Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Old Murder: A Hooker, the Mob, and an Imaginary Corvette


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.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 24, 2008 11:55 AM

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."

Posted by monkey | January 24, 2008 12:14 PM

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

Posted by Dougsf | January 24, 2008 12:23 PM

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.

Posted by infrequent | January 24, 2008 12:28 PM

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.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 24, 2008 12:47 PM

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

Posted by michael strangeways | January 24, 2008 12:52 PM

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.

Posted by Tony S. | January 24, 2008 1:12 PM


Stop exaggerating death row statistics on innocents, please.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 24, 2008 1:22 PM

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?

Posted by Charles Barklee | January 24, 2008 2:54 PM

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.

Posted by Brendan Kiley | January 24, 2008 3:16 PM

@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.

Posted by infrequent | January 24, 2008 3:37 PM

Women always get paid less. This sucks.

Posted by subwlf | January 24, 2008 4:24 PM

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.

Posted by Epimetheus | January 24, 2008 6:39 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).