Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
dirtdog
I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
[ ] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
I rushed for the 'delete' key.
Signed this day of 2003
--
w00f
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
LOL... not bad, dirt... A few spelling errors, as usual.. but only one 'fucking'
used. Actually rather humorous... and I expect some rabid response from
JPB, as he rises in rage to my continual destruction of all his love for the 'great
white whale.' who, as I explained... looks quite flabby and unappealing as a
human, but who would be quite mouth watering if she were actually a large
ripened ring of camembert.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
[x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
I rushed for the 'delete' key.
Signed this 28th day of August 2003
Mr Q. Z. D.
P.S.: I actually enjoy quite a few of PV's posts but there is definitely a
"length" threshold above which 900+ lines undoubtedly lies.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
>In article <s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>, dirtdog wrote:
>
>I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>
>[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>
>[x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>
>Signed this 28th day of August 2003
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
>
>P.S.: I actually enjoy quite a few of PV's posts but there is definitely a
>"length" threshold above which 900+ lines undoubtedly lies.
Just as long as you don't seek publishing rights.
PV
Cerberus
"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com...
:
: I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
As much as I hate to say it, respect where respect is due.
--
WooF w00f WooF
ikke
I, ikke, hereby declare as follows:
[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
[x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
I rushed for the 'delete' key.
Signed this 28th day of August 2003
John
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<slrnbks0sq.2i8j.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>,
Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Date: 28 Aug 2003 13:12:27 GMT
>
>Le Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:42:12 +0100, dirtdog
><dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
>> I Desmond Coughlan hereby declare as follows:
>>
>> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>>
>> [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>>
>> Signed this 28th day of August 2003
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news.t
ele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc1-epso
1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>Date: 28 Aug 2003 13:12:27 GMT
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID:
><slrnbks0sq.2i8j.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>References: <s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1062076347 10957697 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
>X-No-Archive: true
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
Welcome to the Desmond Coughlan archive; the home of Desi's psychotic rants and
homosexual trolling. As he remains unfulfilled, please help Desmond Coughlan
find the man of his dreams.
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
Just passing by
I don't think anybody read that post the first time PV pasted it,
which was many months ago, so I doubt if anyone will read it now on
its (30th? 50th? 100th?) latest run.
And the funniest thing of all is that PV himself has not read those
parts he copied from various websites and pasted here. I have proved
that so many times.
A Planet Visitor
Well...well... what do we have here? Another 'chubby-chaser,' perhaps?
Hide from the evidence, sport. It's rather common with those in denial.
PV
>John
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:e19tkvk1k0lprrf5u...@4ax.com...
What 'evidence' would that be, then Peeves? I glanced through the post
(didn't read the whole thing) and all I saw was an oupouring of invective
and hatred.
If there was any 'evidence' in that at all, please siummarize. I'm not
willing to wade
through a sea of shit looking for it.
A Planet Visitor
pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:42:12 +0100, dirtdog <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
>> I Desmond Coughlan hereby declare as follows:
>>
>> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>>
>> [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>>
>> Signed this 28th day of August 2003
>
ANOTHER 'chubby-chaser.' What is the matter with European men, having
this great affection for huge woman looking like blocks of Camembert cheese?
I will tell you, as I told Peter Morris -- the shorter version of JPB's obsession
with women shaped in the form of Camembert cheese.
Sometimes, when someone such as JPB lies OVER AND OVER, it
takes an extensive effort to catalog even a small number of those lies
and distortions. I did the best I could... but it could have obviously
been 10 times longer, had I actually decided to remark on ALL his lies
and distortions. JPB's 'defense' of the 'Great White Whale' rests
ENTIRELY on two absurd premises... neither of them containing
a single FACT which would find the 'GWW' anything but guilty.
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
foundation in fact, other the ravings of that lunatic, JPB. And
represents HIS "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
his entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
it is true. Just as he began again "spewing out this pile of
hateful drivel" in this particular thread, with his words -- "But
it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County
DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical
evidence and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie
about what the defendant had said to them." See any FACTS
in that absurd and disgusting "pile of hateful drivel"? The FACTS
are EVERY juror voted for conviction... the Trial Judge
confirmed conviction for a lesser crime. EVERY Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that conviction.
EVERYONE in the prosecution found the 'GWW' GUILTY.
Jesus... Peter... Even one of the DEFENSE team members blurted
out that she was GUILTY, and then 'took it back.' JPB's
'argument' (sic) MUST claim they are ALL corrupt, or his 'argument'
(sic) has no substance whatsoever. Representing nothing more
than accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone else' plan (called
the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'GWW').
Her defense lawyers realized that ONLY the 'GWW' was present
during the time of Matthew's end-problem, so they needed to find
SOMEONE to blame it on. The ONLY ones who could possibly
be blamed, were the parents. The defense would have blamed
the police or the emergency medical techs or the attending doctors,
or the Donald Duck cartoon playing on the TV at the time, if they
had believed it could get the 'GWW' off the hook. And why
not? Weren't the Eappens 'uncaring'? Didn't the fact that they even
hired the 'GWW,' who fully demonstrated that she was 'uncaring,'
simply prove THEY were 'uncaring.' I mean, if they were 'caring'
they CERTAINLY would not have picked a recognized twit such
as the 'GWW' to take care of Matthew. The 'GWW' even admitted
on the stand that she was not equipped emotionally to handle that
child, and Middlesex County District Attorney Gerard Leone Jr.
nailed her to the witness chair about her late hours and other behavior
that prompted Matthew's parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen , to
give her an ultimatum to shape up. Woodward said on the stand
that Sunil Eappen returned one day to find Matthew and his 2
1/2-year-old brother unattended while she did the laundry. "He
was a bit unhappy, yeah," the 'Great White Whale' recalled. Leone's
cross-examination also revealed a young woman who chatted on
the phone, went out with her friends and lied about her age to get
into bars.
So, operating from the premise that the parents were 'uncaring' for
even having 'hired' the uncaring 'GWW,', her 'defense' naturally
hammered on and on about the fact that both parents worked, and
thus seemed 'uninterested' in Matthew. They then moved on to the
emotional, but necessary to their 'defense,' element of trying to
demonstrate that such 'uncaring' was responsible for something that
had never actually been reported before, since the Eappens were
not there when it happened, Only the 'GWW' was THERE. This
is the infamous 're-bleed defense.' The absurd idea that Matthew
had ALREADY been 'dropped' before, and the 'GWW' had
simply 'inherited' a child who was a 'time-bomb,' who was
going to 'bleed out' if she simply fed the baby. Her defense found
some 'hired-gun' doctors who would testify that it was 'possible,'
but they could produce no actual case (of course, it's 'possible' that
the sun will come up in the West tomorrow, but if it does, we will
not be alive to see it). And they found some other 'hired-gun'
doctors who would testify that they had 'heard' of it, but still no
specific case. How strange. Of course, it's strange to build a
case on 'non-evidence,' and a plan-B defense of accusing someone
who was not there at the time the baby was harmed. Gee.. sound
familiar? Look at 1) again.... 2) also represents nothing more than
accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
was nothing more than a _defense strategy_, in the exact wording --
"Many in the media and the public have failed to credit the jury in this
case with having had the intelligence to understand that the prosecution
put forward well established medical evidence that overwhelmingly
supported a violent shaking/impact episode on the day in question,
when Matthew was in the sole custody of Ms. Woodward. The
hypothesis put forward by the defense that minor trauma caused
a "re-bleed" of an earlier head injury can best be characterized as
inaccurate, contrary to vast clinical experience and unsupported by
any published literature. The "re-bleed" theory in infants is a
courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it."
And in a survey of 300 hospitals and 760 Universities, all of them
reported not a single case similar to that offered by the defense.
It's nice to have a 'defense' that is unique to the entire medical profession,
since not a single case of a similar 're-bleed' argument can be
demonstrated. It's all a hear-say argument, offered by 'expert' witnesses
paid a great deal to testify for the defense. In the case of Dr. Baden...
300 dollars an hour to testify. Gee.. do you think he'd actually say
something to incriminate the 'GWW' after getting paid 300 dollars an
hour to claim an imaginary 're-bleed' defense? Well, let's listen... when it
was asked by the prosecution of him -- "And sometime in July, you
told defense counsel, did you not, that you have an opinion that the
injury that Matthew Eappen suffered that caused his death occurred
sometime between forty-eight and twelve hours of his admission to
the emergency room at Children's Hospital, didn't you?" The good
doctor rather stammered and said -- "I'm sorry, say that again?" And
when this was asked again -- "Didn't you tell defense counsel sometime
prior to July 21st that you had an opinion to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty that the injuries that caused Matthew Eappen's death
were caused sometime in the framework between twelve and forty-eight
hours before the child presented to the emergency room, is that true,
Doctor?" The good doctor (recognizing who was paying his fee)
replied -- "I'm not sure I said it that way..." Sure, doc... we know
what you mean -- the check is in the mail. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11240_a.html
But then we also have the esteemed Dr. Leestma... who was paid
350 dollars per hour for off-bench research, and 450 dollars an hour
when testifying. Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya,
who remarked when asked about 'authoritative things,' replied "The
authoritative things I consider like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm
sure the answer to 'who dropped Matthew Eappen' can be found
there. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
Why don't you ask JPB to provide some 'facts,' that do not involve 1)
Everyone was out to 'persecute' the 'Great White Whale,' and they
are all corrupt or crooks, or 2) The Eappens were 'uncaring' as
demonstrated by the fact that they even hired the 'Great White Whale,'
and they (which one undetermined) had actually dropped Matthew
sometime between 1 year ago and 1 day ago (the defense realizes its
always best to leave quite a bit of latitude to argue - especially as the
Eappens were not there when Matthew WAS dropped -- by the
'Great White Whale').
PV
>--
> The Nameless One
A Planet Visitor
The only thing you've 'proved' is that you're obsessive, sport. Since you're
the one who again went into your rant that everyone who convicted the
'Great White Whale' was a crook. Once again... the short version.
Your entire horseshit affection for the 'Great White Whale' rests on only
two possible defenses -- 1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was
corrupt, or a crook. 2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone
else' plan (called the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'GWW').
Sometimes, when someone such as you lies OVER AND OVER, it
takes an extensive effort to catalog even a small number of those lies
and distortions. I did the best I could... but it could have obviously
been 10 times longer, had I actually decided to remark on ALL your lies
and distortions. Your 'defense' of the 'Great White Whale' rests
ENTIRELY on two absurd premises... neither of them containing
a single FACT which would find the 'GWW' anything but guilty.
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
foundation in fact, other your lunatic ravings. And
represents YOUR "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
your entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
it is true. Just as you began again "spewing out this pile of
hateful drivel" in this particular thread, with your words -- "But
it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County
DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical
evidence and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie
about what the defendant had said to them." See any FACTS
in that absurd and disgusting "pile of hateful drivel"? The FACTS
are EVERY juror voted for conviction... the Trial Judge
confirmed conviction for a lesser crime. EVERY Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that conviction.
EVERYONE in the prosecution found the 'GWW' GUILTY.
Even one of the DEFENSE team members blurted out that she
was GUILTY, and then 'took it back.' Your 'argument' (sic)
MUST claim they are ALL corrupt, or your 'argument'
(sic) has no substance whatsoever. Representing nothing more
than accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be
mounted. Defense 1) -- Thrown out as nonsense.
not there when it happened. Only the 'GWW' was THERE. This
Defense 2) -- Thrown out as unbelievable nonsense.
Why don't you provide some 'facts,' that do not involve 1)
Everyone was out to 'persecute' the 'Great White Whale,' and they
are all corrupt or crooks, or 2) The Eappens were 'uncaring' as
demonstrated by the fact that they even hired the 'Great White Whale,'
and they (which one undetermined) had actually dropped Matthew
sometime between 1 year ago and 1 day ago (the defense realizes its
always best to leave quite a bit of latitude to argue - especially as the
Eappens were not there when Matthew WAS dropped -- by the
'Great White Whale')?
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:e19tkvk1k0lprrf5u...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:21:51 GMT, "ikke" <ik...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
>> >news:s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > I, ikke, hereby declare as follows:
>> >
>> > [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>> > Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>> > counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>> > also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>> >
>> > [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>> > Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>> > I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Signed this 28th day of August 2003
>> >
>>
>> Well...well... what do we have here? Another 'chubby-chaser,' perhaps?
>> Hide from the evidence, sport. It's rather common with those in denial.
>
>What 'evidence' would that be, then Peeves? I glanced through the post
>(didn't read the whole thing)
Wonder of wonders. You didn't read the whole thing. Given your
reading skill level, I had no doubt you wouldn't be able to make it
through. Could mommy perhaps read it to you at 'beddie bye.'
>and all I saw was an oupouring of invective
>and hatred.
>If there was any 'evidence' in that at all, please siummarize. I'm not
>willing to wade
>through a sea of shit looking for it.
The outpouring of invective and hatred come from JPB, as the entire
content of his 'argument' (sic) 1). These are his invective and hateful
comments -- All 22 of them are his words in quotes. With most
of my comments in respect to those invective and hateful comments
removed. Some were just impossible to remove --
---------------------------------------
1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
Eappen."
3) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully convicted of"
4) "Louise Woodward was framed by a gang of criminals who lied, cheated,
conspired to pervert justice and committed perjury to deliberately
obtain a wrongful and fraudulent murder conviction against someone
they knew to be innocent."
5) "So whoever hid them - and it had to be someone from the prosecution
team - knew she was innocent"
That _someone_ was probably the same person hiding behind the grassy knoll.
6) "Dr. Eli Newberger, the principal architect of the framing of Louise
Woodward."
7) "Lies he told in order to frame someone he knew and still knows to
be totally innocent."
8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
was framed"
10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
convicted of. She was framed."
11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
brainwashed, biased population."
12) "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it."
And here is the BIGGEST lie from JPB. Since the judge had the
POWER to overturn the verdict and did not do so. That is DAMNING
evidence that the judge KNOWS she DID DO IT, not that she didn't.
Simply that she did not commit the crime of murder, to the extent of
meeting the legal demand of the crime of murder, since Zobel could
not find _malice_ as a part of her crime. Further, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court upheld that decision, and in fact had a legal obligation
to examine each of the points raised by the defense in its appeal petition,
and DID SO. Those points can be found in ---
http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
13) "For months on end you have claimed to agree with the ruling
of Judge Zobel you posted, without even knowing that it included
his acceptance of the re-bleed defence which you now describe as:
"the most disgusting defense imaginable"
Once again, JPB distorts the truth in his denials. Since Judge Zobel
never accepted the re-bleed defense, as his words in his ruling will
verify. He speaks only of "start (or restart) a bleeding that escalated
fatally." And I have certainly agreed, from the very beginning, with
the ruling of reducing the degree of the crime made by Judge Zobel.
Malice could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.
Guilt of manslaughter was certainly proven WELL BEYOND a
reasonable doubt.
14) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
proven crimes?"
And there is the _second biggest lie_ he has told in this process.
Unable to mount any kind of evidence of _innocence_, other than what
was presented by the defense at trial, and at appeal... he is reduced
to demanding that the State... _top to bottom_ be certified as _corrupt_,
unnamed, but seen as brushing a broad stroke of _conspiracy_ across
the entire prosecutorial process. Without such sophistry, on his part,
his _argument_ collapses like a lopsided house of cards.
15) "Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in
causing the death of Matthew Eappen. No cop outs like "The jury
said this" or "this person said the other"
Yes, of course.. let's not 'cop out' by using the views of those
who were closest to the case. The witnesses... the jury... the trial
judge... the justices of that Supreme Court... worthless to JPB.
Instead, let's use HIS hysterical accusations that the 'proof' rests on
claims of corruption, lies, crooks, jury contamination, conspiracy,
cover-up, frame-up, perjury, biased yellow journalism, accusations
and innuendo. Even including JPB's accusation of post-trial
INTIMIDATION of 47 doctors, being the reason they signed a
particular document. At least those claims don't actually have to
be 'proven.' Yes, of course.. let's not _cop out_ by using the
words of those who were closest to the case. Let's simply use
JPB's bilious accusations That approach suits him quite well,
inasmuch as his _argument_ is based on _the unproven_. His
_demand_ that we NOT look at _what the jury said_ in
rendering their verdict, or what _others have said_ about that
verdict, means he can claim anything he wishes... but those who
believe otherwise HAVE NO VOICE. What he actually wishes
to do is make silly presumptions OUTSIDE of evidence, forever
and ever, presuming that non-evidence will prove something
16) "it is scientifically impossible for Louise Woodward to have done
what she was convicted of"
Actually, it is scientifically impossible to truthfully say it is 'scientifically
impossible.' None of us are aware of the actual limitations of science.
17) "Louise Woodward was the one who was wrongfully convicted (she was
definately innocent)"
Simply another example of JPB's Tom Jones syndrome. Another _common
lie_... but _it's not unusual_.
18) "She was also totally innocent of harming that baby in any way
whatsoever - a crime for which she was blatantly framed"
19) "That she was the victim of a frame-up which included the deliberate
hiding, burial and destruction of exculpatory medical evidence, and
that four police officers committed proven perjury."
20) "what they were offered was murder or nothing. They all believed
she was not guilty of murder - they have said so."
JPB speaking of the jury verdict. Now, pardon me, if I don't believe they
'said so,' in the verdict. In fact, they ALL found her guilty of murder at
trial. Only ONE, holding out for _not guilty_, would have been
sufficient to hang that jury. The fact is -- they were UNANIMOUS
in their finding, and would obviously have CERTAINLY found her
guilty of the lesser crime she was ultimately convicted of, if that had
been the only crime for which she was charged. In fact, they
UNANIMOUSLY convicted her of a crime GREATER than that
which was eventually upheld throughout ALL due process.
JPB's _argument_ here is reduced to --
A) The jury was 'offered murder.'
B) JPB argues they do not believe she was guilty of murder.
C) But they STILL found her guilty of murder.
What a crowd... but of course... not one of the 12 were 'crooks.'
21) "I stated it as a fact that he had no power in this case to do
that. It remains a fact..."
22) "The defence do not make the rules. If the defence had
asked Zobel to quash the conviction, award Louise $10 million
compensation and appoint her President of the United States,
that wouldn't mean he was empowered to do so."
Here in these two statements he is claiming that Judge Zobel
did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict. In fact, a part of
the defense appeal WAS to ask that Judge Zobel to rule the
entire indictment be dismissed, and a finding of 'not guilty'
be entered by the judge. And in fact, it is proven that Judge
Zobel DID have the power to overturn the verdict. Because
JPB's 'friend,' the Nameless One wasn't actually much of a
'friend' as he checked with the legal authorities in Massachusetts,
and found out that Judge Zobel DID have such power. Poor
JPB... done in... even by his 'friends.' JPB has recently argued
that he did not MEAN Judge Zobel did not have the POWER,
but now pathetically claims that it is _certain_ that the Supreme
Court would have rejected him doing so. But that is a
PRESUMPTION developed by JPB, without a foundation of
REALITY. In any case, it is simply more of JPB trying to
CHANGE the words he has stated. Since he clearly states
that Judge Zobel DID NOT HAVE the power. And yet,
Judge Zobel certainly DID have the power, regardless of what
JPB hypothesizes would have resulted from him doing so.
------------------------------------------------------------
So... you wanted to see an outpouring of invective and hatred.
There it is in 22 exacts quotes of JPB. And that's simply the
start... because as you say... his invectives and hatred can
become so extensive, that our stomachs cannot handle it.
PV
Just passing by
> >
> >And the funniest thing of all is that PV himself has not read those
> >parts he copied from various websites and pasted here. I have proved
> >that so many times.
>
> The only thing you've 'proved' is that you're obsessive, sport.
No, I have proved exactly what I said I had proved above. Here is an
early and hilarious example of this.
Some time ago, after I had been regularly bombarding him with facts he
couldn't deal with and asking him for some evidence supporting his own
empty and meaningless argument, PV went desperately searching the
internet looking for something to help him save face. He found a
website dealing with the subject of shaken baby syndrome and with some
considerable amount of material pertaining to the LW case on it.
So, without even bothering to read it, he assumed that those key
words, "shaken baby syndrome" and "Louise Woodward" meant that he had
found an anti-LW site that included some in depth medical facts on it.
So, without even checking a single one of those facts, he posted the
URL followed by the bold claim of: "There lies MY argument."
But, oh dear ..... that wasn't his argument at all, but mine. He had
found a PRO LW site and, because, as always, he couldn't be bothered
to check it, he didn't even know it.
If he had just stayed there for a minute or more he would have spotted
an interview with Harvey Silverglate, one of LW's lawyers and that
might have caused him to check the rest of the site to see what those
running it were saying about shaken baby syndrome both in relation to
the Woodward case and more generally.
And here is that post which, thanks to the Google archives, will
always be available to show what a pathetic oaf this man is and always
will be.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y%25Ay8.100493%24nc.15066127%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
> Why don't you provide some 'facts,'......
I always do and you always run away from them as you always have and
still are from the following seven:
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
that this lipping was indeed present.
3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr.
DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
explained by the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
Just passing by
< spam clipped >
> So... you wanted to see an outpouring of invective and hatred.
> There it is in 22 exacts quotes of JPB.
Twenty two, were there? Why didn't you make it twenty nine? Why did
you leave out those seven that you have always run away from? Here
they are for you to run away from again.
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
that this lipping was indeed present.
3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr
DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
explained by the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
You just can't handle that list can you, PV? You have NEVER responded
to a single one of those seven proven facts. You can't even find
anything to copy & paste that might help you to deal with them. You
used to simply post the SJC ruling followed by a false claim that it
deals with them all, but then when I pointed out that it deals with
only one of them and ignores the rest, and then challenged you to show
otherwise, you ran away, didn't you?
And you will always run away from that list, instead posting that same
old long spam message in the hope that people will not notice how you
have ignored every one of those seven facts. In spite of your frantic
attempts at searching the web, you still can't find a single argument
against them, can you? But rather than admit that, you instead just
keep running away, trying to create distractions in the hope that the
list will go away. But it won't.
Earl Evleth
"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
Actually I read nothing by PV. Do inform me when he writes something
coherent.
We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
and a good laugh was had by all.
Earl
ikke
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Hehehe...
I'm sure someone out there hangs on your every word, PV, just not me.
Don't take it to heart, sport =0)
Cheers
John
Peter Morris
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BB7507DE.133AF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>
> We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
> and a good laugh was had by all.
What, even the prisonners have heard of him?
