Owner of Campbell's Cottage arrested

There was much other evidence presented. From what we shown in the media the conversation that was overheard by a witness certainly hurt as did the fact she had recently raised insurance coverage. Obviously there was much other evidence presented that was not shown in the media. I firmly believe the jury was fair in their verdict based on the information they were given. That's the American legal system, no matter what people not involved think of the accused.

Well said.

The reality of the matter is that guilt/innocence is established by that which is presented at trail and, in turn, the jury's response to that presented. Now, do juries get it wrong? Sure -- but for many reasons. Short of intentional juror misconduct, we have to believe that jurors, as representing the larger populous, are acting fairly and within the law.

Seems that one of the biggest "deciding" factors in trials is what is or is not allowed as evidence or who is or is not allowed to testify. IIRC, one of her star witnesses was not allowed to testify. Such decisions, I would assume, involve nuances of the law which I don't really understand. Have to think though, that what the jury is not allowed to hear can impact the judgment they hand down.

I might be wrong with this point, but it seems that juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution and not the defendant. This, I believe, is where personal feelings come in for the rest of us. Our acceptance of such bias (for the prosecution) - however small it may me - depends on who is being tried and for what crime.

The "being tried in the media" aspect of things doesn't help many defendants.

[Robin Garr]

By the by, I've heard reports she has requested another trial or appeal? I'm a little cloudy on this one. Would someone be able to fill in the blanks?

Yes, if you'll check the "sticky" post at the top of the forum, some of her friends, represented by Linda B of the forum, are trying to encourage folks to send letters urging the judge to defer incarceration pending an appeal, which I take it has already been filed.

"J", not to worry. You have a right to speak. No need to be defensive about it.

One course correction, though:

Robin procliaming her innocent is ridiculous.

I didn't say that. Look at the OP again.

She purposely set a fire.

And you, sir (or madam), do not know that.

As for all the rest, you have a right to say what you think. You don't have to fear deletion at my hand.

But Robin,

You DID write that she is innocent in your sticky. You wrote "She is innocent and is appealing this ruling. I am asking for your help so that she can stay out of jail during her appeal process. "

I must admit to being initially somewhat taken aback at the boldness of your claim. I almost PM'd you to see if you had some kind of inside information .

I know juries can fail. But in this case, she apparently was represented by a high-powered lawyer. Usually, that skews the legal system in favor of the defendant. (lawyers like that can usually only be afforded by the wealthy). So in this particular case I'm a bit more skeptical that she got rail-roaded.

Hopefully, Justice will be done before it is all over. I have some faith in our highly imperfect judicial system. Not total faith, but some....

From Linda:

She is innocent and is appealing this ruling. I am asking for your help so that she can stay out of jail during her appeal process.

Nimbus,
Reread the sticky again. Although Robin posted the message, the bulk of it was clearly from Linda B. She's sent that message out to a lot of people asking for help. Robin made no claims, but passed on Linda's info.

[Robin Garr]

But Robin,

You DID write that she is innocent in your sticky. You wrote "She is innocent and is appealing this ruling. I am asking for your help so that she can stay out of jail during her appeal process. "

I must admit to being initially somewhat taken aback at the boldness of your claim. I almost PM'd you to see if you had some kind of inside information .

Linda B. wrote that. I pasted her note, with my comment at the beginning of the post that I was doing so.

At this point, I am going to offer my opinion on this event. In a nutshell, frightful! In reviewing what has been presented and access that has been allowed, I PERSONALLY feel that the whole event needs to be completely re-analized, revisited, and rescoped. Susan is a longtime provaier (sp) and advocate of foodies, and a member of this forum. And, I can personnally call her a friend and pray for the best outcome of this.

As is my usual fashion with such a letter, it's in draft form at the moment and I plan on having it in the mail by the end of the week.

What we must keep in mind is "one of our own is in trouble".......if it were you, what would you want to happen? Stephen's passion and Kyle's logic both have their place in such discussions, however, we must remember to let our own version of "realism" play as well.

As always, I thank everyone for a wonderful and iteresting debate. This is one reason why I am very proud to call myself a member of this forum.

BV

Wow. I really appreciate the strong passion everyone has for supporting 'one of our own'. I would think anyone would hope to have half that support if something similarly happened to them. And I respect someone who feels so strongly about someone's innocence. But...

There is so much information that the jury and courtroom heard that we haven't been informed about. That is usually the case...the media picks up on a few certain things and the rest go by the wayside. So, I agree that what the media has presented to us, does not seem to be enough to convict someone. However, having some 'inside people'....it has been pretty evident from the begining that the prosecutors had more than enough information/evidence to make a conviction easy. And that seemed to be confirmed by the jury's quick decision.

I realize that Susan has been a valued member of the community for years, but sometimes people are backed into a corner and can't find their way out. It doesn't make them a bad person....just a person who made a bad decision. Be noble and support your friends, but don't bash the prosecutors, jury and judge. They are doing their jobs no matter how un-popular they are.

Just my .02.
Jess

I don't have a dog in this fight but if I were to say:

I hope the tea-bagging, traitor J burns in hell!

Would that be OK for this forum or no?

Would It be OK if I followed it up with: I know this post will probably be deleted or I'll be banned.

Would it be OK if J wasn't here to defend himself?

I'm all for pushing the limit (as this post shows) and widely opposed to censorship, but suggesting others burn in hell seems a bit much in this context.

Wow, 4850 views. What is the record?

well matt, since you asked that question, i decided to investigate:
top view post of all time goes to:scott_shreffler with 19,146 views
and in no particular order:
charles w. 16359
kim h. 13053
doogy r. 12303
david clancy 11518
robin garr 11904
jenny h. 14333
honorable mentions: over 5100 views
carla g.
leah h.
shawn v
ed vermillion
steve bryant
bradley w.
todd pharris
brial curl
jeremy b.
and me
and there you have the most topic views.
hopefully i didn't leave anyone out...

I didn't make the cut? Sheesh. I need to start more controversial threads. I thought my Boombozz thread from a year or so ago would have made the top 20.

There is so much information that the jury and courtroom heard that we haven't been informed about. That is usually the case...the media picks up on a few certain things and the rest go by the wayside. So, I agree that what the media has presented to us, does not seem to be enough to convict someone. However, having some 'inside people'....it has been pretty evident from the begining that the prosecutors had more than enough information/evidence to make a conviction easy. And that seemed to be confirmed by the jury's quick decision.

There were no "inside people", just major (Ott) assumptions. The prosecutors didn't have any evidence other than video of Susan leaving the store. They filled in the blanks with Susans name because a coincidence is as sure as fact in their opinion. The jurys quick decision was based mostly that the defense's expert witness couldn't testify and they wanted to go home. The local news stations just reported the juicey "tune in at six details" for a soap opera effect.

Would you like to share the top 5 topics. I would do it if I knew how.

oh matt. now you ask... i had to go thru 1,000's and 1,000's of threads and look them up individually. so much work. had i known this question then, i would have gladly looked that up while doing my research.
maybe robin might know that answer...
from my memory top 5 or more:
scott_shreffler topic was about a new beer
charles w. was about the smoking ban
kim h. was about childhood food memories
jeremby b. was about hospitality
doogy r. was about jeff ruby's
david clancy was about dubya coming
i hope i remembered this correctly.

Tap Dancin' Christ !!!...My memory is so freakin' bad I wake up with a whole new set of friends every day. How the hell do you REMEMBER this stuff. My lovely bride is the same way...We'll be listening to some obscure song from the 70's and she can name every member of the band along with the names of the back up singers. Sheeeeez....You people amaze me.

[Robin Garr]

maybe robin might know that answer...

There's no simple way. I could possibly find a way to do it by going into the system and querying the database with multple requests from the command line, but it would take a while, and it's kind of above my pay grade.

Maybe I'll try to work on it over the weekend, though, if there's interest. Of course, there's also the possibility that some of the winners (or maybe I should say losers) would be long, contentious arguments involving a few people who've been urged to head on down that long road that has no turning, if you know whadda mean. I'm not sure I'd want to dredge up some of those delightful memories.