Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Bail Request No Evidence Of Guilt

With the trial of Gary Bullock- accused of the New Years Day murder of a catholic priest- beginning, the media tuirns to covering the trial. Blogger John Chiv and the Times- Standard seem to be focusing on Bullock's phone all to his grandmother asking her to bail him out of jail. The way I read it is they want that request to be seen as, if not a smoking gun, then a sign of guilt or at least evidence Bullock isn't a nice guy.

I'll beg to differ. How can we demonize someone for asking someone to provide bail? I'm sure any one of us might call someone to get us out of jail whether we're guilty or innocent. 

I've gotten the impression there's more than enough evidence of Bullock's guilt. There's no need to demonize him with irrelevant actions any of us might well have done under the same circumstances.


At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The phone call illustrates that Bullock is sane. An insane person wouldn't have the mental capacity to ask to be bailed out.

I'm fairly sure that is the angle they are going for.

At 5:20 PM, Blogger John Chiv said...

Fred, your interpretation of what either TS or I wrote is just that, your opinion. Lost Coast Outpost wrote vthe same thing. No where did I see either TS coverage or my blog coverage imply bail = guilt.

At 6:30 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...

Fair enough Mr. Chiv. But what was that recorded conversation supposed to signify then? I can't see what relevance that phone call had to do with anything except to indicate he was willing to cause his granny to risk becoming homeless just to get himself out of jail.

Mr. Bullock is not being tried for being a First Class Creep. He's being tried for Murder. I think Fred's point is a proper one to make.

Anonymous: As to trying to undermine the insanity plea... The issue was whether Mr. Bullock was insane at the time of the crime. It is quite possible to successfully argue in such cases that a person was mentally incapacitated at the time of a crime and then realize later the gravity of the offence. So this phone call would have little to no relevance to the case at hand.

Better to focus on the fact that during and directly after the commission of the crime, Mr. Bullock tried to cover his tracks... A clear admission that he was aware at the time of the crime the nature of what he done; that he knew what he did was wrong. Therefore... Not Legally Insane.

For the purists out there... There is a world of difference between psychiatric defined insanity and the legal basis of insanity pleas. In short, a person may be a certifiable nut case and still be legally responsible for one's actions.

At 7:35 PM, Blogger John Chiv said...

MOLA, this is a hearing to determine admissibility of evidence.There ate different standards for different types of jearings. When the jury trial starts, we will see the relevance. The issue here is I did not imply what the headline states. It is fortunate with a gag order that we have several reporters covering these evidence hearings with experience. Getting to see what the jury may or may not get to hear. It happens in every trial. The prosecution or any of the reporters are not obligated to explain to every curious Joe or Jane what the case strategy is or maybe before the jury trial. Many people who read my blog have appreciated learning about the criminal justice system. You seem to have a good grasp of the law from your comments on my blog. In this case, what is the purpose of that phone call is not the issue, calling someone out on coverage in a headline which is inaccurate is the error. One does not have to be a lawyer or journalist to grasp that badic fact.

At 1:13 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...


As I have said many times you provide an invaluable service to our community by what you do.

That said I think it is possible for fair minded persons to disagree from time to time without calling that into question.

It is very unfortunate that the Court went the gag order route to begin with. And I think it was unfortunate that when the Prosecution finally did start to reveal its "hand" that it lead with something that was more provocative than substantive.

And it was unfortunate that local media chose to follow that lead in their stories. That was Fred's point. At this stage of the game such emphasis by the Prosecution is really not necessary and could muddy the waters come the inevitable appeals. In this case Mr. Mangles saw the issue more clearly than the folks who actually specialize in such things.

I don't find myself defending Fred very often... But (Gasp!) The Freddy is right on this one.

At 5:42 PM, Blogger John Chiv said...

MOLA, we can disagree. And we still do. The prosecution did not emphasize anything, neither did the media yet you keep defending an interpretation.

The lawyers know the law, have won cases and lost cases. The three of us that covered that evidence hearing do have experience covering cases. So yes, in this case, we do know what we are talking about. Thankfully, there are rules regarding evidence and testimony, people's,personal feelings of how the justice should run comes from emotion and subjective views. We have the best system, where there is presumption of innocence and a jury of peers. It works and one side will always lose. The prosecution has high burden of proof.

You can continue championing and defending but in the end, the only outcome that matters will be that of the jury in this case which have they to decide on evidence and according to the law.


Post a Comment

<< Home