Ain't this some s**t!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Ain't this some s**t!

  1. #1
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716

    Ain't this some s**t!

    The retired teacher at the center of a firestorm over the Tyco mistrial suggested yesterday that she's being unfairly targeted by a publicity-seeking fellow juror.
    http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-n...ness-headlines

    Why can't these jurors suck it up and do their duty without trying
    to put themselves at the center of attention.

    It's not about you, you idiots. It's about the trial!
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Wow the prosecurters screwed up this case..it should have been a slamm dunk, if one jurior held out for aquital they lost in jurry selection she should have been weeded out then.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #3
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    I agree, it's an embarrassment. I don't know specifics but I would have to say the case should have been quick on the theives behind bars.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    from what I have seen, she fells that the board is as guilty as the crooks taht where running tyco and treating it as their personaly piggy bank.....great but that dosn't make the crooks innocent, lets get some better jurry selection in the next case guys.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  5. #5
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    I have the same sentiment towards Tyco. In fact I went with a local fire company when the contract came up.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    407
    Oh for the love of glayvin! Lets look at the facts people! She has been watching this trial for how long now? I think it is 6 months. She has been WATCHING the trial. How the hell can you honestly make a more educated decision on the guilt or innocence of the defendents when you didnt even watch the trial for 5 minutes? Where have we heard about it? The media, and thats it What we are doing is damning the american judicial system. Juror #4 or whatever doesn't agree with the rest of the jury? I think that that is the beauty of the judicial system. SHE DOESN'T HAVE TOO! Everyone doesnt have to have the same beliefs. If she honestly believes that the Tyco executives are innocent, i commend her for sticking to that and not jumping on the bandwagon of conviction (sounds like a movie ). That being said, i hope the tyco execs rot in jail.


    slick
    \"Look, Doc, I spent last Tuesday watching fibers on my carpet. And the whole time I was watching my carpet, I was worrying that I, I might vomit. And the whole time, I was thinking, \"I\'m a grown man. I should know what goes on my head.\" And the more I thought about it... the more I realized that I should just blow my brains out and end it all. But then I thought, well, if I thought more about blowing my brains out... I start worrying about what that was going to do to my goddamn carpet. Okay, so, ah-he, that was a GOOD day, Doc. And, and I just want you to give me some pills and let me get on with my life. \" -Roy Waller

  7. #7
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Your right, I wasn't in the court room. I get my slice of news from those reporters that are. In fact I don't care if they are guilty. My comments Toward Tyco aren't even geared toward those on trial, but to the company as an entity I have dealt with over the years. The evidence seemed on the up side, and I think they are even going to retry the execs. My distaste is to the conduct of the jury, including jury No.4 and the rest of the yahoos making a show out of the system and writing books about it. It's embarrassing to me.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  8. #8
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Originally posted here by bballad
    Wow the prosecurters screwed up this case..it should have been a slamm dunk, if one jurior held out for aquital they lost in jurry selection she should have been weeded out then.
    The idea of jury selection is to produce a fair and unbiased group of jurors (generally people who don't know the defendants or prosecutors), not to allow the prosecution to pick and choose people who they think will decide in their favour. You don't "weed out" people in jury selection because you think they might go for an acquittal. Whatever happened to fair trials?

    In the UK we don't even know who voted which way in a jury - and I can see why if individual jurors are going to be put up in the press and attacked on forums for their decisions.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  9. #9
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    That's just it, the deliberations should be secret until after the trial. This is a bad example. Can't help but wonder if it was orchestrated to produce the outcome it did?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  10. #10
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    I think you have missed the point - in the UK the deliberations are secret. End of story. No-one ever hears about which way a juror voted, what anyone said, how the verdict was reached etc. That way, no-one who serves on a jury can ever be blasted in the press for voting one way or another, and woe betide anyone who publishes jury deliberations as it's a criminal offence for which you can be imprisoned (and the judges are not at all sympathetic when it comes to cases involving contempt of court).
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •