I have a question for U.
There was/is a case in Louisville where a man brutally tortured and murdered his girlfriend. He was aquitted by a jury who thought it easier to aquit than to deliberate over the Christmas holidays.
After his aquittal, there were photographs - actual real, true photographs of him committing this atrocious murder.
He cannot be tried again, because of the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Do you think that it is okay that he is getting away with murder?
869 posted on 01/15/2003 4:13 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies | Report Abuse
Did the jury not get to see the pics during the trial and why not?...was the case not strong and due to the jury instructions, they had to acquit?
Which jurors actually said that Christmas was the reason?
884 posted on 01/15/2003 5:45 PM EST by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The photos weren't found until quite a while after the verdict.
There was a thread a few weeks ago about the case. I'm trying to remember the guy's name - I'll pull the thread up if I can find it.
886 posted on 01/15/2003 5:50 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies | Report Abuse
I know about the case red is referring to. I never knew the part about the jury wanting to go Christmas shopping. There were pics found after the fact(trial) and if I'm remembering correctly, he was tried again on Federal(?) charges and is in prison. If I'm wrong I'm sure it will be pointed out immediately. The POINT is that the jury decided on this one and he was found not guilty. The LE didn't screw up by violating his constitutional rights.
890 posted on 01/15/2003 5:56 PM EST by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Wanna bet she never answers and that she made it up (the part about why they acquitted)?
898 posted on 01/15/2003 6:02 PM EST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I'm not the one who said Christmas shopping. IIRC, the judge told them that they would be sequestered over Christmas if they didn't come to a decision.
I might be wrong, but I think that's what was stated in the article I read recently.
900 posted on 01/15/2003 6:06 PM EST by redlipstick (get real
Where did it say that the JURY decided to ACQUIT so they wouldn't have to be sequestered over the Christmas Holidays?
902 posted on 01/15/2003 6:10 PM EST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
In the article here on FR a few weeks ago - that I've been searching for.
If I could remeber the killer's name, I could find the article.
903 posted on 01/15/2003 6:19 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
OK. But, did it state they admitted to doing it for that reason, or was it an IMPLICATION by the writer of the article? (Which is what I meant by 'making it up'.)
905 posted on 01/15/2003 6:28 PM EST by UCANSEE2
The killer's name is Mel Ignatow. He served time on a federal perjury conviction, and was tried and convicted on a state perjury charge last year - for lying in different case. He is serving 9 years - the absolute maximum - in Kentucky State prison.
It was on the FR thread where I read about Christmas - I believe it was posted by a Louisville freeper.
908 posted on 01/15/2003 6:46 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
NOTE: I especially appreciate your post #898
posted on 01/15/2003 4:31:16 PM PST
You haven't answered any of the mentioned questions either.
And apparently, you took a comment by a poster and tried to pass it as what was in the original article.
Isn't that the truth?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson