|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
Current rating: 0 |
by Brian Dolinar & Chris Evans
(No verified email address) |
08 Aug 2006
|
A growing crowd of over 50 supporters sat behind Patrick Thompson and his family as he appeared for sentencing on Monday August 7. Thompson received a guilty verdict for home invasion and sexual abuse one month ago. Judge Clem granted a continuance set for October 2, 2006 and allowed Bob Kirchner to take over as Thompson's new attorney. Kirchner will be filing a motion for re-trial in this highly controversial case.
In 2004, Black activists Patrick Thompson and Martell Miller were videotaping police behavior in Black neighborhoods in Champaign-Urbana. A day after bogus charges of felony eavesdropping were brought against Miller (charges that were later dropped), the equally baseless charges of home invasion and sexual abuse were brought against Thompson. This is a crime with no evidence, no eye-witnesses, and an investigating officer who admits he never visited the scene of the crime. The accuser, a white woman, has a history of similar allegations against Black men. She also has had warrants for her arrest and criminal charges of child endangerment mysteriously which were dropped throughout the term of this case. Thompson faces 6-30 years for a crime he did not commit. |
|
The continuance was viewed by Thompson and his supporters as an important victory. A crowd gathered in front of the courthouse holding hands, joining in prayer, and singing "We Shall Overcome" to invoke the civil rights memories of the past in order to fight the 21st Century trends of mass incarceration and legalized slavery.
--
The story is a long and tangled one that involves the right for citizens to monitor police (a la Rodney King), a history of law enforcement retaliation against black activists (a la Fred Hampton), and the tale of two worlds in the criminal justice system - one for blacks, focused on harsh prison sentences - and one for whites, who walk free for violent crimes.
The story begin in 2004 with two black men video taping police officers from across the street. That was the "crime." Before committing this "crime", these two black men notified, in writing, the police and local governments that they would be exercising what they thought were their first amendment rights to freely videotape, record and publicly broadcast their public servants.
For most of the summer of 2004, whenever they came across "routine" pedestrian or traffic stops of African-Americans in their neighborhood, they recorded events using a hand-held video camera careful to stay out of the way of the stops. They also recorded statements from the people the police had stopped. Their goal was to document local perception that the police racially target African-American youth for the slightest infractions. Champaign County comprises only an 11% African-American population, yet 80%-90% of its defendants in the courtrooms are African-American.
The two videographers, who had earlier organized a new youth mentoring program, called Visionaries Educating Youth and Adults, wanted to show local black leadership why its young people had become weary and negligent with their schooling. Black teenagers had reported to them that school was not the problem for their lack of educational achievement, rather, the constant police harassment they experienced gave them little incentive to invest in their futures. The film, the two videographers had hoped, would begin a dialogue to improve police/community relations.
The reactions from uniformed police officers to the presence of a video camera aimed on their activities were mixed. Some officers understood the public’s right to know about their job duties; other officers were defensive by a video camera recording their aggressive behaviors and worse, felt threatened by the recordings.
A few officers reported the problem to the State’s Attorney’s office and then-assistant state's attorney, Elizabeth Dobson, began to go on "ride-a-longs" with the police, videotaping Thompson and Martell for evidence. On August 7th Champaign police officers seized the video camcorder without a warrant over the objections of both Martel Miller and Patrick Thompson. Despite police knowing Thompson was also involved in the videotaping project, only Martel Miller was issued a summons to appear in court on Monday, August 23, 2004. Mr. Miller was charged with two counts of Class 1 felony eavesdropping on police officers, subject to 4-15 years in the penitentiary. Accompanying Mr. Miller to court that day, was his partner in this "crime", Patrick Thompson, who made sure the local newspaper published a story about this unusual "crime" in the next day’s paper.
On that very next day, Tuesday, August 24, 2004, Mr. Thompson awoke to begin a new semester, buying books for his class schedule at Parkland College, visiting the university quad to talk to minority law students, running some errands, attending his classes, and buying his son a bicycle at a local sporting goods store. When he arrived home at about 3:00p.m., there was a knock at his apartment door. Two Urbana Police officers were there to inform him that he was under arrest for the attempted rape of a white woman who lived directly next door to his apartment. The same assistant state’s attorney who had indicted his friend, Martel Miller, on felony eavesdropping charges, now indicted Mr. Thompson with 5 criminal felony counts including home invasion & sexual abuse. Mr. Thompson faced a maximum of 120 years in prison. A high bond was set at $250,000.
Later that week, Mr. Thompson was given another charge of a Class 1 felony eavesdropping charge and Mr. Miller was given a 3rd count of Class 1 felony eavesdropping.
The public uproar over the eavesdropping charges was city-wide. Academics, liberal activists, and even the local conservative newspaper in town poured contempt on the State’s Attorney’s decision to prosecute two people for videotaping police activity.
The Champaign Police Chief, R.T. Finney, also criticized the State’s Attorney, John Piland for "hijacking the case" away from his administration. The Police Chief said the agreement with Piland was to file the eavesdropping charges simply to "leverage" Mr. Miller and Mr. Thompson to the table for a discussion about taping police officers, a public admission that the eavesdropping prosecution was malicious.
Piland still maintained, "We believe we can win the case and protect the interests of the officers who were wronged and provide unmistakable education to those who continue to maintain that the conduct of these two is lawful." Piland’s “unmistakable education” was going to be a lesson to anyone else who dared to point cameras at police officers: documenting police activity will mean jail time.
Still trying to salvage his re-election campaign, however, Piland bowed to public pressure, and dropped the charges against Martel Miller. He left in place the charges of eavesdropping against Thompson, saying those charges would be resolved with the prosecution of the home invasion charges.
Julia Reitz, Piland’s opponent in the upcoming November election, seized the opportunity. Her campaign criticized incumbent John Piland, declaring, "I think it's indicative of an overall community problem regarding distrust of the criminal justice system. Given the facts of the case, I wouldn't have touched [the eavesdropping] with a 10-foot pole." Reitz even attended the showing of Miller & Thompson’s documentary, Citizens Watch, at Boardman's Art Theatre where over 300 people were infuriated by what they saw in the film: how police behave when stopping African-Americans.
One of the most heart-wrenching parts of Citizens Watch, is of a young African-American bystander no more than 10 years old, watching as one of the police encounters is being taped, shouting at the video camera, "They is arresting us because we's black."
The police were captured on tape coming down hard on African-Americans north of University Avenue while ignoring misconduct by white students in campus town. The film could easily embarrass some police officers. The camera doesn't lie - and viewers of Mr. Thompson's and Mr. Miller's film couldn't deny race does matter when interacting with local law enforcement.
While the storm kicked up over the film, Patrick Thompson sat in jail for four months, not able to pay the $25,000 to get himself out. His wife, Maria Thompson, quietly moved away from her next door neighbor who had put her husband in jail. Members of the public came forward and informed her that his accuser had previously made similar sexual allegations against other men of color at her place of employment. The appointed public defender to represent Thompson on the criminal charges, Bruce Ratcliffe, filed an answer to the State's motion for discovery on Oct. 19, 2004, and gave notice that he intended to call as witnesses, two men who had been accused of sexual misconduct by the same accuser in Thompson's criminal case.
Thanks partially to the controversy generated by the eavesdropping prosecution, John Piland was dethroned from his 10-years as state's attorney.
During her first days in office, the new state’s attorney Julia Rietz made good on her promise and dropped the charges of eavesdropping against Patrick Thompson. In the criminal matters, Rietz declared a conflict of interest claiming she represented Mr. Thompson in other matters before, and asked for a special prosecutor. She also dropped Mr. Thompson’s bond for the sex abuse case from $250,000 to nothing, an odd move for someone facing 2 Class X felonies.
Thompson had exercised his right to alarm the public about racial targeting, racial profiling and the double standard in the local justice system, and now began his own struggle to adequately represent himself in court. Alarmed that his public defender had not demanded a speedy trial, giving the State an unwarranted chance to prepare a case without merit, Thompson chose to defend himself.
Meanwhile in response to the eavesdropping uproar, Illinois State Representative Chapin Rose introduced House Bill 1139 to the floor of the Illinois General Assembly clarifying that it is legal to record peace officers performing their duties in the public way. In June of 2005, Miller and Thompson successfully filed a federal lawsuit against 12 local law enforcement officials – a case that remains pending to this day.
The motive to get rid of Mr. Thompson is clear. The eavesdropping case embarrassed many, cost some people their jobs, and now stands to cost millions of dollars in damages for constitutional violations including malicious prosecution.
Did the Champaign County legal system use Thompson's accuser to punish Mr. Thompson for his filming of police activity?
The accuser certainly had reason to cooperate with law enforcement. The day she made the accusations against Mr. Thompson, she had a warrant out for her arrest over a $4000 dollar debt. Two days after she accused Thompson, the warrant for her arrest was mysteriously quashed.
As the prosecution geared up for trial, the body attachment was reissued on the same small claims case. A warrant went out for Thompson’s accuser’s arrest. Mysteriously she was never apprehended throughout a series of continuances of the Thompson case. Meanwhile she had a second body attachment put on her for a different bad debt case.
40 days before she was scheduled to testify against Thompson, July 19, 2005, Thompson’s accuser was indicted for criminal child endangerment for leaving her 2 year-old daughter wandering in the street.
During the trial, the prosecution hid from the defense the fact that the accuser had pending criminal charges and a warrant out for her arrest. After the trial, the state’s attorney dropped her child endangerment charges.
“Why would she lie,” asked the Special Prosecutor to the jury. The jury had no knowledge that she might lose custody of her children were she convicted by the same office she was testifying for in the Thompson case. Perhaps we would do the same if facing the loss of our children and mounting debt?
The past allegations of sexual harassment she made against other men of color was stricken from the record, as Special Prosecutor Vujovich filed a motion to prevent the jury from ever hearing about her pattern of accusing men of sexual misdeeds. Still, 6 of the jurors refused to go along with the Special Prosecutor's story line, and Thompson escaped conviction with a hung jury.
So there was motive for law enforcement to get rid of Patrick Thompson. And there was motive for the accuser to give false testimony to save her family. But was there any evidence or any witnesses to prove that he did it? The answer that disturbs the public so much in this case is NO. There was absolutely no evidence or witnesses. “The case rests solely on her credibility,” the prosecution told the jury knowing that the jury would not see information related to her credibility.
The police report states that an unknown attacker entered her apartment, locked the door, and threatened her. It states that he was shirtless and that a fight ensued where the victim kicked and screamed so loud she believes this the reason he stopped his advances. The report states investigating Officer Michael Hediger visited the apartment complex twice to arrest Thompson in the apartment next door to the crime scene. Despite this, Officer Hediger admits on the stand that he never entered the apartment of the accuser to gather evidence. No witness was ever found to attest to the accuser’s early morning screaming in this densely packed apartment building. The officer never checked for cuts, abrasions, scratches, bruises or any other injuries of any kind on either the accuser or the accused.
If Officer Hediger had checked for evidence, there would have been nothing to substantiate the "victim's" claims against Patrick Thompson. For Special Prosecutor Michael Vujovich to win in court, it was better to have the case rest in the imaginations of an all-white jury, rather than prove criminal events with reliable, objective physical evidence that anyone could see- a reasonable standard before sending someone to jail for the rest of their life. Michael Hediger’s entire criminal investigation was writing down a verbal statement from a complaintant, and that complaintant being a person who the State knows accuses men of color of similar sexual misconduct at her former place of employment. What Vujovich could not allow the jury to hear was the past history of his star witness. Vujovich filed a motion to suppress the testimony of the three men Thompson planned to subpoena to the first trial. Thompson had done his own research and found the correct case precedent to allow such testimony in a case like this. Nevertheless, Judge Tom Difanis ignored Thompson’s citation and ruled in favor of the prosecution, leaving Thompson unable to introduce the accuser’s past history of making false sexual allegations.
At trial, the prosecution pandered to prejudice. The prosecution asked the jury to apply their “common sense experiences in life – consider what motivations exist” as he pointed to the black man accused on trying to rape a white woman. How many all-white juries will “consult their experiences” – a legacy of fear of black men’s sexuality towards white women - and send innocent men to jail?
After the first mistrial, Patrick Thompson decided to hire an attorney who could perform the necessary investigation, subpoena the business records, and subpoena witnesses to defend against this accuser's claims. And on March 1, 2006, Attorney Harvey Welch filed a motion for 4 defense witnesses that would reveal the accuser's past history for throwing around unsubstantiated allegations. Activists and the Thompson family were hopeful that the next trial would be different. There would be no way a jury could hand down nothing less than a not-guilty verdict.
Unbeknownst to anyone, Harvey Welch did not follow up on the leads he had, and chose instead to rely strictly on the lack of physical evidence to suggest the allegations weren't true. Even though Judge Harry Clem allowed for past allegations to be entered into evidence, rejecting the prosecutor’s re-filing to suppress the accuser’s history; Mr. Welch thought it wiser to not discuss her past allegations since he couldn't prove they were false allegations to begin with. Key witnesses went unheard. Welch relied on innocent until proven guilty, knowing that the prosecution could not prove guilt. The trial focused strictly on stories about a morning on August 24, 2004, ignoring the accuser’s history, the history of the eavesdropping case. Without this context, the lack of physical evidence was outweighed by the prosecutor’s question before the unaware jury: “Why would she lie?”
Patrick Thompson was convicted on July 7, 2006 on charges of sexual abuse and home invasion. The lone black juror was distraught, confused, and even apologized to the defendant as he walked out of the courtroom. The question remains, was he coerced by the other jurors to go along with a consensus he didn't agree with?
Thompson now faces 6-30 years in prison. His federal lawsuit for constitutional violations and malicious prosecution remains pending. His citizen taping of the police has ended.
A growing crowd of over 50 supporters sat behind Patrick Thompson and his family as he appeared for sentencing on Monday August 7. Judge Clem granted a continuance set for October 2, 2006 2:30 pm and allowed Bob Kirchner to take over as Thompson's new attorney. Kirchner will be filing a motion for re-trial in this highly controversial case.
After the continuance was granted, the supporters filed out in front of the courthouse, holding hands and raising money to pay Kirchner for his services. Nearly $500 was collected in a single pass of the hat. This is on top of the over $5500 raised to date.
Community Courtwatch, a project of CU Citizens for Peace and Justice, has been following the Thompson case amongst others. They have raised funds for the defense and worked on publicizing the corruption in the criminal justice system that this case exposes. Community Courtwatch meets every Saturday at 4 PM at the Independent Media Center in the downtown Urbana post office. See www.communitycourtwatch.org. |
See also:
http://www.communitycourtwatch.org
|
Related stories on this site:
Thompson to Appear on WRFU
Local Police Still Targeting African-Americans
|
Comments
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Aaron ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2006
|
|
We want to be as accurate as possible so we should note that Bruce Ratcliffe was a paid attorney, not a public defender. some very interesting qoutes from the present states attorney...Shenk is biased and entrenched at the courthouse and she should be considered a part of the circle of friends... |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Philip Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2006
|
|
My last comment disappeared without a trace, so I'll expand on what I said in that comment. For me, the most compelling thing about the August 7 proceedings was when we stood outside the courthouse after the hearing, held hands, and prayed. That's what's pictured in the photo above (Patrick's wearing a purple shirt). Rev. Robert West led us in singing "We Shall Overcome" and "This Little Light of Mine." Just thought I'd annotate something that was missed in the News-Gazette article and explain what's in the photo above. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2006
|
My last comment disappeared without a trace.
Phil, I can't find any recent comments by you that were intentionally deleted. The editors occasionally make mistakes when there's a large volume of spam comments that we're bulk-deleting - if this is what happened, I apologize. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Bruce Ratcliffe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2006
|
I want to correct something, and add a comment or two, if I may.
I was Martell's lawyer. I met with Patrick and Martell at the Champaign police station, and tried to talk two investigators out of filing charges against Martell. I asked to speak with Elizabeth Dobson (she was at the Champaign police station at that time) and she refused to talk to me. Charges were filed against Martell. I took the case (I did not charge Martell any fee for this case because I was so outraged about it) and was able to convince the prosecution I would win a trial, that no jury would convict Martell. That is why Martell's case was dropped first.
I was Mr. Thompson's first lawyer in his home invasion case. I was hired by Mr. Thompson (through Maria) and was (and still am) a private lawyer, not a public defender. Within 24 hours, I had interviewed witnesses (on tape, with their consent) and within 48 hours had gone to the scene of the (alleged) crime, interviewed the (alleged) victim) examined her apartment, and was fully prepared for trial. I then made a motion to reduce Mr. Thompson's bond, but it was not heard until Ms. Rietz took over the State's Attorney office from Piland. I not only got his bond reduced, but also "assisted" the federal defender in getting the federal hold lifted from Mr. Thompson, allowing him finally to be released to go back home.
Mr. Thompson and I had some disagreements about the case. He filed some motions in the case without my knowing about it, and in my opinion were not in the best interests of the case. I was fully prepared to try the case, but in my professional opinion timing was important. Mr. Thompson disagreed, and we parted ways.
I charged Mr. Thompson a very small fee for my professional services (that is was a small amount for work the I did, much less the work I was prepared to continue to do, will be confirmed by Mr. Thompson's subsequent lawyers, however, it is up to Mr. Thompson and those lawyers to tell you about it. Ethics prohibit me from discussing it in detail.
Lastly, people have asked me about the case, but I have not been able to say much. Mr. Thompson has not released me from the client-attorney privilege of confidentiality, it's the client's privilege, not the lawyer's privilege, so I cannot say much more, other than all the way through this ordeal, I have wished Mr. Thompson the best of luck, and have told him I believe in VEYA and all he is trying to do.
Thank you for allowing me to express these thoughts. |
|
'Tis Time to Get Involved |
by Chris Evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Aug 2006
|
Friends of Peace and Justice,
As we know, Mr. Patrick Thompson, co-founder of V.E.Y.A. and documentarian of Citizens Watch, the video documentary about police stops; has been convicted of a crime he absolutely did not do.
How those charges were brought against him, why those charges were relentlessly pursued, and how this criminal justice system arrived at a guilty verdict is going to be our collective responsibility to understand. The Retribution Case against Patrick Thompson has exposed a police department neglecting to perform their duty, and a lawyer orchestrating a "puppet show" performed before an ignorant jury to send an innocent person to prison.
If Patrick Thompson can be found guilty for something he didn't do, then so can we.
As activists, as organizers, as representatives for the silent and suffering, as people who stand against systems of oppression, we too, could one day become targets for the kind of retaliation we have seen in the Retribution Case. The question before us is, are we going to continue to sit back and watch a fellow activist get sent away right before our eyes for something he did not do? Allowing this to happen, allows the threat against all of us to become greater.
If professional police officers and professional lawyers are unable or unwilling to discover the most available truth regarding a specific claim, to the best of their ability, then our courts will always be vulnerable to the conviction of innocent people. All of us could potentially one day be handcuffed and hauled to jail in a squad car, with little our families can do, were this Retribution Case to go unopposed.
There is an extraordinary opportunity the Retribution Case actually provides. The system has been exposed, and we are learning everyday the process by which the innocent are "marketed" to juries as "guilty" and the general public is sold a tax bill of prison time in tomorrow's newspaper. Like selling a war in Iraq, the criminal justice system allows The Truth to be disregarded and replaced by a competitive game of who has the best presentation.
We must hold this system to account and demand honest investigations to arrive at truthful verdicts with fair punishments. And certainly, if somebody didn't do something, our 27 million dollar courthouse should be able to detect that.
What do we want? Justice. When do we want it? Now. We want crime to stop. We want victims of violent crime to be protected from their predators. We want predators, if the real predator is apprehended, to be sent to a place where they can be re-educated and re-focused toward better ways of living. That won't happen if police don't investigate reports of crime. That won't happen if lawyers manipulate information or hide information to only better a sales pitch, truthful or not. That won't happen if poor people are used and coerced to give false testimony. Convicting the wrong person does nothing to advance justice. We must have truthful verdicts in our courtrooms.
Toward that end, we must not give up the precious time, and resources (a new, capable attorney filing a post trial motion on Patrick's behalf) we have left to prevent this trajedy of injustice.
Those of us who have been honored to work with Mr. Thompson, know that his personal legal burden has been shouldered by he and his family most of the way. He and co-documentarian, Martel Miller, have filed a pro se federal lawsuit against 12 government officials for violating their civil and constitutional rights. This lawsuit is legitimate and Federal Judge Harold Baker has refused the defendants' claim for dismissal. Should that case prevail, it could, forevermore, protect our right to videotape and audio record police behavior.
We all understood it was not a crime, punishable by a sentence to the penetentiary, to monitor government activity. Law enforcement publically admitted it used a vague criminal charge as "leverage" to stop a citizen from excercising an entitled right to film the government. We also understood law enforcement is not allowed to hinder our right to broadcast our films on our public access television stations. We understood further that police officers are not allowed to take our property without a just cause subsequent to arrest. Thompson and Miller are fighting four law firms in this landmark case, and it is not easy- especially when Thompson has been fighting off the criminal charges at the same time.
While Patrick Thompson has demonstrated a tremendous gift for legal matters, and there have been times when the attorneys representing Patrick, as we saw at the re-trial this past July, were a hindrance to the effective administration of justice; there is a point when a citizen does not have the legal powers and capabilities a professional attorney has to investigate a case properly and do the necessary case research to argue a case effectively in court. In short, the Thompsons need legal representation.
Champaign-Urbana Citizens for Peace and Justice, members of Community Courtwatch, members of V.E.Y.A. and other concerned citizens are raising the funds necessary to pay for a quality investigation, and an honest presentation of the truth in court. We have raised about $700.00 toward the estimated $5000 that is going to be needed to begin the necessary legal work. In attorney Bob Kirchner, we believe we have found a counselor more than capable to fight a good fight.
We also know, Mr. Patrick Thompson is not the only one who has suffered from dishonesty and deceit within the judicial process. There may be hundreds and hundreds from our county alone that have suffered the torture of being innocent and still "found guilty" by a system that can easily be fooled by a few dishonest people.
Mr. Thompson wishes he were not the focus. His video documentary was only meant to create a community-wide dialogue about the future of policing in minority and low-income neighborhoods. The main goal has been to advocate for youth having better futures and avoid the wastefulness that has become the incarceration business. This entire ordeal has been an unnecessary distraction from far more important matters: serving at-risk youth.
Nevertheless, we know winning these cases: The Retribution Case against Patrick Thompson and The Videotaping Case will expose major problems within the Champaign County criminal justice system and offer us a chance to finally reform the system for the good of us all.
In the coming weeks, there will be events planned to raise awareness and yes, funds, to continue this long, but worthwhile struggle. Please consider getting involved and participating in this growing movement toward criminal justice reform. Join CUCPJ every Saturday, at the IMC (the old downtown Urbana Post Office) at 4:00p.m. to learn how you can help. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Bruce Ratcliffe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Aug 2006
|
Chris Evans wrote, "While Patrick Thompson has demonstrated a tremendous gift for legal matters, and there have been times when the attorneys representing Patrick, as we saw at the re-trial this past July, were a hindrance to the effective administration of justice..."
If this comment includes me, I take offense. I do not believe I was ever a hindrance to Mr. Thompson's case.
We merely had a difference of opinion about a continunace I believed was in Mr. Thompson's best interest (to keep Piland and Dobson from being the trial lawyers for the state, after having lost the election and with nothing to lose prosecuting a defendant they hated) and, additionally, there were certain motions filed by Mr. Thompson without my prior knowledge. After all, I was the lawyer who secured Mr. Thompson's release from both State and Federal custody, helping him to get home to his family.
I am very proud of my record of nearly 24 years of defending all people regardless of their race, gender, age, social standing or the alleged offense while charging very fair fees based upon ability to pay. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Thompson Family
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Aug 2006
|
|
Mr. Ratcliff, if you choose to discuss this case publicly you should be willing to speak truthfully and honestly. It is easy to publicly discuss what you think you did do, but it takes courage to discuss publicly what you did not do. If you don't have the integrity to do that then you are disrespecting. I take offense to that. Why now are you speaking out here, but when Patrick was in jail for 4 months you would not say 2 words in public. Now you see, that it is just the way we said it is. it was only when Patrick was released that he was able to advocate for his rights they way he felt were appropriate. We all make mistakes but it is what you do to rectify those mistakes once they are acknowledged. Don't speak publicly on this unless you have the courage to tell what you did not do. You know what those things are. Be honest, have integrity, and be respectful. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Bruce Ratcliffe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Aug 2006
|
I couldn't get Patrick out of custidy so long as Piland was State's Attorney. I didn't want to risk trying the case with Piland and Dobson as trial attornies knowing how they felt about Patrick. I believed, based on experience, I would do much better against Vujocih, since I had beaten him in a trial right before then.
As soon as I could, I got Patrick out, and I was ready for trial. That's when things broke down.
I couldn't speak while the case was going on. Not allowed to.
I have always supported Patrick in what he is trying to do, and have told him that the whole time. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Thompson family
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Aug 2006
|
|
The fact that you new that they had this type of hatred for Patrick was all the more reason to stand firm and bring out the prejiducial bias in the court. This is why the courts were established, to be fair and impartial to both sides. Things broke down way before Vujovich and you know this. You still did not answer the question of why you are speaking out now. You spoke out about the eavesdropping case while in the process but not this one. It appears that there once again is some sort of political asparations here, is this so? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Court observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Aug 2006
|
|
The Thompson family asks why Bruce Ratcliffe is speaking out now. The answer is clearly because he is being maligned and lied about in "news articles" that are hastily written and poorly researched. He is setting the record straight about his role in the case. Mr. Ratcliffe did a great job up until he left the case, and my understanding is that he left the case because Patrick had other ideas on how he wanted to continue the case. The Thompson family got their wishes. They continued the case in the manner in which they saw fit, and it reflects poorly on them that they're placing blame on lawyers who they hired and who carried out their functions to the best of their abilities during the time they worked on the case. These complaints, insinuations, and misstatements are sterile and unproductive, and will only contribute to polarization and erosion of public support for Patrick. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Bruce Ratcliffe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Aug 2006
|
I never should have commented here. This will be my last comment.
I believed in Mr. Thompson's innocence, and still do. We had a disagreement about the timing of the case. I had good reasons, based on the nature of the case, the circumstances, and my professional experience. Mr. Thompson had different reasons to go forward immediately. They were good reasons for Mr. Thompson, but, in my opinion, not good reasons as the lawyer in the case.We parted ways.
When you see a doctor, you don't tell him or her how to operate. You can tell him what you want, but if the doctor, in his or her professional opinion, thinks the operation should be done one way, and the patient thinks it should be done another way, and the patient insists it be done the way the patient wants and not the way the doctor wants, the doctor shouldn't do the operation. Same with lawyers. We do what we can for the client, and listen carefully, tryiing to do what the client wants, but HOW it is done is up to the lawyer.
I am truly sorry we had a disagreement about this. I hope everything works out for Mr. Thompson. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Aaron Ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Aug 2006
|
|
I have a problem with the anonymous posts on a public site that addresses everyone's concerns. Who are you? Why do you secretly defend Mr. Ratcliffe when he is very capable of doing a good job of expressing himself. The real challenge for us all is to move on truth and what's right regardless of whom or what! The truth of the matter is that many people feel the need to speak up now that the wheels of justice have fallen completely off but they wer unwilling to tackle this issue initially. what does that mean? maybe it's just that they feel more safe now, i don't know, however i do think it's a ggod thing. It is the belief of many of us at CUCPJ/CCW that individuals who claim to work for justice should never go along to get along and should stand shoulder to shoulder with us as we continue to expose unequal treatment under the law. Be just! |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Court observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Aug 2006
|
|
Aaron, I have as much right to write here as you or anyone else. Somewhere on this website, it says to take all posts that are made without a verified email address with a grain of salt, so that eliminates about 95% of what's posted on this site, including what you write, so chill. The level of paranoia in this discussion is getting too high for my comfort, so I'll be leaving you. I appreciate what you say about moving on truth and what's right, regardless of what, and not going along to get along. I wish you the best of luck. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Chris Evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Aug 2006
|
To answer Mr. Ratcliffe's inquiry about whether the comment, "...and there have been times when the attorneys representing Patrick, as we saw at the re-trial this past July, were a hindrance to the effective administration of justice;" refers to him specifically, I would say I was thinking primarily of the July 5-7 retrial, and John Taylor's bizarre behavior in late December of 2004. I wrote that with the thought that there exist many witnesses in the Retribution Case that have not been called to testify and should be called to testify because they are relevant to this case of no evidence, no witnesses. Only Mr. Ratcliffe can answer as to whether he was one of those hinderances to getting those witnesses on the stand.
The fact remains, Thompson was found guilty when many, including Mr. Ratcliffe, know him to be innocent.
Blaming the lawyers is not necessarily what the Thompsons want to do, nor any of us want to do. (With the exception of Vujovich who knows darn well Thompson didn't do it, and his client, the accuser, is lying).
Here's the problem: lawyers are officers of the court. Lawyers have subpoena power. Not only can they subpoena people, they can subpoena business records. Finding out who knows what, and where the information is, is part of the lawyer's job. When they don't do that job, defendants face accusations without the defense they require.
Only Ratcliffe and the Thompsons know whether Mr. Ratcliffe's performance was acceptable.
What remains is Thompson still faces a prison sentence, unless people like Ratcliffe step forward and say no to this injustice. Telling the choir, "I'm a nice guy, and I believe he's innocent" does little to stop this nonsense. If Mr. Ratcliffe really believes Thompson to be innocent, then maybe he could share that information with Mr. Thompson's current attorney. Worrying about your professional reputation is not stopping injustice. I suspect Mr. Ratcliffe is trying to be sincere, but what we think of him is not a concern, nor does it do a thing to change this amazing railroad job we have watched from the side of the tracks. As said before, if you really want to help, come to a 4:00p.m. meeting on Saturday at the Post Office. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Bruce Ratcliffe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Aug 2006
|
I said I would not comment again, but I must answer Mr. Evans.
I cannot come to court and say I believe Mr. Thompson is not guilty. It is only my opinion (based on what I know) but opinions (other than evidentiary opinions offered during the trial) have no weight whatsoever in court. It does not matter if I am a lawyer, or if I was involved in the case, or if I am a clergyman, a cop, or an activist. Opinions concerning guilt or innocence are not, and have never been, allowed in court, in any case.
I interviewd witnesses and taped their statements. I visited the scene of the alleged offense and interviewed the alleged victim. I tried to contact the men who had been accused by the alleged victim. I was preparing ways to get the personnel records. I was prepared to subpoena and put on the witness stand many poeple who may have had knowledge of the events or motives.
Mr. Thompson disagreed with the timing I thought best. I do not think he ever disagreed with my ultimate strategy, because I thought I was following his strategy, putting into evidence the testimony of two female witnesses about her motives and prior contact with Mr. Thompson, the testimony of 2 (at least) men who had been accused at her workplace by her, and business records to back that up, and personnel records showing dates and times of her showing up for work and any possible consequences. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to do so.
Mr. Thompson wanted me to move forward faster than I thought was the best way to handle the case. I think that was the only problem between us. I may be wrong.
Please. I do not want to comment any more about this, but if my name keeps coming up I feel I will have to defend myself if necessary.
I truly hope Mr. Thompson comes out of this well. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Aaron Ammons
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Aug 2006
|
|
paranoia? No i just think it's most beneficial to find out who it is tha we are talking to so we can strengthen the team, furthermore, we have to encourage those of you who are afraid to go public to do so. No one is qestioning your right to post here, so chill. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Aug 2006
|
|
What if he is really guilty? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2006
|
What if you, Langendorf, marched down to the courthouse and looked at the court file, then paid about $2000 for all the transcripts, then you spent about a 40 hours of research into the accuser's past history of false allegations and against others and her criminal history and really studied the claims and the officer's "investigation", and maybe understood the Eavesdropping case and the civil lawsuit?...
Oh yeah. It's so much easier to just "think" a what if question. What if your butt was on the line for the penetentiary? Should we just think what if you did it, and leave the investigation at that? You lazy. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2006
|
|
Of course the jury was wrong. And what if he does get a new trial and he is found guilty again...will you all still claim he was railroaded or framed. Or will all of you then accept reality ...that... possibly he is guilty. |
|
I Don't Get It |
by longtime Langendorf observor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2006
|
If Mr. Landgendorf's snide comments are meant to convey the notion that he is a supporter of the system as it exists, why the hostile tone toward Mr. Thompson exercising his rights to bring in a new attorney?
Surely, Mr. Langendorf is not hostile to such part and parcel functionings of the system, which include such motions and the right to an appeal.
Or are those things, like justice, reserved in his eyes for those with his smug white skin privilege?
Where was his outrage when Officer Hjort skipped town without having his actions reviewed by the justice system?
After all, Langendorf was an avid supporter of deposed ex-Mayor Satterthwaite who was always worried that if Tod was dumped, it would cost the city? The settlement in that case likely cost upwards of $100,000 to Hjort's victim.
Maybe if Tod had been a better mayor, Hjort wouldn't have been kept around long enough by the Urbana Police Dept to commit the crimes the justice system saw fit to overlook?
But we hear no bitter outrage over that, which says a lot about Langendorf's moral authority to crtitique Mr. Thompson's case. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Aug 2006
|
Maybe I should be more paranoid like you folks...afterall you said it ..longtime Langendorf observer....no one is capable of doing anything correctly but you folks...we shall see...I hope that his conviction was fair and just and if he is freed or found not guilty ..great...but if he is convicted again will you accept reality?
I was surprised to see absent many supporters of liberal causes or as I refer to them the usual suspects during the protests at the Champaign County Courthouse....there were many who didn't come because they could not support someone who may have assaulted someone.
Following the police around with a video camera is one thing, possibly assaulting someone is something else. Time and time again a small very vocal minority tries to bully government into doing what they want....as opposed to doing what is correct or just. In Urbana that is the way...people from the IMC, WEFT, RFU and others continually loudly protest and basically tell minorities and those that are oppressed that they can't take care of themselves...only the "progressives"
know what to do for them.
The real conspiracy is by those folks against people learning how to take control of their own lives and their own destinies. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Langendorf writes "...but if he is convicted again will you accept reality?"
and:
"if he does get a new trial and he is found guilty again...will you all still claim he was railroaded or framed. Or will all of you then accept reality ...?"
That's precisely what this is about Langendorf. REALITY.
Unlike you, who sits back and assumes to know reality......we are completely confident, as those who studied the case, that IF a jury gets to hear ALL the evidence- there is no conviction. In fact there should have never been an arrest. The real question is: When he's found innocent, or when the case is dismissed, will YOU accept reality and admit the criminal justice system has some serious flaws that transcend politics; but have more to do with a proper, systematic, ways to determine the truth and ferret out people who are telling lies in court? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by court observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Dear Vocal Local Yocal,
Where were all the people during the first trial who said he was innocent? Where was the person who could have proven he was somewhere else at his first trial?
Where was the victim's personnel file during his first trial? If there was something in it- why wasn't introduced in the first trial.? Anything that was said or done (or wasn't said or done) in the first trial could have come out in the second trial if there were contradictions. If Patrick was so innocent- then this would have been proven during the first trial.... No matter what kind of investigation or lack of investigation that was done- Patrick had no excuses- nobody who could attest to his whereabouts at the time of the attack. I read the News Gazette regularly- especially the sentencing reports and I see that many minority citizens are acquitted in our town. These are people who are seen at the scene, but because of some irregularity the jury system decides to acquit them. This is the same jury system that you indicate is so unfair.... I have been on a jury- in a "he said, she said" situation- with no evidence to speak of -it is all about the credibility of the accuser and the accused on the day they appear before the jury. Should Patrick's character been considered?- How do you know if he has always been respectful to women/ Maybe there is someone who felt he may have been inappropriate 20 years ago- should that woman be allowed to testify? Of course the answer is no.... It has nothing to do with this case.
I have known many women who when caring for their toddlers- the toddlers have bolted out of doors - and the mother didn't notice or was sleeping. Thank goodness that these minority women were not accused of neglet or had their children removed from the home due to this one incident.... Unfortunately -it can happen to anyone...
Vocal Local Yocal--- get real--do you think OJ was innocent too? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
|
At this point, the court has ruled that he is guilty. If he is granted another trial, we will have to see if he is found not guilty. I await the oucome. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Ist Trial- July 18-20, 2005:
Waiting to take the stand, 3 gentlemen who had been accused by her in the past, and they, like Mr. Thompson, didn't do what she claimed. One of whom, took his complaint to the Urbana Human Relations Commission, because the employer wouldn't take enough action against her. (Welcome to racial politics in C-U: white women accusing black menget preferential lattitude)
Presiding Judge Tom Difanis, ruled in June, without citing a single ounce of case law that her past allegations, like you would think, don't apply to a specific incident because her past doesn't matter.
Wrong. If a woman cries rape where there is no evidence, AND she's accused others of rape in the past, and those past allegations were unsubstantiated as well, then the Illinios Appellate courts have determined that information of past allegations to be relevant to the issue at hand. Thompson cited the correct case, Difanis ruled incorrectly, Clem, the trial judge did not know the status of the ruling and even said so the following year, and so Thompson's three men could not come into the courtroom to testify.
And he got a hung jury that time still defending himself.
Harvey Welch failed to research the case, failed to subpoena the witnesses, failed to put them on the stand- unbeknownst to anyone up to trial. We thought he was on top of it, since he had filed discovery Mar. 1, 2006 that seemed to indicate the case was calling the proper witnesses. In fact, there were 9 defense witnesses read aloud before the trial that could have come into play to talk about the accuser's past patterns. Judge Clem overturned the July 18, 2005 ruling that past allegations could not be brought in on July 5, 2006, citing Thompson's research, and declaring he had erred last year in denying the defendant that opportunity. Welch was unprepared for that ruling- and so the defense suffered because of it. The case again was left to the theatrics of the accuser, and the jury, like yourself, fell for the tears and pouts of a white woman accusing a big black boogie man.
As for her "oops, I got DCFS on my back for no good reason" idea you've introduced; nope, not in this case. Neighbors had been concerned for weeks about how she was treating her kids. Not only were they bolting out the door often enough, there was frequent drug activity, her very youngest was frequently left unattended in the street. Officer Cook of the Urbana Police Department had been out to her residence the week before she was finally hauled into jail. Neighbors reported that her idea of a babysitter was locking the child in her car. About six months later she would drift into oncoming traffic in broad daylight on a suburban road and have a head on collision with an SUV, sending her two children, herself, and both people in the other car to the hospital.
Particularly disturbing is that her child endangerment charge was pending when she testified, and was later dropped after she testified against Thompson, even though the State had 4 police officers, and 5 adults who could have testified against her. Essentially, the State's Attorney's office protected her from her own criminality to keep her credibility looking good for the Thompson trial.
Wake up folks. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Understandable, since few of us really take the time to look at a case, relying instead on what Mary Schenk is given to say, what the police departments give the newspapers to say.
You see how you are though, right? You assume Thompson is guilty. Why is that? Because he has a criminal record? Then why do we send people to jail then? Are you so locked into the idea that once a felon, always a felon? No one could perhaps change? No one could perhaps turn their life around? How you behave at 24 will be the same when you are 34?
No, not for yourselves. You grant yourselves all the forgiveness and understanding in the world. But be it a black man.........
I understand everyone's rise to a woman's defense in a sexual assault case. I too, wish there were better protections for women and more prosecutions...IF police officers would actually investigate the case to prove who did it to the best of their ability and available evidence. That did not happen in the Thompson case because if they had investigated, then the one police officer would have had to worked with several officers, and all those officers would have been witness to one another that there was no evidence to prove Thompson was even in her apartment. The Urbana police officer violated the Urbana Police Department's own policies with regard to a sexual assault case and so the case has been left to the word of one white woman, with quite a history and a possible drug problem. Hardly the solid proof you need that someone needs to go to jail. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by court observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
|
why didn't you present this information at the trial? did you talk to Mr. Welch? I did. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Local Vocal:
If he is granted a new trial....we shall see....
You on the other hand seem to know more about the case than the jury and judge who heard the trial.....I mean you think you know more....as usuual you take the line that some one is being victimized and only you know what to do....if he is found guilty again..who will you blame this time? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Harvey Welch owed the defendant the opportunity to expose her past pattern of accusing people of sexual stuff they didn't do. Like with the accuser, it's up to the jury to determine if the defendant's witnesses are credible. There was no good reason not to put the defense witnesses on the stand.
Let the jury decide.
Judge Clem would have allowed these witnesses to testify. Welch assumed he knew better. He didn't.
The record stands. An uneducated pro se defendant using the exact tools Welch had to work with got 6 jurors to not go along with this lie.
Welch, actually had more tools, that being the opportunity to expose her past, and the legal standing to subpoena business records, got his butt whooped by an attorney who cheats and allowed an innocent man to be convicted. He walks out of the courtroom and promises the news media and Thompson's supporters that the following Monday morning he would be deposing the juror who initially voted not guilty. Welch, like everything else about this case, didn't follow up on that either. Welch didn't even look at the first transcript prior to trial and was formulating his questions on the fly at trial. Welch didn't even prep an alibi witness to testify, an alibi witness who had to go around Harvey and write the judge and plead with the judge to be put on the stand. Harvey didn't bust a grape for this case, no matter what excuses he gives you. He's a nice guy, I'm sure, but he cut and ran on the Thompsons as soon as he could, 'cause he knew he didn't do a lick to defend Thompson. He just showed up, dressed nice, and said what everybody else already knew, there was no evidence to convict. Vujovich had already beat Harvey at voir dire by stacking the jury with only people who were willing to convict based on the word of only one person.
And yet, what do we read? Harvey subpoena's alibi witnesses for a guy who might have put a baseball bat upside someone's head during a carjackin'. He defends a guy twice who may have burned his wife after he may have killed her. It's amazing how successful Harvey is, when he's trying, at getting these rural guys accused of heinous crimes off. If he didn't try in the Thompson case because he wasn't getting paid enough, he had nearly 7 months to tell the defendant that, and maybe more money could have been provided. Instead, we got the sleepy, half-steppin' Harvey doing a sleepwalk halfbaked defense, still going through the paperwork for the first time at trial. The man raised only three objections during the whole trial and didn't get off his chair until final arguments. No one who watched this could believe Harvey's lackadasial effort.
And yet Welch seems capable and pulls out all the stops when it's a violent crime with DNA evidence against him and a positive ID from the victim. It must be all about the money for him.
All y'all's assumptions and prejudices, and downright offenses are getting tiresome.
Since neither Court Observer nor Langendorf have done a wit of research on this case, tell us, you two wise ones: How do you know he did it? What's your proof?
A jury's decision? So you probably oppose all those exonerations that have occured. To heck with DNA evidence, a jury has already decided. Do you really believe that juries always get it right, they are never deliberately misled, that witnesses never lie? Let me guess, Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, right? That's what he said, right? Witnesses never lie, right? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by For the record
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
There seems to be a pattern of smearing the victim. Here is some publicly available informaiton (obtained by googling the victim's name).
On publishing the victim's name on the IMC website:
[]
Digging for dirt on the victim:
[]
An insider's view:
[] |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
Vocal Local------I don't know why you didn't stand up in the courtroom and shout out all you knew about the case....so maybe we should blame you for his conviction.
I repeat... he was convicted and if he gets a new trial and then is not convicted again...I will have no problem admitting my error. But lets say he isn't granted a new trial and the conviction stands will you then apologize for your falsehoods and statement?
I worked as a counselor in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and every guy in there was innocent...it was truly amazing that not one of them would admit to what they did. They were railroaded and framed but none of them ever took responsiblity for what they did.
They like you loved to blame the victim of the crime or blame the government. We shall see what happens. |
|
Reference the Editing to "For the Record"s Post |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Aug 2006
|
UC IMC policy is to not publish the names of those who claim to be victims of sexual assault. This was subject to some discussion, due to the fact that there are legitimate issues of both gender and journalism in suppressing such publiclly available information.
Based on a discussion sparked, in part, by the very discussions referenced, UC IMC established a policy that we would NOT publish the name of this person or other alleged victims of such offenses. Previous stories here were edited to reflect this decision.
As anyone who knows how the web works, it is difficult to retroactively enforce a policy. However, please do NOT post such references here. They will be edited or removed.
"For the Record"s intent may have been innocent. But like the "raped babies" content in another thread that was recently introduced to supposedly demonstrate how some amorphous group called "the left" supposedly supports child abuse, insinuating that the whole mess is somehow the IMC's fault, I have to question the actual motivation of someone pretending they actually care about this issue, then turning right around and aggravating the problem they claim to be incensed over. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by For the record
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
Very well, ML, I understand your decision.
[]
[Editor's note: No, apparently you do not understand the decision or you would have not once again selectively excerpted part of the discussion -- without including the conclusion -- to give a skewed impression of our policy. If you want to discuss the decision, send an email that does not mention the person's name to imc-web (at) ucimc.org since discussions of our editorial policy are off-topic on this website.] |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by For the record
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
|
Sorry, ML, I messed up. Please edit the victim's name out of the last post. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by court observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
|
That's okay, "for the record"- I didn't know the name, but now I do. went to www.cccircuit and looked up the victim's name- (it's a public record resource)- to see the charges that keep coming up that were dismissed- people on imc website always indicated that she got a special favor or something. Then I went to Patrick's name and he had many dismissed charges- for burglary in '99, for fugitive from justice in '94- battery in '93 (victim requested it dropped- wouldn't have happened today because law changed- don't need victim to file a complaint anymore)- so I guess if Patrick can get counts dropped- it is just part of the system and people do get 2nd and 3rd and 4th chances- |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
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. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
Make sure you have the right Patrick Thompson when you do. You are already skewing the facts by attributing cases to him that are not his. There are several Patrick Thompsons in the data base.
Again, what's the investment to making sure he appears guilty? Very strange. I don't know what you guys are defending, since it ain't the truth, what is it? |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by For the record
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
|
Thanks for the advice, Yocal, but I'm discerning. So, what's your investment in publicly humiliating the victim? The pro-Thompson people have poisoned the good will of potential (and former) supporters by aggressively and publicly attacking the victim and prosecutor, and making blanket charges of racism. I want to see justice done as much as anyone, and I expect that justice will be done after all the post-trial motions have been heard and ruled upon. I'll accept the results, whether it's guilt or innocence. What I don't accept is character assassination of the victim ( painted as a liar), the prosecutor (a racist), the judge (some say he may be a racist, others not), the sole black juror (a race-betrayer who was manipulated), and, of course the lawyers (greedy and incompetent--you just said so yourself). If you have factual information, present it at the next hearing, but spare us the character assassinations and innuendo. It's just plain ugly. |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by BD
BD (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
Who is dragging up trash from a dozen years ago to assassinate characters?
Indeed, we have a skewed interpretation of the case because we believe PT is an innocent man. We have no presumptions of objectivity. But we are reasonable, rational, well-educated individuals.
Despite attempts to dismiss our efforts and speak on behalf of supporters, and continuing to operate under a veil of anonymity...
Our numbers are growing, and more people are stepping up to express their disgust at the inequalities - racial and economic - in the criminal justice system in Champaign county.
There were two articles about our efforts in local newspapers today.
Despite the insurmountable odds, people are getting together.
This is what inspires me - that people from alll walks of life: professors, students, factory workers, janitors, mothers, fathers, computer scientists, and carpenters - are starting to get together.
The haters are going to hate it.
BTW, not to assassinate characters.
But I watched the accuser walk out of the courthouse as the rest of us were gathering outside. She turned to look at us, laughed at us, snickering and snivelling. Is this the behavior of a rape victim?
But just my biased observations.
BD |
|
Re: Continuance Granted in Trial of Black Civil Rights Activist |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Aug 2006
|
The investment is in what is the truth.
The truth is Thompson didn't do it, and there are plenty of witnesses to attest to this. It's not a character assassination that we're doing, it's an explanation as to why the hell she is walking into court and telling a bald face lie. That's the problem. Frankly, I feel sorry for her, since she is but another poor person being squeezed and used by a prosecutor who won't let it go. There's no evidence, there's no proof, there's nothing, and she really does have a past pattern of doing this sort of thing. She can't even remember what her story is, and when asked to repeat it, the story keeps changing. The prosecutor had to keep coaching her with leading questions to remind her what the story is, and still she contradicted herself. This is very dastardly stuff, and if you were the recepient of somebody accusing you in a court of law, sworn to tell the truth, you would be devastated to sit at the defendant's table as you watch your life get hung in the balance as an ignorant jury buys into her theatrics. And it is theatrics. The women who watched this trial, who describe themselves as women's activists-they too couldn't believe her story. At the first trial, we watched the accuser weep and pout through her testimony, and then minutes later skip away to her car laughing on her cellphone. Similar behavior in the second trial. And a defense witness (ironically impeached by the Special Prosecutor for an unrelated 2003 traffic stop where she gave the wrong name and was convicted of an obstruction of justice charge) testified that the evening of the incident the accuser threw a party at her house like nothing happened. And yes, narcotics usage is recognized by the Illinois courts as making a witness very unreliable. Also, when a witness has something to gain, like lenient treatment on their own charges, the Illinois courts recognize this as a possible influence on their testimony.
We're calling it racist only because this phenomenon happens more frequently against black men, in front of predominantly white juries. The rate of exonerations for black men accused of rape are very high in Illinois. There has to be some sort of weird psycho-sexual mythology among white folks to believe so readily that black men are likely to jump white women--even when there is not one shred of evidence to support her original story. There is alot of collateral evidence that suggests this is her Mode of Operandi, and it's no help when the Urbana Police don't investigate the case to begin with. I don't believe Judge Clem to be racist at all, and has done his best to keep this trial fair as possible. And yes, when there are over a dozen defense witnesses to call, and a professional defense lawyer doesn't do it, then what else can you call it, but incompetence?
What's plain ugly is convicting an innocent man of something he didn't do by lying in court. We didn't start this nonsense, and if she would decide to do the right thing by recanting off this evil deed, we would be the first to support her and help her.
The people who really ought to know better is the State's Attorney and Special Proscecutor who are literally doing an attempted kidnapping. That is what is truely ugly. |
|
