Friday, July 04, 2008

I'm In Love

I love Dave Gundersen. So says Andrew Bird, anyway. Rose loves him, too, according to Andrew.

I love those kinds of comments. Try to keep an objective view of an issue and not join up with the lynch mob and you're on the defendant's side.

In fairness, I suppose there might well be a bit of me in there standing up for the underdog in the Gundersen case. I like to think I'll always stand up for fair treatment of the minority, whether it be a group or individual, but for that I stand proud.


At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A cop who is accused of a crime is a minority? Kind of a stretch, I'd say, even if it is "kewl" to say you support "minorities."

At 9:32 AM, Blogger Fred said...

He's a minority because he's first, a cop accused of a number of things, among them a sex related offense. That automatically makes him a target of a lynch mob.

Cop= first crime to some people

Sex offense= no judge or jury necessary. Hang the guy, to too many people.

At 9:39 AM, Blogger Rose said...

Fred, I'll leave off my comments about Andrew Bird's intelligence or lack thereof, and simply say, that you and I have said from day one that something about this doesn't look good. And facts have shown us to be right.

What I have done, and what offends Andrew and Gallegos' choir, is simply post the facts that have come out in the articles, and keep a running list of links to all the articles - including one that shows what happened the last time Gundersen faced the lynch mob. The people in that case were oh-so-sure that they had him dead to rights and he ended up with a 6 figure settlement. So, looking at that, to simply say "hmmm, could the same sort of thing happen here?" becomes "you're defending a rapist!" "You love Gundersen!"

Poor Andrew is so blind.

In fact, I have not heard a single person defend Gundersen. (They get that same funny look on their face as they have when you say the name Hislop.)

But - I'll say this, Gallegos' wife representing the ex-wife, (who is integrally involved in this) in a custody dispute against Gundersen is problematic at the very least.

If I were on the jury, based only on what I have read so far, I would say the couple had a disfunctional relationship, but it doesn't seem to me to rise to the levels Gallegos is trying to make it.

Will he end up with another huge settlement when this is done? Who knows?

At 9:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's Gundersen.

At 9:57 AM, Blogger Fred said...


At 10:07 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Rose wrote, "I have not heard a single person defend Gundersen.".

Other than his attorney, neither have I. Certainly doesn't look good. You'd expect at least one or two people to come out of the woodwork with a "I know Dave Gundersen and he would never do anything like this...".

But he's accused of sex crimes and people often distance themselves from those accused of such things.
And like you say, the way this whole thing started doesn't look good either. This whole thing seemed to originate from Gallegos' wife relationship with Gundersen's ex- wife. I would imagine after listening to his wife rant about Gundersen, Gallegos saw Gundersen as Satan reincarnate.

Then, they pile on umpteen charges against the guy, apparently in hopes he'll get scared and plea to at least some of them.

It will be interesting to see if as many charges end up being filed against all the targets in the recent FBI raids- using the 450 federal agents- as there were filed against Gundersen.

He might well be guilty of something. He might not. I'm certainly not going to jump on board the lynch wagon without giving the guy a chance to make his own case.

At 10:12 AM, Blogger Rose said...

I'm looking, not at Gundersen, who is peripheral to the problem, but at Gallegos himself, whose schizophrenic choices for prosecution justify scrutiny.

This is a man who prosecutes linkSean Marsh for allowing his child to walk a few feet ahead of him, but tries to make allowances for a child beater......Resuming his analysis, Mr. Gallegos explained that this defendant had three different personalities. The first was that of a severely abused toddler, the second (I'm a little hazy on this one) of a neglected child through adolescence, and the third of a properly functioning adult. Mr. Gallegos, in all seriousness, rhetorically asked us to advise him which one of the personalities he should prosecute?... (That's the late Mickey Fleschner describing a Gallegos appearance at a Trinidad Chamber of Commerce dinner meeting where Gallegos ...referenced a pending case in sufficient detail for us to understand the defendant's identity, After defining for us a psychological condition called "multiple personality disorder," he paused to make these admonitions:

He presumed that none of us in the audience was in the "jury pool" of potential jurors in the case.

He cautioned us that we should not talk widely about this matter, hoping we would keep this example amongst ourselves.

He advised us that any of us called as jurors in this case would have to recuse ourselves form jury duty...

In the Gundersen case, besides the conflict of his wife's involvement, and Gallegos' known desire to get a cop, you have him releasing the name of a sexual assault victim, apparently threatening the victim-witness, and offering her immunity for god knows what - any reporter should be asking questions. You listening Andrew?

At 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why whould the bird listen, you said reporter and he has proven not to be able to function as one.

At 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment was deleted by the troll administrator .

At 7:50 PM, Blogger Rose said...

:) I see the Troll Administrator has found you, too, Fred.


Post a Comment

<< Home