|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Announcement :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
Current rating: 0 |
by Brian Dolinar
Email: briandolinar (nospam) gmail.com (unverified!) |
06 Jul 2006
|
The Patrick Thompson trial began Wednesday morning, ironically enough the day after Independence Day.
Nearly 20 people were in the courtroom to support Patrick Thompson.
In a major decision, Judge Harry Clem ruled to allow the testimony of 3 men previously accused by [redacted]. In the first trial, this motion had been denied by Presiding Judge Difanis.
Jury selection is underway. Of a pool of 40, only one potential juror was African American. |
Day one of the Patrick Thompson trial.
Racist Criminal Justice System Exposed!!!
Jury selection was completed and opening arguments were made.
Jury of 12 includes: 7 men, 5 women, 2 alternate women.
One Black juror was chosen, but only after contest.
Of approximately 40 potential jurors, only 1 was African-American.
After questioning, special prosecutor Vukovich dismissed the single Black male juror. Patrick Thompson's attorney Harvey Welch contested the dismissal.
When questioned by Judge Harry Clem about the dismissal, Vukovich claimed the juror had "unstable unemployment" and could not be an impartial juror.
Of course, this same scrutiny was not applied to the economic status of the many retired jurors or housewifes (whose actual work often goes unrewarded).
Judge Clem was not convinced and ruled to admit the single Black juror.
Of the 12 jurors, 1 is African-American.
In the opening arguments, the prosecutor attempted to cast Patrick Thompson as a sexual predator, repeating perverted sexual comments to arouse jurors.
Otherwise, Vukovich's argument was to explain away the most obvious fact of the trial: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE collected by Urbana police or that will be presented by the prosecution.
Harvey Welch simply stated the obvious:
there is no evidence - 21st Century (countering Vukovich's comparison with TV shows Law and Order and CSI) or 20th Century.
There are not only no fingerprints or fibers, there are no scratches, no bruises, no neighbors, no witnesses.
Welch said, "this is a struggle that left no marks."
Come be witness to the Thompson trial:
Thursday 9 a.m. Courtroom A.
Downtown Urbana, Champaign County Courthouse.
Several witnesses to appear Thursday.
P.S.
Community Court Watch supports more than $15 a day for jurors. Many working class Black and white Americans cannot afford to serve on a jury.
They have to go to work. |
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Jul 2006
|
Weird ... I remember getting called for jury duty years ago in Sangamon County. It was a murder trial, and the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to get rid of me. The prosecutor's name? Michael Vujovich. I was sort of curious why I was eliminated, and people said that there could have been a number of reasons. Someone told me that educated people are sometimes considered undesirable jurors, though I doubt that this would always be true.
Just out of curiousity, I hit the Circuit Clerk's office (http://www.cccircuitclerk.com/) and did a search. A person named [redacted] shows up more than once (traffic, civil, criminal, and small claims). Wonder if it's the same person? |
|
Different math? |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
From Wikipedia for Champaign County demographics:
"As of the census² of 2000...The racial makeup of the county was 78.78% White, 11.16% Black or African American..."
Now, if 11.16% of the county is black, and 1 of 12 jurors is black, that seems pretty close to the average - 1.3392 persons on the jury would directly reflect the county's black population. Rounding down to the nearest integer (as one generally does with fractions under 1/2), it comes out to 1 of 12, just like the jury.
Am I missing something? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
I'm thinking that BD's point was that Vujovich had apparently objected to having even the single black juror, which would have led to a 100% white jury. |
|
Doing the Math |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
It's simply luck that the one African American in the jury pool was picked, especially over the challenge of the "special" prosecutor, fortunately yielding a somewhat numerically representative jury. What if the challenge had been sustained? Then the jury would have looked a lot more like the average Champaign County jury -- 100% white.
A more representative example of racial inequity in Champaign County justice is found by analyzing the jury pool. There we find a 40:1 ratio in this case, or only ~2.5% African American compared to the population as a whole. That is roughly a >400% _under_representation of the percentage of African Americans in the jury pool for this particular trial. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
I'll concede that the jury pool itself was unbalanced, but the outcome - what REALLY matters - was. The other 28 who weren't selected no longer matter.
And since when does a lawyer on either side not want to push every break in their own direction? If the defendant's lawyer had his way, I'm sure the jury would be 100% black - and irritated with the the local government and police, to boot.
Knowing that excluding persons who can identify with the defendant can make or break a verdict seems pretty wise to me... |
|
You're Not Green |
by good grief
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
"Knowing that excluding persons who can identify with the defendant can make or break a verdict seems pretty wise to me..."
Hmmm, assuming your logic makes any sense, what about all the white people on the jury who will identify with the victim? Doesn't that present a similar set of bias? It is one that occurs far more frequently in our racist justice system than not. It's supposed to be a level playing field, not one that tilts consistently in favor of the accused or the victim.
I know a lot of the Greens. None of them would make such a fundamentally racist comment as yours. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
Ignoring, for a moment, the ad hominem insinuation that your perception of racism in my comments is even REMOTELY relevant...
1) "Green" has nothing to do with a party affiliation.
2) The justice system should ALWAYS tilt WAY in favor of the victim - that's kind of the point of criminal justice: someone or someones have been wronged, and society needs to balance the scales through the courts.
3) The accused should have all the rights accorded to him by the Constitution of the US and Illinois, as applicable. A "level playing field" is only possible in a social and political vacuum. If blacks make up 11% of the population, then the jury should reflect that - a jury of one's peers does not mean a jury of those that the defendant (or victim) would like to hang out with.
If the accused is black and the victim is white, and the society from which they both come is 10 to 1 white, and you have a jury that reflects it, that's not racism, that's probability. It's unfortunate, but it's unreasonable to expect society to make special rules for juries if the defendant is a minority.
4) My comment that you chose to quote was about the tactical wisdom of the lawyer, not about right/wrong or racism. |
|
With An Assumption Like That --- |
by 'nother white guy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
It sounds like the nick should be WhitePowerGuy. |
|
See the Results |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
"The justice system should ALWAYS tilt WAY in favor of the victim" = innocent people on death row
While i am NOT that other Ryan, you can be sure that the failed results of such ridiculous -- and unconstitutional (maybe that's where you get "as applicable" in #3?; sounds more like a convenient political evasion of what your real objectives are to me), BTW -- logic apply to non-capital crimes in Illinois.
"My comment that you chose to quote was about the tactical wisdom of the lawyer, not about right/wrong or racism."
Your comment appears based on the fundamental assumption that black people prioritize their critical judgments of others based on skin color. So either you yourself hold those views or you just accused the prosecutor of using similar logic. To describe it as merely "tactical wisdom" betrays the fact that you just don't get it.
Perhaps you need to challenge your own assumptions a little more closely? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
It's unfortunate that I cannot hold a critical, serious discussion without being labeled a nazi, simply because my beliefs are not in lockstep (pun intended) with frequenters on this board.
Derogatory remarks don't win arguments - counter-arguments do.
Now, aside from a presumption of innocence, which all defendants should be entitled to anyway, can someone please explain why the rules should be different for folks of differnt races? Is that not a direct violation of the 14th amendment?
Are you proposing that anytime there is cross-racial crime, the jury should reflect 6 of one and a 1/2 dozen of the other? What if it's strait on gay crime? Civilian on soldier? What if the "main" personal identification that an individual has "chosen" is that he worships floor tile - kind of hard to find a jury of those peers. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
I think an attorney would have to be pretty incompetent to make assumptions based solely on race or gender about how a juror would vote. The professional jury consultants look at a lot more than race when they're trying to load a jury in their side's favor. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
Historian:
"Your comment appears based on the fundamental assumption that black people prioritize their critical judgments of others based on skin color."
So race doesn't matter to the defendant? Then why was this string started?
And it IS tactical wisdom over race for the lawyer - at the end of the day, the lawyer will sleep in his own bed. Lawyers play lawyer games, whether or not race is involved, and that's the way they NEED to be - calm, collected and calculating. Hair-trigger accusations of racism will only ostracize a lawyer's intended audience. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
First, a comment for guy, for whom green must mean naive.
Patrick Thompson is innocent until proven guilty.
The responsibility is on the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Looked at another way, Patrick is the victim in this case. He was denied due process of law when Urbana officer Hediger FAILED TO COLLECT ANY EVIDENCE. Hediger testified this morning that he visited the apartment complex twice that day - and NEVER EVEN ENTERED THE APARTMENT where the incident allegedly occured.
Thursday began with appearances by several witnesses:
Off. Hediger, first cop called to see accuser, [redacted]. His testimony was clearly scripted and staged. Additionally, he admitted that of 6 other apartments in the complex, he only attempted to speak with one of the neighbors. Officer claims that [redacted] told him she kicked and screamed.
Misty Ann Hanning testified, current property manager at Sunnycrest Apts, although not in Aug 2004. She testified that two Black men, "who did not look professional," came to her asking to see Apt. 203 where incident allegedly occured. She denied acces.
Diana Edmond appeared, later resident of Apt#203. She remembers Patrick and another man coming to take photos of the apartment. She let them in. Neither Edmond or Hanning mention police coming to investigate the crime scene. This was evidently Patrick doing his own independent investigative work.
The accuser [redacted] appeared and gave her account. Her testimony also appeared prepared and overly theatrical. Her voice was timid, squeeky, and monotone as she gave her testimony. She moved slowly, cathartically, as if she had a bad case of the flu.
Community Court Watch witnesses present in the courtroom pointed out several discrepancies from her testimony in the first trial. Contrary to previous testimony and the comments of Off. Hediger, today she said she did not scream or yell.
She testified to being late to work, arriving at 7:30 when she was to be there at 7 am. She had been late to work several times. Did she make up the story to avoid getting fired?
She testified that she spoke to her boyfriend before she called the cops. She had been in arguments with her boyfriend and broke up with him shortly after Aug 2004. Did she have another argument with her boyfriend? We will hear from other witnesses that she had said that she wanted to make her boyfriend jealous. Did she make up these accusations to provoke a response from her boyfriend?
Lastly, in response to Wayward's search of [redacted]'s name on the Circuit Clerk's web page, yes she has a record. Most curious are the charges of child endangerment in one case. In another, she was in a head on collision for which she was responsible. She was not even cited with a traffic ticket. These incidents parallel the development of the first trial. But perhaps someone else could post the specifics.
Cross-examination of the accuser begins at 1:30.
Come see what strategy the defense takes.
Peace, BD |
|
"Matter" and Racist Thought Are Two Different Things |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
Of course race matters to the defendant. When it apears you're being railroaded by a racist justice system and you're a black man, hell yes it matters.
You apparently still don't get the point I was trying to make. You use logic that implies a fundamental misunderstaaning of how race works as ideological;y shaped cognition deeply ingrained by culture. What you deescibe is how racist white people think of those with differently colored skin. The first thing that came to mind for you was the attorney would operate on the basis of soemthing apparently familiar to you as a thought process -- "that person is black".
There are white people who don't think that way and most people of color don't think that way. Sure, race comes into the equation, but it's pretty far down the list of categorization of priorities in one's thinking about an initial encounter with another human being. Thinking that a black man would think that way is a case of projection by an observor who describes things in this way. You insist that is not what you were thinking, but you are certainly defining the act of racist thought by using it as an example whatever your real intention, then you make excuses for why an attorney should exploit such a racist tactic. I think this is a good example of where the law as it stands needs corrective action. I won't bother with your ridiculous and seemingly intentionally and uselessly provactive proposals about corrective action. Do a serious study of the issue and you'll find there are a number of proposasl that might be enacted, except for the low priority racism in our justice system takes in our political system.
When the place that one begins the judgment of another human based on skin color -- as your remark distinctly implies whether you want to take owenership of it or put the blame elsewhere -- that is a racist thought process, wherever it originates.
Racists usually don't understand this and tend to project such thought on others, as was pointed out in your remark "Knowing that excluding persons who can identify with the defendant can make or break a verdict seems pretty wise to me..."
You never did answer why this somehow might be an acceptable part of the workings of our racist justice system, one that works to the benefit of both white victims -- and even false accusers, I supposewithout prejudging the facts of this specific case -- and white criminals. Before African Americans were permitted to serve on juries, no one wrung their hands over the fact that they might "identify with the defendant."
You're not wringing your hands now over the obviously skewed jury pool. In this now high profile case, certainly there was pressure on the judge that isn't ordinarily there, otherwise the outcome of jury selection from this obviously unbalanced pool could have differenr. In fact, the opposite situation -- mostly all white juries sending mostly black defendants to prison at extraordinarily skewed rates -- is usually the case in this county, like it is in most Illinois counties.
You speak of your concern about offering a critical evaluation of how race is implicated in this case, but its mostly all about how white people might suffer from prejudice here, rather than dealing with the reality of actual daily injustice suffered by minorities in our community. Such an attitude -- which inevitably betrays either a very deep ignorance or maybe even an actual disregard of the functioning of race in American society -- needs to be addressed by the person holding it before they are in a position to critically analyze real life examples of racism. Your deficiencies in theory and analysis are not unusual. Just as for the alcoholic, the first question is -- What do you plan to do about your seeming lack of recognition that any objective results-oriented analysis of our justice system indicates that racism is deeply embedded in it and even actively propagated by it? Advocating a state of denial as you implicitly do here is also wallowing in personal denial. There is nothing "hair trigger" about the concerns raised about your formulation of what is at stake here.
Racial injustice is a fact of American life that we all must do battle with for decades to come. It still isn't over and the current trend in backslding and denial is only making theproblem worse. You might have previously missed noticing your own enjoyment of white privilege. Now there is no excuse. Even oldtimers like me who've been doing personal battle with it all our lives because of the racist culture which shaped us in our youths have to subdue it in our own thought pattens all too frequently still. If you're white and saying you're immune to all this and now you're just concerned about how all the racism that people of n color perpetrate might have against white people, then you're just not credible. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
Can we move past the insults, please?
"Looked at another way, Patrick is the victim in this case. He was denied due process of law..."
No, he's the accused. The victim is the victim, the defendant is the defendant.
I believe I explicitly said previously that the defedant is always entitled to constitutional protections - that would include due process. Yes, it also includes a presumption of innocence, which I also explicitly stated earlier.
And yes, the burden is on the state to prove guilt, no argument there.
But none of that means that there is rampant racism in the court if he is found guilty. It means he was found guilty, and that's all it means - you have no way of knowing during the trial what happens in the jury room.
If his constitutional rights were violated, then by all means, the case should be thrown out - but he is stil the defendant until that time, not the victim. After it is thrown out, he will STILL not be the victim, he will be the defendant in a case that was thrown out.
The case is about whether or not Thompson committed a crime. It is not about whether the police followed proper proceedure during the investigation - that is incidental to the case. It may become a crucial point, but it does not mean that Thompson is the victim of the crime that Thompson is accused of committing.
And I'd prefer to read the transcript of the trial from the court after the case is complete than take the paraphrased version of a clearly biased party on this board - no offense. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
So now I'm diseased and you have pity on me because I just haven't taken that first step and admitted I have a problem? I'm not as "evolved" as you yet?
I don't even know where to begin with that one.
If you seriously believe that what you just wrote is fact and not a seriously convoluted opinion, I think you might need to take your own advice and reexamine your thought process.
That has got to be the quintessential progressive post - "they're too dumb to know that they're dumb, so I'll think for them."
Unfortunately, I can't write fast enough to keep up with everyone (which is unfortunate, because I had a great one for BD before the UCIMC server lost it in transit...), so at this point, I'm actually going to forfeit for the sake of getting some actual work done. |
|
Racism is Pathological |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
I don't know if racism should be considered a disease, although that does sometimes make an interesting model for how it is culturally propagated in American society. Most people don't volunteer for a disease. Racism is a lot like religion, we just sort of grow up with it.
For many people, the realization of how racism works within one's own mind can be profoundly disturbing. Denial is a common reaction. I didn't cast myself up as being better than you and somehow being above it all. I'm speaking from personal experience of how people must consciously do the best they can to overcome such conditioning intellectually when one is raised in a racist society.
I made a conscious choice to overcome to the best of my ability what was inculturated in me about race as a youth. You don't have to make a choice to be a racist and you may not even be conscious of it. Morally upright people never make a conscious choice to be racist, but they sometimes make unconscious ones and they can certainly engage in a deep state of denial about it all. Witness all the earnest kids that think the "Chief" is way cool.
So confronting our own racism is a choice we make -- or don't make. But it seems here you go beyond this even, denying the whole issue exists as a problem. That is a rather dishonest and cynical political statement on your part. I'm not buying it.
You say here that racism simply could never play a role in this case, but that is hardly a credible argument in Illinois. In fact, it is an absolutely incredible assertion, given what is known about the outcome of justice in this sorry state:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/rates-b&w.htm) You have to be a know-nothing in our modern times to claim that such damning statistics -- Illinois is, atrociously, the absolutely worst state in the union for racially disparate sentencing with an almost unbelievable 57 times as many black youth as white being imprisoned for a drug crime -- don't indicate significant issues with racial disparity throughout the system.
Then add in the fact that a special prosecutor refuses to pursue a surprisngly similar recent case with significant evidence against a white police offiicer of official misconduct, while on the other hand another special prosecutor decides he'll pursue a case with no physical evidence against a black man who is a citizen journalist?
I don't think you've convinced anyone here that justice is truly blind in Illinois. She just wears political blinders. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Be Fair to All
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
To be fair, why not post Patrick Thompson's convictions, and note that he is on Federal Parole for drug dealing? |
|
Falsely Accused? |
by 'nother white guy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
Last time I checked, the falsely accused are also victims.
Any faith in the objectivity of the local justice system is entirely misplaced. Faith in it's ability to guard against racial disparity is entirely laughable, something in between believing in the Tooth Fairy and maintaining faith that Saddam's secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
As of 5pm Thursday, all the witnesses have appeared. Prosecution and defense have rest their cases.
Closing arguments begin Friday at 9:30 (with some time to inform jurors of law at 9am, which I believe is why its starting late).
This afternoon, defense attorney Harvey Welch cross-examined [redacted] and presented witness Michelle Dickey.
Welch honed in on [redacted]'s testimony that she was ironing when Thompson allegedly. Why did she not use the iron as a weapon to resist an intruder?
Welch also asked about her cell phone, which [redacted] said was on the dresser in her bedroom. Why didn't she call for help?
When asked if she yelled or screamed loudly, [redacted] replied, "louder than talking."
Asked again if she was yelling, she responded "I guess."
Again, there were no reports by neighbors of any noise in the apartment.
Welch reread [redacted]'s police report and asked her if she remembered claiming that Thompson had stopped his assault two times. She said she didn't remember.
Bessie Cisney was called by Vujovich. She worked at Provena with the accuser and testified that she saw her crying and upset the day of the incident.
Arlene Mefford was also called. She is the head secretary on the 7th floor at Provena. She was the first to find [redacted] in a utility closet and attempted to console her. She testified that [redacted] was upset, crying, her voice was shaking.
Mefford's first question was why she had come to work?
She said that [redacted] was concerned about losing her job and had problems with her boss.
Arriving to work at 7:30, thirty minutes late, [redacted] could be concocting this story to save her job.
Welch did not press the point, but asked Mefford what [redacted] had said about the alleged altercation.
Mefford remembered that [redacted] said she had been "backed up against a couch." This comment was nowhere in [redacted]'s testimony and there was no couch in the bedroom.
The State rested its case and the defense presented its sole witness, Michelle Dickey.
Ms. Dickey is a young African American woman, who was friends with [redacted] at the time. They saw one another on a daily basis, talked on the phone, and played spades (a card game) together regularly in the evenings.
Dickey claims she received a call from [redacted] the morning of the incident. [redacted] was on the phone crying. According to Dickey, [redacted] was "always crying." "It happened" [redacted] said to Dickey. What? "He tried to rape me." Who? "Patrick," said [redacted]. Evidently, she knew Patrick's name before the event, contrary to her testimony.
Dickey claimed that weeks earlier, [redacted] and her sister Tracy talked that they had put letters on Patrick's car. "She liked him," said Dickey.
According to Dickey, when they were all out on the sidewalk, [redacted] saw Patrick coming out of the apartment weightroom and said, "There he goes, there he goes. Should I say anything?" Dickey told her no, he's married. [redacted] laughed it off.
When asked by Welch if she heard anything from apartment #203, Dickey said you can hear things in those apartments, but she didn't that morning.
Later after 5pm, when [redacted] returned to her apartment, Dickey said she spoke to her. [redacted] asked, "Did police pick him up yet?" When Dickey replied yes, [redacted] said "good" and ran upstairs smiling. [redacted] came back down later like nothing had happened. She relayed her story, but Dickey said, "She kept on switching her story up." They met in [redacted]'s apartment that night, Dickey said, for another night of cards and drinking. There were no complaints of pain or injury.
Dickey testified that she was approached that afternoon by an Urbana officer (Hediger). The conversation lasted for 5 minutes, she says. When the cop asked if she thinks he did it, Dickey said "no." The cop was not interested after this statement she claims. Upon cross-examination, Vujovich asked Dickey why Officer Hediger would claim she had refused to provide any information, was she suggesting the officer lied, Dickey said "yes."
Again, the word of a police officer is often believed to hold more weight than that of an individual.
Vujovich attempted to undermine the credibility of Dickey by saying she had not come forward earlier. But again, Officer Hediger consistently MADE NO ATTEMPT TO SPEAK TO OTHER NEIGHBORS.
Perhaps they would not provide the evidence the cops were looking for to frame up Patrick and stop his community activism.
Come hear closing arguments Friday morning.
Expect to have a decision by Friday 5pm.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
If you take out the racesofthe accussed and accuser, doesn't this just boil down to a woman says a man pushed his way into her apartment, groped her, and threatened her? Lots of times it's a woman saying this, and there is no physical evidence. Will you always rally around the accused, or does it matter here because of their respectives races? What about women's rights to be believed? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
If you take out the racesofthe accussed and accuser, doesn't this just boil down to a woman says a man pushed his way into her apartment, groped her, and threatened her? Lots of times it's a woman saying this, and there is no physical evidence. Will you always rally around the accused, or does it matter here because of their respectives races? What about women's rights to be believed?
Fair question, and I'll try to answer it. It doesn't really matter to me what color Patrick Thompson's skin is. The accuser seems to have all the credibility of Mayella Ewell, and she's apparently made similar accusations against other men. So I've been quite unimpressed by what I've heard about the evidence, investigation, and testimony. Because of all this, I would not be inclined to uncritically accept the accuser's testimony.
The case seems weak, and some of the IMC people are angry and perceive it as malicious prosecution. So the accuser's name has already been posted repeatedly, and I suspect we'll be seeing more. On one hand, I understand that the loss of anonymity might deter Thompson's accuser from making any more dubious allegations. On the other, this could also deter legitimate rape victims from coming forward. The whole thing is starting to seem like a train wreck in slow motion, and I wish the state would have just dropped the charges a long time ago. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anonymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
|
It sure seems "chilling" to me to so quickly condemn a woman who has accused a man of doing this. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the political position sure seems anti-woman to me. I would think twice about accusing someone if I knew that a large group of people would do this to me. The system is flawed, but this sets women's rights back to the times when men could do whatever they wanted knowing the women would be accused. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
It sure seems "chilling" to me to so quickly condemn a woman who has accused a man of doing this. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the political position sure seems anti-woman to me. I would think twice about accusing someone if I knew that a large group of people would do this to me. The system is flawed, but this sets women's rights back to the times when men could do whatever they wanted knowing the women would be accused.
How would you recommend fixing the system? Seriously. I agree that there are some problems with publicizing the names of accusers in rape cases. But if you just accept alleged rape victims' testimony uncritically, it seems like there's a risk of sending an innocent person to prison. So how do you make it fair to everyone?
In this case, the accuser's history of making similar allegations against other men troubled me. This combined with the lack of physical evidence and eyewitnesses made me very uncomfortable.
Are we really a "large group" that's "doing something" to the accuser? We don't have the right to harass or threaten her, and I hope that nobody associated with the IMC would do anything like that. But we do have the right to express our opinions, and a number of people have been doing just that. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by brokendave
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2006
|
This message is specifically to GreenGuy...
It seems to me that you are a very clever person. Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguements appear quite flawed. The logic that you have put forth seems to be directly influenced by the legal and political dogma learned from school books. (note that this is not an insult, but an observation of your comments)
What those books fail to recognize is the personal side of law and order. Nothing is black and white, and in the case of Patrick Thompson, he is not without reasonable doubt (a great deal of it I might add).
I have to disagree that [redacted] is a victim. According to our American judicial system, she is a plaintiff, not a victim. To address her as a victim would be implicating guilt to Patrick Thompson. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore Patrick Thompson is innocent.
However, I do believe that Patrick Thompson is a vicitim (in the sense of political theater). I suppose I could ask you if you have ever been falsely accused of molesting a woman. I will asume you haven't, but I am sure you can imagine how you would feel like a victim if you had been.
As far as the jury arguement goes, the average white community members are not peers with the black community. This is a direct result of institutional racism (which I would love to debate with you, as I can see you probably don't feel it exists).
I have more to say, but no time to say it... bring it on GreenGuy!
P.S. If you are as intelligent as you come off, then you will address what I have said in an educated manner, and you will refrain from any foolishness.
Peace,
Dave Key
Political / Labor Organizer |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
An editorial note -- I think I may have accidentally deleted a post from this thread while taking out the morning "Nextel Ringtones" robospam trash. Sorry!
@%< |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
This message is specifically to Dave Key...
I appreciate your ability to post without blatant insults. Thank you - I, too, believe that differing opinions can be discussed without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Because of your tempered tone, I'll take some time to respond to you directly - even though I had already given up hope of civil conversation on this string.
I will concede that [redacted] is a "plaintiff" for the purposes of the case. However, if a crime WAS committed, then she WOULD be the victim.
"To address her as a victim would be implicating guilt to Patrick Thompson. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore Patrick Thompson is innocent."
First, "therefore Patrick Thompson is innocent" is not a conclusion that can be drawn from that logic. The most that can logically be drawn from the above statements is "Patrick Thompson is innocent until proven guilty, by law."
Your logic is an "affirming the consequent" form of a non sequitur.
Perhaps my choice of rhetoric is partially to blame for disagreement.
Allow me to rephrase: [redacted] is the ALLEGED victim in the ALLEGED crime of a REAL case. At no time in this case is Thompson a REAL or ALLEGED victim.
I say again, the fact that Thompson may or may not have had his constitutional rights violated is incidental to the case, and therefore he is not a victim in any terms - I don't count the "court of public opinion" as having legal or moral legitimacy for any case, to include this one.
If however, enough evidence exists for a subsequent "Thompson v CPD" case of framing and conspiricy, then yes, at the time that those charges were brought against the CPD, I would agree that Thompson would be an ALLEGED victim of an ALLEGED crime.
"I could ask you if you have ever been falsely accused of molesting a woman. I will asume you haven't, but I am sure you can imagine how you would feel like a victim if you had been."
Whether or not I empathize with the defendant is irrelivent. People are accused on a regular basis of all kinds of things, everywhere in the US - some of those accusations are true, some are blatantly false, and some are shades of grey. However, the reason the court is there is specifically to weed out which accusations have merit and which don't. To simply state before the facts are presented in open court that "I don't believe it, therefore there's no need for a trial" is not justice, if the alleged victim is truly a victim of a crime.
I think that part of the problem is that there is another, overreaching non sequitur that is in play. That being: "Thompson attempted to embarrass the CPD - "A". The CPD arrested, and the government is prosecuting Thompson for commission of an unrelated crime - "B". Therefore, Thompson was set up for a crime he did not commit - "C"."
In other words, "If A and B, then only C." However, it can also be logically true that Thompson was arrested subsequent to the commission of an ACTUAL crime. That can also be the case, and "A" can possibly have nothing to do with "B," then the correct statement would be "If A and B, then possibly C."
Again, if there is evidence of CPD malfeasance IN RELATION TO THIS INVESTIGATION, then that can possibly be tied to Thompson's previous embarrassment of the CPD, and charges should be brought in a seperate case.
However, that does not necessarily follow that a crime was not committed. Yes, Thompson may be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, part of the multi-pronged responsibility of the prosecution is to determine:
1) Was a crime committed?
2) If so, was Thompson the one who committed the crime?
To simply state that no crime was committed, or that Thompson was not the one who committed the crime, because the CPD has a grudge against Thompson is not sound logic.
Now, about the peer thing: in Champaign County Court, a "jury of one's peers" is any eligible resident of Champaign County. You present the issue that "the average white community members are not peers with the black community." The implication, as I understand you to mean it, is that no minority can get a fair trial EVER in Champaign County.
So my question to you is, what solution do you propose to the problem you present? It is not the responsibility of the court or the legislature to ensure that counties have an even distribution of races so that every jury pool is racially balanced. It would also be a 14th amendment violation to pick and choose a jury pool by race, either to the benefit or detriment of a defendant.
Ball's in your court, Mr. Key. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Closing arguments have been made and the jury is in deliberation.
There will be a press conference held by the Community Court Watch group outside of the courthouse after the decision is announced.
Vujovich's closing argument was again that although there may be no physical evidence, the jury must believe testimony the officer and the accuser.
He acknowledged there were several indiscrepancies, but that they were not incredible.
He continued to cast Patrick Thompson as a sexual predator again repeated and embelling the comment, claiming Thompson had said "I know you've always wanted to fuck me."
Vujovich made comments appearing to be directed not only at the jury but at the many Thompson supporters in the courtroom audience.
He said that if the Urbana police department is to be criticized, write a letter to the police chief, to the mayor, but don't take it out on [redacted].
In his final rebuttal, Vujovich said, "This is not a trial against the Urbana police department."
Vujovich tried to discredit and slander Michelle Dickey, a Black woman, who testified against [redacted]'s account. In reference to Dickey's failure to remember the exact date of the event, Aug 24, Vujovich said, "I doubt Michelle Dickey even knows where she was yesterday, yet alone last year or the year before that."
Harvey Welch gave his closing argument, making a few clever comments.
He returned to Vujovich's references to CSI, Law and Order, to 21st century collection of evidence.
Welch said, "To continue this TV analogy, we don't even have Dragnet here."
Welch drew attention to the dress of the individuals. One, Thompson, was allegedly shirtless. The other, [redacted], was in shirts and shorts. The accuser was grabbed forcefully and flung on bed, yet there are no marks. Indeed, Urbana officer testified to the absense of bruises or scratches.
This was an early summer morning in August. Neighbors must have had windows open. Children were getting ready for school. This is not an isolated apartment buidling, it is part of an entire complex. And there were no witnesses who heard a struggle.
Welch found it unbelievable that there had been no previous contact between Thompson and [redacted].
Why would Thompson go into the apartment at seven in the morning, not knowing her, attack her, not carry a weapon, able to overpower her, and then stop? He came in to forcefully assault her, and then stopped. Apparently, she didn't injure him, she didn't yell loud enough, no one came to her rescue. Why would he stop? There was no previous conversation between the two, no seduction, no pursuasion. Why would Thompson, out of the blue, invade [redacted]'s home and attack her?
The prosecution, as I saw it, is expecting the jury to view Thompson, a Black man, as a sexual predator to attacks on a whim and cannot restrain himself.
Welch said there was one fact he was willing to agree with - she could identify him. He said you could or could not believe Michelle Dickey, but Welch suggested that [redacted] could identify Thompson because she knew him and fantasized about him, as Dickey had testified to.
Welch referenced the scales of justice, that they were tipped in Thompson's favor. The defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent. What evidence is sufficient enough to tip the scales?
There was no any CSI type of corroborative evidence.
There was not even any old style evidence.
There was not even an attempt to collect old style evidence.
Decision expected to come soon.
Press conference soon after.
Stay tuned.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by what happened?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
|
What was the jury's verdict? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Court Watcher
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
|
The jury verdict was guilty of both counts, sex assault and home invasion. Home invasion is a mandatory minimum 6 years in prison, but with Thompson's record, he will probably be sentenced to more than 6 years. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Final decision:
White woman, Black man: Guilty verdict.
The most interesting development was in the jury's delivering of the verdict.
After announcing the guilty verdict, the jurors went one by one responding "Yes" to the question - do you find this man guilty. The other white jurors resonded yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
When it came to the single Black juror, James O. Childs, he stopped and said, what is the question. When Judge Clem asked do you find this man guilty, Childs shook his head, appeared frustrated, and said yeah, whatever.
As the jurors were walking out of the room, Mr. Childs looked Patrick Thompson in the eye, threw his hands up, shook his head, and said "I tried."
Again, the racial implications in this trial are evident to anybody who was witness.
The sole Black juror appeared to sympathasize with Thompson and was deeply frustrated with the outcome.
The rest of us are deeply saddened and angered at this miscarriage of justice.
Our thoughts are with the Thompson family.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by robscott
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
|
Can the verdict (bullshit) be appealed? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dr. John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy: "At no time in this case is Thompson a REAL or ALLEGED victim."
The legal framework of the case doesn't necessarily correspond with the empirical reality of the case. In reality, Thompson could be falsely accused of the crime by the plantaiff regardless of the framework of the casework or its outcome.
When a case boils down to one person's word versus another's, it is not possible to derive any reliable inferences regarding guilt or innocence.
In my opinion, such cases shouldn't even be allowed to come to trial because the "probable cause" criterion has not been satisfied. This is what has always bothered me about this case.
Based on what I've read (yes, I know that this is no substitute for sitting through the trial or reading the transcript), it is my impression that Mr. Thompson is a victim of police and prosecutorial misconduct for allowing this case to come as far as it has.
This doesn't necessarily mean that he is innocent of the alleged crime, however.
GreenGuy: "I say again, the fact that Thompson may or may not have had his constitutional rights violated is incidental to the case, and therefore he is not a victim in any terms - I don't count the "court of public opinion" as having legal or moral legitimacy for any case, to include this one."
There appears to be a violation of due process of law: A case was allowed to proceed before the court when probable cause was never established. This type of violation of Mr. Thompson's constitutional rights nullifies the moral validity of the trial and its outcome. Therefore, Mr. Thompson can be considered the victim of a faulty criminal justice system. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Docket sheet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
|
Probable cause was established by a Grand Jury in August of 2004 |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Dr. Hilty:
I would agree that "he said, she said" trials are somewhat iffy, assuming that both persons were of equal credibility.
Unfortunately, in this case, it appears that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is much of a saint, and neither can really be believed over the other.
Like you, I didn't sit through the trial, nor have I had a chance to read a transcript, (hopefully one gets published online) so my information is all second-hand, too.
Unfortunately, it's lose-lose for 3rd parties who want to know what's REALLY going on with this: BD is clearly not credible as an unbiased source; however, the accusations that he's putting forth are that the court and court system are biased. Because the court guides the trial and provides the transcript, it cannot be considered an unbiased source for rebuttal of BD's accusations. Catch 22.
It seems like the only way to know what was REALLY going on was to have been there in person, unfortunately. Everything else is, much like the trial, just guessing at who is more credible.
...and if Thompson is truly a victim of a biased court or vengeful cops, then I'm sure if his lawyer had half a brain, he objected to everything imaginable so that this case could be appealed later.
Barring an overturning of the verdict by a higher court, he has been found guilty. If he is the victim of institutional railroading, then he needs to get on his lawyer about bringing a case against those responsible. If there is no real attempt at a case against those Thompson believes is responsible, then I see no reason why I should believe that he is the victim of anything. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
|
If Judge Clem allowed that 3 men the victim had falsely accused in the past could testify, why didn't they testify? Why didn't Patrick's wife testify? Why didn't Patrick testify? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by molesto
molesto (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
"I tried"? Nonsense. Even if that account is accurate, all twelve jurors, including the one african american, signed the guilty verdict forms. How long was the jury out? Two hours? Including lunch.
I'm also curious about the matter of the "3 men previously accused by [the victim]" Did these men actually testify at the trial? I understand the judge ruled that such evidence would be admissible, but was it actually presented at the trial? Did the defense present any evidence that the victim had any motive or bais against Mr. Thompson that could explain why she would fabricate this allegation? Was any evidence or testimony presented that the victim even knew Mr. Thompson before he burst into her apartment and tried to rape her? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by molesto
molesto (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
"I tried"? Nonsense. Even if that account is accurate, all twelve jurors, including the one african american, signed the guilty verdict forms. How long was the jury out? Two hours? Including lunch.
I'm also curious about the matter of the "3 men previously accused by [the victim]" Did these men actually testify at the trial? I understand the judge ruled that such evidence would be admissible, but was it actually presented at the trial? Did the defense present any evidence that the victim had any motive or bais against Mr. Thompson that could explain why she would fabricate this allegation? Was any evidence or testimony presented that the victim even knew Mr. Thompson before he burst into her apartment and tried to rape her? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
If you'd read the thread thoroughly, you might have noticed posts by BD that answered your questions. For example, here's one quote.
Ms. Dickey is a young African American woman, who was friends with [redacted] at the time. They saw one another on a daily basis, talked on the phone, and played spades (a card game) together regularly in the evenings.
Dickey claims she received a call from [redacted] the morning of the incident. [redacted] was on the phone crying. According to Dickey, [redacted] was "always crying." "It happened" [redacted] said to Dickey. What? "He tried to rape me." Who? "Patrick," said [redacted]. Evidently, she knew Patrick's name before the event, contrary to her testimony.
Dickey claimed that weeks earlier, [redacted] and her sister Tracy talked that they had put letters on Patrick's car. "She liked him," said Dickey.
According to Dickey, when they were all out on the sidewalk, [redacted] saw Patrick coming out of the apartment weightroom and said, "There he goes, there he goes. Should I say anything?" Dickey told her no, he's married. [redacted] laughed it off.
When asked by Welch if she heard anything from apartment #203, Dickey said you can hear things in those apartments, but she didn't that morning.
Later after 5pm, when [redacted] returned to her apartment, Dickey said she spoke to her. [redacted] asked, "Did police pick him up yet?" When Dickey replied yes, [redacted] said "good" and ran upstairs smiling. [redacted] came back down later like nothing had happened. She relayed her story, but Dickey said, "She kept on switching her story up." They met in [redacted]'s apartment that night, Dickey said, for another night of cards and drinking. There were no complaints of pain or injury. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by lawnerd
lawnerd (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Dr. John Hilty said: "There appears to be a violation of due process of law: A case was allowed to proceed before the court when probable cause was never established. This type of violation of Mr. Thompson's constitutional rights nullifies the moral validity of the trial and its outcome. Therefore, Mr. Thompson can be considered the victim of a faulty criminal justice system."
The probable cause/preliminary hearing/grand jury indictment issue can be very confusing. Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution says that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless upon a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." Two terms in that clause are archaic: "infamous crimes" we now call felonies; and, instead of a "presentment" we now call it a "preliminary hearing.'
In the vast majority of cases where felony cases are brought by the county State's Attorney, they are brought in the form of an "information.' An information is a charging document that the State's Attorney draws up, and swears to. When a defendant is charged with a felony offense by information, he has the right to demand a further showing of probable cause: the 'presentment' or preliminary hearing.
A grand jury indictment, on the other hand, is said to have probable cause "on its face." Therefore, the State's Attorney can satisfy the probable cause requirement of a preliminary hearing by taking her information to the grand jury and asking them for an indictment.
Because the State took the case to the grand jury and obtained a true bill of indictment, Patrick Thompson's due process rights were not violated, at least insofar as the Fifth Amendment probable cause requirement is concerned. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by molesto
molesto (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
thanks, wayward. that does answer my question in part, and after reading back through the thread I would have edited my post had I been able to figure out how.
Mr. Thompson was apparently able to present a witness who testified as you quoted. One witness. Isn't it appropriate for the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and decide whether to believe their testimony or not?
Was it Mr. Thompson's defense that the victim made up this story as an excuse for being late to work? If so, it's hardly surprising that he was convicted.
I'm still dying to know what these three previous "victims' had to say. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by molesto
molesto (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
thanks, wayward. that does answer my question in part, and after reading back through the thread I would have edited my post had I been able to figure out how.
Mr. Thompson was apparently able to present a witness who testified as you quoted. One witness. Isn't it appropriate for the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and decide whether to believe their testimony or not?
Was it Mr. Thompson's defense that the victim made up this story as an excuse for being late to work? If so, it's hardly surprising that he was convicted.
I'm still dying to know what these three previous "victims' had to say. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
thanks, wayward. that does answer my question in part, and after reading back through the thread I would have edited my post had I been able to figure out how.
Mr. Thompson was apparently able to present a witness who testified as you quoted. One witness. Isn't it appropriate for the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and decide whether to believe their testimony or not?
Was it Mr. Thompson's defense that the victim made up this story as an excuse for being late to work? If so, it's hardly surprising that he was convicted.
I'm still dying to know what these three previous "victims' had to say.
I'm also curious about the three other guys she apparently accused. As far as whether the lateness thing was Thompson's defense, I really hope it wasn't. It sounded more like BD speculating.
A number of people have expressed interest in a transcript. When one becomes available, I'd be willing to chip in toward the reproduction costs, and I could probably help scan it and put it online. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2006
|
Because the State took the case to the grand jury and obtained a true bill of indictment, Patrick Thompson's due process rights were not violated, at least insofar as the Fifth Amendment probable cause requirement is concerned.
