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]