I got an email from a very old girlfriend of mine (who has a degree in law enforcement and 3 decades of experience), who reminded me that when she was in college, she dated a married cop in Houston and discovered an entire black market world of what they call "holes" -- places where cops can, shall we say, unwind while on duty, meaning places they can go for sex when they need or want to, or a meal, or a nap, as well as many other things. It blew her mind (and mine) to discover this underground world.
I must admit, I'd forgotten all of that. Thanks, G, for reminding me. G said that George is quite convincing, but then liars often are. G's reason for thinking George is guilty as an accessory is because the execution of the crime (whether it be chloroform or drowning) was almost successful in it leaving no trail for the coroner. She asked me, how often does that appear in a prosecutable crime? And how often is an ex-cop involved? Her radar detects a family cover-up of immense proportion, and I have to vouch for her radar, which is right-on most of the time.
I am still seeing a covered up accidental death by chloroforming, and not a drowning accident, and here is why. A drowning accident would not be indictable by a grand jury. But an accidental chloroforming death would. Simple as that. Don't make it any more complicated than that. Add in George's police experience expertise, both parents wanting to save their daughter's life, and a daughter who is an expert at lying and deceit (and having learned it from her parents, they are equally gifted in lying). The prosecution says the chloroform searches were evidence of premeditation of intent to kill, and I've already addressed that it seems more like premeditation for chloroforming with intent to keep alive. Seems like it would have been a better defense to come clean about the accident and argue that difference of intent, but this is now, not at the trial's beginning. And, besides, it is obvious that this lying family had a big hand in whatever story was fed to Jose Baez.
It seems strangely consistent, when I look around the world at other big court trials, that there are others besides Casey Anthony apparently being railroaded to conviction based on evidence that ain't quite all there.
Strauss-Kahn, the French IMF head who was arrested in NYC for allegedly accosting a hotel maid...remember him? Or perhaps more importantly, remember the way he was treated? He had to do the perpwalk in handcuffs and was refused bail on his own recognizance.
Ben Stein, who warned us to remember about the presumption of innocence in his courageous essay titled "Presumed Innocent, Anyone?" (a witty jab at his Buellar days, and inspiration for my title today). Well, NOW it seems that the case against Strauss-Kahn is in jeopardy, due to some questions about his accuser. All together now, apologies to Mr. Stein....anyone? anyone? You know you owe it, especially those of you who called him a slug or worse.
Amanda Knox, the American student over in Italy, who was convicted there of the murder of her roommate? And while it was happening, we just watched it with passive mild disinterest? Well, NOW, her case is being appealed, this time uncovering corruption during the trial by the prosecution, as well as shoddy evidence that may have been tainted.
It is becoming obvious to me that people the world over have become more knee jerk and pessimistic in their jurist duties, anyway. (This may spell trouble for Casey Anthony, with a Capital M). They say people act this way when times are bad. How else do the violent crowds and rebellious insurgencies form? Could this be why so many liberals see the Tea Party as violent thugs? And why don't they react similarly to those liberal environmental and anarchist student groups who actually do riot, loot and lob Molotov cocktails through store windows at G7 conferences? Ah, food for another thought time, my friends.
Finally, I want to change channels and express my thanks and appreciation to outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates. If you click on his name, it'll take you to his Wiki page where I guarantee you will get seasick trying to absorb all the man's accomplishments. On one hand, he's probably one of the few men in our history that George Washington himself would approve of heartily to oversee our common defense. So, it's a sad day to lose his service, and the world will be a bit more dangerous now. On the other hand, the guy deserves a vacay, retirement, whatever he wants. He's earned it several times over. I admit to having just put my worries in that dept. on the back burner and given them up to Mr. Sec-Def Emeritus. Definitely one of the best role models our society has. He will be missed, but I wish him well and thank him for his service.