Comments on: More Notes From The Jury http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/ Firedoglake weblog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:29:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: jonjon http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-537005 jonjon Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:15:43 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-537005 <p>Some former actors who would have been great.</p> <p>Valerie Plame: I agree, Lauren Bacall<br /> Fitz: Gregory Peck (e.g,. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’)<br /> Cheney: Lon Chaney? (j/k); but maybe Broderick Crawford.<br /> Libby: has to be Burgess Meredith</p> <p>Suggestions for movie titles, anyone? For startersm how about: “Yellowcake — The Movie”</p> Some former actors who would have been great.

Valerie Plame: I agree, Lauren Bacall
Fitz: Gregory Peck (e.g,. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’)
Cheney: Lon Chaney? (j/k); but maybe Broderick Crawford.
Libby: has to be Burgess Meredith

Suggestions for movie titles, anyone? For startersm how about: “Yellowcake — The Movie”

]]> By: Mason http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536982 Mason Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:53:58 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536982 <p>Looks like I’m the only one still going on this thread.</p> <p>How about Julianne Moore for our very own Christy Hardin Smith?</p> Looks like I’m the only one still going on this thread.

How about Julianne Moore for our very own Christy Hardin Smith?

]]> By: Mason http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536978 Mason Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:51:53 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536978 <p>I think I’ve got a winner recommendation for an actor to play George Walker Bush.</p> <p>RON JEREMY!!!!!!!</p> <p>I’m serious. Think about it.</p> I think I’ve got a winner recommendation for an actor to play George Walker Bush.

RON JEREMY!!!!!!!

I’m serious. Think about it.

]]> By: whitecat http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536677 whitecat Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:30:25 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536677 <p>Although Kim Bassinger has plenty of the quirky blonde quality to pull off Valerie, I do think younger is better for this. I’m thinking Courtney Love. She has that “unknowable” quality, the tragic cliff-dwelling hip-hop of a Beltway Diva.</p> Although Kim Bassinger has plenty of the quirky blonde quality to pull off Valerie, I do think younger is better for this. I’m thinking Courtney Love. She has that “unknowable” quality, the tragic cliff-dwelling hip-hop of a Beltway Diva.

]]> By: alank http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536632 alank Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:05:33 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536632 <p><a href="#comment-535597"><em>Frank Probst @<br /> 325 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>My paraphrase of the second note: “Mr Libby, are you absolutely certain that you don’t want to take a plea bargain here? The case against you is so strong that we’re now considering if it’s even humanly possible that you’re NOT guilty. Really? You’re SURE you don’t want to plead out? Tell you what, why don’t you sleep on it. Hell, take the whole weekend to think it over. We’ll get back to you on Monday.”</p></blockquote> <p>Fascinating interpretation. Here’s what the NYTime said about the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt:</p> <blockquote><p>He also said that “if after careful, honest and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.”</p> <p>He also noted, however, that “the government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty or to a scientific certainty.”</p></blockquote> <p>So, they had the instruction they needed. The note does seem gratuitous, i.e., for the benefit of the defense team.</p> Frank Probst @
325

My paraphrase of the second note: “Mr Libby, are you absolutely certain that you don’t want to take a plea bargain here? The case against you is so strong that we’re now considering if it’s even humanly possible that you’re NOT guilty. Really? You’re SURE you don’t want to plead out? Tell you what, why don’t you sleep on it. Hell, take the whole weekend to think it over. We’ll get back to you on Monday.”

Fascinating interpretation. Here’s what the NYTime said about the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt:

He also said that “if after careful, honest and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.”

He also noted, however, that “the government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty or to a scientific certainty.”

So, they had the instruction they needed. The note does seem gratuitous, i.e., for the benefit of the defense team.

]]> By: stingray http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536615 stingray Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:55:16 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536615 <p><a href="#comment-535018"><em>obsessed @ 22 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>NOTE #2: We would like clarification of the term “reasonable doubt”. Specifically, <i>is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible</i> for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.</p></blockquote> <p>Since the answer from Walton on Monday will be NO, it does appear that they will find him guilty.</p> obsessed @ 22

NOTE #2: We would like clarification of the term “reasonable doubt”. Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since the answer from Walton on Monday will be NO, it does appear that they will find him guilty.

