Mother in trial over microwave baby death

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) -- A mother was convicted Friday of killing her month-old daughter by burning her in a microwave oven, with jurors rejecting a defense attorney's claims there was evidence that someone else was responsible.


China Arnold is convicted of killing her baby by burning her in the microwave.

China Arnold, 28, showed no reaction when the jury's verdict was announced and then lowered her head, looking down at the defense table.

Relatives in the courtroom cried and covered their faces with their hands.

She was found guilty of aggravated murder and faces the death penalty when sentenced.

Arnold was accused of killing daughter Paris Talley in 2005. A judge declared a mistrial in February, and the retrial began August 18.

Jury deliberations started Thursday following closing arguments.

Prosecutors said Arnold intentionally put her baby in the microwave oven and cooked the child to death after a fight with her boyfriend.

Arnolds' cell mate testified that Arnold confessed to putting the baby in the microwave and turned it on because she was worried her boyfriend would leave her if he found out the child wasn't his.

The baby's DNA was found inside the microwave in Arnold's apartment, prosecutors said.

Defense attorney Jon Paul Rion said there was evidence someone else was responsible.

He cited testimony from an 8-year-old boy who said he saw another boy walk into the kitchen of a nearby apartment with the baby, heard the microwave go on, and then later saw the burned baby in the microwave.

Judge John Kessler declared a mistrial February 11 after he privately heard testimony from the juvenile.

In rebuttal, however, the 8-year-old's mother testified Wednesday that they lived some distance away and they were not at Arnold's apartment complex when the baby died.

Her former live-in boyfriend also testified that he was certain the boy was not at the location.

How Freaking sick is this shit.. You are afraid that the boyfriend will leave you if he finds out that the baby isn't his??? What fucking planet are you from bitch?

Let's break it down for ya..

A child's life is worth more than anything, even your pathetic oxygen stealing ass. If the BF would leave, well then he ain't much of a man. Another point, you stop opening your legs for any new swinging richard, you might just avoid your BF getting pissed at you for having another man's child. One word.. WHORE.

Second, do you value all life so poorly, that you would kill the baby for your own happiness? You are both shallow, and without need to continue to live. Best wishes in the execution chamber..

Caylee's Mom Back in Jail

The mother of missing Florida toddler Caylee Anthony was arrested and charged Friday with forgery, fraudulent use of personal information and petty theft, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said.

The charges relate to Casey Anthony's use of "some monies and checks in an account that did not belong to her and she knew that," Orange County Capt. Angelo Nieves said.

Orange County Sheriff's Department officers ushered a handcuffed Anthony through a crowd of protesters that had gathered outside her parents' Orlando home.

One Word on this.. Wo0T!

Now maybe they'll keep her in jail until they find out what happened to the baby..

FBI: Couple wants car, offers sex with 5-year-old

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- A San Antonio couple is accused of trying to trade sex with the woman's 5-year-old daughter for an apartment, a used car and child care for her 10-month old daughter.

Jennifer Richards, 25, and her married boyfriend, Sean Michael Block, 40, appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Stein Nowak on Friday. Richards is charged with using interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor. Block is charged with distributing child pornography.

Nowak ordered Block held. Richards' detention hearing was delayed until Tuesday, the San Antonio Express-News reported Sunday.

According to an affidavit, the investigation began when an informant told the FBI about a text message allegedly sent by Block reading: "Nice piece 5 yrs old belongs to my gf and she wants to sell it."

Richards and Block crafted a deal that, in addition to the apartment and used car, included child care for Richards' 10-month-old daughter, whose sexual service the couple intended to sell later, Rex Miller, the FBI's lead agent on the case, testified.

The couple had also hoped to blackmail the informant, Miller said.

Richards "was of the belief that these sexual interactions would be a positive experience for [her daughter] and that Richards would receive sexual gratification" from watching, according to the affidavit.

Authorities said both children are no longer in Richards' custody and that neither child was sold for sex.

After reviewing computers the couple used and listening to taped conversations, Miller determined Block and Richards were making further plans to abduct, rape and "carve up" a teenage runaway.

Block allegedly sent an e-mail with a link to a Russian child pornography site, according to the affidavit.

Ronald Guyer, Block's lawyer, acknowledged the severity of the charges. But Guyer told the judge that there was no evidence that the behavior progressed beyond Block's fantasy.

"There has been no action on his part," Guyer told Nowak.

Richards' attorney did not return a call or e-mail left Sunday.

The couple worked at the Cheesecake Factory at North Star Mall, where he was a bartender and she was a waitress.

Court records show that Block's now-estranged wife, Sarah Block, filed for a protective order earlier this week on behalf of the couple's 14-month-old child. Her lawyer said she filed for divorce Friday.

