Posted by Thomas1776 on May 13, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Jennings is obviously rock solid. He's a family man with a loving and supportive wife. You don't find a person often with strong morals and values - a person who is truly fair and not pretentious.

Mr. Jennings has my vote.

Posted by moonpie on May 13, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This should be an appointed position to take the poltics out of the process of law enforcement. We have enough problems without worrying about these two squabling...

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Even if it was an appointed position, politics still would be in the process....& people still would squabble.

At least this way the people, who are supposed to be served & protected because of the job that they do, get some idea, before hand, of what they are getting.

Posted by lillycollette on May 13, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you to both candidates for observing the rules of civility and to Mr. Kropf for his accurate reporting of the debate.

The fact that I had already made my choice for Solicitor Wilson known -- carried no guarantee of my vote. I aggressively listened to this debate with the intent of searching for any flaws in Solicitor Wilson and any favor in Mr. Jennings.

To the best of my knowledge and belief there were no ethical rules against Mr. Jennings remaining in his position while he ran for the office of Solicitor. However, he was obligated to be a team-player under the policies set by Solicitor Wilson while he remained in that position. Any reliance on and / or interpretations of what the deceased Solicitor Hoisington might have allowed Mr. Jennings to do showed his contention with Solicitor Wilson.

Quoting Solicitor Wilson: “Jennings spoke to the press (about a case) against her orders and wasn't supportive of her new administration.”

Mr. Jennings said that the move to oust him was “a political decision" without ever clarifying how he believed this move would be of any advantage to Solicitor Wilson. Without that clarification it can be equally alleged that Mr. Jennings maneuvered his on removal as “a political decision”. Mr. Jennings still has time before the election to explain his point.

Prosecution of crimes is not a popularity contest. Solicitor Wilson lived up to that duty with the two Wando High School students despite publication of the intent of some to challenge her election over it. To the best of my knowledge and belief no appeal has been filed in the case of either of these young men and the parents and attorney (for at least one of them) acquiesced in the sentencing.

Prosecution of crimes by illegal aliens is a duty of the Solicitor’s Office -- their subsequent deportation is a federal issue.

Given my personal knowledge of public corruption and judicial malfeasance in the Ninth Circuit Family Court system, I have no reason to doubt that the juvenile division of the Berkeley Family Court "was in a shambles" under Jennings' time as deputy. It was up to Mr. Jennings to present a plan to address that issue.

I found Solicitor Wilson to be competent and articulate and worth my vote.

My best regards to Mr. Jennings.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To my knowledge, prior to last night's debate, Wilson had not mentioned any specifics in her reason for "urging" Jennings to quit.

According to Jennings back in September, he asked her for specifics & she provided nothing. (http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...)

I am curious about which case it was that he discussed with the press & which she had ordered him not to discuss. Does anyone have any specifics on that?

Posted by PollyA on May 13, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I found it politically convenient for Mr. Jennings to avoid answering the question about the Wando students -- it allows him to walk the thin line of not offending potential "tough on crime" voters and still maintain the support of the Wando parents. It is a good political move, but shows a lack of character in my opinion. Those around me at the debate were commenting during Mr. Jenning's non-answer, "come on, just answer the question."

Posted by realityck on May 13, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was at the debate last night, know them both, and think both would do a fine job as Scarlett is now. Blair's inability to give a straight forward answer about the Wando case was troubling. My vote is for Scarlett.

Posted by greyrider on May 13, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the Presidential race, I'm reluctantly voting for McCain because he's the lesser of 3 evils. Fortunately in this race, we've got 2 good candidates. I think the winner hiring the loser is a great idea. However, I do think Scarlett is tougher on crime and has more of a killer instinct toward violent criminals. Also, I like the idea that she doesn't want to make phony promises about the illegal immigrant problem. She'll do what she can but she won't play politics and promise to single handedly eliminate the problem. All politicians make mistakes while in office. Both candidates have made more right moves than wrong moves, but the edge goes to Scarlett in my opinion.

Posted by SCgal on May 13, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it interesting ALL involved in the Wando case HAVE not been senteneced yet!

