Paulding.com News for Friday, February 20, 2009

[gpatt0n]

	Pubby gets revenge
Click for RECENT TOPICS click f

[solosoul]

you know if the people who are taking Jessie to court gets hold of this they may could use this against her.....

[Benwa1]

Great job, enjoyed it an very informative.

[Thewitch]

She makes my day every time I see her

[Benwa1]

you know if the people who are taking Jessie to court gets hold of this they may could use this against her.....

I thought about that but she didn't really admit any guilt so she should be ok..

[JDPennock]

Thats why you have the right to refuse to talk to the media.

[ktan458]

Thats why you have the right to refuse to talk to the media.

 

It's also why the media has the responsibility to not *help* someone, who may be mentally impaired, incriminate themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

[JDPennock]

It's also why the media has the responsibility to not *help* someone, who may be mentally impaired, incriminate themselves. <_>

 

If she was in fact "mentally impaired" than it would be undeniably even harder to incriminate her.

[ktan458]

If she was in fact "mentally impaired" than it would be undeniably even harder to incriminate her.

 

I completely disagree.

 

Watching her in that video made me incredibly sad for her, and I saw absolutely nothing to laugh about.

 

 

[gpatt0n]

It's also why the media has the responsibility to not *help* someone, who may be mentally impaired, incriminate themselves. <_>

 

There was nothing incriminating whatsoever in her conversation. The comments she made were not under oath and the comments did not contain any admissions to any specifics relating to the case save the reference to talking to the 'man' ... and not the woman. Miss Jesse's statement was wholly consistent with her statement to police in the matter. As we were not asking specifics and were literally unaware of the specifics of the case the state is brining, I would contend the conversation was not about specifics. The only element possible relevant statement regarding the event would not contradict Miss Jesse's previous accounts of the incident and would not be supportive of the state's case. The statements were not specific enough and so are not relevant to the facts of a case that occurred over two years ago. Indeed, when the interview was conducted I had no idea of the time, place or circumstance of her issues with the law ... or that she had issues.

 

Finally, as far as rights and responsibilities, you confuse the responsibility of the Judge and the courts with that of the media.

 

pubby

 

 

[JDPennock]

Also, Correct me if I am wrong...but if the video helps prove she is mentally handicapped would that not enable her to be determined as such and she would be committed to a hospital...

 

Is that not something you should be encouraging with your viewpoint?

 

Who knows, maybe one day you could be called to trial and advocate against her diminished capacity.

[ktan458]

There was nothing incriminating whatsoever in her conversation. The comments she made were not under oath and the comments did not contain any admissions to any specifics relating to the case save the reference to talking to the 'man' ... and not the woman. Miss Jesse's statement was wholly consistent with her statement to police in the matter. As we were not asking specifics and were literally unaware of the specifics of the case the state is brining, I would contend the conversation was not about specifics. The only element possible relevant statement regarding the event would not contradict Miss Jesse's previous accounts of the incident and would not be supportive of the state's case. The statements were not specific enough and so are not relevant to the facts of a case that occurred over two years ago. Indeed, when the interview was conducted I had no idea of the time, place or circumstance of her issues with the law ... or that she had issues.

 

Finally, as far as rights and responsibilities, you confuse the responsibility of the Judge and the courts with that of the media.

 

pubby

 

There's no confusion. The media has a responsibility; it just chooses not to exercise it a great deal of the time. Which explains how pictures of Rihanna, a domestic violence victim, were blaring on my TV screen this morning.

 

I don't altogether disagree with you, Pubby. But, you know as well as I do that if someone gets on a camera and proclaims to have committed a crime, under oath or not, prosecutors will do everything they can to get it admitted in. And, I never said that you goaded her into any kind of an admission. Instead, I responded to RR's claim that Miss Jesse has any kind of 'filter'. Because I would love to believe that she is just an old woman who gets her kicks freaking others out with her strange behavior, but I truly believe that she likely does not.

 

 

[JDPennock]

I never said she had any kind of filter?

 

I stated that if the lady is mentally ill that it would be less likely for her to be held on terroristic threats over the more likely outcome that she would be committed...that is hypothetically assuming she is mentally ill.

 

There has been no professional evaluation to my knowledge.

[ktan458]

I never said she had any kind of filter?

 

I stated that if the lady is mentally ill that it would be less likely for her to be held on terroristic threats over the more likely outcome that she would be committed...that is hypothetically assuming she is mentally ill.

 

There has been no professional evaluation to my knowledge.

 

I apologize--I was referring to your statement that she had a right to refuse. Everyone has that right; not everyone has the capability of using it

 

What's that Ron White quote--"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability."

[tow2topgun]

Maybe justice will finally be served!

[gpatt0n]

I completely disagree.

 

Watching her in that video made me incredibly sad for her, and I saw absolutely nothing to laugh about.

 

Ktan:

 

I feel sad for anyone caught up in the criminal justice system. It is a meatgrinder that all too often we as a public, ignore.

 

That has allowed us to have the abominations of 'mandatory minimum' sentencing and two strikes you're out.

 

Rather than simply hide the fact that here is a person - a personality that a lot of folks actually like in part because of her outrageous-ness.

 

And frankly, the scene was she was there and, as I was on the way to the office, Laurie called and said Miss Jesse was on the square. I thought I'd video tape her. We're obviously acquainted and we were genuinely interested in her circumstance and fate.

 

There's no confusion. The media has a responsibility; it just chooses not to exercise it a great deal of the time. Which explains how pictures of Rihanna, a domestic violence victim, were blaring on my TV screen this morning.

 

I don't altogether disagree with you, Pubby. But, you know as well as I do that if someone gets on a camera and proclaims to have committed a crime, under oath or not, prosecutors will do everything they can to get it admitted in. And, I never said that you goaded her into any kind of an admission. Instead, I responded to RR's claim that Miss Jesse has any kind of 'filter'. Because I would love to believe that she is just an old woman who gets her kicks freaking others out with her strange behavior, but I truly believe that she likely does not.

 

I understand your comment that prosecutors will do what they will to gain a conviction including attempting to get off-hand comments such as those made to me. Note, there are protections built into law to protect the individual in this circumstance as well. For instance, Georgia has a shield law that gives media the presumption of protecting their sources from such prosecutorial exploitation. I've already invoked, in another case, the Georgia Shield law and declined to provide a plaintiff in another case full and unfetter access to video I've gathered. Motions from the plaintiff have been filed and I've answered them but there has been no ruling on those motions by a Paulding County Superior Judge.

 

Obviously, in this case, I would resist any subpoena of the prosecution. I will say that the remaining material collected and not published is simply not relevant to the facts of the criminal case before the court.

 

I do think it important to point out the fact that those in local law enforcement are pursuing a case against Miss Jesse. They probably have little choice. I think the reactions that topics on Miss Jesse gets on this site suggests that inaction is not an option.

 

I will point out from a review of the case file, there are defense motions filed asking for suppression of statements and a handful of other procedural topics. There was a enough there to suggest to me that Miss Jesse may not find her way to court in the March trial calendar.

 

Should she even go to trial? Well the only way out of that eventuality is for her, her defense attorney and the prosecutor to come to some sort of resolution that meets muster with the judge. Failing that, she will either face a bench trial or a jury trial. I don't know if that has been finally determined.

 

Obviously, other than acquittal, there is no real way to resolve this case. Such is the nature of the criminal justice system and why it is not necessarily the best route to resolve all conflicts.

 

Miss Jesse is a dear person and I personally don't think she belongs in jail. I think and believe that, regardless of the allegations that she threatened to kill the complainant, she had no intention whatsoever to inflict bodily harm on the complaints or their children. I have no idea what she said back then but I don't buy that she had any intention to commit a crime and anyone with a lick of sense would know that.

 

All that said, I do think it important that these kinds of issues come to the fore of the public attention.

 

pubby

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ktan458]

Ktan:

 

I feel sad for anyone caught up in the criminal justice system. It is a meatgrinder that all too often we as a public, ignore.

 

That has allowed us to have the abominations of 'mandatory minimum' sentencing and two strikes you're out.

 

Rather than simply hide the fact that here is a person - a personality that a lot of folks actually like in part because of her outrageous-ness.

 

And frankly, the scene was she was there and, as I was on the way to the office, Laurie called and said Miss Jesse was on the square. I thought I'd video tape her. We're obviously acquainted and we were genuinely interested in her circumstance and fate.

 

I understand your comment that prosecutors will do what they will to gain a conviction including attempting to get off-hand comments such as those made to me. Note, there are protections built into law to protect the individual in this circumstance as well. For instance, Georgia has a shield law that gives media the presumption of protecting their sources from such prosecutorial exploitation. I've already invoked, in another case, the Georgia Shield law and declined to provide a plaintiff in another case full and unfetter access to video I've gathered. Motions from the plaintiff have been filed and I've answered them but there has been no ruling on those motions by a Paulding County Superior Judge.

 

Obviously, in this case, I would resist any subpoena of the prosecution. I will say that the remaining material collected and not published is simply not relevant to the facts of the criminal case before the court.

 

I do think it important to point out the fact that those in local law enforcement are pursuing a case against Miss Jesse. They probably have little choice. I think the reactions that topics on Miss Jesse gets on this site suggests that inaction is not an option.

 

I will point out from a review of the case file, there are defense motions filed asking for suppression of statements and a handful of other procedural topics. There was a enough there to suggest to me that Miss Jesse may not find her way to court in the March trial calendar.

 

Should she even go to trial? Well the only way out of that eventuality is for her, her defense attorney and the prosecutor to come to some sort of resolution that meets muster with the judge. Failing that, she will either face a bench trial or a jury trial. I don't know if that has been finally determined.

 

Obviously, other than acquittal, there is no real way to resolve this case. Such is the nature of the criminal justice system and why it is not necessarily the best route to resolve all conflicts.

 

Miss Jesse is a dear person and I personally don't think she belongs in jail. I think and believe that, regardless of the allegations that she threatened to kill the complainant, she had no intention whatsoever to inflict bodily harm on the complaints or their children. I have no idea what she said back then but I don't buy that she had any intention to commit a crime and anyone with a lick of sense would know that.

 

All that said, I do think it important that these kinds of issues come to the fore of the public attention.

 

pubby

 

If nothing else, Pat, I have always enjoyed and appreciated your heartfelt and thought-out responses to any inquiries or arguments I've brought up

 

I have been on the receiving end of some nice and lighthearted comments from Miss Jesse, and some other comments that were not so much. What I saw on that video, though, just really touched my heart and I felt a lot of pity.

 

 

[KLSX]

And frankly, the scene was she was there and, as I was on the way to the office, Laurie called and said Miss Jesse was on the square. I thought I'd video tape her. We're obviously acquainted and we were genuinely interested in her circumstance and fate.

 

From the way you have represented her on this site, it appears as though you are trying to exploit Ms Jesse and create a hyper local Wack Pack.

 

 

[powder363]

I hope everything turns out ok

Edited February 22, 2009 by powder363

[JDPennock]

From the way you have represented her on this site, it appears as though you are trying to exploit Ms Jesse and create a hyper local Wack Pack.

 

No way, the people in the area care for and are genuinely concerned with her well being. She is what one would consider a hyper-local celebrity.

[solosoul]

No way, the people in the area care for and are genuinely concerned with her well being. She is what one would consider a hyper-local celebrity.

 

See and that statement is where I think may be her undoing. While I know many on Pcom may care for Miss Jessie this is no longer a small town. I would bet there are MANY more who do not care for her in this county and will be more than happy to help see to it that they and their famlies do not have to be subject to this "hyper-local celebrity". Sorry I just think this was one case where it would be better to let sleeping dogs lay. The whole thing is rather sad to me.

 

[JDPennock]

See and that statement is where I think may be her undoing. While I know many on Pcom may care for Miss Jessie this is no longer a small town. I would bet there are MANY more who do not care for her in this county and will be more than happy to help see to it that they and their famlies do not have to be subject to this "hyper-local celebrity". Sorry I just think this was one case where it would be better to let sleeping dogs lay. The whole thing is rather sad to me.

 

While I do understand your affirmation of liking Miss Jessie I do also believe that if she did wrong, she should not be allowed to slip through just for being eccentric.

 

We here at Paulding.com however are going to tell the good citizens of Paulding what is going on with this proposed "denizen" regardless of the outcome.

[Beach Bum]

No way, the people in the area care for and are genuinely concerned with her well being. She is what one would consider a hyper-local celebrity.

 

This is not true. I have no doubt that the p.com staff is very fond of Ms. Jessie and there are many people in the area that care for Ms. Jessie, inlcuding myself, but I hear more people speaking negatively than postively about her. She is always very nice to me but she isn't to everyone and I know many people are very offended by her abusive and obscene language - especially in the presence of small children.

 

I agree with SOLO - in my opinion it would have been better left alone and I do somewhat agree with KLSX that it appears that she is being exploited. Again, this is just my humble opinion but I do think it was a bad decision to conduct this interview.