It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will Ira Einhorn Just Die in Prison Without a Wimper from ATS?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:44 AM
Many know of the story about the Unicorn Killer Ira Einhorn. His girlfriend, Holly Maddux, was found dead, stuffed in a steamer stuck away in Ira's closet. Ira ran and was finally caught and promptly sent to a lifetime in jail. He never changed his plea of innocence from day 1. He claims to have been framed by secret services. So on and so forth... if you don't know the background I recommend you get involved with this thread, it could be a good ride, but if not I may continue sounding off here until some response comes through...

And how could it not!? There are a boatload of unanswered questions... and one has to wonder if time has become the enemy here.

I have been wanting to get down and dirty about this topic for a long, long time, but quite honestly, I haven't had the energy to rehash all the details for those who don't know about the topic.

It is a story that begs for an open mind. His trial, after finally being extradited, cost him a lot of supporters. Not being able to attend the trial will always be something I'll wish was different. There was nothing positive that came of his nasty trial in which even the judge took rotten jabs at the aging enzyme.

What happened to you, Mr. Arlen Specter? Mr. Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. Mr. Magic Bullet theory creator.

How is it you represented yet Ira haven't discussed the matter in 25 years?
This is incredible... and yet his voice has (until health problems slowed him down in recent years....) been strong in current media.

In fact, on ATS, there are NO search connections between the two parties. Impossible, this site covers far less interesting topics... This one has it all it's the silence of this topic that has translated into the lack of updates on the case...

Some important open questions in need of research and discussion....
-What happened to his appeals? Why haven't any of them been heard!?
-What happened to the REAL forensics/DNA results?

The plot is so damned thick... rich in deception, action, mind control, fbi/cia plots, murder, Peter Gabriel, trial in absentia, bungled forensics, courtroom bias... a true conspiracy tale, and the Ira himself turned into his worst nightmare...

Anyway, I thought I'd start here to see if there's any takers as knowledgeable or more on the topic I have studied for over 10 years.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:54 AM
Well, the fact that he jumped bail and went on the lam for 16 years kind of suggests that he was guilty. Plus when they had the re-trial there obviously wasn't much evidence of a frame-up as the jury only took two hours to reach a verdict.

Plus, when Holly first disappeared he lied to police saying she went to the store and didn't return. Then, the body turns up 18 months later in his closet, neighbours complaining of the smell. So, we know it's been there for quite some time.

If you have some evidence of a frame-up why don't you lay it out on the table so everyone can decide for themselves. To me, it looks like he is guilty.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by TheComte]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:00 PM
OK now this is the sort of discussion I wanted to open because there are several points to the story, and there are several points yet to be addresses satisfactorily.

After years of reading about the story, I have to admit there is much reason to believe in his guilt and very little otherwise, but where his trial is concerned, there is much left open for interpretation. Many "hows" n "whys".

In a letter written by Einhorn in January 2007, he addresses some of the points:

"My original prosecutor, Barbara Christie, withheld Brady
(exculpatory) material from us under discovery, employing a
subterfuge to do so.

She took a private report (paid for by the Maddux Family), generated
by 2 ex-FBI agents, reduced the size of the pages, thus allowing her
to disappear the page numbers and remove 5 sightings of my supposed
victim, made six months to a year after the prosecution claimed Holly
Maddux was killed. A claim that they maintained for 23 years thus
fixing the date in stone. It took many court hearings to uncover the exculpatory material due to us, BUT, two of the reported sightings (made by two Philadelphia police detectives) were withheld until 2002."

This was the original trial, and when these problems arose, and Ira was allowed bail (thanks to our pal Arlen Specter), he fled.

This was very embarrassing for the officials in PA.
OK ... we're at the tip of the iceberg in references to the way the trail was run. Also keep in mind Ira Einhorn was the first person in the history of Pennsylvania law to be tried and convicted to the dealth penalty In Absentia.

After he left his handwritten journals were confiscated, and were somehow allowed into the hands of a journalist - Steven Levy. Levy went on to write a biased book on Ira called The Unicorn's Secret. A pathetic piece of slanderous garbage he had no business writing. And no, before you ask - I'm not a pro-Einhorn person, per se. This book simply shouldn't have been allowed to be written, unless Judge William Mazzola can offer up a reasonable explanation why.

Says Einhorn,

"The journals had been seized under warrant as evidence; the act of their being given to a journalist for publication is unique in American case law."

Ok.. I'll stop here for now just to see if anyone is still interested in talking this out here at ATS.


[edit on 28-6-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

mod edit, to supple external quote codes

[edit on 29-6-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:39 PM

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by TheComte

what you said! one REALLY must suspend belief to think his innocence. the body was in his closet, in a trunk for 18 months. for the entire time, neighbors complained of a foul smell. people below it had a brown stain on there ceiling. no WAY could he have lived there for that time and not notice it. had a history of abuse on women.

think it is cool that you like to have an open mind. sometimes, though, what you see is REALLY what you see!

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by blackthorne

Plus, Einhorn wouldn't let the landlord investigate the smell, so he must have known that the body was in there. His assertion that somebody else put the body there goes out the window.

Let's hypothesize. OK, someone else kills her and puts the body in his closet. If he smells it, and we assume he does because all his neighbours do, there are two possibilities. He investigates and finds the body. Then just leaves it there. Doesn't even try to get rid of it. Or, he ignores the smell and does not investigate. Sorry, neither explanation makes sense to me.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:39 PM
Who else would have done it?
Who would have the motive to kill Holly and stuff her in his trunk?
Why would he lie and flee the country?

Don't forget he was a VERY controlling person to the point that her family was concerned about her.
From what I remember of the case, I see no way that he was not the guilty party.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by chetinglendalevillage
Many know of the story about the Unicorn Killer Ira Einhorn. His girlfriend, Holly Maddux, was found dead, stuffed in a steamer stuck away in Ira's closet. Ira ran and was finally caught and promptly sent to a lifetime in
And how could it not!? There are a boatload of unanswered questions... and one has to wonder if time has become the enemy here.

Who is time an enemy for?

I have been watching this thread to see where it would lead. Personally, I do believe the right person is going to die behind bars without a whimper because he was guilty.

Why would you worry if this fellow gets a whimper? How many people cried and whimpered over Holly and probably still do to this day?

She is dead, and he is still alive. Who should we be feeling sorry for here?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:19 PM
What about Holly Maddux? Anyone gonna come to her defense? She's dead, and good ol' Ira fled the country.

It's easy to blame the CIA, etc, when you don't need any proof. "It's all secret!!!"

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:41 PM
Conte said: Well, the fact that he jumped bail and went on the lam for 16 years kind of suggests that he was guilty.
Going on the run in 1981 was not the best choice, ultimately, the officials in PA were not about to waste another dime of taxpayer $$ to keep this case going. To me, the Scott Peterson trial and the Robert Blake trial (which were both going on during the same period of time of the Einhorn re-trial) were far less interesting cases. Somehow those two cases were far more important, and the Ira case really had nearly no media following.

-think it is cool that you like to have an open mind. sometimes, though, what you see is REALLY what you see!


All great responses... VERY consistent with the overall consensus over the years. Most responses to the question of Ira's guilt break it down simply: guilty, yellow bellied, filthy, disgusting, woman beating, hippy guru murderer.

Don'tTreadOnMe Asked Great Questions...

-Who else would have done it?
The question of the hour. This is the part where the ATS pundits need to climb out from their respective rock. People who were close to Ira claim "he was definitely known to the KGB and was deeply involved in Serbia with the Tesla stuff."

Look, this is the ATS site so I propose the following on the matter. When I think IF what Ira knew was in fact real and potentially damaging to the establishment, doesn't "Ira's case for the motive" have considerable weight?

That is one big "IF" in case you didn't notice... but where is the proof? Well, like I said, this story has so many twists and turns it becomes a burden.

Also consider, some of the specifics Ira mentioned as part of his defense. He was laughed at when he discussed particular issues and was mocked, even by judge Mazzola. For example: the reality of the free energy technologies, the reality of the electronic weapons such as the Active Denial System "pain ray" like a supercharged version of what he wrote that he and Andrijah Puharich invented with three other effects besides pain that could be induced
by flipping the switch, ie, the "mind control" or "psychotronic" weapon that could cause other reactions, like emotions (anxieties or fears) and who knows what effects.

The point is, some of the topics he discussed 30 years ago has BECOME reality. If there was only a way to debrief him on those specifics NOW... might provide insight into his case.

-Who would have the motive to kill Holly and stuff her in his trunk?
IF Ira's claims were true, he clearly would have been mixed up with with a lot of people from opposing ideologies. It's been so long, and since all fingers pointed to Ira, going back now might be what makes time a factor in the case.

-Why would he lie and flee the country?
Ira was well connected to the social elites. Not typical of murderers, not when you consider the calibur of these folks. Barbara Bronfman (of the Seagram's fortune) paid his original $40,000 bail. The Bronfman's have, in many circles, been tied in with the Illuminati. Norris Gelman is hailed as one of Philadelphia's all-time great defense attorneys, stressed to Ira he would not receive a fair trial due to problems with evidence and the popularity of the trial in PA. At the time, this case DWARFED the Three Mile Island accident in Philly. "HIPPIE GURU" HELD IN TRUNK SLAYING was the headline. Knowing he had no chance at a fair trial, he left. We know what happens when there's a murder trial today with someone famous, and the person denies the murder. OK, O.J. comes to mind... except he was famous on a national level. Even Robert Blake's case got way more received in the media, but he was Baretta.

Words in a diary and alleged prior behavior do not constitute grounds for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Those things aren't even circumstantial.

How many cases like this where a public figure is convicted of murder while claiming it all was a setup, possibly by the CIA ? I don't know of any. Not by people who were in the public eye at any point. I'd like to know if anyone knows of a similar alibi.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:17 AM
Ira alleges he was framed because he knew something that was potentially damaging to the establishment. Now that he is in jail, what is his motive for continuing to keep this knowledge secret? If indeed he knows something, he has nothing to lose by revealing it, and it would provide at least some substance for his allegations.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by TheComte]

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by TheComte

When basically asked the very same question, Jim Sorrells summarized important points in a letter. Jim helped edit and publish a book by Ira, which aroused temperament from anti-Einhornians.

Jim said in his letter:

"All along the reason I have wanted to support Ira somehow in his efforts was because of the belief that the information he was carrying was
that important that he could have been framed, and Holly killed by CIA and/or KGB and/or Mafia types. Up until now I have just put this deeper issue out of my head, thinking, well maybe Ira cannot write or talk about the advanced science stuff that he says he was framed to discredit, stuff which
is so scary that it would still endanger his life if he spoke about it. So I have been patient and respected that he has not really said much
comprehensively to address this key element, ie, "if he is so smart and has such important information somebody wants to keep from
the public so much to have killed Holly Maddux to shut him up, why is he shutting up if he is the leader for peace and justice that he wants to be effective as?" Surely he can write a comprehensive piece somehow addressing these points and offer some reasonable alternative Holly Maddux Murder Theories? Now folks think of the issue as the Ira Einhorn Unicorn Killer Issue, and overlook the real issue: Holly Maddux was murdered
by someone for some reason and, if Ira did not do it, the trail as to who did it is already almost 30 years colder. What does Ira know that might help identify and track down the real murderer of Holly Maddux, if anything? What does he know that is now public domain information that was so secret and important to hide back then that someone would kill an innocent
young girl in such a twisted scenario to "send a message to Ira"? I think this is the kind of information and logic that the public and news media etc would like to know; and if he is good at writing such a presentation it could
most importantly bring out related information of great benefit to the peace movement today."

Suggestion by Sorrells? Here's what he suggests:
"Is it time for Ira to write a 25year later declassified debriefing as to what he was talking about then, that is safe to talk about now, that the world needs to know today anyway whether he is successful on appeal or not? Coming from this frame of mind I will be eager to read whatever he might write to offer along these lines. From some of his recent wording it sounds like Holly could have been killed by any means, drugs or whatever other than a by a wound, which did not show up, other than her head badly crushed by bludgeoning, but no proof if that happened before or after she was dead? She could have been poisoned by an assassin and then after her death her body "processed" for this insidious intricate "frame job"? Possible, it seems, but so far the plausibility reasoning seems low quality."

It is Jim, in fact, that is one of only a couple people I have ever talked to who hold this point of view... rare indeed.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:12 AM
In fact, rather than quote him, I'm going to work on getting Jim Sorrells to comment here on ATS. I'll let anyone still reading this thread be in "the know" as soon as I get a reply.

And thanks again for the great comments so far...

[edit on 1-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:40 PM
Being that Ira was so well connected in PA at the time the body was found in his closet, if Ira wanted to move a trunk, he would not have waited 18 months to move it out of his place.

Again NO BLOOD IN THE APARTMENT!!! No Jury could convict on such flimsy circumstance given a fair trial with a really good lawyer and Ira there of course (In reference to the original trial here...). We're talking about someone that was unfairly discredited during the trial by Judge Mazzola who actually acted as if he was a prosecutor rather than a judge. There was a date of death which was assigned by prosecutors and during the re-trial, Judge Mazzola, so in his charge to the jury, changing the indictment,
he told them that the date of death was not an essential element of
the crime.

Ira left that steamer chest in his apartment for a reason, one I feel we may never know because nobody cares anymore and its been that way since Ira jumped bail in the first place.

Looking back into details of what Ira was "babbling" on about back in the day was projects that are commonplace on these threads on ATS. Topics of technology that manipulates weather (HAARP), remote viewing and UFO technology re-engineering. All the stuff we still call people crazy for talking about in our offline worlds.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage

A far better question would be, why are you an Einhorn Groupie. Are you in contact. Do you have a relationship with Einhorn personally. Are you related too him?

There is no whimper from ATS because there is no reason for one.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage

A far better question would be, why are you an Einhorn Groupie. Are you in contact. Do you have a relationship with Einhorn personally. Are you related too him?

There is no whimper from ATS because there is no reason for one.

It's not a better question because as an Einhornian, it wouldn't matter if I had a tail, or world record-setting sized manbreasts, or played the fiddle in a bikini at the beach on Saturdays. I'm just the average joe, and Einhorn will always be the nut in this relationship. Which isn't a relationship, it's curiosity and I don't understand the justice system in this case, truth be told.

We have briefly corresponded.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:01 PM
After refreshing my memory on this, I can only come to the conclusion that; the only people siding with Einhorn are Anti-American bashers who latched onto this as a cause. There is just to much evidence to believe otherwise. He is a killer and got what he deserved after enjoying a long vacation while he should have been in prison.

All murderers seem to have groupies. That has always fascinated me and is the only reason I'm responding.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by chetinglendalevillage

We have briefly corresponded.

I would have laid odds on that.

Why did you pick this murderer over other murderer's. Are you French or part of a French Anti-American Group who took up his cause?

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Why did you pick this murderer over other murderer's. Are you French or part of a French Anti-American Group who took up his cause?

Communism! Socialism! Togetherness in the Age of Aquarius!


More French Wine Sir!! Make it TWO! I'd also like a fresh baguette to dip in my hummus! Oh, so divine.

If you really must know, my brief correspondence wasn't joyful - IN FACT, it was most likely at the very same time Ira realized to what extent an operative from the CIA had completely fu*&ed him over. Robert Eringer, just last month, released a book about how he out-witted a wit-less man. I'm thinking about buying it. In fact this book is already less expensive than the book Ira released a few years back so it's a possibility.

I don't know if, were I immensely wealthy, I would be willing to devote money to Ira's case. I don't think I would do much more than what I do now which is simply read what I am able to read on the matter. I'm far more obsessed with other topics, but every couple/few years this story pops up and floods my mind with all the lame facts I know about this story.... thanks for reminding me how disturbed I must sound for enjoying this topic!

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage

There is no whimper from ATS because there is no reason for one.

This is the perfect example of the typical answer you will get from most anyone who viewed this case from the peripherals. When you look deeper into this case, you forget the feeling that everything is cut n dry, clear as day, end of story. One reason for reactions to this case generally being so extremely one-sided is due to the fact of the 100s of newspaper articles that were released on the trial all said the same thing. No further information was publicly released, or if it was it was difficult to find, and a general consensus is built. Meanwhile, a slew of peculiar happenings in this case happened seemingly unnoticed by newspaper readers.

Like I've already said, this case has some unique twists, and turns.

Does anyone here know what the Einhorn Law is?

Remember when they showed Ira, unbelievably, leaving jail in France?
Pennsylvania's in-absentia (1993) conviction, with no chance of a new trial,
violated French law requiring a new trial after the capture of the prisoner.

From an article in Salon:

6 days later, a new law passed in Pennsylvania. Under the law, any
American fugitive caught in a country where extradition is denied on
account of a previous in-absentia conviction may, when returned to the
United States, be guaranteed a new trial. And this law was going, it
seemed, to be applied retroactively to Einhorn. The Einhorn Law, like the
in-absentia trial, had an unintended consequence in France. What had been,
until then, a question of criminal law, became a human rights cause.

A law shouldn't be passed for the sole purpose of condemnation of one man, but for the better, a general case. Jurisprudence is certainly the question here. The "Einhorn Law" as it is justly called, was considered a violation of human rights, and unconstitutional.

It may also help to remind everyone, in 1998, internet as a trusted news outlet was generally accepted the way it is today, So for Ira, running away from his case did him the worst favor of all - it simply was used to incriminate him without the possibility of ever having a fair trial. To NOT read into the "Einhorn Law" as an injustice, and general disservice to our own constitution is to be blind.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in