Thomas Ullmann
Is there a form of life lower than that which rapes members of its own species, sets the victims on fire while they are alive and takes an item of their clothing as a souvenir? For three years I would have said “no”, but once again there are wastes of skin found below the bottom of the barrel. Rather than going into detail on the original crime, please Google or Bing “Petit Cheshire”. Warning – some of the crime scene photos Satan found disturbing.
Sounds like the case is open and shut – the 2 perps were caught in the act at a crime scene surrounded by cops. No one else could have possibly committed this crime and after some review of the gruesome details, it’s not like one of the victims could have accidentally caused such carnage. Even Santa Claus would have faced the death penalty.
While this case has some similarities to the Charles Stuart case which happened in Boston back in October 1989, here the surviving victim was found to be innocent. Charles Stuart had masterminded an almost perfect crime – a nice white couple expecting a child victimized in a bad black neighborhood while returning from one of he best medical facilities in Boston. Charles even hand picked a POS which looked good for the crime.
He chose Mission Hill near Roxbury, a bad neighborhood in Boston, knowing gun shots would not draw attention. What really gripped the nation was the fact that the police had to find the couple by playing “hot and cold” with police sirens heard over his car phone. 
Thankfully, in both cases, the police departments were thorough and investigated ALL possibilities.
Given the horrible nature of the crime(s), the State of CT chose to seek the Death Penalty. In CT that means that the perp will be whipped with a dry noodle, a clear violation of the 10th amendment according to some of the weenies living within the same state borders as me. And to insure that no one is unfairly receives the wrath of the dry noodle, the State of CT hires special attorneys.
I contacted the office of Auden Grogons, one of the special attorneys for Joshua Komisarjevsky about the exact amount of her “special rate” for the State of CT. Needless to say I did not get a reply and I assume any further attempts to contact her office would be considered harassment. After all I am just one of the “great unwashed” taxpayers. But I’m sure that the special hourly rate is a bit more than many of us see in a day… or a week in some cases.
One of the first things the two defense teams did for their “clients” (I put that term in quotes because we, the taxpayers, are the ones who really hired the lawyers) was to get separate trials. If both POS, Hayes and Komisarjevsky, were tried together the prosecution’s job 
becomes much easier, because all evidence will help convict both defendants, even if some of it only applies to one or the other. The same will go for witnesses. One trial, one verdict, two POS get fried.
With separate trials, each side would blame the other, creating some doubt as to which one is guilty of the various charges. In other words, one defendant could be separately innocent, and yet together they’re both guilty. Sounds like a theme from a Doctor Seuss book.
Also with separate trials, each POS is able to call the other POS all sorts of names and no one is there to object. Thus alone in the court room Steven Hayes may appear to be a nice guy, but when he’s around his buddy Joshua, he may be a different person, just ask the sole surviving member of the Petit family.
At the beginning of the trial, Ullmann conceded that his client “did it”…. but of course his client was not guilty of the charges, because the other POS was really responsible for the escalation of violence that occurred. Steve never meant to hurt anyone – after all doesn’t Santa Claus break into people’s homes as well?
Ullmann first blamed the fact that there was a door that was left unlocked. Seems to me that Steve chose to trespass, a crime in itself. I hardly think that a totally locked house would have stopped them; maybe just slowed them down a bit.
As far as the rape charges went, Ullmann stated that his client raped the wife because Joshua (the other POS) raped the 11 year old daughter, and Joshua wanted Hayes (Ullmann’s POS) to square the deal. Hayes could have just said “No”.
As far as the arson charges go, Hayes did not strike the match, so I guess that makes him a good person. Hayes did douse the house with gasoline, as to destroy evidence of their presence. Then again gasoline itself does not erase DNA, so why would one douse the house in gasoline….. because he was told to do so is what Ullmann would want us to believe. Because Hayley and Jennifer Petit were raped, their bodies were evidence, they too were doused with gasoline as well – Hayley while she was still alive and conscious. The wife was strangled to death before her body was set on fire.
Many witnesses had to relive the horror over and over again for weeks. Ullmann also tried to place the blame for the deaths on police for acting too slowly, then on the fire department for not showing up to what appeared to be a hostage situation.
After the jury found that Steven Hayes guilty on 16 of 17 charges, Ullmann’s job is now to keep a guilty POS alive. In a good call, Judge Blue struck down the argument that the Death Penalty would be too costly. Judge Blue felt that using cost and economics as an argument to save any particular POS a perversion of justice.
After all of this reading, one may conclude that Ullmann worked hard for Steven Hayes; except for the fact that Steven wanted to simply 
plead guilty before the trial even began! Ullmann would not let “his” client plead guilty.
I wish to thank Max for further researching the facts behind the story. I drew most of my information from various media sources and I missed an important fact – Thomas Ullmann is the Chief Public Defender for the State of CT
So whose interests did Ullmann represent?
Not Steven Hayes – he wanted to just get it all over with. Weather he was being selfish and did not want to go through the trial himself or have the decency as to not force William Petit to relive the horror I do not know. But it appeared to me that Steven Hayes was ready to own up to what he did. He’s ready to die.
(Please note I have read a number of different versions of Steven Hayes’s guilty plea – one says the judge rejected it, one says Steve would plead guilty if the death penalty was taken off the table while others are concerned because Steve may be looking to commit suicide by pleading guilty) If there is a chance that he may be looking to commit suicide, I’ll let him take a bath at my house with the toaster…
Not William Petit – he wants Steven dead. I am sure that William Petit loves the memories of his wife and two daughters, but would rather not discuss the last few hours of their lives.
Not the Cheshire first responders, especially in light of Ullmann’s attempts to blame the three deaths on them.
Not most of the State of CT, – most of us want this POS dead. There are a few weenies that need to get to know Steven Hayes better and/or have their heads removed from their ass.
By refusing to allow Steven Hayes to plead guilty, Thomas Ullmann has shown me just how low the Nanny State will go. While many fear that government health care may deny care which could result in an earlier death, Steven Hayes is not allowed to die until the State of CT says it’s OK to do so. Steven Hayes has “hoarded” his anti-depressant medication so he could later overdose, only to be rushed to the hospital. Knowing that my tax dollars are being used to save this POS when he is voluntarily attempting suicide depresses me, but I guess the State of CT will not care about my depression until I commit some type of crime, just as long as it’s not tax evasion.
Thomas Ullmann is an expert on Steven Hayes because he works for the state. Mr. Ullmann is there to insure that everyone shares the blame in creating the situation that allowed Steven Hayes to commit such an act. Mr Petit should have locked all doors to the house, the police should have acted quicker, the police should not have spooked Joshua and Steve, the fire dept should have been there in standby, Joshua said and blah blah bullshitting blah. So one need not be rich to have a nanny turn one into an irresponsible spoiled shithead, criminals, on our dime, also get that same privilege!
Given that Steven Hayes has attempted suicide 7 times, I feel that there is only one way to see if he’s serious about wanting to die or if he’s playing the game as well. In big letters on his paper work and cell, put the letters DNR – Do Not Resuscitate. Inform Steven that if he does attempt suicide again, we, the state, will allow such to happen. Inform Steven that he’ll be fully responsible for whatever happens to him, especially if he should fail to die. Let him know that he could end up in a vegetative state for a while before he dies.
Despite the fact that Steven now has few responsibilities, the state should not be ready to take over the rest. Steven should still be responsible for getting the food from the plate to his mouth and for wiping his own ass. Should Steven do something to himself that puts himself in a state where he is unable to carry out those tasks, let him rot
While everyone is entitled to a reasonably good defense, no one is entitled to a life without responsibility. In my opinion, Ullmann should have been a priest, given that Ullmann seems to want to absolve those individuals who demonstrate their sorrow and remorse of serious consequences. To me, a good priest would hold Steven Hayes head under the holy water until he stopped breathing.
For all of you who feel I am being too judgmental, who feel that only those without sin should cast the first stone, I ask that you please leave the planet. It is you who let God’s good Earth become more like hell every day. By calling evil sick, then sick misunderstood evil spreads What Steven Hayes did is evil, my father’s cancer was sick. Child rapists who burn the bodies of their victims while the soul is still in the body are about as close to pure evil as we can get on this Earth.
While none of us are God, nor none of us here are on His advisory board, we are all called to do God’s work. While God is the only true judge, God does ask His followers to keep each other in line. Maybe if Steven Hayes had someone to discipline him, hold him accountable for his actions and help him develop a conscience, three more people would be alive today.
This Story Was Written And Submitted By The Nibbler. The Regulars Around Here Know The Nibbler Better By His Alter-Ego, The One And Only Fred.
Does Thomas Ullman Deserve Hell?
- Yes (82%, 184 Votes)
- No (18%, 41 Votes)
Total Voters: 225
Loading ...
39 Comments »
Again Max, I love the touches you added!
It looks like Dan Malloy may become govenor, so the only way to kill these two will be the McDonald’s & KFC diets.
Justice is a dead word in our world. From stoning to death a woman for showing her ankle in the middle east to trying our damned best to let child rapists and murderers walk the streets with a slap on the wrist, the idea of “justice” in this world is gone.
However, I cannot say that this defense attorney deserves Hell. Like many of us, he has a quota. If he doesn’t meet that quota then he’s out of a job. His job sucks. Maybe he’s a terrible person and he grew up with the intent of becoming the last hope between horrible monsters and state-sponsored death (which I support) but probably not. I’m sure in a few cases innocent men were saved from a needle in the arm or a crackling chair by a man much like our villain here. I’m also certain that several terribly guilty people are living easy in jail on the public’s dime thanks to people like this who we assume are evil.
Maybe he is evil. I can’t say. But I do no there are horrible careers in this world and most people hate going to them. I cannot fault this man without knowing that he’s pulling in 6-figures and laughing about all the scum he’s helped release back onto the streets.
The problem lies in the system. The system is broken by technicalities and loopholes. It is a perverted version of what was intended by the men who created it. Until it is fixed, someone will be required to try to convince a jury that criminals are innocent and that black is white and up is down. If not, then we have to let them go free.
Sadly, if you want real justice in a case like this, William Petit would have to kill these men. And when that happens, William Petit is then considered the criminal.
One question only…..how does he sleep at night knowing who he represents?
If the State of Connecticut wants to appoint me Lord High Executioner for a day, I’ll execute Hayes myself after he’s sentenced to death. I’ll even supply the gun and bullet. If not, the state needs to dust-off ‘Old Sparky’ one more time…
To those who claim I am often being judgemental on these pieces of shit, I say, HELL YES!! I *AM* BEING JUDGEMENTAL. And so you should be as well. I do not rape, murder, torture or do anything that would qualify as evil. I CAN sit in judgement of those who do. Yes, I have had a shitty childhood, abuse aplenty, war stories to bore people with and a crappy life along the way. It isn’t the world’s job to owe me a living and absolve me of all shitty things I may DECIDE to do, just ’cause I wanna, k?
Excellent discussion at the end about evil vs. sick. Evil is evil — it isn’t some namby pamby “psychological illness” that we must all sit in a circle and tsk-tsk about, and wring our hands in an impotent display of “sympathy” with the devil. Evil exists. All those who back away from this idea because of its religious connotations can also get over it. Evil exists. Forget religion. Good exists and there doesn’t need to be a religious overtone to this statement. If good exists, then evil exists. It really isn’t that hard to understand. We need more good in our world. We can achieve this really rather easily by removing more of the really EVIL entities in our lives — like the above ass-hats. I thoroughly suspect people who work so hard for evil. It is because they are, at heart, just as evil as those they represent.
I am always wondering which story will be the one that sparks a crusade of sorts, of all the good-hearted people who decide that this crime, this time, will be the one that unites everyone to some sort of mass movement that forces change — real change, and not some “promise” by a political group.
Great write-up Fred. Do you find it as hard as I do when you read the shit these assholes put the victims through? Makes me want to have a transporter machine and a glock ready to use! ;-p
Thank you…..
I saw this movie where someone had a time machine and would kill evil people hours before they committed their act.
I would love to be able to do such.
What tipped people off to what was happening, these POS which were killed before committing their crimes were killed with a gun that had not been invented at the time of their deaths. Sorry that this paragraph is a bit hard to follow.
The burden was upon the time traveler because only they knew who was truly evil, all others had no knowledge.
Awesome story, love to live it.
My thoughts exactly! Some types of judgement are good and NECESSARY. We as a society have to keep one another in check, and we SHOULD be outraged when someone commits a heinous, disgusting act against one of our fellow citizens. How can you NOT be indignant and disgusted by these guys?? I’d rather be a judgemental bitch than a weak, useless enabler.
I’m sorry, but putting this man up as equal to rapist, murderers, and child abusers makes somewhat of a mockery of the point of this website and the horrible suffering actual murderers and rapists, etc., put their victims through. Is this man the most scrupulous? No. But he’s doing a job that’s necessary and he doesn’t deserve to be categorized with true monsters.
Oh gosh, you’re soooooo right! How fucked up of us normal people to believe he’s just as bad for condoning the acts of those criminals who committed unfathomable crimes?
Just how is his job necessary? To fulfill the criminal freedom and criminal acceptability quota so they’re allowed to do it again? To make it so it’s perfectly acceptable to murder, rape and abuse and then blame it the victim not locking the door on his property in which the criminal shouldn’t have even been trespassing on? Yeah, he’s an angel and definitely not a monster.
This is assuming you’re talking about Ullman since you didn’t name any names, in which case, I can’t wait for everyone to jump down your throat and rip you a new asshole!
I never said he was an angel. Obviously this isn’t a job most people would be morally capable of doing. But you can argue all you want about how horrible lawyers are, defense attorneys are essential and necessary to the justice system. Trials are in place for a reason, if people are assumed to be guilty before their trial even begins, what’s the point? And for those who think that those accused should just be summarily sentenced, think about those few times that people on PYSIH have actually been found to not have committed the crimes they are accused of. No, it doesn’t happen often but it happens sometimes. So yes, defense lawyers are absolutely necessary just to protect against that small minority of innocent people accused of crimes. Deal with it.
That’s all fine and great, but this guy crossed a line. I agree that defense lawyers are there and will always be, but when this criminal admitted it and wanted to plead guilty on top of the evidence, Ullman still went about twisting the knife in the victim and blamed everyone else which showed he has no conscience. If evidence supports the crime and the criminal admits it, what is there to protect then?
I can see your point Icktl and agree with it to a point as well. What I have the biggest problem with is people taking one look at this guy and saying, Oh, defense lawyer, horrible person who deserves hell. Even if they didn’t know the details of the case. Or extrapolating to all defense lawyers. Like the poster below who said “The murderer is only different from the lawyer in that the murderer has actually committed the actions the lawyer would like to.” I think that’s completely ridiculous and absolutely demeaning to actual victims of murderers, rapists, etc. But I agree with you that there is a line that should not be crossed.
Fred, just to make it clear, the article is unusual in that you have focused on the type of person who has made life for the rest of us so damn depressing. What kind of man/woman can defend these POS? How can they ever look at themselves in the mirror — never mind being able to make eye contact with victims! At what point do they abdicate their humanity? Let’s not split hairs here — these “lawyers” are as bad as the people they defend. Are all lawyers scum? No. But lawyers like this guy are scum. They are re-victimizing these people ALL OVER AGAIN. He is the type of lawyer who thinks nothing of asking a rape victim if he/she enjoyed the rape. They are the type of people who will use the traumatic stage of the witness stand to make child abuse victims stumble over their own words until they break and lose it on the stand. They are, in some fashion, worse than the rapists and murderers because they are supposedly doing these actions in the name of justice, when they aren’t. Justice became a game for these assholes a long time ago. It isn’t about truth. It is about winning. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing honourable about getting a lesser sentence for vile pieces of shit, but these men and women strut about like peacocks whenever they manage to subvert justice once again. It is time that we say – enough is enough. There should be a penalty somewhere that smacks them in the wallet, because quite frankly, these people are not touched by any type of human emotion. They are cold, soulless individuals who look at victims as paltry debris to be swept away and discarded. In cases like the one you’ve written, it is a psychopath defending a psychopath. The murderer is only different from the lawyer in that the murderer has actually committed the actions the lawyer would like to.
Yes, I’m still being judgemental and I will never understand how anyone can do what these legal ass-hats do and still claim to be human.
So I assume if you were to ever be accused of a crime you would waive your right to a defense lawyer? Hmm… I thought not.
I believe that all people are entitled to a reasonable defense, like if a father kills his X-wife’s new husband because he raped his daughter and the police did not do jack about it…….
Or someone came into the house under false pretense and got physical when asked to leave…..
Or some drunk just fell down the stairs……
Or someone else really committed the murder…..
These are examples where a defense atty are required and sentences should reflect the situations or even find the person innocent.
But that is so nit the case here. I agree it’s a game – how many charges can be “unstuck” how many charges can be reduced, how much can a sentence be reduced…..
Part of what scares me is that our court system is so based on precedent, case law, that I wonder how often real laws are consulted. Each case os somewhat different and each lawyer tries to make the case they are working on like another case.
Many lawyers rather than feel that the burden of truth is their, feel that that burden is one that belongs to the judge and jury….
So 2 differnt lies and the jury has to find truth………
2 wrongs don’t make a right???????
Now I know that no 2 stories are going to be exactly alike – there is a thing called perspective, but certain facts are indisputable…
I feel that this POS crossed the line – trying to blame everyone else..
While there is little doubt that Hayes will never be a free man, I wonder who may be set free by any precedents set by this case???
While there are veterans coming home to nothing, it sickens me to see someone like Ullman insuring that someone like Hayes will get 3 hots and a cot…..
Something that I am NOT guaranteed, despite the fact I work and pay taxes!
Sorry if I rambled – it’s late and I am still trying to balance my check books… something that this POS will not have to do again!
He did not cross any line, nor did he present any “falsehoods.” He just defended a guy that the many many people think should be burning in hell, and that to you makes him a monster.
No, it does not make him a monster, BUT he (Thomas Ullman) is one of the reasons why society is going to hell in a hand basket.
Ullman is not a monster, he’s a cockroach.
A monster is one that would destroy a house, something that can be shot.
A cockroach is something that destroys lives as well. The cockroach destroys the food and other such supplies.
What is worse living in the shell of a house or starving in a complete house?
Hayes destroyed a family, something easily seen. Ullman is manipulating the system (which is different from using) to keep his client alive – despite his client’s wishes. Ullman’s damage to our legal system is not easily seen. Remember Hitler never broke any laws when he was rising to power and while he was killing Jewish people – as a matter of fact Hitler and others made it illegal to be Jewish!
No Ullman is not a monster, he is a cockroach that should be squashed by all good people.
And kudos to you for writing the article in such a way as to subtly make your point. Again, I don’t know how anyone can say, “Yeah, I’d like to spend the rest of my life setting assholes free to commit hideous crimes on regular decent people.”
BTW, do you have any friends who are lawyers? :-D
Yes, I have a frind who is a lawyer – more of an acquaintance now….
I am tired of these people profiting while sending the workd to hell in a hand basket.
I couldn’t find any pictures :o(
Great write up about more awful people. The lawyer deserves hell for sure as well. I think he just wanted to raise his profile or make case law or set a precedent. One point on priests…they will absolve you from a church standpoing if you are truly rependent, but they tell you that you have to face the civil/legal consequences and encourage people turning themselves in (if they haven’t already been arrested, etc). I guess that goes with the saying “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
You’re right when it comes to the good priests, which most are.
I am picking on the few who think that they are above man’s laws.
God only calls for disobediance to man’s laws IF they conflict with those of God, which few do in this land as our founders used many of the principla of Christanity as they understood it at that time.
It’s not like Hayes killed a begger – I almost used force against a beggar at Grand Central Station (I was ready to throw him down the stairs). This guy was getting insistant and forceful – and I was getting the feeling that this was going to escalate into a mugging. This beggar approached me on a landing in a stairwell – it was not like he was sitting there like most do – he made a point to follow me. My only recoarse would have been to toss him down the stairs as pepper spray is illegal in NYC. If he died oh well – I have a heart condition and it was obvious I was in a weakened state. Once I exhibittted the ability that I was recovering my breath quickly (as I was out of breath) he backed off. If I had killed him, then yes a defense lawyer would have a job to do. BUT my childhood would NOT have been an issue, just the simple fact that a mugger was wrong about my ability to defend myself.
Steven Hayes was sentenced to death today (Nov 8 , 2010).
If Thomas Ullman makes ANY appeals, he needs to get a needle as well!
Justice is a broken concept. It greatly offends me that the system cares nothing for the victims but will allow the most ludicrous excuses to be brought forth in an effort to save someone who has forfeited their right to exist by their own actions….when did the scales turn so far in favor of the criminal?? why do people who have never done a criminal act in their lives have to struggle to pay for basic medications but we have to pay and pay for these disgusting creatures to live, pay for their lifesaving medications…it really makes you mad at how the defense attorneys view peoples lives as a game to win or lose..
From one of the follow up stoires
“He’s tried to kill himself before,” Ullmann said. “The jury gave him what he wants.”
Ullmann said he and co-counsel planned to appeal the verdict “tooth and nail.”
So everyone wants Steve dead including Steve…….
Was a self serving bastard that Ullman is…….
Petit stated that there is little money available to victims while criminals seem to have unlimited fund…..
Well I can see why Ullman just loves Steve – oops I mean $teve.
“By refusing to allow Steven Hayes to plead guilty, Thomas Ullman has shown me just how low the Nanny State will go.”
FYI – If Hayes was allowed to plead guilty the Death Penalty would have been taken off the table. Ullman knew this and had his client plead innocent. Not everything is as it seems…..
You’re wrong in this case popin-in. There was no plea deal in place taking the Death penalty off the table. Hayes wanted to plead guilty and throw himself at the mercy of the court.
Hayes put in a plea of guilty in exchange for lwop. This was rejected by the prosecution
I sumitted this to the New Haven Register – let’s see if they print it – if they do, let’s see the edits.
The position of defense atty is what makes the American justice system great, it keeps the republic safe for democracy; such a job keeps our justice system from becoming a mobocracy. The defense atty insures that the defendant will receive his or her rights as stated in The Constitution. Despite being caught “red handed”, Mr. Hayes is still entitled to a defense and I feel that the state’s atty Thomas Ullman has done such for Steven Hayes
With respect to the verdict and sentence I can not understand why Atty Ullman wishes appeal with “tooth and nail”. Except for Atty Ullman, all of the major parties, The State of CT, William Petit and Steven Hayes himself agree with the death penalty verdict.
In my opinion there are so many better uses for Atty Ullman’s time and talents. A church, the Fatherhood Coalition or other charity could use such talented person as a board member. Plenty of organizations could use such energy and talent such as the Boy Scouts and local schools which are always looking for mentors. Despite working as a defense atty, victims’ needs are grossly neglected by the criminal justice system maybe Atty Ullman could try and make a difference there as well.
Also there are many better uses for our tax money. Many roads having faded yellow lines and streetlights have been shut off making driving more dangerous than ever. At school student activities are either cut or are more expenses are being passed on to the parents.
