I kid you not.   I mean you cannot make this stuff up.

See what happens when a juror independently tested the famed “Fruit of the Loom” defense:

Underwear test by a juror puts murder verdict in doubt

The “Fruit of the Loom” defense didn’t work for an accused murderer in January, but attorneys are taking another shot at it after learning a Snohomish County juror experimented with his own underwear during the trial.

In a rare move, a judge on Tuesday said she will order all 12 members of the panel back to court April 9 to get to the bottom of things by asking a few questions.

She’ll then decide if any juror misconduct warrants a new trial for Daniel Jay Perez, 21.

Perez was convicted of second-degree murder for using the drawstring from his sweatpants to strangle his cellmate at the Monroe Reformatory in the Monroe Prison Complex.

Perez confessed after the body of Cory Garzina, 24, was found in their cell, saying the marks on his hands came from the drawstring.

At his January trial, Perez told a different story, saying the marks on his hands actually came from a unique suicide attempt.

Perez testified that he was afraid of two other inmates who were the killers. So he tore the elastic waistband from his underwear and used it to try to strangle himself, causing the marks on his hands.

…

In a conversation following the verdict, the jury foreman told prosecutors that at one point during the trial, another juror talked about going home and trying to rip the waistband off from his own underwear.

From his experiment, the juror concluded that it would have been difficult for Perez to have entirely separated his underwear waistband from the rest of his drawers.

When Perez’s attorneys heard about the experiment, they asked for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct.

Objection Your honor!  The juror is playing with his skivvies!

I blogged this back in 2005 (reposted below) as it was happening, and now 2 years later the end is drawing near, but even as it is, nothing is settled, and the closure seems impossible.  How can you move on from something so horrific?

Joseph Duncan, the guy who commiitted this indescribly horrible crime pled guilty in state court previously, and has now pled guilty in Federal court.

Duncan pleads guilty to all counts (emphasis mine)

 Joseph Duncan this morning pleaded guilty to all 10 counts in the federal indictiment against him for kidnapping and molesting two North Idaho children and killing one in 2005.

“I just wanted to say that since my arrest I have never attempted to deny responsibility,” Duncan told the court.

The convicted killer faces a possible death sentence for kidnapping Dylan and Shasta Groene in 2005 and for killing Dylan at a remote Montana camp site.

 Possible?  Good God, if ever there was a poster child for the death penalty, this is it.

The prosecution and defense had agreed on a “recitation” of the facts in the case, which federal prosecutor Traci Whelan read, along with the charges, in a courtroom that was chilled into silence despite being nearly full. The recitation included a lengthy description of Duncan’s actions, starting from April 2005 when he purchased video recording equipment and stole a car and a gun, all of which he then used in the crimes against members of the Groene family in North Idaho.

The recitation also graphically identified the nature of Duncan’s sexual abuse of the two children, and detailed how he videotaped his abuse of Dylan and then shot him to death. It also included the fact that after young Shasta, the sole survivor of the attack on her family, was rescued from Duncan at a Denney’s restaurant in Coeur d’Alene, lab testing identified Duncan as her abuser.

This is not a completly criticism free finding, but the firing of the taser itself was justified.

Traffic-Stop Taser Cop Acted “Reasonably”

 Utah trooper who used a Taser to subdue a stubborn motorist who was walking away from him during a traffic stop felt threatened and acted reasonably, state officials said Friday.

…

We found that Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances,” Davenport said at a news conference, joined by Scott Duncan, commissioner of the UHP’s parent agency, the Utah Department of Public Safety.

The investigation was conducted by officials in the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the highway patrol. The officials have asked the Utah attorney general’s office to also review the case to determine if laws were broken.

Not all of the actions were justified however.

Moments later, when another officer arrived, one of them said, “Oh, he took a ride with the Taser.”

Davenport said that comment was inappropriate.

Yea, I see no reason to excuse mocking.

Officials said Gardner could have issued the ticket without Massey’s signature. The investigation found use of the Taser was justified because Massey had turned his back and put a hand near his pocket, Davenport said.

“For a law-enforcement officer, that is a very, very scary situation,” he said.

Nonetheless, the trooper now realizes that other options were available, Davenport said.

And hopefully he will less inclined to allow a situation like this to go so far next time.   I would expect this is not over, the report will not stop the inevitible lawsuit.

Previously:  Thoughts on Tasers

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Let’s state early, I don’t listen to him very often and i don’t like the brand of show he runs, the demagoguing incite the masses kind of talk show.

I prefer intellectual discussions to his “psychological nudity”.

But I am impressed at his gumption, his chutzpah, as he sues CAIR and labels them for what they are.

Savage lawsuit calls CAIR ‘vehicle of international terrorism’: Accuses group of seeking ‘harm to those who speak against violent agenda’

Trend-setting radio talk show host Michael Savage has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council on Islamic-American Relations, and has accused the organization of being a “political vehicle of international terrorism” that seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage’s show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims, including:

“I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I’m not getting’ on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.”

But the lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage’s verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

Watch the clip below.  This involved a guy who was stopped for speeding, and when he refused to sign the ticket he was being arrested.  He refused orders and was tased.

Normally I favor the police, and in general I think the guy deserved what he got.  But the cop made two mistakes (IMHO) which also make me have to agree he needs a reprimand.

More afterward.

OK, observations.

The cops initial approach was non confrontational, he calmly advised him he was going too fast and to produce his license and registration. 

The cop’s second request for LAR was a bit surly.  The driver was non compliant and argumentative.  Roadside arguments over tickets never work. 

The guy deserved the ticket, he admitted to the officer he was going 68 in a 40.  At that point the radar was irrelevant.  If you admit your are speeding, guess what?  You get a ticket. 

The guy refused to sign the ticket, which may or may not be a violation of the law.  Signing is not admission of guilt it is essentially a bail agreement and promise to appear, and if you do not sign, they have the right to compel your appearance by arresting you.

The cop ordered him out and prepared to cuff him.  He did not advise him he was being arrested.  He did not comply and was tased.  He told the wife he was being placed under arrest when he was tased. Since he did not tell the guy, it can be argued he did not know he was under arrest.  I consider that a serious mistake.

The cop never warned him to comply or he would be tased, though he told the second officer later on he had warned him he would be tased.  Since he lied about that aspect, this becomes the second critical mistake IMO.

Overall impressions.  The driver was a butthead, who was a barracks lawyer, essentially, who tried to fight the ticket on the curb, and resisted arrest by walking away.  It is a soft Resistance, but he still was resisting.

It is a serious question and one I am admittedly bothered by.  Let me explain, but first I want to make it clear that I abhor Phelps and his protests at Soldiers funerals, and his entire anti gay campaign.

To be double clear, Phelps and his church are among the most vile extremists to ever call themselves Christians.  For those who are not in the loop, Phelps and his church are on a campaign against gay people.  In their infinite insanity, they decided that God hates gays, and there for anything bad in American is God punishing America for tolerating gays.  This includes the war in Iraq, so they put 2 and 2 together, split it 6 ways till Tuesday then multiply the result by the number reasons they think God hates fags, and they take to the streets.  Their goal?  Military funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq.

Now would someone tell me how it makes sense to protest a funeral of a dead straight Marine and claim that God hates fags, and that’s why the Marine died.

Needless to say no one really likes them much.  See what happened to them at one such event here.  In another of my blogs, Free Speech? Not at a friggin funeral, for crying out loud, I noted that:

I  am easily a huge believer in free speech, both in using it, and in defending others rights to use it in ways I find outrageous.   But there are a few types that push me to limits and make me want to slap the daylights out of the people.

One of those is taking advantage of an event like a funeral to make a political statement.  It kills me that people can disregard the feelings of grieving families and think they are morally justified in making their politics override good manners and sensitivity.  Someone died, show some respect.

The problem is, you cannot expect people to show respect when they think they can make a PR splash.  States have tried to ban them, only to have the bans challenged in court.

Unfrigging believable.

judge halts Iraq war objector’s court-martial

A federal court judge has temporarily blocked a court-martial scheduled to start Tuesday for an Iraq war objector based at Fort Lewis.

First Lt. Ehren Watada is charged with refusing to deploy to Iraq. His lawyers argue the Army is violating his constitutional rights by trying him twice for the same crime.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled he has jurisdiction to issue the stay and that Watada’s double-jeopardy claim is not frivolous

The matter is under appeal in the Military Court systems, the Judge should have stayed out of it until that appeal was exhausted.

This is just wrong.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, The Random Yak, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, , Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, Public Eye, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Some OJ thoughts.

First, the past.  Great athlete, OK actor.  Whoopee.

The infamy:  Did he kill his wife?  Honestly I don’t know, even if It seems likely.  First of all, from a legal perspective, he was found not guilty.  And while many believe that was a failure of the system, I do not.  The reason?  Our legal system is dedicated to the premise that it is better to let the guilty go free then convict the innocent, and the fact is there was some reasonable doubt in his case.

While the evidence was pretty damning, some was circumstantial, and some was tainted.  Dusty Laker in this column saw many of the flaws in the case I did.

He saw as I did all the grand screw ups by the LA PD.  He saw blood evidence in peoples pockets and some missing.  He saw blood then magically appear where no one saw it before.  He didn’t mention the Bronco that was impounded, sat for  3 weeks and was broken into in the impound lot.

He saw a racist cop witness who admitted to disliking OJ personally. 

Add all of the evidence up and it becomes reasonable doubt.  The Defense saw and they used it as they are supposed to.  OJ’s verdict was justice in that our system took its shot and failed, but it failed because of the flaws in the prosecution.  It sucks.  But case closed.

The Families sued and got a bunch o money, which was as we all know, the worlds way of saying “sorry the LA PD was inept”.

So OJ uses the system again, and files bankruptcy.  Poor OK, he loses a bunch of stuff, but they can’t touch his 40 grand a month pension.  Poor guy, living  on just 40 grand a month.

So now he is in jail having been accused of robbery.  What a fool.  He was living well on what most of us would dream of.  All he has to do is keep his head down and fade away.  Nope.  He is interviewing, doing video games, writing books, one of which was the most idiotic book EVER, and now running around in Vegas playing mafia or something.

I blogged this not long ago, the tacky book that OJ wrote and the bickering of who gets the money for it if published.  In it I made two observations.

So…let’s suppose OJ does get the book published and the book makes 38 Million+.  Then what?

The Browns and Goldmans get the money.  OJ’s debt would be settled, and the families would be forced to accept that Justice had spoken and the scales were now balanced.

OJ Should fight to get it published on those grounds, just to settle the suit. 

And…

But what then? No amount of cash brings back the dead, nor does it change anything. They will never NOT hate him. Fred Goldman particularly strikes me as someone who has sacrificed his own happiness and life for a cage of hate.

He has cause, but he is poisoning himself in the process, and to me it is just more evil to come out of this ugliness.

So the question is, aside from punishing him, which it does not do as he still lives cushy on a $40,000 a month pension, what is the point?

No closure will be had even if he pays every penny. This all just seems pointless now.

I stand by that. 

Now, having said that, it looks like my observations were really predictions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20253683/

A literary agent for the family of stabbing victim Ronald Goldman has made a deal to repackage and publish O.J. Simpson’s canceled “If I Did It” book about the slayings of Goldman and Simpson’s ex-wife, a spokesman for the agent said Monday.

Details of the agreement, including the name of the New York publishing house, will be released Tuesday, said Michael Wright, a spokesman for Los Angeles-based literary agent Sharlene Martin of Martin Literary Management.

I considered several reactions.  Part of me hope it bombs so that all parties will get the message that most of America is bored with this.  No such luck.

First up: OJ’s book was tacky. Period.

Second: OJ is an arrogant jerk. Period.

O.J. Simpson Criticizes Goldman Family

O.J. Simpson lashed out Tuesday at the family of the late Ronald Goldman, a day after they won the rights to Simpson’s canceled “If I Did It” book about the slayings of Goldman and Simpson’s ex-wife.

A federal bankruptcy judge in Miami awarded the book rights to Goldman’s family Monday to satisfy a $38 million wrongful death judgment against Simpson.

“I find it sort of hypocritical that they talked everybody in America to boycott the book: it was ‘immoral,’ it was ‘blood money,’” he told interviewer Kate Delaney. “But we now see it wasn’t ‘blood money’ if they got the money.”

God I hate this, but in a sense he is right.  The book profits, were there actually any, would be the tackiest form of blood money.

Granted, OJ doesn’t deserve a penny of it, but in a sense, aside from showing what an ass OJ is, all this really does is showcase the depths of Fred Goldman’s hatred and his terrier like determination to squeeze every penny out of OJ.

Goldman attorney David Cook said his clients were justified in accepting rights to the book as payment for the judgment against Simpson.

“Mr. Simpson himself has placed us in this horrific setting of seeking to liquidate this asset,” he said. “His comments are beyond redemption.”

Again, I won’t argue about Goldman’s right to the money, but honestly, would you want it considering the source?

Some thoughts:

I agree the OJ case was in some ways a slam of the legal system, but it is supposed to be a justice system that operates under rules, one of which is that those not convicted are presumed innocent.

It may be a slap in the face that OJ was acquitted, but he was.  OJ, like it or not, was found not guilty.  There were actually a couple valid issues in the trial to support an acquittal, though it was still a shock.  We had tainted blood evidence, witnesses committing perjury and frankly a lot of weak circumstantial evidence.