From: rectalfissure [Yea I am an Asshole so what?]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 15:48

Well at least the judge is following the rules. they may suck but they are the rules, I am betting the judge is counting on being overturned

From: ozymandias [King of Kings]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 15:49

The Feds threw a bone to Corleone. Edward G. Robinson warned you about those dirty coppers, and none of you listened. Serpico died for our sins, yet we turned him away to anonymity. Such is the heritage of perversity.



I'm in fine form today.

From: omagoch [Bryan]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 16:13

The American legal system at it's best.

From: theallseeingear [Bavid Dyrden]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 16:18

Now, can we get Saddam out of jail on this same basis?

From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 16:47

Why would you want that?

From: studgerbil [Stud]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 16:53

I guess an 84-yr-old judge still has something left to lose after all, huh? Like his arms, legs, grandkids, etc.

Another judge owned by the Mob? Big fucking deal.

From: tiredoflurking [Sean]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 17:42

rectalfissure, shock of shocks, I actually agree with you. I don't know the details of the case, but if the offenses occurred outside the statute of limitations, then the judge was right. I don't understand tho'. What were the exact charges? Were there murder charges separate from the racketeering, or were they only charged with murder as part of the whole conspiracy thing, where if someone died, even if they couldn't prove they pulled the trigger, they'd be responsible?

This should be a wake-up call to the state legislators to lengthen the statute of limitations in racketeering cases from the piddly five years it is now.

I hate the thought of these assholes getting off though. I hope there is a way to nail them some other way, or an appeal court finds out that SOME element of the conspiracy took place WITHIN the five year limit.

I still don't get it though. Were there no cases where they could prove that the cops were the ACTUAL killers, and didn't just lead to the murders by passing on information? If there were such cases, couldn't they just have charged them with straightforward murder in those particular cases? There is no statute of limitations on just plain old murder, is there?

From: ltjackboot [name]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 19:15

Now we all know a judge that can be bought.

From: mikeisgreen [Mike]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 20:16

Now that's fucked up.

[With apologies to the site. R.I.P.]

From: bongwater [bongwater]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 20:41

Guess who had a skeleton under his robe.

From: rectalfissure [Yea I am an Asshole so what?]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 21:06

but if the offenses occurred outside the statute of limitations,

================================
A statute of limitations limits
the amount of time prosecutors have
to file charges against pepetrators
of crimes in this instance 5 years

From: selfcleaning [buttocks]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 22:42

They had this story on 60 Minutes last year. Stephen Caracappa's interview was very convincing to me that he was not guilty, but the evidence totally pointed in the other direction.

After watching the whole segment, his interview made me think he was a really, really good liar. It was actually scary how well he lied and came across as such a nice guy, and i'm really good at catching people lie. It makes you wonder.

The other cop - Louis Eppolito - wrote a book several years ago called (-get this) 'Mafia Cop,' saying his father (-i think it was his dad or someone else in his family) was in the mob, back in the day.

I think the title was just a play on words, in that he was letting us know the truth but saying it was really about a member of his family. Pretty devilish.

This would make a very good movie (maybe starring Joe Pesci & Ray Liota?!?)

From: tiredoflurking [Sean]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 23:05

Duh@rectalfissure. I agree with you once and you immediately assume I'm an idiot? You must have a low opinion of yourself. (Kidding here, not trying to be harsh.) I know what a statute of limitations is. I've wasted way too much of my life watching Law & Order and C.S.I., but at least I've picked up that much.

I read the article, carefully. The judge had to make a judgement call whether the fact that the guys started doing the same sort of shit again last year was a continuation of the original conspiracy (thereby setting the ticking clock of the statute of limitations back to zero) or was something completely new and separate. Threatening letters or phonecalls from one conspirator to another have been enought to keep conspiracy charges alive for decades after the actual crimes were committed. I guess they couldn't find evidence of attempted cover-ups or whatever, so they tried to show that their new crimes were somehow linked to the originals and failed. All that I understand.

What I don't know is whether or not they have gathered enough evidence to just lay a straightforward murder charge, not based on conspiracy, against either of the guys. Can they make a case that says Eppolito or Caracappa actually personally killed one or more of the victims. Do they have enough evidence to do that? I doubt there is a statute of limitations on a simple murder. Did they have to choose between laying the conspiracy charges (for which they may have had a stronger case) and just a straightforward murder charge?

From: tiredoflurking [Sean]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 23:28

As an aside, watching Law & Order can be dangerous for Canadians, because we often don't realize that our system doesn't have exactly the same safeguards as yours. We can end up thinking we have rights that we don't. We have double jeopardy, but it only applies after everyone has walked out of the court at the end of a trial. Just like with your system, if a guy is acquitted, the Crown (Crown Attorney = Canadian D.A.)can't try him again on the same charges a few years later, even if new evidence shows up. As soon as the jury's verdict of innocent is read though, the Crown can launch an appeal, and if the judge accepts it then and there, the defendant will be retried . The Crown has to have the grounds of the appeal ready right there though. He can't go back to the office and spend weeks or years leafing through files looking for grounds the way that a defendant's lawyers can. I think I like your system better. "The Man" should only get once chance to nail your ass.


Wikipedia says it better:




"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded, in contrast to the laws of the United States, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgement would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial."

From: educatedidiot [intolerant of stupidity]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 00:43

From: tiredoflurking [Sean]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 17:42
----------------

I'd have to guess they didn't have any real cut and dry murder cases... one of the few crimes in which there is no Statute of Limitations, otherwise they wouldn't be charging RICO

From: theallseeingear [Bavid Dyrden]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 01:14

>> >> Now, can we get Saddam out of jail on this same basis?

>> Why would you want that?

Because he's the only person on this planet qualified to run Iraq?

From: youarestupid [youarestupid]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 01:43

outrageous behavior. there are a couple stories on copshots.org about this. good site for news like this.

amazing the way our criminal "justice" system works these days...


hmmm....

i gotta get me one of them badges....

From: cattleprodsodomy [cattleprodsodomy]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 03:41

Everything's finally back to normal. I was worried that new york cops were going to be held to uphold the laws they are supposed to enforce. A world were new york cops don't have carte blanche to commit the worst felonies is not a world I want to live in. Only because I fear change.

From: gargoyle1
Date: 3-Jul-2006 06:58

Wonder if this judge woke up with a horses head in his bed?

From: thegoddesofwine [Denise Mercado]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 07:59

Say ello to my little friend!

From: blahblahblowme [my inner child is a mean lil fucker]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 08:14

Hmmm Saddam is not qualified to run Iraq. He failed miserably. He stole so much from the Iraqi people. Yeah so the insurgency, blah blah blah...all the bad in Iraq gets reported. There are alot of good things that don't get reported. Saddam is a snake. I hope they kill him soon. The judge in this case has followed the guidelines of the law, doesn't mean he didn't want to charge these fucks. But the thing I hate is the law can be so fucking vague and have like two or three different interpretations of them. For example it is not illegal in the US to smoke pot. You just can't possess it or possess paraphernalia that has pot residue in or on it. Can't drive after smoking it. But there is no law saying it is illegal to smoke pot. The fucking cops once again abuse their power and authority. This kind of thing starts young and in the home. I wonder how many puppies these two murdered when they were young?

From: doczzz [dwarf fusion]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 10:25

Bondy said a weeping Eppolito embraced him and said, "I feel as though my prayers were answered and that God is my true judge. I was afraid that I was going to spend the rest of my life in jail."
******************


If this is true, then Weinstein thinks he's God, or God is a member of La Cosa Nostra.

From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 10:28

Because he's the only person on this planet qualified to run Iraq?


You're a sick fucker.

From: iguanac64 [Itchy Carter]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 10:29

The law is a real bitch here...hopefully, some relatives of people murdered directly/indirectly by these officers will step up and off these wastes of humanity.

From: julezeebub [jules]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 15:58

Give the criminals and other undesirables to ME. I will devour them all. The Queen of Fat commands you!

From: neurose [i hate people]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 23:08

i just thought this was such a slap in the face for the victims families. They changed my headline, but this was my first successful submission. whoo-AH! oops- wrong movie

From: troll [Secret Identity]
Date: 3-Jul-2006 23:36

From: dirtyslut76 [slut]
Date: 2-Jul-2006 19:20

Now my dog is feaking over the fireworks we can't see
He is on my lap
I have an urge to throw him as hard as I can.

From: bartyboyo [sean]
Date: 4-Jul-2006 04:58

Im not a bit surprised the conviction was overturned at all.The mob still has a foothold in the US,they just have made some of there ventures legal.Wake up people.

From: krazymissi [krazy missi]
Date: 4-Jul-2006 09:48

At least there is one judge that actually gives a shit about following the law durin mafia trials. Usually anyone labeled mafia is immediately convicted. All you have to do to be labeled mafia is have an Italian last name in this country.

Gotti was never convicted until they decided to invent laws for the purpose of convicting him. Why?Because he made them look bad. He was more popular than the so called "good guys." He passed out fans in poor neighborhoods during heat waves. He had community fireworks displays where all the food was free. They alledge that he had people killed and used a lowlife rat that actually admitted to killing people to get him.

Nobody respects rats. Not even law enforcement. They use them but even a cop will tell you a rat is the lowest form of life. They are called rats because they will do anything to save themselves. They would turn their mother in if it meant that they get away with committing crimes. These cops did the world a favor.

From: cracker666 [honkey Infidel]
Date: 10-Jul-2006 08:05