Comments on: Woops, the Rigsbys’ slide continues

By: Magnolia

Magnolia — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:19:36 +0000

Re; Delaughter Home Hiawatha…It is a beautiful LITTLE home,but would never appraise for anywhere 400k, and one appraises by what is comfortable to the same, and we have mega homes in our town like this and they never sell for much over 150k.

By: lotus

lotus — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:21:51 +0000

Here comes another meaty email:

Lotus: I read with interest the comments this morning of this Lynda person from Raymond, especially this part:

“But the most telling example of your ignorance of Delaughter is the comment about his home. Delaughter lives in a very modest home in Raymond. It was an abandoned and decaying shell of a civil war era home that bought for “literally” pocket change and had moved to to Raymond. The cost of buying the structure and having it restored to its current condition was, in my estimation, no more than $150,000 and that number could be high. While they did an excellent job of restoration, there is absolutely nothing elaborate about the house. Definitely within the range of affordability by MOST working couples in Mississippi. I’m sure you won’t believe me so maybe you should just go see for yourself. I’ll be they’ll give you a tour of it.”

When the information broke about the Langston plea, I began my own inquiry into what if any bribe to DeLaughter may have occurred in money form. I looked at the land records in Hinds County and found that the Judge and his wife have a mortgage on their “modest” home in an amount over $400,000.00. It is payable in 240 monthly installments of around $2500.00 +/- with a balloon payment at the end of the 20 years of approximately $250,000.00. This is all in the land records for the world to see. This document was recorded in 2007.

Now I know that the Judge is around 53-54 years of age. Do the math…….he’ll be in his mid 70′s and owes a quarter million on his home? Might there be a future payment from somebody?

Now this money may have all gone into the house. But if it is so modest as Lynda writes, how much could you justify if you are a lender in the small town of Raymond? And it was financed by local bank Merchants and Planters.

I’ve not been able to connect the dots here, except it just doesn’t make sense.

By the way, Ed Peters’ home was paid off some years ago, and he made a home equity loan in 2007 for over $100,000.00. What’s up with that?

Perhaps you’d like a peek at the DeLaughter house? Welp, the February 1, 2007, New York Times can oblige. Its name is “Hiawatha” . . .

By: tiredlwyr

tiredlwyr — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:38:18 +0000

justsittin-
Sorry, and I really do hate to disappoint you, but I have no “version”. I have readily said that I believe that BD knew where the gun was. I said that the movie version was, in my opinion, overly dramatic and unbelievable. I simply challenged you on your post regarding hiding the gun rather than simply knowing where it was; to which you have yet to respond. I know nothing of “rumors” at Oak Forest, and have taken no position on BD’s marital fidelity, and will not do so. If somehow you understand that I have intimated that there was anything miraculous about the discovery of the gun then I obviously have not made myself clear. I posted earlier (45) that I do not subscribe to Lynda’s blind faith and quite frankly find it to be totally inconsistent with all logical factual analysis. It just seems that you have made a jump from knowing to hiding which I cannot follow and simply asked for your basis.

By: Jane

Jane — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:31:19 +0000

Jesus just showed up as a cheeto (the cheeto has since been named “Cheesus”).

Anything is possible.

By: NMC

NMC — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:30:47 +0000

My reaction on BD’s gun story was always that it sounded like a fairy tale. He didn’t suddenly discover where it was, and that was no part of why the prosecution restarted.

One variety of fairy tale is designed to explain to children how-something-came-to-be. They’re made up and often entertaining, but they aren’t so. A just-so story. This always seemed to me one of those.

By: justsittinhere

justsittinhere — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:11:44 +0000

well tired you you make me tired but your version does make better fiction. You knew rdmiii had the gun but rdmiii’s son in law didn’t know. Never saw it had no idea. Then one night while he slept an angel of the Lord delivered it to him and voilÃƒÂ justice was at last served. A celebrity was born. And all those vicious rumors at oak forest baptist church about the temp were just the devil’s aspersions. My point to Lynda is he didn’t just get this way he’s been this way for a long time.

So have it your way that gun arriving when it did was just a blooming miracle, sort of like zach not knowing that a bribe was going down. Hallelu!!!

By: tiredlwyr

tiredlwyr — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:47:28 +0000

Russel D. Moore, III, former Hinds County Circuit Court Judge. Many years ago it was common practice for Court personnel to remove guns from evidence after a trial had been concluded and appeals exhausted. At that time apparently no one thought the case would ever be tried again so the Judge took the gun. In some cases an order was entered on the record “releasing” evidence in such cases but I do not know if one was entered in the old Beckwith case.

By: tiredlwyr

tiredlwyr — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:41:33 +0000

You make my point well. I do not know that RDMIII’s widow gave possession of it to BD when her husband died (perhaps you do). But yes, I knew in his lifetime that RDMIII had it as did many others. But the knowledge that RDMIII had it does not amount to hiding it. If simple knowledge of its location amounts to active hiding then your statement about hiding the gun would apply to me as well as many others.

I really do think that BD has precious plenty to answer for without resorting to questions of supposed affairs or over dramatizations from the movie.

By: lotus

lotus — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:31:59 +0000

One more little question-and-followup from a fascinated outsider, if y’all don’t mind. What name do the initials “RDMIII” stand for, and how did he come by the gun, if that’s known?

By: justsittinhere

justsittinhere — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:24:35 +0000

to possess, to have custody, control and power over. to have in one’s possession. he possessed the gun after his father in law died. custody. he had custody of the gun after his father in law died. control. he had control of the gun after his father in law died. while his father in law was alive and dead he knew where and what the freaking gun was. it was no mystery. it didn’t just appear to him one day as if by magic. you knew his father in law had it. everyone knew his father in law had it and so did bobby.

counsel is not usually subject to taking the witness stand. if he is counsel in the case, unlikely to be called as witness right? no cross examination about how he came into possession, how long he had possession, when he first learned he had possession, no chain of custody testimony. just match up the serial numbers.

that’s all i’m saying. take or leave it.