In thinking about why Rawlings-Blake decided to not run in 2016, had a couple of "guesses".

From Bama's link above there is:

She spent recent months ramping up her campaign by building a field organization in the city, hosting fundraisers and courting voters with events such as "Mondays with the Mayor" at local bars and restaurants.

The mayor's decision came a day before she was scheduled to formally open her campaign headquarters in Remington and two weeks before a large, Sept. 24 fundraiser at the Hippodrome Theater.

City Councilman Robert W. Curran, who was supporting Rawlings-Blake, said he first became suspicious about the mayor's campaign when he stopped by the Remington office and found it empty two days ago.

"There were no signs up anywhere outside. The place was closed up," Curran said. "I've been doing elections a long time. Two days before a campaign headquarters opens you would have signs.

"It was a tomb," he added. "Now I know why."

So if she spent months building an organization and hosting fundraisers, it may have become obvious to her she didn't have the support needed to win.

With the trials, there is a likelihood of riots after any acquittals. If all are convicted, she probably will have the worst police relationship in the country.

Or maybe it is something entirely different.

Obama has a Federal Post for her, watch and see, she carried his message and will get her rewards, maybe a Federal Judgeship.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...83aacba64_story.html

Jamal Bryant, a prominent Baltimore pastor who delivered the eulogy for Freddie Gray and organized protests after his death, announced Monday that he will run for the seat of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

Bryant entered the Democratic primary race amid speculation that Cummings will make a Senate run. Cummings has said he is still considering the move, but he has taken no formal steps toward a campaign for the seat being vacated by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.).

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Obama has a Federal Post for her, watch and see, she carried his message and will get her rewards, maybe a Federal Judgeship.

You are probably correct. Obama will take care of his sycophants.

The Feds will dump 10,000 Syrian "refugees" in Baltimore. Anybody else thinking fire + gasoline?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...s-with-federal-help/

Two groups: By any chance, would that be a white group and a black group? Just curious.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/...about-no-seat-belts/

Several of the officers want charges thrown out, claiming there’s nothing criminal about failing to put seat belts on inmates in vans.

This is a central issue in the case. And while police policy here in Baltimore mandates officers belt passengers in, that’s not the case in most of Maryland. Some argue it’s for officer safety.

In other counties –like Harford, Howard, Anne Arundel and Baltimore–the transport vans don’t even have seat belts. “At no point was he secured in a seat belt in the wagon contrary to a BPD general order,” said Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore City State’s Attorney.

The order the state’s attorney refers to in Baltimore City requires a seat belt or restraining device around the inmate’s waist.

It’s dated just nine days before Gray’s arrest, and has not changed since.

But officers’ lawyers point out in a new motion, they “…have no statutory duty to seat belt a prisoner in [the] back of a transport van.” And “…a police transport van is…not required to be equipped with seat belts under the federal motor vehicle safety standards.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...eddie-gray-case-say/

Prosecutors have asked a Baltimore judge to try an officer first in the Freddie Gray case because they say the officer will be called as a witness to testify against at least two other members of the force.

Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow asked Judge Barry Williams in a letter earlier this week to schedule Officer William Porter's trial first because he is "a necessary and material witness in the cases against" Officer Caesar Goodson and Sgt. Alicia White.

Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller, and Lt. Brian Rice are also facing criminal charges in the case. Each will be tried separately.

The state also offered an alternative order, but didn't say why.

quote:

Several of the officers want charges thrown out, claiming there’s nothing criminal about failing to put seat belts on inmates in vans.

This is a central issue in the case. And while police policy here in Baltimore mandates officers belt passengers in, that’s not the case in most of Maryland. Some argue it’s for officer safety.

That would be the brakes of this case, if not for the political fervor.

Though given some of the things I've read about Freddie Gray's history of self injury for profit, I've been wondering if that would be strong enough for reasonable doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...eddie-gray-case-say/

Prosecutors have asked a Baltimore judge to try an officer first in the Freddie Gray case because they say the officer will be called as a witness to testify against at least two other members of the force.

Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow asked Judge Barry Williams in a letter earlier this week to schedule Officer William Porter's trial first because he is "a necessary and material witness in the cases against" Officer Caesar Goodson and Sgt. Alicia White.

Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller, and Lt. Brian Rice are also facing criminal charges in the case. Each will be tried separately.

The state also offered an alternative order, but didn't say why.

Hmmmmm. Like everything about this case, this smells...

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
The Feds will dump 10,000 Syrian "refugees" in Baltimore. Anybody else thinking fire + gasoline?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...s-with-federal-help/

Such convenient access to DC.......security checkpoints for all!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20150923-story.html


The trials of six officers charged in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray could be postponed after prosecutors turned over more evidence and defense attorneys requested additional materials.

The first trial had been tentatively scheduled to begin next month.

The order and timing of the officers' trials could have a major impact on the cases.

Officer William G. Porter is tentatively set to be tried first, on Oct. 13. Prosecutors have said he is a "necessary and material witness" in their cases against Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. and Sgt. Alicia D. White, and therefore must be tried before them.

Porter's attorneys filed a motion on Sept. 18 requesting more information about the DNA evidence the state intends to use.

If officers who made incriminating statements about their peers are not tried before them, they could refuse to take the stand in those trials to avoid self-incrimination in their own pending trials.


In a letter to Williams, prosecutors wrote that because of those concerns, they want to try Porter first, followed by Goodson, White, Miller, Nero and Rice.

If Porter's case must be postponed, they wrote, they could try Miller first, followed by Porter and the rest of the officers in the same order.

I hope there is enough common sense left in the world that these officers get a fair trial...

I'm increasingly worried that they will be fed to the wolves in effort to keep the city from burning.

the city is going to burn anyway

I wonder how much money she raised to put in her pocket before Zippy makes her the next AG?

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
I hope there is enough common sense left in the world that these officers get a fair trial...

I'm increasingly worried that they will be fed to the wolves in effort to keep the city from burning.

I have no doubt that this is the intention. I'm also wondering what the "material winnesses" they want to have tried first are expected to provide the prosecution.

I still want to see/hear the evidence. So many people are assuming things before the facts have even been presented. Maybe these guys are being railroaded. Maybe not. Maybe a few of them are, but a few of them aren't.

That's the whole point of a trial isn't it? If any are guilty, send them to jail. If they aren't, then set them free and let them bring suits against those doing the railroading.

I would like to think that there would be some evidence of wrong doing for the charges to have been brought. But I also know from first hand experience that isn't always the case. The trial won't go so well for the prosecution if that's the case.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I still want to see/hear the evidence. So many people are assuming things before the facts have even been presented. Maybe these guys are being railroaded. Maybe not. Maybe a few of them are, but a few of them aren't.

That's the whole point of a trial isn't it? If any are guilty, send them to jail. If they aren't, then set them free and let them bring suits against those doing the railroading.

I would like to think that there would be some evidence of wrong doing for the charges to have been brought. But I also know from first hand experience that isn't always the case. The trial won't go so well for the prosecution if that's the case.

At this point, I wonder how much evidence, and prelim testimony, has been fabricated, destroyed, tainted, coerced, and is wholly unreliable. Also, because of the media and culture, have most of the potential jurors already cemented their opinions? I have no confidence truth will emerge or justice will be done. The whole thing will be a nauseating circus.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I still want to see/hear the evidence. So many people are assuming things before the facts have even been presented. Maybe these guys are being railroaded. Maybe not. Maybe a few of them are, but a few of them aren't.

That's the whole point of a trial isn't it? If any are guilty, send them to jail. If they aren't, then set them free and let them bring suits against those doing the railroading.

I would like to think that there would be some evidence of wrong doing for the charges to have been brought. But I also know from first hand experience that isn't always the case. The trial won't go so well for the prosecution if that's the case.

At this point, I wonder how much evidence, and prelim testimony, has been fabricated, destroyed, tainted, coerced, and is wholly unreliable. I have no confidence truth will emerge or justice will be done. The whole thing will be a nauseating circus.

If the prosecution does not get convictions it will be a miracle.

The prosecutor is corrupt and comes from a family that has an axe to grind against the police and is out to get a guilty verdict at any cost.

They got the perfect judge - they could not have shopped anywhere in the country and found a better judge for the prosecution - see page 2 of this thread for his bio.

They have a jury pool drawn from the people who were out protesting in the streets against the police.

If they can't get a conviction given these conditions, the officers are not only 'not guilty', but completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:...

If the prosecution does not get convictions it will be a miracle.

The prosecutor is corrupt and comes from a family that has an axe to grind against the police and is out to get a guilty verdict at any cost.

They got the perfect judge - they could not have shopped anywhere in the country and found a better judge for the prosecution - see page 2 of this thread for his bio.

They have a jury pool drawn from the people who were out protesting in the streets against the police.

If they can't get a conviction given these conditions, the officers are not only 'not guilty', but completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Gosh Bama, in my post I wasn't thinking so much of bribes, blackmail, covert and overt corruption. Maybe I was a bit optimistic, things could easily be worse than I imagined.

quote:

At this point, I wonder how much evidence, and prelim testimony, has been fabricated, destroyed, tainted, coerced, and is wholly unreliable. Also, because of the media and culture, have most of the potential jurors already cemented their opinions? I have no confidence truth will emerge or justice will be done. The whole thing will be a nauseating circus.

Certainly possible. And if you're a police officer that engages in this same behavior, be careful. Somebody you do it to may have a private investigator follow you around and expose your peeping tom (or other illegal) activities.

quote:

The prosecutor is corrupt and comes from a family that has an axe to grind against the police and is out to get a guilty verdict at any cost.

So what if one or more of them is actually guilty and there is evidence to back up the accusations? Shouldn't the prosecutor be out to get a guilty verdict at any cost?

I'm just saying that before we start talking about how horrible the prosecution is, and how innocent the accused are, we should wait to see the evidence.

Then we can bitch, rightfully so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: a1abdj,