Maybe its time to explain in detail, for the less intellectually gifted among our fair readers, exactly why this blog moderates it’s comments.
We want people like Brian T, Bobby Reiff, Jason Grey, Phil R, Abe Laeser, Judge Pinero, Judge Glick, and many others who sign their name to contribute with comments. What we don’t allow, is a tidal wave of comments that follow their comments calling them (anonymously) all sorts of names. If that’s what you want to do, go to another blog. We will not be a part of that.
We have steadfastly held to the belief that some anonymous comments about the practices of Judges are appropriate. Comments about whether a Judge is habitually late, or is not being reasonable with continuances, or for that matter well thought out comments on a particular case- sentencing, or the granting or denying of a motion, are also under many, but not all circumstances, appropriate. Who decides? We do. It’s our blog-get used to it.
So, since we have now said in the most clear terms possible that calling someone an asshole will not make the blog, stop wasting your time writing the comment, because it will not be posted.
PENALTY PHASE BEGINS
The defense opened today in the penalty phase of the Caraballo case.
A comment in yesterday’s section noted that Mr. Joel Denaro was acting in the finest traditions of a defense attorney. We second those comments.
Many alert and well schooled readers know that John Adams was our second president and principal author of the sixth amendment (the right to counsel). Many of our colleagues also know that in 1771, before our nation declared independence, Adams successfully represented 8 British soldiers in Boston, who were accused of murder when they fired into a crowd of civilians.
Hardly the most popular of cases- defending soldiers of an occupying army who killed citizens of Boston. Yet, Adams took on the case and six of eight were acquitted, and the other two were found guilty of manslaughter. Adams defended those who many thought had no defense and deserved no defense. Out of that episode, came many of Adams’ beliefs which he codified into the right to counsel.
Many people in our community do not believe any of the five people in that truck in which two people were abducted, deserve a defense. But Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Denaro have spoken up and defended their client in the best traditions of our country. And eight other defense attorneys representing the other four accused men are right behind them ready to do the same thing.
The defense does not diminish the memory of the victim. The defense is an exercise of the rights the Constitution guarantees. For if these men get the very best defense, then no one else need worry when they need a lawyer.
THE SELLING OF BROWARD.
File this under truth is stranger than fiction. Many readers had a chuckle at our April fools post in which we announced the selling of corporate sponsors for the courthouse and personnel. Now comes news that the folks North of The Border are about to do just that:
BROWARD
We always suspected the powers that be read our humble blog, and now we have some proof.
DANIEL PEARL
Finally, because the story bears repeating, the Miami Herald reported Monday on the touching story of Daniel Pearl’s grandparents lighting an candle in his memory this weekend in Miami Beach. Let us remember that shortly before he was murdered, Mr. Pearl was forced to kneel and state “I am Jewish”.
The popular saying in response to the holocaust is “never again”, and yet, in this decade, more than 67 years after the holocaust, a man again was killed simply because he was Jewish. That is why U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan. To remove those band of thugs who terrorized a nation, and believed it was appropriate to behead a man, simply because he was Jewish.
You can read the story here:
DANIEL PEARL
See you in court raising money to sponsor the "Miami Defense Attorneys" Broward Courthouse. Wouldn't that make a certain segment of the population (who happen to wear black robes to work north of the border) sick?
Today is Tuesday... Only 5 days till the Sunday DUI Power Rankings!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Rumpole on the defense of the worse our society has.
ReplyDeleteWhat is shameful is a bright honest ASA, a bright honest Judge get assigned this horrific case and with all the clear evidence presented one or all of the thugs could get off on a technicality.
I understand we must have rules of Court and such but sometimes the technicalities in the rules can set a sick f... free. That is what drives good ASA's and the publics outrage.
The answer to Judge Pinero's trivia question has been answered. Open the bag with careful moderation, otherwise, you could get scratched.
ReplyDeletecuriosity killed the cat.......
ReplyDeleteHey DUI guy, Shumie is in a DUI trial. if he wins or gets a breakdown, can he make the DUI top ten????
ReplyDeleteThis is a great read:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=42841
Have at it.
About the Daniel Pearl comments...
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the murder of journalists around the world (Jewish or not) is extremely reprehensible, but I don't see the connection with your comments on Afghanistan.
The radical movements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, originating in Afghanistan, are not centered or based on anti-semitism. Neither did the US send troops into Afghanistan for those reasons.
I watched a good portion of the guilt phase of the Caraballo trial and I think the facts of the case don't make it a slam-dunk clear-a-cell-on-death-row case for the state. It seems like many of the lawyers on the blog follow the habit of the general public when it comes to horrifying crimes of assuming the worst outcome should and will follow for the defendant. The facts of this case are unusual. Most of Mr. Laeser's skillful closing argument was based on a felony murder type theory--acknowledging that the defendant likely didn't pull the trigger or rape the girl but that since he was in the car and admittedly actively participated in a felony (robbery, by using the victims ATM card to get cash) he was legally responsible for all the acts of the co-felons that followed. That's true, and its not surprising in the least that he was convicted of the charged crimes. I think death is much less of a sure thing. The main evidence against the defendant was a letter he wrote to Mr. Laeser and an interview he gave to Spanish-language TV. In both "confessions" he acknowledged his presence but claimed not to be part of any planning of the incident. He also claimed not to have been a part of the stabbing or shooting, nor to have raped the victim (although he did acknowledge masturbating on her). There was no evidence that I saw at trial that contradicted that version of events. After the jury sits through the penalty phase, they're likely going to be faced with the question of whether a defendant with significant mental health issues who was likely a relatively minor participant in a horrific crime and would likely never have committed that crime on his own merits the death penalty, knowing the alternative is life without parole, and also knowing that death is still available for the people who actually pulled the trigger and raped the girl. Will a death-qualified jury find death appropriate in this case? Will Judge Thomas? I don't know, but I certainly don't think its a sure thing. One thing is certain, which is that Mr. Denaro is upholding the noblest aspects of our profession in his efforts to spare this man's life.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, I thought readers of the blog might be interested in this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Randy Barnett re the Duke case and the role of criminal defense attys in our justice system. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009952
Its a slow day waiting for depos to show at the PD's office for me.
To Mambi- I didn't mean to suggest that we invaded Afghanistan to battle anti-semitism. It's clear we did not. We invaded Afghanistan to attack the Taliban and Al Qeda who are ruthless killers who fly airplanes into buildings with the express purpose of killing civlians. However, to see just who we are dealing with, it is important to recognize that these people will slice a man's head off just because- and for no other reason- then because he is Jewish. I do not support the war in Iraq. But I support US Troops going to the ends of the earth to hunt down and kill any and every member of Al Qeda and the Taliban. They would detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil if they could. There is no negotiating with these killers. They need to be destroyed. The tragedy is that if Bush had not been sidetracked by his own religious zealots, he could have led a very successful effort in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteUpdate from the carabalo sentencing phase- Joel D is doing a fantastic job. He has done his homework. His expert today was fantastic. This is a textbook job of how a lawyer tries to save his client's life.
ReplyDeleteUpdate from the Shumie DUI trial. Shumie hasn't lost his temper. YET.
ReplyDeleteOdds: 3-5 Shumie over Slimak and the State.
I fear retaliation. I would love to sign my name but alas as a Miami Dade Assistant State attorney my thoughts are no longer my own and as I have a mortgage and mouths to feed I must comment as anonymous. I feel sorry for those who were found out as they are no longer with the office when they chose to comment about Kathy or any of her staff( not the pit prosecutors) but anyone in her inner circle.
ReplyDeleteOMG DUI guy- what Shumie is doing to the State today before Arzola is outlawed in most civilized countries, inclduing the US, but not in Kentucky. Its a wipeout! The Q would be jealous and proud.
ReplyDeleteMy favoirte book: Curious George and The High Voltage Fence.
ReplyDeleteThe sytem failure is the world. We are all lost.
2-1 Shuime gets held in contempt. FREE SHUMIE NOW!!
ReplyDeleteThe DUI guy employs sophisticated and powerful Cray super computers using patented algorithims and double sampling data methods developed specifically for creating the DUI power ratings. What will be will be.
ReplyDeleteShocking...to say the least.
ReplyDeleteMany of us have to keep our names out of this or the judges will get even.
ReplyDeleteWe too often forget that some of the biggest "games" played in the justice building are played by the people wearing robe and they never admit doing anything wrong.
Anonymous for survival
Agreed. Which is why we allow anonymous posts. There is a big difference between saying Judge X is unfair in the way they sentence individuals, and "attorney Y is a jerk." But moderation has stopped all that...and more.
