Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Sending out the message LOUD and CLEAR.

My biggest fear on Earth is outliving my children.

Every once in a while you will hear a disturbing story about a sad fate that befalls a child. You may think that only the most outrageous make the head lines but, that's not necessarily true. The one that would draw the most users, listeners, or readers is more likely. Take Andrea Yates for example: By all accounts this woman was a good mother, she was a God fearing woman, she home schooled the children. You know? Your typical brownies-in-the-oven-sort-of-mommy. Then one day Mommy offs all the kids in the bathtub one by one by one.

What really eats me up the most about these cases is the lack of legislation protecting our children from the real boogieman. Members of their own family and close family friends.

According to statistics from the US Dept. of Justice on infanticide, of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2002:

  • 31% were killed by their fathers
  • 30% were killed by their mothers
  • 23% were killed by male acquaintances
  • 6% were killed by other relatives
  • 3% were killed by strangers

A whopping 3% yet we lecture our children almost daily on the hazards of talking to strangers. While I'm not knocking the concept of children learning such things (I teach my own children this.) I have to wonder why, as a society, we are so brainwashed into believing that strangers are the real perpetrators.

We are at an age and a time where our high definition TVs, and our cell phones receive more protection under law than our children do.

Again using Yates as an example, some argue that she falls under the legal definition of insane and should therefore receive help instead of prison. Oh really? As a mother, I do not doubt for one second that the woman was nuts. You have to be nuts to murder a child, let alone your own. The problem is that the end result is still the same. Those children are dead. Getting her help will never bring them back.

So what if she didn't mean to do it? The average drunk driver doesn't mean to kill the innocent people he or she runs down either. Is this woman a threat to society? Would she be released from prison only to kill again? Most likely not. Getting her the help she needs and releasing her back into society would barely send a ripple through the Nation. Locking her up for the rest of her natural life would, however, send the message loud and clear: We will not tolerate you harming our children, even if they are your own and no excuse in the world will save you. Period.

Our judicial system is a wreck and in need of giant reform in order to operate in today's high-tech society. When our forefathers created the system in place today they had no way of foreseeing the high-speed Nation we were to become. Let us please start this reform with the children. They are our most precious treasures.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Why I think Scott Peterson is innocent.

I am part of an informal group that (still) comes together occasionally to discuss the Peterson case. In this group is a mixture of people. Some think he is innocent, some not, and others are unsure. I will say this: Very few things have gotten me as angry as the Peterson trial has. I have followed the trial very closely (as closely as possible given the lack of cameras allowed in the court room). I haven't the foggiest clue as to whether or not Scott committed this crime but, I do know without doubt that according to law he should have walked out of that courtroom a free man.

Ponder a couple of things if you will:

1) Baby Conner had a small piece of black electrical tape stuck to his head that mysteriously disappeared following the autopsy. It has been said that the tape was in fact kelp or marine matter. Photographs of the remains showing the clean lines of tape gives the distinct impression of man made edges and therefore rules out the latter. The prosecutions witness contends that Baby Conner was born a coffin birth. A process that happens when the gasses due to decomposition force the baby through the birth canal after death, or in Laci's case, an opening that had worn through the top of the uterus, again due to decomposition. This would mean that this baby went from amniotic fluid to the ocean. How would the tape have stuck?

2) Baby Conner also had a piece of twine used both in construction and fishing looped under one arm and around his neck. This twine was tied in a knot then in a bow. During autopsy Dr. Peterson (no relation) had to cut the twine away as it would not fit over the baby's head to be lifted off. The prosecution contends that this happened under water as the remains were floating. Keep in mind that Conner's remains showed very little signs of animal feeding or barnacle growth (as his mother had) leaving the ME to estimate the child had been in a marine environment "a couple of days" though his body washed up 4 months after his mother disappeared.

3) Baby Conner's remains were described as being mushy and gelatinous at trial (to which I have the transcripts in their entirety if anyone is interested), yet the prosecution wants us to believe that the remains washed over a rock jetty leaving the gelatinous remains intact. Through the gaps in the rocks and the baby would have been ripped to shreds, over the rocks via a large wave would have certainly splattered the poor angel. (not to be crude but picture Jell-O...). Adding to the fact that 4 months after their disappearance, we are to believe that they washed up within a day of one another within a mile of one another showing marked differences in their individual decomposition.

4) Despite a multi-million dollar investigation using the best of everything, 7 different 'crime scenes', thousands of man hours dispersed to hundreds of officers (including the FBI), sonar, scenting dogs, cadaver dogs (trained to sniff the scent of death that emits from a person within 15 minutes following death), phone taps, etc. (Oh yes the list does go on) the prosecution failed to find one single shred of evidence to convict Scott Peterson.

5) The home directly across from the Peterson residence was robbed ( a safe was taken among other things) on the exact day of Laci's disappearance. A young man later incarcerated for the burglary placed a call to his brother from prison and in a recorded conversation said that Laci had interrupted the burglary and they had threatened her life and nothing more. A lead DT. in the case Craig Grogan responded to the prison and the tape disappeared. The prosecution blew up the safe (see above) "accidentally" a day before the defense was to test the safe using their own professionals as part of 'discovery'.

To be continued...

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Why opinions are not like assholes.

Ever hear the saying, "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one."? While this may hold true for just a second, when one delves a little deeper (no pun intended for all you sado-masochists out there) we realize how unlike assholes opinions really are, and why we should strive to keep our assholes and opinions very, very separate.

First let us explore the similarities so we can make better use of pointing out the differences.

We all have opinions and we all have an asshole (I hope...) and that my friend is pretty much where the likeness ends.

Now the fun part.
(Your trying to think of others between paragraphs aren't you? Shame on you.)

First and foremost. While all assholes stink ~only some opinions do. Secondly, only a select number of opinions are full of shit. Lastly, the basis and inspiration behind my first post, assholes should be kept well concealed and only rear their ugly heads (or tails if-you-please) in the rarest of circumstances. If opinions had to follow the same rule ~ I would die a slow and painful death.

This post may seem a bit wacky but, please note: I do not normally dabble in doo doo and I have every intention on touching on some serious and sensitive issues in the future.