It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Since I have posted most of my comments on this thread in the middle of the night when, apparently, nobody awake cares to comment on the Unicorn Killer. I'm really searching for others who have some interest in this story, people who know a lot of the facts, etc...

Ok, that's it...




posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage
 


i dont know the facts, dont know much except what i read in this thread.

i am still reading and interested, if theres a possibility that he is innocent, then its worth reading.

maybe we should give this a chance from what ive seen the op post.i know i will at least.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage
 


I don't know the specifics. The contours of the narrative is suggestive to me, though. My guess is that he was a rising star, a psychopath, and a good actor. Pure, baseless speculation on my part, but I see him being given a little truth, and a chance to show his true nature. He showed it. The truth didn't turn out to be what he convinced himself it would be, and he self-selected right out of the game.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Einhorn had a Jekyll/Hyde persona. He was the charimatic hippy activist to the public eye, and abuse control freak in private.

He murdered his ex-girlfriend because she had decided to leave an abusive relationship and get on with her life. He kept her body in a trunk in his apartment for nearly two years.

Einhorn knew what he was doing. The man got caught and is now paying the price for his crime.

I have absolutely zero compassion for men like him.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by applebiter
 


Very solid observation - Ira had a couple of opportunities to examine his side of the case. The first time, he fled the country and wasn't found for 16 years.

The next was in 1997, I think, when he was re-tried in Pennsylvania.

He claims he fled because of the evidence of his innocence that was thrown out by the judge before his trial. By his plausible testimony, it was at this point his lawyer consulted him and informed him there was little chance his case would be fairly tried.

His decision to run really doesn't help his cause or add to his believe-ability, but his actions on the run don't especially reek of psychopathic behavior. He fell in love and was married his last 10 years on the run.

Here's some background about his trial in absentia, a PHILADELPHIA 1st:



Philadelphia prosecutors took the unusual step of trying Ira Einhorn in absentia more than 12 years after he had jumped bail and fled the country. Located in France some four years after being convicted, Ira Einhorn successfully resisted extradition until July 2001.

In 1979, Ira Einhorn had held a unique place in the Philadelphia civic community for several years. A self-proclaimed guru of the counter culture movement of the 1960s, he had managed, as the movement faded, to avoid becoming marginalized. Without compromising his commitment to nonviolence, sexual liberation, drug experimentation, and the other trappings of the hippie lifestyle, he had become accepted by a wide spectrum of society's leaders. He worked tirelessly as an organizer, facilitator, speaker, and consultant of sorts, and took great pride in the international network of correspondents he had cultivated. The movements and causes that he supported were an eclectic mix of environmentalism, futurism, the paranormal, and the occult, laced with conspiracy theories. He was a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, had done some graduate work and teaching, and his credentials and reputation were enough to earn him a prestigious fellowship at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 1976-77.


law.jrank.org...

What followed that was bizarre, even by DA standards - a law was passed when prosecutors Lynne Abraham & Joel Rosen invented the "Einhorn Law". Many legal analysts have deemed this to be an unconstitutional law, but it did open a door for a 2nd Ira trial. The decision to convict him to life took two-hours, which the prosecution bragged about. The problems that took place in the re-trial were an abomination of the legal system, but again, this doesn't make Ira any more innocent or guilty in my opinion. As Ira said when the detective told him he had found Maddux's body "you found what you found." What bothered me about the retrial MOST was that it was a far more interesting, far more complex story than was the Scott Peterson trial, or for that matter, I was more interested in this case far more than the Robert Blake trials, both of which were the mainstream stories of that period. Peterson and Blake were both head deep in exculpatory evidence, both had incriminated themselves beyond doubt (except Blake somehow walked...) but there was NEVER DNA evidence or blood found in the Einhorn case.

Oh well, I'll still be called a kook, even without calling him innocent, but honestly, I feel there was injustice in this case, and Lynn Abraham used unconstitutional means to avoid her from looking stupid.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Also remember that his wife for the 10 years before his capture until now, Annika Floodin, couldn't go on the stand in his re-trial because there was never a guarantee she also be arrested.

Wasn't her testimony worth anything to the DA in PA? Apparently not. His marriage to her could have been proven a psychopathic rouse, but for some reason it had no use. Closure would be great, if he's guilty, let those people who knew him best have their say.

Ok, maybe thats just a selfish personal request, but I want to know the whys.. the hows.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by chetinglendalevillage
 


Why? Look at the new narrow wedge of study called Ponerology. Awareness of psychopathy and how it gives the very worst among us a leg up on advancement to power is a very new field officially. And the working definition of psychopathy isn't very useful - it's overly broad and can too easily be used to include the very best among us. It has a long way to go.

Ira showed what he was made of, and he paid the price. I think this story is largely over.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by applebiter]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by applebiter
 


Issues regarding the decline of the US Constitution are never over unless you want government to gladly take over and do all of the thinking for you!

