Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 17:50:33 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETnomorespam
|
Viewed:
|
883 times
|
| |
|
|
Two things.
1) You can *never* be 100% sure that anyone committed any crime with
circumstantial evidence.
2) Were you a juror for the O.J. travesty, uh sorry, trial?
-John <donning asbestos suit for wrath of Lar>
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Once. (same case both times)
>
> I was the foreman on a jury that got the "wrong" verdict. Wrong in that
> we let someone go who clearly was guilty. But "clearly" was not clear to
> us until after the fact, when we talked to the prosecutor about it. This
> guy had been on a spree and the prosecutor was trying each case
> separately. This was the third time a jury had voted to acquit. He
> wanted some feedback. We gave it to him.
>
> But you know what? It was the RIGHT verdict.
Repeat after me. I was wrrrrrrrrong.
> I stand behind it. From ourperspective, there was no evidence linking the
> assault weapon to the
> defendant as the prints were only of the cops. The confession was
> tainted because it had big gaps of time in it and because it was
> inconsistent. The testimony by the victim was inconclusive because she
> could not ID the assailant. The police testimony hinted at mistreatment
> and rights violations.
>
> The police botched the investigation in a major way. Their negligence
> and malfeasance tainted the evidence badly, and further, their handling
> of the suspect violated his rights. Massively. Think beatings and rubber
> hoses. They botched the ID by not working with the victim to get calm,
> not taking down descriptive information till the memory had faded etc.
> At least 1/2 dozen other flaws that I have forgotten.
>
> The prosecutor was beside himself in frustration at the cops for not
> calling in forensics until prints were smeared, not following procedure,
> and in general treating a situation where someone was invading house
> after house during the span of a night quite cavalierly (multiple 911
> calls from different victims were blown off, ignored, responded to way
> too late, and not analysed for a pattern until 20+ homes had been
> invaded, residents terrorised and so forth). He wanted to get this guy
> pretty badly so he was trying each case separately, hoping for at least
> one conviction.
>
> This is a situation where a civil suit by the victims would have been
> entirely appropriate. But not against the perp. Against the cops. Too
> bad that's not possible. Clear malfeasance. Cops are clean, though, no
> chance for any suit against THEM.
>
> This is a situation where some heat ownership by the victims would have
> been very beneficial, too. Noone had any.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
> See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Agreed. But it takes "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "certain", We had very reasonable doubts based on what we were presented. But I'm pretty sure this particular perp was guilty, or that the DA was lying to us about the circumstances. There (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Once. (...) Once. (same case both times) I was the foreman on a jury that got the "wrong" verdict. Wrong in that we let someone go who clearly was guilty. But "clearly" was not clear to us until after the fact, when we talked to the prosecutor (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