And go check out a few backgrounds on ALL involved, including their past crimes and ages and daily happenings around town- sentencing day should be interesting to say the least!!!!

Posted by RTC on May 13, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I missed the debate last night.
I really wanted to see it, so I could make a better decision on whom to vote.
Did anyone hear anything that really stood out about either candidate?

Posted by ohappyday on May 13, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blair Jennings handled a case in which a girl was murdered. Jennings met with the family, befriended them, was there for them... The suspect was caught, Jennings himself met with and notified the family. The suspect was charged and will pay for his crime with his own life. Jennings and the family members will forever be friends because of the tragedy that brought them together. Blair Jennings is a man of integrity, honor and strength. His actions have proven that he truly values and cares about people, regardless of who they are. He doesn't condemn people for their choices. He simply recognizes that people make mistakes and in the court of law, they should pay for their mistakes according to the guidelines of the law. I don't know Scarlett Wilson. I cannot submit anything for or against her, and I wish her well. But I have seen Blair Jennings interact and work with many people in Berkeley County and I believe he will be a great solicitor for both Berkeley and Charleston counties. He has my blessing, my confidence and my vote. Thank you Mr. Jennings for all you've done for us here in Berkeley County.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I would've liked Jennings to have given a clear answer about the Wando issue, I cannot imagine he was trying to get the votes of the defendants' parents. That is an awfully small crowd to pander to & most in this community wanted to see a tough stance taken in that case.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Taking a tough stance on violent criminals is great, but often there are opportunities to take a tough stance on criminals in a pre-violent stage. Often there are incidents of criminal behavior in those who eventually commit violence.

I am aware of one very serious case of stalking that was dismissed by Wilson's office. My concern about this is exacerbated by Wilson's arrogance in being questioned about various policies relating to this case.

From what I have seen policies as stated on her web site does not line up with the actual treatment of these kinds of cases.

Also from what I have seen, her invitation(on web page) to contact her about concerns, & her promise to answer concerns, is disingenuous. She refused to answer or discuss concerns about policy(she was not asked to discuss details of the case).

"The difference between harrassment and stalking is a distinction of the law. Stalking occurs when harrassing behavior is repeated, is threatening, is purposefully directed at a specific person, and would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death for themselves or a family member."

I know for a fact that others aside from the victim in this case fear the stalker. A health care professional whose statement was given to the court at one of his bond hearings indicated grave concerns about her own physical safety regarding this person.

The solicitor's office indicated that they investigated this case. They could not possibly have done so.

"Stalking is a crime of terror..that leaves no physical cuts or bruises - at least not unless the stalker becomes desperate and acts out in violence, which is often the case..."

"The most common harrassment/stalker cases dealt with are those of simple obsession: a relationship or marriage goes sour...jilted person is unable to accept it. The personality problems... can make this type of stalker dangerous, especially if there is a history of domestic abuse. The reason they are so dangerous is that they stalk out of anger, hurt and revenge. They may be looking for a way to justify their rage."

"81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner.

76% of female murder victims had been stalked. 67% had been physically abused by their intimate partner.

89% of female murder victims who had been physically abused had also been stalked in the 12 months before the murder.

only 54% of these victims reported stalking to police before they were killed by their stalker."
above information in ".." from http://www.aardvarc.org/stalking/main.sh...

Posted by BlueMercedesS on May 13, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahh....the comments section.

Let the spin begin!

- Campaign staff pretending to be commoners.

- Political consultants hiding their identities.

- The staff and kin of high powered attorneys trying to make sure their loved ones and bosses will still have the clout they need after June 10 all commenting away! Yes, i'm talking about you.

What's that old quote? "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts."

Well, the "fact" is that any Jennings supporter who was in the room last night during the debate ended up walking out with a bit of their conscience saying to them "hmm...is that the best Blair can do?"

Sorry guys, you picked the wrong horse this time around.

Posted by SCgal on May 13, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't forget the 25 minute aquittal blame game!

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/...

Posted by cnstreet on May 13, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think they are both competent choices. Scarlett is already there and doing a great job by most accounts, so she has my vote. Why change? Won't that just be a disruption?

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BlueMercedesS..since all of us could not attend last night, how about some specifics? Maybe those that saw the debate can decipher some of your comments, but I know I cannot.

Admittedly, I am a Jennings supporter by default. I am still interested in learning all I can, so enlighten me & others who are leaning in his direction.

Posted by kiteboarder on May 13, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought there were a couple of key moments during the debate between Ms. Wilson and Blair Jennings.
- I've never seen someone read from a canned script during a debate.
- When Rocky D asked why Blair does't include being a republican in his yard signs, he muttered something like 'It doesn't matter that I'm a republican.' Finally, an honest answer. Blair is not a republican, he's actually democrat, his father is a democrat and Blair works for a democrat.
- When Blair was asked if 'he was the father of a child who was victimized, would he have confidence in Scarlett's ability?' Blair said yes, 100% confidence in Scarlett's ability to prosecute the offender... Blair, why are you running?

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 13, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

abitskeptical,

Women stalk as well. Look at the statistics as to the increase in numbers since prosecutors, courts, and judges, are now more and more being balanced with gender.

The biggest problem in domestic situations, people lie and put on an act. Even as far to lie under oath. And they do. Women have never been an exception to lying to hurt an ex. It's just that when you have judges saying the laws are for the women in this state, you have a serious problem.

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 13, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In my opinion, Wilson seems to be a man hater. Does she have any children? Has she been married? Divorced?

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Was Wilson asked the same question about confidence in Jennings' ability to prosecute? If so what was her answer?

Posted by SCgal on May 13, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For me, delaying the sentencing of the Wando HS kids yet again~ no needs for delays and those same delays to not happen for ALL involved!

And the shear fact of chosing to use another person's decision to base a case vs. looking at all the facts and situational changes that occurred and then making a decision based on the current situation!!

What is the end goal of sending a 16 yr old to an adult prison population for 10 yrs to be mentored by hardened criminals 24 x 7 only to be tossed out at age 26 to be your neigbhor with those lifelong scars and emotional problemms vs. family court and extensive rehab!!

No disrecpect to the man, but no one knows what Hoisington's final goal, plan, and considerations would have been concerning this case and the changes made by those involved!

And in my opinion, the facts, when asked about the decision of harsh punishment and the statement about having the authority to change it and the reason as to why the case did not go to Family court- concerning the ages of some of those involved

IMO, extensive rehab as a youthful offender would have served the community and society a much better ending vs. 24/7 x 10 yrs hardened prison population as proven by extensive studies over the US!!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/seans-b...

http://www.helpingsean.com/

Posted by SCgal on May 13, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas writes: In my opinion, Wilson seems to be a man hater. Does she have any children? Has she been married? Divorced?

Interesting point~~~ I have not read or heard anything about family life like Jenning's has on his website and ads~~ having a family and children does bring some wonderful life experiences and wisdom~~

Posted by Thomas1776 on May 13, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew Ralph Hoisington. He was a fine and outstanding man. Didn't he also chose to put Mr. Jennings in charge of the Berkeley office to oversee and supervise others in that court system. A ton of trust and confidence, no doubt.

If I am not mistaken, didn't 'Mrs ' Hoisington endorse Mr. Blair Jennings to be 9th Circuit Solicitor? That in itself speaks VOLUMES.

Posted by SCgal on May 13, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://blairjennings.com/press-release-m...

(Mt. Pleasant, SC) – Today, Michele Hoisington, widow of former Solicitor Ralph Hoisington, declared her support for Blair Jennings in a letter to voters. Ralph Hoisington was elected Solicitor in 2000 and re-elected in 2004, before dying of cancer in 2007. Blair Jennings served as Solicitor Hoisington’s Deputy Solicitor in charge of Berkeley County prosecutions.

http://blairjennings.com/category/news

Following a candidate screening process in which both candidates running for Solicitor were invited to attend, the South Carolina PBA made its decision after careful consideration of each candidate’s responses and records on issues vitally important to the law enforcement profession and public safety.

According to South Carolina PBA President, Dave Soderberg:
“Blair Jennings has a long history of working hand in hand with Law Enforcement Professionals. He has vigorously prosecuted violent offenders, assisted in training the law enforcement community on his own time and works diligently to make our communities safe. We are proud to announce Blair Jennings as our choice for 9th Circuit Solicitor and we hope people who support law enforcement will support Blair as well.”

The South Carolina Police Benevolent Association is a division of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc., a not-for-profit professional organization dedicated to improving the law enforcement profession.

Posted by djennings on May 13, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poor kiteboarder. I doubt that you know me so I wonder why you want to bring me into your comment. It doesn't matter, but it has been over 20 years since I was a democrat. Let's get your facts straight. Sheriff Wayne DeWitt, Blair's boss, is a Republican. Blair's answer was that he was first and foremost a prosecutor. The Republican leadership in Charleston and Berkeley Counties know that Blair is a Republican. Your comment is similar to those on the national stage who try to question a candidate's patriotism based on whether the candidate is wearing a flag lapel pin. Perhaps interesting to some but certainly irrelevant.

Posted by chance78 on May 13, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What speaks volume to me is not completely inane considerations like "is Ms. Wilson married?," but rather what is real story behind this campaign.

The private defense bar, while respectful of Ms. Wilson's abilities, is scared to death at their lack of a "good ole boy" access. They needed an appealing candidate to take them back to the days that cases were "decided among friends" and not in the court room. They are very troubled by they the fact that they are not getting any of the traditional pandering from Ms. Wilson or her office. Thus, in the old school S.C. fashion, the campaign of Mr. Jennings.

Take a look at the major contributors to the Jennings campaign by following the link below - just search under "Jennings", select "Blair Jennings", "October 10th Report" and then "Contributions."

http://sc.gov/PublicReporting/Individual...

This is not a conspiracy theory - it's right there in the public record. Look up those names in the phone book if you doubt it - all Broad Street Lawyers specializing in criminal defense. (Seaton, Kent, Daniel, Query, Coleman,Apostolou, Torres, Davis, Bolus, Crumrine, Robbins, Whirl, Walsh, Dupree, Dutrimble, Deluca, Marshall, Bolus, Uricchio, Postic, Krell, Toporek, Hensley, Schmutz - I'm sick of typing, there are many more, but ALL CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS - almost every major contributor!). Jennings contribution list is a veritable a who's who of Charleston Criminal Defense Attorneys!?!

Not a tough choice for me. I'd like to hear this one asked at the debate:

"What does it say about a candidate for prosecutor when his entire campaign is concieved and funded by a consortium of the cities wealthiest criminal defense attorneys?"

Posted by lillycollette on May 13, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear chance78,

-- "THANK YOU." --
Please feel free to quote me.

Respectfully,
Lilly

Posted by djennings on May 13, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chance78: The misinformation that flows on these pages surprises me. Please check your calendar. 7 months have passed since October 10, 2007, and each candidate has filed 2 more reports. Each has raised significant amounts from lawyers. You must have missed the small contributors on Blair's list-those without a lot of money but who think that he can best keep their families safe. Are you aware that Andy Savage and Lionel Loften are 2 of Scarlett's biggest supporters? Do you really think that the PBA would interview both candidates and then endorse Blair if anyone thought that he was in the hip pocket of the defense bar? I doubt it too.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas:
Of course women stalk. However, in this case it was a man who stalked, so hence the statistics I provided.

Of course people lie. Heck, even stalkers lie. That is why an investigation is important.

However, there was no he said-she said in this case.

With an order of protection in place, the sheriff's deputies found this man parked on a street watching my friend's house. That is why they arrested him the first time. He happens to live 3 rivers & 3 bridges away.

There also is a history of abuse within the home, prior to the separation. This is just one of many examples of behaviors that should have been prosecuted.

This case had some complicated twists & turns & would have required some leg work to prosecute fully. But the leg work would have given the solicitor more than enough to work with. The stalker is pretty clever & has figured out how to manipulate the system big time. He has switched lawyers 4 times in the last year.

Posted by bkc6 on May 13, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miss Wilson has my vote. I call her "Miss" out of respect to her and her position not because of her personal life. It is apparent that her personal life is more important than the performance of her work. But what good is gossip if you can't put someone down. So gossip away - she still will get my vote. Or is it that you want to date her and just asking? Sounds like it to me and my better half. She's too good of a woman for any of you so let's get back on the subject of Jenning/Wilson.

Posted by KidYendor on May 13, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scarlett is good lookin' and I will probably vote for her because of that.

Posted by chance78 on May 13, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Djennings -

Funny - I don't see any Savage on Scarlett's list. But I do see that Rosen, Jones, Swerling, Krell, Theos, and everybody's favorite, Reese Joye, have joined the almost complete defense attorney endorsement of Blair Jennings. As to your "mom and pop" endorsement - not a lot to back that claim up. Then again, I'm not an insider like you - I'm just going by the public records found right here for anyone who's interested:

http://sc.gov/PublicReporting/Individual...

So again, my query (what do you know! the last name of another prominent defense attorney endorsing Mr. Jennings):

What does it say about a candidate for prosecutor whose campaign is concieved by and funded to an overwhelming degree by the city's most wealthiest defense attorneys?

Posted by bkc6 on May 13, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To KidYendor - I have to admit (right in front of my better half) that you are right.

Posted by carolinabeachgirl on May 13, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look at Ms. Wilson's campaign contributions she's not getting funds from residents of Charleston and Berkeley Counties. The bulk of her money is from other counties. Wonder why that is?

Mr. Jennings has my vote.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chance78..the thing about providing a site is that some people might actually look at it.

Someone else has already pointed out that Wilson has her share of big "name brand" criminal defense attorney supporters..so there goes whatever theory you were trying to put forth. I also am aware of other defense attorneys who have her signs up.

That said, it seems that both candidates have a range of supporters, with both having less than half of the listed supporters as attorneys. So far I do not see anything that raises a red flag on either list of supporters.

On to the next point.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 13, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why isn't there a more up to date contribution report on Wilson?

Surely she has received more contributions since October.

She received a considerable amount of money, >$17,000, during the very time that she said she felt no pressure to run & had not made up her mind.

Posted by lillycollette on May 14, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with bkc6. I find that the only things being offered against Solicitor Wilson is sleazy gossip from idiotic nincompoops who clearly do not comprehend the duties of the office of solicitor. The right to vote is too precious a duty to sacrifice it to such garbage.

Solicitor Wilson has earned my vote on her vision for that office and her record.

No doubt there will be attacks on me for saying this

-- but --

“frankly my dears I don’t give a damn”.

Posted by SCgal on May 14, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What outcome for the young promising employee that worked in the prosecutor's office who was involved in the road rage incident on the bridge coming off into Mt. P~~ any current news on that incident??

Posted by chance78 on May 14, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow - let me see if I understand abitskeptical's point -

After two posts on the subject "I've made my point so it's time to move on."

That is hilarious. Is it okay if I talk about a case that doesn't meet the legal definition of stalking but nevertheless I feel should have prosecuted?

Can I talk about it 100 times on twenty different threads or would that be excessive?

Posted by phoenixdown on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Mr. Jennings made a smart move by not giving a stance on the Wando kids, because most of the parents have publically declared their support for him.

SCgal, do you just wait for topics about this stuff to spew hatred over Solicitor Wilson? It is getting quite old.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 14, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chance78-I am always happy to provide hilarity.

My point was: Both candidates have defense counsel support & it doesn't mean much that this is so.

It is no surprise defense attorneys support solicitor candidates. These people work together, believe it or not, & are friendlier than you think. This would apply to Wilson as well as Jennings.

The "wealthy" defense lawyers did not get that way because they were up against a push over good ole boy solicitor. I doubt any of them are concerned at all about a tough solicitor. Most on the lists have more experience than either candidate.

