Wednesday, January 13, 2010

But..

Slow down Steve. Don't make this case the exception. Yes, there are falsifications, but they may have been done as "business as usual. After John quit the force, none of his former co-workers would talk to him. He was the "bad guy" in the situation as the business was (is?) run.
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. GilJanuary 16, 2010 at 7:27 AM

    I am a LONELY blog. Is anyone out there??

    ReplyDelete
  2. MandyJanuary 16, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    Hey sorry for being late! My Coputer has been on the fritz...I will start watching the vids and will poast more later...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve WarnerJanuary 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM

    "Whassup" Gil! I dunno what to think about this ghost town forum here. As for the case, I think now that amounts to the sum of the whole - that noone wanted to concede they were wrong in their original stance in the case. From the mistress to the Chief of Police. You pointing out John as the "bad guy" immediately clued me in to what you were looking for as a response to this and it was already clear to me after reading through all the links which I sent. What I'm wondering is if it would have needed to be an all-or-none proposition with the prosecution and the witnesses resision. What I mean is - How many or which people would have to had revised their stance in order for the case to have been overturned? Could it have been a matter (or partial matter) of District Courts not wanting to drag the case out (regardless of who would switch sides)?

    I did read up on "case study" in Wiki and made several notes about what defines exceptions and falsifications. But I'm still a little muddy on the concept. So, forgive me if I don't follow this the way you're leading exactly just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MandyJanuary 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM

    I think the DA had something to do with ignoring the facts that the detectives brought to them. But a question that I had was: 'Where are all the witnesses; the girlfriend, other bouncers, the original detectives???" There seems to be a real lack of concrete evidence from any direction.

    I did some digging too and found this link with an article from December 2008. It a report made from an interview with 'Spanky'. It also mentions that Lemus was cleared at the retrial and 'Spanky' admitted to the murder in court but was still set free.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/12/06/2008-12-06_first_account_by_confessed_killer_in_199.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jacqueline FeliceJanuary 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM

    Thanks for this link, I too believe the DA's office was a bit less than stellar in obtaining concrete facts. This case amazes me that there was ever even a conviction from the beginning. Seems to be mostly hear say

    ReplyDelete
  6. LaToyaJanuary 18, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    I agree with you jacqueline. I dont understand how an conviction was made. The witnesses statements from the beginning pointed to Spanky as being the murderer. The DA didnt care obviously, I guess as long as they had somebody serving for the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. GilJanuary 18, 2010 at 6:11 PM

    I apologize because I am new to this blog stuff too. Detective Schwartz tried to post some answers, but they don' show. On Tuesday we can put together some questions to throw at him and I will get him on the blog.

    Like any case study this one points the researcher in many directions. The researcher has to decide which line(s) to follow and yet try to hold on to the wider context of that line of study. Much that happened in this case remains behind the scenes (a"black box"). Remember Dateline wants ratings as much as "the truth". So the other data that you have uncovered gives a different angle on the story.

    When Detective Schwartz talks to us he will answer alot of our questions and then we will just have new, revised or unanswered questions.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)