Friday, May 9, 2008

Now, as I understand it...



...the only evidence against Elsa Newman in her first trial was from a man who had been her attorney at one time in the proceedings.
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE???
And today I have a second question, stemming, doubtless from my lack of knowledge of the law, but still...I need to know this one.
If the results of Elsa's first trial were set aside...abrogated...annulled...abolished
on the basis of the use of her former attorney's testimony, how in the name of all that's holy could she be tried again? Isn't there something called "double jeopardy?" And why doesn't it apply in this case???????
And one more time, the questions that absolutely terrifies me. I've tried all my seventy years to be a law-abiding citizen. On the othe hand, I firmly believe that our system of "justice" is little more than a debating society, and the best debater wins for his/her client, whether said client is innocent or guilty.
And so, one more time, the terrifying question: If this could happen to Elsa Newman, attorney, a wommon confident in the law and its processes, how do I know it cannot happen to me or to someone I love? By golly, I've even got an answer for this one: There is absolutely no way I can know that!!!

9 comments:

canadarm2 said...

Oh my you seem to have forgotten the following evidence, so as you see it is as a blind man sees a deaf man. Heres a small portion of what was evidence in the trials; gunshot wound through the knee of the leg and the left and right of the pajama Arlen was wearing, the bullet in the wal that came out of his leg, a gun covered in margy's finger prints, the gun dealers confession of selling the gun to margy, margy's fingerprints on the planted pornography and no finger prints of arlens on it, margy's finger prints all over the glass door to arlens basement from the outside, confessions elsa told to her friends that she was planning to kill her husband and needed advice, her confession margy did it, and lie that margy did it on her own, her lawyers confession she told him she was guilty, morgan webbs confession of elsa asking her what to do and telling her killing her x husband is an option, margy's ski mask, and much much more.
So your eather lying on your blogs or your misinformed, which one is it? Im niether,I read the articles on the case which were made by people who were at the trial.

canadarm2 said...

And about the trial set aside, it was because her lawyer admitted Elsa told him she was guilty, its not double jeopardy its the same trial redone. Double Jeopardy is when she is found not guilty of the sentence, not because her lawyer admitted something he wasnt supposed to. Again i thought you were a school techer. And why did you leave out why the trial was dismissed, are you trying to hide even more evidence of Elsas guilt?

Anonymous said...

It seems pretty obvioous that when someone starts beating this dead horse again, that someone has to be friend or family of Arlen Slobodow--or perhaps Arlen himself?

Yes...there were bullet holes in his thigh [not knee]--but there were no bullet holes in the pajamas. Strange, don't you think. How on earth could a thing like that have happened? OH! I get it. He wasn't WEARING the pajama bottoms at the time of the incident. Duh!
Of course the gun was covered with Landry's fingerprints--she committed the crime! Duh! She confessed to it, remember, oh wise and intelligent one who can't seem to get the facts straight.
Don't know about arlen's fingerprints--you know, I like that idea of not capitalizing his name. Thanks. It kind of makes him into the cipher I think he is.There are, however, police photos of a burn mark from the clip on arlen's hand--kind of seems to indicate that the bozo might actually have shot himself, in the process of trying to turn the gun on Landry!
Of course Landry bought the gun; she committed the crime. Helloooo!
Of course Landry's fingerprints were on the entrance location; she went in there. She admitted it. Fingerprints were to be expected.
Of course Landry's fingerprints were on the child pornography; she admitted that she had taken it there. What do you think she did, tuck it behind her ear?
Now as to Newman's telling people that she was planning a crime--this is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. This woman is a graduate of Goucher College, with the highest honors offered by Goucher to their graduates. She also graduated from law school with great distinction. She worked as an attorney for the US government, and was quite successful. Her curriculum vitae is more than impressive. And you tell me that you think this brilliant woman is at the same time so INCREDIBLY STUPID that she sat in front of an attorney--or anyone else--and plotted a crime? NOT!
NEVER, at at any time did Newman tell any person that she was planning to kill arlen slobodow or anyone else.
Landry's words in court were something liked this, as close as I can remember, "I wish I could blame this on someone else, because it has ruined my life. But I alone am responsible."
"Morgan Webb?" Are you by any chance referring to Elizabeth Morgan. Morgan in fact told Newman that there was no such thing as a good choice in this situation. Morgan, in fact, told Newman there were only bad choices: accept and live with what the civil court demanded, as far as shared custody; take the children and run; or kill the [son of a bitch], the latter being my wording, not Morgan's. You can agree, I think, that none of those three choices are "good choices."
What does a ski mask have to do with it?
Interesting, to say the least, that you say you have formed your judgements by "reading articles on the case which were made by people who were at the trial." May I suggest you dig a bit deeper, in that case? The traditional media had condemned Newman long before any trial occurred--and continued to take the side of the prosecution throughout. Check it for yourself.

Anonymous said...

The trial verdict was vacated on appeal to Maryland's highest court, because the court found nothing that would be N-O-T-H-I-N-G in the evidence to connect her to the crime. They so stated in their majority opinion.
So good old Doug Gansler--who was planning a run for state office and who found the Newman case problematic if she were released--it was a high-profile case, after all, and he could scarcely afford the bad publicity which would result from her release--had her rearrested and tried again. Never left that out at all. I've said it over and over: Maryland's highest court opined there was nothing to connect Newman to the crime.
And let's see now--who knows I am a teacher. Herbie does. Is Herbie writing to me again?
Don't know. But I do know he has complained before that if I am a schoolteacher, there is sure a lot I don't know.
Sheesh, Herbie! I know. I am an English major, not a social studies major. I can be dumber than a post about social studies stuff. But even a little, old lady who is dumber than a post can see what is up here.
Why do you feel called on to fight me so hard? Am I coming to close to the truth?
Aine O

Anonymous said...

PS: I don't know how a blind man sees a deaf man--pretty much not at all, I would guess.

The truth here, however, is
1. Arlen Slbodow's two sons disclosed unspeakable abuses while in their father's custody.
2. Authorities such as Dr. Eli Newberger testified that the boys had not been coached by their mother or anyone else.
3. Other authorities in the field of child abuse agreed with Dr. Newberger.
4. The children used to beg their mother not to make them go for visits with their father.
5. Newman trusted the "justice" system to protect her and her children.
6. It didn't work.
7. The criminal trial interferred with Newman's attempt to protect her children.
8. The children--by default--ended up in the custody of the "father."
9. The mother ended up in prison.
Aine O

canadarm said...

You just made your arguement even more self contridicting and full of holes.
it says that your a teacher on your profile
Didnt you also claim margy was innocent yes you did look back at your conversation with herbie on your othe rblogs on this site you clainm margy is inocent and now you say shes guilty???
changing your story on convinience

and no i have no relation to this event i live in canada for the last time.
Do you think anyone who knows more then you is herbie or his dad?
Do you think your smarter then everyone else and nobody can figure out that your making this all up to get a friend out of prison.
Do you think your that clever?
Your articles dont even match each other and often contridict what another says, you also add alot of stuff that isnt there like random sex stories and threats that didnt exist before, yes i did talk to herbie about it, but im not him.
I just did some research, also for unbiased information i looked at real articles which say much different then what you say.

Your information is also infact impossible, it was the knee, why he ended up in crutches because you could still walk shot in the thigh. Information you made up also includes the burn mark on his hand
THAT NEVER EXISTED i saw the trials the articles and talked to people about it who were present at the trial, you just got caught lieng i believe. What else are you lieng to me about? I did say margy admitted she shot arlen yes but you didnt your the one who denied it not me, dont try to change my words around. Pajamas did have a hole in them they were on the evidence stand, i asked some one who was there so another lie your caught on.
Ski mask was evidence that margy came in to kill arlen, who the hell wears a ski mask and brings a gun to borrow sugar, as mom and margy claimed margy went in arlens house for.
And yes they arrest people before trials, every one knows that, its not wierd or a conspiracy as you inyour state of paranoia may think,
first they arrest them to stop them from doing anything more, then they have a trial, what you think they ask people who want to kill some one and have tried kindly to go to court?

Anonymous said...

You have gone beyond boring.

All I have to say to you from now on is this: if you are truly a reporter, give me some facts--real name, publication[s]for which you write, email address, any kind of validation for whom you claim to be.

Aine O

canadarm2 said...

Is that your responce?
Get my identity or call me someone you know, haha thats the beauty of being a 3rd party involved.

Anonymous said...

You have gone beyond boring.

All I have to say to you from now on is this: if you are truly a reporter, give me some facts--real name, publication[s]for which you write, email address, any kind of validation for whom you claim to be.

Aine O