Hey, there! Log in / Register
What you're missing while every single reporter covers Faux Rockefeller
By adamg on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:21am
Closing arguments could come today in the Suffolk Superior Court trial of Quincy Butler and William Wood. But you haven't heard of them because they're only charged with stabbing a woman to death and shooting out her boyfriend's eye in a drug-fueled 2004 home invasion in Dorchester, and this is their fourth trial on the charges, so it's understandable that reporters are just too fatigued to care anymore, especially when the alleged run-away nebbish with the fun fake name is on trial so far away, like in a whole other courtroom in the same building.
Same thing happened at their third trial, last year, which took place at the same time some loathsome Brit was on trial in Middlesex County for murdering his wife and daughter in Hopkinton, and which was declared a mistrial, following two other mistrials.
And by "media," I include the Globe's Adrian Walker, whose column today breaks new ground in not telling you anything you didn't already know about the Defendant.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
again, Walker? jeeeeeeeesus.
I hadn't got around to reading it yet today. Last week's column, in which he informed us that Rockefeller is ka-raazy, made me a little unhinged. Guy has an ENTIRE NEWSPAPER COLUMN at his disposal and that's what he does with it? It's like watching the guy with the fanciest house in town pour blacktop over the rose garden.
That's even more depressing
This is his second column on Rockefeller? Man! Triply so, actually, since Kevin Cullen already did the Clark-is-Krazy column, last August.
yep. it's even called "No doubt: He's crazy"
I wish I was making this up.
He keeps this up, he'll have enough for a book
But he'll have to come up with better chapter titles:
Chapter 1. He's crazy.
Chapter 2. He's crazy.
Chapter 3. He's crazy. ...
Another trial the media won't cover
Jury selection was scheduled to begin today in Suffolk Superior Court for the second trial of a man charged with strangling his estranged wife to death in her Chelsea apartment in 2000.
Agapito Lao was convicted of first-degree murder in 2002 but won a new trial on appeal in 2007.
See previous comment....
"Won't cover" makes vastly different assumptions than "isn't covering."
Or....
Maybe the relative media silence on the fourth trial will help the actual trial come to a better resolution. By not reprinting the grisly details of the case, it's far less likely that another mistrial or hung jury will result.
Just sayin'
The earlier mistrials were
The earlier mistrials were not caused by media interference in deliberations. There is very little one could write in a major newspaper that would be as horrifyingly bruital as the testimony jurors heard in the courtroom.
What did cause the earlier mistrials, then?
I mean, three of them in a row is highly unusual. Was it just three hopelessly deadlocked juries?
There were two hung juries
There were two hung juries separated by an abbreviated trial during which the presiding judge took ill (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art...).
I was one of the jurors
As a juror on the third trial, I can tell you exactly what has transpired throughout this case...it's another example of how the system isn't as fair as we're led to believe. Twelve people have to agree, one way or another. Do you know how difficult it is to get twelve people to think alike? Especially when some of the jurors don't know the system, fall asleep during deliberations, and then ask why it matters that 10 people agree, and he doesn't. He thought that throughout 4 weeks of testimony and one week of deliberations that the majority rules. Another juror (who really liked to hear himself talk) thought that he would crack the case somehow or another, by piecing together each and every phone cord that was part of the evidence. Hmmm, like forensic scientists haven't been doing that since 2004! A lot of money and effort, not to mention the nightmare that Betsy's family has endured, as well as 5 very stressful weeks of my life was wasted due to the flaws of the system. It just "Didn't add up" for the two (to me-non reasonable) jurors voting for non-conviction. Basically everyone has their own idea for "reasonable doubt", and for the two who didn't agree with conviction, their minimum amount of doubt that they'd consider "reasonable" was 100%. That's what they said! Oh, and our case was 10-2 for conviction, all alternate jurors were for conviction, and the first case voted 11-1 for conviction. Then, add to that the information that we were not allowed to hear during testimony, and were absolutely shocked to find out after the fact! Critical information about how there was absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt!!!!!!! It's horrible!
What stuff? Had they
What stuff? Had they admitted it and it was not told to the jury? Or just something else that bad.
Or or...
They're playing to their more-desirable audience in Newton and Weston, and they think that that audience doesn't care. Which, for the most part, it doesn't. Not that that justifies the media's prioritization here-- it doesn't-- but if they think their future is in the 'burbs, and Mr. and Mrs. Stepford don't care about urban crime, that at least explains, if not excuses, their actions.
(Waiting to get attacked here in 3... 2... )
But 'Rockefeller' was urban, not suburban
He and his wife lived in the city, and the alleged kidnapping happened in the city as well. Nothing to do with the suburbs at all.
Good point, but...
They represent a very, very small slice of Brahmin Boston that has a lot more in common with Weston than it does with the rest of the city. And for that matter, even that small slice-- some of Back Bay, and part of Beacon Hill-- and the people who live there haven't really been what Boston is about for the better part of a century now.... if they ever were. I'm hesitant to define a city's character by the character or lack thereof of its rich people, but the days of Brahmin dominance ended with the Boston police strike.
