Comments on: Bubaris acquited

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:49:58 +0000

Kudos to ed and Wahoo.

In my life, I should be only half the man Max Perkins was. Anything exceeding that is a victory.

More likely, I’ll end up like Nathanael West.

The more we laugh (at ourselves), the longer we live.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:28:18 +0000

Or Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.

By: ed

ed — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:43:55 +0000

Fitzgerald needed Maxwell Perkins. At least you edit your own copy (and quickly)!

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:33:40 +0000

Wow, I am in need of forgiveness.

After chastising the J-News slot desk over “acquited,” I bonered on “eloquently” (above).

Nothing worse than an (occasionally) self-righteous, middle-aged scold like me.

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:30:16 +0000

Ed:

consultant’s freudian slip can be forgiven.

It wasn’t a typical “Hollywood HOMO-cide,” as Kevin Spacey so elequently stated in LA Confidential.

Yet I love your sarcasm, and I’ll bet consultant does, too. (He’s a real man.)

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:03:54 +0000

I always defer to consultant, who is a friend I admire greatly, and whose intellect is sine qua non.

That said:

Involving the Feds these days is not like what it was in the South 45 years ago, when local juries would acquit some murdrous Klansman, only to face the great Frank Johnson in Alabama Circuit.

Do they really want to fry this sympathetic man Bubaris—who has already lost his job as police officer—for possibly helping to fruition the death of a suicidal illegal immigrant?

What is our nation coming to?

I’m sending Quinn $20 tomorrow for the defense fund. Maybe I’ll reach out to some rich friends for more.

By: ed

ed — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:54:27 +0000

A homocide? Interesting. I had no idea of the victim’s preferences.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:15:27 +0000

the perez case has been classified a homocide..tonight
the US attorney is initiating an indpendent investigation
which may or may not result in civil rights charges
against bubaris or some other individual…but the
fact that the death has been classified as a homocide
would dictate that a further investigation is necessary

By: Tim Hays

Tim Hays — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:18:37 +0000

“Acquited”?

When is a literate person going to get work on the slot desk at the J-News?

Perhaps the “acquitted” Mr. Bubaris could apply for work, and get hired, at the paper of record here in Westchester, now that he’s been absolved of wrongdoing.

I’m truly sorry that the illegal immigrant was dead too early. As a Catholic, I do not like seeing people die before their time.

But Mr. Bubaris has been slimed before his family and the entire community over the past year, for a death that now has been proved to be the responsibility of the victim.

God Bless Mr. Bubaris. He is welcome at St. Matthew’s RC in Hastings with me any time. Jesus Christ forgives him—and so, too, did twelve of his peers in our justice system.

By: ed

ed — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:41 +0000

Suppression of motions and the judicial elimination of certain counts of accusal are elements of trial introduced because the judge presumably has a keener knowledge of jurisprudence and a more even-handed interest in justice than a gaggle of asst. DAs. And cynics, it has been said, are seldom disappointed.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:53 +0000

I agree with Ed, for reasons I already stated. Indicting Bubaris was the politically correct thing to do, even though the case was extremely weak. She would have caught ten tons of hell if she didn’t indict. Plus, since DiFiore is now a Democrat, you can bet she considered that constituency too. And you must know they wanted to see Bubaris slammed.

No? Look at how the Journal News and News 12, both liberal outlets, did everything but sing Marty Robbins’ “The Hanging Tree” whenever it came to Bubaris.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:14:20 +0000

a little cynical if you have never been in the position
that I was in with Carl Vergari…you have to follow
the evidence no matter what…and risk an aquittal becomes
sometimes the jury doesn’t get to see everything because
of suppression motions and the judge throwing certain counts
out….

By: ed

ed — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:52:59 +0000

She’s a lot better off with the general public that she prosecuted this case than had she worried about PBA votes. She would have lost a ton more votes the other way if she had sat on her hands and done little or nothing. All of which points to a political motivation. I highly doubt any DA would have done anything differently, but that doesn’t make it correct from an ethical point of view. Goes to show that any one of us “innocents” is subject to financial and reputational ruination if someone in power decides that the “greater good” is at stake.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:41:07 +0000

but Wahoo think about it …if the evidence were really
so slim..why would di fiore want to have him acquitted,
and then risk the criticism that you and others will
dole out….and incur the rath of the PBA’s across the
county…it doesn’t make poltiical sense….that is where
the DA whomever he or she is has to make calls that
do not consider the political impact..because in this
case the poltical thing to do would have been simply
to allow the grand jury to toss it.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:35:04 +0000

Consultant—We all know and agree Zherka is off the charts. That lowlife guy is afraid of being indicted and is trying to set up a defense that he is a victim. That is his game, and he is destined to lose it—and maybe lose a lot more than that by the time it’s all over.

But I still maintain what I have stated before about DiFiore and the Bubaris case. Indicted to be “politically correct” and not wanting heat from the Journal News and Cable News, who wanted to barbeque Bubaris without any evidence at all that he killed Perez.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:58:45 +0000

correct..it is the way the system has to work….a DA cannot
second guess a jury..and there are thousands of cases in
the da’s office which are not controversial and which
felony convictions are obtained…the ones that have
reasonable doubt are the ones that go to trial….It is
what it is…except for the zherka law suit..that is
a lawsuit that appears to be something it is not
a fabricated set of papers alleging conspiracies
between bloggers and the manhattan da…and
allegations that a particular blogger alluded
to zherka as a “muslim” bad guy ..which according
to all the blog entries in the archives does NOT
EXIST AT ALL….The attorney should be sanctioned
for putting those allegations in the papers..because
it is his ultimate responsibility to check out
whether what is being provided to him is accurate
and in this case it was not

By: ed

ed — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:52:55 +0000

I think Wahoo and Ian are guilty of clear and cogent thinking on this issue. It is what i is.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:20:22 +0000

The notion that Janet DiFiore was in the right because the grand jury indicted is false. The same argument could be made for the Duke Lacrosse case and it would be false there as well. The grand jury will indict if there is anything to suggest probable cause under a very broad standard. A grand jury indictment suggests very little.

I would also suggest that just because the police officer had his day in court, does not make bringing a case the right thing to do. The police officer, who was found not guilty, will not get restitution for his legal fees or the pain this caused him and his family.

Janet Fiore, may have been right to bring a case but not for the reason that some bloggers have suggested.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:55:17 +0000

Wahoo I get the Leopard thing…It is a fair assumption
that the injury he sustained was inflicted by another
human being…but i agree not necessarily by the officer
who was charged..that is however what a grand jury is
supposed to sort out…they take the evidence as presented
and without rebuttal…that is up to the defense and the
jury to weigh in on

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:49:59 +0000

Consultant—We don’t know that anybody killed Perez. If you saw the medical evidence you would know that how he received that injury was open to more than one interpretation. And the jury felt the same way.

All DA’s react to media pressure. It’s naive to think otherwise.

As far as that leopard not changing its spots goes, the point is that the leopard could be up to the same things today in one form or other. And probably is, because leopards really don’t change their spots.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:35:19 +0000

You may be right about leopards…but the statute of limitations ran 20 years ago or so….
Janet is not motivated by the journal news or cable
she is motivated by the facts….it would be irresponsible
not to present a homocide case to the grand jury..remember
somebody did kill him

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:22:44 +0000

I disagree, Consultant. I believe the DA didn’t want to take major heat from the Journal News and Cable News, who were really out to nail Bubaris—and so the DA decided to go for an indictment even though there never was evidence to demonstrte Man 2 or even that desperate last-minute try at Criminally Negligent Homicide.

As for Jeanine, Mary Jo White may have been told what to do by the Clinton Justice Dept., but she was the US Attorney in charge of that case. If she just “followed orders,” so be it. But Jeanine was nearly indicted, as you know.

About Carl Vergari. It is very unfortunate that case couldn’t be made because, as I said earlier and you also know, the individual in question is sitll a major player in the Westchester area. Very influential. And I think it is very unlikely the leopard has changed his spots.

By: The Law

The Law — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:21:05 +0000

Janet DiFiore should be credited with allowing the system to work for all. The deceased and the immigration community had their day in court and the facts or evidence proved that the officer did not commit the crime he was accused of. The officer was acquitted by the people of the state and the public cannot say that he got away with murder. Janet DiFiore was in a lose/lose situation here, if she did not move forward with the case, the facts would have never been revealed and her office would have been accused of letting a killer off the hook and now the officer had his day in court and some are saying maybe she should have not allowed the case to go forward.

In the end, justice prevailed and the system works, the deceased case was presented to the people and the people said the officer did not kill him. Case closed â€“ move on.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:04:51 +0000

I was in the office at the time…I know of whom you speak
there was not sufficient evidence to proceed to a grand jury
ie not only was there not evidence that would sustain a
case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial..but there wasn’t
even probable cause to believe the crime had been committed
Mary Jo’s decision was not what you think it was..that
was the justice department…
but on this case…the da had evidence that indicated
the liklihood that the officer played a role in the
death…she had an obligation to present it to the
grand jury…had the grand jury declined to indict
that is 27 men and or woman…it would have been another
story….Ham sandwhich or not..these are citizens doing
their best and if the da wanted the easy political route
she would have hinted to the grand jury to dump the case.
In the absence of an eye witness.the case was always
circumstantial…and those can be tought to prove.

By: ed

ed — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:31:00 +0000

a la Duke lacrosse. If that one didn’t get your attention, nothing will.

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:36:25 +0000

How’s this, Consultant? Carl Vergari did not indict a certain powerful person years ago even though he believed the guy was involved with organized crime in “offshore” activities. Vergari was afraid he didn’t quite have enough to win the case and feared the ramifications if he lost. Unfortunately, the individual in question is still around, and still very influential.

And how about Mary Jo White declining to indict Jeanine Pirro along with Al Pirro on the tax case? Want to go into that one, and the reason why White indicted only Al?

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:26:38 +0000

The Consultant is full of horse patooky. DA’s make political decisions on cases all the time. All the time.

And as the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich.

Like I said earlier, I believe this case was prosecuted for political reasons—to be “politically correct,” specifically—and to toss Bubaris to the Journal News and Cable News, both of which wanted to string him up.

It backfired on all of them. And it should have.

A big tip off was yesterday, when the desperate DA asked for the lesser included charge of crim. neg. homicide at the last second. They knew they were about to lose. The jury? Four hours, and over and out.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:46:45 +0000

When a jury deliberates four hours to hand in a verdict in a murder case, the “evidence” was obviously scant or non-existent.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:28:32 +0000

you weren’t in the grand jury ..you didn’t have access
to the file..you didn’t know what the evidence was
so to conclude it was politics is not supported
by your actual knowledge..

By: ed

ed — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:16:47 +0000

Con – What evidence? I think we have to call a spade a spade and say that this indictment was brought because of public relations and politics. Maybe sometimes this is the way it goes, but to cloak the thing with a Carl Vergari imprimatur along with a description of Constitutional “mandates” seems to avoid the reality of the situation.