Posted on 08/15/2004 1:35:23 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
Very likely the jury was not allowed to know about the criminal record. They usually are not, and this public defender doesn't sound all that on top of things. Another thing that often happens, and which I have heard of more than once, is that the first person to call in about the incident is almost automatically assumed to be the victim. Even if the real victim then contacts the police, they are treated with suspicion, and often prosecuted. The prosecutors are seldom willing to admit they made a mistake... and nasty things result.
Or an "occasional table"?
I don't live very far away from where this happened (on the other side of the mountain as they say in these parts), and I know people from Augusta County. Unfortunately, I do believe it.
Convicting a poor slob of felonious assault just because he plays the organ and might be "queer" seems a bit extreme.
His connection to UVA would be enough to deeply prejudice a jury in some parts of Virginia.
In fact I would go the other way. How did a jury in a law-and-order rural county overcome their natural prejudice against testimony from a convicted felon and deliver a guilty verdict against a defendant with no prior criminal record?
I'm not sure I would characterize Augusta as a law-and-order rural county. There are a lot of mountain people in that area, and they are far from law-abiding. I also think Johnny good-ole-by with a few convictions to his name would have a much better chance with a local jury than a retired music teacher, especially one from the North.
Augusta County is in the Shenandoah Valley, an area which still nurses a grudge about the Civil War and harbors a deep dislike for Yankees.
The one thing that does bother me is that the article doesn't mention what time this occurred. It's perfectly understandable to me why someone might want to watch a sunset in this area, but if it was late at night, it seems a little harder to understand. The roads around the Blue Ridge Mountains can be very difficult to navigate, especially if tired. Perhaps Strippy stopped to rest.
It is interesting and sad how the meaning of the word "peer" (as used in the phrase "a jury of one's peers") is forgotten. To be judged by you peers it means to be judged by people of your social group who understand and approve your background.
There is no way that this man could have been convicted if what you write were so.
Nope; only by a Governor's pardon or that of the President. Even then one must petition for full civil rights.
After watching some of the trials and jury decisions, I would never want to be an innocent person tried by a jury today.
On the other hand I would love to be tried by some of these juries if I were guilty.
Of course they make the right decision most of the times but some times a person is convicted who not only was not proven guilty but was in fact proven innocent.
The accuser was convicted of "larceny" and "defrauding an innkeeper." That is hardly enough of a record to call him a "sociopath," or to assign to him sophisticated schemes that "muggers" exhange with one another to hoodwink law enforcement. What evidence do you have that the accuser was a mugger or a member of a "criminal subculture?" It's far more likely he was just a gay guy looking for a hookup.
The more I think about this case the more it becomes clear, to me at least, that this was a sexual liaison gone bad. The accuser ended up with a bullet in his belly. Strippy is unmarked, except according to dubious statements from his "friend" Ann Richardson. Where are the CAT scan results and photos she talks about? Why weren't they presented in court? Are we to believe that Strippy sat in court knowing exculpatory evidence existed and made no effort to present it because his attorney was incompetent or something? If it was me I think I would have had enough presence of mind to say, "Hey - What about those pictures I've got? Shouldn't we show them to the jury?"
Strippy's friends should post the photos to the internet (if they exist).
This is a "he said/he said" situation with only one person grievously injured. The best that can be said for Strippy is that he might have thought himself to be in danger, he panicked, and he shot a man who he thought might hurt or rob him. In those cases the law almost always comes down on the side of the injured party, especially when a deadly weapon was used. The jury did what it had to do.
You are absolutey right. I know because I'm a friend of Dr. Strippy's. I google his name often to see what's happening internet-wise and can tell you that:
A) His PD was incompetent and made no real attempts to get any evidence on Bob's behalf.
B) The judge took great personal pleasure in convicting and sentencing him.
C) The court was on the prosecution's side from the word go.
He's not a homosexual, nor was he looking for a good time with either gender. He went up there with his dog, as he's done for over a decade, to smoke his pipe and see the lights. The valley is actually quite lit up at night in some places, especially the Target. We used to go often because with his health situation, his pills sometimes make him sleep almost all day long, so he's up at night. He's broke and living on Social Security after several heart attacks and bypass surgery wiped him out financially. We would go up and sit in the fresh night air and listen to radio stations sometimes from as far away as South Carolina. I think we even got a jazz station from Chicago once. He takes the dog out on her leash to let her snoop around and enjoy the different animal "emails" and then we'd ride back down the mountain and stop for a soda before heading home. We avoid the first two overlooks because they are normal gathering spots for homosexual cruising, and so go higher up. Which is why Mr. Swann said he was there as well. He got a bad break from a corrupt system. He'll die in prison, undeservedly, if he can't get an appeal bond. He has no previous record and honestly thought that if he went to court and told the truth, he'd be ok. He had no way of knowing that he was getting on the railroad.
Many who don't live here think of it as a tourist thing, but locals go up to the mountains at all times of day and night. Even though it's discouraged, we sometimes even sleep up there in the car if the air is particularly nice. Not so much now because there's a different criminal element making inroads, but in the past it was not dangerous. The road is well marked and laid out, easy to drive, and it used to be safe to go up and relax there without worrying about locking the car doors or anything. He could have driven away when the argument started, but he really didn't think it would come to a physical altercation. He'd been going up there for almost 15 years and had no trouble before. Add to this the fact that people are allowed to go wherever they are allowed access to at whatever time they choose and should be able to do so without being victimized. Swann was drunk and looking to make a problem. He saw an old man who he figured would be an easy target.
Not as outrageous as you'd think. There are things like this happening every day and people are spending time in jail when they shouldn't. It's the difference between being able to have a good lawyer or not. It's also the difference between knowing how to work the system or not.
The jury wasn't allowed to hear all the evidence. Besides that, it's a small place and the court has the equivalent of its own newspaper. Everything was quiet for almost a year, during which time Dr. Strippy was out on his own PR without incident, and then suddenly a week before trial the PD made a motion to drop the solicitation charge based on the new ruling in Texas at that time. The court made a show of publicly denying the motion but then dropped it right before trial in the back room. So one week before the jury walked in, the paper made a point of publishing that the solicitation charge was going to stand. That charge was a guaranteed knee-jerk reaction getter, especially in that area, and though it was dropped as an official charge, I could see by the way they were looking at him that they were already swayed.
Still, you will have to pardon my sense that something may have been left out of the article, that would help to explain this, at least in part.
Much was left out of the article, true enough. There simply wasn't enough room in a commentary of this nature to get in-depth about it. Later on his radio show he addressed it further with Auburn Traycik, editor of The Christian Challenge, as his guest. I don't know how much legally he can print about it, just as I don't know how much I can say here about it since it's pending appeal. I'm not up enough on the law, even though I've been eating and sleeping it for the last 2 years since the incident happened. It was a terrible thing, that trial. The PD might as well have been sitting at the prosecution's table.
The Public Defender did just as the judge and prosecutor wanted him to do. He got some records, but they were the wrong ones. He'd already gotten a postponement due to Dr. Strippy breaking his leg in a fall. Far from punishing the PD, I'm sure if he could have, he'd have given him a pat on the head afterwards.
Unfortunately wealth doesn't accompany a title. He is broke, living on social security. If he had money, he would have either had a good lawyer or would not even have been up there, having made his home somewhere else perhaps.
Hustlers, no. Divorces and heart surgery, medications and subsequent heart attacks, yes. Professors are not all rich.
"Augusta County can be a fairly insular place, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to convince a jury that a renowned organ player from the North was a queer. I'm guessing that the felon involved in the case probably knew exactly what effect such an allegation would have."
Insular is one way of putting it... probably the nicest! *L*
I know a few disreputable people in Waynesboro who, upon being asked if they knew Bob's attacker, responded "Yeah, that's that fag that worked at C-Mart". Many of the seedier people around the place that I asked made similar comments. Their words, not mine. I think that he knew how a charge of homosexual solicitation would taint things. He definitely knew how to work the system. He had help from the prosecutor, who was quite a piece of work.
"I don't buy it. Even in the boondocks of Augusta County juries are not hermetically sealed from the culture at large. Convicting a poor slob of felonious assault just because he plays the organ and might be "queer" seems a bit extreme. In fact I would go the other way. How did a jury in a law-and-order rural county overcome their natural prejudice against testimony from a convicted felon and deliver a guilty verdict against a defendant with no prior criminal record?
More went on in this courtroom than than we're getting in the above report."
Much more went on. The report could not possibly cover it all, but rather could only give basic information. Mainly, Swann was "one of their own", a local, who had expert medical testimony and a very dramatic and theatrical prosecutor who was hand-in-glove with the judge. Bob was a transplant from Philadelphia with a long list of "fancy credentials" which the judge made a point of mocking at the end, had a bungling public defender who subpoenaed incorrect records and got no evidence or witnesses to testify on Bob's behalf about any of the charges. He acted like he was afraid of the judge, in fact. They won't have natural prejudice against a convicted felon that's one of their own. They will have natural prejudice against this high-falutin' college boy homosexual. Ever been to Augusta County in general and Staunton in particular? It's a very different ballgame.
"The more I think about this case the more it becomes clear, to me at least, that this was a sexual liaison gone bad. The accuser ended up with a bullet in his belly. Strippy is unmarked, except according to dubious statements from his "friend" Ann Richardson. Where are the CAT scan results and photos she talks about? Why weren't they presented in court?"
Wrong. It was not a sexual liason gone bad and I don't see how you could make that assumption based on an internet article. A church full of people saw Bob that Sunday when he went to give an organ recital and he was a mess. The defender called no witnesses from there. I personally took him to get the CAT scan and to be checked out. The records were not presented because his defender was incompetent. He got the wrong records just a few days prior to trial and couldn't get a postponement to wait for them. Bob can't present evidence on his own and can't make the judge give him a postponement. As soon as it happened, he called me the next day and told me about many pictures they took. At court they presented only a few, shot very close with a high flash. You could hardly even make out facial features. You will look very different a few days later than you will right after you've been hit. Presence of mind and legal procedure are two different things. Many things that his counsel should have done were simply not done. He was at the mercy of the good ol' boy network who took pleasure in making an example out of him.
Also, keep in mind that larceny and defrauding an innkeeper are only what he was -convicted- of. That can be very different from what was actually done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.