You should probably also excuse his misuse of the word Orwellian too, BF! :lol:

 

I don't know anything about this case but it seems weird to me that the prosecutor, the judge and her own attorney would all be either inept or conspiring against her. Guess anythings possible though.

How did I misuse it?

From Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different" or "to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell lamented the misuse of language for the purposes of deception. It's the idea behind "newspeak" in 1984 where words were used contradictory to their meaning.

Geesh we had ole Mrs. Bosley out here in the county. They both shot their husbands in their sleep not only are they killers but cowards. Just because you live in Ft. Thomas doesn't put you above the law. Have him arrested don't shoot him. I just take my old man to the woodshed. Speaking of Widmer are those Dry Cleaners his family? Here is a guy who impregnated another groupie while he was on trial. How did that happen?:idunno:

From Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different" or "to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell lamented the misuse of language for the purposes of deception. It's the idea behind "newspeak" in 1984 where words were used contradictory to their meaning.

Deception is often a matter of false perception, as in this case. If you feel deceived, it's only because you're deceiving yourself.

 

Have to say, it seems odd that you would be so militant about something you really know nothing about, and go so far as to accuse someone of "deception" because they don't happen to agree with your limited point of view. But I guess it is hard to break out of the P&R "debate at all costs" mode.

Deception is often a matter of false perception, as in this case. If you feel deceived, it's only because you're deceiving yourself.

 

Have to say, it seems odd that you would be so militant about something you really know nothing about, and go so far as to accuse someone of "deception" because they don't happen to agree with your limited point of view. But I guess it is hard to break out of the P&R "debate at all costs" mode.

 

I haven't taken a side on the issue of this thread. I've simply pointed out that what you stated was an opinion and you've labeled it as fact. The two words are not interchangeable and have opposing definitions. To switch their meanings is fallacious.

Deception is often a matter of false perception, as in this case. If you feel deceived, it's only because you're deceiving yourself.

 

Have to say, it seems odd that you would be so militant about something you really know nothing about, and go so far as to accuse someone of "deception" because they don't happen to agree with your limited point of view. But I guess it is hard to break out of the P&R "debate at all costs" mode.

 

In Habib's defense, you have not proffered any evidence to prove him incorrect. You've simply proclaimed to know the truth (without offering it to the rest of BGP) and seem to have resorted to personal insults which is a bit disappointing.

In Habib's defense, you have not proffered any evidence to prove him incorrect. You've simply proclaimed to know the truth (without offering it to the rest of BGP) and seem to have resorted to personal insults which is a bit disappointing.

I'm just offended at being called a liar who is trying to deceive everyone. I felt the need to defend myself. Also, I don't think I've said anything about him that is not the truth. But he'll have to debate with someone else frome here out. The truth of the matter will become evident when the judge rules on her request. Then we will know the facts.

 

If you abandon the home, that is prima facie evidence to be used against you in a custody battle. Does she take the kids? Change schools? How does she get money? And the "there are programs" response doesn't cut it. There is no duty to retreat in Kentucky and I know you agree with that law.

 

I realize this post is almost 3 years old, but abandoning the marital home due to domestic violence would not be prima facie evidence in a custody battle. If there is domestic violence, by all means, leave the home if you can. A court would not penalize the wife for abandoning the home if she did so because of the husband's abuse / violence.

I realize this post is almost 3 years old, but abandoning the marital home due to domestic violence would not be prima facie evidence in a custody battle. If there is domestic violence, by all means, leave the home if you can. A court would not penalize the wife for abandoning the home if she did so because of the husband's abuse / violence.

 

It could be used as evidence, especially with out any documentation of abuse, like we have here. Will that be the deciding piece of evidence? Don't know, but it could be raised. The burden would be on her to show the abuse that she fled from.

Why don't we put ole Widmer and Mrs. Bosley in the same cell. Think of those kids. It could be a new remake of Mrs. Robinson.

Hey, if Widmer can get 20-30 trials for his murder case, why can't she get 2-3.

I hope she gets a new trial and I hope this time she can bring up her domestic violence claims as well as the actions or inactions of the Ft. Thomas police. Let a jury decide if they are true. She pleaded guilty because they said she could be declared a battered woman and be eligible for parole after 2 years. Well, those 2 yrs came around and they denied her for what, 5 more years? That's ridiculous. The state made up its mind she wasn't getting out in less time when they offered her the deal. In my opinion, they negotiated in bad faith.

The only comparison between Cheryl McCafferty and Amy Bosley is that they are both women who killed their spouse. Period. Totally different scenarios.

she pleaded guilty because they said she could be declared a battered woman and be eligible for parole after 2 years. Well, those 2 yrs came around and they denied her for what, 5 more years? That's ridiculous. The state made up its mind she wasn't getting out in less time when they offered her the deal. In my opinion, they negotiated in bad faith.

I don't think the prosecutor controls the parole board. Also, she was eligible after serving 20% of her 18 year sentence (3.6 years), not two years.

I'm also not sure how the state could giver her a plea offer declaring her a battered woman yet not allow her to provide a defense that touches on that subject at all during her trial.

They are the same bad seed. Just because McCafferty has Ft. Thomas Money shouldn't be a factor. They both shot their poor husbands while they were asleep. Case Closed even Perry Martin could solve this one.

I hope she gets a new trial and I hope this time she can bring up her domestic violence claims as well as the actions or inactions of the Ft. Thomas police. Let a jury decide if they are true. She pleaded guilty because they said she could be declared a battered woman and be eligible for parole after 2 years. Well, those 2 yrs came around and they denied her for what, 5 more years? That's ridiculous. The state made up its mind she wasn't getting out in less time when they offered her the deal. In my opinion, they negotiated in bad faith.

The only comparison between Cheryl McCafferty and Amy Bosley is that they are both women who killed their spouse. Period. Totally different scenarios.