Gail Maney?

The Atheist · 24th June 2018, 03:27 PM

I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys.

I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys.

The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability.

To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands.

The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product.

As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused.

I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Anyone taking an interest in this one?

Samson · 24th June 2018, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys.

I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys.

The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability.

To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands.

The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product.

As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused.

I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Anyone taking an interest in this one?

Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important.

The Atheist · 25th June 2018, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Samson

Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important.

I don't.

However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see

How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?

Samson · 25th June 2018, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't.

However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see

How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?

I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.
Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.

The Atheist · 25th June 2018, 12:35 PM

Mate, it's just as well you're not a judge - people's own claims aren't worth knowing, let alone deciding guilt.

The Atheist · 29th August 2018, 12:09 PM

Looks like Gail's getting some fairly high-profile help.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...clear-her-name

Kid Eager · 29th August 2018, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Samson

I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.
Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.

Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.

Samson · 29th August 2018, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.

It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found.

The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty.
There are few complete mysteries out there.

psionl0 · 29th August 2018, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Samson

Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Kid Eager · 29th August 2018, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.

Originally Posted by Samson

It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found.

The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty.
There are few complete mysteries out there.

I didn't ask what "it seems" to be to you. I'm asking whether there's any substance to your claim:

Quote:

I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.
Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.

The Atheist · 29th August 2018, 11:51 PM

I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes.

I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty.

Whether that relates to murders, I don't know.

Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence.

It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders!

On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder."

Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside.

Samson · 30th August 2018, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes.

I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty.

Whether that relates to murders, I don't know.

Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence.

It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders!

On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder."

Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside.

This is the answer Kid Eagle seeks, I have posts here and there but god knows where documenting this.

Hard Cheese · 13th November 2018, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't.

However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see

How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?

(just finished listening to the podcast series)

It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it)

It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker.

Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids.

The Atheist · 2nd February 2019, 11:37 AM

Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it)

The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker.

Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids.

Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries:

Superannuitants
Beneficiaries
Gov't employees
White collar workers

When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool.

Samson · 3rd February 2019, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way:

The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury.

Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries:

Superannuitants
Beneficiaries
Gov't employees
White collar workers

When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool.

The stupidity of juries is surpassed at the next level by the bad intent of appeal court judges.

24th June 2018, 03:27 PM	#1
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	Gail Maney? I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys. I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys. The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability. To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands. The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product. As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused. I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred. Anyone taking an interest in this one?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

24th June 2018, 10:27 PM	#2
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050	Originally Posted by The Atheist I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys. I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys. The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability. To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands. The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product. As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused. I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred. Anyone taking an interest in this one? Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important.
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050

25th June 2018, 12:18 AM	#3
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	Originally Posted by Samson Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important. I don't. However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

25th June 2018, 02:37 AM	#4
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050	Originally Posted by The Atheist I don't. However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see How the hell did the defence miss that at the time? I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence. Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was. Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050

25th June 2018, 12:35 PM	#5
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	Mate, it's just as well you're not a judge - people's own claims aren't worth knowing, let alone deciding guilt.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

29th August 2018, 12:09 PM	#6
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	Looks like Gail's getting some fairly high-profile help. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...clear-her-name
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

29th August 2018, 03:42 PM	#7
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,767	Originally Posted by Samson I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence. Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was. Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer. Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that all people claim innocence irrespective of guilt? Also, is there any data on the percentage of guilty people that claim innocence: 1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt; 2. before the case has been tried in court; and 3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,767	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

29th August 2018, 06:05 PM	#8
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050	Originally Posted by Kid Eager Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that all people claim innocence irrespective of guilt? Also, is there any data on the percentage of guilty people that claim innocence: 1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt; 2. before the case has been tried in court; and 3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated. It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found. The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty. There are few complete mysteries out there.
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050

29th August 2018, 08:02 PM	#10
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,767	Originally Posted by Kid Eager Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that all people claim innocence irrespective of guilt? Also, is there any data on the percentage of guilty people that claim innocence: 1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt; 2. before the case has been tried in court; and 3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated. Originally Posted by Samson It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found. The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty. There are few complete mysteries out there. I didn't ask what "it seems" to be to you. I'm asking whether there's any substance to your claim: Quote: I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence. Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was. Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,767	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

29th August 2018, 11:51 PM	#11
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes. I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty. Whether that relates to murders, I don't know. Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence. It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders! On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder." Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

30th August 2018, 02:06 AM	#12
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050	Originally Posted by The Atheist I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes. I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty. Whether that relates to murders, I don't know. Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence. It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders! On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder." Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside. This is the answer Kid Eagle seeks, I have posts here and there but god knows where documenting this.
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050

13th November 2018, 12:11 AM	#13
Hard Cheese Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 442	Originally Posted by The Atheist I don't. However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...ess-really-see How the hell did the defence miss that at the time? (just finished listening to the podcast series) It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it) It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker. Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids.
	Last edited by Hard Cheese; 13th November 2018 at 12:17 AM.

2nd February 2019, 11:37 AM	#14
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,540	Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way: Originally Posted by Hard Cheese It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it) The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury. Originally Posted by Hard Cheese It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker. Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids. Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries: Superannuitants Beneficiaries Gov't employees White collar workers When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

3rd February 2019, 05:32 AM	#15
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050	Originally Posted by The Atheist Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way: The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury. Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries: Superannuitants Beneficiaries Gov't employees White collar workers When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool. The stupidity of juries is surpassed at the next level by the bad intent of appeal court judges.
Samson Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 8,050