Based on what you know from the coverage of the case, do you think you would find Gundersen Guilty or Not Guilty?
Related coverage, with links
UPDATED:
◼ Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012
****
I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteI would have wait to hear the admissable evidence before deciding. Information from newspapers, blogs and rumors is not always admissable and everyone is entitled to be judged according to the evidence presented.
ReplyDelete1026 echoes my earlier post which seems to have disappeared even after the "comment saved" window appeared. This question is inappropriate, panders to those willing to judge a case on media reports and pre existing bias, and should be withdrawn. [ copy saved to send to heraldo and eric if it "disappears" again.
ReplyDeleteNo comments have been deleted or intercepted here, and no other comments have come through on this thread, 10:57. Go ahead and re-post your comment, make sure you type in the stupid word verification thing. Your comments are welcome.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Rose's purpose in asking this question is to aid Clanton in his request for a change of venue. She would do anything to hurt Gallegos.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to do anything to hurt Gallegos. He takes care of that all on his own. And I have absolutely zero incentive to do anything to help Clanton, who helped Gallegos get elected and assured people that once he was, they would be rid of those they feared such as Dikeman and Jackson. I find it ironic that the two are at odds here, since the conventional wisdom (word on the street) was that if you wanted to get off, get Clanton. For different reasons than you would hire Bill Bragg.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think Gallegos should recuse himself, I see no reason for a change of venue because I agree with the comments above, My reason for asking is curiosity, based on comments in the coffee shop, people have alot of questions.
Why was the wife granted immunity for example. Who brought the guns and prescriptions home, Him? Or her? They both worked in the same office/department. For example. Dysfunctional relationship? No question. But rape? People have questions and concerns.
So, I'm asking. based only on the information you have from the papers, what do you see? Obviously, from previous threads, many see an absolute rapist. Others see an sad an unhappy relationship.
You gallegos apologists really know no bounds. I find it amusing that you would even think that Rose would “want to” aid Clanton in his request for a change of venue. Perhaps the reason why you are so obsessed with the idea that “she would do anything to hurt Gallegos.” is because you would do anything to keep the incompetent moron in office.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact you would turn so blindly away from the disturbing facts of this case are telling. Telling of the fact that you are psuedo-liberals...liberals in name only that don’t give a rats ass about right and wrong nor what is acceptable for government. Gallegos’ tactics are wrong here, he would stoop at anything to get “the enemy.” Unfortunately, his job was to defend the constitution and the laws of this state and NOT to shit on the constitutional rights of victims and defendants to forward his own warped agenda.
1155 rocks. Every time Rose (or anyone else) points out the glaring inadequacies of PVG as demonstrated in any given case, the Dear Leader's faithful accuse the infidel critic of seeking to aid the defendant. Sorry, gang, but justice is a process, not just a result, and PVG has corrupted the process as well as effectively destroyed an office. Too bad he didn't have yougo go after the Whitethorn rapists as if they were police officers, that secnd girl might not have been raped and sodomized. Oh, wait, those were southern humboldt dopers who just happened to be rapists. Never mind.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how you guys try and turn a day filled with bad news for the DA haters into one where you can moan and gripe. But hey, you guys have moved on from "Gunderson will be out of jail soon, the DA's wife is doing this" to "The DA doesn't stand a chance" to "Theres something wierd about all this" to "All the charges will be dropped, absolutly no evidence" to now you're basically saying "The DA will do anything to get the enemy"
ReplyDeleteNUTJOBS!
See, that's the way you read it, 3:25, but, in fact, the message has not changed. See what the evidence really shows. This Office under Gallegos has a habit of trying cases in the public, most spectacularly by Stoen, but also by Gallegos.
ReplyDeleteAll of the things you cite are still in question.
And, for your earlier criticism, I would remind you that I waited to ask the question until jury selection began in this case because anyone in the jury pool will have been instructed NOT to read news reports - or blogs - pertaining to the case. Nor even to discuss the case with anyone.
Gotta chime in on this.
ReplyDelete"Gunderson will be out of jail soon, the DA's wife is doing this"
NASTY
"The DA doesn't stand a chance"
DELUSIONAL
"Theres something wierd about all this"
PARANOID
"All the charges will be dropped, absolutly no evidence"
DELUSIONAL
"The DA will do anything to get the enemy"
PARANOID
Oh, Rose! I've got you and your cabal down to a formula. Let me guess what comes next for you? Jury tampering? Let Lady Justice do her work!
I think Rose is guilty and needs a change of venue.
ReplyDelete4:22 PM:"Let Lady Justice do her work."
ReplyDelete"As long as Gundersen swings".
It seems like if Gallegos was as crooked and Clanton such a great friend of his like you claim Gallegos would have dropped the charges when Clanton took the case.
ReplyDeleteI said it was ironic. But there are other factors than friendship at work here.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you like to talk about conflation of issues, let's just add that you are conflating comments from others with comments of mine. Perhaps you don't understand the difference. I think the only one of mine above is that I have stated numerous times that there is something weird about this.
Things will go the way they go. Alot of people are watching this and the Douglas/Zanotti case.
