Stupid Attorney taling about GPS's

Oh gawd, blew his own cajones off, right in public... That's hysterical...
In a previous lifetime I spent time covering the jail, so I got to hear, and
see, a lot of stories...

One night I'm working the hospital ER, the jail crew brings in Juan, who I
have seen at the jail a number of times, trussed up like a roasting
chicken... Seems he got into a punch up with the guards over something or
other..He has a cut on his head and some on his hands I need to sew up... I
tell them they have to remove the cuffs... They are incredulous and tell me
he is a bad ass and he will punch me... I insist and finally they do, and
stand back smirking...
I lean over Juan and I say, "Juan, if you punch me, you know what I am going
to do?"
Juan looks at me with a steely glint in his eyes, "What you gonna do, doc?",
he challenges me...
"I'm going to fall down and bleed all over you.", I say, wagging my finger
under his nose...
He blinks a few times, then his lips start to quiver, and then he snorts,
and finally he becomes helpless with laughter...

After I get done suturing his cuts, and the guards put his cuffs back on and
link them to his ankle bracelets, and are ready to lead him out, he looks
over at me...
"Hey doc, you OK for a grrriingo... Anyone gives you trouble, you let me
know... I weel take care of them." And out he went...
About a year later I saw in the paper where he bled to death on a street
corner...
Kind of spoiled my day... He was sociopath but he could be likeable at
times...
denny

"SD" sdatverizondot.net@ wrote in message He then asked me "So officer,
How many people do you
know from XYZ, Texas". At first I thought this question was a joke.
I then looked over at the jury and gave my answer... Well, including
myself and my family and all the people I went to school with as a
kid... A whole lot of other people! The jury rolled.

Peter R. wrote in message ...
Wdtabor ) wrote:

I don't see how that can place him at the scene. It can only support
the evidence of his affair.

According to one news report, the GPS log supposedly shows that he twice
returned to a beach near the location where his wife's body washed up.

Did he know about the GPS in his car? ****, if he did I can't imagine
he'd be that dumb. There is evidence that this isn't the first time
he's done this. Another girl he was interested in about 10 years ago
also disappeared and was never heard of again. Sounds like he's a pro.

-Robert

You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

Phil Payne

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:b73Zb.77780$uV3.535651@attbi_s51...
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

As far as Clinton goes, it's ancient history.

And you've forgiven Nixon, right?

That's a preposterous analogy, for a couple of reasons:

1) How many off-topic posts do you see on this newsgroup spontaneously
complaining about Nixon? I can't think of any.

2) Nixon slaughtered hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese because
they
had the temerity to defend themselves against a US invasion, as they had
done previously against the French and the Japanese. He subverted the US
constitution by using federal agencies to commit crimes against his
political opponents. He resigned the presidency in the face of imminent
overwhelming votes for impeachment and conviction. He would have gone to
prison (as did 25 members of his administration, including four cabinet
members), had he not been preemptively pardoned by his own former vice
president.

Far from "getting over it" or "moving on," I would say: "Those who do
not study history are condemned to repeat it."

Good principle, preposterous instantiation. You think it's important for
people to continue to complain to an aviation newsgroup about Clinton's
sex
scandal in order to protect the Republic from the possibility that another
president will get a blow job and lie about it?

--Gary

Phil Payne wrote:

You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

Really? That's why it took six years and the biggest demonstrations ever seen
in the U.S. to get the ******* to honor his campaign promises?

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"Phil Payne" wrote in message
...
You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

On the contrary, Nixon greatly expanded the US invasion, secretly (from the
US public) bombing Cambodia, for instance, unleashing thousands of B-52
sorties there, often in heavily populated areas.

But yes, Johnson was a monstrous war criminal as well--though I can't
imagine how you think that exonerates Nixon. They each inflicted far
greater atrocity than Saddam Hussein ever did.

--Gary


Phil Payne

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:b73Zb.77780$uV3.535651@attbi_s51...
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

As far as Clinton goes, it's ancient history.

And you've forgiven Nixon, right?

That's a preposterous analogy, for a couple of reasons:

1) How many off-topic posts do you see on this newsgroup spontaneously
complaining about Nixon? I can't think of any.

2) Nixon slaughtered hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese because
they
had the temerity to defend themselves against a US invasion, as they had
done previously against the French and the Japanese. He subverted the
US
constitution by using federal agencies to commit crimes against his
political opponents. He resigned the presidency in the face of imminent
overwhelming votes for impeachment and conviction. He would have gone
to
prison (as did 25 members of his administration, including four cabinet
members), had he not been preemptively pardoned by his own former vice
president.

Far from "getting over it" or "moving on," I would say: "Those who do
not study history are condemned to repeat it."

Good principle, preposterous instantiation. You think it's important
for
people to continue to complain to an aviation newsgroup about Clinton's
sex
scandal in order to protect the Republic from the possibility that
another
president will get a blow job and lie about it?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:JA2_b.35289$4o.52406@attbi_s52...
"Phil Payne" wrote in message
...
You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

On the contrary, Nixon greatly expanded the US invasion, secretly (from
the
US public) bombing Cambodia, for instance, unleashing thousands of B-52
sorties there, often in heavily populated areas.

The Ho Chi mihn Trail was through the jungle and bombing it saved thousands
of American lives.

But yes, Johnson was a monstrous war criminal as well--though I can't
imagine how you think that exonerates Nixon. They each inflicted far
greater atrocity than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Nixon took over LBJ's war, after Lady Bird's company had made hundreds of
millions of dollars on Vietnam. If you want to know who killed JFK, just
follow the money.

GPS evidence proved that Scott Peterson, who was falsely accused of
murdering Laci, was concerned about the course of the investigation.
As a matter of fact, he evidently went to the Bay, more out of
disbelief about the course of the investigation, than out of fear that
the police would discover his wife's body. When Scott Peterson went to
the Bay, he only stayed 2 or 3 minutes each time, and that is clearly
not a man who was concerned about what the police were doing. The
police had already shocked and isolated Scott Peterson by treating him
like a guilty suspect, and Scott didn't need any more than 2 or 3
minutes to confirm the fact the police were not investigating the
disappearance of Laci, they were merely seeking to confirm their
suspicions at best and pursuing the leads that the real murderers were
advancing, at worst.

Perhaps the police are angry at Scott Peterson because he was aware of
the fact that they were tailing him to the marina and having made fun
of them, they think that GPS tracking devices prove that the police
essentially duped a confession. They did not.

Since when is Scott denied the opportunity to observe the
investigation into his own wife's murder? -- if anybody cares to call
tailing Scott Peterson, an "investigation". In the final analysis, the
police were tracking Scott Peterson when they should have been looking
for Laci, and they are pursueing Scott at all cost, to evade the
simple truth.

http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/scott.htm

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Phil Payne wrote:

You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

Really? That's why it took six years and the biggest demonstrations ever
seen
in the U.S. to get the ******* to honor his campaign promises?
Six years?

Nixon took office in January, 1969 and the "armistice" was signed in
January, 1973. That after three years of gradual withdrawal. It was
Operation Linebacker in September, 1972 that brought NV back to the table
(for real) and the war ended within about four months.

It was 1975 (six years later) when the North violated the armistice and
overran the South. It was then we had Kerry's "peace" and the result (IIRC)
was 500,000 to 1,000,000 deaths in the "re-education" camps (more than
actually died during the fighting).

Tom -- one of the last ones out in March, 1973

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Phil Payne wrote:

You should be naming JFK and LBJ for the killings in Vietnam, not
Nixon.
The war was winding down when Nixon took office.

Really? That's why it took six years and the biggest demonstrations ever
seen
in the U.S. to get the ******* to honor his campaign promises?
Six years?

Nixon took office in January, 1969 and the "armistice" was signed in
January, 1973. That after three years of gradual withdrawal. It was
Operation Linebacker in September, 1972 that brought NV back to the table
(for real) and the war ended within about four months.

It was 1975 (six years later) when the North violated the armistice and
overran the South. It was then we had Kerry's "peace" and the result
(IIRC)
was 500,000 to 1,000,000 deaths in the "re-education" camps (more than
actually died during the fighting).

Not to mention the slaves delivered to the Soviet Union to settle Vietnam's
debt.

GPS evidence proved that Scott Peterson, who was falsely accused of
murdering Laci, was concerned about the course of the investigation.
As a matter of fact, he evidently went to the Bay, more out of
disbelief about the course of the investigation, than out of fear that
the police would discover his wife's body. When Scott Peterson went to
the Bay, he only stayed 2 or 3 minutes each time, and that is clearly
not a man who was concerned about what the police were doing. The
police had already shocked and isolated Scott Peterson by treating him
like a guilty suspect, and Scott didn't need any more than 2 or 3
minutes to confirm the fact the police were not investigating the
disappearance of Laci, they were merely seeking to confirm their
suspicions at best and pursuing the leads that the real murderers were
advancing, at worst.

Perhaps the police are angry at Scott Peterson because he was aware of
the fact that they were tailing him to the marina and having made fun
of them, they think that GPS tracking devices prove that the police
essentially duped a confession. They did not.

Since when is Scott denied the opportunity to observe the
investigation into his own wife's murder? -- if anybody cares to call
tailing Scott Peterson, an "investigation". In the final analysis, the
police were tracking Scott Peterson when they should have been looking
for Laci, and they are pursueing Scott at all cost, to evade the
simple truth.

http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/scott.htm