News reports, editorials and media discussions of the tragic death of Julissa Brisman will quickly fade away until the murder trial of Phil Markoff begins. Meanwhile, if Markoff has the resources to assemble and hire a "Dream Team" like O J Simpson's 1994 murder trial things could get very ugly. Part of Simpson's Dream Team included private investigators who worked effortlessly to discover any tidbit of information, whether real or innuendo, to discredit the victims or in Simpson's case the police and prosecution.
At this point very little is known about Ms. Brisman. However, once she is placed under the investigator's microscope, whose sole purpose is to discredit her, the public will feed on every negative aspect of life that is so meticulously fed to the media. There will be no shortage of "subject matter experts" telling us about prostitution; the dangers of Craig's List; how good girls become bad girls; what effect her childhood had on her adult life; what her family and society could have done to have changed her wayward life; and the list goes. In essence, she will be portrayed as a dreg of society who preyed on unsuspecting young men, and in this case a medical student with a promising future in medicine to the benefit of mankind. How much of this character assassination will be fed to the public? That will depend on how much the media buys into it. Hopefully, the media will be stuck with a shred of integrity and chooses not to run the trash.
This tactic obviously worked to some extent in the O J Simpson murder trial, the Robert Blake murder trial and the first Phil Specter murder trial. Fortunately, attacking Lana Clarkson's character wasn't able to sway the jury in the second Phil Specter murder trial and the jury did the right thing and convicted him of second degree murder. Hopefully, Markoff's trial will conclude the same way Specter's second trial concluded.
I feel very bad about tragic and untimely death Ms. Brisman but I also feel sorry for her family who will be picked apart, scrutinized, judged and blamed for her bad choices in life by the public. It would be nice if someone reported on the bright side of Ms. Brisman's life and her positive contributions to society but unfortunately that wouldn't sell in the news business.
The evidence is overwhelming against him.
He will also not have the cult following that OJ Simpson had.
Besides, I don't think the defense can find a jury in Boston that is as stupid as the OJ jury was.
but in Dc they say OJ was innocent
are very often different. Take the case of Officer Danniel Faulkner. A cop doing his job. Shot and Killed by Wesley Cook, AKA Mumia Abu-jamal.
On December 9, 1981, at approximately 3:55 a.m., Officer Danny Faulkner, a five year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, made a traffic stop at Locust Street near Twelfth Street. The car stopped by Officer Faulkner was being driven by William Cook. After making the stop, Danny called for assistance on his police radio and requested a police wagon to transport a prisoner. Unbeknownst to him, William Cook's brother, Wesley (aka Mumia Abu-Jamal) was across the street. As Danny attempted to handcuff William Cook, Mumia Abu-Jamal ran from across the street and shot the officer in the back. Danny turned and was able to fire one shot that struck Abu-Jamal in the chest; the wounded officer then fell to the pavement. Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over the downed officer and shot at him four more times at close range, striking him once directly in the face. Mumia Abu-Jamal was found still at the scene of the shooting by officers who arrived there within seconds. The murderer was slumped against the curb in front of his brother's car. In his possession was a .38 caliber revolver that records showed Mumia had purchased months earlier. The chamber of the gun had five spent cartridges. A cab driver, as well as other pedestrians, had witnessed the brutal slaying and identified Mumia Abu-Jamal as the killer both at the scene and during his trial. On July 2, 1982, after being tried before a jury of ten whites and two blacks, Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering Officer Danny Faulkner. The next day, the jury sentenced him to death after deliberating for four hours. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard the defendant's appeals and upheld the conviction on March 6, 1989.
Not only is Cook Abu-Jamal a cold blooded killer, he is a coward who shot Faulkner in the back. And here is the reason for my comparison... to this day, Cook (Abu-Jamal) is alive and the Death Penalty has yet to be served on him. What is worse, the Hollywood elite want this guy RELEASED! Those that push for his release include... Shana Alexander, Laurie Anderson, Alec Baldwin, David Byrne, Naomi Campbell, Noam Chomsky, Ron Daniels, U.S. Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, David Dinkins, Roger Ebert, Mike Farrell, Danny Glover, Casey Kasem, John Landis, Spike Lee, Maya Lin, Norman Mailer, Michael Moore, Paul Newman, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Peter Sellers, Bob Stein, Gloria Steinem, Sting, Oliver Stone, Joanne Woodward, and Peter Yarrow, the city of Paris France and many many others. Sadly, not one of these offers proof that Jamal is innocent.
So, my dears, once the media gets a true hold on this story (if they do) we are all in for a very bumpy ride. My feeling is that with enough money, you can make people believe almost anything - just ask OJ, heck even just ask those who believe the garbange on loosechange.com
I am outraged when any officer had died in the line of duty but to compare this guy with what has become a racially charged trial of Abu-Jamal is wrong. Abu-Jamal a former black panther and political activist who conviction was upheld BUT a bew trial on the basis if several key witnesess recanted and he has been seen largely at the last of the Hoover inspired COINTELPRO program aimed at blacks
This guy was a man who to support a gambling problem robbed and killed for money, period.
In a time when police targeted black activist, we really do not know what happened and perhaps is too late for a new trial but bottomline, Mumia is still in jail despite all the celebrity attention and that where this guy should be
obvious one of OJ, or Robert Blake, but decided to go with this one. News media, idiots that they are, fail to present just the news. Instead they spend HOURS upon hours analyzing, 'decoding' and interpreting events for us. I hate it. and in reporting this young woman's death, instead of presenting the cold hard facts 1) he contacted her to meet her 2) they met 3) he killed and robbed her, they WILL delve into her life - and when they do, they will focus on poor poor dude.... he was victimized by a victim less crime.
just as you are trying to spin the Abu Jamal case to where HE was the victim, he wasn't by ANY account. He shot and killed a cop whose only crime was to make a traffic stop.
One big difference between this and the OJ case is race. Th L.A. DA was stupid in allowing the case to be tried where he did.
He screwed up big time in a lot of ways.
There is a book on the case by the same author that wrote up the Manson case (I can't think of his name at the moment - I'm having a senior moment I guess), The book's title was Helter Skelter.
The smposon book cites all the mistakes that the DA mad in the Sipson case and it is scathing.
There is very little we can do to stop the trashing of the victim other than voice our opinions to the media. The trial might not start for a few years but that is when the attacks will begin. If enough people write to their local newspapers protesting the discrediting of the victim it might have an impact on public opinion.
I plan to write to my local paper questioning why the media is so strongly swayed by the negative publicity fed to them by the defense. Why is the victim always vilified instead of portrayed as what she really was? Where are the stories about her positive contributions to society and the heart wrenching pain her loss has caused her family and loved ones?
I won't touch on the fact she was a masseuse, or anything related to prostitution because that is an issue for another time. The bottom line will be shame on society and the news for discounting the value of a human life. A human life that was snuffed out by a vicious murderer. Where have our sense of values gone? What kind of society have we become?
It might change an opinion or two. If enough letters are written it might cause a significant directional change in public opinion.
Yours is a very good point. I don't know about other papers but the treatment of the murdered lady in the Boston Globe has been quite sympathetic so far. It has covered the statements of her family and friends and the sense of loss they have.
Of course lawyers will stoop to any tactic to get their client off and I have no doubt this will be the case here.
However, the evidence is so damning and detailed that even if the lawyer portrays her as the lowest scum on earth, the facts all show that he killed her. I wish we had the death penalty in Massachusetts.
and if it doesn't play out the way you have predicted, I hope you'll alter your thinking.
In fact, societal attitudes have evolved a lot over the past twenty years. Goodness knows what benefit the murderer would get by attacking this woman's morals, but it won't amount to very much.
This statement you wrote is over the top:
"The bottom line will be shame on society and the news for discounting the value of a human life. A human life that was snuffed out by a vicious murderer. Where have our sense of values gone? What kind of society have we become? "
You sure as hell can't use this particular episode to support your view of society. There was a huge outcry about what happened to this young woman and the police used every resource to apprehend her murderer. You seem so convinced of your point of view that you're not letting facts intervene. So far news coverage has been respectful toward the victim of the crime. Maybe you're right in your broader view, but you need to find a different set of circumstances to make your point.
If you read my statement correctly you will understand that I said the personal attacks will start at about the same time the trial starts and that might not be for several years. Hoping something doesn't happen and realizing something will probably happen are two different things.
For some unknown reason you seem to think I hope her character will be attacked. Again I don't know how you interpreted that from anything I said. I hope the murderer is tried, convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life.
My position is to be proactive when the time comes and question the media for not portraying her in a positive light. How negative the media will be in anyone's guess but you don't wait until you are defeated before you fire the first salvo. I will repeat that if enough people write to their newspapers questioning why the news doesn't report both side of the story it could have a positive effect.
Lastly, I am not sure what effect, if any, a letter writing campaign will have on the trial or the jury. I just hope it will have an effect on public opinion when it comes to victims regardless of who the victims are.
One that is responsive to sensationalism, as we are pummeled by data and stimulus every day of our existence (unless you are rich and can not work and can isolate yourself and have people go out for you).
As for our sense of values, welcome to capitalism. Whatever makes money is what and how things are reported, and fear and sensationalism create interest, and interest creates advertising.
As Francisco d'Anconia said, "Brothers, you asked for it!"
and if this sad incident had happened in a death-penalty state, there may be a deal struck to remove the death penalty off the table for a "life without the possibility of parole" plea agreement. We don't know what the prosecution has planned, what the real evidence discovered has been (since I'm sure the authorities are holding some back which will only come out in discovery), but what has been revealed so far looks pretty substantial. Maybe his lawyer will try for a plea ... only time will tell.
Like the O.J. case, this will be high profile, and perhaps there will also be a "dream team" assembled to mount a defense. But, O.J. had little directly connected evidence against him, and his savior was "those gloves," imho. Here, they're reporting all kinds of directly-connected evidence, and I think I recall reading that they have the gun as well.
We'll have to wait and see. The only negative - there's no death penalty. But think of what 40, 50 or 60 years in prison can do. Let him suffer as he has made others suffer.
The fact that he was dubbed the craiglist killer is a possible sign that the focus may not be the victim's alleged occupation. However to avoid 1st degree murder charges, Markoff's defense might argue that she had "protection". They may argue some form of self defense, especially since the other victims were not killed.
A sidenote, I really do not understand the comparision to OJ trial? OJ was a celebrity, who was killed in a crime of passion. He was able to gather a "dream team" because he had money. Unless, the Markoff family has that type of money, I do not forsee him hiring that type of high power lawyers to defend him. IDK, I may be wrong.
I can almost guarantee there will be a trial because I doubt the state will offer him anything less than second degree murder. If the state won't budge on second degree murder then why would the defense waive the right to a jury trial? The defense would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to trial. The state appears to have a good case so why would the state offer a deal?
I agree that the State may have a good case and may not want to bargain. However, in some instances, the charges may be more extensive than originally reported. The commission of a robbery is a felony, and a murder during that robbery is felony murder ... we'll have to see what the State actually charges him with, but I've included a brief explanation from one of our criminal masterminds at the firm. (I'm not a lawyer ... just the Administrator).
"If a homicide occurs during a robbery, then the homicide can be charged as Felony Murder. Felony murder is the commission of a homicide during the commission of a felony. Robbery is a felony. The commission of a felony includes much more time and all of the actions taken during that time than just the actual moment in which the crime is executed. The time and acts leading up to the robbery and the time and acts fleeing from the robbery can constitute a "commission of the crime" and a homicide occurring during that period of time is Felony Murder. A murder committed during the felony as the result of the actions or interference of another person can also constitute felony murder, whether the acts were intentional or accidental, and criminal liability can be imposed upon all participants involved in the felony including accomplices assisting before the commission of the crime and after the commission of crime."