Questions

Sometimes I ask myself what on earth made the jury even think that Dean was guilty. What are they not seeing that I do, or what am I not seeing? It is a very difficult thing to comprehend their verdict. I think coming from the perspective that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty, is making this understanding more difficult. I think that if I believed in our justice system, and the intelligence of the police and prosecutors; it would make the acceptance of the verdict easier. May be because I am a child of the 70's and know about corruption at the police and powers that be level, it makes it easier to accept mistakes and wrong judgement on the defendant.
All I can come up with; is that the jury was biased going in that whomever is arrested, is probably guilty here in Orange County. I look at the evidence, and the lack of evidence, and wonder how they cannot question guilt. All the prosecution has is: snitches, who have something to gain, and DNA on something, that has an explanation. They do not have : a weapon, an eyewitness description of Dean, or anything that ties him to the time or day of the crime. How can any one say for sure that they believe Dean was the murderer or even there at the crime site?
There is so much reasonable doubt, how can any person send someone to prison for life with so much reasonable doubt? What makes a person so punitive? Is it because they have no power or control in their every day lives, that now when they can do something big, they want to have that power? What makes them give up their fath in God and what he does to the guilty, and they want to instead be God-like? These people want to have the power to punish and destroy. What makes some one like that? To me... that would be a huge responsibility, and one to agonize over. I would not want to be wrong on a judgment like that.
I wonder if the jury when they viewed the police video, if they thought the parking spot in the next door building was the one that they were supposed to look at. There was an SUV in the next door spot, but not the spots that the snitches or prosecution was talking about. Did they get confused when viewing the video? Why did they not see the obvious?Did they believe the uniform rep. who is now a sheriff, that the credit for a uniform was not because it was turned in late, but because maybe they were good customers; even though on the invoice, it said: "returned"? Did they not see that after the crime, Dean never acted like a guilty person? Did he wipe off the whole car of all obvious blood? Did he destroy DNA evidence? No..... he was shocked, when he was blamed.
What does the jury want to see as guilt, besides a snitch who has everything to gain?
I remember being in the hall waiting to be let into the court room after it was announced that the jury verdict was already in. The prosecutor came out of the elevator with an assistant looking very serious and circumspect, like he had probably lost, and was surprised how fast it happened. Ten minutes later, he was bopping out in the hall, all cheerful, hitting hard the elevator button, loudly announcing that they got the win, and acting estatic. We knew then, before, we entered the court room what the verdict was. He wanted us to know, and he succeeded. How did he know, and how did Dean know before it was announced? Well, when the verdict is guilty,... more bailiffs come in, and surround the defendant before the jury comes in. They are trying to prevent an outburst. There is a look between the bailiffs and the prosecution, and all is obvious.
This poor pathetic jury was another dupe for the prosecution, and a judgement was passed. Now, their karma is forever altered, and if they ever think different, they are fooling themselves. This was one of their many important tests this life, and they failed. The prosecution has done this before, and they already have blown their karma, but now this jury was involved, and they did nto take the time or care to go over everything. The last trial was totally different, and involved many defendants. It was appealed because of it's unfairness and then things changed, because lives had changed. It was now 10 years later, and a different more powerless pathetic society was in the jury pool. Where before, Dean was silent with a group, he now talked and told his story. This jury who only had to judge one, wanted to not show up after the week-end, and thought that was more important than deciding a man's future. It was easier to go with the outspoken verbal, than to go against them, and follow jury instruction, and reasonable doubt.
We understand all this, and have accepted the few who apologized for this. We get that , and hold no malice for them, and only look to the future for a better result. We do not live in the past or waste negative emotions on those who are responsible.
I still do wonder now and then..... What the hell were they thinking? How did they get that way?

The Appeal

We got a question on if we have heard back on the appeal yet. It made me realize that most do not know how long appeals take to be read and studied and then answered.
Dean's first appeal took 3 years. I am guessing that this one will take at least two years. So....
look to this blog for an update mid 2010.

Response to Anonymous

I also would like to comment on what the anonymous person, whom I take to be one of the jurors, stated. This individual stated that "regardless of what happened, in our eyes Dean is innocent." The juror went on to say "thank goodness for other minds judging the facts and evidence." I am sure jurors in other cases have felt this way in the past and continued to defender their verdict even after the individual they convicted later is exonerated. I invite this anonymous person/juror to read through the stories of the wrongfully convicted we have posted on this site and to also go the Innocence Project blog and see even more. These defendants were all convicted by "other minds judging the facts and evidence." The reason that Dean is innocent in our eyes is because Dean is innocent of this murder. Dean is not innocent of being stupid in the past and joining a gang. But guilt by association is not enough.

The reason some of these blog entries are harsh is because we are dumbfounded at the lack of common sense these jurors had and that they didn't apply reasonable doubt. Yes, DNA was on Dean's shoes. But Dean provided a real and true explanation for this. No explanations were provided as to why the eyewitnesses to the murder described individuals that looked like Dean's former co-defendant who testified. No explanation was provided as to why the eyewitnesses didn't see a tall, white man wearing a work uniform. No explanation was provided as to why witness Rivera described someone who looked like one of the other witnesses...down to the tattoo on his back. No explanation was provided as to why, if Dean's hand was truly cut from a knife, none of Dean's blood was found at the scene of the crime. None of the victim's blood was in the Blazer, and this was sadly a bloody crime. Why? Because DEAN WAS NOT AT THE SCENE OF THE MURDER. Dean IS INNOCENT. The evidence does point to this. But I guess if you take 3 hours to decide a murder case the evidence tends to get overlooked.

I feel sorry for this juror who wants to continue to defend his or her incorrect verdict. But I also understand because no one wants to believe they put an innocent man behind bars for the rest of his life while the real murderer is out on the street.

New anonymous post

We got another anonymous, saying that a clear mind prevailed on the jury and that I should not slam them. I have only one thought to that: sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. Sad for them, sad for Orange County, sad for humanity. I only hope that before this persons life is over on earth, he or she will realize how sad that statement is.