In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Please Read This News Story
Bronco90
Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
I saw this story on my local news! I cannot belive that a CONVICTED MURDERER is released for a new trial?[:(!]
Bowling Green Man Faces New Trial
Gene Birk
Riccardo Vettraino was convicted in 1996 of shooting and killing Julie Speakman, and severely wounding her husband John, in the kitchen of their home in 1995. But in 2003, then Warren Circuit Judge John Minton set aside Vettraino's conviction, when it was learned Speakman had a gun in his night stand. That information had not been revealed in Vettraino's original trial, so now he gets a new one.
Today Judge John Grise set Vettraino's new trial for March 6, 2006. And Vettraino's attorney, David Broderick, says his client will soon be out of prison, once his $500,000 bond is met. That's to be done with $300,000 cash, and a $200,000 surety bond put up by Vettraino's family.
But there are conditions to Vettraino's release including: 24-hour home incarceration with electronic monitoring in his parents' residence in Michigan, and police can check at any time to make sure Vettraino is in his parents' home.
Nothing Frees My Spirit like the freedom I find in Hunting.
Bowling Green Man Faces New Trial
Gene Birk
Riccardo Vettraino was convicted in 1996 of shooting and killing Julie Speakman, and severely wounding her husband John, in the kitchen of their home in 1995. But in 2003, then Warren Circuit Judge John Minton set aside Vettraino's conviction, when it was learned Speakman had a gun in his night stand. That information had not been revealed in Vettraino's original trial, so now he gets a new one.
Today Judge John Grise set Vettraino's new trial for March 6, 2006. And Vettraino's attorney, David Broderick, says his client will soon be out of prison, once his $500,000 bond is met. That's to be done with $300,000 cash, and a $200,000 surety bond put up by Vettraino's family.
But there are conditions to Vettraino's release including: 24-hour home incarceration with electronic monitoring in his parents' residence in Michigan, and police can check at any time to make sure Vettraino is in his parents' home.
Nothing Frees My Spirit like the freedom I find in Hunting.
Comments
I have read statements by robbers that wounded/killed their intended victims and felt justified in doing so because the robber felt since the victim was trying to harm the robber by fighting back the robber was now in the position of merely trying to defend himself.
What a load of crap that many left-wing, liberal socialist idiots, the same idiots trying to disarm the American citizens, would believe.
They had a gun in their nightstand.....in the BEDROOM I presume.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china.
He should have been fried a long time ago.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
It is so despicably obvious.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
If you don't protect the absolute right all defendant to a fair trial your own justifiable self-defense event is endangered. If we don't protect the likes of Charles Manson's rights to a fair trial, who is going to help us against bogus allegations, evidence tampering or concealment?
This defendant may very well be convicted a second time.
Bail works for all innocent defendants even those charged for murder when their valid defense is self-defense. Why do so many Americans hate the thought of bail before a trial? I can't tell you how many thousands of times good citizens were lawfully defended themselves have had to spend up to three years in jail waiting for the trial that should clear them. You don't get that lost time added to your life after the jury sets you free.
Americans are too wrapped up in demanding convictions against anyone charged with a serious crime.
We must never lose sight of the real goal behind our justice system. It's better that the guilty go free than to see innocent men go to the gallows or simply have their lives destroyed by imprisonment.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
"Better to let 99 guilty go then convict one innocent"...I used to hear that when I was a boy.
What exactly does that have to do with THIS case ? Besides some pisant judges hatred of a citizen with a gun ,I mean...
Protecting the right to a fair trial is just as important as the right to bear arms to preserve a free society.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Usually have no problem following your posts. But on this thread, you lost me.
I agree that we need to keep an eye on the criminal justice system, but......
From only the info given here, how did the defendant NOT get a fair trial? The fact that the victim (and his DEAD wife) merely possessed a handgun, that was in ANOTHER ROOM (that they obviously could not get to) affects the original conviction.......how?
Are we now supposed to overturn a MURDER conviction, and give the defendant a new trial, just because of what the victim(s) owns? How about a butcher knife in the kitchen? Or because they owned an ax in the garage, or if he owns an Abrams tank that is in the back yard.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The defense should have been given the information. The defense then could have elected to raise the issue before the jury had they wanted to do so. Perhaps the jury would have voted to acquit but nobody knows for sure. The reality is there was NO vaild reason to hide that from the defense. The cops searched the areas of the house that they thought were important and uncovered the gun during a warrantless search under the crime scene exception rule. If the cops felt the search here was necessary the fruits of that search is in fact evidence.
The conduct here seems to indicate the prosecutor took a gamble to win the case at any and all cost. The remedy here is a new trial with the presumption of innocence. The intentional misconduct of the prosecutor should be a serious crime. I always ask what else the prosecutor hides? I've had several cases where every kind of evidence such as blood, fingerprints and weapons have been concealed and or destroyed by the cops with and without the prosecutor being involved in a conspiracy to deny an accused defendant a fair trial. Turning over evidence helpful to the defense does not provide much help to guilty defendants.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Defender,
Usually have no problem following your posts. But on this thread, you lost me.
I agree that we need to keep an eye on the criminal justice system, but......
From only the info given here, how did the defendant NOT get a fair trial? The fact that the victim (and his DEAD wife) merely possessed a handgun, that was in ANOTHER ROOM (that they obviously could not get to) affects the original conviction.......how?
Are we now supposed to overturn a MURDER conviction, and give the defendant a new trial, just because of what the victim(s) owns? How about a butcher knife in the kitchen? Or because they owned an ax in the garage, or if he owns an Abrams tank that is in the back yard.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Pickenup has got the questions right.
Of course we ALL want fair trials for everyone because someday we just might need a fair trial ourselves. But we also don't want some judge who hates citizens owning guns to decide and get away with making owning guns an unnessary and unfair liability as this would be unfair to lawful gun owners.
I mean, and as pickenup described, what possible effect could a gun in a drawer, that was in no way able to even be remotely involved in the crime (as I have read it) have to do with anything? Yet, because of that "innocent" and immaterial gun, look what the justice system has decide must now happen.
A CONVICTED VIOLENT MURDERER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE GETS ANOTHER ROLL OF THE DICE! He might get lucky and get found innocent because just one juror might have doubt about his guilt SINCE HE IS BEING GIVEN ANOTHER TRIAL!
Probably even after spending several millions of dollars on the best lawyers in the country the convicted killer could have not got another chance at freedom. Yet the justice system is going to give that killer another chance FOR FREE just because one of the innocent victims had a gun way, way out of reach and not involved with the actual crime scene?
Would the same thing have happened if it turned out that the victim had a flintlock rifle kit he was building and it was HALF COMPLETED LAYING THE IN THE GARAGE for God's sake?
If this is American justice as its finest it isn't good enough to pass the smell test.
Say the homeowner had the gun in his hand..trading shots with the perp. This info certainly needs to be given to the jury.
A gun in ANOTHER ROOM OF THE HOUSE..???? fOR God's sake...this sob of a judge says this is pertinent ? INSANITY.
Just too bad we couldn't give the benefit of the doubt here to...the HOMEOWNER..Instead of this sleazy scumbag...
Believe me, Defender..I despise dirty cops totally. This ain't a case of dirty cops...
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
The benifit of the doubt is not needed by the homeowners, because they're not on trial. The benifit of the doubt is what we always claim to reserve for the accused.
When it comes to defending the rights of the accused the real danger is where we dismiss the need for the rights of what we believe to be the worst criminals. Tampering with the fairness of trials can not be tolerated. If we don't protect the rights to a fair trial of the sleazy scumbags such as the John Hinkleys or the Charles Mansons who the Hell will protect yours or my rights?
It's up to a jury to decide with ALL of the facts possible. Lawbreaking cops and prosecutors have destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans who did kill or wound criminals by hiding evidence. I can give you many cases in Chicago, Phoenix, and Los Angeles that I have worked. Hiding evidence is a tool of Nazis or the gun rights haters.
How soon we forget how the rogue Bolsheviks of the Klinton/Reno administration handled Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge, Idaho and The Davidians at Waco, Texas. Government has enough tools to prosecute the guilty. Government should never be allowed to hide evidence from a criminal trial.
Beware of cops and prosecutors who demonize suspects before a trial. That's always a sign that they don't have as strong a case as they are selling the public.
Beware of changing the law for "Victim's Rights", that's the new buzz word of the last two decades used to get new laws prosecutors can use to hide evidence from juries.
* bags like that former prosecutor(thank God)Nancy Grace of Court TV will get a conviction at ANY cost. As her old prosecutions are being reversed(three so far)in Fulton County, GA. Today she uses the national pulpit of Court TV and CNN to demonize every defendant she can.
About the death penalty? I love to ask my dearest and most Conservative friends if they trust government enough to give it the power to kill our own citizens. The answer always begins, it depends on who is in power as they begin to re-think the idea of letting the likes of Klinton/Reno gang use the federal death penalty...
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
I do not see anyone here arguing with you about the need for a fair trial. Or about the past atrocities that have happened. (Waco, Ruby Ridge, and others, have NOT been forgotten here) What I do see is a few people who do not understand how just owning a firearm (that was NOT used in any way) would be grounds for "potentially" letting a CONVICTED murderer go free. THANKFULLY I am not that familiar with court proceedings, but it just seems like there is a huge piece of the puzzle missing here.
I was convicted of a traffic violation because one of the officers LIED in court. THREE times. The other officer there would NOT back up the first officer. The judge would NOT allow me to show a video that I had, that would provide proof of my innocents.
Fair trial?
I think NOT....
Near as I can tell, getting a fair trial (or the lack of it) is a pet peeve of yours, and you are using this thread to rant about it. Which is OK. Is that about right?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I suspect that the defendant may have been invited into the home and some violent even occurred.
I see no criminal history of any of the players on display here. Let's let this new trial run it's course.
The first demand I'd make is for lab testing to look for blood, tissue on that gun to learn if was somehow involved in the event. I've seen many a weapon grow legs and walk away from a crime scene. The If the defendant's new defense does not convince the jury with ALL the evidence he'll get convicted again.
I'm wondering just what the government's victim, John Speakman and the cops testified about the presence or not of a firearm in the home during the trial?
Retrial set for March 6
By Hayli Morrison, hmorrison@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3240
Friday, June 10, 2005
The retrial of Riccardo Vettraino, the 36-year-old man convicted in 1996 of murder and attempted murder in the shooting death of Julie Speakman and shooting of John Speakman at the couple's Cemetery Road home in October 1995, is set for March 6.
Vettraino was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years, but that was before then-Circuit Judge John Minton issued an order granting a new trial, saying that Kentucky State Police failed to the tell the prosecution and the defense about a handgun, apparently belonging to John Speakman, that was discovered in his bedroom.
Minton's order stated that KSP "did not act in bad faith in failing to gather the evidence," but that Vettraino's claim - that he acted in self-defense after being threatened with a gun by John Speakman that night - would have been "more believable" if the weapon was entered into evidence.
The new trial will now allow jurors to consider the option of self-defense, something which was not included in jury instructions from the first trial, according to David Broderick, who will represent Vettraino.
Vettraino was previously represented by Bowling Green-based attorney Gary Logsdon and then by public defender Brian Ruff.
After being released this morning from Warren County Regional Jail on $500,000 bond, 40 percent of which was surety with the remainder in cash, Vettraino is going to reside in his parents' home in Michigan.
There, he will be under home incarceration with 24-hour monitoring, will have to report to court regularly and will be subject to periodic visits and searches from area law enforcement officials.
"I think he feels very relieved that he's going to get an opportunity to present an appropriate defense in this trial that he was not entitled to at the last trial," Broderick said.
quote: What I do see is a few people who do not understand how just owning a firearm (that was NOT used in any way) would be grounds for "potentially" letting a CONVICTED murderer go free. Really?
I guess the defendant claimed there was a gun used against him and our trustworthy government played stupid about that evidence.
Why let a bogus conviction stand? My beef is that prosecutors hide evidence all the time on legitimate self-defense cases where their "suspect" only crime was to survive an attack. It begins as these prosecutors get to kick NRA members and gun owners off the jury the jury during selection. Then during the trial these slime-dog prosecutors refer to honest defendants self-appointed judge, jury and executioners or vigilantes. Then it's the constant vilification the defendant/victim for owning or carrying a self-defense firearm throughout the trial. The most common things prosecutors hide in self-defense cases are the violent history the victim and forensic testing of physical evidence helpful only to the defense.
We now know from the scant information provided here why the gun, even in a bedroom nightstand is relevant. The fact that the cops searched the bedroom nightstand at all makes that a part of the crime scene. The fact that the defense tried to raise self-defense where there was a gun after the cops covered that information up.
We still don't know from the information just what happened there that night ending in death and mayhem. You can be sure the trial judge felt the jury would have made a different verdict with the information about the gun.
The point is that without a fair trials for all accused of crimes gun ownership is a meaningless right. Example: Only pointing a gun at someone in Arizona gets you five years even if nobody is hurt. It's not a defense that you thought you were acting with justification. The burden of proof changes and you have to prove you were justified to avoid a bogus felony conviction and imprisonment. If they criminalize reasonable use of firearms it's the same as banning firearms.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Hello Halie,
I thought you might like to read this blog that contains your story:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=158995
You need to ask the defense attorney if he had that gun sent out (even 10 years later) for forensic testing to determine the presence of blood or human tissue. Blood, invisible to the naked eye can be found with the aid of a microscope. DNA tests may still be possible and if the gun contains the blood or tissue of the suspect or one of the victims it would prove the gun was at the scene of a bloody conflict. If the defense lawyer says, no comment, you can bet a quick court order sending that gun to a crime lab will land in the public corurt file.
Somehow I suspect that public defender never thought to do this testing.
Your questions here could lead to a great news story for you,
Good luck,
Defender
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Suspect in '96 murder is released for retrial
Conviction thrown out in Warren case
By Michael A. Lindenberger
mlindenberger@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
A Bowling Green man whose 1996 murder conviction was overturned was released from a state prison yesterday into the custody of his mother until his new trial begins March 3.
Ten years after he allegedly shot Julie Speakman to death in her kitchen and wounded Speakman's husband, Riccardo Vettraino was released after his parents, who live in Michigan, posted a $500,000 bond, said David Higgs, a spokesman for the Green River Correctional Complex in Central City.
Warren County Commonwealth's Attorney Chris Cohron said his office will retry Vettraino on murder and attempted murder charges, the same charges he had been convicted of.
Cohron said the charges do not qualify for the death penalty.
Vettraino had been serving a life sentence for murder and 20 years for attempted murder when his convictions were overturned in 2003 by then-Circuit Judge John Minton, who ruled the prosecution failed to disclose during the trial that a second weapon had been found at the crime scene.
Brian Ruff, the public defender who handled Vettraino's appeal, said the discovery of the second weapon in a back bedroom of the Speakman house could have swayed the jury to acquit Vettraino, since his trial lawyers had argued that Vettraino fired in self-defense.
In an interview from prison in 2003, Vettraino said he fired only after John Speakman, Julie Speakman's husband, brandished a gun when a discussion turned heated in the kitchen.
Vettraino has said he went to the Speakman home because his girlfriend, who worked for John Speakman, had complained her boss sexually assaulted her.
John Speakman was never charged on the claim.
Cohron declined to say yesterday how he will handle the issue of the second weapon at the new trial.
Efforts to reach John Speakman were unsuccessful. A message left with Johnnie Leonhardt, Speakman's daughter from a previous marriage, wasn't returned, and Cohron said Speakman has told him he doesn't want to talk to reporters.
In a previous interview, Leonhardt -- an investment adviser in Ohio -- said her father had never recovered emotionally from the loss of his wife.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals last year upheld Minton's ruling overturning Vettraino's convictions, and the Kentucky Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
On Tuesday, Warren Circuit Judge John Grise scheduled jury selection in the new trial to begin March 3.
Defense lawyer David Broderick of Bowling Green, who will represent Vettraino at the retrial, said yesterday that his client's parents posted a $500,000 bond, including $300,000 in cash or its equivalent.
The remaining $200,000 was secured by a surety bond. Broderick said Vettraino will be under 24-hour house arrest at his parents' Michigan home until the trial.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Of course the story can change, if you are going to provide NEW info.
From the original post, all we were told is that a convicted murderer was going to get a new trial JUST BECAUSE the victim "OWNED" a gun. There were NO implications of ANYTHING else. (Funny how the media can slant a story without lying, just my leaving OUT pertinent info, isn't it)
No, I didn't (and will not) look any farther into this particular case. If this is just a case of WHAT IF, or MAYBE, we could go on forever with POSSIBLE scenarios.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
I know we had zero information to comment upon. I just smelled a familiar rat here and dug right into the rat hole. I knew there had to be a lot more to this story. It's a great lesson for all of us...
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Yes it is and my thanks to you for your time and effort in providing that lesson [:)]
[:D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Hey, I had it right the whole time.
[:D]
-WW
I'm really sure your original post here was no yoke...
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
You are right, this was a case of jumping to conclusions, without knowing enough of the "facts" to make an informed decision. We (I) was guilty of this.
I hope the original poster of this thread [;)] posts a follow-up on this story. I am kind of curious as to how this one will turn out.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Well,Defender...you are certainly living up to your name. However...you defend the wrong person here.
Say the homeowner had the gun in his hand..trading shots with the perp. This info certainly needs to be given to the jury.
A gun in ANOTHER ROOM OF THE HOUSE..???? fOR God's sake...this sob of a judge says this is pertinent ? INSANITY.
Just too bad we couldn't give the benefit of the doubt here to...the HOMEOWNER..Instead of this sleazy scumbag...
Believe me, Defender..I despise dirty cops totally. This ain't a case of dirty cops...
Defender is right. Why should the cops at the scene or the Prosecutor get to decide what facts are relevant for the jury to hear? If they were to make such distinctions, what's to stop them from not turning over evidence that, while on its face might not appear relevant, but might turn out to be crucial to proving a person's innocence?
So many of you (especially you, Highball) profess a lack of trust in the government; if so, why do you suddenly trust them so much to decide what evidence is important for you to have? You might as well trust the government to decide what guns you should have.
The simple solution (and the law) is to have the prosecution turn over all its evidence to the Defendant. If the evidence truly doesn't help the defendant, then there is no reason to hide it and the prosecutors where just *profoundly* incompetent.
Always be on guard for prosecution abuses in every case. I can't remember when government was a true friend to gun owners. Always remember gun rights began as a protection from bad government. Unfair criminal prosecutions and trials are always the first sign of a government going bad.
I've learned long ago that once cops and prosecutors make mistakes by prosecuting the wrong man or learned later that their crime victims wern't crime victims after all, they prosecute anyway instead of seeking justice.
I used to LOVE the death penalty until I saw first hand that giving that power to government was and is dangerous to freedom and liberty.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
---Martin Niemoeller
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
One gets so used to Liberal judges releasing criminals that automatically the mental connection is made...another vicious Criminal is released.
This appears from your research to be entirely different...and perhaps a innocent man in jail.
One thing I would be interested in...Why wwas the woman killed.?
Care to enlighten us or just like diggin up old threads for your first post?
Just take it....from someone who knows.[8)]
dammit, for a second there i thought HB was back. maybe some day
I noticed he is no longer locked out[^]
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
dammit, for a second there i thought HB was back. maybe some day
I noticed he is no longer locked out[^]
what?!?!?!?
Oh wow! You are correct![:D]
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
dammit, for a second there i thought HB was back. maybe some day
I noticed he is no longer locked out[^]
what?!?!?!?
Oh wow! You are correct![:D]
Perhaps he will return........perhaps not I think he has much respect for Captfun.....and chooses to stay away[V] he could have logged on anytime as Canaryassno1. Sure is Quiet around hear without him though I hope he returns....
This case or any case has an impact on gun owners who are caught up in our badly broken criminal justice system for possession of, the lawful use of a firearm to defend self, family or a third person/s.
Protecting the right to a fair trial is just as important as the right to bear arms to preserve a free society.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Doesn't the home owner and his dead wife deserve fairness also? The perpetrator was inside a home that he had not been invited into. A woman died and her husband was shot. Would it have made any difference if the home owner had had a bazooka in the house? Now the husband will have to go through another lengthy trial and relive his nightmare. What happens if the perp realizes that his chances of being convicted again are too great to stay at home and he runs from the law? If he breaks the law and kills again, how will his next victims receive justice? The perp has nothing to lose by skipping on his next court date.
Some other interesting facts are: No bullet could be confirmed or eliminated as having been fired from Vettraino's gun. Speakman's story changed every time the police interviewed him, and then again in court. A ballistic expert paid by the court reported that there was no way the shooting happened the way the prosecution described. According to the police notes, Speakman ADMITTED having a gun in the kitchen (where shooting took place) even though the police didn't find it, and it somehow was found in the bedroom later. The police could tell where Vettraino was based on the trajectory of his bullets, yet the bullet that killed the wife landed BEHIND Vettraino.