I hesitate to wade into this, but 35 minutes does seem like a short time to violently rape and murder someone, clean up the crime scene (apparently pretty effectively), and travel 5 blocks and make a phone call. Even assuming the attack began the moment she hung up the phone. It’s like 12 Angry Men (is that the right movie? Where they pace it out?)
Honestly, I thought for a while before posting the above because I knew it would come down to this. I have no interest in debating the value of our judicial system.
Your opinion of it is your own.
However, until the system is changed, that’s how it is. And those changes would need to come from no less than the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment.
Similar to the above, in the interest of “fighting ignorance”, I need to point out that what you said here is 100%, without a doubt, wrong.
There is no truth to it whatsoever.
The operative phrase is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “preponderance of evidence”.
The job of the prosecution is, as I said above, to convince the jury of that what they say happened is actually what happened–not to, as you insinuate, persuade them that it’s just the most likely thing that happened.
Occam, despite your insistence, has no place in a criminal courtroom, and, for as long as we’ve had the jury system we’ve had, it never did.
As I said, you’re welcome to your own opinion on matters, but not your own facts. The system is how it is by design. I have no interest in debating whether or not that’s good or bad, but I will absolutely correct misconceptions about how it is.
Maybe. Maybe not.
First of all, her body was not discovered until almost 24 hours after the murder. Who says that all of the clean-up had to be done in that 35-minute period? Do we know what the defendant was doing for that whole time? Killers can come back to the scene later.
More importantly, though, i wasn’t even really suggesting that the 35-minute timeline made him guilty of not guilty. I was simply noting that the timeline offered by Lb smooth was wrong, which is pretty interesting, coming as it did from the one idiot blowhard who marched in here the other day to complain about how everyone else needed to get their facts straight.
There’s nothing here that contradicts Merneith’s point. The fact that juries are required to reach a conclusion that is “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean that they shouldn’t weigh the evidence carefully and rationally. Nor does it mean, more generally, that the modern jury system isn’t founded on ideas about people of reason and good will. All it means is that, in making their rational assessments, people of good will and reason still need to recognize that the final standard for conviction is a very high one.
If you enter the jury room without good will or reason, you undermine the process itself.
That’s not how I read the post.
Given that the context included an invocation of Occam’s Razor (“the most likely answer is the correct one”) and the repeated talk of jurors with doubt beyond the prosecution’s argument being biased/prejudiced (not even acknowledging the very strong possibility that they weren’t convinced to the required standard), I’m not inclined to automatically agree with your interpretation.
Good point.
Fair enough. I was just struck by the timeframe and picked a post to allow me to say that.
[Moderating]
Yes. By the rules of this message board, what you’re doing is considered spamming, and is not allowed. This board is not here as a platform for you to advertise your movie. You can discuss the facts of this particular murder case (or most any other subject you’d like to discuss - we have a diverse range of board available here) if you like, but please refrain from asking other people to buy or view your movie on the subject.
[/Moderating]
Ain’t gonna happen. Just ban his ass already and be done with it. He’s an asshole of the first order anyway.
I did end up checking and found that there is precedent to banning a user whose posts consist of substance-less complaints about the board.
I do still find it funny that he ended up in the Pit by accident & would’ve been kicked out in short order if this thread was anywhere else when he bumped it.
You wouldn’t believe who he has lined up to do the sound mixing for his movie!!
Probably some fatso who’s gonna wipe his greasy hands on the sofa.
mmm
What I think was more likely than not is that there were more to the case than what we have been told. Otherwise, how could you explain that a jury would acquit if all they knew was that the defendant was know to harass the victim, that she didn’t want to have anything to do with him, that somehow he nevertheless had sex with her (and rough sex on top of it) and she was murdered immediately after? That makes no sense.
I made up hypothetical informations that the jury could have known, for instance that the victim saying to her family “Oh! He’s just harassing me, I keep seeing him, but it’s just out of pity, of course nothing is happening between us” might not have been the truth (we don’t know what the jury was told, we know what the sister said. I don’t know about you, but if my siblings were asked about my sex life after my death…oh, well). From which you started a three paragraphs long lecture about how I support harassers and rapists.
Once again, if there was no more to the story than Palermo being a creep who wouldn’t take no for an answer, and had his ways with the victim before she was murdered, how can you explain the acquital?
Good morning everyone ( I am in California so it is still morning )
Maybe I could shed some light on this discussion. My name is Joseph Cardone and I am an independent filmmaker( nothing successful yet). About eight years ago I became interested in doing independent films about unsolved murder cases throughout the United States. Obviously I came across this case .
First on Lb smooth he was one of the suspects interviewed by the police during the case. I contacted him and many others regarding this case when I started researching it. Lb smooth turned out to be A very on reliable source due to mental addiction problems. He was also asking for a stencil I’m out of money to be part of this project. From what I gather he is working with another producer on making a film about this case. I came across this site because Lb smooth used the email address I had created for him through my company ( I create email accounts for the people I’m working with in hopes of keeping the information we share as private as possible )
I did not move forward with this project because I could not get the cooperation of the people involved ( deceases family, defendant ,DA the only people willing to cooperate was the defence lawyers
What I can say about the case Through the information I gathered during my research is that there were major inconsistencies in the prosecutions case and that The defendant was targeted due to his semi Association with some very low level organize crime members. There was a civil suit filed and settled with a confidentiality clause stipulation .
Obviously I have no idea what happened that night and refuse to make a judgment either way. I choose out of respect for both parties to not discuss it because from my experience trying research the case they do not want to be involved.
I hope I have helped in this discussion and I wish everyone a enjoyable weekend
Well then why are you wasting our time here?
You’re confusing the role of the prosecutor with the role of the jury. The American Bar Association has this to say about the role of juries:
It is the prosecutor’s job to present the evidence. The defense is also entitled to present evidence. It is the jury’s job to examine the evidence and determine the facts of the case, and then to make their decision.
All of this is predicated on the idea that juries will make a rational decision based solely on the evidence.
The problem is that, in reality, juries are composed of humans and humans don’t always make rational decisions. This amplified by group dynamics and personal prejudices.
As I said, I’m not sure what the solution is. Maybe the system that has judges deciding is a better choice. Maybe there’s something I haven’t considered. But simply declaring that the current system is undebatable make you part of the problem.
Honey, if you think juries always make a correct decision, unswayed by personal biases and courtroom shenanigans, then you really need to go ask your mommy about the Dreyfus case.
Lol - the poor mush of a defendant, with his semen and spit all over the victim, and the bite marks, and now the testimony of her friends and family that he’d been harassing her for a date, and now his connection to organized crime. Tiny little connection! Could happen to the nicest people!
Yeah - total travesty of justice that anyone even looked twice at poor little Louis Povoromo. What a nice boy.
People who want to help Povoromo should probably stop talking.
Anyway. I note that the sealed and confidential lawsuit may well be anything. It needent be related to any of the actual facts of the case. Perhaps one of the cops slugged him or something and he sued for personal damages.
The point is the lawsuit, being sealed, doesn’t prove anything one way or another about the strength of the case against Poveromo. It might be unrelated; It might be irrelevant. It might be a bombshell. But until it’s unsealed it’s useless.
I’m not trying to help anyone, I was just trying to explain about lb smooth and share the info I know about the case when I researched it .Obviously you have your opinions base on a limited amount of information to you gathered on the internet without even being involved in anything but this message board. But that is the great thing about our country everyone is entitled to their opinion’s and are allowed to Express them.
You’re really swimming upstream with this. We already know he was acquitted so obviously there was some doubt. The question is what it was. Every time someone tries to answer that question they are met with a bunch of vitriol against them or the defendant or lectures about proper board etiquette that will completely meaningless to someone who doesn’t plan to post regularly.
Fighting ignorance indeed.
JcardoneAAA, thanks for stopping by and trying to help clear things up.
You are welcome crazyhorse, I do not know if Merneith is personally involved with this case but she is entitled to her opinion. I prefer to try and gather as much information I can before I comment on matters I was not involved in.
What I can add is most of the deceases Immediate family has moved out of NY and refuses to talk about the case.
The defendant has also moved out of NY, married with 2 children and while doing my research he had no criminal Record or arrest ( accept for a times served for smoking marijuana in public with 2 others in 1997) prior to the case and after the case
I don’t think they are in any way personally involved - just another member of the peanut gallery.
Note that as I said to Jb Smooth, when this thread was opened 15 years ago it was in The BBQ Pit - a free for all that is the one area of the boards where members are allowed to insult each other, question each other’s honesty, completely derail a thread just for the hell of it, etc. so it is really not a good venue for a discussion of facts.
Personally as it pertains to this case I’m a lot more interested in what people who were there or have interviewed people who were there know about it than those who just want to keep repeating the same rage and disgust over the details of the case without ever knowing what really happened.
Based on the defendant and victim’s family not wanting to be involved in telling the story it probably will never be fully known.
To be honest I have never heard of this site until today, if it was not for lb smooth using the email I set up for him, I could safely save I would have never found this site. The last thing I can add is and then I will be done with this discussion, after all the research I did and all the information I gathered if I was on the jury I would have voted not guilty, not overwhelmingly I would say it was 75/25 in the defendants favor. But that does not mean my conclusion is right or accurate I am just basing it on the information I researched and gathered through courts documents and the defense lawyers.