Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough - Page 6

Rusty · 01-17-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Christ Almighty...I don't know...somewhere in these endless posts that just keep coming I read a story about gunshots and fireworks and getting dragged by a car and guns being shown and I DON'T FREAKIN' CARE ANYMORE!
Seriously...I know the woman, and as stated, believe she is not quite right. And, since have formed an opinion (based on this thread) that Ward is a bit of a confrontational person...but whatever...who cares?! This was a nice little thread at one point to make people aware of the fact that there was an organized movement to free Ward...website, functions, etc. But now...it's like some people think what they post will help the guy. Like there is actually an end game here...guess what, there is not!
The whole thread is a pile of nonsense now:
she's evil, he's nice, the jury is crazy, gun control, no gun control, live free or die, shoot a home invader and get a prize, animal cruelty, free him now, let him go, serve the three yeras, he has it coming, I like ice cream....
Whatever...no matter what is stated here, the Pats still lost to the Jets yesterday, and I can't fix that. Sorry.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have learned a lot from this thread.

We don’t need to all agree about what is said, we just need to keep an open mind and try not to get upset.

For the most part I think everyone has done that.

sa meredith · 01-17-2011, 05:23 PM

Marknh...you don't even know who played yesterday...nuff said.
Buy a newspaper.
You've known him for 20 plus years? Really???? Who would have guessed you had a relationship with him? Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
I think a friendship would keep you from being able to form an unbias opinion...but again...who knows. It...just...doesn't...matter.
The case is over and done with. Post away if you would like...
Rusty...I too have learned some things...and indeed I was the first one, many moons ago, to post the articles from the Lawrence Eagle Tribune about this woman's brush with the law.
Anyway...you might think this thread warrented 600++++ posts, but I beg to differ. Look back...it seems only 4 or 5 members are still following along.
There is nothing new to add...no debates will be settled...Ward is going nowhere...Live Free or die...I'm having chicken for dinner tonight...and Gillette Stadium will be empty next Sunday.
Oh, yeah...couple other things....Crazy Gringos makes a great Marg, and I love breakfast at the Village Kitchen.
Looking forward to the new stuff at Funspot this year, and The Loony Bin across the street can be a fun place to have a beer.
Is the ice out yet????

ronc4424 · 01-17-2011, 05:31 PM

I haven't read every post on the subject, and am curious as to if it was a she said he said, why did she prevail? Does anybody have the answer?

RailroadJoe · 01-17-2011, 05:32 PM

An life goes on!

sa meredith · 01-17-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronc4424

I haven't read every post on the subject, and am curious as to if it was a she said he said, why did she prevail? Does anybody have the answer?

Ask the jury...it is only their opinion that counts...only their's.
Want to know the ins and outs..start reading, my man. And when you finish sometime next week, let us know what you think.
Only 580 more posts to go.

MarkinNH · 01-17-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Marknh...you don't even know who played yesterday...nuff said.
Buy a newspaper.

I don't need to buy a newspaper because I don't care who played. It is not important to me. I Don't Watch Sports. I guess you missed me saying that in my previous post.
I would continue to argue your ridiculous blathering but it would be akin to have a battle of witt's with an unarmed person and a waste of my time.

MarkinNH · 01-17-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Ask the jury...it is only their opinion that counts...only their's.
Want to know the ins and outs..start reading, my man. And when you finish sometime next week, let us know what you think.
Only 580 more posts to go.

For somebody who is apparently so disgusted with this particular thread and topic. You certainly seem to keep coming back to it with your thoughts and opinions.

fatlazyless · 01-17-2011, 06:06 PM

It all just shows to go that using a broom for self defense gives you an opportunity to clean up after using it for self-defense......plus there's much less chance of running afoul of the laws on self-defense and needing to hiring an expensive lawyer to clean up your legal mess.

There was a story in the national news very recently about a women who did just that.....she scared off a burglar with a broom. If SigSauer were smart, they would make a 45 caliber broom....combination .45 w/ a mega handle clip of 32 bullets on one end....and a heavy duty corn broom on the other....sort of like a Swiss army knife for cleaning up the neighborhood......kaboomba-boom-boom-sweep-sweep-sweep!

And, let's all hope that Glock makes a broom-gun available in hot pink!

Heaven · 01-17-2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

Ok, so I have a question. What good is it to carry a gun if, when you need to use it or even pull it out, you are going to go to jail? I have always thought you could protect yourself or your property but it doesn't seem like you are safe doing that any more.

Tis, I think the theory is that no property is worth a human life and if someone is going to steal from you then you can't shoot them to death in response. Following that, you have to be imminently afraid for your life or physical safety (or that of someone in your company) and be unable to escape the situation before you shoot someone, and once you shoot them, if you have the ability to then escape that's what you must do (not shoot them again because you are pissed off). So follow the "gun rules", don't put it to hand unless you are going to use it, and don't use it unless your situation is dire.
Don't use it to intimidate, even putting a hand to it.

Yankee · 01-17-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It all just shows to go that using a broom for self defense gives you an opportunity to clean up after using it for self-defense......plus there's much less chance of running afoul of the laws on self-defense and needing to hiring an expensive lawyer to clean up your legal mess.

