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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bear Down who wrote (89473)	1/20/2005 6:30:18 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 122087

No unreasonable offer refused insidetruth.com lol

To: Bear Down who wrote (89473)	1/20/2005 6:39:50 PM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 122087

It may depend on how the charges were presented to the jury, and how their findings must be returned. There were a lot of different charges, and some may require more than a simple yea or nay vote. Considering the extent of the original indictments, I'll bet the jury foreman was handed the equivalent of a novel to score.

To: Bear Down who wrote (89473)	1/21/2005 1:44:37 AM
From: Taki	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

You are the only one that has seen it in a fair way so far. Your posts below read bold,have made the Jury think it over. I doubt very much that you as a Juror would convict Elgindy in any of the Charges,even though you and him are not in good grounds.But You know how to be fair.Stay that way. To: Dale Baker who wrote (87635) 11/5/2004 11:13:47 AM From: Bear Down of 89423 so you take the word of a convicted drug dealer and known liar as the truth? I was on that site and nver heard of an FBI agent's presence at another firm. From what I have heard and read of the trial so far it seems cleveland was the one paying royer, not elgindy. I hope the government has more evidence than cleveland if they want to make the bribery charges stick. So far it sounds like cleveland admits he was involved in criminal activity but I have read or heard nothing to convict elgindy. I know it is early though. Cleveland's credibility is absolutely ZERO I have said from the beginning elgindy was too cheap to pay anyone and that if anything, the extortion (which I have no knowledge of at all except what i read in the gov's indictment) would be the strong point of the gov's case, if any. To: lucky_girl who wrote (716) 12/14/2004 10:06:18 PM From: Bear Down Read Replies (2) of 2129 why would ya want 72 virgins in the first place? Who has the time to do all that teaching? I'll take my 3 "experienced" girls at a time in this life and be happy with that. and the other board is for information not for the ramblings of some of the pyscotic personalties banned to here. Notice no new info, not many posts? This board seems a perfect spot for the banned dregs to have someone to post to and give the unbanned some entertainment whilst we wait. If one were to make a decision on tony's guilt or innocence by the reports from Carol Remond I personally would not be able to convict on any the charges from the evidence that has been reported. I realize there is much more to the state's case but the defense hasn't even started and Carol has never been known to favor Tony in her writings. She has alwys been very accurate with what she reported about the court proceedings and that hasn't been too pretty for Tony. I think as long as the defense doesn't overplay their case and try to make tony look like an angel, a conviction will be hard to come by. It will certainly be an interesting verdict although you can be assured if he is convicted he has a wonderful reason for an appeal and I believe he would be granted a new trial because the jury has certainly been tainted with the mentioning of the terrorism investigation. That was a foolish move on the part of the state and it shows how desperate they are to try and influence the jury. Just an opinion.......