She uses the local constable,
has you arrested
for planting hoax devices
and divines that you
had the intent to cause panic
then later makes you apologize
and do community service
when she figures out
you were not planting hoax devices
and you had no intent to cause panic.
Thank you, come again.
So why did Coakley arrest Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky if she knew they had no intent to commit the crime of "placing a hoax device to incite panic"? They were clearly earning some money as part of an advertising campaign.
And once Coakley figured out she couldn't prove intent - not just because she lacked evidence of it but because all the evidence pointed to the fact they had zero intent to cause panic, their intent was clearly enterprise, not terrorism...Why then didn't she release them and apologize rather than make them apologize and do 1.5 and 2 weeks public service each?
Do you want a senator who will use the power of her office against you even though she understands that she misunderstood the situation and rather than remedy it appropriately, uses the power to save face?
Attorney General Martha Coakley's office announced late last night that a second suspect, Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, had been arrested in the case about 11:30 p.m. Like Berdovsky, Stevens was charged with placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct. Both suspects are scheduled to be arraigned at 9 a.m. today in Charlestown District Court, said Coakley's office.
Turner Broadcasting's apology did little to assuage outraged officials in the three cities, where lawyers are preparing legal efforts to recoup the cost of the police mobilization.
The deployment of scores of state, federal, and Boston police specialists, from bomb experts to terrorism analysts, exceeded $500,000, according to Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino.
Asked last night if Turner Broadcasting would reimburse the state and cities, Kent said, "We're certainly going to look at all the facts. We're a very responsible company and we try to do the right thing."
While police responded to the episode with swiftness and gravity, some Bostonians, especially younger adults, were amused by the spectacle and suggested authorities overreacted. But Coakley said the placement of the devices, on key infrastructure points, like highway ramps and under bridges, alarmed even seasoned investigators.
"For those who responded to it, professionals, it had a very sinister appearance," Coakley said. "It had a battery behind it and wires."
Berdovsky and Stevens were arrested on the day of the incident and charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, a felony charge that carries a five-year maximum sentence, and one count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Both pleaded not guilty to the two charges and were later released on a $2,500 cash bond. At their arraignment Assistant Attorney General John Grossman claimed that the two were trying to "get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location." Michael Rich, the lawyer representing both men, disputed Grossman's claim, asserting that even a VCR could be found to fit the description of a bomb-like device. Judge Leary said that it will be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate an intent on the part of the suspects to cause a panic. The judge continues "It appears the suspects had no such intent, …but the question should be discussed in a later hearing." After making bail, Berdovsky and Stevens appeared for a live press conference. As Rich had advised them not to discuss the case, they spent the entire conference discussing and inviting press questions about hair styles of the 1970s, and ignoring any questions relating to the bomb scare.
On May 11, 2007, the prosecutors decided not to pursue criminal charges in exchange for community service and a public apology. Attorney General Martha Coakley cited the difficulty in proving intent to incite panic on the part of the two men and called the deal "an appropriate and fair resolution". Berdovsky and Stevens completed 80 and 60 hours of community service at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Center in Boston.
Martha Coakley's appalling behavior regarding the Amiraults and Paul Shanley ensures I would vote for any Rebublican before ever casting a vote for Martha Coakley.
Did the AG's office prosecute Shanley? Convicted on the testimony of one person, an alleged victim with "repressed memories", no corroboration.
He's won an appeal. No date set.
Reason Magazine on traumatic amnesia:
The whole theory of traumatic amnesia is at best unproven, at worst quackery. Richard McNally, a Harvard University psychologist and the author of Remembering Trauma, says that people forget and recover nontraumatic memories all the time, but when an experience is truly traumatic, they "seldom if ever" forget it, though they may manage not to think about it. "No one has blocked out Auschwitz," he says. In a 2002 paper, three psychiatrists surveyed 77 studies of trauma survivors and found not a single reported case of traumatic amnesia. Moreover, McNally says, "the more repeated an event is, the less likely you are to forget that class of event."
