47.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Saturday, November 7th, 2009Cape Cod Crusader
From Somerville to Boston to Brewster making table top trees out of eucalyptus and sea shellsPlease visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Bourque Heating & Cooling, Inc.
Family owned and operated company serving the Cape Cod area. We service all makes of residential and commercial air conditioning and warm air heating, as well as commercial refrigeration for our HVAC clients. 24 hour emergency service. (Hyannis)
Family owned and operated company serving the Cape Cod area. We service all makes of residential and commercial air conditioning and warm air heating, as well as commercial refrigeration for our HVAC clients. 24 hour emergency service. (Hyannis)
Community Care Resource Group
An organization of caring professionals who provide a wide range of services to seniors on Cape Cod. Our mission is to connect with one another, collaborate on ideas and provide information and referrals for seniors in our community. (Dennis)
An organization of caring professionals who provide a wide range of services to seniors on Cape Cod. Our mission is to connect with one another, collaborate on ideas and provide information and referrals for seniors in our community. (Dennis)
Dead Men Don't Talk
08/25/07 · 8:39 am :: posted by crusader
The story of Patrick Lancaster
The news headlines of wife shoots husband shocked Barnstable and Cambridge, where Dr. Ann Gryboski practiced medicine, while adoring patients grew in large numbers and later would rush to her defense. What about the outcry for justice ---for her husband Pat Lancaster, the man who died in their kitchen on Easter Sunday, by two bullets lodged in his abdomen? Don't marriage vows demand, "for better, for worse, for sickness and in health, until death..........?" Did she really do all in her power to prevent this great tragedy? I'm not convinced she did. After all, she is the doctor, sworn to assist those in need, one who counsels patients on the devastating effects of domestic violence, yet she didn't take her own advice? I heard how she was a battered woman for many years, but I don't hear Mr. Lancaster's side of the story--because dead men can't talk.
Did Ann Gryboski have to pull the trigger? And while her grown son was present at the time of the alleged attack by her husband? We were told he was recovering from hip surgery---was she was so much in fear of her own life, she felt the need to reach for her loaded gun in her purse? Why carry a gun in the presence of her infant grandson? How long before and ambulance and law enforcement were called to the home? What would the phone records tell us? We won't learn the answers because there will be no trial.
Who made up the panel of Grand Jury members and who were the witnesses who testified before them? Although, both the prosecution and defense claim Ann Gryboski was a victim of domestic violence, she is the one still standing. Having once endured the pain of being a battered wife, I could sympathize and we also worked at the same hospital. But she killed a man--her husband. Why kill him if he was unarmed?
Mr. Lancaster's last job was on Long Island, where he spent four days out of the week away from his Cape home. Did this marriage become one of convenience, for reasons of financial security and keeping up appearances? Was Ann Gryboski going through mid-life crisis? It's been rumored by neighbors of Michael O'Keefe and Ann Gryboski, that they are on friendly terms. If this is true, shouldn't the DA have removed himself from the case? He seemed to rush to her defense, acting more as her defense attorney than prosecutor for the state. Why?
When she was arrested, her bail was a mere 50k. The Grand Jury cleared her of any charges. She is now a free woman, one of means; education, career, and wealth. She said she is looking forward to returning to her practice, but the medical board hasn't yet granted her privileges. Will her father, a prominent physician in Cambridge use his influence with the medical board to aid in the reinstatement of his daughter's medical license?
If she is allowed to return, will she continue to hand out pamphlets to her female patients about domestic violence?
I too had choices while stuck in an abusive relationship, but I chose divorce. After evaluating all that has been decided for Ann Gryboski, to her own benefit, I think she got off easy. Does Ann Gryboski get preferential treatment because of who she is? Why did the DA tell the family not to discuss the events of her husband's death with the media? Would a woman who is making minimum wage at the local donut shop be granted the same considerations? Or is it because Ann Gryboski knows a man who made this all too easy for her---Michael O'Keefe, the DA, once again is at the height of controversy over another case with too many questions begging for answers.
What do you believe? Is Ann Gryboski a villain for shooting her husband or is she a heroine who escaped the wrath of a man set to kill his wife while using his walker? He brought no weapon to this gunfight. He was unarmed. She had choices, she could have run from her home, with her grown son, she could have left him sooner--but chose to shoot him instead.
Killing is never the answer to domestic violence--but separation is one good remedy Ann Gryboski chose not to take. Maybe it's time Dr. Gryboski take some of her own medicine, only this medicine doesn't come in the shape of a pill. She said, " I was trained to fix things". Well, Ann, this is one mess you just can't fix. But you can start by volunteering your time to help the thousands of women and children who suffer from the effects of domestic violence everyday. Then maybe someday we can forgive you for killing your husband when clearly, you had more choices than granted other women across the globe that choose to remain in battered relationships. Avoiding personal and professional responsibility while returning to your practice is not the remedy for the cure.
Read more about this story below:
94 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
08/25/07 @ 11:21 am
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
I have a problem with this. First, the message from the Doctor - "domestic abuse cannot be fixed by the abuser" and "once in an abusive relationship, no one can simply just leave" ????? Is this the message you want to give abused women???? Dont we have all kinds of options and shelters and counceling for abused women today???? And the social worker that said that "we FAILED this woman"? She didnt give us a chance to help her. I feel that this case SHOULD have gone to trial, for many reasons. If it was so cut and dry, then let it go to trial, so everyone can SEE. The message this whole story leaves woman with, is NOT GOOD for society. I wont even get into our criminal justice, on this island, which another WHOLE STORY in itself.
crusader [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
I think there are many who agree with you and they are of both genders. If nothing to hide, why not a trial? Her story would be more convincing if her husband was carrying a weapon. As a woman who was almost strangled by her husband, I realize she could have been overpowered. But her grown son, who weighed more, was stronger than his father (was recovering from hip surgery)would have been able to overpower him, no doubt. There is another element to this story that's missing, in my opinion. Just goes to show how status and money can buy some people out of a jam, while others have to pay the price.
If she is innocent than she should stand trial and prove it to the rest of the world. If she had as many as 2000+ patients who only see the "nice doctor side" of AG, and the iron fisted ruler DA to help push her story, well what else do you expect on lily white Cape Cod. God forbid, if ever a next time by a woman with no connnections, will the DA, residents, media and independence house be as forgiving?
I think there are many who agree with you and they are of both genders. If nothing to hide, why not a trial? Her story would be more convincing if her husband was carrying a weapon. As a woman who was almost strangled by her husband, I realize she could have been overpowered. But her grown son, who weighed more, was stronger than his father (was recovering from hip surgery)would have been able to overpower him, no doubt. There is another element to this story that's missing, in my opinion. Just goes to show how status and money can buy some people out of a jam, while others have to pay the price.
If she is innocent than she should stand trial and prove it to the rest of the world. If she had as many as 2000+ patients who only see the "nice doctor side" of AG, and the iron fisted ruler DA to help push her story, well what else do you expect on lily white Cape Cod. God forbid, if ever a next time by a woman with no connnections, will the DA, residents, media and independence house be as forgiving?
crusader [Member] writes:
And, yes you can just leave--I did and so have many other women. It was no easy decision for me, after 16 years, but seeing how it eroded our marriage and the way it affected our kids--made it easier. I was trying to break the cycle of abuse because I didn't want to see it continue with my kids. It hurts more as a mother to see your kids go through it. Life is never perfect, and it has not been an easy road, but if given the choice--I would never go back. Women don't realize they can make it on their own, but society doesn't teach us that. As women are trained by an early age to nurture and sacrifice, DV can deplete us of ourselves and if we don't learn to heal, and love ourselves, we run the risk of self-annihilation.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Yeah, but if you've ever seen The Burning Bed with Farrah Fawcett, you know how these guys can be. And he had said, "I'll kill her before I let her leave." Which is why a trial makes perfect sense....who would fault her if this is what she lived with? But they've set a dangerous precedent now, and they're going to have to live up to it. And you know damn well that this happens all the time, but instead of killing in self-defense, most women just take the beating. It's nice to know that now they don't have to. In fact, the DA's office should issue a gun to every woman in the Commonwealth --just in case.
crusader [Member] writes:
bittersweet,
I don't think issuing a gun to all abused women is a good idea--although, I must admit at times I wish I did own one. Most times, the attacker can & will turn the gun on the woman. But maybe a can of mace isn't a bad idea. The problem is,some women cry wolf & use a restraining order just to get back at a man for other reasons--so wrong, & that's what makes it hard for women who really need help. I did see the "Burning Bed", based on a true story, but goes to show some effects of severe abuse, & years of it will have on the victim. I think some just snap & the animal instinct of survival kicks in. We need to focus on educating our children as young as pre-school that violence is wrong, even in the home. I believe that is the first step in changing that culture. For every 10 women out there that get abused by a partner, I believe a man is as well. Sometimes women will learn certain defenses from childhood abuse & can abuse in other ways other than physical force; by withholding sex, verbal cruelty, degredation, manipulation, etc. My philosophy--if it don't work--GET OUT! Why be miserable?
I don't think issuing a gun to all abused women is a good idea--although, I must admit at times I wish I did own one. Most times, the attacker can & will turn the gun on the woman. But maybe a can of mace isn't a bad idea. The problem is,some women cry wolf & use a restraining order just to get back at a man for other reasons--so wrong, & that's what makes it hard for women who really need help. I did see the "Burning Bed", based on a true story, but goes to show some effects of severe abuse, & years of it will have on the victim. I think some just snap & the animal instinct of survival kicks in. We need to focus on educating our children as young as pre-school that violence is wrong, even in the home. I believe that is the first step in changing that culture. For every 10 women out there that get abused by a partner, I believe a man is as well. Sometimes women will learn certain defenses from childhood abuse & can abuse in other ways other than physical force; by withholding sex, verbal cruelty, degredation, manipulation, etc. My philosophy--if it don't work--GET OUT! Why be miserable?
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Yes, and I always thought they should teach little kids self-defense in gym class. And definately when you are grown. Mace is good. But the way this case was handled says to me, "Go out and buy a gun. It's ok if you use it."
Well, maybe at the least, it will make some abuser's think twice.
Well, maybe at the least, it will make some abuser's think twice.
crusader [Member] writes:
bittersweet,
My ex owned handguns,got taken away with the restraining order & the judge finally agreed to grant me a permanent order (not allowed until recent years). I hired a "pit bull" criminal lawyer to fight for my divorce(took 4 months in 98')to go after my ex & his scumbag lawyer (advised him to flee to NH to avoid paying child support) & soon the judge saw through his deceit. I even represented myself in court when my lawyer was unable to attend while the ex had 2 lawyers, but I won on my own even without my lawyer present. The judge was tired of seeing my ex's sour face in his courtroom, making up lies & fighting to get his guns back. But I never wavered & kept the order in place. I couldn't take the stalking & harassment & eventually fled to the Cape to get away from him. But he's remarried & unfortuately become another woman's problem. Until society rejects abusers--this problem will continue. And those who hold powerful positions get away with much more. Regardless, AG should have gone to trial.
My ex owned handguns,got taken away with the restraining order & the judge finally agreed to grant me a permanent order (not allowed until recent years). I hired a "pit bull" criminal lawyer to fight for my divorce(took 4 months in 98')to go after my ex & his scumbag lawyer (advised him to flee to NH to avoid paying child support) & soon the judge saw through his deceit. I even represented myself in court when my lawyer was unable to attend while the ex had 2 lawyers, but I won on my own even without my lawyer present. The judge was tired of seeing my ex's sour face in his courtroom, making up lies & fighting to get his guns back. But I never wavered & kept the order in place. I couldn't take the stalking & harassment & eventually fled to the Cape to get away from him. But he's remarried & unfortuately become another woman's problem. Until society rejects abusers--this problem will continue. And those who hold powerful positions get away with much more. Regardless, AG should have gone to trial.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Yes, now they're in it, and in it for good. Next time this happens, the SAME treatment BETTER apply. Either society has finally wised up to the true nature of domestic abuse, OR they have given the DA's friend special treatment under the law......I geuss we'll see, won't we?
Buzz [Member] writes:
Crusader,
You are just an idiot. There, I said it, someone had to. Did you read in the article about how Dr Gryboski got help for her husband, how she loved him and how at one point she thought he changed? Did you read the part how he choked her in front of family demonstrating what he did to a co-worker?
Did you read the part how he repeatedly punched her in the face while the grandchild was in the back seat and made her drop her hands so he could continue to punch her in the face? Did you see the pictures of her battered face?
Did you read about the final straw when as a mother she wasn't going to let the husband hurt her child? Did you read about the part where her husband said "your dead"?
You are just an idiot. There, I said it, someone had to. Did you read in the article about how Dr Gryboski got help for her husband, how she loved him and how at one point she thought he changed? Did you read the part how he choked her in front of family demonstrating what he did to a co-worker?
Did you read the part how he repeatedly punched her in the face while the grandchild was in the back seat and made her drop her hands so he could continue to punch her in the face? Did you see the pictures of her battered face?
Did you read about the final straw when as a mother she wasn't going to let the husband hurt her child? Did you read about the part where her husband said "your dead"?
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Well put as usual, Buzz. Crusader states - "until society rejects abusers - this problem will continue." Well, "society" in the form of one brave woman issued the ultimate rejection of abuse, and the abuser on the receiving end will never abuse again.
Cruader, please tell me in October who you think will win the World Series so I can bet the ranch on the other team.
Cruader, please tell me in October who you think will win the World Series so I can bet the ranch on the other team.
legaleagle [Member] writes:
Buzz,surely, you do not believe everything that you read in media print!
crusader [Member] writes:
Buzz & Jack,
Until your wives become heavy weight wrestlers & begin to pounce on you--don't waste my time with your biased & heavily swayed PRO O'KEEFE views on something you know little about. My ex threw me across rooms, punched me in the face, slammed the car door on my foot, threatened to throw me down the front stairs & lastly tried to strangle me to death, when I nearly blacked out--I kicked him away & ordered him to vacate for good. Maybe I could have opted for a gun too--he threated to kill me if I even looked at another man. Shame on me for staying so long, but that's what most women do who are taught the MAN RULES--& until we become financially independent, educated, develop self worth, there are few choices.
Dr.Gryboski had CHOICES--she came from a well off family, she had the means to divorce this guy & move on. This is not the 16th century---she got help from her buddy the DA. Those who know her as staff know this woman has another side to her she doesn't show her patients or the dumb ass public, including you two.
Until your wives become heavy weight wrestlers & begin to pounce on you--don't waste my time with your biased & heavily swayed PRO O'KEEFE views on something you know little about. My ex threw me across rooms, punched me in the face, slammed the car door on my foot, threatened to throw me down the front stairs & lastly tried to strangle me to death, when I nearly blacked out--I kicked him away & ordered him to vacate for good. Maybe I could have opted for a gun too--he threated to kill me if I even looked at another man. Shame on me for staying so long, but that's what most women do who are taught the MAN RULES--& until we become financially independent, educated, develop self worth, there are few choices.
Dr.Gryboski had CHOICES--she came from a well off family, she had the means to divorce this guy & move on. This is not the 16th century---she got help from her buddy the DA. Those who know her as staff know this woman has another side to her she doesn't show her patients or the dumb ass public, including you two.
crusader [Member] writes:
IMO-hubby was washed up & had hip surgery, she was going through mid-life crisis & maybe felt a sense of renewal. What woman carries a gun in her purse? Especially if babysitting her grandson. Claim according to brother-in-law in CO--some aggressive & domineering ways of the Gryboski women. I've heard this before about AG by some of her own staff.
How long before LE & EMT's were called to the home? What is the relationship between MO & AG? Are they friends or is it more? She's got so much remorse for what she has done, she can't wait to to back to work & have a great big pity party thrown by her patients & CCH. What is the revenue this woman brings to CCH, her practice, MRI, Radiology, etc. Her 4 month loss must have be breaking the little piggy bank---Boo Hoo, & now she feel's entitiled to get her medical license back--just like that. Gee, can daddy war-bucks help out with any other problems she might have? This is a clear case of WHITE UPPER CLASS PRIVILEGE & if you don't think so, you are sleeping in the dunes.
How long before LE & EMT's were called to the home? What is the relationship between MO & AG? Are they friends or is it more? She's got so much remorse for what she has done, she can't wait to to back to work & have a great big pity party thrown by her patients & CCH. What is the revenue this woman brings to CCH, her practice, MRI, Radiology, etc. Her 4 month loss must have be breaking the little piggy bank---Boo Hoo, & now she feel's entitiled to get her medical license back--just like that. Gee, can daddy war-bucks help out with any other problems she might have? This is a clear case of WHITE UPPER CLASS PRIVILEGE & if you don't think so, you are sleeping in the dunes.
crusader [Member] writes:
What are they hiding that no trial was warranted for this case? She should at the very least forfeit her medical license, if a trial was presented, we could all hear about the years & years of undocumented abuse by LE & courts. Maybe that's why it didn't go to trial. If a woman is that much in fear of her life & her children, makes 60-120k, does not choose a divorce, & stays then maybe she's the one who needs much psychological help. I didn't have family support,strict Italian Catholics --my family believed marriage is for life, even when it tears people down. I was alone,only for the help of a few friends, & the E. Sandwich guy who came to my rescue--I don't know where I would be today.
If there was a full investigation done in this case--TOLD TO THE PUBLIC, that convinced all how this event really occurred, & it was obvious AG acted in self-defense with no other alternatives---it would be a closed case. But that's not what went on here, you know it, I know it, & so does your wannabe emperor "towel wearing" DA man.
If there was a full investigation done in this case--TOLD TO THE PUBLIC, that convinced all how this event really occurred, & it was obvious AG acted in self-defense with no other alternatives---it would be a closed case. But that's not what went on here, you know it, I know it, & so does your wannabe emperor "towel wearing" DA man.
legaleagle [Member] writes:
Had a trial occured, I believe all the citizens would have heard all the evidence presented as to why the doctor was justifed in killing her husband (if that is the case) and may have laid to rest all the questions that are still left answered and still creating such controversy. after all, it is a crime to commit murder, and we as citizens of the commonwealth and taxpapers, as well, are entitled to hear the evidence as to how and why ,(supported by testimony by the prosecution and the defense)this crime occured and a jury of one's peers decides guilt or innocence based on that evidence.This has not happened here. You must ask yourself, why did this case not go to trial???this is the foundation that this great country came to be and no one has the right to deny any of us that .Liberty and Justice for All. our forefathers and most of our families ,even tonight,are fighting for that priviledge!
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Yeah, but we all know that a certain class of people are allowed to commit crimes and get away with it, and also do not have to fight for the priveledge of liberty and justice--they send other's to do it for them.
That's why this whole American ideal we like to believe in is turning into crap.
And isn't it funny that those who are so pro law and order can rescind it when it comes to someone they favor?
There's a lot of welfare moms being abused too guys....can they shoot their abusers too? Will you support them?
That's why this whole American ideal we like to believe in is turning into crap.
And isn't it funny that those who are so pro law and order can rescind it when it comes to someone they favor?
There's a lot of welfare moms being abused too guys....can they shoot their abusers too? Will you support them?
Buzz [Member] writes:
bittersweet,
Your comments are just to funny to even respond to.
crusader,
How is it that you have such an insight to the inner workings and information of LE and the DA. Do you have a "mole" working on the inside for you?
Or do you (as I believe) just make this crap up?
Your comments are just to funny to even respond to.
crusader,
How is it that you have such an insight to the inner workings and information of LE and the DA. Do you have a "mole" working on the inside for you?
Or do you (as I believe) just make this crap up?
crusader [Member] writes:
legaleagle,
Very good point--I mean it's not as though she was in court disputing a parking ticket, she KILLED HER HUSBAND, afterall, and whether or not it was justifiable homicide = self-defense, questions remain unanswered, and the public remains unconvinced she had no alternative but to shoot him. It still doesn't look good for the DA. If he's going to prosecute murderer's he must be consistent and get the job done right. I don't see that being the case, of his record as DA, thus far. Christa Worthington's case remains unsolved, in my opinion and he didn't respect her enough to find and prosecute the real killer. But Dr. Gryboski has been given a free pass when she admits to shooting her husband and the DA has sheilded her all along. Like my good friend, another defense lawyer said of the DA and company during the Callahan campaign, "they are bad guys, they let their friends off and put innocents in jail". So far, my friend is right by what I've seen in the CM case(who is innocent) and AG actions to the killing of her husband remains questionable.
Very good point--I mean it's not as though she was in court disputing a parking ticket, she KILLED HER HUSBAND, afterall, and whether or not it was justifiable homicide = self-defense, questions remain unanswered, and the public remains unconvinced she had no alternative but to shoot him. It still doesn't look good for the DA. If he's going to prosecute murderer's he must be consistent and get the job done right. I don't see that being the case, of his record as DA, thus far. Christa Worthington's case remains unsolved, in my opinion and he didn't respect her enough to find and prosecute the real killer. But Dr. Gryboski has been given a free pass when she admits to shooting her husband and the DA has sheilded her all along. Like my good friend, another defense lawyer said of the DA and company during the Callahan campaign, "they are bad guys, they let their friends off and put innocents in jail". So far, my friend is right by what I've seen in the CM case(who is innocent) and AG actions to the killing of her husband remains questionable.
Buzz [Member] writes:
legaleagle,
Thanks for setting the record straight "it's a crime to commit murder". Wasn't aware of that.
It's also the right of every citizen to defend themselves from harm and that's exactly what the Grand Jury of Barnstable County found for Ms Gryboski.
I know you and Crusader have a hard time with the legal process, but that's how our legal system works and many people believe its the best in the world.
Would you have preferred a Muslim style of justice and stoned the woman in the town square?
Thanks for setting the record straight "it's a crime to commit murder". Wasn't aware of that.
It's also the right of every citizen to defend themselves from harm and that's exactly what the Grand Jury of Barnstable County found for Ms Gryboski.
I know you and Crusader have a hard time with the legal process, but that's how our legal system works and many people believe its the best in the world.
Would you have preferred a Muslim style of justice and stoned the woman in the town square?
capemom [Member] writes:
Crusader, if Dr. Ann had been a poor black woman who killed her abusive husband and Michael O'Keeffe didn't press charges, you'd be writing diatribes against O'Keeffe for not arresting her husband sooner.
The fact is, you have no sympathy for female victims if they are white and affluent. Dr. Ann and Krista, in your mind, do not deserve justice.
Do you have ANY idea how hard a doctor like Dr. Ann works? She doesn't have a cushy university job with coffee breaks like you.
You'd think a women who has had an abusive husband like you did would have more sympathy for the victim.
The fact is, you have no sympathy for female victims if they are white and affluent. Dr. Ann and Krista, in your mind, do not deserve justice.
Do you have ANY idea how hard a doctor like Dr. Ann works? She doesn't have a cushy university job with coffee breaks like you.
You'd think a women who has had an abusive husband like you did would have more sympathy for the victim.
crusader [Member] writes:
capemom,
Your one to talk about having it "cushy". Go ahead, stick up for your affluent girlfriend --cause you are part of that same club of snobs who looks down at the working class stiffs. While working as a SINGLE mother unlike yourself, full-time, caring for elderly parent, assisting in home & rental remodeling, starting a craft business....I still manage to find time to blog-- speak out about injustices: the unjust life sentencing of a poor black trashman (CM) who's only crime was getting some white female action--obviously some white males weren't too keen on & set CM up. Now AG gets off without so much as a trial to show it was really self defense. Maybe you should try to retrack your alley cat claws & open your eyes wide. So many grouchy people on the Cape these days--I guess tourism must be down, so that means revenues are too. I worked for doctors for 8 years. I know how hard they work--I also know how hard THEIR STAFF WORKS too. If you think AG is so competent as an MD, sign your kids up as patients--bet you won't.
Your one to talk about having it "cushy". Go ahead, stick up for your affluent girlfriend --cause you are part of that same club of snobs who looks down at the working class stiffs. While working as a SINGLE mother unlike yourself, full-time, caring for elderly parent, assisting in home & rental remodeling, starting a craft business....I still manage to find time to blog-- speak out about injustices: the unjust life sentencing of a poor black trashman (CM) who's only crime was getting some white female action--obviously some white males weren't too keen on & set CM up. Now AG gets off without so much as a trial to show it was really self defense. Maybe you should try to retrack your alley cat claws & open your eyes wide. So many grouchy people on the Cape these days--I guess tourism must be down, so that means revenues are too. I worked for doctors for 8 years. I know how hard they work--I also know how hard THEIR STAFF WORKS too. If you think AG is so competent as an MD, sign your kids up as patients--bet you won't.
crusader [Member] writes:
btw capemom just to answer your illogical questions:
I do believe that MO can't prosecute without prejudice. It wouldn't matter what case--IMO, his judgments are dependent on what is good for his career--ONLY.
I guess you haven't been reading what I have written about Christa (not Krista) for the past 4 yrs. I always rush to her defense--your DA branded her a whore & writer too,for allowing it to get published. I don't think CW slept around as much as they wanted people to believe. I do care very much about ALL women who are abused/killed by violent men--I just don't approve of people (AG)trying to get off because they have the power,influence,$$$$$ to do so. If AG was slinging coffee & donuts, she would be locked up. Just strike one more for Lily White Cape Cod.
I only have sympathy for real victims. Until AG can prove she had years of abuse (undocumented by LE or Courts), & she has not be suffering from mental illness herself, & is not best buddies with the towelman.......my opinion of that incident stands--it should go to trial--on a FEDERAL level, like CM's case, because obviously this state of Corrupta-chusetts is a lost cause when it comes to hoping for a FAIR TRIAL for defense or prosecution. LOOK AT THE LIMONE CASE and OUTCOME....after 30 years?
I do believe that MO can't prosecute without prejudice. It wouldn't matter what case--IMO, his judgments are dependent on what is good for his career--ONLY.
I guess you haven't been reading what I have written about Christa (not Krista) for the past 4 yrs. I always rush to her defense--your DA branded her a whore & writer too,for allowing it to get published. I don't think CW slept around as much as they wanted people to believe. I do care very much about ALL women who are abused/killed by violent men--I just don't approve of people (AG)trying to get off because they have the power,influence,$$$$$ to do so. If AG was slinging coffee & donuts, she would be locked up. Just strike one more for Lily White Cape Cod.
I only have sympathy for real victims. Until AG can prove she had years of abuse (undocumented by LE or Courts), & she has not be suffering from mental illness herself, & is not best buddies with the towelman.......my opinion of that incident stands--it should go to trial--on a FEDERAL level, like CM's case, because obviously this state of Corrupta-chusetts is a lost cause when it comes to hoping for a FAIR TRIAL for defense or prosecution. LOOK AT THE LIMONE CASE and OUTCOME....after 30 years?
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
To Buzz
Is it beyond you to have an adult conversation without calling names? What are you 12?
Is it beyond you to have an adult conversation without calling names? What are you 12?
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
SOME of us, do not believe that our criminal justice is system is infallible and have the right to question it. That is what a TRIAL is for. In this case, the system was not allowed to work. If you are one of those who just accepts anything our LE and criminal justice system decides, then, as I said before, get a red and white cane, and a cup and hit the streets. People who are OPEN minded, have the right to question, and SHOULD.
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
Yes, I'm the only "name" caller here. Pleazzzzze.
Please explain how "the system was not allowed to work"? Did the Grand Jury do there job?
Yes, I'm the only "name" caller here. Pleazzzzze.
Please explain how "the system was not allowed to work"? Did the Grand Jury do there job?
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Well now...since I dont resort to name calling.....I will repeat myself for you. "That is what a trial is for.." Try going back and read what I said. And no, I dont believe the Grand Jury did THEIR job.
Buzz [Member] writes:
No name calling from you, your above the fray....nice.
"The function of the grand jury is primarily that of a watchdog, ensuring that local government is performing with efficiency, impartiality, honesty, and for the benefit of the community. "
Again, please explain what I'm missing? Why don't you explain here and now, exactly why the Grand Jury didn't do there job? I'm assuming you sat in on the Grand Jury so you know all the facts that they were presented with......take it away clamshelli!
"The function of the grand jury is primarily that of a watchdog, ensuring that local government is performing with efficiency, impartiality, honesty, and for the benefit of the community. "
Again, please explain what I'm missing? Why don't you explain here and now, exactly why the Grand Jury didn't do there job? I'm assuming you sat in on the Grand Jury so you know all the facts that they were presented with......take it away clamshelli!
legaleagle [Member] writes:
Buzz,I agree with you. We do have the best legal system.I would;however, have a problem if the Grand Jurors were misled and if some evidence was withheld..Unfortunately, some questions,can never be answered due to the secrecy of the Grand Jury.As I am sure you know, they do not determine guilt or innocence when they vote, and the evidence presented by the prosecution is just that! just what the prosecutor wants the jurors to hear.so very different from a trial.
If you re-read my earlier post,my platform was that A trial would have answered all the questions and guilt or innoncence would have been determined and we would not be having these discussions today.
Your reference to Muslim Law is not only inappropriate it is irrelevent to this discussion.
If you re-read my earlier post,my platform was that A trial would have answered all the questions and guilt or innoncence would have been determined and we would not be having these discussions today.
Your reference to Muslim Law is not only inappropriate it is irrelevent to this discussion.
noggin [Visitor] writes:
There is a precident for the actions of the DA and it's one I approve. If you have been around a while, you will remember how Rollins handled a similar case. We do have a means of sending a message to those who abuse women, children, the elderly and infirm. That is to investigate and NOT Proscecute those poor victims who finally take control of their lives and murder the perpetrator.
A harsh penalty but one that was deserved by the so called victim in this case.
If we as a society continue to allow people to victimize others, it will continue. When we send a firm message that those who strike back will be vindicated, we go a long way to sending the message to wife beaters - Don't - we won't proscecute or convict the person you are abusing if that person finally ends your scummy life.
A harsh penalty but one that was deserved by the so called victim in this case.
If we as a society continue to allow people to victimize others, it will continue. When we send a firm message that those who strike back will be vindicated, we go a long way to sending the message to wife beaters - Don't - we won't proscecute or convict the person you are abusing if that person finally ends your scummy life.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Thank you Legaleagle, you stated that better than I could.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
To Noggin,
I guess we have come full circle then, when it comes to providing support and safe haven for abused women. In the past, women had no where to go, and no support. Now, we have numerous options for abused women. A Doctor, especially, would know of these programs. While I agree that a woman who has been battered for years, and her self esteem has been reduced to nothing, has a right to defend herself with by any means she has, BUT, let there be a trial for the public to see the abuse, and hear the evidence, and then clear the woman of charges. The spotlight is on the DA right now. Is there no wonder that this case has drawn so many questions? The public has a right to question. A trial would have answered some of those questions.
I guess we have come full circle then, when it comes to providing support and safe haven for abused women. In the past, women had no where to go, and no support. Now, we have numerous options for abused women. A Doctor, especially, would know of these programs. While I agree that a woman who has been battered for years, and her self esteem has been reduced to nothing, has a right to defend herself with by any means she has, BUT, let there be a trial for the public to see the abuse, and hear the evidence, and then clear the woman of charges. The spotlight is on the DA right now. Is there no wonder that this case has drawn so many questions? The public has a right to question. A trial would have answered some of those questions.
crusader [Member] writes:
noggin:
If she was a poor woman slinging coffee donuts,and struggling just to get by with a couple of kids--I would applaud your statement. But this case was handled in a highly suspicious manner--secretive. Neigbors, family members present(daughter-in-law) and other witnesses who may have brought in to provide additional information were PREVENTED from coming forward, by what we were told. This is wrong.
If there is nothing to hide, why not let people speak. At the very least, she should be forced to do community service in lieu of jail time, without medical license reinstatement.
I just hope the same considerations are made for the broke abused mom who decides to take the life of her batterer IF she had no other way out.
If she was a poor woman slinging coffee donuts,and struggling just to get by with a couple of kids--I would applaud your statement. But this case was handled in a highly suspicious manner--secretive. Neigbors, family members present(daughter-in-law) and other witnesses who may have brought in to provide additional information were PREVENTED from coming forward, by what we were told. This is wrong.
If there is nothing to hide, why not let people speak. At the very least, she should be forced to do community service in lieu of jail time, without medical license reinstatement.
I just hope the same considerations are made for the broke abused mom who decides to take the life of her batterer IF she had no other way out.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
It's just odd the way they handled it, that's all. Usually, a grand Jury is totally pro-prosecution(and yes, I have been on one) In fact, it was SO one-sided, it really pissed me off! But here, instead of presenting the facts of what happened, they put people on in the Dr.'s defense! THAT"S unusual in a Grand Jury room. And you say there is precedent, well I'd like to know what that was exactly.
legaleagle [Member] writes:
this is just my thought.I suspect the DA presented to the Grand Jurors evidence of the many years of domestic violence as well as the threat to the grandchild and the family on Easter Weekend,and perhaps other incidents as well as her mental state. Additionally, others may have supported that evidence.Obviously,he was not leading them to an indictment as in most cases the Grand Jury does not act contrary to the prosecutions wishes.What would be interesting to know is "Was it unanimous?" or were there less than 2/3rds who wanted an indictment? Again the secrecy surrounding a Grand Jury, will leave those questions unanswered at least for the time being.so perhaps, they would argue that they were not acting in her defense but merely presenting all the circumstances that led up to the crime and why she was justified in shooting Mr. Lancaster.
ckitout [Member] writes:
The law does not allow for excessive force. She could have shot him in the legs. Her son was bigger than the father. Don't assume the grand jury heard from revelent people. Did his doctor testify?? If they did not hear from her ex-brother in-law who offered a different prospective how many others were turned away. 27 wittnesses how many spoke on Lancaster's behalf???
Buzz [Member] writes:
The Grand Jury has the right to call whomever they want to testify before them.
"let there be a trial for the public to see the abuse," Is that the purpose of the trial? What about the precedent for protecting the victim? Like rape cases or children that are victims?
Re: ckitout's comments about shooting him in the leg. She shot him in the stomach, I don't know anyone that will tell you to shoot someone in the stomach in order to kill them. I think you've been watching to many movies if you believe that in a situation like this, the victim can disable the person by shooting them in the leg.
"let there be a trial for the public to see the abuse," Is that the purpose of the trial? What about the precedent for protecting the victim? Like rape cases or children that are victims?
Re: ckitout's comments about shooting him in the leg. She shot him in the stomach, I don't know anyone that will tell you to shoot someone in the stomach in order to kill them. I think you've been watching to many movies if you believe that in a situation like this, the victim can disable the person by shooting them in the leg.
noggin [Visitor] writes:
I know of at least one "poor" woman who walked.
I don't advocate indiscriminate murder of wife beaters, but neither am I going to pretend that all the options available to abused women work. In point of fact, they don't. That's why we have this huge network of social services available to abused women. If we horse whipped abusers, brought back the pillory, or looked the other way when they abused killed their attackers, then maybe, just maybe, they would get the idea that they have to learn to control their behavior or suffer the consequences.
So far, I can't see that our society has succeeded in teaching these guys anything but that they can get away with a slow, torturous murder, but their victims can't.
I don't advocate indiscriminate murder of wife beaters, but neither am I going to pretend that all the options available to abused women work. In point of fact, they don't. That's why we have this huge network of social services available to abused women. If we horse whipped abusers, brought back the pillory, or looked the other way when they abused killed their attackers, then maybe, just maybe, they would get the idea that they have to learn to control their behavior or suffer the consequences.
So far, I can't see that our society has succeeded in teaching these guys anything but that they can get away with a slow, torturous murder, but their victims can't.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
I totally agree that these guys have murder as their goal--be it physical, or destroying a woman mentally, but at the same time, after 20 years, you pretty much know what the guy's all about. Wouldn't you say that once was enough? Anything after that is to be expected. Where is her responsability for staying? And putting the kids in it? Don't they say it takes two to tango? And I realize he said "I'll kill her before I let her go", but there were so many opportunities for her to get the hell out!!! She chose to stay, and she chose to shoot him. Now she must suffer the consequences of her actions...She doesn't have the "right" to be a doctor, and she has violated her sacred oath. Maybe she could go into counseling other victims, or treating abused women at a free clinic, or something. She took her freedom, and I say halleluya, but as you all like to say, freedom isn't free. She has to pay the price.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Buzz, with regards to your comments. I believe Chitout's point was that she could have disabled him with a bullet to the leg, The shot to a vascular organ such as the abdomen can be deadly(particularly if emergency measures are not available for a time)which raises another question for discussion later.
Jessica Lundsford was brutually raped, tortured and suffocated to death , yet her father wnated the world to know what a despicable man John Couey(sp?)was and wanted justice, so I am rather unclear as to what you mean when you speak of children and rape victims.When a crime is committed,the victim, the perpertrator, the attorneys,the witnesses all enter the public arena like it or not.
Jessica Lundsford was brutually raped, tortured and suffocated to death , yet her father wnated the world to know what a despicable man John Couey(sp?)was and wanted justice, so I am rather unclear as to what you mean when you speak of children and rape victims.When a crime is committed,the victim, the perpertrator, the attorneys,the witnesses all enter the public arena like it or not.
crusader [Member] writes:
legaleagle,
But there were no reports filed with the police or courts and allegedly this abuse went on for over 20 years? That is a very long time to put up with abuse and never reach out to law enforcement. Maybe if sons gave testimony it would be considered. I wonder how unbiased a GJ could be given her practice is nearby and she has over 2000+ patients--that buys quite a bit of free PR all in her favor.
chitout,
you raise good points--and why two shots fired? If he was already using a walker, and had limited mobility from hip surgery, couldn't she and the son overpower him just enough to diffuse an explosive situation? Shots in the abdomen at close range, I would imagine are fatal.
But still we don't know how much time she waited to call the ambulance. And yes, what of the brother-in-law from Colorado and others who may be able to shed more light to this case.
But there were no reports filed with the police or courts and allegedly this abuse went on for over 20 years? That is a very long time to put up with abuse and never reach out to law enforcement. Maybe if sons gave testimony it would be considered. I wonder how unbiased a GJ could be given her practice is nearby and she has over 2000+ patients--that buys quite a bit of free PR all in her favor.
chitout,
you raise good points--and why two shots fired? If he was already using a walker, and had limited mobility from hip surgery, couldn't she and the son overpower him just enough to diffuse an explosive situation? Shots in the abdomen at close range, I would imagine are fatal.
But still we don't know how much time she waited to call the ambulance. And yes, what of the brother-in-law from Colorado and others who may be able to shed more light to this case.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
I prefer to shy away from the question "why did she stay".
the Grand Jury acts in concert with the prosecution particularly in this case (Federal GJ may be another issue).I believe that many either knew her ,knew of her,may have in fact been patients of hers at one time,after all it is a very small community,hard to not know something about her.
how many shots, 2 or 3? entrance wounds exit wounds??again no answers
the 911 call is quite crtical but only if we knew when the shooting occured,the 911 transcripts would be very intersting as to who made it,and what was the deameanor of the caller and where was the called made from?
as for the former brother in law.I believe that most will dismiss him as scorned, bitter and as the he states the prosecution referred to him as "Having an axe to grind" and that may very well be the case unless he can provide evidence to disprove this, not just "marital heresay ",and he may yet do that,we don't know.many questions, few answers!
the Grand Jury acts in concert with the prosecution particularly in this case (Federal GJ may be another issue).I believe that many either knew her ,knew of her,may have in fact been patients of hers at one time,after all it is a very small community,hard to not know something about her.
how many shots, 2 or 3? entrance wounds exit wounds??again no answers
the 911 call is quite crtical but only if we knew when the shooting occured,the 911 transcripts would be very intersting as to who made it,and what was the deameanor of the caller and where was the called made from?
as for the former brother in law.I believe that most will dismiss him as scorned, bitter and as the he states the prosecution referred to him as "Having an axe to grind" and that may very well be the case unless he can provide evidence to disprove this, not just "marital heresay ",and he may yet do that,we don't know.many questions, few answers!
cricket [Member] writes:
If crusader is really a woman who had an abusive husband, then I am especially struck by her willingness to second guess the details of Ann Gryboski's personal life.
Who are any of us to judge?
We can't know what it was like, and it's none of our business.
Who are any of us to judge?
We can't know what it was like, and it's none of our business.
Buzz [Member] writes:
legaleagle,
Many years ago, I sat on the Barnstable County GJ. As you may know, you sit for a year and are called every couple of months when needed. In all the cases we looked at, I did not no a single defendant. And given my job at the time and years on the Cape that's quiet remarkable. So for you to say that many knew her or were her patients is wrong. Additionally, the DA asks if you have any connection to the victim or defendant. It's this kind of information that you and crusader just throw around that has basis in fact. crusaders continuance to "blame the victim" for not getting out is just appalling.
Many years ago, I sat on the Barnstable County GJ. As you may know, you sit for a year and are called every couple of months when needed. In all the cases we looked at, I did not no a single defendant. And given my job at the time and years on the Cape that's quiet remarkable. So for you to say that many knew her or were her patients is wrong. Additionally, the DA asks if you have any connection to the victim or defendant. It's this kind of information that you and crusader just throw around that has basis in fact. crusaders continuance to "blame the victim" for not getting out is just appalling.
Buzz [Member] writes:
'NO basis in fact" sorry,
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
no body on the sitting Grand Jury did not know of the DR ?Buzz, Jurors do not always rise to their fudiciary responsiblity unfortunately but that's they way it is with human nature these days.why can't you enter into the discussion without acting like a pitbull?you attack for grammatical errors,when in fact the discussion dictates something more serious than having the Spellcheck Police step in. that's why some are chosen during selection.some are dsimissed, some are removed during the course of trial,so now you have opened another can of worms regarding the sitting Grand Jury , and what they knew and when they knew it intersting. speaks volumes .
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Buzz, forgot this, If you wish to post to me directly, feel free to do so. If you wish to post to all. add et al Just protocol and I am a stickler for that, as I envision a long continuous relationship as all this unfolds, thank you,
crusader [Member] writes:
You would be critical of me regardless, even if I rushed to her defense, due to the adversarial nature of our debates on this site--that goes to Buzz, Jack & Capemom. You will always disagree with me no matter what I write, so your opinion holds no validity. I shared my personal accounts in an attempt to show I believe in violent free alternatives to issues of DV (you prove very reasons I should not & always use something to personally attack me--just to force me off this site-won't happen--my character is not up for debate, these topics are).
If we are to punish abusers, we also need to make certain we also punish those who MURDER them--VIGILANTISM should not be an alternative---IF VICTIMS of DV HAVE BEEN GIVEN ALTERNATIVES, which AG certainly had, she should have used them, she knew better as an MD. If she didn't exercise her right to seek outside support(which I did many times) then shame on her. I'm not voting gas chamber--I'm voting a TRIAL & to see the FACTS which led to her husbands death, and by a JURY of her PEERS, but again, I'm convinced that Barnstable Courthouse is not the place to receive a fair trial, for defendant or dead victim and as long as that DA gets to call ALL the shots. Christa W. deserved better & so did Mr. Lancaster. There is no DUE PROCESS used that I can see in either case.
If we are to punish abusers, we also need to make certain we also punish those who MURDER them--VIGILANTISM should not be an alternative---IF VICTIMS of DV HAVE BEEN GIVEN ALTERNATIVES, which AG certainly had, she should have used them, she knew better as an MD. If she didn't exercise her right to seek outside support(which I did many times) then shame on her. I'm not voting gas chamber--I'm voting a TRIAL & to see the FACTS which led to her husbands death, and by a JURY of her PEERS, but again, I'm convinced that Barnstable Courthouse is not the place to receive a fair trial, for defendant or dead victim and as long as that DA gets to call ALL the shots. Christa W. deserved better & so did Mr. Lancaster. There is no DUE PROCESS used that I can see in either case.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
The divide between class is as destructive as the divide between race. I don't think there's any question who comes out ahead here on Cape Cod.....white and/or wealthy. Can any one seriously dispute that?
Buzz [Member] writes:
legaleagel,
The only grammatical errors i've been correcting are my own. You'll have to explain to me why you think I'm a "pitbull"? If I disagree with your positon, that makes me a pitbull? Interesting. This is a blog site and the purpose of a blog as I know it is for people to express their opinions and challenge the opinions they disagree with. Maybe you have a better insight on blogging you'd like to share. I'm open for suggestions.
Also, do you have any factual information you can provide us on any members of the GJ and their relationship with Dr G? As I mentioned, being a former GJ member, we took the responsibility quite seriously and were completly objective in our decisions.
The only grammatical errors i've been correcting are my own. You'll have to explain to me why you think I'm a "pitbull"? If I disagree with your positon, that makes me a pitbull? Interesting. This is a blog site and the purpose of a blog as I know it is for people to express their opinions and challenge the opinions they disagree with. Maybe you have a better insight on blogging you'd like to share. I'm open for suggestions.
Also, do you have any factual information you can provide us on any members of the GJ and their relationship with Dr G? As I mentioned, being a former GJ member, we took the responsibility quite seriously and were completly objective in our decisions.
crusader [Member] writes:
Another theory of what may have happened. I'm open to evaluating any and all other possibilities of series of events that led up to PL's death, since we don't know much of the details.
Is it possible that instead of acting in self-defense, it was accidental? Maybe she threatened with the gun (or son did) and maybe it just went off? I would be more inclinded to believe that story, than one of self-defense. We were told Mr. L was using a walker--just how dangerous was he after hip surgery?
What would the penalty be for an accidental shooting? Manslaughter--with some jail time?
So it seems possibly the Battered Wife plea may have worked easier than if it was an accident.
Is it possible that instead of acting in self-defense, it was accidental? Maybe she threatened with the gun (or son did) and maybe it just went off? I would be more inclinded to believe that story, than one of self-defense. We were told Mr. L was using a walker--just how dangerous was he after hip surgery?
What would the penalty be for an accidental shooting? Manslaughter--with some jail time?
So it seems possibly the Battered Wife plea may have worked easier than if it was an accident.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
To Buzz,
You wrote:
The only grammatical errors i've been correcting are my own. You'll have to explain to me why you think I'm a "pitbull"? If I disagree with your positon, that makes me a pitbull? Interesting. This is a blog site and the purpose of a blog as I know it is for people to express their opinions and challenge the opinions they disagree with. Maybe you have a better insight on blogging you'd like to share. I'm open for suggestions.
My suggestion, drop the name calling. Once you resorted to that, I know that I cannot have an adult discussion with you.
You wrote:
The only grammatical errors i've been correcting are my own. You'll have to explain to me why you think I'm a "pitbull"? If I disagree with your positon, that makes me a pitbull? Interesting. This is a blog site and the purpose of a blog as I know it is for people to express their opinions and challenge the opinions they disagree with. Maybe you have a better insight on blogging you'd like to share. I'm open for suggestions.
My suggestion, drop the name calling. Once you resorted to that, I know that I cannot have an adult discussion with you.
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
I'm confused. Are you and legaleagle one in the same? You seem to be answering questions asked of them. Again, what name calling are you refering to? And drop the "adult" discussion crap. I've been making just as pertinent arguments as you or anyone else.
I'm confused. Are you and legaleagle one in the same? You seem to be answering questions asked of them. Again, what name calling are you refering to? And drop the "adult" discussion crap. I've been making just as pertinent arguments as you or anyone else.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Buzz,
No, I am not legaleagle. I dont think you really want me to post again your name calling post.....but hell, I since you asked: Buzz (registered user) writes:
Crusader,
You are just an idiot. There, I said it, someone had to. (snipped)
OK? there, I did it - cuz you asked.
oh, last I heard, this was a PUBLIC forum, not a private message board.
No, I am not legaleagle. I dont think you really want me to post again your name calling post.....but hell, I since you asked: Buzz (registered user) writes:
Crusader,
You are just an idiot. There, I said it, someone had to. (snipped)
OK? there, I did it - cuz you asked.
oh, last I heard, this was a PUBLIC forum, not a private message board.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
good point, bittersweet - a classless society is clearly the only way toward utopian salvation, provided of course that the proletariat control the means of production ...
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
Don't be to concerned with me calling crusader an "idiot". She has quiet a history of name calling herself. Look at her most recent post re: Mr Kenney. Sorry if I'm not politically correct when it comes to blogging, I'd rather be honest with my positions than to make you like me. I'd suggest you develop a thicker skin when it comes to the blogosphere. Like they say....opinions are like #$%$@#@'s everyones got one.
Don't be to concerned with me calling crusader an "idiot". She has quiet a history of name calling herself. Look at her most recent post re: Mr Kenney. Sorry if I'm not politically correct when it comes to blogging, I'd rather be honest with my positions than to make you like me. I'd suggest you develop a thicker skin when it comes to the blogosphere. Like they say....opinions are like #$%$@#@'s everyones got one.
crusader [Member] writes:
Buzz,
Please explain: "She has quiet a history of name calling herself. Look at her most recent post re: Mr Kenney."
Be more specific if you wish to be credible. If I said something "out of line", well it didn't come without provocation. I'm tired of attempts to run this site as if it were your own fifetum. I don't make personal attacks as a general rule--it's childish, rude & counter-productive to otherwise mature/intelligent debates. I see it as a way to deflect from the issue at hand. By making personal attacks like, "your unemployable, delusional, crazy"....my statements may seen less valid to those who don't really know me. If I was any of the above, I doubt the blogfather would allow me to continue to write for this site. Some value my perspective, as I value those who post with integrity & genuine concern for the greater good. We are talking about INJUSTICE in the courtsystem & quite possibly the DA's office. If you are PRO O'KEEFE--that is your prerogative, but taking cheap shots to discredit me & others, is a waste of time.
Please explain: "She has quiet a history of name calling herself. Look at her most recent post re: Mr Kenney."
Be more specific if you wish to be credible. If I said something "out of line", well it didn't come without provocation. I'm tired of attempts to run this site as if it were your own fifetum. I don't make personal attacks as a general rule--it's childish, rude & counter-productive to otherwise mature/intelligent debates. I see it as a way to deflect from the issue at hand. By making personal attacks like, "your unemployable, delusional, crazy"....my statements may seen less valid to those who don't really know me. If I was any of the above, I doubt the blogfather would allow me to continue to write for this site. Some value my perspective, as I value those who post with integrity & genuine concern for the greater good. We are talking about INJUSTICE in the courtsystem & quite possibly the DA's office. If you are PRO O'KEEFE--that is your prerogative, but taking cheap shots to discredit me & others, is a waste of time.
Buzz [Member] writes:
crusader,
Please except my apology. The Mr Kenny comment recently posted was from "capecrusader" not crusader. My bad and I accept full reponsibility.
However, the comments you've made in the past re: the good residents of Cape Cod are well documented.I am not "pro or con O'keefe" In the Dr case and the CM case the law and jury has spoken. You refuse to except the decisions.
I don't know you personally so enough about the personal attacks. I, much like you and everyone else here are attacking your comments as you attack ours. Just get over it. If you, legaleagle and clamshelli don't like the atmosphere of the blog, then don't blog! It's that easy. You blog, I blog to get a response....end of story.
