(03-06-2011, 04:35 PM)Methusala Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 02:57 PM)notsure Wrote: A. In marbury v. madison the sup court gave themselves the power to be the final review and if memory serves (its been many years since I read the case...the whole fucking case) they made themselves the final review of State law! State law! States have their own supreme courts to deal with it, but no! The feds can do it better.…

I respectfully disagree. M v M only applies where the law is in violation of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court does not determine what laws may or may not have violated state constitutions.

Quote:Second a lawyer is only appointed in criminal cases, that involve a penalty of prison and only from the point of arraignment on to conviction (and you get one appeal for free). This doesn't include civil. when the aclu brings cases to challenge the constitutionality of a law it is through civil court. ONly when it defends a person for a crime that is unconsitutional do they get that free attorney.

You are right. I apologize if I did not make that sufficiently clear. I thought I had. Nevertheless, I trust you do not dispute my central point that anyone and everyone is free to file a case challenging the constitutionality of any law, or free to raise the issue in defense against any lawsuit employing any law.

Quote:Frye v. us was regarding polygraphs which are not allowed as evidence at trial.

I am sorry, but I believe you are wrong. While that case was about excluding a polygraph test result, it was a case of first instance which required the court to frame a rule as to when alleged scientific evidence of any kind was to be accepted or excluded. That Frye rule has since been applied all over the country to apply to all kinds of alleged scientific evidence. It is not strictly a polygraph test rule.

For example, the Frye v. US test was applied to exclude use of so-called "anatomically-correct" dolls in interviewing children alleged to have been physically abused, because it was determined that use of the dolls did not meet the Frye test as being generally recognized as reliable in the scientific community.

Quote:Last: of course there are unconstitutional laws. Jim crow laws were held unconsititutional. criminal laws regarding inter-racial marriage. unconstitutional. Brown v. board ring a bell. state v. lopez (fed law for gun-free school zones) held unconstitutional (b4 you shit, the court said that making such a law falls to the states, not the federal govt. to get their nose into state schools and state criminal codes etc.) Those are the ones that jump out at me. There are others.

Bingo, you just made my point. Those laws were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That's how it's done. Not by people running around yelling "The sky is falling." So, do you like that process, or you don't like it? Up above, you complained about the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Thank you for an interesting post.

(03-06-2011, 02:26 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: i doubt 48 Hours or any other true crime program would cover it until there is a resolution. they like to show the outcome of cases.

(03-06-2011, 04:45 PM)NightOwl Wrote: Methusala & notsure............A round of applause!!

(03-06-2011, 05:01 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 04:45 PM)NightOwl Wrote: Methusala & notsure............A round of applause!!

zero

Zero you r a character~~Loving the new photos!!!~SmH

(03-06-2011, 02:25 PM)curious Wrote: Sorry but impo there's no way in God's green earth are you going to find TW and crew nor Mytee for that matter making any kind of public statement at this juncture of the investigation. To put it simply, all of the above either have no idea who the perps are or if they do, certainly aren't going to go on public TV knowing what the end result could bring.

Also, going back to the posts with regards to neck wounds on the victims, let's not forget that neither the final autopsy reports OR toxicology reports have been made public. So as far as being able to subdue JC, one would have to assume there was either a gun involved or he was drugged, and that would apply to someone even half is weight.

(03-06-2011, 03:22 PM)NightOwl Wrote: SHITSTORM - yesterday @ 10.27 p.m. Page 759 - Post 10625

Enjoyed your essay!

(03-06-2011, 03:35 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Reading that Maytee was in the street screaming gave me goose bumps. That's so awful & so sad.

(03-06-2011, 05:21 PM)shitstorm Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 03:35 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Reading that Maytee was in the street screaming gave me goose bumps. That's so awful & so sad.

Where did you read that? I haven't seen it.

I would have been, too.

(03-06-2011, 05:07 PM)shitstorm Wrote:


hehehe, that is classic.

That dog - WINNING!

His toy - PWNED!

(03-06-2011, 01:00 PM)EastCoastKat Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 12:21 PM)Snoopy Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 11:57 AM)EastCoastKat Wrote: On RIP Johnny:

SGP: "We've tried to correct their lies and accusations on those pages only to get deleted. I personally have been deleted from all of them. I have NEVER made one vulgar or profane remark but only corrected the truth and yet my comments are deleted because those people feed off negativity. They get some sort of thrill off of doing this."

Is she just hitting "preview post"- and not "reply post" because this might explain the trouble she is having. That classifies as a Pebkac error!

What is a Pebkac error?

Problem exist between keyboard and computer (user error)

(03-06-2011, 05:12 PM)NightOwl Wrote: If it was one monster could an anesthetic have been used? I read about SUX for short being used in a murder. Then how about a chemical found in garage or a garden shed some pretty toxic stuff there. Did they do a brain autopsy? we don't know - some chemicals may not show up in the blood. It's a mystery for now all of it! Enjoyed your posted!

(03-06-2011, 04:17 PM)My3littlepiggies Wrote: I feel like this case lost media attention when people started speculating that Johnny was involved in drugs. None of which has been proven to me at this point. It seems to me that when things like this happen people get judgemental and start acting like they don't care or like they deserved it. Like when a prostitute is killed. Which wasn't helped by the last comments made by LE making it sound like they deserved it. That is just wrong and doesn't help to get this solved. This was still someones son/daughter,sister, brother and friend. Plus none of this has been proven. Baggies mean nothing. They could have just smoked weed. Corner of baggie = a nickel of weed.Digital scale could have also been used to make sure they weren't getting a "tight" sack. I think that is why Nancy Grace stopped talking about it. She has judged and decided that its not worth her attention. I also think that the comments made by LE at the springfield township meeting was to get pressure off of them and to make their suburban residents feel safe.Even if its not true.

(03-06-2011, 05:40 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 05:12 PM)NightOwl Wrote: If it was one monster could an anesthetic have been used? I read about SUX for short being used in a murder. Then how about a chemical found in garage or a garden shed some pretty toxic stuff there. Did they do a brain autopsy? we don't know - some chemicals may not show up in the blood. It's a mystery for now all of it! Enjoyed your posted!

Suxamethonium chloride....I think you are fully aware but unable to move a muscle...Recently there are toxicology tests to show its presence post mortum. Years ago it could be used in murder and the cause of death was impossible to discern.

(03-06-2011, 04:35 PM)Methusala Wrote: [quote='notsure' pid='141622' dateline='1299437854']

Quote:Last: of course there are unconstitutional laws. Jim crow laws were held unconsititutional. criminal laws regarding inter-racial marriage. unconstitutional. Brown v. board ring a bell. state v. lopez (fed law for gun-free school zones) held unconstitutional (b4 you shit, the court said that making such a law falls to the states, not the federal govt. to get their nose into state schools and state criminal codes etc.) Those are the ones that jump out at me. There are others.

Bingo, you just made my point. Those laws were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That's how it's done. Not by people running around yelling "The sky is falling." So, do you like that process, or you don't like it? Up above, you complained about the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Thank you for an interesting post.

(03-06-2011, 05:58 PM)notsure Wrote:

(03-06-2011, 04:35 PM)Methusala Wrote: [quote='notsure' pid='141622' dateline='1299437854']

Quote:Last: of course there are unconstitutional laws. .

Bingo, you just made my point. Those laws were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional..

my concern is the sovereingty of the states from the fed. I see the consititution originally as a direct way to hinder the groth of the fed and keep the state (the local govt) strong so the fed could never become like the crown that we had just battled for independance from.

(03-06-2011, 05:52 PM)shitstorm Wrote: I don't know if Nancy Grace blows off victims that she thinks were social losers. She's full of shit, though, and she's the legal equivalent of the National Enquirer. She's made a career and her money on dead children, for the most part. When there is nothing going on with a case, she keeps repeating the same shit and saying, "BOMBSHELL!". It's a disgusting wringing of these stories for all they're worth - for money. Compare that to John Walsh. I'm actually embarrassed for myself when I allow myself to watch her.

Nancy Grace also has a total disregard for truth. I once saw her in a discussion with Jeff Feiger. He was talking about innocent people who are wrongly convicted and on death row. Her response was, "Okay, well, SOME innocent people ...", said with a tone like it was an acceptable trade off for getting mostly guilty people behind bars. It was appalling. I want GUILTY people locked up, not innocent people that corrupt or stupid prosecutors get a bug up their ass about for personal reasons. She's a typical prosecutor, in that respect and she'd "never be shot for her brains", as my mom always likes to say.

(03-06-2011, 05:52 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [quote='My3littlepiggies' pid='141667' dateline='1299442675']

In any murder case, everything is relevant. The lifestyles, social connections, things that may help us understand how these things happen. If someone was all up in the drug culture (and I don't mean hippies smoking weed) or a prostitute or whatever, it's relevant. Ultimately, the important thing is murderers need to be apprehended and put away, and every murder victim matters (for many reasons). Just imagine if cases like the Green River killer were blown off because the victims were prostitutes!

I don't know if Nancy Grace blows off victims that she thinks were social losers. She's full of shit, though, and she's the legal equivalent of the National Enquirer. She's made a career and her money on dead children, for the most part. When there is nothing going on with a case, she keeps repeating the same shit and saying, "BOMBSHELL!". It's a disgusting wringing of these stories for all they're worth - for money. Compare that to John Walsh. I'm actually embarrassed for myself when I allow myself to watch her.

Nancy Grace also has a total disregard for truth. I once saw her in a discussion with Jeff Feiger. He was talking about innocent people who are wrongly convicted and on death row. Her response was, "Okay, well, SOME innocent people ...", said with a tone like it was an acceptable trade off for getting mostly guilty people behind bars. It was appalling. I want GUILTY people locked up, not innocent people that corrupt or stupid prosecutors get a bug up their ass about for personal reasons. She's a typical prosecutor, in that respect and she'd "never be shot for her brains", as my mom always likes to say.