Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

[Chris Rehm <javadisciple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 29 September 2001 07:50 pm, jt wrote:
> Chris,
>
> (BTW, I wrote all but the first few lines of that last post, over on USA911,
> before dinner.)
>
> I'm going to cut to the quick:  Since we agree on the bottom line, what's
> the point of the rest of the argument...?

I don't think we do agree on the bottom line. It seems to me that you feel (
or I should say, "I thought you stated...") that the jurors in the OJ case
did not deliberate the case enough and presented an invalid verdict. My
contention is that the jurors were the ones who actually saw the evidence
presented in the courtroom. I feel they reached what could very well be a
reasonable verdict based on the evidence they saw presented given real world
situation.

> As it happens, my understanding of the law is not great.  But it is that the
> jurists are not ALLOWED BY LAW, to discuss the case prior to deliberations.
>
> Either they broke the law, they didn't deliberate the facts sufficiently,
> they saw clearly what the rest of the country did not see clearly, or you
> are starting with the assumption that I'm not seeing this clearly and
> working backwards to derive your arguments.

I don't even get what you are saying here. I did not state that the jurors
had discussed the case before sent to deliberate. I stated I felt that the
case was particularly well covered in the courtroom. To me, a short
deliberation tends to indicate that the jurors were in agreement and didn't
feel that issues still needed to be clarified.

I know that I could be completely wrong. They could have simply all been well
bribed. But I don't have information on that.


--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31