Edith Delgado Case [Archive] - San Mateo Daily Journal

Michael Stogner

06-02-2007, 10:41 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=75812

District Attorney says teen was reckless..

This could be a case of District Attorney is RECKLESS.

We know for a fact that Hon. Judge Thomas Smith was abusive of his descretion when he raised Edith Delgado's bail from $300,000 to $3,000,000
without anyone asking him to.

We now see almost 1 year later the DA has no witness so far that comes even close to the 110MPH that was promised.....

The star witness is going to be Ivan Grosshauser of the District Attorney's office who will testify that some teenagers at a high school have been known to talk about cars going fast.......how rare is that?

Next court date Monday June 4, 2007 Time 9:30 AM

Michael Stogner

06-04-2007, 01:48 PM

Today in the morning session...

Eye witness number 2 Mr. Hook testified that the white mustang blew by me.

When asked how fast did he think it was going....80-90MPH give or take.

When asked how fast he was going? He answered...55-65MPH

This is the second witness and still no 110MPH that the DA has stated for almost 1 year. More witness testimony this afternoon.

Just a thought but I would bet that a lot of cars blow by cars that are going 55 MPH.

Michael Stogner

06-04-2007, 07:41 PM

Prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald did deliver his witness with 110 MPH this afternoon.....as a matter of fact it went as high as 120MPH according to his eye witness Adam Vafaei.....

Only a couple of snags with this witness...

1) No sighting of a Balck Esclade...none.... He testified that he saw a WHITE truck SUV like car that actually stopped and the male driver got out to help..

The only problem with that story is sofar nobody else saw that White suv or the man. Time will tell if the CHP have a White Suv/man stopping to help.

After the witness has had almost a year to reflect the 120MPH is now around 85 plus.

2) At the time of his first report he reported seeing the Red Explorer fliping 30 times.....after a year to reflect this witness now under oath state maybe
it fliped 3-4 times...

The Deputy District Attorney Aaron Fitzgerald also asked Hon. Judge John Runde to strict something his witness had said about the actions of the driver of the red explorer.

I'm still suprised that our District Attorney will stay with a story or witness that they know will be disqualified under cross.

Anyway Deputy District Attorney Aaron Fitzgerald did deliver a witness who gave him the 110MPH.

Cross is tomorrow 9:00 AM .......

Michael Stogner

06-05-2007, 08:09 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=75887

In this headine, it uses the word racing, and it contributes that statement to witness Brian Camp...The is Quotes Camp "It appears they were racing."

The San Mateo Daily Journal did not have a reporter in the Court to cover this story....How would they know what the witness said?

I was in the Court all day yesterday and I heard the testimony of witness Brian Camp. I don't recall him making that statement, and I have checked my notes and I have no notes of him making that statement.

I didn't hear any of the 3 witnesses say the word racing.

Where did the San Mateo daily Journal get that story and word from?

Michael Stogner

06-05-2007, 08:16 AM

nitamac

06-05-2007, 08:40 AM

This reporter who was there didn't report.......the word.... racing

http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2007-6-5-smc-delgadoI do believe Michael was referring to artical...id=75887 not the article from June 5th.

Michael Stogner

06-05-2007, 12:47 PM

TONGAN CRASH LAWSUIT 06/05/07 R.Mc.
The family of a Tongan Royal couple killed in a car wreck on Highway 101 in Menlo Park last summer, has filed a civil suit in connection with the crash. As the trial for the driver accused of causing the deadly accident continues, the couple’s sons have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Ford Motor Company. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the lawsuit claims the 1998 Ford Explorer that carried the Royal Prince and Princess and their driver, had a propensity to roll over and was not engineered to protect passengers. The SUV’s driver, owner and Edith Delgado, the young woman accused of causing the crash, were also named in the suit.

jonvn

06-05-2007, 02:31 PM

You know, a person estimating can be wrong. They can tell pretty well how fast someone is going by tire marks and damage.

Michael Stogner

06-05-2007, 08:16 PM

Today Deputy District Attorney Aaron Fitzgerald moved though several witnesses...

The first on the scene CHP officer testified that Edith Delgado came up to him right after he arrived on the scene...She was very upset she said

"Their vehicle had collided with the explorer."

She asked "Are the people OK?"

When asked by Defense Attorney Randy Moore....

Was this a Sideswipe Accident?......He answered...Yes

Also one of the school teachers we have read about for almost a year, who had WARNED Edith about her RECKLESS and FAST driving on campus. Some media accounts had 4-6 WARNINGS.....Turns out to be 2
Both warnings combined took less than 2 seconds.....How could this be you ask? The WARNINGS both were exactly the same and they consisted of 2 words..........SLOW DOWN......SLOW DOWN....
That covers the Warnings evidence....That some pretty serious conversations....How could a teenager not get that warning?

Also the male teacher was VERY CLEAR that he did not use the words which ended up on the TRANSCRIPT prepared by the District Attorney's office.
Specifically.......Peeled Out......not his type of speak......Not the first time transcripts have been "EDITED" in San Mateo County.

The Hon. Judge John Runde told the Jury this case is going much faster then they had planned for.......That is an understatement

Defense Attorney Randy Moore has always said this was a tragic accident. So far looks like he might be correct.

Next Court Date 6/6/07 1:30PM no morning session

Michael Stogner

06-06-2007, 07:04 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=75934

Todays article......A couple of point differences.

No mention of the eye witness who testified he saw no Black SUV esclade.
He saw a WHITE SUV that stopped at the scene to help..male driver. He had previously stated speeds up to 120MPH and rollover/flipping 30 times. He change that under oath almost a year later to 85+ and 3-4 times.

Court starts at 1:30PM for jury and public

Michael Stogner

06-06-2007, 08:34 AM

I do believe Michael was referring to artical...id=75887 not the article from June 5th.

In the Edith Delgado Trial.....The Jury has not heard this word...RACING from any of the eye witnesses.......

The reason is:
Hon. Judge John Runde prohibited references to `racing` from witnesses to the U.S. Highway 101 crash during the trial,

I personally heard the CHP officer tell Adam Vafaei? one of the witnesses not to use the word RACING in his testimony and he did not use that word.

The Newspapers report Racing because it is the District Attorney's word. So we the public hear racing but the jury doesn't......they hear Blow-by

No newspaper has reported the testimony of Adam Vafaei? 34 year old software engineer .... I wonder why? He was the eye witness who was following the Ford Explorer.... same lane. He did not stop at the scene....He is the 110-120MPH ...30 flips...White SUV with male driver that stopped at scene...guy.

Michael Stogner

06-06-2007, 09:09 PM

Prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald just had to say it today.......That word that his witnesses were not allowed to say.....RACING......

This trial is almost over.....this afternoon three of the prosecutors witnesses two from the Highway Patrol and a Crash Reconstruction Expert all proved what Edith Delgado and her Attorney Randy Moore have been saying for almost 1 year. Her mustang Sideswiped the Ford Explorer.....
We have all known this...she admitted that a couple of minutes after the accident.

For those of you who don't know it Edith Delgado has always said her car caused the accident. That has not been good enough for James P. Fox, Steve Wagstaffe, Aaron Fitzgerald, and don't forget the Hon. Judge Thomas Smith who raised her bail from $300,000 to $3,000,000 only to be ordered by the Appellate Court to reduce it to reasonable which the Hon. Judge Robert Foiles ignored and reduced to $1,000,000.

Today one expert took 45 minutes explaining his background with cars etc. and to prove that Edith's car had no mechanical problems.....Edith never said her car had any problems..and Attorney Randy Moore took about 3 minutes with this witness to prove that Edith Delgado had a very well maintained STOCK Mustang...A V6 automatic with standard tires etc....NOTHING RACE ABOUT IT....

Thats when Aaron couldn't help himself and made a Question to his expert witness..Isn't it possible for stock v6 mustang to go RACING down the freeway????something like that...It was objected to and sustained.....

You have to wonder just how committed the District Attorney's office is to over charge this 18 year girl in what looks to be nothing more than an auto accident..... just like she said and her attorney said.

Best of Luck

Roscoe_Beedle

06-07-2007, 12:30 AM

Boy you could not be more wrong. You can race a volkswagen if you want to. I have driven a very un-race like car well over 90 miles an hour on highway 5 in the past. The point is here that the JURY has to hear this evidence. The car engine has nothing to do with it. If she was speeding along a busy highway, weaving the car, and racing someone then that has to be presented factually.

By testimony this girl had been warned about this before.

Because you have already made up your mind does not mean the jury has. And the jury may not know everything you do as far as her car, her speed, her racing someone. This has to be said in court to make the case for the prosecution. It is up to the defense to refute anything said.

This was no simple accident. She wasn't simply changing lanes.

Michael Stogner

06-07-2007, 07:24 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=75980

Michael Stogner

06-07-2007, 07:38 AM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6045960

No mention of the fast moving White Suv that stopped and the male driver got out to help. according to witness Adam V.

Also Peeled rubber...thats Aaron's story not the teacher's..

The teacher said he did not say those words.

Roscoe_Beedle

06-07-2007, 07:09 PM

Michael Stogner

06-07-2007, 07:48 PM

Michael, once again you side with the defendant and cherry pick information to make your point. This del gado caused the death of three people. That is indisputable.

How can you make the case against the Sherrif with such zeal and then turn around and champion people like Del gado who caused the death of innocents? Where is your credibility?

Spare me the "Public Official Conduct" rap you embrace in all your arguments. What we have here is simple common sense. This defendant you have wrapped your arms around should have done the right thing and plead Guilty. And since she demanded a trial you then attack the testimoiny of those that differ in summation to yours.

Edith Delgado has always said she caused the deaths of the three innocent people, and she is responsible for the deaths....

You say Edith Delgado demanded a trial???? when did that happen?

You are starting to sound the the DA....Roscoe

What does this case have to do with Sheriff Greg Munks and Carlos Bolanos on 4/21/07..........NOTHING.

Michael Stogner

06-07-2007, 09:23 PM

I just wanted to say this about the Edith Delgado Trial.

No matter what the outcome, I think she has one of the finest Judges in San Mateo County presiding over her case with the Hon. Judge John Runde.

She also has a fine attorney in Randy Moore.

She is being represented well.

The Jury looks to be serious about their duty...This is as good as it gets.

Roscoe_Beedle

06-08-2007, 10:56 AM

Edith Delgado has always said she caused the deaths of the three innocent people, and she is responsible for the deaths....

You say Edith Delgado demanded a trial???? when did that happen?

You are starting to sound the the DA....Roscoe

What does this case have to do with Sheriff Greg Munks and Carlos Bolanos on 4/21/07..........NOTHING.

She and her lawyer decided to plead NOT GUILTY and this mandates a trial. If she pleaded GUILTY she would have had her sentence by now. It is Edith who wants to represent this matter as an Accident and not wreckless driving.

It is YOU that has made an issue of the Sheriff's behavior and then turn around and argue that Edith Del Gado's behavior is judged unfairly. You blantantly cherry-pick your values here.

Michael Stogner

06-08-2007, 11:54 AM

She and her lawyer decided to plead NOT GUILTY and this mandates a trial. If she pleaded GUILTY she would have had her sentence by now. It is Edith who wants to represent this matter as an Accident and not wreckless driving.

It is YOU that has made an issue of the Sheriff's behavior and then turn around and argue that Edith Del Gado's behavior is judged unfairly. You blantantly cherry-pick your values here.

Roscoe....My disagreement here has to do with first Hon. Judge Thomas Smith abusing his descretion, and Prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald promoting RACING and 110MPH when he knew that to be unsubstantiated. He also knew there was no relationship between Edith Delgado's White mustang and the Black Esclade other then they were both on Highway 101 at the same time in approx. the same location and both were traveling at a higher rate of speed then other cars.

That is my objection to the behavior of the DA'S Office in this case.

jonvn

06-08-2007, 04:11 PM

How do you know these things, and how do you know what other people know?

Michael Stogner

06-08-2007, 08:02 PM

How do you know these things, and how do you know what other people know?

Jonvn, what is your exact question...What things and people knowlege are you asking about?

Michael Stogner

06-08-2007, 08:33 PM

Wow today almost came to a schreeching halt......The defense Crash Reconstruction Expert who already gave kudos and credits to both the CHP and Prosecutor Aaron Fitzgerald's Expert witness Mr. Daily and used both of these experts testimony and evidence drawings etc offered by Aaron to produce a very useful visual display of the movement of the Red Ford Explorer after it was brushed or sideswiped by Edith Delgado's white mustang.

Aaron was not happy with the demonstration which used his witnesses information because it demonstrated that the White mustang was traveling at a speed of 70-75 MPH plus or minus 2 miles per hour at time of impact.

Aaron spent a lot of time and energy trying to talk about what the visual demonstration did not cover which was the car flipping in the air and possibly touching some dirt Aaron was interested in.

I had to think had Aaron spent one tenth of the energy he spent today on the simple fact which I am sure he already knew which was Edith Delgado car was not racing any other car on 101 on 7/05/06 and Aaron knew her car was not traveling 120 MPH...110MPH....100MPH....90MPH or even 80MPH....

Here we are almost 1 year later and this information that the District Attorneys Office has known about is finally becoming PUBLIC INFORMATION.

Did Aaron think this wasn't someday going to be public knowlege?

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 07:39 AM

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=5366400

Attorney Richard Alexander says the Explorer in his case was made even more unwieldy by oversize and under inflated tires that were on the victim's vehicle that night.

The tires/wheels/spacers were talked about in the Edith Delgado trial yesterday. The bottom line is they were not the stock wheels and tires for the Explorer. They were larger, and wheel spacers were used which caused the rubber sidewalls of the tires to stick out past the fenders a little bit....

What this translates to is it was easier for another car to make contact with the tires instead of making contact with the fenders or side of the car. By making contact with a tire rotating at 65MPH during a sideswipe action would cause instant change/to the tire...that tire being the front left tire......

This also explains the tire marks down the side of Edith Delgado's White Mustang......

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 07:52 AM

You know, a person estimating can be wrong. They can tell pretty well how fast someone is going by tire marks and damage.

Jonvn, You are right and that is exactly what was used yesterady as eveidence. The defense expert witness...(I don't have spelling of name) used the exact information that was entered as evidence by both the California Highway Patrol and the prosecutors expert witness.

He used the information that the District Attorney had presented.

Based on that information it was determined that the Ford Explorer was going 65 MPH and the White Mustang was going 70-75 MPH. For the purpose of the visual demonstration and the Mustang was going only 70 MPH...in order to match the skidmarks on the CHP evidence board.

Lil Ol' Me

06-09-2007, 08:40 AM

Jonvn, You are right and that is exactly what was used yesterady as eveidence. The defense expert witness...(I don't have spelling of name) used the exact information that was entered as evidence by both the California Highway Patrol and the prosecutors expert witness.

He used the information that the District Attorney had presented.

Based on that information it was determined that the Ford Explorer was going 65 MPH and the White Mustang was going 70-75 MPH. For the purpose of the visual demonstration and the Mustang was going only 70 MPH...in order to match the skidmarks on the CHP evidence board.
Defense experts are PAID to interpret the Prosecution's evidence in a manner that is MOST FAVORABLE to the defendant. Why are you ALWAYS so quick to dismiss the prosecution and any validity of their claims and so blindingly supportive of the defense???

cynthialstern

06-09-2007, 11:43 AM

From my home page blog on this subject:
http://pissycat.multiply.com/journal/item/227

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 01:29 PM

Defense experts are PAID to interpret the Prosecution's evidence in a manner that is MOST FAVORABLE to the defendant. Why are you ALWAYS so quick to dismiss the prosecution and any validity of their claims and so blindingly supportive of the defense???

I don't it is case by case....The Robin Aponte case I fully supported the Prosecutor...K. Alberti.

I fully supported the prosecutor in the Mike King case...Sean Gallagher.

This case our District Attorney has known all along that they did not have RACING...or the speeds they claimed 110-120MPH or the history of reckless driving. They also communicated with Hon Judge Thomas Smith in a way to have him raise the Bail from $300,000 to $3,000,000 for no reason and the Appellate Court ruled his behavior was abusive.....

Roscoe_Beedle

06-09-2007, 01:53 PM

Try and focus, you're not an officer of the Court. So tell us all....what should happen to Edith Del Gado? If you had her fate in your hands today please tell us, what you would do?

Lil Ol' Me

06-09-2007, 02:27 PM

Funny..you fail to mention and blast the defense experts failure to use ALL the variables when reconstructing the accident. Why?

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 04:40 PM

Funny..you fail to mention and blast the defense experts failure to use ALL the variables when reconstructing the accident. Why?

Who said he didn't....Aaron?

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 04:56 PM

Try and focus, you're not an officer of the Court. So tell us all....what should happen to Edith Del Gado? If you had her fate in your hands today please tell us, what you would do?

I think she should have been charged with.
3 counts of veh. manslaughter

She has admitted to that.
We all know her car caused the crash.
The evidence shows that.

That is what this case is and always has been according to the evidence presented by the District Attorneys Office.

Michael Stogner

06-09-2007, 07:06 PM

http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2007-6-9-smc-delgado

DDA Aaron must be talking about his witnesses's right?

What are the odds of finding (3) Three GROWN MEN with plenty of highway driving experience....I mean thousands of trips on our local highways under their belts...These guys know driving....

All three...thats 100% of Aaron's eye witnesses in this case...

Testified under oath that they felt FEAR for their LIFE or SAFTEY, or
WELL-BEING........not before they were past.....as most of us would....

but after they were passed........TALK ABOUT COACHED....

What is the definition of Witness TAMPERING????

nitamac

06-09-2007, 11:25 PM

The paper printed just want the DA asked them to. Like they always do.
:mad:

Michael Stogner

06-10-2007, 11:44 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4

I started this post on the Edith Delgado case and Ernesto Smith case

Michael Stogner

06-11-2007, 11:31 AM

Defense Attorney Randy Moore first words this morning after saying good morning.....

"The Defense Rest."

Both sides have rested.

The Hon. Judge John Runde told the jury to be back today at 2:00PM

On a side note
San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector
Ivan Grosshauser did not testify in front of the JURY.
You might recall he was the Inspector who was going to testify about high school kids talking about cars going fast,

I wonder why he did not testify?

Michael Stogner

06-12-2007, 07:44 AM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6120664

I'm still impressed every time I see a prosecutor for San Mateo County knowingly and willfully making false statements to the JURY.

Aaron Fitzgerald knows the damage to the passenger side of the white mustang was caused by tires that were sticking outside of the fenders. He knows that once the mustang made contact with the exposed tires rotating at a speed of 65MPH. It sent the Ford Explorer off to the right...

Aaron Fitzgerald called the defense witness's presentation a CARTOON.

He then claimed the presentation was faulty because it didn't include dirt after the explorer skidded on the freeway.....The reason it didn't include dirt is that the CHP Diagram that Aaron entered into evidence didn't include dirt.

Randy Moore used the word crap to describe Aaron Fitzgerald evidence.

I think PERJURY for Aaron's eye witnesses might be more accurate.

Three GROWN MEN.

Specifically...."Feared for their lives"...after a car was in front of them.

Since James P. Fox has been our District Attorney of San Mateo County,

How many cases of PERJURY have been brought against a witness for the PROSECUTION?

ZERO......1-25......... does anybody know?

Michael Stogner

06-12-2007, 09:46 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=lnews&id=76198

Denfense Attorney Randy Moore,
questioned testimony from personnel at Edith Delgado's continuation high school who didn't recall suspending the teen for driving behavior....despite paperwork to the contrary....

Is there a way to determine when that paperwork was created....

Why wouldn't the personnel remember suspending her.....Hmmmm.

We have a Judge Thomas Smith raise bail to $3,000,000...that sounds like she is GUILTY of something real serious...We trust our Judges.... We Should.

We find out later our Judge Smith .....Abused his Descretion...he is the one who acted badly.

Michael Stogner

06-12-2007, 11:43 AM

The Jury has the case as of 10:25 AM Today.

Michael Stogner

06-13-2007, 07:49 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=76267

The only difference I would add.....

It was not the Explorer turning to the right that caused the roll-over.

It did in fact steer/turn right after the sideswipe which sent it towards the shoulder of the highway.....It was the 37 degree turn to the left that caused the roll-over/flip.

Modified tires and rims..spacers caused the rubber to stick out side the fender of the car on the Ford Explorer.

Roscoe_Beedle

06-13-2007, 12:28 PM

Michael Stogner

06-13-2007, 12:46 PM

The Jury has requested the testimony of two witnesses be read to them.

The Witnesses,,,,,Mr. Hook, and Mr. Wilson.....

Michael Stogner

06-13-2007, 06:22 PM

The Jury has gone home for the day. Earlier in the day they had requested the testimony of two witnesses be read back to them....

After hearing the testimony of Mr. Hook read back to them from court reporter
Stacy Gaskill....they choose not to hear the testimony of Mr. Wilson.

Jury left the court at 4:55 PM

Michael Stogner

06-14-2007, 07:50 AM

As though Edith had nothing to do with it. Wrong again.

That defense supposition about the explorer's tires and wheels is just that supposition and speculation. Not proven. One thing is evident and that is Edith Del Gado's cause of this accident. Let's hear from the jury and not from the M. Stogner traveling snake oil tent.

Roscoe, lets look at snake oil comment....

What would have been wrong with Aaron Fitzgerald just presenting a case of 70-75 MPH sideswipe, that caused the deaths of three victims.

We all know Edith Delgado is guilty of that.

Why did Hon. Judge Thomas Smith raise bail to $3,000,000...What the was he thinking....Who communicated what to him to make him do that.....

How many $3,000,000 Bails have we had in San Mateo County's History?

Talk about snake oil.....

Did Aaron ever remind any of his witnesses that they were under oath?
Fear for my life....right...after a car had passed him.....

Roscoe_Beedle

06-14-2007, 12:06 PM

Pure snake oil.

Yes, the driver had a "fear for his life". Afterall, this same driver did in fact cause the death of three people immediately after passing him! He was absolutely CORRECT. What kind of soup are you consuming?

We have all had this experience. Some nut zooming past us on a busy freeway. Our reation is fairly typical (Damn asswipe is going to kill someone!).

You seem transfixed on this bail amount. You even defeat your own argument by mentioning it is rarely if ever used. So what's the problem here? The fact remained the evidence pointed that this driver caused the deaths of three people. A high bail is not out of question at all.

This Del Gato chick should have plead guilty and saved everyone the trial. She would have got time off already served and a sentence not too long. Afterall, there was no premeditation involved.

This entire episode is a reminder to all of us what reckless driving can lead to.

Lil Ol' Me

06-14-2007, 01:57 PM

Guilty of 3 misdemeanors, sentencing will be no more than 3 years in county jail.

Michael Stogner

06-14-2007, 02:01 PM

Edith Delgado...... Not Guilty of Gross Neglegance

$1,000,000 Bail reduce to $40,000

Next court appearance is August 2007

Michael Stogner

06-14-2007, 07:56 PM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6141032

People vs. Delgado Juror

06-14-2007, 09:41 PM

I was one of the Jurors.

There was only one eye witness to the actual accident and his testomony was sketchy about the details. Three other witnesses admited that they did not actually see the accident. No other witneeses to that awful event came forward with testimony that would have benefited either the state or Edith Delgado.

Do you think that maybe more than 4 people actually may have seen the accident? I do but they did not come forward.

Two accident reconstruction experts deemed it a "sideswipe." One of which was the DA's witness.

It wasn't clear that other events may have caused the Ford Explorer to roll over for some of us, hence "reasonable doubt."

The jury was split that the evidence just was not there to convict Edith of "Gross Negligence." Our instructions were that if we could not convict Edith unanimously of Gross Negilgence / Vehicular Manslaughter, she was to be declared Not Guilty on Felony Charges and we were to consider Ordinary Vehicular Manslaughter, a misdemeanor. She was convicted of those charges.

We were split pretty much 50/50 the entire three days of deliberation. We voted four times without anyone changing there votes, hence "not guilty." Keep in mind, the state had the burden of proof and failed because there was not a unanimous vote of 12-0 that Edith was Grossly Negligent on any of the 5 charges.

We did not have to agree unanimously that Edith was "Not Guilty." One juror could vote against Gross Negligence on all five charges and the law states that Edith was Not Guilty. We were split down the middle on most charges.

We observed a moment of silence for Prince Tu'ipelehake, Princess Kaimana and Ms Hefa at the end of our deliberations in the Jury room. It was very emotional, please be assured that all of the evidence and testimony was reviewed in great detail.

Our system works, it is a painful process at times but it is what separates us from other countries. [/FONT]

People vs. Delgado Juror

06-14-2007, 10:09 PM

As a juror. I was upset that the Prosecutor, who is an excellent attorney by the way, never referred to the Prince and Princess by their names. I thought it showed laziness on the Peoples part. Prince Tui'pelehake, Princess Kaimana were not mentioned by name, yet Ms Hefa was always referred to by name as it was easy to pronounce. Quite frankly it might have "humanized" his case a bit more. If were I were a member of the Defense Team (ok Mr. Randy Moore), I might have started using the names, which normally would benefit the state in this case, but only to show the Jury that I have my act together.

"Brevity is King", both of these Attorneys let there egos get involved in closing arguments and lost all opportunity to sway the fence sitters one way or the other. Good lord...on and on, covering the same ground (none of which is to be considered as evidence by law). The Prosecutor came across as incredibly arrogant (and I actually like him!!!). His "red Pen" and "Blueberry Pie" analogies totally offended this Juror. I still judged the evidence on it's own merits of course.

I know he has to talk to the lowest common demoninator, but this Jury did not have any members that incredibly stupid. But it probably would not have mattered as there were head strong Jurors on both sides. The evidence and Jury Instructions determined the outcome of this case. It cost me 3 hours of my life, I'll get over it.

This should have never gone to trial. The Defense asked for a Misdemeanor Conviction at the end of the trial...good lord, this could have been handled 7 months ago.

The sad part, there are potential witnesses out there that never came forward that could have helped one side or the other. They certainly could have my job as a Juror easier....maybe even a diffreent verdict.

Also, when did it become acceptable to wear Blue Jeans to Court? I didn't care for the casual attire throughout the courthouse (not just this trial). The Judge and Counsel wore Suits and/or Coats and Ties each day, as did I. 3 People died, I felt that it was disprespectful to not show the same consideration in appearance that one would show at a funeral. Not that it made some of the other jurors any less serious, concerned or impartial. I just thought it was disrespectful....probably sign of the times. That includes members of the press and some of the Bloggers on this site by the way.

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 07:12 AM

Juror, Thank You for your comments.

I was one of the Jurors.

There was only one eye witness to the actual accident and his testomony was sketchy about the details. Three other witnesses admited that they did not actually see the accident. No other witneeses to that awful event came forward with testimony that would have benefited either the state or Edith Delgado.

Do you think that maybe more than 4 people actually may have seen the accident? I do but they did not come forward.

Two accident reconstruction experts deemed it a "sideswipe." One of which was the DA's witness.

It wasn't clear that other events may have caused the Ford Explorer to roll over for some of us, hence "reasonable doubt."

The jury was split that the evidence just was not there to convict Edith of "Gross Negligence." Our instructions were that if we could not convict Edith unanimously of Gross Negilgence / Vehicular Manslaughter, she was to be declared Not Guilty on Felony Charges and we were to consider Ordinary Vehicular Manslaughter, a misdemeanor. She was convicted of those charges.

We were split pretty much 50/50 the entire three days of deliberation. We voted four times without anyone changing there votes, hence "not guilty." Keep in mind, the state had the burden of proof and failed because there was not a unanimous vote of 12-0 that Edith was Grossly Negligent on any of the 5 charges.

We did not have to agree unanimously that Edith was "Not Guilty." One juror could vote against Gross Negligence on all five charges and the law states that Edith was Not Guilty. We were split down the middle on most charges.

We observed a moment of silence for Prince Tu'ipelehake, Princess Kaimana and Ms Hefa at the end of our deliberations in the Jury room. It was very emotional, please be assured that all of the evidence and testimony was reviewed in great detail.

Our system works, it is a painful process at times but it is what separates us from other countries. [/FONT]

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 07:24 AM

Thank You for your comments.....
We agree .... This case should never have gone to trial.
The District Attorney never offered less to Edith Delgado.
I got the message about dress code.

Did any juror believe the witnesses fear for their lives after the white mustang passed them?

As a juror. I was upset that the Prosecutor, who is an excellent attorney by the way, never referred to the Prince and Princess by their names. I thought it showed laziness on the Peoples part. Prince Tui'pelehake, Princess Kaimana were not mentioned by name, yet Ms Hefa was always referred to by name as it was easy to pronounce. Quite frankly it might have "humanized" his case a bit more. If were I were a member of the Defense Team (ok Mr. Randy Moore), I might have started using the names, which normally would benefit the state in this case, but only to show the Jury that I have my act together.

"Brevity is King", both of these Attorneys let there egos get involved in closing arguments and lost all opportunity to sway the fence sitters one way or the other. Good lord...on and on, covering the same ground (none of which is to be considered as evidence by law). The Prosecutor came across as incredibly arrogant (and I actually like him!!!). His "red Pen" and "Blueberry Pie" analogies totally offended this Juror. I still judged the evidence on it's own merits of course.

I know he has to talk to the lowest common demoninator, but this Jury did not have any members that incredibly stupid. But it probably would not have mattered as there were head strong Jurors on both sides. The evidence and Jury Instructions determined the outcome of this case. It cost me 3 hours of my life, I'll get over it.

This should have never gone to trial. The Defense asked for a Misdemeanor Conviction at the end of the trial...good lord, this could have been handled 7 months ago.

The sad part, there are potential witnesses out there that never came forward that could have helped one side or the other. They certainly could have my job as a Juror easier....maybe even a diffreent verdict.

Also, when did it become acceptable to wear Blue Jeans to Court? I didn't care for the casual attire throughout the courthouse (not just this trial). The Judge and Counsel wore Suits and/or Coats and Ties each day, as did I. 3 People died, I felt that it was disprespectful to not show the same consideration in appearance that one would show at a funeral. Not that it made some of the other jurors any less serious, concerned or impartial. I just thought it was disrespectful....probably sign of the times. That includes members of the press and some of the Bloggers on this site by the way.

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 07:26 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=76363

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 09:06 AM

Edith Delgado was released from San Mateo County Jail last night and she is home with her family.

Diamond Dog

06-15-2007, 11:18 AM

Meanwhile, Prince Tu’ipelehake, his wife Princess Kaimana, and their driver, Vinisia Hefa, are six feet under.

Edith Delgado was released from San Mateo County Jail last night and she is home with her family.

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 11:49 AM

Meanwhile, Prince Tu’ipelehake, his wife Princess Kaimana, and their driver, Vinisia Hefa, are six feet under.

Dog, We all know this about the victims...what is your point here.

I see you are not at all disturbed, that the District Attorneys Office has lied to the public about this case from the start.

One of the Jurors above stated..."This case should not have gone to trial."

This was a Tragic Accident......The case against Edith Delgado was not an accident it was deliberate with several people involved.

Michael Stogner

06-15-2007, 02:33 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse

We have Juror saying case should never have been tried.
We have attorneys saying the same.

George Spelvin

06-16-2007, 07:58 PM

We have Juror saying case should never have been tried.
We have attorneys saying the same.

Right -- and those attorneys are Edith Delgado's lawyer, and the lawyer for the family that figures he can get more money from his lawsuit against Ford if he goes around saying it was Ford that killed his clients. (Meanwhile, Ford's lawyers will probably say it was Edith Delgado's criminal act that killed them. Just a hunch.) It's your refreshing naivete about the real motivations within the legal system that keeps your views about it so loony.

I for one am glad that this went to trial. Only a jury could decide whether this was gross negligence. It should not have been decided in a back room amongst lawyers. If it had, half of the people in this County would have thought the outcome was wrong (including, and I have no doubt about this, you). It's the power of our legal system that 12 people chosen at random decide which conduct is beyond the pale. When the legal system shines at what it does best -- resolve disputes between reasonable people who fervently disagree -- you invariably think it's a travesty.

George Spelvin

06-16-2007, 08:20 PM

This should have never gone to trial. The Defense asked for a Misdemeanor Conviction at the end of the trial...good lord, this could have been handled 7 months ago.

Could it? I think not. Your first vote was 7 to 5 to convict on the felony, right? And it stuck that way until Thursday? If it was so obvious what the correct result was, why did seven of your colleagues think the burden of proof had been met on the felony? Why did a juror have to go off to the bathroom to scream in frustration with her fellow jurors? Sounds to me like there were some folks on the jury who felt pretty strongly there was evidence of wanton disregard beyond a reasonable doubt -- they just gave up on the idea of convincing the other five of you. That's natural and ordinary, and it could not have been "handled" seven months ago behind closed doors. The only place a dispute like that can be "handled" is at trial.

I suppose cases that return verdicts in a matter of minutes "should never have gone to trial." (Even this can be untrue in certain cases.) Cases that take days of deliberations like this one are why we build courthouses, so you can make these tough calls with your fellow citizens. Thank you for your service. It sounds like you worked hard and made a tough call.

Michael Stogner

06-16-2007, 11:03 PM

When does coaching cross the line and become perjury or encouraging perjury. Is it perjury when a witness testifies his fear for his life.... or is that just a feeling and can not be proved either way?

Roscoe_Beedle

06-18-2007, 11:30 AM

The jury has spoken and I will accept this result. Del Gado is no where near in the clear on this mess she created. She'll be punished for many years to come. I doubt she'll be able to ever gain insurance again or insurance she can afford. The punishment is there for what she caused.

And I agree, the DA HAD TO CHARGE this gal for what she did. Anything less would have been a slap in the face of the loved ones of these people who died.

Diamond Dog

06-18-2007, 01:53 PM

My point, Michael, in mentioning the names of the deceased, is to make sure they don't get lost in the chaotic ramblings of your posts, which seem to come from this irrational hard-on you have for most people on the county payroll.

Dog, We all know this about the victims...what is your point here.

I see you are not at all disturbed, that the District Attorneys Office has lied to the public about this case from the start.

One of the Jurors above stated..."This case should not have gone to trial."

This was a Tragic Accident......The case against Edith Delgado was not an accident it was deliberate with several people involved.

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 07:18 AM

http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2007-6-19-061907-delgado-speaks

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 07:33 AM

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_6176280?source=rss

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 07:39 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/19/BAGHNQHDPF1.DTL&hw=Edith+Delgado&sn=001&sc=1000

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 07:53 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6172865?nclick_check=1

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 07:56 AM

http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-6-19-061907-delgado-speaks

Michael Stogner

06-19-2007, 10:39 AM

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=6676546

Michael Stogner

07-03-2007, 07:35 AM

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=77144&eddate=07/02/2007

Cody writes.......What could have been done?
He/She writes as a concerned adult who just wants answers?

The author of this letter presents the DDA Aaron Fitzgerald's false statements and assertions. The same allegations we the public heard for 11 months before the trial.

During the trial there was NO EVIDENCE of this conduct.

I agree there was reckless behavior in the Edith Delgado case. I disagree with who was being reckless.....I say DDA Aaron Fitzgerald acted reckless in the Edith Delgado case. He knew he didn't have 110-120 MPH.

He knew this was an accident. 70MPH

He didn't call Investigator Ivan Grosshouser of the DA'S Office to testify.

Does anybody know a person by the name of Cody Champion?

Lil Ol' Me

07-03-2007, 10:41 AM

Michael Stogner

07-03-2007, 12:08 PM

reckless behaviour. There is no magic number on the speedometer that equates to reckless - it is the sum total of all actions. 70 is speeding and she was seen weaving in traffic, made an unsafe lane change and swiped another vehicle which then rolled and 3 people died. That is reckless.

Champion was asking simple questions that I have thought about, as a parent many times over. I, for one will not give my kids "racey" cars - they'll get a four-banger. I am not opposed to putting in the device that tracks their driving performance and will not hesitate to yank keys for poor behaviours, poor driving and poor grades and poor choices.

I don't think Champion was trumpting DDA's assertions - reckless is for each to determine. IMO, she was reckless.

We agree on many of these points......unsafe lane change and 70 MPH is speeding. I have gone to DMV and had my daughter's license cancelled because I determined her driving to be unsafe for the public.

What I am pointing out here is our District Attorney has always known it was 70 MPH not 120 MPH. This Cody Champion (if there is a Cody Champion) is repeating the false allegations that were not proven.

Lil Ol' Me

07-03-2007, 12:35 PM

a specific speed. It mentions reckless behaviours...and, as I said before...regardless of the reading on the speedometer, Delgado was reckless that night.

Michael Stogner

07-03-2007, 03:47 PM

a specific speed. It mentions reckless behaviours...and, as I said before...regardless of the reading on the speedometer, Delgado was reckless that night.

I know that is what you say. We disagree on this point.

Don't forget.... the letter writer did not remember writng that letter....

There is no question that DDA Aaron Fitzgerald produced a letter to the court.
it would have been nice if the person who supposedly wrote the letter had remembered it.

He also produced a transcript with the words Peeled Out on it...again the person who supposedly said those words said he did not say those words.

Also he had 3 men under oath state that they were somehow afraid for their lives after the mustang passed them....3 of them...

Roscoe_Beedle

07-05-2007, 10:55 PM

Del Gado was not wreckless? Come on. If someone is driving 40 miles an hour on the freeway this can be wreckless driving. What is the matter with you? No, don't tell me.

The case is over. Del Gado will be paying for this over many years, it may have ruined her life. To continue this argument with the deaths of those three people is simply mindless blather. Your hatred of everything downtown has blinded you completely.

Michael Stogner

08-24-2007, 11:30 AM

Edith Delgado was sentenced today.

She is to report back to jail on September 1, 2007 9:00 AM

Diamond Dog

08-25-2007, 10:09 AM

She should also never be allowed a license. Let a lifetime of bumming rides and using public transportation continue to be a reminder of stealing lives.

Edith Delgado was sentenced today.

She is to report back to jail on September 1, 2007 9:00 AM

Michael Stogner

08-25-2007, 07:56 PM

She should also never be allowed a license. Let a lifetime of bumming rides and using public transportation continue to be a reminder of stealing lives.

Dog....Edith Delgado made an unsafe lane change and brushed a car with exposed tires......She was not racing anyone...that was James P. Fox's story..a lie that DDA Aaron Fitzgerald told the world.....She was 5 MPH over the speed limit....No Drugs...No Alcohol....

A tragic accident...thats all... If the vehicle she brushed had only one passenger in it she would be out today, In San Mateo last October a woman was killed while in the cross walk...It is Illegal to kill people in the cross walk.
The newspapers never even reported on the driver who killed that person. The DA never charged that driver.

Michael Stogner

08-28-2007, 04:34 PM

A Notice of Appeal has been filed on August 27, 2007. We scheduled a hearing regarding Delgado’s Application for Stay of Execution of Judgment and Bail Pending Appeal for August 31, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Redwood City Superior Court. Edith’s sentence is supposed to start on Saturday, September 1, 2007. In all misdemeanor cases bail is a matter of right pending appeal.

This is going to be a highly contested hearing and we anticipate that the DA will ask for a bail increase. The bail was set by the Judge when the misdemeanor verdict was pronounced. It is our position that there are no factors that could be used to justify a bail increase, i.e. she is not a flight risk - she always appeared at all court appearances, she is not a danger to anyone because the judge has discretion to impose condition on her bail that would prevent her from driving pending appeal, she has strong ties with community, etc. It is our position that under these circumstances it would be an abuse of discretion for any judge to increase her bail to any higher amount that it is currently set.

Lil Ol' Me

08-29-2007, 07:43 AM

Michael Stogner

08-29-2007, 11:37 AM

when you talk about what the Da is anticipated to do and your "position" on the matter. Do you not understand that you have no say in the matter.

Personally, I think if Ms. Delgado was remorseful and sorry for her actions, she would accept the jail term given and go without a fight. To me, this indicates she is happy she avoided a felony and feels she did no wrong and has done her time

It's disgusting.

I think it is more than disgusting when you have a District Attorney willfully and knowingly over-charge a defendant. Conspire/coach witnesses to commit perjury(feared for their lives).......There never was a felony committed. the trial proved that

This was always an Unsafe lane change....period...an accident thats all.

The District Attorney knew that all this time.

George Spelvin

08-30-2007, 02:53 AM

when you talk about what the Da is anticipated to do and your "position" on the matter. Do you not understand that you have no say in the matter.

Read it again and compare it to the writing quality of Stogner's other posts. That post is a cut-and-paste from Randy Moore and Tanya Levinson -- hence the "we" and "our." The flawless sentence structure and punctuation are a dead giveaway.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Stogner is a PR mouthpiece for criminal defendants and the defense bar. Which is really funny, considering that every time a defense attorney loses, Stogner's first in line to claim they were incompetent or on the take. When you get in bed with a snake, don’t be surprised if you get bit.

George Spelvin

08-30-2007, 03:08 AM

There never was a felony committed. the trial proved that

I suppose we've all made up our minds about whether you are a genius or an idiot already, and there's not much point in discussing it further, but I feel duty-bound to comment that when a person is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't "prove" he or she didn't commit the crime. It means -- and I'm really generalizing here -- that the jury could not agree that each element of the offense had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you do not see the difference, you're probably unqualified to be on a jury, and certainly unqualified to comment on what a jury verdict means.

You've proven incapable of being convinced of anything you didn't post yourself, so this is not directed to you. It's directed to the people who are actually curious about our how our legal system works.

Michael Stogner

08-30-2007, 07:25 AM

I suppose we've all made up our minds about whether you are a genius or an idiot already, and there's not much point in discussing it further, but I feel duty-bound to comment that when a person is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't "prove" he or she didn't commit the crime. It means -- and I'm really generalizing here -- that the jury could not agree that each element of the offense had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you do not see the difference, you're probably unqualified to be on a jury, and certainly unqualified to comment on what a jury verdict means.

You've proven incapable of being convinced of anything you didn't post yourself, so this is not directed to you. It's directed to the people who are actually curious about our how our legal system works.

George,
Thank you for sharing how our (San Mateo County) legal system works.

"when a person is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't "prove" he or she didn't commit the crime."

shouldn't it say alleged crime? ....aquitted of an alleged crime.

The Edith Delgado case is a little different.

The San Mateo County District Attorney charged her with an alleged crime they knew she did not commit.

The Not Guilty was inevitable......What were they thinking?

The history of reckless driving was a story fabricated/promoted by the District Attorney of San Mateo County.

They knew this was a tragic accident. Unsafe lane change....that simple.

Michael Stogner

08-30-2007, 08:01 AM

Read it again and compare it to the writing quality of Stogner's other posts. That post is a cut-and-paste from Randy Moore and Tanya Levinson -- hence the "we" and "our." The flawless sentence structure and punctuation are a dead giveaway.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Stogner is a PR mouthpiece for criminal defendants and the defense bar. Which is really funny, considering that every time a defense attorney loses, Stogner's first in line to claim they were incompetent or on the take. When you get in bed with a snake, don’t be surprised if you get bit.

George,
Give Lil a little credit...She knew that was a cut and paste from the Moore Law Firm.

It might NOT be as increasing clear as you proclaim. a little off the mark.
You might re-read my posts on Dr. William Ayres case.

jonvn

08-30-2007, 06:52 PM

shouldn't it say alleged crime? ....aquitted of an alleged crime.

No, it's not an alleged crime. It's an actual crime she was alleged to have committed.

Michael Stogner

08-31-2007, 12:02 PM

Today Hon. Judge John Runde raised the bail from the $40,000 to $100,000
for Edith Delgado.

Michael Stogner

09-02-2007, 09:13 AM

Edith Delgado posted the additional bail Friday afternoon.

The $100,000 bail was ordered by Hon. Judge John Runde on Friday August 31, 2007. This was an increase from his previous bail order of $40,000.

Bail history for Edith Delgado.
1) $300,000 at time of arrest
2) $3,000,000 by Hon. Judge Thomas Smith..He abused his descretion according to the Appellate Court. It seems nobody asked Judge Thomas Smith to raise the bail, might have been some private conversation between the DA and the Judge, because it never occured in court.
3) $1,000,000 Hon. Judge Robert Foiles reduced the $3,000,000 per Appellate Court Order....Judge T. Smith bad behavior.
4) $40,000 Hon. Judge John Runde after Edith Delgado was for Not Guilty of all the Gross Neg. charges..
5) $100,000 currently.

George Spelvin

09-02-2007, 02:18 PM

They knew this was a tragic accident. Unsafe lane change....that simple.

Did the jury properly convict Edith Delgado of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter? Or was that erroneous?

Think carefully before you answer, because it's a trick question.

Michael Stogner

09-03-2007, 08:25 AM

No, it's not an alleged crime. It's an actual crime she was alleged to have committed.

What actual crime are you talking about?

Remember, Our San Mateo County District Attorney knew Edith Delgado was not racing anyone on the night of the tragic accident, and they knew shortly there after that the evidence would show her mustang speed at 70MPH not 100-120MPH.....Ford Explorer with modified wheels and tires.

Why would our DA charge Edith Delgado with crimes she did not commit?

George Spelvin

09-03-2007, 11:36 AM

Answer the question, Michael.

George Spelvin

10-15-2007, 09:46 PM

Still waiting, Michael. Answer the question.

Michael Stogner

11-06-2007, 07:41 PM

November 8, 2007 Next date..Status of Appeal

The San Mateo County Court clerk has still not produced the record that she must produce.

The Appellate Court has set it for order to show cause as to why the record was not produced.

San Mateo County Judges and Aaron Fitzgerald were trying to hold on to this appeal by characterizing the case as only a misdemeanor.They lost this battle and the appeal was filed in the Appellate court because it started as a felony, so the Moore Law firm was right about it and Judge was wrong stating that this appeal belongs in Redwood City. Now the case is completely out of San Mateo County hands.

Michael Stogner

11-09-2007, 07:35 AM

Edith Delgado and her family were in San Mateo County Courts just last week for a status review.The District Attorney wants to keep a close watch on this case for some reason. That review was continued until yesterday.

DDA Aaron Fitzgerald knows how long appeals take yet yesterday he asked the Judge to have Edith Delgado brought back again in 4 or 5 weeks for another status review......Thank God the Judge knows that nothing would have changed in that little time period..

She was ordered return to court May 8, 2008 for a further status hearing.

This case is out of San Mateo County hands for now.

George Spelvin

11-09-2007, 11:43 PM

Still waiting, Michael. It's been over two months now. Answer the question.

Michael Stogner

11-21-2007, 08:28 AM

Equal Justice San Mateo County Style

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=83586

In June, prosecutors agreed the incident didn’t rise to the level of gross negligence and charged Jones with the single misdemeanor. No drugs or alcohol were involved in the crash.

Edith Delgado case....No drugs or alcohol, No racing, No History of reckless behavior.

The difference in these two cases is that DDA Aaron Fitzgerald Overcharged Edith Delgado, and then conspired with his witnesses, fabricated evidence, to prove something that did not happen.

George Spelvin

01-21-2008, 10:50 PM

It's been four and a half months, Michael. Answer the question. In case you've forgotten, here it is:

Did the jury properly convict Edith Delgado of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter? Or was that erroneous?

voiceinyourhead

02-21-2008, 11:14 PM

The jury properly convicted her of manslaughter, yes. It should have been a felony, though, given her past conduct. The jury, in my opinion, got it wrong.

Michael Stogner

02-23-2008, 08:04 AM

The jury properly convicted her of manslaughter, yes. It should have been a felony, though, given her past conduct. The jury, in my opinion, got it wrong.

Inyour,

There was no past conduct.......

The past reported conduct was fabricated by DDA Aaron Fitzgerald...

The only Reckless behavior in the Edith Delgado case was by Aaron Fitzgerald. a San Mateo County Employee

voiceinyourhead

03-10-2008, 10:27 PM

or did you miss that part of the trial.

Michael Stogner

05-04-2008, 08:52 PM

or did you miss that part of the trial.

Voice that was not the case, and that was the problem, Aaron Fitzgerald said a lot of things about Edith Delgado in the press but was never able to prove any of it.

I thought it was funny when he showed the priniciple (on the witness stand) a letter she supposedly wrote expelling Edith from school for reckless behavior.

SHE DID NOT REMEMBER IT. WOW
How many students do you think she expelled that year for reckless behavior that she didn't remember this student on trial for 3 deaths.

When you say document I say FALSE DOCUMENT.

Welcome to San Mateo County,

Michael Stogner

05-04-2008, 08:54 PM

May 8, 2008 8:45AM

efto1

05-06-2008, 09:33 PM

"The response to the cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs. The regime has dismantled systems of agriculture and heathcare." Laura Bush

If San Mateo County might someday be drawn into an international incident where Tongan royals after they left an East Palo Alto church were teslated on 5 July 2006, as Elizabeth Delgado took the fall, for she was by the book arrested, detained for nearly a year, and stood trial yet was formally cleared by a jury.

Does this also possibly point to the same sort of thing going on, with the creation of Hurricane Katrina? Could there logically be a connection with this
Burma/Myanmar cyclone, which killed nearly 20,000 souls?

Michael Stogner

05-08-2008, 11:37 AM

August 27, 2008 8:45 AM

voiceinyourhead

05-09-2008, 10:47 PM

Michael Stogner

05-09-2008, 10:57 PM

Or do you even know, you blowhard. you werent even there - Ive got you pegged these days. You kind of stand out anyways...nice suit, but your not a defendant, nor victim, nor attorney...just chilling. And not in the cool way, like Ms. Durand.

Voice,

San Mateo County District Attorney and Court wanted Edith Delgado to keep them posted on the appeal status. They know there is nothing she or her attorneys can do to speed up the process. Just Aaron's way of letting Edith know he still can impact her $$$.

Not that is is any big deal but I was there, Why do you continue to write things that are not true?

voiceinyourhead

05-10-2008, 07:45 PM

Michael Stogner

05-11-2008, 04:08 PM

Well? Any explainations why? After all, you live in one of the most safe and secure counties in the state, where law enforcement has the luxury of time to go after not only murders and rapes, but burglaries, identity theft, and the like, crimes that other jurisdictions (most pointedly, that one to the north) waves off, saying they don't have money/resources/etc. Yet you spend your time and effort attacking the law enforcement of this county. Pathetic.

I am not attacking law enforcement,
Only James P. Fox, Steve Wagstaffe, and Aaron Fitzgerald, for lieing to the public about Edith Delgado. They abused their oath.

But don't worry there is no oversight of the DA's Office in San Mateo County.

efto1

05-12-2008, 10:20 PM

Points of law has very little to do with either guilt or innocence only which story appears logical.

When Ted Bundy, the Tacoma, Washington outsider was put to death, for murder, in Florida, who gave it a second thought when two more Tacoma, Washington outsiders were somehow connected to more multible murders beginning in the next state up, [Georgia] and on up the eastern seaboard the area now know as the Beltway Snipers?

Even a book and movie about an Washington/Oregon cop set up by a street gang with planted evidence where even David and Crystal Brame fell victim to pure unadulterated evil.

What's to stop San Mateo County, from reinventing the makings of a fairytale blundered riddle: 18 year old female Hispanic, Elizabeth Delgado?