| Topic: 48 Hours Mystery: A Question
of Murder, Does John Maloney deserve a new trial? |
|
|
|
dc4
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
 |
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,01:59 |
|
Yes ,absolutely John Maloney
should be released immediatly ,and given a new and fair trial. I
believe he should be released on his own recognicence while he awaits a
new trial. How much more time do we want corruption to keep man
innocent man inprisoned.. ??? |
|
|
one2go
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,01:53 |
|
maloney should get a new
trial as well as all the other people prosecuted by "Mr. Holywood"
during the period of his proven corruption. |
|
|
braddog
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,01:11 |
|
Does anybody else think that
maybe one of the people who bribed the DA might have kicked in a little
extra because they had a vendetta against the cop?
I think he deserves a new trial. |
|
|
saffphirre
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,01:04 |
|
now dont anybody think a new
trial would do that poor man any good. weather he did it or not they
will say guilty, they already did, why change anything now, that would
just mean more people were wrong. nobody cares weather you did anything
or not, if 1 person says you did, then you did, end of story. im up
against a felony charge (that i didnt commit) just cuz somebody got mad
at me, i can prove im innocent, but that doesnt mean ####. if popular
opinion says guilty, theres not a damn thing you can do about it. the
truth doesnt always set you free. they should just let the guy go, its
obvious the lady tried to kill herself, failed, and then accidently
killed herself. why would he kill her to end the marrige, when the
divorce hearing was the next day? but, hell, if he did kill her, he did
a damn good job and they should let him go anyway cuz they cant prove
he did it. |
|
|
mjt11860
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,00:55 |
|
crooked D.A.? i thought they
were all crooked! in all seriousness, what i have witnessed &
experienced thru the years has lead me to believe that most prosecutors
r crooked. to me, they're worse than criminal defense attornies. what
really irks me is that most r not held accountable for their actions,
when it's found that evidence was withheld, twisted around, etc. their
job is supposed to b to find the truth. it isn't to get a conviction.
unfortunately, most r out for political gain, not justice. i remember a
movie from the '40s or '50s about a prosecutor who, upon investigating
the evidence, realized the accused could not have commited the murder
for which he was accused of. he proved in court, much to the surprise
& envy of the defense attorney, that the accused was innocent! true
story too! it's a shame that we don't have more honorable prosecutors
like him. i'm sure there r others. too bad they're so few & far
between. |
|
|
jmdgizmo
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,00:42 |
|
I had thought if he was
covering up the crime scene then wouldn't he have just burned the
shirt. I noticed somebody else felt the same way. I wonder if the jury
even thought about that. Also a suicide letter that would have been a
little help at the trial. I feel sorry for the family and I think John
deserves a new trial. |
|
|
copper
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,00:38 |
|
It is painfully obvious this
man deserves a new trial. There is not doubt in my mind the man
was used as a political pawn and rightfully deserves proper
representation in the courtroom. There would be absolutely
nothing lost in providing a second trail and everything to be
gained--an innocent man and his 3 young devoted sons to be reunited!
If a second trail is not granted--it will be a real travesty--and
a very dark day for the judicial system. |
|
|
morganfelter
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Sher, you are very
perceptive:
"Also how do we know John's attorney wasn't paid off in some means.The
attorney that put John in jail,if he was taking bribes and only told
the jury what they needed to here."
There is so much that couldn't be crammed into 43 minutes air time,
such as:
1. The former DA pled guilty to taking $48,050 in bribes b/t June
of 1998 and June of 2000.
2. The former DA had his mind set on becoming US Attorney, and he
needed a big case. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Whenever a man
has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
3. Maloney's girlfriend, Tracy Hellenbrand, insisted
Maloney hire Boyle. She personally took Maloney to meet with and
retain Boyle. Boyle told Maloney that Hellenbrand was the one
person Maloney could trust. That was in May of 1998.
4. On June 8, 1998, Hellenbrand got an immunity deal in exchange
for her "cooperation" in getting Maloney to confess. The immunity
covered her misconduct as an IRS criminal agent.
5. Boyle represented Maloney from May, 1998 to September, 2000.
He represented Maloney at trial and for his initial appeal.
Boyle testified in a malpractice suit against him won by another
of his former clients that during that period of time, he was
"desperate for money".
6. After Paulus was rejected by his own party in the 2002 primary
elections, he became Boyle's law partner. Boyle and Paulus
remained partners until Paulus was indicted in April of 2004.
7. One last thought: Paulus is notoriously cheap. His
lifestyle didn't seem to change during the time he was taking bribes,
which happens to coincide pretty neatly with the time period Boyle was
representing Maloney.
Paulus would never pay off a defense lawyer to let his client take a
fall FROM HIS OWN POCKET. But if it came from someone else's
pocket and just sort of passed through Joe's hands on the way, that
sounds like Joe. |
|
|
1993ashley
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,00:36 |
|
I believe John Maloney
deserves a new trial. It sounds to me like his wife did it to her self,
possibly.. The lawyers on both sides were not good. It appears one was
not honest and the one that was suppose to be on Johns side didn't
care,which is so sad because not only was Johns life at stake but also
his 3 sons that know he's innocent. As far as the tapes go he was set
up by a girl with no morals it appears{ and she obviously set him up}.
For Heavens sakes she rode him constantly for hours. Every one has a
breaking point. Sure he lost his temper,but a murderer-NO! If there is
a conscience out there ,There should be another trial.Please think of
the children.Thank you for letting me voice my opinion. |
|
|
Wendell Arehart
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted: Mar. 27 2005,00:31 |
|
Maloney`s
D. A. needs a new trial also charging him with tampering with
evidense and given more time in the pen and all that were in on it with
him. For justice sake have NO plee bargian. |
|
|
|
