Brickbat: Left Las Vegas

A federal jury has awarded more than $34 million to Kirstin Blaise Lobato, who served nearly 16 years in a Nevada state prison for a 2001 killing in Las Vegas she did not commit. No physical evidence tied her to the crime. Police officers testified in her original trial that she twice confessed to the crime, but attorneys in her lawsuit said those confessions were faked. After the Nevada Supreme Court threw out her conviction in 2002, Lobato was tried and convicted again in 2006. But in 2017, the Innocence Project presented expert testimony questioning the estimated time of the victim's death presented by the prosecution. The experts argued that based on the state of the body when it was discovered, the death happened during a period when Lobato was no longer in the city. Based on that evidence, a court vacated her sentence. The Clark County District Attorney's Office later dropped all charges against her.

Comments

[AT]

but attorneys in her lawsuit said those confessions were faked.

What??? How?!

What, did they forge her signature? Bring in a body double? How does one "fake" a confession?

FFS, why do I even bother. Let's just go to the source.

Now retired Las Vegas detectives Thomas Thowsen and James LaRochelle were accused of faking evidence during their investigation

Why didn't you just say that Chaz? It would have had the same narrative effect. Anyway, let's get back to the FACTS that Charlie loves to distort/omit.

Shot: Bailey’s ... carotid artery was cut and his penis was removed[.] ... Blaise said she had been carrying a knife her father had given her for protection and slashed the man’s groin area then escaped.

Wait for it, the chaser is on its way. But first let's take the next step down the source's source material:

While police were still on the scene, a woman approached and said that a man she knew as "St. Louis" and "Duran" raped her on July 1. She wanted to know if the body they found was that man. At that point, police had not identified the victim. Later, they would confirm that the victim was 44-year-old Duran Bailey, who was also known as “St. Louis.”

So, she put herself on the cop's radar and flat out handed them motive. Where 5-0 fell down on the job was with the fact that Blaise quote, "told a number of male neighbors about the attack," creating "the possibility that they retaliated against Bailey." Which, if you ask me, is probably what actually happened - considering the savage beatdown Bailey received in addition to being castrated and killed. They absolutely should have looked into that angle. So, yes, for the record, I'm willing to accept that this woman was wrongfully convicted.

But - and what Chaz doesn't tell you - is that she was almost certainly and reasonably and assuredly connected to this murder. And the cops rightfully made that connection, even if they didn't put the puzzle together correctly.

But wait, I promised you a chaser.

Chaser: someone called the Las Vegas Metro Police Department and told them they’d heard Blaise had cut off a man’s penis in Las Vegas.

So, it's not like penises are cut off with regular frequency in murders. And Blaise was out there clearly telling folks about having done precisely that to anyone who would listen to the tale (or, more likely, that she had effectively instigated someone to do it for her). Is it really any surprise that they made her for the murder? Wait, it'll keep getting better.

Ooh, actually - intermission. Let's take a moment to bring up this little peach of a detail for all the Reason folks: Thowsen said Lobato [nee Blaise] was unclear on the timing of the incident because she had been consuming drugs.

Would anyone like to discuss the merits of recreational drug use again? Eh, don't bother. I only brought it up to LOL right in your stoner junkie druggie-defending faces.

Anyway, let's resume.

Korinda Martin, an inmate at the Clark County Detention Center, testified that while awaiting trial, Lobato had bragged that she amputated a man’s penis and placed it “down his throat.” Martin testified that Lobato was worried that blood might be found in her car because she had hit the victim in the face. Martin also said that Lobato told her that she had picked up the victim—whom Lobato called “Darren”—to get methamphetamine. When he wanted to engage in sex first, she stabbed him in the rectum. Martin said Lobato bragged that while what she did was overkill, he deserved it.

Oof, wow, all of that really tracks actually. It's no wonder they found her guilty. Twice. She had means, motive, apparent opportunity and she was bragging about it for street (and later jailhouse) cred. And you're brickbatting that???

Now, again, I'm willing to accept that she was wrongfully convicted. But how in God's name was this woman possibly exonerated? (Spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with police malfeasance.)

Ready? Ready to learn the truth that Chaz omitted? How oh how was this woman exonerated?

One word: blowflies.

Ultimately, this "brickbat" hinges exclusively on the fact that - in the face of overwhelming evidence of a clear connection to the crime - the cops didn't go the extra extra extra extra mile and employ the use of forensic entomology to confirm their suspicion. And, I might add, neither did her defense attorneys in both of her criminal trials.

So stupid. Chaz once again phones in a brickbat, having not looked at anything but the scantest of details, in order to paint the cops as some kind of cartoon villain Snidely Whiplash who are "faking confessions," whatever the heck that means (I'M STILL LOLING AT THAT DUMBASSERY), only to have a casual glance at the ACTUAL facts reveal that they had every darn good reason to link this broad to this murder, even if they ultimately got it wrong on who - almost certainly at her behest - actually did him.

And, of course, because this is Reason, they try to establish their dumbass narratives by highlighting the least sympathetic examples - in this case, a meth-addicted whore that got into it with some vagrant nobody would ever miss, and more than likely convinced someone she knew to go tune him up a notch, cut his balls off, and then trade off the story of murder and mutilation as if she was the hero of it.

Par for the course, Reason. Par. For. The. Course.

Put on the nose, Charles. You are Clown World.

[Minadin]

In addition to the police department, those two detectives mentioned / implied to have acted wrongly, were found to be personally financially liable in this lawsuit, though for a significantly lesser sum (shallower pockets?).

[Nick 12]

It looks like you're quoting from this article:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5254
I don't think the woman who "approached and said that a man she knew as "St. Louis" and "Duran" raped her on July 1" is the same person as Kirstin Blaise Lobato.

The police made the connection to Lobato through a second-hand report to a probation officer.

There is a Wikipedia article about this case which might make more sense, or which could be updated if you have new information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Kirstin_Lobato

[AT]

I don't think the woman who "approached and said that a man she knew as "St. Louis" and "Duran" raped her on July 1" is the same person as Kirstin Blaise Lobato.

I suppose that's possible. Though I'd speculate that the rationale of the detectives was, "Hey, check out what this probation officer just said. Wasn't some chick sniffing around the scene when he was still a John Doe? Think the two are connected?" "I don't know kid, all I know is I got two weeks before retirement. Let's go talk to Ms. Bobbitt and see what she says."

Anyway, the point remains that the cops still had plenty of good reason to connect Lobato to the crime. I still think they put the puzzle together wrong, and thus support the overturning of her conviction. But the Occam's Razor of the whole affair seems to be that this chick got into it with the victim, and someone then killed him for her sake. A fact which she happily bragged about to others.

[BYODB]

It would still help if the police felt that they needed little things like actual evidence rather than hearsay and supposition to put someone in jail for decades for murder, though. It would help even more if the DA or court agreed with that requirement.

[AT]

The prosecution’s theory was that Lobato, high on methamphetamine, sought out Bailey for more and agreed to trade oral sex for drugs. However, she changed her mind and when Bailey assaulted her, she fought back with her knife and the bat from her car.

Lobato testified that she had used her knife to defend herself from a sexual assault in Las Vegas, but that the incident happened in May—several weeks before Bailey was murdered. She said that she thought she cut the assailant in the groin and then escaped. She denied knowing Bailey or killing him. Lobato said that she expressed remorse during her interview with Thowsen because she believed he was telling her that the man she believed she had cut had subsequently died.

Imagine you're a juror, and you're hearing that awfully coincidental fact pattern of two different people meeting with two different brothers for reasons of sex and drugs who both admittedly knifed the guy in the junk, and the only exculpatory evidence is a claim that "she was somewhere else," made from someone so strung out on meth that she couldn't establish her own timeline.

Again, I'm not saying she was guilty. I'm just saying that it sure reasonably seemed like she was at the time.

Also, let this be a cautionary tale about the dangers of recreational drug use.

[BYODB]

Imagine if they required evidence for a conviction, this would have never happened since by their own admission they had none.

Another word for 'coincidental fact pattern' is 'garbage the DA made up to sound good'. Furthermore, the notion that the defendant needs to prove they didn't do it is just outright horseshit. It makes me question if you're even aware of how the U.S. justice system works, because it sure seems like you don't.

[AT]

Imagine if they required evidence for a conviction, this would have never happened since by their own admission they had none.

They had a dead guy with some very specific and unique mutilation, they had a woman bragging about recently causing that very same kind of mutilation to someone similarly described as the victim in the same location as the victim, they had her alibi which they found unconvincing (in no small part because junkies make for poor witnesses, especially in their own defense). That's all evidence. Like I said, not beyond the realm of imagination of how the jury got to a guilty verdict.

Furthermore, the notion that the defendant needs to prove they didn't do it is just outright horseshit.

Language.

I never said she did. I said that the prosecution put on a pretty convincing case, and her defense couldn't poke any good holes into it. Their own client outright testified, "Yea, I stabbed a guy in the junk in Vegas - I'm very proud of that, by the way - but it wasn't me in this case! I was miles away, and you can ask all these people who are clearly in the tank for me and favorable to my alibi! Or... well, wait... at least I think I was miles away at the time. I was meth'd out of my skull, so who knows." I mean, exactly what's your argument here dude?

Jury was able to find - twice - that the evidence fit the allegations. Until then, the subject of blowflies as it relates to time of death hadn't come up.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I wonder how much in tax she has to pay on that.

[Vernon Depner]

Around 40-45%, depending on state and local taxes where she lives.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You left off your own little peach of a detail, bud.

Ooh, actually - intermission. Let's take a moment to bring up this little peach of a detail for all the Reason folks: Thowsen said Lobato [nee Blaise] was unclear on the timing of the incident because she had been consuming drugs.

Would anyone like to discuss the merits of recreational drug use again? Eh, don't bother. I only brought it up to LOL right in your stoner junkie druggie-defending faces.

She was breathing too, and she ate food and drank water in the last few days too.

Would you like to discuss the merits of breathing, eating, and drinking again? Eh, don't bother. You'd rather prevent people from doing things which don't harm people (using recreational drugs) than focus on the actual harm.

Millions of people use recreational drugs without killing people, same as millions of people own guns without killing people.

You're just another fucking statist, full of wisdom denied to mere mortals.

[BYODB]

Nevermind that the biggest drug addiction crisis is recent history was entirely based on totally legal prescription drugs that were properly prescribed by medical doctors to people with legitimate medical complaints.

Drug warriors are gonna warrior, and they are quite sure of their moral superiority.

[AT]

Indeed, never mind. Because it's irrelevant.

When the doctor stops prescribing you the drugs because he properly diagnoses that you no longer need them for pain management, and you still jones for them - that's when you're supposed to go check yourself into rehab. Maybe even talk to your prescribing doctor about getting help because of the new problem that you're facing. As opposed to start looking for street suppliers, who should all be in jail but yet somehow folks here always want to rationalize as doing something perfectly legitimate.

Junkies gon' junkie.

And the only people who complain about the moral superiority of others are those who are quite certain of, but too prideful to admit, their own moral inferiority. Jiminy Cricket is on your shoulder saying, "Dude, wtf," and instead of listening you go straight for the bug spray.

[BYODB]

It's not irrelevant. I'd wager you can't even point to the moral issue at play here despite your mistaken claim that you are better than 'junkies' that 'smoke reefer'.

And the only people who complain about the moral superiority of others are those who are quite certain of, but too prideful to admit, their own moral inferiority.

The idea that the only people who would have a problem with those who claim moral superiority is because they are inferior is, at it's heart, idiotic.

For a person that endlessly complaints about the feigned moral superiority of progressives, it's amusing you'd say something this stupid since it paints you as a moral inferior yourself. I'm sure you view your moral system as the only possible correct one, so to you this makes sense, but then that was the same thing the Nazi's did...was it not?

[AT]

Godwin's Rule LOL!

The fact of the matter, Byo, is that people who know they're dregs and skells - and at heart, every one of them knows it - they don't like looking up. Looking up reminds them of what they are, what they could be, and the lies they have to constantly tell themselves in order to rationalize not trying to be better than they are. Whether it's druggies, or perpetual race victims, or homosexuals, or Karens, or blue-haired 30something baristas wondering why their six-figure debt-incurring Intersectional Climate Gender Theory didn't work out for them - it's all just the same Marxist lowest common denominator "when everyone is special, no one will be" nonsense.

It's much easier to pretend there is no up, and to try and drag their betters down to their level (which is what you're presently trying to do). It's like lowering standards to make the less qualified feel "qualified." Well, I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself - it's always about the feels with the dregs, isn't it - but it doesn't change your test score, one-mile run time, vertical leap, or anything else.

If you think that doesn't apply on a moral level as well, then you're quite mistaken.

[AT]

Breathing, eating, and drinking water aren't crimes and/or socially abhorred behaviors by normal America, SGT.

But like I said, I only brought it up in the first place so I could laugh right in your face. So....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[BYODB]

Drug use isn't 'adhorred' by 'normal America' they merely put a premium on their dealer having a medical license.

Amusingly, the biggest modern addiction disaster hit the exact people that think like you on the subject.

Kudos for outing yourself as a straight up asshole though. If you 'only bring things up' to laugh in people's faces, it kind of means you're the unbalanced nut job. Maybe you should stay away from drugs, or perhaps get on some drugs from your local licensed Psychologist.

[AT]

If you 'only bring things up' to laugh in people's faces

Not just any people's faces. The people, like our friend here, who insist that recreational drug abuse is, like, totally harmless man, like, a victimless crime that affects nobody but themselves, man.

*eyeroll*

[BYODB]

Yeah, so an asshole like I said.

For someone that pretends to care about moral issues, you're incredibly immoral yourself. If we are super honest that is actually par for the course for people who like to argue about their own moral superiority.

It's kind of pathetic since you spend so much time bashing on Progressives, yet can't seem to see that you follow the same script.

[AT]

Yeah, so an asshole like I said.

Sticks and stones. (Also, language.)

For someone that pretends to care about moral issues, you're incredibly immoral yourself.

"I know you are but what am I, hUrrRRr."

lol.

[Michael Ejercito]

Maybe the government should set up a panel to investigate this.

[Vesicant]

Yes, because time of death estimates are both accurate and precise.