Gosnell’s defense attorney, Fox anchor go toe-to-toe
Jack McMahon, Kermit Gosnell’s defense attorney
But this afternoon I was proven wrong. McMahon came on about 2:20pm, and the sparks were flying virtually from the moment we saw the videotape of McMahon telling reporters that Gosnell was “upset” and “shocked” by the verdict.
Before McMahon came on, Kelly accurately described how investigators and prosecutors characterized Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic: “a filthy, decrepit, ‘House of Horrors.’” She then told her audience that some are shocked that Gosnell was shocked—that “he wasn’t upset when he was aborting these babies and laughing how one child, one baby was ‘big enough to walk him to the bus stop.’”
Their first exchange was an instructive one. Kelly said that on her program, “We don’t tar the attorney with the sins of the client,” to which McMahon responded, “Thank God.”
Kelly would refer to what prosecutors alleged (and the Grand Jury found in its massive 261-page report) and McMahon would say that wasn’t true, just read the transcript. A good filibuster by an experienced defense attorney.
Where the conversation really took off was when McMahon said Gosnell would not be “defined” by what happened in 2008—a reference to what, I haven’t a clue—but clearly to maintain that Gosnell was, all in all, a good man.
Asked by Kelly about what kind of man Gosnell was, McMahon said he was “A dream client”—“nothing but a complete gentleman,” “polite,” “fully appreciative,” “a soft spoken man,” “an intelligent man,” and so forth.
Then McMahon added sort of oh, by the way, that things had gone “a bit awry” at Gosnell’s clinic.
“A bit awry?” Kelly asked incredulously. “The testimony was the babies were born alive, were wriggling on the operating table, were crying. And he stuck scissors in the back of their neck,” according to a transcription of the discussion that appeared on mediaite.com/tv.
Again and again, McMahon denied the evidence provided at the trial and presumably the reason Gosnell was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus two and one-half to five years.
For instannce, Gosnell wasn’t running a “late-term” abortion clinic, McMahon said. He performed late-term abortions—presumably meaning that although Gosnell made millions off of late abortions, it would not to be fair to use Kelly’s characterization. Go figure.
Charges that the clinic was “filthy and decrepit” and that Gosnell gave white women superior care? “Not true.” Was McMahon denying that babies were born alive and then killed? Yes.
Bear in mind that Kelly makes a fairly common error—that these babies were alive because of “botched abortions.” They were alive because Gosnell had long since learned he was too incompetent to try to kill the babies in utero by injecting them with digoxin. According to mediaite.com/tv.
“That is all we need to know,” Kelly pressed. “He tried to abort them and failed and then he tried to kill them.” She went on to describe the poor conditions in the clinic and the different in the way he treated women based on their race — all of which McMahon denied. ….
“Jack, I started off by saying we don’t tar the lawyers with the sins of clients, and that’s true,” Kelly told him. “But listening to you, you sound like a guy who is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Because you seem to believe this is a swell man — notwithstanding the fact that he murdered little babies!”
“They were born alive, sir! They were born alive!” she added, slamming her hand down on the desk, as McMahon continued to refute parts of the testimony. “How do you come out and defend him now?”
Source: NRLC News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment