Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' review: (Dedicated to the proposition of Vampire destruction)
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 06/21/2012 | Mick LaSalle

Posted on 06/21/2012 1:41:20 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: Buckeye McFrog

William Jefferson Clinton...Incubus.


61 posted on 06/21/2012 7:26:34 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I LIKE ART! Click my name. See my web page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

zombie flick? Abe Lincoln vs Zombies? it exists! :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/


62 posted on 06/21/2012 7:32:35 PM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“...We might now again be British colonists, but for Lincoln.”

It could have been sooner! Back in the 1840s the US and Canada almost went to war over the Oregon territories.

Great Britain attempted to get a treaty uniting Britain, Mexico, Canada and the new nation of TEXAS against the US.

Texas was so horrified at the proposal they immediately joined the US as a state, and Mexico ended up taking the brunt of the war as GB and Canada settled with the US over Oregon.

What you learn from thirty years of haunting libraries with real BOOKS!


63 posted on 06/21/2012 7:40:03 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I LIKE ART! Click my name. See my web page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

There’s a French movie from 1919 that includes a scene with the dead of World War I rising and returning home to see if their sacrifice was honored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%27accuse_(1919_film)


64 posted on 06/22/2012 5:53:38 AM PDT by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Too late for poor Mary Suratt.....


65 posted on 07/03/2012 12:14:01 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

More like a Seneca.


66 posted on 07/03/2012 12:18:48 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

Mary was almost certainly quite guilty, though prosecutors might not have been able to get a conviction in a civilian court.


67 posted on 07/04/2012 9:19:14 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

No they would not have. What chance did she even have, when she could not even testify in her own defense?

Yankee justice.
One more reason Lee & Johnson should have fought a guerilla war.


68 posted on 07/06/2012 10:54:15 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

There were dozens of witnesses called by the defense in this case. What leads you to claim she was not allowed to testify in her own defense?


69 posted on 07/06/2012 11:48:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Read the record. There was also a recent movie on the subject. Any court that denies a defendants rights to testify in their own defense is a kangaroo court.


70 posted on 07/07/2012 2:28:42 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Finally found some actual information on the subject.

This is the 167th footnote in the Wiki entry for Mary Suratt.

Neither Mary Surratt nor any of the other defendants testified on their own behalf. Although some sources claim that they were prevented from doing so, this is incorrect. At the time, the federal government and 35 of the 36 states did not permit defendants in felony trials to testify on their own behalf. See the discussion in Boritt and Forness, p. 352-353.

If accurate, this would mean she wasn't allowed to testify, but not because this was a kangaroo court. She would not have been allowed yo so testify in almost any court at the time.

The rule appears to have been a hangover from common law, in which nobody was allowed to testify who had an interest in the outcome. Since most if not all felonies were originally capital crimes, the accused obviously had a pretty strong interest in the outcome.

The qualification of criminal defendants to give sworn evidence if they wished came last. The first statute was apparently that enacted by Maine in 1859 making defendants competent witnesses in prosecutions for a few crimes. Maine Acts 1859, c. 104. This was followed in Maine in 1864 by the enactment of a general competency statute for criminal defendants, the first such statute in the English-speaking world. The reform was largely the work of John Appleton of the Supreme Court of Maine, an American disciple of Bentham. Within 20 years most of the States now comprising the Union had followed Maine's lead. A federal statute to the same effect was adopted in 1878, 20 Stat. 30, 18 U.S.C. 3481. Before the end of the century every State except Georgia had abolished the disqualification. 6

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=365&invol=570

Her trial may indeed have been, probably was, a kangaroo court. But her not being allowed to testify did not prove it so unless every other criminal court in the nation outside Maine also qualified as such.

Nor is her having possibly had an unfair trial any evidence for her innocence.

71 posted on 07/07/2012 4:13:36 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Ok, I concede that part, but on what basis was her supposed guilt? She ran the boarding house. Most accounts that I have read of this trial didn’t deal with hard evidence. Like Dr. Samuel Mudd, who had the unfortunate bad luck to have set John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg.

This whole thing was revenge based.


72 posted on 07/07/2012 11:12:09 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson