• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Russ Faria might be getting a re-trial

Samson said:
Can Pam Hupp be charged with the crime still?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I think it unlikely that she will be indicted. Lincoln County authorities are perhaps too vested in Faria to pursue anyone else...
 
Metullus said:
Yes, but I think it unlikely that she will be indicted. Lincoln County authorities are perhaps too vested in Faria to pursue anyone else...
Click to expand...


The Lincoln County authorities are under the spotlight now, after the affair was revealed between the Faria prosecutor Leah Askey and one of the case's detectives.
 
lonepinealex said:
Good news for Russ Faria:

http://fox2now.com/2015/02/24/judge-faria-may-apply-for-new-trial-request-may-not-be-granted/

Fingers crossed this happens for him!

Good summary of the case here if anyone wants to catch up on this one:

http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogs...inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html?spref=fb


Surely one of the clearest examples of a wrongful conviction?
Click to expand...

One of many, another case where police started with the assumption that the husband did it, ignored other possibilities, and ignored a strong alibi.

The prosecutor's closing argument alone should be grounds for a new trial, IMO.

Did you ever find out if the Hupps who terrorized a small child, to teach him to be wary of strangers, were related to the Hupp in the Faria case?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
One of many, another case where police started with the assumption that the husband did it, ignored other possibilities, and ignored a strong alibi.

The prosecutor's closing argument alone should be grounds for a new trial, IMO.

Did you ever find out if the Hupps who terrorized a small child, to teach him to be wary of strangers, were related to the Hupp in the Faria case?
Click to expand...
I read the documents including comments. It is most interesting to discover that one of the four alibi witnesses is highly articulate.
The mother falling off the balcony soon after this crime with daughter Pam Hupp as sole inheritress seems interesting, almost too elegant a proof of a burgeoning serial killer.
 
This surpasses Kirstin Lobato in cloud cuckoo-land, and that is saying a lot. Not only is the prosecution theory - with four supposed co-conspirators whom they accused in a closing argument, but did not charge or examine during the trial - utterly dishonest, but everyone seems to be protecting this vile woman.

I think Faria will get out eventually. This is just too crazy.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
This surpasses Kirstin Lobato in cloud cuckoo-land, and that is saying a lot. Not only is the prosecution theory - with four supposed co-conspirators whom they accused in a closing argument, but did not charge or examine during the trial - utterly dishonest, but everyone seems to be protecting this vile woman.

I think Faria will get out eventually. This is just too crazy.
Click to expand...
Kristin Lobato?

Before I google it I am getting the point.
There is a better way, law degrees may become less important in a new way of thinking.
I would categorically reverse the lay jurors we suffer.

I would trust thinkers from here with my life, or more importantly, the lives of my children.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Kristin Lobato?

Before I google it I am getting the point.
There is a better way, law degrees may become less important in a new way of thinking.
Click to expand...

It's another case with a hard-to-break alibi. What sends it into the ozone is that Lobato "confessed" to a murder weeks before it happened. The judge allowed witnesses to testify about Lobato's "confession," but excluded testimony as to when these "confessions" were made, on the grounds that this was hearsay.

What the witnesses described was Lobato's account of a different incident, in which she stabbed (but did not kill) someone who tried to rape her.

In the Faria case, the judge allowed the jury to hear a closing argument in which the prosecutor laid out a conspiracy theory for which she had not established any basis during the trial, even though she certainly could have tried.

The similarity is that the jury was explicitly deceived in both cases.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It's another case with a hard-to-break alibi. What sends it into the ozone is that Lobato "confessed" to a murder weeks before it happened. The judge allowed witnesses to testify about Lobato's "confession," but excluded testimony as to when these "confessions" were made, on the grounds that this was hearsay.

What the witnesses described was Lobato's account of a different incident, in which she stabbed (but did not kill) someone who tried to rape her.

In the Faria case, the judge allowed the jury to hear a closing argument in which the prosecutor laid out a conspiracy theory for which she had not established any basis during the trial, even though she certainly could have tried.

The similarity is that the jury was explicitly deceived in both cases.
Click to expand...
The Faria prosecutor is unopposed for reelection.
These cases are marginal, but catastrophic. I sleep walked through other cases on this sub forum, as you openly admit you did many years ago.
The damage is inconceivable, lose your wife your child your liberty.
 
I link these cases in my mind because both are cases in which the judge and prosecutor had to have understood that the defendant was innocent, and they colluded to mislead the jury.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I link these cases in my mind because both are cases in which the judge and prosecutor had to have understood that the defendant was innocent, and they colluded to mislead the jury.
Click to expand...

In many cases juries are just dumb. . . .Don't know how else to put it.
They will convict based on what is effectively no evidence.
They also believe convict witnesses who say that there is nothing riding on their testimony.

I recently found out about a case of an ex cop named Jim Barton who was convicted of murdering his wife ten years afterwards based on if he said "I have to call Phelp" not "I have to call for help" and the changing testimony of a convict witness.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I link these cases in my mind because both are cases in which the judge and prosecutor had to have understood that the defendant was innocent, and they colluded to mislead the jury.
Click to expand...
We are criminals that never broke the law.

Talking heads, David Byrne, said it, maybe not first.
 
At least two jury members in the Faria case have said publicly that had they known all the facts they wouldn't have voted guilty.

Mind, they also said that they weren't sure about their guilty verdict at the time, which does lend some weight to the "stupid jury" theory, given the whole concept of reasonable doubt...
 
lonepinealex said:
At least two jury members in the Faria case have said publicly that had they known all the facts they wouldn't have voted guilty.

Mind, they also said that they weren't sure about their guilty verdict at the time, which does lend some weight to the "stupid jury" theory, given the whole concept of reasonable doubt...
Click to expand...
It seems somewhat odd to make a new discovery on an obscure internet forum, but

There is no doubt in my mind:
Scientists, embracing the fields of medicine, engineering, etc would never enter wrongful convictions.
On the other hand, legally trained people do it as a matter of course.

lonepinealex, I would be interested in your candid reflections on the place of journalists, tabloid, bbc or any in this process. Remember John Kercher?
 
lonepinealex said:
At least two jury members in the Faria case have said publicly that had they known all the facts they wouldn't have voted guilty.

Mind, they also said that they weren't sure about their guilty verdict at the time, which does lend some weight to the "stupid jury" theory, given the whole concept of reasonable doubt...
Click to expand...

When you are not sure of guilt, you always default to "Not Guilty" but is seems that many just do not get it.

Samson said:
It seems somewhat odd to make a new discovery on an obscure internet forum, but

There is no doubt in my mind:
Scientists, embracing the fields of medicine, engineering, etc would never enter wrongful convictions.
On the other hand, legally trained people do it as a matter of course.

lonepinealex, I would be interested in your candid reflections on the place of journalists, tabloid, bbc or any in this process. Remember John Kercher?
Click to expand...

Scientists and Lawyers definitely do not think the same. . . . .Some of the leaders in the intelligent design movement for example are lawyers.
 
Every wrongful conviction case I've come across finds a new way to scare me. There's being railroaded, and then there's being russ faria'd. Wow.
 
Desert Fox said:
This is a special kind of crazy

If you have a decent internet connection
Click to expand...

Thanks! I came across that link earlier today once I started googling the case. It's mind-blowing. And now that I've hit 15 posts, I can post a link below to another report I saw on the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom