Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie :)
The Civil trial allowed in the diaries, the criminal trial allowed in
letters from both Oj and Nicole.
Jackie Fellows wrote:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
Can't remember--was that at both trials? I know there was a
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Linda :)
They have been airing the MO trial here, yet when that verdict was
announced it was all over the news, so it's rather boring watching that
trial.
The reports I do a mixture :) As you have pointed out :) I try to keep
my comments to myself unless I
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:) Hi Kathy - please keep the summaries coming as time permits, I think
it must be quite a job, but they're great to read especially for those
of us who aren't really keeping up on all fronts. If you do have a
summary of 'California v. Bray and
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:) Hi Kathy - please keep the summaries coming as time permits, I think
it must be quite a job, but they're great to read especially for those
of us who aren't really keeping up on all fronts. If you do have a
summary of 'California v. Bray and
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
I'm still on the trail of Bray and Ayers. LOL I don't know if I am
going to be able to find what you want, but it certainly won't be for a
lack of trying.
Sue
:) Hi Kathy - please keep the summaries coming as time permits, I think
it
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue - you are very nice to do this, but I am not much after this case
except in regard to computer files as evidence. The other night they
broadcast a snippet: the daughter was indeed found to be guilty. It's
curious why I did not see the
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
I looked all over for it and all I could find were stories about how the
girl got permission to attend the funeral of her mother and then at the
last minute it was denied.
Other than that I couldn't find anything concerning the trial.
Sue
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue - re. California v. Bray and Ayers, I don't have the date, but it
is on right now; I will suhmit a question to courttv though if I can
from their site; will check it out.
Best wishes, :) LDMF.
--Sue Hartigan
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
Can't remember--was that at both trials? I know there was a lot of debate
about it. Oh getting old and forgetful can be a b### sometimes.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie :)
The diaries were allowed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Darn it--no answer (teehee). I just think that in the attempt at reform in
the cj system, we are going to end up with some real thorny problems. Seems
to me that they just are not doing a "functional analysis" of these proposed
policy changes.
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill - "staleness" is basically what the California judge said in the
portion of trial that I saw. She said, conforming to your post, that
even if it qualified for admissibility under the 'state of mind'
exception to hearsay, it was too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie.
Could it be because the people who HAVE the money also have the power?
And that they fail to see how society is hurt by the inequities in the
system because they don't think it will ever affect them?
Bill
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
I am getting a little apprehensive about some of the recent rulings of
courts. It seems with our reactive type laws and policies, we forget the
middle ground and swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. And, of
course, there are some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Yeah, and that becomes a separate issue. Most of the laws regarding the
admissability of evidence are flexible enough so that it depends on the
judge's ruling. And it makes sense that a highly skilled attorney will
be able to make a
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue - I found a trial tracking of the case of California v. Bray and
Ayers on the Courttv site, but I did not see the verdict (maybe it is
right in front of me!) - in any case the site says 1996, but the program
announcer says "January" from
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Teen suspect barred from slain mom's rites
Hi Dr. L.:
So far this is all that I can find on the trial. These two stories were
in the SD Union Archives. I'm still out there looking. :) I couldn't
find anything in the LA Times.
Sue
25-Jan-1996
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill - turns out that it is a January 1997 trial. Don't you love it
when they raise a question, and if you have the time you can (that is,
one can, since you yourself are probably not hooked) wait around three
days to hear the matter come up
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill - your post is intriguing. Re California v. Bray and Ayers, Yes,
Courttv. Is it really possible to find out how particular sub-rulings
come out, on the Internet? This was such an interesting interplay on the
issue of whether computer logs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Good points and I don't know the answer. :) I think that there are very
strict rules about when this type of evidence can be accepted by the
judge. But there has to be some situations where it should be accepted,
IMO. For example,
19 matches
Mail list logo