Did you ever think you are conflating all the anonymous into one anonymous? You really should work on that self esteem. Its quite possible that more than one person aside from your groupies reads this.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. We get each other's point, then. It's a start.
ReplyDeleteThere actually was a lot of admissible evidence presented at the Preliminary Hearing. Law enforcement and civilian witnesses testified. A Judge made findings of fact, and an information with 33 felonies was filed. Then a Dismissal 995 Motion was filed, and the Judge upheld 29/31 felonies. So all of you Gallegos-haters who decry the system, have failed to recognize that the system has so far worked, in this case. You pro-rapist Gallegos- haters just don't like the results.
ReplyDeleteOh well. Let us wait for the Jury and the admissible evidence, and not what you read in the papers. Remember Dewey defeats Truman, and Al Gore won Florida in 2000. It turns out early reports are not always accurate, and newspapers don't always catch everything.
Ahhhh. At long last. We have reached agreement.
ReplyDeleteYou know I am getting pretty tired of the Gallegos clones saying that if you question that incompetent bastard then you must be a pro-rapist. It is simply disgusting and an outright lie.
ReplyDeleteMany of us happen to believe in transparency in government and a DA who should be concerned with making sure constitutional rights are upheld for both victims and defendants. So, if we demand it we become pro-rapists? Hardly.
It's ok to criticize the government for prosecuting al quaeda terrorists, and to scream about the death of the bill of rights in the context of foreign fighters trying to murder us all for not wearing burquas, but criticize PVG for trampling victims, hiding facts, and generally mishandling the witnesses, and the faithful want you waterboarded.
ReplyDeleteGallegos is prosecuting Al Qaida terrorists?
ReplyDeleteYa hadn't heard that? :)
ReplyDeleteWell, I heard that Eric V. Kirk is defending them... but we should probably keep that quiet.
ReplyDelete(;
Ah, what the hell! Run with it, Anonymous!
I would like to hear about the use of ambien and the psychotic reactions people have had. Sleep driving, having sex, going to dinner and not having any recollection of it. That adds an interesting element to the charges.
ReplyDeleteI think it is Lunesta, not Ambien...red said... I believe that earlier accounts in the media specifically named Lunesta as the drug, which is not otc but requires a script. Your point is well taken though even with a presription drug. Even better really, because there are documented accounts of people taking Lunesta and, while unconscious, engaging in tasks such as driving and having sex, while apparently conscious. Indeed, it's on the fricking Lunesta website. I am agog to see how PVG deals with that issue.
ReplyDeleteA quick google Lunesta Revealed: 7 Things You Must Know Before You Buy Lunesta ...
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about memory problems; also known as amnesia. When you're treating insomnia with Lunesta, you may have trouble remembering things if you go to ...
ezinearticles.com/ ?Lunesta-Revealed:-7-Things-You-Must-Know-Before-You-Buy-Lunesta-Prescriptions&id=55353
Lunesta Memory Problems
Aug 15, 2005 ... Lunesta Memory Problems. Retrieved July 14, 2008, ... Mason, Ian "Lunesta Memory Problems." Lunesta Memory Problems EzineArticles.com. ...
ezinearticles.com/?Lunesta-Memory-Problems&id=60237
Informing Sepracor About Lunesta Problems - Visitor Opinion
I also had problems going to sleep using it. I got on lunesta's website and was going to try to inform Sepracor, the drug manufacturerer about the problems, ...
www.medicalnewstoday.com/ youropinions.php?opinionid=5928
On Lunesta's site, they ask
ReplyDeleteWhich products do you currently take? (Check all that apply)
LUNESTA® (eszopiclone)
Ambien® (zolpidem tartrate)
Ambien CR® (zolpidem tartrate extended release)
Rozerem™ (ramelteon)
Restoril™ (temazepam)
Desyrel® (trazodone)
Sonata® (zaleplon)
Tylenol® PM
Excedrin PM®
Unisom®
Melatonin
Benadryl®
None
Other (please specify)
Opening paragraph:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the most important information I should know about LUNESTA?
After taking LUNESTA, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. The next morning, you may not remember that you did anything during the night. You have a higher chance for doing these activities if you drink alcohol or take other medicines that make you sleepy with LUNESTA. Reported activities include:
• driving a car (“sleep-driving”)
• making and eating food
• talking on the phone
• having sex
• sleep-walking
Call your doctor right away if you find out that you have done any of the above activities after taking LUNESTA.
It goes on:
ReplyDeleteWhat are the possible side effects of LUNESTA?
Possible serious side effects of LUNESTA include:
• getting out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. (See “What is the most important information I should know about LUNESTA?”)
• abnormal thoughts and behavior. Symptoms include more outgoing or aggressive behavior than normal, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, worsening of depression, and
suicidal thoughts or actions.
• memory loss
• anxiety
• severe allergic reactions. Symptoms include swelling of the tongue or throat, trouble breathing, and nausea and vomit- ing. Get emergency medical help if you get these symptoms after taking LUNESTA.
Call your doctor right away if you have any of the above side effects or any other side effects that worry you while using LUNESTA.