Is a dead foster kid rolled up in the closet a horror story?
On Dec 26, 2:10 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:35 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Dec 25, 8:56 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Dec 23, 9:09 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
The article, Greg, was about the judge having concerns that he may not be
capable of being fair when hearing the case.
Do you think that the judge, recognizing that it was possible that his prior
relationship with the defendant, was a CPS horror story?
The hearing would not be taking place AT ALL except
there is a dispute about the plea/immunity deals made.
As usual, greg you fail to comprehend the situation.
There was an immunity deal made in Ohio.
There is a claim that a similar deal was also made in Kentucky.
Particularly since two adjacent states were involved.
Can a person get immunity from two states at once
if they turn states evidence to make a case?
Two different states, two different jurisdictions.
Judges are supposed to avoid even the hint of a conflict
so asking the question even reveals a problem.
You're such a moron, greg.
Amy Baker was given immunity in Ohio in exchange for her testimony
that was used to convict David and Liz Carroll.
It was only after Baker's statement revealed the ashes of the child
were dumped into Kentucky jurisdiction that the question of the second
state's alleged immunity deal became an issue.
IOW if the ashes were dumped in Ohio none of this would be taking
place.
The Ohio Judge is NOT clairvoyant!
Do you really expect him to be?
Did you actually READ this, Dan?
From the original news story:
However, Ohio prosecutors have come to Baker's defense and claim
Mason
County Attorney John Estill kind of, sort of, maybe also agreed not
to
prosecute Baker. Estill says that isn't so. For the record, we tend
to
believe him.
Nevertheless, Baker's defense attorneys have not only asked Wood to
decide if Estill is lying but also whether Baker's words spoken in
testimony at the foster parent's trial can be used against her in
Kentucky.
Once the question of Estill's credibility was raised, Wood realized
he
would be asked to rule on more than legalities in the case. He would,
in
essence, be expected to rule on his former law partner's
truthfulness.
Not only did Baker and Estill once practice law in the same firm,
Estill
remains a law partner with Wood's uncle. The judge must have realized
his ability to remain unbiased would be brought into question.
Your point is?
And I still ask you, do you think the Judge is clairvoyant?
|