Will the Charlottesville driver get a fair trial?

[Madison320]

I'm curious to see how this plays out. It's pretty clear from the video evidence that the driver was struck by protestor(s) before he accelerated into the crowd. It could easily be considered self defense. Almost everyone has him already convicted. Even Trump is calling him a murderer (should the president be doing that?). The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest. The defense attorney was against the statues being removed, that's what the judge said was a conflict of interest. That sounds more like a similarity of interest. I would think a conflict of interest would be someone like a member of antifa, not someone who might be on the defendant's side. And to top it all off the judge assigned a former prosecutor, Denise Lunsford, who has somewhat of a checkered past, to represent the driver.

The next court date is not until Aug 25 so it's going to be awhile before we get any more data on the actual case.

[acptulsa]

By my reckoning, he either has a slim chance or a fat chance.

Could go either way.

[Madison320]

By my reckoning, he either has a slim chance or a fat chance.

Could go either way.

I'm thinking it should be pretty easy to tell if it's rigged. For one thing the guy with the flag pole that struck the car needs to be charged, or at least be a witness for the defense.

[specsaregood]

I'd say you already answered your own question. The moment the judge decided who could represent the guy it was all over.

[Swordsmyth]

A more important question: Will he live if he walks?

[Swordsmyth]

The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest. The defense attorney was against the statues being removed, that's what the judge said was a conflict of interest. That sounds more like a similarity of interest. I would think a conflict of interest would be someone like a member of antifa, not someone who might be on the defendant's side. And to top it all off the judge assigned a former prosecutor, Denise Lunsford, who has somewhat of a checkered past, to represent the driver.

Sounds like a good basis for an appeal to me.

[Brian4Liberty]

As in any highly charged case, this will be decided at jury selection time.

As far as the actual case, from what we know, it looks like he did it on purpose. He was not running over people who were blocking him or hitting his car (more sympathetic to his cause), he ran into a crowd far ahead of him, that were not attacking him. A lot will hinge on what he said before and especially after the fact. Did he confess to just running down protesters because he didn't like them? Did he say he was scared and being attacked, and he didn't know which way to go to get out and panicked?

[fisharmor]

No.
From start to finish, it'll be a splendid case study on the state of "justice" in the US.
Nobody involved in this process, not even the defendant, will push for any real justice.
And nobody watching this case will point it out, either.
They'll all keep spewing gobshite about statues, and immigrants, and all sorts of other seventh and eighth tier issues.
But they won't talk about justice.

[Madison320]

I'd say you already answered your own question. The moment the judge decided who could represent the guy it was all over.

I don't know. It seems to me that most of the recent cases that started out with extreme left wing media bias ended up being rectified in court. For example the Jena 6, Duke Lacrosse, George Zimmerman, Ferguson. In all those cases the media were totaled biased on the left, they had already decided the parties were guilty, but the courts found them innocent. But this time could be different. There's nobody on the driver's side. I can't remember ever seeing so much invested on a guilty verdict.

[Madison320]

As in any highly charged case, this will be decided at jury selection time.

As far as the actual case, from what we know, it looks like he did it on purpose. He was not running over people who were blocking him or hitting his car (more sympathetic to his cause), he ran into a crowd far ahead of him, that were not attacking him. A lot will hinge on what he said before and especially after the fact. Did he confess to just running down protesters because he didn't like them? Did he say he was scared and being attacked, and he didn't know which way to go to get out and panicked?

I disagree that it looks like he did it on purpose. I'd say it's 50-50. From what I've seen he approached the mob too fast, that pissed them off and they started attacking, then he accelerated. The question is, did he accelerate in self defense or to kill?

[randbot16]

The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest.

This translates to "Only cast members allowed on the set!"

This entire thing was an engineered event. There is obvious evidence of collusion by the mayor of Charlottesville (just like Baltimore) ordering officers to stand down and let the script play out. The entire news cycle is a series of scripted, Hollywood vignettes. There is no way to know where fantasy ends and reality begins anymore. Better not to get caught up in the cycle, but watch it for what it is, a running Hollywood script pushing us towards a foregone conclusion. Don't take sides of the riled up opposing forces, some of them very likely paid provocateurs. I don't know if it is possible anymore, but the real solution is to unite people in opposition to the Directors and Producers of our false reality. How? I don't know.

