|
www.justiceforchandra.com Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe this is the photo of Guandique in the park (I came across it online a few weeks ago):
_________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rainbow
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 866 Location: THE LEFT COAST
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject: Guandique in the Park! |
|
|
May be this is the one! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/No-verdict-after-first-day-of-Levy-deliberations-1599803-108789239.html
excerpt: ....Most of the attorneys' debate Wednesday centered on what sections of grand jury transcripts mentioned at trial could be admitted as evidence.
It's not unheard of for parties in a case to continue discussing evidence even after jury deliberations begin. "It happens," said Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for D.C. But he said evidence in a trial is usually admitted at the end of the prosecution's case, at the end of the defense's case and at the end of the rebuttal case ?-- all before the case goes to the jury.... _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rainbow
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 866 Location: THE LEFT COAST
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: Evidence AFter-the Fact |
|
|
Why does this case have to be a "constant exception"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sigsky
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 209 Location: South Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rd wrote: | jane wrote: | If this is the photo from Guandique's May 7 2001 arrest... Boy, I would love to see it, too! To see whether any remnants of the alleged scratches and fat lip from May 1 are evident... |
That has me most intrigued. If the jury is savvy enough to request a photo of Guandique that they somehow know has been submitted as evidence but weren't shown,
rd |
I'm really confused now. What is the point of submitting evidence but not showing it to the jury? I feel sure I am misreading something here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9275 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wow. wow. just wow.
The DC prosecutors cute little antics caught up to them. Withholding evidence all along, making up stuff and claiming they had evidence for it, only to find out they were making bet the ranch bluffs.
And Sonenberg laid into them. wow. Coached the witness what testimony to give. You betcha. Certainly they couldn't fundamentally change it, and he had already dreamed ujp this oopsy murder thing about Guandique. But I'm sure Sonenberg and Hawila noticed the little things that suited the prosecutors claims outside of the no rape thing.
And you know the DC prosecutors would have had that letter right in front of the jury showing what a dastardly confession it was if they thought the letter would do it. And they didn't. The DC public defenders nailed them on it. It was a joy to read.
And you know why the prosecutors didn't show the jury Guandique's picture in Rock Creek Park. He's not the tattooed gangbanger monster they claimed he was. Claimed with every other word as I recall. I'm amazed they didn't find a felony tattoo charge to add to the indictment.
This jury is all over them like a cheap wet suit. Yes, not just a cheap suit, but a wet one.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9275 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no, sigsky, not misreading at all. But I address in above post why I think they did it. They probably had to produce at request of defense lawyers but didn't show it, and probably was referred to in a closing argument and got the jury to want to take a look at it.
Like you say, makes no sense at all. But this is a Justice Department operation of some kind that is determined to withhold evidence, dream up evidence, write up fantasy affadavits, and in general conduct themselves like a witch trial.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's true, rd - that photo of Guandique looks about as wholesome as they come!
I know Rainbow - everything seems to be improperly done by the prosecution, doesn't it?
Sigsky - I'm confused about how evidence is handled also. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sigsky
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 209 Location: South Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rd,
That helps, thanks. But as long as the jury is deciding the case, in my book what they don't see ain't evidence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sigsky
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 209 Location: South Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jane wrote: | http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-justice/2010/11/chandra-levy-verdict-read-the-jury-instructions-verdict-form-4796.html
Link to jury instructions
(Man, it's the prosecution that needed instructions, not the jury!!) |
Good one jane! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Tats in the above photos _________________ A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9275 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhh, but it was submitted, and they have a right to see submitted evidence.
I think. Or at least they should.
Needless to say, I am not a lawyer nor even a seasoned trial watcher.
Heck, I don't even watch tv shows about this stuff.
But if evidence was submitted, and the jury didn't see it, why in the world wouldn't they have the right to see evidence that was submitted?
And they did. The judge sent them the picture.
The letter to Justice Department from Morales, the cellmate confession proposal, was not submitted as evidence. The prosecutors got cute withholding evidence and it bit them in the butt.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some of the instructions to the jury in this case: Instruction 2.104 EVIDENCE IN THE CASE
During your deliberations, you may consider only the evidence properly admitted in this trial. The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits that were admitted into evidence, and the stipulations agreed to by the parties.
During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulated – that is, agreed – to certain facts. You should consider any stipulation of fact to be undisputed evidence.
During the trial, you were also told that the parties had stipulated to what testimony certain witnesses would have given if they had testified in this case. You should consider this stipulated testimony to be exactly what each would have said had s/he testified here.
When you consider the evidence, you are permitted to draw, from the facts that you find have been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in the light of your experience.
Instruction 2.205 STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL
The statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. They are only intended to assist you in understanding the evidence.
Instruction 2.211 REFUSAL OF WITNESS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
The law requires every witness to answer all questions put to him, unless the judge rules otherwise. In this case, Gary Condit refused to answer certain questions. You must not guess what Mr. Condit would have said if he had not refused to answer the questions. However, in determining what weight to give his other testimony, you may consider that Mr. Condit refused to answer some questions. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rainbow
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 866 Location: THE LEFT COAST
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: Recipe for a Verdict |
|
|
Hi Jane!
I really appreciate your inclusion of the jury instructions. I have been busy reading them, during down times at work.
There's a lot to them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|