Topic: I have a question | |
---|---|
Edited by
CatsLoveMe
on
Wed 02/03/10 12:45 PM
|
|
Perhaps the most important rule: DON'T LINGER!
You do this, you get the hell out of Dodge, and fast. The cops and feds will be on you faster than stink on S**T. GTF out of there. Go take a vacation somewhere far away until the heat dies down. The cops and feds don't care about your ego. They'll hunt you down, unless you get a head start and give them the slip. i.e.: "escape plan." |
|
|
|
Like some people on here, I'm into crime stories, the Godfather, the CSI's, 24, and all the rest. You get caught when you're sloppy or leave clues and evidence behind.
The term "modus operandi" is most commonly used in criminal cases. It is sometimes referred to by its initials, M.O. The prosecution in a criminal case does not have to prove modus operandi in any crime. However, identifying and proving the modus operandi of a crime can help the prosecution prove that it was the defendant who committed the crime charged. Modus operandi evidence is helpful to the prosecution if the prosecution has evidence of crimes committed by the defendant that are similar to the crime charged. The crimes need not be identical, but the prosecution must make a strong and persuasive showing of similarity between the crime charged and the other crimes. The prosecution may introduce evidence from prior or subsequent crimes to prove modus operandi only if the other crimes share peculiar and distinctive features with the crime charged. The features must be uncommon and rarely seen in other crimes, and they must be so distinct that they can be recognized as the handiwork of the same person. For example, assume that a defendant is on trial for armed robbery. In the robbery the defendant is alleged to have brandished a pistol and ordered the victim to relinquish cash and valuables. Assume further that the defendant has committed armed robbery in the past by brandishing a pistol and demanding cash and valuables. A prosecutor might be able to introduce the evidence into trial to show the defendant's motive, intent, or state of mind, or to identify the weapon used in the crime. However, the prosecutor could not argue to the judge or jury that the robberies were so similar as to demonstrate that it was the defendant who committed that particular robbery, because it is not unusual for a robber to brandish a pistol and demand cash and valuables in the course of an armed robbery. Now assume that a defendant is charged with robbing a movie theater that was showing the movie Showgirls and that the defendant was wearing a glittering, flamboyant Las Vegas-style cabaret costume during the robbery. Assume further that the prosecution has evidence that the defendant, while dressed as a Las Vegas dancer, has robbed other movie theaters showing the movie Showgirls. The prosecution could introduce this evidence into trial to prove modus operandi and show that it was the defendant who committed the crime, because the method of armed robbery used in the crimes was both similar and distinctive. When offering evidence to prove modus operandi, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crimes occurred. Rather, the prosecution simply must present sufficient evidence to show that the act took place and was committed by the defendant. |
|
|
|
When offering evidence to prove modus operandi, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crimes occurred. Rather, the prosecution simply must present sufficient evidence to show that the act took place and was committed by the defendant
^and yet the constitution and the annotated codes still to this day is contrary to such tactics allowed by prosecutors...case in point, we can all assume that Scott Peterson killed his wife and his unborn child, but all the evidence in this case was not even circumstantial at best, surely and definitely not enough to warrant the death penalty.....by the law that is...now if he did it, he deserves to be hung by his...well you know...anyhow, according to the Law Scott Peterson should be a free man, but he isn't and the media played the biggest part in his conviction along with all the close to circumstantial garbage. |
|
|
|
When offering evidence to prove modus operandi, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crimes occurred. Rather, the prosecution simply must present sufficient evidence to show that the act took place and was committed by the defendant ^and yet the constitution and the annotated codes still to this day is contrary to such tactics allowed by prosecutors...case in point, we can all assume that Scott Peterson killed his wife and his unborn child, but all the evidence in this case was not even circumstantial at best, surely and definitely not enough to warrant the death penalty.....by the law that is...now if he did it, he deserves to be hung by his...well you know...anyhow, according to the Law Scott Peterson should be a free man, but he isn't and the media played the biggest part in his conviction along with all the close to circumstantial garbage. We all have a cause, and Huck, I agree with you. Now indulge me the same favor and research the Jon Benet case.: According to the testimony of Patsy Ramsey, on December 26, 1996, she discovered her daughter missing after finding a two and a half-page ransom note on the kitchen staircase, demanding $118,000 for the safe return of her daughter, which was almost the exact value of a bonus her husband received earlier that year. Despite specific instructions in the ransom note that police and friends not be contacted, she telephoned the police and called family and friends. The local police conducted a cursory search of the house but did not find any obvious signs of a break-in or forced entry. The note suggested that the ransom collection would be monitored and JonBenét would be returned as soon as the money was obtained. John Ramsey made arrangements for the availability of the ransom, which a friend, John Fernie, picked up that morning from a local bank. |
|
|
|
Patricia Ramsey is dead, and the only part about that is justice wasn't served, f her....my thoughts on that case, she killed her daughter, the husband was a putz and I seriously doubt he had anything to do with it, she'd been pulling the wool over his eyes for years, this was the coup de gras.
she did an interview on national tv six months after burying her little girl and talked about everything and never shed a tear, never wavered...yeah ok, I'm a man and I couldn't do that 10 years after the death of a child. |
|
|
|
Edited by
jemare
on
Wed 02/03/10 04:10 PM
|
|
Here is a simple rule every hit man should follow: never fall asleep with ANYONE, you just might talk in your sleep. (Hit men must lead a lonely life).
|
|
|
|
..always have a back up plan..and a back up weapon or two or three,or be a martial artist ..always best to hit the target at night lesss likely to be seen.. |
|
|
|
...which means you will need a night scope... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Wed 02/03/10 05:54 PM
|
|
The best hitman is hidden so well, that he doesn't even hide at all.
How is that done? Easy. He is very friendly and outgoing person, everybody can detest, neighbors, friends, relatives, that he couldn't hurt a fly. The best hitmen in the world are the best actors ever. They are very nice guys actually, and killing someone for money is a job for them, but otherwise he really couldn't hurt a fly for no reason and one of the friendliest people you could ever meet. Just make sure that you don't have an enemy who would pay him a god sum to get rid of you, because then you will become just a "job" and the Dr. Jekyll will turn into Mr. Hide in minutes. |
|
|