Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper

April 16, 2007 9:10 AM

Day 18: Jurors resume deliberations

5:02 p.m.: Jurors dismissed for the day, will resume deliberations Tuesday for the fourth day.

Jurors didn’t ask any questions today.

9:10 a.m.: No formal announcement made, but jurors believed to have resumed deliberations for a third day.

Discussion

  • April 16, 2007

    10:58 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    Why doesn't anyone ever mention the fact that Q had to refigure the revenue for this time period and Q didn't meet the objectives set by Nacchio? Why is this important piece of information not being allowed or talked about?

  • April 16, 2007

    12:02 PM

    Publican writes:

    because Anschultz is a Republican

  • April 16, 2007

    12:33 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    I heard the judge thought it would make the trial last too long. Seems like a pretty important missing piece of detail!

    Publican: Irrelevant and lame. Joe is on trial, not Phil.

  • April 16, 2007

    1:50 PM

    Publican writes:

    Phil had a big part in wanting to pump the stock. He hired Joe to do it. He probably participated in the decision to bring down the guidance. Joe once said that if he went down, he would bring Phil with him.

    Publican spent time inside old Qwest and stayed in touch with friends when he left. They are leaving out alot.

  • April 16, 2007

    4:56 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    While suspicions and opinions of circumstances of criminal activity are present in this trial, evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT never existed. The only evidence presented by the prosecution that had the potential to be substantive was the allegedly back-dated memo. Nacchio's defense presented an equally reasonable explanation for the change in dating as being a correction of a mistake by a Qwest lawyer who refused to testify. The handwritten change of a date printed on a piece of paper proves nothing. Let's hope the jury remembers its obligation to accept the defendant's explanation of evidence when it is reasonable. We would all be convicted of felonies if prosecutors were the arbiters of interpreting our imperfect papers, people, and happenings.

About this blog

Search this blog

Recent posts