Nitromater

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!


Goodwin guilty in Mickey Thompson murder

1320Classifieds.net

Post your FREE classified ads today.
No Fees, No Hassle, just simple and effective Ads.


Wow,

I guess the wheels of justice however slowly do turn. How soon do you think the appeal will be filed? It’s nice for the family to have some closure.
 
The guy should swing like Saddam, but after all of appeals are done, they should offer to remove the "without possibility of parole" if he rats out the gunmen.

Jay
 
Huh, I thought for sure Goodwin would walk...glad that he didn`t! This has always been such a strange case, Thompsons sister is one persistent lady, I`ll give her that. Hopefully 48 Hours does an update on the case, the episode they aired a couple years ago about it was excellent.
 
How in the World does a Trashbag like this guy get what 20+ year's of appeals?? Our legal system's corrupt as it gets!:confused:
 
The guy should swing like Saddam, but after all of appeals are done, they should offer to remove the "without possibility of parole" if he rats out the gunmen.

Jay

That's one of the first things I wondered, if he knows any names, and where they are by now. I don't think we have to doubt that he'd roll over on someone to lessen his own time.

If he ever made it out onto the street someday, which I hope he never would, it would really break our hearts if someone popped him while trying to rob him of a few bucks.
 
Heres a pretty good article on the whole thing, Its kinda long but good!! I just cant figure out how they found him guilty when they had no evidence whatsoever other than he said he was wanted to kill him, Damn who hasn't said that in there lifetime, even jokingly?? Like the article says they had no dna, no weapon, no actual shooters, no witnesses to place him at the crime. Just a motive!! Damn look at O.J. they had his bloody print on the gate at the scene, his wifes blood in the bronco and bloody shoe prints his size and same sole pattern as his shoe, and the mask and glove were found at his house!! now you tell me how they can convict someone with absolutely zero evidence??? I just cant figure out the justice system in our country. I do believe he had something to do with it!! I'm just trying to figure how they made the decision with no evidence!! LA Weekly - Murder On the Last Turn
 
It looks like 12 of his peers thought there was more than enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That was a trial.

OJ did not have a trial, he had a 3 ring circus. The two can't be compared.
 
I'm sure most all of us have abused the phrase "I'm going to kill...." either jokingly or as a way to say how badly we're going to beat someone in a sport. Apparently the jury could see the difference between that and saying "I'm going to kill Mickey Thompson and I can get it done for $50,000."

I still say that promising to do it should be just as much of a confession as admitting it after the fact. We won't hesitate to convict someone on a confession alone even if there's no other evidence. Why only believe them if they say it AFTER it's done?
 
How in the World does a Trashbag like this guy get what 20+ year's of appeals?? Our legal system's corrupt as it gets!:confused:

Sorry Joe, our legal system is not corrupt. It works today exactly as the founding fathers intended it to work.

It is the prosecutor's job to prove a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. People called the system faulty after the O.J. verdict, with all kinds of calls for 'reform' of the legal system. Did anything change? No, not one thing. After the hysteria died down, most thinking people understood that the prosecution failed to prove it's case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And a high school kid could see that if they tuned in to even a small part of the televised procedings.

Benjamin Franklin believed “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

The Thompson issue is on the other side of the spectrum from O.J.'s Apparently the prosecution did it's job, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence was enough to convict.
 
Sorry Joe, our legal system is not corrupt. It works today exactly as the founding fathers intended it to work.

It is the prosecutor's job to prove a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. People called the system faulty after the O.J. verdict, with all kinds of calls for 'reform' of the legal system. Did anything change? No, not one thing. After the hysteria died down, most thinking people understood that the prosecution failed to prove it's case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And a high school kid could see that if they tuned in to even a small part of the televised procedings.

Benjamin Franklin believed “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

The Thompson issue is on the other side of the spectrum from O.J.'s Apparently the prosecution did it's job, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence was enough to convict.


stop the freakin presses I agree with Jackee.

the prosecution of the OJ case was pitiful. I often wondered if they intentionally lost that case, for whatever sick reason. I can't imagine they were actually that incompetent.

a detective walking around with evidence in his pocket . a female prosecuter who couldn't work late because she didn't have a babysitter(even though the kids could have been with her ex)
as a divorced dad I 'll never forget that one.
bitch.
it was a mess of a trial.....
 
I'm sure most all of us have abused the phrase "I'm going to kill...." either jokingly or as a way to say how badly we're going to beat someone in a sport. Apparently the jury could see the difference between that and saying "I'm going to kill Mickey Thompson and I can get it done for $50,000."

I still say that promising to do it should be just as much of a confession as admitting it after the fact. We won't hesitate to convict someone on a confession alone even if there's no other evidence. Why only believe them if they say it AFTER it's done?

Jackie is right on here, the system isn't broke. Some of the people involved in it are, but it's like that with anything that involves human beings as we all know.

He also said, after it was done that they would never prove it because he was smarter than them. Would that be a confession after the fact? Doesn't it seem to infer guilt?

Not even close to OJ's "If I did it" routine recently.
 
Last edited:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Reasonable" seems to be the variable term here like I see included in almost every legal phrase I've ever seen.

Kinda like the IRS and their twenty rules to determine who is and is not an independent contractor. Every single one has words like "usually" or normally." Twenty sentences that say not one definite thing other than "WE get to be the ones to determine who is what."
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top