Medicine transcription - Jackson Trial

Author

Jackson Trial

Bambi C.

2005-04-19, 11:47 am

I haven't really been following the Michael Jackson trial, but this morning
I looked at some photos of him at the trial, leaving the courthouse, etc.
Aside from the shambles plastic surgery has made of his face, he looks ILL
to me. His hands especially look unhealthy, they are so thin and
bluish/purplish looking. Has anyone else noticed this?

Bambi C.

djgordon

2005-04-19, 11:47 am

According to reports since jury selection he is ill. It started with some
type of back ache and he was reported as having flu or pneumonia or
something a few weeks ago, so that's probably it. Defense has asked for some
allowances for hospital and doctor visits, but after he's already been late
to court a few times, they don't seem to care one way or the other as long
as his butt is sitting in the courtroom at the time specified, which he had
been late one day because of a hospital visit and came this close to
contempt. I like Michael Jackson. I have no idea whether he has done the
things he's accused of, although I really hope not, and have my doubts. But
I do think he may be milking things a little too much. He's not the cute
little boy he used to be and he does need to grow up and get over his "Peter
Pan" syndrome.

Dani

"Bambi C." <blcc324@epix.net> wrote in message
news:1c99e.1133$4a.114445@news1.epix.net...
> I haven't really been following the Michael Jackson trial, but this
morning
> I looked at some photos of him at the trial, leaving the courthouse, etc.
> Aside from the shambles plastic surgery has made of his face, he looks ILL
> to me. His hands especially look unhealthy, they are so thin and
> bluish/purplish looking. Has anyone else noticed this?
>
> Bambi C.
>
>

Jeannie Wilson

2005-04-19, 10:51 pm

"Bambi C." <blcc324@epix.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:1c99e.1133$4a.114445@news1.epix.net:

> I haven't really been following the Michael Jackson trial, but this
> morning I looked at some photos of him at the trial, leaving the
> courthouse, etc. Aside from the shambles plastic surgery has made of
> his face, he looks ILL to me. His hands especially look unhealthy,
> they are so thin and bluish/purplish looking. Has anyone else noticed
> this?
>
> Bambi C.
>
>

Nope - I avoid looking at him as much as possible.

Bambi C.

2005-04-19, 10:51 pm

LOL!!!
It's like a train wreck ... I can't help looking, even though it's
horrifying.

Bambi C.

"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns963DB57B51296jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Bambi C." <blcc324@epix.net> wrote here for all to
> seenews:1c99e.1133$4a.114445@news1.epix.net:
>
>
> Nope - I avoid looking at him as much as possible.

RaeMorrill

2005-04-19, 10:51 pm

It sure is. I know the man is strange, but strange doesn't necessarily
mean evil. I'm not following this closely, but watch enough of Nancy
Grace and other late night stuff to hear that his accusers are sure not
coming across as credible. What the hell are the DA's thinking putting
people like this on the stand. The minute I heard someone has blatantly
lied and been involved in other extortion type schemes, I'd have to vote
innocent because that is sure reasonable doubt. If he did it, he could
walk because of this.

Bambi C. wrote:
> LOL!!!
> It's like a train wreck ... I can't help looking, even though it's
> horrifying.
>
> Bambi C.
>
>
> "Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns963DB57B51296jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
>
>
>
>

Sandi

2005-04-19, 10:52 pm

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GOj9e.3746$Bc7.1648@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> It sure is. I know the man is strange, but strange doesn't necessarily
> mean evil. I'm not following this closely, but watch enough of Nancy
> Grace and other late night stuff to hear that his accusers are sure not
> coming across as credible. What the hell are the DA's thinking putting
> people like this on the stand. The minute I heard someone has blatantly
> lied and been involved in other extortion type schemes, I'd have to vote
> innocent because that is sure reasonable doubt. If he did it, he could
> walk because of this.
>
For real? If one witness was someone you didn't think was credible, you'd
throw all the other testimony out and consider that reasonable doubt? No
one is truly 100% credible. No one has never ever lied. Particularly in
criminal cases, those who are witnesses often are not the sort of people
we'd have Sunday dinner with, but those are the people who were there.

Sandi

djgordon

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

But isn't it supposed to by any reasonable doubt whatsoever? If that one
alleged witness gave you a shadow of a doubt, you could still vote guilty?
Isn't that against the jury instructions?

Dani

"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cm1q1F6jrhvfU2@individual.net...
>
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:GOj9e.3746$Bc7.1648@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> For real? If one witness was someone you didn't think was credible, you'd
> throw all the other testimony out and consider that reasonable doubt? No
> one is truly 100% credible. No one has never ever lied. Particularly in
> criminal cases, those who are witnesses often are not the sort of people
> we'd have Sunday dinner with, but those are the people who were there.
>
> Sandi
>
>

Eliyahu Rooff

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Washington's
pattern jury instruction on the subject says,
"The law presumes a defendant to be innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. This presumption is not a mere matter of form, but
it is a substantial part of the law of the land, and it continues
throughout the entire trial and until you have found that this
presumption has been overcome by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The doubt which entitles the defendant to an acquittal must be a doubt
for which a reason exists. You are not to go beyond the evidence to hunt
up doubts, nor must you entertain such doubts as are merely vague,
imaginary, or conjectural. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as exists
in the mind of a reasonable man after he has fully, fairly and carefully
compared and considered all of the evidence or lack of evidence
introduced at the trial. If, after a careful consideration and
comparison of all the evidence, you can say you have an abiding
conviction of the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt."

I expect that California law will be similar. In any case, the fact that
one witness lacks credibility doesn't affect the credibility of other
witnesses or of the evidence in the case. The defense could discredit
all witnesses and most of the evidence, but if what remains is enough to
convince the jury, they can still find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eliyahu

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> But isn't it supposed to by any reasonable doubt whatsoever? If that
> one
> alleged witness gave you a shadow of a doubt, you could still vote
> guilty?
> Isn't that against the jury instructions?
>
> Dani
>
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cm1q1F6jrhvfU2@individual.net...
>
>

kathycarp

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

Sometimes it is "beyond reasonable doubt" and sometimes it is "preponderance
of the evidence". Not sure which it is in this trial.