FitzHerbert
I Neville FitzHerbert, esq. hereby declare as follows:
[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
[X] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
I rushed for the 'delete' key.
Signed this 29th day of August 2003
----------
The thing with FuckWit -and why his readership is in terminal decline
- is his 'spamming'. I can take the lying, the deception, the
hypocrisy, even the despicable racist polemics and his extreme
Christian fundamentalist outbursts ... but only the once. Twice and it
starts getting not just silly, but boring. I fear FW does more repeats
than satellite telly. And for that, more than anything else on Usenet,
he should be ashamed. Well, that and his rabid Jew-hating. :-(
Hope this helps,
Neville
Peter Morris
>
> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>
> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
Jigsaw1695
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:binval$q9n$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Nothing like a little prison humor to brighten an inmates day.
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<slrnbkugu6.2kce.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>,
Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Date: 29 Aug 2003 11:58:33 GMT
>
>Le Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:38:38 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit
>:
>
>>> I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>>>
>>> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>>> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>>> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>>> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>>>
>>> [ ] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>>> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>>> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>>>
>>> Signed this day of 2003
>
>> Actually I read nothing by PV. Do inform me when he writes something
>> coherent.
>
>We've all been waiting for well over three years ... :-(
>
>> We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
>> and a good laugh was had by all.
>
>The ultimate insult on news:alt.activism.death-penalty now is, 'as stupid
>as PV' ... LOL !!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!uio.no
!193.75.75.20.MISMATCH!news.eunet.no!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc1-epso1-
4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>Date: 29 Aug 2003 11:58:33 GMT
>Lines: 30
>Message-ID:
><slrnbkugu6.2kce.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>References: <s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>
><BB7507DE.133AF%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1062158313 12024688 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<slrnbksjp5.2iqk.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>,
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Date: 28 Aug 2003 18:34:46 GMT
>
>Le 28 Aug 2003 11:29:48 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I don't think anybody read that post the first time PV pasted it,
>> which was many months ago, so I doubt if anyone will read it now on
>> its (30th? 50th? 100th?) latest run.
>>
>> And the funniest thing of all is that PV himself has not read those
>> parts he copied from various websites and pasted here. I have proved
>> that so many times.
>
>LOL ... another hefty spanking deliverd to FuckWit. This _is_ easy, isn't
>it ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news.t
ele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc1-epso
1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <"Des In a Cybercafe Near Bastille
>pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
>Date: 28 Aug 2003 18:34:46 GMT
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID:
><slrnbksjp5.2iqk.DesInaCybercaf...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>References: <s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.03082...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1062095686 11266567 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<3vitkv8sgn9v631ht...@4ax.com>...
>
>< spam clipped >
>
TRANSLATION ==> Lengthy, precise PROOF clipped <==
It's easy to clip everything and call it 'spam.' But difficult to
actually confront the proof.
>> So... you wanted to see an outpouring of invective and hatred.
>> There it is in 22 exacts quotes of JPB.
>
>Twenty two, were there? Why didn't you make it twenty nine? Why did
>you leave out those seven that you have always run away from? Here
>they are for you to run away from again.
>
I could probably make it 129... that's certainly at least how often you've
accused one or the other, or a collective group, of those who found the
'Great White Whale' to be guilty, to be 'corrupt,' or 'crooks,' or 'perjurers,'
or 'biased,' who 'lied,' 'cheated,' 'conspired,' 'perverted justice,'or were
'part of a frame-up,' and 'brainwashed' everyone.
Certainly your VERY FIRST POST after your absence, spoke ONLY
of a 'corrupt' process in her guilt, without the SLIGHTEST bit of anything
other than the raving hysteria that emits from you at the mention of the
'Great White Whale.' In fact, You literally JUMPED at the chance to
resume your raving at the mention of Woodward, by Rush Wickes.
Turning to your pathetic attempts to argue the 're-bleed' lie. I remind
you that this is simply what I have already addressed. One of the only
two 'arguments' (sic), both lies.. that you have to offer. Every point
you offer was simply presented by the defense in their appeal to the
Supreme Court, and all were rejected, by that court. In fact, the
offering of your simpleton 'proofs' was an admission by the defense
that they had 'not done a good job' at trial, and needed the Supreme
Court to 'retry the case,' rehashing what was presented at trial, while
claiming that the jury just didn't 'buy into it.' What you've done is
'clip and paste' from that defense appeal, and pretend that it represents
some FACTUAL PROOF, when it is all just argument that was
totally rejected by the court. This is lie #2 --
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
when testifying. Who seemed unconcerned with the fact that there
was no evidence of "retinal hemorrhaging." prior to Feb 4, 1996, the
day the 'GWW' harmed Matthew, who died 5 days later. Or this
exchange with the prosecutor, as the doctor spoke about the evidence
as he saw it --
Q Well, let me ask you the question again then, Doctor. Are you
telling the jury that of the four sections of dura that you took, you
believe to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that each
one of those is evidence from that section of his skull and dura,
that he suffered from an event three weeks before he died?
A I'd have to answer that no.
Well... well... well... See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya, testifying as
an 'authoritative expect medical witness,' who remarked when asked
about 'authoritative things,' replied "The authoritative things I consider
like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm sure the answer to 'who dropped
Matthew Eappen' can be found there. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
>1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
>at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
>underway for at least one week.
From the Massachusetts Supreme Court RULING on that defense
'argument' (sic) in their appeal --
"Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of
and conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding
of periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding
"alone," she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks
old. (38) Woodward did not ask the judge to take judicial notice
of this "conclusive" scientific evidence. She did, however, argue
that the judge consider this issue as grounds for her postverdict
motion for a required finding of not guilty. Because the claim for
judicial notice was not seasonably raised below, we need not
reach it here. We decline, in any event, either on review of the
judge's denial of a required finding of not guilty, or based on
taking judicial notice ourselves of scientific evidence of the age
of Matthew's head injury, (39) to set aside Woodward's conviction.
She cites us no other similar case in which a lower court judge,
much less an appellate court, has so credited such evidence.
38. Because both prosecution and defense experts agreed that
the fatal subdural hematoma and the fractured skull were caused
by the same event, proof that the skull fracture was weeks old
is, Woodward argues, an "outcome-determinative issue."
39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
>
>2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
>has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
>Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
>was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
>prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
>that this lipping was indeed present.
This is rubbish. This was offered as a defense, claiming "The
Commonwealth destroyed Crucial Physical Evidence." Well, well,
well... the Old Plan B -- Now blame it on the Commonwealth.
And notice that Dr. Leestma... getting paid $350 an hour for
'research,' and $450 an hour for testifying would seem to be the
one who is engaged in 'fraud,' and 'greed.' However, the Supreme
Court wisely ruled in sum to all that rubbish --
"Woodward also claims relief from the loss of potentially exculpatory
evidence obtained during the autopsy. We focus on the "missing"
sections of dura. (31) When Dr. Jan Leestma, an expert for
Woodward, examined the dura, he discovered that sections of
the dura were missing. The judge held a pretrial hearing on this
issue. (32) Dr. DeGirolami, the Commonwealth's neuropathologist,
testified that he had not been informed by the medical examiner's
office or anyone else of the physical evidence preservation order.
Following this hearing, the judge made a finding that the tissue
had been lost, but that the loss was not an act committed in bad
faith in an attempt to suppress evidence. He ruled that the loss
did not justify dismissal of the case because it was not "so critical
to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair."
Commonwealth v. Henderson, 411 Mass. 309, 311 (1991),
quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 61 (Stevens, J.,
concurring). We find no error in the judge's ruling.
...............
"As for the third prong of the test -- the prejudice to the defendant
from the loss of evidence -- we are not persuaded that the degree
of prejudice is so great as to warrant dismissal of the indictment.
The jury heard an abundance of evidentiary detail on, and medical
opinion endorsing, Woodward's theory from Dr. Leestma, based
on his examination of sections of dura covering areas other than
that over the fatal hematoma. The jury also heard from Woodward's
other expert medical witnesses, relying on a significant amount of
other medical and autopsy data, who gave opinions endorsing
Woodward's theory of the cause of death. The lost right side
section of dura was an important piece of potentially exculpatory
evidence, but may well have been cumulative of other forensic
evidence marshaled by Woodward's experts. The loss of
evidence in this case was not so overwhelmingly prejudicial as in
other cases in which lost evidence was uniquely critical. See,
e.g., Commonwealth v. Henderson, supra at 311 .... [many other
case cites clipped].
Neither the Commonwealth's culpability nor the prejudice to the
defendant is as great here as in those cases.
We agree with the judge that the loss of the dura evidence did not
justify dismissal of the indictment against Woodward. [clipped].
In light of Woodward's request that we not remand for retrial, we
need not reach the question whether the judge's failure to exclude
testimony presented by the Commonwealth relevant to the missing
dura tissue would be ground for reversing the manslaughter conviction
and remanding for retrial. For similar reasons we conclude that the
medical examiner's negligence in failing to produce in a timely way
the two closer, more sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture
and the prejudice from their belated availability to Woodward were
not so great as to justify dismissing the indictment. In response to
the admittedly belated delivery of the photographs to Woodward, she
requested only that she be allowed to recall two of her experts, relief
that the judge granted in part. (36) Her expert testified that the
photographs provided important confirming evidence that the skull
fracture was weeks old. In his ruling on Woodward's posttrial
motion, the judge noted that this testimony was "the last word
on the photographs and the conclusions to be drawn from them,"
and correctly determined that Woodward had not been prejudiced
by the late disclosure."
>3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
>fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr
>DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
>explained by the injury being an old one.
>
Actually the word "periosteum" does not once appear in the defense
cross-examination of DeGirolami --
See http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
The only time the word appears is in the prosecution's questioning of
that witness. And he makes no such claim as you assert. He only says --
Quote --
------------------------------------
Q Thank you. Epidural space, "EDS," thank you, Doctor.
A Okay. Then there is the skull. And the skull is lined by a layer of cells
called the "periosteum." And the periosteum is firmly adhering to the
outer surface of the dura, so that if one needs to remove the dura, one
needs to separate, forcibly separate this connection between the skull
and the dura."
And a few moment later -- Quote --
Q Now, with regard to old injury, disease, or bleeds, whether or not that
has any significance in that area, given the location of it.
A Well, there are several interpretations that could be given to this
thickening. It could be that bits and pieces of periosteum became
dislodged and became attached to the dura, that's one possibility.
Q And given the fact that it's in the epidural, the area above the dura,
rather than below the dura, do you find that significant in your opinions
and findings regarding what happened to Matthew's brain?
A Well, it's not related to this other subdural, considerations as regards
subdural that was talked about.
Q The acute damage?
A Yes.
Q And how do you know that?
A Well, it's on the other side of the dura.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And from the Supreme Court dismissal of this defense rubbish -
"Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of and
conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding of
periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding "alone,"
she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks old. (38) Woodward
did not ask the judge to take judicial notice of this "conclusive" scientific
evidence. She did, however, argue that the judge consider this issue as
grounds for her postverdict motion for a required finding of not guilty.
Because the claim for judicial notice was not seasonably raised below,
we need not reach it here. We decline, in any event, either on review of
the judge's denial of a required finding of not guilty, or based on taking
judicial notice ourselves of scientific evidence of the age of Matthew's
head injury, (39) to set aside Woodward's conviction. She cites us no
other similar case in which a lower court judge, much less an appellate
court, has so credited such evidence.
(39) Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of Dr.
Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic images
of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination is not
entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he did not know
the precise location from which he had taken the critical dura samples
and that the bone material he observed (excluding "vital reaction") could
have been an artifact of the autopsy and therefore come from a location
other than from the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in
itself for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive weight
to Dr. Leestma's findings."
>4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
>against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
>storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
>not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
>no scratches.
>
Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals. You need
to understand that defense appeals do not constitute EVIDENCE
or FACTS... they simply consist appeal requests based on THEIR
VIEW. Once again, see the Supreme Court ruling on all of the
appeals presented by the defense.
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
>5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
>have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>
Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
from their ruling --
"As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
>6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
>fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
>fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
>shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
>than 2 weeks.
>
Once again... see above. All of this was examined and REJECTED.
All of it was that offered by that 'greedy doctor' (since you are so
fond of calling everyone in the prosecution a criminal), Dr. Leestma.
And in the cross-examination of Dr. Leestma, one finds some
rather disturbing evidence of a 'conspiracy' afoot, concerning
'retinal hemorrhages.' Sheck rather purposely (IMHO) did not
mention them. And Coakley brought that out, in this exchange --
Q Do you have an opinion as to the age or ages of the retinal hemorrhages
that appeared in Matthew Eappen?
A Yes.
Q And what is that opinion, Doctor?
A My opinion is that the earliest ones observed were proximate to the final
events in the case. I have no evidence that they occurred at a previous
time, that retinal events and pathology evolved in the course of the child
being on a respirator to produce a final picture of retinal hemorrhages and
pathology.
Q Well, let me ask the question this way, Doctor: Is it your belief that there
was more than one episode of retinal hemorrhaging?
A Yes.
Q And what is that based upon?
A It's based upon the natural history of retinal hemorrhages in an individual
that is alive in a sense for five days to allow processes to evolve.
Q Well, then let me be clearer. Is it your opinion that there were retinal
hemorrhages that preceded February 4th, 1996?
A I have no evidence of that.
Q And you can't say that there were any prior incidences of anything,
accident or trauma, that created a retinal hemorrhage in Matthew
Eappen prior to February 4th, isn't that correct?
A I see nothing that could tell me retinal hemorrhage occurred before
that time.
Q In fact, you know that one of the ways you can date hemorrhaging
is by doing something called an "iron stain," is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you're aware, because you reviewed the records of the
Children's Hospital and Dr. Dryja in the neuropathology of the eyes,
that an iron stain was done that would preclude old retinal hemorrhaging,
isn't that also correct?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "old" as being vague.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "old" are being vague.
THE COURT: "Old," we'll, I guess you'll have to interpret what you
mean by "old."
Q Okay. Prior to February 4th, 1996.
A That's my understanding of the report.
Q So you would agree with me that the evidence that you've seen, and
based upon your experience in this field, is that there are no, prior to
February 4th, old retinal hemorrhages, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And so regardless of what your opinion is about everything else,
you agree that at least that particular incident of retinal hemorrhaging
occurred on or about February 4th, 1996?
A That's the beginning of the process, yes, I agree
------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Dr. Leetsma is rather adept at 'double-speak.' There 'were'
and yet... 'I have no evidence of that.' The reading of the cross-examination
of Dr. Leestma, is some very interesting reading. See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
Of course... he WAS getting 'paid' to testify.
>7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
>weeks old.
Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
Supreme Court ruled --
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
And, of course, the Supreme Court's opinion of Dr. Leestma --
"39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
>You just can't handle that list can you, PV?
Oh... the Supreme Court handled ALL OF THEM. You have simply
picked out pieces from the defense appeal to that court, which attempted
to simply rehash what had already been adjudicated, and presumed to
call it FACT... when 'in fact' it is nothing but the defense trying to
CHANGE the view of the evidence, presuming that Dr. Leestma had
presented FACTUAL, rather than OPINIONATED testimony.
> You have NEVER responded
>to a single one of those seven proven facts. You can't even find
>anything to copy & paste that might help you to deal with them. You
>used to simply post the SJC ruling followed by a false claim that it
>deals with them all, but then when I pointed out that it deals with
>only one of them and ignores the rest, and then challenged you to show
>otherwise, you ran away, didn't you?
>
The Supreme Court dealt with all of them. In fact... it is HILARIOUS
that one of the 'authoritative defense MEDICAL experts' asserted that
the documents he found 'authoritative' were THE BIBLE and THE KORAN.
See above for the link to the rather 'funny words' of one supposedly providing
'authoritative testimony.'
>And you will always run away from that list, instead posting that same
>old long spam message in the hope that people will not notice how you
>have ignored every one of those seven facts. In spite of your frantic
>attempts at searching the web, you still can't find a single argument
>against them, can you? But rather than admit that, you instead just
>keep running away, trying to create distractions in the hope that the
>list will go away. But it won't.
What is actually happening is that YOU are running away from a very
lengthy destruction of your entire 'argument' (sic). Simply by calling
it 'spam,' you actually think you have addressed the issues. You speak
of seven... I speak of HUNDREDS of your absurd and ridiculous ravings.
You never address ANY of those. Speak to the 'defense' you might have
to the simple 22 ACCURATE quotes of your ravings I've presented.
Speak to all the proof that there is NO ACTUAL CASE of a 're-bleed.'
Speak to the 47 Doctors, 300 Hospitals, and 760 Universities who
call such an argument -- a "courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis"
Speak to even a DEFENSE ATTORNEY who blurted out that the
'Great White Whale' was guilty, and then recognized that she faced
possible disbarment for an 'ethics violation,' and needed to retract her
words. See --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/104557.stm
Speak to your LIES, where you claim in respect to whether Judge
Zobel could have overturned the verdict and returned a verdict of
'not guilty.' Your words -- ""I stated it as a fact that he had no power
in this case to do that. It remains a fact..." While your 'Messiah'
managed to prove you are a liar... when he CHECKED with the
Massachusetts Bar Association and reported these words --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge
Zobel could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the
only option open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second
degree murder, to a lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was,
in fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary)
quash it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from
the Massachusetts Bar Association, would appear to confirm
this view. Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm
that, _as far as I am able to ascertain_, PV is right." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com
Apparently your 'Messiah' is actually a Judas... so where is your
admission of your LIE??
Oh.. BTW... one last thing...
spank...spank...spank....
PV
A Planet Visitor
pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le 28 Aug 2003 11:29:48 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I don't think anybody read that post the first time PV pasted it,
>> which was many months ago, so I doubt if anyone will read it now on
>> its (30th? 50th? 100th?) latest run.
>>
>> And the funniest thing of all is that PV himself has not read those
>> parts he copied from various websites and pasted here. I have proved
>> that so many times.
>
>LOL ... another hefty spanking deliverd to FuckWit. This _is_ easy, isn't
>it ?
>
SLURP.... SLURP... SLURP... I see the lover of your racism buddy
is back. Now all you need is Ol' Racist Nev to form your racist coven.
Proof that you're a racist? So glad you asked --
Proven by -- See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=87vh911siw.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
Your words in respect to the sentence of convicted racist murderer
Lawrence Brewer for the racist murder of James Byrd -- "Another
miscarriage of justice in Texas." One can presume from this comment,
that you would have preferred finding him innocent and giving him a
parade.
See -- This is the tribute posted to MLK on MLK Day.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fsWW9.113395%24Sa3.2633235%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
These are just a few of the MANY destructive posts wrought by you
hoping to destroy the name of that man, and his works...destroy them
through me. No clearer indication of your racism could possibly exist --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=oumni-d3q.ln1%40zeouane.org
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030306234136.10901.00001580%40mb-dh.aol.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030123212917.01792.00000517%40mb-fi.aol.com
See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=nmeg6vcenq30epp48sc4hgfb2aoml62vls%404ax.com
In that post one finds direct references to 31 racist slurs you have
offered in the past in AADP.
A Planet Visitor
pasdespam_desmond"@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:38:38 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit :
>
>>> I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>>>
>>> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>>> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>>> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>>> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>>>
>>> [ ] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>>> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>>> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>>>
>>> Signed this day of 2003
>
>> Actually I read nothing by PV. Do inform me when he writes something
>> coherent.
>
>We've all been waiting for well over three years ... :-(
>
>> We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
>> and a good laugh was had by all.
>
>The ultimate insult on news:alt.activism.death-penalty now is, 'as stupid
>as PV' ... LOL !!
>
No... the ultimate insult is ==> My name is Desmond.... and I'm a racist <==
Want proof? Glad you asked --Proven by -- See --
A Planet Visitor
>On 28/08/03 1:42, in article s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com,
>"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>>
>> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>>
>> [ ] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>>
>>
>>
>> Signed this day of 2003
>>
>> --
>> w00f
>>
>
>
>Actually I read nothing by PV. Do inform me when he writes something
>coherent.
>
LOL... Don't lie, Earl... you read EVERYTHING I post. EVERYTHING.
This is a list of all your posts TO ME, in just the past WEEK.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB721CB4.1310C%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB710756.12E3D%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB71035F.12E3B%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB70F9EE.12E36%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB70F9A3.12E35%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB70F967.12E34%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB70F8B1.12E32%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6F9E98.12BFD%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6D6F01.128B3%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6CEEC6.12572%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6BC44B.123DC%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6BB39A.123BD%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6BB34F.123BC%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB6BB2C6.123BB%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
It does not include all the times you've referred to me (if you don't read me... how
can you refer to me?), in posts to others. Oh... yeah... I remember now... you don't
actually have to READ what someone posts, to mount the podium and begin your
communist pompous windbag fascist treasonous pseudo-intellectual racist slumlord
exploiter of the working-class American traitor, rants.
>
>We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
>and a good laugh was had by all.
>
I can believe that. Criminals always laugh at those who find crime something
disgusting. But... if you don't 'read me,' how is it possible you 'discussed'
me? Another logical flip-flop, Earl. Like your 90 degrees is not always
90 degrees claim?
PV
>Earl
A Planet Visitor
Fine... just so long as you do not presume to offer any 'judgment' presuming
that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to read the proof
of her guilt, simply because it's too long for your 'short span of attention.'
If you checked that box because you agree with her guilt... fine. If you
contend the contrary, or would try to argue the contrary, then you have done
so without actually examining the proof of her guilt.
PV
>Cheers
>
>John
>
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<4eftkvgjh6tvdquae...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >
>> >And the funniest thing of all is that PV himself has not read those
>> >parts he copied from various websites and pasted here. I have proved
>> >that so many times.
>>
>> The only thing you've 'proved' is that you're obsessive, sport.
>
>No, I have proved exactly what I said I had proved above. Here is an
>early and hilarious example of this.
>
You haven't 'proved' anything except that you're a 'chubby chaser.'
That's been rather in evidence for some time.
>Some time ago, after I had been regularly bombarding him with facts he
>couldn't deal with and asking him for some evidence supporting his own
>empty and meaningless argument, PV went desperately searching the
>internet looking for something to help him save face. He found a
>website dealing with the subject of shaken baby syndrome and with some
>considerable amount of material pertaining to the LW case on it.
>
>So, without even bothering to read it, he assumed that those key
>words, "shaken baby syndrome" and "Louise Woodward" meant that he had
>found an anti-LW site that included some in depth medical facts on it.
>So, without even checking a single one of those facts, he posted the
>URL followed by the bold claim of: "There lies MY argument."
>
What I found, you moron.. was the text of all testimony at trial.
That is what constitutes PROOF. The testimony that sent the
'Great White Whale' on her way to 'guilty.'
>But, oh dear ..... that wasn't his argument at all, but mine. He had
>found a PRO LW site and, because, as always, he couldn't be bothered
>to check it, he didn't even know it.
>
Actually I find nothing in that site to suggest it is PRO the 'Great White
Whale,' since MEDICAL FACTS are what convicted her. You seem
to think that any reference to 'shaken baby syndrome' constitutes
PROOF of the 'Great White Whale's' innocence. When actually it
rather nails her to the cross of guilt.
>If he had just stayed there for a minute or more he would have spotted
>an interview with Harvey Silverglate, one of LW's lawyers and that
>might have caused him to check the rest of the site to see what those
>running it were saying about shaken baby syndrome both in relation to
>the Woodward case and more generally.
Oh, my... you actually expect an 'interview' with Harvey Silverglate
to be 'unbiased.' Get out of here. It's called 'now let's give equal time
for the view from the wild side.' The only reason I went to the site
was that I was searching for the text of all testimony at trial... and
that's where it is... my link was to --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
And anyone going there can find the COMPLETE text of all testimony
in the trial. Jesus... what a moron you are.
>
>And here is that post which, thanks to the Google archives, will
>always be available to show what a pathetic oaf this man is and always
>will be.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y%25Ay8.100493%24nc.15066127%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
>
Yeah... anyone looking at my post will find that I only link to that site
to PROVE, through TESTIMONY at trial. In fact... why bother?
These were ALL of my words in the URL you provide --
"---- Y A W N ------ How totally pathetic you must be in real
life. You would presume that the holocaust can be argued
as a factual occurrence as well, I can imagine. See
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
There lies MY argument. And the argument of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts And the argument of the Jury finding of guilt.
The finding of the Judge, which altered the verdict, and the
entire text of the appeal can be found in various places. Where
is YOUR counter-argument? Lost among those who also
deny the holocaust, perhaps? Recognize that by not appealing
any further, which was her right, there is a tacit admission of
guilt, regardless of 'EXCUSES.' She was no longer willing to
'roll the dice.' In hindsight, it would appear that Ms. Woodward
seems to have 'gotten away with murder,' and will perhaps
make a bundle of dough when she rewrites her version of 'fact.'
I can now look forward to YOUR 'next, easily decipherable,
evasive response.' ROTFLMAO."
>
>> Why don't you provide some 'facts,'......
>
>I always do and you always run away from them as you always have and
>still are from the following seven:
>
LOL... here we go again. And you talk about ME putting out so-called
spam. You put out shit...and presume to call it facts.
Those are not 'facts,' sport. Those are your ravings. THESE are FACTS --
Turning to your pathetic attempts to argue the 're-bleed' lie. I remind
you that this is simply what I have already addressed. One of the only
two 'arguments' (sic), both lies.. that you have to offer. Every point
you offer was simply presented by the defense in their appeal to the
Supreme Court, and all were rejected, by that court. In fact, the
offering of your simpleton 'proofs' was an admission by the defense
that they had 'not done a good job' at trial, and needed the Supreme
Court to 'retry the case,' rehashing what was presented at trial, while
claiming that the jury just didn't 'buy into it.' What you've done is
'clip and paste' from that defense appeal, and pretend that it represents
some FACTUAL PROOF, when it is all just argument that was
totally rejected by the court. This is lie #2 --
2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone else' plan (called
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
when testifying. Who seemed unconcerned with the fact that there
was no evidence of "retinal hemorrhaging." prior to Feb 4, 1996, the
day the 'GWW' harmed Matthew, who died 5 days later. Or this
exchange with the prosecutor, as the doctor spoke about the evidence
as he saw it --
Q Well, let me ask you the question again then, Doctor. Are you
telling the jury that of the four sections of dura that you took, you
believe to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that each
one of those is evidence from that section of his skull and dura,
that he suffered from an event three weeks before he died?
A I'd have to answer that no.
Well... well... well... See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya, testifying as
an 'authoritative expect medical witness,' who remarked when asked
about 'authoritative things,' replied "The authoritative things I consider
like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm sure the answer to 'who dropped
Matthew Eappen' can be found there. WHERE DID the defense
find these clowns? See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
>Not once have you ever even attempted to counter them and it is no
>surprise that you have again ignored them in your lies about what my
>arguments consist of. Here they are again for you to run away from
>again.
>
They have been countered OVER and OVER. From the very first
time I posted the RULINGS of the Massachusetts Supreme Court
which addressed EVERY ONE OF THEM. Where the Supreme
Court considered them all to be WORTHLESS. Especially
Dr. Leestma, whom they characterized as "His testimony on
cross-examination is not entirely clear, although one interpretation
could be that he did not know the precise location from which
he had taken the critical dura samples and that the bone material
he observed (excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact
of the autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture."
>1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
>at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
>underway for at least one week.
From the Massachusetts Supreme Court RULING on that defense
>2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
>has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
>Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
>was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
>prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
>that this lipping was indeed present.
This is rubbish. This was offered as a defense, claiming "The
>3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
>fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr
>DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
>explained by the injury being an old one.
>
>4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
>against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
>storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
>not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
>no scratches.
>
Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals. You need
to understand that defense appeals do not constitute EVIDENCE
or FACTS... they simply consist appeal requests based on THEIR
VIEW. Once again, see the Supreme Court ruling on all of the
appeals presented by the defense.
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
>5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
>have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>
Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
from their ruling --
"As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
>6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
>fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
>fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
>shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
>than 2 weeks.
>
>7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
>weeks old.
Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
Supreme Court ruled --
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
And, of course, the Supreme Court's opinion of Dr. Leestma --
"39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
So you see... The Supreme Court dealt with all of them. In fact... it
is HILARIOUS that one of the 'authoritative defense MEDICAL
experts' asserted that the documents he found 'authoritative' were
THE BIBLE and THE KORAN. See above for the link to the
rather 'funny words' of one supposedly providing 'authoritative
testimony.'
What is actually happening is that YOU are running away from a very
BTW -- Did I mention that even one of the 'Great White Whale's'
defense attorneys thought she was guilty? What a fucking loser...
Ho ho ho.
PV
Just passing by
> >
> Actually I find nothing in that site to suggest it is PRO the 'Great White
> Whale,' since MEDICAL FACTS are what convicted her. You seem
> to think that any reference to 'shaken baby syndrome' constitutes
> PROOF of the 'Great White Whale's' innocence. When actually it
> rather nails her to the cross of guilt.
You imbecile. That is most definitely a pro LW site. It is an
extension of an older site that was originally on Freeserve to provide
the trial transcripts and which was linked to other pro LW sites
provided by the Louise Woodward Campaign For Justice, the Boston
Support Group and numerous others around the world. You didn't know
that but just reading the content on the site would have been
sufficient to demonstrate it was supportive of LW and in total
opposition to the prosecution case against her. But, of course, you
DIDN'T read it, just as you never read anything you either link to or
copy & paste. That was only one example among many more I can show
here to prove that.
And the reason you STILL say that you "find nothing in that site to
suggest" it supports LW, is because you STILL haven't read the
material on it about SBS. That is how ignorant and stupid you are. You
think that because there are no pictures of LW, no yellow ribbons, and
no banners declaring "Louise is 100% innocent" that it must therefore
be anti or neutral. The fact that the information on the subject of
SBS rips the prosecution's case to shreds and fully endorses the
defence case has obviously escaped you .... but that is because you
have never bothered to read it.
> The only reason I went to the site
> was that I was searching for the text of all testimony at trial... and
> that's where it is... my link was to --
> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
> And anyone going there can find the COMPLETE text of all testimony
> in the trial. Jesus... what a moron you are.
You tried that lie before and I exposed it then as I will again now.
You did not link, specifically, to the transcripts, but to the home
page - the home page of a site that is supportive of LW and which
publishes the entire transcripts for three reasons: because they show
LW to be totally innocent, because they show the prosecution case to
be based upon the worst imaginable junk science, and because they are
a model example of the main theme of the site, which is to educate
people about the truths and the myths surrounding shaken baby
syndrome. Note that those transcripts have NEVER been published on any
website supporting the prosecution's case (even though there have been
many such sites). Why do you think that is? Why do you think that only
Pro LW sources have ever put those transcripts up and invited people
to study them?
So how would your simply linking to the transcripts, without
extracting a single word from them in the process, enable you to claim
"There lies MY argument"?
You thought that was an anti LW/pro prosecution website because you
didn't bother to read anything on it beyond those few key words you
looked for. You are an ass and that episode proves it, just as all the
other examples of you copy & pasting things here without reading them
first further prove it.
> >> Why don't you provide some 'facts,'......
> >
> >I always do and you always run away from them as you always have and
> >still are from the following seven:
> >
> LOL... here we go again. And you talk about ME putting out so-called
> spam. You put out shit...and presume to call it facts.
>
> Those are not 'facts,' sport. Those are your ravings.
Yes, they most certainly are. Those seven items on that list are FACTS
- proven, undisputed by the prosecution, the trial judge or the SJC.
Time and time again I have challenged you to show where those facts
have been disproved or even disputed, and every time you have run
away. When cornered you have always claimed they were dealt with in
the SJC ruling. So I challenged you to show where, and what did you
do? You posted the entire SJC ruling. But then, when I pointed out
that ONLY ONE of those items was addressed by the SJC, and even that
was not disproved but simply amounted to nothing more than the SJC
suggesting a possible alternative explanation, you ran and ran and
ran! You were totally and soundly beaten.
You then did what you always do when totally and soundly beaten - in
desperation, you posted that same old long spam message in the hope
that nobody would notice that you were running away, just as you have
this time. You pathetic loser. No wonder nobody reads your posts
anymore. No wonder Desmond is able to so easily swat you and brush you
aside while devoting his time to attacking his REAL enemies these
days. You aren't one of them, PV, because you never write anything
that you haven't pasted, word for word, a thousand times before. You
are no bother to Desmond or anyone else because nobody reads your spam
anymore.
< remaining spam unread and clipped >
ikke
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I ticked the box as a bit of fun, but admittedly, I rarely read anything of
yours that extends beyond 5kb...particularly if it starts "Gentle reader",
is overly capitalised, contains accusations of racism or is divided into
chapters.
When and if I develop an interest in the Woodward case, rest assured that
AADP is the last place I will come looking for impartial information.
Cheers
John
Just passing by
> >
> Fine... just so long as you do not presume to offer any 'judgment' presuming
> that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to read the proof
> of her guilt, simply because it's too long for your 'short span of attention.'
> If you checked that box because you agree with her guilt... fine. If you
> contend the contrary, or would try to argue the contrary, then you have done
> so without actually examining the proof of her guilt.
Proof of guilt? You have never posted a single word amounting to proof
of LW's guilt and have run away from incontrovertible proof of her
innocence every time it has been presented to you. Even if there was
such a thing as proof of guilt in that case, you would be totally
incapable of presenting it, as I have shown in another post today.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0308301013.1a4415ec%40posting.google.com
Who but a complete imbecile could write of the alleged impact that
caused a baby's skull fracture, "Actually, that has absolutely nothing
to do with the damage incurred to Matthew"? You and only you could
ever be stupid enough to write that.
And you are claiming to be providing proof of guilt? You utter cretin!
You don't even know what it is she was accused of doing. You don't
even know what injuries were found on Matthew. You don't even know
what the baby's skull fracture was alleged to have been caused by. And
yet you set yourself up as the provider of proof of guilt? It is
almost unbelievable that one so ignorant could even offer an opinion
on that case, let alone claim to be providing proof of guilt!
Clown
dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com says...
>
> I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>
> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>
> [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>
A Planet Visitor
>dirtdog <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:<s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>...
>
>I Neville FitzHerbert, esq. hereby declare as follows:
>
>[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>
>[X] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>
>
>Signed this 29th day of August 2003
>
>----------
>
>The thing with FuckWit -and why his readership is in terminal decline
>- is his 'spamming'.
My 'readership' seems to be recognized by the number of posters
who have commented on my lengthy destruction of that moronic
'chubby-chaser,' JPB. But 'readership' has never been a concern
of mine. I concern myself with keeping my self-respect... while
you could not care less about keeping yours. I notice that no one
has yet CHALLENGED my words. While some ADMITTED they
ignored them. Something I see frequently from some European
abolitionists who have the concrete-headed inability to communicate
in anything other than 'comic book' form. With posts longer than
three-lines seeming to confuse them (and in your case... even words
of very short length confusing you). Which means only 'mindless
drivel' insults seem to grab their attention. Certainly the Nameless
One and you are at the top of that list, neither of you having provided
any intellectual input here... relying totally on 'mindless drivel' insults.
Your 'greatest' intellectual input has been your truism that "Surely
the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept of
free-speech?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0303061442.2ea4b9a8%40posting.google.com
Yes, Ol' Racist Nev... You have the 'right of free-speech' to make racist
comments. It's a 'right' YOU exercise frequently. But doing so... only
proves you are a racist. Just as you have the right to march as a
'white-supremist' in a racist parade. But doing so guarantees that every
rational person sees you as a racist.
> I can take the lying, the deception, the
>hypocrisy, even the despicable racist polemics and his extreme
>Christian fundamentalist outbursts ... but only the once.
You obviously are characterizing yourself, Ol' Racist Nev. Since
I neither lie, deceive, or provide hypocrisy... you do. And there
is no doubt that you are a racist, and perhaps even a 'closet Christian
fundamentalist,' since I've never expressed any belief in that
rubbish, posing as dogma.
> Twice and it
>starts getting not just silly, but boring. I fear FW does more repeats
>than satellite telly. And for that, more than anything else on Usenet,
>he should be ashamed. Well, that and his rabid Jew-hating. :-(
>
No one hates Jews here anymore than you do, sport. Not even Hugh.
The Nazis attempted to exterminate the body of the Jew. You would
exterminate the soul...the spirit...the culture...the Hebrew descent of the
Jewish people. Claiming they can ONLY BE JEWISH... if they practice
the religious laws of Judaism. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305010549.2586f62f%40posting.google.com
Your words -- "One is not 'born Jewish' anymore than one is 'born
Cathy' or 'born Athiest'!!"
Do you contend that one is 'not born Arab,' unless he practices
the religious laws of Islam? I believe you ONLY try to do so, in the
sense of one being Jewish by birth. Which is a disgusting example
of your hate for the Jews in your anti-Semitism. Which has been
expressed in more ways than one... your holocaust denial, for
example... where you said -- "I must stress that Dachau, Belson,
and Buchanwald were _not_ used as death-camps for Jews."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
As if no Jews had actually been murdered there. You needed to
STRESS that lie.
And I will tell you as I've told another. It's fine that you have decided to
ignore evidence, because it is too lengthy for your limited span of
attention. Just so long as you do not presume to offer any 'judgment'
presuming that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to
read the proof of her guilt. If you checked that box because you agree
with her guilt... fine. If you contend the contrary, or would try to argue
the contrary, then you have done so without actually examining the proof
of her guilt. Which makes you a hypocrite, who has formed a judgment
without actually being aware of all the FACTS.
Hope this helps... but I doubt it...
PV
>
>Ol' Racist Nev
A Planet Visitor
While they are afraid of you... having stated that you support their
being murdered, if a 'great number' of murderers can be 'saved'
from lawful execution. Not to worry, Peter. ALL murderers
in France, regardless of HOW MANY they have murdered either
in or out of prison... regardless of how many times they have
committed murder... have the 'RIGHT' to murder again, unlimited
by any use of 'total incapacitation.' The EU has provided that
RIGHT to ALL MURDERERS. ALL murderers have the same
RIGHT that every French citizen has to not be lawfully executed.
In that respect.. the murderer and the average French citizen have
the SAME RIGHT.
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
Now, now, Peter... no fair 'voting' twice. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bima67%24lvj%241%40hercules.btinternet.com
You've always been a sneak... and here I've caught you at 'stuffing
the ballot box.'
I will tell you as I've told others who have a short 'span of attention.'
I don't actually care if the evidence doesn't concern you, and you find
yourself unable to examine that evidence, because it is too involved for
your limited intellectual capacity. I've often realized that posts longer
than three lines in length seem to confuse you (and some others), and
you cannot remember what you said before, thus often offering directly
conflicting comments. Such as your support for the murder of criminals,
and then your withdrawal of such support, when I mentioned how
inhumane that is. Or your claim that you would never willingly murder,
and then your admission that you would, if doing so could save London
from a nuclear explosion.
Just so long as you do not now presume to offer any 'judgment' arguing
that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to read the
proof of her guilt, simply because it's too long for your 'short span of
attention.' By your admission that a reading of such proof is not really
'necessary' to you, you admit to her guilt.
So, if you checked that box because you agree with her guilt, without
needing to see any FURTHER evidence of her guilt... fine. If you
contend the contrary, or would try to argue the contrary, then you
have done so without actually examining the proof of her guilt. Which
makes you what? Why.... it makes you a big, fat hypocrite.
PV
A Planet Visitor
LOL. See that, JPB? Another one who asserts that the 'Great White
Whale' was guilty, and needs to see no further proof of that fact.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<u590lvo1ub2eanorq...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >
>> Fine... just so long as you do not presume to offer any 'judgment' presuming
>> that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to read the proof
>> of her guilt, simply because it's too long for your 'short span of attention.'
>> If you checked that box because you agree with her guilt... fine. If you
>> contend the contrary, or would try to argue the contrary, then you have done
>> so without actually examining the proof of her guilt.
>
>Proof of guilt? You have never posted a single word amounting to proof
>of LW's guilt and have run away from incontrovertible proof of her
>innocence every time it has been presented to you.
Actually, my entire book contains nothing but PROOF, sport. You've
only offered your 'defense' of that baby-killer with either =
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
foundation in fact, other your lunatic ravings. And
represents YOUR "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
your entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
it is true. Just as you began again "spewing out this pile of
hateful drivel" in this particular thread, with your words -- "But
it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County
DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical
evidence and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie
about what the defendant had said to them." See any FACTS
in that absurd and disgusting "pile of hateful drivel"? The FACTS
are EVERY juror voted for conviction... the Trial Judge
confirmed conviction for a lesser crime. EVERY Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that conviction.
EVERYONE in the prosecution found the 'GWW' GUILTY.
Even one of the DEFENSE team members blurted out that she
was GUILTY, and then 'took it back.' Your 'argument' (sic)
MUST claim they are ALL corrupt, or your 'argument'
(sic) has no substance whatsoever. Representing nothing more
than accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be
mounted. Defense 1) -- Thrown out as nonsense.
who was not there at the time the baby was harmed. Gee.. sound
familiar? Look at 1) again.... 2) also represents nothing more than
accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
when testifying. Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya,
who remarked when asked about 'authoritative things,' replied "The
authoritative things I consider like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm
sure the answer to 'who dropped Matthew Eappen' can be found
there. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
Defense 2) -- Thrown out as unbelievable nonsense.
Why don't you provide some 'facts,' that do not involve 1)
Everyone was out to 'persecute' the 'Great White Whale,' and they
are all corrupt or crooks, or 2) The Eappens were 'uncaring' as
demonstrated by the fact that they even hired the 'Great White Whale,'
and they (which one undetermined) had actually dropped Matthew
sometime between 1 year ago and 1 day ago (the defense realizes its
always best to leave quite a bit of latitude to argue - especially as the
Eappens were not there when Matthew WAS dropped -- by the
'Great White Whale')
> Even if there was
>such a thing as proof of guilt in that case, you would be totally
>incapable of presenting it, as I have shown in another post today.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0308301013.1a4415ec%40posting.google.com
>
>Who but a complete imbecile could write of the alleged impact that
>caused a baby's skull fracture, "Actually, that has absolutely nothing
>to do with the damage incurred to Matthew"? You and only you could
>ever be stupid enough to write that.
>
Your PREMISE that external damage must be evident is what is
the most silly argument ever seen. The damage was INTERNAL.
That's been verified over and over. But you would not care about
Matthew. He is nothing but a pawn in your sick expression of
love for a baby murderer. You ugly piece of shit. That baby DIED...
Five days after being manhandled in one way or another by that
baby killer. He never had a chance once she got her hands on him.
>And you are claiming to be providing proof of guilt? You utter cretin!
Everything is right there, sport. All you have is two ridiculous,
hysterical claims. Both unbelievable. Both rejected by every
person involved in the trial, and prosecution of the 'Great White
Whale.' Suck it up, sport.
>You don't even know what it is she was accused of doing.
Of course I do. It was called murder. And later the trial judge
ruled it was manslaughter. And that judgment was upheld by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court. Chee... you're stupid.
> You don't
>even know what injuries were found on Matthew. You don't even know
>what the baby's skull fracture was alleged to have been caused by. And
>yet you set yourself up as the provider of proof of guilt? It is
>almost unbelievable that one so ignorant could even offer an opinion
>on that case, let alone claim to be providing proof of guilt!
I am not the 'provider of proof of guilt,' dipshit. Those who
prosecuted her are... and that guilt was PROVEN... beyond a
shadow of a doubt. You are the provider of nothing but bullshit.
Just clipping and pasting the same arguments offered by the
defense at appeal, because they tacitly admit that they could
not convince the jury at trial using the same arguments. The
Supreme Court wisely recognized this, and rejected all such
nonsense.
The 'provider of proof' is all in the trial transcripts, which the
jury heard every word of. The defense appeal was a pitiful
attempt to retry their weak case before the Supreme Court,
which saw through such a deception immediately.
Chee, JPB... EVEN one of the 'Great White Whale's' DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS said she was 'guilty.' What more do you need?
PV
Just passing by
"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
He doesn't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet he claims
to be providing proof that she did it.
What else needs saying about this cretin? That says it all.
Just passing by
>
> I don't actually care if the evidence doesn't concern you ...
"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
He doesn't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet he claims
to be providing evidence that she did it.
Everything in that 942 line piece of spam has been demolished many
times here in this group. It consists of numerous copy & pasted
extracts from various websites which PV has never even bothered to
read himself.
And PV knows nothing about that case as he proved only two days ago
with that breathtakingly stupid remark .... which I can't resist
posting again.
"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, August 29, 2003)
Just passing by
> On 29 Aug 2003 03:19:37 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<3vitkv8sgn9v631ht...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >< spam clipped >
> >
> TRANSLATION ==> Lengthy, precise PROOF clipped <==
> It's easy to clip everything and call it 'spam.' But difficult to
> actually confront the proof.
It IS spam. It is the same text, word for word, that you have posted
here countless times over the past year. Every word of it has already
been demolished but you simply ignore that and keep posting the spam,
occasionally adding more spam to it. You never write more than a few
words (always at the beginning and end) that are not part of that same
spam. Any idiot could do that.
And the reason you write those few new words at the beginning and end
is to make it look, to the casual observer, as if it is all new. As
this thread proves, nobody actually reads your spam, but you figure
that if you disguise it with those bits on each end, they will at
least not notice how empty your posts really are. In other words it is
a con-trick - a very amateurish illusion.
As Neville put it:
> The thing with FuckWit -and why his readership is in terminal decline
> - is his 'spamming'. I can take the lying, the deception, the
> hypocrisy, even the despicable racist polemics and his extreme
> Christian fundamentalist outbursts ... but only the once. Twice and it
> starts getting not just silly, but boring. I fear FW does more repeats
> than satellite telly.
But then with such staggering ignorance as you demonstrated this week
when you revealed that you didn't even know what LW had been accused
of doing, it is no surprise that the best you can manage is copy &
pasted spam that you have never even read yourself. Here is that
amazing quote again:
"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
You don't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet you claim
to be providing proof that she did it.
That was the first time you tried actually debating that case instead
of simply pasting your spam as the easy way out, and look what
happened. That is why you need to keep spamming. You know that as soon
as you attempt any real debating on that case your ignorance will be
highlighted, as it was there.
< PV's remaing spam clipped >
Just passing by
Here was a good example of PV's spamming technique which I also
referred to earlier:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0308310123.274ec1f%40posting.google.com
What he does is this:
Step 1. He writes a few lines directly relating to the post he is
replying to.
Step 2. He then simply pastes hundreds of lines of text (that he has
used countless times before) underneath.
Step 3. He then ends by writing a few more new lines at the bottom to
complete the deception.
What deception? PV's motive is to make it look as if he has just spent
hours researching and typing what looks like an enormous post, but
which is, in reality, just a few lines of new text and many hundreds
of lines of pasted spam.
And he uses the SAME pasted spam, or parts of it, in every message.
Look at that last post; it started with:
> Actually, my entire book contains nothing but PROOF, sport. You've
> only offered your 'defense' of that baby-killer with either =
All new text, but then look at what comes next, beginning with these
lines:
> 1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
>
> Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
> foundation in fact, other your lunatic ravings. And
> represents YOUR "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
> your entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
> it is true..... etc, etc.
Seen those words before? Look at PV's post to Desmond only two days
earlier, in this very thread.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=p7dtkv8pvi4v7i7360il3fccm7iecn92d1%404ax.com
Once again, PV started that post with a few lines of new text, before
simply hitting "paste" and bombarding the group with that very same
spam, beginning with:
> 1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
>
> Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
> foundation in fact, other the ravings of that lunatic, JPB. And
> represents HIS "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
> his entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
> it is true... etc, etc.
He remembered to make a few subtle changes to take account of the two
different people he was replying to - in his reply to me, he wrote:
".... other your lunatic ravings," and in his reply to Desmond, that
part read: " .... other the ravings of that lunatic, JPB," without
even noticing the missing word ("than") in either.
He then followed that with hundreds of lines of spam, identical to
that in this latest post of his. Then, right at the end, he writes a
few more lines of new text to make it look as if everything in the
middle is equally new - because he knows that most people never read
all through his posts.
So don't be fooled by the apparent length of PV's posts. The
overwhelming majority of PV's output here is spam that he simply
pastes again and again and again, every day for months on end. The man
is a total fraud.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:34:30 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:BB7507DE.133AF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >
> >>
> >> We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
> >> and a good laugh was had by all.
> >
> >What, even the prisonners have heard of him?
> >
> While they are afraid of you... having stated that you support their
> being murdered,
No that's what you said you sick cunt.
It went roughly like this. (The following is a summary of many posts)
PV : Some INNOCENT people were murdered by guilty murderers that we
didn't execute. INNOCENT people are worth more than murderers.
Only INNOCENT people deserve to be saved, and murderers don't.
Murderers are not INNOCENT and don't deserve to be saved. Those
victims were INNOCENT, and deserved to be saved becausre they are
INNOCENT. Criminals don't deserve to be saved , but they were not
criminals, they were INNOCENT. Its their INNOCENCE that makes
them worthy of being saved, and criminals don't deserve that. If
we'd
executed those murderers we would have saved thiose INNOCENT
people, who are worth saving because they aren't murderers, etc
etc, etc,
PETER: : PV is lying again. Those victims were not the 'innocents' he claims
them
to be, they were death row murderers, who PV wanted to have
executed.
They fail to fit HIS stated criteria for deserving to be saved, they
wouldn't have
been saved anyway, because they would have been executed, and PV is
a
hypocrite for pretending that he wants to save them, when in fact he
wanted
them dead.
PV: scream scream scream, Look, Peter is saying that they aren't innocent,
that
shows he thinks they don't desrve to be saved.
Peter: Nobody desrves to be murdered, PV, I don't agree with your statement
that only the innocent deserve to be saved, everyone should be
saved,
guilty or innocent. But you never wanted them saved at all.
PV: scream scream You agree with what I said, but I misspoke, when I said
only
innocent people deserve to be saved I obviously meant that
everyone is
innocent.scream gibber spew
Peter : Another flip-flop, PV.
PV: Its obvious that I meant what you said, and you meant what I
said. Nobody deserves to be murdered. You don't undersytand that.
Peter : I told you that.
PV: scream I said it first, even when I said that only innocent people
deserve to be saved, I didn't mean it, everyone can see I didn't
mean it.
I don't care that I said it many times in many different posts, I
didn't
mean it, but your reply proves you agree with me.
And so on and so on ad nauseam.
PV said that only innocent people deserve saving, I said that everyone
deserves saving. PV hates me for saying that, and totally disagrees with it,
but tries to pretend that he said it first.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:27:36 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:21:51 GMT, "ikke" <ik...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of
A
> >> > Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
> >> > counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy
was
> >> > also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
> >> >
> >> > [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet
Visitor'
> >> > Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over
as
> >> > I rushed for the 'delete' key.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well...well... what do we have here? Another 'chubby-chaser,' perhaps?
> >> Hide from the evidence, sport. It's rather common with those in
denial.
> >
> >(didn't read the whole thing)
>
> Wonder of wonders. You didn't read the whole thing. Given your
> reading skill level, I had no doubt you wouldn't be able to make it
> through. Could mommy perhaps read it to you at 'beddie bye.'
This coming from the man who thinks that me saying NOBODY DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED means that I agree with his statement that
only innocent people deserve to be protected from murder.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:44:16 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
> >news:s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> I, Peter Morris hereby declare as follows:
> >>
> >> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
> >> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
> >> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
> >> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
> >>
> >> [*] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
> >> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
> >> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed this 29th day of August 2003
> >>
> >> --
> >> w00f
> >>
> Now, now, Peter... no fair 'voting' twice. See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bima67%24lvj%241%40hercules.btinternet.com
> You've always been a sneak... and here I've caught you at 'stuffing
> the ballot box.'
At least you've never caught me lying, or saying that criminals deserve to
be murdered. We've caught you doing so hundreds of times.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<u590lvo1ub2eanorq...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >
>> Fine... just so long as you do not presume to offer any 'judgment' presuming
>> that the 'Great White Whale' was not guilty, if you refuse to read the proof
>> of her guilt, simply because it's too long for your 'short span of attention.'
>> If you checked that box because you agree with her guilt... fine. If you
>> contend the contrary, or would try to argue the contrary, then you have done
>> so without actually examining the proof of her guilt.
>
>Proof of guilt? You have never posted a single word amounting to proof
>of LW's guilt and have run away from incontrovertible proof of her
>innocence every time it has been presented to you.
Actually my book LISTS the proof. And one can easily find further proof
in the reference I provide in my book at --
Anyone wishing the TRUTH can find the transcript of the trial at
url:http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
And the TRUTH can be found in the ruling of Judge Zobel at
url:http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.ruling/
And the TRUTH can be found in the prosecution appeal petition to the
Massachusetts Supreme Court at
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
And a pack of LIES can be found in The defense appeal petition to the
Massachusetts Supreme Court at
url:http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
And the TRUTH can be found in the ruling of the Supreme Court at
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
JPB's hysterical claims of 'corruption' can also be found strewn
about a number of newsgroups that he haunts... looking for the
buzzword -- Woodward -- at which point he begins his 'love
affair' with the baby-killing 'great white whale.'
But in all cases, I am simply proving links to that proof. It is not my
place to presume I have some unique 'proof,' when others have done
such a splendid job of doing so. I am not the prosecutor or the judge...
but the proof is there for anyone to see. You would hide from that
proof by contending that --
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone else' plan (called
the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'Great White Whale').
Two of the most absurd and disgusting attempts to pervert justice
that anyone could imagine.
> Even if there was
>such a thing as proof of guilt in that case, you would be totally
>incapable of presenting it, as I have shown in another post today.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0308301013.1a4415ec%40posting.google.com
>
LOL... You mean the one I just destroyed, bullet-head?
>Who but a complete imbecile could write of the alleged impact that
>caused a baby's skull fracture, "Actually, that has absolutely nothing
>to do with the damage incurred to Matthew"? You and only you could
>ever be stupid enough to write that.
>
But it doesn't, bullet-head. A baby's skull fracture does not demand
extracranial injury, see --
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/124/7/1290
In any case, the jury rejected any idea that there was ANY pre-trauma
injury to Matthew, prior to the 'Great White Whale' causing that skull
fracture.
>And you are claiming to be providing proof of guilt? You utter cretin!
>You don't even know what it is she was accused of doing.
Quite clearly I do-- . Here is what she was accused of doing.
I think the prosecutor did a marvelous job of defining EXACTLY
what she was accused of --
"On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both
of her little boys, eight-month-old Matty and two-and-a-half-year-old
Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matty, she changed Brendan's
diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine. She
gave some instructions to the defendant concerning care for the kids
that day, and she left the home to work at her part-time job as an
ophthalmologist. When she left that home, Matthew Eappen was
normal, healthy, and well. It was the last time Debby Eappen would
see her little boy normal, healthy, and well again.
Because later that day, after a 911 call from the defendant, Matthew
Eappen was rushed to Children's Hospital, suffering from a fractured
two-and-a-half-inch fractured skull, a massively-swollen brain, and
bloody retinal hemorrhaging all over his eyes, that occurred while
in the care of the defendant that day.
Debby Eappen would rush to Children's Hospital, as would Sunny
Eappen. And the next time Debby Eappen would see her little boy,
he was lying on a gurney in the emergency room at Children's
Hospital, suffering from that skull fracture, from the massively swollen
brain, and the retinal hemorrhaging in his eyes in the area that leads
to his brain. Matthew Eappen was rushed into a C-T scan, a picture
of his brain taken. He was then whisked off to the operating room,
and his parents watched him be wheeled into that operating room
for an emergency brain surgery.
And during the course of this surgery, as the Children's Hospital
doctors tried to save little Matty's life, the defendant was back
in the Eappen home in Newton. She was being interviewed by
police officers that evening, giving an explanation for what she
said happened that day.
She told those Newton police officers that she was unhappy and
frustrated with Matthew's crying all day. She told those Newton
police officers that she was a little rough with Matthew that day,
that she tossed him on the bed before a bath, that she dropped
him to a tile floor in the bathroom and possibly his head hit where
the bath meets the tile on that floor. That she later shook him to
revive him because he seemed unresponsive to her.
The doctors at Children's Hospital will tell you that the explanation
the defendant gave to the Newton police officers for what
happened that day is untrue. A two-and-a-half-inch skull fracture
to the back of Matty's head, a massively-swollen brain pressing
against the sides of his skull, bloody retinal hemorrhaging in the
area of his head, between the eyes of the brain; these injuries
were not caused by someone being a "little rough." These
injuries were not caused by a toss on the bed or a drop to the
floor. These injuries weren't caused by a gentle revival shaking.
These injuries were caused by a violent slam against a hard
object causing that skull fracture which eventually killed Matthew
five days later, an extremely atrocious, cruel manner of death,
as he progressively worsened over those five days. A violent
slam against a hard object and severe prolonged shaking, so
that that baby's head went back and forth, back and forth,
shearing the veins inside his head, causing the retinal hemorrhaging,
actions that anyone would know would cause a little
eight-month-old boy to die. That in this commonwealth is murder."
> You don't
>even know what injuries were found on Matthew.
The jury examined every bit of that evidence. In fact, the only ones
who REALLY examined Matthew, himself, and determined what
injuries were found on HIM... were the attending doctors at the
Children's hospital. I believe they rather confirmed that his trauma
was experienced that day, and resulted in his death five days later.
It seems that ALL of the defense 'medical experts' were in the field
of pathology, or radiology, or biomechanics neurology, and never
examined Matthew, or operated on him. These were the 'defense
medical experts' ready to 'sell their soul for a buck,' and their
reported field of expertise. All of them convinced medicine is
money first -- then ethics --
Leestma -- neuropathology
Gean - neuroradiology
Thibault - biomechanics
Ommaya - Neurology-biomechanics
Uscinski - pediatric neurosurgeon
Baden - Anatomic pathology
Not a one of the defense 'medical experts' actually TOUCHED Matthew
while alive, or examined anything more than 'pieces of him.'
>You don't even know
>what the baby's skull fracture was alleged to have been caused by.
Read above. It was caused by the 'Great White Whale' having
admitted to police that she was unhappy and frustrated with
Matthew's crying all day. Admitting that she was a little
rough with Matthew that day, that she tossed him on the bed
before a bath, that she dropped him to a tile floor in the bathroom
and possibly his head hit where the bath meets the tile on that
floor. That she later shook him to revive him because he seemed
unresponsive to her. Do you really think she would admit that
on the stand? But she came across as a very uncaring' person
to the jury, IMHO.
Of course.. the doctors at Children's Hospital will tell you that
her explanation was untrue. A two-and-a-half-inch skull fracture
to the back of Matty's head, a massively-swollen brain pressing
against the sides of his skull, bloody retinal hemorrhaging in the
area of his head, between the eyes of the brain; these injuries
were not caused by someone being a "little rough." These
injuries were not caused by a toss on the bed or a drop to the
floor. These injuries weren't caused by a gentle revival shaking.
These injuries were caused by a violent slam against a hard
object causing that skull fracture which eventually killed Matthew
five days later, an extremely atrocious, cruel manner of death,
> And
>yet you set yourself up as the provider of proof of guilt? It is
>almost unbelievable that one so ignorant could even offer an opinion
>on that case, let alone claim to be providing proof of guilt!
Actually, you are again confused or simply lying. Since I never
claimed to be the PERSONAL 'provider of proof of guilt.' You
claimed to be the PERSONAL 'provider of proof of innocence.'
I simply provide links to the trial and the appeal to show how those
tasked with the job of judging the 'Great White Whale,' arrived
at their decision in respect to the evidence. The evidence of what
formed their judgment. And you have failed to produce even the
slightest evidence of such 'innocence' (sic). I have always claimed
that the prosecution witnesses, 12 jurors, a trial judge, and 7 justices
of the Massachusetts Supreme Court were the 'providers of proof
of guilt.' I've never needed more than that, although I've often
provided more than that. Things that the trial and appeal did not
see, which I believe OTHERS felt provided 'proof of guilt.' Such as --
1) The 47 physicians who specialize in the diagnosis and treatment
of victims of child abuse, having characterized the medical defense
offered to be a THEORY used only in a courtroom, calling it
"The "re-bleed" theory in infants is a courtroom "diagnosis", not
a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly rejected it"?
2) Of course, then we also have a report commissioned by the New
England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical
journal available, which can be found at --
http://www.th-record.com/1998/06/19/woodward.htm
The report concluded that ""There is no evidence of a prolonged
interval of lucidity between the injury and the onset of symptoms" in
children with such severe head injuries, said the report in the current
New England Journal of Medicine. "Thus, an alert, well-appearing
child has not already sustained a devastating acute injury that will
become clinically obvious hours to days later."
The article, by four physicians at the University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, was commissioned by the journal to respond
to the scientific controversy over "shaken-baby syndrome" generated
by the Woodward case, although the authors did not specifically
address that case. The report, and interviews with its authors,
generally bolster arguments raised by the Woodward prosecution.
3) And then we have an inquiry sent by The Associated Press
through ProfNet, an Internet query service that reaches about 300
hospitals and 760 colleges and universities around the country, yielded
NO examples. See --
http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-97/12-08-97/b07sr075.htm
4) And of course, the defense attorney who admitted that the 'Great
White Whale' was GUILTY, fired because of that statement, needing
to retract that statement because of the possibility of her disbarment
as a breach of ethics. See--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/104557.stm
What a sordid, sorry story this is.... and the baby-killer walked free
immediately after conviction, because of political pressure brought to
bear.
PV
A Planet Visitor
GENTLE READER --
JPB obviously has some rather deep-seated emotional problems. He tends
to fixate on certain subjects and people. Apparently that fixation has now
gravitated toward PV. Because I have detected the fetish JPB has for saucy
white flab. Certainly JPB does not seem to demonstrate normal behavior, as
he appears to be unable to function without some form of an obsession to keep
him occupied. But if my presence here can serve to unfetter JPB a bit from his
attachment to the _Great White Whale_, and instead focus his obsession on
me, I feel I will have accomplished some measure of having provided better
mental health for JPB.
Yours in good mental health....
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<9juvkv47ci296ga8j...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Aug 2003 03:19:37 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>>
>> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<3vitkv8sgn9v631ht...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >< spam clipped >
>> >
>> TRANSLATION ==> Lengthy, precise PROOF clipped <==
>> It's easy to clip everything and call it 'spam.' But difficult to
>> actually confront the proof.
>
>It IS spam. It is the same text, word for word, that you have posted
>here countless times over the past year. Every word of it has already
>been demolished but you simply ignore that and keep posting the spam,
>occasionally adding more spam to it. You never write more than a few
>words (always at the beginning and end) that are not part of that same
>spam. Any idiot could do that.
Every word of it has never been refuted... Not one single time.
And here it is again... because you cannot handle it.
Your pathetic whining --
> Twenty two, were there? Why didn't you make it twenty nine? Why did
> you leave out those seven that you have always run away from? Here
> they are for you to run away from again.
My destruction of your whining --
Your pathetic lies --
>1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
>at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
>underway for at least one week.
My destruction of your lies --
More of your whining lies --
>2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
>has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
>Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
>was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
>prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
>that this lipping was indeed present.
More of my destruction of your lies --
Again... another whining lie from you --
>3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
>fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr
>DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
>explained by the injury being an old one.
Again -- a destruction of your pathetic whining lie --
More whining lies from you --
>4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
>against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
>storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
>not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
>no scratches.
>
More destruction from me --
Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals. You need
to understand that defense appeals do not constitute EVIDENCE
or FACTS... they simply consist appeal requests based on THEIR
VIEW. Once again, see the Supreme Court ruling on all of the
appeals presented by the defense.
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
More whining from you --
>5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
>have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>
More destruction from me --
Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
from their ruling --
"As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
More whining from you --
>6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
>fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
>fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
>shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
>than 2 weeks.
>
More destruction from me --
More whining from you --
>7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
>weeks old.
More destruction from me --
Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
Supreme Court ruled --
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
And, of course, the Supreme Court's opinion of Dr. Leestma --
"39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
Now some real sobbing from you --
>You just can't handle that list can you, PV?
A no-pity destruction from me --
Oh... the Supreme Court handled ALL OF THEM. You have simply
picked out pieces from the defense appeal to that court, which attempted
to simply rehash what had already been adjudicated, and presumed to
call it FACT... when 'in fact' it is nothing but the defense trying to
CHANGE the view of the evidence, presuming that Dr. Leestma had
presented FACTUAL, rather than OPINIONATED testimony.
Weeping from you --
> You have NEVER responded
>to a single one of those seven proven facts. You can't even find
>anything to copy & paste that might help you to deal with them. You
>used to simply post the SJC ruling followed by a false claim that it
>deals with them all, but then when I pointed out that it deals with
>only one of them and ignores the rest, and then challenged you to show
>otherwise, you ran away, didn't you?
>
A spanking from me --
The Supreme Court dealt with all of them. In fact... it is HILARIOUS
that one of the 'authoritative defense MEDICAL experts' asserted that
the documents he found 'authoritative' were THE BIBLE and THE KORAN.
See above for the link to the rather 'funny words' of one supposedly providing
'authoritative testimony.'
Wailing from you --
>And you will always run away from that list, instead posting that same
>old long spam message in the hope that people will not notice how you
>have ignored every one of those seven facts. In spite of your frantic
>attempts at searching the web, you still can't find a single argument
>against them, can you? But rather than admit that, you instead just
>keep running away, trying to create distractions in the hope that the
>list will go away. But it won't.
A merciless pounding from me --
spank...spank...spank....
Commence new JPB crying, weeping, sobbing attempt to gain pity
>And the reason you write those few new words at the beginning and end
>is to make it look, to the casual observer, as if it is all new. As
>this thread proves, nobody actually reads your spam, but you figure
>that if you disguise it with those bits on each end, they will at
>least not notice how empty your posts really are. In other words it is
>a con-trick - a very amateurish illusion.
Sure, JPB... and Martin Luther King Jr. was all a 'phony gimmick' in your
words. Little wonder that you now quote Ol' Racist Nev, instead of MLK.
>As Neville put it:
>
Oh... yeah.. SLURP... SLURP... SLURP up to Ol' Racist Nev... another
'friend' of yours. The Jew-hating Nazi. You sure can pick 'em, JPB --
>> The thing with FuckWit -and why his readership is in terminal decline
>> - is his 'spamming'. I can take the lying, the deception, the
>> hypocrisy, even the despicable racist polemics and his extreme
>> Christian fundamentalist outbursts ... but only the once. Twice and it
>> starts getting not just silly, but boring. I fear FW does more repeats
>> than satellite telly.
>
>But then with such staggering ignorance as you demonstrated this week
>when you revealed that you didn't even know what LW had been accused
>of doing, it is no surprise that the best you can manage is copy &
>pasted spam that you have never even read yourself. Here is that
>amazing quote again:
See my other post... It will explain what the 'Great White Whale' had
been accused of. It seems that you're the one who does not understand
what she was accused of. Or you can find what she was accused of at --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
Now THERE'S something that you should be quoting as well, rather
than that Jew-hating Nazi, Ol' Racist Nev.
>
>"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
>alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
>
>You don't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet you claim
>to be providing proof that she did it.
Ah... see the reference, bullet-head. Perhaps you might finally understand
what the 'Great White Whale' case was actually all about. It was about
the MURDER of a little baby... a murder committed by the 'Great
White Whale.'
>
>That was the first time you tried actually debating that case instead
>of simply pasting your spam as the easy way out, and look what
>happened.
Don't flatter yourself... I wasn't trying to 'debate' the case. You are
beneath any standard I set on those I 'debate' with. I was simply
demolishing you, and will return to my book, when you keep whining
and crying and bawling your eyes out... that I'm 'picking on the
Great White Whale.'
> That is why you need to keep spamming. You know that as soon
>as you attempt any real debating on that case your ignorance will be
>highlighted, as it was there.
>
See above. Anyone who would lie and cheat and deceive and distort
as you would, is hardly 'debate' material. You're only a laughable
jerk that I find pathetically obsessed with many things... lately it's
been me... but you've have a run at being an obsessive racist-lover,
and have never left being an obsessive 'chubby-chaser.' I'm just
hoping you doing also become an obsessive 'Jew-hating-Nazi-lover.
PV
>< PV's remaing spam clipped >
TRANSLATION ==> PV is RIPPING ME A NEW ONE.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<oqi2lvgkcgoa4cs6a...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> I don't actually care if the evidence doesn't concern you ...
>
>"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
>alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
>
>He doesn't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet he claims
>to be providing evidence that she did it.
>
Once again -- She was accused of murder -- Of course, what
do YOU care? It's not about the victim... it's all about your
obsession with obese women.
>Everything in that 942 line piece of spam has been demolished many
>times here in this group. It consists of numerous copy & pasted
>extracts from various websites which PV has never even bothered to
>read himself.
>
LOL... What a pathetic response. I believe YOU were the one who
admitted to NOT READING.... but being able to comment on what
you HADN'T READ. In fact, calling yourself stupid for doing so.
Just in a post I answered a short time ago. You really need to pay
attention to what you SAY, bullet-head.
>And PV knows nothing about that case as he proved only two days ago
>with that breathtakingly stupid remark .... which I can't resist
>posting again.
>
>"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, August 29, 2003)
That's exactly what the jury, the trial judge, and the Supreme Court
decided. Since you presumed it implied that there was a previous
trauma, and that stupendously ignorant and unbelievable 'Plan B'
attack on the parents, was complexly ignored.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<55m2lvsnh89tcolp6...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:07:48 +0200, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>,
>> >dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com says...
>> >>
>> >> I ___________________ hereby declare as follows:
>> >>
>> >> [ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
>> >> Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
>> >> counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
>> >> also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
>> >>
>> >> [x] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
>> >> Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
>> >> I rushed for the 'delete' key.
>> >>
>> Juergen, 03-08-31
>> >>
>> >> Signed this day of 2003
>> >>
>>
>> LOL. See that, JPB? Another one who asserts that the 'Great White
>> Whale' was guilty, and needs to see no further proof of that fact.
>>
>>
>> PV
>
>"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, referring to the head impact that was
>alleged to have caused Matthew Eappen's skull fracture)
>
You're lying again... Your PREMISE that external damage must be
evident is what is the most silly argument ever seen. The damage
was INTERNAL. That's been verified over and over. But you
would not care about Matthew. He is nothing but a pawn in your
sick expression of love for a baby murderer. You ugly piece of shit.
That baby DIED... Five days after being manhandled in one way
or another by that baby killer. He never had a chance once she
got her hands on him. See --
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/124/7/1290
And find that extracranial injury is not always evident in a skull
fracture in an infant.
Your entire premise that a lack of external damage, if there even
WAS such a lack (since no 'defense medical expert' actually
EXAMINED Matthew), makes no difference because the jury
was aware of whatever was placed in evidence and ruled that
the trauma experienced by Matthew occurred on the 4th of
February, and not before.
>He doesn't even know what she was accused of doing, and yet he claims
>to be providing proof that she did it.
>
LOL... Talk about 'spam.' You keep raving that I didn't know
what she was accused of... but all one needs to do is look at
my BOOK... which has been out for some time... Look again
at the Book... and also see --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
Perhaps if you'd pay more attention to relevant things, rather
than chasing after racists, and Jew-hating Nazis, and stop
insulting MLK by calling him a 'phony gimmick,' you might
gain a shred of humanity. Oh yeah... and stop lying. Oh yeah...
and stop bemoaning the passing of the Saddam regime.
spank....spank..spank...
PV
>What else needs saying about this cretin? That says it all.
Apparently there is no bottom to your disgusting behavior in AADP.
PV
A Planet Visitor
We've caught you saying the truth... that you believe criminals murdered
in prison are irrelevant... Because when I posted the number of murders
committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked uncaringly --
"Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if
not, it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals
murdered in prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
And your other comment believing it is true that criminals murdered by
murderers in prison is quite acceptable to you, if a 'great number'
of their murderers can be 'saved' from lawful execution. Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Yes... those are YOUR TRUTHS. While my truth is NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED. Can you possibly understand that? No... I guess not!!
PV
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> PV
Whatever, but I am curious about the original posting subject
Straw Poll - Who Read PV's 942 Line MegaDrool (TM) ?
PV, which of your MegaDrools was this referring too?
Did you, yourself, actually read it??
Earl
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
sketchy being confronted with exceeding posts of repetitive content. This
point plus certain an amount of experience concerning dialogues with you,
Sir, caused my decision not to dig deeply in what you contributed to the
Louise Woodward-case.
It does require one single paragraph to get the problem framed which is
indicated by the L.W.-case in most a glaring manner. There are happening
gravest mistakes, even suspicions of intentional twisting of facts from
the prosecutoral/investigative side do make sense, and it is almost
impossible to get this mistakes straightened on a case-by-case-level.
Whilst a reasonable mind would think that any a posteriori-discovered
factual, severe mistakes at trial are enough to re-install the status
"innocent until proven guilty" the contrary is true: Despite the
knowledge of the conviction's happening under wrong conditions the
appellate instances are searching for even most worn and absurd
'explanations' for upholding conviction and sentence.
The clear consequence in view of actually guilty people is: A system
which does deal as perceived with people who might be actually innocent
is totally unqualified to make any meaningful distinction who were a
candidate for the DP and who were not, not in terms of guilt or
innocence, but in terms of mitigating/aggravating circumstances and
culpability.
C.
Jigsaw1695
"Clown" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bd9a91b...@news.t-online.de...
========
"mitigating/aggravating circumstances and culpability" are always part of
the defense, Klown. And the system is designed to operate under the premise
that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Once found guilty, sentence can then be past. If the crime is serious
enough, then the DP may be warranted.
Your view of the American Criminal Justice System is warped by your own
bias. You should try to be more objective
Jigsaw
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
So you are saying that in your definition "wrongly convicted" = "desrves to
be saved"
Now, as you well know, I don't agree with you on that. NOBODY DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED, you sick evil man.
In my mind, saying someone wasn't wrongly convicted doesn't mean they
deserve to be murdered, but you keep admitting that to you the words
not wrongly convicted mean the same as deserves to be murdered.
How evil you are.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On 29 Aug 2003 11:47:57 -0700, FitzHerb...@hotmail.com (FitzHerbert)
wrote:
>
> >dirtdog <dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:<s1gqkvgi3siql37f5...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >I Neville FitzHerbert, esq. hereby declare as follows:
> >
> >[ ] I eagerly read, disgested and understood every wonderful word of A
> >Planet Visitor's lucid and cogent prose as he offered a wonderful
> >counter-argument to JPB's support for Louise Woodward. My lobotomy was
> >also quite pleasing. Pass me some tissue pplease, I just dribbled.
> >
> >[X] I saw the numbers '942' together with the words 'A Planet Visitor'
> >Louise Woodward' and 'fruitcake' and knocked my fucking coffee over as
> >I rushed for the 'delete' key.
> >
> >
> >Signed this 29th day of August 2003
> >
> >----------
> >
> >The thing with FuckWit -and why his readership is in terminal decline
> >- is his 'spamming'.
>
> My 'readership' seems to be recognized by the number of posters
> who have commented on my lengthy destruction of that moronic
> 'chubby-chaser,' JPB. But 'readership' has never been a concern
> of mine. I concern myself with keeping my self-respect...
Let us know if you manage to find any.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On 31 Aug 2003 10:22:19 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
wrote:
>
> GENTLE READER --
>
> JPB obviously has some rather deep-seated emotional problems. He tends
> to fixate on certain subjects and people.
This coming from the guy who obsessessively tries to ressurrect years-old
debates, hoping to prove that he didn't mean the things he said back then.
Just passing by
called Gerald Leone without even acknowledging where they came from:
A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<6bi5lvgov3ib64023...@4ax.com>...
Now let's just laugh at this pathetic cretin because he's done it
again!
The above is, word for word, the opening statement by prosecutor,
Gerald Leone.
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
PV, of course, hasn't bothered to acknowledge that because he prefers
to try passing it off as his own (in another post in the "Child
Molester Priest Geoghan Murdered by Fellow Inmate" thread, he hasn't
even included the quotation marks).
But PV's plagiarism has caused him to fall flat on his stupid face yet
again. What he didn't know was that subsequent events in the trial
(namely an admission by Deborah Eappen that she had lied about Matthew
being "fine and well") proved the above to be totally untrue.
But that is PV all over. He doesn't know anything about that case
because he has never bothered to actually research it and that is why
he makes such an ass of himself every time he tries commenting on it.
A Planet Visitor
You've only said that very recently, pee-pee. Having been shown
by me for the evil man you are, with your claims that 'guilty criminals' who
are murdered in prison are irrelevant, and that you clearly agree
that 'guilty criminals' can be murdered in prison, if a 'few hundred'
murderers can be 'saved' from lawful execution.
In fact, you only began saying it, parrot-like to my claims long ago
that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, after realizing
how offensive your comments were. Let's see... I said NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, on May 30, 2001, just over
27 months ago. This was my post --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=hvhR6.350857%24o9.55260859%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
If you claim that you 'said it first,' where is YOUR post saying it?
Please provide the URL you are speaking of.
BTW -- my question still remains unanswered by you --
1) An individual commits a murder on any human.
2) The state executes a murderer
Which of those is the greater 'moral offense' in your mind?
Afraid to answer, perhaps?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:hli2lvki5f2t93pd2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:34:30 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> >news:BB7507DE.133AF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> We just got back from two days of prison visiting. PV was discussed,
>> >> and a good laugh was had by all.
>> >
>> >What, even the prisonners have heard of him?
>> >
>> While they are afraid of you... having stated that you support their
>> being murdered,
>
>No that's what you said you sick cunt.
>
All your denials are pitiful, Peter. As a matter of fact, one of the things I've
said hundreds of times is that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
Not even Jeffrey Daumer. Only YOU have expressed a belief that a
'few murders of criminals in prison' is WORTH it... if you can 'save'
hundreds of murderers from lawful execution. Your EXACT meaning in
YOUR words -- "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a
small number of other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>It went roughly like this. (The following is a summary of many posts)
>
LOL... TRANSLATION ==> I'm about to descend into another great
array of lies and distortions because of my inability to actually find any
REAL evidence of what I am about to distort.
>PV : Some INNOCENT people were murdered by guilty murderers that we
> didn't execute.
TRUE.
> INNOCENT people are worth more than murderers.
FALSE. No one is worth any more than anyone else in respect to BEING
MURDERED. Murders have the same right to not be murdered as anyone.
NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. You are the only one
who claims that innocent people are worth more than 'guilty criminals.'
Proof of that is in these words of yours --
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
See how you find INNOCENT people murdered to be DIFFERENT
from 'criminals'? You are the only one who places a different VALUATION
on murder victims who are criminals and those who are non-criminals. I
have always claimed there is NO DIFFERENCE in respect to being
murdered. I would NEVER be so crass as to claim that 'it has to be
said that criminals are different from non-criminals when they are murdered.'
Only you would stoop to such an inhuman belief.
> Only INNOCENT people deserve to be saved, and murderers don't.
Umm... that's what YOU'VE CLAIMED. Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Obviously claiming that 'a small number of other criminals' -- those you
see as NOT INNOCENT -- simply deserve to be murdered... if it means
not 'executing hundreds of murderers.'
All human beings, including murderers do not deserve to be murdered.
You disagree with that philosophy, if you can save 'hundreds of murderers'
from being lawfully executed. In your own words... EXACT WORDS....
and not presuming 'roughly' translated.
> Murderers are not INNOCENT and don't deserve to be saved.
'Saved' from WHAT? Eternal damnation? Are you perhaps Bible-thumping
again? You have this way of never actually being explicit in respect to 'saving'
and 'murder,' and 'lawful execution.' Murderers DO NOT DESERVE TO
BE MURDERED. When society expresses that a murderer deserves to be
executed, that murderer does not deserve to be saved from what is a lawful
role that society plays. IMHO.
> Those
> victims were INNOCENT, and deserved to be saved becausre they are
> INNOCENT.
All victims of murder are 'innocent victims.' They ALL DO NOT DESERVE
TO BE MURDERED.
> Criminals don't deserve to be saved ,
'Saved' from what?? Is this again some Bible-thumping? They all do not
deserve to be murdered. But none of them deserve to be saved from paying
a lawful penalty for the crime they commit. To argue they do deserve
to be saved from that lawful penalty is to presume that their crime carries
no consequences. They may murder, rape, or rob at will, without ever
expecting a lawful penalty for doing so.
> but they were not
> criminals, they were INNOCENT.
All victims of murder... even murderers... are INNOCENT VICTIMS. When
will you ever get it through your head that no one deserves to be murdered?
You keep implying that criminals DO deserve to be murdered... because
they are 'guilty.' My question to you is -- guilty of WHAT? Your conclusion
here is your opinion that -- yes... they ARE GUILTY. You believe they are
guilty of 'deserving to be murdered.' But NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED. Can you possibly absorb that information?
> Its their INNOCENCE that makes
> them worthy of being saved, and criminals don't deserve that.
Whatever are you raving about here? Again... Saved from WHAT? NO
ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED... There are ONLY INNOCENT
VICTIMS OF MURDER. No one can possibly be 'guilty of being murdered.'
Except that YOUR conclusion is that SOME can be 'guilty of being murdered,'
if they are 'guilty criminals.'. You find that IF they are 'guilty of a crime' then
that fact makes them complicit in their own murder. And they thus, in your
view, DESERVED to be murdered, because they were 'guilty criminals.'
> If
> we'd
> executed those murderers we would have saved thiose INNOCENT
> people, who are worth saving because they aren't murderers, etc
> etc, etc,
Obviously, if we execute a murderer before he murders again, we have
most certainly saved an innocent victim from being murdered. Since
NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
>PETER: : PV is lying again. Those victims were not the 'innocents' he claims
>them
> to be, they were death row murderers, who PV wanted to have
>executed.
Actually, it was my society that decides who should be executed. I simply
support my society in that concept. But here we have the heart of the
matter. You argue that those victims were NOT 'innocent victims' of
murder. You argue BECAUSE they were 'death row murderers,' that
they DESERVED to be murdered... but not executed. Thus, you can
hardly assert that you feel NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
Because you obviously do not agree that they were 'innocent of being
murdered.'
> They fail to fit HIS stated criteria for deserving to be saved, they
>wouldn't have
> been saved anyway, because they would have been executed, and PV is
>a
> hypocrite for pretending that he wants to save them, when in fact he
>wanted
> them dead.
>
Once again... you're raving... since you still cannot define your meaning of
'saved.' Saved from WHAT? Saved from DAMNATION??? Or is there
no difference to you between 'saved' from murder, and 'saved' from lawful
execution? Or do you find 'lawful execution' to be WORSE than the
individual act of murder? What does 'saved' mean to you? I will offer
MY view... I don't think you have the guts to offer yours. My view is
EVERYONE -- murderers included -- ALL should be 'saved' from being
murdered if at all possible (of course we cannot prevent ALL murder).
Because NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. While I believe
that there is no reason that murderers, sentenced to the lawful DP, should
ALL be 'saved' from such lawful execution, in the meaning of total abolition
of the DP.
>PV: scream scream scream, Look, Peter is saying that they aren't innocent,
>that
> shows he thinks they don't desrve to be saved.
Of course that is your exact meaning. If it is not, why are you so intent
on insuring that you emphasize that 'guilty criminals' in prison who are
murdered are IRRELEVANT to you? You DEMAND that the 'guilty
criminal' NOT be seen as an 'innocent victim' of murder, when he is
murdered in prison. He is NOT an 'innocent victim of murder' to you.
He is a 'guilty criminal' who was murdered in prison, that you accept
quite readily if it can save the lives of 'hundreds of murderers' from
lawful execution. Your words again --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Can you possibly see that this 'small number of criminals' murdered
in prison, are not seen by you as 'innocent victims' of murder?
>Peter: Nobody desrves to be murdered, PV,
But that isn't what you've said. See above.
> I don't agree with your statement
> that only the innocent deserve to be saved, everyone should be
>saved,
> guilty or innocent.
Quite clearly that's another of your lies. Since your own words betray
you. You clearly SEPARATE the 'guilty criminal' from the 'innocent'
in respect to their being murdered, and find that the 'guilty criminal'
in prison DESERVES to be murdered MORE than the 'non-criminal.'
To that extent, you DO agree that 'guilty criminals' DESERVE to be
murdered, if it means 'hundreds of murderers' are 'saved' from lawful
execution.
> But you never wanted them saved at all.
I've always wanted them saved from murder. You've always been
willing to SACRIFICE them to those who would murder them in prison,
if it 'saves' a few hundred of your precious murderers from lawful execution.
>PV: scream scream You agree with what I said, but I misspoke,
I've never misspoke with you... and you must either claim that YOU
misspoke, or admit that you find 'guilty criminals' in prison DESERVE
to be murdered, if some 'hundreds of murderers,' can be 'saved' from
lawful execution.
> when I said
>only
> innocent people deserve to be saved I obviously meant that
>everyone is
> innocent.scream gibber spew
>
I said there are ONLY INNOCENT VICTIMS of murder. There is no
such thing as a 'guilty victim of murder.' Except that is what YOU
BELIEVE. If they are 'guilty criminals' murdered in prison... then YOU
believe they are 'guilty victims of murder,' not actually 'innocent victims of
murder.' To that degree, you believe they DESERVE to be murdered.
Because they are 'guilty criminals,' that makes you believe they deserved
to be murdered. But, Peter.. pay attention now... NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED.
>Peter : Another flip-flop, PV.
>
The flip-flops are all yours, sport. Especially now that you realize how
cruel you have expressed your feelings for 'guilty criminals.' Now trying
desperately to squirm and wiggle your way out of your conclusions
that 'guilty criminals' DESERVE to be murdered. You finding them
having a different degree of guilt in respect to their own MURDER.
Somehow, you see them as GUILTY in their own murder, because
they are 'guilty criminals.'
>PV: Its obvious that I meant what you said, and you meant what I
> said. Nobody deserves to be murdered. You don't undersytand that.
>
I've always said NOBODY DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
>Peter : I told you that.
>
No, Peter... you've just recently, parrot-like, picked it up from me.
Finally realizing that you never actually had expressed that feeling.
>PV: scream I said it first, even when I said that only innocent people
> deserve to be saved, I didn't mean it, everyone can see I didn't
>mean it.
> I don't care that I said it many times in many different posts, I
>didn't
> mean it, but your reply proves you agree with me.
>
Simply more lies, Peter... you're the one who is screaming lunatic
lies. And you know it. I've said there are ONLY INNOCENT
VICTIMS of murder. There is no such thing as a GUILTY VICTIM
of murder. While you've argued that 'guilty criminals' ARE GUILTY
VICTIMS of murder. You can point out no post of mine that
states what you claim... thus your pathetic need to begin your
diatribe with "It went roughly like this. (The following is a summary
of many posts). You will notice that in your entire raving diatribe
not ONCE did you refer to ANY of my actual words. You seem
to believe you can use the word 'roughly,' and simply mean 'now
I will offer some lies.' All you've done is 'summarize' your lies,
sport.
>
>And so on and so on ad nauseam.
>
Yes... you can be sickening.
>PV said that only innocent people deserve saving, I said that everyone
>deserves saving.
I said that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. 'Saving'
standing alone, has no meaning. 'Saving' from WHAT? Peter
never explains that. But he certainly has never expressed that
'guilty criminals' deserve saving from being murdered. Quite
clearly he has stated that he ACCEPTS that 'guilty criminals'
are murdered in prison, if 'hundreds of murderers' can be 'saved'
from lawful execution. His words again.. read them carefully,
gentle reader, and see the evil contained in them... as he
SACRIFICES 'guilty criminals' to murder in prison, to
'save' some murderers from lawful execution -- His words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number
of other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
> PV hates me for saying that, and totally disagrees with it,
>but tries to pretend that he said it first.
Yes... I certainly hate you for saying you find 'guilty criminals'
murdered in prison to be IRRELEVANT, and saying you
gladly sacrifice 'guilty criminals' to murderers, if it means
'saving hundreds of murderers from lawful execution.' Please
stop saying things like that... Because NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED. Try to absorb that information, please.
You'll be a better human if you do... trust me on that.
BTW -- Still waiting for an answer --
1) An individual commits a murder on any human.
2) The state executes a murderer
Which of those is the greater 'moral offense' in your mind?
Afraid to answer, Peter?
PV
>
Just passing by
Here is that plagiarised text again. This is the third post of PV's I
have found it in. Will there be more?
No mention of Mr Gerald Leone there? He is the person who actually
wrote/spoke those words. But PV, being the lying, cheating con man he
is, prefers to claim them as his own.
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
In another post he pasted that text without even putting the quotation
marks in.
And the irony is that if PV had ever bothered to research the LW case,
he would know that those words were later disproved by Deborah Eappen
herself, when she admitted lying about Matthew being "fine and well".
PV, the stupid, plagiarising spammer bites the dust again!
Jigsaw1695
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.03090...@posting.google.com...
I hate to mention this son, but if you believed that PV actually wrote the
above statement you have a serious problem with reality.
A Planet Visitor
>First let's watch as PV steals the following paragraphs from a man
>called Gerald Leone without even acknowledging where they came from:
>
LOL... it's quite clear where they came from. You simply can't handle
it. If you would read all my posts, you would find that I posted the link
to those words prior to my posting the content.... See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=geg5lvoimqdmr30mkfhvq5cgglenmvsr77%404ax.com
And check the time sent. Which was prior to my posting those words.
Of course it is... And I recognized that before. I've been referring
over and over to the trial testimony, and that certainly demonstrates
what the 'Great White Whale' was charged with. But you're too blind
to have gone to the posts that refer to those words... so I needed to
put the words up explicitly for you. Too bad that you aren't familiar
with the trial testimony. You can find it ALL at --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
You should try reading it sometime. Instead of listening to Ainsley...
reporting live from Ithon on the Wye river, on an obscure bulletin
board site, just a bit right from those which discuss 'alien invaders.'
>http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
Actually, checking the post I have referenced about, you will find the
same link was provided by me. You just didn't get the 'message.'
>
>PV, of course, hasn't bothered to acknowledge that because he prefers
>to try passing it off as his own (in another post in the "Child
>Molester Priest Geoghan Murdered by Fellow Inmate" thread, he hasn't
>even included the quotation marks).
>
LOL...
>But PV's plagiarism has caused him to fall flat on his stupid face yet
>again. What he didn't know was that subsequent events in the trial
>(namely an admission by Deborah Eappen that she had lied about Matthew
>being "fine and well") proved the above to be totally untrue.
>
You call it plagiarism... I call it extracting and providing TRUTH.
>But that is PV all over. He doesn't know anything about that case
>because he has never bothered to actually research it and that is why
>he makes such an ass of himself every time he tries commenting on it.
Oh... I know EVERYTHING about the case, now, sport. And it
bothers you greatly that I do. Here comes my book... and guess what...
I 'plagiarize' those words in my book. So.... sue me.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Are you just becoming aware of that? The man's a total fruitcake.
Having some serious delusional problems revolving around chubby
women who resemble hugh rings of Camembert cheese. Take a
look and see if that isn't what she reminds you of --- see --
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/nanny/nanny.html
But watch out for her... she's a baby-killer.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<6bi5lvgov3ib64023...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>Here is that plagiarised text again. This is the third post of PV's I
>have found it in. Will there be more?
>
Of course there will, you twit. Until it sinks into your thick skull
what the 'Great White Whale' was charged with, and you admit that
she was guilty as sin.
In your dreams. What a fool you are. Deborah never admitted lying.
And she clearly used the word FINE, in respect to the condition
of Matthew on 2-3 and 4 Feb... fine up until the moment she last saw
him not in a coma. Matthew WAS fine and well... until the 'Great
White Whale' crushed his brain against his skull. Doing a search
on the word 'fine' in ALL of Deborah Eappen's testimony, we find
only these words reflecting on Matthew's condition. And they were
to the state prosecutor..See --
Q Now, on February 2nd, a Sunday, do you recall what you did that afternoon?
A We were house-hunting, and Sunny and myself, Brendan and Matty, we all were looking
at houses.
Q How was Matty that day?
A He was fine.
And later in her testimony --
Q Ma'am, if I could direct your attention to February 3rd of 1997, a Monday. Can you
describe what occurred that morning as you were ready to go out.
A I asked Louise to change Brendan, and she was starting to go down the stairs. And I
said, "Louise, I really think he needs to be changed." And she seemed upset that I
asked her to come back up and change Brendan. And --
Q If I could ask you, with regard to Matthew, what time did Matthew first get up that
morning, do you remember?
A He usually woke up around --
THE COURT: No, what time did he wake up that morning, if you remember.
A I would be estimating.
Q Can you estimate what time Matthew woke up that morning, that Monday?
A 7:00.
Q And what did you do when Matthew woke up?
A Breast-fed him.
Q And as you breast-fed Matthew, did you have occasion to look into his eyes as he
breast-fed?
A Oh, yes, yes.
Q How did he appear to you?
A Connecting and smiling and happy.
Q And at some point, did you have occasion to see the boys off?
A On Monday?
Q Yes.
A Yes, I did.
Q And what time did you leave the home on Monday?
A 8:15.
Q And where did you go?
A I went to NEMC.
Q And is that New England Medical Center in Boston?
A Yes.
Q And did you come home at some point during the day?
A Yes, I did. I actually came home at 12:30, which was an unanticipated arrival. I
wanted to see how Louise was doing, and I wanted to feed Matthew. And I didn't take
my pump with me that day.
THE COURT: You didn't take your what?
THE WITNESS: My pump.
Q And when you arrived home at around lunch time, did you feed Matthew?
A Yes, I did.
Q How was Matthew then?
A He was fine: he ate, he was babbling, smiling. And then Louise took him and fed him
some baby food.
Q And after lunch, what did you do, Matthew Eappen?
A I went to Einstein's in Newton Highlands, to study for my oral boards.
Q That's a little bagel place?
A Yes.
Q And was Sunny home that evening?
A No, Sunny was on call at the Mass. General Hospital overnight.
Q And what time did you come home?
A Pardon me?
Q What time did you come home that evening?
A About 4:30.
Q And at some point, what time did you go to bed?
A About 9:00.
Q And did you go to bed with the boys?
A Yes. Brendan, Matthew, and I, all got "cozy," as we called it, and Brendan has a
queen-size futon so we all snuggled up and read books, and I fed Matthew, and we went
to sleep, all of us together.
Q Was Louise Woodward home that night?
A Yes.
Q And how was Matty when he went to sleep?
A He was fine, just like any other night.
Q Now, on February 4th, the Tuesday, I'd like to ask you some questions about that
day, ma'am. Do you remember how the day started?
A Yes.
Q And how did your day start that day?
A Matthew woke up around 5:00. He breast-fed and went back to sleep. And then Brendan
and I woke up around 7:00, and Brendan was talking about what he wanted to do that
day - he wanted to paint.
Q And when you breast-fed Matthew the first time that morning, how did Matty appear
to you?
A Normal.
Q At some point did you have occasion to feed Matty again that morning?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you remember what time that was, approximately?
A Around 7:00.
Q How was Matty at that point?
A Fine.
Seven in the morning... she states Matthew was FINE... And that was the
last she saw of a 'fine' Matthew Eappen. And the word 'fine' does not appear
in ANY of the cross-examination by Good for the defense in respect to
Matthew.
So perhaps you can show me in her testimony where she admits to
LYING? Because YOU are the liar.
PV
>PV, the stupid, plagiarising spammer bites the dust again!
Whine...whine...whine. The words are what bother you... not the
fact I 'plagiarized' them. But the words..sport. Those are what you
CANNOT HANDLE. And you are a liar... Caught red-handed
on a great number of occasions.
PV
Just passing by
>
> I hate to mention this son, but if you believed that PV actually wrote the
> above statement you have a serious problem with reality.
As I obviously didn't believe he wrote it, that is a non-point you
made there. But the real point is that PV wasn't really trying to
convince me of anything, but simply filling out his post to make it
look impressive by plagiarising someone else's work. And as I said, he
pasted that entire piece, word for word, in several other posts on the
same day, in one case not even putting it into quotation marks.
You have always sympathised with PV and probably always will because,
in your own stupidity, you see him as some sort of ally against
Desmond. If you can't see how totally ineffective and
counter-productive he and his spam have been in that particular "war"
then it is you who has "a serious problem with reality".
Just passing by
last part of Leone's words. The original reads:
"Ladies and gentlemen, in this commonwealth, that is murder. And that
is what we will prove to you during the course of this case."
But PV shortened that to: "That in this commonwealth is murder."
He did that to hide the words that would have made it more obvious
where he had plagiarised the whole thing from. Nobody simply copies a
large block of text from a website and pastes it right into the middle
of their own post without even mentioning where it came from or
acknowledging that it is not their own - nobody, that is, except PV.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I swtated that they were irrelevent to your claims of 'innocent' people
'deserving to be saved' you evil shit.
I never agreed with your direct explicit statement that ONLY innocent
people deserve to be saved.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> In fact, you only began saying it, parrot-like to my claims long ago
> that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, after realizing
> how offensive your comments were. Let's see... I said NO ONE
> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, on May 30, 2001, just over
> 27 months ago. This was my post --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=hvhR6.350857%24o9.55260859%40typhoon.tampa
bay.rr.com
> If you claim that you 'said it first,' where is YOUR post saying it?
> Please provide the URL you are speaking of.
Peeves, you evil shit, from the very first time you stuck your ugly little
face on this newsgroup, you were saying that it is right to commit murder,
if you think you can save a larger number of lives.
I always said that MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG.
You insisted that murder 'becomes moral at some point'
That's the truth, and we all know it. You evil shit.
Jigsaw1695
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.03090...@posting.google.com...
LOL!
Clown
jigsa...@earthlink.net says...
How culpable was Christina Riggs?
> And the system is designed to operate under the premise
> that you are innocent until proven guilty.
>
> Once found guilty, sentence can then be past. If the crime is serious
> enough, then the DP may be warranted.
Well, Tschiksaw, I note that you do not address the point. Indeed, you
had more than ample opportunity to discuss particular cases which do
exactly support my thesis - be mentioned the Dieter Riechmann- and the
Debbie Milke case. Both the cases show grave errors and misconduct in the
trial-phase, and the justice system right now is trying explicitely its
very best to ignore and to cover glaring faults and probably even
foulplay rather than to deal with blunt facts.
>
> Your view of the American Criminal Justice System is warped by your own
> bias. You should try to be more objective
>
I am at least objective enough to see the connection between the stuff
told to a jury and the decision of this jury, which does include the
possibility to mislead the jury, either intentionally or unintentionally.
You, however, are constantly trying to sell any jury for an instance of
infallibility. Your standpoint is (a) logically wrong and (b) proven
wrong by a multitude of particular cases, which have been dropped after a
death sentence already had been spoken.
Klaun
Just passing by
> On 1 Sep 2003 16:46:38 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >First let's watch as PV steals the following paragraphs from a man
> >called Gerald Leone without even acknowledging where they came from:
> >
> LOL... it's quite clear where they came from. You simply can't handle
> it. If you would read all my posts, you would find that I posted the link
> to those words prior to my posting the content.... See --
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=geg5lvoimqdmr30mkfhvq5cgglenmvsr77%404ax.com
Prior to your posting? In a separate and totally unrelated thread? You
call that an acknowledgement?
No, PV, you are banged to rights on this one. You have lied and you
have plagiarised Leone's words. In the post you refer to you didn't
copy Leone's words at all, so how can that have anything to do with
the several posts in which you blatantly copied them and blatantly
tried to pass them off as your own?
> And check the time sent. Which was prior to my posting those words.
The time sent is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the post you
refer to had no connection to the ones in which you plagiarised
Leone's words without any acknowledgement.
> Too bad that you aren't familiar
> with the trial testimony. You can find it ALL at --
> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
I was studying those transcripts long before you even knew they
existed, and I can very easily prove that from my posting history in
other groups and other web forums long before I ever posted here.
> >But that is PV all over. He doesn't know anything about that case
> >because he has never bothered to actually research it and that is why
> >he makes such an ass of himself every time he tries commenting on it.
>
> Oh... I know EVERYTHING about the case, now, sport.
You sad cretin. You didn't even know what LW had been accused of doing
in relation to the skull fracture. Here it is again:
"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, August 29, 2003)
You didn't even know, even though I had told you and even though the
very parts of the SJC ruling you posted told you, that the missing
photographs of the lipped edges on the skull fracture were not
produced until very late in the trial. Here it is again:
"In fact, the use of 'lipped' is a funny-story in itself. It seems
that this word does not appear in the entire trial, until the defense
RECALLED (probably after some intensive 'defense strategy sessions')
Dr. Baden, as the VERY FINAL 'defense medical expert' (sic). (A Planet
Visitor, August 30, 2003)
You didn't even know that Leone's remarks (which you plagiarised) in
his opening statement, about Matthew Eappen being "fine and well" on
the morning of Feb 4, were later disproved by Deborah Eappen herself,
who admitted telling lies about that. Here it is again:
"On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both of her
little boys, eight-month-old Matty and two-and-a-half-year-old
Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matty, she changed Brendan's
diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine... etc,
etc. " (Gerald Leone (Oct 7, 1997) who can be forgiven for that error
because he wasn't to know, at the time, that Deborah Eappen's own
forthcoming testimony would disprove that statement) (Subsequently
plagiarised by A Planet Visitor (Aug. 30, 2003) who cannot be
forgiven, either for the dishonesty & outright plagiarism or for not
bothering to read Deborah Eappen's testimony, which would have
prevented him falling flat on his stupid face yet again)
You didn't even know that the existence of periosteum is conclusive
proof of an old and healing injury, and stated that Dr DeGirolami, in
suggesting that what he saw was indeed periosteum, was stating that it
was a fresh injury and was disagreeing with Dr Leestma. Here it is
again:
"Clearly Dr. DeGirolami was disagreeing completely with Dr. Leestma."
(A Planet Visitor, August 30, 2003)
And they were just a few of your gaffes from just the last two days.
If I were to start reposting all the examples of your astonishing
ignorance of that case from the more distant past, I would never find
time to do anything else.
> And it
> bothers you greatly that I do. Here comes my book...
The book of spam. And what do you mean by "here comes"? What's new
about it? Your book of spam, which you hide behind because you can't
face a real debate about the LW case, is the same copy & pasted spam -
most of which you have never even read yourself - that you have been
abusing this newsgroup with for well over a year. So who do you think
you are fooling?
Just passing by
He asked you to provide a URL to prove your claim. So where is this
URL? Why are you running away from his challenge?
Just passing by
> On 1 Sep 2003 16:56:49 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
> >And the irony is that if PV had ever bothered to research the LW case,
> >he would know that those words were later disproved by Deborah Eappen
> >herself, when she admitted lying about Matthew being "fine and well".
> >
> In your dreams. What a fool you are. Deborah never admitted lying.
Oh yes, she most certainly did! And that, yet again, proves that you
haven't read the transcripts, just as you have never read the SJC
ruling you repeatedly kept spamming the group with.
So look again, idiot, and see if you can find the part where she
admits it. I'll bet you can't because you are too lazy to bother
reading properly. The only way you ever search the transcripts, the
SJC ruling, or any long document, is by .... no, I'll let you admit it
in your following words:
> Doing a search
> on the word 'fine' in ALL of Deborah Eappen's testimony, we find
> only these words reflecting on Matthew's condition. And they were
> to the state prosecutor..See --
And that is how you "read" and "study" the transcripts, isn't it? By
doing a search for a certain word. You have never read or studied them
properly and that is why you still know nothing.
It is a fact that Deborah Eappen lied about Matthew's condition to the
hospital's social worker. It is a fact that Deborah Eappen wrote down
a list of Matthew's symptoms on a piece of paper. It is a fact that
she even telephoned LW for help in compiling that list. It is a fact
that she wilfully withheld that information from the doctors who would
have needed it to best prepare for the operation. It is a fact that
she has admitted lying during that period.
All those facts can be verified if you could, for the first time,
bother to actually read the testimony, instead of trying to do it the
easy and lazy way by simply searching for a certain word.
> So perhaps you can show me in her testimony where she admits to
> LYING? Because YOU are the liar.
I will happily do that .... but first, let's see you do some real
searching for yourself for a change. The clue is that you won't find
it with one of your pathetic word searches. You will have to devote
some time to real research for the first time in your miserable life,
instead of your usual word searching and spamming.
I am pleased that you have now steered me onto the subject of the
Eappens and their highly suspicious behaviour (both of them, not just
Deborah). In the past here I have always deliberately avoided that
side of this debate, preferring to concentrate on the medical evidence
and the evidence of corruption by the prosecution, police and at least
one doctor. But now, thanks to you, I have a good reason for bringing
this other dimension into the arena. Yes, PV, it's all down to you.
I'm sure the Eappens wouldn't thank you for what you have done, and
for what is now to follow, but I do.
You had better just hope that they don't read this newsgroup. If they
do, they are not going to like you very much.
Jigsaw1695
We have been over this several times before. I never said the American
Criminal Justice was infallible.
A jury can be told anything by the defense. The prosecution is limited by
law what they can present to a jury. The judge is the arbitrator of what
can be presented to jury and what cannot be.
But no matter which way you cut it, is the duty of the jury to determine who
is telling the truth and who is not, and who is guilty and who is not.
Now tell me Klown, does a defense attorney in a German court room ever try
to intentionally mislead a jury? Do witnesses ever lie in a German court
room?
Waiting for your answer;
Jigsaw
Just passing by
Just to clarify that: I am asking PV to provide a URL proving HIS
claim, not Peter Morris. Sorry if that looked the other way around.
A Planet Visitor
<logical spanking of Earl on>
Are you a liar, Earl? In viewing a great number of your
posts today that have been in response to posts of mine,
and looking at your 'announcement' of -- "Actually I
read nothing by PV," just a few days ago, it would
seem so -- see -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BB7507DE.133AF%25evleth%40wanadoo.fr
Or perhaps you are simply confirming that you don't
actually have to READ the words you are responding to.
<logical spanking of Earl off>
PV
>Earl
A Planet Visitor
We were speaking of those criminals who are murdered in prison, pee-pee.
I had provided the number of murders committed in prison in a seven year
period, year by year. And you stated that unless they were "wrongly
convicted," their murders were irrelevant to you. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
And NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. So it stands to reason
that I would find it essential that we do all in our power to 'save' EVERYONE
from being murdered. While you find unless they were 'wrongly convicted,'
that their murders were irrelevant to you. Obviously that means you believe
they DESERVED it, because they were 'rightly convicted.'
>Now, as you well know, I don't agree with you on that. NOBODY DESERVES
>TO BE MURDERED, you sick evil man.
>
But you do claim that unless they were 'wrongly convicted,' that criminals in
prison DO DESERVE to be murdered, pee-pee. You would never call the
murder of someone innocent irrelevant, but you have done so in the case of
'guilty criminals.' So in that respect, the fact that they are guilty criminals,
provides the difference you find between the murder of criminals and
non-criminals. You have always felt that way, in your need to EMPHASIZE
that some murders in prison are murders of those who are 'criminals,'
implying that they deserve it because they ARE criminals. You clearly
claim that criminals are partly 'guilty' for their own murders... and so in your
view... DESERVED to be murdered. You've expressed this DIFFERENCE
in many posts... thus you do believe that difference forms the basis for 'guilty
criminals' deserving to be murdered. While I have always claimed that there
is NO DIFFERENCE between criminals and non-criminals in respect to
being murdered. And you have always condemned me for my saying there
is no difference when ANYONE is murdered. EVERY murder victim is
an INNOCENT VICTIM. Could you possibly absorb that? NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
>In my mind, saying someone wasn't wrongly convicted doesn't mean they
>deserve to be murdered, but you keep admitting that to you the words
>not wrongly convicted mean the same as deserves to be murdered.
>
The inoperative word here is 'mind,' pee-pee. You just weren't thinking
when you blurted out your TRUE VIEW. Now you would try to hide
from that TRUE VIEW where you feel that 'guilty criminals' murdered in prison
are irrelevant to you.
>How evil you are.
>
I'm sure you think so.... since I believe NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED. You find that concept evil... because YOU believe that
'guilty criminals' deserve to be murdered, if it can 'save' hundreds of
murderers from lawful execution. But trust me... you are the one who
is evil, pee-pee.
PV
A Planet Visitor
I manage to find it in my belief that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED. While you presume to find YOUR self-respect in
believing that 'guilty criminals' murdered in prison are IRRELEVANT.
Your words prove that -- Because when I posted the number of
murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked
uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly
convicted? Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever."
Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in prison have no
relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
You evil little man.
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
No, pee-pee. ANYONE going to that reference will find that my
post listed the murders committed in prison during a seven year
period. You looked at those murders, and stated that you DIDN'T
CARE, unless the victims were NOT 'wrongly convicted.' Only
the 'innocent' murdered in prison had any RELEVANCE to you...
since you claimed if they were not 'innocent,' their murders were
IRRELEVANT. Once again -- When I posted the number of
murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked
uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly
convicted? Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever."
Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in prison have no
relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>I never agreed with your direct explicit statement that ONLY innocent
>people deserve to be saved.
>
I've never made such a statement, using the word 'ONLY.' You
simply lie by putting it is. Since you've often 'argued' (sic) that
I claim 'criminals are innocent.' If I've claimed that... then obviously
I have stated they deserve to be saved from murder. Since NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. And once again... 'saved' from
WHAT? Are you again Bible-thumping and presuming 'saved from
eternal damnation'? You really need to be more specific. And also
try not lying.
PS ---
You still haven't answered my question, pee-pee...
1) An individual commits a murder on any human.
2) The state executes a murderer
Which of those is the greater 'moral offense' in your mind?
MY answer is that 1) is the greater moral offense. Could I please
have your answer, or are you afraid to face the very on-topic
question I have posed?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:e7m7lvooqeopls5g0...@4ax.com...
>
>> In fact, you only began saying it, parrot-like to my claims long ago
>> that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, after realizing
>> how offensive your comments were. Let's see... I said NO ONE
>> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED, on May 30, 2001, just over
>> 27 months ago. This was my post --
>>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=hvhR6.350857%24o9.55260859%40typhoon.tampa
>bay.rr.com
>> If you claim that you 'said it first,' where is YOUR post saying it?
>> Please provide the URL you are speaking of.
>
>
>Peeves, you evil shit, from the very first time you stuck your ugly little
>face on this newsgroup, you were saying that it is right to commit murder,
>if you think you can save a larger number of lives.
>
Rubbish.. and simply lies again. It is NEVER 'right' to commit
murder, IMHO. But that does not mean it can NEVER BE
NECESSARY in the greater sense of preventing a great number
of murders. In fact, you've agreed with that in your latest
comment that you would shoot the terrorist and murder the
passerby.
>I always said that MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG.
>
Of course it is, except in the minds of those such as Bundy,
Gacy and McDuff. But there are 'wrongs' and there are
GREATER WRONGS. You've never been able to understand
that. We decide what those greater wrongs are... in our
subjective view, since it has no objective meaning.
>You insisted that murder 'becomes moral at some point'
>
You don't even know what 'moral' is, pee-pee. Everyone
has a different perception of it. And I've been trying to
plumb yours, which seems to insist that it is better that
the entire human race be extinguished than that you might
murder one innocent human (WHO DOES NOT DESERVE
TO BE MURDERED). Finally, we have reached a 'moral'
bottom to your viewpoint. It is that you would murder an
innocent passerby to save London from a nuclear explosion
activated remotely by a terrorist.
In our minds we can often see that it is SUBJECTIVELY moral
to prevent a greater immorality from occurring. We can
recognize that it is wrong to murder, but find it necessary - if it
prevents a greater wrong. How we act on that information,
is part of our view of our own 'morality.' 'Moral' has no
objective meaning. We only see it in those terms that are
evaluated in our minds when we believe that we are ACTING
MORALLY in what we do.
The 'moral' question always has a rather paradoxical non-answer,
since at SOME point, the question of taking affirmative action to
save a greater number than the one we will kill becomes a non
sequitur. If it becomes 100 to 1, if it becomes 1000 to 1, if it
becomes 6 million to 1, or if it becomes all of mankind to 1, sooner
or later what was viewed as the immorality of taking affirmative
action in respect to killing someone, becomes subjectively
'moral' to us. Because the alternative is seen as a greater
immorality. Or would you contend that you would allow
the entire human race to perish before you would murder even
one innocent human (who does not deserve to be murdered)?
Wouldn't that be rather self-destructive, since the innocent
you would not murder will simply perish like everyone else -
including yourself?
At the moment you decide to kill that innocent to save the entire
human race, you now consider what you are doing to be 'moral,'
fully recognizing that it contains some 'immorality' as well in
your subjective view of morality. Such was the case of the
terrorist problem I offered. You no longer viewed the
murder of that passerby, in an isolated moral framework, even
though it is clear he did not DESERVE TO BE MURDERED,
and murdering him was seen by you as immoral. You now
viewed it in a greater moral framework of saving London.
Fully recognizing that what you were doing, in killing the
terrorist and saving London, was diminished by the necessity of
committing what you felt was an immoral act... the murder
of an innocent.
And in making that choice you made a sham of your claim that
"There is no 'point' at which I would commit wilful murder." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bgnvoq%24cp%241%40hercules.btinternet.com
Because I have found that 'point.'
Morality is a perception in the individual mind of everyone.
What may be PERCEIVED as moral by one, or immoral by
another does not imply that the ABSOLUTE value of morality
can be determined. Whenever I speak of morality you can
presume I am speaking of MY moral framework, and not
YOURS. Because I do not find that 'guilty criminals' deserve
to be murdered in prison. That's YOUR moral framework.
>That's the truth, and we all know it. You evil shit.
>
Read it and weep... You're the only one presuming to judge
EVERYONE'S Morality, in your Bible-thumping hypocrisy.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>"Jigsaw1695" <jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<voR4b.15655$EW1....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>>
>> I hate to mention this son, but if you believed that PV actually wrote the
>> above statement you have a serious problem with reality.
>
>As I obviously didn't believe he wrote it,
Ah.... come on, JPB... you really DID think I had written it... he he he.
You only found I had not, when you ran across the link I had
already provided to that opening in a previous post.
> that is a non-point you
>made there. But the real point is that PV wasn't really trying to
>convince me of anything, but simply filling out his post to make it
>look impressive by plagiarising someone else's work.
ho ho ho... You're just pissed that I found the complete trial
transcript, which means you can no longer lie. As you did by
claiming that Deborah had 'admitted' she lied about Matthew
being 'fine.' ho ho ho.
> And as I said, he
>pasted that entire piece, word for word, in several other posts on the
>same day, in one case not even putting it into quotation marks.
>
So what? Does that prove any pathetic arguments you have?
Absolutely not. In fact, you've LIED... purposely lied in claiming
that Judge Zobel did not have the power to overturn the verdict.
You've lied throughout this entire dialog regarding the 'Great
White Whale,' and it is obviously a pathological illness that
has taken control of your senses.
>You have always sympathised with PV and probably always will because,
>in your own stupidity, you see him as some sort of ally against
>Desmond. If you can't see how totally ineffective and
>counter-productive he and his spam have been in that particular "war"
>then it is you who has "a serious problem with reality".
LOL.... While you have always sympathized with that proven
racist, the Nameless One, who admits the chances are better
than HE would murder than would Theodore Frank. And you've
sympathized with that mass murder Saddam... weeping and
whining when his regime fell... wailing that he was such a 'good
leader.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
>Another point, Jigsaw. Ask yourself why PV made a slight change to the
>last part of Leone's words. The original reads:
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen, in this commonwealth, that is murder. And that
>is what we will prove to you during the course of this case."
>
>But PV shortened that to: "That in this commonwealth is murder."
>
LOL... Another lie from you. I copied it exactly as written. I meant
to do it exactly as written. So go fuck yourself, because you simply
recognize that my book has destroyed every argument (sic) you
ever presumed you had.
Anyone wishing to check out MY words, against those in the words
of the opening of the prosecutor, can find those words in --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
JPB is just too ignorant to realize what he was looking at... since
he simply jumped to the bottom of the opening of the
prosector in the URL, and assumed (which makes an ass of JPB),
that I had quoted the WHOLE opening. But I ended it well
before the end of that opening. And I ended it with exactly the
words contained in that opening. Anyone will find that the
prosecutor's words after about a third of his opening end
with the sentence -- "That in this commonwealth is murder."
And he then continues on the latter two-thirds. I simply
ended what I had extracted with those SAME words that he
had used. And did not use the latter two-thirds of his opening
statement. Which demonstrates that JPB did not actually
READ those words... but simply looked at the last sentence
of that opening and found it didn't 'agree' with the last words
I had extracted from that opening. Once again... JPB
demonstrates just how stupid he is.
>He did that to hide the words that would have made it more obvious
>where he had plagiarised the whole thing from. Nobody simply copies a
>large block of text from a website and pastes it right into the middle
>of their own post without even mentioning where it came from or
>acknowledging that it is not their own - nobody, that is, except PV.
Not a chance, sport. What pisses you off, is not that I extracted
a third of the words from that opening statement, which provided
what you had been crying about over and over... that I didn't
'know what she was charged with.' What pisses you off is that
the Book provided a total destruction to every point you've
ever offered. And trust me... all you will get from me is copies
of that book, every time you begin your cat-whining on the fence
howls expressing your love for the 'Great White Whale.'
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:8oe5lvou5bblbj1lb...@4ax.com...
>> On 31 Aug 2003 10:22:19 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
>wrote:
>>
>> GENTLE READER --
>>
>> JPB obviously has some rather deep-seated emotional problems. He tends
>> to fixate on certain subjects and people.
>
>This coming from the guy who obsessessively tries to ressurrect years-old
>debates, hoping to prove that he didn't mean the things he said back then.
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>> How evil you are.
>>
> I'm sure you think so...
One among many
Just passing by
that criminals "deserve to be murdered"? It doesn't exist, does it?
You are lying, aren't you?
From what I have discovered by checking back, this argument appears to
have begun back in May of 2001 in a thread started by Sharpjfa. It has
resurfaced numerous times including around Jan-Feb of this year. But
nowhere has PM said or even suggested what you have accused him of
saying. You took one sentence he wrote in that post totally out of
context and twisted it to try making it look as if he was saying the
very opposite of what his post, overall, was saying.
As I have told you elsewhere, PV, it is the archives that prove you
have lied about this, as they do in so very many other cases. You
can't argue with the archives and nor can you hide them behind your
spam, as you try to hide yourself and your cowardly retreats and
cop-outs behind it.
Peter Morris has never said that anyone deserves to be murdered. That
is a lie you have concocted because you can't handle a real debate
with him.
Clown
jigsa...@earthlink.net says...
A statement as: 'This one is guilty because a jury found so' does
actually exclude the possibility that the jury might have been wrong for
misinformation.
>
> A jury can be told anything by the defense. The prosecution is limited by
> law what they can present to a jury. The judge is the arbitrator of what
> can be presented to jury and what cannot be.
>
> But no matter which way you cut it, is the duty of the jury to determine who
> is telling the truth and who is not, and who is guilty and who is not.
>
> Now tell me Klown, does a defense attorney in a German court room ever try
> to intentionally mislead a jury? Do witnesses ever lie in a German court
> room?
>
Yes, this things do happen. The issue is what consequences follow if a
lie is discovered afterwards so that the entire conviction is put in
question. So should a PO tell publicly to have spoken the untruth in
favor of the prosecution I can guarantee you that the case will be
revised in a timely fashion. In FL, however, this happened and there goes
the time, year by year, and nobody cares and nothing happens.
Klaun
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Who you specifically emphasised were 'wrongfully convicted.'
The discussion was started by someone named "one", who
posted a message about the possibility of "wrongfully convicted"
peole being murdered in prison.
I asked him if he could name any specific instances of such.
Your response to my question, listing murder victims in prison,
deleberately implied that they were 'wrongly convicted' and thus of
greater value than ordinary criminals.
I asked you to prove your claim that they were 'wrongly convicted'
pointing out that if you were lying about them being 'wrongly convicted'
they have no relevencre to a discussion about 'wrongly convicted' people.
Since then, you have twisted my words, and denied your own, trying
to claim that I agree with your statement that only 'wrongly convicted'
people matter, while also claiming that you never meant the thing you said.
I advise anyone to follow evil shit PV's link, see his words that I was
responding to, then it will be clear to everyone that he thinks murder
victims in prison deserve what they get, unless they are 'wrongly convicted'
What an evil shit he is.
Peter Morris
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.03090...@posting.google.com...
> that criminals "deserve to be murdered"? It doesn't exist, does it?
> You are lying, aren't you?
>
> From what I have discovered by checking back, this argument appears to
> have begun back in May of 2001 in a thread started by Sharpjfa. It has
> resurfaced numerous times including around Jan-Feb of this year. But
> nowhere has PM said or even suggested what you have accused him of
> saying. You took one sentence he wrote in that post totally out of
> context and twisted it to try making it look as if he was saying the
> very opposite of what his post, overall, was saying.
Indeed, here's the correct context of it.
PV was commenting on death row criminals commuted by Furman vs Georgia
and how some of them later committed 6 murders.
His comments included
<<My source is "The Death Penalty in America." Edited by Hugo
Bedau. Chapter 10 - A National Study of the Furman-Commuted
Inmates-Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders...
If you have information as to any of the 315 who had not been
released and where later found to be innocent, it is not in the
study. >>
and
<< Let's put this in the correct context. Would you accept the
execution of 315 proven murderers (as we have discussed),
to save 6 INNOCENT victims from being murdered by those 315?.>>
and various others
Well, I pointed out a number of lies he told:
- There were over 600 comutees, not the 315 he claimed.
- The study he cited refers to four innocents found among the
600, who would have been executed if the DP had not
been suspended. So much for PV's claim there was no such
information in the study.
- Many of them were not 'murderers' as he claimed. Apart from
the innocents, 75 had been sentenced to death for rape, 4 for
armed robbery. PV repeatedly claimed that ALL of them were
murderers.
- His claim that the executions "would have saved 6 innocent people"
is lie, since 4 of those 6 victims were murderers that he wanted to
execute.
People on this newsgroup used to respect him, until I destroyed
his reputation by showing what a liar he is. He has an enormous
grudge against me for doing so, and has repeatedly quoted me on the last
of these items, with the claims that:
A) I agree with his statement that only 'innocents' are worth saving.
B) That HIS statement is the same as saying 'criminals deserve to be
murdered'
C) That he didn't mean it when he said it.
There have been several other such incidents, but the fact is he has said
criminals deserve to be murdered, and I haven't.
What an evil man he is.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> >I always said that MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG.
> >
> Of course it is, except in the minds of those such as Bundy,
> Gacy and McDuff.
and PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> I'm sure you think so.... since I believe NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
> MURDERED.
Actually you said that no INNOCENT people should be murdered,
but murderers aren't innocent. That's what you always said, you
evil shit.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Your answer is that 1) is the greater offence, unless the victim is
a criminal, or is Desmond.
Me, I say that 1) is the greater offence, since nobody deserves to be
murdered.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Only after I told you that.
you used to claim that innocent people are worth more than guilty ones.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<4eb8lvci50qis5alc...@4ax.com>...
>> On 1 Sep 2003 16:46:38 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>>
>> >First let's watch as PV steals the following paragraphs from a man
>> >called Gerald Leone without even acknowledging where they came from:
>> >
>> LOL... it's quite clear where they came from. You simply can't handle
>> it. If you would read all my posts, you would find that I posted the link
>> to those words prior to my posting the content.... See --
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=geg5lvoimqdmr30mkfhvq5cgglenmvsr77%404ax.com
>
>Prior to your posting? In a separate and totally unrelated thread? You
>call that an acknowledgement?
>
Good enough for me. If you can't read... that's not my problem.
>No, PV, you are banged to rights on this one. You have lied and you
>have plagiarised Leone's words. In the post you refer to you didn't
>copy Leone's words at all, so how can that have anything to do with
>the several posts in which you blatantly copied them and blatantly
>tried to pass them off as your own?
>
What a whiner you are, JPB. The words are his... they are quite
accurate. That's what pisses you off more than anything else. The
fact that you have no real counterargument. It must have pissed off
Mr. Good something fierce... because it rather nailed the 'Great White
Whale' as guilty before even one witness was heard. Which is
what a good attorney is supposed to do. Of course, you are not
the only one 'in love,' with a party to this trial. I fell in love with
that shark of an prosecuting attorney... Ms. Coakley. See --
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/week3.html
She literally 'wiped the floor' with every pathetic 'defense medical
expert.' She made them look just like the fools they were. Money
grubbing vampires. Willing to sell their souls and their reputations
for a few bucks. Demonstrating that each of them held to the
'principle' of -- Money first -- then... maybe Ethics. Her cross
of Baden... was spectacular. She made Leestma look like an
insecure and ambiguous fool... just as the Supreme Court recognized
in its appeal ruling. Her 'double-take' at the claim of Ommaya...
when he stated that the things he considered 'authoritative' were
the Bible... and she said -- "The Bible?" With all the meaning of
a pregnant pause contained in those two words, caused me
to fall in love with that shark. Her nailing of Dr. Gean, as shown
in the URL provided above was brilliant. Dr. Gean admitted that
retinal hemorrhaging left little question about "malicious intent."
Retinal hemorrhaging was present in Matthew, and Dr. Leestma
admitted that it was from the trauma of Feb 4th. Dr. Gean tried
to do a 'two-step' by claiming that NOW "she would have written
her medical analysis differently and not insinuated that the injury
was inflicted." Obviously that means -- now that the check has
cleared!!! The only expert she could not move was the robotic
replies of Dr. Uscinski... see --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11180_a.html
However, reading the testimony it doesn't matter, since it was
obvious he was simply BEING ROBOTIC, and expressing
concrete-headed opinions, that actually had no basis other than
his opinion. In fact, it became so dreary that the judge asked
where it was going, and she replied to him - " I understand,
Judge, but I'm at a huge disadvantage. When the defendant
puts on a witness who's qualified as a pediatric neurosurgeon,
who elicits four opinions, and then I'm supposed to cross-examine
him in five minutes. I will try and be quick."
Gee... I think I'll save these words to possibly include in my
Book's Third Edition. I "LOVE" Coakley!!!
>> And check the time sent. Which was prior to my posting those words.
>
>The time sent is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the post you
>refer to had no connection to the ones in which you plagiarised
>Leone's words without any acknowledgement.
So sue me... ho ho ho. if that's your best 'counter argument,'
your argument is in deep shit, JPB. Let's see.. I 'plagiarized'
PROOF of the 'Great White Whale's' guilt. Oh... bad... bad...
bad... PV... mustn't do that...
>> Too bad that you aren't familiar
>> with the trial testimony. You can find it ALL at --
>> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
>
>I was studying those transcripts long before you even knew they
>existed, and I can very easily prove that from my posting history in
>other groups and other web forums long before I ever posted here.
>
No.. I don't even think you knew they existed until I provided a link
to them. Because if you had done so... you would have certainly
never concluded that the 'Great White Whale' was innocent. Ohh....
wait... yes.... you still would have... because you're obsessed with
flabby women... and she's about the flabbiest that one will ever
come across. Certainly you have never given an indication that you
even knew those transcripts existed in any post in AADP.
>> >But that is PV all over. He doesn't know anything about that case
>> >because he has never bothered to actually research it and that is why
>> >he makes such an ass of himself every time he tries commenting on it.
>>
>> Oh... I know EVERYTHING about the case, now, sport.
>
>You sad cretin. You didn't even know what LW had been accused of doing
>in relation to the skull fracture. Here it is again:
>
ho ho ho... That is the reason that I used the opening of the prosecutor.
To demonstrate what the 'Great White Whale' had been accused of
doing in relation to the skull fracture. Repeating -- "Matthew Eappen
was rushed to Children's Hospital, suffering from a fractured
two-and-a-half-inch fractured skull, a massively-swollen brain, and
bloody retinal hemorrhaging all over his eyes, that occurred while in
the care of the defendant that day."
>"Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>to Matthew." (A Planet Visitor, August 29, 2003)
>
>You didn't even know, even though I had told you and even though the
>very parts of the SJC ruling you posted told you, that the missing
>photographs of the lipped edges on the skull fracture were not
>produced until very late in the trial. Here it is again:
>
Umm... sport... Of course I knew. And the Supreme court had
ruled on that production late in the trial. With these words --
"Her expert testified that the photographs provided important
confirming evidence that the skull fracture was weeks old. In
his ruling on Woodward's post trial motion, the judge noted
that this testimony was "the last word on the photographs
and the conclusions to be drawn from them," and correctly
determined that Woodward had not been prejudiced by the
late disclosure."
>"In fact, the use of 'lipped' is a funny-story in itself. It seems
>that this word does not appear in the entire trial, until the defense
>RECALLED (probably after some intensive 'defense strategy sessions')
>Dr. Baden, as the VERY FINAL 'defense medical expert' (sic). (A Planet
>Visitor, August 30, 2003)
>
Yes.. it is a very 'funny story.' As funny as 'if the glove don't fit...
you must acquit.' Little wonder that a four day lapse in the
testimony of Dr. Baden, and the last medical testimony offered
was necessary to work up that 'buzz word.' Given that Scheck
'trained' under Johnnie Cochran, it's amazing what 'methods'
he learned.
>You didn't even know that Leone's remarks (which you plagiarised) in
>his opening statement, about Matthew Eappen being "fine and well" on
>the morning of Feb 4, were later disproved by Deborah Eappen herself,
>who admitted telling lies about that. Here it is again:
>
>"On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both of her
>little boys, eight-month-old Matty and two-and-a-half-year-old
>Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matty, she changed Brendan's
>diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine... etc,
>etc. " (Gerald Leone (Oct 7, 1997) who can be forgiven for that error
>because he wasn't to know, at the time, that Deborah Eappen's own
>forthcoming testimony would disprove that statement) (Subsequently
>plagiarised by A Planet Visitor (Aug. 30, 2003) who cannot be
>forgiven, either for the dishonesty & outright plagiarism or for not
>bothering to read Deborah Eappen's testimony, which would have
>prevented him falling flat on his stupid face yet again)
>
ROTFLMAO... I suggest everyone go to
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10620_a.html
and read for themselves how Deborah Eappen described the last
time she saw Matthew, and the two days prior. It is filled with the
word 'FINE.' And that certainly wasn't 'plagiarism' since I
clearly used her words, and attributed her words to her, to
DISPROVE JPB's LIE in claiming that her testimony admitted
different. Apparently JPB believes that any proof offered that
he lies is 'plagiarism.' Oopss... that means EVERYTHING I
post must be 'plagiarism.'
>You didn't even know that the existence of periosteum is conclusive
>proof of an old and healing injury, and stated that Dr DeGirolami, in
>suggesting that what he saw was indeed periosteum, was stating that it
>was a fresh injury and was disagreeing with Dr Leestma. Here it is
>again:
>
>"Clearly Dr. DeGirolami was disagreeing completely with Dr. Leestma."
>(A Planet Visitor, August 30, 2003)
>
Whatever are you babbling about? Dr. Girolami disagreed with just
about every conclusion reached by Dr. Leestma. And rightly so,
since the Supreme Court found Dr. Leestma to not be that
'compelling' a witness, in these words -- "Woodward relies here all
but exclusively on the testimony of Dr. Leestma who produced the
magnified microscopic photographic images of specimens of the
dura. His testimony on cross-examination is not entirely clear,
although one interpretation could be that he did not know the
precise location from which he had taken the critical dura samples
and that the bone material he observed (excluding "vital reaction")
could have been an artifact of the autopsy and therefore come from
a location other than from the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity
is sufficient in itself for us to reject Woodward's request that we
give conclusive weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
I "LOVE" Coakley!!!
Everyone... the jury, the trial judge, Ms Coakley, and the Supreme
Court clearly saw through Leestma. Only you are too blind to do so.
>And they were just a few of your gaffes from just the last two days.
>If I were to start reposting all the examples of your astonishing
>ignorance of that case from the more distant past, I would never find
>time to do anything else.
>
What a silly, obsessed shit you are. Because there are no 'gaffes'
in my comments, nor in my book. That is what causes you to go
into a raging hysteria, about 'plagiarism.' Because that's ALL YOU
HAVE. While your comments have all been proven to be LIES.
Certainly your comment concerning the testimony of Deborah
Eappen is one of your more current lies, which you could NEVER
demonstrate through actual testimony, but which I have shown
through such testimony that you DID lie. But, of course, you
called my proving it through her testimony 'plagiarism.'
>
>> And it
>> bothers you greatly that I do. Here comes my book...
>
>
>The book of spam.
No, sport... it is "THE BOOK OF PROOFS AND FACTS --
A look into the mind of JPB -- a deeply disturbed lovelorn fruitcake."
A title that you cannot handle, along with the words in that book,
that you cannot handle.
Those proofs and facts that you cannot refute, thus must call 'spam,'
because they are repeated each time you would spread more lies.
This is simply more of your inability to actually open your eyes.
Which clearly justifies my repeating over and over that proof of
your obsession with 'flabby women.' Since you are the one providing
the same 'spam' over and over in the way of your lies.
> And what do you mean by "here comes"? What's new
>about it?
It's always being improved upon, JPB. That's what bothers you...
A whole new chapter was added, if you'd pay attention. And
many points have been both expanded, and made more precise.
In fact, holding it to 80 Kb was a challenge in itself. I don't think
the Third Edition will permit such brevity on my part. Since...
I "LOVE" Coakley, and she will obviously need to be mentioned
in the Third Edition. But you do not pay attention. You ignore
that proof completely, and simply run away by calling it 'spam.'
As you demonstrated when you ignored the fact that I had not
extracted the whole opening of the prosecutor. You never
actually read more than the first few words, then jumped to the
bottom, and presumed I had extracted the whole opening. It
rather demonstrates that you actually don't pay attention, JPB.