Steven Hayes has tried to commit suicide 7 times that I am aware of. While many people fear the state playing God in our older age wanting us to accept death as a way of reducing costs, Thomas Ullman plays God doing the opposite – spending a lot of money as to keep Steven Hayes alive against his (Steven’s) own will.
It sickens me to know that there are troops coming home from all over the world not knowing how much longer they’ll have a home in the country they so bravely served, while Steven Hayes will be guaranteed 3 hots and a cot.
Atty. Ullman may have personal and moral objections to the Death Penality, but he should look to abolish it with his own resources. I asked Martha Dean, Republican candidate for Atty General, what she felt about the Hayes Death Penalty case.. She stated that she personally objects to the death penalty, but she sees nothing wrong with it legally. If this is such for atty Ullman, he needs to fight against the death penalty for all those who are condemned to die with his own resources rather than just for Steven Hayes on the state’s time.
You are ignorant.
Hayes is guilty, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t deserve a fair trial. Ullman is one of the few people who will represent people accused of heinous crimes. You want to know what happens when a defendant gets a shitty defense attorney? Yeah. The case gets overturned at the appellate level.
I am also a public defender. I am a servant of the public AND of the constitution. All of us deserve the represention of a competent attorney when faced with a sentence of life in prison – not to mention death. Save your ire for the perp But do NOT attack his public defender. We would not be the same country we are today if we allowed people to be executed without a vigorous defense. Please pull you head out of your ass and read the Constitution.
Allie, I know how you struggle and I know how aspects of your job are necessary, but Thomas Ullman stepped over the line that should be drawn.
There’s defending a client and then there’s lying, and this is way into the lying area. A reasonable and fair defense includes Not Guilty, Not Guilty by reason of Insanity, and a host of other lesser degrees of Not guilty including I had a bad day, but this defense was to excess and criminal abuse of the defendants, but because it has been conflated with the needs of a fair trial, the defense attorney abused the victims in a way that is incomprehensible and should be a crime.
Moral outrage has a place, and it is a healthy and constructive way of targeting criminal actions that do not yet have laws against them. In 1971, spousal abuse did not have proper headings to prevent it in many states. Thematics and positions dating back from the moral outrage of suffragettes helped push for stiffer penalties for beating wives while others argued a biblical and even a constitutional protection of the religiously protected belief that a man was king of his own home and within it could discipline wife and child with rod and fist. These motives were found unconstitutional, so too will a defense that tortures the victims in order to present falsehoods in a “vigorous defense.”
As a final note, usually, somewhere between prosecution and defense is the sole answer to a court case. The purpose of the defense should not be to rip into the bounds of science fiction and horror to establish their position on another planet from the truth, in order to allow for some possibility between that is absurd, but to establish the truth of the case so that the jury has the opportunity to see both sides of the case and choose something reasonable and accurate.
Please see where I am outraged……
He blames Dr Petit for not locking the house
He blames the police for both being too slow and too fast (spooking the clients)
He blames the Fire Department for not being on hand
Allie – do you blame the rape victim for turning on the perp? I am sure an 8 year old girl intends to get a 40 year old man all hot and bothered then say no
Do you blame a woman for carrying a purse and wearing jewelry for being mugged?
Or how about the white person who stumbles into a black neighborhood for getting shot or stabbed?
“If XXX was not there, he would not have gotten stabbed”
“White people should know not to come around here after dark”
The last quote was what a Roxbury resident said about a white college student who was stabbed to death outside a Roxbury apartment building only a few hundred feet from Northeastern University.
Allie – you are so full of yourself, so bent on winning like Ullman..
Go get some common sense please.
I am sure that you read this site and send out business cards…
One of the first things the two defense teams did for their “clients” (I put that term in quotes because we, the taxpayers, are the ones who really hired the lawyers) was to get separate trials. If both POS, Hayes and Komisarjevsky, were tried together the prosecution’s job becomes much easier, because all evidence will help convict both defendants, even if some of it only applies to one or the other. The same will go for witnesses. One trial, one verdict, two POS get fried.
So it’s the job of the defense to make the prosecutor’s job easier? You’re an idiot.
To answer your question – No.
Secondly the name calling just adds to your credibility – NOT!
I am pointing out the fact that these two committed the crime or series of crimes together and I feel they should be tried together.
If Steve and Joshua were two drunk drivers in their cars and each hit the Petit’s vehicle then there should be two separate cases because each was a separate incident.
Allie, I know how you struggle and I know how aspects of your job are necessary, but Thomas Ullman stepped over the line that should be drawn.
What line exactly did he step over? Nothing in this post suggests he did anything that the law would consider “over the line”. Perphaps ethically you think he is a bad person but that does not mean, not for a second, that he wasn’t doing his job. You wax philosphically about moral outrage and and blah blah blah but at the end of the day Allie is right- get over yourself and get your head out of your ass. He did not “stretch the bound of truth” nor did he “present falsehoods”.
Took me a bit to recognize you were trying to respond to something. Your knowledge of the internet not withstanding, let me try to answer your questions in order. First off, you might want to cite things. You can use the less than sign, followed by the word cite, then closed by a greater than sign:
<cite gt&;Allie, I know how you struggle and I know how aspects of your job are necessary, but Thomas Ullman stepped over the line that should be drawn.</cite >
Once you’re done quoting you can use a slash before the tag name to close things off. This little tool is called tagging. You can also enclose your words in <blockquote> </blockquote>
Now that we have a bit of format, the second question implied by your argument is that you didn’t notice or know how to use the small reply link below each post. It’s pretty self-explanatory once you use them.
Wait a second? You’re probably wondering why I delved into the basics of board etiquette with regard to your response? Oh, you see, this is something I know quite a bit about. I understand computers and why these tags are parsed by a browser. If you got your head out of your Ass any time since about 1994, you’d have understood these basic courtesies as well.
As far as your argument, this defense attorney lied. He made stuff up, blatantly and completely out of the fabric of his imagination, that was purposefully designed to antagonize the victim of crimes and he hid behind the onus of doing his job, to protect those lies.
It is illegal to put on a Klan robe and hood and have the mask of the hood down, when you’re marching with a public permit on a city street where I live. There’s nothing specific about it, simply that the identity of the protester, can’t be concealed. Free speech and hate speech are protected, you just can’t hide behind a mask. These are legal distinctions that have been upheld to the highest levels. Hiding behind your job, and lying to the court, in order to get your defendant off on charges is wrong. It’s not merely a matter of ethics, it is subverting the justice system and process to avoid lying under oath, but instead still get those lies presented to a jury as some form of persuasion.
He lied in court, used leading statements and abusive questions of the victims to stretch the bounds of reality, to include his own lie, and if you can’t see that, perhaps that is the interior of your own stomach, you’ve traveled more than twenty feet of intestines to find. It is neither ethical, nor reasonable. You may have learned in law school that it is acceptable, but it is breaking the basic tenants that allow the mob to let you get away with it. Should a challenge to that system become too egregious, the legislators would be forced to swiftly dismantle your lies or face revolt. What you’re trying to protect is defenseless. What you’re trying to be is defenseless. I understand that not all clients are innocent, but I also understand that a distinction between abuses should be made, and out and out lies are ridiculous.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
You’ve misspelled the last name of the attorney Thomas Ullmann: he has 2 n’s in his last name. As the doctor Thomas Ullman with only one n, you might imagine that I’m a bit distressed your error. Please correct it as soon as possible.
You’re absolutely right Doc – I’ll fix that right away.
The one that got me was when Ullman During the penalty phase said “If you want Hayes To suffer sentence him to life with no parole because he has the guilt and memories of what he’s done for life, but if you want him to have an easy way out of this then sentence him to death, remember life with no parole is the worst kind of punishment for my client with the memories of what he has done to be their for the rest of his life”. It backfired they sentenced him to death. Goes to show you what a Wiley Bastard ullman is scum bag pos.