ReplyDeletePosit:
ReplyDeleteShumie is in Trial.
Rumpole is posting.
Conclusion: Shumie cannot be Rumpole.
QED.
In response to 8:38 AM...there is no such thing as a technicality. Anyone close to the system should know that. What the Public calls a "technicality" is in actuallity, one's constitutional rights. Thank god cases get thrown out when the police gain evidence by violating constitutional rights. If they weren't, our constitution would have no teeth.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I have my suspicions about who wrote that post. Clearly is not a lawyer. While I suspect a certain individual, I decided to let it up anyway. Usually I am 100% correct in weeding out the commentary of unwanted guests.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me? Shumie in contempt? Screw that. Not that I should represent him, nor would he want me, but all of his buds (and in my book that's everyone on Rumpole's blog) should help if this is true. Despite any differences here we should stick together. Birds of a feather flock together.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Shumie do, moon the judge?
Shumie in a trial
ReplyDeletewins by a mile
his client he did smile
the state threw their file
silamk has a rival
Shumie used his guile
lots of motions he did file
for a not guilty just dial
1-800-AJS wins.
Taught him everything he knows.
ReplyDeleteShumie do and a not guilty too? woo woo!!
ReplyDeleteFear the Shumie
ReplyDeleteRespect the Shumie
close your eyes and try not to remember the Shumie
Rumpole
ReplyDeleteDanial Pearl was kileed because he was an AMERICAN; the fact that he was Jewish was only icing on the cake to his murders. Had he not been a Jew. likely he still would have been killed.As horrible as his death was, it is not part of an organized government directed genocide. My Step-Mother's Mother & Grandmother were in the "CAMPS" in Germany, Her Mother met her Father in the camp (Her Mom & Baba were Russian, her Dad chek (sic). They met fell in love and concieved my step-mom in the camp. Her Father did NOT survive to the time the Brits liberated the Camp. My Step-Mother was born in a British D.P. camp (same local as the Nazi camp) in Occupied Germany.
D. Sisselman
Close your eyes.
ReplyDeleteRespect Spicoli.
Hang with Spicoli
Roll up a fattie (figuratively) and learn from Spicoli.
Good job. NFG
Mr Sissleman. I agree Daniel Pearl would have been killed anyway because he was an American. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban kills Americans. But when Mr. Pearl was forced to kneel, he was forced to say he was a Jew. One wonders if he had been Protestant if his killers would have had him say that.
ReplyDeleteHis religion was relevant to his killers only because he was Jewish. The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan. They would have engaged in a systemic killing of Jews if there were Jews in Afghanistan. If they had one nuclear weapon I would think Israel as opposed to say, Ireland or Greece, would have been a target.
Random thoughts:
ReplyDeleteNo one takes a better depo than Stuart Mishkin.
David Rank and file?
Joel no tengo Denaro?
David Young and the restless?
Alan special delivery Postman?
David Miller Mudder and Haber?
Scott scorch and Bernstein?
Jose Perez dispenser?
Beth flowers in Bloom?
Orlando cepeda Prescott?
Stanford University Blake?
Go to Ellen back Venzer?
Thats all folks, good night, you've been a great audience.
shumie is going to be tougher to be around now that he got a standing ovation from the jury.
ReplyDeletefear the shumie,
order mussels marinara like the shumie,
become the shumie.
No way. david altschuler takes a much better depo than Mishkin.
ReplyDeleteWhat hurts the most is that since it wasn't the Q for the defense, the state was actually looking forward to a guilty veridict.
ReplyDeleteRTDPR website says not much going in in the DUI power rankings this week so far.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Martin for PD in 2008!
ReplyDelete"What's in a cliche?
ReplyDeleteTo moderate or not to moderate, is not the question. How to moderate oneself, is.
Starting tomorrow, after hours will be in effect. Moderation enabled between working hours through the evening. Lunacy begins around 11:00PM. No holds barred. Comments may or may not be visible during the day and will resurface at night. Intermediate scrutiny. This satisfies a lot of birds. Specifically, the night owls."
Night
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWho Let The Cat Out Of The Bag?
The origins of this phrase come from when farmers would sell chickens at market. Most of the time they would just throw the chickens in a bag and sell them as however many were supposedly in there. But cats were cheaper than chickens so many times farmers would put a cat into the bag with the chickens and if someone suspected something they would open the bag. At that point the cat would jump out of the bag, thus giving away the secret."
Rumpole, I don't understand. Why is everyone on this blog obsessed with DUIs? Before you take me for completely daft, I understand that they're making fun of this "Q" character. I guess he's in reality a bleed em and plead em kind of lawyer and so someone (some people?) thought it would be funny to suggest that he was a great litigator? But the rest of it?! I mean one would really think that being the best defense attorney in homicide or rape cases might be the title to which everyone aspired, but apparently not in Miami.
ReplyDeleteOh, and one last thing. Could the Mishkin jokes cease? He's very sick and it's not nice to make fun of a sick man.
As Denaro's murder trial closes and Jose Padilla's trial begins, this editorial about the Duke case is a reminder of what a good criminal defense lawyer means for our clients and at times, a dysfunctional criminal justice system
ReplyDeleteThree Cheers for Lawyers
Don't think a good defense attorney matters? Think again.
BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Years ago, I appeared on "The Ricki Lake Show" in an episode about
persons who had been freed on appeal after being wrongfully convicted of
crimes. As a former criminal prosecutor with the Cook County State's
Attorney's Office in Chicago, I was there to represent the "prosecution
viewpoint" (whatever that might be), along with the leader of New York's
Guardian Angels representing the "victims' viewpoint."
The other guests consisted of innocent persons whose convictions had
been reversed, their appellate lawyers, their parents and a reporter who
had helped vindicate a father wrongfully convicted of murdering his
young daughter. As I approached the set, I wondered what I could
possibly say that would ward off the hoots of the audience, especially
given that I was just as appalled by wrongful convictions and
prosecutorial abuses.
The point I decided to make was simple: For better or worse, we have an
adversary legal system that relies for its proper operation on having
competent lawyers on both sides. In every case I knew about where an
innocent person had been convicted, there had been an incompetent
defense lawyer at the pretrial and trial stages.
The reaction of the others on the stage with me was stunning. The former
defendants all began nodding their heads while their lawyers, who
represented them on appeal but not at trial, sat sullenly beside them.
Afterwards, some parents even came up to shake my hand.
The crucial importance of defense lawyers was illustrated in reverse by
the Duke rape prosecution, mercifully ended last week by North Carolina
Attorney General Roy Cooper's highly unusual affirmation of the
defendants' complete innocence. Others are rightly focusing on the
"perfect storm," generated by a local prosecutor up for election
peddling to his constituents a racially-charged narrative that so neatly
fit the ideological template of those who dominate academia and the
media. But perhaps we should stop for a moment to consider what saved
these young men: defense attorneys, blogs and competing governments.
Our criminal justice system does not rely solely on the fairness of the
police and prosecutors to get things right. In every criminal case,
there is a professional whose only obligation is to scrutinize what the
police and prosecutor have done. This "professional" is a lawyer. The
next time you hear a lawyer joke, maybe you'll think of the lawyers who
represented these three boys and it won't seem so funny. You probably
can't picture their faces and don't know their names. (They include Joe
Cheshire, Jim Cooney, Michael Cornacchia, Bill Cotter, Wade Smith and
the late Kirk Osborn.) That's because they put their zealous
representation of their clients ahead of their own egos and fame.
Without their lawyering skills, we would not today be speaking so
confidently of their clients' innocence.
These lawyers held the prosecutor's feet to the fire. Their skillful
questioning at pre-trial hearings revealed the prosecutor's misconduct
that eventually forced him to give up control of the case and now
threatens his law license. They uncovered compelling exculpatory
evidence and made it available to the press; they let their clients and
their families air their story in the national media.
There is no rule book for what prosecutors call "heater" cases like this
one. Navigating the law, politics and publicity in such case is an art
not a science. These fine lawyers displayed all the skills and tenacity
that made me want to be a criminal trial lawyer after watching the
television series, "The Defenders," when I was 10 years old.
Do you suppose that lawyers like these gained their skills only
representing the innocent? Criminal lawyers are constantly asked how
they can live with themselves defending those guilty of serious crimes.
The full and complete answer ought to be that, because we can never be
sure who is guilty and who is innocent until the evidence is
scrutinized, the only way to protect the innocent is by effectively
defending everyone.
As a prosecutor working "felony review," when I was in a Chicago police
station at 3 a.m. deciding whether to approve charges, I had to evaluate
the evidence as if I were a defense attorney. Where is the murder
weapon? Where are the proceeds of the robbery? How credible are the
witnesses? How was the identification of the accused conducted?
In this way, the mere prospect of a competent defense attorney
scrutinizing the evidence in the future provides a powerful deterrent to
pursuing weak cases even before anyone is charged. Thanks to defense
lawyers defending the innocent and guilty alike, prosecutors generally
win their cases because they avoid weak cases they may lose. (After the
charging stage, a prosecutor's ability to avoid losing at trial by plea
bargaining weak cases is a serious, but separate and complex issue.)
Paradoxically, the system's overall accuracy makes defending the truly
innocent all the harder. While knowing that mistakes do happen, the
accuracy of the system leads everyone, including defense lawyers, to
assume that anyone who is charged is probably guilty. After all, they
usually are. Notwithstanding the legal "presumption of innocence," in a
system that generally gets it right, there is a pragmatic presumption of
guilt.
Consequently, effectively defending the innocent usually requires the
ability to prove your client's innocence. And that's not easy. Further,
because representing the guilty consists mainly of negotiating pleas or
knocking holes in the prosecutor's case, defense lawyers do not always
develop the skills needed to effectively defend the truly innocent or,
as important, know when to deploy them. Defense lawyers become as
skeptical about their clients' claims of innocence as everyone else, if
not more so. All this contributes to inadequate defense lawyering, which
thankfully did not occur here.
Good lawyering alone, however, was not enough to free the Duke players.
While the "mainstream" press largely swallowed District Attorney Mike
Nifong's narrative of racial oppression, the blogs--especially history
professor Robert "K.C." Johnson's blog Durham-in-Wonderland
(durhamwonderland.blogspot.com)--provided the means by which the public
could learn about the fruits of the defense's efforts. (Mr. Johnson's
own difficulty in 2002 obtaining tenure at Brooklyn College over
ideologically-motivated opposition was chronicled on this page by
Dorothy Rabinowitz, who also, true-to-form, came to the defense of the
Duke Lacrosse players.)
Finally, without the competing governing powers of the North Carolina
state bar, the Attorney General's office, and potentially the U.S.
Justice Department, there would simply have been no one in authority to
rein in this prosecutor. It is worth noting, to those who champion
political accountability as the highest form of legitimacy, that
District Attorney Nifong was elected by, and presumably "accountable"
to, his constituents. Nevertheless, his power needed to be checked by
competing government agencies and a free press.
Rather than praising the defense lawyers, some of the same folks who
whooped in support of Mr. Nifong's efforts are now bemoaning that it was
the supposed wealth of these students' parents that enabled them to
mount so effective a defense. Never mind that draining all their savings
and putting them in debt is an additional injustice resulting from this
wrongful prosecution. Of course, as my grandfather used to say, "rich or
poor, it's nice to have money," but this case shows that wealth is no
defense to public ruin. Sometimes it even invites it.
Let us not be distracted all over again. The difficult problem of
innocent defendants typically arises in run-of-the mill cases where
prosecutors acting in good faith have no reason to doubt their guilt. It
results in part from the pragmatic presumption of guilt, which leads to
inadequate defense lawyering, an indifferent press and an oblivious
public. There are no easy solutions to this. But refraining from
ridiculing lawyers in general, and criminal defense lawyers in
particular, would be a nice start, and one that lies within the power of
everyone reading these words.
Mr. Barnett is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and
author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty"
(Princeton, 2004).
Shumie the shumie.
ReplyDeletei saw the Q get a state continuance one day.
ReplyDeleteit was a thing of beauty.
The reason we talk about DUI cases is that most of us would never rob a 7-11 but, all of us have one time or another driven impaired.
ReplyDeleteOne bad accident and you get more jail for the DUI than that jerk gets for sticking up the 7-11.
It is not fair but, that is why Reiff, Catalano, Hersch and all the clinic lawyers make so much money.
To whoever came up with a cat masquerading as a chicken as the answer to the origin of the expression “to let the cat out of the bag”: You are either very creative or terminally gullible.
ReplyDeleteThe expression comes to us courtesy of the British royal navy during the era of wooden sailing ships. In that service flogging was an accepted and much used or abused form of punishment. An offending sailor would know that his “jig” was up when the “cat was let out of the bag”, literally—cat o’ nine tails, that is. The “cat”, a multi-stranded whip, was stored in a red baize bag and only “let out of the bag” when it was to be put in use flaying a miscreant’s back.
The culture of the wooden ship British navy—derided by the Pogues in their 2nd album as one of “rum, sodomy and the lash”—may have been a brutal one, but a very fertile environment for colloquialisms. Other offerings include: “passing with flying colors,” “hoisted on one’s own petard,” “touch and go,” “cut and run” and the pejorative—“son of a gun.”
“Son of a gun’s” origin is quite interesting, but I’ve bored you enough with my pedantry. Just be thankful you’ve been spared my pontificating.
P.S. By its name, we know the cat had nine tails…wonder if that led to the popular notion of a cat having nine lives.
Imagine trying to stuff a live cat into a bag full of live chickens! Not. The expression has to do with the subterfuge of substituting a kitten for what was believed to be a purchased piglet. A more current usage suggests that a secret once it is out cannot be made secret again, any more than once a cat is let out of a sack he can be stuffed back in. Try it some time, ouch! Much easier to do if the cat is dead
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 1:06:00: Thank you for putting Professor Barnett's article on the blog, it was inciteful and I certainly agree with his sentiment. However, I take umbrage with one comment he made. To summarize, he said in every case he knew about where an innocent person was convicted at trial, but exonerated on appeal, the trial attorney was incompetant.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that every person who has been exonerated on appeal had an incompetant trial lawyer. In fact, that overlooks and ignores the plethora of cases wherein trial judges make nonsensical rulings either permitting prejudicial evidence or precluding exculpatory evidence, or both.
So Prof. Barnett, while every defense attorney who loses a case sits back and wonders what would have happened had they done this or that differently, and while there are certainly many cases where lawyers fail to do things that should have been done in their client's defense, it would be tremendously unfair to call a lawyer incompetant because his client was vindicated on appeal after an appellate court determines that the trial judge made a ruling that deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
I have been practicing for many years to generate a true "son of a gun"; but alas, is seems that those willing to cooperate are just not living up to thier end of the bargain.
ReplyDeleteJudge P., how would you rule on this in a breach action: am I entitled to damages? Or, on the counterclaim in quantum meruit, are you going to hit me over the head with a judgment?
Just curious.
s/ Captain Brad
Today is Wednesday... Only 4 days till the Sunday DUI Power Rankings!
ReplyDeleteBrilliant analyis Wandner, just brilliant. I would think you, of all people, would now how to spell "incompetent".
ReplyDeleteAloha,
ReplyDeleteThe Cat Out of The Bag: As to the anon answer on that other legal blog, firstly, nothng wrong with pedantic pontification purposefully purporting a proper prognosis.
I don't understand, I have seen a Judge Pinero write and a Judge Rob Pineiro write with a different spelling of their screen naes. Are they one in the same? Is one a fake and I've always taken it as gospel when Rumpole responds to His Honor with the spelling "Pinero."
Their is authority on the web to support the chicken/piglet/S&M Pirate arguments. I found a bunch of answers while surfing around b/c I have heard a few interpretations of the saying quite honestly. Including live cats jumping out of a bag of chickens. I hope you have internet access. Also, with certainty, I can say the chicken came before the egg.
After Hours Begin around 11:15 tonight.
Mr. Grey -- someone on the other blog wrote that. I have heard the dead cat/pig version too. Try this on for size.
Trivia: What did Scotland Yard use as an anancronym when a dead prostitute surfaced after Jack the Ripper killed a lady working at the oldest proffession? Also, what did the anacronym stand for? Hint: It might have to be answered after hours.
Later.
Spicoli -- hope to see some of you late night.
Maybe you should check your spelling also numb nuts....
ReplyDeleteVictor Caraballo went down with a 9-3 vote today.
Interesting case.
To anonymous 5:28:00: Thank you for pointing out my deep dark secret, that I mispelled one word out of more than a hundred in my comment. (Unfortunately, the blog does not have spell check for those of us who are spelling challenged).
ReplyDeleteApparantly, you must be part of the spelling challenged community yourself. Indeed, it seems that you mispelled two words out of a few more than ten. Great average.
Next time, rather than denigrating somebody who is trying to add something constructive to this blog, come out of the anonymous hole you are hiding in and make a constructive response.
The facts of this case, along with Caraballo's extensive role in the crime, dictate a punishment of death. End of story.
ReplyDeleteWell written article.
ReplyDelete