Wednesday, March 24, 2010

DA Wants Parrinello Disqualified As Rahn's Atty

 
The D&C is reporting that First Asst. DA Sandra Doorley contends that Parrinello may have to be called as a witness during Rahn's trial which is scheduled to begin Monday.

“They’ve done this in a very, very unprofessional way regarding the timing (of the request). The conclusion is this: Doorley is simply afraid to try the case against Merritt.” ~~ John Parrinello, Rahn's atty.

“I do not want an appealable issue. I don’t want to try the case again.” ~~ Sandra Doorley, First Asst. DA
  

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does it also have something to do with Rahn showing up to crime scenes and then using his cell phone to call Parrinello so John could pick up some business representing the suspect? I wonder how much Parrinello made with that little side gig.

Anonymous said...

Doorley is DESPERATE!

She has a case that is falling apart, and she needs time to try salvaging it. Doorley is in so far over her head it's pathetic.

Her motion should have been made months ago if it had any validity.

Oh wait, Doorley is a member of Mike Green's Machine, she doesn't have to be good, she doesn't even need to know what she's doing. The taxpayers cover her check.

SCATS said...

To 12:37PM ~~ I agree. She should have been concerned long ago. I recall commenting about the potential conflict of interest issue when Rahn was arrested. Geesh, the DA's office ought to hire a rocket scientist. They need one ;)

Anonymous said...

Come on -- these are the same guys that tried to put scats in jail for whispering at a meeting!

The DA has no credibility!

SCATS said...

To 1:28PM ~~ Huh? Have you been drinking the wacky juice? I've never had a run in with the law.

Anonymous said...

Scats ,1:28 keeps hinting that you are someone we all know. You are not that person. 1:28 obviously has a crush on that person though. Stop dreaming 1:28, you can't have him and he is not scats.
From a fan of the board whisperer and scats who are two different people.

SCATS said...

To 4:22PM ~~ I should have deleted the other entry. I did say recently that I am NOT interested in entertaining any more "identity" issues on here. The horse is dead. No one has proof of anything after 4 long years so, it's my hope that everyone will just give it up, please.

Anonymous said...

"No one has proof of anything after 4 long years"

Remember, according to SCATS rules, those who make accusations don't need to prove them. The burden falls on the one accused to prove it's NOT true.

SCATS has a strict "guilty until proven innocent" mandate. ;)

SCATS said...

To 2:29PM ~~ You are too funny! And you waste so much time "ATTEMPTING" to discredit me. By now you should have learned you can't do it. I readily fix my mistakes and take credit for making them.

FYI, there are nearly three dozen people that have been named who I am supposed to be "in real life."

In the interests of keeping a few wackjobs from opening the white pages and pointing to the name of a completely innocent person who may not even know about this BLOG, I think proving the contention when a name is put out there avoids some misery for the truly innocent.

Anonymous said...

For doG sake SCATS, let the annonomity thing go. Somebody sold your picture from the security camera at StoneRidge Animal Hospital when you picked your scrip for hairballs up. You screwed up and you got caught.

SCATS said...

To 2:49AM ~~ I'm no cat burglar ;)