I'm not convinced that the prosecution or the Urbana police did anything illegal. What bothers me is that some of the investigation seemed shoddy, at least based on the accounts here. Couldn't the police officer have talked to the neighbors to see if anyone had heard a woman screaming? If the accuser made inconsistent statements, shouldn't someone have challenged this? Patrick Thompson stands to spend quite a bit of time in prison, and it seems like he deserved a more thorough investigation. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy,
I agree that if a crime was committed, then she would be a victim. Nonetheless, as you said, "Patrick Thompson is innocent until proven guilty, by law." At this point, I feel as though we are debating the logic of words, and not the circumstances that exist in this case. Perhaps we all agree, but we are each speaking our own language.
I will explain it in the simplest english I can. Patrick Thompson is not without reasonable doubt. Until he is proven guilty without a reasonable doubt, he shall be considered innocent in my eyes. Just because a jury of Mr. Thompson's "peers" may find him guilty, does not mean that he has been proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. If you consider this to be a non sequitur, I am sorry that we will never agree.
I would like to point out that I described Thompson, in the manner of political theater, as a vicitim. By political theater, I mean that Thompson can use this trial to expose institutional racism and other political points to the press, and to the community. As a similar example, I will refer you to the trial of Abbie Hoffman, and how he was busted in a drug sting, set up specifically to frame him due to his political beliefs.
The truth is that the average white "peer" doesn't understand institutional racism and the constant oppression that exists for all minorities. Due to this fact, it is impossible for an average white juror to be objective when observing the facts of a minority member's case.
As an infinite solution to the problem, the United States has to irradicate institutional racism. This will never happen until communities rise up and begin to elect Senators, Representatives, Mayors, Judges, Governors, and Presidents that make it their top priority to end racism and make America a level playing field for every sex, race, religion, and class.
Peace,
Dave Key |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy,
I agree that if a crime was committed, then she would be a victim. Nonetheless, as you said, "Patrick Thompson is innocent until proven guilty, by law." At this point, I feel as though we are debating the logic of words, and not the circumstances that exist in this case. Perhaps we all agree, but we are each speaking our own language.
I will explain it in the simplest english I can. Patrick Thompson is not without reasonable doubt. Until he is proven guilty without a reasonable doubt, he shall be considered innocent in my eyes. Just because a jury of Mr. Thompson's "peers" may find him guilty, does not mean that he has been proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. If you consider this to be a non sequitur, I am sorry that we will never agree.
I would like to point out that I described Thompson, in the manner of political theater, as a vicitim. By political theater, I mean that Thompson can use this trial to expose institutional racism and other political points to the press, and to the community. As a similar example, I will refer you to the trial of Abbie Hoffman, and how he was busted in a drug sting, set up specifically to frame him due to his political beliefs.
The truth is that the average white "peer" doesn't understand institutional racism and the constant oppression that exists for all minorities. Due to this fact, it is impossible for an average white juror to be objective when observing the facts of a minority member's case.
As an infinite solution to the problem, the United States has to irradicate institutional racism. This will never happen until communities rise up and begin to elect Senators, Representatives, Mayors, Judges, Governors, and Presidents that make it their top priority to end racism and make America a level playing field for every sex, race, religion, and class.
Peace,
Dave Key |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Mr. Key:
Aside from "vote progressive/green," you didn't really provide a solution to the problem you presented.
I'm sorry, but if a jury of his peers found him guilty, then I have to believe that they found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - you have zero evidence to substantiate your claim that there was inherent racism in the jury's decision.
And "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand, cuz your white" isn't a solid argument for anything. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Non-believers might question my biases,
but you cannot deny the reaction of the single Black juror who walked out in disgust.
To anyone who hears talk in the media, could you please post it to the web site.
We have heard comments from St. Atty. Julia Rietz that there was something irregular about the trial.
WILL 580 reporter Jeff Foster has reported sympathetically, talking about the visible frustration of the single Black juror.
The News-Gazette's Mary Schenk has told us personally she is convinced of Thompson's guilt so don't go for any talk about "objective" reporting in the NG. She was not even present for the reading of the verdict.
Any reports from the community would be helpful.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Reality Check
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
To say the sole black juror caved in to the pressure of the other jurors is absurd. He was told, he knew, that he could hold out for a not guilty verdict. He became convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Thompson was guilty. He had many chances, not the least of which being the polling of the jury by the Judge, to say he was pressured.
Twelve people, not eleven, were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was guilty. And they decided it in a relatively short amount of time.
The lawyer tried the case the way he thought it should be tried. The result was he could not convince any one of the jurors, much less all of the jurors, that Thompson was not guilty, or better said, that the prosection wasn't able to prove Thompson guilty beyond a resonable doubt.
Blaming the one black juror is wrong, and accusing the other jurors of pressuring him is wrong, too. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Julia Rietz
juliarietz (nospam) myway.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
I am breaking my policy of not commenting publically on this trial to correct a significant misstatement made by BD. I have never said there was anything "irregular" about this trial. I have not attended any of the proceedings and have no involvement with the case. I have never spoken to BD, and don't even know who you are. I have spoken to two of Mr. Thompson's supporters, and suggested that I thought it was inappropriate to post personal information about the victim on this website. In the future, please do not misquote me.
Julia Rietz |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
To add to the absurdity of the Patrick Thompson trial, see the coverage in the mainstream media.
The News Gazette story on page A-3 shows a photo with Thompson in a White Sox baseball cap, his casual dress rather than the more formal bald head cut he usually wears. To the trained eye, this is of course another attempt to criminalize Thompson and indeed all Black men.
A glaring oversight on the part of Mary Schenk was made when she stated:
"There was no outward reaction in the courtroom when the verdicts were announced."
She may have been referring to any reaction from supporters (whose number she minimizes as a dozen).
But she fails to make any comment in the article about the sole Black juror whose reaction was very outward and clearly one of disgust and frustration.
Last night on WCIA, a photo of Patrick Thompson and Martell Miller was shown, suggesting a link between the criminal case and the federal civil rights case currently underway.
Another Court Watcher saw Julia Rietz on Channel 15 last night acknowledging several irregularities and saying she is looking into the trial.
Independent Media strikes again!!
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
To clarify my statement, I have heard reports of the St. Atty on TV. This has been second hand information.
I don't watch much TV myself.
Is this to suggest there are no "irregularities" in the Thompson case?
Why drop the eavesdropping charges and not the closely linked charges of sex abuse and home invasion?
There is as much evidence for the link as there is that PT was ever in SR's apartment.
I am an independent reporter for the Public i newspapers, no mysteries.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Julia Rietz
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Thank you for clarifying, BD. If you are a reporter perhaps you should check your sources. I was not interviewed by Channel 15, or by any media source, about this trial. I was interviewed by Channel 15 yesterday, but it was about a different subject.
Although I have answered this question in the past, once again I will answer your question about why I dismissed the eavesdropping charge but not these charges. I dismissed the eavesdropping charges because it was the right thing to do. Perhaps technically I should not have done so, because Patrick Thompson and I had an attorney/client relationship with regard to other unrelated matters. However, given that similar charges had been dismissed against Martell Miller, public sentiment was clearly in favor of dismissal, and morally I believed it was appropriate, I dismissed the eavesdropping charges. I did not dismiss these charges because I did not see the connection between the two cases (I still do not see a connection), and I did not believe it was appropriate, given my relationship with Mr. Thompson, for me to judge the credibility of this young lady, who was making very serious allegations against Mr. Thompson. I believed that her credibility should be judged by an independent prosecutor, and a jury. It has been.
Julia Rietz |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Thank you for your clarification Mrs Rietz.
But we believe a jury has not heard all of the evidence as to the accuser's credibility. The defense failed to present the personel file of the accuser, which we believe will expose that she has made previous accusations against 3 other men. We did not hear from her boss who one witness testified was upset with her tardiness (Indeed, who gets up at 6:15 to make it to work at 7am? Especially when there are workclothes to go in the dryer and you need to drop the baby off at a babysitter. Was she up late playing cards and drinking as her friends have testified).
Let me clarify further. Several of the Thompson supporters have been sexually assaulted or had friends who have endured the humiliation of public exposure. Carol Ammons and Daniell Chenowyth can tell you of their experiences. We know very well how complicated an issue this is.
Still, upon examining all the evidence, sitting through two trials, we have come to the conclusion that the accuser is lying.
Why?
She was late to work, didn't want to lose her job.
She had had an argument with her boyfriend, who she spoke with that morning.
But the jury had no chance to consider these possibilities. Neither notion was forwarded by the defense.
I admit I am no legal expert.
It appeared as if Judge Clem ruled at the beginning of the trial to allow some additional information about the accuser's record.
Could the defense present this information or is it protected under rape shield?
What about the accuser's several encouters with the legal system which are available on the Circuit Clerk's web site?
We all know Patrick's past.
Still he did not break probation despite all the activist work he was doing to monitor police behavior.
This was not mentioned in Shenk's reporting or in the courtroom.
To the system, he's just a drug dealer.
NOT one of the few ex-convicts who actually WAS reformed.
I'm also trained as a historian, not a journalist.
This might have something to do with my perspective.
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Judging from the various reports I've read, the presented defense seemed pretty thin. It also appeared to lack pertinent details about the accuser's history and possible motives that would have been useful. Can anyone explain why the defense attorney didn't present some of these issues?
From those most familiar with the case, what is your impression of the quality of the defense attorney's performance? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Julia Rietz
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Thank you for clarifying, BD. If you are a reporter perhaps you should check your sources. I was not interviewed by Channel 15, or by any media source, about this trial. I was interviewed by Channel 15 yesterday, but it was about a different subject.
Although I have answered this question in the past, once again I will answer your question about why I dismissed the eavesdropping charge but not these charges. I dismissed the eavesdropping charges because it was the right thing to do. Perhaps technically I should not have done so, because Patrick Thompson and I had an attorney/client relationship with regard to other unrelated matters. However, given that similar charges had been dismissed against Martell Miller, public sentiment was clearly in favor of dismissal, and morally I believed it was appropriate, I dismissed the eavesdropping charges. I did not dismiss these charges because I did not see the connection between the two cases (I still do not see a connection), and I did not believe it was appropriate, given my relationship with Mr. Thompson, for me to judge the credibility of this young lady, who was making very serious allegations against Mr. Thompson. I believed that her credibility should be judged by an independent prosecutor, and a jury. It has been.
Julia Rietz |
|
Response to Various Parties |
by Dr. John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy: "Barring an overturning of the verdict by a higher court, he has been found guilty. If he is the victim of institutional railroading, then he needs to get on his lawyer about bringing a case against those responsible. If there is no real attempt at a case against those Thompson believes is responsible, then I see no reason why I should believe that he is the victim of anything."
You have more confidence than I do in the rationality of the legal system and the rationality of the human mind.
Docket Sheet & lawnerd: "Probable cause was established by a Grand Jury in August of 2004,"
and etc.
On the basis of what credible evidence was "probable cause" established? This may satisfy the legal definition of probable cause and allow the bureaucratic machinery of the court system to grind ahead in the prosecution of the case, however I question whether probable cause was ever truly established in any rigorous empirical sense.
Again, this is my tentative impression because I have not actually examined the evidence that was presented to the grand jury nor was I able to sit through trial and hear what the trial jury heard.
However, it is my strong impression that, only too often, our legal system allows criminal cases to proceed on the basis of flimsy evidence in which probable cause was never truly established in any rigorous empirical sense (in a way that a scientist would respect) -- more than a few criminal cases appear to be based on little more than the "say-so" of a cop or the testimony of a single individual (often of dubious character and background). Unfortunately, eyewitness testimony can be highly unreliable when it is not corroborated by other kinds of evidence.
Allow me to provide an example of why I am somewhat skeptical about how the legal system actually operates. At the Psychology Dept. of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, there was a professor who conducted the same experiment for about 20 years. I believe this was a simulated trial of a rape case from the state of Michigan. This case was deliberated selected because the evidence was somewhat ambiguous, consequently the jurors wouldn't necessarily agree with each other in regards to the verdict. These jurors were undergraduates at the university. The statements made by the prosecutor, defense, witnesses, etc., during the simulated trial were based on actual court transcripts.
When he first ran this experiment back in the 1960's or early 1970's, about 75% of the jurors thought the defendent was innocent, while the remaining 25% thought he was guilty. However, when the same experiment was conducted during the 1980's to early 1990's, the balance of opinion shifted in the opposite direction: 75% of the jurors thought the defendent was guilty, while the remaining 25% thought he was innocent.
This is a remarkable shift in opinion, considering that the same court room evidence was presented during all of these years. It appears that during this time period there was a fundamental shift in the criterion that was used by the typical juror to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendent. This criterion appears to have shifted away from a "presumption of innocence, unless proven guilty," toward a "presumption of guilt, unless proven innocent."
I believe that this shift in our culture is real and it is one of the unfortunate offshoots of the "war on crime" that started back in the 1980's and continues to the present day. And so, if the grand jury or trial jurors of the Thompson case applied a "presumption of guilt" criterion to the evidence that was presented to them, then I would question if "probable cause" or "proof beyond reasonable doubt" was ever truly established via their verdicts. The results of the experiment suggest that juries no longer apply the "presumption of innocence" criterion as they once did. The fact that many people still pay lip service to the "presumption of innocence" doesn't necessarily imply that this cultural shift hasn't occurred.
This is just one of the reasons for my skepticism regarding the conduct of this trial and its outcome. |
|
Response to Julia's comments |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
First, thanks to Julia Rietz for her responses. I'm still unconvinced that there was a good case against Patrick Thompson, but I have no reason to doubt her sincerity. As far as turning the Thompson and Hjort cases over to a special prosecutor, I doubt that she had much choice. If she'd just dropped the charges, she could have been accused of covering up crimes, and if she'd tried to prosecute them herself, that probably would have been a conflict of interest.
The UCIMC editors were not entirely comfortable with the decision to post the accuser's name. At this point, there's really no policy related to this, though the situation prompted some discussion about coming up with one. If the posters would like, we'd be willing to edit the name of the accuser out of the comments. (If you'd like me to do this, please email me at mrscake (at) gmail.com and tell me which post was yours.)
The Thompson case itself deeply troubled me. It doesn't make sense to accuse the state's attorney and Urbana police department of a racist frame-up conspiracy, so I won't. But if the accuser has made similar allegations against other men in the past, that seems pretty significant. It sounded like the police investigation was less thorough than it could have been, and that bothers me too - Patrick Thompson stands to go to prison for a long time. If there were inconsistencies in the accuser's statements, shouldn't the defense attorney have challenged them? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
To attack racism in the criminal justice system, one has to address institutions of/individuals in power, not private individuals. The private individual who was the victim in this case was merely a complaining witness. As such, she could not control what the institutions involved chose to do with her complaint.
Trashing the victim here may humiliate an individual woman, perpetuate sexist rape myths, and deter victims from reporting abuse in the future, but it will not change police or prosecutorial practices in Champaign County.
It is distressing to see persons who purportedly seek to promote social justice repeatedly engaging in sexist attacks against an apparently vulnerable individual woman – especially when even the special prosecutor himself conceded (in the trial!) that this case offers up plenty of opportunities to criticize institutions of/individuals in power. |
|
Redacting the accuser's name |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
It is distressing to see persons who purportedly seek to promote social justice repeatedly engaging in sexist attacks against an apparently vulnerable individual woman – especially when even the special prosecutor himself conceded (in the trial!) that this case offers up plenty of opportunities to criticize institutions of/individuals in power.
If anyone has posted an article or comment that included the accuser's name, and would like to have it redacted, please contact me at mrscake (at) gmail.com and tell me which post was yours. I will edit it accordingly. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Court Watcher
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Thompson's mistake was that he had two different lawyers before he got the one that tried the case. Both those other lawyers were much more thorough. But, being white, Thompson didn't trust them. Too bad for Thompson.
Both those white lawyers had long standing and well deserved reputations of fighting hard for people of color. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
We among the Thompson supporters have discussed the dynamics of rape accusations.
Members of our group have been sexually assaulted and had friends who have endured public scrutiny. Danielle Chenowyth and Carol Ammons can give you their own experiences.
We are not insensitive to these issues.
But any of you white people who live in America and don't know the political ramifications of a white woman accusing a Black man of rape need a serious history lesson.
Again: Black man, white woman, guilty charge.
No more, no less.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Judgement day
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Black and White, clear as day. Maybe amnesia has set in and no one is actually looking at the statistical information on blacks being convicted. Since the days of slavery, African Americans have been lynched and killed for even looking at a white woman let alone trying to have a sexual relationship. So I am pretty much sure you all are aware of these things, if not then you need to take the time to learn about this history. Up until this present day those things still remain intact. Let's look two cases Dwayne Rhodes and Johnny Wilkerson; and wether they have criminal background or not, when it came to them being involved in a interracial relationship they were found guilty and their convictions were overturned by the appeals court in 2004. I am pretty sure that these cases and Patrick's won't be the last. Even with the education system African Americans just started receiving their education in the late sixties and early 70's whereas the white community are in their fourth or more generation in receiving an education. Now all of a sudden the expectation is that African Americans should educationally and socially compatible to white America. When it comes to injustice, prejudice, bias and racism it is always there. When the States Attorney Julia Rietz who is a female; justify why her personal friend Officer Hortz did not commit an act of rape based on the women thinking that a relationship was to transpire out of having sex with the officer. They sure did not look at Patricks situation like that. So this clearly shows bias in class, gender and race. Then to seal any further leakage or discussion they try to keep it quiet by settling out of court. Very very suspicious.
http://www.law.umich.edu/NewsAndInfo/exonerations-in-us.pdf
A Study was done on the exoneration of individuals wrongly convicted of murder and rape. In the majority of the cases individuals have spent over ten year in prison before being exonerated for crimes they should have never been conviction of .The studies concentrate on the murder and rape conviction because they are review more closely on appeal in murder case eyewitness misidentification was 50% and reported perjury 56% over half of the murder exonerated were African American. In rape eyewitness misidentification was 88% and reported perjury was 25%. In juvenile murder exonerations 13% were white and 78% were black. In juvenile rape exonerations 0% were white and 86% were black. When it came to white juveniles who were arrested many of them were not prosecuted, they were returned to the custody of their parents for less formal discipline. The study also states that most women who are raped are victimized by members of their own racial or ethnic groups. Inter-racial rape is uncommon, and rapes of white women by black men in particular account for well under 10% of all rapes. Illinois had the highest exonerations (54) over New York (35), Texas (28) and California (27). The study went on to say that courts and prosecutors are very reluctant to reverse judgments or reconsider closed cases. In conclusion we know that many African Americans have been and continue to be wrongly convicted for crimes that they did not commit. The study also suggests that there could be over tens of thousands of individuals who are wrongly convicted and may never be able to enjoy their freedom again. Unlike DNA evidence the study stated that they had no method or tool to use to determine when there is a miscarriage of justice. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
|
I applaud working to address racism in the criminal justice system. I condemn sexist attacks on an individual victims such as those posted here. Using sexism as one's weapon of choice against racism is not exactly a victory for social justice. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dr. John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
Reality Check: "To say the sole black juror caved in to the pressure of the other jurors is absurd."
Social conformity in response to group pressure is a very real social phenomenon. It is commonplace for jurors who find themselves in the minority to concede to the opinions of the majority, even when they have doubts about the wisdom of the majority. While individuals who resist the opinion of the majority do exist in such structured settings, they are the exception to the rule. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by another concerned voice
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
BD says, "But any of you white people who live in America and don't know the political ramifications of a white woman accusing a Black man of rape need a serious history lesson."
BD, please don't be condescending about these questions. In addition to the sickening history of racist cops, brutal prisons, and lynching, there is also a sickening history of rape and violence against women. Unfortunately there are rapists in every ethnic group, and sometimes, sadly, rape is committed by men who stand for justice on other issues.
I believe it is important to focus on a just process for both accuser and accused. This case could play a very important role in educating our community about the importance of thorough and fair police investigations in rape cases, for impartial coverage by the media, and for vigorous legal representation for the accused. But if the focus is on personal attacks on the victim, the case will only be divisive. Activists fought long and hard to get fair treatment for women alleging rape. Don't set us back. It won't serve Patrick Thompson. It won't improve the criminal justice system. And it won't build a movement to change the criminal justice system in our town. |
|
Accuser's name removed |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2006
|
|
The accuser's name has been removed from this thread and the other recent feature related to the Patrick Thompson trial. I sent out an email to multiple mailing lists explaining the reasons. If you did not receive it and would like a copy, please contact me at mrscake (at) gmail.com |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jul 2006
|
Concerned voice - I applaud you, well put.
Now lets work together to organize the community.
We are taking it to the streets.
We are meeting at NOON SUNDAY at the Douglass Center, 4th and Grove. Its on 4th, North of University, South of Bradley.
We are talking face to face with people in the Black community.
We are promoting a vigil for the 5 deaths in the county jail and talking about the Thompson case.
Armchair activism and armchair arguments only go so far.
Come talk to us, organize with us, and lets move forward.
In solidarity, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by brokendave
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy,
First off, I never said, "vote progressive/green." Let me make a larger statement on how we can remove the problem I present. Since the problem is something that can't be changed over night, (that is simply impossible), we have to look at this long term.
So what can we do to get a fair trial to those who deserve it? I believe it would be wise to allow the defendant to poll the jurors with a list of questions he provided. That would be a help to minority defendants in America. However, it would not solve the larger problem, which is racism in general.
When the Chicago 7 were tried for Conspiracy to Insight Riot Across State Lines, they were found guilty. They went to jail for about 14 months I believe, while everyone outside tried to turn over the decision. They faced ten years in prison if it had not been turned over...
If that example isn't good enough, then you can look at a current incident, The West Memphis Three... These kids were found guilty with no evidence at all, other than the fact that they wore black and listened to Marylin Manson (which isn't even true I think)... They have spent years in prison, as youth, and I believe one of them is on death row. Now, if these aren't examples of a jury finding them guilty still having reasonable doubt, then I was mistaken about you.
I don't believe, "it is a black thing." I believe it is a racism thing, and unless you are in a minority, you can't imagine how one is affected every day by it. If one takes the time to observe, it isn't too hard to understand. Hell, watch the very documentary that put Thompson in court before!
Peace,
Dave |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
Allowing defendants to poll the prospective members of the jury is called "voir dire," and is already ingrained into the American judicial system. It is generally done by the defendant's council, in the interest of the defendant; to be fair, it also includes prosecution's council.
Removing racism in general, while noble in intent, is not logistically possible in practice.
I'm sorry, I don't follow cases that are obscure to the general public, but are apparently notorious to the activist community, so I can't really comment on either of the cases you listed.
However, I assume that your point is to illustrate that trials do exists in which the defendant is convicted on weak evidence, and there is also the appearance of racial prejudice by the court and/or jury.
I don't argue that those cases exist - what I argue is the extent to which the numbers of these cases exist, the vast dichotomy between what you consider flimsy evidence and what the jury considers flimsy evidence, and the extent to which racism plays a role in the outcome.
One or two examples don't show me the extent to which this is a problem, either in scope or magnatude.
Regardless, I still have not seen a viable plan to fix the problem that you present. You're speaking in generalities, you're restating the problem in vague, philisophical tones, but you're not addressing it with concrete answers.
Until you can quantify the issue, isolate the exact parts of the machine that are at fault, and provide viable, reasonable, and concrete options to fix them that satisfy both sides - state and defendant - then no change will take place. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by lawnerd
lawnerd (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
CourtWatcher wrote "Thompson's mistake was that he had two different lawyers before he got the one that tried the case. Both those other lawyers were much more thorough. But, being white, Thompson didn't trust them. Too bad for Thompson.
Both those white lawyers had long standing and well deserved reputations of fighting hard for people of color. "
It was no mistake for Patrick Thompson to hire Harvey Welch. Mr. Welch is a lawyer who has also earned an excellent reputation over the decades he has been practicing law in our community. On the other hand, it may turn out to have been a mistake for Harvey to take this case. Although Harvey was the lawyer Mr. Thompson chose, hired, an paid for himself, and no one among Patrick's supporters had any criticism of Harvey before the verdict, as soon as they lost it was all of a sudden Harvey's fault. That next morning you guys were on the radio accusing him of being everything from "spread too thin" to (the horror!) a "public defender." Harvey had the courage to take this case, when he must have known that if he lost, Patrick and his supporters would turn on him like so many rabid dogs, sue him for malpractice and try to get his license taken away. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by viewer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
How about this for a concept?
Thompson was actually guilty.
Is that even possible to consider? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Aaron Ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
|
Be Peace. Interesting to hear all the post dialogue! Where was all this legal advice when Patrick was looking for a lawyer? Is it possible that Patrick is Actually guilty? The fifteen million dollar question again? We are in America, in the court of law where all defendants(including black males) are considered INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT! Is it reasonable for there to be pyhiscial evidence of such a struggle? I aslo find it very interesting that Mrs. Johnston-Rietz is acting as if she acts on morals now. Politically you made the decisoin to drop the eavesdropping charges because it benefitted you and you could easily have dropped the other charges because of insufficient evidence. BE Just |
|
Smoke Screens and Morals |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
This has been nearly a two year ordeal for the Thompson family.
There is much that has happened in between the August 24, 2004 dial to 9-1-1, the July 19-20, 2005 mistrial, and now the farce we saw in the July 5-8 "guilty" verdict.
The lack of physical evidence, and the non-existant search for basic, rudimentary evidence is only part of the story. (Ladies, if this officer treated your complaint like he did in the Thompson Perjury Case, you would scream for justice) Those parts were what his defense attorney overestimated to be sufficient to escape the trajedy we saw last Friday.
In this broken criminal justice system where there is a history of women's complaints going unheard; those wishing Patrick Thompson and his $15 million LEGITIMATE civil lawsuit in the Videotaping case would go away, laugh as our sympathies for real sex-crime victims hide the obvious: She's lying, Mr. Thompson didn't do it, and the State used a poor drug addict to attempt a cover-up of its vicious policing in the north end, and the ambitious blunders of the two Difanis Dufuses: John Piland and Elizabeth Dobson.
The only reason the one black juror is important is because blacks, particularly in this town, understand how rotten the local police can be and how ineffective, overwhelmed, and downright nasty the lawyers can be. The significance of white juries judging black defendants has more to do with the white middle class not ever experiencing that its law enforcement community could stoop to "dirty tricks" to convict an innocent man.
As for having the morals to justify disregarding the conflict of interest protocols, ala Julia Rietz, that is quite a spin. What the public knows is this:
While riding into office on the back of one man who is now convicted with no evidence and on the mere word of a very unreliable accuser who has a pattern of misleading officials, the State's Attorney allowed one of her friends to help himself to the METCAD dispatch system and while on duty as a police officer, acting in the line of duty we suppose, force himself onto a convenience store clerk with nary a charge and a life time pension on the tax dollar. And then paid off the victim in silencing cash.
If she wants to have morals, let her come out publically and oppose both these conditions. Otherwise, the new boss is the same as the old boss. Let's vote her out now, grab your video camera and start videotaping the police, and let's make sure the Civil Lawsuit carries through the courts to justice and full payment. Mr. Thompson can hold his head high and know he is innocent no matter how evil Vujovich and the accuser chose to be in the hot months of July. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2006
|
You seem like your IQ is quite high, the way you are able to see logical arguements... Although, I am not sure if you are very wise, or very foolish.
Do you have an answer that will solve institutional racism?
The only way I know how to put an end to it, is to educate the public. The only way to change anything in America is through community. I can only bring racism to light when it is observed, and condemn it every time possible... |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Unfortunately, some of the public are willing to convict a man without evidence and on only heresay because of a conviction in 1993.
Thompson's film attempted to expose institutional racism and do that educating you suggest. That the State had a motive to surpress this and smear Mr. Thompson, shows how powerful a felony conviction can be, removing all assumptions of innocence under our laws.
Institutional racism is simply accepted in this town. No one questions throwing an 18-22 year old black male into prison, but let it be their kid who was caught with drugs or whatever and see the howls of protest.
Few are willing to forgive, few believe that a person can change, and few are willing to believe that sometimes, a felony conviction was really a peagant play performed in a courtroom one day. Mr. Thompson has never denied his record, knows he was held accountable for the lifestyle he led when he was in his 20's, but decided to make a difference when he was released, forming Visionaries Educating Youth and Adults and mentoring others so they would not have to go through what he went through. People can change. Mr. Thompson has tried to do that. The video was confrontational, cost State's Attorney John Piland his job, and that gives plenty of motive for the authorities to pursue a case that no merit.
And why is it so foolish to publish such things on this website? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Honestly, I don't know whether I am wise or foolish, either. Perhaps a combination of the two.
I don't have an answer to institutional racism, because I don't see it being as rampant as you do. Because I don't see enough of a problem to break the threshold of requiring change, I am not the one obligated to come up with a solution to the problem.
I believe it is the responsibility of those who see a need for change to come forward with a valid plan for change.
Presenting a nebulous problem and saying "there's racism, fix it" to those who don't see a problem is like an amateur mechanic telling a layman that "your car is broken, fix it."
To simply say that there is rampant racism in CU, and in the CPD and UPD isn't enough to turn the heads of those who need to have their attention focused on it.
It needs to be put into context - "racism" as a whole is made of up individual acts of racial prejudice that directly negatively affect a certain individual or group of individuals in a specific way at a specific time and place.
Lets see a consistent negative track record. Lets see some unbiased local studies. Lets see what concrete headway has been made with local PDs and what can still be done.
You can't tell me that I can't see it because I'm not black, and that I should therefore take your word for it; that's absurd.
Show me, don't tell me.
That's like a Christian telling an athiest: "Trust me, God is there even though you can't see Him, so you should believe in Him." If there isn't already a belief there, then a steady, friendly guiding hand is much more effective for the atheist, who may decide to change his mind, than an iron boot.
(Please don't allow religion to interfere with this string - it was just an example, and doesn't constitute my endorsement of any religion or lack thereof.)
But here's the caveat: showing me ("me" in all of this is the "generic white CU citizen") needs to be done in a manner that will be accepted. If you want to change the minds of the majority, you have to put the pill in the peanut butter.
Pickets, protests, chanting, derogatory comments on message boards and in public, blatant insults, protesting at local churches on Sunday mornings, etc, etc, are NOT going to change the minds of the majority - its simply going to ostracize them and further polarize the issue.
And in the case of racism, which is inherently against a minority, your cause would be better helped by making friends with the majority instead of enemies.
So condemn racism when you see it, but use a productive vehicle rather than a caustic one to get your message accross.
And unfortunately, "education" is the generic answer to way too many things in this country. Education is an important aspect of change, but not the only aspect. Simply educating a crackhead that crack is bad for them is not enough to change their habit. Educating a husband on the detriments of cheating on his wife is not going to make him not cheat, in and of itself.
So I don't know what the answer is...but I know I'd like to see logical, realistic, concrete issues brought forth before I see random changes pushed through legislation by a vocal few that do nothing but help politicians to say "look at what I did" come election time. |
|
Julia |
by Bob Illyes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
I have said so repeatedly, but I want to say in this forum that I think that Julia Rietz is blameless regarding the Patrick Thompson case. It is her right and duty to excuse herself from considering whether or not a case should be prosecuted if she believes that her relationship with either of the parties would interfere with her objectivity. I do not think that Julia is part of the problem. I think that she is part of the solution.
I just watched a jury convict Patrick when there was reasonable doubt. I saw Mr. Vujovich decide twice to prosecute Patrick when there was inadequate evidence of his guilt and reason to doubt his accuser. There is clearly a big problem here, but it is not Julia.
We all know (I think) that progressives are often their own worst enemies. When we think that our ideas are more important that how we treat each other, we have thrown it all away..
Is this my swan song? I am in repeated and ongoing conflict with other progressives because I object to personal vendettas between progressives! I sat in AWARE and watched the group fracture because some members believed in peace but could not make peace with each other. This is too wierd to wrap my mind around.
We are brothers and sisters in this crazy war that had no name. We need to act like this is the case, because it is.
Bob |
|
Re: Julia |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
|
I agree. It seems like had little choice other than turning over both the Hjort and Thompson cases over to special prosecutors. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
This is not about personalities.
We all know the problems in the criminal justice system. It is a problem above and beyond Julia Rietz, or Patrick Thompson and his supporters.
The Thompson case exemplifies the numerous "irregularities" in the system.
Who is going to overcome personal prejudices to address the obvious wrongful conviction of Patrick Thompson?
Not a jury, not the people, not Mrs. Rietz, has seen all the evidence.
There is growing public support for Patrick Thompson.
Who is going to step in and help?
This is 6-30 years of a man's life.
For what?
Sincerely,
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
BD:
"We all know the problems in the criminal justice system. It is a problem above and beyond Julia Rietz, or Patrick Thompson and his supporters."
Enumerate. Elaborate. Break it down to the 8th grade level and show me. Provide concrete individual issues with concrete indivdual and collective solutions. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by A Question
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
This case is a classic "he said-she said" case. Convictions happen all the time. So do acquittals. Black on black, white on white, white on black, black on white.
YOU have made it racial. The facts have not made it racial, the races of the players are what they are.
The system needs to weigh the credibility of the people in court. Why Thompson did not testify is a mystery. Maybe he or someone on his behalf can tell us why. Or, to put it another way, why didn't Thompson ever deny it?
Wouldn't that have bee powerful? |
|
Let's File An FOIA! |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
I agree Wayward, let's put some research on this so-called racist criminal justice system.
One of the other reasons, Piland and Dobson found Thompson a pain in the proscecutorial pants was he kept filing Freedom Of Information Acts on Piland's office for the stats that would prove that whites and the middle class folks get preferential treatment, while low-income (and that would include low-income whites) and blacks get sent to the slammer. Piland's re-election campaign literature bragged of sending 629 folks to the penetentiary, a 129% increase!
I don't know what time-frame the lucky 629 were put into prison, but John Piland was quite proud of his "accomplishment".
How about this: like the traffic stop study mandated by the State of Illinois a few years back, let's FOIA Julia Reitz' office for the total number of people sent to prison in year 2005.
Then let's FOIA that number for a demographic breakdown.
Perhaps we should get the total number of felony cases, break 'em down by type of crimes and race, and then see who went to prison and who didn't. Thompson was filing FOIA's to see that kind of stuff. They told him it wasn't available.
But you gotta admit, a simple accounting of the racial numbers on those sent to prison would be interesting and give you Wayward the empirical data you might need to see. I wonder what Judge Difanis' sentencing numbers by race would look like? Oh. I forgot. Can't have that, we got elections coming up.
Otherwise, you are quite right, Wayward, we are left with sick anedotal evidence like the following below when you consider Vujovich chased Mr. Thompson down with no evidence where in this case, interesting considerations were made despite the evidence from this November 24, 2005 article in the News-Gazette:
URBANA - A theft charge filed against a Champaign building contractor more than three years ago was dismissed by a special prosecutor Wednesday.
Michael Vujovich of the state's attorney's appellate prosecutor's office told Judge Tom Difanis that a successful prosecution of Steve Harrington 42, whose last known address was on Greencroft Drive in Champaign, was "untenable."
Harrington was charged in May 2002 with theft over $100,000. He was accused of having stolen funds from Esch Family Ltd., the family partnership that owns the Sonic fast-food restaurants in Savoy and Champaign.
Peter Esch of Rogers, Ark., had hired Harrco Construction, Harrington's company, to be the general contractor for the Sonic on U.S. 45 in Savoy, which opened in April 2002.
A Champaign County sheriff's deputy's report said that Esch paid Harrington $164,173 in two installments for him to pay subcontractors, but Harrington did not follow through. Esch eventually paid the bills to the subcontractors himself and went to the authorities about it.
Harrington did not appear in court Wednesday but was represented by his attorney, J. Steven Beckett of Urbana.
Attached to Vujovich's motion to dismiss the charges was a letter sent to him from Champaign attorney Mike Tague, attorney for the Esches, saying that he had reached a settlement with Harrington and his companies and that his clients had been paid.
"Accordingly, my clients are agreeable to whatever exercise of discretion in resolving the pending criminal matter, including reduction or dismissal of charges, as you feel appropriate under all of the circumstances," Tague's letter said.
The letter did not say how much restitution Harrington paid nor did Vujovich know. Beckett declined to comment. |
|
Why Hasn't Thompson Ever Denied He Did It? |
by Curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
Has Patrick Thompson ever, under oath, denied that he committed the offense he was charged with?
if not, why not? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2006
|
There are several things a jury has never seen.
Patrick defended himself in the first trial.
His lawyer only called one witness to the stand in the second trial.
Of course, he denies the charges.
Perhaps you should try to talk to him yourself.
We always meet Saturdays 4pm at the IMC.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2006
|
The decision to testify, under oath, is the defendant's decision and not the lawyer's decision. I ask again, has Patrick Thompson ever denied under oath that he did not do it?
No. Oaths matter. Lying under oath is a crime. The victim testified under oath it happened. So why didn't Thompson testify and deny it?
This is a very valid and important question. Looking at the law, there is direct evidence it happened, her testimony. There is evidence that Dickey didn't hear anything. But there is no evidence it didn't happen,and the best evidence would be a denial by the accused. So I ask again, why didn't Thompson testify, why didn't Thompson tell the jury that he didn't do it? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2006
|
The legal process mystefies me.
But as I understand PT is presumed innocent.
Responsibility is on the prosecution to prove...
PT trusted the lawyer's decisions.
In the first trial, when he defended himself, I don't know how he could respond to his own questioning.
There were several individuals who we set to take the stand. PT's wife one of them. Three other men who were accused. We have evidence of witness lists, statements from other men accused, if you would like to meet in person. See my email above.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2006
|
BD,
having other witnesses testify may be a lawyer's decision, but the defendant has an absolute right to testify, it is not the lawyer's decision. There is nothing mystical about it.
So why didn't Patrick exercise his RIGHT to testify?
HIS constitutional right which no one can take away from him. He may have chosen to give it up, but it was his RIGHT. Why didn't he exercise his right?
It is a simple but important question which needs to be answered. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by The true answer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
The answer to the question of why thompson didn't testify and deny he attacked that girl is:
He did it. He did attack that girl. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
This is clearly the consensus from local officials, the media, middle class white folks who sit in office chairs.
Again, if you want to meet personally I can show you evidence that may change your mind.
Otherwise, we are just making more wild accusations with no evidence.
Have you seen the trial transcripts?
Have you sat in the courtroom?
Have you seen the witness lists?
Have you seen accounts from accuser's co-workers?
Or have you only read the newspapers, watched the television, buy into the stereotype, believe the hype?
Truth is C-U convicted Patrick.
Truth is he DID NOT do it.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
I'm not convinced either way.
But I also am extremely leary of any evidence, not provided in a court of law, by BD.
BD is a biased party to this affair, so I can only assume that his evidence is also biased - and since it wasn't presented in open court, I have to assume that it was either dismissed or left out for good cause, or incredibly circumstancial.
"middle class white folks who sit in office chairs."
"buy into the stereotype, believe the hype?"
"Truth is C-U convicted Patrick."
That's an incredible amount of stereotyping and hyperbole from one concered about just that regarding Mr. Thompson. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
It must be something, anything.
But NOT a broken criminal justice system,
set up to institute a 21st Century slave system.
Whatever you do, admit no wrongdoing.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
"It must be something, anything.
But NOT a broken criminal justice system,
set up to institute a 21st Century slave system. Whatever you do, admit no wrongdoing."
Sarcasm won't solve your prolem. Don't put words into my mouth - I said what I mean, and nothing else.
In fact, I've been very explicit in this string in stating that if there's problems with the system, you need to identify them in realistic, concrete terms and then you need to address those with realistic, concrete solutions, in a manner that is palatable to those who have the power to change what's wrong.
Simply complaining that "the system is broken," and mocking what you THINK I said isn't doing anything to help your cause; in fact, such actions are driving away those who can actually be of help to Thompson's plight, and the broken system that you so abhor. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
BD:
Perhaps you, personally, have painted yourself into a corner - on the one hand, I've asked you to provide realistic, concrete, enumerated problems; on the other hand, I've said that you have skewed your credibility with excessive hyperbole and generalizations.
Since I've given conditions that ultimately, in my eyes, put you in a lose-lose position, and I dare say the eyes of those who have the power to change the system and right what you say are the wrongs done to Thompson, perhaps the best action you can now take - for Thompson AND for change - is to step aside and let someone with a cooler head take the reigns. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
This from someone who remains under a disguise.
Doubtful you will come forward to help those who clean your offices.
Who's hiding from who?
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by For the love....
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
BD,
I don't think I've seem someone consistently deflect requests by a poster to offer up concrete instances and then solutions such as yourself. Dude, come up with something already and stop shadowboxing. The only person hiding from anything is you. I'm very interested in seeing what specific examples you bring up and their possible solutions . |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Actually, I used to post with my real name.
However, my current job requires that I am the public face of my organization. Therefore, I have taken down my blog and I no longer post on any websites with my real name. I no longer write letters to editors or have any other public interaction with my real name when writing as a private individual, so that there isn't any hint of confusion or indiscretion over whether it is my personal opinion, or me speaking as an official representative.
On the other hand, why are you attacking my username? Folks like wayward, ML, 5, dose of reality and others post here all the time without divulging their true names. Why should I be any different? Is it because I disagree with you? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
In regard to a previous thread...
What are the connections between the eavesdropping charges and the alleged sexual abuse/home invasion?
Why did the Grand Jury accept the accuser's allegations without any evidence?
Elizabeth Dobson both sat on the Grand Jury that heard the accuser's testimony and was in the car when Martell Miller was first stopped by a police officer for videotaping police work.
