances. At the time, I remember my sister was the same age as "Missy", Ms. Crimmins' 5 year old daughter. My mother, sister and I went to the beach in the morning after the police discovered her body in an empty "lot" across the street from our home in Flushing, Queens. My father worked nights and was sleeping when we took off to the beach and we never left him a note telling him where we had gone.
While he was sleeping, the police knocked on his door and he went downstairs. "We're conducting an investigation, Sir," the policemen told my dad. "What's this about?" asked my father. "We just found the body of a 5 year old girl across the street and we wanted to know if you might have seen or heard anything suspicious last night?" My father almost had a heart attack. He turned white thinking that his darling daughter Lisa might have been the victim of foul play. Until we returned home and he saw us together, he was frantic. This was before cell phones, so he had to wait for us to get back to the house.
The case underscored the suspicions on a mother who led a "wild" lifestyle while being a parent to two darling children, a boy and a girl. The jury found her guilty of manslaughter, but she only served 4 years in jail. The crime was never solved to prove murder. This was all before DNA evidence and the sloppy investigation hindered justice for the two children.
Here's some more information on the case:
Click on the following link and read the entry below:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/crimmins/1.html
Alice Crimmins Trials: 1968 & 1971 - A New Trial
court york testimony earominski manslaughter rorech daughter killed
An unauthorized visit to Earominski's building by three jurors during the trial and the judge's disallowance of evidence that might have cast doubt on Rorech's and Earominski's testimony led an appeals court to overturn Crimmins' conviction in December 1969.
Six months later, she was indicted again. Under the double-jeopardy rule preventing defendants from being tried more than once for the same crime, she could not be charged twice with murdering Missy. She was charged instead with manslaughter and indicted for murdering Eddie, largely Rorech's new claim that she had "agreed to" her son's death.
The second trial revealed how sloppily detectives had handled the investigation. Potential evidence from the Crimmins apartment was not kept. Psychiatric doubts about Sophie Earominski's mental fitness were introduced. Joe Rorech expanded his testimony, saying that Crimmins told him that a convicted bank robber named Vinnie Colabella had killed Eddie Jr. for her. Prosecutors took Colabella out of prison and put him on the stand. He denied ever seeing Crimmins before. The prosecutor from the first trial, Anthony Lombardino, was called as a witness and admitted that he had once offered Colabella "a deal" in return for testimony.
The defense attacked the only motive prosecutors gave for Crimmins having her children killed, the custody battle with her husband (who stood by her during both trials). Her divorce lawyer testified that he had advised her that she would never lose her children under New York law, regardless of allegations about her moral reputation.
A new prosecution witness, Tina DeVita, remembered glimpsing a woman, a man with a bundle, a boy, and a dog on the night the Crimmins children disappeared, echoing Sophie Earominski's scenario without identifying anyone. After DeVita's testimony, Alice Crimmins appealed to the public for help. A man named Marvin Weinstein came forward and testified that he had been walking in the neighborhood with his dog, his young son, and his wife, who was carrying their daughter in a blanket. Mrs. Weinstein came to court. She resembled Alice Crimmins. When a former business associate testified that the Weinsteins did not visit his home on the night in question, the Weinsteins retorted that the man was a liar. Mr. Weinstein said he had not come forward during the first trial because he had not realized the case depended so much on Earominski's testimony.
The state's case seemed so shaky that shock and weeping filled the courtroom when Alice Crimmins was again found guilty. In May 1971, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, for murder, with a concurrent five to 20 years for manslaughter.
The murder charge was overturned two years later by an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court, which ruled that Eddie's death had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have resulted from a criminal act. The manslaughter conviction was also overturned. The court ruled that allowing errors like Joe Rorech's testimony that he had taken "truth serum" and a prosecutor's declaration that Crimmins did not "have the courage to stand up and tell the whole world she killed her daughter" were "grossly prejudicial." The court ordered her to be tried again, but only on the manslaughter charge.
In February 1975, however, the New York State Court of Appeals reinstated the manslaughter verdict. Noting that two juries had found Alice Crimmins "criminally responsible for the death of her daughter," the court ruled that the conviction was fair because there was no "significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred." Dissenting justices wrote that this decision changed the definition of prejudicial conduct, "dangerously diluting the time-honored standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which has been a cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence."
Alice Crimmins was ordered to finish her sentence. She was paroled in 1977, quietly ending one of the most emotional and troubling cases ever heard in New York courts.
Six months later, she was indicted again. Under the double-jeopardy rule preventing defendants from being tried more than once for the same crime, she could not be charged twice with murdering Missy. She was charged instead with manslaughter and indicted for murdering Eddie, largely Rorech's new claim that she had "agreed to" her son's death.
The second trial revealed how sloppily detectives had handled the investigation. Potential evidence from the Crimmins apartment was not kept. Psychiatric doubts about Sophie Earominski's mental fitness were introduced. Joe Rorech expanded his testimony, saying that Crimmins told him that a convicted bank robber named Vinnie Colabella had killed Eddie Jr. for her. Prosecutors took Colabella out of prison and put him on the stand. He denied ever seeing Crimmins before. The prosecutor from the first trial, Anthony Lombardino, was called as a witness and admitted that he had once offered Colabella "a deal" in return for testimony.
The defense attacked the only motive prosecutors gave for Crimmins having her children killed, the custody battle with her husband (who stood by her during both trials). Her divorce lawyer testified that he had advised her that she would never lose her children under New York law, regardless of allegations about her moral reputation.
A new prosecution witness, Tina DeVita, remembered glimpsing a woman, a man with a bundle, a boy, and a dog on the night the Crimmins children disappeared, echoing Sophie Earominski's scenario without identifying anyone. After DeVita's testimony, Alice Crimmins appealed to the public for help. A man named Marvin Weinstein came forward and testified that he had been walking in the neighborhood with his dog, his young son, and his wife, who was carrying their daughter in a blanket. Mrs. Weinstein came to court. She resembled Alice Crimmins. When a former business associate testified that the Weinsteins did not visit his home on the night in question, the Weinsteins retorted that the man was a liar. Mr. Weinstein said he had not come forward during the first trial because he had not realized the case depended so much on Earominski's testimony.
The state's case seemed so shaky that shock and weeping filled the courtroom when Alice Crimmins was again found guilty. In May 1971, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, for murder, with a concurrent five to 20 years for manslaughter.
The murder charge was overturned two years later by an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court, which ruled that Eddie's death had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have resulted from a criminal act. The manslaughter conviction was also overturned. The court ruled that allowing errors like Joe Rorech's testimony that he had taken "truth serum" and a prosecutor's declaration that Crimmins did not "have the courage to stand up and tell the whole world she killed her daughter" were "grossly prejudicial." The court ordered her to be tried again, but only on the manslaughter charge.
In February 1975, however, the New York State Court of Appeals reinstated the manslaughter verdict. Noting that two juries had found Alice Crimmins "criminally responsible for the death of her daughter," the court ruled that the conviction was fair because there was no "significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred." Dissenting justices wrote that this decision changed the definition of prejudicial conduct, "dangerously diluting the time-honored standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which has been a cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence."
Alice Crimmins was ordered to finish her sentence. She was paroled in 1977, quietly ending one of the most emotional and troubling cases ever heard in New York courts.
Read more: Alice Crimmins Trials: 1968 1971 - A New Trial - Court, York, Testimony, Earominski, Manslaughter, and Rorech http://law.jrank.org/pages/3166/Alice-Crimmins-Trials-1968-1971-New-Trial.html#ixzz1RQfLxUPh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)