|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Crime & Police |
|
Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sandra Ahten
Email: spiritofsandra (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Phone: 217-367-6345 |
06 Jun 2005
|
Remember VEYA? Martell Miller and Patrick Thompson. The courageous men who filmed the documentary about policing in Champaign county, that resulted in them being charged with eavesdropping!! Patrick is still facing the allegations of home invasion and sexual assault that have been pending ever since the eavesdropping case first began. These are serious charges that can result in a prison sentence of more than thirty years!!! What's amazing about the whole thing is that, THERE'S NO, that's right, NO EVIDENCE!!(No fingerprints, clothes fibers, blood, semen, footprints, bruises, or witnesses..
VEYA is asking for concerned citizens to please come to courtroom A today (6/6/05) at 1:00 p.m. to see for yourselves just what is happening to thousands of our citizens on a yearly basis. That's today Wendesday June 6, 2005 in courtroom A at 1:00 p.m. ANYONE and everyone who can make it, please be there. BE Just! |
This a repost from Carol and Aaron Ammons:
BE Peace. The system, or those who are abusing it, are on trial again!! Remember VEYA! Martell Miller and Patrick Thompson. The courageous men who filmed the documentary about policing in Champaign county, that resulted in them being charged with eavesdropping!! What a memorable time on our recent history. We all were able to get to know one another as we rallied around our fellow men who were being unjustly treated and forced our judicial system to respond in the appropriate manner. IT'S TIME TO DO IT AGAIN!!
Patrick is still facing the allegations of home invasion and sexual assault that have been pending ever since the eavesdropping case first began. These are serious charges that can result in a prison sentence of more than thirty years!!! What's amazing about the whole thing is that, THERE'S NO, that's right, NO EVIDENCE!!(No fingerprints, clothes fibers, blood, semen, footprints, bruises, or witnesses...Amazing, huh?!) It has been brought to our attention that there are MANY cases eerily similar to this one and as many reports of citizens complaining about not receiveing proper representation becuase the lawyers are primarily interested in pleabargaining their lives away as opposed to, actually fighting the charges.
REMEMBER THE SUICIDES and how the initial report said that the Sheriff's office was not at all responsible, then we later saw the Sheriff admit to his department being somewhat responsibile for the death of at least, Terrel Layefield. I reminded you all of this because we cannot take some things at face value. We are being asked once again to come and be the eyes and ears that will Patriotically, look and listen for the Truth, just in the courtroom this time.
VEYA is asking for concerned citizens to please come to courtroom A today (6/6/05) at 1:00 p.m. to see for yourselves just what is happening to thousands of our citizens on a yearly basis. That's today Wendesday June 6, 2005 in courtroom A at 1:00 p.m. ANYONE and everyone who can make it, please be there. BE Just! |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by eli
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jun 2005
|
We will begin with the presumption of innocence, as provided by the U.S. Constitution.
If there is "no evidence" than I think we can be confident that a jury will acquit the defendent, if the judge does not intervene and dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
If the defendent is indeed guilty, then I want him locked up. Home invasion and sexual assault are extraordinarily vicious and ugly crimes. We're not talking about drugs or other victimless crimes. Someone's home was invaded, someone was sexually asaulted. Someone should be punished.
Prisoners have rights which must be protected. The general citizen also has rights, and these must be protected as well.
As the cliche goes, "the prisons are filled with innocent people." |
|
A Fair Criminal Justice System benefits Crime Victims and the Accused |
by reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jun 2005
|
Just for the record, many sexual assault cases do not have physical evidence. Depending on the nature of the assault there may be no sign of physical injury and no semen or other bodily fluids from the perpetrator. Sexual assault by its very nature often has no witnesses, and for this reason the victim's testimony is crucial.
I hope Patrick Thompson gets a fair trial and due process. If he's innocent I hope he is found so. But I also hope that every victim of sexual assault who has the courage to come forward receives a complete and fair hearing, and that those who have committed sexual crimes are found guilty. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by victim rights?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jun 2005
|
|
So Sandra wants justice? Come on, what about the victim. Obviously you have no concern about the justice for a womans right to be safe in her own home with her small child. Come on read the court records. Patrick has gone through numerous hearings with an appointed attorney and judge. He then fires his attorney and chooses to represent himself. I agree, he needs a fair trial as well as the victim need justice. I see no connection to the eavesdropping case and making this comparison demeans the rights of the victim. If you believe in justice, you believe it for both the victim AND the defendant. Let's just play fair Sandra. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jun 2005
|
|
This court is obviously showing the serious neglect to people who are representing themselves pro se. For example, judge Lehnard allows licenses attorneys to violate all kind of rules and even his own orders , like filing motions after official hearing dates, assigned by him, etc.. With this kind of approach I don't think that Patrick Thomson representation pro se is going to be successful. By the way, how come that after new state attorney officially dropped charges against him after her election, he is still in court on the same charges? Are all elected democratic officials in this county in the same position as ucimc-on salary of current republican federal top, or what? |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
By "no evidence," I assume that this case consists of the word of one person versus another person. On the basis of the testimony of a single person, another person languishes in jail and faces felony charges. Is this a reasonable state-of-affairs?
If you consider the legal precedent that was established by the Magna Carta during the Middle Ages, it isn't. The Magna Carta specifically prohibited charging any person with a major offense unless a grand jury was presented with the sworn testimony of at least TWO witnesses of reputable character. The Magna Carta is one of the most important documents in Anglo-Saxon legal history; it strongly influenced the development of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It appears that the legal system of the Middle Ages was more progressive in certain respects than the legal system in Champaign County as it exists today. Also please note that one-half of the prisoners on death row in Illinois were later found to be innocent of the charges that had been brought against them thanks to DNA evidence. So what got them on death row in the first place? The testimony of a single person? |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by another reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
so basically, if i do want to assault someone, i just need to wait untill they're alone. and vice versa. great idea.
and should it also be noted that being in your home without two or more people who can serve as reputable witnesses is legally careless?
while we need to proove any individual's guilt, we should also strive towards objectivity and not presume them to be innocent without maintaining an open mind. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
|
There is even more convenient approach, another reader, - to create the list of unwelcome people, and then to create a number of provocations (or even without them) to get rid of these people. This approach was used recently in Rwanda genocide and many, many other times before during our human history. Usually, people on the top of society (or badly fighting to get to this top) are those who created such lists. You, I think, belong to some elected boards, etc.. So, introduce this "refreshing" initiative. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by eli
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
Public records show that Mr. Thompson has a criminal record dating back at least to 1992. Burglary, fighting, possession, and unlawful flight are among the activities for which he has received the attention of the legal system.
That doesn't mean he is guilty of the current charges. But it does make one wonder why this guy has become an example of the miscarriage of criminal justice, a poster child for protest. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
You seem right, eli. It is nothing to say to it.
I've noticed though that people without criminal records, who are the real examples of justice's miscarriages DON'T attract public positive attention and/or support here. Does it mean that this web is evenly sponsored by mob related entities and people and the most regressive government's entities, or does it mean anything else? And what this anything else might be? |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
I am sorry I couldn't be available to observe this. Of course if there really is no evidence at all and this trial proceeds, then that answers the question of why it should be a cause celebre. It's easy to chime in and say, "What about the rights of the victim?" -- but in fact everyone who has written in seems agreed that if Patrick is guilty, there is no excuse.
Of course the crime he is accused of is serious. It should never be tolerated. And it may be true that there is often little or no evidence. A person who claims to have been attacked deserves attention, respect and care: medical, psychological, etc. -- and some system of free universal health care should cover it. That is, or should be, anyone's right. The police and the courts, since that is the way our society normally deals with such charges, should give the person a fair hearing.
But does everyone have the right to accuse another person -- serious crime or not -- and expect to see them convicted as a result, even without evidence? Should it this be easier if you pick someone who already has a record of lesser or unrelated crimes -- or someone who may have previously challenged the police to live up to the principles of justice themselves?
Evidence is important, not only because it has a long history in Anglo-Saxon law or Roman law, or any other law. It's important because without it, all we have is the naked prejudice of who we prefer to believe. That's a system for achieving something, of course, but it isn't justice or truth. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by eli
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
Curious -- I'd prefer, frankly, if you didn't use my comments as grist for your own mill.
Mr. Baldwin -- I appreciate your comments, and your balanced views on the subject. It's an instance where two very important issues more or less collide: the rights of the accused, and the confidence that women must have that their charges of sexual assault will be taken seriously by the law. Thanks. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by yes, but...
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
A criminal proceeding has guarantees.
Where a civil case (for example, a restraining order) has a very low burden of proof (often nothing more than an unsubstantied claim is enough), criminal proceedings require a high burden of proof.
Unlike civil cases, a guilty verdict means there is no reasonable doubt that the accused did commit the crime. That is why civil cases never have criminal penalties: accusing someone of something in order to damage them is a practice as old as people.
If he's found guilty in a criminal case, well then he probably is. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
"That's a system for achieving something,"
Everything, which is possible to achieve with such system, Mr. Baldvin, is the heavy dictatorship and/or genocide, both of higher or lower level, depends.
Eli, I am not looking either for your support or cooperation. I am sure , however, that I have rights to express my own opinions, no matter what push for their appearance they had or would have.
If you are posting just ANYTHING, you are automatically giving a push for all your readers mills. The only way to prevent it is not to post anywhere at all. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
|
Unfortunately, 'yes, but..' facts about the later proven innocence of more than thirty percent of former Illinois death row inmates are in direct controversy with your conclusion, aren't they? To make a person with proven criminal records the "abused" child of justice is a bad idea, as it discredits the fight for justice. The neglect to correct dealing with evidence is much more damageable to society that even the first one. The first one is usually used to give "green" light to the second. Human race has a pretty long history, it is not easy to invent anything very new in the area of sociology, psychology, etc.. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Jun 2005
|
Another reader: "so basically, if i do want to assault someone, i just need to wait untill they're alone. and vice versa. great idea."
The problem here is the following: When a case boils down to one person's word versus another's, it is difficult to tell who is the criminal and who is the victim.
To explain this further: Suppose Person X claims that Person Y invaded her home and sexually assaulted her to the police, and there is absolutely no forensic evidence and no witnesses to substantiate this claim. Meanwhile, Person Y claims that he's innocent. Both Person X and Person Y know each other from a prior relationship. There is a possibilitiy that one (or both parties) holds a grudge against the other.
There are three logical possibilities here: 1) Person X is telling the truth, and Person Y really did invade her home and sexually assault her, 2) Person X is lying, and Person Y did not invade her home and sexually assault her, and 3) Neither person is telling the entire truth, which is a muddled mixture of their two tales.
In #1 above, Person X is indeed the crime victim as claimed, while Person Y is the criminal who should be prosecuted.
In #2 above, Person X is the criminal because she lied to the police about the behavior of Personal Y and is willing to commit perjury in court. Thus, Person Y is the crime victim because it's against the law to falsely accuse another person of a crime that he or she didn't commit, and it is also against the law to commit perjury in court. In this case, the alleged crime victim, Person X, should be arrested and prosecuted.
In #3 above, it is hard to tell who is really the criminal or victim. It's possible that both parties should be arrested and prosecuted. Then again, it's possible that neither party should be arrested and prosecuted because it's completely impossible to figure out what actually happened.
A counter-argument to Another Reader: Just because one person happens to accuse another person of a crime, so what? If I wanted to, I could call up the police and claim that Another Reader invaded my home and sexually assaulted me. On that basis, does it make any sense to arrest Another Reader, throw him or her in jail, and put him or her on trial for the alleged crimes? Not necessarily.
The problem here is this: Our legal system often accuses and successfully convicts individuals of crimes on the basis of the testimony of a single individual or cop. This implies that the legal system is operating on a presumption of guilt, rather than on a presumption of innocence, otherwise such cases would never come before the courts and could not produce convictions. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
Please be advised: I have witnessed 7 cases in this county where the Defendant did not do the crime and were still proscecuted to the fullest letter of the law based solely on what cops say in a courtroom and the perceived reputation of the defendant. Public defenders do not have the time nor inclination to properly investigate police reports and usually go along with whatever the State wants to do. This has been a 30-year fact over and over in this county.
While I appreciate defending victims of sexual assault, (where are the campus co-eds coming forward against those wild drunken college boys?) it should be understood that "victims" sometimes have their own agenda too. See the 1993 trial of Jimmy John Liataud, the first date rape case in Champaign County. Elizabeth Dobson went after the owner of Jimmy John's sandwich shops with a vengeance as did the News-Gazette. If it weren't for Liataud's big bucks to hire top-gun Steve Beckett, Liataud would have been somebody's girlfriend in prison instead of the sales and property tax revenue-bonanza he is today for this county. While reputations of the police officers involved could have been the last word on the subject, Steve Beckett instead, did his job and looked into the facts surrounding allegations and discovered that this "rape" the victim was telling police about was actually a sexual liason she initiated by making out with the defendant in the backseat of a car, crawling in bed with the defendant in only a t-shirt and panties, and waited for defendant Liataud in his bed while he changed condoms three times in his bathroom. It was also discovered that the victim and her mother approached Liataud with a demand for $50,000 or else. When the victim was asked on the stand where was the threat of or use of force, she feebily told the courtroom, "Well, everyone knows his family has mob connections." I was surprised myself that the victim was clearly lying about being raped. Or should we have set all that aside in favor of always believing women when they say somebody touched me?
Also about this time, the dean of Centennial High School was similiarly accused by a 16-year old student. The News-Gazette again did its thing, but the jury acquitted Parkland President Zelema Harris' husband nonetheless after being presented the facts by a competent defense attorney.
I'm afraid the County Courtroom is not always the best place to discover the truth of what happened on the street. Often, defendants plead guilty to things they should not or didn't do simply as a way to "get it over with". If the Bush Administration was willing to lie about weapons capability in Iraq, what makes you think our suits and ties aren't willing to do similiar behavior?
It is very brave of Mr. Thompson to stand up against his charges, even by himself with his past record. It's understandable he would do so since the Public Defender's office is completely overwhelmed by the caseload, and its likely he would get some half-baked defense devised at the last minute since "the stubborn defendant" wouldn't take the deal offered by the State. This happens alot in this county, people. WAKE UP.
If you so care about the victim's rights to have her attacker proscecuted, and her testimony believed, then its important that a thorough investigation be done of this incident. If it does come down to the victim verbalizing she was attacked without physical evidence, is that enough to convict? Is there any reasonable doubt in a he said/she said case? In this one, there might be: Patrick Thompson was going around with a video camera, videotaping police contacts with African Americans, yielding some embarrassing findings. (for example, local police do not swarm white college student drunkeness like they do any african american party). We were all outraged that the police and state's attorney's office were willing to send Mr. Thompson and Mr. Miller to prison for 15 years for video taping government officials on the job in the public way. In fact, Elizabeth Dobson was videotaped video taping Patrick video taping. In fact, Champaign Police Chief Finney did not want to see the video tape case go forward. In fact, two champaign police officers still went to John Piland's office behind Chief Finney's back to demand Piland's office proscecute the videographers. In fact, this victim has an alleged history of this sort of wolf crying. The timing of Patrick's arrest is very suspicious. There's alot of reasonable doubt in this case, and the noble standard of believing the victim's testimony needs more than just our sympathy in light of the above facts.
At the very least, let's have an INVESTIGATION that does not just rely on reputations and feminist politics. We already know that the police had a vested interest in getting rid of Martel Miller and Patrick Thompson. For that reason alone, "He said/she said" is not good enough to convict in this particular case.
On a side note about posting ettiquette: to whoever stole my former moniker, Local Yocal, a few weeks back on other threads, please capitalize the L and Y. Thanks. |
|
I'll Make a Note of That |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
Chris,
Well said and in a manner that people may disagree with, but they also can't help but say you're doing your best to see all sides of an issue. Good reporting.
