Thursday, January 10, 2008

Take/Give The Money and Run

So exonerated death row inmate Nick Yarris has settled his $22 million lawsuit against the county for millions (unofficially $4m). He spends 22 years in jail under threat of a death sentence. And all he gets is $4 million. That $181,818.18 for each year of incarceration.

Is that enough?

My boss, Heron's Nest, says no. He says not even $22 million is enough. And who am I to disagree with him?

I'll tell ya' who: I'm F. Gilman F. Spencerblog, that's who! (And that F doesn't stand for Frederick.)

Here's how I look at it. Would I take $22 million to spend 22 years in jail? No.
But would I take $4 million after the fact to get on with my new life? You betcha.

Nick is now married, living in England with a wife and baby. He's 46, young enough to have to have a pretty nice and comfortable life ahead of him.

He took the money and ran. Good for him. That's what I'd do.

Compare him to H. Beatty Chadwick, who has spent 13 years in prison to hold on to a crummy $2 million of his own money, instead of sharing it with his ex.

Of course, when Chadwick went to jail he didn't expect to stay there on a contempt charge for 13 years.

Just goes to show a law degree doesn't confer wisdom and 21 years on death row don't necessarily remove all common sense.


Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Tough to type a response as I am laughing at how true those words are. Good for Nick Yarris!

January 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM 
Anonymous r said...

I can disagree with Phil.

Scumbag Nick Yarris shouldn’t have gotten anything more than 10 bucks and a bus token. He was a career predator criminal whose costs to society have been many: His crimes and prosecution and incarceration… his jail break and additional crimes while he was on the lam… Besides, he was no unwitting victim of the system; he implicated himself. Also, the DNA only cleared him of the rape, it did not exonerate him of his likely involvement in the crime. He has not been declared “innocent” by the justice system (like the truly unjustly accused Duke Rape defendants) but rather the insurance company decided to pay him off just to make him go away. Crap.
That the local Lib Media has embraced and promoted his cause is typical of their misplaced sympathies for scumbag criminals.

January 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM 
Anonymous e said...

Agreed r. It's not like they ripped this guy out of church and stuck him in jail. He took his $4 million settlement because he didn't want to have to prove that he was innocent in court. He couldn't do it before and he couldn't do it again. He got out because of a technicality not because he was innocent and he knows it so he took what he could get and moved to another country while the gettin' was good. Too bad he didn't move to France.

January 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Can't agree with you, boys.

An exculpatory DNA test is hardly a "technicality."

We're not talking about his not being read his Miranda warnings. We're talking about the blood evidence tying him to the victim being flat out wrong.

Just because someone is a scumbag doesn't mean they deserve 22 years behind bars.

Yarris told me he'd be dead of a drug overdose or a violent crime if he hadn't been locked up. He was honest enough to admit that. You should be honest enough to admit not only the possibility of his innocence but the probability of it.

January 11, 2008 at 6:01 PM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

After posting my personal opinion Here after meeting Nicky Yarris years ago, I received this e mail -

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:19:52 +0100 (BST) From: "Nicholas Yarris"
Subject: Thank you for your message my friend
Dear Francis,

I want to personally thank you for posting the public message that you wrote on my website. Each of the hundreds of visitors to my site each day will be glad to read how you have overcome your stuggles with being a drug addict who has dealt with the troubling sexual identiy problems you have.
You are my hero too buddy!
Always and forever,
Your best friend

My reply and his reply -

Franny Ward wrote:

Real funny there Nick. Now how about removing it. You know I did not post that, and I have proof by both your e mail, my referrer logs showing you coming from google to the blog post I did about you. I own Totally Delco, the Blog and all. I only reference you as I met
you a long time ago, you being a wise ass. (The Johnstons on Shields street? Bobby Carney, etc.

There are laws you must be aware of that prohibit impersonating someone else. I do not want this to get ugly. Just remove the fake post please.

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:41:54 +0100 (BST)

"Nicholas Yarris"

Subject:Re: Thank you for your message my friend

To:"Franny Ward"

Sir, I am deeply hurt that you feel slighted in any way by someone who posted a blog you claim is not yours!

I am also heart broken that someone who met me 26 years ago would feel that I was worthy of calling all sorts of names and belittling me in public. Imagine how I feel that someone who had the nerve to make up lies about me in public by saying that I made up lies about Mrs. Craig to get out of...DRUG charges would be allowed to get away with such lies...but that is what I have to deal with.

To say that I am someone who would then slander you in public in a pseudo-parody mocking you is very truobling. I am offended that you think I would be someone who is weak minded enough to spend time posting public things about another intionally trying to embarrass them. Now, please Francis, for the sake of all the people who have been hurt by things written on the net, take down all of the nasty things you wrote about me and apologize publicly.

Then I will contact my adminstrator and ask same be done for you.
Look at it this way, we re-established contact after all these years, and I am really happy that I have become such a positive inspiration to you and your family!
Love ya!

Sorry for the typos, etc, Yarris is STILL a punk in my book. Now he's a rich punk. I never posted anything on his web site. He falsely accused me of being a druggie and gay.

P.s. Gil, Ron Paul is not anti- semetic, nor racist. He is the best and only hope for America.


January 11, 2008 at 6:10 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

The guy is an all around freako scumbag POS. He deserved the 22 years.

January 11, 2008 at 9:11 PM 
Anonymous e said...

The DNA test that "exonerated" him was conducted on parts of the evidence 20 years after it was collected. Much of the other DNA Evidence that had been collected was no longer available, from inconclusive tests from the early 1990's.

When the evidence was collected, there was no such thing as DNA Evidence, so I'm sure it wasn't preserved using methods that might be used today. DNA Evidence, like all biological material, is subject to decomposition, so there was no guarantee that if Yarris' DNA was at the crime scene, that it could have been collected by accident, preserved for 20 years before it was tested using this new method of testing and used to affirm his conviction. Some of the things they can do with 20 year old evidence is miraculous. Of course if Yarris participated in this crime, he would know he wasn't wearing the gloves. It's known that there was more than one person present who committed this crime. Just because they couldn't find some Yarris DNA on in the last little bits of DNA that was available to be tested, 20 years after the crime was committed, doesn't mean that he wasn't there.

Did the District Attorney make the right call when they had his sentence vacated? Absolutely. There was no way this case could have been re-tried 20 years later. Does that mean that Yarris had nothing to do with this abduction, rape and murder? Absolutely not. It would be interesting to get DNA profiles for some of the people Yarris implicated to see if they match any of the results from the evidence.

Is it possible that he's innocent? Sure, anything is possible.

Is it possible that Mumia Abu-Jamal could win one of his appeals and walk out of jail someday? Absolutely. Would that make him innocent? If they found someone else's DNA on his gun 25 years later what would that mean? To me all it means is that they didn't find the bad guys DNA. Not that it wasn't there, it just wasn't found. That's why I say "a technicality".

January 11, 2008 at 9:37 PM 
Anonymous e said...

Also, if Yarris was truly innocent, why did he take the settlement? If that was you and you were truly innocent, would you just settle, or would you be looking for some payback. I would want a trial on Court TV. I'd want their jobs, I'd want someone to go to jail for making me go to jail. Instead, he quietly took a deal, for a lot of money but a fraction of what an innocent person who was jailed for 22 years deserves, and moved across the Atlantic Ocean.

I think the answer is that certain things that are not allowed to be presented in a criminal trial, can come out in civil court. While there may not be enough evidnce around to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, I think a civil trial could have been risky. Kind of like OJ Simpson. So he took his cash and ran. That girl's family should sue him in civil court for wrongful death or whatever Nicole Brown's family sued OJ for.

January 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home