MARTHA STEWART CONVICTED ON FOUR COUNTS



On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:45:54 -0500, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2004-03-05, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > News just in!
>>
>> Is she guilty? Probably. But, it sticks in my craw that
>> the like of Hilary and Ken Lay are living the high life
>> while they hang Martha out to dry.
>
>My biggest concern is that Bush will start another war to
>divert attention from the problems with the stock market.
>It is a pretty good system in theory, but we are seeing far
>too many cases of people manipulating stocks and screwing
>their shareholders of their hard earned money.
>

I don't think that will happen; he doesn't care about the
stock market per se, only getting re-elected. More likely,
he will pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat right before
the election.

Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
 
On 6 Mar 2004 14:58:20 GMT, [email protected] arranged random neurons,
so they looked like this:

>notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2004-03-05, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> News just in!
>
>> Is she guilty? Probably. But, it sticks in my craw that
>> the like of Hilary and Ken Lay are living the high life
>> while they hang Martha out to dry.
>
>Actually, Ken Lay is looking at some major jail time, if I
>am not mistaken. I do not know about his wife though.

Stan, I think notbob was referring to Hillary Clinton. Ken
Lay's wife's name is Susan, IIRC.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"
 
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:45:54 -0500, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> arranged random neurons, so they looked
like this:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2004-03-05, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > News just in!
>>
>> Is she guilty? Probably. But, it sticks in my craw that
>> the like of Hilary and Ken Lay are living the high life
>> while they hang Martha out to dry.
>
>My biggest concern is that Bush will start another war to
>divert attention from the problems with the stock market.
>It is a pretty good system in theory, but we are seeing far
>too many cases of people manipulating stocks and screwing
>their shareholders of their hard earned money.
>
The war thing didn't work for Dubyuh's daddy. Turned out it
*was* the economy. Looks like the second Bush verse will be
the same as the first.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"
 
Nancy Young wrote:

> Seems to me automatic that ... oops, it's noon, FoodTV
> will have on Martha Stewart. Guess who's *not* on FoodTV
> at noon today.
>

Hmmm...wonder how this will go down with the airing of her
TV show, her merchandise franchising biz, etc.? Will her
sponsors drop her like a hot rock or will there be enough of
a "sympathy" backlash for her so that peeps will continue
buying her stuff...???

--
Best Greg
 
Curly Sue wrote:

> More likely, he will pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat
> right before the election.

If Bush wanted to create a distraction, he could pardon
Martha. He could make some comments about her contributions
to uplifting American culture, and how she's being made the
scapegoat for much worse crimes performed by other people.
Because she's a woman. Properly spun, a pardon probably
could be made palatable to the American people, so it
wouldn't create negatives for Bush and might even be
positive. And in the resulting controversy, the economy,
unemployment, and Iraq would be taken off the front burner
of the media.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:45:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >notbob wrote:
> >
> >> On 2004-03-05, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > News just in!
> >>
> >> Is she guilty? Probably. But, it sticks in my craw that
> >> the like of Hilary and Ken Lay are living the high life
> >> while they hang Martha out to dry.
> >
> >My biggest concern is that Bush will start another war to
> >divert attention from the problems with the stock market.
> >It is a pretty good system in theory, but we are seeing
> >far too many cases of people manipulating stocks and
> >screwing their shareholders of their hard earned money.
> >
>
> I don't think that will happen; he doesn't care about the
> stock market per se, only getting re-elected. More likely,
> he will pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat right before
> the election.

Out of his hat? I think Osama is impacted firmly in
Bush's ass.

Seriously though, this administration has used WMD's since
day one. That is, Weapons of Mass Distraction. The lies are
piling up and I'm hoping this motivates enough people to
toss his ass out of office.

And if he takes it like he took it in 2000? Watch out.
Plenty of ****** off people out there.
 
Martha Stewart did not lie to the American people the way
that creeps like John Poindexter do -duh, I guess Republican
LIARS are hired by the Federal Government !

Investigator, David Sween exposes biased judge. No wonder
the Prosecution rejected a reasonable judge, to give this
idiot the opportunity to pervert justice.

Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13 David Sween wrote:

Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own
words, "I'm persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto
can't be corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-
examine the dog."

Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to
present a separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that
places Laci Peterson's scent at the very pier where her
husband said he left for an afternoon of fishing on the day
she went missing. The jury will hear testimony from an
expert dog handler whose Labrador retriever Trimble followed
Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot of the Berkeley
Marina to the edge of the pier.

Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking
evidence, Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence
admissible because Scott Peterson admitted going to the
marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus washed ashore 2 1/2
miles from the marina four months later. What does that have
to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?

Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the
Marina? Is Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog?
This judge does not make any sense. First and foremost, the
**** that Delucci has chosen to call evidence is straight
out of the National Enquirer, and this is the direct quote:
"And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the most
compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left
his warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina,
and the dog picked up Laci's scent – at the marina!"

Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?

Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking
evidence because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini
called off a search even though a bloodhound named Merlin
appeared to be following Laci Peterson's scent, and that is
not justifiable.

Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina?
Eyewitnesses corroborated the fact that Scott was at the
marina, alone. This is extremely bizarre and presumptuous
corroboration -like denying Merlin the tracking dog, the
opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent. Delucchi's
peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was
witnessed walking her dog on December 24th, clearly
indicates that the so called, "corroborated" dog-tracking
evidence is nothing more than the bizarre theory that the
National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what you call
evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm
 
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:13:52 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>The war thing didn't work for Dubyuh's daddy. Turned out it
>*was* the economy. Looks like the second Bush verse will be
>the same as the first.
>
>Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

from your lips to god's ear.

your pal, blake
 
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:13:52 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>The war thing didn't work for Dubyuh's daddy. Turned out it
>*was* the economy. Looks like the second Bush verse will be
>the same as the first.
>
>Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

from your lips to god's ear.

your pal, blake
 
I am quite intrigued by Martha Stewart's Internet Jury. There are 3
steps to joining the jury:

A/ You must read the closing argment.

B/ You must vote guilty or innocent

C/ You can say or publish anything you wish, regarding your
input on the Martha Stewart, Internet Jury.

http://skakel.tripod.com/martha.htm
 
I am quite intrigued by Martha Stewart's Internet Jury. There are 3
steps to joining the jury:

A/ You must read the closing argment.

B/ You must vote guilty or innocent

C/ You can say or publish anything you wish, regarding your
input on the Martha Stewart, Internet Jury.

http://skakel.tripod.com/martha.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back