Justice, Las Vegas Style Redux.
October 7, 2006 9:11 AM   Subscribe

Convicted again. Less than a week ago, Court TV published an article about the case entitled "Defense "Defense forensic scientist says not a shred of evidence links woman to mutilation murder". And yet, Kirstin Blaise Lobato has just been convicted again, this time for "voluntary manslaughter." A new petition has been drafted, and this one will go directly to the Governor of Nevada and the Clark County District Attorney's office. Previous
posted by MsWonderland (9 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: self-link, banned

Jury of your peers.
posted by smackfu at 9:45 AM on October 7, 2006

You can't link to something you created or are involved in here, MsWonderland.

"Helen is most widely noted for the creation of a comprehensive website entitled "Free Kirstin Lobato: Innocent and Unjustly Convicted in Nevada" focusing upon the injustices surrounding the State v. Lobato trial in Las Vegas, now in the retrial process."
posted by neustile at 9:54 AM on October 7, 2006

"Defense forensic scientist says what defense attorney wants them to. Film at 11."
posted by chimaera at 10:08 AM on October 7, 2006

Yeah, the physical evidence angle is shaky, but details volunteered during her own story closely fit the crime.
posted by dhartung at 10:26 AM on October 7, 2006

Yeah, the site mentioned in neustile's quote is justice4kirstin.com., which is linked here. Also Helen Caddes is the first signature on the linked petition. So, pretty self-linky.
posted by gubo at 10:53 AM on October 7, 2006

And the previous post was by her too. Even if it were OK to self-link, which it isn't, it wouldn't be OK to post essentially the same story twice in a little over a week; this should have gone in the previous thread.
posted by languagehat at 10:54 AM on October 7, 2006

Well, this is a weird case. She admitted she killed someone in that manner, but there is no physical evidence linking her to the actual crime.

What I don't understand is where they get this whole story about him "offering her drugs in exchange for sex." It seems like there are only two people who could corroborate that story, one is dead and the other is the defendant.

If I were in the jury, I would not have convicted her without any physical evidence. It's not that uncommon for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit, for various reasons.

My guess is that the jury just figured that she had killed someone just not that guy, and decided she should go to jail anyway. After all, does it really matter what generic homeless person she really killed?

It would be difficult to let someone go who admitted doing all those horrible things, just because you have the wrong corpse.

I can understand the logic, but it seems that if she really had killed someone else, they would have found that body too. So I would just assume she was making the whole thing up, or was crazy, and I would not have voted to convict.
posted by delmoi at 10:57 AM on October 7, 2006

I think severing someone's penis and stabbing them in the anus is malicious, dead or not. What a weird verdict.
posted by owhydididoit at 11:17 AM on October 7, 2006

Two self-links in two weeks. Someone didn't read the rules....

with that said, I'm glad the case was brought to my attention.
posted by photoslob at 11:43 AM on October 7, 2006

« Older Bendy Vert and Argent, a Tierce Argent, a Fusil...   |   Disney, Syphilis, Mental Retardation, Sexuality... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments