A man who was clearly and obviously innocent of the charges against him was sentenced to eight years in prison. The prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence the jury somehow completely ignored overwhelming evidence of innocence, and the Judge utterly disregarded he solemn duties. This case is beyond belief, and should frighten everyone. Among other things the "victim" claimed she was immediately rendered unconscious by a chemical-soaked rag and kidnapped. No rag was ever found, and two medical doctors testified that her description was not medically possible. And that is the tip of the iceberg...



http://www.c-ville.com/an-innocent-man-mark-weiner-case-sparks-legal-furor-as-claims-of-a-wrongful-conviction-precede-sentencing/#.VX-O2mxRFjo

Shit like this is inhumanly evil. They should qll do LNP

This is phukked up major

That's almost what happened to me on April 16 of this year. The prosecutor was so mean and scary and believed eesh and sort of circled the wagon around him when my lawyer cross examined him. It's like eesh and the prosecutor were in cahoots.

If you weren't in the court room for the whole trial, you don't know what happened. Isn't Benjamin famous for putting the victim on trial and accusing the prosecution of "misconduct"? WTF is this old geezer doing giving rides to kids for, if he isn't trying to soak his dick? Duh. Isn't that called motive?

why did her cell phone never leave her mothers house then, dolt?

This chick sounds like Megan Toohey

tragic faces Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This chick sounds like Megan Toohey




Megan would have said she was "cyber raped."

Vk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you weren't in the court room for the whole
> trial, you don't know what happened. Isn't
> Benjamin famous for putting the victim on trial
> and accusing the prosecution of "misconduct"?

Is Benjamin in fact famous for putting the victim on trial? Don't know...is that what YOU are asserting?

Isn't it more persuasive, though, that the original defense attorney seemed to agree that the defense he provided was "ineffective"?

WTF
> is this old geezer doing giving rides to kids for,
> if he isn't trying to soak his ....? Duh. Isn't
> that called motive?

Some people in a civilized society will do things to help strangers out.

Pretty scary stuff indeed.

I'm not "asserting" anything, Google him up yourself, asshole. If you weren't in court for the whole trial, you still don't know what happened. Even reading the transcripts doesn't really show what happened. What is the original attorney going to say? "Yeah, I lost but by my client was guilty." No. In my opinion, if the original attorney is still looking out for his client, he's going to fall on his sword and stay his client is "innocent" but it was me to blame. "I screwed up. I'm incompetent." Just my opinions.

Gotta get angry, huh?

So, by your logic, if you haven't witnessed something directly, you can't have an opinion about something?

"Google him up"...kind of goes against your thought that if you haven't witnessed something directly, you can't have a valid opinion about it. So why google it "up"? What do YOU know about this attorney?

Yeah...most attorneys and other highly educated professionals frequently accept blame for something merely for somebody else's benefit...happens ALL the time.

LOL.

Vk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not "asserting" anything, Google him up
> yourself, asshole. If you weren't in court for the
> whole trial, you still don't know what happened.
> Even reading the transcripts doesn't really show
> what happened. What is the original attorney going
> to say? "Yeah, I lost but by my client was
> guilty." No. In my opinion, if the original
> attorney is still looking out for his client, he's
> going to fall on his sword and stay his client is
> "innocent" but it was me to blame. "I screwed up.
> I'm incompetent." Just my opinions.


No. What Ford Childress did was highly unusual.

That's one messed up "conviction".
Wow.

How the hell was this guy supposed to drive the van render the victim unconscious, then grab her cell phone and send a message to her boyfriend? The physicians said it was impossible by the way. And how many rapists send text messages to the victims boyfriend? Ridiculous. And why did the phone never ping the closer cell tower? And did that guy take her out of the car and lug her upstairs without waking her? Absurd.

This is a travesty.

The victim in this case, Mark Weiner, is white. Don't expect the social justice warriors to champion his cause. In fact, it's surprising that even the local media in Charlottesville even cared.

Very true. If Weienr were black, the familiar black media personalities would been in overdrive supported by all the mainstream media.

so what

my case was worse - and i was really injured

they have to pay me out before him - definitely

“Virginia proves that its system is error-free by making it extremely difficult to prove error happened,”

---------------------

i disagree completely. DEMOCRATS have done that - virginia does not have a history of huge debt nor a history of cheating in court

^^ past virginia government employees were willing for a day late or a penny short or to help resolve a situation. the had fees and issued fines - but were not unfair (or modernly: tactical) about doing so.

it's a complicated afair "editing" a judgement already made

laws change: the old apply not the new - that's complicated

people move: prosecution may no longer be able to get to trial - or unwilling or unable to restate the charges and answer any lies defense might inject

memories change. opinions change. ability of prosecution (or defense) to find evidence is lost with time

laws dont allow editing of verdicts nor do they guarantee "fair retrials" (the last must be proven defective)

people change: in fx co gov they play musical chairs, shuffle workers around, to avoid liability (ie, a subpeona gov employee who made an untruthful/incorrect "promise": who? the person is shuffled)

---------------------

it's a cluster fuck when justice tampers and ignores the law

Judge Cheryl Higgins did not dispute most of the allegations

In Lunsford’s response to the motion, she strongly denied any wrongdoing and argued that the court would set a dangerous precedent if it set aside the verdict

that Lunsford allowed Steiniger to testify falsely and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, including the cell phone records

tick tack tow, three in a row

misandrous women. dont' beleive women don't work together they do.

and as long as it doesn't involve using POLICE WEAPONS (gun to head, prisons, etc)

that would be , well, that's life

we DO NOT have to tolerate head games and misandry in the Court, not at all

^^ 5 in a row. did you forget the clerk assigned a female judge , prosecutor , and probably a femeale defendor too ?

if the woman got raped she's certainly "ok" and putting a gun to the mans head is unwarrented

the law is clear injury has to be shown to the judge - circumlocutions (or head games) are NOT ALLOWED

if the woman got raped she's certainly "ok" and putting a gun to the mans head is unwarrented

^^ meaning to bad if he got away with it - but allowing accusations as proof is not an answer

His family says the case has been hard to bear for all of them, particularly after the latest setback in court, which means Weiner can anticipate several more years in prison.

---------------------
Jun 9, 2015 ... Mark L. Weiner, convicted two years ago of abduction with the intent defile, was sentenced to eight years in prison Tuesday

2016 - 2013 is : 3 years (not several)

which can end up being a million(s) dollar lawsuit against the State - it has in the past been paid out that way (to whom and why might be a story: but that is the record)

i see a man who might get paid big for 3 years in prison - possibly self inflicted ring of people scamming to get VA money

i see a man who might be held hostage by the legal community - who will be released only after very greedy gov workers get paid to "WORK HIS CASE"

either way - there ARE motives for this kind of thing - convictions without injury and abscense of evidence are common: in corrupt governments

i've said all along those motives WERE the target of hillary's VAWA law which bill signed

a promise to the legal community to turn the other way and issue themselves money while they tampered with "relationship arguement" cases - making a bundle in the process for the police/legal communities

“She was credible and he was not,” he said, noting he was bothered by Weiner driving around downtown after his night class at Piedmont Virginia Community College instead of returning to his family. “When you’re his age, you don’t creep around downtown after class,” he said. “You go home.”

-------------------------

i could prosecute that juror and the judge for allowing that kind of trash in a verdict decision

----------------------

Ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices; ad quaestionem legis non respondent
juratores - The judges do not answer to a question of fact; the jury do not answer to a question of Law.

Nemo potest contra recordum verificare per patriam - No one can verify by the country, that is, through a jury, against the record.

----------------------

the question was if she was injured: not whether he was bar hopping or got laid or not

bar hopping: not illegal. extra-marital sex: illegal in VA however our polititians and military men both have many wives. point being: it's not prosecutable in this case as he DID go home.

when something is not prosecutable - then it certainly cannot be used as the substance in a criminal court to put - litterally - a gun to a mans head

let us inspect your life , JUROR , and see if we might put a gun to your head for anything whatsoever you ought not have done

question: used chemical rag over her face and raped her. evidence was substacial or not this and ONLY this occured? Yes or No.

your "juryish" opion if he was looking to get his willy wet: shut the fuck up

getting a willy wet is not a "connectable" with pre-meditated rape. any man might at any instance be thinking or delaying hoping to get his willy wet and never be connected with any crime or even wet willy

i'm hoping to get a wet willy.

i'm also hoping that juror pays for part of the lawsuit that is coming VA's way

Thomas Kelo • a year ago

Dear unidentified juror -- perhaps you need to go learn what "beyond reasonable doubt" means because it sounds like you convicted this guy despite having reasonable doubt.

kLuh9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> question: used chemical rag over her face and
> raped her. evidence was substacial or not this
> and ONLY this occured? Yes or No.
>

Two physicians testified that this is impossible.

almost THOMAS.

judges have screwed up our legal system by making all charges criminal - meaning government has "permission" to put a gun to anyones head for practically any offense though there was no (legal disagreement or lack of willingingness to comply)

---------------------------

"beyond a reasonable doubt" applies when a persons looses life (dp) or everything (will be so poor as will die from poverty due to lawsuits). a crime litterally had meant "spilled blood" (or equivlent)

for death pentaly "BEYOND ANY DOUBT" (any proposed doubt that cannot be shot down)

this sentence he faced for a non-bloody crime was 8 years (not hard - so 4 years) - which he's about already served

for a young man not yet having a family or stable work 4 years could mean death from poverty (in some circumstance - a loss of any chance of having "a life")

for a 52 year old knowing he'll get out and be able to sue who has a family to go back to - not as much so

-----------------------

let's just say the standard is not the same as it is for death penalty or bank robbery

why is because technically: having prosecution with no injury or financial loss (also without evidence!) - it's A CIVIL LAW case not a crimea case

beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard for civil law

neither is imprisonment as a verdict - except in problem cases after failures