Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mistrial. Interesting. What was with the matching clothes of the alternates? Bizarro....
Silly attempts to get some fame. Some jurors have aleady made an appearance on the Today show. That's unacceptable. I will never understand why our justice system allows jurors to profit from or publicly discuss deliberations.
Quote:
Cheated on a wife with cancer. Denied the baby was his...for months...I have no doubt he is a major liar. Scumbag is a complement for this guy.
I was hoping this lying egomaniac scum would be convicted, but I'm not surprised. The room temperature IQ jury have seen to it that justice was NOT served.
Now Edwards can go back to his wack-job mistress and their love child, and maybe get another loan from the senile, clueless Bunny Mellon.
I was hoping this lying egomaniac scum would be convicted, but I'm not surprised. The room temperature IQ jury have seen to it that justice was NOT served.
Now Edwards can go back to his wack-job mistress and their love child, and maybe get another loan from the senile, clueless Bunny Mellon.
She isn't senile or clueless. People forget that she was used to powerful men who were unfaithful to their wives. In fact, there is an interesting little quote from her about how only unsophisticated dolts would get upset about something as "trivial" as infidelity.
As for the IQ of the jury, I didn't give them enough credit. They came ot the right decision. Thank goodness they didn't listen to the general PUBLIC with the room temperature IQ who couldn't separate a moral sin from an actual crime. Just like the Casey Anthony jury, this jury did the right thing in the end.
She isn't senile or clueless. People forget that she was used to powerful men who were unfaithful to their wives. In fact, there is an interesting little quote from her about how only unsophisticated dolts would get upset about something as "trivial" as infidelity.
As for the IQ of the jury, I didn't give them enough credit. They came ot the right decision. Thank goodness they didn't listen to the general PUBLIC with the room temperature IQ who couldn't separate a moral sin from an actual crime. Just like the Casey Anthony jury, this jury did the right thing in the end.
Your comment on the Casey Anthony trial speaks volumes as to your intelligence.
Well they did hand down a verdict on one count. And also the lack of a verdict meant they weren't willing to just convict because he cheated on his wife. Most people wanted him convicted on that alone ignoring the fact that cheating is not an element of the crimes charged.
I was hoping this lying egomaniac scum would be convicted, but I'm not surprised. The room temperature IQ jury have seen to it that justice was NOT served.
Now Edwards can go back to his wack-job mistress and their love child, and maybe get another loan from the senile, clueless Bunny Mellon.
What bothers me the most about a post like yours is that you think you know more than what the people who sat on this jury and deliberated for nine days know. Your reasoning for why Edwards was not convicted on some charges and acquitted on another is that "the jury had a room tempature IQ and justice was NOT served". I suppose it never entered your head that possibly this jury did what it did because it simply had access to more information than you do? Another factor might be that many of these people actually entered into this process without a preconceived notion that Edwards had to be guilty because he has done some immoral things?
Ok, smart guy answer a couple of questions for me since you know so much about this case:
1. Describe the elements of taking an illegal campaign contribution outlined in the criminal statute in the United States Code.
2. Describe what evidence proved each of the elements "beyond a reasonable doubt".
3. Explain how much credence a jury should give a prosecution witness who by his own testimony pocketed most of the $1.6 million dollars he claims was "hush money" and who received immunity from prosecution for that testimony.
4. Do you think juries should disregard instructions given by a judge on the elements of a case to instead arrive at a decision they reached because they don't personally like the Defendant or because of newspaper accounts of what he has done?
If you can't answer these questions (and I mean actually answer them not just "pop off") than you still are entitled to your opinion. However, its the kind of opinion that is about equal to what I would get from a drunk lying in a gutter.
Finally, judging from the hostility in your post, I would bet you ordinarily vote for conservative and/or Republican candidates. That too, is your right. However, you're exactly the kind of person that should not be judging Edwards.
Last edited by markg91359; 06-01-2012 at 03:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
