I did say vague! lol

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

thanks, am and kelso. that makes sense. My imagination took over a bit with just who was really reading the boards 😮

But then my imagination also took over hearing about a guy that was buried at the beach waist deep and needed rescuing. The real reason was nothing like the mob hit that was going through me head 😄

---

I'd hazard and guess that someone is trying to shut someone else up.  :D:D:D

Retribution!  the new, old TV show.

*pepe wrote:

they started locking such threads when a poster kicked up a huge stink over a case not yet before the courts being discussed - intimating that it was illegal as it could jeopardise the outcome of the trial.

_________________________________________________________________

This could be true.   How do you know whether or not you are discussing the case

with a potential juror?    And maybe prejudice a potential juror's outlook

it's a current news story broadcast on radio, tv, online and in print. It's a story in the public domain and there is no legal reason why a person who is not directly connected to the case (eg a member of the jury) cannot publicly discuss it.

lalau74 wrote:

it's a current news story broadcast on radio, tv, online and in print. It's a story in the public domain and there is no legal reason why a person who is not directly connected to the case (eg a member of the jury) cannot publicly discuss it.

Your statement makes no sense.  How is a member of a jury not

connected to the case?

---

@imastawka wrote:

@*pepe wrote:

they started locking such threads when a poster kicked up a huge stink over a case not yet before the courts being discussed - intimating that it was illegal as it could jeopardise the outcome of the trial.

_________________________________________________________________

 

This could be true.   How do you know whether or not you are discussing the case

with a potential juror?    And maybe prejudice a potential juror's outlook

---

you are aware that potential jurors are asked questions regarding their knowledge and opinions on the case yeah?

Sorry, it was gibberish. my mistake.

Any person who is not directly connected to the case may make public comment.

No one directly connected to the case, eg a memebr of the jury can make such comment.

So far, no one has been selected as either judge or jury in this case.

I am aware.  I am also aware of human nature.

When asked that question, some would be prepared to lie

so what you are saying here is that no crime should be discussd in case a liar should be selected for jury duty then.

I don't think I want to continue the discussion right now.

It may be glitches,  But there was a lot more to my previous post.

And it doesn't say it was edited