Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

  
Home | Sex Offender Registry | Megan's Law | Forums (Message Boards) | News Archive
AMBER Alert | Law Enforcement Agencies | Directory of Sites | Polls | Library | Glossary | More Resources                             Login | About Us

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp14000+
orolan4000+
Navigatr12500+
Silvert...2500+
1dadof52500+
Valerie2000+
steve1500+
victori...1000+
myoung1000+
rabbitr...750+
HPierce750+
poetsdr...750+
Renunci...750+
lj750+
fallenone500+
DoTheCr...500+
marta500+
momhelp...500+
prozac500+
rebel51500+
PVulcan250+
anti250+
rodsmith250+
LockEmUp250+
Quest250+
artie250+
KK250+
LostTime250+
TGoodman250+
amberleaf250+
deadmom...250+
brennus100+
scarlett100+
mousein...100+
thepar100+
assumpt...100+
lildrafire100+
JakeLF100+
MrTruth100+
june5100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
buttwaxer
chooch
genospice
hud123
kawaski
kelstress
unknowable

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 118334 (In Reply to Message 118320)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"


Posted by x_marta on Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM | Also by x_marta
Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:
lost time wrote:

> Her interview was one on one -no court, no transcripts, no
> tape. Just the CPS worker and the child alone. her word alone.

You know what kind of weight you would give this testimony. I know what kind of weight I would give this testimony. Why do you imagine, without having talked to them, that the jury did anything different?


> > Not unless she's also a lawyer. If she is not and she sat at
> > the prosecutor's table, it was as a witness.
>
> Witnesses are not allowed in the courtroom until after they
> have testified and usually not even then. This is so they
> cannot modify their testimony based on what they hear from
> previous witnesses. The judge said she could not remain in
> the courtroom. The DA invoked a rule that allows the DA to
> have 1 other person at his table. This person does not have
> to be a lawyer. She is not. My friend tried to get a motion
> passed to allow his expert witness to sit in on the trial as
> well and was refused.

Judges are kings of the fiefdom that is their courtroom. If the lawyer was able to let the person stay, it was because it was not within the judge's discretion to make her leave, i.e. it was perfectly legal. You may think it's cruddy and unfair because this guy is your friend, but, from someone else's perspective (including the judge, apparently) it does not rise to the level of unfairly biasing the jury. Are you going to tell me that, in addition to the DA and the child psychologist, the JUDGE is also in on the witch-hunt to burn your innocent friend at the stake?


> His defense is that the only time he ever touched her in the
> pubic area was in the act of normal hygiene. Applying diaper
> rash cream etc. He had the daughters medical chart which
> showed a phone conv where the child's physician advised him
> to do so when she had a rash.

If the girl's diary was supressed as hearsay, and the mother's testimony was supressed as hearsay, how did this application of topical medicine come into the picture?

And why do you think that the testimony of said physician wasn't sufficient to counter the otherwise unsupported hearsay of the child psychologist?


> There is/was no evidence. The doctor said so. The mother said
> so. The one person who said so testified illegally. The
> appeals court agreed that she should not have been able to
> testify.

So the guy has not been declared guilty of a crime yet?


> But they declared it harmless error. This is the
> same appellate court that declared it harmless error when a
> man was convicted by a jury containing a man who did not
> speak english.

To me, this says nothing more than that there is a problem with a specific court, not the whole system. In the end the system worked, did it not?


> > Why not get more information before you get angry?
>
> No offense marta, but I have a lot of information. The people
> I talked to were at the trial and heard the same evidence the
> jurors did.

No they did not. There were, without a doubt, evidence exhibits that were not seen by spectators, but that were read/examined by the jury. Your friends also were not exposed to the instructions given to the jury regarding matters of law, which are often what a finding of guilt or innocence turns on.


> My friend went to trial with the same naive confidence in the > jury system you have. It cost him everything.

Are you saying he was wrongfully convicted? How do you know? Were you there when the alleged criminal acts were supposedly taking place, and saw nothing? Or are you relying just as heavily on what could be YOUR naive confidence in your buddy's innocence? I fail to see how my confidence in the justice system is any less reasonable than your confidence in your friend. But then again, I guess that's all a matter of perspective.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.
Switch to Flat View

Message 118320
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"


Posted by x_losttime on Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM | Also by x_losttime
Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

Thread


118093, x_simon, Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM ["no" means "no"...or maybe &qu...]
      118098, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 13, 2003 02:19 AM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
      118125, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:25 AM [well considering.]
            118150, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:08 AM [Re: well considering.]
      118138, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM [Re: "no" means "no"...or ...]
            118164, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:36 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...o...]
                  118173, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...]
                        118192, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
                              118216, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM [Re: "no" means "no...]
                                    118236, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 04:00 PM [Re: "no" means "...]
                                          118247, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:31 PM [Re: "no" means &...]
                                                118252, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:41 PM [Re: "no" means...]
                                                      118265, x_losttime, Oct 15, 2003 05:11 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                            118267, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 09:36 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118303, x_losttime, Oct 16, 2003 01:53 AM [Re: "no...]
                                                                        118316, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:45 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118320, x_losttime, Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM [Re: &...]
                                                                                    118334, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM [Re: &...]
                                                      118312, x_orolan, Oct 16, 2003 12:33 PM [Re: "no" m...]
                                                            118317, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:48 PM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118325, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM [Re: "no&q...]
                                                                        118335, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118339, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM [Re: &qu...]
                                                                                    118347, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM [Re:]
                                                                                          118351, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:56 PM [Re:]
                                                                                                118358, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 01:01 PM [Re...]
                                                                                                      118361, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 02:31 PM [...]
                                                                                                            118365, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 06:13 PM [...]
                        146015, Rejected
                  118188, x_losttime, Oct 13, 2003 08:29 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
Forum Home | Top of Thread
Tell a Friend about this page.
Copyright 1998-2007 SexCriminals.com and Befriend | About Site | Credits | Contact Us