Jackson Free Press

This past weekend, I was going through 2007 issues of the JFP looking for entries for the AAN awards. I ran into this story that Adam and Brian did last year about Faye Peterson's concerns about Judge Bobby DeLaughter's handling of one of her cases: "Peterson Demands Equal Justice". It seems that JFP story is included in case filings, raising questions about DeLaughter. According to the Folo blog, the motion in Eaton Corp. v. Frisby says the following:

[T]he ability of Judge DeLaughter to be impartial in cases involving Peters has been the subject of public comment when Judge DeLaughter allowed a police officer represented by Peters to plead guilty without serving any time for an accident in which he ran a red light and killed a man. This led to questions in the Jackson Free Press about the propriety of Peter's involvement in proceedings before Judge DeLaughter.

Ed Peters and former Assistant District Attorney Tommy Mayfield were Middleton's attorneys. (Clara Mayfield is now part of new D.A. [and Peters protege] Robert Smith's team, fyi.)

Then the JFP is mentioned again by Folo and the motion due to an update we made to the story:

Also attached to the motion in Eaton the Jackson Free Press article from April 4, 2007, found here, in which the prosecutor voices strong objections to what DeLaughter did in the case. As to DeLaughter's statement to the Clarion Ledger that the prosecution did not object, the Free Press noted in an update:

(Motion quoting JFP:) According to District Attorney Faye Peterson, this simply isn't true. She told the Jackson Free Press that her prosecutor did make a formal objection to non-ajudication at the time of the sentencing, telling the judge he did not believe non-adjudication was allowed in a crime against a person. DeLaughter set that objection aside, according to Peterson.

Under state law, nonadjudications such as that given to Middleton are prohibited in cases involving crimes against the person. It is not unheard of for circuit courts to bend or break this rule, and the Mississippi appeals courts have on occasion taken circuit courts to task for doing that. But still, here we have another odd and even improper result, and the lawyer getting the result before Judge DeLaughter is Ed Peters.

Previous Commentsshow

Well, weeelllll. (I'm imitating Kim Wade's voice there.) The biggest irony here to me is that the same people who are obsessing in the local blogosphere about the Scruggs case (seemingly because they think it will bring down Hood and Moore; not because they're really concerned about judicial corruption regardless of party connection) didn't GIVE TWO SH!TS when Peterson (and the JFP, for that matter) has tried to warn them about the condition of that office when she took it over, or what was happening during her term in the judiciary (with the Mississippi Supreme Court stacked in favor of anyone who supported the Peters crowd and went against her). Not to mention, they did not question why Ed Peters would put up Robert Smith, they haven't questioned why Smith is stocking the office with Peters buddies, and I don't recall them giving a damn that Cedric Willis served 12 years in prison, partially because DeLaughter let it happen. They also don't care about what happened in/around the Youth Detention Center here in the early 1990s, just belittling anybody who dares to bring up a case in which the local D.A.'s office (Peters and then-ADA Bobby DeLaughter) refused to look closer at a very disturbing case that involved friends of the D.A. The chickens are going to come home to roost, folks. And I think the identity of some of those chickens is going to shock the hell out of their supporters who are going to be chipping the egg off their faces for years to come. Just sayin'.

DonnaLadd

Jan 28 2008

Now, let me ask everyone a question to ponder: Just how does an "outsider" D.A. like Faye Peterson take on the Old Boyz Network when the state Supreme Court and much of the state's judiciary is in the Old Boyz' pockets? We saw this play out in the sham cases against Melton where old Judge Webster allowed Danks to run roughshod over that courtoom with his repeatedly statements to the juror that the prosecution had to prove "evil intent." We saw it with the state Supreme Court that, basically, slapped Melton's risk when he violated probation. We've seen it in every situation related to the Melton cases that went before the Mississippi Supreme Court. The judiciary in this state is dirty. Always has been. That doesn't mean there aren't some good people in it, but the system is dirty, and it benefits dirtiness.

DonnaLadd

Jan 28 2008

And if you will indulge me, I will also add that had we had an even-halfway decent media here over the years, some of this probably wouldn't have happened. One begins to wonder if certain attorneys took on certain high-profile civil rights cases just to turn attention away from what was really happening, knowing that certain doting, publicity-hungry reporters would eat it up. And wouldn't it be ironic if one of those reporters ended up reporting on said attorneys as the corruption game falls apart—and has no clue where to begin??

DonnaLadd

Jan 28 2008

What is interesting and reassuring to me is if you talk to some of the decent attorneys in Jackson, they are all appalled and troubled by all these accusations flying around. I've had my share of fun "gigging" them but I have had to quit because they all act so upset it isn't fun anymore. And yes, it would have helped if we had more investigative media, the signs were there during the buildup in the mass tort days but instead of going for the greedy lawyers the press seemed to jump on the tort reform bandwagon.

GLewis

Jan 28 2008

And yes, it would have helped if we had more investigative media, the signs were there during the buildup in the mass tort days but instead of going for the greedy lawyers the press seemed to jump on the tort reform bandwagon. Exactly. The media allowed the wrong framing to be hoisted on them in the "jackpot justice" frenzy (largely beaten into a lopsided froth by none other than Jerry Mitchell at The Clarion-Ledger, incidentally, and of course Sid Salter, who has done his most unimpressive punditry to date on the topic). The frame never should have been doctors-v.-lawyers; it should always have been about doing something about bad doctors AND bad lawyers (and BAD industry, etc.). You don't do that by regulating away the public's right to sue and deter this kind of behavior. That's stupid, and it plays into the hands of the guilty. We came too late to help really educate on this issue—but we have always preached for reforms to the systems that actually deter bad lawyering (and bad doctoring); campaign finance reform (including making it impossible for the U.S. Chamber, the trial lobby or anybody else to pump secret money into judicial campaigns in the state); stronger laws that would have stopped the kinds of iffy-but-not-really-illegal stuff we saw with Minor, et al.; more sunshine; insurance reforms; smart industry regulation, and so on. Instead, the state's media bought the U.S. Chamber line hook, line and sinker and, thus, kept their eyes off the ball. As a result, lots of unsavory people have taken advantage of the system (or lack of one). It's hard for good lawyers, and everyone else, but this mess has got to be turned upside down and completely aired out. People of both parties are guilty, and they all need to be rooted out—I mean back to the '60s. And we've really got to figure out who innocent is in jail because of corrupt criminal practices, and who guilty is not. I sure could start my guess-list on that, but I won't. Pray that the feds go at this in a non-partisan way and trace it all the way back. Mississippi might have a fighting chance at a good future if we can run all these asswipes out of government (and show some blind people who they've been defending all these years). My prediction is that the feds' various investigations are going to culminate in an interesting web that makes people kick themselves black-and-blue far into the future. And it's quite possible that everyone, regardless of political beliefs, is going to be shocked to see who that involves; we all are likely to lose a sacred cow or two. The crazy thing about some of the revelations closest to home is that the writing on the wall about them has been so damn visible for so long. But those people had such puppets to do their bidding and trash the people who would question them on their behalf. And it's almost funny to see the folks blindsided by the local aspect because they were enjoying what they thought was an indictment of the "other" party that they refused to see what was in front of them. Folks, it ain't that simplistic. Money ain't red or blue. Neither are safe deposit boxes if you get my drift.

DonnaLadd

Jan 28 2008

A hat tip back to Folo who just "discovered" the JFP site and our past work on Ed Peters, Bobby DeLaughter, et al. And to put their minds at ease, we are most certainly NOT talking about them when we refer to the local blabosphere! ;-) They're doing a great job on all this mess as far as we can see. We will point them to our Cedric Willis story for some DeLaughter discussion. And why not delve back a bit deeper into the Peters circle of friends as we've doing the last few years? And, just to pile on the reading, we called for the feds to go after Scruggs back in November. Finally, we warn the Folo-heads that there are people here who hate the jfp and lie about us precisely because we've been right about their sacred cows so often. I mean, just how long has Ed Peters been a sacred darlin' of the nouveau-Scruggs obsessers!?! No questions asked. None. And they have attacked us repeatedly for asking questions about Peters and his choice for new D.A., and their close relationship to Mayor Frank Melton. And notice how little they wonder out loud about people like Trent Lott. Anyway, cheers to Folo for being the front and center blog on this story. There's some excellent legwork happening there.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Oh, and I'll add to that editorial: The feds are redeeming themselves, or seem to be, since we wrote that editorial querying why they hadn't moved on Scruggs et al. It wasn't looking good before that, though. As I said, I hope the feds go after this in a non-partisan way and let the chips fall where they (accurately) may.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

More intelligent chatter this a.m. on Folo (and not because this is in response to another post about the JFP): observer writes: I get a little irritated on another site covering this as well, when people who are going full steam on Scruggs and his Democratic cronies, come to a screaching stop when some fact comes to light about a Republican doing the exact same thing (and I have often thought the Scruggs/Lott connection is what has kept the mainstream, mostly left or right aligned press, from paying this more attention). I wasn't aware of a plank in either party's platform than condoned bribery or corruption and for this to really get rooted out of Mississippi is going to require that people put aside their party affiliation and look at their moral compass. And, while we often assume that no one posting on any of these blogs could be one of the culprits or benefiting from the way things have been done in a backroom or two, I think evidence has shown that they occassionally are. Amen, and pass the popcorn! Repeat three times: This isn't about partisanship.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Let the investigation continue and the trash be weeded out. Weeded out to jail, I hope.

Ray Carter

Jan 29 2008

I hope they Get Frank Melton in the process.

NewJackson

Jan 29 2008

Yeah, me too, Ray. And I don't care what political stripe it is. Back on Folo (which is intriguing to me as an apparent national site watching Mississippi due to current corruption troubles), someone posted this: The JFP was for awhile strangely silent about l'affaire Scruggs, perhaps believing it was a politically motivated prosecution, much as they characterized the Minor matter. Here's hoping that has changed. That is such a bizarre thing to say. It's as if this little-paper-that-would has spoiled people rotten out there. They expect us to lead on every investigation, regardless of where it is centered! The truth is that the investigation was announced in late November, and we've been anything but "silent" about it. Now, in the weeks since then, we haven't turned our entire site into a Scruggs gallery and printed every unsubstantiated rumor in site as other folks in the local blabosphere have done. And we won't. And people should also understand that investigative reporting isn't done in plain view with a journalist posting every new theory and accusation every day: Blogging is not reporting, and there are many things one cannot report until it is ready for primetime. That has been true for all of our big stories: They took weeks and months to write: from the James Ford Seale investigation to the Catholic priest abuse story to Cedric Willis to our work on Melton (although we were able to publish bits of pieces of it to get citizen journalism help along the way, but that must be done gingerly). We have several large stories in the works now, and we don't exactly put the sh!tty first, second and third drafts on the Web site as we go. Also, I'm going to say this only one time because I just saw one of the JFP-haters surface with it on Folo: The JFP does not owe back taxes. Suffice it to say, there has been an amateurish attempt locally to smear us without even a call to us to ascertain the actual facts. This is a teachable moment on the topic we're discussing—that anonymous blogger's story is getting a lot of play considering that it was *inaccurate*. On this side of the ethical line, we have to call and get a response, double-check facts, and not believe everything we see on the Internet before spreading rumors meant to do harm to someone's business. We've learned not to spend our readers' time talking much about the small clutch of JFP haters out there, but the Jackson Free Press' number is 601.362.6121 should a person with a real name like to ever call our publisher Todd Stauffer. And he's a nice guy to boot. ;-) Now back to the Scruggs conversation.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

I don't care what political stripes either. Wrong is wrong and right is right. The judicial process/system has to be fair and honorable else the system is no good.

Ray Carter

Jan 29 2008

Re the James Ford Seale investigation, I remember sitting in the Market Cafe in Natchez scratching chiggers I had gotten in the woods with Thomas Moore (brother of Seale victim Charles Moore) while reading comments by a blogger from up north about how the JFP should be ashamed that we weren't doing more to open new cases in Mississippi since Killen. I couldn't help but smile through the itching because I knew what we were doing, but we couldn't reveal it, yet, because it might have hurt our investigation. I think what's happening on the Scruggs topic is that there are a few anti-jfp types out there who are miffed because we had been the only outlet raising any questions about Peters, DeLaughter et al around here prior to the Scruggs revelations. So they're trying to deflect that by whining that we weren't investigating Scruggs before the indictment. We weren't. Neither was any local media outlet in the state, as far as we can tell, or anyone else in the blabosphere. It was clear to us after running Scott Horton's Harper's story, and after Adam starting poking around the Minor case, that the feds had not moved on a case that seemed at least as egregious as what Minor had done, and perhaps worse (we can't wiretap so we couldn't know for sure ). At that point, it certainly looked partisan. At this point, I'm hoping that it's not. Of course, that remains to be seen. If prominent Republican involvement gets passed over and glossed on the way to bringing in Democrats and Democratic donors, then clearly it's a lopsided witchhunt. But I've been pretty impressed with the feds around here of late, so I'm not predicting that. And I'm thrilled to say that. I hope that prognostication turns out to be true. And as obsessed as a few people are about the JFP, this story is not about us. It's not about Democrats, and it's not about Republicans. It's about corruption and greedy sumb!tches. I hope we can keep our eyes on that ball.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

I don't care what political stripes either. I know you don't, Ray. Neither do I. And it's funny how many people that upsets (because they know how much it helps credibility, I presume). So they do around making Orwellian statements calling us "partisan," when the exact opposite is true. It's remarkable to watch, really.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

It's fun to watch the Folo thread about the JFP explode with the usual suspects coming in to whine about us. Here's a new, er, relevant post to the Scruggs conversation: One issue the JFP has had blinders on. Jackson has a LOT of crime. The DA who took Peters' place was thoroughly incompetent. I don't know any lawyer familiar with criminal defense in Jackson who doesn't think she was doing a terrible job (even crimnal defense lawyers worry about the safety of their environs). The JFP refused to entertain ANY criticism of her. Ah, we have "blinders" on about crime, eh? Right-o, sweetheart. I guess that's why we had to scrap and scrape to get the damn crime stats that the city hid for so long and break them last year Crime Soared in 2006"? That's why we called repeatedly for Melton's police chief to step down? What a load of crap. Typical crap, but still. As for Peterson: Our support of her was never about being a perfect DA. (I've never known a perfect DA; anyone else?) She was one of the few public figures in this city willing to publicly challenge Ed Peters. And Frank Melton. And Bobby DeLaughter. And if people are as worried about our history of judicial integrity (civil and criminal) as they say they are, they should start appreciating that fact any day now. I know they don't want to admit we were right again (as with Bush and Melton and others), but that doesn't mean these doublethink statements can or will stick. They won't. Oh, and the most common criticism of the DA (from the same crowd we had to suspend and who are now trolling around for revenge) that we wouldn't allow on the site were all the comments calling her a "fata$$." This is the calibre of "pundit" we were dealing with. What's truly remarkable is that we never heard a single member of the blabsophere criticizing Frank Melton for this stunt.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Hey Ladd Lady, I'm really enjoying the soliloquicious (sp?) riffing you're doing with this item. I've never known you to spend so much time on a topic when having so few responses from your readers. Seems to me you are preparing us for the really big news. Keep it going. By the by- what is the big deal about "FOLO"? Who is he/she/it? Why is their/its' responsiveness to you and the jfp so important to you? Please excuse my ignorance

FrankMickens

Jan 29 2008

There is big deal, Observer. A Google News alert last night alerted me to their post about our story showing up in the court documents, so I went over and looked around. It's a great research site. They strike me as intelligent bloggers, and the most balanced I've seen on the Scruggs nightmare. And I do sometimes post repeatedly on a thread when I'm doing research on a topic because I post stuff here as I see it elsewhere (rather than wasting my blogging energy elsewhere). I'm not sure what "really big news" you mean, other than the rumors that are casting around about what the feds are up to. But I can't post rumors until I have confirmation that the investigations are occurring, or that indictements have come down.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

And, no, Folo is not our alter-ego site if that's what you're implying (although I'd take it as a compliment if you were). JFP sites are not undercover. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

If there is dirty money floating around out there it needs to be identified and the recipients arrested, party line shouldn't have anything to do with it. I haven't heard much in the way of rumors of dirty republicans but hopefully if they exist the feds will get them.

GLewis

Jan 29 2008

Corruption in the GOP? Impossible! ;-) This is funny. I just finished my editor's note–it's press day here, so have had to focus—and peeked back into the Folo blog. Poor things got N-Jammed! There was some good commentary, but some of our long-time usual suspects showed up over there and started whining (rather incoherently) about the JFP supporting Faye Peterson, and of course as they've always done in these parts, turning the conversation away from any criticism of the people they've supported in the past. (I must say, Kingfish has some of the better posts of the anti-JFP folks; he can do that when he tries, and I miss that side of him here from time to time.) My favorite part is the old saw we've seen so much that anyone who agrees with the JFP gets N-Jammed into being (a) me or (b) one of my "minions" (or "Laddites," as I've seen it called in the past). Oh, and the folks who turned the site into a discussion of Peterson used their typical tactic when questioned on it, saying that we suspend people here who don't agree with us, blah, blah, blah. No, we suspend people who are disagreeable and violate the user agreement by, say, cussing people here out, or as a certain lawyer "Jane" did a while back, repeatedly posting unsubstantiated and detailed rumors about a certain DA's personal life. (She then told me off something fierce in e-mail because I told her they had to be deleted until and unless she provided proof. Her proof, it seems, was that *she* knew it; what else did I need!?!) I'm sure the Jane over there now is just a coincidence, though. So, from a distance, I offer the very fine Folo folks an apology from the heart of the Deep South. There is a small, but persistent, group of people who do not want the JFP to exist precisely because of the kinds of investigative reporting and media criticism that they linked to. If you call attention to it online, especially nationally, they show up en masse and start doing everything possible to change the subject. They always claim that anyone who disagrees with them is me or mine. This is embarrassing, and it is politics in Mississippi right now. We do believe (or pray) that the general airing-out that the feds are doing right now is going to change the tone of a lot of this (as people of all political stripes are fed up with the kind of people who will defend anything if it's their guy doing it, and trash any dissenter their guy tells them to). This is the noise we have to break through to get our work done here at the Free Press, and we will continue breaking through it. Please know that there is, indeed, intelligent life down here. Tons of it. OK, must return to my previously press day. Ciao, friends.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Oh, and cheers again to Folo for the great work they're doing, and we'll keep pointing people to it. And even as we appreciate the shout-outs for our work, we understand if they want to duck this bit of Mississippi trailer-park drama by not mentioning the Free Press much more. Our most persistent groupies can be a bit tough to be in the same room with. ;-) Over and out.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

All politicans are corrupt. It's rule one. :D

Ironghost

Jan 29 2008

Well, it's certainly cynical meme no. 1. Obviously, that's hyperbole and not true. Still, even the fact that it is too often true shows the idiocy of making judges into politicians who take campaign donations. I mean, how absurd.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Hey Ladd Lady, Since you've turned us on to FOLO, why don't I just return the favor and pull your coat to alternet.org. Take a quick look and let me know what you think. I get their daily newsletter and its packed with alternative (i.e. good) journalism. Lots of real and substantiated facts and not a lot of loose and as you put it "passive voice" (i.e "i made this all up in my head) reporting. Also try the Economic Policy Institute site. Good Hunting !

FrankMickens

Jan 29 2008

Observer, I know Alternet well. I wrote for them years back, and they used to syndicate a lot of content from AAN papers (alt weeklies). I also know the guy who started it. I don't look at them that much recently, to tell the truth—I'm more selective these days due to sheer time constraints—but I hear they've figured out how to do the comments and blogging thing well.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Ladd, Ladd, Ladd, I have to question the idea of Faye as being a stand up force to Ed Peters. She was put into office by Ed. Ed pulled all the strings that put her in that office. There was apparently a double cross at the end but she was placed in that office due to Ed's maneuver's. I reiterate my point on another thread that, while I supported Faye, what she and many in the office did after her defeat was SHAMEFUL. They sat on cases, turned nothing over and refused to "play" from August until January when many were removed. It was unprofessional and a travesty of justice. I lost almost all respect I had for her due to these actions. I also reiterate, that I want to believe that Judge DeLaughter is innocent, I am holding onto this belief. I have seen the mountain of circumstantial evidence, I have heard all the rumors, printed and in the legal gossip world. I am still going to hold on to my hope my system can't be bought outright. I know "points of view" are placed on the court, but I still don't want to believe any judge would take a direct payment for a case outcome. I know many of my brothers and sisters are calling for heads, DeLaughter's being the chief. If they did it and it is proven, DAMN THEM TO HELL and HANG THEM HIGH. BUT Bobby "say it ain't so" AGamma627

AGamm627

Jan 29 2008

Gamm, Gamm, Gamm ... I'm not sure I'd call her a "stand-up force" to Peters. And I didn't. What I have said—repeatedly although I'm regularly misquoted—is that she was willing to stand up to him and his, which is indisputable, considering what's happened in the last couple years. But I wouldn't argue that, in this climate, she was much of a force against the old guard, althoughs he had some other good accomplishments under her belt. As far as other things you are alleging behind an anonymous name, I have no way of knowing whether they are true or not, so I won't comment on them. I've heard all kinds of stuff flowing lots of directions, and I do know that at least one component of this transition might be more complicated than you and some others might understand. But I won't go there at this point. And I question how one could know who to trust in the legal profession downtown right now on such rumors; it's becoming more clear by the day that some people had a lot to gain, and others a lot to lose, in the last DA's race. That doesn't mean all Jackson attorneys are bad, of course, but it does mean that it's hard to know who to trust. I do know a handful I trust, of course. I hope DeLaughter is innocent as well. It really rankles to think that he could have become a civil-rights media darling, while other not-so-great things were going on behind the scenes. Of course, one might say the same of Peters. I'm still reeling that they are caught up in the Scruggs scandal, frankly. I've questioned them, but had no idea before this indictment how wide the potential reach could go in the state. Wow. The saddest part to me, really, though is that so many people have refused to question such obvious red flags, including the handling of the old Juvenile Detention Center handling and the Cedric Willis case—I suspect because the alleged victims meant nothing to them. It took the feds to make people focus their eyes (somewhat). Better late than never, I suppose. We can only hope the damage can be repaired. My worst nightmare is that more like Cedric could be sitting in jail innocent, or that others might not have gone for serious criminal behavior because of the old boyz network.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Oh, and I will add that it is horrifying to hear, and have heard, the outright lies that have been told about Peterson over the years. They are all talking points, and it is pretty much clear where it has come from. There are some young attorneys in Jackson who just repeat stuff without evidence because it's been thrown at them so much. We debunked so much of that during the campaign—not because we thought Peterson could do no wrong, but because we don't believe in lies and smear campaigns against anyone. For one, we looked closely at a number of the cases that the Peterson-bashers pointed to, and they never seemed to check out when you looked at the actual facts. Of course, telling the truth in a climate like this will just get the smear campaign turned on you as the messinger. But I think I'm really beginning to understand, of late, why this machine is so determined. It probably has a lot to worry about. In fact, the reason I came around to support Peterson over the years was due to the malicious efforts against her. I figured, for one thing, that if they wanted her that badly, she had to be doing something right, and that they considered her a huge threat. The machine won that battle, though. So far. But as I have long liked to say: It ain't over 'til it's over.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2008

Ladd, The tone of this post was the free press backing Faye and you are proud to state her and the free press were trying to "warn" people about what was going on. Faye was placed in the system in a deal made by Peters. Also, I was a HUGE supporter, vocally and financially. I would support her still, until I had to deal with her and the office after the primary. It is a travesty what was done in the months afterwards and the only ones that suffered were the ones locked up, since there was no chance of any movement on their cases. There were MANY lies told about her in the primary. I tried to combat them all. She is who I wanted in the office. She was, however, in the multiple calls that were made to Peters, Hood, and his attorneys, to work out the Melton plea and the reason it fell through was Melton wouldn't step down as she and Hood demanded to drop the rest of the charges, granted, Ed still got his 70 or 75K. She played the game with Peters, and played it well, I simply don't want her to be made a false hero. TOO many were victimized. I agree. It is horrible that every action in this state is now called into question, and I can't argue it should not be. On a lighter note, I can say, I have no role in this, check my accounts FBI. If I was investigated me, checked all my finances and brought the full weight of the U.S. government on me, they could see if I actually bribed or tried to bribe (AS I WOULD NEVER DO) someone, I lost money or am pitifully incompetent at it ... a joke among my friends and I is, after a long review, the agents would buy us lunch, because we needed the help and they could spare the change on the government salary. AGamma627

AGamm627

Jan 30 2008

I think that when the dust settles, neither Faye Peterson nor Robert Smith will be implicated in any of this. The fact that both had ties to Ed Peters isn't really relevant, since I would imagine that if he had stuff to hide, prosecutors would be the first people he'd want to hide stuff from. I also think that Peterson and Smith don't fit the demographic pattern. They're young and black; everybody named so far has been white and either older, or the immediate family of a better-known older figure. Race does matter in this, homosocial trends being what they are--I doubt anybody like Smith, who went to Provine and Tougaloo and is barely older than me, would have been trusted by these old white men with a secret that would destroy them all. Smith and Peterson represent a new, less corrupt generation. I think we'll be okay. I wish I were as comfortable, frankly, about Jim Hood. He's missing a great opportunity to root out corruption in his home state. I'm assuming he has his reasons for that, but I can't come up with any that don't seriously undercut his credibility as attorney general. He represents the law in this state; over 60% of Mississippians trusted him with another four years. He owes it to the people of this state to take these charges, and the threat to the criminal justice system, seriously. Re Cedris Willis, I am sad to say that I am 100% certain that there are multiple people serving time for crimes they haven't committed, even independent of the scandal. The Innocence Project is doing some great work in this state, but we really need a capital review board as was recently established in North Carolina, among other things.

Tom Head

Jan 31 2008

Tom, The fact you cannot find a link between Hood and those in trouble and voice it s sad. If you honestly think there is no link and this is a "missed" chance, I pity you. As for Faye and Ed and Robert, again Ed , there was no illegal action. there was political deals made, one to the other and then a double cross, all were legal, so GET OFF THE RACE TREND, there is no racist argument in this discussion. The fact they are black dose not excuse the the idea they could be involved in some scheme BUT THEY WERE NOT. The fact that neither were involved should vindicate the fact that there is NO racism involved as you want to point to Mr. Tom Head. I want to believe Bobby D is innocent, I, after working with the new staff at the DA's office in Hinds, think they are VERY pragmatic and still need to weed out some weak links left over, for there was a pathetic and VERY unprofessional roll over, but in the end... Ed played all the cards and got paid well and got immunity.

AGamm627

Feb 1 2008

AGamm, I think there's an obvious link between Hood and those involved. I thought I had made that pretty clear. I also never accused Peters of doing anything illegal, and I never accused you of making a racist argument. Your post seems to address the same topics mine does (Hood, race, etc.), but otherwise it looks like you're responding to somebody else's stuff.

Tom Head

Feb 1 2008

Speaking of Cedric Willis: We should all get behind HB 640, the Compensation for the Wrongfully Incarcerated Act, which Rep. Perkins introduced earlier today. Details here.

Tom Head

Feb 1 2008