Kevin Bresnahan

Lucky them. About the only one of these that I sip occasionally is the Blue Moon Belgian White. Most of the others would never make it into my shopping cart. I used to drink Foster's Lager until they started making it in Canada (while prominently displaying "IMPORTED" all over the can).

Now spinning Tony Kinsey's "An Evening With Tony Kinsey "Mr. Percussion"". Some great Tubby Hayes on tenor & flute here. If you're interested in a new copy of this LP, be forewarned that it is a limited edition of 500 pressings.

I am talking about people holding onto a tiny little niggle of doubt and rationalizing that doubt into "not guilty" when it is obvious that the person *is* guilty. What small facts give jurors "doubt" is amazing. What's funny is that they almost never add any doubt to the defense testimony, only to the prosecution. BTW, I'd like to add that I don't know if that's what happened in the Casey Anthony trial, just that I am unable to be surprised by any verdict in our justice system any more. This goes both ways. I've read some horror stories of convictions that are just as bad as this. Juries can and will continue to be fooled by the lawyers. Playing with "reasonable doubt" is easiest card a defense lawyer can play. Listen to a few closing arguments and watch them play with that word "doubt".

Chuck, although you don't add any "smilies", I assume you're joking. I've asked Michael Cuscuna about this a couple of times and he says that if the tapes are handled properly, they can be played back many, many more times. Do you not agree with him? If I think about how many times I played back one of my favorite cassettes or VHS tapes, I realize that it takes and awful lot of wear to hear a difference. I can only think of a couple of VHS tapes that I wore out (Disney movies for the girls) and that was after probably 75-100 playbacks, with numerous long pauses in there.

That's the key - reasonable doubt. It is almost universally misinterpreted by many jurors as "any doubt at all". During the case where I was the foreman and we couldn't come to a verdict, the judge came in at the end of the first day and explained (again) that you can have doubts and still find the defendant guilty. He said that most jurors misinterpret "reasonable doubt" to mean "no doubt". I got the impression from him that "no doubt at all" has become the mindset of today's juries.

On every jury I've sat on, the judge has always come into the deliberation room to see how things were going. They see this stuff every day they work so they have an inclination as to how the jury will go. I am sure that the judge in Larry's case thought that it was pretty open/shut. He also may have been joking. The judges I met joked a bit as well. Maybe they want to alleviate tension? It gets pretty testy in some rooms.

My late father got called to jury duty in Springfield MA many years ago. The trial was assault and battery and attempted murder. The accused was a woman who stabbed another woman during a bar fight. During the trial, the defense did not deny any of the charges and instead chose to argue that the woman was sexually abused as a child so she became violent. The facts were that she assaulted someone and attempted to kill that person. The defense did not deny it. They got to the jury deliberation room and my father thought they'd all vote guilty and get out of there. Instead, the jury was split and over the next 3 days, the guilty votes got whittled down to 1 person - my father. After getting beat on by the other 11 jurors for half a day more, he finally gave in and voted not guilty just so he could go home. He refused to serve on another jury as long as he lived after that.

Both sides get to challenge jurors so the prosecution can tailor the jury too. As for getting more jurors who show "initiative, capability and leadership qualities", remember that the decision has to be unanimous. If only a few jurors show initiative, capability and leadership qualities, they can wind up pretty frustrated in the jury deliberation room. Take it from me. I was voted foreman on a jury. I thought it was an open/shut case. When we got to the deliberation room, I first asked for a show of hands, expecting 12 "guilty" votes. I got 6 guilty and 6 not guilty. Those of us who voted guilty just sat there stunned. For a few seconds, nobody said anything. We deliberated for a day & a half over a DUI trial where the guy had a half empty bottle of vodka on his seat, miserably failed every sobriety test and hit a car in a parking lot. It was an open & shut case but it took almost two days to convince 6 of the jurors to see it that way. You don't even want to know what had to happen to get the last two to switch their vote!

The lawyers don't pick the jury. It's a random group of "peers". The lawyers get a limited number of challenges to swap out a few of them, but they sometimes wind up with "worse" jurors than if they had just left the original in place. The problem is the pool of "peers". Wait until you get the chance to sit on a jury. You'll find yourself shaking your head at some of the things people say during deliberations. Loony stuff.

There are those who would say that the same holds true for the political system as well... I bit my tongue on my post because this is not a political discussion but I do agree with you.

In this Organissimo thread, we discussed our experiences with jury duty. I stand by what I said in that thread: I am not the least bit surprised by this verdict. I truly believe that this country is getting too dumb for its own justice system. They are far too easily swayed, ignore testimony, latch onto a single "fact" and misunderstand the word "reasonable" dramatically.

Be aware that there are two hinge sizes. The older (smaller?) hinges are nearly irreplaceable these days.

Happy birthday Jack!

I tried following this thread for a while but eventually gave up. It is very hard to know what is gone and what is still available. Have you given thought to consolidating the multiple listings into one big one?

Maybe she hasn't toured as far and wide as she used to, but she plays in Boston almost every year. I know she took some time off when she had a baby, but that was many years ago.

Thanks! I used it for the newest Coldplay tracks for my daughters... well, I listened to them too.

Hover just below the minimize button (up in the top right of the screen near the red X for "close") and click the right mouse button. You should get a menu with "Menu Bar" in it. Click that and the menu bar will show back up. To get rid of that Bing toolbar, check that it isn't an add-on (under Tools>Add-ons). Unfortunately, his menu bar, the place where it says "View", is hidden.

Huh? What happened? Formatting a spreadsheet a different way takes two or three clicks, tops.

I'm a very happy man today. The Bruins finally did it. Almost makes up for Glen Wesley missing that open net... when was that again? Oh yeah, 1990, the last time Boston was in the Stanley Cup finals. I wish my old man was still around. One of the biggest Bruins fans around. He would've loved this. I hope he had a good view from where he is now.

Last I heard, Jack is closing on June 28th.

I was spinning the latest Mosaic box last night, "Stan Getz:The 1953-54 Norgran Studio Sessions", and I was wondering if anyone else has it yet? I ask because track 5 of record 1, side 2, "The Nearness Of You", has a buzzing sound about 20 seconds from the end. It's not a visible vinyl defect and the booklet makes no mention of it. Kevin

MSE is active. Malwarebytes is passive i.e. you have to manually scan your system for it to be effective. Simply having Malwarebytes will not protect you from anything. You have to open it, update it & make do a "Full scan" to get the full protection it offers.

Valerie - Thank you for the birthday wishes and I am looking forward to The Cookers this Thursday at Scullers.

Try Malwarebytes. It's free at http://www.download.com . Lately, the free anti-virus program I have been using on my PCs is Microsoft's Security Essentials, available free at http://www.microsoft.com . Kevin