As for your nick, yep, I suspected the troll had hijacked whose ever it was. Sorry to hear it was yours, because when it was you, it was some great accurate reporting and well-argued opinion, also. We can always use more of that here.
Some of it was so obvious that I think I did hide it as distinctively a certain person's MO. However, I do my best not to jump to conclusions, either, so it's likely there is some stuff back there I'm certain really wasn't you, now that it's been confirmed. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
ML,
You have an impossible job, but thanks anyway for trying to keep the conversations civil, on subject, and the trolls at bay. It's sad a few egomaniacs have a need to sabatoge what could be an excellent debating forum. People should realize what a valuable website this is, and leave their egos and pissing contests in their private chat rooms. I don't expect to own the name Kilroy, or Local Yocal, or ML for that matter. I would have preferred leaving my name out of this since I do tend to name names, and like the case against Patrick Thompson, would rather not become a target for police misconduct.
You should hide this post too, since it is, according to the sound rules of this website: way off topic. Thanks for your hard work, ML. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
(where are the campus co-eds coming forward against those wild drunken college boys?)
Although this is getting off the original topic, I'd like to respond to this. Alcohol is a big risk factor in sexual assault because it affects judgment. If a woman's extremely drunk, she probably won't be as capable of defending herself and recognizing dangerous situations as she would otherwise be. This doesn't mean that she deserves to be assaulted, but it does make it more likely to happen. Afterward, she may not be in a condition to report the incident to the police (especially if she's passed out or close). She might also be afraid of being punished for underage drinking, public intoxication, whatever. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
Wayward,
I agree with your analysis why intoxicated women don't report an assault when it occurs.
I once talked to Dick Justice, head of the U of I's disciplinary office, who expressed his frustration over women not pressing charges nor participating in disciplinary procedures because he said, "they don't want to jeopardize his future" or "they don't want their sorority to get a reputation as a house of snitches" or "they simply don't want to suffer the public embarrassment."
Sexual assault on campus remains one of the U of I's dirty little secrets, and until women can muster a united effort to make reporting a safe and legitimate thing to do, and until the U of I gets serious and starts tossing Johnny WhizKid completely the heck out of school forever, if not imprisoned; then taking advantage of an intoxicated girl will remain one of the "rites of passage" for our college hijink boys and women on campus will remain at risk. But really we should be quiet about this, we don't want to alarm the parents of incoming freshmen- it would be bad for business. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by joe urbana
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jun 2005
|
yeah, everybody! let's send the poor person to jail. it's
not like crime is a cultural construct or anything. it's not
like we have to make note of our sarcasm so the
overeducated can understand it. let us keep putting our
faith in "fair trials" and beat up on the poor in the name of
womens rights and other sentimentalities. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
The ultimate point is this: should we hang an innocent man in the name of defending all sexual crime victims?
Sexual crime should be taken seriously. Therefore, Patrick Thompson should be jailed since we're taking sexual crimes seriously, even though he may not have done it.
Is that the kind of justice you want, ladies? |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
|
Mr. Thompson's next hearing in this matter is June 22, at 1:30p.m. in courtroom A. It's a pre-trial hearing where likely the judge, Tom Difanis, proscecutor Michael Vujovich, and Patrick Thompson will agree on a trial date. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jun 2005
|
|
Mr. Evans, this situation would have looked like a pure provocation against P. Thompson, if he hasn't had well deserved prior convictions. But he has had. And that is what makes this case so difficult and controversial, and, therefore, requires the very precise attention to all its details. Good luck to those who want to proceed with this attention. |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by joe urbana
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jun 2005
|
|
well-deserved? do i smell morality? |
|
Re: Call to Witness Proceedings at the Courthouse |
by chris evans
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jun 2005
|
|
You understand, Curious, I'm sure, that prior convictions is not the sole criteria to prove someone did something or not on a specific date and time. Reputations are not good always the best fact finders. |
|
