There's No Love Crimes

As I'm sure you're well aware, I don't understand people. They fascinate me, but I just don't get the majority of 'em. Criminals really perplex me, as do some of our laws for dealing with certain criminals. Those laws would include the recently coined "hate crimes". Hate crimes confuse me because they seem to attempt to make horrible things even more horrible if the reasons why the crimes were committed have anything to do with any sort of bias. Like for some reason, if you beat the crap out of someone because they're gay or because they're a certain race you don't care for, somehow that is supposed to be perceived as worse than if you had just beaten the crap out of someone without that bias. I just don't know if the person who was beaten really cares why. I'm guessing that they wished that they hadn't been beaten at all. What I'm trying to say here is that I don't understand how it's "worse" if we know the reason why someone chose a particular victim.

But apparently, it's become a fairly big deal. Let's look at the events that took place in Tulsa on Good Friday of this year. Turns out, that particular Friday wasn't quite so good for a lot of people. That's because a couple of losers decided to go on a shooting spree and ended up shooting five people and killing three of them. Not very good at all. The idiots who are allegedly responsible (Translation: they most likely totally did it) for these acts are now being charged with hate crimes because their victims were black and the assailants are not. I have no idea if they're actually racists or not. But does it really matter? It probably doesn't to the dead people. They're dead whether their killer was a racist or just an idiot. And I still don't see how one is worse than the other.

The LA Times has an article about this very thing. And in it, we learn that one of the shooters, a one Jacob England, would like to assure all of us that he's not a racist. As if that makes this any better for anyone! See how silly hate crime laws are? ("You killed my mother? Oh, but you're not a racist? Well, OK then! I feel much better the senseless slaughter of my relative. Carry on!") You can see the video of Jacob the (allegedly) Guilty at the link above. He's a little difficult to understand because he doesn't exactly enunciate very well, but it's really kind of a moot point since I don't think that anything that he has to say at this point really matters.

In the video, Jacob says, "I always got along with everybody. It didn't matter what color he was." I'm just going to go ahead and guess that he didn't always get along with everybody. And I'm pretty sure that he's not getting along with "everybody" right now. I'm guessing that there are some people out there, say...the relatives of the people that he allegedly shot, that he's not going to be getting along with so well.

For some reason, Jacob's mother had sent a letter to the folks who are now Jacob's lawyers. She probably would have just gone in and talked to the lawyers in person if she hadn't been sitting in jail for the last eleven years for something related to arson. Yeah, he seems to come from a great family. Way to go, Mom! In the letter, she writes "Our family does not hate black people...Two of my beloved grandchildren are African American." Who CARES?! You're more worried about people thinking that your son is a racist as opposed to them thinking that he is a murderer?! This is what we've arrived at?! For reals?!

She goes on to write that "Jake had a lot of responsibilities piled on him and I think it was too much." Yeah, that's not much of a defense, either. I was unaware that having a lot of responsibilities could cause someone to go out and just start shooting random people one day. I think that I'd prefer that she said that he was a racist. At least that would be relevant. Too many responsibilities? Pipe down.

Do you see what I'm saying? This guy allegedly/probably killed a bunch of people. And really, if it was someone that I loved who had been killed by this guy for what is essentially no reason at all, I don't know if having a reason is going to make it better or worse. That's why the term "hate crime" is ridiculous. It's not like there's any such thing as a "love crime". I think that most crime isn't exactly what I'd call friendly. Giving it a certain name and somehow implying that one sort of murder is worse than another sort of murder doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Sphere: Related Content

But She's Rehabilitated

I don't know. Call me crazy, but I kind of think that if you're convicted of a crime such as, oh, say...the "...slaying of a young hooker who was beheaded during a satanic ritual", I'm going to want you to spend as much time in prison as possible. Really. I'm talking a lot of time in jail. I certainly don't want you working for the State Auditor of Massachusetts. According to the Boston Herald, State Auditor Suzanne Bump hired a one Robin Murphy to work in a state office. And that hiring came after "Murphy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1982 for the macabre killing of 20-year-old Karen Marsden of Westport in 1980." And as previously mentioned, part of the "macabre" involved the de-nogginizing of the victim. The de-nogginization, if you will.

Ms. Murphy was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking that if you participate in any sort of ritual where someone loses their head in the process, I'm not all that comfortable with you ever having freedom again. Again, call me crazy, but that just doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to me. (Don't even get me started on the fairly obvious safety concerns that would also accompany an issue like this.)


Also, "Twice denied freedom in the 1990s, she was deemed “rehabilitated” and released by a 5-2 vote of the parole board in 2004." Really? Just like that? "Rehabilitated"? Well, she wasn't that rehabilitated because she's now back in prison for violating parole. Something about heroin. Shocking, I know. But after her return to prison, Ms. Bump made this statement: "I am sad to learn that Robin Murphy has been arrested for violating a condition of her parole...Three years ago, as labor secretary, I hired Robin to work at the Division of Unemployment Assistance, and she was a valuable employee. After I left, she was promoted.”

Wow. I don't know exactly what's going on here, but that Ms. Bump sure had a lot of faith in someone who had cut off someone else's head on purpose. What do you say in your interview to convince someone to hire you under those circumstances? "It is what it is"? "I was young"? "It was just a bad night. Haven't we all had one bad night?"

Sphere: Related Content

Picture This

Not a whole lot going on right now. Everyone is totally burned out on Casey Anthony musings (and none too soon if you're asking me). There's the pedantic bickering going on in Congress, but other than that, it's a little slow. So I'm just going to get right into this. What we have here are twin brothers in Texas who, according to the NY Daily News, were charged with murder "...after they let their mother die on the floor after a fall and lived with her corpse for three months". OK, then. Do I need to say much more? I don't think that I do. But I do think that a picture would be in order. Tell you what. Picture the kind of 48-year old twins (named Edwin and Edward Berndt, by the way) that would be "...watching the NCAA college football championship game" on January 1oth when their mom came in and slipped fell on the floor. But don't stop the visual there. No, you have to still picture those same guys, but now picture that they LEFT HER on the floor for three days even though she was "conscious and talking". Now keep going and picture these same guys doing the same things described above right up until the time that their mother died on the floor. And remember, they left her there for three months. That's right. Left her lying on the floor. Dead as can be. OK? Got the picture in your head. Good. Now, does it look anything like the picture below? Behold!

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that your mental image of these two dolts was pretty darned close to what they actually look like. How could it not have been? What a couple of losers. The only thing that I'm surprised about is that they didn't have a couple of more bodies in their basement.

Sphere: Related Content

Worst Defense Ever

The Casey Anthony trial has finally started. In case you're not familiar, Casey Anthony is a 25-year old scumbag (I'm being subjective here, but it's likely to turn out to be a factual subjectiveness) who claimed that her 2-year old daughter was abducted by a babysitter in 2008. Yet she didn't call the police. In fact, she never called the police. (There was also never a babysitter.) She admitted to her mother that her kid was gone and then her mother called the police about a month later. Then about a bazillion people spent about five months looking for the little girl, only to find her dead. Shocking, I know. Casey Anthony has been appropriately charged with multiple atrocities like capital murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and misleading law enforcement. Naturally, she does what scumbags of her type tend to do and has pleaded not guilty this entire time. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty. And fortunately, since this is all in Florida, they actually execute people down there. So if the jury can do its job effectively, this chick is going to get what is coming to her.

Opening statements roll around yesterday and her camp offered up a rather surprising and excruciatingly lame excuse for all of these shenanigans which resulted in one dead toddler. See, the defense said that the little girl drowned. And instead of calling 911, Casey just panicked. Oh, and they're also claiming that her dad was there and helped her dispose of the body. Wow. Way to go. Try and bring down your dad in the process. OK, then.

What kind of an excuse is that, anyway? I guess it's the excuse of someone who is extremely desperate. It's lame as hell, though. Are they aware that the standard is "reasonable doubt", with the key word being "reasonable"? Idiotic, mouth-breathing, paste eating doubt is not a standard. And that's what you would be upholding if you were to actually believe that load of crap. But I guess if you're a defense attorney and your client is so obviously guilty that you know that it's a lost cause, I guess you just say whatever you can .

That's probably the reason for her defense attorney saying, "We're not here to talk about how inappropriate Casey acted." Hmm. You know, you can say that, but in reality, it is exactly why you are there. All of the inappropriate murdering of your own child (allegedly) is exactly what you should be talking about. CBS News also reports that their case "...will have a lot to do with the meter reader who found Caylee Anthony's remains". Oh, good. I'm sure that he'll enjoy that. I'm sure that he'll enjoy being made out to be something other than just the guy that found the body of a toddler. As if that wasn't bad enough, now he gets to listen to some defense attorney make up stuff (allegedly) in order to try and save his seemingly obviously guilty client. Nice.

Apparently, the proceedings are being televised. I'll be tuning in every now and then to see how this goes. Especially when the defense has their turn. That should be entertaining. I'll definitely tune in for the verdict. Watching that chick find out that she's guilty and no one bought her unlikely tale of events will be very enjoyable for me. You go, Florida. This might be the one thing that I can count on you for.

Sphere: Related Content

Words For A Cockroach

When a trial comes to a conclusion and the scumbag is found guilty, I am all for the victim's family getting to say something to said scumbag. I'm not overly fond of the scumbag getting to say something, but that's just because of the scumbag factor. I realize it's about fairness. I don't really think it's necessary, but I guess I get it. But really, if you kill someone, I don't give a fat rat's ass what you have to say.

I'm always amazed at the composure of the victim's families. Always. They always seem to have just poise when speaking to the loser who took away someone that they loved. I don't know that I'd be able to be that calm (and I pray to God that I never have to find out). Thus, I really like it when folks kind of let loose a little bit. Sort of like Chandra Levy's mother did when her daughter's killer was sentenced to 60 years in prison.

In case you may not care to remember, Chandra Levy was the intern who was clearly sleeping with California Congressman Gary Condit. And while that was clear, what wasn't clear was how she turned up dead in a park. Granted, a lot of people thought that it was clear and that Condit had killed her. Turns out, not so much. The really unfortunate part, other than the death itself, is that all of the 'not so much' kind of ruined his career. He always looked like a weasel to me. He might not have killed her, but we don't know that he hasn't killed anyone else, really. Do we? OK, we don't. But irresponsible and rampant speculation is really much more fun than the truth, don't you think?

Where was I? Oh, right! The victim's family. According to AOL News, a one Ingmar Guandique (who the author, a one David Lohr, refers to as a "Salvadoran immigrant", but who is really an "illegal Salvadoran immigrant". See how that's different? Yeah, it's very different. He should not have been in this country. There's a big difference between being a criminal and being an immigrant. Jackwagons. Way to go, AOL News...whatever that means.) was sentenced to 60 years in prison for Chandra Levy's death. And Chandra's mother had something to say to him about it. According to the article, "Before sentencing, Levy's mother, Susan Levy, asked Guandique if he had killed her daughter. When he shook his head, she said: "Mr. Guandique, you are lower than a cockroach. F--- you." Awesome.

I just don't get why there isn't more of that. Whatever the reason, there should be. There absolutely should be. I'm sorry for your loss, Mrs. Levy. Oh, and by the way? Nice job.

Sphere: Related Content

Go Directly To Hell

Today's senseless baby death comes from (of course) Flori-duh and involves a *rolls dice* woman who was *rolls dice* angry that her baby was crying while *rolls dice* she was playing Farmville on Facebook and so she *rolls dice* shook him to death. Dislike.

It's just as sick and disgusting as it sounds. According to the New York Daily News, a one 22-year old (and old enough to know better) Alexandra V. Tobias has has pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the shaking death of her 3-month old son, Dylan Lee Edmondson. See, she was playing freaking Farmville on Facebook and eventually "...confessed to losing her temper while trying to concentrate on the game." Trying to concentrate on the game? It's freaking FARMVILLE. But regardless of how much concentration it did or did not require, shouldn't you have been paying more attention to your baby in the first place? Yeah, I think you are. Moron.

Just so it's clear what a piece of shoe scum this woman is, "...she confessed to shaking the baby, smoking a cigarette to calm down and then shaking the baby again." Sooo, apparently that cigarette didn't do a whole lot of calming down, eh? Wow, lady. You really are a nutjob. But, really, have I been clear enough on what a horrible and useless individual this woman is? Not quite? Well, when the baby was taken to the hospital, he was found to have "...head injuries and a broken leg". And "Doctors said the infant died from "abusive head trauma." What in the hell is wrong with you?

You shook the kid so hard that you broke his freaking leg?! He was three months old, you bitch. And all because you had to "concentrate" on your G-D farm that isn't even real! There's a special place in hell for people like her and the sooner she gets to it, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and by the way, she looks just about like you'd expect her to. Behold!

By the way, cupcake...there isn't Farmville in prison. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

A Trial Won't Help The Crazy

From the fine folks over there at the NY Times, we learn of a one David Tarloff and his trials and tribulations. Mr. Tarloff is schizophrenic. That was evidenced no more clearly than back in 2008 when he killed his psychologist, a one Dr. Kathryn Faughey, by hacking her to death in her office. In what would seem to shock no one, Mr. Tarloff was deemed unfit to stand trial.

The article states that "This was the second time Mr. Tarloff, who has a history of psychosis, was declared unfit for trial since his arrest." Really? History of psychosis? You don't say. Was that figured out before or after all of the hacking that went on? I'm guessing that afterwards it was probably really clear if it hadn't been beforehand. In fact, after all of the slashing "His lawyers had told the court that...he was driven to it by voices that he thought were God telling him to do it." I see. So, what is it that is the problem here?

Well, last year "...doctors determined that Mr. Tarloff was in a good enough mental state to stand trial, and so the case proceeded and opening statements were expected Monday." Is that our standard now? A "good enough" mental state? Not great. Good enough. Look, I'm all for putting people on trial who are completely competent, but when you're dealing with schizophrenia, you might just want to hold off a little bit. Good enough might not actually be good enough, you know?

By the way, the reason that they declared him unfit for his trial this time? He "...refused to leave his holding cell to go to court for jury selection on Friday afternoon." That's it? He doesn't want to go into court and so that makes him unfit? Why is that? The article explains that "Someone is declared unfit when he or she is mentally unable to assist in his or her own defense." Sooo...not going into court is unable to assist in their own defense? Since when? If you're so hell bent on putting this obviously crazy individual on trial, what say you just haul his ass in there anyway and see how it goes, alright? How bad could it be? He's nuts, after all. His contribution will likely be minimal. (It will also likely be entertaining as hell, but I'm told that's not what the justice system is for.)

Look, it's pretty obvious that this guy is fruit loops. He needs a mental institution...for a long, long time. No need to rush things. It's not like he's going anywhere. But I certainly don't see any point in trying to hurry along a trial for a guy who really needs some serious head shrinking. It's just a waste of everyone's time. He did it. We know he did it. Is the trial really all that necessary when that conclusion is completely obvious? I'm not so sure that it is.

Sphere: Related Content

It's A Hallucination And You Know It Is!

From the files of "Don't do drugs, kids", a one 26-year old and old enough to know better, Jarrod Wyatt who is "...believed to have taken psychedelic mushrooms" is accused of (even though it's fairly obvious that he did this) "...brutally murdering his 21-year-old friend, Adam Powell" and, among other atrocities, "...cutting out his victim's tongue and heart." All of this according to the Times-Standard, which appears to serve Eureka and California's North Coast. Eww.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I have never imbibed in any sort of mind altering substances. I am frequently fueled by the grape or by the wheat (more frequently when writing this sort of blather, can't you tell?). In my rowdier days, I will even admit to having imbibed in substances that were not of a liquid variety. And all of that being said, I am going to state that regardless as to what I was indulging in, I knew that I was willfully (and more importantly) purposefully altering my brain. Thus, anything that I encountered during said state of alteration, was not to be taken too seriously. As a good friend of mine once said, "You know a hallucination is a hallucination!" But apparently, not everyone is aware of that.

Such seems to be the case with Mr. Wyatt. See, Mr. Wyatt and his friend (soon to become victim) "...became preoccupied with the idea that a tidal wave was coming, that the end of the world was upon them and that a struggle between God and the devil was taking place." That's a pretty wide variety of stuff there. Which one do you start to worry about first? The tidal wave? The end of the world? (It's unclear if the end of the world was to be caused by the tidal wave.) The God v. Devil attraction? (It's unclear if the end of the world, which possibly would have been cause by the aforementioned tidal wave, would have been the scenario for the God v. Devil showdown.) Hard to say.

The events that transpired after those preoccupations are also hard to determine. But what seems to be clear is that at some point, Powell was stabbed and hopefully, to death because also, "The body had had the majority of its face removed, and an 18-inch incision in its chest cavity." Yeah, that chest cavity was where his heart used to be. Mr. Wyatt took it out. That's right. Out. And then he did just about what you'd expect a nutjob like this to do. That's right. He cooked it in a wood burning stove. Wait. He did what?

You heard me. He took out his heart and cooked it in a wood burning stove. You know. To get rid of the devil and all. OK, then. I'm sure that at this point, you're kind of wondering what a fellow such as Mr. Wyatt looks like. Let me just tell you that he looks precisely as you probably think that he looks. Behold!

See? Told you. Now, I'm not thinking that it's going to be all that hard to convince Mr. Wyatt. After all, when the cops found him in the house where Mr. Powell had been killed, he was "...standing near a body on a couch, naked and covered from head to toe in what appeared to be dried blood." He also allegedly said, ”I killed him.” Yep. That oughta do it.

Now, listen, I'm not saying that the psychedelic mushroom tea that they are purported to have drank before all of this "tidal wave-end of the world-he is the devil" talk had nothing to do with it. Clearly, it had a lot to do with it. But what in the world did he think was going to happen when he was trippin' on shrooms? Seriously now. That's the point of ingesting the psychedelics. They make you see things that aren't there. Some people seem to enjoy that. ( Though I'm not quite sure why. I get annoyed enough at things that are actually here. I don't need stuff that doesn't exist hanging around and bugging the crap out of me, too.)

This gets back to what my good friend told me. You're taking a substance that is a known hallucinogenic. Therefore, you're going to hallucinate. You could (translation: most likely) see some pretty weird stuff going on. But that's only because you've induced yourself to the point where that's what is supposed to happen in those circumstances. You know what you do in those instances? That's right. You go with it! You don't stab your friend because you think he's the devil! You never rip off his face and you most certainly do not remove his heart from his chest and bake it in an oven, wood burning or otherwise!

People that say that they have no control over themselves in these situations are wrong. This is evidenced by the thousands of people who take psychedelic mushrooms and don't remove someone else's internal organs. You know what you're doing at the time that you're doing it. You just need to take the time and think about why you're doing it at the time that you're doing it. If you're doing it because you're suddenly under the belief that you need to intervene with the devil, you might want to just sit down for a moment or two and see what happens. Chances are that nothing will. (I know, I know, there's a first time for everything, but I really think that you're going to be OK in this instance.) And above all, you have to remember that you're under the influence of (in this case) shrooms! You wanted to hallucinate! And now you are! That doesn't mean that it's any more real just because it's not all bunnies and puppies and you don't like it! Now, put the knife down and get a grip on yourself.

Sphere: Related Content

Hair Raising Photos of Phil Spector

I don't know much about Phil Spector. I know he's a music producer guy who worked with a bunch of talented musicians over the years. I know that he's prone to drink a lot and then get a little violent and a little gun-ish. And I know that he was on trial for the second time for the murder of some chick back in 2003. The first trial ended in a hung jury. This time he wasn't quite as fortunate, as the jury came back yesterday with a guilty verdict against him for second degree murder. They also found him guilty of illegally discharging a firearm. Duh.

Now, since I didn't know much about Phil Spector or the crime that he had been on trial for, I figured I'd do a little research on the man. I didn't get too far with that before I realized that there was something not quite right with this guy. It's a little hard to put your finger on at first, but you'll find that when you look at him that you can't stop thinking that there's something odd about this guy. If only it were something that could be nailed down or just a little more obvious. Or, perhaps if only it were something that you could put a hat on. Behold! The many faces and styles of a one Phil Spector!

That's nice. Is he always so photogenic?


Huh. Seems to be. Yep.

Am I the only one who thinks that he sort of resembles Marcia Clark (from the OJ trial days of yore)? He kinda does. Look and compare the two. Behold!

My God, it's like they were separated at birth. But maybe it's just the blonde hair. Here he is again.

And again, please compare. Behold!

Nope. It's not just the blonde. Those two are one and the same. And it's not like one of them wears it well or anything. It's not a good look for either of them.

He appears to be quite fond of and a master of the disheveled look.

Not to mention the gaseous and confused look.

This look is sort of like Al Capone meets Steven Tyler.

The profile view of a paranoid looking individual who has a least a touch of mental illness going on. How many times do you think the trial had to be stopped due to rambling? I'm guessing more than once.

And my personal favorite. It's like he was going for Tina Turner in drag, but lost interest after the hair.

Here he is after the verdict was read. Clearly he was not expecting to be found guilty.

And finally, what is likely to be the last photo we see of Phil Spector in a long, long time. His booking mugshot after the guilty verdict. Behold!

He's going to be wearing that surprised look for a while, I have the feeling.

Sphere: Related Content