Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Sladek who wrote (1006)	12/20/2004 8:52:28 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Slaydick, you continue to try to ENGINEER an argument by repeating it, no matter now immaterial it is to the discussion of the Elgindy trial Your discussion is theory. Other than the OJ case, which many have claimed was a type of nullification, the actual nullification of law by a jury, is rare. I do agree that, given usual secrecy of the jury room, one can ascribe reasons that may or may not be accurate to jury deliberations. However, discussions on these theories are voluminous, but practical results are negligible. You just don't get it. Keep wishing and hoping and praying but it will come down to whether or not the defendant committed a crime, with the jury finding the facts and the judge instructing on the law, not whether you feel that the law is unfair.