Of course, for those Brahmins that remain, that Boston still exists-- not for nothing was the child given the name "Storrow," after all-- and, of course, for the suburbanites who flock to the city on the 4th, Back Bay and Beacon Hill is all they ever see of Boston. That, and Fenway, and Faneuil Hall, _is_ Boston to them.
Because all suburbanites are
Because all suburbanites are wealthy, since it's so much cheaper to live in the suburbs than in most of Boston.
Oh, you pesky anon...
I can't tell if there are two people with equally poor reading-comprehension skills posting anonymously today, but given the failure to either make a point or understand one made by another, I'll treat you as one and the same.
I was actually not saying that all suburbanites are wealthy-- economic status did not enter into any of my comments, directly or otherwise. I was only pointing out that, for many people who come to Boston for the 4th and the Red Sox and not much else, they're only concerned with, and aware of, a small part of it. Certainly, most suburbanites only _go_ to a very small part of it, even if they're dimly aware of places like Dot and Roxbury. (Please note here that I'm not making ANY kind of judgement here as to why you don't see a lot of Westonites rolling down Dot. Ave.; they just don't).
But if you're going to bring up wealth, I would say that, yes, more than half of the people who will be going to hear Neil Diamond sing next month come from suburbs that are wealthier than Dot, Roxbury, etc. Not all of them are rich, but as a group, they have a lot more in common with people in Back Bay and Beacon Hill-- or at least they'd like to think that.
They lived in Beacon Hill.
They lived in Beacon Hill. Consider getting your information correct.
Was I talking about where they lived?
No, I wasn't. I was talking about the Globe's audience. Any moron knows that these people lived on Beacon Hill-- you're a perfect example. Ron made a good and valid point, and I responded to it by pointing out that that part of Boston has a lot more in common with the suburban readers than pretty much any other part of Boston.
Consider being less of a douche. I'm sure I've gotten a lot more facts right in my fact-gathering career than you have in yours, whatever that may be; that I didn't spell them out for your dumb ass doesn't mean I don't know this story and my city.
I didn't personally attack
I didn't personally attack you, nor did I call you names. Please don't resort to personal attacks or foul language. Adam, why did you even let this name-calling comment through?
Yes you did, Brad, yes you did.
You made a snippy and useless comment about "getting my facts straight" without bothering to read, or even try to understand, what I'd written.
No one's paying you to be a fact-checker or proofreader-- not here, and (hopefully) not anywhere. Ron made a valid point about my comment, but one that was made politely, and in a way that suggested that he read the comment and had made an effort to understand the point I was making, even if he didn't necessarily agree with it, or the way I was making it.
You, however, took the opportunity to be douchey and self-important. There's a difference. I called you what you were because that's how you were acting. If your nose is going to get bent out of shape because someone calls you out for making lame and obvious comments, then don't make comments like that. Contribute something intelligent, make a point that hasn't been made already, argue against a point that's been made-- ANYTHING. But don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that I check my facts. Please.
And you were so certain of
And you were so certain of your facts that you had to resort to using names like "douche", "moron", and "dumb ass."
Maybe I was snippy and maybeI misunderstood your initial comment, and I apologize for that. But you're the one who looks like a fool here. And with your oh-so-glowing personality, I look forward to your response to this, because your thesaurus of third grade playground insults is pretty amusing.
You definitely misunderstood
But I don't blame you for your lack of intelligence-- that's not your fault. I was calling you out for opening your mouth, letting the stupidity out, and inflicting it on innocent people. And I _might_ have accepted your apology had you not made a lame attempt at a comeback. But you did, proving once again my original point about you being a d-word.
More to the point: You didn't even try to be smart. My comment, stinkypants, was about how the media tailors coverage based on what it thinks the people want to hear about. That's it. It had nothing to do with where the crime occurred; I was only speculating that the media believed that, because these people were rich and had names that sounded rich, the public that there were interested in reach would therefore be more interested in that. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that this is a good way to make these decisions; I'm saying that the decisions are often made this way. You poopyhead.
trial
I was acquainted with the victim in the trial Adam is referring to. Not close friends, but we worked together for several years. In fairness, the Globe did do a story on the family after the third mistrial a couple of months ago:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art...
I do not know her family, but what they have been through is beyond my imagination. I can only hope there is some kind of justice or closure for them soon.
also
wouldn't want to encroach on the space in the paper given to the self-obsessed boomer "don't call me grandma" article.
Walker column
Regarding Adrian Walker's column: He's written some good stuff over the years, but this column just bombs in terms of freshness and interest level.
I wonder if the folks at the Globe have been so beaten up that some are just too emotionally exhausted to write about more compelling topics, in a more energized way. Writing is hard, emotional labor, and it's especially difficult if you're being dragged through the ringer in terms of your own work environment and job security...
Murdering drug-fueled zombies vs Faux Rockefeller
The murdering drug zombies are everywhere but fake Rockefellers are hard to find. I think that's why a whole lot of people are following it. Sadly, a Dorchester home invasion doesn't draw much attention outside of its' neighborhood. It's Susan Boyle vs Scarlett Johansson.