What's new
By:
Filters

Great Mickey Thompson murder trial article (1 Viewer)

StarLink
High Speed Internet
Available AnyWhere On Earth
Now $349

Registered member said:
Isn't it illegal to say you're going to murder someone? To me it's even more wrong when you're the one convicted of stealing from them in the first place (not like you should be apologizing or anything). I know, one has nothing to do with the other. This is common sense and it would never be allowed in a courtroom. If you were JUST an a-hole thief, my opinion might be different. Cross the line to saying you're going to murder, then the murder happens? I say you said the wrong thing at the wrong time and if you didn't do it, you'd better hope the one who did is found before you rot for too long. I don't expect anyone to agree, but that's what I think.

WERE there no witnesses? How do they know that two guys on bicycles did it?
Click to expand...

Neighbors said they saw these two guys leaving.

As for the rest, I can only repeat myself. I want the guilty parties to pay for the crime.
 
It's going to be interesting to say the least, 18 years is a long time from crime to trial. Not saying he is guilty, but you would think that if he could prove he is innocent he would have welcomed the trial a long time ago. Then again it's not his job to prove he didn't do it. The prosecution has to prove he is guilty.
 
Registered member said:
Interesting post. You read half of the article. So you're certainly well informed.
Click to expand...
I read it all, Robert..my response was to your "believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you read." I didn't word it very well.

If you can believe this article..or the history between Mickey and this guy..he appears to have brought on most of it himself. Attitude apparently counts for something. Again, if the story is true..I have a hard time feeling any remorse..due process aside.
 
Registered member said:
I read it all, Robert..my response was to your "believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you read." I didn't word it very well.

If you can believe this article..or the history between Mickey and this guy..he appears to have brought on most of it himself. Attitude apparently counts for something. Again, if the story is true..I have a hard time feeling any remorse..due process aside.
Click to expand...

That's funny David. Doesn't matter how you worded it, it would have gone over my head anyway. Good job. :)

All I'm saying is that I want to see justice. I want the guilty to pay. If Goodwin is a complete azz and scum of the earth but didn't do it he shouldn't be in jail for it. Biggest problem I see is that the guilty still go free.

As for his crooked business dealings, I think Mickey made Goodwin pay a pretty good price. Ran him out of business and made him pretty miserable.
 
Registered member said:
Neighbors said they saw these two guys leaving.

As for the rest, I can only repeat myself. I want the guilty parties to pay for the crime.
Click to expand...

And, we're not disagreeing on wanting the guilty party to pay for the crime. We just may disagree on a method for determining it. You say you're going to murder someone, and a few days later they're murdered, that's close enough for me unless someone "more guilty" can be found. If you end up in prison because you're THAT irresponsible with your own mouth? I don't have a problem with it.

It's amazing to me. You can promise to murder someone, and that's not evidence? If you confessed to murdering someone after the fact, that's convictable evidence. If promising isn't good enough (someone's word), then why is a confession (someone's word) with no other evidence? LOL, you can only be convicted with your mouth if you WANT to be?

You could be telling the truth in promising to murder someone, murder them, and not be convicted on that alone. Someone could be murdered, you DIDN'T do it, but you confess to protect someone else, and be convicted on your word alone. Who does this make sense to? Why shouldn't it be considered a confession if it's only done BEFORE the fact? Based on this, we shouldn't accept anyone's confession if it's done AFTER the fact. You say you did it? Prove it!

Kinda like NHRA's reasoning. "Multiple car teams are unfair........ahem.....but,only IF you have more than FOUR of them." If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Shouldn't matter when you do it or by how much. Saying you're going to murder someone before they're murdered should be just as believable as saying it after.
 
Last edited:
Its good that Marsha Clark isn't involved

and Mark Furman wasn't working for the Bradbury Sheriffs department
It's to bad the neighbor who shot at the guys on 10-speed bikes was such a bad shot. good thing he didn't hit a fellow neighbbor.
I wonder how soon will Goodwin come out with a book about this whole affair?
Face it our legal system needs to be repaired.
I just hope the scum who is responsiable for this crime pays for it.
 
Man...I remeber that day vividly due to being a huge motorcross fan @ that time and Thompson was a big supporter of motocross. When it happened I was only 19 years of age and figured some biz dealings had gone wrong for this event to happen.
I will bet that Goodwin will not be found guilty.
My father used to date a high profile attorney in L.A. and we would discuss trials and court all the time. She (fathers girlfriend) would never be concerned w/ the right or wrong regarding a case only which side had more ammo in court.
Another common saying in alot of law firms is "In America there is no justice, only compensation".
Just my take......
 
I for one have believed that there would not be a conviction in this case, and by this story, it appears that is going to be the case. There's really nothing in the evidence to tie Goodwin to the killings, other than he's the logical guy who benefitted from the killings. If his lawyers believed they were in dire straights of losing, they would have him testify. They must believe that the prosecution has not proved its case, so why try to hit a home run and have him testify when they don't need him to do so?
I would be shocked if there is a conviction.
 
Registered member said:
If his lawyers believed they were in dire straights of losing, they would have him testify. They must believe that the prosecution has not proved its case, so why try to hit a home run and have him testify when they don't need him to do so?
I would be shocked if there is a conviction.
Click to expand...

Many a defendant has chose not to testify and still got convicted. Sometimes they are so guilty, that their attorneys do not want them to testify so they don't completely sink the ship.
 
I think the odds are that he won't be convicted, but I also believe he SHOULD be convicted. I still say it's screwy how much power we put in the criminal's hands, and that promising to murder someone before they're murdered should be just as much of a confession as saying you did it after.

Tell the truth in promising to do it before it's done with no other evidence, no conviction.

Lie and say you did do it after the fact when you didn't, and you'll be convicted. Only THEN is it a confession and you'll be convicted on your word alone. You're only convicted on your word if you WANT to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ways To Support Nitromater

Similar threads

ProStockJunkie
Mickey & Trudy Thompson murder case being reaired tonight.
Replies
2
Views
1K
.
.
Deby
July 4th and 5th, 2009
Replies
0
Views
2K
Deby
Deby
S
great article on the warriors
Replies
1
Views
2K
vlad the impaler
V
mike
An Interesting Article From 1990 About TF Performance....
Replies
0
Views
2K
mike
mike
J
The Punisher OFAA October Report
Replies
5
Views
3K
RAPID
RAPID

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top