barbdouglas
Member
Posts: 49
(3/20/04 7:51 am)
Reply
|
Absolutely fascinating, if you read nothing else, read this
726 Date: 2004-03-20 15:46:30
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
You are absolutely right. The government spends millions of dollars to protect fanatics like Oliver North, and they are evidently the criminals who plot regime change around the world.
The flip side of course, is that they plot terrorist attacks, to make heroes out of failed leaders.
What did King George say: You can fool the people most of the time, but sooner or later, it is clear that Carnahan and Wellstone were the keys to the political ambitions of terrorists like Oliver North and John Poindexter. History re-cheats.
725 Date: 2004-03-20 14:38:50
Rick Turpin ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Fanatics are currently saying that the results of the Spanish election are worst than the bombing. They're the one who spend 24/7, trying to undermine a free election.
www.geocities.com/botenth/rice.htm
724 Date: 2004-03-12 16:31:14
Martha Steweart's Internet Jury Speaks Out ! ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As a Clinton friend who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party, Ms. Stewart has few friends in power these days. As the son of the President, Mr. Bush faced regulators who were loyal not only to his father, but to him.
The greatest difference between them is that Ms. Stewart, a self-made success, will spend months--if not years--in prison, losing hundreds of millions of dollars and her reputation. Mr. Bush, whose business achievements were owed largely to others, suffered not even a paltry fine.
Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony.
This is why I am quite intrigued with Martha Stewart's Internet Jury. Can the Democracy of the Internet restore the justice that is denied? There are only 3 simple steps to joining the jury:
A/ You must read the closing argment
B/ You must vote guilty or innocent
C/ You can say or publish anything you wish, regarding the fate of Martha Stewart.
skakel.tripod.com/martha.htm
723 Date: 2004-03-09 17:43:33
The National Enquirer versus Scott Peterson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
nationalenquirer.alturl.com
722 Date: 2004-03-09 16:11:07
Tom Wilkinson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi, who plans to seat six alternates in addition to the 12 regular jurors, told potential jurors last week that they would not be asked if they had ever had an affair. He said he doubted anyone would answer honestly if they had.
So why is Scott a suspect, if everybody would lie about Amber Frey?
721 Date: 2004-03-08 20:58:47
Jack Nichols ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
How many Propagand Relations firms are trying to decide election 2004? Howard Dean put it best when he said, "it's the people stupid". Listen to what the people say about the war chest that public relations firms use, to manipulate people:
www.geocities.com/tom5515/message.htm
720 Date: 2004-03-08 16:50:43
Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Authorities allege that Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson in their Modesto home the day before Christmas in 2002 because he was having an affair with a massage therapist. Prosecutors say he then drove his wife's body to San Francisco Bay and dumped it from his small boat.
I thought you needed evidence, to accuse somebody of murder.
719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.
If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar searches would have located the body.
Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just located at the bottom of Auke Bay.
Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she was buried in a shallow grave.
Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have proved.
718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist because of their silent consent.
717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."
Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon of fishing on the day she went missing. The
jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.
Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence, Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?
Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog picked up Laci’s scent – at the marina!"
Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?
Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci Peterson’s scent, and that is not justifiable.
Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent. Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called, "corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.
|
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies