This is an example of responsible journalism by the media establishment.
The more features they do on this story, the more millions of eyes and ears that are reached and the more outrage that germinates like Muggs as an example.
Eventually, I think the public pressure will be so great, they'll have to hear and overturn his conviction on his FOURTEENTH!!! appeal. The media can claim a victory in part in that regard.
As a side note, I saw no new content in this show compared to the Dateline features unless you saw something Depeche.
But that doesn't matter now. The facts are facts and the recanted testimony is all that is needed.
I was greatly disappointed the 'hair issue' in this thread was not mentioned unless I missed it. That is huge part of this case these TV specials are leaving in the dustbin.
0
This is an example of responsible journalism by the media establishment.
The more features they do on this story, the more millions of eyes and ears that are reached and the more outrage that germinates like Muggs as an example.
Eventually, I think the public pressure will be so great, they'll have to hear and overturn his conviction on his FOURTEENTH!!! appeal. The media can claim a victory in part in that regard.
As a side note, I saw no new content in this show compared to the Dateline features unless you saw something Depeche.
But that doesn't matter now. The facts are facts and the recanted testimony is all that is needed.
I was greatly disappointed the 'hair issue' in this thread was not mentioned unless I missed it. That is huge part of this case these TV specials are leaving in the dustbin.
scal, you're right there wasn't anything new other than new interviews, which didn't break any ground.
Agreed on the hair in the hand. Really need 2 hours to cover the facts in better depth.
After watching last night, I came to the realization that it's fairly amazing the judge on the case accepts Jerry Trump's recanted testimony, under the penalty of perjury (which I don't believe he's been brought up on charges for) but won't accept Kevin Crane's recant testimony, also under the penalty of perjury and a possible life sentence in addition to his current sentence.
Crane is a dirty untrustworthy criminal who is just flip-flopping when in reality he likely did NOTHING with regard to any crime as only his word has served as sufficient evidence for his guilt, with no physical evidence linking him or Ryan to the murder.
Jerry Trump on the other hand is actually a criminal, having molested a teenager in the past and is a registered sex offender, but because he is not behind bars, his recanted testimony is accepted.
Think about that and who the crooked, ostentatious judge is trusting and failing to trust!!!
It's stunning as are the rest of the facts of this case...
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
scal, you're right there wasn't anything new other than new interviews, which didn't break any ground.
Agreed on the hair in the hand. Really need 2 hours to cover the facts in better depth.
After watching last night, I came to the realization that it's fairly amazing the judge on the case accepts Jerry Trump's recanted testimony, under the penalty of perjury (which I don't believe he's been brought up on charges for) but won't accept Kevin Crane's recant testimony, also under the penalty of perjury and a possible life sentence in addition to his current sentence.
Crane is a dirty untrustworthy criminal who is just flip-flopping when in reality he likely did NOTHING with regard to any crime as only his word has served as sufficient evidence for his guilt, with no physical evidence linking him or Ryan to the murder.
Jerry Trump on the other hand is actually a criminal, having molested a teenager in the past and is a registered sex offender, but because he is not behind bars, his recanted testimony is accepted.
Think about that and who the crooked, ostentatious judge is trusting and failing to trust!!!
It's stunning as are the rest of the facts of this case...
This is "amusing"... Green held that Trump lied and in so doing committed perjury. But then further held that Trump's testimony was not material. This proves only that Green doesn't even know basic law. By definition, perjury requires material testimony. If testimony is not material it cannot be perjury. So his holding was inherently inconsistent and flawed. Is there somewhere to vote for the worst Judge of the year (or decade)? A first year law student knows this.
0
This is "amusing"... Green held that Trump lied and in so doing committed perjury. But then further held that Trump's testimony was not material. This proves only that Green doesn't even know basic law. By definition, perjury requires material testimony. If testimony is not material it cannot be perjury. So his holding was inherently inconsistent and flawed. Is there somewhere to vote for the worst Judge of the year (or decade)? A first year law student knows this.
Is there a higher court that can point this out/penalize him for this?Most likely not or else it would have happened.
I'm only asking because it's begs the rhetorical question of "who watches the watchmen?"
If lawyers are held to the strictest standards in a courtroom in how they frame their questions and statements, how is a judge allowed to get away with not knowing basic law and then having someone's life in prison depend on that basic law that they misinterpret?
0
Is there a higher court that can point this out/penalize him for this?Most likely not or else it would have happened.
I'm only asking because it's begs the rhetorical question of "who watches the watchmen?"
If lawyers are held to the strictest standards in a courtroom in how they frame their questions and statements, how is a judge allowed to get away with not knowing basic law and then having someone's life in prison depend on that basic law that they misinterpret?
Is there a higher court that can point this out/penalize him for this?Most likely not or else it would have happened.
I'm only asking because it's begs the rhetorical question of "who watches the watchmen?"
If lawyers are held to the strictest standards in a courtroom in how they frame their questions and statements, how is a judge allowed to get away with not knowing basic law and then having someone's life in prison depend on that basic law that they misinterpret?
Oh yes. Zellner filed an appeal on Jan. 30. It's 154 pages long and will be heard by the Western District appellate court. The AG is on the clock to reply by March 5. I truly think this appeal is going to win, but it will take probably 8-10 months. Green's decision was littered with errors, both legal and factual.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Is there a higher court that can point this out/penalize him for this?Most likely not or else it would have happened.
I'm only asking because it's begs the rhetorical question of "who watches the watchmen?"
If lawyers are held to the strictest standards in a courtroom in how they frame their questions and statements, how is a judge allowed to get away with not knowing basic law and then having someone's life in prison depend on that basic law that they misinterpret?
Oh yes. Zellner filed an appeal on Jan. 30. It's 154 pages long and will be heard by the Western District appellate court. The AG is on the clock to reply by March 5. I truly think this appeal is going to win, but it will take probably 8-10 months. Green's decision was littered with errors, both legal and factual.
Oh yes. Zellner filed an appeal on Jan. 30. It's 154 pages long and will be heard by the Western District appellate court. The AG is on the clock to reply by March 5. I truly think this appeal is going to win, but it will take probably 8-10 months. Green's decision was littered with errors, both legal and factual.
Really, after all these years and all these failed appeals you think this appeal in 10 months will?
Credit the media establishment/public outrage if so...
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
Oh yes. Zellner filed an appeal on Jan. 30. It's 154 pages long and will be heard by the Western District appellate court. The AG is on the clock to reply by March 5. I truly think this appeal is going to win, but it will take probably 8-10 months. Green's decision was littered with errors, both legal and factual.
Really, after all these years and all these failed appeals you think this appeal in 10 months will?
Credit the media establishment/public outrage if so...
Really, after all these years and all these failed appeals you think this appeal in 10 months will?
Credit the media establishment/public outrage if so...
Yes and not because of the public outrage, though it doesn't hurt. This Habeas Corpus appeal will be heard in front of the Western District Appellate Court. This same court (actually one of the 3 judges will be the same) heard an appeal back in 2010. That appeal was rejected on technical grounds, but after denying the appeal that court then went out of its way to suggest that Ryan file a Habeas Corpus appeal and stated that the case gave them "pause". Keep in mind this was before Trump and Erickson's recantations. The court noted that the entire trial was based on Erickson's testimony and Trump's ID. The court also stated that Erickson's trial testimony had been exhaustively impeached. So yeah, Ryan is finally now going to be in front of the right court with the right type of appeal with the right new facts. I hope I'm not overconfident, but I think he will win.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Really, after all these years and all these failed appeals you think this appeal in 10 months will?
Credit the media establishment/public outrage if so...
Yes and not because of the public outrage, though it doesn't hurt. This Habeas Corpus appeal will be heard in front of the Western District Appellate Court. This same court (actually one of the 3 judges will be the same) heard an appeal back in 2010. That appeal was rejected on technical grounds, but after denying the appeal that court then went out of its way to suggest that Ryan file a Habeas Corpus appeal and stated that the case gave them "pause". Keep in mind this was before Trump and Erickson's recantations. The court noted that the entire trial was based on Erickson's testimony and Trump's ID. The court also stated that Erickson's trial testimony had been exhaustively impeached. So yeah, Ryan is finally now going to be in front of the right court with the right type of appeal with the right new facts. I hope I'm not overconfident, but I think he will win.
Hopefully you, come back to the thread depeche. You were part of the awareness campaign to fuel the outrage against this injustice, even if it is just a message board. Certainly opened my eyes to it. You should be credited for that and for the detailed knowledge you relayed to readers about this case.
0
@amd that we can.
Hopefully you, come back to the thread depeche. You were part of the awareness campaign to fuel the outrage against this injustice, even if it is just a message board. Certainly opened my eyes to it. You should be credited for that and for the detailed knowledge you relayed to readers about this case.
Hopefully you, come back to the thread depeche. You were part of the awareness campaign to fuel the outrage against this injustice, even if it is just a message board. Certainly opened my eyes to it. You should be credited for that and for the detailed knowledge you relayed to readers about this case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
@amd that we can.
Hopefully you, come back to the thread depeche. You were part of the awareness campaign to fuel the outrage against this injustice, even if it is just a message board. Certainly opened my eyes to it. You should be credited for that and for the detailed knowledge you relayed to readers about this case.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
