Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


I'm not to far down the road from Puget Sound, and awe inspiring inlet.
Why is it being titled "Thrashed" these days, thats not the first time I've read that, do you call it that on purpose, or was that a typo or something?

I'd say putting yourself in the position of the wrongly accused, is definitly saying you've made up your mind about the case, and in this case, I'm sure he did some research on the subject.

27/7/2006, 16:02 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 
Milan Fahrnholz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 17842
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


quote:

Gillans micstand wrote:
Why is it being titled "Thrashed" these days, thats not the first time I've read that, do you call it that on purpose, or was that a typo or something?



That was the Neil Young Fan in me that is to blame for this typo.emoticon
27/7/2006, 16:07 Link to this post  
 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


 emoticon
Speaking of Neil, I don't think I shared this one here...

|offset=10]Underground piece
27/7/2006, 16:16 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


quote:

Gillans micstand wrote:


... is he innocent, or as they so conveniently put "not guilty" which is their way of saying that NOBODY WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, IS EVER "INNOCENT" ACCORDING TO THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ADMIT THEIR OWN INACURACIES, THEREFORE THEY CAN'T EVEN ENTERTAIN THE THOUGHT OF DESCRIBING THE INNOCENT CORRECTLY)






 Innocent: Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing

 Being as that's the primary definition of 'innocent' & every trial is an individual instance of determining guilt or non-guilt of the charge(s), innocence is not for the justice system to determine, it's why under our system of jurisprudence there's really only 3 verdicts: guilty, not guilty or mistrial - the latter of which may be the verdict rendered for any number of reasons, a 'hung' (undecided) jury being one of the more primary ones.
 To receive a verdict of 'innocence' in an American court of law, one must petition the court for a special ruling, as it's not the justice system's job or responsibility to label anyone completely, totally, 100% 'Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing' - just that the prosecution didn't present enough compelling evidence to get a guilty verdict in the particular case(s) the person was tried for. So I don't agree that it's a case of the system not being able to admit it's own inaccuracies or not being willing to be able to entertain the thought of innocence -merely a case of trying to remain as objective as possible, as subjectivity when it comes to rendering justice as fairly as possible would leave us dangerously close to 'lynch law'.
 Anyway, it's one helluva lot better system than, oh let us say, the Napoleanic Code, in which one is automatically guilty until proven not guilty, the exact opposite of the way it's done here in America (and dozens - if not hundreds - of other countries), which is 'not guilty until proven guilty', thus putting the majority of the onus of determination on the prosecution, not the accused.
 As for 'circumstantial evidence'...well, here's a couple/few: John Wayne Gacey & Jeffrey Dahmer. Let is say that neither ever confessed to what they did (I'm not positive if either did eventually confess or not) - is not the 'circumstantial evidence' of dozens of dead bodies & body parts that were found on, in, under & around thier residences enough 'circumstantial evidence' to convict? Or should they have been allowed to go free maybe because no one ever actually witnessed them kill anybody? Here's another: the fella in Connecticut about 15 - 20 years ago who murdered his wife and fed the corpse into a [sign in to see URL] no dead body was ever actually found - thus no 'corpus delecti' (Latin for 'show us the body') - should he have not been tried at all? Is the fact that blood matching his wife's blood type and minute bone fragments that were matched via DNA testing (one of the first uses of DNA testing to be entered into testimonial/ evidentiary proceedings in the U.S.) that were found in the woodchipper & the fact that he himself had rented the woodchipper shortly before his wife disappeared enough to warrant a charge of murder against the man?
 Not really trying to be contrary here, just seeking where the line is in people's minds/consciences is all...

---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
27/7/2006, 20:18 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


Wrongly accused of serious crimes, detirmines innocense, but termed "not guilty, as charged" or so a prominant family attorney once told me.
I understand the law, or how it operates in cases like this, as it's an interest of mine, brought on by the expert himself.
I suppose it's a matter of pride in the law, and there is an ignorance that can't be argued with, when it comes to race, and the how the law is enforced, particularly in the south.

I also happen to agree with him, it isn't pretty, it's just the reality of the system, and not always a corruption, just a natural flaw.
IF you're a victim of corruption, well, it's likely you're innocent all the more, and thats where my concern applies here, and my conclusion isn't drawn, just focused in that area.

It's not just the law here... it's a large community, with too much power and resources to abuse, that pursicutes Williams.
27/7/2006, 21:02 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin
Global user

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


 I don't see it as so much a 'flaw', 'corruption' or 'ignorance' as I see it as a cynicism - speaking of the law in general, not specifically how it's enforced & adjucated in America's south or any particular part of the country.
 By cynicism I mean that any defense attorney worthy of the name will tell you - if they're going to be honest about it - is that thier main/greatest concern isn't whether thier client is guilty or [sign in to see URL] whether the attorney can get a not guilty verdict or not.
 American law is definitely a tricky, winding path through some very dark & dangerous [sign in to see URL]'s take the atorney/client privilege, for example. Once a defendant has retained or been assigned an attorney by the court(s). and let us say said defendant confesses/convinces thier attorney of thier guilt, the attorney is forbidden to share that knowledge with anyone, [sign in to see URL], being an officer of the court(s), once the attorney enters and/or advocates a plea of not guilty while being aware that the plea is totally untrue, said attorney is now guilty of perpertrating or assisting in perpertrating a fraud upon the court - a felony offense. That's just one example of why any number of defense attorneys not only do not wish to know whether thier client is in fact guilty of the charge(s) but will tell the client not to let the attorney know so that the attorney can work under the assumption that the law provides, namely 'not guilty until proven guilty'...so we're back to the burden of proof being on the prosecution - one can be guilty as hell of the charge(s), but that becomes irrelevant if the burden of proof isn't met [sign in to see URL] the opposite of being convicted by cicumstantial evidence - being acqitted by a lack of circumstantial evidence.


ps - as far as being the 'wrong man' and perhaps would've been a better subject/example for the song - Albert DiSalvo ("The Boston Strangler").

Last edited by MrEd45, 27/7/2006, 21:30


---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
27/7/2006, 21:26 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


Hhmm, I think you're aware of my point entirely, and have your own outlook enough to see what I mean, as it's all hair splitting, headaching, and detail oriented avenues to travel, but I'm alot more concerned with how the law is enforced, than how it's appealed, because it's how a good or bad judgement is created to arrive upon in the first place, besides the crime that was committed.
To get to the problem of pursicusion after the fact, conclusions can be massively leaped to.
I'm leaning close to his "innocense" of the murders he wasn't charged for, but convicted of by the media... in that case, if he is "not guilty" then he is in fact "innocent" imo. emoticon

There are many sides to this case, too many... and you can't be guilty as charged, until you're charged, tried and convicted... and saying that he's already serving a life sentance, is any kind of reasoning for branding someone guilty of crimes they were never charged of, because of that, is "ignorant" as well, imo, therfore I also lean toward the community believing in such nonsense, to be one "ignorant" bunch...

The way the law is enforced, concerns me more than the law, as I find it more interesting, and attorneys only help the drama.
The law is constructed with many contradictions, thats nothing new, but that also doesn't concern me as much as how it is manipulated by cops and criminals, attorneys and judges alike.

I know the idea is for the system to "act" or be impartial in it's ways, so the 'objective' factor is duely noted, but times change, and if anything changes with it, then everything should have the same opportunity, or choice to do so as well, if you will... imo... if you will.
But under the law, change sure does seem scrutinizing, and selective, especially from county to county, city to city, and state to state.(a paranoia of some kind, by the makers? I suspect so... "there's a law for the ritch, and one for the ....")
(the dehumanized)

Gillan just seems to be putting himself in the mind of one who believes the stystem made a big mistake, when they arrested him, and an even bigger one, when they put him away.


(I believe Joe Walsh said it funny best... "never trust a man with a tie, these are the type of people who tell us what we can and can't do...")
27/7/2006, 23:02 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 
telboy1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan
Global user

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 180
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


It is just a good old thumping modern DP track and it could be about a fast car, smoke descending over a lake or a brazen woman from the orient but whatever it is about it stokes the fires within IG and that can only be good.
27/7/2006, 23:22 Link to this post Send Email to telboy1   Send PM to telboy1
 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


I probably wouldn't care what the song was about, but he mentions the name Wayne Williams, just about every night when they play it, so it seems to me, the track is in fact, a before thought apparently, and I don't think they fitted Williams to it afterward, which is one possible way of writing songs, but doesn't seem honest. emoticon
31/7/2006, 4:04 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 
Gillans micstand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user
Global user

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 12425
Reply | Quote
Re: Wrong Man?


quote:

Bud Abbott wrote:

I thought Michael Lee Jackson (guitarist on Gillan's Inn and also a real life attorney) was the one who led Ian to this song?



You thought right, here is a link to a web page, detailing a bit of one of MLJ's professions, and it mentions the case, and that he is post conviction counsel to him.

]Steiner and Finnerty
14/8/2006, 1:27 Link to this post Send Email to Gillans micstand
 


Reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)