The first one caused me to roll my eyes a few times. During the trial Mrs. Black spent a good deal of the time she was in the courtroom glaring, just as her husband spent his time glowering. Both of which were understandable to me, as neither believed he or she should be on trial an in the courtroom. Now, while this trial has been over for a year and Mr. Black has been moved to a jail in Florida, I cannot figure out why she simply has not accepted the facts and moved on. Something fishy happened. End of story. This fishy thing that occurred was...illegal and now you must pay the price. I do not believe the people in the trial were used as "a lesson" for others out there. I am not sure I know of a person who would plead guilty to something if they were no guilty of something in general. Radler might not be guilty of what he plead to, but it had to be a worst crime he was guilty of if he plead guilty to something he wasn't. The fishy character that Ralder is causes him not to be bullied and not to do what is not best for his own orange hide. This comment by Norman Farrell summed up my feelings on the article:
When people spend a career comforted by sycophants and servants, they lose ability to judge experiences with common standards. Conrad is convinced he did nothing wrong. Barbara is too. The jury disagreed. The Chicago trial judge, one of America's finest, disagreed. The appeal court did too.
Norman Farrell, Vancouver, Canada
The next artcile, well, I've read several like it. Judge St. Eve is really one in a million it seems. Now, I have not worked with many judges in my life, but I have heard horror stories. Judge St. Eve understand how to get a jury to work together and how to make them happy. To be on a jury (especially one that goes on for three long months) is hard. It disrupts your life. It causes you to live a different life and disconnect from the world. You don't go to work except one day a week, you cannot talk about what you have been doing for that time, while everyone alive wants to know and tell you what they know. It does have its perks, as I took it as a learning experience. I followed the Rezko trial throughout all of it, and while many people complained about all the 'breaks' the jury took, I knew why. Life must go on for happy jurors. If you have unhappy jurors you will never get an answer that is impartial and clearly based on the evidence. and unhappy jurors will take a lot longer than ones who are happy working half days trying to sift through mountains of evidence.
Another news article I was pointed at, was this one by Clarence Page, who my dad had worked with at one point: Paris for President. I had not heard much about this, other than a little spot on Talk Soup about Kathy Hilton's response to it. It is an interesting story, how Paris's plan for energy might be the best one out there. Well, who ever wrote the two minute dialouge's plan that is...
No comments:
Post a Comment