Replies

Yeah, I see. This is what I have been talking to you about the past few days. You read apparently only the things that interest you or you would agree with and totally ignore any other information. Even if the info you like comes from a bozo, and info that would appear to be from someone really knowledgeable about the law and the case you ignore. I say you do the same thing in the DW case. You pick up only on what you agree with and anything that undermines your belief, you ignore. Same with most of the HANGDAVERS (not all) and the JURORS, and most of the US PUBLIC.

Here are samples of those posts where someone expressed an opinion about the JURY in that particular case. You posted the idea that the JURY acquitted because they wanted not to be sequestered over the holiday is totally fabricated and based on one little sentence that someone without much real info on the case spewed out. Yet you see it as gospel, and tried to pass it on to us as TRUTH.

I work with the brother of Ignatow's victum. It is all he can do to muster the strength to follow this scum bag through all the trials. He was realsed from federal prison about a year ago. He had been sentenced for lying to the FBI and is now facing purgory charges on the local level in Kentucky. Once he was found to be not guility of the murder he could not be charged with any other offense directly related to the actual death. The constitution is sure a funny animal in this case. The orginal trial was a real farce. The jury went out for deliberations a few days before Christmas and the judge told them they would be kept sequestered through Christmas if they did not come to a verdict. I could go on and on, but I am slightly prejudiced against this scum ball so won't.

21 posted on 12/28/2002 7:49 PM PST by SLB

Yep, sounds like the prosecution blew the murder case - Nothing like a good-'ole murderer set go because of incompetence....

30 posted on 12/28/2002 8:16 PM PST by TheBattman

If memory serves, he had a female accomplice in that murder who made a deal with the prosecutor in exchange for her testimony. The photos and/or videotape were not enough to connect him to the actual murder; the defense argued that they only proved that a kinky sexual relationship existed with the victim that may have been consentual. You can be sure that she did NOT consent to being murdered. I believe that the prosecutors, as well as the jurors, botched the case.

33 posted on 12/28/2002 10:48 PM PST by flushed with pride

To: SoDak
Couldn't he be tried for another, related crime? Like rape, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or aggravated assault?
No. The prosecutor is required to try all offenses and counts arising from the same set of transactional facts at one time. He is not allowed to prosecute in a piecemeal fashion. Other charges, such as aggravated assault, are treated as subsumed within the greater charged offense of murder. If he's acquitted of murder he is also acquitted of lesser subsumed offenses. He was apparently acquitted straight up in this case.

Now if the feds were creative (e.g., Rodney King) and could figure out a way to charge this as civil rights case, it would be live again. That won't happen. There is nothing here to interest them.

23 posted on 12/28/2002 7:55 PM PST by Kevin Curry

I apologize if I said that too harshly.

There seemed to be a difference of opinion, from the JURY acquitted just to go home, to the Properly acquitted. And these were opinions. Why did you state it as if it were fact that you were relaying?

The poster works with the victim's brother. I did not IGNORE or disregard other posts, but his was the one that stuck in my mind.

Thank you for pointing out my failings.