Jackson Free Press

Jackson 2000 held a district attorney candidate forum today at noon at Schimmel's. The Jackson Free Press moderated, asking questions provided by audience members. We will have a full report on the event later today, and with any luck, a podcast of all of the comments. Meantime, here is a press statement candidate Michele Purvis sent out this morning, stating that Melton did not ask her to run. It is important to note that she blames the district attorney for putting that information out there. To our knowledge, the D.A. has not initiated those statements, which she denied doing at the forum, although Sheriff Malcolm McMillin told Adam Lynch last week that Melton has put up the two Democrats running against him, as well as the district attorney. Here is Purvis' statement:

[Verbatim statement from Michele Purvis] It appears that the race for Hinds County District Attorney has become more about who put whom up to run, rather than the real issues of crime and effective prosecution. I would like to put the issue to rest regarding my candidacy and why I am seeking election to the position.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, Mayor Frank Melton did not put me in the race. I am assuming that this is being said because I was a city employee under the Melton administration; as I was under the Harvey Johnson administration as well as the Kane Ditto administration, during which time I was confirmed as a civil servant. Additionally, I was employed by District Attorney Faye Peterson in 2003 and worked under her administration for approximately two years. Clearly, my commitment is to public service and not to one particular individual or administration.

With crime continuing to rise, the citizens of this district need a district attorney who is willing to effectively prosecute criminal cases. The current district attorney has stated that she has prosecuted over 8000 cases during her tenure; however, what she fails to tell the citizens is that included in this number are cases that were dismissed, remanded, plea bargained and placed on inactive status. This is not prosecution, but case disposal, which has in effect led to a revolving door for criminals, further placing citizens, business and families in peril. For this year alone, over 200 cases have been dismissed, remanded or placed on inactive status by the district attorney's office. These cases were presented to the grand jury by the district attorney's office and indictments returned. Included in these dismissed cases are charges of murder, statutory rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery and gratification of lust.

The citizens of this district should not allow anyone to divert there attention from the real issues in the race for Hinds County District Attorney. The only issues are crime and whether or not the district attorney's office has done its job by effectively prosecuting criminals. As attorneys we deal in facts, no one has provided any evidence that supports the allegations raised by Mrs. Peterson, and she herself has admitted that she cannot provide any such evidence. We will continue to talk about the real issues and challenge all candidates seeking office to do likewise.

Michele Purvis
Candidate Hinds County D.A.
MichelePurvisForDA.Com

Previous Commentsshow

One thing was interesting: the amount of pride that Robert Smith expressed over the fact that *Ed Peters* asked him to run two years ago. That raises two questions: 1. Why would the support of Ed Peters, who apparently left the DA's office a mess, be a selling point? 2. What about Ed Peters also giving to Michele Purvis' campaign? Doesn't that bolster the idea that the Melton folks are trying to force a run-off? It rather sounds like Purvis went into the race expecting Peters' support as well. Oh, and that brings up a third question: 3. Does he not realize that, for those who understand Melton's support network, saying that Peters asked him to run is almost like admitting that he is Melton's choice? And there is a fourth possibility: that these guys really don't understand the forces at play around their candidacies. Melton said Purvis' name to me repeatedly last spring, as a person who could tell me all the poop on the district attorney. I fully realize that she may well have not known he was doing that -- but it is wondrously odd why he thought Purvis was going to back up everything he said. Why?

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

Well I did think it was really cool Donna how you guys moderated the event (since y'all are apparently not biased against Purvis and Smith), then I thought it was really neat when Todd pulled questions out of his pocket and did not use the audience written questions. And yes there are several witnesses to this. Kind of amazing that their were 2 Melton specific questions asked don't you think.

snowjob

Jul 11 2007

Shaun, did you send up a question that didn't get asked?

LatashaWillis

Jul 11 2007

So, MRs. Michelle Purvis, during the two years that you "worked for Faye Peterson," how many of the "dismissed, remanded, plea bargained or placed in inactive status." cases were you responsible for? Also, what part of the mess in City Hall's legal department were you a part of. If not there, where is the positive contributions of your work history. So far - you have become one BIG Complaint Department and without anything but verbal remedy and promises. What have you done? It boils my grits to hear politicians take advantage of situations wherein the opponent hasn't a chance to comment. Even the commercials for Purvis speaks of crime as if the DA's office is creating and sponcoring crime. We have had enough of this type of campaigning. There are too many vulnerable people in this community who need educating and people like frank and Michelle are excellent at taking advantage of these situations. When I see the elderly saying "Enough Is Enough" I was moved to ask one of the participants what exactly was there enough of. The response was that Faye Peterson was responsible for the BIG CRIME problem in Jackson. This is SAD! melton did this to Johnson. His rethoric was so thick that even some people who were suppose to have known better, fell for it. So MRs. Purvis - "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!"

justjess

Jul 11 2007

So, MRs. Michelle Purvis, during the two years that you "worked for Faye Peterson," how many of the "dismissed, remanded, plea bargained or placed in inactive status." cases were you responsible for? Also, what part of the mess in City Hall's legal department were you a part of. If not there, where is the positive contributions of your work history. So far - you have become one BIG Complaint Department and without anything but verbal remedy and promises. What have you done? I went to her Web site to see what documents she had on file to support her claims. Maybe I'm overlooking it, but I couldn't find anything. Why were the cases dismissed, remanded, etc.? When I see the elderly saying "Enough Is Enough" I was moved to ask one of the participants what exactly was there enough of. The response was that Faye Peterson was responsible for the BIG CRIME problem in Jackson. The brainwashing continues.

LatashaWillis

Jul 11 2007

Justjess, you're amazing. You make me smile. I love your questions and comments here. I wonder if we will get answers?

Ray Carter

Jul 11 2007

snowjob, you are something. Todd didn't even know he was doing this, until I made him walk over there right as it began because I had forgotten and was wearing yoga pants! Trust me: No one had time, or desire, to take a pocketful of questions over there! There was a good variety of questions, and we didn't get to them all. But I gave the rest to Adam to ask in their sit-down interviews. Nice try, though. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

Smith, Purvis and Lewis should be very cautious of attaching themselves to the caboose of frank melton's ranaway train. Sherline Anderson is living proof that any working relationship with melton renders one impotent, incompetent, fearful and irrelevant. "Be Careful of what you wish for; you might get it." Remember the citizens of Jackson wanted "Change" when they elected melton, You din't just get "CHANGE" - We got SCREWED!

justjess

Jul 11 2007

Is there any better proof that Peterson is in a catch 22 or hard to overcome situation with a former insider/prosecuter accusing her of too many pleas, nolle prosecutions, dismissals, etc., and several lawyers I know accusing her of not being fair or seeking justice, but instead seeking only convictions by trials. Pleas are convictions, make no mistake about that. Add many member of the fickle general public blaming her for the cases she lost, including the ones Frank's crazy ass messed up and it's a wonder she has even survived. This bring me back to whether she is being held to the same standard as Peters. I doubt it. If Faye is dumped for Michelle I predict all hell breaking loose with two crazy people having too much power. We'll be alright with Robert. He's young and it's showing and glowing, but he's a smart young man driven to do the right thing. He and Frank would soon fall out unless Frank changed.

Ray Carter

Jul 11 2007

Yeah and I am sure that the JFP is a "Fair and Balanced" news outlet to moderate an event such as this. It is OBVIOUSLY clear that y'all are backing Faye and are just making blamket accusations that Purvis and Smith are tied to Melton. I mean saying that since Ed Peters suggested Robert run two years ago somehow has a relation to Melton, is just down right ridiculous. Y'all complain about the "powers that be" (including the Clarion Ledger) are aliging against Faye but than you, an obviously biased media outlet, moderate an event such as this. You should be ashamed. And attacking Robert Smith on his relation to Ed Peters will only further push citizens of this county to vote for him. The people loved Ed and obviously don't feel the same way about Faye.

snowjob

Jul 11 2007

Faye needs to run some commercials detailing why she tried to put Frank's ass in jail where he belongs based on his actions in that case. He has hurt her more than her performance. Since the public saw Frank was clearly guilty despite the verdicts, maybe they will still consider voting for Faye on the facts and not on distortions created by Frank and Michelle.

Ray Carter

Jul 11 2007

Snowjob, I don't mean you any harm, but, WHAT PEOPLE? Purvis, Smith and Lewis are "tied" to melton. frank does not deny this: Why should you? He campaigned for all three of them at the Black Rodeo a couple weeks agao. He haad a bull-horn and made it crystal clear who he was asking people to vote for and WHY. HE said, "We need a CHANGE."

justjess

Jul 11 2007

What "PEOPLE" well justjess pretty much this entire county. Find me data on a past election where Ed Peters was in danger of losing his job as District Attorney in his more than 20 years of service. Oh what is that, right you can't find any because it never happened. If Ed had never retired he would still be DA today. Faye, on the other hand, is almost on her way out and will be in January. So they are "tied" to Melton because he is supporting anyone but Faye, hmm thats pretty good evidence.

snowjob

Jul 11 2007

Justjess, Frank is right, we do need a change. We hoped, some of us even prayed, that two sets of criminal prosecutions would deliver us that desired change, but sadly we didn't get it. Hopefully, Faye will win again. I'm out.

Ray Carter

Jul 11 2007

Ed won just as much because of connections as he did based on his performance. For many of those years Ed won, all he had to do was hire the family members of certain people and give away some fish "sanmiches", and certain people would vote for him in droves. I want ever mention the favortism he constantly showed that also earned him votes. Faye was a prosecutor not a politican. And Ed never prosecuted anyone as crazy, popular and powerful as the actor Webster either.

Ray Carter

Jul 11 2007

Handle it Ray. We can always depend on you for this kind of information. It is nothing wrong with BRAGGING if you can back it up.

justjess

Jul 11 2007

Snowjob, maybe the SUN will shine brightly on you and soon. Do you remember Frosty? Just a little humor to end the day. I really enjoy blogging with people who are destined for a crash. It almost like someone saying, "Don't believe your lying eyes."

justjess

Jul 11 2007

What is puzzling to me is which campaign you're with, Snowjob. That room was filled with people in business suits; who knew that someone was in there just itching to go back to their computer and start lying about what just transpiring. I mean: making sh!t up. What are you so afraid of? It would be really interesting to know who you're with. I'm sure they couldn't approve of this kind of anonymous lie-spreading. Media folks moderate campaign events all the time. And I don't say anything without information to back it up.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

[quote]The people loved Ed and obviously don't feel the same way about Faye.[/quote] Snowjob, I'm sure most tyrants have their fans. Melton's no exception. He's just a part of the Old Boy Network. Never mind the irrelevant skin color; he's in it to control Jackson, and those who want it controlled have their man.

Ironghost

Jul 11 2007

Snowjob: For the record, the questions were absolutely those of the audience, except the last one, where I asked each candidate to sum up in 30 seconds their single most important quality for being DA. I couldn't ask every question from the audience because there wasn't time. I put each card in the inside pocket of my sportscoat as I finished asking it so that I would know which questions were asked aloud and which weren't. Guess what...I still have those cards...and they're all in different handwriting! ;-) Also, one other thing you said is interesting... I mean saying that since Ed Peters suggested Robert run two years ago somehow has a relation to Melton, is just down right ridiculous. Who said that? Robert Smith *himself* responding to the audience question about his connections to Melton by telling us that he had been approached by Ed Peters two years ago. Unless you mean to suggest that he attacked himself with that response, I don't quite understand where the "attack" happened. I actually thought it was an interesting forum and that each candidate got an opportunity to speak and be heard, including an opportunity to answer some of the "conventional wisdom" out there that's on everyone's minds.

Todd Stauffer

Jul 11 2007

Donna, you've got a lot of balls serving as moderator of the DA debate. You have spent the last few months trashing Smith and Purvis, all the while kissing Fat Faye's incompetent, yet ample, a$$. You're a fraud, and a dishonest piece of sh!t.

SuckMyLadd

Jul 11 2007

Man, politics is fun. I can tell the JFP hit some nerves amongst some people, judging from the trolls now abounding here. Come close to the truth, huh?

Ironghost

Jul 11 2007

SuckMyLadd(distasteful and cowardly name), being partial to a position does not mean you can be fair. Even if Donna does have a position and opinion, it does not mean that she could not be fair. Good judges do it all the time. Typical of a conservative trained by Rush(my assumption only), you use the tactic of attacking a person's appearance and being vulgar as you can and want to be taken seriously. Whatever your level of disagreement with a person, you should be able to maintain some respect, especially when females are concerned.

Goldenae

Jul 11 2007

Donna, considering the hostile tone of the post above, I would suggest that you save the post for your records before you delete it. The vibe that I am picking up is that this person is more than a troll. This person is dangerous. I suggest that you take the necessary precautions to protect yourself from harm.

LatashaWillis

Jul 11 2007

Golden, this is the level of ugliness that women often encounter online from horrendous sexist trolls who hide behind anonymity in order to bring out the worst possible side of themselves. And if you were actually there, you would know that *I* did not moderate. I had planned to, but got caught in my yoga pants because I was traveling this afternoon and had, frankly, forgotten the forum was today. The funny part is that, in this case, "moderate" simply meant read the questions from the audience. This, and you response, is eerily similar to the JAN campaign forum during Melton's campaign where Melton refused to sit "next to a convicted felon"—jolts of irony, anyone?—and then his crowd went out in the hall and tried to shout the forum down. It was my first sign of how classless his closest supporters could be. OK, enough dealing with your nastiness. Shoo.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

And thanks, Iron, for your comment. Our paper does hit nerves with people because we find and report the truth, and then form opinions based on it. This is very similar to what happened during the Johnson campaign. We didn't have a dog in the hunt, figuring Johnson had been an effective mayor andd was the one to beat. We started looking to see what others offered, and we found from Melton was very disturbing to say the least. We also found it very disturbing to see how the rest of the media were ignoring huge problems with his record and promises and statements, even as they were bending over backward to demonize, or to allow sources demonize without factcheck, the current mayor and police chief.l We reported everything we could, and fairly, and requested interview after interview. Meantime, Melton's people started trashing us and telling lies about us to try to discredit us, rather than sitting down with us and going issue by issue. It says a lot when people resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the issues. So here we go again.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

The difference between the little cowardly troll and Donna: Guts. Live.With.It.Punk.

Cliff Cargill

Jul 11 2007

Cliff, I have told you that you're my absolutely favorite gun nut, right? ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

Yes, I think I've heard that a time or two.

Cliff Cargill

Jul 11 2007

Oh, and I should add one more thing in case anyone is missing it: We were RIGHT about Melton. We did our homework, and decided that he was going to be a problem, which he has been in spades. Now, we're doing our homework on the sheriff and DA's race, and others, and will make educated decisions based on them. I can tell you one thing that will not win us over: naked rhetoric, instead of specifics. Running for the district attorney's office based on some vagues promises about lowering crime is absurd, and shouldn't win anyone over. I mean, Wilson Carroll tried it, and it was ridiculous then, and he offered a few specifics. There was a marked difference between Peterson's comments today and that of her challengers: specificity. One question I have for you, Ray, and other legal minds here: Robert Smith said today that there is no real difference in being a prosecutor and a defense attorney. If you're good at one, you will be good at the other (I paraphrase). Is that true?

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

I, for one, am offended. How come the poster can't be called SuckMyiTodd? What am I, chopped liver? :-P

Todd Stauffer

Jul 11 2007

People of Jackson have had the truth hidden for too long about how their town is run. Time to throw off the blinders. You're welcome, Donna. I love a good debate. :)

Ironghost

Jul 11 2007

You're just jealous of all the attention I'm getting. Ha!

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

You call this a debate, Iron? It feels a bit more like mud-wrestling with someone wearing a ski mask to me. ;-) And you're right that this isn't a new problem. Funny how the same names keep popping up together, eh?

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

If Smith made that comment then he is absolutely wrong. A prosecutor has an ethical and legal duty to ensure that both the State and the defendant receive a fair trial. A defense attorney only has an obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client. A prosecutor must prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. A defense attorney must only look for some imperfection in the state's case in order to establish reasonable doubt. These differences are even more extreme in Hinds County where juries are even more difficult to convince of a defendant's guilt (see Melton trial and the first Brunner trial). Smith raves on and on about his many victories, however he never mentions the many clients that are now longtime residents of the Mississippi Dept. of Corrections. Because of Smith's representation, Darren Rouster (life + 40 years), Rufus Brooks (25 years) and Jeffrey Jackson (25 years) are all serving very long sentences and the list goes on and on. So please disregard Mr. Smith's neverending chest pounding, he is far from being a super lawyer. We all saw his bumbling during the Melton trial, he was hardly the brightest star on that stage. As far as the endorsement of Ed Peters is concerned, Peters was the DA during a time when defendants got deals based upon who their defense attorneys were, NOT upon the strength or weaknesses of their cases. Many average attorneys made reputations during that era not because of their litigation skills but because they had an inside track to Peters and could get good deals because of it. It still happens today but now you need a judge to take part in it (see the Jeffery Middleton case). As far as Melton's ties to Peters and Smith, less we forget, Melton first retained Ed Peters and Tom Royals to represent him against the gun and Ridgeway charges. And the Free Press has already chronicled the detention center debacle that was presided over by Peters, Bluntson and to some degree Melton during the early 90's. Basicly, Peters and the rest of the old guard are attempting to hold onto as much of the good ole' boy network and its power for as long as possible. Even if they have to do it vicariously through a conduit like Smith, Purvis or Melton.

thetruth

Jul 11 2007

Oh Phooey. If I want attention I can always tweak Ray some. :D Yeah, same old same old. You'd think they didn't realize we'd see this coming.

Ironghost

Jul 11 2007

It occurs to me Donna wasn't talking to me. Oh well, I'll slink off now. :)

Ironghost

Jul 11 2007

Truth, wasn't it Royals and Peters who first talked to the state about a possible plea bargain for Melton? That's what I heard—that Peters went with him to see the AG after he was arrested, looking for a plea deal. But they then backed out of it. I believe it inclouded Melton stepping down, not running again for office in Mississippi, giving up any gun rights here, and even psychiatric evaluation—frankly, terms that made complete sense considering what he was accused of doing. But this is Mississippi and, somehow, using police officers and young accused felons to help break up a house with a sledgehammer isn't considered to be all that out there by enough people. It does boggle the mind. Re the juvenile detention center scandal, remember that Danks was involved in all that as Bluntson's attorney. Bluntson made a deal with DA Peters not to be prosecuted -- then went to work for him as an investigator. It's hard to make that stuff up. And remember that the FBI agent, Joe Jackson, who refused to investigate the detention center scandal resigned after being told by the DOJ to do so, and went to work for ... Frank Melton at WLBT. You just can't make this stuff up. As for criminal defense, I'm sure no expert on it, but it seems commonsensical that it would be very different, based on the reasons you said. And there may not be anything wrong with it, but it does seem odd that some of the biggest accused drug dealers in town had Smith as an attorney, and now would be potentially be prosecuted by him. Would that present any weird ethical conflicts for him?

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2007

Donna, you still did not answer why it was fair for you and Todd to serve as a moderator, given your obvious bias towards Smith and Purvis. Yes members of the media generally do serve as moderators during debate BUT only when agreed to by all sides and when their journalistic intergrity is not in question as in this situation. You guys PICKED the questions and 2 were Melton specific and you did not ask Faye and single hard question. I think its funny the lengths you will go to keep your incomeptent DA, but on August 7th a change is coming and I hope your prepared for it.

snowjob

Jul 11 2007

was the event recorded? is there going to be a podcast? I was polled the other day . . interestingly enough they asked me pretty much about every office except the Hinds Co DA race. I found that a little odd . . . Even in the question of "what election will get you to the polls," or something like that, the hinds CO DA was not even an option they offered, so i told the lady that the DA was the ONE race i was going to be sure to vote in a primary for. . .

djames

Jul 12 2007

I'm sure you jump up and down and scream when Tom Brokaw is moderating a Presidential Debate too! Geezs! Dude, get over yourself, grab a forty, twist a blunt and sit back and listen to the smooth new hip-hop hit: "MySpace - Gun In Your Face" (Michael Taylor) that's taking NE Jackson by storm! Cause he real! I heard Michele "Swerve This Cadillac Through" Purvis thumpin' to the beat when she was pulling out of the Steam Room one afternoon. Shout out to the AfroMan!

pikersam

Jul 12 2007

Suckmyladd and wowgold in the same thread, both annoying. Ray's comments about Smith are somewhat heartening, so things might not turn out so bad after all.

GLewis

Jul 12 2007

Pike, are you trying to be Stiggers?!? ;-) Snowshaun, you're trying to create a controversy out of nothing. It was known in advance that Jackson 2000 asked me to moderate this. No candidate complained to my knowledge. And if you've been around here for a while, you know that I find any question about "bias" ridiculous, as everyone is biased. You should see the questions we didn't read, a couple of which were much more targeted as hard questions to Purvis and Smith. You're being plain-a$$ silly here, but we're used to that from you. You know, your habit of changing your screen name affects all your posting history, right? People aren't going to understand why folks are responding to "shaun" with "snowjob," or whatever your user name of the day is. But I'm getting the feeling, and should have long ago, that trolling is your sole purpose on this site. There's so much better use of time and life, you know.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

And I should add that my personal biggest concern in this race, and any race, is the substance of people's answers and the knowledge they indicate. Who supports them, obviously, can also be important, and it's really disturbing when people don't admit it, or play word games about it. (For instance, it is not convincing to say that you didn't talk to Melton personally about it when you're under scrutiny in a case like this.) What is infinitely more interesting from a macro level is that two years into Melton's tenure, we have a situation where it's seen as a handicap if the mayor supports the candidates for sheriff and DA, at least among much of the public. That says something very loudly. I fully realize that games can work in the sheriff's and the DA's race, and we would be irresponsible if we didn't try to warn the public about that possibility. One of my biggest fears is that I am going to be sitting posting in two years (or a year) and trying desperately not to type "we told you so" about the mayor-sheriff-DA coalition that voters allowed to come together out of ignorance. My personal bias is in trying to educate the public about stuff they just won't hear from other media, so they can consider it. What they do from there is up to them. But I don't want them to be able to say that no one provided them the information. And I really don't give a damn what anybody thinks about that particular bias of mine. It ain't packin'; it's stayin'.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

Truth gave an excellent answer detailing the difference between the duties of the DA and a defense attorney. I hope Robert was referring to the effort or drive to succeed. Some people are driven to do well and succeed at whatever they do. They can take any job, learn the duties and perform with zeal and perfection. If Robert meant otherwise, I disagree with him. It appears Robert isn't thinking deeply and critically yet from such comments. Trite or commonplace responses or comments are always telling.

Ray Carter

Jul 12 2007

The mayor is ticked off that the sheriff arrested him and is likely to do so again. This is the quasi-populist model pioneered by the Longs, put your family and friends in as many positions as you can and then rule with impunity.

Willezurmacht

Jul 12 2007

Ray, my impression so far is that Robert, regardless of his support so far, is talking too immaturely for this position. So far, he's providing a lot of rhetoric about how the city needs a DA that criminals will respect -- is the point that he has defended so many of them that they won't want to come before him as a prosecutor? That seems a slim reason to elect him DA. What might make more sense is to spend another four years or so learning more about the DA's office, and distancing himself from Melton, and then try it again. He might be more convincing at that point. He and Purvis also downplayed the challenge of the DA's budget and putting together money to do all the things they complain about. The "how are you going to pay for it" question may not be sexy, but it's vital. If more people had asked that of Melton, perhaps he wouldn't be there. Look what's he done to the city's budget. I shudder to think about that kind of budgetary incompetence spreading to the county, which has enough challenges as it is.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

So you are saying it perfectly ok for members of the media that publicy advocate the re-election of one candidate and make baseless accusations about the other 2 candidates, to moderate a debate between them? Would it have been fair if I were to moderate the event, when I am obviously against Faye Peterson's re-election? Of course it would not have been. Let me ask you this: Is the JFP one big editorial or does it try to report the news? Cause if you are trying to report the news, I assumed you at least had to attempt to pretend to be impartial. But basically this paper is one big editorial column. Thankfully its views are not shared by the majority of the public (i.e. Frank Melton's acquittal, which the JFP didn't believe would most likely happen and Faye Peterson's likely defeat in August). Well look at the brightside Donna, begining on August 8, 2007, you guys are going to have more to write and editorialize about than you ever dreamed was possible.

snowjob

Jul 12 2007

The mayor is ticked off that the sheriff arrested him and is likely to do so again. Especially if Frank defies the court order against the city demolishing A1 Pallets. He said he would do it as soon as the weather permitted. Right now, it's sunny outside.

golden eagle

Jul 12 2007

Oh, we manage to get a bit of news out there now and then, snowjob despite all of our, er, "baseless accusations." Funny you're the one who started out on this thread telling bald-faced lies about the JFP and this forum. You have no credibility, you know. Your concern about "bias" would be so much more believable if you complained nearly as much about media obviously aligned for Frank Melton—I mean, holding back YEARS of information even as they chastised the sitting mayor and chief viciously andd without merit—moderating those "debates." You know like WJTV, the Ledge, Eric Stringfellow. Stringfellow and metro editor Grace Simmons actually said later at a gathering that they didn't report more about Melton's past because people didn't want to hear it. Open your eyes: *Everything* the media does is subjective—whether or not they are reporting someting *you* want to hear. Saying otherwise is dishonest. What good media do is not hide their biases, and base them on as much real information as possible, and not be afraid that the public isn't going to like that. We're not running for homecoming queen. We deal with facts here. We report them, discuss them, analyze them, share them, and we don't give a damn where the chips fall. Go bark up some other chick's dress tail, dude.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

I just wanted to address the troll... You don't win multiple national awards for reporting by using biased reporting methods. Donna and her reporters win awards every year that are awarded by their media peers. JFP and Donna Ladd are RESPECTABLE reporters.

katbird

Jul 12 2007

Right now, it's sunny outside. Indeed- too sunny. That makes it easy to see what you are actually up to at the pallet company. Foolishness is better accomplished in the dark of night or in incliment weather.

Willezurmacht

Jul 12 2007

Re: A-1, if the FBI really is investigating the mayor for his harassment of A-1, which we're told, he's putting himself in an interesting position by showing up in front of the business and hurling threats. And if he follows through with his Lawn Crew boys or such .... . The sad, sad part is that because Reeves is white, he won't get away with doing what he did to Jennifer Sutton. We hear there's an NFL football player (not Deuce) wanting to develop that land. Is that made-up by Melton? Could be. Regardless, there is a right way and a wrong way. And just because Melton doesn't fancy "due process" rights of his targets doesn't mean he will keep getting away with this crap. I've long worried that he may have a "death wish" of sorts. I really wish the people around him would get him some real help. But they're too busy playing games and egging him on, it seems. History will likely write that Melton's enablers were the real demons in this era in Jackson.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

Oh and thanks, Katbird. ;-) We always know when we're onto something big when the trolls get their nastiest. That's why I let them go a few rounds and leave a few of their more disgusting comments. People need to know.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

What about reviving TruthBlog? Seems like we're in for a wild ride, with election season upon us again. If all of Peterson's detractors are as charming, articualte, and well informed as snowtroll, then it could be a very busy blog in the next few weeks.

kate

Jul 12 2007

Good point. We should. We're an editor short the next couple weeks since Brian left, Natalie is in Chicago, and Maggie hasn't started yet. So we will REALLY need the help of the bloggers on it. Maybe we should turn it into a Forum so y'all can post things you question, and then others can comment. We'll filter out any troll comments, and require that the posts be on topic and supported. Thoughts?

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

Civilized behavior will not result from uncivilized acts. These types of "attacks" are so evil, "Snow and Suck"! They surely do not pass the smell test for me. Reminds me of the baseless stories of the last campaign by Bob H. about HJJ's wife. The "show-me" city truck stories of Frank B. during his campaign. Or Doug A. on the radio spewing hateful dialogue with Bob H. Or some of the C-L's blogging violence during the Melton campaign.. All planned attacks; perhaps with effective results for being elected, but very harmful nonetheless. I just do not believe good will prevail when evil methods are used. If elections have disintergrated into "mud wrestling" then we are all the losers. If a candidate cannot stand on their own reputation and vision, then voters must be educated to understand the consequences of electing people who stoop to this level. The JFP leads the way in this type of education.

ChrisCavanaugh

Jul 12 2007

I'm verklempt, Chris. Thanks. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

Good point. We should. We're an editor short the next couple weeks since Brian left, Natalie is in Chicago, and Maggie hasn't started yet. So we will REALLY need the help of the bloggers on it. Maybe we should turn it into a Forum so y'all can post things you question, and then others can comment. We'll filter out any troll comments, and require that the posts be on topic and supported. I like the sound of that.

LatashaWillis

Jul 12 2007

We hear there's an NFL football player (not Deuce) wanting to develop that land. Is that made-up by Melton? Could be. Some time ago, Frank said that Deion Sanders was interested in building houses in Jackson. So far, pipe dream.

golden eagle

Jul 12 2007

Snowjob, SnowSuck or whatever your name is for the day, my G-Mother (NOW DECEASED) said this many years ago: IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO SPEAK UP AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT. It has been a very long time since I have encountered this personality type: One that can not respond rationally to anything that is reasonable without employing such degrading, demoralizing and uncouth rhetoric. Think about the people in your past that you have hurt with this type of foolishness. You had to have some success with this type of vile, negative, verbal discharge to continue these behaviors. We are not a group of VICTIMS here. It won't work! Your attempt to abuse females evidenced by using "suckmyladd" is proof of this. The men and women who discuss issues know crap when they see it and sh!t when they smell it. Trust me, your stuff is hanging out real BBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!! I'm sure that melton has some type of outlet where this type of slime and vulgarity is welcomed. Join him.

justjess

Jul 12 2007

Just delete his posts, his accounts and press on. Listening to a bash job from him and to him is getting off the point. I say we get back to the point.

Puck

Jul 12 2007

There's a way to disagree gracefully and tactfully. This ain't it. Go back North, Snowjob.

Lady Havoc

Jul 12 2007

Why didn't anyone ask Faye why she failed to indict that Mack guy on the JSU shooter case?

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 12 2007

Don't have to. There was a conflict in the stories. There were several guys from the fraternity against Mack. He said it was self defense. They said he spit on the frat shield. Mack walked away and went into the student bookstore, they followed him. They claim it was to warn others he had a gun; he said they followed him to attack him. There wasn't, to my understanding, enough evidence to convict him.

honey2me

Jul 12 2007

Right, I have asked her. I forgot to post the answer. It's actually pretty interesting. I have the notes back in Jackson, but I do recall that the witnesses said it was self-defense. There was more to it, but the point is that the case was very weakened by the witnesses and wasn't gonna fly. I'll post more when I get the notes in front of me. Thanks for reminding me about it. I meant to post this a long time ago.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2007

Sorry to shout, but my last comment got hidden amongst the, other stuff, but IS THERE GOING TO BE AUDIO AND/OR A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS EVENT!? I would like one, as I was unable to attend and am very interested in this race! Thanks in advance for a reply, OJR

djames

Jul 12 2007

EVEN if true, Faye still could've charged him with possession of a gun on a school campus. And if the stories conflicted, why didn't she still put the officer and victim in front of grand jury as it would've strengthened her case? .

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 13 2007

What officer? What victim? We're not even sure who the VICTIM was. Hart because he was shot? Or was it Mack because he felt threatened and felt the need to defend himself? The officer would have only been able to testify to what happened in the bookstore. He would have no knowledge of the events that happened on the plaza prior to the students entering the bookstore. Who appointed Hart sheriff? If he wanted to warn others about Mack having a gun, that's what he should have done. He chose to try to wrestle the gun away. Take it from a woman, a well-placed scream would have done him more good than a bullet in his gut. As far as having a gun on school campus, I'll give you that. She should have pursued that, but I think he was charged on the federal level for that. Moot. point.

honey2me

Jul 13 2007

I think that he was only charged with Felon in possession of a Firearm at the federal level. Faye could have indicted for possession of a weapon in a school zone, but she didn't. It also helped that Mack's dad is the dean at JSU and pleaded with Faye for mercy.

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 13 2007

I'm pretty certain that you don't have the whole story, McMurtry, and that you are presenting speculation as fact. Again, I have the notes back in my office. Will post info Monday, so let's lay off repeating unsubstantiated speculation for the moment. It doesn't help anything.

DonnaLadd

Jul 13 2007

Well it is true that she didn't indict Mack, isn't it? It is true that Mack's father is the dean of JSU, isn't it? She failed to indict him on possession of a gun at a school, which is a state crime. It is not a federal crime because the U.S. Supreme Court expilictly stated that Congress did not have the power to pass the "Gun Free School Zone Act" under the commerce clause in U.S. v. Lopez. So why didn't she indict him? Was she influenced by the Dean? You claim that Purvis and Smith are influenced by Melton, is it so hard to believe that Faye might be as easily influenced?

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 13 2007

McMurtry, I've told you that I will post her responses on Monday about this case. The problem with your logic here, meantime, is that you are saying that because Mack's father is a dean at JSU, that that means he influenced the DA. That is a serious allegation, and you have supported it with nothing but pure speculation. I get the feeling you don't know much about this case, but have decided to use it as a poster-case for your "case" against the DA. It may not be the best one to prove how much she sucks. Now, this is my last post on this until I get back to my notes. Meantime, I will trust that you will post no more unsubstantiated allegations on this Web site based on what you think/wish might have happened.

DonnaLadd

Jul 13 2007

As to your last question, it is a non sequitur. I didn't "believe" anything about Melton until I started reporting on him and learning things about him. And the fact that Melton has been willing to do all sorts of unsavory things has nothing to do with whether the DA is willing to do unsavory things. We have seen/found no evidence that the DA is guilty of the horrible things people say about her -- including from the "witness" that Melton pointed me directly to. Thus, your logic is way off here. Please quit using my site to spread rumors that you cannot substantiate. Got it?

DonnaLadd

Jul 13 2007

I agree with you that I can't prove on here that the Dean influenced her, so I shouldn't make that allegation. But she still should have indicted him for possession of a gun on a school campus and she didn't. I mean with all the problems that we have with school shootings and violence, it offends me that the DA would not prosecute this guy just to ensure the safety of the students. I mean would she have not indicted Luke Woodham, had she been the DA of Rankin County at that time? The safety of the students is the real issue here and if our DA won't protect them, than we certainly need a change.

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 14 2007

It appears that Mack was prosecuted for Felon in Possession of a firearm at the Federal level. The federal sentence for punishment for the possession of firearm by a felon is much more severe than that of the state. Under the federal law, a felon can be charged with not only carrying a weapon but also for each round of ammunition that he has in his possession. A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to only present cases to the grand jury which in his/her opinion have a realistic chance of obtaining a guilty verdict. Jurors are not robots. They do not see everything in black and white. Considering that fact as well as Donna's post regarding the self defense issue, it is very likely that some of the jurors would have been sympathetic to Mack's position in the shooting. There is no better example of this than the Melton cases and more recently the first Brunner case. Besides, in the interest of judicial economy, why charge Mack with another crime when he was already being prosecuted federally for virtually the same act? Jurors are sensitive to over-charging or "stacking" charges and many resent that practice. Grand Jurors are not robots either. Remember, all that is needed to obtain an indictment is PROBABLE CAUSE. Only 12 out of 20 grand jurors have to find probable cause. In order to obtain a guilty verdict, there must be proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, a much much higher standard of proof than probable cause. The verdict must also be unanimous.

thetruth

Jul 14 2007

It does sound like you're casting about desperately for a case to hold against the DA, McMurtry. Is this one the best you've got? It seems to be the only one that the anonymous anti-Peterson folks come up with on here. Curious, considering that it doesn't make a compelling argument for incompetency.

DonnaLadd

Jul 14 2007

Oh, and McMurt, you're not in the camp (with Smith and Purvis) that downplays the issue of resources in the DA's office, are you? You do understand that prosecutors have to make these kinds of decisions all the time, don't you? I also haven't noticed you hear calling for the *state* to prosecute James Ford Seale, who very likely dumped two young men alive into a river tied to Jeep parts. And where is your outrage over the fact that Ed Peters would not send the Juvenile Detention Center charges to a grand jury -- and then made a deal with his friend Frank Bluntson that he wouldn't be prosecuted if he'd quit ... and then hired Bluntson to work for him? I get the feeling that case woulda gone a bit differently under the current D.A.

DonnaLadd

Jul 14 2007

Laad, We can always depend on you to come up with the DRAGNET: Nothing but the facts. It's hard to play ball in this game when you are looking to support a person just for what they say rather than for what they do or have done. Your historical account of the Ed Peters and Bluntson crap was excellent. That's what I'm talking about!!!!!

justjess

Jul 16 2007

You know if you guys looked at the article in the Ledger, than you would have seen that the Feds only prosecuted Mack after the state refused to do so. I will get the article so I can link it.

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 16 2007

All prosecutors make judgment call others would disagree with. Many would take a different approach if given another chance. The Mack case proves nothing to me.

Ray Carter

Jul 16 2007

Another thing I would like to know is why are there claims out there that Robert Smith was put up to run by Melton? Is it just because he defended Marcus Wright? Well if that is the case what about the woodstreet cases where he represented the defendants (can't remember their names right now) that Frank Melton wanted Faye Peterson to prosecute and got an acquittal. He was against Frank's position on those cases. Is it just that Robert beat Faye and her staff on not only the woodstreet cases but also during the Frank Melton trial. If he can do that, sounds like a good reason he should be DA.

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 16 2007

Technically speaking, I'm not sure if Smith is part of the "plan" or not. Also, as Ray has pointed out, there's more to being DA than being a Defense Attorney. Given that the DA job is harder, I'd rather Faye stay as not only does she have experience, but she'd piss of Frankie-Boy down there. :D

Ironghost

Jul 16 2007

McMurt, one of the biggest public questions is why *Ed Peters*—part of the Melton inner circle—asked Smith to run (which Smith is openly bragging about), as well as gave money to Purvis' campaign. I know a lot of people don't understand the significance of this fact (perhaps not even Smith), but it really sounds like the Melton machine is trying to pull Mr. Smith into the inner circle. It's a stretch to say that Smith "beat" the DA during the Melton trial. Certainly, Danks did (with the help of the judge's acquiescence on "evil intent"), but Smith did not have a great showing at that trial. I recall him crawling around on the floor looking for exhibits more than anything. I personally have long been bothered by the fact that Smith was at Melton's home on the eve of the Batman et al trial, even as he was representing Benton, accused of helping the Donelsons with the murders. Now, I'm not saying Smith was doing anything wrong, and he has told me himself that Melton asked him to come over that night, and he went to see what he wanted (and was surprised to find me there). But, the whole thing makes one curious. It strikes me that in such a contentious trial, where defense lawyers were going after Melton's star witness, Christopher Walker, who was also in the house at the time, that it might have made the most sense for Smith to decline to over there. Now to Iron—Melton support issue aside, Mr. Smith so far has not done a stellar job of showing that he knows much about the duties of the district attorney. And his downplaying the budgetary aspect of it last week seemed really naive. Regardless of Melton questions, he just hasn't shown he's ready. The wise thing would be for him to run later after he learned more about the DA's office and made it clear that he has no direct ties with the Melton camp. Until then, it's going to be hard for a thinking public to have confidence in his abilities and independence.

DonnaLadd

Jul 16 2007

I thought I read on this thread that Peter's asked Smith to run more than 2 years ago. How would have Melton had any influence over that when he was not mayor yet?

*Suspended for masquerading as another person*

Jul 18 2007

You're behind, McMurt. The campaign to smear the current DA has been going on for much longer than two years. I think you're missing the big picture here about the people who want to be in power (again). Think.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007

Oh, and it says above "two years ago." That would have been exactly when Melton became mayor. There's a certain synchronicity to that timing.

DonnaLadd

Jul 18 2007