Something I've been telling ou for quite some time now.
> Your book of spam, which you hide behind because you can't
>face a real debate about the LW case, is the same copy & pasted spam -
>most of which you have never even read yourself - that you have been
>abusing this newsgroup with for well over a year. So who do you think
>you are fooling?
The question is... who do you think YOU'RE fooling by calling it 'spam,'
but never addressing even a single chapter in my book? You sad...sad...
sad...sad... delusional fruitcake. I think I need no longer pander to
you... the book is all I need... with new additions as I see fit to
provide.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Yes, Peter... WHY are you running away from my challenge?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<31e8lv0mhptnvrki7...@4ax.com>...
>> On 1 Sep 2003 16:56:49 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
>
>> >And the irony is that if PV had ever bothered to research the LW case,
>> >he would know that those words were later disproved by Deborah Eappen
>> >herself, when she admitted lying about Matthew being "fine and well".
>> >
>> In your dreams. What a fool you are. Deborah never admitted lying.
>
>Oh yes, she most certainly did! And that, yet again, proves that you
>haven't read the transcripts, just as you have never read the SJC
>ruling you repeatedly kept spamming the group with.
>
>So look again, idiot, and see if you can find the part where she
>admits it. I'll bet you can't because you are too lazy to bother
>reading properly. The only way you ever search the transcripts, the
>SJC ruling, or any long document, is by .... no, I'll let you admit it
>in your following words:
>
>> Doing a search
>> on the word 'fine' in ALL of Deborah Eappen's testimony, we find
>> only these words reflecting on Matthew's condition. And they were
>> to the state prosecutor..See --
>
>And that is how you "read" and "study" the transcripts, isn't it? By
>doing a search for a certain word. You have never read or studied them
>properly and that is why you still know nothing.
>
You were the one who claimed that she had said that Matthew
wasn't 'fine.' But throughout her ENTIRE testimony she asserted
that he WAS FINE. This was the point that was of concern. And
you LIED, by saying "she admitted lying about Matthew being "fine
and well". Clearly she admitted no such thing. Nor did she lie.
The fact is your arguments must always rest on 'people are lying...
or they are corrupt...or they are crooks... or it's a 'GREAT
CONSPIRACY,' or they are 'framing the Great White Whale.' It's
all bullshit, JPB... and anyone with half a brain could see that all
you have is bullshit.
>It is a fact that Deborah Eappen lied about Matthew's condition to the
>hospital's social worker. It is a fact that Deborah Eappen wrote down
>a list of Matthew's symptoms on a piece of paper. It is a fact that
>she even telephoned LW for help in compiling that list. It is a fact
>that she wilfully withheld that information from the doctors who would
>have needed it to best prepare for the operation. It is a fact that
>she has admitted lying during that period.
You sick, lying fuckface. A new low for you. The only liar was the
'Great White Whale,' who told the truth to Police, and then realized
that doing so was a quick way to prison. She was the ONLY one
who had a REASON to lie. Think about it... NO ONE ELSE had
a REASON to lie. Since the death of Matthew could NEVER have
been attributed to anything the Eappens had done, in a sense of the
commission of a crime, given the fact that Matthew was accepted
by the 'Great White Whale' as being 'fine and well,' when he was
handed to her. They had no reason to lie. Only the 'Great White
Whale' had a reason. Look to MOTIVE, JPB. Look to motive.
>All those facts can be verified if you could, for the first time,
>bother to actually read the testimony, instead of trying to do it the
>easy and lazy way by simply searching for a certain word.
>
I read the whole testimony, and there is absolutely no indication
that she "admitted lying about Matthew being "fine and well".
The fact is.. you are the one who is lying.
>> So perhaps you can show me in her testimony where she admits to
>> LYING? Because YOU are the liar.
>
>I will happily do that .... but first, let me make a fool of myself...
> let's see you do some real
>searching for yourself for a change.
You don't make demands of me, bullet head. You do your own
searching.... I've done mine.
> The clue is that you won't find
>it with one of your pathetic word searches.
I found exactly what I was looking for... proof that you lied.
> You will have to devote
>some time to real research for the first time in your miserable life,
>instead of your usual word searching and spamming.
>
LOL. Lot's of talk... nothing of substance.
>I am pleased that you have now steered me onto the subject of the
>Eappens and their highly suspicious behaviour (both of them, not just
>Deborah).
Oh, yeah... the very 'suspicious behavior' of the Eappens. You're
so pathetic. Do you have any idea how you look? Prosecutors
are 'corrupt,' police are 'perjurers,' doctors are 'crooks.' And now
the MOTHER and FATHER of that baby that the 'Great White
Whale' MURDERED are accused by you of 'highly suspicious
behavior.' Yes... of course they are... it's all part of the 'GREAT
CONSPIRACY.' They thought that the 'Great White Whale' had
murdered their son... and rightly so. And thus they must be
part of that 'GREAT CONSPIRACY.' To YOU.... that's 'highly
suspicious behavior.' God, you're sick. Trying to blame it on
the parents. Just another example of your Good old Plan B.
The 'blame someone else' plan:
Defense lawyers of the 'Great White Whale' realized that ONLY
the 'Great White Whale' was present during the time of Matthew's
end-problem, so they needed to find SOMEONE to blame it on.
The ONLY ones they could possibly blame, were the parents.
The defense would have blamed the police or the emergency
medical techs or the attending doctors, or the Donald Duck cartoon
playing on the TV at the time, if they had believed it could get the
'Great White Whale' off the hook. And why not? Weren't the
Eappens 'uncaring'? Didn't the fact that they even hired the 'Great
White Whale,' who fully demonstrated that she was 'uncaring,'
simply prove THEY were 'uncaring.' I mean, if they were 'caring'
they CERTAINLY would not have picked a recognized twit such
as the 'Great White Whale' to take care of Matthew. The 'Great
White Whale' even admitted on the stand that she was not equipped
emotionally to handle that child, and Leone nailed her to the witness
chair about her late hours and other behavior that prompted
Matthew's parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen , to give her an
ultimatum to shape up. I suppose this is the 'highly suspicious
behavior' you are speaking of. Woodward said on the stand
that Sunil Eappen returned one day to find Matthew and his 2
1/2-year-old brother unattended while she did the laundry. "He
was a bit unhappy, yeah," the 'Great White Whale' recalled. Leone's
cross-examination also revealed a young woman who chatted on
the phone, went out with her friends and lied about her age to get
into bars. Now THAT'S 'highly suspicious behavior,' to me.
Why don't YOU do some 'research' on the admissions of the
'Great White Whale' in her testimony to being a lazy little bitch,
unconcerned at all with the children, but consumed with her own
self-interests? Now THAT sounds like 'highly suspicious
behavior,' to me. How dare Matthew start crying and interrupt
her own self-absorbed behavior?
> In the past here I have always deliberately avoided that
>side of this debate, preferring to concentrate on the medical evidence
You mean 'avoid the medical evidence' of course. Because the
'medical evidence' proves that the trauma which caused the death
of Matthew Eappen occurred on Feb 4, 1997. The day he was
placed in the care of the 'Great White Whale,' and was last seen
as 'fine and well.' Until found in a coma by Medical Techs having
been called on 911 by the 'Great White Whale,' who admitted to
police that she had handled Matthew roughly.
>and the evidence of corruption by the prosecution, police and at least
>one doctor.
The only corruption by doctors, was that committed by those who
never examined Matthew himself... but looked very carefully at the
checks they received from the defense, as they looked at slides,
and C-T scans. Money first -- then ethics. Don't you ever ask
yourself why no emergency room attending doctor or a doctor
who operated on Matthew testified for the defense? Doesn't
that question BOTHER YOU? I'm sure it 'bothered' the jury.
Could THAT be a 'defense conspiracy' ? Of course the 'defense'
team also had one member who was convinced of the GUILT
of the 'Great White Whale.' While the police had no reason to
do anything but tell it like it was. See --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/118135.stm
> But now, thanks to you, I have a good reason for bringing
>this other dimension into the arena. Yes, PV, it's all down to you.
>I'm sure the Eappens wouldn't thank you for what you have done, and
>for what is now to follow, but I do.
>
>You had better just hope that they don't read this newsgroup. If they
>do, they are not going to like you very much.
Why would you say that? If YOU intend to do some 'character
assassination' on them? I fully expected you would, having nowhere
else to turn to. Of course, this was in the British press.. see
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9806/22/aupair.reax/link.keep.away.jpg
and
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9806/22/aupair.reax/#1
But, JPB... you've been caught in a lie. Since Deborah Eappen
did NOT admit lying about Matthew being "fine and well". And
you've simply proved yourself to be an even sicker fuck than I
first imagined. Now claiming the Eappens were ALSO part of
that 'GREAT CONSPIRACY.' Proving that no lie is beneath
you. Of course, you're simply mouthing the claims of the
'Great White Whale,' who also 'accused' the parents in her
disgusting interview in the BBC.. see --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/118140.stm
which was not well received in the U.K. considering the reactions
I've shown in the two links above to the feeling in the British
press about that interview, above.
One must wonder what form of a psychotic disorder must live in the mind
of someone who --
1) Loves baby-killer
2) Supports in full a racist.
3) Weeps over the passing of a murderous regime in Iraq
PV
Just passing by
> You were the one who claimed that she had said that Matthew
> wasn't 'fine.' But throughout her ENTIRE testimony she asserted
> that he WAS FINE. This was the point that was of concern. And
> you LIED, by saying "she admitted lying about Matthew being "fine
> and well". Clearly she admitted no such thing. Nor did she lie.
And now you are showing why you have to resort to spam so often. You
still haven't found her admission of lying, have you? Because you
still haven't read her testimony properly, have you? I know what you
have done: you have searched for the word "lie" which you haven't
found. So then you tried the words "lied", "lying", "lies" and "liar".
And having failed to find those specific words, you just gave up,
didn't you? Because your powers of concentration don't extend to
actually sitting down and reading something as long as her entire
testimony from beginning to end. That is why you are so gaffe prone.
It is why I have, so many times, exposed you for failing to read the
stuff you have copied from websites and pasted here. It is why you
failed to notice that the website you posted the URL to, followed by
the boast of "There lies MY argument" was a pro LW site supporting not
your argument, but mine.
> >It is a fact that Deborah Eappen lied about Matthew's condition to the
> >hospital's social worker. It is a fact that Deborah Eappen wrote down
> >a list of Matthew's symptoms on a piece of paper. It is a fact that
> >she even telephoned LW for help in compiling that list. It is a fact
> >that she wilfully withheld that information from the doctors who would
> >have needed it to best prepare for the operation. It is a fact that
> >she has admitted lying during that period.
>
> You sick, lying fuckface. A new low for you.
No, PV, a new high. Thanks to you I can now move on to revealing the
(all checkable and provable) truth about the Eappens. Every claim I
made above is 100% accurate and can be proven to be so. I will be
delighted to receive your challenge to back up those claims with
checkable facts.
Yes, PV, it is you who has brought the Eappens into this. I have
always deliberately left them out of it, but your attempts to paint
them as being pure as the driven snow cannot go unrebutted. There are
a number of facts about those people (i.e. Sunil and Deborah, not
Brendan) that will shock anyone who might have believed your drivel
about them.
> The only liar was the
> 'Great White Whale,' who told the truth to Police, and then realized
> that doing so was a quick way to prison. She was the ONLY one
> who had a REASON to lie. Think about it... NO ONE ELSE had
> a REASON to lie.
Ahh, but I have already comprehensively destroyed that drivel in this
post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0209020613.aaae62a%40posting.google.com
But you failed to answer a single point in that post. Instead you
wrote: "ROTFLMAO" followed by a mass of spam that you had pasted here
countless times before, and that had nothing to do with the post you
were "replying" to.
Unless and until you have dealt with that post about the proven lies
of Sgt Byrne, whatever you say about that episode is empty and
meaningless. I have qualified my claim that Byrne lied with checkable
facts. You have not done the same with your claim that it was LW who
lied. Instead you have simply run away every time you have been
challenged to do so. And you will run away from this latest challenge
too, won't you?
I have also qualified my claim about the lies of police officers
Downing and Braceland, who were exposed by a tape recording, made by
the 911 emergency operator, which proved their version of events to
have been false. Here is the URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0208171800.1d9f8561%40posting.google.com
What have you ever offered to counter that? Absolutely nothing. You
have always just run away from it.
But see how easy it is, by using the archives, to expose not only how
you run away from hard facts, but also how you regularly lie when you
say that I don't back up my claims with evidence. As you can see
above, I ALWAYS back them up with evidence, and you ALWAYS run away
from that evidence.
That's how it works, PV. You tell a lie such as, "JPB makes wild
accusations about corruption without ever backing them up," and then I
simply produce the Google URLs showing where I HAVE backed them up,
and where you have subsequently run away. The result - you are shown
to be a liar and a coward who is, literally, scared to debate about
this case.
> >> So perhaps you can show me in her testimony where she admits to
> >> LYING? Because YOU are the liar.
> >
> >I will happily do that .... but first, let me make a fool of myself...
>
> > let's see you do some real
> >searching for yourself for a change.
PV's new tactic: rewriting the posts he can't handle. And here it is:
I wrote: "I will happily do that .... but first, let's see you do some
real searching for yourself for a change."
PV "extracted" that sentence, then changed it to: "I will happily do
that .... but first, let me make a fool of myself... let's see you do
some real searching for yourself for a change."
You are getting desperate now, PV. The spam has failed; the plagiarism
has failed, the lies about the history of our exchanges on this topic
have failed thanks to the archives regularly being used to expose
those lies. So now you have had to resort to rewriting my posts. It is
so sad to see you reduced to this.
> You don't make demands of me, bullet head. You do your own
> searching.... I've done mine.
Then search again, properly this time, instead of simply setting your
Microsoft or Netscape "Find" facility to look for just one word. When
you have done that and still failed to find what I have told you is
there, I will show you the proof of ALL the above, i.e. ....
> >It is a fact that Deborah Eappen lied about Matthew's condition to the
> >hospital's social worker. It is a fact that Deborah Eappen wrote down
> >a list of Matthew's symptoms on a piece of paper. It is a fact that
> >she even telephoned LW for help in compiling that list. It is a fact
> >that she wilfully withheld that information from the doctors who would
> >have needed it to best prepare for the operation. It is a fact that
> >she has admitted lying during that period.
... and much more about both Eappens.
> >I am pleased that you have now steered me onto the subject of the
> >Eappens and their highly suspicious behaviour (both of them, not just
> >Deborah).
>
> Oh, yeah... the very 'suspicious behavior' of the Eappens. You're
> so pathetic. Do you have any idea how you look? Prosecutors
> are 'corrupt,' police are 'perjurers,' doctors are 'crooks.' And now
> the MOTHER and FATHER of that baby that the 'Great White
> Whale' MURDERED are accused by you of 'highly suspicious
> behavior.' Yes... of course they are... it's all part of the 'GREAT
> CONSPIRACY.' They thought that the 'Great White Whale' had
> murdered their son... and rightly so. And thus they must be
> part of that 'GREAT CONSPIRACY.' To YOU.... that's 'highly
> suspicious behavior.' God, you're sick. Trying to blame it on
> the parents. Just another example of your Good old Plan B.
> The 'blame someone else' plan:
Ahh, but you don't know what evidence there is against them. You don't
know it for two reasons. 1. Because you have never researched this
case. 2. Because I haven't told you yet.
> Defense lawyers of the 'Great White Whale' realized that ONLY
> the 'Great White Whale' was present during the time of Matthew's
> end-problem, so they needed to find SOMEONE to blame it on.
> The ONLY ones they could possibly blame, were the parents.
You are yet again showing your ignorance. The defence NEVER blamed the
parents. I challenge you to find a single example from the transcripts
or anywhere else showing anyone from LW's defence team blaming the
parents for Matthew's death. You can't because they never did.
The defence deliberately held back from using what the evidence
clearly pointed to in that respect, as a feature of their case,
because of its sensitivity given the fact that the Eappens were
respected members of their community and their client was just a
foreigner - a British one at that, in the most anti-British state in
America. There was some criticism of the defence for not making more
of certain extremely suspicious things the Eappens did, which, when
viewed rationally, show them (Deborah in particular) to have been by
far the most likely suspects. But it is easy to be wise with the
benefit of hindsight - I personally think the defence strategy was
right under the circumstances.
> > In the past here I have always deliberately avoided that
> >side of this debate, preferring to concentrate on the medical evidence
>
> You mean 'avoid the medical evidence' of course. Because the
> 'medical evidence' proves that the trauma which caused the death
> of Matthew Eappen occurred on Feb 4, 1997.
No it doesn't. As I have been showing you right from the beginning
(with the only thing I ever copy & paste), that evidence proves
conclusively that the injuries were weeks old, making it completely
impossible for LW to have done what she was convicted of. And here it
is again:
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
that this lipping was indeed present.
3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr.
DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
explained by the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
You have still NEVER addressed those facts. For some reason, that I
still can't explain, you always claim that the SJC ruling deals with
them all. It doesn't; it deals with only the first one, and even that
fails to answer exactly where the osteoblasts could have come from if
it wasn't the fracture site.
That evidence is accepted by many of the world's leading and most
respected medical and scientific experts, including many who were not
connected in any way to the trial - such as Britain's top pathologist,
Iain West - as being conclusive proof of LW's complete innocence. It
has never been rejected, on a point by point basis, by anyone. Most of
those signatories on Robert Reece's letter are not even aware of that
evidence and those few who are have never issued any direct rebuttal
(the letter itself doesn't even mention any of those seven facts).
But you will keep running away from those facts, pretending that the
SJC ruling - which you have still never read - answers them, and from
every other argument you can't handle. It is the way you have always
been and I certainly don't have the power to change you ... but I can
expose you and your lies, spam and cowardly retreats, and I will
certainly continue doing that.
And not only on the LW case.
Just passing by
He isn't. You are running away from his challenge ... and mine. You
lied about him and now those lies are coming back to haunt you.
Peter Morris
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.03090...@posting.google.com...
The funny thing is, he is the one that keeps bringing up the subject.
Just passing by
> On 2 Sep 2003 11:27:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
> >No, PV, you are banged to rights on this one. You have lied and you
> >have plagiarised Leone's words. In the post you refer to you didn't
> >copy Leone's words at all, so how can that have anything to do with
> >the several posts in which you blatantly copied them and blatantly
> >tried to pass them off as your own?
> >
> What a whiner you are, JPB. The words are his... they are quite
> accurate. That's what pisses you off more than anything else. The
> fact that you have no real counterargument.
The counter argument is that if Leone had known what was going to
happen later in the trial, he would not have worded his opening
statement in that way. You obviously haven't read his CLOSING
statement, but I have, and he never mentioned anything about Matthew
being "fine and well" on the morning of Feb 4. Why do you think that
is? Why do you think that Leone changed his emphasis from "fine and
well" to an outright acknowledgement that Matthew was no such thing?
Does that message not penetrate your thick skull into your empty head?
I guess it doesn't, so to help you, read this extract from Leone's
CLOSING statement:
'And think about February 4th. Debby Eappen gets up in the morning and
tells her, "Here's the instructions: Push fluids on Matty and bathe
him." Normally, not that big a deal. But that day, Matty's having an
off day. Matty's cranky, he's fussy, he's crying.'
You see that, PV? "Cranky, fussy, crying". That is Leone saying that
in his CLOSING statement. Totally the opposite of what he said in his
OPENING statement which you plagiarised. In that statement, Leone used
those words, together with the word "brats" in a manner that indicated
that the prosecution were going to challenge LW's claims about
Matthew's symptoms. But, in addition to dropping the allegations about
the word "brats" (following the discrediting of the evidence given by
petty criminal, Kathleen Sorabella) Leone, in his closing statement,
is clearly acknowledging that Matthew was indeed as LW had described
him on that day.
But you haven't got that far yet, have you? That's why you didn't know
that Leone had shifted his position so radically. He did so because of
what happened, and what was said, during the trial. Leone is the
sensible one for adjusting his position according to the events that
unfurled, but you, PV, are the idiot who read only the opening
statement, ignored everything that followed it, and then made such an
ass of yourself by pasting it here for me to totally rip to pieces, as
I have above, and show you to be the ignorant moron you are now
clearly and unquestionably seen to be.
> >> Too bad that you aren't familiar
> >> with the trial testimony. You can find it ALL at --
> >> http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
> >
> >I was studying those transcripts long before you even knew they
> >existed, and I can very easily prove that from my posting history in
> >other groups and other web forums long before I ever posted here.
> >
> No.. I don't even think you knew they existed until I provided a link
> to them.
And now I will show again what a cretin you are, and how you make
statements like that without properly checking your facts first. You
first posted the above URL on April 27, 2002, in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y%25Ay8.100493%24nc.15066127%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
So you are saying that I didn't know that the transcripts existed
before April 27, 2002, are you? Then how do you explain this post of
mine, in which I extracted extensive parts of those transcripts, on
October 15, 2000?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8sdggp%248n8%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
That was nearly three years ago and eighteen months before you first
posted that URL. Don't you look a complete ass now, PV?
> Certainly you have never given an indication that you
> even knew those transcripts existed in any post in AADP.
This is getting too easy. I have, in the past, laughed when I have
seen you explaining to someone (I forget whom) how you perform a
Google usenet search on a poster's past messages - typing all that
gobbledegook, with multiple quotation marks and plus signs, etc. I
could have told you at the time how to do it properly, but I didn't
because I preferred to see you wasting so much time with your backward
and ineffective method. I laughed again when that same backward and
ineffective method caused you to think that I was somebody called
Gilby Xu from Singapore.... but I still didn't tell you how to search
properly, maybe because I have a cruel streak.
But I digress. Back to your claim that I had never indicated that I
knew the transcripts existed, specifically in AADP, prior to your
first mention of them in April of 2002. So even your simple one word
searches, using your backward method, failed to find this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=95gria%24tgp%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
That post appeared here in AADP on February 3, 2001 - more than a year
before your first mention of the transcripts and before you & I had
ever exchanged a single post. In that post I wrote: "I will not
digress here by detailing all the accusations of negligence against
the hospital, but if you want to know more, you might like to read Dr.
Uscinski's testimony from the trial transcripts."
Yes, PV, the very trial transcripts you said I was unaware of the
existence of until you told me about them OVER A YEAR LATER.
You are well out of your depth, PV, and you sink even further with
every post, making such a complete fool of yourself as you have here.