Comments
3,141 - 3,160 of 7,684 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 19

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#3313 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>An excuse? Like I said, you look like a fool and the desperation is pathetic.
Let's see...Mom an RN. Wife an RN. Daughter soon to be an RN. And douche says I'm spitting on the profession.
Dukie poops in the yard. No clue what it's like to wipe poop, get spit on, dodge punches, get cussed at, blood spurting at you, cleanse wounds; need I go on? Anyone in the medical profession deserves a medal. Not directed at you Georgie, but if you know now what you speak of, shhhh
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3314 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Snagging my lines...that's all you've got left.
Che's going out on her belly...
It's called mocking you, 3.1. It's also called demonstrating how hilariously hypocritical you are. You would think a person with a bachelors degree would be bright enough to recognize that.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3315 Jun 21, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called mocking you, 3.1. It's also called demonstrating how hilariously hypocritical you are. You would think a person with a bachelors degree would be bright enough to recognize that.
Not when dealing with a thoroughly trashy scum bag like you, little girl. You're not normal and your thought processes prove it.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3316 Jun 21, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Crump is in the news media this afternoon crying foul as far as the jury goes. Sharpton is now involved, too, saying the jury goes against them because the jury is not comprised of peers and the process needs to be questioned.
If the defense is in trouble and floundering, why are Crump and Sharpton running to the media talking about race and questioning the selection of the jury?
Well, Sharpton has his own issues. I have never claimed to be a Sharpton supporter.

Crump I know little about, but I would suggest that he is pretty much duty bound to point out the odd demographics of the jury. The question is, can an all-white and female jury be fair in this case.

That said, I still think that the defense is floundering. Over lunch I watched the prelim to the end of the Frye hearing from this AM. They continue to stumble over procedural stuff and whine (yes, whine) about how little time they have had to prepare. Yesterday's closing remarks to the Frye hearing were delivered off the cuff (West said he hadn't had time to prepare) and they sounded like it.

A good bit of time this AM was spent arguing with the judge who would not accept Frye evidence that had not been presented during the hearing and explaining why that is. Then she had to explain on another matter that she could not reconsider an earlier ruling without a written motion to do so (more argument from the defense, who then wanted her to return in the afternoon to rule on it--she declined due to her workload in issuing the Frye ruling and getting it to the attorneys today).

The defense also lost, so far as I could tell, on most of their in limine motion to prevent a list of things being mentioned in the opening statement. The prosecution can discuss profiling so long as it is more broadly than simply racial profiling. The defense wanted the judge to set parameters on the on the prosecution saying in opening that they intended to prove anything that the defense believes (ahead of time) that they cannot prove during trial. The judge explained that it is up to the jury to determine the extent to which the prosecution proves their case.

Just don't see how it's helping their client any to annoy the judge. They come off looking amateurish and argumentative.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3317 Jun 21, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3461323...
This was the best I could find without wasting my afternoon. I watched Up to the minute on CBS in the wee hours of the morning and then CNN. It may have been a lawyer's explanation.
I found something in the Orlando Sentinel.

Apparently the defense challenged the prosecution for striking four white jurors in a row. The Judge allowed the challenge to stand, which apperently resulted in two of the strikes being undone.

The prosecution challenged the defense for striking two black jurors in a row, but the judge allowed the strikes to stand.

I am not certain, however, about the conclusion that the would impact the jurors themselves, as I am not at all certain that they know about it. But I could be wrong.

As I have been following this pretty closely for awhile, I am becoming aware that not every expert who is called in for a blip on TV is as well-informed as we might like. HLN, for instance is running a circus. Their legal experts MAY know the law, but they are being asked silly questions and given very limited amounts of time to answer. AND it's not all clear to me how much any of them have invested in familiarizing themselves with the evidence.

IMHO.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3318 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Not when dealing with a thoroughly trashy scum bag like you, little girl. You're not normal and your thought processes prove it.
Oh Georgie, I'm cut to the quick.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3319 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Sharpton has his own issues. I have never claimed to be a Sharpton supporter.
Crump I know little about, but I would suggest that he is pretty much duty bound to point out the odd demographics of the jury. The question is, can an all-white and female jury be fair in this case.
That said, I still think that the defense is floundering. Over lunch I watched the prelim to the end of the Frye hearing from this AM. They continue to stumble over procedural stuff and whine (yes, whine) about how little time they have had to prepare. Yesterday's closing remarks to the Frye hearing were delivered off the cuff (West said he hadn't had time to prepare) and they sounded like it.
A good bit of time this AM was spent arguing with the judge who would not accept Frye evidence that had not been presented during the hearing and explaining why that is. Then she had to explain on another matter that she could not reconsider an earlier ruling without a written motion to do so (more argument from the defense, who then wanted her to return in the afternoon to rule on it--she declined due to her workload in issuing the Frye ruling and getting it to the attorneys today).
The defense also lost, so far as I could tell, on most of their in limine motion to prevent a list of things being mentioned in the opening statement. The prosecution can discuss profiling so long as it is more broadly than simply racial profiling. The defense wanted the judge to set parameters on the on the prosecution saying in opening that they intended to prove anything that the defense believes (ahead of time) that they cannot prove during trial. The judge explained that it is up to the jury to determine the extent to which the prosecution proves their case.
Just don't see how it's helping their client any to annoy the judge. They come off looking amateurish and argumentative.
Your judge has already shown her bias. She's in the tank for conviction. Watch for more of it to be exposed as she rules on procedure and in her jury instructions.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3320 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/T84UGU1AQ...
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I understand why you cower at the thought of attending the monthly meetings. A bit of an inferiority complex, huh Paco?
woof
To an RN and a retired phone company manager?
----------
No inferiority. Also no superiority. Educationally, income level, status...from what is presented on the site, those two are my equals.
The desperation just drips off you, douche.
And yet, you are intimidated by them.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3321 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, you are intimidated by them.
THEY can't do a thing. But the teachers at the high school can if my views at a board meeting are unpopular with them. Get it, dummy?
339 days.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3322 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Unbeliveable. Nelson wants a conviction as much as Reader does. The fix is in...and now out in the open.
I don't see it.

She ruled against the prosecution when the defense challenged their dismissal of four white jurors in a row. She ruled against them again when the prosecution challenged the defense dismissal of two black jurors in a row.

The defense has been openly argumentative towards the judge--challenging many of her rulings once they have been made, not to mention asking for some highly irregular sorts of things (such as today asking the judge to relax the rules on authentication to give them carte-blanche to bring in evidence obtained from Trayvon's phone). They wanted the judge to tell one of their experts to cut his fees for testimony.

Their client was not in court today and they did not request permission in advance.

So far as I can see, she's in favor of running a tight ship. She did, however, allow the Frye hearing to drag on for a long time--and go quite far afield from the issues of a Frye hearing.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#3323 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I found something in the Orlando Sentinel.
Apparently the defense challenged the prosecution for striking four white jurors in a row. The Judge allowed the challenge to stand, which apperently resulted in two of the strikes being undone.
The prosecution challenged the defense for striking two black jurors in a row, but the judge allowed the strikes to stand.
I am not certain, however, about the conclusion that the would impact the jurors themselves, as I am not at all certain that they know about it. But I could be wrong.
As I have been following this pretty closely for awhile, I am becoming aware that not every expert who is called in for a blip on TV is as well-informed as we might like. HLN, for instance is running a circus. Their legal experts MAY know the law, but they are being asked silly questions and given very limited amounts of time to answer. AND it's not all clear to me how much any of them have invested in familiarizing themselves with the evidence.
IMHO.
From the lawyer pundits this morning, both sides agree they have an impartial jury. The interesting thing, to me, is the psyche of the two jurors that weren't "wanted" by the prosecution. Scraping all evidence, their opinion was that could possibly play into their decision. I honestly don't think I heard a legal eagle deny that jury selection is 99.9% of the case. Now you have two that are stray pups. Reflect, could you forget that?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3324 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Your judge has already shown her bias. She's in the tank for conviction. Watch for more of it to be exposed as she rules on procedure and in her jury instructions.
Little bit early to be preparing a scapegoat isn't it?

Expecting a conviction?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3325 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>THEY can't do a thing. But the teachers at the high school can if my views at a board meeting are unpopular with them. Get it, dummy?
339 days.
So, you are intimidated by the teachers?

Exactly what sorts of fights are you planning to pick?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3326 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see it.
She ruled against the prosecution when the defense challenged their dismissal of four white jurors in a row. She ruled against them again when the prosecution challenged the defense dismissal of two black jurors in a row.
The defense has been openly argumentative towards the judge--challenging many of her rulings once they have been made, not to mention asking for some highly irregular sorts of things (such as today asking the judge to relax the rules on authentication to give them carte-blanche to bring in evidence obtained from Trayvon's phone). They wanted the judge to tell one of their experts to cut his fees for testimony.
Their client was not in court today and they did not request permission in advance.
So far as I can see, she's in favor of running a tight ship. She did, however, allow the Frye hearing to drag on for a long time--and go quite far afield from the issues of a Frye hearing.
Are you dense?

Zimmerman judge: Prosecutors can use 'profiled' at trial

Prosecutors will be allowed to tell jurors that George Zimmerman "profiled" black teenager Trayvon Martin before their deadly confrontation, as long as they don't use the term exclusively to refer to race, the judge ruled Friday.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19...

Then, the biggest whooper in legal history:

During a pre-trial hearing, assistant state attorney John Guy argued that the word "profiled" doesn't necessarily mean someone was singled out because of their race, but could refer to their age, clothes or type of car they were driving.

"We don't intend to make it a racially charged term," Guy said.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3327 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are intimidated by the teachers?
Exactly what sorts of fights are you planning to pick?
I want my kid to graduate without being retaliated against in the grading process because some militant teacher is pissed at me.
What sort of "fights"? Teacher pay for one. Another is their ridiculous gay propaganda campaign.
339 days.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3328 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Little bit early to be preparing a scapegoat isn't it?
Expecting a conviction?
I expect a circus on par with what we saw in Los Angeles 18 years ago.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3329 Jun 21, 2013
Theatrics by the prosecution will be a turn-off to this jury.
O'Mara will remain level-headed and demonstrate that the prosecution lacks evidence to support its charge.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3330 Jun 21, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should call the mods out on me then, since I posted something in one thread that I saw in another.
Perhaps I will. Who knows. We'll see.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3331 Jun 21, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but then, I wouldn't recount the event leaving the impression that I was there when I wasn't either.
Like they say, I'm only responsible for what I say, not what you understand.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3332 Jun 21, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the person who posted it know it? Lucky guess? personal (offline) knowledge? I ain't buying it. You posted it somewhere, and someone found it.
Nope.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Are ISIS and Obama in Cahoots? 19 min Colbert 23
Why do racists hate Obama so much ? 26 min Colbert 22
Almighty God OR rabid allah??? 28 min Colbert 25
RIP Joan Rivers 4 hr E-Bob 21
WHEN did Obama tell the truth? 6 hr Allison 2
Was Bergdahl Planned ALL ALONG?? 6 hr Allison 18
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 6 hr Anonymous of Indy 30,543
Where are all the original legacy posters? 10 hr They cannot kill ... 116
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••