So you think it's fair a law is made to single out a particular individual just to help the namesake of DA Leslie Abraham? A lady who is known for her reckless stand on handing out death penalties... she's a monster and will do anything, even if it means walking on the constitution, just to keep her name in the papers and in "good" standing. She's pathetic.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Einhorn could have done a lot of good as an environmental activist. But he screwed up, and killed a woman. He can't blame anyone else for his actions.

The man is not a martyr. He's a monster.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Einhorn could have done a lot of good as an environmental activist. But he screwed up, and killed a woman. He can't blame anyone else for his actions.

The man is not a martyr. He's a monster.


The problem here is that he DID blame someone else for this crime, and the legal system did not allow him to fairly portray his side. He never had a shot at credibility in the retrial... if he's guilty, I just wish he'd come on out with it. He's just going to otherwise sit there milling about... makes sense that he'd actually ADMIT what he did. But he has never come close to doing that. His bravado in this storm is unusually strong, how come he just doesn't admit it and start the healing?

As a child, I grew up with a penchant for telling lies. It was something I was good at, and I got away with it because I always felt I was one step ahead of my parents. Even when I got caught I would lie straight on through and get to a safety zone. Well, when I came of age, I had people all around me- fortunately- who cared for me, and were quick to set me straight. It made me a man, I confronted my demons as humbling as it was and became a better person by living an honest existence. Now I am grown and luckily I can laugh about most of it, but the reality is it hurts to face the truth sometimes.

With his accolades, and all the people he once knew well having deserted him, and a wife (no children) with no reason to stand behind him, and of course his good for nothing word, what the heck would HE have to gain by sitting in a little cell to think of more perplexing lies? He does not have a reason.

Public defense in the retrial got stomped on by the psychopathic, unconstitutional DA Leslie Abraham. Plain and simple - his story, in full, needs to be addressed fairly. DNA evidence would be a great start.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]

[edit on 24-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
So far, most of the people who've posted here (besides my many posts...) are the same people who bark at the moon and don't seem to really care much when the American Constitution has been defecated upon.

If you are able to set the standards of the constitution a little higher, men like Bush won't be able to control, America will get the people behind it stronger than ever. In this case, if you set it against the constitution, was not a fair trial from the beginning. Ask Arlen Specter.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
For information on Einhorn's legal situation and issues:

November 27, 1999, "Facts for Openers", by Ira Einhorn
www.angelfire.com...

DECLARATION of evidence Einhorn was set up and framed for murder:
www.angelfire.com...

Review of NBC movie on Einhorn, "Hunt for the Unicorn Killer"
www.angelfire.com...

Continuing selection of newspaper articles on Einhorn/Unicorn case
www.angelfire.com...

Continuing selection of commnents on Einhorn/Unicorn case & issues
www.angelfire.com...

"An Agenda for Peace", Einhorn's Global Peace Walk 2000 support letter
www.angelfire.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So this guy had the dead body of his girlfriend in his closet for 18 months, disappeared for a long time while on bail, and claims the government and/or other shadowy figures set him up. Is this right? And someone actually is considering him innocent? Wow!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Could be another case of the prosecution framing a guilty man, ala OJ Simpson.

One thing I think should be mandatory for EVERY SINGLE COURTROOM IN AMERICA: If the prosecution withholds ANY exculpatory evidence, no matter how small, the accused is immediately declared not guilty, and allowed to go free.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
ok you think he is innocent, then answer one question for me that was asked and you never answered. Why, while holly was in his closet for 18 months, and the smell had permeate the place, did he not do something? How did he not know she was dead in there, how did he live with the smell? How can anyone think he is innocent on that one little fact? I hve smelld a dead body when it starts decomposing, not a good smell. Add 18 months to that, there is no way his innocent, he would have called the cops as soona s he smelled her if he was.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
No post here by me or anyone else has cried, uttered or screamed for Ira's innocence.

I don't have a clue as to why the freak would share a dwelling with a decomposed body stuffed like a jack-in-the-box in a steamer.

But his story has remained in tact for 30 years and to this very moment he declares his innocence. He does, and everyone that used to be around him is no longer around him. He only has a handful of people he shares any information with and his efforts are fixed on his appeals.

Comparing this to the Charlie Manson case is impossibly weak.


July 1850: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, De Chastellux vs Fairchild:

"The power to order a new trial is JUDICIAL. The legislature does not possess judicial power, and they have not the right to direct that a new trial be granted."

There was missing exculpatory evidence, so the DA Abraham used UNCONSTITUTIONAL means to convict Ira. She did it to protect her name, and she is dead wrong. I don't get it, you are so quick to throw down insults to posts aimed at protecting the constitution. Clearly you don't care about the demise of America, it is YOU with an anti-American take on the judicial system that deserves a fair and balanced quality assurance realignment.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
So was Einhorn crazy when he - quite literally - got laughed off the stand when he stated being part of mind control projects?

www.time.com...

This doesn't necessarily mean anything in way of his guilt or innocence, but he was discredited, made fun of, slammed and rhetorically abused in his inability to be heard because of his opinions on mind control.

just a piece of the puzzle that a judge would not be able to laugh at were he fairly tried.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join