Posted on 01/19/2015 8:31:08 AM PST by rktman
The jury that heard testimony from eyewitnesses and five hours of videotaped deposition from Kyle himself felt they had a handle on what the truth was.
They can’t do anything about the “American Sniper” box office but tards are desperately generating all this high volume squealing and moaning to keep it from getting best picture.
How much testimony did the OJ jury hear?
So what are you implying? That Kyle is a liar and everything is fabricated? What happened at that bar? Kyle decided he took enough of Ventura’s rude and obnoxious remarks about soldiers Kyle was there to BURY and pay his respects to and punched Ventura. So, you feel almighty claiming that the jury heard testimony that Ventura was punched? BFD
Cry me a River if Kyle published a 2 SENTENCE recap of his time with Ventura. You want to prop up a loser like Ventura? Go ahead. Leave me out. I know a real hero when I see one.
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that Ventura sued Kyle, there was a jury trial, the jury heard a lot of testimony, and came away feeling certain that Kyle lied about the incident (or at least Ventura's part in it) and published it anyway.
What happened at that bar?
I don't know, but the jury sure seemed convinced that Kyle's version of events didn't happen. That doesn't make Kyle not-a-war-hero, but it calls that part of his book into question for sure.
Thank you for your shervish.
A jury acquitted OJ too.....there were witnesses that backed up Kyle’s Version.
The is also some dispute as to whether Ventura is even a Seal.
Every jury trial isn’t the OJ trial. You’re the second person to bring that up now. Maybe it is for verdicts we don’t like?
I believe the controversy with Ventura is whether he was a SEAL or technically UDT. I don’t know the answer to that. I assume he’s legitimate otherwise the SEAL community would’ve lambasted him over his claim by now, and it would’ve been front-and-center on Stolen Valor.
And yet this jury was privy to a lot of info that we didn’t get. No, they’re not infallible, but I seem to recall some juries recently who saw a lot of info that the infamous LIVs didn’t see, and those LIVs were absolutely convinced the juries were wrong, and they’ve been rioting and protesting ever since.
I’m certainly not contesting Ventura’s mental issues. The guy’s a loon. However, that doesn’t excuse naming him in an incident that directly impugns whatever is left of his character that costs him money. With all the variables going against Ventura, there’s no way in hell he should’ve won this suit. But he did. And that alone says something.
Yes it does say something I thought you would have known by now.
“The law is an ass”
LOL
PS.
“naming him in an incident that directly impugns whatever is left of his character”
He really should have just shut up....suing a widow is the incident that has cemented whatever was left of his character.
He’s done far more damage to his ability to make money than any book did.
The law is an ass, indeed:
http://www.startribune.com/local/269697941.html
The executive summary of what’s in that link is this: The jury was not unanimous (8-2 split). So there were two holdouts who favored Kyle. The judge, after doing some chamber negotiations with the attorneys, allowed that to stand as a win for Ventura. The reason the two holdouts stood firm, and the reason the other eight went the other way, comes down to no single gotcha piece of evidence, but who they believed based on a combination of character and willingness to believe one person over the other. In other words, the Ventura attorney did a better job working the emotions of the jurors.
As an attorney myself, the thing I found most disturbing was the asinine “eureka” moment they pro-Ventura group had when the defense listed all the witnesses who saw and knew something happened, several people, and the poor jurors “got confused” over how each witness might have had a different perspective or caught a different element of the fight. It’s trial evidence 101 that in real life, NOT TV, that each witness DOES see things a little differently, remembers different parts of the conflict, etc. It’s one of the best ways you can tell you’re not getting coached, fake data. That the defense atty at that point doesn’t set that up and leverage that in the mind of the jury at that critical moment is, IMHO, a horrible lapse of the attorney in his responsibility to the client.
All that being said, and my own opinion being quite clear, I will concede for the record that I was not there, and they were. But I hold my opinion still.
Peace,
SR
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.