--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> But isn't it supposed to by any reasonable doubt whatsoever? If that one
> alleged witness gave you a shadow of a doubt, you could still vote guilty?
> Isn't that against the jury instructions?
>
> Dani
>
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cm1q1F6jrhvfU2@individual.net...
>
>

kathycarp

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

The thing is, pedophiles prey on kids who are a bit "mixed up", ya know?
Then when these "mixed up" kids testify, they aren't going to be the model
witness.

--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GOj9e.3746$Bc7.1648@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> It sure is. I know the man is strange, but strange doesn't necessarily
> mean evil. I'm not following this closely, but watch enough of Nancy Grace
> and other late night stuff to hear that his accusers are sure not coming
> across as credible. What the hell are the DA's thinking putting people
> like this on the stand. The minute I heard someone has blatantly lied and
> been involved in other extortion type schemes, I'd have to vote innocent
> because that is sure reasonable doubt. If he did it, he could walk because
> of this.
>
>
> Bambi C. wrote:

Sandi

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> But isn't it supposed to by any reasonable doubt whatsoever? If that one
> alleged witness gave you a shadow of a doubt, you could still vote guilty?
> Isn't that against the jury instructions?
>
> Dani
>
No, it's a reasonable doubt, not ANY doubt. Let's say, for example, that a
person commits a murder in front of 5 credible people and 1 nut, and leaves
his DNA at the scene. The prosecutor, showing an incredible lack of
judgment, decides to put up the one witness who is completely off the wall,
a known liar, and not credible. He also puts on the 5 credible people and
the DNA evidence. You aren't supposed to ignore the mountain of other
evidence because one person is a nut. You are supposed to ignore the nut if
you find the nut not credible, and if the rest of the evidence supports a
conviction, then it supports it. You can throw out evidence you find to be
not credible, but it's not a reason to ignore the evidence that is.

Sandi

Jeannie Wilson

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

"Bambi C." <blcc324@epix.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:zki9e.1171$4a.115744@news1.epix.net:

> LOL!!!
> It's like a train wreck ... I can't help looking, even though it's
> horrifying.

It is just sad for me to see him. I was never a big fan so it's not like
he's some fallen hero to me or anything. It is just sad what has happened
to him. Happened not in the sense of what he is being accused of because I
have no inclination as to his guilt or innocence. It is sad at what true
unhappiness on the inside can do to a person.

haggis

2005-04-20, 8:49 am

"Bambi C." <blcc324@epix.net> wrote here for all to[vbcol=seagreen]

I think it's fascinating. For a real hoot, go here:
http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

I can't decide if I like the Frank'n'Furter comparison, Bizarro
Superman, the Joker, Judy Jetson, Planet of the Apes, or. . . well,
hell--they're ALL spot on!

Did they ever figure out how to get his nose to stay on? Maybe if the
fake illness can't stop the trial, he's saving that for his trump card.

jeanne
(not at all sympathetic--the whole family's a freak show)

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I'd have to say pretty much yes. Maybe everyone has lied at some point
in their life, but when they have previously lied to get welfare
benefits (she pled the 5th on this I believe?) and there is suspicion
she made up story of JC Penny guards roughing her up to get a
settlement, I sure would have to discredit anything else she said. It's
not like calling in sick when you're not so you can go do something you
want to. From what I've seen she doesn't sound credible on many issues,
so how in the world could I use her testimony to convict someone of a
felony and put them in jail?

Sandi wrote:
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:GOj9e.3746$Bc7.1648@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> For real? If one witness was someone you didn't think was credible, you'd
> throw all the other testimony out and consider that reasonable doubt? No
> one is truly 100% credible. No one has never ever lied. Particularly in
> criminal cases, those who are witnesses often are not the sort of people
> we'd have Sunday dinner with, but those are the people who were there.
>
> Sandi
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

It would be to me. What's "reasonable" doubt mean. If someone has a
history of lying, especially lying to get financial settlements, why
would you believe anything they said. For example, the Wendy's finger in
the chili story. Apparently she's pulled similar before to get money. So
far no source has been found for the finger. If it is proven she put it
there (and where did she get it?), I sure wouldn't believe her under
oath particularly if she stood to gain money if the person accused was
found guilty.

djgordon wrote:
> But isn't it supposed to by any reasonable doubt whatsoever? If that one
> alleged witness gave you a shadow of a doubt, you could still vote guilty?
> Isn't that against the jury instructions?
>
> Dani
>
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cm1q1F6jrhvfU2@individual.net...
>
>
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I think reasonable doubt is criminal and preponderance is civil, i.e.,
in the OJ trial.

kathycarp wrote:
> Sometimes it is "beyond reasonable doubt" and sometimes it is "preponderance
> of the evidence". Not sure which it is in this trial.
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

Yes, but it isn't the kid we're talking about here. It's his mother.

kathycarp wrote:
> The thing is, pedophiles prey on kids who are a bit "mixed up", ya know?
> Then when these "mixed up" kids testify, they aren't going to be the model
> witness.
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

No, of course not, but if all the other witnesses are also suspect due
to possible vendettas, etc., and there are no eyewitnesses, etc. Not
saying that I wouldn't convict Jackson. I just don't believe (from what
I'm seeing reported obviously not in court), I don't think I would
convict him on this woman's testimony. Lying is serious stuff to me and
if someone lies to me about ANYTHING I'll not trust them about much for
a long time. Nevermind lies for personal gain or lies for no reason at all

Sandi wrote:
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> No, it's a reasonable doubt, not ANY doubt. Let's say, for example, that a
> person commits a murder in front of 5 credible people and 1 nut, and leaves
> his DNA at the scene. The prosecutor, showing an incredible lack of
> judgment, decides to put up the one witness who is completely off the wall,
> a known liar, and not credible. He also puts on the 5 credible people and
> the DNA evidence. You aren't supposed to ignore the mountain of other
> evidence because one person is a nut. You are supposed to ignore the nut if
> you find the nut not credible, and if the rest of the evidence supports a
> conviction, then it supports it. You can throw out evidence you find to be
> not credible, but it's not a reason to ignore the evidence that is.
>
> Sandi
>
>

Eliyahu Rooff

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

Criminal trials are always BRD. The "preponderance" standard ("more
likely than not") is for civil suits, while (in Washington, at least)
there's also a "clear, cogent and convincing" evidentiary standard for
dependency hearings to take away parental rights.

Eliyahu

"kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote in message
news:X9ydnaVAHeZNSvjfRVn-1A@comcast.com...
> Sometimes it is "beyond reasonable doubt" and sometimes it is
"preponderance
> of the evidence". Not sure which it is in this trial.
>
> --
> Kathy
> www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
one[vbcol=seagreen]
guilty?[vbcol=seagreen]
necessarily[vbcol=seagreen]
Nancy[vbcol=seagreen]
sure not[vbcol=seagreen]
putting[vbcol=seagreen]
blatantly[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
could[vbcol=seagreen]
credible,[vbcol=seagreen]
doubt? No[vbcol=seagreen]
Particularly in[vbcol=seagreen]
people[vbcol=seagreen]
there.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

kathycarp

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

> Yes, but it isn't the kid we're talking about here. It's his mother.
>
>
-----------
Exactly. One might expect a dysfunctional kid to have a dysfunctional
parent.

--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eBt9e.3336$mG3.1535@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, but it isn't the kid we're talking about here. It's his mother.
>
>
> kathycarp wrote:

Jeannie Wilson

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:eBt9e.3336$mG3.1535@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

> Yes, but it isn't the kid we're talking about here. It's his mother.

So...you would hold the kid accountable, in a sense of finding him not
guilty based on reasonable doubt, because of his mother's character?

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I can't say for sure, because I don't follow that trial other than to read
the more sensationalized tidbits they put on the web. But the prosecutors
are supposed to know what they're putting on the witness stand. If they put
a proven liar and a proven mooch on the stand, I'd probably throw out her
testimony myself.

I spent 6 loooong months on jury duty. Nothing was as exciting as Michael
Jackson, but those lying witnesses really stick out to me and they taint the
testimony of everybody else sometimes.

"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns963E6E509EB85jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:eBt9e.3336$mG3.1535@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>
>
> So...you would hold the kid accountable, in a sense of finding him not
> guilty based on reasonable doubt, because of his mother's character?

Phyllis

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

But this woman stands to gain no money if Jackson is found guilty does she?

RaeMorrill wrote:
> It would be to me. What's "reasonable" doubt mean. If someone has a
> history of lying, especially lying to get financial settlements, why
> would you believe anything they said. For example, the Wendy's finger in
> the chili story. Apparently she's pulled similar before to get money. So
> far no source has been found for the finger. If it is proven she put it
> there (and where did she get it?), I sure wouldn't believe her under
> oath particularly if she stood to gain money if the person accused was
> found guilty.
>
> djgordon wrote:
>

djgordon

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

Well, of course she does, because then it lends even more credence to a
civil suit for damages.

Dani

"Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:4266757E.8070300@buckeye-express.com...
> But this woman stands to gain no money if Jackson is found guilty does
she?
>
> RaeMorrill wrote:
>

Phyllis

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I'm sorry; didn't know she had filed a civil suit. If she is no better
at testifying there than in his criminal case, I don't think she'll get
much.

djgordon wrote:
> Well, of course she does, because then it lends even more credence to a
> civil suit for damages.
>
> Dani
>
> "Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:4266757E.8070300@buckeye-express.com...
>
>
> she?
>
>
>

djgordon

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I don't know that she's filed a civil suit either, but it's kind of logical
that that will be her next step.

Dani

"Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:42667CE0.3000905@buckeye-express.com...
> I'm sorry; didn't know she had filed a civil suit. If she is no better
> at testifying there than in his criminal case, I don't think she'll get
> much.
>
> djgordon wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
So[vbcol=seagreen]
>

VickieHerndonCMT

2005-04-20, 11:48 am

I am not interested in that trial either. I have read a few tidbits. With
the credibility of the witnesses, I just am not seeing them finding him
guilty.

At the most, I see him as a total weirdo with perhaps a few mental problems,
but from what I am hearing, I cannot see that they have proven that he
actually molested any children. Again, I am seeing a weirdo with strange
behavior...but nothing that proves he is anything other than that....so far.

<blupencl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gxu9e.869$l45.501@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>I can't say for sure, because I don't follow that trial other than to read
>the more sensationalized tidbits they put on the web. But the prosecutors
>are supposed to know what they're putting on the witness stand. If they put
>a proven liar and a proven mooch on the stand, I'd probably throw out her
>testimony myself.
>
> I spent 6 loooong months on jury duty. Nothing was as exciting as Michael
> Jackson, but those lying witnesses really stick out to me and they taint
> the testimony of everybody else sometimes.
>
> "Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns963E6E509EB85jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
>
>

Phyllis

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Even if she were to win a civil suit, she might be surprised if the
judge puts the settlement in escrow for the son. She wouldn't be able
to touch it then. A neighbor of ours won a suit over a dog bite (the
dog was chained up in his own yard, the children came over to "visit"
him while the owners were gone and one was bitten), but the judge put
the money in an escrow account for the girl who was bitten. Mom and dad
were upset because they were planning on using the money to add another
room to their house.

djgordon wrote:
> I don't know that she's filed a civil suit either, but it's kind of logical
> that that will be her next step.
>
> Dani
>
>

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

That very well may be done. My niece hurt herself on a protruding rock on
the playground about 7 years ago (was in a body cast for six months) and the
$25,000 settlement went into a trust account and my sister can only touch it
if she petitions to the court. It is used for things that Jennifer needs
that they can't normally afford. When Jennifer turns 18 in 3 years then a
complete accounting will be done and all receipts showing purchases (even
though a petition was made for each one) have to be turned in and for any
cent that is over what was purchased then a judgment will be made against my
sister and she will have so many days to pay it back. So far, considering
this is my dysfunctional family we are talking about, she has done pretty
good and only owes it $800 that they needed to keep a roof over their heads
and not live in their car.

Dani

"Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:42668B44.90507@buckeye-express.com...
> Even if she were to win a civil suit, she might be surprised if the
> judge puts the settlement in escrow for the son. She wouldn't be able
> to touch it then. A neighbor of ours won a suit over a dog bite (the
> dog was chained up in his own yard, the children came over to "visit"
> him while the owners were gone and one was bitten), but the judge put
> the money in an escrow account for the girl who was bitten. Mom and dad
> were upset because they were planning on using the money to add another
> room to their house.
>
> djgordon wrote:
logical[vbcol=seagreen]
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Sure and if the kid has been dragged into playing these games for gain,
that's what they know and think it is okay.

kathycarp wrote:
>
> -----------
> Exactly. One might expect a dysfunctional kid to have a dysfunctional
> parent.
>

Jeannie Wilson

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Phyllis <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:42668B44.90507@buckeye-express.com:

> Even if she were to win a civil suit, she might be surprised if the
> judge puts the settlement in escrow for the son. She wouldn't be able
> to touch it then. A neighbor of ours won a suit over a dog bite (the
> dog was chained up in his own yard, the children came over to "visit"
> him while the owners were gone and one was bitten), but the judge put
> the money in an escrow account for the girl who was bitten. Mom and dad
> were upset because they were planning on using the money to add another
> room to their house.

That is disgusting. If you come into my yard and my dog bites you when he
is properly "restrained" I say that you deserved it for one...you were
trespassing for another...and then you have the nerve to sue me because you
can't keep your child in your own yard? How disgusting. That is an
example of ONE STUPID lawsuit that never should've darked the doorstep of
the court system.

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Thanks, Dani. I do not know all the ins and outs of this whole trial
(who could?). However, in view of huge settlement he made back in early
1990s, perhaps this woman has already tried to get financial gain from
this and when she couldn't, filed criminal charges. I don't know that's
the case at all, just that it is possible.

djgordon wrote:
> Well, of course she does, because then it lends even more credence to a
> civil suit for damages.
>
> Dani
>
> "Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:4266757E.8070300@buckeye-express.com...
>
>
> she?
>
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Just like in OJ case, there doesn't have to be as much evidence to
support liable verdict in a civil trial.

djgordon wrote:
> I don't know that she's filed a civil suit either, but it's kind of logical
> that that will be her next step.
>
> Dani
>
> "Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:42667CE0.3000905@buckeye-express.com...
>
>
> in
>
>
> So
>
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Unbelieveable to me that verdicts are awarded in cases like this. Owner
restrains the dog and a child can come torment it and then it is the
animal's fault?

Phyllis wrote:
> Even if she were to win a civil suit, she might be surprised if the
> judge puts the settlement in escrow for the son. She wouldn't be able
> to touch it then. A neighbor of ours won a suit over a dog bite (the
> dog was chained up in his own yard, the children came over to "visit"
> him while the owners were gone and one was bitten), but the judge put
> the money in an escrow account for the girl who was bitten. Mom and dad
> were upset because they were planning on using the money to add another
> room to their house.
>
> djgordon wrote:
>
>

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Happened exactly like that to two of my ex-neighbors. First one, she was
getting ready for work. Dysfunctional neighbors' kid came over (ex-neighbor
had no children), tripped on step going up to door, went to ER, they sued.
Same house, new neighbors, same dysfunctional neighbors a few years later.
Again, the new neighbors had no children, same boy comes over, torments
Sasha, who is chained up in their yard, boy gets scratched where she jumped
on him and may or may not have bit him (couldn't tell if it was scratch or
bite), boy cries, bleeding a bit, I make him get out of Melanie's yard,
parents come over, make Melanie take them to ER (Deanna couldn't drive and
didn't have car if she could), then turn around and sue, dog gets impounded
to check for rabies, etc. This same kid comes to my house a few months
later, slams Dionna's head into the door, I swatted him on the rear and sent
him home. I get sued (okay I shouldn't have done it but he did slam my
daughter's head into our steel carport door) we go to court, no contact
order is put in place and Judge Foust tells Deanna he's tired of her
lawsuits and somebody better have died or lost an extremity before he sees
her again. They later moved and the whole subdivision breathed a collective
sigh of relief. Those were only three lawsuits out of what I estimate to be
12 that I knew of in the 7 years we lived there overlapping with them.

Dani

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kpw9e.4752$XF3.4220@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Unbelieveable to me that verdicts are awarded in cases like this. Owner
> restrains the dog and a child can come torment it and then it is the
> animal's fault?
>
> Phyllis wrote:

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Well, did the $20,000 he offered her (the most recent alleged victim's mom)
get given or was it just offered and now being used as evidence?

Dani

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2nw9e.4750$XF3.1544@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks, Dani. I do not know all the ins and outs of this whole trial
> (who could?). However, in view of huge settlement he made back in early
> 1990s, perhaps this woman has already tried to get financial gain from
> this and when she couldn't, filed criminal charges. I don't know that's
> the case at all, just that it is possible.
>
> djgordon wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
So[vbcol=seagreen]

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Mvt9e.3331$mG3.1640@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I'd have to say pretty much yes. Maybe everyone has lied at some point
> in their life, but when they have previously lied to get welfare
> benefits (she pled the 5th on this I believe?) and there is suspicion
> she made up story of JC Penny guards roughing her up to get a
> settlement, I sure would have to discredit anything else she said. It's
> not like calling in sick when you're not so you can go do something you
> want to. From what I've seen she doesn't sound credible on many issues,
> so how in the world could I use her testimony to convict someone of a
> felony and put them in jail?
>
That wasn't my point. My point was that you could find her completely not
credible and still convict if you followed the judge's instructions, and the
other testimony and evidence proved him guilty.

Sandi

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:9Ru9e.81213$UW6.1658@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Well, of course she does, because then it lends even more credence to a
> civil suit for damages.
>
> Dani
>
Except that she's now said, under oath and on the stand, that she has no
intention of filing a civil suit against Jackson.

Sandi

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2nw9e.4750$XF3.1544@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Thanks, Dani. I do not know all the ins and outs of this whole trial
> (who could?). However, in view of huge settlement he made back in early
> 1990s, perhaps this woman has already tried to get financial gain from
> this and when she couldn't, filed criminal charges. I don't know that's
> the case at all, just that it is possible.
>
She didn't file the initial charges, nor has she sued Jackson. The case was
brought to LE's attention by a psychologist who became concerned after
watching the Bashir documentary.

Sandi

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Considering that's of no consequence to the outcome of this trial or a fact
that would have no bearing on his guilt or innocence, could that in any way
get her in trouble for perjury if she did later file? People can change
their minds, they just can't change the facts as they know them. If she
changes her mind and files civilly I don't see any court finding it as
perjury.

Dani

"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cnmafF6nkkgvU1@individual.net...
>
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:9Ru9e.81213$UW6.1658@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Except that she's now said, under oath and on the stand, that she has no
> intention of filing a civil suit against Jackson.
>
> Sandi
>
>

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

They call the dog an "attractive nuisance" like a pool. Even if you have a
high fence. One of my first law offices I worked in our clients had a six
foot fence. A shepherd on a chain and the owner told the children to stay
out of the yard. They got in and teased the dog and he bit one of the girls
and they were sued and got a settlement. I was livid!!!

--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kpw9e.4752$XF3.4220@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Unbelieveable to me that verdicts are awarded in cases like this. Owner
> restrains the dog and a child can come torment it and then it is the
> animal's fault?
>
> Phyllis wrote:

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

But since she is a part of this trial and part of the evidence being
presented, wouldn't the belief or non-belief be reasonable doubt? Aren't you
supposed to take all the testimony and evidence as a whole, and not pick and
choose what you want to use as reasonable doubt?

Dani

"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cnm90F6mvkm7U1@individual.net...
>
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Mvt9e.3331$mG3.1640@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> That wasn't my point. My point was that you could find her completely not
> credible and still convict if you followed the judge's instructions, and
the
> other testimony and evidence proved him guilty.
>
> Sandi
>
>

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cqx9e.81901$UW6.72839@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Considering that's of no consequence to the outcome of this trial or a
fact
> that would have no bearing on his guilt or innocence, could that in any
way
> get her in trouble for perjury if she did later file? People can change
> their minds, they just can't change the facts as they know them. If she
> changes her mind and files civilly I don't see any court finding it as
> perjury.
>
> Dani
>
I can see someone making an argument that her statement was a material fact
which would subject her to perjury charges, but it probably wouldn't fly.

Sandi

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Irx9e.81908$UW6.56138@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> But since she is a part of this trial and part of the evidence being
> presented, wouldn't the belief or non-belief be reasonable doubt? Aren't
you
> supposed to take all the testimony and evidence as a whole, and not pick
and
> choose what you want to use as reasonable doubt?
>
> Dani
>
No, it shouldn't be reasonable doubt, if the rest of the evidence, casting
her testimony aside, was enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A
non-credible witness does not cancel out a credible, proven witness. It's
not like an algebra equation.

Having said that, many jurors think that way, so it's really really stupid
for a prosecutor to put up a non-credible witness.

Sandi

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

I really don't know. I haven't followed this every day. I just find it
interesting that Nancy Grace (former prosecutor of course) makes no
bones about he's guilty of course despite any evidence to contrary. I
agree he looks guilty as sin, but the fact is he could be guilty of
nothing more than very poor judgment.

djgordon wrote:
> Well, did the $20,000 he offered her (the most recent alleged victim's mom)
> get given or was it just offered and now being used as evidence?
>
> Dani
>
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2nw9e.4750$XF3.1544@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> in
>
>
> So
>
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

I was talking about her testimony only. If that is only real witness
they had I'd have to let him go. They way I think I probably should
never be on a jury trial for something this complicated because I would
never be sure what I was basing my opinions on.

Sandi wrote:
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Mvt9e.3331$mG3.1640@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> That wasn't my point. My point was that you could find her completely not
> credible and still convict if you followed the judge's instructions, and the
> other testimony and evidence proved him guilty.
>
> Sandi
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

But they can't get her for perjury if she changes her mind afterward can
they? I didn't know that, but I wouldn't take it as gospel either

Sandi wrote:
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:9Ru9e.81213$UW6.1658@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> Except that she's now said, under oath and on the stand, that she has no
> intention of filing a civil suit against Jackson.
>
> Sandi
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

I would be livid too. Comes back to personal responsibility. No matter
how high the fence some brat would climb it. If you charged it with
current to keep them off it, they'd get you for that too. A little hot
wire around the top like for horses. I can understand a toddler can't
understand to stay away from a dog if he can get to it, but a child
capable of climbing the fence should be able to grasp NO. If I'd have
done something like that as a kid I'd have gotten my fanny warmed for
disobeying.

Susan Mitchell wrote:
> They call the dog an "attractive nuisance" like a pool. Even if you have a
> high fence. One of my first law offices I worked in our clients had a six
> foot fence. A shepherd on a chain and the owner told the children to stay
> out of the yard. They got in and teased the dog and he bit one of the girls
> and they were sued and got a settlement. I was livid!!!
>
> --
> Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
> (to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:kpw9e.4752$XF3.4220@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
>

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Nancy Grace is like a rabid dog. I recently saw a background on her. She
was engaged to be married to her college sweetheart and he was mugged and
murdered just before the wedding. She went back to school and became a
lawyer and prosecutor and went after criminals. She has supposedly moved on
and no longer does that and has a new relationship but I think her
bitterness is still pretty obvious.

--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hTy9e.3475$mG3.3270@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I really don't know. I haven't followed this every day. I just find it
> interesting that Nancy Grace (former prosecutor of course) makes no
> bones about he's guilty of course despite any evidence to contrary. I
> agree he looks guilty as sin, but the fact is he could be guilty of
> nothing more than very poor judgment.
>
> djgordon wrote:
mom)[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
was[vbcol=seagreen]

djgordon

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Well, that's what I mean. I'm definitely not arguing with you as I was a
paralegal for a civil attorney and not a criminal, and so when doing jury
instructions they were different, but how can you cast anyone or any
evidence aside and not use it in the whole perspective? That makes no sense
to me. And an attorney not putting up a witness because they may not come
across as credible, even if they are telling the whole truth, seems to me
almost like hiding evidence and then of course you get the defense throwing
fits and moving for mistrial and on and on. Any way it goes, that witness is
still a part of the evidence and is going to come out at some point, so s/he
has to be included in the whole scheme of things, and not cast aside by the
jury. If a judge says you will disregard a statement then you are supposed
to, but is there ever an instance where a judge is going to say you have to
disregard that witness because they may or may not be credible?

