Couple Get Prison in Chili Finger Case
By KIM CURTIS, AP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SAN JOSE, Calif. (Jan. 18) - A couple who planted a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili in a scheme to extort money from the fast-food chain were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms of at least nine years.

Anna Ayala, 40, who said she bit into the digit, was sentenced to nine years. Her husband, Jaime Plascencia, 44, who obtained the finger from a co-worker who lost it in a workplace accident, was sentenced to more than 12 years.

"Greed and avarice overtook this couple," said Superior Court Judge Edward Davila, adding that the pair had "lost their moral compass."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The judge in this case probably did what should have been done. These two nuts cost Wendy's millions. Had they not been found out, they would have gladly taken the spoils of their conspiracy and went about their business.
But, the judge makes a comment; "Greed and avarice overtook this couple" "they lost their moral compass."
While I agree whole heartedly with his opinion on this couple, I would like to hear his opinion on the moral compass of the Vermont judge that recently made national headlines with his surprising sentence of only 60 days behind bars for a confessed child sex offender that had confessed to repeated offenses over a four year period.
His victim was sexually abused from age six until age ten.
The moral compass of the offender is not a question in my mind, but a judge, who is educated, who knows very well the repeat offender statistics of sex offenders and who knows the rehab statistics of sex offenders, who well knows that the most recent child rape and murder cases were perpetrated by repeat offenders that should have been behind bars themselves, does bring some question as to the direction that his own moral compass is pointing.
I wonder if this "finger in the chili" couple may have gotten their compass out of line by observing some of the following;
-Modern politics in all of its glory, from the white washing of the "white water" to the definition on national television as to the true meaning of sexual relations.
-O.J. Simpson and his antics (not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court)
-Michael Jackson (now had his trial not gone his way, he may have been able to apply president Clintons definition of sex and been exonerated anyway) I mean we have determined that he was ok in sleeping with young boys, fondling young boys, undressing in front of young boys and watching young boys undress right. The actual sex thing was the only wrong thing in question; right? I'm still confused. One more question; Its ok to do all of that in person, you just can't look at those things on the internet, right?
-John Kerry pictured slinging his military medals into the river, then saying he didn't do that, then saying he was in Cambodia later to remember that he was never in Cambodia, then voting for the War and not voting for the war, then running for president of this country. (only in America)
-Ted Kennedy on any committee to question anyone else's morals.

This is certainly just a few headlines among hundreds that could easily bring a moral compass into question.

-Jamey Green