I can not tell you that now. May God strike me dead if I am lieing!!!J I already said and you can find part of it on docuemnts on the computer 4 people who testified against Hansen in his murder trail. Again if you look back on what I have written I have said exactly what you are asking. In 1992 Joe Plemmons was paid $5800.00AND A 3 YEAR sentence for stealing 1oo thou was reduced to 17 months and Buddy Joe never served any time because he began working very close to the Feds. Then his 2nd major muder trial against Bailey and he hped to hit the JACKPOT with this one and also the Feds got him out of some other jail time.Also I told you that he said in the tribune he will write a book. Whoever of you said before it would only net maybe 60 thousand I think you are wrong. Can you imagine a 1 year or 2 year trial that convicts the 3 people accused who are alive. It might be a best seller and Joe"s buddty"s will protect him. Because he is the BEST LIAR THEY HAVE GOING!!!
Ooops…I missed one. There were 6 opened and that’s just in Hunter/Jumper land.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”> Radio, he says he is in the horse business, but I diddn’t see anything that alluded to him being a BNT…or did I miss something?
I admit…my head is spinning…I can see how this COULD be the truth, but I can also see a rabbit trail…I dunno…I guess time will tell…and people who know a lot more than I do hopefully will be able to fish out the truth in goldy’s story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well put…Thank you.
No goldy was not the one saying that he was a BNTm someone else said that he was. goldy made this remark though: <BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”> goldy
Training Level / Posted Aug. 23, 2005 10:32 PM
If you want your horse to go better than ever I would not fly me in for a specialty shoeing job at this point. Come on wit with a little sarcasm is good but you do not have to go that low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
goldy the love between a parent and a child is unconditional. You may also affected by it’s impact on you and those you love and may not be totally objective.
I believe what you say about your father, but I am less impressed by your second hand version of his opinions of Frank Jayne. I think it is good for you to bring your thoughts out into the open to be examined for your sake so you might explore the marginal areas.
I have no doubt that the FBI and whatever others tend to be overanxious for a conviction and misuse their authority at times. But, let’s remove it from your personal zone.
Suppose for example they know that Frank Capone is the major Dom of organized crime but they can’t prove it so they do get a conviction for tax evasion. Maybe, the evidence about tax evasion is a little weak but everyone knows this is a kingpin in a huge organization. Is the horse world better off because Frank Jayne was convicted and is in jail?
It is also possible that your father at that time had no idea what Frank Jayne was up to; that information only came out much later. Let’s assume your father was his farrier and he helped fix the feet of these horses that passed into the lame horses sold. He didn’t have to know what the gane was he was playing in.
SURE after the fact hindsite is 20/20. So we have a part time farrier who was a former police officer. Not likely someone in whom Frank Jayne would confide his nefarious plans and plots.
Therefore, you have no reason to be defending Frank Jayne as innocent anymore than they had to accuse your Dad of being a particpant.
For your personal sake involved as you are with trying to clear the record of your father; if you believe he was misjudged then you have to also believe that the others may not have given him any indication of their complicity in what is heinous.
goldy think of this all as a sort of therapy where you can begin to understand and we all want to understand. In print it’s hard because the tone of voice and facial expressions are missing. I don;t think anyone want’s to be harsh or to judge you. I think we all want to help you.
Ken Hansen was awarded a second trial in 2002. During that second trial, Plemmons again testified, but appeared to add a few details new to his testimony:
'The People of the State of Illinois vs Kenneth Hansen (part deux)
‘Joe Plemmons testified that he began leasing part of the Sky High Stables from the defendant in 1972 and became <span class=“ev_code_RED”>good friends </span> with him during that time. Plemmons stated that, in May 1972, the defendant told him that his brother, Curt, “held those boys over his head like a club.” According to Plemmons, sometime in 1976, he and the defendant had a conversation during which the defendant commented that “it was either those boys or him” because “in 1955 you couldn’t be gay.” On another occasion in 1988, Plemmons brought up the subject of the three murders and the defendant confided that he worried about being caught some day. Plemmons admitted that he had been convicted of fraud and has been known by several aliases. <span class=“ev_code_RED”>Plemmons also admitted that he came forward with the information relating to the defendant in November 1994 because he believed that the defendant had lied to him about “what happened to his wife Beverly.” </span> Following Plemmons’ testimony, the State rested.’
This trial did not go any better for Hansen than the first one, and he was convicted and sentenced to 200-300 years in prison. This was again appealed, and dthe defense objected in part, to Plemmons testimony indicating his motivation for coming forward to testify against Hansen after all these years: Apparently Hansen lied to Plemmons about the fact that his wife committed suicide, and this offended Plemmons deeply, Hansen being such a close buddy and all… 
"As his final assignment of error, the defendant contends that the circuit court erred in allowing his close friend, Joseph Plemmons, to testify that the reason he came forward with damaging evidence against the defendant was that he found out that the defendant had lied about how his wife, Beverly Hansen, died. According to the defendant, the jury could have inferred from Plemmons’ testimony that the defendant had murdered his wife and then lied about it and, therefore, the prejudicial impact of allowing him to testify in this manner far outweighed its probative value…
The record shows that, prior to Plemmons’ testimony, defense counsel argued that he should not be allowed to testify that the reason that he decided to testify against the defendant was because he found out that the defendant had lied about how his wife died. Defense counsel claimed that the jury would infer that the defendant was responsible for her death when, in fact, she actually committed suicide. The trial judge disagreed, stating that Plemmons’ reason for finally testifying against the defendant related to a lie he was told, and did not lead to a natural inference that the defendant had killed his own wife. The court clarified that the State would not be allowed to mention the suicide, unless defense counsel “open[ed] the door” into this matter.
Plemmons testified as to three conversations in which the defendant implicated himself in the murders. Plemmons stated that he finally came forward with the information in November 1994 because he believed that the defendant had lied to him about “what happened to his wife Beverly.” Following Plemmons’ testimony, the State rested and defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis that Plemmons’ testimony created an inference that the defendant was responsible for his wife’s death. The circuit court rejected defense counsel’s argument and denied the motion. Near the conclusion of the defendant’s case, defense counsel sought to introduce Beverly’s death certificate into evidence to refute the alleged inference raised by Plemmons. The circuit court refused to allow the death certificate into evidence, stating that “suicide is very prejudicial because that could be the inference [sic] *** maybe she killed herself because she thought [the defendant] killed three little boys, maybe she killed herself because she found out that [the defendant] was having sexual relationships with young boys.” In an effort to allay defense counsel’s concerns regarding any inference created by Plemmons’ testimony, the trial judge offered to tender a limiting instruction apprising the jury that Plemmons’ testimony as to why he testified was received for the limited purpose of establishing his state of mind. Defense counsel, however, refused the jury instruction.
The defendant argues that Plemmons’ testimony regarding his motive for testifying against the defendant should be considered “in the same light as any other evidence of a collateral crime committed by an accused”, or what is referred to as “other crimes evidence”. We disagree. We do not believe that Plemmons’ testimony created any reasonable inference that the defendant had killed his wife. Plemmons’ testimony that he finally came forward with the information because he believed that the defendant had lied to him about “what happened to his wife Beverly” could have raised a number of inferences, the least logical of which is that the defendant was somehow responsible for her death. Based on our finding that Plemmons’ testimony did not create a natural inference that the defendant had killed his wife, there is no evidence of a collateral crime at issue. See People v. Huffman, 177 Ill. App. 3d 713, 532 N.E.2d 556 (1988). We also reject the defendant’s contention that “[i]t was entirely unnecessary for the State to elicit testimony regarding Beverly’s death in explaining why Plemmons waited so long to tell his story.”<span class=“ev_code_RED”> Defense counsel stated in his opening argument that Plemmons’ motivation for testifying was to “get the deal that he wanted” from the government with respect to a pending fraud charge. </span> As the circuit court correctly noted, the State should have been permitted to elicit from Plemmons that he had a different motivation for finally testifying against the defendant. We also find no error in the circuit court’s refusal to admit the death certificate into evidence. As the court explained, the admission of the death certificate would have been extremely prejudicial to the defendant. Finally, we note that the circuit court offered to give a limiting instruction to the jury to alleviate defense counsel’s concerns with respect to Plemmons’ testimony, but defense counsel declined the instruction.
Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Plemmons to testify as to his motivation for coming forward to testify against the defendant and for refusing to admit Beverly Hansen’s death certificate into evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.’
So…Hansen’s conviction stands, and we have the State and Plemmons, unlike the first trial, indicating that Plemmons was so distraught that his “close friend” lied to him about his wife’s suicide, that he totally lost faith in openess and honesty of their friendship. And that is what compelled him to come forward after 25 years, and tell the feds that his good friend was a child molesting murder,as well as a liar. 
as a post script: from Truth in Justice-Leonard Goodman, ESQ
‘The government paid Joseph Plemmons approximately $5,800 for his testimony against Hansen. Plemmons has twice been convicted of fraud. His most recent conviction was in 1992 and involved a swindle which netted Plemmons $100,000. After he was sentenced to three years in prison, Plemmons decided to become an informant for the federal government. Shortly thereafter, the government caused his sentence to be reduced to seventeen months. Plemmons has admitted using three or four aliases and that he has a bad reputation for telling the truth. He currently resides in Pennsylvania.’