[acptulsa]

This translates to "Only cast members allowed on the set!"

This entire thing was an engineered event. There is obvious evidence of collusion by the mayor of Charlottesville (just like Baltimore) ordering officers to stand down and let the script play out. The entire news cycle is a series of scripted, Hollywood vignettes. There is no way to know where fantasy ends and reality begins anymore. Better not to get caught up in the cycle, but watch it for what it is, a running Hollywood script pushing us towards a foregone conclusion. Don't take sides of the riled up opposing forces, some of them very likely paid provocateurs. I don't know if it is possible anymore, but the real solution is to unite people in opposition to the Directors and Producers of our false reality. How? I don't know.

Everything you say is true. But it's much easier for them to escape detection, and it costs them a lot less, if they use useful idiots instead of straight up actors.

Actors would want hazardous duty pay if they had to double as their own stuntmen--and the risk that they'd try to put the event on their resume is great. Useful idiots will march through the gates of hell for little more than air fare. And the mainstream media has been creating more than enough of them with their deliberate dumbing down and radicalization of the populace.

[angelatc]

I'm curious to see how this plays out. It's pretty clear from the video evidence that the driver was struck by protestor(s) before he accelerated into the crowd. It could easily be considered self defense. Almost everyone has him already convicted. Even Trump is calling him a murderer (should the president be doing that?). The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest. The defense attorney was against the statues being removed, that's what the judge said was a conflict of interest. That sounds more like a similarity of interest. I would think a conflict of interest would be someone like a member of antifa, not someone who might be on the defendant's side. And to top it all off the judge assigned a former prosecutor, Denise Lunsford, who has somewhat of a checkered past, to represent the driver.

The next court date is not until Aug 25 so it's going to be awhile before we get any more data on the actual case.

Can you give me a link to the thing about the attorney being replaced?

[angelatc]

I have not looked for them but there are apparently naked pictures of Lunsford (http://www.nbc29.com/story/23530369/details-emerge-in-lunsford-photo-scandal) on the internets.

[jllundqu]

I'm curious to see how this plays out. It's pretty clear from the video evidence that the driver was struck by protestor(s) before he accelerated into the crowd. It could easily be considered self defense. Almost everyone has him already convicted. Even Trump is calling him a murderer (should the president be doing that?). The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest. The defense attorney was against the statues being removed, that's what the judge said was a conflict of interest. That sounds more like a similarity of interest. I would think a conflict of interest would be someone like a member of antifa, not someone who might be on the defendant's side. And to top it all off the judge assigned a former prosecutor, Denise Lunsford, who has somewhat of a checkered past, to represent the driver.

The next court date is not until Aug 25 so it's going to be awhile before we get any more data on the actual case.

Self Defense went out the window when he fled the scene.

[Brian4Liberty]

No.
From start to finish, it'll be a splendid case study on the state of "justice" in the US.
Nobody involved in this process, not even the defendant, will push for any real justice.
And nobody watching this case will point it out, either.
They'll all keep spewing gobshite about statues, and immigrants, and all sorts of other seventh and eighth tier issues.
But they won't talk about justice.

"Immigrants"? What does that have to do with this case?

[Swordsmyth]

Self Defense went out the window when he fled the scene.
Why? If he stayed after hitting people the rioters would have killed him.

P.S. I take no position on his guilt, it could have been deliberate or a panic response after he did something stupid (driving too fast to intimidate the crowd).

[dannno]

Self Defense went out the window when he fled the scene.

WRONG.

If there is a violent mob attacking your car, and you drive off and injure somebody, you don't have to stop and help the violent mob attacking you...

There was a thread here a few months ago about a guy in Lexington, VA who ended up not being charged after he clipped a couple of protesters in the street. He slowed down when he approached them, but wanted to get through, and the mob got angry and he got scared and took off. They thought he should be charged with hit and run, but since he felt threatened by the mob under Virginia law he is allowed to take off to protect himself.

Sorry, violent mobs in the street don't get special privileges..

[specsaregood]

Self Defense went out the window when he fled the scene.

He sure put on a great display of driving skills with his getaway. its like he had a 2nd job as a tow truck driver the way he went in reverse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6xXNToFas

[Madison320]

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36149724/former-commonwealths-attorney-appointed-to-represent-james-fields
Can you give me a link to the thing about the attorney being replaced?

"Charles L. Weber Jr. had been chosen by a Charlottesville General District Court judge to represent Fields, but that generated a possible conflict of interest: Weber is part of a lawsuit against Charlottesville's decision to remove the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park."


http://www.nbc29.com/story/36149724/former-commonwealths-attorney-appointed-to-represent-james-fields

[Madison320]

http://www.nbc29.com/story/36149724/former-commonwealths-attorney-appointed-to-represent-james-fields

"Charles L. Weber Jr. had been chosen by a Charlottesville General District Court judge to represent Fields, but that generated a possible conflict of interest: Weber is part of a lawsuit against Charlottesville's decision to remove the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park."


http://www.nbc29.com/story/36149724/former-commonwealths-attorney-appointed-to-represent-james-fields

One more thing I noticed. The woman who is replacing the public defender is a democrat. So the judge switched defenders from someone who may have actually been motivated to defend his client to someone who has a reason not to defend her client. Hmmmm.

But I'm afraid that the driver will take a plea bargain and we'll never get to see any evidence.

[navy-vet]

WRONG.

If there is a violent mob attacking your car, and you drive off and injure somebody, you don't have to stop and help the violent mob attacking you...

There was a thread here a few months ago about a guy in Lexington, VA who ended up not being charged after he clipped a couple of protesters in the street. He slowed down when he approached them, but wanted to get through, and the mob got angry and he got scared and took off. They thought he should be charged with hit and run, but since he felt threatened by the mob under Virginia law he is allowed to take off to protect himself.

Sorry, violent mobs in the street don't get special privileges..
Well said.

[RonPaulMall]

I don't know. It seems to me that most of the recent cases that started out with extreme left wing media bias ended up being rectified in court. For example the Jena 6, Duke Lacrosse, George Zimmerman, Ferguson. In all those cases the media were totaled biased on the left, they had already decided the parties were guilty, but the courts found them innocent. But this time could be different. There's nobody on the driver's side. I can't remember ever seeing so much invested on a guilty verdict.

This is an excellent point. And what works in the Defendant's favor in all these cases are that the media pummels the jury pool with such over the top lies about the case that are all internalize by the public, and then when the jurors here the case and nothing that the media told them ends up being true, they wind up feeling lied to. It isn't even limited to political cases. Same thing happened in the Casey Anthony trial. Nancy Grace and the rest of the MSM built that case up as some kind of overwhelming slam dunk based on all these lies and half truths and then when the thing went to trial and the prosecution presents a totally circumstantial case with none of the "evidence" the jury expects it boomerangs back on the prosecution.

This case is setting up the same way. Media is presenting this thing as some kind of "act of terrorism" or "premeditated murder" which of course is completely absurd. Public has heard nothing about Antifa violence. Nothing about this guy getting assaulted earlier in the day. None of the photos of him covered in piss. None of the video of other cars in the area being attacked right before the incident. Most haven't even seen the video of his car being attacked right before it accelerated. All that is going to come out "for the first time" at the trial, which ends up working strongly in favor of the defense. Prosecution's case is going to be far weaker than what jurors were expecting, and defense is going to have "surprise" revelation after "surprise" revelation that will help Fields.

[KingNothing]

Sounds like a good basis for an appeal to me.

That's almost a guarantee.

I have a feeling, though, that the left will not be satisfied with the verdict. And if they view the punishment as insufficiently harsh, I expect a lot more than some statues to be destroyed in Charlottesville.

[Madison320]

This is an excellent point. And what works in the Defendant's favor in all these cases are that the media pummels the jury pool with such over the top lies about the case that are all internalize by the public, and then when the jurors here the case and nothing that the media told them ends up being true, they wind up feeling lied to. It isn't even limited to political cases. Same thing happened in the Casey Anthony trial. Nancy Grace and the rest of the MSM built that case up as some kind of overwhelming slam dunk based on all these lies and half truths and then when the thing went to trial and the prosecution presents a totally circumstantial case with none of the "evidence" the jury expects it boomerangs back on the prosecution.

This case is setting up the same way. Media is presenting this thing as some kind of "act of terrorism" or "premeditated murder" which of course is completely absurd. Public has heard nothing about Antifa violence. Nothing about this guy getting assaulted earlier in the day. None of the photos of him covered in piss. None of the video of other cars in the area being attacked right before the incident. Most haven't even seen the video of his car being attacked right before it accelerated. All that is going to come out "for the first time" at the trial, which ends up working strongly in favor of the defense. Prosecution's case is going to be far weaker than what jurors were expecting, and defense is going to have "surprise" revelation after "surprise" revelation that will help Fields.

I just hope it goes to trial. I'm guessing there's a huge amount of pressure for this thing not to go to trial. I know they tacked on like another 10 charges to the original charges a few days later. Maybe that's why the judge switched defense attorneys. His attorney may be telling him he's going to fry or get life with no parole if it goes to trial. If he takes 2nd degree maybe he only gets 15 years and can be out in 7 (just a guess).

I'm assuming the court is not obligated to show the evidence when the defendant pleads guilty. Does anyone know if that's true?

[jmdrake]

I'm curious to see how this plays out. It's pretty clear from the video evidence that the driver was struck by protestor(s) before he accelerated into the crowd. It could easily be considered self defense. Almost everyone has him already convicted. Even Trump is calling him a murderer (should the president be doing that?). The guy who would've been the defense attorney for the driver was disallowed by the judge saying it was a conflict of interest. The defense attorney was against the statues being removed, that's what the judge said was a conflict of interest. That sounds more like a similarity of interest. I would think a conflict of interest would be someone like a member of antifa, not someone who might be on the defendant's side. And to top it all off the judge assigned a former prosecutor, Denise Lunsford, who has somewhat of a checkered past, to represent the driver.

The next court date is not until Aug 25 so it's going to be awhile before we get any more data on the actual case.

I've watched the video. The driver was clearly driving into the crowd before his car was struck. I'll take your argument that the acceleration happened after his car was hit, but why was he driving into the crowd in the first place? The street behind him was empty with only a few people on the sidewalk. I have seen no evidence that his car was struck before he got close to the crowd itself. One could argue that the person who struck his car did so out of self defense and trying to defend the crowd from a car that had gotten too close and had shown no intention of stopping. A "fair trial" includes not only the possibility that he might be found innocent but also the possibility that he might be found guilty. Are you willing to accept the possibility that he might actually be guilty of second degree murder? That said, I heard he was on psych meds. He might be found not competent to stand trial.

[Madison320]

I've watched the video. The driver was clearly driving into the crowd before his car was struck. I'll take your argument that the acceleration happened after his car was hit, but why was he driving into the crowd in the first place? The street behind him was empty with only a few people on the sidewalk. I have seen no evidence that his car was struck before he got close to the crowd itself. One could argue that the person who struck his car did so out of self defense and trying to defend the crowd from a car that had gotten too close and had shown no intention of stopping. A "fair trial" includes not only the possibility that he might be found innocent but also the possibility that he might be found guilty. Are you willing to accept the possibility that he might actually be guilty of second degree murder? That said, I heard he was on psych meds. He might be found not competent to stand trial.

It looked to me like he drove up too fast and that pissed the crowd off and that's why that guy hit him with the flag pole. Then he accelerated into the crowd. I've seen still shots of the guy hitting the car with the flag pole and at that point people aren't diving for cover, they just look irritated that he's driving too fast. In those still shots he clearly hasn't hit anyone yet. Also in the enhanced video his brake lights come on after he gets hit. But I don't know if that video is real because I can't see the brake lights in the original. Also in the side angle video where he hits the car in front of him you can see about 8 guys with bats and pipes. They were on him in about 2 seconds after he crashed which makes me think they were already starting to attack before he made the decision to accelerate.

As to your question "why was he driving into the crowd?" maybe he was trying to get somewhere in that direction? I'm not saying he's innocent but there's clearly enough evidence to doubt he planned the whole thing. If he was a terrorist he could've easily killed 20 people.

This shows the still shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtSSXdzckNA

[jmdrake]

It looked to me like he drove up too fast and that pissed the crowd off and that's why that guy hit him with the flag pole. Then he accelerated into the crowd. I've seen still shots of the guy hitting the car with the flag pole and at that point people aren't diving for cover, they just look irritated that he's driving too fast. In those still shots he clearly hasn't hit anyone yet. Also in the enhanced video his brake lights come on after he gets hit. But I don't know if that video is real because I can't see the brake lights in the original. Also in the side angle video where he hits the car in front of him you can see about 8 guys with bats and pipes. They were on him in about 2 seconds after he crashed which makes me think they were already starting to attack before he made the decision to accelerate.

As to your question "why was he driving into the crowd?" maybe he was trying to get somewhere in that direction? I'm not saying he's innocent but there's clearly enough evidence to doubt he planned the whole thing. If he was a terrorist he could've easily killed 20 people.

This shows the still shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtSSXdzckNA

Okay. You understand that if there was evidence that he planned the whole thing that would be first degree murder as opposed to 2nd degree murder right?

[jmdrake]

I just hope it goes to trial. I'm guessing there's a huge amount of pressure for this thing not to go to trial. I know they tacked on like another 10 charges to the original charges a few days later. Maybe that's why the judge switched defense attorneys. His attorney may be telling him he's going to fry or get life with no parole if it goes to trial. If he takes 2nd degree maybe he only gets 15 years and can be out in 7 (just a guess).

I'm assuming the court is not obligated to show the evidence when the defendant pleads guilty. Does anyone know if that's true?

If a defendant pleads guilty he accepts as true all of the allegations that the state makes against him. And the decision that his defense attorney should advise him to take is what is in his (the defendant's) best interest as opposed to what is most likely to get the truth out, whatever that is. Regardless of what happens in the trial, there will likely be independent inquiries into what happened. The Trump administration can do its own investigation into the matter. Congress can hold hearings on it as well. There will be plenty of avenues to get all of the evidence out with or without a trial. If Trump decides he doesn't want to delve into evidence that may exonerate one of his supporters...well that's on him.

[Brian4Liberty]

I've watched the video. The driver was clearly driving into the crowd before his car was struck. I'll take your argument that the acceleration happened after his car was hit, but why was he driving into the crowd in the first place? The street behind him was empty with only a few people on the sidewalk. I have seen no evidence that his car was struck before he got close to the crowd itself. One could argue that the person who struck his car did so out of self defense and trying to defend the crowd from a car that had gotten too close and had shown no intention of stopping. A "fair trial" includes not only the possibility that he might be found innocent but also the possibility that he might be found guilty. Are you willing to accept the possibility that he might actually be guilty of second degree murder? That said, I heard he was on psych meds. He might be found not competent to stand trial.

Kind of an interesting coincidence that this guy dropped out of the media circus right after the "crazy person on/off meds" stories came out.

[jmdrake]

Kind of an interesting coincidence that this guy dropped out of the media circus right after the "crazy person on/off meds" stories came out.

You know what? You're right. I hadn't thought about that. MKULTRA?

Edit: This is what I found from August 13.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/13/rally-murder-suspect-is-an-army-dropout-infatuated-with-nazis/

Fields’ military records conflict with the recollection of Weimer, who said he was rejected by the military due to a history of mental illness.

“Senior year, he was real gung-ho on joining the Army and . . . toward the end of the year found out that he was denied and it was because of a history of anti-psychotic, you know, medication that was prescribed,” he said.

Fields’ namesake father was killed by a drunken driver a few months before his son’s birth, and left him a trust fund administered by an uncle — who revealed the information on condition of anonymity, according to The Washington Post.

“When he turned 18, he demanded his money, and that was the last I had any contact with him,” the uncle said.

So.....forget for a moment whether or not he was actually "justified" in what he did. In his might he might very well have been! That makes him possibly neither a hero of the alt-right for "standing up to antifa thugs" nor a villain of the alt-left. Remember the Reichstag fire? That was supposedly set by a mentally ill communist and it led to the rise of Hitler to power.

[Madison320]

Okay. You understand that if there was evidence that he planned the whole thing that would be first degree murder as opposed to 2nd degree murder right?

Yes.

[Brian4Liberty]

You know what? You're right. I hadn't thought about that. MKULTRA?

I'm thinking it's standard procedure to avoid the subject of meds being involved in pretty much every one of these types of incidents. The pharma complex funds the media complex. It also doesn't play into the narrative of a premeditated, sober plan by a (somewhat) sound-minded Nazi.

[juleswin]

Personally I think the only way the person driving that dodge is innocent of 1st degree murder/manslaughter was if he wasn't the person driving i.e. a patsy. But if his excuse is that he stepped on the petal when someone hit his car then I think he should fry.

Its one thing if someone threw a brick, axe, molotov cocktail or something really life threatening before he took off and killed the woman. But hitting on his car with a stick just doesn't cut it for me. The driver whoever he/she is is guilty.

[jmdrake]

Yes.

Okay. So currently he's charged with 2nd degree murder. That he didn't plan the act doesn't get him off the hook. But being on psych meds very well could.

[Madison320]

Okay. So currently he's charged with 2nd degree murder. That he didn't plan the act doesn't get him off the hook. But being on psych meds very well could.

I didn't realize he was charged with 2nd degree. My point is he may have acted in self defense because it looks like he got hit first. Psych meds obviously could change the whole equation. I hope it goes to trial. They ought to be able to piece together a bunch of videos and get a pretty accurate picture of what happened. There's a big gap from the time the flagpole guy hits his car and the next scene where you see the car zooming by and hitting the back of the other car.

[Madison320]

WTF? Is this a misprint? They skipped today's hearing and scheduled the next until Dec 14????

Is this a speedy trial?

"Prosecutors and the attorney for James Alex Fields Jr. filed a motion asking a judge to set Dec. 14 as the date for a preliminary hearing."

http://wtop.com/virginia/2017/08/fields-hearing-postponed/

Another odd thing is that everything been sealed. There's no data coming out of this case.

[Brian4Liberty]

WTF? Is this a misprint? They skipped today's hearing and scheduled the next until Dec 14????

Is this a speedy trial?

"Prosecutors and the attorney for James Alex Fields Jr. filed a motion asking a judge to set Dec. 14 as the date for a preliminary hearing."

http://wtop.com/virginia/2017/08/fields-hearing-postponed/

Another odd thing is that everything been sealed. There's no data coming out of this case.

Doesn't fit their narrative. They'd rather let it stew as originally portrayed.


I'm thinking it's standard procedure to avoid the subject of meds being involved in pretty much every one of these types of incidents. The pharma complex funds the media complex. It also doesn't play into the narrative of a premeditated, sober plan by a (somewhat) sound-minded Nazi.

And if they do have any desire for fairness, they might be doing psych evaluations and waiting for the whole thing to cool down a bit.

[Madison320]

Doesn't fit their narrative. They'd rather let it stew as originally portrayed.



And if they do have any desire for fairness, they might be doing psych evaluations and waiting for the whole thing to cool down a bit.

Of course the problem is they're keeping him in jail the whole time. That's the idea of the right to a speedy trial. The whole thing is weird to me. There's zero coverage of the actual case, the only coverage is how it affects Trump. That was the ONLY article I could find on it being moved to dec 14.