If anyone has a few hours to watch a good murder 'did he do it' show; The Murders at Starved Rock. This was in the 50s regardless, makes a good case for reasonable doubt by today's legal standard. Interesting
Interesting murder case
- Thread starter RUTGERS95
- Start date
amen to that!!!!!!!!!! I hope they drag that fker from the back of truck at 20mph until he dies
I thought it was a pretty good show, though I did scratch my head at the "documentary in a documentary" bit. The David guy did a nice job at breaking the parts into self contained episodes that seemed to mirror the phases of his own thoughts on the case.
I agree that it definitely does shine a bright light on the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it definitely sounded like the jury was not even all that convinced of his guilt based on the facts of the case, let alone the confession the cops may or may not have beat out of him.
For me, it's just another reminder not to ever fucking talk to the police, especially without a lawyer.
I agree that it definitely does shine a bright light on the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it definitely sounded like the jury was not even all that convinced of his guilt based on the facts of the case, let alone the confession the cops may or may not have beat out of him.
For me, it's just another reminder not to ever fucking talk to the police, especially without a lawyer.
Thanks for this, just downloaded.
The Starved Rock State Park murders — True Crime in the Outdoors — StrangeOutdoors.com
www.strangeoutdoors.com
Sounds really interesting! The connection between the filmmaker and his dad the prosecutor is fascinating. I guess the filming takes place over the course of about 15 years of research and editing?
yes, you are correct on both counts. What is amazing is how the two interact throughout the course of it. Very interesting to say the least and while no choir boy, I do not believe he did thisThanks for this, just downloaded.
The Starved Rock State Park murders — True Crime in the Outdoors — StrangeOutdoors.com
Sounds really interesting! The connection between the filmmaker and his dad the prosecutor is fascinating. I guess the filming takes place over the course of about 15 years of research and editing?
I'm not too sure that I have any particular opinion about guilt or innocence myself. Not having had the benefit of an un-editorialized view of the evidence, and only having seen the bits and pieces of the story that were presented by the filmmaker, I wouldn't be so bold as to make any presumptions about anything. That said, I am quite interested to hear the results of the DNA testing that was mentioned in the end part of the documentary, and I hope those results are made publicly available.
I wouldn't want to be the guy that opened the can of worms that would be the case against the state if in fact Mr. Weger was wrongly convicted. But then, maybe the can needs to be opened, to remind the justice system that they are just as accountable to their mistakes as John Q. Public. Or at least, they should be.
I wouldn't want to be the guy that opened the can of worms that would be the case against the state if in fact Mr. Weger was wrongly convicted. But then, maybe the can needs to be opened, to remind the justice system that they are just as accountable to their mistakes as John Q. Public. Or at least, they should be.
I too am interested in those DNA results.
As for guilt or innocence, I looked at like this; was there enough doubt to prevent him from going away for life and I concluded yes
I agree with you, and I think the prosecutor mentioned the same thing, that if the case was tried today, there's no way they would have gotten a conviction out of the jury. I believe the defendent missed out on both a presumption of his innocence by the court, and a fair investigation by the sheriff's office. In any case, I am reasonably sure that the investigating deputies made a royal mess of the case by their interventions.
What I'm not sure of is Mr. Weger's actual guilt or innocence, and I think the filmmaker, David, came to the same conclusion. The only person who likely knows the truth of the case is Mr. Weger himself, and he seems like he's in no shape to answer any questions about what really happened. So, I suppose I'll just have to satisfy myself with the findings of the new attorney, who is looking to overturn the conviction with this new evidence.
Is there new DNA evidence?
In the link I posted they claimed the DNA was contaminated:
In 2004 Chester Weger’s attorneys attempted to have new DNA testing done on items of evidence. They hoped advancements in DNA technology would prove that the blood on the jacket and the hairs found clutched in one of the victims’ hands would not link him to the murders.
Unfortunately, LaSalle county had allowed school groups, civic clubs, and journalists to handle and examine key pieces of evidence in the case while it was in storage over the 43 years since the conviction and the DNA had become contained. The judge ruled against having DNA testing done in the case due to the potentially tainted evidence.
The Starved Rock State Park murders — True Crime in the Outdoors — StrangeOutdoors.com
www.strangeoutdoors.com
is also in the link above or download here:
Select instance - Invidious
invidious.snopyta.org
Is there new DNA evidence?
In the link I posted they claimed the DNA was contaminated:
In 2004 Chester Weger’s attorneys attempted to have new DNA testing done on items of evidence. They hoped advancements in DNA technology would prove that the blood on the jacket and the hairs found clutched in one of the victims’ hands would not link him to the murders.
Unfortunately, LaSalle county had allowed school groups, civic clubs, and journalists to handle and examine key pieces of evidence in the case while it was in storage over the 43 years since the conviction and the DNA had become contained. The judge ruled against having DNA testing done in the case due to the potentially tainted evidence.
This film:The Starved Rock State Park murders — True Crime in the Outdoors — StrangeOutdoors.com
is also in the link above or download here:
Select instance - Invidious
invidious.snopyta.org
Don't wanna spoil anything if you haven't watched it yet, but the last bit of the documentary is the new attorney asking the court to test one of those hairs that had been preserved in a microscope slide since the original investigation, and so hadn't been subject to the contamination that was the concern with the blood on the jacket and the other biological evidence found. So it's my understanding there's at least one item that they'll be able to get some meaningful data from.
Only way the system will change is to dip into the pockets of those doing wrong and harmful things with their power.
Pull the restitution from the prosecutor and judges pockets.
They'll be much more inclined to presume innocence than guilt.
Sadly most inside the justice system just presume they wouldn't be a defendant unless they did something wrong, and just go along with the show.
If it were me, I'd have the 3 strikes rule work both ways. If a judge or prosecutor gets it wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt, three times, they get to find new careers. You can mess with the money all you want, but until you can take away the power that earns them their ill-gotten dollars, they'll just figure out a way to siphon money out of the tax base to repay the debt.
Though truth be told, I'd be just as happy with a justice system that wasn't publicly funded.
I also thought the series was great, well done and interesting. At the end, I believe Weger is guilty, and Stanley Tucker was likely the second killer, I hope the DNA answers all the questions in this case.
How about THEY get to "ride the lightening"?
Since this is a gun forum, Utah still does firing squads....also acceptable.
We could do it with flintlocks if they're unclear on the 2nd.......
Let's get congress involved in this proposed system too!
I'm pretty well opposed to the death penalty as a punishment in a formalized justice system, and I'm similarly skeptical of the role of extended prison terms in criminal rehabilitation.
Though, I do think there is a corollary to Machiavelli's maxim "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared," that if an injury has been done to a man, and he is still able to exact his vengeance, honor demands either his action or his silence.
So.
So what?
I am absolutely IN FAVOR of the death penalty, and I'm sure that there are many other members here whom are, also. To add to that, I'm also IN FAVOR of lifetime sentences for ANYONE whom has proven themselves to be incompatible with existing in civilized society. Think 'clifford robert olson' for one. Or 'paul bernardo' for another. At the very least, they should never be out to walk the streets in Freedom ever again. At the same time, there's no point in 'supporting the life/sustainability of such heathens' to pull-the-plug. "It's For The Children",,,,, if nothing else, it eases the tax burden of the future generations.
You are perfectly fine with airing your view, and how you think it is 'bad' and whatnot. At the same time, I'm perfectly fine with airing MY view, and how I think THEY are bad. And for those whom are 'so' bad, there really and truly is no 'rehabilitation' for them.
The point about incarceration to begin with, is a 'deterrent' to 'anti-societal behavior'. First and Foremost. If incarceration is NOT used as a punishment (like today) then what incentive is there, for 'criminally minded individuals' to walk the "straight-and-narrow"?
Oh, that's right, there isn't.... hence why the jails/prisons/penitentiary's are overcrowded and the 'justice' system is overloaded.
We're well past time to bring back the chain-gangs, just the same as we're well past time to bring back the gas chambers, gallows, electric chairs, firing squads and such.
Choices. People have 'choices'. It is time that there be some actual consequences for the choices that they make, or have made.
There are plenty of people on the 'organ donation' list, as recipients. Put two and two together.... so that others may live.
I'm totally against the death penalty. It's an irreversible sentence. Only perfect justice should be able to render irreversible decisions.
Also, the government is powerful enough already. It should not have the power to kill it's citizens under any circumstances but those of immediate and imminent danger.
Also, the government is powerful enough already. It should not have the power to kill it's citizens under any circumstances but those of immediate and imminent danger.
Our justice system if far from perfect, but if you were accused of a crime in what other country would you rather be tried? Tried, not imprisoned, because that's easy: Canada.
A year ago I would have agreed with you. A year ago I believed you had to be guilty of some serious stuff to warrant a death penalty or prolonged prison time. But guess what? The definition of criminality has changed. The prosecutors and judges have changed. Arson, manslaughter, murder OK if it supports the agenda of those in power, whereas a peaceful protest lands you in hell without due process (1st and 4th amendments be damned). What charge will non-vaxxers be labeled next and what will be their punishment?
Totally agree. The left is destroying our justice system with their woke "justus", no the Liberal idea of the presumption of innocence and due process has never been more important, but I fear that the whole thing is already gone. There really is no reforming it now.
I think you may have missed the crux of my argument, so I'll say it in less uncertain terms. I don't need a judge, prosecutor, or jury to seek justice if I am victimized. Either I am dead, in which case I hope those who greive my loss will seek retribution, or I am not dead, in which case I intend to settle the score, and live with the consequences of my actions afterwards.
I don't know enough about the justice systems in other countries to have an informed opinion about something like that.
What I do know, is that instead of hiding behind a convoluted and broken system, I would hope my accuser would face me directly. If my supposed crime is serious enough for them to make a public accusation through the courts, it should also be serious enough for them to seek their justice directly from me.
There was a poignant article I read some time ago that dealt with the transition from honor culture, to dignity culture, to victim culture. http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/
To my mind, too much reliance on "authority" and the appeal to the third party is one of the significant causes of the failings of the US justice system. Of course the courts abuse their power, because the people have over time given them an over abundance of power that they can abuse. If I take the burden of justice back into my own hands, rather than foisting it off on a disinterested judge, I can reclaim the power and responsibility associated with those decisions for myself as well.
To bring it back around to the topic of the documentary, I feel that one of the main reasons for the failure of justice in the case of Chester Weger was the power misused by the Sheriff's office, the prosecutor's, and the failure of the jury to render their verdict according to moral laws, instead deferring to the ones forced on them by the nature of the court.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, I don't know if that results in more or less just outcomes. What I do know is that the less power I give to "the authorities" in order to harass and discourage my enemies, the less power they'll have to harass and discourage me when the tables eventually turn.
