Comments on: Christopher Ryan Richardson

By: bengalpuss29

bengalpuss29 — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:42:29 +0000

This is why american law fuck’s me right off. This piece of shite bastard is basically getting away with killing an 8 day old baby, because te interviewing tactic’s were oppressive. I’ve never heard a bigger load of bollocks in my life, yeah i get it that it was circumstantial evidence as well, but what did they want the interviewing officers do, sing him a fucking lullaby. The whole point of those tactics is to eventually get the truth from this piece of shit bastard. The victim’s are always the ones that get left by at the way side. The offenders always get more rights. Who’s gonna stand up for Neveah’s rights. Poor little baby molested to death by this fucking wanker i sincerely hope that where he lives the people know what a pos he is and he get’s a miserable life like neveah. I hope everywhere he goes he get’s punched in his balls, face and spat on.

By: Oy, vey!

Oy, vey! — Tue, 01 May 2012 00:25:54 +0000

Don’t you read the Talmud? It’s where the concepts of heaven and hell come from in the first place.

Kethuboth 11b. “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye. Tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

By: Max The Cat

Max The Cat — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:55:52 +0000

This is all I need to know Jennifer, from the header of the Court Of Appeals Decision:

CHRISTOPHER RYAN
RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MOHAMMED NASSER,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL ANTHONY,
Defendant.

You’re right about one thing – When Christopher Ryan Richardson sued the two arresting detectives for false arrest, they claimed to be immune from any civil action, because they whatever happened was done in the performance of their duties as police officers. Nassar did misrepresent the evidence he had, and his judgement for immunity was denied, but Anthony’s was affirmed. How this works into accusing the Stepdad, or anyone else, is something I don’t understand.

By: vcbecky

vcbecky — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:22:36 +0000

Well, I tried being optimistic. I think I got spoiled recently. I suppose it’s for the best, I was never one to be very trusting of strangers.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:36:43 +0000

This

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:06:31 +0000

As documented above, this is false. Please think about your response from this shift in your perspective.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:05:02 +0000

I’m not sure I get you – you claim that there’s no way he could have done this right? But then you turn around and freely admit that he smacked his girlfriend. Then you try and say that she might have been the one to sodomize the baby in one of your other comments, and the reason he smacked her was because he suspected she was sodomizing his kid. Well, if I suspected somebody was sodomizing any kid, before I beat up the person, I’d tell a police officer. Like any body else with a functioning brain and heart would do – help get justice for a little baby. Lastly, I have extremely long nails, and have changed diapers before. Unless you pay no attention to the kid you’re changing, it’s impossible to penetrate a child. My nails are a centimeter past the tips of my fingers, and I’ve avoided hurting any child. At the very least, he’s guilty of neglect, in my eyes, if he was – as you admit – so drunk he couldn’t hear his child scream in pain. Also, if he’s that drunk sweetie, are you sure he would even remember it?

Lastly, not being convicted does not equal innocent. As far as I can tell from the write up, he didn’t face a jury or bench trial, and the charges were dropped. That means that he could be tried later, as long as the statue of limitations doesn’t run out. The felony murder charge for one, will not run out, as that’s a heinous crime. Can somebody tell me whether he faced an actual trial and was acquitted, or if it was dropped? If dropped, he could – if the police find more evidence – be tried for the crime (and I’ll be hoping that happens.)

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:05:01 +0000

Only defendants have the right for appeal.

Patently and provably false.

Timely resort by an unsuccessful party in a lawsuit or administrative proceeding to an appropriate superior court empowered to review a final decision on the ground that it was based upon an erroneous application of law.
legal-dictionary dot thefreedictionary dot com /appeal

You may be arguing instead about the limitations of double jeopardy, but I doubt you’ve delved into this far enough to tell the difference. None-the-less, your definition of an appeal is flawed and incorrect.