17 Comments to 'Paging Eric Boyd’s attorney'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Paging Eric Boyd’s attorney'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Paging Eric Boyd’s attorney
Posted By katie allison granju
THOFM has a few words to say to attorney Phil Lomonaco regarding his defense of Eric Boyd:
Phil, just so we’re all on the same page, your client participated in cutting off a woman’s breasts, rape of a man so violent that his internal organs were impacted, and forcing a woman to swallow bleach in order to remove all the various DNA that had been ejaculated down her throat. In fact, now that the truth is coming out, he was probably one of the DNA samples that was destroyed. He helped do this to strangers, people he had never met and had no reason to hate. They were innocent kids, driving to a party, and there was no reason for them to die. Your client’s friend could have chosen to simply jack the car. Take it. Keep it. Sell it for parts. Drive it around and then burn it. But no. He and his friends chose another way. They chose to be animals. They cannibalized these innocent victims. For no reason other than “they could”. Your client helped them. He was involved. So when I hear motions being made like “Inflaming the jury with evidence” all I can do is shake my head. I mean, really Phil, that’s rich. And, just so you know, motions like that one and your cute little mistrial gambit are why I think you might actually be an idiot. Just so we’re completely clear on this point, the death penalty isn’t enough for any of these people. It doesn’t even compare to the death penalty that your client helped to give Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Not even close. And that’s the real reason I think you are an idiot, because you got yourself involved in attempting to defend the indefensible. In my estimation, you are also an accessory to this crime. Hope you can sleep at night, because I certainly can’t. I wonder whether there are more animals like this out there, waiting for one of my precious girls or boy. If there are, if you know what’s good for you, you won’t defend them. Because then I’ll know for sure that you’re an idiot. Because then you’re fighting me too. And, Phil, just so we’re clear, you’ll lose.
Apr 12th, 2008
In the American legal system, someone has to defend the indefensible. That’s the way it works. And it’s perfectly possible that Mr. Lomonaco was ignorant of a lot of issues that have come up in court because people lie to their attorneys.
Ms Crone would do well to rephrase certain parts of her post there. There is a very good reason why the media uses terms such as “alleged” and “accused” and is very careful to do so. Defending a libel suit can be quite costly. She may want to also note that the accused has not been charged with actually committing any of the atrocities that occurred. There is only the word of the others accused of doing so. IF the prosecution had any evidence that he did, he would certainly have those charges lodged against him. As it stands, he is only accused of being an accessory after the crime … he helped Davidson hide out afterwards.
In a highly charged case such as this, one would be very wise to not make public statements that could bring down the wrath of the courts onto themselves.
THOFM makes good points about the dastardly nature of the crime. However, the American legal system does not work like an episode of “Perry Mason.”
Just in case some of you are too young to remember, Raymond Burr played defense attorney Perry Mason every Saturday night on CBS back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was one of the most popular shows on T.V. at that time, and it always focused on murder cases. Perry would take your case, but only if you could convince him first that you were really innocent. I was a child at the time, and I never thought to ask why so many innocent people got charged with murder (at least 4 or 5 a month just on the show). So, if you were a kid who bought into it, it also carried the message that the next innocent person to be charged with murder might be me or maybe my mom. Soon after that, I learned that the legal system does not work like Perry Mason. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone gets an opportunity to an adequate defense, even if what they did was theoretically indefensible. As a kid, I remember thinking that this was just an awful thing. How could anyone defend someone who is obviously guilty!!!! Shouldn’t we just lynch them or something?
When I became an adult, I got another legal shock. An old friend of mine went off to law school, got their degree, passed the bar exam, interned with a well-known federal judge, worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, and at one point became legal counsel for the CIA in Langley, Virginia. We were sitting around the pool one day, and I made some comment about the law or some court case. My friend gave me a wry look and laughed at me with a sarcastic scorn that I remember to this day, “You don’t seriously think that the American legal system is about innocence, guilt, truth, righteousness, justice, punishment, mercy, and all of that do you”?!! With a surprised and shocked look on my face, I said, “Well yeah. That’s what I have always heard. You mean its not”? My friend then said with a firm definitive, “No. It is solely about who makes the best argument in court and what they can prove. That other stuff has nothing to do with it.”
As the years passed by, it became ever more clear to me that my lawyer friend was right. If you really did kill Channon Christian and the District attorney can make an argument good enought to prove it, you go to death row. If you really were 500 miles away from the crime scene the night the crime occurred but the District Attorney can make a convincing sham argument that you were at the crime scene, you go to death row. Justice, truth, innocence, guilt, and so forth really have NOTHING to do with it. If anyone doubts me or my lawyer friend, I refer you simply to the O.J. Simpson trial.
This is why the defendants in the Christian/Newsom case get lawyers and have a right to a defense—even though it seems pretty obvious to most folks that they did the crime. We should all be glad that they do have this right because it could just as easily be me or you charged with a crime that we really DID NOT do. Do not kid yourself. There are “out of control” District Attorneys on the American landscape that would gladly railroad an innocent person to death row if doing so could help get them elected governor in the coming state election. Getting as many convictions as possible makes you look good to voters. Just because you have a law degree, it does not mean that you have any moral fiber. Remember: It’s not about truth, justice, and the American way.
There is also another consideration with the Christian/Newsom murders. Given the true nature of our legal system, it is in the public’s best interest to see that the defendants get the very best and most thoroughgoing defense possible. If we fail in this, their convictions could be overturned on appeal quite easily, and all of them could be walking the streets of Knoxville again—-powder kegs—-just waiting for the right spark to send them over the deep end again.
I don’t know about the American justice system, but if there is one, the people responsible for the slaughter of these young people will treated the same they treated them.
The people responsible for these deaths I hope they burn in hell for thier deeds all of them even the ones that just “helped”. If you did anything at all to faciltate or help cover up or aide in the escape of the parties responsible you are quilty of murder also.they wiil get life( u can get paroled in 13 years).Those that acctually did the murders and rape will get the death penalty, Tennessee won’t carry it out (to bad) but thier is a big difference in life in prison and the death pen. with the latter you are only allowed out side your cell only 1 hour a day you are not allowed to mixed with the general population . Best of all no chance for parole .
Can we not agree that equality under the law is a basic principle of our society? As Americans, we do not allow mob rule to override our principles. Similarly, we do not drag persons into the street to be killed because we are morally outraged.
The court room works, in some ways like a microcosm of our society. We do not allow emotionally impassioned jurors to override the law of the case.
To answer the question, “Did the person do what he is charge with?”, jurors make decisions based on relevant evidence and not based on emotional rage against horrific crime. If our laws are just then the jury will come to the right decision concerning guilt. Expression of our moral outrage can take place in another forum where it does not interfere with equality under the law.
If a Rule of Evidence applies to one person it applies to any person, no matter how reviled. Evidence that inflames a jury in a way that will prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial should be excluded. The necessity of a defense attorney who will, against all public outcry, make that argument is one of the hallmarks of our civil society.
Repost of this vitriolic blog entry without comment here on Knoxville Talks serves what purpose?
I’m not sure why this threat against a criminal defense lawyer merits repetition on Knoxville Talks.
S. Carpenter - I happen to agree with your point of view, but a lot of folks in our community are voicing the same opinion as the blogger I quoted, and I think it’s important to talk about this stuff as a community. I am pleased to see the eloquent rebuttals to what THOFM expressed.
-Katie
Regarding the facts of the murders in this case, the information I recounted has been widely available since mid-year last year. I am only restating facts that are already in the public domain and therefore am not concerned about being charged with slander of the defendants. If the courts chose to involve themselves with me then I am sure that most of this community would contribute to my defense fund. Regarding the remainder of the commentary, thanks to the people who feel as I do. For the two attorneys who disagree with my tone, you should both understand that I too agree that the defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense under our rules of law. If only for the point that a previous commentor made about this ensuring that the defendants will not have any points for appeal. However, they will, rest assured that they will. As for false accusations and spurious prosecutions happening in our society, I do understand that this is a reality in our world. In fact rogue prosecutors have railroaded many innocent people into prison because of their own personal agendas - most recently Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse team. You every one understand that I am not speaking from a legal point of view. Instead I am speaking from the point of view of a parent and an aunt, with young people in my life who very easily could have been either of these victims. Another reality is that even though the facts of this case are inflammatory, they are the facts and they deserve a hearing. It has already been established that Mr. Boyd participated in this crime, in some role, and he bears the blame for that involvement. The Prosecution is charged with determining exactly what his involvement was and the legal sidestepping is only an attempt to obfuscate that process. But, again, these are the facts of the case. Mr. Lomonaco should have known that nobody is going to be a fan of the defense attorney when he is representing somebody involved in a crime this heinous and inhumane. I feel that the jury should know exactly what sort of animals (and you also should understand that the actions of this group were not that of civilized people, but instead were that of cannabalistic animals) with whom Mr. Boyd had associated himself and at the minimum attempted to protect. He was not helping someone who stole a wallet avoid arrest. He was assisting a participant in an extremely aggravated rape/murder avoid capture. Anybody who has followed this case even minimally is aware that due to their varying statements, there is no question that all of these individuals were involved in this crime and none of them should be found innocent unless the Prosecution fails at their jobs miserably. In this case, due to the varying statements, there will only be found the many degrees of guilt. Which of the five (or six or seven) is the most guilty will be determined by a jury after a fair trial. And that is the rule of law. You must remember, though, that the community is entitled to their own personal judgement of these defendants (and their attorneys) by their own standards. That too is the right given to Americans, the right of dissent and free speech. My post is my right to say what I feel. This is yours. I am entitled to disagree. So are you.
It appears that nearly everyone has determined to their own satisfaction that convictions of the alleged perpetrators of the Christian/Newsom murder, torture, rape, and infinitum ad nauseum are a 25,000 percent foregone conclusion. With that in mind, it might be interesting to examine the blogosphere view of potential punishment, if such convictions do in fact occur.
Personally speaking, I am against the death penalty in this case and most other cases. If Osama Bin Laden were captured alive tomorrow, I would most definitely oppose the death penalty. I have thought long and hard about that one.
Conservatives out here on the streets of Knoxville think that the death penalty is the ultimate punishment. He killed him so we get to punish him by killing him back. Death is viewed as the ultimate revenge. These conservative proponents of the death penalty believe it is the ultimate punishment—but only do so because it would seem to be the thing they would personally most fear happening to themselves. They forget that they feel this way because they actually have a conscience and because they would never even dream of killing someone themselves.
Death is too easy. Most of us forget that each of us dies every night at around 11:00 p.m. and stays dead until around 7:00 a.m. Death by lethal injection is just calmly going to sleep. Besides, if someone actually gets the DP, chances are very high that it will not happen for another 20 years. When it finally does happen, the criminal just goes calmly to sleep. Now, counterbalance that clinical and pastoral pastoral scene with 3000 people dead in New York City and what you know about the Christian/Newsom murders.
Sometime during the Obama Administration, I am predicting that Osama bin Laden will be captured alive. Yes, I know about his security guards who have orders to kill him before that can happen. However, things like that do not always work out as planned. At the end of WW II, General Tojo tried to commit suicide but botched it.
I think life without parole would be appropriate for Osama. Here is why. One of the strangest things in this realm of human existence is the criminal mind. It is predatory and has no conscience out in the real world, but when that same mind enters prison, it takes on a sense of extreme righteousness seeking justice. I have no psychological explanation for it, but it does happen. A man convicted of murdering a child brings the self-righteousness of the whole prison population to bear on finding a way to “get him” once he enters the gates of the prison. There are some things in this world that are far worse than death. One of them is the endless suffering, fear, and night-sweats that Reggie the child murderer endures for several years on end until that fateful day when George sneaks a gutter spike from the prison carpenter shop back to his cell to set up the “final justice.”
Death by lethal injection would be too good for Osama. Life without parole would mean the constant fear of looking behind his back at every turn in the hall. There would be the night sweats he would get from knowing the whole prison population was out get him every second of every hour of every day for that NYC caper. In the meantime, he would fall prey numerous times to some 7-foot-tall, 500-pound brute named George who gets really excited for exotic Middle Eastern women like Osama. The possibilities here are endless—and in the end—the prison population would eventually get him in some painful and bloody way that a needle and a little sleep medication could never hope to accomplish.
I shall end only by reiterating. Each one of us dies at 11:00 p.m. every night and stays dead until 7:00 a.m. Lethal injection is death by going calmly off to sleep, which is really not much different from what each of us does every night of our lives. Life in prison without parole is a sentence to years upon years of hell on earth, especially for high profile criminals like Osama that provoke the self-righteous indignation of their fellow inmates.
Knoxville conservatives need to quit writing those letters to the DA begging for the death penalty. It is a waste of time and is little more than a request for “nap time.” Instead, they should be asking for life without chance of parole in the general prison population. While they are sitting in the Knox County Jail, it would then be an appropriate time for the alleged perpetrators to be thinking about how to deal with the many neo-Nazi skinheads awaiting them in that general prison population.
And hey, I am just talking facts here—no racism on my part. Barack Obama is my man, and I intend to vote for him in November—and I hope that you will too.
This might surprise anybody who reads this, but I too am not a fan of Capital Punishment. Mainly because the usage of it is so sporadic and the appeals process is so lengthy that it is not an effective deterrent. The death penalty would be comforting to the victim’s parents, and that is why I hope they get that one comfort, but as for me, I agree with everything you wrote. Life in prison, and the inherent dangers contained therein, is a much more fitting punishment. Dying by injection is easy. Dying with a shank in your ribs, after you’ve been tortured in the showers over several months or years, while the guards look the other way, that’s not so easy. And, this also might amaze you, I have never before been so upset over a crime, ever. Something about this just tears at me. Something about the inhumanity of it. There’s just something about this that has stirred a primal anger in me. I don’t know why. It just does. I vote liberal, I don’t own a gun or a carry permit, but on this issue I just want the punishment to fit the crime. The defendants have all acknowledged their versions of their involvement, their guilt will be judged. God (and the prison system) will handle the rest.
I think everyone reading this will agree that we want the punishment to fit the crime. Unfortunately, that will never happen through any kind of punishment handed down by the courts. Since we do not have an eye for an eye legal system, probably the best punishment for this crime will be to let the inmates take care of the boys and girl(s) - over and over and over………
Me too Missybw. Hijack the car—quickly and neatly whack the witnesses. While not a very nice thing to do, I can at least understand the logic of it. However, the crimes these people are alleged to have committed are to me unfathomable.
In the posts that I have seem here, people keep referring to the alleged perpetrators as “animals” and “cannibals,” but even thoses terms do not capture it. Animals kill because they are hungry or because they are defending themselves. On those criteria alone, the late Charlton Heston would have been definable as an animal. The term “cannibal” does not capture it for me either because there has been a debate in anthropology for many years as to whether human cannibalism is actually something that occurs, outside of extreme hunger (see Donner Party). If it does occur, it is usually ritual in nature and is backed up by longstanding theology. I do not think anyone was eaten during this crime, I would be hard pressed to find any theological roots for it if it had occurred.
With those things aside and searching for other words, I think it leaves us with words and phrases such as: crazy, cruel, bloodthirsty, savage, depraved, over-the-edge, emotionally dead inside, and Hannibal Lechter. No, I take that last one back. Intelligent, cold, and evil as he was, even Hannibal would have been outraged by this crime. In fact, I dare say that he would have stepped forward to offer free psychological profiles to help capture them. If you saw that movie, you know what I just said is true. This crime even goes beyond Hannibal Lechter. Now that is truly scary!!! Just stop and think about that for a minute. Wow!!!
You libs kill me for abrotion lets kill some babies , but lets not kill someone who has killed, raped an tortured two young people. If they get anything other than the death penalty they will live a long happy life behind bars. the Blacks when reaching prison will become involed with the black power gangs an be protected they did not kill small chrildren so they will be safe in thier own group The only danger they will be in is if they get caught by the skin heads or other white power groups alone. That why the death penalty is the best thing for them Tenesse want carry it out but they will be in solitary confinement 23 hours a day.
Phil Lomonaco is not an idiot. He is zealously defending his client, as legal ethics require him to do.
STFW.
We are going to continue to rally for our innocent and righteous brothers.
http://underprivilegedjournalism.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/ghetto-bragging-rights-community-holds-candle-light-vigil-for-eric-boyd/
i really have to laff at people like Aulder Guy.
he made a good argument for these savage mutants from knoxville to be punished by enduring years in prison rather than the relatively humane death penalty. i might even agree if i knew that their lives in RiverBend would in fact be filled with fear and dread.
but then Aulder shows himself to be a complete fool by making sure that everyone knows what a fair-minded guy he is because he is going to vote for Obama. what does the presidential election have to do with a horrible double murder in knoxville ??
nothing at all - but even though Aulder correctly desires that these black criminals suffer for their evil, he wants to reassure everyone that he is not a racist.
You people spew your idiotic comments, all you know is what you have been told, whats been leaked, until you read the FBI files (which you won’t) you might want to shut it up. You scream for Justice and death of someone, but how many are writing your letters to the DA for Sutton’s part, she was actually in the house, while they were still alive. Boyd was not involved until they were BOTH dead, what could he do then? Sutton and her two WHITE girlfriends were THERE while Channon was in the bathroom, funny how every one forgets that. It’s so easy to hate someone/thing that doesnt look or act like you.
Wouldn’t it be something if the media released that they all new each other, how, I dont know, maybe the sweet white couple had bought drugs from them several times before, or what would you think if the sweet ole white girl had sex with 2 of the suspects before And there was a VIDEO? Did they deserve to die, NO- they did not, but take off your rose colored glasses- its easy to judge from the sidelines, and Lomonaco is far from an idiot. When you are falsely accused, he would be one of the 3 attorneys you would call, he isnt getting paid for this case, and he was personally asked by the Judge to take this case. I cant wait to see how all the love you all had for Bruce Poston, ( Eric McClean’s lawyer) disappears now that he is representing on of the “savages”. You people are idiots, you believe anything you hear or read in these little local owned media outlets. Wake UP- quit following.