Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt

I dont think I need to read it.  I think my position is clear. The brief may be the biggest crock of poo since Dumbo had a dump.  Or it may all be true.  It changes nothing for me.  I doubt it will change anyone else's opinion either. 

It changes nothing for me. I doubt it will change anyone else's opinion either.

far be it from me to try to confuse anyone with facts.

November 6,2005

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

My name is Lora Owens. I am the stepmother of Albert Lewis Owens. My husband, Albert's father, has died so I also speak for him since we discussed this letter frequently over the years. I am writing you concerning clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams who murdered Albert in 1979 by shooting him twice in the back. Within seconds, though Albert pleaded for his life, Williams chose to become the judge, jury and executioner of Albert, then laughed as he lay dying. In 1981, Williams was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the murders he committed in cold blood. Now the many, many years of appeals have also been denied and the facts remain steadfast and the verdict remains firm.

They have forgotten that we are the victims not the criminal.

Loca here - This is just an excerpt, if you want to read the whole letter go to this link.

Link

Mr. Williams is not the victim. The three people he murdered are the victims. Don't forget about them.

The Brief is not The Trial.

The Trial was the opportunity for the Prosecution and the Defense to each make the best case they could, before a Jury of twelve free citizens.

Those citizens, informed with the best arguments the Prosecution and Defense attorneys could make, under the supervision of the Judge, reached the most reasonable conclusion they could. And, as our laws require, they unanimously agreed that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I'd be an idiot to think that this document, precision-engineered by the defendant and his legal team after the fact to cast doubt on the process, is by itself a valid reason to second-guess the results of the Trial by Jury that has decided Stanley Williams' fate.

It's a cinch that if Williams' case were to go back to trial, the Prosecution would have a document just as long, and more besides, detailing the flaws in the Defense's arguments and buttressing the validty and accuracy of their own case.

Am I, personally, sure that Williams is guilty? No. But I don't need to be sure of that, to be sure that Trial by Jury is a good justice system for a free people, and that our Juries' decisions should be binding on plaintiff and defendant alike.

Indeed, our system is biased in favor of the guilty. If Williams is the mote in my eye, then the hundreds of thousands of likely-guilty vicious criminals who walk free today because of the "irregularities" in their trials is the beam in yours.

Pesonally, in my heart of hearts, I don't see how you could be the founder of one of the largest and most powerful violent street gangs in the world, and not be involved in enough murder and mayhem to deserve the death penalty several times over. Regardless of the details of the case(s) that actually went to trial, I'm convinced Williams is right where he should be, or six feet from it.

far be it from me to try to confuse anyone with facts.

Did not say you could or could not.  You admit that he is guilty.  And he is as dirty as sin.  Those who beleive in the death penalty, will want the needle.  Those who dont, wont.  His brief is not going to change anyone's mind.  Besides, it all has already been argued in courts already and rejected.  The biggest fact is there is nothing new here.

You admit that he is guilty

i admitted nothing of the sort. i was describing the opinions which claimed to be factual (i set off 'fact' the way i did to indicate i questioned the fact of factness).

Mr. Williams is not the victim. The three people he murdered are the victims. Don't forget about them.

the author of that letter is right to be upset about the murder of her son. the los angeles sheriff (and the individual deputies) and the district attorney of and for the county of los angeles failed are responsible permitting her son's killer(s) to escape justice. they did a lousy job in this case (just another example of the many reasons lasd is still under the supervision of a civilian monitor).

No. But I don't need to be sure of that, to be sure that Trial by Jury is a good justice system for a free people, and that our Juries' decisions should be binding on plaintiff and defendant alike. Indeed, our system is biased in favor of the guilty

juries cannot come to a just decision when officers of the court engage in illegal and unethical acts. our system is biased in favor of the wealthy only.

I don't see how you could be the founder of one of the largest and most powerful violent street gangs in the world

i wonder if, at age 17, he'd put his energies into space exploration if we'd have bases on mars now?

I'm convinced Williams is right where he should be, or six feet from it.

That is so good.

That is so good.

did you bother to read the brief?

I wonder, if you consider the wholesale damage done by Osama bin Laden in the US, and what has been wreaked upon us by the organization "tookie" founded... i wonder who is the bigger terrorist?

The reason I ask is to my knowledge Osama hasn't killed anyone firsthand, at least that he is in trouble for. Yet, oddly, because an organization he founded caused great pain and anguish for thousands of people, most, even those against the death penalty, could stomach seeing him roasted alive.

So, given the effects of gang violence in the US, and given the fact that the organization this man is responsible for creating has gone on to do far more damage in the US than Osama ever did... it seems odd to me that he even NEEDS to be responsible for this particular crime. Shouldn't most people want to see him roasted, too?

If Osama wrote a couple of books and tried to get people to stop being terrorists, I wonder if we'd give him a pass on the pain and anguish? I'm thinking... no.

i wonder who is the bigger terrorist?

your point would be much more valid if the crips was a unified single organization. there's no franchising. you could start the ju crips totally on your own initiative.

if you're suggesting we start indiscriminately liquidating those who found organizations that spin outta control and violate the law, i'm all for it. let's start with the head of the bush posse.

Oddly enough the DEA and other law enforcement deals with them as a well organized, national drug syndicate that has branched out to most states with links to cartels in South America. I think you are granting them less relavance than they have worked hard to deserve.

I think you are granting them less relavance than they have worked hard to des

the dea, like the fbi, knows how to play skeeery stuff in order to keep them funds rollin in and their jobs vital to our survival.

the crips make what's left of la cosa nostra look like mcdonalds.

if you're at all interested, here's a link to a history of black gangs in los angeles. Link

"As the gang epidemic was unfolding in Los Angeles, other urban and suburban areas in the United States began to see the formation of street gangs. During the 1980s, a number of cities reported street gang activity, with many reporting the presence of active Los Angeles-based Blood and Crip gangs. In 1988 police departments from all over the country, from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Kansas City, Missouri, to Seattle, Washington, were reporting that California gang members were extending their operations (Skolnick et al. 1993). Some of this was due to migration of gang members from Los Angeles, and some gang formation was the result of indigenous youths emulating Los Angeles gang culture, which was partly facilitated through the media and films."

So, some were just emulating, but your history also cites specifically that there was an expansion of LA gang operations into many other states.

So, kingbee, you're alleging that the officers of the court committed illegal acts? Based not on the outcome of a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but rather based only on a biased document crafted by the one person who has the most to gain by smearing the officers of the court?

The one person who was unable to win his freedom on the merits of his case, and who is now compelled to either suck it up or call the system itself into question?

I'm not saying it didn't go down the way you allege it goes down. But I am saying that you're giving the officers of the court in Williams' case less benefit of the doubt than you give Williams himself.

In two and a half decades, how many appeals has this man had?

How likely is it that this new brief is nothing more than a cynical ploy to mislead a rookie governor with little or no legal background and a kind heart?

your history also cites specifically that there was an expansion of LA gang operations into many other states.

from what i understand, even that was unfranchised (unlike la cosa nostra which assigns or awards territories)...much more along the lines of independent operators working with contacts in a new area.

in other words, entrepreneurs.

as evidence, i'd offer:

a. the existence of white crips n bloods in places like arkansas and iowa (if you haven't seen the movie 'white boys' yet, you've missed a hoot)

b. the relative impotence of the silly color gangs in the us prison system vs the real power organization (black guerilla family.

in any event, while it's nice to have a scapegoat, you do realize youre attributing incredible organizational and administrative abilities to a couple 17 year old ghetto kids?

. But I am saying that you're giving the officers of the court in Williams' case less benefit of the doubt than you give Williams himself.

i see two possibilities: the los angeles sheriff's deputies who handled the investigation were so incredibly inept as to permit the garrett's to buy their way outta a couple of decades of major violent felonies in return for dubious testimony OR they intentionally crafted the case against williams so as to deny him any chance of a fair trial.

just that aspect--ignoring for the moment the other problematic witnesses (all of whom were essentially given a license to rob, steal and murder in return for their testimony), the hardly substantial physical evidence (the only physical evidence presented by the prosecution which links williams to either crimes) and the prosecutor's history--seems to suggest perhaps williams was denied his right to a fair trial.

How likely is it that this new brief is nothing more than a cynical ploy to mislead a rookie governor with little or no legal background and a kind heart?

first of all, the motion was presented for review by judges (it was denied yesterday 4 to 2). secondly, i'm not convinced schwartzenegger has a kind heart.

Well, it looks more to me like people migrating to other areas, and then using their contacts back in their home city to spread their activities to the new city. In that case, the new franchises rely upon the existance of the original.

In order for terrorist cells to function, they don't need Osama to be near a phone. For that matter we're told that most cells are sent out into the world most often just to create new networks to utilize and recruit.

In that light, wouldn't Mr. Tookie be responsible for creating the original organization that spawned them all? I'm not saying he had his finger in any pies, but his cause was their effect, right? WOuld we hate Osama as much if he had formed al qaeda and then stepped out, and the rest formed on his own? Well, we probably wouldn't have heard his name in relation to the crimes, as with Tookie. On the other hand his actions are still responsible for the environment.

WOuld we hate Osama as much if he had formed al qaeda and then stepped out, and the rest formed on his own?

almost everyone who's been involved in the major al quaeda attacks as well as those detainees about whom anything is known have some connection to bin laden or have spent time being trained by his organization.

compare the crips to jeff fort's blackstone nation in illinois or butler's aryan nations or...try starting your own unsanctioned local hells angels' chapter.

did you read the pleading btw?

