From: charlie
Date: 4/27/01
Time: 12:34:00 PM
Ms. Marple, I have run across this attitude before. Years ago I read a Bobby Kennedy murder book and in it the author said that one thing that he came across with lawyers that he worked with during his investigation was just what you mention here.
He said it went way past scarey this attitude that the court rulings were in fact--truth. If the judge said it--it was the true fact. If the jury acquitted someone--that became truth. If the jury convicted someone, it became truth.
He said he talked even to defense lawyers who strongly believed that their client was innocent who the very SECOND that the verdict came in started referring to their client as guilty. When questioned why, they gave the reason as being the verdict. The verdict was the truth.
Odd how that didn't work in the OJ case, isn't it? Is this why they felt COMPELLED BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT IN THE CIVIL TRIAL?
Sheppard isn't the only one. IN the Cruz case in Illinois, it is the same. They tried this Cruz guy repeatedly---even after DNA showed he wasn't the killer and someone else confessed and the cops were found to have committed perjury. When interviewed, they say the same kind of thing. They believe he is guilty so therefore he is. Or that the verdict (first trials) was guilty so therefore he is.
In the Cruz case, when the DNA came back negative, the DA's got on tv and said they were going to RETRY the guy. And they DID.
Until the public starts standing up against this--we are all screwed. In the Cruz case, the cops and the DA's were tried and acquitted. It was odd that they were charged at all but the jury excused them of their behavior. Excused them according to the jury remarks. Not that they didn't believe the perjury or hidden evidence (the DNA test) by DA's--they just excused them.
charlie