unionmom said:That is my understanding, yes.
unionmom said:"Legal analysts" expect a verdict tonight. That usually means not guilty. Not always, but usually. Interesting to see how this goes.
And the crowd is growing outside the courthouse in FL.
ShoeDiva said:unionmom said:"Legal analysts" expect a verdict tonight. That usually means not guilty. Not always, but usually. Interesting to see how this goes.
And the crowd is growing outside the courthouse in FL.
One of the reasons I wondered how away from all the media they have been.
unionmom said:ShoeDiva said:unionmom said:"Legal analysts" expect a verdict tonight. That usually means not guilty. Not always, but usually. Interesting to see how this goes.
And the crowd is growing outside the courthouse in FL.
One of the reasons I wondered how away from all the media they have been.
They are chanting rather loudly. You'd like to think the jury is well and truly sequestered from it but I can't help but worry about any corruption of the process.
unionmom said:Jury is done for the day ... back at it tomorrow morning, 9 a.m.
I am more than a little concerned about one analyst's comment about the jury knowing the weight of their decision on the community. That is so very, very wrong and I hope like heck he was just projecting and guessing and assuming, etc. The jury should not give a rat's butt about the community when deciding this case. They should care only about the evidence before them and a fair verdict for the charged based on that evidence.
The only way I can calm down and accept what he was saying is if he meant they want to be sure to give it time to be sure they are not seen to give a flippant, non-caring vote ... be sure that it is clear that they did give true weight to the case before rendering a fair verdict based only on the evidence. Still a bit twisted to me because every other case out there doesn't get the pressure and scrutiny the media and special interest groups have forced on this one but as long as the verdict is true to the evidence as they perceived it ...
unionmom said:ShoeDiva said:unionmom said:"Legal analysts" expect a verdict tonight. That usually means not guilty. Not always, but usually. Interesting to see how this goes.
And the crowd is growing outside the courthouse in FL.
One of the reasons I wondered how away from all the media they have been.
They are chanting rather loudly. You'd like to think the jury is well and truly sequestered from it but I can't help but worry about any corruption of the process.
We need to go to Lanna if we want to be on CNN.unionmom said:Shall we meet at the old courthouse in Dallas? (nicer setting)
unionmom said:Wow ... the State has fired their IT guy apparently because of his testimony. Holy cow.
http://m.wesh.com/news/state-attorney-fires-it-director-after-george-zimmerman-testimony/-/15560370/20964368/-/ktsakgz/-/index.htmlMadea said:unionmom said:Wow ... the State has fired their IT guy apparently because of his testimony. Holy cow.
What'd he say?![]()
lotstodo said:More comprehensive piece:
http://m.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who
Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.
“Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,” Peek wrote. “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”