Man dies while raping a 77-year-old woman
By RACHEL QUIGLEY
Last updated at 2:35 PM on 15th June 2011
A registered sex offender died while raping an elderly woman at knifepoint in her home.
Isabel Chavelo Gutierrez, 53, from Tivoli, Texas, rode two miles from his home on his bike and broke into his 77-year-old victim's house.
Authorities say that while he was raping her at knifepoint, he told her he wasn't feeling well and stopped so he could rest.
Moments later he went back to assaulting her briefly before he rolled over and died.
Sgt Gary Wright, of the Refugio County Sheriff's Office, said it is believed the man died from a heart attack after cycling the two miles to his victim's house.
Gutierrez's body was sent to the Nueces County medical examiner in Corpus Christi for autopsy.
According to the Corpus Christi Caller Times, the woman saw Gutierrez at a local post office one day before the attack on June 2.
During the attack, she thought Gutierrez passed out from drinking because she smelled alcohol on his breath.
After he lost consciousness, the woman drove away from her house and called her daughter, who then alerted authorities.
Gutierrez was dead when they arrived.
He was on parole after serving a sentence for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
According to the state’s registered sex offender database, the victim was a seven-year-old girl.
Thank God the poor man didn't live to experience the horrible injustice of being yet again railroaded into prison by lying police and perjury suborning prosecutors!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Man dies while raping a 77-year-old woman
By RACHEL QUIGLEY
Last updated at 2:35 PM on 15th June 2011
A registered sex offender died while raping an elderly woman at knifepoint in her home.
Isabel Chavelo Gutierrez, 53, from Tivoli, Texas, rode two miles from his home on his bike and broke into his 77-year-old victim's house.
Authorities say that while he was raping her at knifepoint, he told her he wasn't feeling well and stopped so he could rest.
Moments later he went back to assaulting her briefly before he rolled over and died.
Sgt Gary Wright, of the Refugio County Sheriff's Office, said it is believed the man died from a heart attack after cycling the two miles to his victim's house.
Gutierrez's body was sent to the Nueces County medical examiner in Corpus Christi for autopsy.
According to the Corpus Christi Caller Times, the woman saw Gutierrez at a local post office one day before the attack on June 2.
During the attack, she thought Gutierrez passed out from drinking because she smelled alcohol on his breath.
After he lost consciousness, the woman drove away from her house and called her daughter, who then alerted authorities.
Gutierrez was dead when they arrived.
He was on parole after serving a sentence for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
According to the state’s registered sex offender database, the victim was a seven-year-old girl.
Thank God the poor man didn't live to experience the horrible injustice of being yet again railroaded into prison by lying police and perjury suborning prosecutors!
Yeah.
If he'd faced honest prosecution by someone with your level of competence, he'd be walking the streets.
Thank God.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
From checking out your latest posts in a number of threads it's obvious that either :
a. You're suffering from some degenerative brain condition (perhaps brought on by decades of alcohol abuse)
b.The medication theory I advanced earlier is correct.
c.You've started drinking again.
I'm leaning heavily towards "3" since I've noticed that your most off the hook posts this week have tended to come late at night or in the very early morning hours, but the other explanations work just as well.
In any event, I will no longer deal with your dishonesty, your trolling, and your malevolent derangement. This is the last post I'm addressing to you. I'm not going to permit the toxic behavior of one putrid little prick to ruin my enjoyment of this forum. You are tossing your feces all over this board at a manic pace. So effective immediately, you are joining the other two putrid little pricks on my ignore list.
If you're having some sort of a mental break down, the quicker you have it and go get the help you need the better it will be for yourself and everyone else.
Well, Andrew D, you really have gone into the Steve-Zone. You have the ability to make a point without attacking the person who disagrees with you, but you seem to have lost it lately.
I'd hate to see you end up in paranoia-land and trying to split this board.
There's no time like now to focus and move on to a higher ground.
As my wise old father used to say - When you reach a fork in the road, take it.
I don't know why people act like this behavior is something new for agd.
It is the same old nasty agd simply with new targets.
In reality his behavior is more like editec. Editec likes to swoop into threads like this and make a gratuitous insult offering.
To those of you who do not offer censure let me point out to you that as his current targets get fed up and either leave the board or put him on ignore, the depth of his pool will become more shallow and he will be in search of new targets.
I don't want Lord Jim to leave. I don't want bigskygal to leave.
The crux of the matter seems to me to be quite straightforward.
Lord Jim claims that I posted something which, in fact, I did not post.
I did not say that most prosecutors in this country suborn perjury.
I just didn't.
He can have all the fun he wants trying (without bothering to produce any evidence to support his own positions) to poke holes in things I do say.
But how does his claiming that I said something which, in fact, I did not say present any complex issues?
He claims that I said it. I did not say it. I have shown repeatedly that I did not say it. He will not respond to my demonstrations that I did not say it. He will not attempt to show that I did say it. He will not withdraw his claim that I said it.
What's up with that?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Andrew D wrote:
He claims that I said it. I did not say it. I have shown repeatedly that I did not say it. He will not respond to my demonstrations that I did not say it. He will not attempt to show that I did say it. He will not withdraw his claim that I said it.
What's up with that?
I'm too lazy to go and look at the exact wording, but as I recall LJ did not quote you. He said that you asserted something.
It seems to me that the focus should be on proving or disproving whether "most" prosecutors are guilty of misconduct or not.
Arguing about what the other person meant when he didn't mean it accomplishes nothing.
Andrew D wrote:
He claims that I said it. I did not say it. I have shown repeatedly that I did not say it. He will not respond to my demonstrations that I did not say it. He will not attempt to show that I did say it. He will not withdraw his claim that I said it.
What's up with that?
I'm too lazy to go and look at the exact wording, but as I recall LJ did not quote you. He said that you asserted something.
It seems to me that the focus should be on proving or disproving whether "most" prosecutors are guilty of misconduct or not.
Arguing about what the other person meant when he didn't mean it accomplishes nothing.
You're correct Joe. I never did present that as a quote; he's lied over and over saying that I did.
He's also lying when he says I've never responded to this diversionary tactic which was designed to take the focus off the fact that he has never provided proof for what he did say.
I responded to it two days ago:
Lord Jim wrote:
Look at what Lord Jim just quoted from me. It does not say that most prosecutors (in the US or anywhere else) suborn perjury.
You're absolutely right Andrew...
You only said:
"in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. "
So based on what you have said, presumably all of those prosecutors who don't care about whether or not they obtain convictions will not suborn perjury.
Well, Andrew D, you really have gone into the Steve-Zone.
And this dishonest strawman diversion charge is yet another shining example of that. The fact that I addressed this two days ago has not stopped him from dishonestly claiming over and over that I haven't as he tries to make this the issue rather than his own unsubstantiated claims about prosecutors and cops.
And the fact that I have re-posted the proof that I answered this probably won't stop him from continuing to repeat the lie that I haven't. If I reposted it twenty times it wouldn't stop him from repeating this lie, because his objective is to lie so voluminously that the truth is forgotten and his version replaces what actually happened.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What I said was that most prosecutors, in the right circumstances, "would".
In virtually the same breath, I said that it is rare that prosecutors "do".
Lord Jim spun that as if I had said that most prosecutors "do".
Should "the focus should be on proving or disproving whether 'most' prosecutors are guilty of misconduct or not"?
Well, if I had claimed that most prosecutors are guilty of misconduct -- if I had claimed that most prosecutors "do" -- then that would be the appropriate focus.
But I did not.
What evidence would be satisfactory to "prove" that most prosecutors "would"?
What is expected of me?
Do I need to produce sworn affidavits from at least half the prosecutors in the country saying that yes, in the right circumstances, they would suborn perjury, knowingly use false evidence, coerce witnesses, wrongfully suppress exculpatory evidence, and so forth?
Is that the standard of proof?
We know that some prosecutors have been proved to have suborned perjury.
Shouldn't we draw the inference that other prosecutors who have not been proved to have suborned perjury have, in fact, done so, even though it has not been proved?
We draw the same kind of inferences every day.
Some people have been proved to be murderers. We haven't the slightest hesitation about inferring that other people are murderers, even though they have not been proved to be murderers.
Etc.
And my assertion was, and remains, that in the right circumstances, most prosecutors "would" suborn perjury.
As I have said over and over, most prosecutors do not find themselves in those circumstances. In most prosecutors' careers, the need never arises.
So how should I "prove" that most prosecutors "would" do so in circumstances in which most prosecutors never find themselves?
And why am I singled out for this?
People say all the time that "liberals" have the idea that the solution to our economic woes is to "tax the rich".
Does anyone demand that those people prove exactly how many liberals hold that position?
Of course not.
People know that some liberals have publicly espoused that position, and people infer from that that other liberals hold that position, even if those other liberals have not publicly espoused that position.
How is this different? We know that some prosecutors "would" suborn perjury, because it has been proved that they actually did so. We infer from that that other prosecutors would suborn perjury, even though it has not been proved that they actually did so.
What is wrong with that?
How could anyone possibly "prove" that a majority of any group of people "would," in particular circumstances, do anything, if many of those people have never been in those circumstances?
It can't be done. It's a judgment call.
And there's the rub. Lord Jim disagrees with my judgment call.
But instead of just saying so -- instead of just saying "I have a different view; I think that most prosecutors are far more ethical than you give them credit for being" -- he lied about what I had said.
And I end up getting shat on for a position that I never took.
And no matter how many times I point out the difference between what I actually said and what he wants people to believe that I said, he does not respond.
Go figure.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Andrew D wrote:
He claims that I said it. I did not say it. I have shown repeatedly that I did not say it. He will not respond to my demonstrations that I did not say it. He will not attempt to show that I did say it. He will not withdraw his claim that I said it.
What's up with that?
I'm too lazy to go and look at the exact wording, but as I recall LJ did not quote you. He said that you asserted something.
It seems to me that the focus should be on proving or disproving whether "most" prosecutors are guilty of misconduct or not.
Arguing about what the other person meant when he didn't mean it accomplishes nothing.
You're correct Joe. I never did present that as a quote; he's lied over and over saying that I did.
When?
Where?
When have I ever claimed that Lord Jim presented that as a quote?
Care to show us where I made that claim?
Or is it just more gutless bullshit?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
And also Joe, as anyone who looks around the board can plainly see, lying about this is just one part of the whole toxic schtick he's engaging in. He's lying, trolling, bullying and tossing out gratuitous insults left and right, at multiple people, in thread after thread, all in an obvious attempt to silence those who have called him on his bullshit. Because his precious ego just can't handle facing the fact that he's made claims he can't support. So he's trying to drown out everyone else with his false version, and intimidate and bully those who would dare to question him into silence.
There is no point in trying to have discussions with someone willing to behave like this, which why I won't be having any further discussions with him.
He probably will view this as a victory, ("Yea! One more person who won't challenge me so I can continue to think I'm infallible! Let's see who I can nail next!") but it's just too wearing to try to engage with a person who employs these tactics. You never reach a resolution with this type, because they'll just go merrily on repeating the same lies no matter what is said or done.
I had a belly full of that at the CSB. On this board it's relatively easy not to have to put up with it, and I choose not to. There are a lot more things I'd rather spend the time on I have available for this place then going round and round with a Steve/Gwen/Editec/Quad type.
ETA:
In the future, if I happen to see something that someone else quotes him saying that I find particularly vile, outrageous or dishonest, I will certainly feel free to comment on it. (As I have here. I do the same thing occasionally with the other two I have on ignore, Quad and rubato.) But there will no longer be any pointless back and forth.
I said so in the very posting that Lord Jim has been harping on.
I said "rarely". Rarely. As in no, not often; rarely.
And I have said so again and again and again.
It gets confusing when you present quotes from sources that say that it is common for prosecutors to act unethically and at the same time you claim that most of them aren't.
This argument between you and Lord Jim is based on miscommunication and misinterpretation. If you didn't mean what Jim said that he believed you meant there are better ways to communicate that idea than to lash out at him.
There's not much more I can say on this subject without getting into the same argument that I'm trying to sort out.
And it's all based on my view of the world. Other people's views will surely differ.
I think that most prosecutors very rarely or never find themselves in the position of having to decide whether suborning perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction in a particular case.
So I think that most prosecutors do not suborn perjury: They have never needed to suborn perjury, so they never have.
I think that most prosecutors -- if they found themselves in the position of having to decide whether suborning perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction in a particular case -- would do so.
I don't think that all prosecutors are like that. I don't know anyone who thinks that there is no prosecutor who is like that.
So it comes down to "not all; not none; somewhere in between". Where in between? That is a judgment call.
My judgment is "most".
My judgment is not that most prosecutors have suborned perjury. That is what Lord Jim wishes that I had said. That is what Lord Jim has been trying to convince people that I said. And, unfortunately, he has had some success. But it is not what I said.
My judgment is that most prosecutors, if they found themselves in a position where subornation of perjury was necessary to obtain a conviction (and if the conviction were significant; I do not think that most prosecutors would suborn perjury over a speeding ticket), would suborn perjury to obtain that conviction.
I am not claiming that most prosecutors are running around suborning perjury all the time.
I have said over and over that the issue simply does not arise in most cases. In most cases, the prosecutor has no occasion even to entertain the possibility of suborning perjury.
But my judgment is that in those rare cases where the issue arises at all, most prosecutors would suborn perjury to obtain convictions. Not all, but most.
Does that clarify things?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
On limited experience I believe that most lawyers are not scrupulous about the truth. They will allow someone to lie even when they believe the person is lying as long as it helps their interests.
