FWIW I agree with you that I think pardons should be done with. But in the hypothetical case where a pardon was appealed, I would think it would be up to the prosecutor to represent his case to a jury. The Governor would act as the defending attorney. A case would be held to reexamine the offenses, evaluate the grounds for pardoning, and eventually be run by and determined upon by a jury. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

 

This is above my pay grade, but I don't think it would never happen. It's somewhat analogous to why we don't see prosecutors appeal not guilty verdicts or light sentences. Not to mention every case is different and were initially tried x number of years ago. Also, who would represent the governor? The AG office probably handled the case during any appellate process, but would have conflict issues by being put on the other side. IMO appealing pardons sounds good in theory, but I can't imagine the logistical or potential constitutional hurdles with implementing it.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're going for here?

 

Your stated belief is that regardless of physical abuse (beaten) or mental abuse ("kill yourself or I will kill the kids") a woman who has the chance to get out but doesn't should not be allowed to use the abuse as an excuse to kill.

 

It would seem that your argument is that the only time acceptable to kill is if it is done WHILE being abused physically. Fair?

Your stated belief is that regardless of physical abuse (beaten) or mental abuse ("kill yourself or I will kill the kids") a woman who has the chance to get out but doesn't should not be allowed to use the abuse as an excuse to kill.

 

It would seem that your argument is that the only time acceptable to kill is if it is done WHILE being abused physically. Fair?

 

That is the only time it can be considered self defense. Which is why I believe that the court did not rule this as a self defense issue.

I bet there is another statistic out there that says a man's abuse of a women is drastically reduced when she in fact leaves him. As a matter of fact I bet there is a whole bunch of information out there telling the woman this is exactly what she needs to do, leave/get away from the abuser. Possibly even when he is sleeping if need be...

 

Of course when we make a big change like separation in life it brings lots of things to a head.

 

We can all think about it however we like but it certainly isn't a defense for murder.

 

Would your opinion change if Beshear would have commuted her sentence and just let her out of jail a year early but didn't pardon her conviction? Related, since many are saying the don't condone her actions, but rather understand them, do we think the governor would have pardoned Cheryl if her conviction would have happened a month ago and she had just got to jail?

Would your opinion change if Beshear would have commuted her sentence and just let her out of jail a year early but didn't pardon her conviction? Related, since many are saying the don't condone her actions, but rather understand them, do we think the governor would have pardoned Cheryl if her conviction would have happened a month ago and she had just got to jail?

 

I don't know why you quoted that post of mine with your question.

 

My opinion on this whole matter really isn't to say one side is right or wrong but to point out a lot of it doesn't pass the smell test in a free society.

That is the only time it can be considered self defense. Which is why I believe that the court did not rule this as a self defense issue.

 

This thought process started in my mind when you said unless there is proof of physical abuse then the killing cannot be justified. You SEEMED (key) to be saying that if the proof wasn't there then it didn't happen.

 

Subsequently, you stated that the woman bares the burden of removing herself from the situation and seemed to imply that if she didn't then she's culpable.

 

While that would be great if all women had the strength to do that I'd argue that's a dangerous thought process and potentially unfair to the woman.

I was talking to someone today who was questioned by the Ft Thomas PD in regards to the abuse angle. He told them that on two occasions he noticed facial bruises/black eyes.

 

My aging memory couldn't recall why he and others who told the police the same thing were not called to testify in court. His recollection is that the prosecutor stipulated that Bob had abused her. Again, this was during the trial and not at the end when it came to sentencing.

 

Can anyone who recalls this shed details? If there was a stipulation doesn't that change the whole "no evidence of abuse" angle?

No, it doesn't. A pardon does not expunge the conviction.

 

Expungement is a state level issue and this was not a federal crime. The pardon application carries with it the ability to have a restoration of civil rights, which can be granted by the pardon authority as well. This may also include the right to own / possess a firearm, if the appropriate BATF application is in place.

 

Disclosure of a conviction may be required in some cases, however, you are also able to disclose that you were pardoned. For the purposes of the gun control act, a pardoned individual, granted relief, is not considered to be convicted of the crime accused of.

 

So if a record search is conducted, yes, it is still an open record issue. For restoration of civil rights, which is typically the point of interest, it does not exist.

I was talking to someone today who was questioned by the Ft Thomas PD in regards to the abuse angle. He told them that on two occasions he noticed facial bruises/black eyes.

