Is this aimed at me Moe? Don’t think it is I haven’t defended any criminals above and the only rant is the final sentence of the post. The rest of it is a genuine contribution based on my own experiences and facts.
Wasn't aimed at you. Was aimed at the writer of the original article. It's a well-written piece but clearly has an agenda, which is made abundantly clear from the first paragraph. Which is ironic, considering the accusations made towards someone like Jerry Capeci who has worked in journalism for over 40 years.
This is from Dominick Crea who requested membership into this forum but is still waiting on approval. He chose to respond and if you'd like to continue the dialogue you can email him directly.
"Mr. Moe Tilden,
My name is Dominick Crea, I am the Son of Steven L. Crea. Normally I avoid these forums, however I had to respond to your telling comment. As opposed to digest the article that is supported with Factual information, motions, trial minutes and indisputable actions you shift focus to attack the journalist. It is obvious you have the mentality that if someone holds an alleged title they are guilty and should be found guilty regardless of the factual evidence. The writer of the article is outraged by the unjust acts and outright broken system that has been on full display. After taking the time to understand the entire case the conclusion of the author was reached based on evidence, practices, tactics, testimony, arguments and documentation. Since the journalist was outraged and incensed at the collapse of the justice system and the constitutional right that all defendants should receive a fair trial, you spin that to an all-encompassing statement of “defending criminals.†As my initial sentence observes that action is quite telling. It appears in your eyes, the ends justifies the means and regardless if a person is innocent of the charged offenses they need to be found guilty based on accusations. Not proving a case, but accusations, hearsay, misrepresentations, and false statements. That is not how the Justice System is supposed to work, however due to those who have a similar philosophy as you that is how it does work. Problem is, that is not constitutional and not how the system was designed. That alone should concern an open-minded, fair, reasonable person. Attacking the investigative journalist is an extreme Tell of where you are coming from simply because they were angered by witnessing a person innocent of charges receive a conviction. Very disturbing you choose to promote the mentality of guilty till proven innocent, guilt by allegations, and Ends justify means regardless of evidence and factual information. You can spin the article however you wish and make it a “protecting criminals†narrative, but any person who possesses common sense will understand that is not the case. It is a shame that rather than focus on the facts, and determine the flaws in the system you ignore that and exploit a made up angle of Criminals versus Law enforcement. That is not the debate. The issue is LE who act in a manner that is not to serve justice. If someone is guilty, let the facts tell the story, don’t invent things, don’t mislead, don’t create narratives. Present the case, follow the rules and take part in a fair proceeding. Your comments have proven that my words will fall on deaf ears, but my purpose is not to change your mind. My purpose is to point out the obvious angle and storyline you are looking create distracting from the reality, whereas an individual has taken the time to investigate a case and conclude a tremendous injustice has occurred and therefore are outraged as a citizen of the United States who believes in the principles of Justice outlined by our forefathers."
