The Collin County Observer™ - Latest comments on District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Bill Trantham [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:21:17 +0000

I must be missing something. Why was there a trial?

There seemed to be no defense offered up other than 'Don't you like my lawyer?'

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Philip W. Moore, Jr. [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 05:33:59 +0000

A.P. Davidson didn't take any punches from the defense counsel. I know Walpole, and don't know him well or even personally (although he seems VERY smart and nice), but I didn't think it was wise for him to ask A.P. on cross whether he knew the "Girls" were working when they were holding signs at the polling locations. I saw a few sets of juror eyes roll when that question was asked. It seems like a very incredulous argument to make. I sometimes answer a client's text or email at one of my kids' soccer or softball games, but it takes a lot more "work" to constitute working. That argument reminds me of someone saying that they're not a smoker when they're smoking at a bar because they only smoke when they're drinking...at bars.

NOTE TO MR. WALPOLE: I'm just making observational comments, and I'm not intending to "make fun" of you or your client.

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

PP [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:41:46 +0000

Deep in the heart- it was stated that the blue book isn't illegal and the blue book has been running for 20+years so it started way before Patricia started the election. so who really wasted tax payers money? my opinion the ones that started this the Roaches and Duty over what 4 hours and not holding my sign. God be with them. Amen.

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Tom Rogers [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:20:44 +0000

I agree all of them are top notch, I know two of them but if your witness lied to a grand jury, a good lawyer knows not to try that hand.

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Visitor [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 02:01:44 +0000

Sarge, By your logic, offering no testimony + no witnesses to testify for the defendants = politically motivated trial + lack of evidence. Sounds like a lazy lawyer is representing the defendants. I can't tell - Would you acquit or convict in the court of public opinion?

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Visitor [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:51:08 +0000

I think it is amazing that Bill chose not to tell what the Texas Ranger admitted to!!! If he can't sensationalize something then he doesn't want to write about it!

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

Visitor [Visitor] — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:49:13 +0000

I could not disagree more with Old Sarge. "Blue book" or "Hannah Freebies" as they were known were anything but free. It would be a waste of taxpayer money to not stop this practice of giving away time, falsifying records and quite literally wasting tax payer money!

In response to: District Clerk's trial: A surprising morning!

William D. Rowlett [Visitor] — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:58:53 +0000

Four different defense teams representing four different defendants. All of the defense lawyers involved are top notch, experienced and established litigators with collectively probably close to 80 years plus worth of experience. They know what they're doing. It tells you something if they collectively think the special prosecutor's evidence is so sorely lacking that all of them "rested" without calling witnesses. It remains to be seen whether the jury will see it the same way.

One needs to remember that this "special prosecutor" has already dismissed some indictments and let some former defendants go and then added new defendants (like Hannah Kunkle) into the mix. When I see that, I wonder if this prosecutor got it right the first time or the second time or just hasn't gotten it at all.