Please except my apology. The Mr Kenny comment recently posted was from "capecrusader" not crusader. My bad and I accept full reponsibility.
However, the comments you've made in the past re: the good residents of Cape Cod are well documented.I am not "pro or con O'keefe" In the Dr case and the CM case the law and jury has spoken. You refuse to except the decisions.
I don't know you personally so enough about the personal attacks. I, much like you and everyone else here are attacking your comments as you attack ours. Just get over it. If you, legaleagle and clamshelli don't like the atmosphere of the blog, then don't blog! It's that easy. You blog, I blog to get a response....end of story.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Let me say something about Crusader. I was so glad to see her first post regarding the Worthington murder trial. She was coming out and saying exactly what I was feeling. She has the guts to say what I might not dare to. She may take things to the extreme at times, but if not for extremists in this country, change would not have happened when it was needed. I am always grateful when someone takes the extreme in an important issue. Their courage to take on the nasty and childish remarks, and name calling, clears a path for those with ...maybe a more moderate opinion to voice. I dont agree with everything Crusader says, and we have always been able to have our discussions and disagreements. To me, when a person resorts to name calling, it just means that they dont have an intelligent comeback. I am grateful she is here.
blackjackbarnes [Member] writes:
Crusader lays it out pretty well. Gryboski may be getting away with murder. The irony of our prosecutorial system however, is that the good doctor could still be indicted in the future, if additional information were to surface, or the AG wanted to look into the case, or there was a new DA.
Buzz [Member] writes:
crusader,
One more thing, it wasn't me who said "your unemployable, delusional, crazy"...." So please, get your facts straight. I do admit to calling you an idiot though.
One more thing, it wasn't me who said "your unemployable, delusional, crazy"...." So please, get your facts straight. I do admit to calling you an idiot though.
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
When crusader makes her "nasty" blanket statements about the good people of CC... is that okay because she's an extremist? Or when she publicly comments on a Dr who has just gone through the most devastating event in her life and crusader makes comments about her family, friends, emmotional and physical state with not one single proof.... that's okay in your book? And I don't have the right to comment and express my opinion about how I feel? Why don't you consider me an extremist and cut me some slack?
When crusader makes her "nasty" blanket statements about the good people of CC... is that okay because she's an extremist? Or when she publicly comments on a Dr who has just gone through the most devastating event in her life and crusader makes comments about her family, friends, emmotional and physical state with not one single proof.... that's okay in your book? And I don't have the right to comment and express my opinion about how I feel? Why don't you consider me an extremist and cut me some slack?
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
No....there is a big difference there. YOU are a name caller, and a personal attacker. I happen to be one of those "good people of Cape Cod". I dont take her general comments personally, because she is not talking about me. If you are one of those people she is talking about, then....if the shoe fits....oh well. Still, she did not personally attack YOU. She made a general comment. Why should I cut you some slack? I havent called you any names. I am just having a discussion, a difference of opinion. And I can do it without personally attacking you. Just goes to show you, how you can really get to someone WITHOUT calling them names...huh?
crusader [Member] writes:
Okay buzz,
My opinions are strong--I'm a risk taker, nothing wrong with that--I try to stir the pot at times to make people THINK of all sides of an issue. B. George made a comment during the McCowen trial ---"until this happens to a family member, then people will care". I agree (want to prove him wrong, I care)& that's why I will always maintain CM's innocence & protect CW's honor. Instead of blaming the dead victims (CW & PL) lets take a HARD look at ALL the evidence in each case--not just SELECTED by the prosecution. People had no right to judge CW by her sexual preferences, & did. Are others so harshly judged? No--for the guys, they are studs, for the women they are whores. The way I see it--the attack of CW's character (made by DA & others) & combination of her sleeping with the black trashman weighed heavily on the outcome of that trial. Taxpayers of this commonwealth including the island of CC, have a duty to make inquiries of the DA, LE, judges, & anyone else on the state payroll. This is still Democracy--not a Dictatorship. If AG had an active sexual life with multiple partners would she be judged differently? And PL, like CW can't tell us their side --because they are dead, so we have to rely solely on the testimonies of those who it benefits--that's unacceptable.
My opinions are strong--I'm a risk taker, nothing wrong with that--I try to stir the pot at times to make people THINK of all sides of an issue. B. George made a comment during the McCowen trial ---"until this happens to a family member, then people will care". I agree (want to prove him wrong, I care)& that's why I will always maintain CM's innocence & protect CW's honor. Instead of blaming the dead victims (CW & PL) lets take a HARD look at ALL the evidence in each case--not just SELECTED by the prosecution. People had no right to judge CW by her sexual preferences, & did. Are others so harshly judged? No--for the guys, they are studs, for the women they are whores. The way I see it--the attack of CW's character (made by DA & others) & combination of her sleeping with the black trashman weighed heavily on the outcome of that trial. Taxpayers of this commonwealth including the island of CC, have a duty to make inquiries of the DA, LE, judges, & anyone else on the state payroll. This is still Democracy--not a Dictatorship. If AG had an active sexual life with multiple partners would she be judged differently? And PL, like CW can't tell us their side --because they are dead, so we have to rely solely on the testimonies of those who it benefits--that's unacceptable.
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
Is that your real name? I don't think so. Neiter is crusader a real name...yet, I'm having a discussion with you regarding name calling? YOU, called me 12 years old and said I should hit the streets with a red and white cane (please apologize to our blind bloggers) before you cast stones....
Is that your real name? I don't think so. Neiter is crusader a real name...yet, I'm having a discussion with you regarding name calling? YOU, called me 12 years old and said I should hit the streets with a red and white cane (please apologize to our blind bloggers) before you cast stones....
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Now Buzz,
Here is a perfect example of where the Crusader and I may disagree...a bit. I am not concerned as much with clearing CW's name, or even all that whacked out about clearing CM's name. What caused me outrage in that trial was the obvious lies and manipulation of the evidence and jury in that trial...by our LE. OUTRAGED that if we cannot trust our own LE, then we are all screwed.
Here is a perfect example of where the Crusader and I may disagree...a bit. I am not concerned as much with clearing CW's name, or even all that whacked out about clearing CM's name. What caused me outrage in that trial was the obvious lies and manipulation of the evidence and jury in that trial...by our LE. OUTRAGED that if we cannot trust our own LE, then we are all screwed.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
umm....now youre really diggin deep, but hey, Ill bite. I ASKED you if you were 12. And I also said, anyone that just takes what our LE or DA or GJ says as the bible truth, without question, should have a red and white cane.....as I said before...if the shoe fits......
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Buzz, perhaps you should also consider how you've demeaned idiots around the world by referring to Crusader as one. Speaking only for myself, I was deeply hurt - and yes, dare I say it? degraded - by that remark.
clamshelli [Visitor] writes:
Hey Buzz, I am gonna cut you some slack now! Although this is sure easy and fun, I have to get some work done here. Enjoy!
Buzz [Member] writes:
crusader,
I enjoy the back and forth with you. Yes, I got fustrated with your portrayal of Dr G. and called you an idiot. Don't read into that to much. I don't know you as a person... but as the blogger crusader. I'm glad you have your strong opinons and express them here. But why some on this blog get upset at those who resent or disagree with your comments is beyond me. If you express your opinon and describe CCodders as "snobs" or "living on fantasy island" thats okay. But I'm a bad person for calling you an idiot. keep on blogging, you make it interesting.
I enjoy the back and forth with you. Yes, I got fustrated with your portrayal of Dr G. and called you an idiot. Don't read into that to much. I don't know you as a person... but as the blogger crusader. I'm glad you have your strong opinons and express them here. But why some on this blog get upset at those who resent or disagree with your comments is beyond me. If you express your opinon and describe CCodders as "snobs" or "living on fantasy island" thats okay. But I'm a bad person for calling you an idiot. keep on blogging, you make it interesting.
crusader [Member] writes:
Buzz,
Just for the record, I never said I hated everyone on Cape Cod--just those who took great advantage of my integrity & hard work, & some other's who thought they could get the better of me, when I spoke out about injustices I saw first hand, they couldn't & failed miserably. No reason to hate me. I still have friends on the Cape, good neighbors & some in surrounding towns, who know I blog & agree with what I say. They feel stuck on the island & remain silent due to fear of retaliation.
And, you say I am too critical, but the DA told the entire world he considered CW a whore, in his own words.."she would do the butcher, baker...an equal opportunity player....and a pig". He is a paid official who is hired to protect victims of crime. Maybe it's okay for the DA to say whatever he wants about anyone--but not okay for me to inquire, make logical judgements of those who I see may be getting away with a crime. Big difference.
Just for the record, I never said I hated everyone on Cape Cod--just those who took great advantage of my integrity & hard work, & some other's who thought they could get the better of me, when I spoke out about injustices I saw first hand, they couldn't & failed miserably. No reason to hate me. I still have friends on the Cape, good neighbors & some in surrounding towns, who know I blog & agree with what I say. They feel stuck on the island & remain silent due to fear of retaliation.
And, you say I am too critical, but the DA told the entire world he considered CW a whore, in his own words.."she would do the butcher, baker...an equal opportunity player....and a pig". He is a paid official who is hired to protect victims of crime. Maybe it's okay for the DA to say whatever he wants about anyone--but not okay for me to inquire, make logical judgements of those who I see may be getting away with a crime. Big difference.
Buzz [Member] writes:
clamshelli,
Thanks, and I mean that. I really don't care how you feel about me. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I accept this blog and all blog's for what they are. I've been offensive (just ask Matt Patrick, he doesn't like me...and that makes me sad..not) in the past, but it's the way I respond to comments I disagree with. Like crusader, I care about people as well. I don't know Dr G, never met her and don't personally know anyone that does. However, I believe that this woman has been through hell and survived. I bet she's a good and giving person who cares deeply about her patients and family and tried as hard as she could to get her husband help. I feel a similar way to CW. She to was a victim that did not deserve what she got. When total strangers charectorize these vitims with little if any proof, I get defensive. Without getting in to it, I hold special feelings for the victim.
Thanks, and I mean that. I really don't care how you feel about me. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I accept this blog and all blog's for what they are. I've been offensive (just ask Matt Patrick, he doesn't like me...and that makes me sad..not) in the past, but it's the way I respond to comments I disagree with. Like crusader, I care about people as well. I don't know Dr G, never met her and don't personally know anyone that does. However, I believe that this woman has been through hell and survived. I bet she's a good and giving person who cares deeply about her patients and family and tried as hard as she could to get her husband help. I feel a similar way to CW. She to was a victim that did not deserve what she got. When total strangers charectorize these vitims with little if any proof, I get defensive. Without getting in to it, I hold special feelings for the victim.
Buzz [Member] writes:
crusader,
Here's just a tiny sampling of some of your comments:
“cause you are part of that same club of snobs”
“she can't wait to to back to work & have a great big pity party thrown by her patients”
“Naive people like yourself”
“Won't be those candy-ass Cape reporters”
“I wonder how everyone on fantasy island thinks about their wonderful DA now”
“Well no surprise--that explains the racism you have on Cape C”
“Do you know who you are, capemom? Just someone hanging onto a man's wallet”
“Maybe if the Cape invested in their youth they wouldn't hang out at the malls in gothic attire”
Here's just a tiny sampling of some of your comments:
“cause you are part of that same club of snobs”
“she can't wait to to back to work & have a great big pity party thrown by her patients”
“Naive people like yourself”
“Won't be those candy-ass Cape reporters”
“I wonder how everyone on fantasy island thinks about their wonderful DA now”
“Well no surprise--that explains the racism you have on Cape C”
“Do you know who you are, capemom? Just someone hanging onto a man's wallet”
“Maybe if the Cape invested in their youth they wouldn't hang out at the malls in gothic attire”
Buzz [Member] writes:
I've lived and worked on the Cape for over 30 years and have never felt the way you do nor do I know anyone that does. I've also lived and currently work off-cape and the Cape is no different than anywhere else. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of residents come from somewhere else...even Somerville. I don't think I'm alone when I say I get tired of you portraying the Cape the way you do.
crusader [Member] writes:
Buzz,
So what's the problem? Did I ever once use the word, "idiot, unemployable, crazy, or delusional"....NO...but those comments are my own opinion based on mine and other's observations of some realities of Cape Cod life which you insist does not exist--like crime and poverty, bordering neglect by those in charge of making a difference.
Like I tried to indicate earlier--instead of burning me on the witch's stake--try to be included in some intelligent debates of THIS BLOG-- on Mr. Lancaster--my character is not the topic of this discussion although you insist it be. Try looking at Hyannisnews.com and Cape Cod Times forums under Gryboski. You will see an island divided (but pro-trial) of AG's case.
So what's the problem? Did I ever once use the word, "idiot, unemployable, crazy, or delusional"....NO...but those comments are my own opinion based on mine and other's observations of some realities of Cape Cod life which you insist does not exist--like crime and poverty, bordering neglect by those in charge of making a difference.
Like I tried to indicate earlier--instead of burning me on the witch's stake--try to be included in some intelligent debates of THIS BLOG-- on Mr. Lancaster--my character is not the topic of this discussion although you insist it be. Try looking at Hyannisnews.com and Cape Cod Times forums under Gryboski. You will see an island divided (but pro-trial) of AG's case.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Oh yeah...AG would have been judged soooo differently had she slept around...or been a single mom for that matter. Funny, capemom once told someone to "buy a puppy" if they wanted to save something. She didn't make that comment about The Good Doctor, did she? That poster yesterday who said "we shouldn't judge" obviously hasn't read much of this site!! We all judge. And SHE was judging crusader by calling her judgemental!
And btw JC: I did not like at all what happened in "The People's Revolution." But, if you can't see the bias the classes have towards each other, I geuss you don't want to. And it's sad, because we are in the end just people who are all going through this life together. It's a learnng experience, is it not? So why close your eyes and mind to other points of view? Take that Indian proverb to heart...try to walk a mile in another man's moccasins. And if I were Chris McCowen or PL's family, I'd be hotter than this weekend's weather!!!
And btw JC: I did not like at all what happened in "The People's Revolution." But, if you can't see the bias the classes have towards each other, I geuss you don't want to. And it's sad, because we are in the end just people who are all going through this life together. It's a learnng experience, is it not? So why close your eyes and mind to other points of view? Take that Indian proverb to heart...try to walk a mile in another man's moccasins. And if I were Chris McCowen or PL's family, I'd be hotter than this weekend's weather!!!
crusader [Member] writes:
“cause you are part of that same club..”-to capemom, of her insensitive comments of CCyouth.
“she can't wait to go back to work & have a great big pity party...”--about AG
“Naive people like yourself”--you?
“Won't be those candy-ass Cape reporters”--at Cape journalists who allow DA & LE to block factual reporting.
“I wonder how everyone on fantasy island thinks about their wonderful DA now”--on JB's blog ? relationship of AG & MO, still unexplained by DA.
“Well no surprise--that explains the racism you have on Cape C”--re: Chris M. case--not alone on this theory.
“Do you know who you are, capemom? Just someone hanging onto a man's wallet” “Maybe if the Cape invested in their youth they wouldn't hang out at the malls in gothic attire” --capemom who criticizes anyone not wearing Gucci.
I'm impressed Buzz--did you run a search on this site to gather all my comments? Is it fair to say you might be a sneaky insider? Doesn't really count now, does it? I'd feel better if it came from someone without a vested interest.
“she can't wait to go back to work & have a great big pity party...”--about AG
“Naive people like yourself”--you?
“Won't be those candy-ass Cape reporters”--at Cape journalists who allow DA & LE to block factual reporting.
“I wonder how everyone on fantasy island thinks about their wonderful DA now”--on JB's blog ? relationship of AG & MO, still unexplained by DA.
“Well no surprise--that explains the racism you have on Cape C”--re: Chris M. case--not alone on this theory.
“Do you know who you are, capemom? Just someone hanging onto a man's wallet” “Maybe if the Cape invested in their youth they wouldn't hang out at the malls in gothic attire” --capemom who criticizes anyone not wearing Gucci.
I'm impressed Buzz--did you run a search on this site to gather all my comments? Is it fair to say you might be a sneaky insider? Doesn't really count now, does it? I'd feel better if it came from someone without a vested interest.
Buzz [Member] writes:
crusader,
Once again, you are mislead. "sneaky insider"? That's the type of response we've come to expect from you when in reality, all you need to do is to go to the left of any comments and click on the "show all comments by this user".
Lastly, it wasn't me who called you "unemployable, crazy and delusional", I called you an "idiot". def. "an utterly foolish or senseless person." See, I back my comments up with fact. I don't say something like "a friend of mine who worked on the idiot farm said crusader was an idiot". I deal with first hand facts.
Once again, you are mislead. "sneaky insider"? That's the type of response we've come to expect from you when in reality, all you need to do is to go to the left of any comments and click on the "show all comments by this user".
Lastly, it wasn't me who called you "unemployable, crazy and delusional", I called you an "idiot". def. "an utterly foolish or senseless person." See, I back my comments up with fact. I don't say something like "a friend of mine who worked on the idiot farm said crusader was an idiot". I deal with first hand facts.
crusader [Member] writes:
Buzz,
Whatever you say.....but I know differently.
Whatever you say.....but I know differently.
maverick [Member] writes:
I find the Cape and offshore a beautiful place. Until I read this blog.
Bring back the wind farm debate.
Thanks Jack C. and Buzz for your honesty.
Bring back the wind farm debate.
Thanks Jack C. and Buzz for your honesty.
Buzz [Member] writes:
I'm not sure if you "know" differently, but I give you credit, you "think" you know differently.
Keep the questionable info and innuendoes coming.
Keep the questionable info and innuendoes coming.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Buzz, after reviewing the list of posts today,one of your post really captured my attention.I may have interpreted incorrectly,but I was very impressed with the candor of that post, where you made an attempt to explain your reactions when you disagree with another poster.The issues here are very controversial and most who post are very passionate about their beliefs.There really is no "middle ground"either you agree or you do not agree.When we are caught up in arguing our case, we can all sometimes make remarks ,accusations, innuendos,that are unfair or misinterpreted and that is not acceptable I myself have been guilty of this.so perhaps this can be a "wake-up" call to get back on message, not deter others from participating and resume posting as intelligent people who have found a forum (shared by the same people who have a common interest(pro or con).I will apologize for the reference to a Pit Bull in my post to you. I am not Clamshelli or Crusader or anyone else,just for the record. so let's continue the discussion as there is much more and will be in the coming days.
Buzz [Member] writes:
leagleagle,
Well put and thanks for the meaningful post. I agree with your comments 100% and likewise, I too get caught up more often than not.
I also see the passion that crusader brings to the forum and happen to have an equally but opposite view. I'm not sure how long you've been posting here, but I've been here long enough to have been called everything in the book. Some deservedly, some not. I've also dished it out, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. I think I have a more casual view of what blogs represent. At the end of the day, we're all a bunch of brilliant minds or a bunch of idiots.... me included. Again, thanks for bringing your honest and level opinions.
Well put and thanks for the meaningful post. I agree with your comments 100% and likewise, I too get caught up more often than not.
I also see the passion that crusader brings to the forum and happen to have an equally but opposite view. I'm not sure how long you've been posting here, but I've been here long enough to have been called everything in the book. Some deservedly, some not. I've also dished it out, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. I think I have a more casual view of what blogs represent. At the end of the day, we're all a bunch of brilliant minds or a bunch of idiots.... me included. Again, thanks for bringing your honest and level opinions.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Grand Jury No Bill.the only issue the Gj is required to answer is"is the prosecutions evidence legally sufficient to justify an indictment?"I suspect the prosecution recommended they not return an indictment or at the least was neutral about the charge,although I suspect the former.
I do not subscribe to an accidental shooting, nor the self defense theory.I believe if the abuse was ongoing and the weapons were readily available for years, why now??pushed to the limit,so now a shooting?In my opinion, there is much more here. if the characters allowed me to continue, I would post why I am of the belief ,that more than domestic violence was the catalyst for this crime.
I do not subscribe to an accidental shooting, nor the self defense theory.I believe if the abuse was ongoing and the weapons were readily available for years, why now??pushed to the limit,so now a shooting?In my opinion, there is much more here. if the characters allowed me to continue, I would post why I am of the belief ,that more than domestic violence was the catalyst for this crime.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
yes, please do, legaleagle1, and thank you for providing a good example of how reasonable people can disagree without being disagreable. What do you believe was the motive for what you refer to as "this crime"?
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Buzz, you have served as a Grand Juror,Putting aside the "watchdog responsibilty"and I value your input here. The prosecution presents it's case, there is no defense ,the Grand Jurors are ordinary people who are summoned and willing to serve as part of our great constitution and believe that the prosecution must have a case and the Grand Jury is the first step in
bringing the case to trial or a Full Bill.A murder is committed(put aside the reason)why did this case not go to trial? No because the Grand Jurors thought it shouldn't,the evidence put before them and the arguments led them there.If the motive for the crime was self defense as some believe, the worse case scenario would have been a Mary Winkler case 60+/ odd days served(timing could not have been better in the court of public opinion).and everyone would have had all the answers(not salicious details but hard facts )and maybe not have agreed with the verdict but would have assured all justice was served and that the law applies to all not some but all regardless of the motive.
bringing the case to trial or a Full Bill.A murder is committed(put aside the reason)why did this case not go to trial? No because the Grand Jurors thought it shouldn't,the evidence put before them and the arguments led them there.If the motive for the crime was self defense as some believe, the worse case scenario would have been a Mary Winkler case 60+/ odd days served(timing could not have been better in the court of public opinion).and everyone would have had all the answers(not salicious details but hard facts )and maybe not have agreed with the verdict but would have assured all justice was served and that the law applies to all not some but all regardless of the motive.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Jack, it was a crime.some may justify it with the phrase as the Da did as "mitigating circumstances",but that is a legal term generally used as reason for a crime and that would open another door if he meant "diminished capacity"as opposed to a crime of passion. which do you believe?I believe the prosecution did not serve the doctor well in avoiding a trial, unless there are other circumstances ,that dictated he lead the Grand Jurors to a No Bill and why? I prefer to not answer your question, until all the facts have been presented. I do appreciate your kind comments and hope all will rejoin the discussion so we may have varied opinions on this case
Buzz [Member] writes:
leagaleagle,
I certainly understand your point about the GJ and the prosecutions possible persuasion. As you mentioned before, because it's a secret proceeding, we may never know what was said. I do believe however, that the defendant (and I don't know if someone was representing the husband since he's dead) has the right to have an attorney present. Has anyone in a legal capacity spoke for the deceased or his family? Also, when I was on the GJ we were instructed to call any witnesses we wanted. In the end, it was just the GJ members by ourselves in athe room making the decision. I can only imagine that they must have heard some powerful testimony and information we haven't heard.
One thing I'd like to ask you and crusader. You both have described your insight into the Dr's state of mind and motivation. Would you also be willing to share your opinion of the husbands state of mind as to why he abused her?
I certainly understand your point about the GJ and the prosecutions possible persuasion. As you mentioned before, because it's a secret proceeding, we may never know what was said. I do believe however, that the defendant (and I don't know if someone was representing the husband since he's dead) has the right to have an attorney present. Has anyone in a legal capacity spoke for the deceased or his family? Also, when I was on the GJ we were instructed to call any witnesses we wanted. In the end, it was just the GJ members by ourselves in athe room making the decision. I can only imagine that they must have heard some powerful testimony and information we haven't heard.
One thing I'd like to ask you and crusader. You both have described your insight into the Dr's state of mind and motivation. Would you also be willing to share your opinion of the husbands state of mind as to why he abused her?
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Good question, Buzz.
You're more than welcome, legaleagle1. I'm not a lawyer, as the saying goes, but as I understand the law, you are alleging that a crime has been committed without providing any evidence to that effect. The grand jury heard from two dozen witnesses (I don't recall the exact number), testimony that none of the rest of us was privy to, and decided against indicting Dr. Gryboski. Put another way, the grand jury concluded that no crime had been committed.
Stating it is your opinion that a crime occurred, and doing so behind a pseudonym, is one thing. Stating as fact that a crime occurred, and that Dr. Gryboski committed it, and putting your name to that claim in a public forum, would leave you vulnerable to a lawsuit for defamation.
I can assure you that if I were in Dr. Gryboski's shoes, and you said of me publicly that I was a criminal for my actions in this matter without a shred of evidence to bolster your claim, you'd be the one finding yourself in court.
You're more than welcome, legaleagle1. I'm not a lawyer, as the saying goes, but as I understand the law, you are alleging that a crime has been committed without providing any evidence to that effect. The grand jury heard from two dozen witnesses (I don't recall the exact number), testimony that none of the rest of us was privy to, and decided against indicting Dr. Gryboski. Put another way, the grand jury concluded that no crime had been committed.
Stating it is your opinion that a crime occurred, and doing so behind a pseudonym, is one thing. Stating as fact that a crime occurred, and that Dr. Gryboski committed it, and putting your name to that claim in a public forum, would leave you vulnerable to a lawsuit for defamation.
I can assure you that if I were in Dr. Gryboski's shoes, and you said of me publicly that I was a criminal for my actions in this matter without a shred of evidence to bolster your claim, you'd be the one finding yourself in court.
legaleagle1 [Member] writes:
Jack, if you feel more comfortable with "homicide" rather than crime. I shall use that term. (after all, there was a confession ).
Buzz, my focus has been on the handling of the case,not the mental state of either the victim or the shooter.But you ask me the question as to his mental state relative to the abuse.I have no evidence that he abused her, other than photos showing bruises that indicate she was physically attacked,but again no concrete evidence that Mr. Lancaster attacked her. let's move on to the grand jury evidence as presented.
The jurors hear the evidence of the prosecution,they do not hear conflicting evidence.Jurors are not screened for biases as in a trial,the prosecutor decided what witnesses to call and rarely do the Grand Jurors excerise their right to call other witnesses,other than the prosecutor's witnesses,but most inmportantly .as you know, Buzz, a judge does not instruct the Jurors before deliberation and vote, no further post for a few days...applause meter not functioning tonight apparently
Buzz, my focus has been on the handling of the case,not the mental state of either the victim or the shooter.But you ask me the question as to his mental state relative to the abuse.I have no evidence that he abused her, other than photos showing bruises that indicate she was physically attacked,but again no concrete evidence that Mr. Lancaster attacked her. let's move on to the grand jury evidence as presented.
The jurors hear the evidence of the prosecution,they do not hear conflicting evidence.Jurors are not screened for biases as in a trial,the prosecutor decided what witnesses to call and rarely do the Grand Jurors excerise their right to call other witnesses,other than the prosecutor's witnesses,but most inmportantly .as you know, Buzz, a judge does not instruct the Jurors before deliberation and vote, no further post for a few days...applause meter not functioning tonight apparently
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
legaleagle1, I am far more comfortable describing what occurred as homicide because it is indisputably what occurred. And in the eyes of the law, it was justifiable homicide.
bittersweet [Member] writes:
More like in the eyes of the DA, it was justifiable! The law had nothing to do with it. The law was skirted, in my opinion.
magician [Member] writes:
The Cape has one of the highest rates of Divorce and alcoholism in the country and domestic violence . Summmer comes, people party and drink. Winter comes people get depressed ,fight and drink. Viscious cycle. The ones who suffer the most are the children , not the parents. A lot of people shouldnt have children. Funny ,couples are Happy until the babies are born and then resentment sets in. Then people Fall out of Love ??? Or was it Lust to begin with ??? I have never met a perfect Family in my Life. Yes , I feel bad for the doctor but what took her so long ? and she did have the funds to leave ? Mostly I feel bad for her children whom had to witness this event and lose a parent. Domestic violence affects the children . I have to wonder about the Doctors ethics regarding this fact ? and why it took her so long to leave. I, too was in a horibly abusive situation But had to stay with this a$$hole for my sons sake. Barnstable court gave this MORON 5 day custody thanx to Shirly lotuff , a PIGGY, RICH Guardian ad litum with no morals whose ruined more kids lives that i know of.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Stove Place II
Wide selection of gas and wood-burning stoves, fireplace inserts, mantles, accessories and BBQ grills. The owner, Larry Carbonneau, supervises the entire installation of stoves, chimneys, plumbing and electrical components to ensure your satisfaction. (Harwich)
Wide selection of gas and wood-burning stoves, fireplace inserts, mantles, accessories and BBQ grills. The owner, Larry Carbonneau, supervises the entire installation of stoves, chimneys, plumbing and electrical components to ensure your satisfaction. (Harwich)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your
account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your
email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes
(i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 3,189 registered commenters!
CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!
Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).
Previous/Next posts in this blog
About This Blog
Crusader is now a part-time Cape Codder who once lived here yearround for 6 years during the Worthington case and trial. She has returned to Boston, her first home, where she works and attends a prestigious university in the Cambridge. Her writing passions are true crime, but she also enjoys writing about nature and other various topics. She will always hold a special place in her heart for Cape Cod, but prefers living full-time surrounded by people of different cultures and regions throughout the world. You can email Crusader here. The cartoon on right is courtesy of Ned Sonntag.
Recent Comments
- "Your previous posts convince me
that you're out to make a
2 mins ago - People see it everyday, traveling back and forth, is this
31 mins ago - "When I see someone like yourself singing their way into
34 mins ago - Maverick,
Hav you heard any horror stories of OFFSHORE (not onshore)
53 mins ago - "When I see someone like yourself singing their way into
55 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- Entering Bourne
- Entering Falmouth
- Cape Cod History
- Long Bridge Runner
- One Day at a Time
- EXTRA...
- Cape & Islands News
- DIY Marketing
- The Ballyard
- Sea Street
- Mr. Mom I am not
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Media Watch
- Police and Fire News
- Latimer on Law
- Bill Snowden's Blog
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- Trail Hound
- Conservative's Conscience
- Letters to the Editor
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Project I.E.P.
- Cape Cod Tracker
- Ned Sonntag
- Op-Ed
- Editorial
- Mahler's Music Notes
- Through a Washashore's Eyes
- Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words
- Off-the-Shelf
- Bismore Park
- Politicalendar
- CapeCodToday Arts Calendar
- Town Notes
- Cape Native
- Travel Tales
- Cape Eyes
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- Off Cape
- Rog's Gallery
- The Belly Check
- Literary Pop
- Cape Yoga
- Historic Harwich
- My day
- The Natural
- Buckley's Blog
- Eastham Windmill
- Frugal Internet Marketing
- Washington Window
- Seufert's Scenes
- Massachusetts Paranormal Institute
- Cape Cod Pets
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Myrbie & Dax
- Cape Politics
- Gosnold
Archives
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (1)
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (2)
- March 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (2)
- November 2007 (1)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (1)
- May 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (1)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "Cape Cod Crusader" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
