SwiftVets.com

Schadow

Once again, a DC jury has taken revenge on the Republican administration. A jury spokesman, appearing before media, stated that they thought it "sucked" that they were trying Libby instead of Rove, Cheney, etc., but put their heads down and did what they were told.

And how about "reasonable doubt"? Most all of the witnesses in the trial exhibited memory flaws. But Libby lied.

Wikipedia on reasonable doubt (emphasis mine):

LewWaters · Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject:

Old sKerry even has to chime in;

AMOS · Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 am Post subject:

Is this BIG or what?

I'm tired.

tony54 · Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:52 am Post subject:

dusty · Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject:

What a farce this is. After this I think it should be evident that no justice will come out of Washington.
A total miscarriage of power.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

GenrXr · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:50 am Post subject:

A jury of his peers? Hardly. My father believes our educational system has robbed jurors of basic reasoning and we should go to a 3 judge panel system, yet the judges in my opinion are too damn ignorant as well.

Sad times indeed.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy

sixdogteam · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject:

At least evil ignorant jurors could be swayed, perhaps. An evil smart three judge panel-- no way.
_________________
HHC 212th CAB MMAF RVN '70-'71

Schadow · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject:

I believe that Libby was ill-served by counsel in this case. First, Libby sat in a grand jury for eight hours without counsel present, of course. Fitzpatrick wrote everything down that Libby had to say. He could have gone out and talked to his lawyer any time to get advice, but didn't.

Second, Libby was not put on the stand in trial. This is always perceived by jurors as practically a confession of guilt. (Except for OJ, of course.)

This was a "reasonable doubt" case if there ever was one. Libby's lawyer should have used every opportunity to promote reasonable doubt. All these "journalists" who testified exhibited confusion about what was said and when and Libby should have been permitted to exploit that to the fullest.

However, this case was a political trial decided by a DC jury which included a former WaPo reporter (who worked with Woodward, for God's sake!) and others who had a vendetta against anything connected with Bush or Cheney. Again, Libby's counsel failed him by not digging into the jury pool and challenging off what should have been identified as enemies.

Oh, well, Monday morning quarterbacking won't solve anything. Maybe Libby will get as light a sentence as Berger did. Rolling Eyes

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

Me#1You#10 · Site Admin Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503

Schadow · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:

Me#1You#10 · Site Admin Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503

tony54 · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:

Most people don't realize that a judge in a jury trial is basically just a referee.
The real judges ARE the jury, the buck stops there.
They are wrongly instructed to judge only by the evidence and the facts.
But their real duty is to judge the evidence, the facts, the prosecutor and "the law", that was supposedly broken.
So any juror that says Scooter should be pardoned, didn't know his or her job as a juror. Or just didn't do the job right.
Jurors cannot be held accountable in any way.
As in the OJ case, they get the last word, they are the last word.
All they have to do is vote their conscience.

dusty · Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:38 am Post subject:

When you talk about a jury, you are talking about a group of people who are just like you and me or your next door neighbor or the guy or gal who lives down the street etc.
Here's the thing. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. I got to experience the differences in our perceptions and concepts, one person to another, when I was on a jury for a manslaughter case over in Louisiana.
Scenario:
Five guys transporting cars for a car dealer from Houston to New Orleans. They stop on the side of I-10 for a pitt stop and stretch their legs. Two of the guys get in a fight. One kicks the other one in the crotch. The one that got kicked then proceeds to go back to the car he was driving a get a pocket knife with which he then stabs and kills the guy who kicked him.
So now he's on trial for Manslaughter.
The perpetrator takes the stand and admits in open court that he stabbed and killed the other guy because the guy kicked him in the groin and he just 'lost' it. His words.
So ok. We go into the jury room to deliberate. Ends up only 3 of us, yours truly included would vote to convict the guy. The rest would not because...get this...the prosecution did not prove the guy's finger prints were on the knife.
Blew me away. So ever since then I have no confidence in the ability of the average person on the steet to have any common sense, intelligence or understanding whatsoever.
Makes it easy to understand how 1/3 of the people in this country believe our govt. planned 9/11.
My conclusion, a lot of people are complete and utter idiots. And the scary thing is....they can vote. And serve on juries.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

tony54 · Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:50 am Post subject:

You are right on Dusty.
But prosecutors can and will stick it to an innocent man for his own motives. We see that all the time.
And its hard to make him accountable. if not impossible.
That's why the jury should and has the last say.
Most of the time the jury does good. Not always.

GenrXr · Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: