Thursday, May 21, 2009

Green receives life sentence

Here's a link to a USA Today article.


Christopher Mathews said...

A sorry chapter in the history of what was, whatever one may think of the motivation and planning that went into executing it, meant to be a good cause.

A discordant note in the cited article (one that annoys me every time I see some variation of it repeated) is this passage: "Green allegedly killed Abeer's mother, father and younger sister before shooting her in the head and burning her body."

Hey guys: Green was convicted. We can drop the "allegedly" from this story now.

DB Cooper said...

Cannot say that I am surprised. First, Paducah, KY is surprisingly liberal for a Southern community (large artistic community), and that obviously affects the jury pool. Second, a civilian jury is more likely to be swayed by the "horrors of war"/"broken warrior" sentencing case the defense put forth. Back in 2005-2006, Mahmoudiyah was a very ghastly place, well beyond the comprehension of most civilian jurors. A military panel, on the other hand, would be comprised almost entirely of Irq/Afghanistan veterans. The defense case would not have the same resonance with veterans who had their own fair share of war stories (no pun intended). Me thinks a military panel would have given Green death.
Having said that, I am confident that the AUSA's on this case put forth an extraordinary effort - the verdict is not an adverse reflection on them.

Cap'n Crunch said...

I told you so, a week ago.

Anonymous said...


Not sure what I think

Cossio said...

DB Cooper,

Although I share your disdain for liberals I believe the jury made their decisions based on facts.

Others have pleaded guilty to this crime, while it is hard to say who is more culpable, and while it is certainly true the others got lighter sentences in exchange for testimony, I believe this man was guilty.

I'd like to know though what evidence of "rape" they had. If they had DNA evidence or if they were using just the bought testimony of these witnesses.

Oh wait. I just Google'd it:

"Federal prosecutor Brian Skaret told jurors in opening statements there would be no DNA, no fingerprints and no physical evidence. Instead, Skaret said, they'd hear from witnesses and see photographs."Ok, so he was found guilty absent any evidence other than photographs and bias/bought testimony. Now I'm pissed.

Hey, what ever happened to reasonable doubt? Here's a question:

If there is a murder/rape case and the only evidence is:

A) Testimony from other accused who recieved leniency in exchange and photographs from a war zone that can be construed

B) The closing arguement of the Dirt-Bag AUSA, which is fact to a stupid jury.

Now, assuming the correct answer to the previous question, what should happen?

A) Reasonable doubt should automatically enter the minds of a jury resulting in an acquittal.

B) The stupid jury finds the accused guilty anyway, reasonable doubt has become a low hurdle easily easily crossed with flimsy evidence.

Answer Key:

If you answered (A) to both questions we are sorry. We no longer live in a democracy, but a modified police state were 1 out of 32 people* are in jail, probation, or supervision. The rule of lenity does not apply and the constitution is whatever the powers that be says it is.

If you answered (B) to all questions then you are probably a mouthbreathing government hack that never fired so much as a daisy BB Gun in his life. You went to law school to learn how to lie and doctor juries (Juris Doctor) and screw everybody else to make a buck. You sit above everyone on your high horse and are wrapped up in your own self-importance you ignorant self righteous shyster.


* SEE: Jail or Parole for 1 out of 32 American Adults

Anonymous said...


You are an idiot!



Anonymous said...

Green is guilty as hell...If anyone deserved the death penalty he did!

Cossio said...

Thnx for your terrific legal analisis Anon.

As always you provide me with terrific insight and thought.

But more importantly your use of language sounds familiar....Do/Did we know each other? I think we did.

Well I am sorry but it appears you scored a "mouthbreathing government hack".

If you people think testimony from other culpable accused is enough to cross reasonable doubt, then I can't help you.

It's funny and indeed hypocritical to watch the Government tear down an accused credability when they are facing charges, then turn around and prop them up when they dime out on their "friends".

Anonymous said...

*analysis (sp) - srry