]]> By: rumplestiltskin http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536474 rumplestiltskin Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:35:55 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536474 <p>Jack Black playing Matthew Cooper is like Picasso rendering Ronald Reagan’s cocktail-napkin doodlings.</p> <p>But boy! whadda sensa humour that Cooper’s got! See, Jack <em>Black </em>would <em>play </em>him–in a <em>movie!</em></p> <p>He could go on Letterman–when–as reported here & in WashPost–he’s not following Karl Rove’s instructions, refusing Fitz’s call to duty, withholding stories or reporting them falsely, and following precisely the same pattern as Judith Iscariot Miller. </p> <p>But hey, bonding with Matt Cooper the way Scooter Libby bonded with Judith Miller, it makes him a good guy. It’s ok–because that’s the model all the kewl kidz use.</p> <p>And <b>censorship</b>? It’s your friend, as long as it eliminates uncomfortable facts and voices.</p> Jack Black playing Matthew Cooper is like Picasso rendering Ronald Reagan’s cocktail-napkin doodlings.

But boy! whadda sensa humour that Cooper’s got! See, Jack Black would play him–in a movie!

He could go on Letterman–when–as reported here & in WashPost–he’s not following Karl Rove’s instructions, refusing Fitz’s call to duty, withholding stories or reporting them falsely, and following precisely the same pattern as Judith Iscariot Miller.

But hey, bonding with Matt Cooper the way Scooter Libby bonded with Judith Miller, it makes him a good guy. It’s ok–because that’s the model all the kewl kidz use.

And censorship? It’s your friend, as long as it eliminates uncomfortable facts and voices.

]]> By: beerfart liberal http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536395 beerfart liberal Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:00:30 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536395 <p>I just read my post. Damn, I gotta use that spell check.</p> I just read my post. Damn, I gotta use that spell check.

]]> By: beerfart liberal http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536382 beerfart liberal Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:50:03 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536382 <p>I disagree with the comment that it’s a “great sign” for Fitz. BUt you never know. First, I don’t really understand the note. I imagine it’s hard if you have 11 people and several of them have a question to get it worded in a way that satisfies all of them. there’s give and take on the wording and tne result is — tis kind of crap. What I find alarming, though, is that for all we FDLers have been praising these folks for being so methodical and a great bunch, this is not a good question. I know, I know, “reasonable doubt” is dificult to define and understand. But Walton almost certainly answered this in his charge. He almost certainly said not only what proof beyond a reasonable doubt <em>is</em>, nut what it is not - and absolute certainty is not required. Should he just re-read that portion of the charge and tweak it a little to fit the question.</p> <p>The other (first) note I don’t get, but I’m not happy. Jesus, I’m not happy about anything anymore. #!!!@@@@@!!!@ If they’re taking these in order and after more than a week they’re up to Count I, we got a long way to go, no ? Did I say I’m not pleased?</p> I disagree with the comment that it’s a “great sign” for Fitz. BUt you never know. First, I don’t really understand the note. I imagine it’s hard if you have 11 people and several of them have a question to get it worded in a way that satisfies all of them. there’s give and take on the wording and tne result is — tis kind of crap. What I find alarming, though, is that for all we FDLers have been praising these folks for being so methodical and a great bunch, this is not a good question. I know, I know, “reasonable doubt” is dificult to define and understand. But Walton almost certainly answered this in his charge. He almost certainly said not only what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, nut what it is not – and absolute certainty is not required. Should he just re-read that portion of the charge and tweak it a little to fit the question.

The other (first) note I don’t get, but I’m not happy. Jesus, I’m not happy about anything anymore. #!!!@@@@@!!!@ If they’re taking these in order and after more than a week they’re up to Count I, we got a long way to go, no ? Did I say I’m not pleased?

]]> By: The Oracle http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536348 The Oracle Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:38:56 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/#comment-536348 <p>Hmmmm, I wonder if the juror holding out is a creationist or evolutionist?</p> <p>“The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”</p> <p>If a creationist, the juror was probably thinking, “Hah, Fitz really lost me there with that mathematical and scientific certainty crap. Everyone knows God created everything in seven days 6,500 years ago, and that all science and math are just theories espoused by unbelievers who are not privy to the innermost secrets of God as I and the members of my orthodox religion are.”</p> Hmmmm, I wonder if the juror holding out is a creationist or evolutionist?

“The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”

If a creationist, the juror was probably thinking, “Hah, Fitz really lost me there with that mathematical and scientific certainty crap. Everyone knows God created everything in seven days 6,500 years ago, and that all science and math are just theories espoused by unbelievers who are not privy to the innermost secrets of God as I and the members of my orthodox religion are.”

]]>