Defense: Cutts is ``responsible and attentive father''

There are 20 comments on the Akron Beacon Journal story from Feb 25, 2008, titled Defense: Cutts is ``responsible and attentive father''. In it, Akron Beacon Journal reports that:

Bobby Cutts Jr. dabbed his eyes and nose and his lower lip shook while his mother testified this morning in an effort to save him from a possible death sentence.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Akron Beacon Journal.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
lincoln

Louisville, KY

#118 Feb 26, 2008
Surreal wrote:
<quoted text>
Life in prison would be a better answer and embraced by christian philosophy. It's sad that so many civil people want blood on their hands.
For all you blood thristy christians; keep in mind that it's less expensive to house a prisoner for life than to run the circuit of appeals.
If the State of Ohio chooses life in prison or death, both are within the Christian doctrine, Romans 13.
I think the thirst here is for justice.
abbey

Mentor, OH

#119 Feb 26, 2008
cat luva wrote:
You know what guys, It comes down to this. Let me break it down. Ok, here's the story, a police officer, in fact I believe elbowed her in the throat to get him off of her, being a cop, hes like "o crap, theyre never gonna believe this one", so he freaks out, and tries to hide it. Boom, his conscience is bothering him so bad he leads the authorities to the body. Now, at this point, ya, he's showing remorse but I think more so, he's thinkin the whole "coulda woulda shoulda" IF he had called 911, said it was an accident, we're lookin at, manslaughter, 10-15 years, parolled at 5, AND if he called 911 they could have saved that baby. I i think you people are looking at his lifestyle, granted it wasnt cool what he was doing, u gotta get around that. And not saying Jesse was an angel either, BUT that dosent earn anyone the right to die. You reap what you sew.
he is alot taller then her, how can he elbow her in the throat? he would have hit her forehead!
Tom

Dallas, TX

#120 Feb 26, 2008
abbey wrote:
<quoted text> he is alot taller then her, how can he elbow her in the throat? he would have hit her forehead!
You are exactly right; which is probably a big factor in why the jury/judge didnt buy his "story". We need to remember the jury found him guilty in the murder of Jessie. AND, manslaughter was disallowed by the judge.
Neurocadence

United States

#121 Feb 26, 2008
cat luva wrote:
You know what guys, It comes down to this. Let me break it down. Ok, here's the story, a police officer, in fact I believe elbowed her in the throat to get him off of her, being a cop, hes like "o crap, theyre never gonna believe this one", so he freaks out, and tries to hide it. Boom, his conscience is bothering him so bad he leads the authorities to the body. Now, at this point, ya, he's showing remorse but I think more so, he's thinkin the whole "coulda woulda shoulda" IF he had called 911, said it was an accident, we're lookin at, manslaughter, 10-15 years, parolled at 5, AND if he called 911 they could have saved that baby. I i think you people are looking at his lifestyle, granted it wasnt cool what he was doing, u gotta get around that. And not saying Jesse was an angel either, BUT that dosent earn anyone the right to die. You reap what you sew.
And that's all it is, a STORY
How about this story, let me break it down for you:
He goes there ( maybe with murder on his mind, maybe not), they argue he
DECIDES to put her in a chokehold, they struggle, knocking the stuff over, she bites him in a desperate attempt to get him to let her go and flails at his chest, leaving the marks that were there, KEEPS HOLDING her there for 5 minutes until she passes out.
At this point she's either dead, or he lets her lie there struggling to breathe until she does die.
Blake sees that Mommy broke the table, Daddy was mad, Mommy's is in the rug that his daddy put her in AFTER he used the bleach to splash around on any blood he noticed. And left with her body, baby dying inside slowly (fetuses feel, that's been proven medically), leaves Blake unattended and drives off thinking 'oh shit, where am I gonna put the body'.

How about that story? Could be just as true as yours. After all, you weren't there were you?
But Blake was.
I wonder if he'll remember as he gets older and tell what he saw when he can communicate with a larger vocabulary than a 2 year old.
J Clark

Medina, OH

#122 Feb 26, 2008
lincoln wrote:
<quoted text> If the State of Ohio chooses life in prison or death, both are within the Christian doctrine, Romans 13.
I think the thirst here is for justice.
The thirst here is to also eliminate RISK. Bobby Cutts has proven himself to be a risk to others and must be destroyed.

