Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10636Re: newspaper

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Feb 26, 2007
      OK, having seen the article, I now ask for how the paper followed up on the
      story; i.e., other than the late retraction. Namely, did they have a quick
      reporting of "Stewarts find no foul" after that result (note that this is quite
      different from a retraction). If so, I would state "Not Guilty!" with vigor.
      If not, I would wait for other evidence, leaning toward "not guilty".


      Reasoning: The jockey and horse, having been cleared, are not damaged. They
      can participate in future events, earn more etc. The "millions" at stake come
      form a known source: the betting public. There absolutely must NOT be a
      chilling effect on information given to this public. Nor on the act of notifying
      officials about questable events. I once stood in line at a betting window
      behind the man placing the bets as part a cheating scheme exposed after the
      fact. Obviously, the sooner this kind of information is published, the better.
      As long as countering information is published on the same time frame, all is
      well.


      As for Amy's usual role, it is clear that the defense strongly favor jurors
      who have placed bets and/or understand the concept; the plaintiffs should go
      all out to exclude such, and hope for people who think of horse racing as just
      another sport, which would attact spectators even if betting was not allowed.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic