Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on November 15, 2010, 08:08:03 AM
-
Breaking News
The word I just got was that the judge rejected Tommy's plea deal. Tommy then withdrew it, and trial is scheduled for January.
Danny and Tammy weren't there this time, I'm told. Just Carol.
The judge, I'm told, had Tommy take the stand and gave him an opportunity to show remorse. If he would show remorse, the judge would accept the plea. But, apparently, Tommy did not show remorse. My source felt his comments were inappropriate, but I don't have specifics.
Channel 9 is about to tape an interview. Expect WUSA Channel 9 and the Washington Post to both carry the story.
Too bad Danny wasn't there. He could have given some comments to WUSA9 and the Washington Post.
-
What person is the interview with on Channel 9?
-
I don't know the details of who spoke with whom.
Tom Jackman's article at the Washington Post is at:
"Alleged molester's plea deal rejected." (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/tom-jackman/judge-rejects-alleged-molester.html)
It quotes one of the victims.
-
Any scrap of respect I could have still had for Tommy is now gone. I was holding out hope that he was finally going to man up and face his sin. I can now see he is only interested in saving his own rear. How sick and selfish.
-
Now, this link is acting up, but I was able to see a little of the article. That portion said that the judge rejected the please, because it contained no jail time. So Tommy is going to jail, don't know for how long, but he is going. The fact that he is not in jail now means, he cannot get the option of "time served" either. This must be a severe blow to them, people have to realize that repentance and God's forgiveness does NOT mean that you are spared the consequences of your actions. Very sad. I will keep everyone involved liften up in prayer.
-
Actually, it means we are back to square one. I understand the trial will begin in January.
In closing, I'd just like to say that I know Glenn Dryden snoops around on this forum, so I'd just like to say something publicly. Mr. Dryden, I hope all the hell you have stirred up for myself and numerous other people makes you feel as if you've finally accomplished something in your miserable excuse for a life. I also hope everyone remembers how you tucked tail and hid behind a closed door like a coward when a reporter asked you why you neglected your responsibility to contact law enforcement. You stirred this up, now you're going to reap the consequences of not minding your own business. I, personally, am going to see to that.
-
The article sounded like there could be another plea deal made. Is that correct or will there really be a trial this time? So now in the eyes of the law Tommy is no longer an admitted sex offender?
-
Now, this link is acting up, but I was able to see a little of the article. That portion said that the judge rejected the please, because it contained no jail time. So Tommy is going to jail, don't know for how long, but he is going. The fact that he is not in jail now means, he cannot get the option of "time served" either. This must be a severe blow to them, people have to realize that repentance and God's forgiveness does NOT mean that you are spared the consequences of your actions. Very sad. I will keep everyone involved liften up in prayer.
OK - WHERE did you read that Tommy is going to jail?? Did you not see that the whole case is going to TRIAL?? That means it will be UP TO A JURY whether he goes to jail OR NOT. Please make sure you have your facts straight before blurting out something that we simply do not have an answer to yet.
-
Well, the way I figure it, is the article said the plea was rejected because it included no jail time. Meaning the judge is at least hoping, and according to the evidence he is looking at so far, on the fact that TS will get jail time if he goes to trial. That is the way I figure it. I might be wrong. I compleetely understand about it being up to a jury, but I also know the way these types of cases are going these days, and these men are being sent to jail, advanced age or not. People are really fed up with all this. There are just too many of these cases out there right now, and TS offenses are not as old as some of the prior or current cases.
I also believe that the judge has some rrom to rule if the jury's decision is not appropriate(Can someone help me with that one?). Obviously, the judge believes that jail, make that prison time, is appropriate in this case.
Some of you might have heard about the man who went to the Jesuit retirement home, attacked, and beat his abuser. The man got no jail time, the RCC pay the family something close to $625,000(I came back to correct this. I dont' want o be yelled at again.......Hehehehe!) for the molestation of their sons by this man. BTW, the man was also molesting girls and boys, including family members. But this man ws there sitting in cmfortable retirement after no jail time. That did not sit to well with this one victim. Also, be sure and read the comments. One is from one of the nieces this man abused. You will find the link to the story below(I hope it works):
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7785491 (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7785491)
OK - WHERE did you read that Tommy is going to jail?? Did you not see that the whole case is going to TRIAL?? That means it will be UP TO A JURY whether he goes to jail OR NOT. Please make sure you have your facts straight before blurting out something that we simply do not have an answer to yet.
-
ADMIN HAT ON
Notwithstanding the way you figure it, I am very uncomfortable using this forum to play jury and convict someone before their due process. If you feel compelled to act as jury in this case, please do it elsewhere...I can think of another site...
ADMIN HAT OFF
Well, the way I figure it, is the article said the plea was rejected because it included no jail time. Meaning the judge is at least hoping, and according to the evidence he is looking at so far, on the fact that TS will get jail time if he goes to trial. That is the way I figure it. I might be wrong. I compleetely understand about it being up to a jury, but I also know the way these types of cases are going these days, and these men are being sent to jail, advanced age or not. People are really fed up with all this. There are just too many of these cases out there right now, and TS offenses are not as old as some of the prior or current cases.
I also believe that the judge has some rrom to rule if the jury's decision is not appropriate(Can someone help me with that one?). Obviously, the judge believes that jail, make that prison time, is appropriate in this case.
Some of you might have heard about the man who went to the Jesuit retirement home, attacked, and beat his abuser. The man got no jail time, the RCC pay the family something close to $625,000(I came back to correct this. I dont' want o be yelled at again.......Hehehehe!) for the molestation of their sons by this man. BTW, the man was also molesting girls and boys, including family members. But this man ws there sitting in cmfortable retirement after no jail time. That did not sit to well with this one victim. You will find the link to the story below(I hope it works):
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7785491 (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7785491)
OK - WHERE did you read that Tommy is going to jail?? Did you not see that the whole case is going to TRIAL?? That means it will be UP TO A JURY whether he goes to jail OR NOT. Please make sure you have your facts straight before blurting out something that we simply do not have an answer to yet.
-
Ok, Ok. Sorry. Those are purely my thoughts. Anyone looking on please attribute them to me and not this site. Now, I hope this statement, and Snoopy's, sufficiently covers this sites legal be.....er rear. ;D
-
Thank you Snoopy...
-
So instead of being over today, it now goes into drawn out and messy. I wonder if judges often throw out plea deals...?
-
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=120337&catid=158
Channel News story they aired.
-
Well, the judge has rejected the plea agraeement and allowed TS to withdraw his guilty plea.
So, in the eyes of the law, at this point in time TS is not guilty. Yes, he could go to trial and he could be found guilty. If that happens, at that time he will in the eyes of the law, be guilty. However, I do not beleive that it is a "slam dunk" that he will be found guilty. It is true that he may be found guilty. But, it is also true that he may be found "not guilty." It just might be a "crap shoot." [NOTE: I Reference the game of dice.]
However, there is another option. That option just might mean that TS does not go to trial. They could negotiate another plea deal in the hopes that the new judge would accept it. That would likely result in some prison time. But, the hope would be that the prison time would be less than what he might recive in a jury trial.
I frankly do not believe that the Commonwealth attorney (Katherine Stott) wants to take it to trial. I also believe that Shelton's attornies believe that they have a chance at a not guilty verdict.
NOTE: My comments do not indicate that I do not beleive those who have accused TS. When TS initially pled guilty, I felt that was the truth, as much as the criminal process would uncover the truth. My comments simply reflect how I see it from the standpoint of obtaining a criminal conviction. Criminal courts are concerned with criminal process according to the statute. Often they are not involved with truth. I think that TS has a chance of being found Not Guilty in a criminal trial. But, also a chance of a conviction.
So, here we have it:
Go to trial and be found guilty.
Go to trial and be found not guilty.
Negotiate another plea deal.
-
Gregory,
Just curious - have you interviewed either of the victims?
Well, the judge has rejected the plea agraeement and allowed TS to withdraw his guilty plea.
So, in the eyes of the law, at this point in time TS is not guilty. Yes, he could go to trial and he could be found guilty. If that happens, at that time he will in the eyes of the law, be guilty. However, I do not beleive that it is a "slam dunk" that he will be found guilty. It is true that he may be found guilty. But, it is also true that he may be found "not guilty." It just might be a "crap shoot." [NOTE: I Reference the game of dice.]
However, there is another option. That option just might mean that TS does not go to trial. They could negotiate another plea deal in the hopes that the new judge would accept it. That would likely result in some prison time. But, the hope would be that the prison time would be less than what he might recive in a jury trial.
I frankly do not believe that the Commonwealth attorney (Katherine Stott) wants to take it to trial. I also believe that Shelton's attornies believe that they have a chance at a not guilty verdict.
NOTE: My comments do not indicate that I do not beleive those who have accused TS. When TS initially pled guilty, I felt that was the truth, as much as the criminal process would uncover the truth. My comments simply reflect how I see it from the standpoint of obtaining a criminal conviction. Criminal courts are concerned with criminal process according to the statute. Often they are not involved with truth. I think that TS has a chance of being found Not Guilty in a criminal trial. But, also a chance of a conviction.
So, here we have it:
Go to trial and be found guilty.
Go to trial and be found not guilty.
Negotiate another plea deal.
-
Well, the judge has rejected the plea agraeement and allowed TS to withdraw his guilty plea.
So, in the eyes of the law, at this point in time TS is not guilty. Yes, he could go to trial and he could be found guilty. If that happens, at that time he will in the eyes of the law, be guilty. However, I do not beleive that it is a "slam dunk" that he will be found guilty. It is true that he may be found guilty. But, it is also true that he may be found "not guilty." It just might be a "crap shoot." [NOTE: I Reference the game of dice.]
However, there is another option. That option just might mean that TS does not go to trial. They could negotiate another plea deal in the hopes that the new judge would accept it. That would likely result in some prison time. But, the hope would be that the prison time would be less than what he might recive in a jury trial.
I frankly do not believe that the Commonwealth attorney (Katherine Stott) wants to take it to trial. I also believe that Shelton's attornies believe that they have a chance at a not guilty verdict.
NOTE: My comments do not indicate that I do not beleive those who have accused TS. When TS initially pled guilty, I felt that was the truth, as much as the criminal process would uncover the truth. My comments simply reflect how I see it from the standpoint of obtaining a criminal conviction. Criminal courts are concerned with criminal process according to the statute. Often they are not involved with truth. I think that TS has a chance of being found Not Guilty in a criminal trial. But, also a chance of a conviction.
So, here we have it:
Go to trial and be found guilty.
Go to trial and be found not guilty.
Negotiate another plea deal.
Gregory what is all this smut?
-
I stand by what I told Tom Jackman today:
My statement is below as was covered in his article in the Washington Post:
One of the victims said after the hearing that he was "fine" with Bellows rejecting the plea deal. "Would I rather not have to do it? Absolutely," he said. "But if that's what I have to do, that's what I have to do. We'll continue the fight."
-
Actually, it means we are back to square one. I understand the trial will begin in January.
In closing, I'd just like to say that I know Glenn Dryden snoops around on this forum, so I'd just like to say something publicly. Mr. Dryden, I hope all the hell you have stirred up for myself and numerous other people makes you feel as if you've finally accomplished something in your miserable excuse for a life. I also hope everyone remembers how you tucked tail and hid behind a closed door like a coward when a reporter asked you why you neglected your responsibility to contact law enforcement. You stirred this up, now you're going to reap the consequences of not minding your own business. I, personally, am going to see to that.
:TY: :goodpost:
-
Snoopy and Alex:
No, I have not interviewed either (or any ) of the victims. I do not beleive that I need to interview them in order to believe them. Without interviewing them, I believe that TS told the truth when he pled guilty as part of a plea deal that the judge has now rejected. Did I have to wait for tS to pled guilty befor I believed them? No. But, his plea of guilty establishes his guilt, in my mind in the moral sense.
My point is that his guilt is now in the legal sense. The judge has rejected the plea deal. As a result, TS has withdrawn his guilty plea and until he either accepts another plea deal or is convicted by a criminal tril in the legal sense he is "Not Guilty, and it is not a Slam Dunk to think that a jury trial will convict him. Perhaps it will? Perhaps it will not? TS takes a risk in going to trial as he my get a longer prison sentence than he would have gotten from the judge. But, the Commonwealth Attorney also takes a risk in that TS may be found Not Guilty.
In my opinion, it is a fact of life that criminal trials are not focused on the determination of truth. Sometimes they find truth and sometimes they do not. There focus is on the statute and how guilt is defined in the law.
Is the above smut? I do nout understand how my saying that I believe TS told the truth when he pled guilty but may (?) not be convicted in a cariminal trial is smut. But, so be it for my lack of understanding. If TS is declated Not Guilty, it will not be the fault of those who have accused him, in my opinion.
-
I understand what you're saying, Gregory. :wave:
-
Gregory, thank you for clarifying I also understand what you are saying.
-
I also understand what Gregory is saying.
-
If it goes to trial, can the state attorney bring up past victims like Duane and others from this site, to show that this is a re-occuring pattern of TS and that he never tried to get help and still placed himself where he was in contact with children?
-
Not sure, but I'm definitely willing to help if needed.
-
MRST, I do not have the comptetnce to glive your a final answer to your question. Therefore, take what I say with a grain of salt. :) But, I will make a sugestion.
The criminal proceedings consist of two parts.
The first part is a trail curing which a conviction is obtained or the there is a Not Guilty decision. I do not think that any evidence other than that related to the specific charges would be allowed. The defense would fight against it and if allowed, I beleive that such would provide grounds for an appelate court orerturning a guilty verdict.
The second phase of the criminal proceedings is the determination of the sentence to be given in the case of a guilty verdict. During this phase, there is more freedom to go beyond the specific charges. This phase often allows a deeper look at the life of the convicted person. Of course the defense will seek to limit such. The judge woudl then rule. IOW, in my opinion, if such were to be alowed, it would only be during the sentencing phase of the criminal proceedings and the only in the event of a guilty verdict.
-
Thanks Gregory. I was just wondering. It would seem like past "sins" would be allowed,but then I watch alot of TV and that's fiction :ROFL:
-
MRST, I do not have the comptetnce to glive your a final answer to your question. Therefore, take what I say with a grain of salt. :) But, I will make a sugestion.
The criminal proceedings consist of two parts.
The first part is a trail curing which a conviction is obtained or the there is a Not Guilty decision. I do not think that any evidence other than that related to the specific charges would be allowed. The defense would fight against it and if allowed, I beleive that such would provide grounds for an appelate court orerturning a guilty verdict.
The second phase of the criminal proceedings is the determination of the sentence to be given in the case of a guilty verdict. During this phase, there is more freedom to go beyond the specific charges. This phase often allows a deeper look at the life of the convicted person. Of course the defense will seek to limit such. The judge woudl then rule. IOW, in my opinion, if such were to be alowed, it would only be during the sentencing phase of the criminal proceedings and the only in the event of a guilty verdict.
I also have a very limited knowledge of criminal proceedings, but that sounds logical to me.
-
Thanks Gregory. I was just wondering. It would seem like past "sins" would be allowed,but then I watch alot of TV and that's fiction :ROFL:
mrst, I think the difference is that there have been no convictions before now. If he were already a convicted sex offender, that might have changed things. I'm just guessing. :dunno:
-
Gregory's assesment is correct, as far as I have been told. IF there was convictions in Illinois then that would be allowed into court, but since there isn't then the chances are it will not be.
After a lengthy phone coversation earlier I was informed that the status hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. At that time another possible plea deal may be presented to the defense. I am not at liberty to discuss the specifics. If they reject the "new deal" then the original charges will stick and we will go to trial.
-
Gregory, thanks for your explanation. I do understand that a jury can find him "not guilty", but I just believe at this point, he is guilty. ITA agree with your post.
Having said that, won't that guilty plea be difficult to retract?
-
No, the guilty plea is easily withdrawn.
The guilty plea was made in response to a profer of a plea deal. The judge had the authority to reject the plea deal and did. At that point, the judge had to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.
Now the options are: 1) Reach a new plea deal that the judge will accept. 2) Go to trial and take your chance. 3) Dismisss the charges which can be done but as there was a Grand Jury inditement, as I understand it, will not be done without a lot of thougt.
Reading between the lines, I do not believe the Commonwealth Attorney wants to go to trial. So, I believe that there will be an attempt to reach a new plea deal. Will it suceed? I have no idea.
-
I have been told that the case will go before the grand jury on December 21st and another status hearing on the 22nd.
-
Ok gotcha! I can see because they were connected that once the please was rejected, they have to also disallow the guilty please tied to it. However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?
No, the guilty plea is easily withdrawn.
The guilty plea was made in response to a profer of a plea deal. The judge had the authority to reject the plea deal and did. At that point, the judge had to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.
Now the options are: 1) Reach a new plea deal that the judge will accept. 2) Go to trial and take your chance. 3) Dismisss the charges which can be done but as there was a Grand Jury inditement, as I understand it, will not be done without a lot of thougt.
Reading between the lines, I do not believe the Commonwealth Attorney wants to go to trial. So, I believe that there will be an attempt to reach a new plea deal. Will it suceed? I have no idea.
-
"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"
The law is concerned with the statute. Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out. It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law. As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea. IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.
We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.
His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law. In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.
-
Last 24 hours here:
"Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time." ยด- John Keats
-
Ok Understood, but very weird. As far as the "law" is concerned he is back to "innocent until proven guilty, but in actuality he is admittedly guilty. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm..........
I just want to say that apologize to anyone who was offended by my initial post. I figure it must have been pretty bad when folk start hinting that I leave and go back to BSDA............
"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"
The law is concerned with the statute. Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out. It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law. As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea. IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.
We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.
His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law. In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.
-
So Gregory, if someone called Tommy an admitted pedophile now and Tommy sued for defamation, could the defense use his admission in his guilty plea or not?
-
Now that's really confusing :scratch:
-
Bob: I beleive that your question has some technical aspects to it that are beyond my competance to answer.
-
Depends on where the claim is brought. ie. In California a withdrawn plea is admissible. Federal court a withdrawn plea is not admissible. Some states the withdrawn plea is admissible and other states it is not admissible. Just the way it is.
In a defamation claim, truth is a defense. In your case, the defense would produce evidence that TS is a pedophile by calling witnesses that would have personal experience of that fact = truth that he is pedophile which would defeat the defamation claim. Further, another type of witness would be a person who heard TS admit he was a pedophile (must be outside of court) ie. a family member he might have told. In addition, if the defense took a deposition of TS and he denied he was a pedophile you could admit the deposition against him as impeachment and substantive evidence that he is as long as he testified on the stand by denying that he was a pedophile.
Lastly, you do not need to have the plea agreement to be admissible to defeat a defamation claim.
The reasoning behind some jurisdictions not admitting the plea agreements is some people will admit to a crime they did not commit because they are scared of being sentenced for a long time.
-
What will the plea be day after tomorrow?
-
"However, how do we say now that TS is not guilty or still have to be proven guilty after an admission of guilt?"
The law is concerned with the statute. Once TS has ben allowed to withdraw his guilty plea it is wiped out. It does not exist any more in the eyes of the law. As far as the law is concerned, his status has reverted to the same as it was prior to his guilty plea. IOW, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal trial or if he again pleads guilty in a plea deal that is accepted by a judge.
We (I am) are only saying that he is not guilty from the standpoint of the law.
His "admision of guilt" can never be used against him in a court of law. In the eyes of the statute it simply does not exist any more.
And here, Mr Gregory, I must disagree...it is stricken as to any criminal action, however, if properly introduced, it can be used in a civil trial. Not easy, but it can be selectively introduced and allowed in the record...and yes the Jury can consider it in the proper context and with proper limitations.
There is no question one wouild prefer a cobviction on the record but statutes of limitations can also be factors here.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
What will the plea be day after tomorrow?
"NOT GUILTY!!!"
But, not far ahead there will be a Jury of HIS peers and I predict they will find him "GUILTY"...no yankee lawyer from the people's republic of Massachusetts can save a Southern Preacher and pedophile from his dues!!!
Notice, I have deliberately left out "alleged" as he has plead...a plea is a plea!!! This predator will get a second chance but I would not want to be on the other end of this failed plea in Virginia with a yankee lawyer from the peoples republic of Massachusetts, the only state in the union to void the concept of TEA in a state that threw TEA into the Chesapeake!!!
Assigned counsel has a better chance, but it better be Gerry Spence!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter