Prison Escapee Captured 28 Years Later

Thomason

Thomason

Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
9,375
The Austin Texas newspaper ran a front page story today about a man who was stopped for a traffic violation and discovered to be an escapee from a North Carolina prison 28 years ago. He had served one year of a ten year drug conviction and escaped in 1977. A rookie cop pulled him over for no inspection sticker. He became suspicious and ran a state and federal check. The guy had lead a normal life since he escaped. Got married, has a 22 year old daughter, moved to Austin in 1980.

The funny thing is that he worked for me for about two years in the late 90’s. I was pretty surprised to see his picture on the front page. Ya never know.
 
Thomason said:
The Austin Texas newspaper ran a front page story today about a man who was stopped for a traffic violation and discovered to be an escapee from a North Carolina prison 28 years ago. He had served one year of a ten year drug conviction and escaped in 1977. A rookie cop pulled him over for no inspection sticker. He became suspicious and ran a state and federal check. The guy had lead a normal life since he escaped. Got married, has a 22 year old daughter, moved to Austin in 1980.

The funny thing is that he worked for me for about two years in the late 90’s. I was pretty surprised to see his picture on the front page. Ya never know.
Click to expand...

I bet the wife and daughter got a surprise too! :eek:
 
The article said he told his wife after about two years after they were married. The daughter did not know (does now). He wasn't a bad sort, kind of jerk though.
 
Was he using his original name all this time, the same as he had been arrested and convicted under?
 
Yeeooww...I dont know if i could live like that for so long...I would personally never be able to let my guard down or settle into an routine...but this guy must have been doing something right to be out for so long!
 
He was using an alias but evidently the Feds knew the name as an a.k.a.
The cop ran the alias in the system check for local and state and it came back clean. He then ran a Fed check and found out about the name and the escape. The cop said the picture from Feds looked like the Texas driver's license. The Fed report also said he had a big scar on his right arm. The officer ask to see his arm and it was all over. I remember that our payroll/personnel section was having trouble with his SSN. He quit after being pressed to get a new number.
 
I don't seem like the type to say such a thing....

but....

If the guy has been out for 28 years and they just now caught him....they should leave him be. It was for drugs...? Come on. Personally I think anything drug related is a waste of time. It's just goofy...if you put people away for drugs you have to do it with Alcohol and Tobacco too. Just my take.
 
Classic problem. Do each of us get to announce which laws we will uphold and which we get to designate as goofy? Write your Congressman to cxhange the laws you don't believe are well-founded, but if you're called to serve on a jury, you are sworn to decide the facts at law.
 
"If the guy has been out for 28 years and they just now caught him....they should leave him be. It was for drugs...? Come on. Personally I think anything drug related is a waste of time. It's just goofy...if you put people away for drugs you have to do it with Alcohol and Tobacco too. Just my take."

Ditto, but you never know the circustances of the original arrest. Often in cases like this the defendant gets paroled quickly if they've been out of trouble and a productive member of society since the original arrest. Don't know if they'll look as kindly on someone who actually broke out of prison, vs. someone who was accidentally released or merely skipped bail. Often too, they merely finish their original sentence with extra probabtion tacked on.

In this instance, a heap of community service would best serve society.

Just my thoughts,
Bob
 
"Write your Congressman to cxhange the laws you don't believe are well-founded, but if you're called to serve on a jury, you are sworn to decide the facts at law."

Um....

"Jury nullification is a jury's right to deliver a not-guilty verdict even where such a verdict clearly conflicts with the letter of the law. The right of jury nullification comes from English common law, and is therefore preserved in those legal systems derived from it. These include most English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
 
Um, yourself ...

Wikipedia is a great source of information, but it cannot be authoritative.

I stand by what I said. Jury nullification is most effective the less it is used. Try making it the norm, and you will see how long that aspect of common law holds out against the legislature, let alone the judiciary.

The jury is still sworn to uphold the law, not write its own.
 
the law is arbitrarily applied through the whole judicial system.

From the policeman on the street up through activist judges deciding that voted-upon state LAWS are unconstitutional. Homo love, anyone?

I think the guy should have gotten a bunch of community service, too, though no one asked me.

I hate the gun laws in my state, and your state too. I called Dianne FeinSchwein's office, and got a letter in the mail a few weeks later (I gave my work address) blowing smoke up my caboose. Surely, you do not think the best way to change a law is for an individual to call a Congressperson?

The best way is to form a PAC, and align it with a powerful lobby, like the NRA, but they choose their fights very, very carefully.

They are not going to change the laws on prison escapees convicted of drug offenses. There is no money in it.

I respect the hell out of your opinions, but I just think that you are fundamentally wrong on this one. I will never serve on a jury, because my opinions and appearance are automatic "passes". I do not feel that I will ever be judged by a jury of MY peers because they are too rare in this society of ours.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Well, Esav, regardless of your opinions on jury nullification, it appears to be an ability the jurors have.

And Kohai, it is one of the duties of judges to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. If by doing so, they become "active", then I'm all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top