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?

Just a side note.  Your title is incorrect.  It is not "Beyond any", it is "Beyond a".