This is the vilest, sickest shit I can imagine. Wanting to sell your child for sex, to get physical items... Words cannot describe how truly evil this is.

These two are the most evil of all sexually deviant people out there. To sacrifice a young child into a sex trade, I cannot fathom how they could get to that level of mental debauchery.

I know, don't throw rocks.. And in some ways I can see someone on the outside's point of view, but I am sorry, the sacrificing of a child for your financial gain is truly worse that murdering someone. I hope these people get life without parole for this.

here is my pot calling kettle moment. Child porn goes far beyond the bottom that I can think of. I have never 'done' child porn, nor do I have any inclination to do so. I find it ultimately offensive, and the thought of children of that age being done things of that nature turns my stomach. That is basically what these people agreed to, except it is even worse, MOM wanted to get off to it as well. Truly not worthy of continued life on this earth.

Another guilty plea in Spitzer hooker scandal

NEW YORK (AP) -- A woman accused of helping arrange trysts between pricey escorts and their customers pleaded guilty Monday in the prostitution scandal that forced Eliot Spitzer to step down as governor.

Tanya Hollander, 36, of Rhinebeck, New York, pleaded to a charge of conspiracy to violate the travel act. It's against the law to cross state lines while furthering an illegal business.

The plea means all four employees of the Emperors Club VIP arrested in March have admitted their roles in the illicit business.

Still uncertain is whether Spitzer will be charged in the probe that began last summer after a series of suspicious banking transactions.

Spitzer resigned March 12 after it was disclosed court papers referred to him as "Client-9," a man who met a prostitute known as Kristen on February 13 in a Washington, D.C., hotel.

In June, Emperors Club VIP operator, Mark Brener, 62, of Cliffside Park, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a prostitution offense and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He agreed to serve 2 to 2½ years in prison as part of a deal with prosecutors.

That same month Brener's former girlfriend, 23-year-old Cecil Suwal, pleaded guilty to money laundering, conspiracy and conspiring to promote prostitution, admitting her role as a manager of the company. She has agreed to spend as much as two years in prison.

In May, Temeka Lewis, a booking agent for the escort service, pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution and money laundering.

All three are awaiting sentencing.

So why is it again it is not certain if he was going to be charged? Is this NOT a sexual offense as described by National and New York State laws?

Here we have it again, a politician that is immune to the very laws that they themselves help vote in. How is it possible. And the people that one day state that Sex Offenders are these vile, terrible people, have been singing this guy's praises for the same sort of behaviors. Get it right America, either hate us,or STFU. Stop with the hypocritical garbage you are showing the rest of the world you have.

Spitzer is a sexual predator, just look into all of the people that you have yet to allow to return to a normal life, and you will see him in everyone of us. With one exception though, the rest of us didn't use a publicly elected office to hide, and defer charges with.

Let's ensure that Spitzer gets time for this, average American's did.

Protecting our kids – or jeopardizing everyone's freedom?

From the Christian Science Monitor of all places.

New York - Few crimes deserve greater sanction than child sex offense. Such crimes betray all reasonable standards of moral conduct and they are (deservedly) punished harshly.

Yet in society's understandable rush to punish these criminals, the Constitution is being violated.

Residency restrictions, unconstitutional laws that bar sex offenders from living in a specified area, are on the rise. But why break the highest law for the lowest crime?

When government betrays the Constitution, no matter the reason, we jeopardize everyone's freedom.

Twenty-two states have prohibited sex offenders from living within a minimum distance of family facilities, such as schools and day-care centers. The distance ranges from 500 feet to five times that. And further restrictions are on the way.

In California, state legislation already bans a child sex offender from living within a quarter mile of a school. And a number of jurisdictions are contemplating banning residence by sex offenders altogether.

In larger cities and rural areas, such restrictions may not be overly burdensome. But in small towns, they can make residence for an ex-offender impossible.

The more crucial problem, though, is that residency restrictions clearly violate the constitutional limits on statutory law. Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads in part: "No bill, or attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed." The Latin phrase "ex post facto" literally translates as "from after the fact." The Founding Fathers wisely realized that law must not be retroactive.

A free citizenry must know what the law permits and what it forbids; arbitrary punishment is unacceptable. If ex post facto legislation were permitted, no citizen would know if his present actions might be later ruled illegal. We owe our liberty a stronger safeguard than the whims of popular conscience.

Most state laws require their state to build schools and family facilities according to the population of a constituency. Therefore, inevitably a case arises when changes in demographics require construction of a school within the restricted range of a convicted child sex offender. We may feel no sympathy when an ex-convict is forced to sell his home because of it, but this practice is retroactive punishment.

Legislators have cleverly tried to sidestep the constitutionality of residency restrictions by inserting a clause specifying retroactive punishment into federal law. But in the traditional spirit of heavy-handed government, this attempt to steer around the spirit of the law is rather like solving racism with Jim Crow. Clever, but the wrong way to protect children.

Until now, the courts have been far too lax. In Doe v. Miller, the Eighth Circuit Court held that residency restrictions, as civil regulations designed to protect children, did not violate constitutional law. But that response barely addresses the argument.

Should society accept law that holds citizens in double jeopardy just because it does so explicitly? If a law, or clause, violates the Constitution, does it make it acceptable simply because a senator notes the unconstitutionality in the law itself? If so, of what value is the Bill of Rights at all?

In fact, residency restrictions are uniquely egregious violations of the ex post facto restriction. It is not only that they happen to fall afoul of the law; it is that they fly in the face of our law. Passing a law that mandates the flouting of the Constitution requires a special brand of legislative hubris.

So what can we do instead?

Society could fix the exact location of all future schools. But without infallible demographic predictions, legislators would find themselves building schools where they were not needed. No law can reasonably lay out exact future residency requirements; therefore no law can constitutionally impose residency restrictions.

Even if an offender is never actually forced to sell his home, democratic society cannot function when citizens are subject to arbitrary forced relocation.

There are other ways to protect our children; we might begin by increasing the number of police assigned to patrol near city schools. Such measures might be costly, but far less costly than violating due process.

We owe our Founding Fathers respect that transcends anger and haste.

C. Alexander Evans is a doctoral student in political philosophy at the City University of New York and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn College.

Well, that is a good read. Yes Yes, granted that he is saying things that might one day affect me. However his words ring true. How can a free citizenry allow such laws in the supposedly most free society upon this earth?

The answer is obvious, American citizens are no longer free. They are commanded by a vocal minority of powerful people who bend the ear, and the pocketbooks of the legislature to their will. Can we allow this to continue?

Each person must follow what they believe to be the right path for government, however when it is so obvious that government is controlled by such a small yet financially powerful group of people, how can we let this continue? it is time for a change. That change must be now. We must take control of our government back, and wrest it away from the powers that have profited from our penance.

Caylee's mom leaves jail

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- The mother of a missing central Florida toddler was released from jail on $500,000 bail Thursday and ordered to return to her parents' home, where authorities will monitor her with an electronic ankle device.
Casey Anthony didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days, police say.

Casey Anthony didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days, police say.

Casey Anthony, 22, said nothing as she left the Orange County jail Thursday.

She faces charges of child neglect, making false statements and obstructing an investigation in the disappearance of 3-year-old Caylee, who has been missing since June.

Police say Casey Anthony lied to them and didn't report Caylee missing for more than a month. Caylee's grandmother reported her disappearance in July.

Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, escorted her out of the jail under a black umbrella amid a throng of reporters. He got into a scuffle with a journalist, pushing him out of the way.

Anthony, who has been jailed since mid-July, was instructed to go to her parents' home and plug her electronic monitoring device into her phone, Orange County Corrections spokesman Allen Moore said.

A hearing in the case was scheduled Thursday morning, but Anthony was not expected to appear.

A group from a California bail bonds company flew to Florida on Sunday to help Clearwater-based bondsman Albert Estes post the bond. They said they believe Anthony might be more likely to talk about her daughter's disappearance if she were released from jail.

Anthony told investigators she left Caylee in an apartment with a nanny June 9. But investigators say the apartment had been empty for several months.

She told detectives she didn't immediately call authorities to report Caylee missing because she was conducting her own investigation, according to an affidavit.

But authorities say Anthony, a single mother, has shown no remorse or concern for Caylee under questioning. Cadaver-sniffing dogs detected a scent in her car, and hair, dirt and a strange stain were found in the trunk. Investigators are still awaiting FBI tests on that evidence.
advertisement

A neighbor told detectives Anthony had asked to borrow a shovel some time in June. Her father said she had stolen two gas cans from the garage and refused to let him get something from the trunk of her car. A boyfriend said she never told him in June that Caylee was missing.

Baez maintains his client is innocent and is waiting for the proper time and place to explain her behavior.

Why is it that there is NO national outrage at this. Yes there are a few people, god bless 'em, that are making noise over it, but really, there was more press over that Natalie Holloway case, and she may have actually been at partial fault for being in that situation.

Here we have this very young child, baby actually, missing for several months. Mom, arguable I know, that loves to party, sleep around, have a good old time without one smidgeon of parental responsibility. My kids leave my sight for more than 10 seconds and I am asking about them, or looking for them. Why is it that no one is starting a nationwide hunt for this child? Oh, that's right, there's no sex offender involved.

What we have here is the greatest perversion of trust possible. A mother abandoning (sadly possibly killing) her very young child. Throwing the child to the wolves as it were. What more heinous crime can be attested to? I can think of none.

I hope this child is found. I know the possibility is low that she will be found alive, but I keep that hope. If not, then I hope that the body can be found so that she can be laid to rest with dignity.

The mother on the other hand, if she is proven to be responsible, that bitch needs to die.

Gary Glitter’s return prompts tighter sex offender laws

Richard Ford, Jack Malvern and Andrew Drummond in Bangkok

Child sex offenders are to face tighter travel restrictions after it emerged that existing laws would not curb Gary Glitter’s movements after he returns to Britain.

The measures to be announced by the Home Office today come as the 1970s glam-rock star heads for London after serving a 33-month sentence in Vietnam for molesting two girls.

Glitter, 64, was released yesterday and deported. He flew to Thailand but managed to avoid boarding his planned flight to Britain last night, complaining of fatigue and dizziness. He rented one of the small rooms at Bangkok airport that are available for passengers who want to rest and declared: “I’m not going back to London. You can’t make me. I’ve done my time. I’m a free man.”

The singer, who was told that he would be arrested if he tried to enter Thailand and whose requests to fly to Singapore or Hong Kong were denied, was traveling on a passport issued by the British consulate in Ho Chi Minh City last November. He has the same rights as any British citizen to travel to any country that does not require a visa.

Under the Home Office’s proposed measures, child sex offenders would have to renew their passport annually and new rules would make it easier for police to seek an order restricting an offender’s movements. The ministry also wants to extend the length of time — currently six months — that child sex offenders can be barred from traveling abroad.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: “I want to see anyone who poses a threat to our children dealt with as firmly as possible. I’ve spoken to child protection experts and the police and they have told me that these changes will further restrict the ability of child sex offenders to harm children both here and overseas.”

She said that it was her view that with his criminal record, Glitter, who, in his heyday, earned £800,000 a year, should not be travelling anywhere in the world.

The proposals came after the disclosure that police were powerless to impose a sexual offences prevention order on Glitter on his return to Britain. At present police require recent evidence that a person is at risk of re-offending. In future there will be no timescale on the evidence.

Registered sex offenders will also have to give more than the present seven days’ notice of their intention to travel abroad, making it easier for police to seek an order to ban them from going overseas and for their passports to be confiscated. The measures require legislation, so they will not be in place when Glitter returns.

The singer was driven from jail to Ho Chi Minh City airport via the British consulate and put on a flight to Bangkok. As he boarded his lawyer, Le Thanh Kinh, said: “Everything is OK. He is happy to be going home. He was in a good mood.”

On his arrival in Bangkok Glitter was met by Thai immigration police. He said: “I am not getting back on the plane with all the press there and I’m not going to the first-class lounge to be hassled by them. And I’m not going to London. I’ve done my time. I’m a free man.”

British Embassy officials were called in. Thai immigration officials declined to force Glitter back on the plane and the British police officer escorting him admitted that he had no jurisdiction to make him board the aircraft. As the officials pondered the situation, flight TG901 pulled away from the gate with Glitter still at the airport.

The singer, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was due to be met by police at Heathrow and told that he was being placed on the sex offenders’ register. He will join 30,000 people on the register and will be required to give police his name, date of birth, home address and national insurance number. He will be kept under the highest level of surveillance and be visited weekly by police and probation staff. If he breaks the terms of his registration he could face a prison sentence of up to five years.

Off the air

— Gary Glitter is thought to receive up to £50,000 a year from royalties and performance fees

— Glitter was enjoying a revival until he was charged in 1997 and had expected to appear in a Spice Girls film

— He used to earn about £100,000 a year from the National Football League in America, which played his Rock and Roll parts one and two after touchdowns. They dropped the songs after his conviction

Source: Times database

Did this man break any British laws? I don't care what he did in Vietnam. If they wanted to put him on a registry there, then fine, he should be on theirs. What justifiable law do the British have that allows a person to be placed on this registry if they have broken no British law?

Here is the real threat from these laws. This man has done his time, the arresting authority states that he is now a free man, but the police state fascists want to impose unlawful restrictions on someone that never broke their laws.

And why exactly does it take a 7 day notice for citizens to travel abroad? If one needs to travel on business, how is it justified? Why is it that the world's people allow governments to shave away our inalienable rights so easily. First it is the sex offenders, just as Hitler did. When are you people going to open your eyes and see that this is only the beginning. When they come for you and you are alone, who will fight for your rights? I certainly will not. I will welcome you into the crowd of all of us that have served our time, and should be free but are not.

Sieg Heil the New World Order.