Tag Archives: mainstream media

Trial begins in 2007 death of Glendale officer

jm

Juan Martinez will be the lead prosecutor in the Bryan Hulsey murder trial.

PHOENIX (AP) — Jury selection began Monday for an Arizona man charged with fatally shooting a police officer seven years ago during a routine traffic stop in Phoenix.

Bryan Wayne Hulsey, 40, is charged with killing Glendale Officer Anthony Holly, 24, during the February 2007 stop.

Hulsey has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and misconduct involving a weapon. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Attorneys are scheduled to make opening statements June 2. 

The shooting unfolded after a vehicle in which Hulsey was a passenger was pulled over in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale. Hulsey got out of the vehicle and started firing, authorities said. The other officer at the scene returned fire and struck Hulsey in one of his legs.

Prosecutors say Hulsey killed Holly in the exchange of gunfire. Hulsey’s attorneys have questioned whether Holly was unintentionally shot by the other officer.

Defense attorneys made the suggestion about the other officer based on the fact that the bullet that killed Holly wasn’t recovered during the autopsy, though tiny metal fragments remained in his body.

credits: www.trivalleycentral.com

Advertisements

“Matters before the Court” ~ The Murder of Jill Meagher.

A blogger made this comment on his/her blog:

“History is littered with examples of innocent people who were jailed as a result of fabricated police evidence”.  

The topic related to social media and the impact of mainstream media on matters before court.

My response ~

“I don’t understand what social media has to do with innocent people jailed as a result of fabricated police evidence. Honestly, how can fabrication of police evidence have anything to do with matters before the court? How can that be seen as contempt? There was no fabrication of any evidence when Bayley took investigators to the crime scene and admitted to raping, killing and burying Jill Meagher. It was good old police work – get a confession and lock the murderer up.

If you say that reporting of facts by police [to the public] are highly prejudicial, then who is in contempt? The police sharing info with the media? Or the media conveying that info [to the public]? If police don’t want certain info published, then why make public statements? In that case, I would say, the problem lies within the police force and the court should perhaps hold the police in contempt.

The public are permitted to sit in on a trial.

If a person from the media is sitting in on the trial, why is that journalist not allowed to write about his/her day in court and the happenings?

If the court is so concerned about coverage, why not change the rules completely? Don’t make court documents available, don’t get the public involved at all. Keep it a secret. Perhaps the police should then not rely on the media to spread the word should a crime be in progress or have happened. Perhaps CCTV of Bayley never should have been released to the public. In fact, it was totally unnecessary to have shown the CCTV footage. If the footage was shown to LE only, they would have realised Bayley was known to police. The publication of CCTV footage during peak hour on national television was totally and utterly unnecessary! They DID not even need the help of the public. All they had to do was show the footage to a few police officers, parole board members, etc.

However, when it became clear who the suspect was, the police went into overdrive trying to silence the media on any further coverage. Why? Because it became clear that this man was in fact a REPEAT OFFENDER out on parole! The public became enraged by this news and demanded answers. But all of a sudden NO questions were to be asked. NONE. Be quiet, because the MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT! Yes, before the court. Hasn’t it been before the court before and before that and before that? Yes, but no one is allowed to talk about it. Why? Because the parolee will not get a FAIR TRIAL or it can INFLUENCE THE JURY or the parolee’s HUMAN RIGHTS before a fair and impartial jury. The trial will be in jeopardy.

About your use of the word “history”. Before advanced DNA testing a numerous amount of innocent people were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

The opposite also happened. A lot of cases became unsolved and the perpetrators are still walking free because they were never apprehended.

Across the world a lot of cold cases are now being successfully prosecuted because of DNA samples being preserved for the future.

Luckily because of MSM and DNA, a lot of cold cases are being opened again and it is wonderful that families of victims can, for the first time, get closure, acceptance and best of all, come face to face with their loved one’s murderer in a court of law!

I applaud the media for their efforts in bringing the truth to the people of any country, the people that work to earn a honest living. These citizens have a right to know who and what they are subjected to. Jill Meagher had the right to be safe. She was shown no mercy. None. Her dignity was stripped away from her when she was repeatedly raped by a serial rapist then buried in a shallow grave next to a road!”