 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
3 edits | reply to Thaler
Re: Corporate CSRs never lie Of course. But that is not the point. The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them.
Put it all out there for everyone to see & hear. Let us make up our own mind instead of telling us what we should think and believe. |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by NOYB:The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. The ISP went to law enforcement, not the public. The reporting media is what brought you this newsbit you're reading today.
said by NOYB:How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them. Because they don't feel they need to fully disclose everything on an ongoing criminal investigation. Right now, the recordings are where they should be - in the hands of authorities. It is their call now wether or not releasing the recordings will help/hinder the impending trial.
Nothing is being withheld though. You have a right to sit in on the court procedings. Undoubtably, they'll be playing these recordings during trial. If you're so inclined, you can hear them then. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit | The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:Of course. But that is not the point. The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them. Put it all out there for everyone to see & hear. Let us make up our own mind instead of telling us what we should think and believe. Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. The only people the ISP owes anything to, is law enforcement, the defendant, and any other parties directly involved with the court hearing. Everything else is selective disclosure, which is very much advisable when talking about an ongoing criminal investigation. |
|
|
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to brandon
said by brandon:Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. Didn't OJ's case(s) have a lot of evidence leaking? Or were those leaks not authorized? (ie. at a press conference)
Court procedings have always been made public and filed on public record - nothing is withheld. All evidence/witnesses are shown/heard when the time is right in court. |
|
brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | said by Thaler:said by brandon:Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. Didn't OJ's case(s) have a lot of evidence leaking? Court procedings have always been made public and filed on public record - nothing is withheld. All evidence/witnesses are shown/heard when the time is right in court. Excuse me. Pre-court is what I meant. |
|
 dMarksMelting Faces For FunPremium
join:2007-02-09
Jackson, MI
 ·Comcast
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. We're not owed anything.
Fact is, this case may go to trial by jury. The court will need to select jurors. How will the jury, whom are to be impartial and make unbiased decisions, supposed to do their job if they hear and see all evidence before the case is even started?
There is a reason why evidence isn't *supposed* to be made public before the trial is started. This guy may very well be guilty of the crime, but how is he supposed to have a fair trial by jury (if it is done that way) if he goes in with everyone against him to begin with? The justice system in America isn't perfect, but even criminals have a right to a fair trial.
--
HN7000S G16 - 970 MHz (currently)|Pro Plan|Windows XP Pro SP2|AMD Athlon 64 FX-57|2GB Dual Channel RAM|2x GeForce 7950 GT 512MB|250GB HDD |
|
| reply to Thaler
Maybe because not everybody has the time or desire to travel across the country to sit in on what will most likely be multiple court proceedings across a possible time span of months or even years. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. No they don't! What if the man didn't do what they said he did. If it were me, I certainly wouldn't want to have a trial by media and public opinion based on what they give you as fact. Nobody owes you or I anything related to this matter. |
|
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:Put it all out there for everyone to see & hear. Let us make up our own mind instead of telling us what we should think and believe. That can actually get your case thrown out of court. Publically revealing the transcript/recording can and will easily result in prejudicing of the jury, enabling the defense to have the case dismissed on grounds of mismanagement. So no, it should not be made public until introduced properly in court.
Before you say stuff like this, it may behoove you to read up on the possible consequences of the actions you suggest. |
|
