The McFraud crowd and their desire to set Casey free

IT SEEMS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT MCFRAUD AND HER SKIRTS WANT CASEY SET FREE. IT IS LIKELY WHY THEY HAVE BEEN ON A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME AND ANY OTHER ANTI-ANTHONY BLOG OUT THERE.

THEIR TIRADES AGAINST WEBSLEUTHS AND JUSTICE4CAYLEE ARE PRIME EXAMPLES.

THEY HAVE AT LEAST TWO IN THEIR SKIRT FOLD WHO ARE FOR THE ACQUITTAL OF SUCH DEFENDANTS AS CASEY ANTHONY AND DIANE NAPOLIS.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY BE FOR FREEING THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE? IT IS CERTAINLY WORTH INVESTIGATING.

MURT

THE MURT FUHRMAN GAMBIT

The :let's get Casey acquitted at any cost" crowd, again are under the mistaken impression that they "have the way" to get Casey off and "get me" at the same time.

The problem with these poor ignorant fools is that they do not understand the rules of evidence and also do not understand the dynamics of both cases.

Mark Fuhrman did not loose the OJ. Case. The prosecution was doomed to loose from the start.

The same is true of the alleged recording that some fool claims to have sent to "someone."

The same reason the Recording will not be used is the same as that of the hoax pm's with the additional problem of the issue of chain of cusdody.

It is unfortunate that the phony white collar whatever she claimed to be does not understand how the court system works and how and what is considered evidence and can be submitted as such.

To sum up for those who do not seem to understand both cases.

The prosecution in the Anthony case will WIN for the vary same reason the prosecution in the OJ case LOST.

MURT

A SIMPLE DECEPTION?

SOMEONE BROUGHT THIS ITEM TO MY ATTENTION A WHILE BACK:

http://www.munchausen.com/biography.html 

WHEN I SAW THIS, I HAD THOUGHT THAT "SOMEONE'S" DOCTOR HAD POSTED HER MEDICAL INFORMATION (OR SHE DID) ON HER BLOG. IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS LINK IS WHERE THAT INFORMATION CAME FROM.

IT IS NOT "HER" MEDICAL INFORMATION, BUT IS, IN FACT JUST AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THESE MALADIES.


IS THIS A DECEPTION ON HER PART OF JUST AN "ERROR?"
SINCE SHE DID NOT CLARIFY THE PURPOSE OF THAT QUOTE IN HER BLOG, IT IS NOT HARD TO COME UP WITH THE RIGHT ANSWER.


MURT

AM I BEING BULLIED?? YES, AND HERE IS THE PROOF

 Marsha Brady

 

I do believe a phone call to his employer maybe in order...

 

Hmmm.... I believe this is called STALKING! Also I am self employed so you would be calling....ME!

 

Flossie Martin 

Dumbass? Magna Cum-dumbfuck?

you cocksucker.

 

Flossie Martin

e-hay is a umb-day uck-fay!

Flossie Martin

Four point this.
F
U
C
K... See More
U

17 hours ago  

And this is without the master bully herself, Michelle McKee, the so called editor of In Cold Blog not being present but off "seeking justice" by framing another victim.

MURT 

 

THE FOUR POINTS OF MISINFORMATION

I have noticed that someone over on the Facebook page seems to be getting the same four points of information wrong in the same way as a comment I have seen in a number of other places by a certain person. I wonder why that is?

In a way that is good since that means that at least some of the measures I put in place are working and people are too lazy to do their homework. 

As I keep saying:

"If you want the right answer, you must first ask the right question."

MURT

A LITTLE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE

The detractors at the other sites seem to have little or no knowledge of the rules of evidence as to what is admissible or not admissible   in a trial. Case in point are the so called PM'S that found their way into the discovery.


The Pm's are NOT admissible for the following reasons:


First: They are hearsay:
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

In order to be admissible the PM'S would have to be supported by DIRECT EVIDENCE:

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.

NEXT, IS THAT THEY ARE IRRELEVANT  OR  IMMATERIAL

Irrelevant Evidence:

That which does not support the issue, and which) of course, must be excluded.

B. Immaterial Evidence:

Immaterial evidence is evidence that is not directed to any factual proposition at issue under substantive law. Materiality is judged against the elements necessary to prove a claim, an element of a claim or a defense. As a rule of substantive law, it is determined by the law applicable to the case. 

Now just exactly what is discovery? 

Discovery is a process that allows the parties (state and criminal defendant in criminal cases; and plaintiff and defendant in civil cases) to learn the strengths and weaknesses of each other's case--for example, by obtaining the names and statements of witnesses the other side intends to call at trial.

This paragraph regarding discovery is interesting:

Limits on What Can Be Discovered

Virtually any bit of information that might have even a slight connection to the lawsuit is fair game for discovery. But this enormous latitude sometimes leads to abuse. Lawyers might try to pry into subjects that have no legitimate significance for the lawsuit, or that are private and confidential, serving only to annoy or embarrass the parties. Fortunately, there are some legal limits on this kind of probing, and some protections to keep private material from being disclosed to the public.

Since the pm conversations were meant to be PRIVATE:

Title XLVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Chapter 934 SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS View Entire Chapter 934.03  Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.-- (1)  Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who: (a)  Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b)  Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor

Florida has the strictest privacy laws in the country. The law covers EVERY form of communications INCLUDING e-mails or PRIVATE (instant) MESSAGES.

 Neither the defense nor the Prosecution can use the PM'S at trial because they were obtained illegally.

Last but least:

NOTHING I SAID OR WAS PURPORTED TO SAID IN THE PM'S IS A CRIME. AS ONE DETECTIVE PUT IT:

"THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BAD TASTE."

MURT

Evidence is put forth in a trial to prove an issue of fact and often the parties in a case have conflicting explanations of what the facts are. If evidence put forth does not offer support or proof on an issue in the trial, that evidence is deemed irrelevant and is thus inadmissible

Read more: What Is Material Evidence? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5417733_material-evidence.html#ixzz0qpVAvsou

 
 

THE ADMISSION

WELL, WE NOW KNOW THE TRUE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THIS PAGE:

"Yvonne, this page came into existence AFTER they used my grand daughter as a weapon. Come at me, fine. Go after my 2 yr old grand daughter and you're going to set me off."



NOTICE THAT SHE SAID "THEY" AND NOT HIM.

THIS MEANS THAT I AM BEING PUNISHED FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. RATHER THAN GOING AFTER WHOEVER MADE THAT COMMENT OR COMMENTS, SHE GOES AFTER ME....WHY?

SHE SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THIS:

COPYRIGHT © 2009,2010

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRINCESS, MCHELLE AND EVERYONE CONCERNED

I have been observing with growing concern at the increasing number of incidents where innocent children are being used on chats in arguments between us.

This has to stop, NOW!

Princess:

I ask that you reconsider your decision, stand your ground and reopen Beaconhell.

Michelle:

I can imagine that there is a deep loving and close bond between you and your grandchild.

I deeply regret any pain that has been caused you by the actions of whoever posted about your granddaughter in that chat.

Everyone:

We all are supposed to be here as advocates for the missing and exploited children.

We are all supposed to be here to find ways to keep children from harm and to protect them.
T Children should not be used as weapons in our disputes with each other.

MURT 

THIS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE FACEBOOK PAGE WAS OPENED. I STATE AGAIN, HERE AND NOW THAT IF I EVER FIND OUT THAT THE PERSON WHO MENTIONED EITHER MICHELLE'S GRANDCHILDREN IN A BAD LIGHT OR THREATENED PRINCESS, I WILL TURN THIS INFORMATION OVER TO THE BOTH OF THEM.

I DO NOT CONDONE BRINGING INNOCENT CHILDREN INTO THIS DISPUTE. THE DISPUTES SHOULD REMAIN WITHIN THE PERSONS CONCERNED AND NOT OUTSIDERS.

THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH A VIGILANTE. SHE IS THINKING FROM EMOTION AND NOT FROM THE KIND OF DETACHMENT FROM THE INCIDENT NEEDED TO CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION.

AS FOR WHO IS MAKING ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISPUTE, I SUGGEST A LONG HARD LOOK AT MS. REBECA SOWERBY AKA CRIMINJUST. THIS PIECE OF WORK HAS A HABIT OF PLAYING BOTH SIDES, JUST ASK YOUR BFF PRINCESS.

MY SO CALLED "SKIRTS" HAVE SUSPECTED HER FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SHE HAS ISSUES WITH ANNIE BEING ON  "MY SIDE" AND THIS IS THE KIND OF STUNT SHE WOULD PULL.

INVESTIGATE PROPERLY BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, MICHELLE. YOU ARE BEING PLAYED AND ALLOWING YOUR HATE TO BLIND YOU TO IT.

MURT