NOTGUILTY Daniel Penny on Trial for manslaughter and negligent homicide of Jordan Neely #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been posting on this case from the start I know that post wording came off in a way that must of been a thrilling gotcha.

But I don't have my facts wrong it was a turn of phase regarding the treatment of JN that was confusing to someone who has not been following along or is deliberately obtuse despite reading my postings.





You have your facts wrong. The case was against Penny, who was defending the straphangers who were in fear of the homeless guy. The case was not against the homeless guy. Facts matter, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have your facts wrong. The case was against Penny, who was defending the straphangers who were in fear of the homeless guy. The case was not against the homeless guy. Facts matter, IMO.

It has often felt very different whilst reading this thread. In here it has very much felt like the victim was the one on trial.
MOO.
 
The autism community is scared right now, that's for sure. Anyone acting oddly in public has just become a target.
I don't think so. This wasn't about someone 'not acting right.' Screaming about someone having to die tonight is much different than autism, imo.
 

I'm so saddened to read that "Uncle" Walter 'Hawk' Newsome thinks promoting violence is appropriate.

Instead of giving him this platform -- why not ask Newsome what he did to assist keeping Jordan Neely in the generous opportunity 30 yr old Neely received from Prosecutor Weisgerber and the Court only weeks before the incident leading to his death, and where Neely walked out of Harbor House, a safe shelter and treatment center after less than two weeks.

This is so tiring. A big mouth to blame but never to help the victim.

The moment Neely walked from the program, I promise there was no Newsome to help Neely realize the gift he was offered. MOO :(

“This is a wonderful opportunity to turn things around, and we’re glad to give it to you,” Mary Weisgerber, a prosecutor, said.

“Thank you so much,” Mr. Neely replied.

But just 13 days later, he abandoned the facility. Judge Biben issued a warrant for his arrest.
 
It has often felt very different whilst reading this thread. In here it has very much felt like the victim was the one on trial.
MOO.

In a way, the "victim" did have to be on trial to prove that the actions of Daniel were a direct result of the actions of Neely. Neely had harmed others in the past - innocent people!! He had been given multiple chances which he rebuked. He was not an innocent rider on the subway that day. He was a disturbance that threatened everyone. He had harmed others in the past and we can't sit here today and say with certainty that he wouldn't have hurt someone that day. Many testified that they were scared of him that day - without even having the knowledge that we do that he harmed someone in the past. He said someone will die today. How would you feel? How would you feel if you were holding a child and a deranged person starts screaming that someone is going to die?
 
In a way, the "victim" did have to be on trial to prove that the actions of Daniel were a direct result of the actions of Neely. Neely had harmed others in the past - innocent people!! He had been given multiple chances which he rebuked. He was not an innocent rider on the subway that day. He was a disturbance that threatened everyone. He had harmed others in the past and we can't sit here today and say with certainty that he wouldn't have hurt someone that day. Many testified that they were scared of him that day - without even having the knowledge that we do that he harmed someone in the past. He said someone will die today. How would you feel? How would you feel if you were holding a child and a deranged person starts screaming that someone is going to die?
Well we will always disagree that Penny didn't need to put him in a chokehold for 6 minutes and "put him down". Yes, we don't know if Neely would have hurt someone but he hadn't and didn't. Penny could have held him down without killing him IMO.
 
MOD NOTE: STOP posting ugly things about JN's father. Websleuths is a victim friendly forum, and JN's father is a victim per the rules. If you need a refresher of the rules, the links are below this post.

Zero tolerance from here on out.
 
The very notion that NP intended to injure or kill Mr Neely when he and others subdued him to stop him from carrying out his threat to kill somebody is insane!

It follows why police did not arrest or charge DP following the incident. Instead, the NY politico machine drove the narrative and 12 days later the DA charged DP with manslaughter.

Intent is a crucial factor when charging citizens with felonies -- glad the jury got it right, twice. MOO

To help, 24/7/365 street outreach across all 5 NY boroughs -- Dial 3-1-1
You should call 911 if the individual appears to pose an immediate risk to themselves or others or there is criminal activity.

________________________




11/22/24

The medical examiner, Dr. Cynthia Harris, determined that Mr. Neely died from “compression of the neck,” and held firm to her findings through three days of testimony. However, an expert Mr. Penny’s legal team called to testify, Dr. Satish Chundru, rebutted that.

Dr. Chundru, a forensic pathologist, said Mr. Neely died from “combined effects.”

“Sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint and the synthetic marijuana,” he listed for jurors. He argued that Mr. Penny had struggled with Mr. Neely but had not choked him to death.

[..]

Dr. Chundru said that people rarely die from the trait alone, but combined with the other factors Mr. Neely faced, it could become deadly. (i.e., life-threatening condition that can deform red blood cells into crescent shapes that stick together and block blood flow).
 
I hope he enjoys his evening, and that there are people there who will shake his hand.

I saw part of a full video and while he handled the reporters questions, at one point he walked away. He didn't want this spotlight upon him. I felt so proud of him yet so sad for him, too. He didn't deserve any of what has happened to him... at all. Maybe it's the mom part of me but I hope he continues to smile... from his heart AND understand he did the right thing.

jmo
 
I saw part of a full video and while he handled the reporters questions, at one point he walked away. He didn't want this spotlight upon him. I felt so proud of him yet so sad for him, too. He didn't deserve any of what has happened to him... at all. Maybe it's the mom part of me but I hope he continues to smile... from his heart AND understand he did the right thing.

jmo
That is why I have considered him to be a victim too. He didn’t deserve this at all.
 
Now that the jury is dismissed, and free to follow the news about the case, I wonder if they will be somewhat shocked to know more about JN's lengthy history. I also wonder if they will be afraid that someone who is not happy with their decision will sleuth out their name and address. JMO
 
Now that the jury is dismissed, and free to follow the news about the case, I wonder if they will be somewhat shocked to know more about JN's lengthy history. I also wonder if they will be afraid that someone who is not happy with their decision will sleuth out their name and address. JMO
Has that ever happened before?
 
Apparently the judge himself will release the names of the jury after the trial. In the trial of Derek Chauvin, the judge waited until he deemed it safe.

 
Apparently the judge himself will release the names of the jury after the trial. In the trial of Derek Chauvin, the judge waited until he deemed it safe.


I don't think jurors identities should ever be released in any case. If they want to reveal themselves that is up to them, but they should have the right to anonymity. They didn't choose to be jurors. JMO
 
Last edited:
Apparently the judge himself will release the names of the jury after the trial. In the trial of Derek Chauvin, the judge waited until he deemed it safe.

In this case? I couldn't see anything online about it. I hope the judge thinks about the safety of the jurors. They should he able to reveal themselves only if they want to IMO.
 
I think it would be a lot more sensical for this BLM representative to call out the health and governmental systems that failed JN in the lead up to his death, rather than calling for vigilantism against DP…
In that regard, they’d probably find support amongst those who were happy with DP’s innocence, too. Calling for vigilantism will only divide further.

Just imo.
 
While the public and press have a First Amendment right to open court proceedings, and criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, it appears to me that the Constitution of each State is open to being interpreted differently from state to state -- thus making the rules around juror anonymity inconsistent.

In other words, NY State Freedom of Information Law exempts juror qualification questionnaires from public disclosure and while judges have the discretion to keep juror names confidential, this may be waived if the interests of justice requires it.

Invasions of juror privacy are generally considered an acceptable trade-off for these rights (First & Sixth Amendment). However, compelling circumstances, such as threats to juror safety or the integrity of the judicial process, can justify overriding juror privacy.

Fortunately, Grand jurors in New York State must still preserve the secrecy of their proceedings.

§ 1863(b)(7), names and personal information concerning petit and grand jurors are not disclosed to attorneys, parties, the public or the media, except in open court or upon order of the court.

More recently, in the state of Massachusetts, I'm reminded that a Superior Court Judge acted to indefinitely extend an Order impounding the jury list, writing that one juror believed panelists would face “a real and present risk” of harm if their names were made public. The Judge had initially impounded the jury list for only 10 days.

And given the public appetite for invading the privacy of jurors, I'd like to think every prudent juror today will think to send an unsolicited affidavit-- outlining a range of concerns if the jury were publicly identified, through their attorney, to the Court-- upon delivering a verdict and being dismissed by the Court! JMO

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
548
Total visitors
729

Forum statistics

Threads
625,604
Messages
18,506,894
Members
240,821
Latest member
MMurphy
Back
Top