[QUOTE=exceltoexcel,Jun 24 2005, 07:12 AM]We have a right to be racist, rather you or I or anyone here on this board likes it.

 

Do you think the same way about people that have a different religion and think your going to hell? How about people with different sexual orientation. His opinions are legal, rather or not he did what YOU say he did or not isn't what we were talking about. Rather or not this 40 years latter BS is just about skinning a racist pig is what were talking about. I think it is and not about the incident in question.

 

wtf language is this in? Anyone got a babelfish link for gibberish-to-English?

 

I don't know why I'm wasting my time but here goes. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with what I SAY he did. In 1967 11 of 12 jurors voted guilty. In 2005 12 of 12 jurors found him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. They all spent MONTHS of their lives listening to the facts in this case. HAVE YOU? Do you kow ANY facts in this case? HE FREAKING ADMITTED HE DID IT!! He spent the last 37 years smugly telling all his cronies in the Klan that he had gotten away with killing those yankee punks.. because "no white jury in MS would EVER convict a white man of killing a n&^*^er lover" .. what an enhancement to his 'street cred' (and later lied about admitting it, Why do you think he never took the stand?)
The reason this is happening 40 years later is because he was right, you couldn't empanel a jury in MS that would convict .. until now, because too many people were in the Klan or had connections to the Klan.. It would have been like trying to convict someone of a Mafia hit when your whole jury pool was full of members of the same Mafia family.
I'm DONE!

PS
Excel, Next time you go haywire on somebody, please have the courtesy to READ their post FIRST

 

WHAT! Most defendants NEVER take the stand. Any lawyer would laugh at such a rediculous notion. In general its a stupid idea to take the stand in your own defense.You people are way too emotionally envolved for some reason.

 

Most defendants are guilty.
Now I'm completely DONE.

 

All defendants are innocent.

 

Touche'
But statistically, the majority of people who go to trial are ultimately found guilty.
That was what I was attempting to express.
I apologize for the lack of clarity.

 

I know symantics but those are the very priciples we're fighting about here.

Not that a KKK racist that did a lot of bad stuff shouldn't be punished.

40 years just seems crazy to be expecting someone to get it right. The argument about well you can't get a fair jury trial back then isn't right. The feds would step in if they believed that to be the case and the prosecuter at the time could have retried him 100 times until they got a conviction or found him not guilty. If the evidence was so overwhelming and only one juror held back they had a good shot next time but 40 years later is ????

It either had to do with appathy or the money in prosecution.

 

Look at the Tyco thing. The first time there was a juror who said she got a threatening call and they had to declair a mistrial.

Did they wait 40 years to try it again? No, they went right back in and got them convicted.

It all just seems strange to me to wait sooooooooooo damned long if they knew all along he was guilty. That is why I asked....i got lots of answers...