One. Last of the Mohicans is the only movie I’ve ever watched. And then stayed in my seat in the theater and immediately watched all over again. I might have to go rent it tonight. 
Two. Goldy, since it seems the BB is trying to have a moment of honesty with you, I’ll throw in my .02
You mentioned early on you were drinking from the stress of the situation. Understandable, but I have to tell you that alcohol can lead to seemingly obsessive behavior. I’ve been thinking that you’re sitting at your computer, drinking, and brooding on the situation. If so, not a healthy combination. Because rather than helping relieve stress, the alcohol is fueling the preoccupation.
The poor apostrophe must be aghasted by now.
Some of this is an excellent warmup for reading student lab reports.
Killer Bunnies…let’s talk about Killer Bunnies!!!
ok, goldy, you’re going to have to speak human if you wanna participate.
Now, you will see above you two questions. Would you like to try and answer them?
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by goldy:
I think Joe,Feds and Gowdy are really going after the 6 dead people of the 10 people they mention in the Helen Brach murder. It is a new investigative strategy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I see dead people. No, I mean Goldy sees dead people…ummm…I mean Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis see old people.
Is it too early for dranken?
Stay safe Andrew and all Floridians…
Geeesh Goldylox, it’s not all about you and your mud slinging either.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>1. Why do you think Jack Matlick got away with allegedly burning all the potential “evidence”? Do you think there is anyway that he could or should be charged with anything?Perhaps he is speaking out now about what really happened. And this is part of a plea bargain to speak out. I am in no way implicating him or anyone in anything, just my opinion and guess or thought! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The article about Matlick admitting guilt was wrong. If this is what you meant NiteMare. Matlick never confessed to murdering Helen. Only Joe Pleemons said this. Alot of articles that came out at the beginning of Jan 2005 had some confussion as to what had taken place.It was all later set straight by the master reporter on ABC. Who always tells the truth and follows up on what he reports. HA HA HA HAAHHHAAAAAHHHHHH!!!
lyrical - Your brain is working much better than mine tonight!
Esquire - Thanks for the reminder.
We should also probably trot out our hometown favorite for our participants: “be nice, be respectful, be polite” - our CoTH mantra. 
It may not get you out of a lawsuit, but it keeps the mods happy and the threads open. 
SCFarm
Andrew I don’t think that’s likely unless someone comes up with a way to somehow link this to a really controversial topic. It takes a little of the vicious alienation dialog to keep the trolls happy.
Without anything new to argue about these love fests don’t usually last very long. Dear Glimmerglass maybe you can buy them back on ebay; maybe the person who bought them from you has decided that both compassion and empathy are too hard a burden to carry around.
I think goldy is not paranoid and seeing spooks under the bed but just frustrated with the system. We have all felt that way at one time or another. Yes! I agree it is difficult for those people who are poor communicators when they have a mission.
Certainly we all agree this investigation has been mismanaged for all these years. So many accusations that go no where indicate there is a problem with the investigation of any case.
This is in the arena of the “Cold Cases”, we don’t even have the acknowledgement that the Feds have called the case closed so it’s an open case as we speak.
Wasn’t that Cryostar or something like that?
For all of you who do not seem to care what has happened by all these lies all I can say is attempt to put yourself in my Families shoes! It’s called EMPATHY try it sometime!
If I had alot of money Joe would be put in prison!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>well i guess its 5:00 somewhere </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On a serious off track note…at our camp we have a clock that is 5 o’clock 24 hours a day 
. the only number on the clock is 5. No 12 
no 11 no 10 no 9 no 8 no 7 no 6 YES 5 no 4 no 3 no 2 and no 1 .
power is about to go out I think… so far 2 folks dead in ft. lauderdale 1) a 20 yr old boy had tree fall on is car 2) a man outside his house watching the hurricane and a tree fell on him… In 6 years here in Miami/Ft.Lauderale this has been the worst and it’s only a cat 1 hurricane
Now Goldy answer the bippity blipp blipp question 
I thought that we had already established that The Candy Lady was with Old School, Pleemons/PlemmOns/Plemmens, and CP on a leaky houseboat in FLA. Did I miss something? Or was she in Vegas with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa? I better start dranken again 'cause I’m aghasted at this confusion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by LLDM:
[
Uh, hello yourself …
Have you bothered to say that on any of the other fluff threads still alive and well on this BB?
SCFarm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I haven’t and probably won’t. This is the one I wanted to say it on. 
