Sunday May 19, 2013
Jump to content
Texas police have issued an arrest warrant for the owner of a day care center.
Her next door neighbors say they saw the woman pull into her driveway with a car full of groceries, go to her front door, and start screaming.
Why did she do that?
The house was on fire, seven children were inside, and there were no adults present.
Four children died and three were injured.
Houston Fire Department arson investigator Thomas Wood said the blaze probably originated on an electric stove inside, which was on and had a pot on it containing oil. A definitive cause for the fire will be announced once the investigation is complete.
The woman left the children alone to go buy groceries.
I told you you wouldn't believe it.
And remember! This was a day care center! Not her kids.
It probably wasn't a licensed day care center.
If the fire started on the stove, wouldn't the pot and oil be the first thing burned up? I sometimes wonder how the investigators come up with thier answers.
No matter how it started she should be punished to the full extent of the law.
I agree, Pat.
There is no punishment that will fit that crime.
If I lost a child that way I don't know what I would do. How could anyone walk away from seven kids. Just stroll off to the grocery store. How do people do those things?
It is done every day every where even here in Payson.
Since most things here are complaint enforced, the neighbors should wake up and get involved to save a child.
You know something, I am about as dead set against too many ordinances as anybody on the planet, and I worry about it every time the government gets into the act and begins watching things too closely, but I can't help but thinking that someone, somewhere should have known about it if this woman was in the habit of just leaving the house. And it seems that it must have been a habit because if it was just this one time--some kind of emergency, more or less--then she would surely have had someone, some neighbor or someone, come in and take over for a few minutes.
According to the AP, "Jurors are deliberating whether to convict a Houston woman of felony murder after a 2011 fire at her home day care killed four children who had been left alone."
I'll let you know when the results come in--if ever.
Meanwhile, what do you think the jury will do?
Well, after having waited from February 18, 2011 to today, November 23, 2012, here at last is the result of this case. I didn't post it on Thanksgiving, or just before Thanksgiving, because I thought it would be better for us to be thinking of happier things.
Three days ago, on 20 November, 2012, state district Judge Marc Brown read an 80-year prison sentence for Jessica Tata.
Jurors could have given Tata anywhere from five years to life in prison after she was convicted last week of felony murder for Elias' death. Tata, who will be eligible for parole in 30 years, was also fined $10,000.
The 24-year-old day care operator said nothing when the judge offered her a chance to speak, which her lawyer said was because she still faces several charges for the deaths and injuries of the other children.
She faces up to three more trials.
If she was given an 80 year prison sentence, why waste money on more trials? Why wasn't she tried for the death of all of them at one time?
It will only cost the people living there money as I am sure she will have court appointed attorneys which are paid for by the tax payers.
"If she was given an 80 year prison sentence, why waste money on more trials?"
My guess: Vengeance.
"Why wasn't she tried for the death of all of them at one time?"
Same answer. Plus the fact that it's good publicity for the prosecutor, who no doubt is an elected official.
Which brings up a good question: Should judges, county and city attorneys, and prosecutors be elected, or just hired?
Judges should be hired not elected. Then maybe we could get rid of the stupid ones.
I don't know what dept. they should be under but we need help in getting rid of the "good ole boys."
I agree. I do not think judges should be elected. It's a hard call, though.
My reason is that if they are elected they may work for convictions instead of being open and honest, as they should be. Of course, that knife cuts both ways, but I think that they are more likely to work for convictions than to go on the old adage that it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to prison.
Politics. It's always politics when someone holds an office.
If judges were hired instead of elected, who would do the decided as to whether or not they got rehired every two or three years? Could we have something like a "citizens committee?" Could we find people who would be smart enough, and fair enough, to really make sure that people who were charged with a crime got a fair shake? Or would we just make it worse because we would end up with a committee of do-gooders who would just make it worse?
If I ever get charged with a crime--not a likely event--I would ask for a bench trial. I would not want some bloodthirsty prosecution and some bunch of brainless jurors deciding my fate. Would you?
I will never forget the juror who said she voted that Harold Fish was guilty because his gun was so big and powerful. God help us all if that's what we get on juries.
Another of the "pillars" of this nation that has gone by the wayside. It is our long gone System of Justice. Over time it morphed from a "blind" justice system, to a "legal" system, to the current system of simple "dispute arbitration" where the one with the most notorious lawyer $$$$ usually prevails. A sizable amount of current healthcare costs can be directly attributed to that "system" where you have jury awards that are as outlandish and unfair that they are right up there with corporate CEO compensation. Of course you would never convince those who won those awards of that reality, especially their lawyers. As has so often been said "actions have consequences". That goes to this issue as well,since such resolutions end up costing everyone in the long run. But then it is simply the "me, me, me!" syndrome that is so prevelent today, so those that line their pockets really could care less about how their actions affect others.
Someone must have told you where all my buttons are because you keep pushing them.
I will never understand how some lame brained inner city kid with an IQ in two digits can go to prison for eighteen years for stealing his way through 35 thousand bucks in three years, when the CEO and buddies of some hospital over in California is about to just pay back 35 percent of the billion or so they stole and go scott free.
Why doesn't a million, or a billion, bucks count as much as a couple of thousand?
There's is no doubt that we need a legal system that makes sure that when someone is accused of a crime he gets the best legal advice he can get, and an attorney that will fight for him all the way, but how has that become a system where people are scared into accepting three years in a plea bargain because they know that if they come up against judges who don't judge, prosecutors who break every rule of fairness in the book, and juries that kind find their way to the restroom will put them away for thirty?
Why isn't it called a "win" when a city, county, or state attorney says, "We will not prosecute this man because, while we think he did it, we simply do not have the evidence to convict him." That's a win, isn't it? A win for justice?
I just read about a case where some two year old girl disappeared and stayed gone for so long that when she was found there was not enough left to even guess at the cause of death, and the prosecutor said he "thought" she'd been chloroformed and suffocated. Now, a couple of years later, they're all up in arms over there because they went back and found something on her mother's computer where someone looked up the "foolproof method of suffocation."
More than one person used that machine, and the other one is an elderly person who may very well have been thinking of suicide. Whatever happened to "evidence?" What they go on now is official innuendo.
I really don't want to get into this subject too far as I am so disgusted with it all that it makes me want to puke. I've been a "player" in that supposed justice system and I can tell you that from my experience as an arson Investigator, it is as corrupt as Washington DC to the core. As you may be aware, the crime of arson is almost always based on circumstantial evidence, as the factual evidence is often destroyed in the crime itself. Worked my tail off putting all the "evidence" together to present to the DA only to have them give it a cursory look to determine whether it was a "winner or loser", as that determination was critical to their personal resume' (they need more wins than losses), and have them reject it as too hard to prove, as are almost ALL arson cases. If you think reality is like "CSI", NCIS, etc or those other make believe shows on TV, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd be interested in selling you. It is any understatement to say I have "spit" regard for judges, attorneys (prosecuting or defense), or those who thrive off this corrupt system. I've said my piece on this matter and see no purpose in adding anything further.
I can imagine what it must be like to be a part of the system. It would drive me nuts.
I'll never forget one time in Texas when my next door neighbor's pickup caught fire. He had a camper top on it, one of the thin little things with nothing more than sides, top, and a couple of windows. Luckily, it was steel.
I saw the smoke and called the fire department. Then I saw my neighbor out back and called to him. He had a rake in his hand--something rare I might add. He came running around from back to where his truck was parked on the road, a stroke of good luck because he usually kept it under his carport.
As soon as he unlocked the camper top and opened it we could see what the problem was--a cardboard box stuffed with rags and containing a can of thinner, which luckily was tightly capped. I told him to hop in, start the truck, and pull it ahead as I raked the stuff out.
Worked fine. Once on the road the burning stuff was no danger to anyone. The only damage was to a plastic window on one side of the camper.
The fire engine zoomed up. The firemen used a CO2 extinguisher on the remains of the fire, which was basically out because I had pulled it apart with the rake.
Then the fire chief came up, eyed the mess, and told us, "Spontaneous combustion."
As a chemist (that's my basic field), I agreed. The rags smelled of linseed oil, and boiled linseed oil (which is what you buy in hardware store) has a drier in it that causes it to oxidize very fast. If you saturate a thick cloth with linseed oil, fold it up a few times, and sit it aside it will get hot in just ten or fifteen minutes, and will probably catch fire inside of thirty. These rags were both folded, and stuffed tightly into a cardboard box.
But then the fire chief bowled me over with, "Yeah. That half empty can of thinner caught fire and set fire to the rest. Definitely spontaneous combustion."
My neighbor, a chemical engineer at one of the refineries, nodded his head wisely.
I never said a word. I just walked off. I know when to keep my mouth shut. As I'm sure you know, there is no way that a closed can can create the conditions for spontaneous combustion. Again, as I'm sure you know, but I'll mention for other people reading this, spontaneous combustion requires oxygen for the reaction, and some kind of insulation (such as rags) to hold the heat in until it reaches the combustion point. Closed can, no oxygen. And a thin metal can is a lousy insulator.
I can just see some jury eating all that up though. I tell you, Ron, the justice system scares the hell out of me. The only way to be safe is to stay clear of it.
Posting comments requires a free account