"You think I'm a rat?"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    . Reports are that Bulger wants to testify...but I think his lawyer is going to do his best to talk him out of it.

     



    It's generally a terrible idea for the defendant to testify, even if they are innocent (possible exception: They are used to performing under massive pressure and can keep their composure). This, especially if they are facing a life term / death penalty.

     

    Too much can go wrong with that much adrenaline in one's veins. Dates misremembered, prior statements misremembered, visible shaking/sweating/etc. from nervousness.  All can be perfectly innocent, but can be used by the prosecutor to make the defendant look like a liar. The jury might also misinterpret shaking/sweating as a sign of guilt, rather than as a sign that the defendant's nervous system has been driven mad with adrenaline.

    It's a particularly tricky situation. Jurors are asked whether they would hold it against a defendant if he does not testify. Those who say they would are excused, but I have to bet that quite a few sitting jurors hold it against him anyway. (After all, if someone accuses you of something you didn't do in ordinary life, do you not object? Explain yourself?)

     

     

     

    As for this trial.....

    Well, being a hardcore gang leader/rat, I suspect Bulger is used to operating under pressure. The jury is almost certainly biased, and he is almost certainly guilty of far more than has been charged. There is really not much to lose.

    I have no idea how I would begin to think about defending that case. What defense is credible? The police went to the trouble of framing him for 19 murders - when one or two would do -  all the physical evidence is garbage and all the witnesses lying? Or maybe that he killed 19 people, but none of it was premeditated, so let him off ease with 2nd degree on all? Hah.

     

     

    Their main strategy may turn out to be trying to challenge the non-immunity ruling on appeal.

     

     




    I agree. If ever there were a defendent to put on the stand..I think Bulger is it. Really nothing to lose and in spite of his lack of self control in the courtroom I don't think his possible testimony could do much more damage.

    The immunity ruling would really have been his only defense. I can't imagine an appeals court would overturn the judge's ruling on this but I think he should have been allowed to talk about it on the stand.

    On a somewhat related note in terms of the merits of whether or not a defendent takes the stand..I was a little surprised that the Zimmerman defense rested without George Zimmerman taking the stand. I thought it was par for the course that when someone is claiming self defense that they take the stand.

    Also...and hopefully WhatDoYouWantNow sees this question...How can the judge allow the videotaped statement of Zimmerman's police interview to be shown to the jury without giving the prosecution a chance to cross examine his statements? To me...Zimmerman has..in essence...been allowed to testify without being cross examined. It would seem that the prosecution should have a chance to poke holes in his story since really..the jury is only getting one side.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Apparently Bulger took exception to Kevin Weeks calling him a rat on the stand yesterday. In yest another display of his lack of self control..Bulger got into a profanitly laced verbal altercation with Weeks after Weeks called Bulger a rat on the stand.

    I am thinking that if Bulger has so much to say from the defendant's table..he should really get up and testify. Reports are that Bulger wants to testify...but I think his lawyer is going to do his best to talk him out of it.

    It would be comical if there weren't dead victims and grieving family members.

    On a somewhat related note..I heard a report over the weekend which stated that Bulger offered to plead guilty to many of the charges in order to get his girlfriend off the hook. Not sure how I feel about that. Should we be going through the expense of a trial if he offered a guilty plea?

    Perhaps...after all..this is more about justice for the victims and their families..so they deserve this day in court..no matter what.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



    miscricket,

    I believe that offer to plead guilty was contained in a letter(s) that many feel Bulger wanted to get out in the public domain by this back channel route. The consensus opinion is Bulger never offered to plead guilty to all charges.

    Any true offer to plead guilty cannot be not be brought up in court. The legal reason behind this is it would under mind plea negotiations.

    As for the f bomb exchange between Weeks and Bulger, that was centered on Bulger struggling to maintain that he was never ever a rat. It is a mindset many of us civilians have a hard time wrapping our heads around. It seems more important to him than if he is viewed as a homicidal maniac.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper today denied a request by James “Whitey” Bulger for a delay in his racketeering and murder trial, a delay defense attorneys said was needed because the 83-year-old gangster is “exhausted’’ by the fast pace of the trial.

    Bulger’s lawyers had today asked that the trial be put on hold until July 16, saying that in order for Bulger to be in the South Boston courthouse on time, he is awakened at the Plymouth County House of Correction every day at 4 a.m.

