Monsieur Le Prof @ 73

Yeah there were just a few reports that came out showing they knew something was going to happen in August 2001, and did nothing about it.

Like when guys from the CIA warned Bush that there was going to be an attack and he said “okay now you’ve covered your ass.”

Jeebus. And little though one might want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I watched the tape of the attack on the Pentagon (can’t find a link) at least nine times but could not see an airplane.

They knew in July 2001.
Back in 2001 I used to get e-mail newsletters from a stock web site, tips on compaines to buy stock in & tips on stock trading. Some time in July 2001, abt the middle of the month I think, I received an unusualy long newsletter. The e-mail was all about Bin Laden. I had never heard of Bin Laden before. Guess I didn’t pay close enough attention to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Any ways, the newsletter was much longer than usual and told about Bin Laden’s wealthy, his ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the wealth Bin Laden had, the many companies he owned stock in, how the US trained him to fight Russia, & he helped us, but then he turned against us. The e-mail told abt terriorist activities they thought he was connected to and how dangerous to the US he was. It even covered chemicals, but I don’t remember which kinds, chemical, biological? It mentioned Bin Laden had toured some of the companies he owned stock in. If I remember correctly, it was a soft drink company that he had lots of stock in that he toured. I remember thinking, what if this bad Saudie put some of that poison in the soft drinks while he was touring the company and it was sold to thousand/millions of people. The e-mail scared me, that is why I remember it. After 911 happened, I rerembered it(some pun there) and also remembered that the stock trader that wrote the newsletter had said his dad worked for the Pentagon and he was touting stocking up (pun there too) on defense stocks. The newsletter also mentioned that Ashcroft was using chartered planes for safety reasons. So, now I wonder, who this stock trader is? If he knew all this,& heard it from his father that worked at the Pentagon, then other people at the Pentagon must have known it too. Funny though, after 911 there was news abt people who made money on stocks & they were investigated, but those people had shorted companies like the air lines that were involved. I don’t know what happended to them, I didn’t hear any more. If I remember correctly, the newsletter was written by Trader Mike, but after 5 1/2 years, I can’t swear by it. But they were aware in July 2001 that Bin Laden wanted to attack US soil and Ashcroft took airline precautions.

sunny @ 75

That’s hardly the point. The point is, someone on the jury was playing a game to see if they could “lead” the jury. Someone “lead” the jury into going along with a juvenile stunt. Notice the only person who didn’t go along is now off the jury?

I think you’re jumping far beyond the available information. The “juvenile stunt” is not all that surprising for a small group of people crammed into close contact with one another in a high-stress situation. Also, it’s quite clear why the only person who didn’t go along is off the jury–it’s because she couldn’t be bothered to go along with the jury instructions either.

When waiting for important news, it’s easy to let impatience feed paranoia. That does not make it wise to go where impatient paranoia leads. None of us knows what the outcome will be, and I find it unlikely that some clue that would let us divine the verdict is hiding in plain sight.

Ahh, but hiding in plain sight has been this Administrations trade mark. Didn’t Bush say it would be easier if this (country) was a dictatorship. Judges, Congress, Senators, Generals, Attorney Generals, even journalists, becoming powerless. WH all powerful. PNAC, out there, in plain sight.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pnZj-x3fdlM

Its all in the trial.

C’mon integrators: Look at the pile before you!

.

Yeah, all that makes me feel better too. I just don’t think it’s accurate.

I’m betting that a woman on the jury bought the T-shirts for all of the jurors and distributed them in the jury room before court started. I believe that women are more likely to seize the initiative on a matter like this, which I regard as doing thoughtful things for others that others wouldn’t do for themselves. Seems to me that women are more likely to engage in apparently senseless acts of beauty to surprise and and cause joyful feelings like grandma used to do. You know, such people are the glue that hold the group together. While a male might have purchased them, I believe it’s unlikely.

I suspect someone else made a joke the day before along the lines of how cool it would be if they all wore shirts like that. People laughed and the glue person decided to do something about it. When she unveiled her purchases the next day in the jury room, several people provided the energy to go through with the prank by saying, “Let’s do it,” and the rest minus one went along.

I’m betting that they knew that their prank would be regarded as goofy but they did it anyway because it seemed like a harmless prank, and there was safety in numbers. Keeping in mind what Valentines Day symbolizes, I cannot believe that the jury’s outside-the-box behavior is a good sign for Libby.

It may have been an expression of solidarity with the Wilsons, although I doubt any of them were consciously aware of it at the time.

Okay, I know. Please help me, Dr. Frank.

EvilDrPuma @ #94 responded with “…I think you’re jumping far beyond the available information. ….
When waiting for important news, it’s easy to let impatience feed paranoia. That does not make it wise to go where impatient paranoia leads. None of us knows what the outcome will be, and I find it unlikely that some clue that would let us divine the verdict is hiding in plain sight.”

LandOfTheFree @ #107 stated “Sunny – I don’t see why the t-shirts nor the casual dress for deliberations are cause for alarm. ….”
LandOfTheFree further reminded us that
“Christy, who is a defense lawyer, said she thinks it’s generally not a great idea to try and over-analyze the jury. She says it’s hard to get it right. Best plan is probably to sit back and try to be patient while they deliberate. I think it’s great that they’re taking their responsibility seriously and not jumping to any hasty verdicts.”

sunny @ 140

LandofTheFree @107:

I agree it’s never a good idea to over-analyze a jury. IANAL, but as a Paralegal, I have been around juries for over 20 years, both civil and criminal, and I have never seen a stunt like the juvenile t-shirt escapade. I just looks to me like someone was attempting to get everyone “on board” to be lead by whoever suggested the shirts and then had them made, and then distributed them. Like I said, the one person not easily “lead” in now a goner. hmmm, you don’t find that suspicious?

You said: “Court observers don’t see discord or two distinct groups amongst the jury”

I’m not suggesting a mistrial. I strongly suspecting an aquittal.

Sunny no matter what speculative scenario anyone comes up with, I feel confident that I can come up with a completely opposite scenario. If I am only operating at 40% that day (it happens to the very best of us), I know I can count on some other FDL member to pinch hit for me. (I even have a list in mind of who those back-ups would be.)

For example, consider this scenario:
The elected Foreman starts off with the reminder that their Instructions from the Judge are that each juror must not just go along with the majority. He further reminds them that each juror must be able to defend their own verdict.
One member of the jury points out we may even be asked during our 15 minutes of fame to explain our position on Fox TV.
A second member mentions that if we are likely to be on TV we should be wearing our finest.
A third member says he/she is poor and only has one good outfit and if it is worn to court every day there is no way it will look that good when we finally reach our verdict after a week or whatever.
A fourth member suggests we could work in sweat clothes and bring our finest to court so we could shift into them after we deliver our verdict.
A fifth member suggests that the media may try to read something into what we are wearing if we wear sweat shirts and jeans.
A sixth member says #5 you are right. So let’s give them something to think about. Why don’t we all wear valentine shirts one day to show that our hearts are in the right place and we are working together to do our very best.
A seventh member says I think that is a good idea and we should raise our hands if we agree. One member does not raise her hand but it is not noticed.
An eigth member says his younger brother has a T-Shirt shop so he could get us all the same shirts at no cost, unless someone objects. Again no one raises an objection.
A ninth member points out that this is a really big case. Even if you had 20 years of jury experience, you have never been involved with a case of this potential magnitude given that what it could ultimately lead to.
A tenth member points out that the media may not only try to read some meaning into our clothes but also our expressions. So, we should all follow the Defendent’s example and all of us always smile. No one objects, and many verbally agree.
An eleventh juror sits quitely throughout all of this and has nothing to say.

All twelve jurors, Foreman plus eleven others, are “Present and accounted for”. In order to win the prize of a pair of open toe pump Louboudains (spelling?), you have to guess who is the “Leader” that Sunny is worried about. Sorry Sunny but you can’t enter this contest, and we all hope you don’t give clues to a friend.

On another matter, my son graduated from St. John’s Law School this year. His closest friend joined the US Atty’s office in a borough of NYC at $35K per year. He can’t pay his rent and make payments on his $150K school loans. People who stay are extremely dedicated and sooner or later have to make a few bucks. For years, these young lawyers carry the water without a lot of fun stuff. Can anyone blame them for leaving?