Slog - Comments on Old Murder: A Hooker, the Mob, and an Imaginary Corvette

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:55:39 -0800

What's the point of locking her up?

It's not like she works as a contract killer now or is likely to reoffend at 52.

But you can bet we will pay more taxes for the trial, sentencing, and jailing her.

Comment by monkey

monkey — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:14:23 -0800

A good hooker would know to always get the money up front.

I think the late great Sir John Gielgud said it best... "Good luck in prison."

Comment by Dougsf

Dougsf — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:23:21 -0800

I think "D'oh!" pretty much sums it up.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:28:12 -0800

well, if she was promised immunity and fulfilled her end of the bargain then that kinda sucks.

but we have statue of limitations for a reason. and jail time is to punish an act as much as it is to protect others. so i'm okay with her serving some time, and getting out on parole when appropriate as someone who is likely not to offend.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:47:08 -0800

Considering half the people we have on death row - when DNA evidence is examined - have later been proven to be INNOCENT - what do you mean we "punish" an act?

We usually just punish those not rich enough or well connected enough to get off scot free.

Results matter. And do-overs are usually a big waste of time - and money.

Comment by michael strangeways

michael strangeways — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:52:36 -0800

If Cold Case does use this story, then I think Brendan deserves a cut...you just know that Jerry Bruckheimer is on SLOG all the time looking for new stories to produce or dreadful vehicles for Nicolas Cage...

Comment by Tony S.

Tony S. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:12:40 -0800

If mob hitpersons were organized into a union, she would have been able to file a grievance, and might have gotten some back-pay as well.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:22:53 -0800

Stop exaggerating death row statistics on innocents, please.

Comment by Charles Barklee

Charles Barklee — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:54:42 -0800

Why don't you just reprint the Times story, if you're going to steal that much of it and then put your name on the post?

Comment by Brendan Kiley

Brendan Kiley — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:16:13 -0800

It's a good story, Charles, but it's too wordy. I give the Times all the credit for the reporting�I just wanted to condense, that's all.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:37:01 -0800

@5 will,

1) how is this a do-over?
2) are you saying that because there are mistakes made we should stop "punishing" (jailing) everyone? even when dealing with a murder that was confessed to?

???

also, yes, you did seem to exaggerate there a bit.

Comment by subwlf

subwlf — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:24:41 -0800

Women always get paid less. This sucks.

Comment by Epimetheus

Epimetheus — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0800

Do any lawyers read the slog? I've always wondered how

"hinted her DNA had been found at the scene (it hadn�t) and tricked her into confessing all over again."

reconciles with

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Imagine the case where an innocent (but poor, and maybe not too bright) person is told there is evidence against them and they will be convicted if they go to trial, thinking:

"I know they are lying 'cause I didn't do it, but if they are out to get me, they'll probably manufacture some 'evidence', and if they'll lie to me how do I know they won't lie in court?, maybe I should just take the deal they offer"

OK, rhetorical question, if you are poor and stupid, you don't count, but still, if you jail an innocent, the guilty is still out there threatening the public.