Post by Agent99 aka Sandia on May 14, 2019 5:16:06 GMT
Something I heard the other day on the "Unmasking A Killer" podcast with Joke and Bilagio when they interviewed a San Francisco Public Defender has backed up my own opinion. I am strongly against the super-trial and I've decided to try to do something about it. I'll explain why below. But first I would like to get suggestions about how to go about getting a petition started to protest the super-trial. Can it be done on this board? If so, how? Since we are not trying to get anything on the ballot, I think it could be informal. I think we might not need signatures? maybe just names? I would appreciate any ideas people have.
Here is why I'm against it:
1) I am afraid DeAngelo is not even going to make it to trial. We are going to end up not having a trial at all. No evidence presented, no witnesses testimony, maybe we will not learn of so many things we want to know if there is no trial. He will die technically an innocent man. Will that make the information private and not released to the public? Will we never get answers to so many things we want to know?
2) Relatives of victims, retired people that have worked on the case for so many years might not live to see the trial, there are a lot of people getting up in years (including the defendant.)
3) It can raise legal issues. Defendants, according to the Public Defender, have a right to have jurors on their trial from the county the crime was committed in. How is that going to be accomplished? Jurors brought from Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange County to Sacramento? You can't make people do that!
4) According to the San Francisco Public Defender this super-trial is going to cost "a lot" of money. The length of the trial itself and then so many other expenses --the cost of bringing all the lawyers, assistants and who knows who else to Sacramento and housing them and feeding them, (+ air fare?) and for how long. And they aren't going to eat at McDonald's and stay at Motel 6.
5) It is going to take "a lot!" longer. The coordination to do this is going to be time consuming, expensive, and complicated.
6) Murphy's Law "All that can go wrong, will go wrong". I'm afraid if there is any problem....The defense says they can't find an unprejudiced jury, cross contamination of the DNA, jury misconduct, I don't know there can be many things that can go wrong. Just think of how many people we all know were guilty that were not convicted. If by some horrible happenstance he is not found guilty, at least all the eggs have not been put in one basket and there are still other trials to be had.
I think putting all the eggs in one basket is a very bad idea. Have one trial, faster, cheaper, get it done. Then go ahead and have the other trials either separately or together.
Is there anyone who agrees and can offer suggestions?
They are not going to listen to me but if we get a petition started and get a discussion started and get some people interviewed on the various news outlets maybe we can make an outcry to get them to change their plans.
Here is why I'm against it:
1) I am afraid DeAngelo is not even going to make it to trial. We are going to end up not having a trial at all. No evidence presented, no witnesses testimony, maybe we will not learn of so many things we want to know if there is no trial. He will die technically an innocent man. Will that make the information private and not released to the public? Will we never get answers to so many things we want to know?
2) Relatives of victims, retired people that have worked on the case for so many years might not live to see the trial, there are a lot of people getting up in years (including the defendant.)
3) It can raise legal issues. Defendants, according to the Public Defender, have a right to have jurors on their trial from the county the crime was committed in. How is that going to be accomplished? Jurors brought from Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange County to Sacramento? You can't make people do that!
4) According to the San Francisco Public Defender this super-trial is going to cost "a lot" of money. The length of the trial itself and then so many other expenses --the cost of bringing all the lawyers, assistants and who knows who else to Sacramento and housing them and feeding them, (+ air fare?) and for how long. And they aren't going to eat at McDonald's and stay at Motel 6.
5) It is going to take "a lot!" longer. The coordination to do this is going to be time consuming, expensive, and complicated.
6) Murphy's Law "All that can go wrong, will go wrong". I'm afraid if there is any problem....The defense says they can't find an unprejudiced jury, cross contamination of the DNA, jury misconduct, I don't know there can be many things that can go wrong. Just think of how many people we all know were guilty that were not convicted. If by some horrible happenstance he is not found guilty, at least all the eggs have not been put in one basket and there are still other trials to be had.
I think putting all the eggs in one basket is a very bad idea. Have one trial, faster, cheaper, get it done. Then go ahead and have the other trials either separately or together.
Is there anyone who agrees and can offer suggestions?
They are not going to listen to me but if we get a petition started and get a discussion started and get some people interviewed on the various news outlets maybe we can make an outcry to get them to change their plans.