Posted on 02/26/2007 6:57:45 AM PST by PhatHead
Not sure what this means — but we've just gotten an announcement that the parties in the Libby trial have been asked to come to the courtroom at 9:45 this morning. Could be some sort of inquiry, or it could be bigger.
Apparently, people like Matthews and Dionne are perfectly happy to appear the deceitful creeps that they are to anyone paying attention to the facts. Their audience is elsewhere.
From Another Rovian Conspiracy, some thoughts on the dismissed juror:
"In discussions today over at JustOneMinute about the juror dismissal, the following was posted from roanoke in a comment:
This comment from Walton at Bloomberg-
``She did have contact with information related to this case,'' Walton said in court in Washington today. ``It wasn't intentional on her part, it was a misunderstanding of what I had been telling her throughout the trial.'' The juror had worked for decades as a print curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
I immediately started wondering what she could be misunderstanding throughout the trial? The initial guess at JOM was that it was related to Plame being covert or not and how thats not at issue at the trial. But how does that jibe with coming into contact with information based on a misunderstanding of what the Judge's instructions?
My thoughts revolved around how the judge did not use staying away from the internet in his admonition about avoiding media coverage. This, despite the fact that in his own courtroom were "non-journalists" liveblogging the case.
I still think its unlikely that the dismissed juror was actively perusing FireDogLake, or other left y sites, but it remains a possiblity based on the wording of the judges description.
How deliciously ironic if a lefty moonbat was kicked off the jury because she visited a snark filled commentary at FireDogLake.
Whatever, the reason, I'm sure we will know soon what the specific reason for the dismissal was."
Link: http://rovianconspiracy.blogspot.com/2007/02/fitz-done-in-by-moonbats.html
Wow! Thanks for that information, Bahbah.
There's something I thought I'd heard last night, but I was preoccupied with a technical issue. Did I hear correctly that the dismissed juror attempted to discuss what she'd read or heard with another juror? I wasn't around for Special Report - I may have heard it during the following hour.
I didn't hear that. Of course, I've had workers in the house and they can't seem to go 5 minutes without having to ask me something or other (they'll be back again today), so I have been missing quite a bit.
I didn't have my full attention to the story either, so it's very likely that I misheard.
I can't find anything, so I probably heard something other than what had been said.
That would make her Catherine II ("the Great") of Russia, not Marie Antoinette.
Weird. It's like a kindergarten class field trip.
Good point. Somebody else pointed out that there has been hardly any media coverage of the trial.
I'm sure her thighness would settle for "The Great" without even a name attached. Serfs must not look upon her face, etc.
You're right, incidentally. I get these royal persons mixed up.
The lack of media coverage is not surprising. First, media scrutiny would quickly put the lie to the Secret Agent Valerie Plame myth. Second, the trial isn't televised.
If the dismissed juror attempted to discuss what he/she had heard/read with another juror, doesn't that taint even more people on the jury? Why has a mistrial not been declared. Please bear in mind that I know next to NOTHING about this type of thing.
I don't think we really have much in the way of detail about what happened with the "tainted" juror so I don't know if she actually tried to discuss it with any of the others.
I guess if I put myself in the position of the other juror, I could tell the judge I refused to listen to her, but I really don't know, just speculating.
I couldn't find it written up anywhere, so I must have misheard it last night.
You are right that it's hard to argue that the curator was tainted and then keep the person to whom she was talking-- if that had been true. But there might be a way. If curator tried to start up a conversation and the listener stopped her and reported her. But this is all hypothetical as I cannot find anything to substantiate what I thought I'd heard.
Bahbah provides a much better answer.
Thanks to both of you. I'm interested in reports that the first alternate was "rolling her eyes" during the Defense's closing arguments. I found it interesting that Libby's lawyer argued to keep the jury at 11, while Fitzfong wanted to bring that alternate into the fold.
The art curator was probably a better bet for Fitzpatrick than some of the other jurors. Fitz reasonably would want a strong anti WH personality as her replacement.
Yikes! Wouldn't it be good if I got the prosecutor's last name right?
Fitzgerald
D'oh!
:-) LOL I reserve the right to mispronounce it as Fitzgerald.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.