This will come out in the $15 million civil law suit now on the books at the federal courthouse.
PT prepared the civil case.
If he goes away, they hope the civil case will also.
BD |
|
Hard Facts -- What Are YOU Going to Do About Them? |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
GreenGuy states: "In fact, I've been very explicit in this string in stating that if there's problems with the system, you need to identify them in realistic, concrete terms..."
Well, you and those who keep -- ignorantly or otherwise -- insisting here that Illinois justice has no issues with racial disparity just keep ignoring the hard "concrete" facts.
How about Illinois having a drug war that has as its result the absolutely ridiculous outcome that for every white male jailed for drugs, 57 black men are in prison. Are you trying to tell us that black males in Illinois are 57 times as likely to engage in drug use as the average white male? If you think that is true, either you're smoking crack yourself or you're an outright racist.
For more: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/rates-b&w.htm
BTW, Illinois has the WORST and most disparate ratio of white to black drug offenders in the nation. With numbers like that, one would think that it is an implicit requirement that at least one Klan member be on any Illinois jury -- but that isn't true. It's mostly white people just like you sitting on those juries, rubberstamping the results of a racist system because it's too much cognitive dissionance for you to even consider this reality that minority citizens face everyday of their lives in Illinois.
Or maybe you just don't care because you're white and you think it's no problem for you? A lot of white folks are like that. They're part of the problem.
I am eagerly waiting the outcome of the FOIA requests to Champaign County on what the exact rates of imprisonment by race are locally. They may be a bit better than the statewide rates -- I certainly hope so or I'll be even more embarassed for my community than I already am -- but I'm sure thay are still outrageously disparate.
Then you tell us that after proving what I just proved that we need to come up with a solution for the problems of racial disparity "to address those with realistic, concrete solutions, in a manner that is palatable to those who have the power to change what's wrong." There are people with the power change things, sure, but they benefit from this system.
White judges
White law-enforcement
White prosecutors
White jury members
Many white voters
You.
Until y'all get your head out of your ass and quit insisting there is "no problem" nothing is likely to change. You've set -up a nice little rhetorical Catch 22 for those seeking jusctice. The problem is your assertions of racial equity are simply not believable in light of the results of what is called "justice" in Illinois. Your assertions of where the burden of proof is on this issue is as patently unfair as what just went on in Patrick's trial -- you've offered no evidence of justice in the face of manifest injustice. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Historian:
Easy, killer.
I think I've been very civil in my discussion, I would appreciate the same courtesy.
I see facts, or what are purported to be facts, about the criminal justice system in general in Illinois. I look forward to seeing the results of your FOIA request for CU.
Give me some time to digest it and do some independent research and I'll get back to you tommorrow.
I CAN tell you, after a cursory glance at the link you provided to the HRW study, that the data those figures are based on BEGINS at a decade old and extends back into the 80's, so I'm already a little skeptical of the numbers you use.
I'll write more after I do some more research. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anonymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
There are real problems with the judicial system in Illinois, and here in Champaign County. However, all that is thrown around about racism, which does exist, and racial disparity, which does exist, has nothing whatsoever to do with this trial.
The evidence that the jury heard was the evidence presented to them. The prosecution evidence was: a woman accused a man of doing something. The woman testified. The defense was: a neighbor didn't hear anything. That was it. No alibi, no denial, no nothing.
The defendant chose to not tell the jury his side of the story. The defendant chose to not deny it happened.
Juries have to go on the evidence presented. There was enough evidence to convict, that is, they believed the accuser because there was little evidence, none of value, that the jury could use on behalf of the defendant. There was not enough evidence to acquit, because the defendant never bothered to deny it.
Racism exists, yes, but the jury convicted on the evidence presented.
Why didn't Thompson deny it? The most powerful of all evidence is the accused denying it happened. It should have been her word against his, but it wasn't, it was her word against nothing.
The jury had no choice. Thompson gave them no choice.
To this day, Thompson has never denied it, at least publicly, or on the witness stand in front of a jury? Why not? |
|
Replaying the Obvious |
by burden of proof
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Like, duh, I'd say that a "not guilty" plea is a pretty straightforward statement that the defendant is indicating they didn't do it.
BTW, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone's word against someone else does not meet that standard. I'm rather surprised, given the nearly non-existent evidence, that Mr. Welch didn't simply rest his case as the conclusion of the prosecution's very weak case and ask for a directed verdict of acquittal. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
100+ posts to this article.
This must be a record.
Thanks to all who posted.
All anonymouses, tell that to the sole Black juror who walked away from the courtroom disgusted.
Indeed, this is how most feel about Champaign's criminal justice system. The many posts are evidence of this.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
"BTW, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone's word against someone else does not meet that standard. I'm rather surprised, given the nearly non-existent evidence, that Mr. Welch didn't simply rest his case as the conclusion of the prosecution's very weak case and ask for a directed verdict of acquittal."
A not guilty plea merely moves the case along to the discovery, the investigationn phase. It is meaningless as EVIDENCE. A person's word CAN be enough to convict, and often is. The juror weighs the evidence, the believability of the people testifying. When the jury hears only one side, the accuser, they juror weighs something, no matter how weak, against, in this case, nothing. Something at all is more than nothing at all. The jury didn't have to believe her, but the jury chose to beleive her. Mr. Welch DID make a motion to dismiss at the end of the state's case, The motion is viewd in the light most favourable to the non-moving party, it's not just "You shouldn't believe the accuser".
BD, did you interview the sole Black juror? Maybe he was disgusted that a Black man did this. To say he was pressured by the jury is scandalous, and racist AGAINST the Black juror.
You all need to learn how the system works,
It wasn't racism, it was Thompson refusing to bother denying it. He has given up the issues for the appeals courts, he has waived them, becuase HE DID NOT TESTIFY AND DENY IT!
Answer the question: Why didn't he deny it in Court? Why didn't he deny it to the jury?
You won't answer that. You just blame :the system" or the Black juror.
Answer the question of why didn't Thompson deny it in Court, deny it to the jury, or you lose all your credibility. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2006
|
Dear GreenGuy,
You are still doing it. You are trying to discredit our comments via logic of linguistic statement. The point I tried to make before is that you need to speak our language if you want to reach us. Therefore, since you are not doing so, I will assume you are not here to help us. Although, I really don't see why you would spend your time going to such a website in that case.
Do I now lack credibility in your eyes? Have I said something that wasn't perfect logic? Is there not a logical side, and a emotional side to everyone? It is perfectly appropriate to talk about politics with emotion, because the political is personal.
Having said that, I ask you to help us GreenGuy. Give us some serious advice. Your wisdom is clouded by possible foolishness. We would like you to reveal your intentions, so we can know how to take your criticisms!
Peace,
Dave
P.S. Everyone check out the comment I posted on the objection to the redaction of the plaintifs name. I posted a few questions for any women to answer for me. I am dead serious when I say I don't understand. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Thom Paine
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
"You are trying to discredit our comments via logic of linguistic statement."
Dave, besides the obvious fact that you can only speak for yourself and not others, you sound like you sincerely don't understand Greenguy's point. Let me break it down to you. It's one thing to enter a plea of "not guilty," it's another to testify under oath and deny your guilt. They are not the same thing. That is not a linguistic trick. Apparently, Patrick's lawyer didn't present an effective defense. Based on the evidence presented in court, Patrick was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a really cheap ploy to stalk, harrass, and defame his accuser when Patrick's conviction was not her fault! I see people who would ordinarily want to protect the identity of a sexual assault victim throwing away well-established journalistic (not to mention humanitarian) principles and being the basest of hypocrites. This is backfiring badly on the IMC--several others have testified to this fact, and you're losing me as well. Save the innuendo and armchair analysis for an appeal, which is the only chance for this verdict to be overturned. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
If this is backfiring on anybody, its the local officials and their thin veil of officialdom.
Patrick's already done 10 years.
Going back to the pen is a reality for him,
a reality which he's ready to face.
He defended himself once against a trained lawyer and got a hung jury.
I don't think he's afraid to take the stand.
Any charge of purjury on the stand would be light
compared to what he's looking at.
Give us a third trial and we'll see it.
Peace, BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Too Little too late
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Sorry, BD, it's not "Best 2 out of 3".
Thompson doesn't get a 3rd trial. His chance to tell his side has passed. He (not his lawyer) decided to not testify and tell the jury his side. The jury believed the accuser, didn't hear from Thompson, and decided "beyond a resonable doubt" that Thompson did it.
"Do-overs" are fun for children in Chutes and Ladders or Candyland, but in the grownup world, you get your chance and you better make the best of it.
Why don't you realize, BD, that this is not the eavesdropping matter, it is a serious crime against a woman, that you have been played as a pawn by Thompson, and that your choice of cases (defendant) is setting your cause back, not advancing it?
UCIMC should be involved with the videotaping cases. As a progressive organization, UCIMC should be involved with the criminal justice system. But in this case, the videotaping defendant, Thompson, a stand-up guy for that issue, turned out to be a thug. Blindly by loyalty to his videotaping case, you have fallen into the defense of a man who deserves no social progressive help. Other men and women do indeed need your support, but Thompson's charm has you enthralled, and is setting you back in accomplishing your progressive goals, which is a shame.
Assume for a moment, just assume for the sake of discussion, that the jury got it right. That would you are backing a thug, a man who does this sort of thing to women.
Is that what you want the UCIMC to stand for? I hope not. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by GreenGuy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
I'll be getting to Historian's comments in a little bit.
In the meantime, Dave, I'd like to touch on what you're saying.
I'm not trying to be the Cigarette Smoking Man: part of the conspiricy but helping the revolution in mysterious ways.
Let's just say I like to argue, and I want what you want: true, legitimate justice for all.
As far as if I'm helping or not, well, look at what you know about me -
-I'm presumably white, male, middle-class, living in or around CU, highly skeptical and moderately resistant to change for its own sake; ie, I'm your target audience.
-I'm listening to what you're trying to tell me.
-I'm asking questions that any legislative body worth it's weight should be asking of the accusations you're (progressives) making.
-I'm providing constructive criticism of your facts, statements and presumptions; this allows you an opportunity revise theories and plans such that holes can't be shot through them by folks with an axe to grind.
-I'm taking (as best I can) emotion out of the issue and trying to look at this from an objective standpoint, which is exactly what would happen at any legislative hearing.
Am I helping? You tell me. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Is Officer Kurt Hjort - who is accused of raping a 25 year old woman - a thug?
Is Sergeant William Alan Myers - caught tasing several individuals in the jail - a thug?
Is Officer Ryan Garrett - threatenening retaliation on his ex-wife's boyfriend - a thug?
Is Brian Silverman - local lawyer accused of extorting clients for sexual favors - a thug?
Is Brady Smith - who was caught fondling African American boys - a thug?
One man's thug is another man's revolutionary.
BD |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Too little too late
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Right you are BD, about those.
But this is about Thompson, not them.
You would be better served, imho, to concentrate on them, and realize that Thompson's case is not the one you should rally around. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Anonymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
BD,
It is kind of hard to disagree with someone who agrees with you, eh? |
|
Proving a broken system |
by Bob Illyes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
There is much argument in this thread about the "system" being broken or not. A public instutitution is rarely fully good or fully broken. For this reason, we need to avoid pointing fingers at individuals in the system without reasonable evidence. If we do otherwise, we are no better than the folks on the other side. Answering injustice with injustice will not make things better.
It is possible to know that something is badly wrong with the system without knowing what the source is.
When it was discovered that half the folks on death row in Illinois were innocent, one didn't have to know more to realize that the system that convicted people of murder in Illinois was terribly flawed.
When one looks at the disproportionate number of African-Americans in prison, one does not need to know more to realize that the system is failing badly. To claim otherwise would be racist.
I was one of a handful of people at Patrick Thompson's first trial and also a member of the larger group at his second. Given that the investigating police offcer did not collect enough evidence to show Patrick definitely guilty or innocent, and that there was no witness to the claimed event, I expected the jury to be unable to decide one way or the other, and to go with a presumption of innocence. This is not what happened at the second trial. It is not necessary to know more than I have just stated about the case to know that there was something badly wrong with the performance of the justice system in Patrick's case.
But what is wrong, in Patrick's case and more generally? Do current proceedures not adequately assure a presumption of innocence? Is unspoken racism at work? Or is it perjury for other unspoken reasons? These questions can be answered.
Bob |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anonymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Bob,
Most if not all innocents were put in proson on fabricated evidence, evidence fabricated by the police. Here, the complaint is "not enough evidence", but often it is one person's word against another. A husband slaps a wife, leaving no marks. The husband gets arrested. The wife testifies, "He slapped me". The husband does not testify.
The jury convicts.
The jury felt there was enough evidence because there was no evidence about alibi, and or no denilal by the acussed. To rely solely on the presumption of innocence must be risky, because it failed.
There was evidence Thompson did it. There was no evidence against that evidence. And no denial.
Why no denial? Wouldn't you deny it, wouldn't anybody deny it? Why didn't Thompson take the stand and deny it? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Thom Pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
|
It's annoying that someone BOGARTED my alias especially when they make such statements. Jack is that you? |
|
Re: Thom Paine |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
It's annoying that someone BOGARTED my alias especially when they make such statements. Jack is that you?
Oh, I was wondering what happened. Jack Ryan didn't seem literate enough to come up with the nick "Thom Paine" on his own. I'd presume that the "Jack Ryan" alias comes from the character in the Tom Clancy novels, which wouldn't exactly be the hardest reading. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Need an answer?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Why is nobody is willing to answer the question, "Why didn't Thompson take the witness stand and deny he did it to the jury"?
Why is that so difficult to answer? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Why is nobody is willing to answer the question, "Why didn't Thompson take the witness stand and deny he did it to the jury"?
Why is that so difficult to answer?
Oh, I don't know... maybe because none of us can read the defense lawyer's mind? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
It wasn't the defense lawyer's decision.
It was Thompson's decision, his and his alone.
The defendant has an ABSOLUTE right to testify whether the defense lawyer wants him to or not.
So why did THOMPSON make the decision to not testify? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Thom Paine
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
|
No, I'm not Jack. I didn't realize the name was already "taken." Thom Paine is an obvious choice for an alias. I just didn't know it was "too" obvious. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dr. John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Extracts from BD's account of the trial (see above):
"Dickey claims she received a call from [redacted] the morning of the incident. [redacted] was on the phone crying. According to Dickey, [redacted] was "always crying." "It happened" [redacted] said to Dickey. What? "He tried to rape me." Who? "Patrick," said [redacted]. Evidently, she knew Patrick's name before the event, contrary to her testimony."
And:
"Later after 5pm, when [redacted] returned to her apartment, Dickey said she spoke to her. [redacted] asked, "Did police pick him up yet?" When Dickey replied yes, [redacted] said "good" and ran upstairs smiling. [redacted] came back down later like nothing had happened. "
Assuming that the above account is accurate, there is something very striking that stands out:
The plantiff stated on the witness stand that she did not recognize her assailant. Therefore, this person was a stranger to her. Later at work the same day, she contacted the police through 911 and provided a verbal description of her assailant. If this is all of the evidence that was available to the police, how in the world could they have identified and apprehend her assailant so quickly?
When a person provides a verbal description of someone else on the phone, the number of people who can fit this kind of description is huge. Therefore, it would not be possible for the police to "zero in" on the suspect as quickly as they did. According to the testimony above, the suspect had already been apprehended by the police before 5 p.m. the same day, within hours of her complaint. In the absence of any forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, or a police lineup of suspects, this is simply impossible, unless Officer Hediger possessed incredible telepathic powers! This aspect of the plantiff's testimony does not make any sense. It makes me wonder: Could this be an indication of a frame-up job? To evaluate this, it would be useful to have the tape recording of the 911 call. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by anonymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
Dr. Hilty, that is hearsay. It is actually double hearsay (BD relates what Dickey relates what (redacted) said.
The jury heard the evidence. The evidence DID NOT INCLUDE Thompson. Why not?
Why won't anyone answer this question?
Going on a "frame-up" defense, or a reliance on "I don't think there was enough evidence" is not enough to keep from being convicted (obviously).
So the lawyer made decisions about what evidence to put on, but the decision to testify was Thompson's, and only Thompson's. So WHY didn't he testify?
That is, sirs, the answer, the key, the defining of this case.
Everyone knows it is, and that is why no one will answer it, because the answer is counter to everything you believe about Thompson, your belief of his innocence.
If not, show why not. Not "the system is broken", not "it was a frame-up", not "there wasn't enough evidnce", not "the jury was corrupt", but his innocence, his actual innocence.
You cannot, because the most important evidence, the most compelling evidence, would be his denial, a denial HE HAS NEVER MADE. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by be for real
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
|
Anonymous- you know just as well as I that even if he did get up their and deny it- it's no guarantee that the jury would have took his side and believed him. This has happened more than it has not happened where a black man claims his innocence but is found guilty anyway. There is no way in hell that the state would not have stayed away from trying to discredit his credibility by using his past. Don't keep trying to harp on this when you know it's not that easy, because if it was more blacks would not be filling up the penal institutions more than any other race. If it was not for DNA none would be set free. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
This is to everyone, especially Patrick's critics...
You can be on the side of the oppressed, or on the side of the oppressor. It is obvious that all of the facts were not presented in the case, and that there was no serious evidence brought to light.
Logically, one can't find a defenant guilty without a reasonable doubt under these circumstances. I am not trying to convince you that Patrick Thompson was set up, or that he is not guilty. The facts speak for themselves, and you can come to no other conclusion than the fact that there was A TON OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN THIS CASE!
Since we are not clairvoiant, we can not know the motives of the CUPD. We can only create an institutional analysis of the situation. By doing this, you will see that:
A: Patick has some enemies among the CUPD.
B: The evesdropping cases were thrown out.
C: Due to the severity of this case, it could not be thrown out.
D: There was no serious evidence or investigation of this case before it went to court.
E: Due to this fact, Patrick Thompson could not be proven guilty without reasonable doubt.
F: There was only one black juror, and there would have possibly have been none if there was no objection.
G: It is a lawyers job to get their customer the best result.
H: Through this lawyers actions, this indicates that having no black jurors makes a differance in a trial against a black man.
I: The one black juror was obviously bothered by the outcome of the case.
J: ALL of the jurors should be ashamed of themselves for finding a man guilty when having reasonable doubt.
K: Patrick will be getting out of jail. No matter how big of a scene I have to make in this community to raise awareness. I honestly don't care how many times I am arrested.
L: The community deserves to have Patrick Thompson back!
Peace,
Dave |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
In response to Dr. John:
There are inconsistencies even in the testimony of the accuser as to whether or not she knew PT and whether they has spoken before.
In the police report, it states,
"[Accuser] then informed me that she does not know Thompson by name and only recognized him as her neighbor. She said she has only talked to him on one or two other occasions and on these occasions she was fending off his sexual advances."
In the first trial the accuser testified:
Q: In the report, Ms [accuser], you stsated that on one or two occasions that you had fended off my sexual advances; would that be correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you don't recall what was said to you?
A: I don't remember.
In last week's trial, she denied ever have spoken to or been approached by Thompson.
Anyone interested in seeing the transcripts?
Join us for a meeting at 4pm, today, Saturday, at the IMC.
Peace, BD |
|
Meeting Today at 4:00 at IMC |
by Justice has prevailed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
Have fun parsing out the transcripts and your notes comparing them to see what went wrong.
What really happened in the trial is the only thing that matters. The jury convicted Thompson of Home Invasion and a sex crime. They found beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.
All your hand wring and gnashing of teeth is meaningless. What might have been is useless.
You are all wasting your time. There is nothing you can do about it. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Aaron Ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
|
Be Peace. I wonder why this is the Patrick Thompson case and not the (shall I dare say her name) case. How is it that we are deemed as "the people" in this case against him? Let me go on record to say that I am not apart of "those" people! I agree that ALL victims of crimes should receive justice, however, I know that a bunch of lying, robbing, murdering and racist, sexist, calassist folks don't have the ability to administer "justice". They can only go along with some other lying hateful and arrogant people. Now that it is clear that we are all incapable of administering justice, we can talk about the punishment we strive to inflict upon other citizens for violating our "laws". Since this is the system "they" have set up, then we can either overthrow it, or work within it. RIGHT NOW, I choose to work within it and so do million and millions of other people, FOR NOW! In cases such as this one, where a persons accusation is enough to get a person time in prison along with, mental trauma, a scarred family and irreprable time loss, we have the makings of violent revolutions. The poor and mis-educated masses will only take so much before they revolt and then all these people who hide their identity and are thinking they are better than others because they have benefitted from white privilege, or they have become house niggers, or they have somehow slipped through the cracks, or they just don't give a fuck, will all say hey, what happened? In "North America" we are PRESUMED INNOCENT! Why? To prevent situations where disgruntled vindictive people make allegations agaist someone that are completely unfounded and uncorroborated by evidence (physical and testimonial). In this case, there really is NO PYHSICAL EVIDENCE (even the prosecution admits this) and the only witnesses are people who saw the accuser AFTER she got to work an hour later. They all simply testified that she was crying and upset and that SHE SAID someone tried to rape me. So all of you who say can we just entertain the thought of him being guilty, I ask the question why? What is wrong with yoou to make you say such a thing in NORTH America? Unless a person is PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABE DOUBT, this means not a fragment or particel of doubt can be in your mind, then you must vote not guilty! NO evidence, NO witnesses, NO bruises, NO INVESTIGATION! "Don't punish S.R. for the lack of police work" the prosecutor says, but in NORTH America he sleeps at night knowing that Patrick gets punished for it! All of you who are happy or relieved or don't care that a man is going to jail without being PROVEN guilty are supporting all of our arguments that ignorance is eroding our community i.e, racism, sexism, classism,( White male police officer/overseer Hjort doesn't even get arrested for RAPE!) WE meet every Saturday at 4p.m. in fact I'm late, so anyone who is courageous enough to show their face or say their names in public, I'll see you there,otherwise stay in cyberspace and I'll see you face to face in the revolution! BE Just! |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
Dear Aaron Ammons,
I LOVE YOU! |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2006
|
Dear Aaron Ammons,
I LOVE YOU! |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
Aaron Ammons asked: "I wonder why this is the Patrick Thompson case and not the (shall I dare say her name) case."
I know it may be pointless to respond to a rhetorical question, but here's some general background information about legal procedures that might help make this practice appear less sinister.
In a criminal prosecution, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. That is why criminal cases in Illinois are captioned "People v. [Defendant's Name]". The victim is merely a complaining witness; the victim is NOT a party, and the victim has NO standing. Therefore, the victim's name isn't in the caption. Consequently, it's at best confusing to identify a criminal case by the name of the victim or to identify it by the name of the state (the state being a party to every criminal case filed).
Civil lawsuits are different. If a victim sues a rapist in civil court, then the victim is the plaintiff. In a civil lawsuit, the victim IS a party who DOES have standing. The case caption will resemble something like "[Victim's Name] v. [Defendant's Name]". You're unlikely to confuse an audience by using a victim's name to refer to the case.
The case under discussion is, however, a criminal prosecution. So there are compelling practical reasons to use the defendant's name as the identifier.
In addition, Mr. Thompson is well-known in this community. No one else in the case has anything near his name recognition in this community. It's therefore not surprising that here and beyond the board, people think of him when they think of this case.
I would guess that it was name recognition that prompted the IMC to place Mr. Thompson's name in the title of the parent article here ("Patrick Thomson Trial Underway"). I could be wrong, but I doubt that the author of the original article intended to prejudge Mr. Thompson by placing his name there. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by aaron ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
|
Did you all know that an Urbana police officer Kurt hjort was accused of rape? did you all know that there was semen and fingerprints found in and on the victim? Did you know that the officer used the metcad system to search for the ladies dwellings? did you know that there were witnesses that stated they saw the squad car parked in front of her house for an extended period of time? did you all know that this officer is best friends with Julia rietz's husband? did you all know that he was NEVER EVEN ARRESTED? he has since retired with his pension and is going on wiht his life...john dedman is the special prosector n this case and he has refused to prosecute because he said the victim wasn't credible, that it was claimed to be consensual and that he didn't want to ruin the officers life, interesting? What do you think? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Distressed
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
|
Aaron Ammons asked whether people here were aware of the Hjort case. I am, and I appreciate that the IMC has reported on it. I think it's entirely appropriate to compare the actions taken by the authorities in the Hjort and Thompson cases, to raise questions about the differential treatment meted out, and to ask those in power to explain why they handled the cases as they did. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Correction
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
|
It's not John Dedman, it's Jim Dedman, and he works for Brian Silverman. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by seer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2006
|
I think that this case is among the masses of Terrorism that is causing a judicial homicide. The time will come when an audit is governed in this blatent misjustice upon the African American community as a whole, in CU. I will not and cannot include the hispanic community because the injustice lies upon the AA community alone as the massed... white people act/look on in awe or aye. The hispanic community experience a more unified acceptance as the substitute for the "Black Man". Pactrick T. spoke in the first trial and caused a "hung" jury. Realistically if he had spoke or redefended himself he would have had a better chance or would he??? I doubt it. One has to remember the majority of the attornies in the CU area are only looking to milk the pockets of AAs, or indirectly prosecute, even if they are ... defending attornies. The bottem line is there is a personal vendetta upon the "black male" Lord forbids a "black female" screams for justice... oh how they look on in amazement... still doing nothing.
A "Black woman" cried out for justice when a grown man stomped the chest of her 15 year old daughter and broke her chest plate, nothing happend. The states attorney ... You know her... stood blindly as this woman cried out for justice... knowing far too well if she had so much as hit her daughters hand she would have been taken away. No police action, no conviction... hell... no attempt to prosecute. She cried out at the court house in public for justice; lady justice did not show her face.
So help me if another white person can sit or stand and try to justify the blatent war upon the Africam American population... I could call upon the god of Issac, Jacob and David to turn the tides on them/us. You wonder why America is so twisted and out of control in the white community... OUR children are watching and mimicking the ignorance that runs this nation... Racism; the true TERRORISM!!!
American goverment is so quick to rush in on the middle east to take over and subdue their government... I bet they wont ever try that power play on North Korea... Hell no, they are the "other whites". So negotiations are on another level... "take precautions or defence methodology upgrades."
KKK no longer wear the traditional sheets they were titles and badges... Prison wardens (vandalia does not hide the kkk pics there), Abortion doctors, States Attornies and Officers of the LAW!
Patric Thomas is just a mite in the sands of the prayed upon African Americans in Illinois as well as AMERICA. I guess he should be thank full they only want to embrace him with 120 yrs... one child got 1000yrs in ILLINOIS. huh... justice or just ice... cold calculated terrorism??? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Dave Key
davegkey (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2006
|
Good point.
Has anyone contacted the National Lawyers Guild? I think they could be of a great help in this situation. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by imcreader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2006
|
|
seer- abortion doctors? racists? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by wtf
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jul 2006
|
|
seer--asians are white? Hispanics, unified acceptance as black fill-ins? you are the worst kind of racist. |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Aaron Ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jul 2006
|
|
Be Peace. to those who say justice has prevailed in the Patrick T case. What is your definition of justice as it relates to America? |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by Aaron ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jul 2006
|
|
To ALL who were up in arms about using the "accusers" name on the thread. Where are your articles and letters to the editor about Mike Monson using the other victim's name (Hort case) in the gazette several times? Is his article going to prevent rape victims from coming forward? just want to see the same pricipled position taken everywhere, not just here where it's safe.... |
|
Re: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
by For the record
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
Thanks for the info, court oberserver. The URL you gave was truncated. The full one is:
http://www.cccircuitclerk.com/
Follow the link to Public Access to Court Records. Search for Patrick Thompson in all the different divisions, and draw your own conclusions. |
|