The questionable way she got totally cozy with the the Eappen family when prosecuting Louise Woodward, even though she had no evidence or other scientific reason to rule them out as possible suspects. They said it was the nanny that done it, she bought it at face value because they were professionals and parents.
The presiding judge was Hiller B. Zobel. The prosecution, led by Martha Coakley, presented eight physicians involved in Matthew Eappen's care, including a neurosurgeon, an ophthalmologist, a radiologist, two pathologists and an expert in child abuse, who testified to their belief that his injuries had occurred as a result of violent shaking and from his head impacting with a hard surface. The defense challenged this, among other things, on the grounds that there were no neck injuries to Matthew Eappen—injuries that would have been expected if he had been violently shaken. The prosecution had also claimed initially that Matthew Eappen's impact injuries were the equivalent of having been thrown from a two-story building, but they equivocated over this claim as the trial progressed.The defence presented expert medical testimony that the infant's injury may have occurred three weeks before the date of death, implying that the parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen, were as fully implicated by circumstances as Woodward. There were old wrist injuries to the infant that may have been incurred before Woodward even arrived at the house. Woodward, however, admitted under cross-examination that she never noticed any slight bumps, marks or any unusual behavior by the baby at any time prior to the night he was taken to hospital.
The lead counsel at Woodward's trial, and the architect of her medical and forensic defence, was Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project. As part of the defence strategy, Woodward's attorneys requested that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter (what the law calls a lesser included offense), and instead either convict her of murder or find her not guilty.
On 30 October 1997, after 26 hours of deliberations, the jury found her guilty of second-degree murder. She faced a sentence of a minimum of 15 years to life in prison under Massachusetts' law.
The conviction had a side effect on killing legislation in Massachusetts to restore capital punishment.
In the days following the verdict it emerged that the jury had been split about the murder charge, but those who had favoured an acquittal were persuaded to accept a conviction. This fact was of no legal consequence, however. None of the jury "thought she tried to murder him," one member said.
On 10 November, at a post-conviction relief hearing, Judge Hiller B. Zobel reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, stating that "the circumstances in which the defendant acted were characterised by confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but not malice in the legal sense supporting a conviction for second-degree murder," adding: "I am morally certain that allowing this defendant on this evidence to remain convicted of second-degree murder would be a miscarriage of justice".
Polygraph testing
Before the trial on 7 May 1997, Woodward decided to undergo a polygraph examination conducted by Dr David C. Raskin, a polygraph examiner hired by her own lawyers. During the course of this Woodward was asked questions about whether she caused injury to Matthew Eappen while he was in her care on 4 February 1997. Woodward denied having caused any injuries to Matthew Eappen, and Dr Raskin concluded that her answers to these questions were truthful to a confidence level of 95 percent....the polygraph was inadmissible in court
Later
In 2007, Dr Patrick Barnes, the prosecution's star medical witness, reversed his opinion: he concluded that death could have been caused by an old injury, as argued by the defence. In a scientific paper he states: "The science we have today could, in fact, have exonerated Louise. There is certainly, in retrospect, reasonable doubt."
Also in 2007, the British press reacted with incredulity at news of Woodward being named the "most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts" by Boston law magazine Exhibit A.
The Governor (more importantly, the state party) would love to see Coakley win because she could take out Deval if she were to run for Governor.
I would rather see her as Governor than US Senator.
So, in addition to ex-Hillary supporters, expect strong support of her candidacy from those who run the state party.
Also, expect a barrage of attacks depicting him as a womanizer (to get the female vote)on Joe Kennedy if he chooses to jump in (from the parties mentioned above).
....is straight out of the Department of Redundancy Department. Although I'd always thought Joe was less of a womanizer than the other males in his family.
If someone were to knock Joe it'd probably be more effective to point out that his nose seems to be permanently inserted between the buttocks of a certain Latin American dictator. But(t), nobody seems to mind that anyhow. Why is taxpayer money paying for that Citgo sign again?
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
No surprise here. Martha has been busy not doing anything as Attorney General, so she hasn't made any enemies among the Democrat hacks she'll need for support. The Sargent Schultz of Massachusetts politics is present and ready to serve.
Comments
It's going to be difficult
It's going to be difficult to raise the money necessary and marry a Kennedy prior to the election...
How's Senator Coakley grab you?
She uses the local constable,
has you arrested
for planting hoax devices
and divines that you
had the intent to cause panic
then later makes you apologize
and do community service
when she figures out
you were not planting hoax devices
and you had no intent to cause panic.
Thank you, come again.
Being AG means never having to say you're sorry.
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
Add Marty Meehan to the possible list
But only if a Kennedy doesn't run.
another scoop
from Politics Magazine
http://politicsmagazine.com/blog_post/show/526
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
National Anti-Mooninite Legislation on Tap?
No thanks.
So why did Coakley arrest
So why did Coakley arrest Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky if she knew they had no intent to commit the crime of "placing a hoax device to incite panic"? They were clearly earning some money as part of an advertising campaign.
And once Coakley figured out she couldn't prove intent - not just because she lacked evidence of it but because all the evidence pointed to the fact they had zero intent to cause panic, their intent was clearly enterprise, not terrorism...Why then didn't she release them and apologize rather than make them apologize and do 1.5 and 2 weeks public service each?
Do you want a senator who will use the power of her office against you even though she understands that she misunderstood the situation and rather than remedy it appropriately, uses the power to save face?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/01/froth_fear_and_fury/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare#Arrests
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
The appalling Martha Coakley
Martha Coakley's appalling behavior regarding the Amiraults and Paul Shanley ensures I would vote for any Rebublican before ever casting a vote for Martha Coakley.
Did the AG's office
Did the AG's office prosecute Shanley? Convicted on the testimony of one person, an alleged victim with "repressed memories", no corroboration.
He's won an appeal. No date set.
Reason Magazine on traumatic amnesia:
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
Lynn Rooney prosecuted the case, she specialized in sex crimes
Shanley Arraignment NYT
Shanley About
NSFW Rooney About (GuideMag)
.
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
Not to mention ...
The questionable way she got totally cozy with the the Eappen family when prosecuting Louise Woodward, even though she had no evidence or other scientific reason to rule them out as possible suspects. They said it was the nanny that done it, she bought it at face value because they were professionals and parents.
Nanny Louise Woodward Murderer! Expert Witness Recants!
Polygraph testing
Later
THE COLOR OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS
Pushing for Coakley
The Governor (more importantly, the state party) would love to see Coakley win because she could take out Deval if she were to run for Governor.
I would rather see her as Governor than US Senator.
So, in addition to ex-Hillary supporters, expect strong support of her candidacy from those who run the state party.
Also, expect a barrage of attacks depicting him as a womanizer (to get the female vote)on Joe Kennedy if he chooses to jump in (from the parties mentioned above).
"Kennedy" and "Womanizer" in the same sentence....
....is straight out of the Department of Redundancy Department. Although I'd always thought Joe was less of a womanizer than the other males in his family.
If someone were to knock Joe it'd probably be more effective to point out that his nose seems to be permanently inserted between the buttocks of a certain Latin American dictator. But(t), nobody seems to mind that anyhow. Why is taxpayer money paying for that Citgo sign again?
-----------------------------------------
who and the what now?
No surprise here. Martha has
No surprise here. Martha has been busy not doing anything as Attorney General, so she hasn't made any enemies among the Democrat hacks she'll need for support. The Sargent Schultz of Massachusetts politics is present and ready to serve.
She has a sinister appearance.
She has a battery and wires behind her
Yah,forgot about the Mooninites
She's such a nitwit, she might switch to being a Republican after election if the numbers in the Senate favored it.
She also makes Tom Reilly look like a fearless battler against public corruption and corporate fraud.