Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2017, 12:39:25 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
TalkLeft Discussion Forums  |  Topics  |  Crimes 'R Us: Crimes in the News  |  Current Cases  |  Steve Gilmore 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Steve Gilmore  (Read 17509 times)
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Steve Gilmore
« on: September 08, 2008, 03:39:10 PM »

      SG
     The only way for me to be "out of bounds" and "slanderous" I must tell an untruth.

    SC
     Actually no ,Steve.
       While no reasonable person can have the slightest doubt that you are telliing the truth about the judge and jury's iincredible conductfrom which you have ,and are now suffering,((You have well and clearly documented this.) a statement,but to charge that  that some witness is  lying as "Drake" has done , could be construed  as slanderous ) and defamatory(the legaal word actually used by our hostess) if written. Our hostess who admitted that she had never read the thread till she (very briefly) scanned before  sending off her letter immediately happpened to chance on some allegations which could be viewed as defamatory,though under internet standards,there is no possibility that anyone will.
   More importantly she is worried(though I do not understand why she waited so long to view a thread with four thousand hits) that you are using TL forums to promote your own case.Printiing facts in your own defence  is,I presume ,acceptable to her as they are matters of public record and raise serious legal issues,however, to republish the identical set of facts on several occasions could be construed as self-promotionalism. No other defendant is contjinuously publishing  for himself on TL and the last one who did was removed as she kept comparing  her own case to the Duke case.
    The other forum to which you are contributing is much better suited to this kind of discussiion.
   On the old forum at Court tv,many,many local inhabitants voluntered their first observations of your trial..This was allowed by Coldwater and shamefully  disrupted  by "Drake" and her buddies.Their spontaneous and unsolicited statements  deserved to be on permanent record.It was as generous  and caring an act,in its own small way,as anything I have seen on the court tv site,apart from the Duke case.If you  could have got these statements reprinted  over here,I don't beleve there would be any problem now.Unfortunately they were destroyed when the Court tv thread went down without notice.Ordinarily what is printed  here are cross-references to legal briefs.I,and others, often scan several thousand pages before we post a few select references to iinteresting or deserving legal briefs for the readers.
    If the readers were allowed to exchange lprivate letters as formerly you wouldn't have been humilated in thiis way.But we aren't and you understandably thought you had a green light to proceed.The same goes for this recent discussion about your most recent appointed attorney's action .I kept asking you,is something  missing here.It finally develops that you learned ,but didn't first time understand first time around that this is a pre-trial discovery motion.
   It still sounds unusual that oral testimoiny is being taken at this stage or that the posecution is beinig allowed  first crack at your witness(as you seem to believe).But if this man is strong on your side,your attorney may have good reason for putting him on record.It could be(neither I nor any one else here have any way of knowing) that getting your expert's theory of the case  on to public record and reportage could prove an excellent move.
   The thing is  these are not things that should be discussed on an open forum.If the PM box were re-opened  I am sure there are six real lawyers here tht would have courteously clarified your question in a half a dozen sentences -and told you,whatever the case, not to antagonize your present counsel of record on a public forum.You are  not as yet in an  FLDS situation.
   I haven't heard from TL yet but I can't believe she won't allow a documented statement of your case to remain or new factual developments to be posted.Meantime,in case she's feeling irritable,save what what you can save for later reworking..Also I ought to point out to her that  if it were  still possible to delete as in former days,it would have been possible for you to solidify your situatioin inside of forth minutes without all this unnecessary embarassment.
   I can't be back for several days and can't ever,write at such length on this case again.
               All the best,
        Sydney
    P.S. Drake writes that she has never been banned.TL writes me that she has deleted numerous of her letters,though she has only penned five as "Drake". A number of her other pseudonyms have cedrtainly been banned on more than one site. One of my correspondents(accurately or not) claims to have traced her masquerading under thirty identities.
     If she were  banned she,like the Dragon Lady,will only pop back up again as Bonnie Buzzard,Goosey Lucy, or,perhaps, Ventura Vulture.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2008, 08:48:46 AM »

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2251&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Letters to the Editor  September 09, 2008 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
9/26/2007 1:21:00 PM  Email this article • Print this article 
No right to defend ourselves?
Dear Editor,

As the second murder trial for Steve Gilmore with a change in venue in Ripley County is rapidly approaching, I am still troubled by discrepancies of the first trial not discussed outside of letters to the editor in The Plain Dealer.

A letter I submitted was published in the July 28 issue was in response to a letter published on June 28 from Mr. Gilmore's now deceased mother, Beverly Akers. Both of our letters questioned the submission and acceptance of blank verdict forms after Mr. Gilmore was initially found not guilty on the charge of murder, though there was a hung jury on the lesser charge of reckless homicide.

An anonymous juror responded in a letter published in the Aug. 9 issue of The Plain Dealer. The juror wrote, "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank." The editor's note following the letter said, "According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned."

How can it be both ways? Either the jury was given forms or they were not. Whatever forms Judge Webster had that came into his possession were blank. It has yet to be explained why blank forms, which the juror states they were never given or turned in, were accepted.

While in school, if a student turns in work that is not finished, they are awarded an incomplete. In this case, with supposedly incomplete forms, a man is going to have to endure a second murder trial.

I visited www.IN.gov to look at IC (Indiana Code) 35-41-3-2 to see for myself what the laws of the state have to say about protecting oneself. I firmly believe this is exactly what Mr. Gilmore was doing at the time Billy Akers was killed.

Parts of this law have been quoted in past letters to the editor and I will do so again:

"A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

With the law clearly stated, I question the validity of the first trial and ponder the need for a second one.

Indiana House Bill 1028, also known as the Castle Doctrine, was signed into law March 21, 2006, by Gov. Mitch Daniels. The bill basically placed into law the right of self-defense. It reads strikingly similar to IC 35-41-3-2. The Castle Doctrine also protects citizens from criminal and civil charges for defending themselves against the instigator of a violent attack.

With such laws in place, how can Mr. Gilmore continue to be prosecuted? Could it be his rights are now being violated? This leaves me fearful. If by chance tomorrow I am attacked here in Jennings County while finding myself in grave danger, and I respond by defending myself, I too may find myself under arrest for murder. The same could happen to anyone else in this county as the right to defend ourselves appears to have been eliminated.

Still an Inquiring Mind

 
 
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2008, 08:52:10 AM »

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3558&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=48&S=1

Letters to the Editor  September 09, 2008 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1/16/2008 9:33:00 AM  Email this article • Print this article 
Legal professionals show their indifference in Gilmore case
Dear Editor,

I have read about Steve Gilmore and his plight about his last trial and his next trial quickly approaching. There are so many unanswered questions and I find it puzzling that the community isn't alarmed by the indifference shown by the legal professionals representing your county.

In the first trial, the jury found that Mr. Gilmore was not guilty of murder within 30 to 60 minutes of starting the deliberations. Apparently, the jury's focus then went to the lesser charge of reckless homicide that the prosecutor had told them they could also consider. This is where the jury came to an impasse.

Having no verdict forms available to them, the jury notified the court they had reached an impasse. No one, not the judge who was there to protect his rights nor Mr. Gilmore's attorneys who were also there to protect his rights, asked the jurors on what count or counts they could not agree on or what count they could agree on.

In a hearing in February 2007 for a motion to dismiss, jury members were prepared to testify that they indeed unanimously voted not guilty on the count of murder. However, the prosecutor, Gary Smith, objected and the judge sustained the objection. None of the jurors were allowed to speak! The judge then said the verdict forms were returned blank, the forms the jurors said they never received.

Aren't the citizens curious as what has happened here? As Mr. Gilmore had asked his attorneys to prepare motions for him, the courts said there had been a "communication problem," only to get another attorney for the upcoming trial to say, "Yes, those motions should have been made, but now it's too late."

Oh my! Is this where we've come? I commend Robert Kirkham and the rest of his fellow jurors to come to see that the truth be told, however silenced by the courts.

If only they could help begin again and fight for the truth, how much we all would be better off. Perhaps more letters letting the public know what is really going on will help.

As Mr. Gilmore wrote recently, "To all who just pass by, today this is me, tomorrow it could be you. If my constitutional and civil rights are violated, yours are and can be."

Michael from New York
 
 
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2008, 12:06:28 PM »

   Thanks,Steve,this is exactly what is wanted and needed.I haven't heard from TL but I trust that she wouldn't be delating these communications.
    If we could only delete,as we used to ,it should take less than forty minutes maximum to produce a thread that could meet TL's specifications.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2008, 06:57:44 AM »

From the old insessions posted by Katmandu:

" Transcript
I have read the first 500 pages of the transcript (aside from a handful of pages missing from it), and some parts of it 3 times. I have read of police officers contradicting themselves. I have read of "evidence" deemed as contents of Akers' pockets. I have read of shoddy police work. I have read of a tape missing portions of a statement being allowed to be presented in court. But, I have not read of how the state presented a case as to where it stated Steve lured Akers to his mother's home under the pretext to kill him. It never stated how he went about and laid in wait. What I read does not back up the state's case. It does show a man who was in shock trying to contact 911, administering first aid, and cooperating with the police."
 
Logged
Katmandu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2008, 07:45:48 AM »

I hope I will be allowed a bit of leniency. This letter was originally posted as a quote from the Court TV sight on Feb 7, 2008 by Sydney Carton on the other Steve Gilmore thread. Since I am the author of this letter and it is relevant to this thread, I am going to post it once again. I cannot provide a link to the paper to verify it since they did not post it on their websight, but they did publish it in the North Vernon Plain Dealer on Jan. 31, 2008 on page 3A.

"Sunday, January 06, 2008


Dear Editor:

My lengthy letter is in response to one published in the December 12, 2007 issue of the Plaindealer from Gary Mundy of Mitchell pertaining to questions in the Steve Gilmore alleged murder case. Kudos to you, Gary, for researching verdict forms and how blank ones are handled elsewhere. I submitted 2 letters myself, published on July 28 and September 26, 2007, and questioned the supposed submission and acceptance of blank verdict forms after Mr. Gilmore was initially found not guilty of the charge of murder, though there was an impasse on the lesser charge of reckless homicide, so a mistrial was declared.

As I remind readers, an anonymous juror submitted a letter published in the August 9, 2007 issue of the Plaindealer stating, “Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.”  The editor’s note that followed the letter stated, “According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.”

 A juror’s word against a judge’s. Eleven more jurors and 2 alternates were present for Mr. Gilmore’s trial. Surely these 13 other participants know if they signed verdict forms, yet no additional jurors have come forward even anonymously to comment on what took place. If they did not sign them, how did they come to be in Judge Jon Webster’s possession? Signing these forms was the crucial step necessary to dismiss this charge of murder. No one has taken responsibility for this horrible oversight. Thanks to this oversight, Mr. Gilmore is caught up in double jeopardy, facing a second murder trial scheduled to begin on June 11, 2008. It is absurd that he is being tried a second time for murder, much less reckless homicide, after being found not guilty on this charge, in what was a case of self defense. 

The irony of the second trial for murder continues. Wouldn’t the first charge have been taken off the table, rectified, eliminated, since Mr. Gilmore was found not guilty? The jury had moved on to determining the lesser charge of reckless homicide. Why would they move on to this charge if the first one had not already been decided? Mr. Gilmore was denied a chance to have the jurors testify as to the results of their deliberations at a hearing on February 12, 2007 by Jennings County Prosecutor Gary Smith, who based his reasons on Indiana Law 606. As quoting from the February 15, 2007 issue of the North Vernon Plain Dealer, “ “I don’t believe a juror can testify (as to their deliberations),”  citing it would be contrary to Indiana law.”

To quote Indiana Law, Rule 606 part “(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify (1) to drug or alcohol use by any juror, (2) on the question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or (3) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying may not be received for these purposes.
 
The jurors weren’t asked about their deliberations, but their outcome, their decision, the end result! As I interpret it, nowhere does it state that jurors cannot discuss the outcome of their deliberations. However, jurors could not testify as to what went on during the deliberations and what influenced them to reach their decision unless is pertained to parts (1), (2), or (3).

Is this truly justice in Jennings County? It seems our rights by law are being eliminated. I will once again quote from Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 which deals with the laws of the state in protecting oneself, “a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force: and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

It appears to me Mr. Gilmore is in the midst of a huge legal jeopardy as he faces a second murder trial after being found not guilty in the first one. As I make this final thought with great dismay, if we don’t speak up for him since his own letters are not printed, who may be left to speak up for us? The following last quote by Martin Neimoller has much relevance. “In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Sincerely,
(Signed as) Still an Inquiring Mind"
Logged
Katmandu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2008, 08:03:58 AM »

With this next submission, I will include what was my second Letter to the Editor of the Plain Dealer on July 26,2007. As with the preceeding letter, it was not posted on the websight so no link was available. It was published in the Plain Dealer on July 26, 2007, once again on page 3A under the heading of "Murder trial verdict remains confusing."

" Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Dear Editor,

My letter is pertaining to one submitted on June 28, 2007, by Beverly Akers in defense of her son, Steve Gilmore. The editor’s note to this letter states, “In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.”  I am confused, because wasn’t a verdict reached on the first charge against him? The jury did agree unanimously quite quickly in finding him not guilty of murder, though they were undecided on a lesser charge, but still no verdict forms were completed. Instead, they were turned in blank and accepted in that state. Why were they turned in blank in the first place and why was it not brought to someone’s attention of the need to complete them?  I remain confused on the matter of double jeopardy here as well. Back in the Spring, there was an attempt to explain it in this forum why that is not applying to this case. It remains unclear to me how a jury can unanimously find a man not guilty of murder as I mentioned above, yet another trial for murder is pending.

An Inquiring Mind."


Logged
MarkRougemont
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377



Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2008, 10:12:53 AM »

  It still seems to me to be a case of double jeopardy followed by judges and courts covering for their own by not recognizing what seems to be common sense.

Sydney, I appreciate your efforts to continue to bring this case to our attention.
Logged
Katmandu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2008, 07:52:57 PM »


I hope that bit of leniency continues just a little longer. As with 2 other preceeding letters I have shared here, this was not posted on the websight so a link to it is not available. It was published in the June 28, 2007 issue of the Plain Dealer from North Vernon, Indiana, submitted by Steve Gilmore's now deceased mother, Beverly Akers. It appeared on page 3A of the paper under the heading of, "Why is innocent man being sent to trial again?"

"Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter so I may openly and publicly ask this county why are Prosecutor Gary Smith and Judge Jon Webster continuing to persecute an innocent man, my son, Steve Gilmore.
Why is the judge so blind to the facts which were so apparent and obvious to the jury he impaneled for my son’s first trial?

As this newspaper reported on Nov. 8, 2005, “We (the jury) based all our feelings not on the courtroom proceedings but on the interviews in the jail,” meaning the jury gave the prosecutor’s case absolutely no credence.

This paper also reported: “We (the jury) were unanimous (in finding the defendant) not guilty of murder.” The jury quickly arrived at the verdict, which was brought to the judge’s attention in a letter from attorney Alan Marshall the day after the trial ended, Aug. 23, 2005. The attorney reported to the judge what jury members told him in the hallway immediately after they were dismissed. “All advised that the murder charge was quickly disposed of by all 12 jurors… Within 30 to 60 minutes, all 12 agreed that this was not a murder case.”

So if the prosecutor presented such a baseless case and quickly arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict, then under Indiana law IC 35-41-2-3, “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself.” I believe it was criminal to prosecute my son the first time, let alone proceeding with a second trial.

Then we come to the matter of the judge stating he was in, possession of blank verdict forms presented to him by the jury during the first trial as reported in your newspaper on Feb. 15, 2007. This is extremely suspicious. Why would a jury bother presenting blank verdict forms in such an important trial? Worse yet, why would the judge accept these supposedly blank forms, and then dismiss the jury instead of having them correct this massive oversight? Is the judge that negligent?

Then the judge declares there is no verdict because he accepted blank verdict forms.

You see, if the judge would have had the jury fill out the verdict forms then there would be a record of the not guilty verdict, which apparently the judge didn’t want for some reason. Why else would a judge dismiss the jury before he had them complete the form?

So you have an unsubstantiated case given no credence by a jury that quickly came to a unanimous not guilty verdict and a judge, who accepted blank verdict forms, then dismissed the jury without having them fill out these extremely important forms.

This is considered justice in Jennings County?
Beverly Akers
Commiskey"

(Editor’s note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.)
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2008, 08:45:11 AM »

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2905&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

This is how and when I became aware Ms Stotts was appointed my attorney, a month after the fact. She never attempted to contact me, saying she thought Mark Wynn would. (?)

Bryce Mayer, editor of the paper had said before they would never print anything by me so when I wrote that added comment to him I did not expect it to be added on. I'm sorry but it does get a little old of being falsely accused. (and forced to face it alone)
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2008, 06:55:22 AM »

Repeating the same old info and letters achieves what S.G.?   Not much.   That complaint about your lawyer is rather old.  You mean all this time she hasn't contacted you?   You've done nothing to currect the situation for over a year now?  Why?   Why haven't you gotten a new "court appointed" lawyer? This is a question you repeatedly ignore on purpose.  Why is that?   Could it be the Judge knows you aren't being honest and won't let you get a new one? 
Logged
Drake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2008, 07:05:14 AM »

That letter writing campaign by very few didn't work for you Steve.   Just wondering why you keep  posting those letters on every message board over and over? 

Seriously, what prevents you from getting out of the house and being proactive about your case?  Now you say you are "poor".  Can't work?  Why can't you work?   How do you afford the net?  Can't be that poor if you can afford that.  If you can afford the net, you can afford to get off your hide and get a lawyer. 

Remember in life. Actions speak louder than words.  No Judge will feel sorry for you because of your actions via the net and that of those you have fooled. 




 
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2008, 10:26:13 AM »

Does this say they did not accept jurisdiction of the appeal due to: " ATTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFECT BY FILING A WRITTEN  NOTICE OF SERVICE.

Also Ms Stotts told me she filed the appeal the first of July, this says Aug. doesn't it?

Case Number: 40 A 01 - 0808 - CR - 00370 
GILMORE, STEPHEN -V- STATE OF INDIANA 
Interlocutory 
 
Litigant Inquiry

GILMORE, STEPHEN L. 1 of 2 
 
Attorney Number Name and Address Phone Number Fax Number

20676 39  STOTTS, MARY JEAN  812-265-1616 
 413 EAST MAIN STREET,   
 MADISON, IN 47250-0000   
   
STATE OF INDIANA 2 of 2 
 
Attorney Number Name and Address Phone Number Fax Number
4150 64  CARTER, STEPHEN R.  317-232-4866 
 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GEN., IGCS, 5TH F LOOR   
 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2770   
   
Docket Inquiry

DATE TEXT  8/04/08 
APPELLANT'S CASE SUMMARY BY MARY JEAN STOTTS, ATTY. FOR THE 
 APPELLANT (2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (2) BY MAIL 08/04/08. EF 
8/04/08  ****RECEIVED 08/06/08: MOTION OF STEPHEN L. GILMORE REQUESTING 
 THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPT JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL ON AN 
 INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. NEED MORE COPIES. EF 
8/08/08  **** NOTICE OF DEFECT MAILED **** EF/MS 
8/15/08  ****RECEIVED 08/18/08: ADDITIONAL COPIES OF MOTION TO ACCEPT 
 JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL ON INTERLOCUTORY ORDER (6). ATTY 
 DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFECT BY FILING A WRITTEN 
 NOTICE OF SERVICE. MS 
9/15/08  ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: 
9/15/08  HAVING REVIEWED THE MATTER, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT 
 APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION OF INTERLOCUTORY 
 APPEAL IS DENIED. 
 FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE 
 KIRSCH, MAY, J.J., GARRARD, SR.J., CONCUR. KJ 
9/15/08  ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ****** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2008, 03:59:38 PM »

   Steve,
      Thanks for keeping us informed.Your legal complaints seem  well justified and keep documenting them.Do not engage in any conversation whatsoever with Drake or any of her ilk.
     I am devoting full time to soliciting  signatures on behalf of Troy Davis right now. He has less than a week left,though at least four surviving jurors have now signed statements to the Board of Pardons asking that his life be spared and a new trial granted.
   All we are asking is that the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court be honored and a full hearing be held on whether a new trial be granted or not.
   I hope everyone here,even Drake, will feel obligated to do that much.It will only take a couple of days and,if it had been held five years ago,would have then removed most people's doubts one way or the other.
     I see this case moved to the front page of TL on September 15.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2008, 05:29:13 PM »

As always thank you Syd;

Did you notice the discrepancies in the reports from the judge to the editor when he asked for info for his "Editors notes"?

Mom's letter from June 28, 2007:
"(Editor’s note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.)"
There is no verdict form to complete.

The jurors' letter from Aug. 9, 2007:
"Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.
A jury member
(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given a verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)"

"A" verdict form...

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp...ectionID=42&S=1

"Two forms were submitted," Webster said. "Neither was signed or documented in the file."

So he went from none needed, to "A" form, to there were two of them.



Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here