Updyke Trial

The Six · « **Reply #40 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:29:41 AM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 11:00:34 AM

Judge also plans to hear motion for change of venue; Also says he thinks the entire state knows about the case, which could be problematic.

Dangit. Knew it. Friggin Bammer get away with everything. Next you are going to tell me the teabagger has been cleared.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #41 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:37:00 AM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on June 21, 2012, 11:29:41 AM

Dangit. Knew it. Friggin Bammer get away with everything. Next you are going to tell me the teabagger has been cleared.

If Lord Saybinz wills it so.

GH2001 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:38:36 AM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 11:00:34 AM

JR4AU belligerently wrong again:

Uh oh....trouble.

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #43 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:40:08 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on June 21, 2012, 11:38:36 AM

Uh oh....trouble.

AUChizad · « **Reply #44 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:42:10 AM »

I know this will drive the lawyers crazy at my ignorance, but this is a problem with our legal system.

So because this fucking idiot has confessed three times now on public record (once on the Finebaum show, once to Track'Em Tigers, or whoever that was that pranked him, and once to the Plainsman), that means he can't get a fair trial? First of all, his stupid ass did this to himself. Secondly, an admission of guilt should absolutely be considered in a criminal trial. I don't give a fuck what the books say. I understand that there are situations where dumbshits will confess to crimes they didn't commit when under extreme duress, and cannot be the be-all-end-all, but it should be considered. And this is not one of those situations, anyway. The dumbshit bragged about it on a national radio show, and then told the fucking newspaper. Because he did this we're talking mistrial? That's justice? I can maybe understand saying the "prank" should be stricken from the record, but still, I feel like whether the fucker knew he was being recorded or not, a confession's a confession, and it not only should affect the trial, but sure as shit shouldn't taint it to the point that it has to be moved or God-forbid voided due to a mistrial...

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #45 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:43:22 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOUqurUgFk#t=70m00s

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #46 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:46:08 AM »

Quote

I understand that there are situations where dumbshits will confess to crimes they didn't commit when under extreme duress, and cannot be the be-all-end-all

Then you understand why it can't be considered.

One of the many reasons why you're able to sit there in your comfy chair and type on the internet is that you haven't been slapped with an unfair trial that's using unfair methods to unfairly throw you in prison. It sucks that Updyke is such a fuck-up and is causing issues for the justice department, but I still say it's amazing that we have a justice system that makes damn sure a white male gets a fair trial.

The Six · « **Reply #47 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:50:19 AM »

I'm ready for this to be over and gone. Pointless now.

GH2001 · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:51:56 AM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 11:42:10 AM

I know this will drive the lawyers crazy at my ignorance, but this is a problem with our legal system.

So because this fucking idiot has confessed three times now on public record (once on the Finebaum show, once to Track'Em Tigers, or whoever that was that pranked him, and once to the Plainsman), that means he can't get a fair trial? First of all, his stupid ass did this to himself. Secondly, an admission of guilt should absolutely be considered in a criminal trial. I don't give a fuck what the books say. I understand that there are situations where dumbshits will confess to crimes they didn't commit when under extreme duress, and cannot be the be-all-end-all, but it should be considered. And this is not one of those situations, anyway. The dumbshit bragged about it on a national radio show, and then told the fucking newspaper. Because he did this we're talking mistrial? That's justice? I can maybe understand saying the "prank" should be stricken from the record, but still, I feel like whether the fucker knew he was being recorded or not, a confession's a confession, and it not only should affect the trial, but sure as shit shouldn't taint it to the point that it has to be moved or God-forbid voided due to a mistrial...

If the jurors swear that they can be objective, that seals the deal for me. That's a fair trial. Its only not fair if there is a bias somewhere. Until I see one, I don't see an unfair trial.

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:53:05 AM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on June 21, 2012, 11:50:19 AM

I'm ready for this to be over and gone. Pointless now.

It's not pointless. I think this actually has large implications for this entire state. We are plagued with a football rivalry that won't quit - it won't let up. If Updyke doesn't get a harsh punishment, how many more senseless acts will we see carried out by both sides?

"They're just tress. It's just an eagle. It's just a lawn in front of a red building."

The Six · « **Reply #50 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:55:46 AM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on June 21, 2012, 11:53:05 AM

It's not pointless. I think this actually has large implications for this entire state. We are plagued with a football rivalry that won't quit - it won't let up. If Updyke doesn't get a harsh punishment, how many more senseless acts will we see carried out by both sides?

"They're just tress. It's just an eagle. It's just a lawn in front of a red building."

All the more reason to move Auburn to the East, Mizzou to the West, and keep LSU and MSU as perm. West games. Screw the West Vance Pachyderms. Georgia is our rival and I'd enjoy Florida and Tennessee year in and year out. Plus whipping Spurriers cocks is an Auburn tradition.

War Eagle!!! · « **Reply #51 on:** June 21, 2012, 11:59:00 AM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on June 21, 2012, 11:46:08 AM

but I still say it's amazing that we have a justice system that makes damn sure a white male gets a fair trial.

+1

AUChizad · « **Reply #52 on:** June 21, 2012, 12:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on June 21, 2012, 11:46:08 AM

Then you understand why it can't be considered.

One of the many reasons why you're able to sit there in your comfy chair and type on the internet is that you haven't been slapped with an unfair trial that's using unfair methods to unfairly throw you in prison. It sucks that Updyke is such a fuck-up and is causing issues for the justice department, but I still say it's amazing that we have a justice system that makes damn sure a white male gets a fair trial.

As I said in the rest of my post though, this is not one of those situations.

There was absolutely no coercion involved in the first and most recent confessions. Of the three, though, it's especially insane to me that the confession to the Plainsman is considered to be tainting the trial. The reporter didn't even ask him. He just offered that information out of the blue like the idiot that he is.

If the dude can't talk for 5 minutes without admitting he did it, then he probably fucking did it.

When he called a radio show to brag about poisoning the Toomer's Oaks before anyone knew they were poisoned, then he probably did it.

Common sense is removed from the court systems, and it ends up being counterproductive.

AWK · « **Reply #53 on:** June 21, 2012, 12:13:05 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 12:10:54 PM

As I said in the rest of my post though, this is not one of those situations.

There was absolutely no coercion involved in the first and most recent confessions. Of the three, though, it's especially insane to me that the confession to the Plainsman is considered to be tainting the trial. The reporter didn't even ask him. He just offered that information out of the blue like the idiot that he is.

If the dude can't talk for 5 minutes without admitting he did it, then he probably fucking did it.

When he called a radio show to brag about poisoning the Toomer's Oaks before anyone knew they were poisoned, then he probably did it.

Common sense is removed from the court systems, and it ends up being counterproductive.

Would you be even more angry if they had to have a second trail after a verdict was reached in the first one? Or if he is set free due to some issue with the Jury? That is what the judge is trying to avoid. Makes sense to me.

AUChizad · « **Reply #54 on:** June 21, 2012, 12:18:05 PM »

Question: How do we know Harvey's lawyer didn't tell him to confess to the newspaper knowing this would happen? Hoping for a mistrial, or at least a change of venue?

It's not hard to see that this type of shit could easily be exploited.

The Six · « **Reply #55 on:** June 21, 2012, 12:32:16 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 12:18:05 PM

Question: How do we know Harvey's lawyer didn't tell him to confess to the newspaper knowing this would happen? Hoping for a mistrial, or at least a change of venue?

It's not hard to see that this type of shoot could easily be exploited.

That's an interesting point but it's a little too

for me to swallow. That's an awful risk to take.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #56 on:** June 21, 2012, 12:53:36 PM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on June 21, 2012, 12:32:16 PM

That's an interesting point but it's a little too for me to swallow. That's an awful risk to take.

Don't forget ol' Harvey is an ex-cop, and as hard as it may be to believe, he may have some knowledge of how the court system works.

GH2001 · « **Reply #57 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:43:02 PM »

Quote from: bottomfeeder on June 21, 2012, 12:53:36 PM

Don't forget ol' Harvey is an ex-cop, and as hard as it may be to believe, he may have some knowledge of how the court system works.

It's like I was laughing aloud at the thought you would be the next to reply after the black helicopter was posted, but then you went and did it.

JR4AU · « **Reply #58 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:49:53 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 11:00:34 AM

JR4AU belligerently wrong again:

Are you saying those are my quotes?

GH2001 · « **Reply #59 on:** June 21, 2012, 02:56:00 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 21, 2012, 02:49:53 PM

Are you saying those are my quotes?

Chad, your response??