gregrn43

what a bummer, that would really suck.

BuckRogers

Brings up a good point though, like previously stated. I wouldnt have thought to have a warden come and check it all out, but IF i get the monster that Im hunting I might just give him a call because there are ALOT of local IDIOTS who might do a thing like that. I know they know about that deer, its kind of inevitable where I live.

Rickmur

That's NJ for you. Courts and judges are so for the state and not for fair trail. The whole state of NJ's elected and appointed officialsare corrupt. In my 10 years there Ihad a court experience that proved that to me. The judges name was even John Kennedy. Mind you it was just a traffic court but you saw evidence of the no win situation every defendent faced. When I retired I was gone from there in a matter of days.

thehairlessone!

Crazy. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Didnt sound like they had any evidence at all to me.

rick

Austin/WI

That horrible. It's sickening how the courts work sometimes. This kinda reminds me of the thread we had this spring about someone seeing a GW on their property and then their feeder and SD card for their trailcam going missing. Followed by several pages of speculation and comments by us.

MN/Kyle

I'd be calling the king, I'd never lose!

That is just sad, in all honesty.

98Redline

I am certainly no fan of the Peoples Republic of New Jersey however something in the story just does not add up.

If the original judgement was upheld through multiple appeals that tells me that there is other evidence that we are not seeing.

While I hate to see an honest man wronged by the legal system and it does happen from time to time, the odds are that there is some damning eveidence that is not being disclosed in the article.

If this guy happens to be one of the good guys then I truly feel bad for him, however if he happens to be one of the outlaws that simply got caught then I have no sympathy. In either case I don't think that just reading the article gives enough evidence either way to make an informed judgement.

IL_ray_phillips

The courts just dont convict someone on reasonable suspicion that someone committed a crime. They have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It flew through the courts so the State met its burden of proof. I would say the informant gave them a little more than a statement about this guys activity.The criminal system is construed towards the rights of the defendants. It keeps getting harder to convict someone of a crime. This guy was a freaking poacher and he got what he had coming. I just wish they could catch more of them and break their fingers! Its not fair to the guys who practice good management and let deer go 3 and 4 years to have some hawnyawk shoot them from the road and chop the antlers off. IMO of course!

jemrami9

wow that is a bunch of bs, unreal.....

Austin/WI

I do agree with you on everything about poachers, I really do. But I can't picture this guy as a poacher with the info presented. The article stated that the informant's statements were all but thrown out in the higher courts (if I read it correctly). So after that, what is left to convict the guy?

The only thing I saw that could convict him was the wildlife biologist that said the wound was created after the fact - by an arrow. How much sense would that make? I find a dead deer, I want to claim it as mine, so I stab it in the hindquarter? If he had really illegally tagged this thing in a similar manner (found it after it was dead) why would he make the wound in a spot that showed he made a poor shot? Poachers are about self glorification generally speaking, this doesn't fit the bill.

He also had people that helped track the animal, gut the animal, transport the animal to a reg. station as well, this all says to me he didn't do it. Why involve so many people if you poached, that's far too many mouths that need to stay closed who were involved with the process. Anyone of them could be put under a lie detector test which most criminals would not want to have happen - not to mention he willingly took a lie detection test. I know everyone says you can fake your way through those - but the overwhelming majority of people can't accomplish this feat (hence why it is still viable evidence in many court cases).

Nope, I'm not seeing where this guy is a poacher, there are just too many things that just don't make sense. I think the higher courts are just ruling in favor of the lower courts to maintain their "integrity".