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.

Politics : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (1506)	9/25/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

No. My infamous "so what?" light just came on. More like a fluorescent lamp, I would say :-) If a jury decides someone is guilty/not-guilty, then that's pretty much it! No one has the authority to ask them, "Now, as regards such-and-such piece of evidence, why did you think that was not important? <blah blah blah>" and demand an answer. If there are demonstrable facts, evidence, etc., that they somehow disregard (as in, if they were biased or tampered with) Heh heh. Who is talking about tampering with the facts/evidence? The point is -- the jury can de-emphasize the importance of some statements and even disregard something as not relevant, in arriving at a decision. You cannot tell them what to do. You can only ask them! Dipy.