Paris if a free woman again...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I applaud the judge for his actions & backbone. Unfortunately for him, other people involved, including the prison staff, are so terrified of getting in trouble that they are giving her special treatment. It's a joke & pathetic, IMO.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree...I think the judge is...well, I disagree.
Another issue here is the role of probation/parole...it sounds so good in theory but dooms so many folks to "being in the system" for years if not for life. Remember that Paris' "crime" for which she was sent to jail was two counts of driving under a suspended license...hardly the stuff of crime novels but they violated her probation. I've seen folks leave prison with long "tails" (extensive periods of parole) only to return for long periods for "crimes" such as missing a meeting with their PO.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

You didn't have a problem with that case?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Oh jeez...from Paris to OJ.

Mommy, make the bad men stop!!!!!!!!111111111

I'm nothing if not inclusive!

[ninetoone]

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

I'm not getting into this one with you, believe me! Let's just say I'm not surprised that you would have voted "not guilty". You do know that he did it though right? I can already predict all of your posts regarding this, so lets just kill this thread (pardon the pun), and save ourselves a few hours & get some rest.

I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??

[ninetoone]

That's exactly what I thought you'd say & I've heard it a million times before. I'm glad to hear that you at least realize what really happenned & nobody's gonna make you say it. Have a good night.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

That's exactly what I thought you'd say & I've heard it a million times before. I'm glad to hear that you at least realize what really happenned & nobody's gonna make you say it. Have a good night.

You too...I doubt there are a million folks who agree with me though, afterall Furman went on to host his own TV show I believe...

[ninetoone]

What really happenned = OJ did it!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

What really happenned = OJ did it!

I wish I had your clarity...all I know is that it wasn't proven, at least to me and the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Danzig]

thing is....paris was caught for a dui. given a sentence which she then violated. so how can the judge be the 'bad guy' if she went right out and broke a rule of her probation, which brought her right back to the courtroom? sounds like a repeat offender to me!

from what i heard, there was a huge party planned at the hilton joint last night--she may have been unable to leave her house, but evidently that wasn't going to keep her from partying like it was 1999. doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention--but maybe that's just me.

also, perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been paris.
but maybe the sheriff wouldn't have given a rats behind had it not been her either--had she been jane smith, she would not have gotten the release to house arrest.

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

All excellent points and I agree. How this is somehow turned into a pity party for Paris Hilton is frankly sickeneing. It is she who has made a mockery of this entire thing from trying to use her "celebrity" to be pardoned, to going to an awards show the night before she was imprisoned. Like someone said earlier, think it was Baba, she'll never kill herself, she's too self consumed. I see this as the judge trying to set a standard saying you cannot do whatever you want and get special treatment because of your name or status in society. I applaude him and yes, I slept well last night with my decision.

Don't worry, you are right, along with (most) everyone else. Someone either can't see the forest for the trees, or is just a plain contrarian who can't stand the idea of going along with the pack...ever. Sometimes though, the pack is right. Oh well. Don't worry, you can say the sky is blue, and there's always someone around who's going to say...."Actually....it's not...let me enlighten you on what you actually don't see here..."

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't "know" if he did it or not, I know what I think but I won't say it here because he was found "not guilty" so I have no right to say what I think (it should be obvious from that though). Thing is...the rule of law says "innocent until proven guilty"...there were many problems with the prosecution's case (certainly they were over matched...I mean F Lee Bailey, one of the foremost defense attorneys in this generation, was what...third or fourth chair?). A timeline that didn't match up, a glove that didn't fit but most of all...how do you say, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with Mark Furman handling key evidence??

that's easy for me, because it was clear that he was guilty, and because there was no problem with Furman. Great defense tactic to turn the case into one of race, but what a huge farce that this guilty man gets to walk free.
Might have been a different decision if the Paris Hilton judge had been one the OJ trial.

[ddthetide]

what i find wrong with this situation, paris hilton is in jail and a pieces of crap like pacman jones and michael vick walk the streets.
don't get me wrong , hilton deserves it and should have to serve the entire sentence.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

thing is....paris was caught for a dui. given a sentence which she then violated. so how can the judge be the 'bad guy' if she went right out and broke a rule of her probation, which brought her right back to the courtroom? sounds like a repeat offender to me!

from what i heard, there was a huge party planned at the hilton joint last night--she may have been unable to leave her house, but evidently that wasn't going to keep her from partying like it was 1999. doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention--but maybe that's just me.

also, perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been paris.
but maybe the sheriff wouldn't have given a rats behind had it not been her either--had she been jane smith, she would not have gotten the release to house arrest.

I'm not a close personal friend of the Hiltons so I don't know about their social life; you say it "doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention" so tell me, what does it say in your rule book of human behavior about how people must act during periods of distress? Then you admit, "perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been Paris"...Bingo! This is the point I've been arguing since the beginning...I've ALWAYS said that Paris broke the law and is responsible for her behavior, my issue is the judge's actions! To me, he is "the bad guy" if he misused his position to (a) impose a sentence disproportionate to the norm to "make an example" out of Paris...for decades, poor people in this country have been treated unfairly by the system, given harsher sentences, if you want the extreme...the KKK was "making an example" when they lynched folks without a trial. There is no moral justification for treating someone harshly to "make an example"...and if I'm gonna stand and speak out when it happens to poor folks, how can I be silent when it happens to a rich person?? Wrong is wrong, we don't need "examples" we need fairness and equal treatment. (b) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he gets into an obvious power struggle with the local sheriff (and the sheriff himself spoke to this in a news conference yesterday) and uses Ms Hilton as a pawn...ordering her picked up in a marked car and brought to him in handcuffs to flex his "muscles". (c) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he refuses to consider Ms Hilton's alleged medical condition or any details pertaining to the decision by the Sheriff and prison authorities to release her to house arrest because, in his own words, it was their responsibility to send him the information and he hadn't received it. Wouldn't you want that information BEFORE you sent her back to jail? Why didn't he demand same and review it...what was the big hurry???

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

that's easy for me, because it was clear that he was guilty, and because there was no problem with Furman. Great defense tactic to turn the case into one of race, but what a huge farce that this guilty man gets to walk free.
Might have been a different decision if the Paris Hilton judge had been one the OJ trial.

No problem with Furman? Did you hear the tapes where he admitted being a racist and bragged that he would gladly plant evidence on a black man "messing" with a white woman...in fact there was a thinly veiled admission on the tapes that he had in fact done so. This guy handled critical evidence in the case and you don't think that's a problem! Almost everywhere in this nation, juries are advised by the judge that it doesn't matter what they think they "know", all that matters is what has been proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Who the judge was would not have effected the outcome of that trial.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

what i find wrong with this situation, paris hilton is in jail and a pieces of crap like pacman jones and michael vick walk the streets.
don't get me wrong , hilton deserves it and should have to serve the entire sentence.

Well, Paris has been found guilty of DUI and then violated her probation with two counts of driving during suspension...she's had her day in court regardless of my feelings on how she was treated, she will have a notice of appeal filed on Monday and will be out on bail pending decision by appeals court. Jones has not been convicted of any crime according to reports and Vick has yet to be charged so...

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

No problem with Furman? Did you hear the tapes where he admitted being a racist and bragged that he would gladly plant evidence on a black man "messing" with a white woman...in fact there was a thinly veiled admission on the tapes that he had in fact done so. This guy handled critical evidence in the case and you don't think that's a problem! Almost everywhere in this nation, juries are advised by the judge that it doesn't matter what they think they "know", all that matters is what has been proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Who the judge was would not have effected the outcome of that trial.

no problem with furman, he wasn't on trial. I don't know the truth about those tapes, but what I've seen about the guy after the trial is very likeable and bright and passionate about putting away the scum that would try to get away with murder.
and yes I do feel the the judge makes a huge difference and can effect the outcome of a trial, no doubt about it.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

no problem with furman, he wasn't on trial. I don't know the truth about those tapes, but what I've seen about the guy after the trial is very likeable and bright and passionate about putting away the scum that would try to get away with murder.
and yes I do feel the the judge makes a huge difference and can effect the outcome of a trial, no doubt about it.

I don't know how old you are or what your interests are/were so maybe you didn't watch the trial on TV (it was a unique experience to be sure), Furman's words were recorded on tape by this lady (can't recall why she had interviewed him...book deal maybe?) and he was very up front regarding his views. There was no room for doubt that he had a hatred for black men who were involved with white women and he at the very least suggested a willingness to "plant" evidence against such folks. Add that to the fact that he was close with many of the investigating officers (and yes, there was some indication that at least some shared his views) and he handled important evidence. Of course there was the other officer who locked vital blood samples in the trunk of his vehicle for a day or so instead of maintaining chain of custody as required, the bloody glove that didn't fit, problems with the DNA evidence, a timeline that never really worked...the investigation was unbelievably unprofessional and the prosecution team was in way over their heads...everyone in America had already convicted the guy...but they blew it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I'm not a close personal friend of the Hiltons so I don't know about their social life; you say it "doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention" so tell me, what does it say in your rule book of human behavior about how people must act during periods of distress? Then you admit, "perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been Paris"...Bingo! This is the point I've been arguing since the beginning...I've ALWAYS said that Paris broke the law and is responsible for her behavior, my issue is the judge's actions! To me, he is "the bad guy" if he misused his position to (a) impose a sentence disproportionate to the norm to "make an example" out of Paris...for decades, poor people in this country have been treated unfairly by the system, given harsher sentences, if you want the extreme...the KKK was "making an example" when they lynched folks without a trial. There is no moral justification for treating someone harshly to "make an example"...and if I'm gonna stand and speak out when it happens to poor folks, how can I be silent when it happens to a rich person?? Wrong is wrong, we don't need "examples" we need fairness and equal treatment. (b) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he gets into an obvious power struggle with the local sheriff (and the sheriff himself spoke to this in a news conference yesterday) and uses Ms Hilton as a pawn...ordering her picked up in a marked car and brought to him in handcuffs to flex his "muscles". (c) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he refuses to consider Ms Hilton's alleged medical condition or any details pertaining to the decision by the Sheriff and prison authorities to release her to house arrest because, in his own words, it was their responsibility to send him the information and he hadn't received it. Wouldn't you want that information BEFORE you sent her back to jail? Why didn't he demand same and review it...what was the big hurry???

my point was that altho some (well, one) thinks that the judge went to such lengths because it was paris, yet somehow the sheriff gets a free pass, when his actions apparently had a lot to do with the fact it was paris. yet the sheriff gets a pass--why, because of how he handled it, and that if fits in with certain points of view? i guess the sheriff is the one thinking clearly, but not the judge? again, i guess it depends on what side you think is correct.
i don't have a 'rule book' about human behavior, but if someone is so sick they can't serve 45 days in jail, common sense might say they aren't up to having hundreds of their closest personal friends for a soiree either....
and if she was let out of jail due to a condition, you'd think that would have been settled BEFORE she was let out. it would be on the sheriff to show the reason, not the judge to find why he must return her to the jail she was released from.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my point was that altho some (well, one) thinks that the judge went to such lengths because it was paris, yet somehow the sheriff gets a free pass, when his actions apparently had a lot to do with the fact it was paris. yet the sheriff gets a pass--why, because of how he handled it, and that if fits in with certain points of view? i guess the sheriff is the one thinking clearly, but not the judge? again, i guess it depends on what side you think is correct.
i don't have a 'rule book' about human behavior, but if someone is so sick they can't serve 45 days in jail, common sense might say they aren't up to having hundreds of their closest personal friends for a soiree either....
and if she was let out of jail due to a condition, you'd think that would have been settled BEFORE she was let out. it would be on the sheriff to show the reason, not the judge to find why he must return her to the jail she was released from.

Some of that raises valid points and some makes no sense to me. Regarding the alleged party...I don't know if those reports are true or not but I'd imagine if I just got out of jail I might feel like celebrating at home where it's safe, Paris' parents were probably overjoyed, I know I would be if my child was just released given the circumstances (hell, given any circumstances) and if she was suffering from depression and on the edge of a psychotic break, it makes perfect sense to surround her with friends and try and erase some of the anxiety so I don't see the issue. Now the other part of your post regarding her alleged illness, are you saying that they should have kept her incarcerated until she was cured? Boy, I'd hate to go to your prison with a chronic illness! Seriously though, the reports are she was suffering from acute depression due to her incarceration and was on the edge of a psychotic break...if true, removing the stressor (in this case jail) is the treatment! Is the Sheriff responsible for anything here? Frankly I don't know enough about procedure in that county to know whether he followed the law or not...he claims he had jurisdiction and the judge disagrees, that's a matter for the appeals court. What we know is that he and prison authorities reviewed the information they had, including the diagnosis of a psychiatrist, and came to a decision. In my experience here in Pa, it would seem like they acted properly but I just don't know Cal law, if it is later determined that he was somehow wrong then he will and should be held accountable. Regarding the sheriff's "responsibility" to prove anything here to the judge, again that seems to be a debatable subject and one the court will again decide but again, what we do know is that the judge affectively "hid" behind his viewpoint that it was the Sheriff's responsibility to provide the information. what I'm saying is that if he had problems with the decision, why wouldn't he demand the info and review it BEFORE taking action? He obviously knew (that's an assumption on my part but hard to believe he hadn't heard) that there was a medical condition involved in the decision yet he refused to consider that...sending her back to prison.
Let me try this scenerio...taken from Law and Order TV show...more extreme I admit but the same principle involved...letter of the law vs intent.
Say a man is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Some time passes and he exhausts his appeals, finally only days before his scheduled execution, new evidence is found that proves beyond any doubt he is not guilty, the attorney goes to the judge but the judge refuses to hear this evidence because the appeal process has ended...by the letter of the law, the judge is right to so rule, but that means an innocent man will die! Would you be comfortable with that? That's what happened here, because...at least in the judge's mind...the Sheriff and other officials failed to produce "evidence" that he knows exists, he is refusing to consider same. According to reports, Paris was placed in the medical wing under suicide watch with 24/7 observation, security cameras, the whole works...suppose, just for argument, she does experience a psychotic break and harms herself or suffers permanent damage and once reviewed, the psychiatrist's diagnosis clearly warns of same...how will the judge explain his refusal to even review this information? Why wouldn't he?