Perhaps I should have said "Exactly what is your point?" instead of "On to the next point". I just wanted you to make a valid one.

You sure do get your feathers ruffled easily...you & lilly are birds of a ruffled feather together.

I would like to know how you know that the case I've referenced...oh, a 100 times by your account,does not meet the legal definition of stalking?

Oh--because Wilson supported her deputy solicitor who decided not to prosecute it?

Two sheriff's deputies, 2 magistrates, a retired state judge, an attorney in the AG's office & a # of other attorneys all know & believe the facts of this case absolutely meet the statutory definition of stalking & they all absolutely believe that it should have been criminally prosecuted & that the solicitor's office was wrong not to proceed with a prosecution. So, this is not just my non-expert opinion.

The reason I have raised this case up so many times is 2 fold...just in case you missed it the 1st 100 times! :)

It is significant & troubling that something so serious fell through the cracks, but I do understand that sometimes this happens.

What made it more significant & troubling is that Wilson was arrogant & frankly rude when asked about policies of her office in handling such cases.

I did not contact her. An attorney friend with in-depth knowledge of the case-some of it 1st hand, asked Wilson if they could meet to discuss policy issues. What she got as an answer was unbelievable. I would think Wilson would have welcomed the opportunity to explain the policies of her office to a legal colleague.

Perhaps the way Wilson responded to a fellow attorney's legitimate request explains why so many other attorneys who would be working on many cases with the next solicitor are supporting her opponent.

Posted by lillycollette on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, the on-going saga of abitskeptical and her tirade against Solicitor Wilson because of a mystery stalker of a mystery friend.

She can’t give out facts because there is a minor child involved. Yet abitskeptical alleges that all of the following are already aware of the facts of this case -- they allegedly believe her -- and none of them can allegedly bring this case to justice:

May 14 at 7:17 p.m.:
2 sheriff's deputies;
2 magistrates;
1 retired state judge;
1 attorney in the AG's office; &
A # of other attorneys

May 13 at 11:09 a.m.:
1 health care professional

April 28 at 2:28 p.m.
Social Security Administration

April 13 at 8:52 p.m.
AUSAs (feds)

April 13 at 9:37 a.m.
Victim’s advocate

April 12 at 9:40 p.m.,
and April 11 at 7:04 a.m.
League of women voters

April 10 at 1:32 p.m.
A family court judge

April 3 at 6:40 a.m.
A state judge

-- AND MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE --

April 2 at 2:20 p.m.
Abitskeptical says, “I KNOW THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF SUBSTANCE WAS DONE” …

Abitskeptical has never presented anything against Solicitor Wilson but unsupported allegations.

Posted by lillycollette on May 15, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quoting abitskeptical, “I did not contact her (Wilson). An attorney friend with in-depth knowledge of the case-some of it 1st hand, asked Wilson if they could meet to discuss policy issues. What she got as an answer was unbelievable.”

April 13 at 9:37 a.m., abitskeptical said, -- “The victim asked for clarification” -- as to why they weren't going forth with this, & she was told there was "no evidence" of stalking (not 'not enough evidence', but "no evidence".)

That may have been because “no investigation of substance was done”.

Posted by lillycollette on May 15, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just hope that no one is influenced in their vote by unsupported anonymous comments.

Posted by lillycollette on May 15, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abitskeptical will of course have to have the last word on this in keeping with her record of postings. I can only give her one response; “Blah, Blah, Blah”.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 15, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well now Lilly, of course I have to rebut your c-rap & tirade. I do believe you are implying that I am being untruthful...

You really should not take my criticism of Wilson so personally.

How much time did you spend going through my "100" posts, on this ..to make sure I was consistent? & I was, because everything I have reported about this case is the absolute truth...Looks like there weren't quite 100 posts though

The stalker is not a mystery to Wilson & deputy solicitor Durant who handled, & I use the term loosely, the case. They know exactly who he is.

My friend is not a mystery to me & others who know her.

If you do not understand why I cannot give out details about this then you do not want to understand--gives you something to bitch at me about anyway..as if you need any more ammo for that.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 15, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said the people I listed believe ME. I did not impart the information to them. I am not a party to the case. I said they believe the crime of stalking took place & that it should be prosecuted. Shame on you for putting forth lies about my posts to fit into your attack.

If the stalker ever gets put in jail where he belongs, then everyone will know about it. I just hope it isn't for murder.

I did not state that the AUSAs were aware of this case.(shame on you again) I stated there are aspects of this man's activities that they should be made aware of. Maybe they are at this point.

I said 1 health care professional indicated she felt threatened by this sociopath.(shame on you again) Many health care professionals are aware of his pathology.

The sheriff's deputies & magistrates TRIED to bring this case to justice. The AG has no oversight of the solicitor here..or don't you know that miss lawyer woman? (again, shame on you)

There is a rule to show cause hearing in family court in June-perhaps justice will be served then.

SSA indicated that they were already looking at him. Perhaps they will bring forth some justice this man deserves, but they are a slow moving beast & the damage he can do in the interim is almost boundless.

How exactly does one present evidence of no investigation?
(So glad that was your all time favorite. Tell me why you liked that one so much. While you're at it tell me why you cut & paste parts of posts & then add nothing. The one about no investigation just reinforced my original point-no evidence can be found if no investigation is done. So what was YOUR point?)

There are at least 6 witnesses to the stalking that I am aware of,including myself, who would have been questioned/interviewed had an investigation occurred.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my belief that in an investigation of an alleged crime, witnesses to the alleged crime are kind of important to the prosecution of said crime-especially a crime of this nature. Aside from interviewing witnesses, what else would the investigation entail-interviewing only the defendant???

Enlighten me oh lilly who thinks she is sooo wise & so clever & so smart & so knowledgable & so edjumacated

Posted by abitskeptical on May 15, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not that you are interested, but I'll throw it out just for kicks--

I had no opinion about Wilson prior to the handling of this case & its dismissal in Feb. My grandmother was a Wilson. My dad told me when she took office that Scarlett is a cousin of ours. Being the loyal sort I assumed I'd like & support her.

I have not "attacked" her. I presented information, to the extent that I can. You simply do not want to believe that anything I stated even is within the realm of possibility, I guess because that might put a crack in the veneer of your judgment about your candidate.

You have posted over & over in your on-going saga about your husband who was "wronged" because he couldn't help dipping his wick into the wrong kind of woman that a great injustice occurred to him. Tell us all Lilly why justice has not been served in that case. Maybe because you don't have a case.

Even if I had provided names in the case I discussed you would find some other reason to discount what I have said. I have no reason to doubt, that if I had presented this case as one that Jennings had handled badly, you would not have been spewing so much vitriol my way.

Pretty low life sleazy lawyer tactic to put forth lies about someone's posts & then claim said person always has to have the last word. Shame on you again.

From everything I have seen from you we all should be thankful you are not practicing law anymore..if indeed you ever did.

Posted by abitskeptical on May 15, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Abitskeptical has never presented anything against Solicitor Wilson but unsupported allegations"

Shame on you yet again lillycollete.. another lie presented in an attempt to validate your attack on me...good lord woman..would you know the truth if it kissed you on the cheek?

Some of the information in my comments regarding Wilson are indeed supported by verifiable sources: direct quotes from her(TV interview last fall), statements she made to the P&C,information provided in a P&C article or information from the campaign contribution reports--all verifiable sources of information I used in some of my comments.

Posted by SCgal on May 18, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by phoenixdown on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Mr. Jennings made a smart move by not giving a stance on the Wando kids, because most of the parents have publically declared their support for him.

SCgal, do you just wait for topics about this stuff to spew hatred over Solicitor Wilson? It is getting quite old.

This is getting to be defamation, no I don't spew hatred I read and listen and form my opinion on the informatioin Miss Wilson states and what is written!

It is what it is~

I too, had no clue as to who Miss Wilson even was until the Wando case, and now I have my opinion~

Let's see what 8.5 - 10 yrs delivers into our community by tossing teens into an adult population for 24/7 vs. family court, extensive rehab, counesling, etc.