Monday, August 04, 2014

Tree trial resumes W/Updates

Bodhi Tree gets a bit animated during closing arguments - John Chiv/Words Worth 8/4/14
It's not a case to the mothers who sit in the courtroom or their family and friends - John Chiv/Words Worth 8/4/14
Statements like telling the jury that giving closure to the families or finding Tree guilty would only provide the community with a "momentary sense of justice" were out of line.
As usual defense starts closing and instead of evidence, we are on the usual tangent - John Chiv/Words Worth 8/4/14
"Everyone is telling their truth in this case, some people's truth is they want nothing to do with this case" - John Chiv/Words Worth 8/4/14

Back story:
BREAKING: SOMETHING'S UP IN BODHI TREE CASE - 8/1/14
Bodhi Tree End Game - 7/29/14
Bodhi Tree gamechangers? W/Updates - 7/23/14
Bodhi Tree Murder Trial: DAILY UPDATES, running record.

20 comments:

  1. I'm going to say it again. John's grammer and commentary are both almost unbearable to read. Yes, he is doing some sort of service (I think) to the community. Yes, some commentary and in depth analysis of our justice system is much needed and valued. But for gods sake, take an writing class and follow it with a logic class!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant to say "take a writing class". Not "take an writing class". Oh, the irony.

      At least I didn't use the word usual twice in a story title. When nobody knows what my "usuals" mean. Johns titles are so vague. They all sound like some sort of inside joke.

      Delete
    2. An inside joke you don't get. No wonder you are pissy!

      Lighten up. Your obsession with JC is scary.

      Delete
    3. 7:53 who pissed in your cheerios?

      Delete
    4. I give a literary analysis of a journalist and I get back two urine jokes as retort? Why does every debate on this site have to evolve into name calling and childish antics? If you think his titles are appropriate, please defend them. If you think his logic and grammer are solid, by all means, speak up. If you have a knee jerk reaction to defend the guy because you believe him to be a political bedbuddy, then you are a follower, a sheep, a political hack and should be called out as such.....

      Delete
    5. One can accuse you of being biased against him because his political beliefs are different than yours and that is obvious from your comment.

      As for the grammar retort, that complaint again comes from progs who hate the truth being exposed and rich lawyers whose deals are being exposed.

      I have read his pieces in the Times Standard and his grammar is fine. It has been explained here a few times why his court posts are rushed. You made a typo posting didn't you.

      So anons when you have the balls to use your real name or donate your time as John does to the community, we will dissect your agenda and writing.

      The only trolls who attack him are losers who seek to hide the truth from the public.

      And he does not need to defend himself nor do we over and over. Your agenda is obvious.

      Delete
  2. Anon at 7:53. Then don't read them. There's plenty of other places for you to go in the internet. Others may want the insight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lol. All I can say is, time will tell if john turns out to be a reliable reporter or not.

    Progs this, libs that. How funny. What exactly do you think Jesus would be called today? Super lib? Prog troll? Or would you just hang him up on a cross for wanting society to be a more fair place and speaking up about it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 12:34 no one cares if you think John is a reliable reporter or not.

    You have an axe to grind or you are just a troll getting attention at John's experience.

    The more you post, the better his blog traffic gets so please continue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have an axe to grind for wanting to find out information about this case? I KNEW one of the victims and would like to read commentary that I can actually understand. If that makes me a troll, you may be mistake on the definition of troll.

    I hope the guy gets a hundred billion hits on his little blog. You are misguided in your assesment of my comments. Sorely misguided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to protest a lot. You made the same comment on another post.

      If you want information, you should have attended the trial. I did. The victim's families trust John.

      You either are one of the defense attorneys, a lawyer John pissed off or someone put up to this by the master of lies and smears.

      Do you have a life besides cyberstalking John?

      Delete
  6. 6:39 sounds like a blogger with only 4 readers that cannot let go. The political rant and not letting go is his style.

    Who spends so much time trying to convince strangers behind a screen. Rose, your blog sure draws them!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Without John Chiv, you would have very little, if any, idea what was going on in the courtroom.

    The Times-Standard covers this - and other - case(s) sporadically, and is not always in the courtroom. The Mad River Union is doing a good job, and synopsizes the event, but it's not the same as day-to-day highlights. LoCo will likely cover the end result, as a statement of fact, but without the flavor that comes with day-to-day observation. It will be factual, for those of you who want that - we all benefit from the DIFFERENT views, and ways of reporting. Count your blessings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that reading his commentary gives me no hint of what's going on. That's all I'm saying. The guy is a poor writer. That's all. He might be Jesus Christ reincarnated and be able ton walk on water, but the fact remains. He is a really bad writer. His punctuation, his grammar, his logic. Its really bad. Am I really the only person who has noticed this?

      Delete
    2. Yes. You are the only person who notices! You claim to know one of the victims yet you ignore that it is the victim's families that confided in John today.

      The punctuation, grammar et al has been addressed ad nauseaum. You displayed your motive and agenda. I think someone is paying you to be here or you have a thing for someone John criticized.

      If you really knew any victim, you would not disrespect them by focusing on John instead of the tragedy.

      You are a POS exploiting the fact that you can be anonymous.

      If you continue your shameful behavior, you prove who you really are. A lying, inconsiderate troll who uses people's death for your agenda.

      You sound a lot like the Christian bashing male defense attorney in the Tree case.

      Delete
    3. Why would the defense attorney post here? Come on, be serious. You sound paranoid. I KNEW one of the victims. Are you having comprehending that?
      And whats with the name calling? Did your daddy teach you that? Did he call you names?

      Delete
  8. I clicked on a few links to John's blog. Although his writing is rather rough, he's clearly using a mobile device. I'm sure he trying to get info out quickly?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 10:48 you called plenty of names. Did your mama teach you that?

    You knew nothing. There is plenty of information. You are nothing but a troll. Ignore him. He is feeding off the attention.

    Focus on the families.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you indeed knew one of the victims - you ought to be glad someone cares enough to let you know how this is being resolved and how it is going down.

    No one expects you to agree on every aspect, and you're free to add your perspective and observations to the mix, even to say you'd rather not know. If so, turn off the computer, and stop reading.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.