Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Will Shannon ever be vindicated???? Royster apologize?

A picture of a support rally for the SCC, during the occupation of 2000.
Here is a letter summarizing the situation of our beloved, Shannon Martin: Shannon Deserves an Apology, but will she ever truly be vindicated? Despite having been acquitted, doesn't she deserve an apology from the University. More importantly, a personal apology from Eunice Royster Harper, who testified against Shannon at her trial. An even better cause than suing Michigamua, would be better served by suing the University for wrongful termination for Shannon Martin. Unfortunately, it appears as though the statute of limitations has run its toll.


Blogger dbtg said...

Shannon Martin doesn't seem to be as innocent as people make her out to be. Have you read the court transcripts? It is clear that she was a target, but the charges actually had some merit. I think the main issue that people have a problem with is that the University charged someone for something that they normally would have overlooked. I believe there was a stereo system she bought with school money. It was in her car when employees saw her with it, not in her office for school use...inidcating some sketchy purchasing. I can not cite other purchases at the moment, but I believe there were more fuzzy purchases.

Aquittal doesn't always merit an apology for testifying.. I mean look at O.J. After interviewing a few administrators, I seriously doubt Royster will ever admit foul play. The fact that she said past practices of Michigamua were "wrong" was amazing to me.

So my point is that the Shannon Martin story is not as simple as Joe seems to make it. However, he does mention it in an interview he did with me so I will try to incorporate that viewpoint into the movie so others can investigate the issue for themselves.

Unfortunately, I won't be covering it more than that.

There will be a trailer in about 2 weeks.

10:06 PM  
Blogger CRT Law Mama said...

Well if you read the court transcripts then you would be able to put those purchases in context. Shannon never claimed they were purchases made for the University. Furthermore, testimony at trial revealed that it was common practice for employees to make personal purchases and then reimburse the University via personal check when it came time to reconcile those purchases. The University failed to acknowledge that. Furthermore, I’m not sure what your definition of acquittal is, but there is a distinction between an acquittal and say, a mistrial or a hung jury. Shannon was acquitted. In this here country called Amerika, acquittal means innocence- after all, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention to compare Shannon to OJ Simpson is ridiculous to say the least. This is a woman who worked at least 80 hours a week around the clock during the occupation. She was and remains to this day, dedicated to her community, her students, and her ancestors. You are quite naive if you think that Shannon's termination had nothing to do with the SCC occupation, let alone with Michigamua's extensive connections. You said yourself that the University fired Shannon for something that they typically overlook.

2:36 PM  
Blogger dbtg said...

I believe I wrote, "It is clear that she was a target" in my previous statement so in that sense I agree with you. As for the context, I'm just being devil's/University's advocate for one second. If it was common practice, then again it goes back to my point of a practice that is commonly overlooked/accepted and appears to indicate that she was a target. I don't appreciate being called naive for something I didn't say. I never said that this had nothing to do with the SCC occupation.Well at least you said "if" I felt that way Thanks. I don't know the woman, nor have I even been able to reach her, so your character "testimony" is interesting to hear.

I wasn't comparing Shannon Martin to OJ, yet I was comparing a court case to another court case. Should I have said "look at the OJ Simpson trial" instead of "OJ"? I'm sorry, the two names seem to go hand in hand today. The fact that people are still debating that case today and U of M officials still debate that case makes my analogy relevant. Both were controversial court cases that had testomonies against the defendents (like every case) with verdicts that favored the defendent.

Obviously you know more about this trial than I do, but from what I do know, my most important point was that chances are slim that Shannon Martin will get her justice. Then again I have a very grim expectation for U of M's high administration. Maybe you have higher hopes. All the power to you.

4:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home