|
Post by kma367 on Jul 31, 2012 10:07:26 GMT -6
Good point, Cyclone. Which leads me to infer that Henderson knew that authorities would never buy the story of an accident and that's why she took Brandon's body and buried him 60 miles away.
Fuglyville, Henderson's actions after the alleged "accident" are evidence against her. Apparently, her daughter also testified against her and, it's been a while since I researched the case, but she may have been a witness to Brandon's injury. As I've said before, there's no reason for her to panic and take Brandon's body, bury it 60 miles away and flee the jurisdiction if he was injured in an accident. She wasn't a 14 or 15 year old kid. She was an adult woman, with children of her own.
If the courts in Texas let her go, she will have gotten away with cold-blooded murder. Since it's Texas, I hope that will not happen and that an appellate court will look at ALL of the facts and circumstances from the original conviction and overrule the judge.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 15:54:28 GMT -6
For Mr Broker Dear Mirr, How lovely! What a nice person. I would you to like to thank her for me. Ida
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 16:54:22 GMT -6
Good point, Cyclone. Which leads me to infer that Henderson knew that authorities would never buy the story of an accident and that's why she took Brandon's body and buried him 60 miles away. Fuglyville, Henderson's actions after the alleged "accident" are evidence against her. Apparently, her daughter also testified against her and, it's been a while since I researched the case, but she may have been a witness to Brandon's injury. As I've said before, there's no reason for her to panic and take Brandon's body, bury it 60 miles away and flee the jurisdiction if he was injured in an accident. She wasn't a 14 or 15 year old kid. She was an adult woman, with children of her own. If the courts in Texas let her go, she will have gotten away with cold-blooded murder. Since it's Texas, I hope that will not happen and that an appellate court will look at ALL of the facts and circumstances from the original conviction and overrule the judge. kma367 Yeah ive read the testomony of her daughter. It was really really heartbreaking. The girl is still scared to dead for her ''mother''
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Jul 31, 2012 22:48:25 GMT -6
She was most probably scared as hell, and scared and inexperienced people tend to be irrational - point being, that's still no evidence that she actually murdered om cold blood. And if the prosecution can't come up with actual evidence, they have no choice but to let her go. To sentence her for murder such as the case stands now, would be a travesty and a tragedy in itself. It is extremely rare for parents and caregivers not to seek assistance for an injured child in their care, even when they have committed a criminal act against the child. Casey Anthony comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 28, 2013 23:28:05 GMT -6
Any word yet?
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Feb 2, 2013 18:26:56 GMT -6
Sure, but none of this actually proves that she was the actual murderer. Unless such proof shows up, they have no choice but to release her. The fact that she panicked and fled proves that she panicked and fled - it DOES NOT prove a murder. You truly are an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 4:18:53 GMT -6
Several of the cases I have looked at have used delaying tactics right up until the end, some beginning the whole process over. I'm simply saying it's extremely difficult for the victims loved ones seeking justice to have to deal with this. It is tough, no doubt - but when the alternative is the death of a possible innocent, they just have to deal with it. Every legal process takes time, and considering the gravity of a death sentence it's even more important that all doubt is cleared up. There should be an extremely high threshold for the death penalty, and letting someone die just to satisfy a thirst for blood serves no one in the long run. FACT: there is NO doubt that this worthless c..t murdered the baby. her not calling 911 is conclusive proof, in and of itself. when a child is hurt in an accident, you think of the child, not yourself. flight is evidence of guilt. NO innocent person runs away. end of story
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2013 4:25:21 GMT -6
This reminds me of the Willingham case, where the basis for the conviction is misrepresented to give the appearance of innocence. Henderson was not convicted solely based on the ME's findings regarding Brandon's injuries. She was also convicted based on her actions after Brandon's death, i.e. taking off and burying his body, rather than calling for help or getting him to a hospital to treat his allegedly accidental injuries. Those are the actions a rational person would take when a child, or anyone else is injured in an accident. A person who caused the injury deliberately and maliciously would allow the child to die and then bury the body and hope no one ever finds it, which is what Henderson did. kma367 Yes, but if you take away the MEs evidence the case will be weaker. you can't rationally take away the forensic evidence. here, you have a fool dredged up by god only knows who, coming in claiming that the injuries COULD be due to a fall. he certainly can't say that the original evidence is impossible. that leaves a jury to determine whose testimony is more credible. the fact that she ran, and buried the kid, tips the scales to murder
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 9, 2013 10:10:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 9, 2013 17:14:31 GMT -6
Thank you Charlene
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 10, 2013 11:37:31 GMT -6
The whole running off with the body and burying it in a shallow grave sure doesn't seem like a typical reaction to horrible accident. You can always find an expert witness to say anything, usually for a fee. Criminal defense attorneys call it the "purple defense." The expert witness will say anything that doesn't make them purple with embarrassment. This is especially true in DP cases. So I agree with DE above.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 10, 2013 12:25:05 GMT -6
Scroll down and read the last three pages of the opinion. Although I oppose the death penalty, I agree with all here, who say that the guilty do not flee. Taking into account the totality of her actions, I believe she is guilty of murder. www.savecathyhenderson.org/henderson_decision_from_CCA.pdf
|
|
|
Post by yasgursfarm on Feb 12, 2013 13:27:38 GMT -6
This is the murder that touched my life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2013 10:36:51 GMT -6
Scroll down and read the last three pages of the opinion. Although I oppose the death penalty, I agree with all here, who say that the guilty do not flee. Taking into account the totality of her actions, I believe she is guilty of murder. www.savecathyhenderson.org/henderson_decision_from_CCA.pdfDo you mean the innocent do not flee
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 17, 2013 16:16:18 GMT -6
Scroll down and read the last three pages of the opinion. Although I oppose the death penalty, I agree with all here, who say that the guilty do not flee. Taking into account the totality of her actions, I believe she is guilty of murder. www.savecathyhenderson.org/henderson_decision_from_CCA.pdfDo you mean the innocent do not flee Wouldn't you say that's true most of the time. They certainly don't brag about having murdered a person!
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 18, 2013 16:28:48 GMT -6
Yes, but if you take away the MEs evidence the case will be weaker. you can't rationally take away the forensic evidence. here, you have a fool dredged up by god only knows who, coming in claiming that the injuries COULD be due to a fall. he certainly can't say that the original evidence is impossible. that leaves a jury to determine whose testimony is more credible. the fact that she ran, and buried the kid, tips the scales to murder Still - the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that she was guilty; the defense need only create doubt about the conviction. And in a death penalty case, this is even more important. Thus - with the doubt in this case, the wise and justified choice would be to let her go. She might still be guilty, but the risk of killing an innocent person is far worse than potentially letting a guilty person go free.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 18, 2013 17:37:20 GMT -6
Right remember this is in Texas Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 17:48:21 GMT -6
you can't rationally take away the forensic evidence. here, you have a fool dredged up by god only knows who, coming in claiming that the injuries COULD be due to a fall. he certainly can't say that the original evidence is impossible. that leaves a jury to determine whose testimony is more credible. the fact that she ran, and buried the kid, tips the scales to murder Still - the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that she was guilty; the defense need only create doubt about the conviction. And in a death penalty case, this is even more important. Thus - with the doubt in this case, the wise and justified choice would be to let her go. She might still be guilty, but the risk of killing an innocent person is far worse than potentially letting a guilty person go free. It's NOT "beyond doubt" as you stated BUT "beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word being reasonable. Think about that for a minute. Of course you can't think beyond your poor murderers for even an instant.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 18, 2013 18:16:34 GMT -6
Still - the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that she was guilty; the defense need only create doubt about the conviction. And in a death penalty case, this is even more important. Thus - with the doubt in this case, the wise and justified choice would be to let her go. She might still be guilty, but the risk of killing an innocent person is far worse than potentially letting a guilty person go free. It's NOT "beyond doubt" as you stated BUT "beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word being reasonable. Think about that for a minute. Of course you can't think beyond your poor murderers for even an instant. You are exactly correct. Reasonable doesn't mean the extremely implausible or even possibly a possibility. Beyond, reasonable doubt means what a reasonable person will understand and I will reinterate this Texas. Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 18, 2013 18:18:29 GMT -6
Just wondering, is she the cause celeb?
Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 20:55:36 GMT -6
It's NOT "beyond doubt" as you stated BUT "beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word being reasonable. Think about that for a minute. Of course you can't think beyond your poor murderers for even an instant. You are exactly correct. Reasonable doesn't mean the extremely implausible or even possibly a possibility. Beyond, reasonable doubt means what a reasonable person will understand and I will reinterate this Texas. Sent from my LS670 using proboards I knew you would know this, Joe. I guess this gets me so upset because in this case there is so much pointing to her guilt. Her own daughter testified against her. Have to wonder what she did to that poor girl. Btw, one idiot actually told me that there was a shadow of a doubt about the murder of our son. The exact comment was "he said he was at home sleeping. Why would he lie?" I was just dumbfounded by that. I looked at him and said, "Duh, maybe it has something to do with being arrested and put in prison. This person then went on to tell anyone that would listen that I was hysterical and rude. I thought I was pretty reasonable wouldn't you say? Oh yeah and I'm rude, what about this idiot? Sorry went off on a rant but I know how these monsters make up anything they can to save their sorry butts. This woman, Cathy Henderson took their baby's body and put the chid into a hole like he was garbage. Didn't think anything at all about doing it. she says it was an accident. Yeah right. I just feel for Little Brandon's family and what they have had to endure all these years to have this lying sack of crap get out and walk the streets again, when their baby never got a chance to grow up.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 19, 2013 5:23:10 GMT -6
you can't rationally take away the forensic evidence. here, you have a fool dredged up by god only knows who, coming in claiming that the injuries COULD be due to a fall. he certainly can't say that the original evidence is impossible. that leaves a jury to determine whose testimony is more credible. the fact that she ran, and buried the kid, tips the scales to murder Still - the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that she was guilty; the defense need only create doubt about the conviction. And in a death penalty case, this is even more important. Thus - with the doubt in this case, the wise and justified choice would be to let her go. She might still be guilty, but the risk of killing an innocent person is far worse than potentially letting a guilty person go free. the point is, there is NO doubt, to rational minds. obviously, if brandon would have just been dropped, henderson would have called an ambulance. the fact that she tossed him in the car, drove into the woods and buried him, and split the state is CONCLUSIVE proof that she murdered him
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 19, 2013 5:27:35 GMT -6
It's NOT "beyond doubt" as you stated BUT "beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word being reasonable. Think about that for a minute. Of course you can't think beyond your poor murderers for even an instant. You are exactly correct. Reasonable doesn't mean the extremely implausible or even possibly a possibility. Beyond, reasonable doubt means what a reasonable person will understand and I will reinterate this Texas. Sent from my LS670 using proboards since texas is the most civilized state in the union, that is a good thing
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 23, 2013 2:59:34 GMT -6
I really do feel for the parents. I hope that justice is doled out to this biatch soon.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2013 15:46:29 GMT -6
If a so called accident, had she called for an ambulance immediately maybe the baby could have been saved? There have been a number of parents and caregivers who have been convicted of killing or hurting their babies whose convictions were later overturned because scientific evidence that convicted them was discredited. However thinking about all those cases, virtually all those parents etc etc had seen the child was hurt and actually had sought medical assistance. ...unlike Cathy Henderson yes, but being devils advocate, you accept they were innocent, yet were convicted before it was overturned? Thats hardly engenders confidence in so called professionasl and could perhaps provide explanation why somebody else could panic in the fear they too would be presumed guilty by the same so called experts? As for the Judge he seems to be impartial and only doing his job, if new expert evidence has been found, and by an expert who they previosuly relied on to convict, would'nt justice demand this new evidence is now considered? I would have thought it should in order to keep a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 21:55:51 GMT -6
There have been a number of parents and caregivers who have been convicted of killing or hurting their babies whose convictions were later overturned because scientific evidence that convicted them was discredited. However thinking about all those cases, virtually all those parents etc etc had seen the child was hurt and actually had sought medical assistance. ...unlike Cathy Henderson yes, but being devils advocate, you accept they were innocent, yet were convicted before it was overturned? Thats hardly engenders confidence in so called professionasl and could perhaps provide explanation why somebody else could panic in the fear they too would be presumed guilty by the same so called experts? As for the Judge he seems to be impartial and only doing his job, if new expert evidence has been found, and by an expert who they previosuly relied on to convict, would'nt justice demand this new evidence is now considered? I would have thought it should in order to keep a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [/quote} Agreed. First and foremost the prosecution must prove that Brandon was murdered, before anything else. If the evidence supporting this hypothesis is validly challenged then it must be reviewed. I wouldn't convict someone for murder simply because they ran away.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 24, 2013 0:40:02 GMT -6
yes, but being devils advocate, you accept they were innocent, yet were convicted before it was overturned? Thats hardly engenders confidence in so called professionasl and could perhaps provide explanation why somebody else could panic in the fear they too would be presumed guilty by the same so called experts? As for the Judge he seems to be impartial and only doing his job, if new expert evidence has been found, and by an expert who they previosuly relied on to convict, would'nt justice demand this new evidence is now considered? I would have thought it should in order to keep a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [/quote} Agreed. First and foremost the prosecution must prove that Brandon was murdered, before anything else. If the evidence supporting this hypothesis is validly challenged then it must be reviewed. I wouldn't convict someone for murder simply because they ran away. She didn't just run, she buried the child in a wine box, fled and then bragged she had murdered a man. Those are not the actions of an innocent person.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 24, 2013 11:42:09 GMT -6
I appreciate she buried the child the way she did, but the person(s)she bragged to about having murdered somebody, - were these waht could be considered reliable witnesses? And what was her response if that was out to her, did she deny having bragged, or admit it and provide some explanation? I am not saying she is innocent or guilty, I am just querying comments of the ilk like Jumbo makes, when he states that the fact she fled is conclusive evidence of guilt. That alone sure is not, but maybe taken with a collection ofm other things if they are proved to be true, could tip the scales of likelyhood.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 27, 2013 7:46:57 GMT -6
I appreciate she buried the child the way she did, but the person(s)she bragged to about having murdered somebody, - were these waht could be considered reliable witnesses? And what was her response if that was out to her, did she deny having bragged, or admit it and provide some explanation? I am not saying she is innocent or guilty, I am just querying comments of the ilk like Jumbo makes, when he states that the fact she fled is conclusive evidence of guilt. That alone sure is not, but maybe taken with a collection ofm other things if they are proved to be true, could tip the scales of likelyhood. wrong. the fact that she did not attempt to get help for the baby, that she buried him in the woods, AND that she left the state is CONCLUSIVE proof of her guilt. flight IS evidence of guilt, in and of itself, in every state in the union
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 27, 2013 19:54:44 GMT -6
you can't rationally take away the forensic evidence. here, you have a fool dredged up by god only knows who, coming in claiming that the injuries COULD be due to a fall. he certainly can't say that the original evidence is impossible. that leaves a jury to determine whose testimony is more credible. the fact that she ran, and buried the kid, tips the scales to murder Still - the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that she was guilty; the defense need only create doubt about the conviction. And in a death penalty case, this is even more important. Thus - with the doubt in this case, the wise and justified choice would be to let her go. She might still be guilty, but the risk of killing an innocent person is far worse than potentially letting a guilty person go free. The wise and just would not let her go because she was convicted on more than just burying the baby in a wine cooler. I'm guessing they'll grant her a new trial or maybe offer her a plea for a 40 years to life sentence or something.
|
|