 

My aging memory couldn't recall why he and others who told the police the same thing were not called to testify in court. His recollection is that the prosecutor stipulated that Bob had abused her. Again, this was during the trial and not at the end when it came to sentencing.

 

Can anyone who recalls this shed details? If there was a stipulation doesn't that change the whole "no evidence of abuse" angle?

 

The police not doing an investigation the day before the murder when they were called to the house would crush most of the credibility the police have/had. I can see why a prosecutor wouldn't want an officer within 10 miles of the courthouse.

 

Frankly, the police department's handling of the case (and their handling of the call(s) for help before the murder) are probably the reason why the case is such a cluster.

I bet there is another statistic out there that says a man's abuse of a women is drastically reduced when she in fact leaves him. As a matter of fact I bet there is a whole bunch of information out there telling the woman this is exactly what she needs to do, leave/get away from the abuser. Possibly even when he is sleeping if need be...

 

Of course when we make a big change like separation in life it brings lots of things to a head.

 

We can all think about it however we like but it certainly isn't a defense for murder.

 

But, is it a case for kidnapping ? Let's say that somehow Cheryl did manage to leave that night and report it to the Ft Thomas PD. Do we have supreme confidence that her charges of being held captive would be taken seriously given the level of "what a great guy Bob was" and "no signs of abuse" were present arguments in the general poplulation ?

 

On a higher level, maybe the overall system failed to protect the victim and the victim felt forced to protect herself in the absence of that system / process.

 

If this was the case, (not feeling as if she was protected), then is the Ft Thomas Police Department culpable as well ?

But, is it a case for kidnapping ? Let's say that somehow Cheryl did manage to leave that night and report it to the Ft Thomas PD. Do we have supreme confidence that her charges of being held captive would be taken seriously given the level of "what a great guy Bob was" and "no signs of abuse" were present arguments in the general poplulation ?

 

On a higher level, maybe the overall system failed to protect the victim and the victim felt forced to protect herself in the absence of that system / process.

 

If this was the case, (not feeling as if she was protected), then is the Ft Thomas Police Department culpable as well ?

 

I am pretty sure I said somewhere in this thread if the Police Department messed up and Cheryl can prove it she needs to get the best lawyers possible and sue their you know whats off.

Expungement is a state level issue and this was not a federal crime. The pardon application carries with it the ability to have a restoration of civil rights, which can be granted by the pardon authority as well. This may also include the right to own / possess a firearm, if the appropriate BATF application is in place.

 

Disclosure of a conviction may be required in some cases, however, you are also able to disclose that you were pardoned. For the purposes of the gun control act, a pardoned individual, granted relief, is not considered to be convicted of the crime accused of.

 

So if a record search is conducted, yes, it is still an open record issue. For restoration of civil rights, which is typically the point of interest, it does not exist.

 

Like I said, the pardon does not expunge the conviction. And if Ms. Mcafferty is charged with another felony in the future, she would be subject to the enhancers under the persistent felony offender sentencing statute.

I am pretty sure I said somewhere in this thread if the Police Department messed up and Cheryl can prove it she needs to get the best lawyers possible and sue their you know whats off.

 

....or remain silent and move on with her life. I would feel confident in saying that there is likely more that she doesn't want told, irrespective of what wrongs may have been committed.

....or remain silent and move on with her life. I would feel confident in saying that there is likely more that she doesn't want told, irrespective of what wrongs may have been committed.

 

I understand wanting to move on but I also believe some of what she doesn't want told could be incriminating. Trust me, anyone with something to hide has been preparing for this day and if Cheryl launches against anyone expect a really severe counter-strike.

This thought process started in my mind when you said unless there is proof of physical abuse then the killing cannot be justified. You SEEMED (key) to be saying that if the proof wasn't there then it didn't happen.

 

Subsequently, you stated that the woman bares the burden of removing herself from the situation and seemed to imply that if she didn't then she's culpable.

 

While that would be great if all women had the strength to do that I'd argue that's a dangerous thought process and potentially unfair to the woman.

 

If there is no evidence of any physical abuse, how can you or I know whether there was or wasn't physical abuse? I tend to believe that because there was no evidence of it happening, it likely didn't happen. Maybe that is me being to reliant on evidence, but it is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't.

 

I do find it odd that the person you talked to wasn't called in to give a testimony. For what it's worth, I went to school with the daughter for 6 years, passed her in the halls on numerous occasions, and never saw signs that she had been beaten, as was previously mentioned. Now, I am not saying that I sat there gave a full medical examination, but I don't recall anything overtly obvious.