I think they put it a little more delicately here.

The Sydney Australia newspaper "The Sydney Morning Herald" doesn't mince many words in writing about the lurid Sioux Falls murder trial of Daphne White. Here's the headline:
Deaf black lesbian accused of chainsaw murder
Read it all here. Well...... That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? (I think they put it a little more delicately in S. Falls media.)


Anonymous said…
It's not even accurate. She's not accused of using the chainsaw to commit the murder.
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:14 p re-read the following.
I believe that you read it wrong!
To quote paper:
"The trial in South Dakota of a deaf, black lesbian accused of murdering a rival and dismembering her with a chainsaw has shocked the rural midwestern US state."

The word "and" is there. So i read it as murder then dismembered.
I say you are not correct.
Anonymous said…
Okay i think i need to go back and find the opening remarks however what is on the Argus blog by Chuck Baldwin states today in the fight over showing photos;

"“I don’t think the dismemberment has been proven relevant to any element of the crime,” larson says, continuing his long-running defense argument."

I would say that this would go to show cover-up and knowing of wrong doing???? I would say this is an important factor in the whole thing.
Also,QUESTION: Is it a good idea to debate this since the jury is free to leave to go out in the public?
Don't want to mess up the trial?? I also know that there are other blogs posting on this trial.

Just a thought.
Anonymous said…
anon 7:40,

All I read was PP's quoted headline ("Deaf black lesbian accused of chainsaw murder"), which I still maintain is not accurate. This was not a chainsaw murder.
Anonymous said…
Sorry, i see or read what you mean.
Thought the tought of being killed by a chainsaw is horrible! You would just hope that you wold go into shock fast and pass out.
I agree the paper made the mistake but i guess they wanted to grab attention and i would that they did. THis also does not look good on SD./
Anonymous said…
Sorry I can't spell tonight!
I was trying to say "though the thought"
Anonymous said…
I think the headline shows the diversity of Sioux Falls.
Anonymous said…
This headline in from another country.
Bob Newland said…
No problem finding a So. Dak. jury willing to put a deaf black lesbian accused of chopping up her murder victim with a chainsaw to death.

That'll show others contemplating a similar act that South Dakotans simply won't put up with multiple unsavory adjectives and modifying clauses.
Anonymous said…
The same thing happens on W 41st St. every day, save the chainsaw.
Anonymous said…
Last two posters; this is NOT a funny action by a person who is supposed to live in our society. Putting someone to death is not funny nor is killing someone or going to the extreme of purchasing something to further the horrific act and then toss a person out like garbage.
You know this could have been your sister or someone you cared deeply for.
Anonymous said…
Lots of national blogs are hollering cause they say this lady could never get a fair trial because of her "quadruple minority status".

Seems to me it would be damn tough to find a jury of her peers for a gay black deaf woman in Sioux Falls!! What are they supposed to do?
Anonymous said…
Being deaf, black and a lesbian has nothing to do with the trial. It cetainly is not an excuss to get away with a horrible crime.

If anything, it is making the judge and prosecuters take extra steps to make sure the trial is not perceived as being unfair.

The fast of the matter is that a woman was killed, burned and cut up. I hope they convict the person who committed the crime whoever that person is regardless of race, religion or sexual preference.
Anonymous said…
Her last name is Wright.
scimitar said…
Juries in state court are picked from a pool of people who live in the county where the crime was committed.

By her own choice, Daphne Wright's peers for the purpose of jury service are those people who live in Minnehaha County.

Daphne Wright does not have a right to a jury that is selected based upon their color, their gender, their sexual orientation, or deafness.

She has a right to have a randomly chosen jury venire. She also has a right to have everyone including minorities on that jury venire questioned about their own beliefs and biases, and considered for jury service based upon their answers to questions and chosen or eliminated on that basis alone.

The only exception to that rule, which has always struck me as odd, is that people in a capital case do not have a right to have any "peers" who oppose capital punishment. Although every community has a substantial number of "peers" who are unwilling to impose the death penalty, those people are excluded from capital juries.

So it is that people who express a preference for "an eye for an eye" are able to serve on a capital jury, while those who wish to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" cannot serve as capital case jurors.
Anonymous said…
I'm a "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" person, and I absolutely support the death penalty. When somebody violates the Golden Rule in such a heinous manner, the justice system allows for that person to be put to death. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As for the national blogs hollering that this murderer cannot get a fair trial because of her quadruple minority status, two things. 1) They're the same people who want society to be color blind and not see the differences in people, and 2) Her quadruple minority status did not prevent her from killing and dicing up another human being. Why should the justice system treat her any differently from anybody else who would choose to carry out such a crime? If those bloggers had their way, this cold-blooded murderer would have to be exonerated for lack of a qualified jury pool. Their arguments are self-defeating. Would they be happy if the prosecution was seeking a life sentence? If it's about finding a jury of quadruple minorities, the answer has to be 'no'.
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:01, your position is "do unto her because she did unto another." That makes you an "eye for an eye" person.
Anonymous said…
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in the context of the death penalty...

So that means if I'm found to have killed someone and cut them up with a chainsaw beyond a reasonable doubt, would I have my neighbor put me to death? That's a toughy...
Anonymous said…
2:01 is basically saying that murderers want to be murdered in return and that we as jurors should thus oblige them.

And further that that's the "Golden Rule."

Very tortured logic don't you think?
Anonymous said…
3:16, so the golden rule is "do unto others what we think they want us to do unto them (even if they don't actually want what we think they want)"

That is tortured logic. And it's not the golden rule.

Moreover, it's not what we do in South Dakota. Here, when killers really do want to be executed we don't do it - recall the Elija Page story.
Douglas said…
Coming soon to a theater near you: The South Dakota Chainsaw Murders with promos by Don Imus and Rev. Al Sharpton including excerpts of Rush Limbaugh and Bile O'Lyly criticism.

Chorus line of rappers in baggy pants with their hats on backward all singing "I'm a Chainsaw Man Searching for a Chainsaw driving ** ".

Co-feature will be a sex education film based on Entertainment tonight video on Anna Nicole Smith's real insemination ordeal."

Summer is almost here if it will just quit snowing and raining.
Bob Newland said…
I offer my heartfelt apology. I am contrite. I take full responsibility for the mistakes that were made. I hereby offer my best hemp t-shirt to the deaf black lesbian chainsaw dismemberment fund.
Anonymous said…
To all of you who are twisting the Golden Rule to fit the deaf murderer, be honest with yourselves. You're pro-abortion or "pro-choice" aren't you. Every one of you. That is the essence of liberalism. Protect the poor little murderer from being brought to justice, but dismember the unborn child in the name of choice.

Why do you apply doing unto others as you'd have done to you to the baby humans?
Anonymous said…
6:26 - this post is not about abortion. I don't think Daphne Wright is one who will need an abortion. And nobody here has expressed any opinions on abortion - so take your abortion talk to an abortion post.

Ya wanna talk about the Daphne Wright case?
Anonymous said…
11:17, thank you for revealing your anti-death-penalty, pro-abortion views. Any others? You people are so transparent.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long