Dani

"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cnn8pF6kk52bU1@individual.net...
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Irx9e.81908$UW6.56138@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> you
> and
> No, it shouldn't be reasonable doubt, if the rest of the evidence, casting
> her testimony aside, was enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A
> non-credible witness does not cancel out a credible, proven witness. It's
> not like an algebra equation.
>
> Having said that, many jurors think that way, so it's really really stupid
> for a prosecutor to put up a non-credible witness.
>
> Sandi
>
>

Anne Carle

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:05:44 -0400, "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:nnk9e.79639$UW6.75543@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>No, it's a reasonable doubt, not ANY doubt. Let's say, for example, that a
>person commits a murder in front of 5 credible people and 1 nut, and leaves
>his DNA at the scene. The prosecutor, showing an incredible lack of
>judgment, decides to put up the one witness who is completely off the wall,
>a known liar, and not credible. He also puts on the 5 credible people and
>the DNA evidence. You aren't supposed to ignore the mountain of other
>evidence because one person is a nut. You are supposed to ignore the nut if
>you find the nut not credible, and if the rest of the evidence supports a
>conviction, then it supports it. You can throw out evidence you find to be
>not credible, but it's not a reason to ignore the evidence that is.
>
>Sandi
>
I thought the above was a good explanation, Sandi. Now totally
OT...<GG>...I am soooo glad I was not on the OJ Simpson jury as I
found too many incidences that gave me reasonable doubt, so I would
have acquitted the man even though in my heart of hearts I suspect he
was guilty of both murders!

Just out of curiosity...do you mind sharing how you would have voted
given all the stuff that was televised on that case, or is that
question too personal?

Anne/OH

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GHz9e.82824$UW6.6737@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Well, that's what I mean. I'm definitely not arguing with you as I was a
> paralegal for a civil attorney and not a criminal, and so when doing jury
> instructions they were different, but how can you cast anyone or any
> evidence aside and not use it in the whole perspective? That makes no
sense
> to me. And an attorney not putting up a witness because they may not come
> across as credible, even if they are telling the whole truth, seems to me
> almost like hiding evidence and then of course you get the defense
throwing
> fits and moving for mistrial and on and on. Any way it goes, that witness
is
> still a part of the evidence and is going to come out at some point, so
s/he
> has to be included in the whole scheme of things, and not cast aside by
the
> jury. If a judge says you will disregard a statement then you are supposed
> to, but is there ever an instance where a judge is going to say you have
to
> disregard that witness because they may or may not be credible?
>
> Dani
>
Absolutely. The instruction says something to the effect of, "If you find
the witness to be dishonest (or a similar word) in one part of his
testimony, you may disregard any or all of his testimony as you see fit."

Also, the attorneys determine what evidence they will put in, assuming it is
admissible. The defense attorney can't call for a mistrial because the
prosecutor chose not to put a witness on, for any reason. If the missing
witness leaves a hole in the evidence, the defense can point out the hole,
but that's about it. If a prosecutor brought a case of murder by shooting,
and then chose not to admit the gun into evidence, the defense can say in
its closing, "If my client shot J.R., then where is the gun?" or he can seek
to admit the gun himself if it will help him, but there's nothing inherently
wrong about the prosecutor not admitting it in the first place.

Also, if a witness has a strong story to tell against the defendant, but for
whatever reason is not credible (such as past charges of welfare fraud a la
Jackson), and the prosecutor chooses not to put her on, it's unlikely that
the defense would call her, because you can't call a witness just to impeach
her. Unless she had testimony to benefit the defense, then, it would be
unlikely that they would call her.

So in summary, yes, you can pick and choose through the evidence, that's the
jury's job as trier of fact. Pick what you believe, toss what you don't,
see if you believe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when you get finished.

Clear as mud? Now you know why I'll never be a law professor! LOL

Sandi

Sandi

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

> I thought the above was a good explanation, Sandi. Now totally
> OT...<GG>...I am soooo glad I was not on the OJ Simpson jury as I
> found too many incidences that gave me reasonable doubt, so I would
> have acquitted the man even though in my heart of hearts I suspect he
> was guilty of both murders!
>
> Just out of curiosity...do you mind sharing how you would have voted
> given all the stuff that was televised on that case, or is that
> question too personal?
>
> Anne/OH

If you mean me, personally, I would have voted to convict, and I watched a
fairly large portion of the testimony. The whole contamination-of-DNA
theory was logically flawed; if you contaminate DNA, you don't get someone
else's DNA, you get an unreadable result. Also, the glove stunt was
supremely stupid on the prosecution's part - you never hand evidence to the
defendant and ask him to manipulate it to show it fits him - but the fact
that he had no compunction about putting on the gloves worn during the
murder of his beloved Nicole spoke volumes to me.

Mark Fuhrman is a term paper in and of himself, but the bottom line is, in
order for him to have done the things he's accused of, he would have had to
enlist half the LAPD on the spur of the moment to frame a famous and
powerful man. That was another red herring, admittedly one the prosecution
caused themselves.

In short, that case was a textbook on how to lose a case that shouldn't be
lost, and how to win one that shouldn't be won.

JMO, of course - well,
mine and Vince Bugliosi's.

Sandi

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Seems she mentioned something about being crime victim other day.

Susan Mitchell wrote:
> Nancy Grace is like a rabid dog. I recently saw a background on her. She
> was engaged to be married to her college sweetheart and he was mugged and
> murdered just before the wedding. She went back to school and became a
> lawyer and prosecutor and went after criminals. She has supposedly moved on
> and no longer does that and has a new relationship but I think her
> bitterness is still pretty obvious.
>
> --
> Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
> (to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hTy9e.3475$mG3.3270@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> mom)
>
>
> it
>
>
> was
>
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

And, even when they say disregard something that was objected to and
upheld, as I've heard them say on these law shows - basically is out
there. Everyone knows it is impossible not to remember it. I wouldn't be
able to I'm sure.

Sandi wrote:
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:GHz9e.82824$UW6.6737@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> sense
>
>
> throwing
>
>
> is
>
>
> s/he
>
>
> the
>
>
> to
>
>
> Absolutely. The instruction says something to the effect of, "If you find
> the witness to be dishonest (or a similar word) in one part of his
> testimony, you may disregard any or all of his testimony as you see fit."
>
> Also, the attorneys determine what evidence they will put in, assuming it is
> admissible. The defense attorney can't call for a mistrial because the
> prosecutor chose not to put a witness on, for any reason. If the missing
> witness leaves a hole in the evidence, the defense can point out the hole,
> but that's about it. If a prosecutor brought a case of murder by shooting,
> and then chose not to admit the gun into evidence, the defense can say in
> its closing, "If my client shot J.R., then where is the gun?" or he can seek
> to admit the gun himself if it will help him, but there's nothing inherently
> wrong about the prosecutor not admitting it in the first place.
>
> Also, if a witness has a strong story to tell against the defendant, but for
> whatever reason is not credible (such as past charges of welfare fraud a la
> Jackson), and the prosecutor chooses not to put her on, it's unlikely that
> the defense would call her, because you can't call a witness just to impeach
> her. Unless she had testimony to benefit the defense, then, it would be
> unlikely that they would call her.
>
> So in summary, yes, you can pick and choose through the evidence, that's the
> jury's job as trier of fact. Pick what you believe, toss what you don't,
> see if you believe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when you get finished.
>
> Clear as mud? Now you know why I'll never be a law professor! LOL
>
> Sandi
>
>

RaeMorrill

2005-04-20, 5:50 pm

Did he have a choice about putting gloves on? I just thought he made a
huge show of how they didn't fit. Surely they could have found the same
brand of glove in the same size that was not contaminated by blood so he
didn't have to wear rubber gloves under them. Better yet, they should
have had a dozen pairs and only one in right size not telling him which
was which!

Sandi wrote:
>
>
> If you mean me, personally, I would have voted to convict, and I watched a
> fairly large portion of the testimony. The whole contamination-of-DNA
> theory was logically flawed; if you contaminate DNA, you don't get someone
> else's DNA, you get an unreadable result. Also, the glove stunt was
> supremely stupid on the prosecution's part - you never hand evidence to the
> defendant and ask him to manipulate it to show it fits him - but the fact
> that he had no compunction about putting on the gloves worn during the
> murder of his beloved Nicole spoke volumes to me.
>
> Mark Fuhrman is a term paper in and of himself, but the bottom line is, in
> order for him to have done the things he's accused of, he would have had to
> enlist half the LAPD on the spur of the moment to frame a famous and
> powerful man. That was another red herring, admittedly one the prosecution
> caused themselves.
>
> In short, that case was a textbook on how to lose a case that shouldn't be
> lost, and how to win one that shouldn't be won.

JMO, of course - well,
> mine and Vince Bugliosi's.
>
> Sandi
>
>

haggis

2005-04-20, 10:48 pm

RaeMorrill wrote:
> Did he have a choice about putting gloves on? I just thought he made a
> huge show of how they didn't fit. Surely they could have found the same
> brand of glove in the same size that was not contaminated by blood so he
> didn't have to wear rubber gloves under them. Better yet, they should
> have had a dozen pairs and only one in right size not telling him which
> was which!

He was wearing LATEX gloves! His acting (as usual) seriously sucked,
too. I never understood why the prosecution didn't point that
out--anyone could try pulling their own gloves on over rubber and fail.
It's like trying to pull on your clothes straight out of the shower.

jeanne

Eliyahu Rooff

2005-04-20, 10:48 pm

"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3co1btF6m37hsU1@individual.net...
>
> If you mean me, personally, I would have voted to convict, and I
> watched a
> fairly large portion of the testimony. The whole contamination-of-DNA
> theory was logically flawed; if you contaminate DNA, you don't get
> someone
> else's DNA, you get an unreadable result. Also, the glove stunt was
> supremely stupid on the prosecution's part - you never hand evidence
> to the
> defendant and ask him to manipulate it to show it fits him - but the
> fact
> that he had no compunction about putting on the gloves worn during the
> murder of his beloved Nicole spoke volumes to me.
>
My feelings exactly. In fact, I demonstrated this to a friend by
stiffening up my hand a bit so that I couldn't get into one of the
gloves I'd just removed from that same hand. And, at worst, the glove
thing could have only shown that he didn't do the crime alone...

Eliyahu

Eliyahu Rooff

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

Well, there's no doubt that he shows poor judgement in just about every
aspect of his life, from sleeping with other people's kids to showing up
late to court wearing pajamas, but one of the things about just about
every crime is the exercise of poor judgment. OTOH, where but in
America can a black boy grow up to be a white woman? :-)

Eliyahu

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hTy9e.3475$mG3.3270@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I really don't know. I haven't followed this every day. I just find it
>interesting that Nancy Grace (former prosecutor of course) makes no
>bones about he's guilty of course despite any evidence to contrary. I
>agree he looks guilty as sin, but the fact is he could be guilty of
>nothing more than very poor judgment.
>
> djgordon wrote:

RaeMorrill

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

No kidding - a white woman that is almost a twin to his black sister no
less. Just that alone is very sad commentary on his psyche.

Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
> Well, there's no doubt that he shows poor judgement in just about every
> aspect of his life, from sleeping with other people's kids to showing up
> late to court wearing pajamas, but one of the things about just about
> every crime is the exercise of poor judgment. OTOH, where but in
> America can a black boy grow up to be a white woman? :-)
>
> Eliyahu
>
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hTy9e.3475$mG3.3270@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>

Eliyahu Rooff

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

There's an oft-cited Washington case that comments on this with a
statement that says, "The bell once run cannot be un-rung." State v.
Trickel, 16 Wn. App. 18, 553 P.2d 139, for anyone who's interested...

Eliyahu

"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gAA9e.4096$Bc7.4095@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> And, even when they say disregard something that was objected to and
> upheld, as I've heard them say on these law shows - basically is out
> there. Everyone knows it is impossible not to remember it. I wouldn't
> be able to I'm sure.
>
> Sandi wrote:

Anne Carle

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

Thanks, Sandi. In addition to some of the rather obvious bungling by
the police, I was always struck by how "lucky" OJ would have had to
have been to have that time-line work out the way it apparently did
for him.

I'm still glad I wasn't on the jury! <GG>

Anne/OH

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:53:04 -0400, "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>If you mean me, personally, I would have voted to convict, and I watched a
>fairly large portion of the testimony. The whole contamination-of-DNA
>theory was logically flawed; if you contaminate DNA, you don't get someone
>else's DNA, you get an unreadable result. Also, the glove stunt was
>supremely stupid on the prosecution's part - you never hand evidence to the
>defendant and ask him to manipulate it to show it fits him - but the fact
>that he had no compunction about putting on the gloves worn during the
>murder of his beloved Nicole spoke volumes to me.
>
>Mark Fuhrman is a term paper in and of himself, but the bottom line is, in
>order for him to have done the things he's accused of, he would have had to
>enlist half the LAPD on the spur of the moment to frame a famous and
>powerful man. That was another red herring, admittedly one the prosecution
>caused themselves.
>
>In short, that case was a textbook on how to lose a case that shouldn't be
>lost, and how to win one that shouldn't be won.

JMO, of course - well,
>mine and Vince Bugliosi's.
>
>Sandi
>

kathycarp

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

> Nancy Grace is like a rabid dog.
-------------

uh... So, you are a fan?
<gdarfc>

--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Susan Mitchell" <medlawtrans@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5cSdnV7wcP8TWPvfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> Nancy Grace is like a rabid dog. I recently saw a background on her. She
> was engaged to be married to her college sweetheart and he was mugged and
> murdered just before the wedding. She went back to school and became a
> lawyer and prosecutor and went after criminals. She has supposedly moved
> on
> and no longer does that and has a new relationship but I think her
> bitterness is still pretty obvious.
>
> --
> Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
> (to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
> "RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hTy9e.3475$mG3.3270@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> mom)
> it
> was
>
>

kathycarp

2005-04-21, 8:49 am

The instruction says something to the effect of, "If you find
the witness to be dishonest (or a similar word) in one part of his
testimony, you may disregard any or all of his testimony as you see fit."
-----------

yep. I was just going to say that is what I remember the judge saying in his
instructions when I was on jury duty. Basically, if you think that the
witness is lying about one thing, you can assume that the whole testimony is
a crock. (my words, of course) LOL

--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3co0ufF6nk5jvU1@individual.net...
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:GHz9e.82824$UW6.6737@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> sense
> throwing
> is
> s/he
> the
> to
> Absolutely. The instruction says something to the effect of, "If you find
> the witness to be dishonest (or a similar word) in one part of his
> testimony, you may disregard any or all of his testimony as you see fit."
>
> Also, the attorneys determine what evidence they will put in, assuming it
> is
> admissible. The defense attorney can't call for a mistrial because the
> prosecutor chose not to put a witness on, for any reason. If the missing
> witness leaves a hole in the evidence, the defense can point out the hole,
> but that's about it. If a prosecutor brought a case of murder by
> shooting,
> and then chose not to admit the gun into evidence, the defense can say in
> its closing, "If my client shot J.R., then where is the gun?" or he can
> seek
> to admit the gun himself if it will help him, but there's nothing
> inherently
> wrong about the prosecutor not admitting it in the first place.
>
> Also, if a witness has a strong story to tell against the defendant, but
> for
> whatever reason is not credible (such as past charges of welfare fraud a
> la
> Jackson), and the prosecutor chooses not to put her on, it's unlikely that
> the defense would call her, because you can't call a witness just to
> impeach
> her. Unless she had testimony to benefit the defense, then, it would be
> unlikely that they would call her.
>
> So in summary, yes, you can pick and choose through the evidence, that's
> the
> jury's job as trier of fact. Pick what you believe, toss what you don't,
> see if you believe guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when you get finished.
>
> Clear as mud? Now you know why I'll never be a law professor! LOL
>
> Sandi
>
>

JulieW8

2005-04-21, 11:47 am

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:05:44 -0400, "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com>
gave thanks and said:

>No, it's a reasonable doubt, not ANY doubt. Let's say, for example, that a
>person commits a murder in front of 5 credible people and 1 nut, and leaves
>his DNA at the scene. The prosecutor, showing an incredible lack of
>judgment, decides to put up the one witness who is completely off the wall,
>a known liar, and not credible. He also puts on the 5 credible people and
>the DNA evidence. You aren't supposed to ignore the mountain of other
>evidence because one person is a nut. You are supposed to ignore the nut if
>you find the nut not credible, and if the rest of the evidence supports a
>conviction, then it supports it. You can throw out evidence you find to be
>not credible, but it's not a reason to ignore the evidence that is.

I'd like to see this in a brief. <gggg> Just struck my funny bone this
morning.

Please ignore the nut.

~~~~~*****~~~~~*****~~~~~*****
To send me e-mail, use juliew8@deletethis-alphabest.com

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-21, 11:47 am

Oh, boy, my duck fan is picking on me

--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote in message
news:sO2dnZWfYsEJAvrfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
> -------------
>
> uh... So, you are a fan?
> <gdarfc>
>
> --
> Kathy
> www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
> "Susan Mitchell" <medlawtrans@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5cSdnV7wcP8TWPvfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
She[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
moved[vbcol=seagreen]
victim's[vbcol=seagreen]
early[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
that's[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
why[vbcol=seagreen]
put[vbcol=seagreen]
under[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-21, 11:47 am

I'm a rabid DAWG there's a difference

--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote in message
news:sO2dnZWfYsEJAvrfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
> -------------
>
> uh... So, you are a fan?
> <gdarfc>
>
> --
> Kathy
> www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
> "Susan Mitchell" <medlawtrans@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5cSdnV7wcP8TWPvfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
She[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
moved[vbcol=seagreen]
victim's[vbcol=seagreen]
early[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
that's[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
why[vbcol=seagreen]
put[vbcol=seagreen]
under[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

kathycarp

2005-04-23, 8:49 am

kathycarp

2005-04-23, 8:49 am

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-23, 8:49 am

Oh, boy, my duck fan is picking on me

Susan Mitchell

2005-04-23, 8:49 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-26, 8:48 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-26, 8:48 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-26, 8:48 am

djgordon

2005-04-26, 8:48 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-26, 8:48 am

Sandi

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

Sandi

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

Sandi

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

djgordon

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

Sandi

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

Sandi

2005-04-26, 5:48 pm

RaeMorrill

2005-04-27, 8:49 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-27, 8:49 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-27, 8:49 am

RaeMorrill

2005-04-27, 8:49 am

Sandi

2005-04-27, 8:49 am