Displaying 3,991 To 4,020 Of 4,640 Comments Tex, I agree with you and cameras in court rooms in many cases. Most real trials are dull and slow moving nothing like Perry Mason and someone confessing on the stand within 30 mins of the show. No real surprises either. All the witnessess have been deposed prior to trial. Evidence disclosed to opposing counsel prior as well. But, if there is a jury, all attornies are playing it up for them. A good attorney has to be somewhat a good actor, too. (Gerry Spence is one of the best.) If there is a camera in the court room, the difference for the most part is that they might dress better. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 3:22 pm AdLib, slow month so they have to create something to keep 24 hours of crap going. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 1:41 pm Thanks again, Bito. I have looked behind some of them and I can’t believe some of the silly and well, stupid things people ask the President. And, Boehner tweets him, “Where’s the jobs?” Really? Like I said some are stupid questions from stupid acting people. But, thank you for educating me on something new. And, thank you for your efforts in getting the info to us. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 1:26 pm Bito, that is terrible. Unfortuntly, their environmental control agency IBAMA (? sounds familiar) is too late on some/lot of acres but at least they are aware of the problem. I would like to know who really is behind those supposely “ranchers”. I think that is too simple a tag line on who is doing it. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 1:17 pm Thanks Bito. Again I don’t know where or when to look. I will learn one of these days. Well, maybe.. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:53 pm Ok Cher, again you are younger than me and you know how to Twitter and I don’t. If you see something you think I should know, please let me. You usually are on the same page with me. (I don’t know if you would like to admit that and it is to early in the day for a drink to get you to the point of “Alrighty old pal, will do”.) For now I am out to the yard with Mr. T and his powerwasher. He thinks it is necessary to powerwash that damn picket fence before we paint it. Me, I’d just knock off the big chunks of dirt and go for it. Wow, wait, he just came in and said he needs to take a break. Gee, I love that guy! » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 11:18 am I guess that is one way to get your car sandblasted if you need a paint job or will you need a paint job after being caught in one? Either way, I am sure a bong hit is necessary if that is your choice for relaxing. I hope you were able to. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 10:25 am I know, Khirad, I was being half way serious. Perhaps it is just a new way for the drug lords to get their drugs across the border. Like on the back of the Road Runner. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 10:06 am Cher, I haven’t seen that but I am sure they will find that it is somehow the illegal Mexicans fault. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 1:01 am Kesmarn, have you heard anymore on that poor lady that you admitted into the hospital that had been thrown off Medicaid and didn’t have Medicare D? If you have already addressed this, I apologize but I haven’t seen anything. I was wondering how she was and her condition if you know. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:55 am KT, many things if over indulged are dumb choices. To many sweets can lead to diabetes. To much texting while driving or in Congress is dumb and dangerous. Like you said all things in moderation is key. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:43 am Well, AD, you just can’t have or get everything. But, no harm in asking. The problem is, was anyone listening? You probably need to lobby those big corporate farms. If there is money in it and the government will subsidise, those corporate farms will do their own lobbying. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:32 am AdLib, I understand your position and approach to the matter. I was not critizing you. I was just giving my opinion and I should have just kept it to myself. It seems that many are always telling others how to commicate on here when all they simply have to do is ask why someone said something and their meaning. It doesn’t need to be “you don’t know how to communicate”. We all see things different at times. But that is what makes for conversation. I will wait a year to make another such comment when I am more seasoned to the site. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:02 am Ok, WTS, I don’t see that being acknowledge but if you say it was, it was. I didn’t say you said I was rude but that I thought I hadn’t been. I won’t disagree that people, including myself, can be misunderstood. The situation you are referring to between us was nothing like jkkFL and my conversation. You did overreact and had your comment deleted. You have no need to defend yourself nor do I care to defend myself any further. I find it unnecessary to bring others into this disagreement between us. I never mentioned you in my original comment and never would have. If there needs to be a winner to this matter, you can call if for yourself. I will work on my communication skills, WTS, and you work on that burr under your saddle. 🙂 » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 11:44 pm AdLib, I am coming late to this party but I would like to make a comment on it. I don’t know exactly what has happen here but apparently someone was in dispute with an article or comment. Okay, I have seen that many times on here and sometimes they go without much to do and other times it becomes an issue. Many of you on here have been commenting for sometime with each other and you understand jabs of fun and such. Disagreements slide. I have been told how to comment on here myself because I was not in agreement with a regular poster and was rudely attacked. When I defended myself, their comment was later deleted and mine left posted which showed me as the aggressor when I hadn’t been. Another time I was received a comment of judgement because I was new comer, when in fact I had been posting for 6 months on here! Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that I have seen at times that the regulars on here make claim to the site and how they feel others should behave and their opinions carry more weight. Of course, you won’t see it that way but I feel you should realize that others, well me, have. I don’t agree with name calling but among several of you, it is okay because you are friends and understand that it is in fun. The real problem with sites it that we can’t see our facial expressions or hear our laughter after. I, myself, have several on here that I can joke with and they with me, AND, I LOVE IT! Others, I wouldn’t dare. Doesn’t stop me from coming back and I am not really complaining but just giving an opinion. And, please accept it as information from another point of view. Okay, enough from me. I haven’t been on here for several days, so, just mark it up to having “stopped up” typing being dislodged. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 8:51 pm Cher, and that saying the States can keep facilities available. I remember an uncle telling me a story about his little brother breaking his leg and they having to borrow a neighbors truck to drive 200 miles to a hospital because the local one had closed because of the depression. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 4:36 pm And, Cher, for many of them, the world will end. Because they will not be able to afford or get the medical attention, medicine, housing, and food they need to survive the hard times of adjustment that our country will have to deal with. There will be a depression and it will be as great or greater than the last. Many in that earlier depression lost everything including their lives. Many will again. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 3:27 pm Casey Anthony: Guilty or Not Guilty? Yes, Adonai, it will. Justice for all. Sometimes that “all” includes the lowest of low but still the scales must and will balance for that “all” is the purpose. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 8:05 pm KQ, and I understand your opinion, as well. I don’t know all the facts or how they were presented. I wouldn’t have relied on DNA alone either. Many things figure into this case and the jury knows more than I do or care to. I really have no true idea how I would have judged because I don’t have all the facts or how they were presented anymore than I understand how anyone could commit such a crime in the first place. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:17 am jkkFL, I never thought or accused you have calling me stupid. I said I never called anyone stupid. And, I didn’t think the jury was stupid. Yes, you obviously have information from a local point of view. I did know that the there was a juror with a schedule cruise or something but I don’t believe that was a reason for the decision given. (Even if it was nonrefundable, I think they had a case for refund because of jury duty. I have know someone that was given a refund on a nonrefund because of such a issue.) One juror’s vacation won’t matter to the other 11 regardless if they were forman or not. Perhaps more light will be given to the decision if and when a juror speaks. Again, I am not defending the accused but just supporting the jury in their decision. And, that could change if I hear the jury say something that doesn’t make sense to me in their responding to what were the reasons for their decision. I have been known to change my mind………… » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 10:37 pm jkkFL, I didn’t hear any such testimony given in the trial so I can not give you the answer from the otherside. I did hear that there was testmony that there still would have been DNA available around the body even with the exposure it was exposed to but none was proof of the mother being there. I do disagree that everyone with a TV show are qualified. And, I certainly didn’t call anyone “stupid”. I don’t agree with calling the jury stupid either. As I said and I am sure is true of you, we were not sitting in that court room. We did not hear everything. We have our opinions but we were not on the jury. The jury gave their verdict and I am defending their right to give it, whether I agree or not. I do not agree with anyone being charged in the press or on TV before their day in court. I have seen on a couple of other occasions where the TV show has been proven wrong in how they were protraying the facts. (One such case was the young girl kidnapped in Utah.) However, if you find entertainment in those shows, who am I to call you stupid? And, of course I haven’t and wouldn’t. If you feel I am because I am defending the jury, well, I disagree with that. 🙂 » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 9:21 pm KQ, again, I am not defending her but the jury. If I was on the jury, I could have had doubt on whether the little girl was killed or it was an accident in drowning. There was no proof of how the sweet little thing died. They could not prove if she did drown or was smothered. No proof that she was chloroformed. And, there was proof given that choloroform is a common ingredient in many household cleaning products. The duct tape found with the body, the prosecutors could not show proof it was ever on the body. (They use a computer generated picture showing how it could have been on the body but not that it actually was.) There was no DNA on the tape of either the mother or the child. There was no one that testified that the mother had ever shown any abuse against the child. The grandparents were always available to babysit, so that doesn’t appear to have been a problem. Yes, I would have questioned why she was out at clubs while the daughter was supposely missing. But does that prove she killed her? (I never understood why my uncle didn’t cry at my aunts funeral.) Okay, that is just a few things that might have caused me to have some doubts. I don’t think I would have forcused only on the family stuff. And, I won’t be surprised that if the jury ever gives comments, they will say they didn’t either. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 7:50 pm I don’t know if it was a Miscarriage of Justice as that usually refers to the defendent being found guilty when innocent but I guess it can be used the other way too. I think it is more an Error of Impunity. That is when the ruling results in criminals either remaining at large or receiving sanctions that are below a socially optimal level. Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on “a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.” Even with that many innocent people have been found guilty and years later DNA not examined originally or reexam have found that they were actually innocent I am not defending this young lady by no means, I have my own opinion. But, I am defending our country’s laws that allow us to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to a jury trial. Your life is in their hands in some case and I would hope that if they had any doubt that they would rule for life than against it. (As the Supreme Court ruled, when we apparently had a smarter one then than we do now.) » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 5:54 pm I stand corrected on the choices available to the jury. However, the choice was theirs bases on the evidence presented in the trial. I have a personal opinion of the young woman and even an opinion of her guilty or not. But, I did not set in on the trial or was I on the jury. I only know of the things I have seen on TV or read on the internet and listening to the closing arguments, and of course that is not everything. I am sure sooner or later, one of the jury will give a statement and give some explanation of why they went with not guilty. Like I said, it was theirs to find and my opinion is not one that matters. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 4:02 pm Cher, I agree with you that the Prosecutors mistake was in going for the death pently with the case and evidence they had to present. A lessor charge would have probably found her guilty, such as manslaughter. The jury took their job seriously and found as they saw the evidence or the lack there of. The case had much attention in the media and Nancy Grace’s show for a year and half. The public found no trial necessary because they had found her guilty. But, the public only hears the sensations of a trial and not all the facts. They hear the evidence of guilt but not the argument or facts that counter such evidence. The jury does. Too many times the media makes the story that will get the most attention for them. Many times attornies on TV say how the case should be tried if they had it but they don’t and they don’t have all the evidence regardless of what they say. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 3:07 pm The Age Of Reason As An Argument To The Age Of Fear And, I am glad you have made it, too! » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 6:34 pm Nope, KT, it was the water buffalo. I had to enlighten him in the Morning Blog. Of course, he had to take it to another level with graphic description of the process. This will explain the stinker, too. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 4:34 pm KT, Khirad is being a stinker because he just learned where the fan came from today. And, we don’t want to go back that far! » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 4:09 pm The young wish to be older and the old wish to be younger. Man never comes of age at the right time it appears. » Posted By SallyT On July 6, 2011 @ 12:39 pm KT, I don’t know if you can get that horse to drink from the trough after it has drank too much koolaid. It is amazing to me how young some of those Founding Fathers were at the time. (and I am not referring to John Quincy Adams, the Founding Kid.) Good article, KT. Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear TJ, JA, BF and others thoughts on the issues we face today and how we handle or don’t handle them. » Posted By SallyT On July 5, 2011 @ 11:15 pmComments Posted By SallyT
I like the time some have given to Gov Schweitzer/Montana and his fight with Exxon on the oil in the Yellowstone River. That guy is a true Cowboy not a play acting one like someone we use to have around, around too long.
It is a beautiful day here in Portland and yes, Khirad, it is after the 4th of July. I think you need to get your butt over here and help me paint my picket fence, Huck, says Tom Sawyer. (It is a true project on the calendar. Know of any good paint sales?)
I wouldn’t classify me as “not to bright”. Perhaps other may but I would classify me as someone that if on a jury (which I have been and was Forman) I would listen and study everything presented and if in doubt, I would rule accordingly.
My main problem with all this is that too many times someone is tried in the media first without any evidence. And, if there is evidence whether or not sufficient, it is judged as proof with no evidence or arguments to the contrary because it doesn’t make good story for media purposes.
In the OJ case, the prosecutors error was the trial for both the wife and the waiter/friend murders together. If they had done them separate, they probably would have got him found guilty on the second trial. But, to save money or whatever the reason they didn’t.
Regardless of my opinion on this case, the jury’s opinion and decision is the one that counts. If it were a member or friend of mine in such a situation, I would pray that they have a jury that listen to the evidence presented in the trial and not that on TV, papers, or the internet.
A little girl lost her life and nothing can bring her back. How, where or why was not answered with the evidence.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats