CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

codder,

This is a wonderful piece and I dream of living on Nantucket. . .

Sounds like you've had an excellent result from a very invasive surgical procedure! Your rehab is going great!

Most backs @ 8th post-op week are not fairing as well. . . No doubt you're in excellent shape.

Kudos to you!

Yes, Mav that was my problem - feeders hanging @ deck. I moved them out further but the kids complained. They enjoyed watching the birds while inside doing homework - and NOT watching TV! Now, that they've "flown the coop", I'd like to try some new tricks.

codder, mav, Boston 67, everyone,
Thanks for sharing your bird watching expertise. This sounds like a wonderful hobby and something I'd love to explore further. About the bird feeders, any tips on keeping pesky racoons away?

Mav,

Do you hear the familiar peck, peck, peck of a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker nearby?

Tarq,

What happened to the photo of Mittens? Didn't you have a rabbit named Muffin that you shared with Christa?

I read your blog on AOL about being a Victim of Cape Cod!

Sorry to read you won't post at CCT again. It is a shame that you don't air your "victim" greivances here and enter into a real dialogue.

Interesting points Boston 67,

However, those steadfast in their moral certainty often fall the hardest. A moral compass should first be compassionate.

I don't understand. How can one litigate without a cause of action and measurable damages?

Hey Boston - I doubt you'll get an answer. It appears that one can express whatever they like as long as it is "on topic".

I for one don't understand the RR hate. OK, maybe she can be a bit annoying with her references to EVOO, sammies and stoups but anyone who has real issues with RR has by far, the more serious problems!

Jack, Good point about George. On the other hand, most jurors do not understand that the defense has the ability to request extensive DNA testing, multiple forensic examinations and opinions. Its the prosecution's burden, however in MA the prosecution often fails at this - and then resort to desperate and underhanded tactics. I work in the area of post-conviction relief and see this mistake, time and time again.

It will most likely be McCowen's DNA. This is why George did not have it tested. He could have asked for it to be tested, but as a defense attorney, why would he?

I know for a fact that O'Keefe is incorrect. Yes, semen/DNA obtained from the vagina helps the prosecution meet the legal definition of rape. The state lab runs any & all tests on biological material per request of the prosecutor's office. To wit: the prosecution did not request this test and O'Keefe is a hypocrite & working over-time in cover-up mode.

Crusader, Your comments on point. However, there are many injustices in MA, going back to Sacco & Vanezetti. Unfortunately, this is SOP.

From what I have read, the MA State police operated with their legal mandate. Unfortunately for you, this is a moot point.

Tarq, Why would you need a MA criminal attorney?

Crusader,

I applaud you for seeking the truth. However, in criminal trials the truth is rarely relevant. The defense and prosecution are limited in the witnesses they can call. The additional witnesses that you reference are immaterial because the nature of their testimony is hearsay and consists of “piling on”. The court does not allow this.

Moreover, the chance of McCowen prevailing on appeal is negligible. An appeal has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The appellate court reviews only procedural error – whether the judge or attorney made errors so egregious to demand a re-trial.

The SJC is loathe to overturn (reverse and remand) the mandate of the jury and finds most procedurals errors harmless.

As a well-respected criminal appellate attorney recently said to me, “There are no do-overs. You’re supposed to get it right the first time.” Sad, but true.