Get real Surreal. If you think he can't pose a risk in prison, think again! We'll just offer his soul up to God and let God decide whether or not to grant him salvation!
J Clark

Medina, OH

#123 Feb 26, 2008
I saw something that could be potentially very problematic. The Fox News affiliate in Cleveland showed Bobby Cutts’ mother and Jesse’s father hugging in the courtroom. While I feel badly for the families, a display of affection is clearly inappropriate particularly if one or more of the jurors are still present in the courtroom because it could influence the their decision. If, in fact, there was at least one juror present; I wonder whether or not Mrs. Cutts was encouraged by her son's attorney to embrace Jesse’s dad as he knew both were on very good terms and the juror(s) would, of course, tend to be more sympathetic and compassionate after witnessing such a display public affection between the two. Sound far fetched? Perhaps, but it can't be discounted. Anyway, it's something to consider.
Neurocadence

United States

#124 Feb 27, 2008
J Clark wrote:
I saw something that could be potentially very problematic. The Fox News affiliate in Cleveland showed Bobby Cutts’ mother and Jesse’s father hugging in the courtroom. While I feel badly for the families, a display of affection is clearly inappropriate particularly if one or more of the jurors are still present in the courtroom because it could influence the their decision. If, in fact, there was at least one juror present; I wonder whether or not Mrs. Cutts was encouraged by her son's attorney to embrace Jesse’s dad as he knew both were on very good terms and the juror(s) would, of course, tend to be more sympathetic and compassionate after witnessing such a display public affection between the two. Sound far fetched? Perhaps, but it can't be discounted. Anyway, it's something to consider.
I see how you would come to that conclusion. Both families share Blake as a grandchild, and lost Chloe. Both families have been devastated by the actions of Cutts Jr. If I were a juror leaning towards whatever punishment, it wouldn't make me want to be more lenient. It would just show me several things
1. That it's wonderful that these 2 families can support each other in what must be unimaginable pain
2. That Blake will hopefully have family as he grows up to love him and be able to put this tragedy behind them as far as he is concerned
3. That Bobby Cutts' Jr. selfish actions caused so much more damage than ending Jessie and the baby's life.

It would make me more determined in my resolve to impose the harshest sentence.
J Clark

Medina, OH

#127 Feb 27, 2008
Neurocadence wrote:
<quoted text>
I see how you would come to that conclusion. Both families share Blake as a grandchild, and lost Chloe. Both families have been devastated by the actions of Cutts Jr. If I were a juror leaning towards whatever punishment, it wouldn't make me want to be more lenient. It would just show me several things
1. That it's wonderful that these 2 families can support each other in what must be unimaginable pain
2. That Blake will hopefully have family as he grows up to love him and be able to put this tragedy behind them as far as he is concerned
3. That Bobby Cutts' Jr. selfish actions caused so much more damage than ending Jessie and the baby's life.
It would make me more determined in my resolve to impose the harshest sentence.
Your very last sentence is exactly what concerns me...

"It would make me more determined in my resolve to impose the harshest sentence."

You see, it did influence you; didn't it?
I want this pig to die but I want the jury to reach their own conclusion independently of what others say or do. It's important that their decision is free of bias and without prejudice. Witnessing hugs is a HUGE concern and may either weaken or strengthen their resolve to impose the harshest sentence as you've described.
J Clark

Medina, OH

#129 Feb 27, 2008
I knew it! No death sentence is the decision by the mollycoddling bleeding heart jury. Life in prison without parole eligibility for 30 full years.

I want to know whether or not any member of the jury was in the courtroom at the time Mrs. Cutts and Jesse's dad were hugging each other because it could have had a profound effect on the jury's decision.
Neurocadence

United States

#130 Feb 27, 2008
J Clark wrote:
<quoted text>
Your very last sentence is exactly what concerns me...
"It would make me more determined in my resolve to impose the harshest sentence."
You see, it did influence you; didn't it?
I want this pig to die but I want the jury to reach their own conclusion independently of what others say or do. It's important that their decision is free of bias and without prejudice. Witnessing hugs is a HUGE concern and may either weaken or strengthen their resolve to impose the harshest sentence as you've described.
You raise **excellent** points. However, during the penalty phase "aggravating" and "mitigating" circumstances are argued by both sides.
The criminal trial phase of establishing or not establishing guilt is different, when hearsay and things of that nature are not permitted in an effort to keep the jury as unbiased as possible in determing the facts of the merits of the case itself.
During the penalty phase, emotion *is* expected and encouraged by both sides. Ackowledging the damage and suffering caused by the defendant's actions is part of that.
That is why people from both sides speak to the jury about how their life would be affected, or reasons why a stiffer sentence or leniency should be considered.

I believe, all things considered, that neither side can say that justice was not served. The jury gave the benefit of the doubt and gave the possibility of parole, and the judge ordered that each sentence be served consecutively. Effectively keeping him in life for prison.
For the people who think he should be executed, this will save the years and years of appeals, and hopefully he will die in prison.
At any rate, his life will be too good commpared to what life of continued choices he took from Jessie and Chloe.
Personally, I can see the sentence for Jessie as being reasonable *to the jurors*, but I can't see the sentence they recommended regarding the murder of the baby.
People can argue accident, blame the victim and all that forever. But that baby was a total innocent.

I think people in prison for taking another life should not be allowed contact with their friends or family or society. They are not there to be rehabilitated. They are allowed to continue to breathe, and to be kept from society for the protection of society. But if the person whose life they took can never have the chance to speak to any family, as Chloe never will, and Jessie never will, he should not have the privelege of contact either.

Just my opinion though. Let him talk to his lawyers. I'm sure some people would thing that is "cruel and unusual".
Neurocadence

United States

#131 Feb 27, 2008
The TRUTH wrote:
2/26/2008 11:43:29 AM
Major Incidents Reported for February 26, 2008
Pizza Delivery Driver Robbed, Three Males Arrested!
Around 10:00 last night, a delivery driver for Domino’s Pizza located at 730 E. Market St reported being robbed at gunpoint while attempting to deliver food in the 800 block of Oberlin St.
The 46-year-old female driver reported that she was walking up to the house, when the suspect approached her from behind. The suspect knocked the victim to the ground, held a gun to her head, and took items from her pockets. The suspects fled on foot with food, pop, cash, and the victim’s wallet and cell phone.
Responding officers located the suspects in a nearby house. Arrested were Reginald D. Calhoun, 19, Robert McBride, 20, and Jeremy Howze, 17.
Calhoun was charged with Aggravated Robbery and Drug Abuse Marijuana. McBride was charged with Aggravated Robbery, Drug Abuse Marijuana, and Obstructing Official Business. Howze was charged with Aggravated Robbery. Calhoun and McBride were booked into the Summit County Jail and Howze was booked into the Summit County Juvenile Detention Facility.
Detectives are looking into several robberies that occurred over the weekend on Oberlin St to see if Calhoun, McBride and Howze are responsible.
YES!!!
A victory for the good guys!!!
Send these BLACK SAVAGES to prison where they belong!!!
I'm LOVIN' IT!!!
Three BLACK THUGS off our streets!!!
YAYYY!! Now get the white, hispanic, asian, and purple THUGS off the streets too, and we can ALL
( black, white, asian, hispanic, purple, etc. law-abiding citizens) live in peace!! Wouldn't that be nice ;D
Or have you never seen or heard of THUGS other than black THUGS? I have, and I'm WHITE.
Maybe you should get out more, watch the news, read a few papers.
Better yet, go visit a prison, or 4 or 5.
Multi-color, multi-ethnic, multi-age, multi-gender ( there are women's prisons too), multi-religious.
And did you hear about the WHITE THUGS and ENRON???
Or did you sleep through that? Wake up. Grow up.
J Clark

Medina, OH

#132 Feb 27, 2008
Neurocadence wrote:
<quoted text>
You raise **excellent** points. However, during the penalty phase "aggravating" and "mitigating" circumstances are argued by both sides.
The criminal trial phase of establishing or not establishing guilt is different, when hearsay and things of that nature are not permitted in an effort to keep the jury as unbiased as possible in determing the facts of the merits of the case itself.
During the penalty phase, emotion *is* expected and encouraged by both sides. Ackowledging the damage and suffering caused by the defendant's actions is part of that.
That is why people from both sides speak to the jury about how their life would be affected, or reasons why a stiffer sentence or leniency should be considered.
I believe, all things considered, that neither side can say that justice was not served. The jury gave the benefit of the doubt and gave the possibility of parole, and the judge ordered that each sentence be served consecutively. Effectively keeping him in life for prison.
For the people who think he should be executed, this will save the years and years of appeals, and hopefully he will die in prison.
At any rate, his life will be too good commpared to what life of continued choices he took from Jessie and Chloe.
Personally, I can see the sentence for Jessie as being reasonable *to the jurors*, but I can't see the sentence they recommended regarding the murder of the baby.
People can argue accident, blame the victim and all that forever. But that baby was a total innocent.
I think people in prison for taking another life should not be allowed contact with their friends or family or society. They are not there to be rehabilitated. They are allowed to continue to breathe, and to be kept from society for the protection of society. But if the person whose life they took can never have the chance to speak to any family, as Chloe never will, and Jessie never will, he should not have the privelege of contact either.
Just my opinion though. Let him talk to his lawyers. I'm sure some people would thing that is "cruel and unusual".
You describe the current legal system and that's the arena in which the game is played. And so your points are well taken and certainly are valid. However, this venue must change. Why must we differentiate between mitigating and aggravating circumstances? So what? All I want ot know is whether or not the accused committed the crime and whether or not it was self defense. If the accused did indeed commit the crime and if it wasn't in self defense, then the accused has proven themself to be a RISK to others. Let's limit the appeals process to one or two years and then execute them instead of prolonging their worthless lives that's costing taxpayers an estimated $60K each year. The entire US legal system is disgraceful and needs considerable overhaul.

The jury system should be eliminated and replaced with highly intelligent and unbiased people whose interest is the preservation of fairness and justice and the elimination of risk. Too many jurors are too incompetent leading with their emotions instead of their minds and that's very scary. Their given instructions from the judge and are governed accordingly like brainwashed robots that aren't capable of critical thinking and reasoning. Many are liberals and that's even more frightening. We need to restore discipline in this nation because things have gotten way out of control.
lincoln

Louisville, KY

#133 Feb 27, 2008
watch it clark, Neurocadence is on the Warpath.
Neurocadence

United States

#134 Feb 27, 2008
J Clark wrote:
<quoted text>
You describe the current legal system and that's the arena in which the game is played. And so your points are well taken and certainly are valid. However, this venue must change. Why must we differentiate between mitigating and aggravating circumstances? So what? All I want ot know is whether or not the accused committed the crime and whether or not it was self defense. If the accused did indeed commit the crime and if it wasn't in self defense, then the accused has proven themself to be a RISK to others. Let's limit the appeals process to one or two years and then execute them instead of prolonging their worthless lives that's costing taxpayers an estimated $60K each year. The entire US legal system is disgraceful and needs considerable overhaul.
The jury system should be eliminated and replaced with highly intelligent and unbiased people whose interest is the preservation of fairness and justice and the elimination of risk. Too many jurors are too incompetent leading with their emotions instead of their minds and that's very scary. Their given instructions from the judge and are governed accordingly like brainwashed robots that aren't capable of critical thinking and reasoning. Many are liberals and that's even more frightening. We need to restore discipline in this nation because things have gotten way out of control.
ok, I'm in. How do we get this started? I think that would work both ways too. Maybe fewer innocent people would be convicted too. I know there must be people in prison that the judge must have thought "what??"

I agree with you, and you have swayed my opinion on a couple of things.

I also think that with today's technologies, it is harder for the average person to decipher some of that. I have both science/medical and legal background. Some of that stuff goes right over the heads of average people which is fine, who can keep up with that? And it really is hard to figure out sometimes.
The only problem I see is the political corruption. Not all judges are fair or unbiased, and some have taken bribes. But I see your points.
What would you suggest for that? Some judges are really liberal, and some... they'd throw your grandma in jail for life if she forgot to put a stamp on. There are extremes both ways.

I think about the way crimes were committed when the jury system was started here, and the way society was, the ways of detecting and all that. Could they ever have imagined the types of crimes that happen every day now, and what would they think and say the process should be like.
Not any emotion involved,no race stated, just the value of life of victims, the acts criminals commit. Like with pedophiles, people who kill children, the playing of the system, people like the Menendez brothers and Scott Peterson. Serial killers, the rapes and robbery and murder. I'd just like to take newspapers from the last 5 or 10 years back to then and see what they would say about crime and the judicial process and the whole prison and criminal justice system.

You ever wonder weird stuff like that?

And the prison system has to change. But that's another topic :)
Neurocadence

United States

#135 Feb 27, 2008
lincoln wrote:
watch it clark, Neurocadence is on the Warpath.
naww..just a little over caffienated some days ;)
or under, depends. I think I just need to go to that 1/2 caff stuff.
Neurocadence

United States

#136 Feb 27, 2008
J Clark wrote:
<quoted text>
You describe the current legal system and that's the arena in which the game is played. And so your points are well taken and certainly are valid. However, this venue must change. Why must we differentiate between mitigating and aggravating circumstances? So what? All I want ot know is whether or not the accused committed the crime and whether or not it was self defense. If the accused did indeed commit the crime and if it wasn't in self defense, then the accused has proven themself to be a RISK to others. Let's limit the appeals process to one or two years and then execute them instead of prolonging their worthless lives that's costing taxpayers an estimated $60K each year. The entire US legal system is disgraceful and needs considerable overhaul.
The jury system should be eliminated and replaced with highly intelligent and unbiased people whose interest is the preservation of fairness and justice and the elimination of risk. Too many jurors are too incompetent leading with their emotions instead of their minds and that's very scary. Their given instructions from the judge and are governed accordingly like brainwashed robots that aren't capable of critical thinking and reasoning. Many are liberals and that's even more frightening. We need to restore discipline in this nation because things have gotten way out of control.
>>>Effectively keeping him in life for prison.<<<
I just re-read what my post was and saw this. What kind of slip would that be called? Not Freudian...
;) Gotta go to the half-caff. Or no more diet pepsi after 1 pm. I don't know.
Neurocadence

United States

#137 Feb 27, 2008
lincoln wrote:
watch it clark, Neurocadence is on the Warpath.
And I've been meaning to say thank you for the reference to Romans 13. I particularly liked verses 4 and 5 ( NASB).Just had the chance to look that up.
Question though:
doesn't it say in scripture ( I apologize for my laziness and not looking it up right now) that we are to obey the laws of the government unless they contradict the laws of God?( or contrary to)
Some say "thou shalt not kill' falls under that, but I was under the impression that meant person to person, and government was different.( based on the vs. 4 and 5 in Romans 13)
I would take this to an "off-topic" place but I don't know if that is here on this forum or not.
lincoln

Louisville, KY

#138 Feb 27, 2008
Neurocadence wrote:
<quoted text>
And I've been meaning to say thank you for the reference to Romans 13. I particularly liked verses 4 and 5 ( NASB).Just had the chance to look that up.
Question though:
doesn't it say in scripture ( I apologize for my laziness and not looking it up right now) that we are to obey the laws of the government unless they contradict the laws of God?( or contrary to)
Some say "thou shalt not kill' falls under that, but I was under the impression that meant person to person, and government was different.( based on the vs. 4 and 5 in Romans 13)
I would take this to an "off-topic" place but I don't know if that is here on this forum or not.
"kill" in that commandent is the word for murder. It does not mean you cannot defend yourself, your home or your country.
Neurocadence

United States

#139 Feb 27, 2008
lincoln wrote:
<quoted text> "kill" in that commandent is the word for murder. It does not mean you cannot defend yourself, your home or your country.
Got it. That is what I thought. Been years since I studied that though. I was actually curious about the death penalty in regards to that.

Apparently in Ohio you can't defend your home, you have to try to leave the premises. I just heard that yesterday and I was shocked!

Some days I wonder why I moved back here. Other days I wonder if I want to stay.
Neurocadence

United States

#141 Feb 28, 2008
I know a wonderful place for you to live. Look up the area around Lucedale Mississippi. But then you'd want to stay clear of Moss Point. Actually you are really MUCH more racist than nearly all of the residents of MS and Alabama combined that I ever met. But I'm sure you'd find a place to fit right in.

You are a truly flawed person. How about you do without any and everything a black person has ever invented, or contributed, to the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Welcome Stan Piatt Sat Green eye 3
News Gang activity increasing in Akron (Jun '07) Apr 28 bootzhoe 149
News Akron man pleads guilty to sixth robbery since ... Apr 28 Judge Parker 1
Anyone looking to buy a home in North Hill? Apr 27 Up yours 3
News 17-year-old boy fatally shot in Akron, suspect ... Apr 27 Nate 5
News Felony charge filed against Akron police sergea... Apr 22 toxic nut 1
very kinky beastiality Nov '14 p1xfri9gg 2
More from around the web

Richfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]