Okay, this does it. This proves beyond any doubt that Judge Wilbert, in Wichita, overseeing the Scott Roeder trial for the murder of Dr. George Tiller is, unequivocally, biased in favor of the accused and that, secondly, he should--without that same doubt--recuse himself from the case.
Get this--this is what happened today:
"Tempers flared today when a judge said he would allow the man charged with killing abortion doctor George Tiller to tell jurors how he formed his beliefs about abortion."
This isn't a trial on or about abortion in any way.
This is a trial to decide if one Scott Roeder is or is not guilty of shooting and killing one Dr. George Tiller and whether or not it was premeditated.
With this action today, allowing the accused to describe a side detail--that of "how he formed his beliefs about abortion", Judge Wilbert has, without question, set this trial up to be heard yet again, once it's made clear this jury was contaminated, in effect, by this line of questioning.
This is not a trial on or about abortion. This is a murder trial.
Listen to how the Judge talked out of both sides of his mouth here, earlier today:
“We’re not going to discuss partial-birth abortions, we’re not going to discuss late-term abortions and actual medical procedures. But his personally held beliefs in general about abortion, whether it’s harmful, whether it terminates a viable baby, he’s going to get to testify to that.”
Excuse me? You're not going to have the trial be about abortion but you're going to let the defense and Mr. Roeder talk about his opinions on abortion and what Dr. Tiller's job was?
Judge Wilbert has spoiled the atmosphere in his court--and of this jury--with this allowance.
The case should now be dismissed and retried, with another, new jury.
The sooner he does, the sooner justice might be served.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Wow. I really can't see any reason that his abortion beliefs are remotely relevant.
There aren't that many facts to establish here. Even if you were to adopt the ludicrous position that stopping an abortion is equivalent to defending against a violent crime, it would only be acceptable when the abortion was imminent, and lesser methods would not work. You can't use deadly force today to defend against an attack promised tomorrow.
Isn't that true? (his abortion beliefs not remotely relevant).
It's as though the judge doesn't either realize or accept that abortions are legal in the US and that he has over 30 years of precedent to lean on.
If Roeder gets off--and I doubt he will but stranger things have happened--I would immediately scream for a mistrial, if I'm the prosecuting attorney (Nola Foulston), as of today and these statements of his.
have a great day.
MR
No 2nd degree murder instruction.
No Voluntary Manslaughter instruction.
A judge who followed the law and is only letting the jury decide if this is premeditated first degree murder or not.
So much for the Judge's obvious bias.
http://roederwatch.blogspot.com
The Judge changed his instructions, now, as of yesterday, thank goodness, and said the jury cannot and will not decide this with the thought of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder after all.
Great change.
Thanks, Judge.
MR
Post a Comment