I just read the first 35 pages or so, and found it oh so predictable

i appreciate you taking time to wade thru at least that portion of the pleading.

predictable?

perhaps in the sense that one might predict a high-profile defendant's attorney would hone in on the only physical evidence linking him to the crime. especially when the conclusion offered by state's expert seems l open to question if not completely a load of crap.

according to the la times, however those predictions may be without substance Link:

"Williams has had several lawyers over the years. Wefald began working on the case earlier this year.

She is the first of his numerous attorneys to raise questions about the ballistics evidence in his case. She has retained David L. Lamagna, a Massachusetts scientist who is president of American Forensic Technologies, who said the ballistics testimony offered by a sheriff's deputy at Williams' trial was "junk science at best."

That was a reference to Sheriff's Sgt. James Warner's conclusion that a shotgun shell recovered at the scene of one of the slayings could only have come from a shotgun that Williams owned. After initial testing, Warner said he could not determine if the shell came from that shotgun because there were "not enough" characteristics for a "positive comparison," but after retesting he changed his mind. Lamagna said Warner lacked adequate foundation for his conclusions."

ALL of this information has been put before MANY courts over the past 20+ years since his conviction, none of which found any of this information compelling enough to grant a new trial.

the basis for rejecting the motion in question seems to turn on the state's contention it should have been filed in a more timely fashion.

i'm generally of the opinion it's a good thing i avoided both law school and divinity college because either might well have exposed me to situations in which i would have been tempted beyond my ability to resist and wound up in serious moral and legal jeopardy.

it's a shame judges willing to do their pilate thing on technical grounds weren't equally as fortunate.

The Brief is not The Trial

true.

the trial is, at best, an empty predetermined ritual when the prosecution violates the law and ethical standards by keeping exculpatory evidence from the defense.

(just as an aside, if you're still following the jose padilla case, were you surprised to see when he was finally indicted (after 3 years) there was no mention of a 'dirty bomb'? )

I read it, but it's like seeing half the trial. If everything in it is true, then sure, he deserves another trial. If found guilty again, he should go back to death row. If everything the defense ever asserted was true, though, the only ones ever found guilty would be the ones that confessed.

I wonder how the whole "torture" thing would go over in a system like that. I'm not saying that we need a system like the Japanese where we have so much confidence in the system that 99% of the people accused are convicted. Without a reasonable amount of confidence in the system, though, police will just get more and more abusive in order to make their cases stick.

Without a reasonable amount of confidence in the system, though, police will just get more and more abusive in order to make their cases stick

seems to me it's the other way around. abuse of the public trust usually thrives when citizens are too willing to believe what they're told.

It's moot now, but...

Okay, I read every blasted word of it, even the footnotes.

There's a lot of it I'd dismiss out of hand as unfounded speculation. I could come up with my own logical arguments to refute even more. I think way too much of it focuses on crimes by others way after the fact that no court has any business paying attention to. So, let's say I'd discount -- pulling a number out of my back pocket -- more than 50% of it.

That leaves nearly 50% of it I think deserves consideration, nearly 50% of it that perhaps should give pause, or, as you termed it, "reasonable doubt."

Once again I've been stung by the king of bees. Ya got me again. I've changed my mind. So there.

Probably every case of wrongful conviction I've ever personally looked at (which I admit is too few) has been because of investigative or prosecutorial misconduct. There may be good reason to believe such shenanigans took place in this case. That would give me pause and want to take a closer look to make sure everything was on the up and up.

I'm uncomfortable with the allegations of drugging. That would seem to me, if true, to have negatively impacted the defense.

There may also be good reason to believe the "witness" actually committed the three murders at the hotel.

Despite much emphasis on the hotel murders, little is said beyond witness discrediting about the 7-11 murder. (I realize that's because of a lack of physical evidence and this is a motion seeking to have evidence turned over.) That's a weakness.

It is more than a little convenient that what looks like the most likely perpetrator of the hotel murders is now dead. If only this had come about in the last quarter century.

I wonder why, given the amount of support Tookie has had (people investing in a movie is no small amount), a "competent" attorney couldn't have been found sooner. We occasionally hear of law students taking up the cause of a wrongfully committed man and moving mountains. Couldn't some of those professors who were busy nominating Tookie for Nobel Peace Prizes have come up with some of these seemingly obvious arguments years ago?

Do you wonder why the 9th Circuit, the most liberal and possibly most activist court in the country, found no cause to overturn this or grant a new trial? Surely they -- if anyone -- would jump at any little chance to do so.

Nonetheless, this tilted my opinions just far enough that I'm now in reasonable doubt territory. I'm very uncomfortable with the conviction in the hotel killings, and wish I could see a brief opposing the arguments put forth in this motion. I also doubt that if this trial had been held today instead of when it was that Tookie could get the death penalty. I'd not be willing to grant clemency, but I'd be willing to stay the execution long enough for it to be thoroughly looked into. It's been 25 years; would another year or two really hurt?