    “This 83-year-old man is exhausted,’’ defense lawyers J.W. Carney Jr. and Henry Brennan wrote today.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Personally, my heart bleeds for the exhausted 83 year old defendant. I guess those 16 years in California were not enough of a respite for him.

     

                                                                

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Also...and hopefully WhatDoYouWantNow sees this question...How can the judge allow the videotaped statement of Zimmerman's police interview to be shown to the jury without giving the prosecution a chance to cross examine his statements?

     



     

     

    Well, the constitutional right to confront witnesses and their statements belongs to the defendant alone, and confrontation takes the form of cross-examination. So the prosecution could not demand that the statements be excluded due to inability to cross-examine.


    Now, I am a bit curious. (I may also be forgetting something, which tends to happen when you primarily do appeals and are focused on specific issues all the time, and a question comes up that deals with something you haven't had reason to look at in 5 years...)


    I take it the defense introduced the interview?

     

    Ordinarily, statements made out of court are inadmissible as hearsay (and since 2004, as also a violation of the defendant's confrontation right - with exceptions, of course). The defendant's statements may be offered by the prosecution as an exception to that general rule as a statement of a party opponent. This is what one law professor called the "up your A rule".


    Whether the defendant can offer his own statements and in what circumstances is a different question.

    If the defense wanted the video in and the prosecutor did too, I suppose the prosecutor could have joined in a motion to do so in which case...no problem because now they're offering the defendant's statements against him.

    Alternately, rules like the one against hearsay must sometimes bend when trumped by the defendant's due process right to present a defense.

     

     

     

    Chances are I am presently embarassingly forgetting some basic procedural rule because I haven't had a reason to research it in several years.....    


    It likely does not come up much because the defense usually doesn't want the defendant's statements in, but the prosecutor does




    Ahh..I get it. I don't think I realized that particular right ( to confront witnesses) belongs solely to the defense. Understanding that..it makes sense. It all seems a bit complicated but I think I get it. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case.

    From what I gather, the defense released the videotaped interview  that occured when this shooting first happened...the one where the police /prosecutor decided not to charge him. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the police did not exactly act in the interest of justice when this shooting first happened. It was only after an independent investigation and an independent prosecutor that charges were brought.

    I thought the reaction by Zimmerman's defense attorney over the judge's ruling which allowed the jury to consider manslaughter was interesting. He seemed confident that the prosecution was not going to prove 2nd degree murder, but less confident in the possiblity of manslaughter.

    Also..only 6 people on the jury? All women. Should be interesting.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper today denied a request by James “Whitey” Bulger for a delay in his racketeering and murder trial, a delay defense attorneys said was needed because the 83-year-old gangster is “exhausted’’ by the fast pace of the trial.

    Bulger’s lawyers had today asked that the trial be put on hold until July 16, saying that in order for Bulger to be in the South Boston courthouse on time, he is awakened at the Plymouth County House of Correction every day at 4 a.m.

    “This 83-year-old man is exhausted,’’ defense lawyers J.W. Carney Jr. and Henry Brennan wrote today.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Personally, my heart bleeds for the exhausted 83 year old defendant. I guess those 16 years in California were not enough of a respite for him.

     

                                                                




    I don't have a lot of sympathy for him either. I was chatting with my cousin about the trial this morning and he said the same thing..that Bulger was more concerned about being called a rat than a murderer. Twisted logic for sure...but then again..most of the testimony seems a bit like falling down the rabbit hole.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     Bulger was more concerned about being called a rat than a murderer.

     



    Which is particularlyodd given the "I had immunity (to be a rat)" attempt....     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Haha...I agree! Really..it's like falling down the rabbit hole...lol

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    I was listening to the news this morning and I am thinking that the odds of Bulger the Rat testifying are increasing.

    I could care less if he testifies. I think most of what he will say will probably be a lie. The testimony from a lot of these thugs has thus far sounded like it came out of a bad mob movie.

    I am sure however, that there are some people out there who would not like to see him testify at all.

    Also..Steven Rakes' death is looking more suspicious by the day.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    Quite a mixed verdict today..! One thing for sure...Bulger is done. The rest of his sorry life will be spent behind bars.

    I hope that this verdict at least allows the vicitims families' to begin to heal. I felt bad that there was no finding in the death of Debra Davis. Her brother has been fighting for decades for justice on her behalf..so I suppose this result was somewhat bittersweet.

    No doubt they are all emotionally exhausted and I hope they begin to find peace.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     

Share