Friday, February 19, 2010

40 years to Death

The execution of Raymond Jennings, continued

"""An Iraqi war veteran was sentenced Thursday to 40 years to life in state prison for the murder of an 18-year-old college coed nearly a decade ago in a Palmdale park-and-ride lot where he worked as a security guard.

Lancaster Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Chung imposed the term on Raymond Lee Jennings, who was convicted Dec. 18 of second-degree murder for the Feb. 22, 2000, slaying of Antelope Valley College student Michelle O'Keefe.

The Lancaster jury that found Jennings guilty was the third panel to hear the case against the 35-year-old defendant, who had served in the Iraq war during a stint with the National Guard.

The first two juries deadlocked -- with the first split 9-3 in April 2008 in favor of guilt and the second panel split 11-1 in February 2009, with the majority voting in favor of convicting him. Both of those trials were held in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.""""

Though they had little or no evidence, no reasonable motive, and no witnesses, the LA legal machine got the right vigilantes in place and reached a verdict: guilty-by-reason of superior shekels. Now they have sentenced Sgt. Jennings to death. One of the O'Keefes said something cute, like, don't you feel remorse for this crime? (the usual evangelical-bonehead assumes that a courtroom always produces Truth and Justice--at least when the conviction is in their favor).
Jennings stated that said he felt no remorse, since he did not kill her, "and that's a sin I shall not be judged for"--thus revealing more religious sensibility in one sentence than 200 pages of the prosecutor's pompous rhetoric and jury-manipulation.

Given that many of the vigilantes have resorted to the bible quotes, perhaps they might recall that both the Old and New Testaments specifically criticize perjury: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The church fathers up to and including Aquinas denounced "Mendacio", even when it might please some (like the residents of ...Benthamville!); and Jennings, whatever one thinks of his "character" (so he may not be the sharpest tool in the shed) was not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. We might also recall the Founding fathers warnings against wrongful conviction. Jefferson claimed "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned."

Jennings may have a slight shot at an appeal, that is, assuming the aerospace-bots/evangelicals supporting the O'Keefes and their pals in ParrisCo haven't already arranged things with the Black Robe posse on some SoCal fairway. The CA appeal rejection rate averages about 90% denial.


J said...

Hey, McChandala, don't bother.

For one, you whine and kvetch about religious fundamentalists (without knowing jack about the real issues, like the status of naturalism for one--maybe check some of David Bohm's writings on that), as does Motya Boodapest, and then let Belchron, a rightist fundamentalist (just in denial---lets ask some of his hick congregation, where he's attended for 15 years or so), rant and rave about his secret nazi heroes--and he's in error, as usual, even in regard to his coffee table history channel-lite.

Gamelin may have made a few blunders re maginot line (it was actually a french/brit/belgium plan,not just his doing), but once fighting started, the french were outflanked by panzer divisions, and also subject to luftwaffe attack. Superior materiel,as usual (which his heroes the allies allowed via Treaty of Versailles)--and the french could not bomb the Ruhr, which some wanted to (the English and US most likely would have joined the germans. the Brits, chamberlain, and New Worlds hero Churchill in fact supported the germans--and Hitler--until '39 or so)

Stick to the plum bobs, and/or Radio shack manuals, and like yr favorite moody blues medley

Unknown said...

Dissin' the Moodies!!! Dems fightin words bub, 'cept I'm a lover, not a fighter. Something you're more scared of I figure :)

Byron wasn't making stuff up, he was referencing Keegan. I know not just because Byron mentioned it in his post, but because I read his history of WWII as well. Keegan is no bleeding heart liberal, either, just a mighty fine writer who knows war inside and out.

"..lets ask some of his hick congregation, where he's attended for 15 years or so"

You've mentioned this so many times I'm starting to think you must have been sitting in those pews all that time with him.

J said...

Keegan's a Tory and a pop historian and hardly presents an objective POV. Like most brit. academics, he has an innate hatred of the French, and the left (or anyone, except the Windsors, and ....their German cousins, and their underlings. Keegan's most likely a nazi sympathizer). No surprise there. Rah-thur!

Try Toland, or Spencer Tucker, and many others for a sober and objective view of WWI and WWII, tho' probably not as coffee-table worthy, when B-ron's kicking it with his churchie pals, or his GOP-in-laws after sunday school. Goldangit, I'm a ready for a big supper of Loma Linda products, honay....

Your silly wannabe-a-gangsta lingo as pathetic as the rest of the NWers raps, not to say a lie.

And the last time I attended iglesia (and wasn't the evangelical dysfunctional sort) the WTC was still standing.

Unknown said...

You can't beat "The Face of Battle." Pure poetry. "Masks of Command" not bad either. The only real disappointment was "The Iraq War" - partly because he drew a lot of spurious conclusions due to the fact it was far from over when he wrote it.

J said...

Try Hegel's Philosophy of History. Or Spengler. Or Carlyle's French Revolution. Even Marx, like the Brumaire. That's history as poetry. British historians tend to be stuffy, pedantic, boring, conservatives. Even Toland's sort of documentary history generally superior, without the oxford blather...

Keegan , one of the National Review hacks, was adamantly in favor of the Iraq War. His chicken-hawkin' makes Hitchens seem pretty tame. I'm sure there's much to plagiarize, however, for the enterprising intellectual thief, like B-ron-- (he's already ripped off Tuchman, now moved onto History Prop-per).

Perezoso said...

so "Joel" of New Worlds defends nazi-loving, steroids-binging crypto-white supremacists and fundamentalists. Shocker. Goes along with Winston Churchill, NASA, Heinlein, and Sam Harris style atheism.

chinga tu madre

J said...

Ah that's nothin', PZ. Really, the NWs phonies are L-Ron style appliantologists, like most of the soi-disant cyber-atheists. You know the type: Heinlein-style zionists and WASP-wicca queers.

Allude to anything vaguely european--Kant! yikes-- or even ....rational (what, Bertrand Russell did not exactly bless Darwinism?? ) and they start to froth at the mouth.

right-Libertarian yokels, in other words, quite similar to the libertarian nutbag who just flew his plane into the Austin IRS.

Custom Search

Blog Archive