CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Nurse Rachette ,Capegirl61 needs your assistance.If We didn't know better, We would think you were related to the "Family"

Why did Susan Jackett make the comment that Ava was a "Fibber?" a rather odd comment for a stepmother seeking custody to make about an innocent young child,who has lost her Mother.

Jeff,I too love quilting especially the 3 layers
Top, Batting and Backing.
Hope you enjoyed the Mailer article and New York Mag article.

Clamshell,
Michael Iacuessa of the Provincetown Banner stated in an article that several items were missing from her house, including a wireless Panasonic phone, ID and credit cards. Her purse and car keys were found in the driveway.

The Cape Cod Street Thug? So many names come to mind.I love those Mafia movies where you think he has protection , and in reality they are the assassins.Obviously,yourlawsuit will include anyone, everyone,and every media group who has ever commented on this case before,after and during the trial,and even after the trial and all the blogs and forums still out there today and all that will continue now that the racial bias hearing is scheduled. Very Significant Development.One would suspect the Court and the District Attorney would have preferred to avoid any of this,but
obviously the evidence was very compelling ,hence theJanuary hearing.

The Cape Cod Times is reporting a date for the racial bias hearing has been scheduled.

Lifesabeach, Yes they do rant and they sometimes have accusatory opinions,such as you. Hendricks( a relative) did not murder Hicks. The charge was attempted murder and I must research as I thought the charges were dismissed but I may be confused with charges dismissed against Huffman(initially charged as an accessory.)CCtoday obviously has decided not to ban Crusader and B'sweet or they would have been by now! As for referring to Jeff Blanchard as a "Charles Manson Type"This is an insult to every investigative reporter in America.
Much was wrong with this case from
day 1 and everyone has the right to challenge and debate this case which has affected and impacted the lives of many and cast a rather negative overtone on the Cape and it's law enforcement officials.

Peter, you are in great company.
Remember."If they stop attacking the messenger, they might have to discuss the issues" (cctoday 7/26/07)

Peter,great article. Why do some many of us adults,love Halloween and enjoy participating with our children?Memories of when we were young and our parents did the same,in a veery different world.My Mother would dress as a witch and invite all the neigborhood kids over for a very early party of Bobbing for apples, Hang donoughnuts on a string and a supper before, we "roamed" the neighborhood(without reservation I might add) and had a wonderful time,with the neighbors trying to guess who we really were... Then the nuns would remind us of the REAL significence of this eve of "ALL SAINTS DAY",as we ate all that candy...How fortunate we are, to participate as a family in a goolish eve and "Cut up" with our kids and all have fun.

Crusader, I am amazed that you cannot understand where he is coming from...First and foremost, his daughter has been brutally Murdered.(do not analyze the relationship),and he may be in grief.(although coherent enough to file probate the day after the murder). He has had a relationship for many years with a woman of questionable credentials,he has resided in housing that does not measure up to the family standards,so why would you expect him to respond as a "Patriach?" Don't analyze this, Focus on all that know who really killed Christa Worthington and the cover-up, because that is all that is really important.The rest are Props!

Buzz, I am going to give much latitude here. I trust your comments were not directed towards my recent post and perhaps our posts crossed in the info hwy.Nevertheless, let me continue by emphasizing, that if people know who killed Chirsta Worhtington,they bear a moral responsibilty to come forward and tell all. I know deep down that you will agree with me that,opinions ,personalities,etc aside, if one is a moral, law abiding Christian and one knows a truth,one must come forward. It is the right thing to do.After all, we raise our children to believe this, we have embraced our constitution and abide by this, we pray in Church for forgiveness for our errors,when we do not do the right thing,Why is this any different? THOU SHALT NOT KILL!A commandment, that I abide and embrace and,I trust you do as well!so let's concentrate on those that know who killed CW .and many others know who they are!

Crusader, Why would you expect the Worthington Family to sue the DA(Gov)? That is an excercise in futility when the bigger pie was Cape Cod Disposal Co. 10M wrongful death lawsuit.(Settled very quietly) )Much easier ,greater success rate , to sue a private company than the The DA's Office.Interestingly, the Attorney ,Christopher Tennyson Jr,was retained(as counsel for the estate of Christa Worthington) by her father who is the administrator of the estate.) What would be very interesting to know is "How got what?" Hopefully ,the survivor(her daughter who had the greatest loss) was the sole beneficiary.What I find so disturbing is that so many people profess to know who really killed Christa Worthington and talk about it freely in the confines of the "Outer Cape".It is all well and good for some of you to post your comments such as B/sweet & Crusader(and you don't always make good points)and the opponents of them who attack, (you all do not always make good points either all the time)But, Many profess to know Who really killed Christa Worthington.,and this is not IDLE CHATTER.

Thank you for your prompt response.

Obviously,your presence at the court house today was as a correspondent for capecodtoday.I am curious as to what prompted your initial report that Judge Nickerson was close to scheduling a late September hearing.

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

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, 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.

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.

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, 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,

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 .

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!

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.