It is simply frighteningly astounding....wrt the Fina Boys

[StinkStankStunk]

The lengths that these bastards (and, I suspect - to a certain degree - prosecutors throughout the country) will go to run roughshod over the law - - - - and not blink an eye.
And we, as a society, for the most part just shrug our shoulders.

A defendant - ANY defendant, even a "Sandusky", for the "stick your fingers in your ears" crowd - has a right to a preliminary hearing.
That Fina would sit up there and ADMIT to extorting Sandusky into forfeiting that right (Fina would call it a negotiation , but it is pure extortion any way you look at it).
Admitting that the Fina Boys would seek to effectively revoke his bail and add additional charges against him - if he did not waive the preliminary.

"Uh...Frank...that's not how its supposed to work. Request for increased bail are supposed to be made when there is JUSTIFICATION for increasing bail. Additional charges are supposed to be filed when those charges are SUBSTANTIATED and VALID.......those things are NOT supposed to be some tool for a$$-f$cks like you to use to "Play God" and use your position to satisfy your personal objectives"

Frank must, indeed, be a very small little man.

In this country - prosecutors are not supposed to be able to threaten punitive actions against a defendant in order to force them to cede their rights........and the Fina Boys not only do it EVERY DAY, but they smirk while they admit to it - - - - knowing (or at least believing) that they are untouchable.

Until all of us begin to care as much about a system in which LE/Prosecutors/and Judges trample over the constitution, and other rights we are supposed to have in this society - - - - rather than spending our days in rapt attention over whether or not some dipshit swimmer pissed on a convenience store, or some wanna-be-celebrity-reality-TV-ninny flashed her cooter on camera - - - its only going to get worse.

Sigh

:-(

 

[psuted]

The lengths that these bastards (and, I suspect - to a certain degree - prosecutors throughout the country) will go to run roughshod over the law - - - - and not blink an eye.
And we, as a society, for the most part just shrug our shoulders.

A defendant - ANY defendant, even a "Sandusky", for the "stick your fingers in your ears" crowd - has a right to a preliminary hearing.
That Fina would sit up there and ADMIT to extorting Sandusky into forfeiting that right (Fina would call it a negotiation , but it is pure extortion any way you look at it).
Admitting that the Fina Boys would seek to effectively revoke his bail and add additional charges against him - if he did not waive the preliminary.

"Uh...Frank...that's not how its supposed to work. Request for increased bail are supposed to be made when there is JUSTIFICATION for increasing bail. Additional charges are supposed to be filed when those charges are SUBSTANTIATED and VALID.......those things are NOT supposed to be some tool for a$$-f$cks like you to use to "Play God" and use your position to satisfy your personal objectives"

Frank must, indeed, be a very small little man.

In this country - prosecutors are not supposed to be able to threaten punitive actions against a defendant in order to force them to cede their rights........and the Fina Boys not only do it EVERY DAY, but they smirk while they admit to it - - - - knowing (or at least believing) that they are untouchable.

Until all of us begin to care as much about a system in which LE/Prosecutors/and Judges trample over the constitution, and other rights we are supposed to have in this society - - - - rather than spending our days in rapt attention over whether or not some dipshit swimmer pissed on a convenience store, or some wanna-be-celebrity-reality-TV-ninny flashed her cooter on camera - - - its only going to get worse.

Sigh

:-(

I agree with you. I'm all for law order and justice, but after seeing how this prosecution was handled, scary is not a strong enough word.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I agree with you. I'm all for law order and justice, but after seeing how this prosecution was handled, scary is not a strong enough word.

Even scarier........the Fina Boys, among prosecutors, may very well be closer to the Norm than to the Exception.


Smug little prick:

 

[Obliviax]

The lengths that these bastards (and, I suspect - to a certain degree - prosecutors throughout the country) will go to run roughshod over the law - - - - and not blink an eye.
And we, as a society, for the most part just shrug our shoulders.

A defendant - ANY defendant, even a "Sandusky", for the "stick your fingers in your ears" crowd - has a right to a preliminary hearing.
That Fina would sit up there and ADMIT to extorting Sandusky into forfeiting that right (Fina would call it a negotiation , but it is pure extortion any way you look at it).
Admitting that the Fina Boys would seek to effectively revoke his bail and add additional charges against him - if he did not waive the preliminary.

"Uh...Frank...that's not how its supposed to work. Request for increased bail are supposed to be made when there is JUSTIFICATION for increasing bail. Additional charges are supposed to be filed when those charges are SUBSTANTIATED and VALID.......those things are NOT supposed to be some tool for a$$-f$cks like you to use to "Play God" and use your position to satisfy your personal objectives"

Frank must, indeed, be a very small little man.

In this country - prosecutors are not supposed to be able to threaten punitive actions against a defendant in order to force them to cede their rights........and the Fina Boys not only do it EVERY DAY, but they smirk while they admit to it - - - - knowing (or at least believing) that they are untouchable.

Until all of us begin to care as much about a system in which LE/Prosecutors/and Judges trample over the constitution, and other rights we are supposed to have in this society - - - - rather than spending our days in rapt attention over whether or not some dipshit swimmer pissed on a convenience store, or some wanna-be-celebrity-reality-TV-ninny flashed her cooter on camera - - - its only going to get worse.

Sigh

:-(

After getting exposure to the justice system, I am not surprised. Prosecutors prosecute, and they don't care who's lives are ruined. I have to disagree that "prosecutors are not supposed to be able to threaten punitive actions against a defendant" though. Not only is this allowed, it is the most common weapon they have (overcharge and try to bully the defendant into pleading to something less).

What has been lost is common sense. I've seen 18 year olds get hammered for a "breaking and entering felony" because they were invited into an empty house by other people for a party. That's a felony conviction that results in a very challenging life moving forward. We see it all the time against players (taking a bike out of a dumpster, driving a bike without a light, shooting arrows into a dorm room wall, charging a dozen kids with breaking and entering because a kid wouldn't let them into a party). War on drugs is another stupid thing that cost thousands their opportunity to make a living (for minor MJ possession).

Its nuts.

 

[NittPicker]

I've spent a bit of time in the criminal justice system (no, not the way Dambly did) so from personal experience I can say the vast majority of prosecuting attorneys I've seen have been honest squared away people who didn't have any time for crooked or sloppy investigations. Sure, some were much more competent than others but at their core they honestly wanted to do what they felt was the right thing. Contrast that with the Fina and Nifong types whose only goal is winning - ethics be damned. Dump reams of discovery material on the defense on the eve of the trial?? No problem. Adjust when the alleged offense occurred as a means to an end?? No problem. Seek revenge on anyone who dares rock your boat?? No problem!!!! The list goes on.......

 

[StinkStankStunk]

After getting exposure to the justice system, I am not surprised. Prosecutors prosecute, and they don't care who's lives are ruined. I have to disagree that "prosecutors are not supposed to be able to threaten punitive actions against a defendant" though. Not only is this allowed, it is the most common weapon they have (overcharge and try to bully the defendant into pleading to something less).

What has been lost is common sense. I've seen 18 year olds get hammered for a "breaking and entering felony" because they were invited into an empty house by other people for a party. That's a felony conviction that results in a very challenging life moving forward. We see it all the time against players (taking a bike out of a dumpster, driving a bike without a light, shooting arrows into a dorm room wall, charging a dozen kids with breaking and entering because a kid wouldn't let them into a party). War on drugs is another stupid thing that cost thousands their opportunity to make a living (for minor MJ possession).

Its nuts.

Just to clarify....it is NOT "allowed"......there are rules and parameters that are supposed to govern such things.

Most certainly, those rules are regularly spit on by prosecutors......and - usually - no one bats an eye (maybe, at times, out of fear....though mostly, I am sure, out of indifference)

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I've spent a bit of time in the criminal justice system (no, not the way Dambly did) so from personal experience I can say the vast majority of prosecuting attorneys I've seen have been honest squared away people who didn't have any time for crooked or sloppy investigations. Sure, some were much more competent than others but at their core they honestly wanted to do what they felt was the right thing. Contrast that with the Fina and Nifong types whose only goal is winning - ethics be damned. Dump reams of discovery material on the defense on the eve of the trial?? No problem. Adjust when the alleged offense occurred as a means to an end?? No problem. Seek revenge on anyone who dares rock your boat?? No problem!!!! The list goes on.......

Appreciate your personal insight NP.

Most of us, thankfully, may never have too many opportunities to see these things "up close and personal"

 

[PSU87]

Perhaps you missed the thread on civil forfeiture laws a couple months back....
"Hey, we caught you with $12,000 cash. We suspect it's drug money, but we have no proof of that. Forfeit the money and we won't press felony drug charges...."

 

[Obliviax]

Just to clarify....it is NOT "allowed"......there are rules and parameters that are supposed to govern such things.

Most certainly, those rules are regularly spit on by prosecutors everywhere......and - usually - no one bats an eye (maybe, at times, out of fear....though mostly, I am sure, out of indifference)

I appreciate your point of view but keep watching. It will be allowed and there will be no penalties. So while you and I can talk about what evil people they are, they will get away with that.

 

[towny87.1]

there is plenty for you to complain about but Jerry waiving his prelim hearing for reduced bail and not having additional charges filed isn't one of them. Very few people facing the rest of their life in prison would have been allowed bail to begin with.

I will guarantee Jerry wasn't complaining about his negotiated bail terms while sitting on his back deck watching the kids at the Lemont Elementary school.

climb down off your high horse for a few minutes and enjoy the day.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Perhaps you missed the thread on civil forfeiture laws a couple months back....
"Hey, we caught you with $12,000 cash. We suspect it's drug money, but we have no proof of that. Forfeit the money and we won't press felony drug charges...."

Oh...I didn't miss it. It was spot on

 

[StinkStankStunk]

there is plenty for you to complain about but Jerry waiving his prelim hearing for reduced bail and not having additional charges filed isn't one of them. Very few people facing the rest of their life in prison would have been allowed bail to begin with.

I will guarantee Jerry wasn't complaining about his negotiated bail terms while sitting on his back deck watching the kids at the Lemont Elementary school.

climb down off your high horse for a few minutes and enjoy the day.

WTF does that have to do with Prosecutors wielding their power to extort and corrupt the system?

What I was commenting about (or, "complaining about", if it makes you feel better ) is prosecutors - like the Fina Boys - running roughshod over the rules of law, and the rights of ALL citizens. That scares me....but "smaller thinkers" are just fine being oblivious, ignorant, or indifferent......and worrying about "What's on TV"?


You got another topic you want to discuss? Fine, you just click the "POST NEW THREAD" button and have at it. I'll probably even stop by and read it.....maybe even comment if I think its of interest. But, if I do, I would hope I would be able to focus my comment on the topic at hand.

My horse is just fine, thanks for your concern

 

[towny87.1]

That Fina would sit up there and ADMIT to extorting Sandusky into forfeiting that right (Fina would call it a negotiation , but it is pure extortion any way you look at it).
Admitting that the Fina Boys would seek to effectively revoke his bail and add additional charges against him - if he did not waive the preliminary.




I guess I was a little off topic mentioning bail and the preliminary hearing

 

[Obliviax]

there is plenty for you to complain about but Jerry waiving his prelim hearing for reduced bail and not having additional charges filed isn't one of them. Very few people facing the rest of their life in prison would have been allowed bail to begin with.

I will guarantee Jerry wasn't complaining about his negotiated bail terms while sitting on his back deck watching the kids at the Lemont Elementary school.

climb down off your high horse for a few minutes and enjoy the day.

You may be correct. But that isn't the point. While Jerry may be guilty, others treated similarly by the courts may not. Of course, that is why we have a constitution. And that is why, if the rule of law hasn't been followed, a retrial should ensue.

Here are some facts of the case:

• The case started because a kid complained of being "groomed" (not molested)
• A kid in 1998 was also "groomed", not molested. Grooming, isn't illegal, BTW.
• MM then, becomes the inflection point. He is the only one, at this point, to make a claim of a truly illegal act...but
  • He's told several conflicting stories
  • He witnessed the illegal act(s) through a mirror
  • He apparently wasn't considered credible by several erstwhile great people.
• Once JS's arrest is made, with MM's suddenly "clear" eyewitness testimony, a lot of people piled on with suddenly "clear" recollections (civil attorneys with substantial civil suits in tow).
• JS, in a court riddled with ridiculous judge rulings and prosecutors that certainly bent, if not broke, the law, and a jury that probably had no choice but to find him guilty even before the trail, is found guilty.

Bottom line? I think the guy is a dirt bag who probably molested a lot of kids over time. However, the way the trial and prosecution unfolded, I would not be shocked to find out the guy was simply creepy and was on the edge of legal activities with young boys for decades. You take away MM's testimony, and JS is a free man today.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I appreciate your point of view but keep watching. It will be allowed and there will be no penalties. So while you and I can talk about what evil people they are, they will get away with that.

Oh...you've got no argument there.

I wasn't contending he "wouldn't get away with it"....we are parsing words: by "allowed" I was referring to whether or not such behavior was within the codes of conduct and rules of law for such actions. Not that he would be caught/stopped/or

That Fina would sit up there and ADMIT to extorting Sandusky into forfeiting that right (Fina would call it a negotiation , but it is pure extortion any way you look at it).
Admitting that the Fina Boys would seek to effectively revoke his bail and add additional charges against him - if he did not waive the preliminary.




I guess I was a little off topic mentioning bail and the preliminary hearing

Oh, Good Grief

Why not comment on the best ways to BAIL out a floundering row boat

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

You may be correct. But that isn't the point. While Jerry may be guilty, others treated similarly by the courts may not. Of course, that is why we have a constitution. And that is why, if the rule of law hasn't been followed, a retrial should ensue.

Here are some facts of the case:

• The case started because a kid complained of being "groomed" (not molested)
• A kid in 1998 was also "groomed", not molested. Grooming, isn't illegal, BTW.
• MM then, becomes the inflection point. He is the only one, at this point, to make a claim of a truly illegal act...but
  • He's told several conflicting stories
  • He witnessed the illegal act(s) through a mirror
  • He apparently wasn't considered credible by several erstwhile great people.
• Once JS's arrest is made, with MM's suddenly "clear" eyewitness testimony, a lot of people piled on with suddenly "clear" recollections (civil attorneys with substantial civil suits in tow).
• JS, in a court riddled with ridiculous judge rulings and prosecutors that certainly bent, if not broke, the law, and a jury that probably had no choice but to find him guilty even before the trail, is found guilty.

Bottom line? I think the guy is a dirt bag who probably molested a lot of kids over time. However, the way the trial and prosecution unfolded, I would not be shocked to find out the guy was simply creepy and was on the edge of legal activities with young boys for decades. You take away MM's testimony, and JS is a free man today.

You are too kind to townie, imo.

He is in this thing up to his eye teeth. He has been running scared, while acting as if he is above the fray, for years now. People buy it, too.

I don't really care who he is, or who he knows, or whether people think he is a nice guy.

He is in this thing up to his eye teeth.

It is just so very obvious that he has his own personal horse in this race, and I don't mean as a relative or friend.

 

[bplionfan]

there is plenty for you to complain about but Jerry waiving his prelim hearing for reduced bail and not having additional charges filed isn't one of them. Very few people facing the rest of their life in prison would have been allowed bail to begin with.

I will guarantee Jerry wasn't complaining about his negotiated bail terms while sitting on his back deck watching the kids at the Lemont Elementary school.

climb down off your high horse for a few minutes and enjoy the day.

Funny how all of a sudden you are worried about the kids at Lemont Elementary...Where was that concern of yours and your families much earlier...If you went to police with your info when you heard about it, maybe JS would not have been sitting on his porch then....

 

[towny87.1]

You are too kind to townie, imo.

He is in this thing up to his eye teeth. He has been running scared, while acting as if he is above the fray, for years now. People buy it, too.

I don't really care who he is, or who he knows, or whether people think he is a nice guy.

He is in this thing up to his eye teeth.

It is just so very obvious that he has his own personal horse in this race, and I don't mean as a relative or friend.

you really have lost your marbles. I have no clue what you could be referring to as "running scared" and how posting on message where mostly lunatics like you are the audience would help that even if true.

I used to be friends with fenchak so I reply to a few of his post more so than others.

I really don't see this as being in this up to my teeth although I do find it very interesting. I watched over the last many years how jerry was never honestly investigated which allowed his freedom much longer than it should have and now people are saying he wasn't honestly prosecuted. Even if that is the case Jerry is right where he is supposed to be and I am not going to be on the sidelines rooting for a new trial like fenchak is. If Jerry does get a new trial I will accept that just as I have accepted how all of this has played out over the last 15 years. I am 100% confident that if a new trial were to take place Jerry's ass would be right back in prison where he belongs and at least it would shut the lunatics like fenchak up.

throwing around while accusations like you do does't really change much of anything however I do get a laugh at your ever growing conspiracy theories

 

[StinkStankStunk]

you really have lost your marbles. I have no clue what you could be referring to as "running scared" and how posting on message where mostly lunatics like you are the audience would help that even if true.

I used to be friends with fenchak so I reply to a few of his post more so than others.

I really don't see this as being in this up to my teeth although I do find it very interesting. I watched over the last many years how jerry was never honestly investigated which allowed his freedom much longer than it should have and now people are saying he wasn't honestly prosecuted. Even if that is the case Jerry is right where he is supposed to be and I am not going to be on the sidelines rooting for a new trial like fenchak is. If Jerry does get a new trial I will accept that just as I have accepted how all of this has played out over the last 15 years. I am 100% confident that if a new trial were to take place Jerry's ass would be right back in prison where he belongs and at least it would shut the lunatics like fenchak up.

throwing around while accusations like you do does't really change much of anything however I do get a laugh at your ever growing conspiracy theories

You're still my friend Joe.

Someday I trust you will even listen to what I say - and not what you want to think I said - and realize I am not even a lunatic!
You might - maybe - even find that we agree on a lot of things.

As my better half has often said.....I am an incredible cynic, but - at the same time - a rare "Cynical Optimist".

 

[Royal_Coaster]

A lot of it depends on what the alleged crime may be and also the demographic of the victim and perpetrator involved and the biases of the community at large.

For serious crimes like child molestation, rape, murder, beating up an old lady... whatever it takes. People believe the system isn't fair when they hear about certain cases where the person you "know" is guilty got away with it, so if we have to break rules to make sure this guy goes to jail, then so be it.

If the accused is someone we may not care about that much- black, Muslim, Jew, hispanic, evangelical Christian, rich stock broker.. fill in whatever blank you want depending on your location... if the community believes "those kind" need to be made to pay, then the prosecutor can go ahead knowing nobody will object if their rights are infringed.

 

[simons96]

I've made this recommendation before . . . I think the "Mad Dog" episode of Law & Order (S7 Ep 18) should be required viewing for all potential prosecutors (and an ode to Steven Hill, RIP, who is just brilliant in this episode)

Burt Young plays a child killer who gets parole, over the objections of DA Jack McCoy

a young victim is then found, and the MO matches Burt Young's

while the police uncover no direct evidence, McCoy goes on a crusade to disrupt the suspect's life by any means necessary

at first, the viewer supports McCoy, but eventually his tactics become so egregious, even his boss chastises him to back off

the confrontation between Sam Waterston and Burt Young outside a hearing is one of THE BEST scenes of the entire series.

but what it hammers home is how much power is given to prosecutors to essentially screw with your life if they merely SUSPECT you might be guilty of a crime . . .

 

[Obliviax]

I've made this recommendation before . . . I think the "Mad Dog" episode of Law & Order (S7 Ep 18) should be required viewing for all potential prosecutors (and an ode to Steven Hill, RIP, who is just brilliant in this episode)

Burt Young plays a child killer who gets parole, over the objections of DA Jack McCoy

a young victim is then found, and the MO matches Burt Young's

while the police uncover no direct evidence, McCoy goes on a crusade to disrupt the suspect's life by any means necessary

at first, the viewer supports McCoy, but eventually his tactics become so egregious, even his boss chastises him to back off

the confrontation between Sam Waterston and Burt Young outside a hearing is one of THE BEST scenes of the entire series.

but what it hammers home is how much power is given to prosecutors to essentially screw with your life if they merely SUSPECT you might be guilty of a crime . . .

Hmm...maybe we need to come up with an all-star cast for Law & Order.

1. I'd have to go with Schiff as DA.
2. Orbach as Detective
3. Waterson as E Asst. DA.
4. Epatha Merkerson as Lieutenant
5. Angie Harmon as Asst. DA

 

[simons96]

Hmm...maybe we need to come up with an all-star cast for Law & Order.

1. I'd have to go with Schiff as DA.
2. Orbach as Detective
3. Waterson as E Asst. DA.
4. Epatha Merkerson as Lieutenant
5. Angie Harmon as Asst. DA

my man crush on Chris Noth aside, this was my favorite line up:

Jerry Orbach: Lennie Briscoe
Benjamin Bratt: Rey Curtis
S. Epatha Merkerson: Anita Van Buren
Sam Waterston: Jack McCoy
Jill Hennessy: Claire Kincaid
Steven Hill: Adam Schiff

 

[bwifan]

Hmm...maybe we need to come up with an all-star cast for Law & Order.

1. I'd have to go with Schiff as DA.
2. Orbach as Detective
3. Waterson as E Asst. DA.
4. Epatha Merkerson as Lieutenant
5. Angie Harmon as Asst. DA

I am all about ranking the women of Law & Order...
I was all about Carey Lowell...

 

[simons96]

I am all about ranking the women of Law & Order...
I was all about Carey Lowell...

not to sidetrack too much, but kind of an interesting note . . .

Carey Lowell was in L&O with Benjamin Bratt in the late 90s
she was also in License to Kill with Talisa Soto in 1989

Bratt and Soto married in 2002 . . .

 

[L.T. Young]

I've made this recommendation before . . . I think the "Mad Dog" episode of Law & Order (S7 Ep 18) should be required viewing for all potential prosecutors (and an ode to Steven Hill, RIP, who is just brilliant in this episode)

Burt Young plays a child killer who gets parole, over the objections of DA Jack McCoy

a young victim is then found, and the MO matches Burt Young's

while the police uncover no direct evidence, McCoy goes on a crusade to disrupt the suspect's life by any means necessary

at first, the viewer supports McCoy, but eventually his tactics become so egregious, even his boss chastises him to back off

the confrontation between Sam Waterston and Burt Young outside a hearing is one of THE BEST scenes of the entire series.

but what it hammers home is how much power is given to prosecutors to essentially screw with your life if they merely SUSPECT you might be guilty of a crime . . .

He was serial rapist not a child killer.

You also forgot to mention that the one person who defended the rapist throughout the episode, his daughter, was forced to kill him when she finds him trying to rape a neighbor.
http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Mad_Dog

 

[simons96]

He was serial rapist not a child killer.

You also forgot to mention that the one person who defended the rapist throughout the episode, his daughter, was forced to kill him when she finds him trying to rape a neighbor.
http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Mad_Dog

yeah I was trying not to spoil it, a$$hole

 

[L.T. Young]

I am all about ranking the women of Law & Order...
I was all about Carey Lowell...

I'll take the lesbian Serena

I'm not even into blondes.

FWIW, disappointed with the body on a Google image search. She looks good in courtroom attire though.

 

[Obliviax]

I've made this recommendation before . . . I think the "Mad Dog" episode of Law & Order (S7 Ep 18) should be required viewing for all potential prosecutors (and an ode to Steven Hill, RIP, who is just brilliant in this episode)

Burt Young plays a child killer who gets parole, over the objections of DA Jack McCoy

a young victim is then found, and the MO matches Burt Young's

while the police uncover no direct evidence, McCoy goes on a crusade to disrupt the suspect's life by any means necessary

at first, the viewer supports McCoy, but eventually his tactics become so egregious, even his boss chastises him to back off

the confrontation between Sam Waterston and Burt Young outside a hearing is one of THE BEST scenes of the entire series.

but what it hammers home is how much power is given to prosecutors to essentially screw with your life if they merely SUSPECT you might be guilty of a crime . . .

This is why I love Batman The Dark Knight is one of my favorite episodes. In order to win, the good guys become bad guys. Think Bush and AF. And on and on.