GRANDDADDY LONG LEGS
This is the third time that CBS has followed the same mode of operation. The best known, of course, is the Rather affair before the 2004 election. But in 1982 the CBS Reports show "The Uncounted Enemy" had the same problems - assuming a conclusion and then using deductive reasoning, however badly flawed, to get there. My company computerized all of the documents and other data in that case for The Capital Legal Foundation, General Westmoreland's counsel.
There is a ton of data on the internet but two good links are:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/
et...ncountedene.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...work_smear.html
Nice start on another CBS failure. Cheers!
Pardon me, Eddie, if I am not moved to compassion for your imagined slight by David. You indicated that he answered your call and talked with you. Was he not properly impressed that the great Curran who “prompted an investigation of former AL Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration” had taken the time from his busy schedule to call him. If you can’t take the type of rhetoric, or tone, with which you hurl words at other people, then maybe you should get out of the pressroom for good. Since you were instrumental in providing information for the Siegelman case, you will likely get a subpoena too when a special prosecutor looks at this injustice; and if they do, you probably should get ready to have your feelings hurt again.
Oh, but I stray from what you stated as the point of your call to David—the jurors and the emails!
First, the jurors, then the emails, finally, Judge Fuller’s opinion, and analytical retort:
The jurors, before reaching a verdict, are purported to have read outside materials, and expressed prejudice against public officials:
One e-mail reportedly read: “All public officials r scum; especially this 1. pastor is reall a piece of work……. also keep working on 30.” The 30 is thought to be a reference to another juror by his or her number. “ (Chandler, Birmingham News, Jan 26, 2008)
Yes, sure enough, Judge Fuller did determine that the emails were bogus; in addition that it would matter if the emails were authentic:
“As to the defense not showing prejudice the government says: ‘Even if the latest purported emails could be established as genuine by further extraordinary inquiries and investigations, the brief colloquies at issue on their face cannot establish prejudice sufficient to warrant a new trial.’”
WSFA TV. (2007, Jan. 19) Government Files Response to Scrushy/Siegelman Motions; Scrushy Attorney Responds. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story...y.asp?
S=5963982 para 26-28.
Analytical comments regarding Judge Fuller’s refusal to subpoena the email records followed:
“Fuller refused to subpoena the email records in question, to question the jurors about the allegations of improper conduct, or to allow counsel to do the same. When the defendants sought to notify the Internet service providers so that the records could be preserved, the motion was summarily denied. Then Fuller, acting to protect the “sanctity of the jury,” adjourned the case for one year before sentencing—long enough for most Internet service providers to automatically dispose of emails maintained on their servers.”
Horton, S. (2007, August 3). Judge Fuller and the Trial of Don Siegelman. Harper’s , para. 13-17. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.harpers.org/archive /2007/08/hbc-90000714
The above balance of data and opinion regarding the subject is what typically has been missing from your “objective” reporting, or do you have an article in which you judiciously provided both perspectives in covering this subject t
The complete sentence is provided below:
The above balance of data and opinion regarding the subject is what typically has been missing from your “objective” reporting, or do you have an article in which you judiciously provided both perspectives in covering this subject that you could discuss with David as you “so nobly” endeavored to spare the jurors.
Commenting by HaloScan
