On 4/21/2011 7:04 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:


...
Funny how that video evidence didn't
make an impression on the Texas jury that
heard the civil case. Or the Republican
judge that presided over the criminal one.
Or the Republican-led Danforth Commission.

Are they all part of a Clinton
conspiracy as well?




Jury clears US over Waco deaths

A Texas jury has ruled that the US Government was
not to blame for the death of about 80 members of
the Branch Davidian sect during the Waco stand-off
with federal agents in 1993. About 100 survivors and
relatives of the dead had sued the government for
$675m, alleging that agents had used excessive force
to end the 51-day siege.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html#jury

PS: Waco is the most conservative city in the most
conservative state with the most conservatives jurors.


I would have to be privy to all evidence the jury viewed. I would have
to make sure that the experts pointing out that the tanks were the
likely cause of the fires and that davidian members were fired upon and
killed as they attempted to flee the building ... and at that time I
would wonder how the jury could have possibly reached the conclusion(s)
it did.

Obviously, anyone viewing the rules of engagement video, and the
analysis done by experts, would have to be shown some pretty contrary
evidence ... perhaps both were shown to the jury ... I can't find any
credible site, documents, video, etc. which would clue me in on what was
available to the jury.

Many times, trials are won on what a jury is prevented from seeing,
hearing, reading ... rather than tangible evidence presented to them ...
multiple examples of this exist.

I know what I think after viewing the video and examining what ever I
can find of government claims ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote in news:ioqo8q$ebh$3@dont-
email.me:

On 4/21/2011 7:04 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:


...
Funny how that video evidence didn't
make an impression on the Texas jury that
heard the civil case. Or the Republican
judge that presided over the criminal one.
Or the Republican-led Danforth Commission.

Are they all part of a Clinton
conspiracy as well?




Jury clears US over Waco deaths

A Texas jury has ruled that the US Government was
not to blame for the death of about 80 members of
the Branch Davidian sect during the Waco stand-off
with federal agents in 1993. About 100 survivors and
relatives of the dead had sued the government for
$675m, alleging that agents had used excessive force
to end the 51-day siege.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html#jury

PS: Waco is the most conservative city in the most
conservative state with the most conservatives jurors.


I would have to be privy to all evidence the jury viewed. I would have
to make sure that the experts pointing out that the tanks were the
likely cause of the fires and that davidian members were fired upon and
killed as they attempted to flee the building ... and at that time I
would wonder how the jury could have possibly reached the conclusion(s)
it did.

Obviously, anyone viewing the rules of engagement video, and the
analysis done by experts, would have to be shown some pretty contrary
evidence ... perhaps both were shown to the jury ... I can't find any
credible site, documents, video, etc. which would clue me in on what
was
available to the jury.

Many times, trials are won on what a jury is prevented from seeing,
hearing, reading ... rather than tangible evidence presented to them
....
multiple examples of this exist.

I know what I think after viewing the video and examining what ever I
can find of government claims ...


Funny how conservatives latch on to jury
verdicts as being definative proof of guilt-
but disregard them entirely when the jury
votes to acquit.

Why is that, do you think?

On 4/21/11 23:11 , Mitchell Holman wrote:
John wrote in news:ioqo8q$ebh$3@dont-
email.me:

On 4/21/2011 7:04 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:


...
Funny how that video evidence didn't
make an impression on the Texas jury that
heard the civil case. Or the Republican
judge that presided over the criminal one.
Or the Republican-led Danforth Commission.

Are they all part of a Clinton
conspiracy as well?




Jury clears US over Waco deaths

A Texas jury has ruled that the US Government was
not to blame for the death of about 80 members of
the Branch Davidian sect during the Waco stand-off
with federal agents in 1993. About 100 survivors and
relatives of the dead had sued the government for
$675m, alleging that agents had used excessive force
to end the 51-day siege.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html#jury

PS: Waco is the most conservative city in the most
conservative state with the most conservatives jurors.


I would have to be privy to all evidence the jury viewed. I would have
to make sure that the experts pointing out that the tanks were the
likely cause of the fires and that davidian members were fired upon and
killed as they attempted to flee the building ... and at that time I
would wonder how the jury could have possibly reached the conclusion(s)
it did.

Obviously, anyone viewing the rules of engagement video, and the
analysis done by experts, would have to be shown some pretty contrary
evidence ... perhaps both were shown to the jury ... I can't find any
credible site, documents, video, etc. which would clue me in on what
was
available to the jury.

Many times, trials are won on what a jury is prevented from seeing,
hearing, reading ... rather than tangible evidence presented to them
...
multiple examples of this exist.

I know what I think after viewing the video and examining what ever I
can find of government claims ...


Funny how conservatives latch on to jury
verdicts as being definative proof of guilt-
but disregard them entirely when the jury
votes to acquit.

Why is that, do you think?




That's a phenomenon that's hardly limited to conservatives. Go back
a couple of months. Reread this newsgroup. You'll find both sides
seizing and discarding verdicts as proof with surprising ease.

The hard truth is that a jury verdict is a legal construct by which
the system operates to conclude an action. In truth, only the accused
really knows of what he or she is actually guilty.

On 4/21/2011 9:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:

...
Funny how conservatives latch on to jury
verdicts as being definative proof of guilt-
but disregard them entirely when the jury
votes to acquit.

Why is that, do you think?

Where else does evidence coalesce and create a picture of such
definition? Where else do witnesses assemble under one roof, with
evidence about some event? Unless, of course, you have been an eyewitness.

My gawd man, do you attempt to paint yourself a moron with the first
question?

Regards,
JS