“Actually, I'm fully aware of the McDonald's case and long ago gave up on explaining to people why it was a legit products liability case. The question raised in the article involves turning over exculpatory evidence and allegaytions of prosecutorial misconduct. That is the sole issue raised. There is nothing here that the defendant did not know about himself. The prosecutor did not have to turn over the information cited above to the defendant. Did the prosecutor need to tell him he was male? Or that he wore glasses, if he did so? No, of course not. ”
Veri on Sep 25, 2012 at 22:28:16
“Are we professional lawyers? The client has to trust his attorney. The attorney has to bring it up on court. Even then, it may be ruled inadmissible.
We simply do not have enough expertise to know why this wasn't brought up in court.”
“You raise excellent questions. I would like to hear the answers, wouldn't you? But as redsoxpagan says above -- he obviously did know. It seems a better argument that his counsel was ineffective.”
Veri on Sep 25, 2012 at 02:54:37
“I would like to hear the answers to.
Remember the hot coffee lawsuits against McDonald's? Everyone seemed to have an opinion. So I looked up the case.
The coffee was heated to over 155 degrees and delivered in a styrofoam cup. McDonald's had known about the problem as their coffee makers were not equipped with automatic cutoffs at the temperature of 125 degrees and failed to train their employees properly. McDonald's had calculated that the cost of replacing the equipment to prevent burns was greater than the costs of the lawsuits.
The woman in question suffered 3rd-degree burns over 30% of her body.
Yet, no one knew the facts. Everyone ridiculed the case. Were there copycats? Yes. Unfortunately. And hopefully those copycats who faked the coffee incidents were jailed, appropriately.
Ever wonder why McD's got rid of the styrofoam cups? It's hot to pick up those card board ones, is it not?
Same rule applies. Without examining the case and the reasons why the evidence was not admitted or suppressed, it is all bullsh*t speculation and armchair lawyering.
The benefit of innocence, and hence mitigating circumstances, goes to the defendant.
The guy should receive life in prison. Even if the horrific details of why he did it never came out at his trial. Everyone failed this guy. In his life. Our society failed. It is no reason to execute him. Life in prison should be his punishment.”
“Why didn't the defendant himself speak out about why he killed this man? Why did he have to "discover" from the prosecutor why he did it?”
GaryGoddmn on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:17:46
“You can't just "speak up" in court. That's out of order. Your lawyer must speak. And if you're 18 and terrified?”
LazyRepubs on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:28:16
“You do not know that he did not...he might have spoke out to the police or his defense team...you can say alot of things to the police or your lawyers, it doesn't mean they will use it in or defense. And there might be reasons he did not speak out.... If his defense team were competent they would have used this information to help him avoid the death penalty..and it seems they did not have this information because the prosecutor refused to reveal it.”
Veri on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:26:48
“Maybe he tried to? Maybe his lawyer neglected to bring that up in court? Or maybe it was not allowed, cited as being irrelevant to the facts? All those things happen.”
redsoxpagan on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:22:55
“Obviously he did:
Paragraph 13: "Williams' attorneys have pressed similar arguments in his appeals, saying that the court-appointed attorneys in his original trial were disastrously unprepared and failed to present any evidence that Williams was raped and molested during his childhood and adolescence, and that Norwood had been accused of sexual abuse of teens."”
“This is an article about ADHD and drugging children with behavior issues. I didn't read anything about autism in it, so my comment has nothing to do with autism.”
loriuzeno on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:51:45
“Well, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that talking about ADHD and Autism, makes perfect sense, since they are both on the same diagnostic spectrum. Your comment is absurd and judgmental.”
“Not dumb at all -- parents with children secure these diagnoses and medications so they can, and routinely do apply for and receive monthly Social Security Disability benefits. There's the link.”
White Veils on Aug 13, 2012 at 09:45:38
“Thanks. In addition to being accused of being a terrible mother, a uninformed patient's parent, either lazy or inattentive or overly-helicoptering and over-scheduling, etc, I'm also a welfare queen. Appreciate it. Nice to know.”
“The problems go deeper -- parents, too, make money from getting their children these phony diagnoses. They get the diagnosis based on normal childhood behaviors, and get scripts for these drugs and then they apply for Social Security Disability! The parents are not "dumb." They're unscrupulous. They're using the kids to make money to support the family. Often there are multiple children in the same family all with ADHD or other psychiatric issues. Big money maker.”
Kristin Maeder Shamhart on Aug 10, 2012 at 18:03:20
“While you may have a point, there are real cases that need help. My granddaughter is severely autistic. She is non verbal, self injurious and it is heartbreaking to see when she has her bad times. Sometimes the need is real.”