The Office's loss is going to be the Defense Bar's gain.
There will be a going away party for Ed on Thursday, July 30th at 5:01 p.m. at the OKRA Charity Saloon at 924 Congress Avenue. All are invited.
Clappart has been shopping around a warrant for the arrest of the (then) teen for the Capital Murder of Belinda Temple. He cites the testimony of a new witness [Glasscock] who, per the warrant, had only learned of Belinda Temple's death (which happened in 1999) only "5 or 6 months ago." Furthermore, that "Smoking Gun" evidence that this new witness has involves him overhearing one of the three (then) teens admitting to shooting a dog during a burglary and throwing it in the closet.Now, apparently the fact that I wrote that blog post back in 2012 really offended Ms. Gotro. She took to the Twitter airwaves with this:
Yep, you read that right.
There isn't some new confession to the murder of Belinda Temple. There's the confession of shooting a dog that Clappart and Denholm would like to extrapolate into a Capital Murder warrant. There are no fingerprints. No DNA. No confession. Yet a licensed peace office and a former licensed peace officer would like a judge to arrest someone for Capital Murder because he stated that he once shot a dog.
"So I didn't know if somebody set me up to put something in Murray's blog or something else again, so I said "Wait a minute, Steve," and I believe it was right then and there when he in the office, I called -- I believe I called DeGuerin or I called DeGuerin's office and said, "I have just been told that there's evidence that has to be Brady evidence that exists in the Temple case. I want you and whomever you want to be with you to come to the DA's office so we can sit down and as they line it out to me, they're lining it out to you at the same time, so nobody can ever say that I've kept anything from you that's Brady."Um, okay. So apparently, my blogging skills back in the day were so powerful that whenever someone spoke to Jim Leitner, he assumed it was some kind of trick that I had initiated. Setting aside how hysterical that is, am I the only person here who finds it a little unusual that the second Clappart says a word to Leitner about a case (that Leitner just so happens to coincidentally have in his office), that the 1st Assistant of the Harris County District Attorney's Office stops EVERYTHING to call Dick DeGuerin?
"I have read it and you asked me to look at that, and in my own honest opinion, if I had been a judge, I would have probably signed the warrant."[p 110 & 111]Just so we are clear here, Leitner has just now admitted that if Clappart had brought him a warrant saying that he heard from a dude who heard it from another dude that a dude shot a dog, he would sign a warrant for CAPITAL MURDER, despite the fact that somebody else was already sitting in prison for that very same murder.
"I believe your client, but you are still going to need to present something to the Grand Jury on it."
"I'll give you a probation on a lesser charge, but your guy is going to need to plead on all three cases. I've been told that my court has too many dismissals."
"I don't know why the Grand Jury indicted your client, but I can't dismiss it unless the co-defendant pleads to something."
"I would never dismiss that case. It's a First Degree!"What do the above four phrases have in common?
It has happened to me. I was in a hotel in Nashville and overheard a conversation in the elevator. The woman had a distinctive name. When I got back to my room I noticed her name in my People You May Know section and sure enough it was the woman I had just seen in the elevator. She was friends somehow with someone I am friends with and I am sure FB references your current IP address to look for people. So, Voila! Still very weird.Now, in addition to the fact that my friend uses the term "voila!", I found this to be a little disturbing. I'm not claiming that I read the fine print when signing up for Facebook's privacy settings agreement.
"I've heard that there were threats on both sides," Ogg said. "But that's not unusual when people are going through marital problems."Okay, so you have a former client who was initiating legal action against her husband and said husband has now murdered your former client. What better time to start sharing with the press that she had been making threats toward her killer? This type of sharing is certainly not acting in the best interest of your client. As a matter of fact, you are actually beginning to act in the interest of the man who killed her.
"My job is to protect the public from dangerous people," Krocker said. "Same as being a prosecutor."Um, no. Not even close. Krocker's unbelievable statement to the Chronicle is mindnumbingly foolish. She basically stated that she was a prosecutor. How does a defendant get anything resembling a fair trial with that mentality? Krocker's statement to the Chronicle has already led to one Motion to Recuse being filed against her due to her bias. I have no doubt that there will be many more to come.