There was a story in the national news very recently about a women who did just that.....she scared off a burglar with a broom. If SigSauer were smart, they would make a 45 caliber broom....combination .45 w/ a mega handle clip of 32 bullets on one end....and a heavy duty corn broom on the other....sort of like a Swiss army knife for cleaning up the neighborhood......kaboomba-boom-boom-sweep-sweep-sweep!

And, let's all hope that Glock makes a broom-gun available in hot pink!

fatlazyless, I have a question for you:

If guns kill people, do pens (or keyboards) misspell words?

sa meredith · 01-17-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I don't need to buy a newspaper because I don't care who played. It is not important to me. I Don't Watch Sports. I guess you missed me saying that in my previous post.
I would continue to argue your ridiculous blathering but it would be akin to have a battle of witt's with an unarmed person and a waste of my time.

See???? "...ridiculous blathering...." Now you're getting the hang of this thread. Glad I could help.
As an aside, for such a learned man, I ask....what does "witt" possess, in your previous sentence? The 's implies ownership. Is it possible you were looking for the plural? That would be "witts", my man. Read a paper...good practice.
That's (that is) it for me. You can have the last laugh.
I'm probably flirting with moderation from Don at this point...and I don't enjoy being in the penalty box.

sky's · 01-17-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heaven

Tis, I think the theory is that no property is worth a human life and if someone is going to steal from you then you can't shoot them to death in response. Following that, you have to be imminently afraid for your life or physical safety (or that of someone in your company) and be unable to escape the situation before you shoot someone, and once you shoot them, if you have the ability to then escape that's what you must do (not shoot them again because you are pissed off). So follow the "gun rules", don't put it to hand unless you are going to use it, and don't use it unless your situation is dire.
Don't use it to intimidate, even putting a hand to it.

Heaven you are 110% correct and many people (in my opinion) have forgotten that or have choosen to ignore that FACT when you posses a gun or have control of a gun you must have intentions of using it!! wake up folks.

MarkinNH · 01-17-2011, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

See???? "...ridiculous blathering...." Now you're getting the hang of this thread. Glad I could help.
As an aside, for such a learned man, I ask....what does "witt" possess, in your previous sentence? The 's implies ownership. Is it possible you were looking for the plural? That would be "witts", my man. Read a paper...good practice.
That's (that is) it for me. You can have the last laugh.
I'm probably flirting with moderation from Don at this point...and I don't enjoy being in the penalty box.

Reread my post. I think you will clearly see that I did say "witt's".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

That's (that is) it for me.

One can only hope.

Pineedles · 01-17-2011, 07:29 PM

ENOUGH! Those that want to help Ward Bird will continue to post on this thread. Those that think he deserved what he got, I guess because we have freedom of speech, will also post. I have my opinion, and even some of my "friends" have opposite opinions. We all obviously have our own axe to grind, and that is what this thread is all about. I'm sorry the Patriots lost, so did the Giants, get over it! Spring training starts next month.

sa meredith · 01-17-2011, 07:58 PM

Pineedles...I get it...I think you know I'm not a cold hearted person, although enjoy stiring things up.
I guess my point is this...whenever I see a new post, I read it, because I think there might be news...as in, something new. Something not yet spoken about. An update on new evidence/retrial/whatever.
But after 560 posts...there has not been one darn new thing here in over 100 posts. Yes, every once in a while, someone says..."hey, guess what I found out..." only the fact is, the info is old and was discussed over and over 250 posts ago.
Seriously...show me something new. I stay with the thread, because I am curious about the whole mess. But nothing new ever comes up.
As I stated earlier today, I believe the original intent of the thread was to spread awarness about the fact that there was a web site, and a group organizing support for Ward...but it went off in at least 5 directions. Gun control...court procedure...property lines...whatever.
Look, do I think the punishment fit the crime? Of coures not. Do I think Ward is totally with out fault here? Again, of coures not. The bottom line is he was given the chance to plead it out...and decided to take the gamble.
You don't get to call, "do over".

Pineedles · 01-17-2011, 08:38 PM

sa, you and I are friends and always will be. You don't need to explain anything to me or anybody else. As far as the "new" stuff. Sometimes there isn't anything new, just a continuing effort to keep Ward's name in the press, and that means posts here on Winni.com. It keeps people aware that the issue is not dead and there are those that want Ward out of jail and with his family. I have very strong convictions about the 2nd ammendment and therefore I am continuing the fight for Ward Bird. I don't know him personally but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The longer we keep Ward Bird in the news, the more chance there is of his release in my opinion. The more people that read this thread, the more people of a like kind of mind we have attracting. So, I will continue to keep this thread alive with the hope that others will feel the outrage of his imprisonment and want to add to our voice of, FREE WARD BIRD!

ApS · 01-18-2011, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee

If guns kill people, do pens (or keyboards) misspell words?

My keyboard has "gone off" unintentionally!

sa meredith · 01-18-2011, 10:23 AM

Ok...I really did not want to get "sucked in" to this thread, but for anyone who cares...and mostly Pineedles...please read and consider what I am writing now...put aside personal feelings for two minutes, and think about this...if I am wrong please tell me so, and why.
First of all, Pineedles, I would think you might want to consider the wording of your last post...while you may be right, the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room. If he gets the "benefit of the doubt", in court, so does she...
Anyway...
Here is what I think...
Clearly, this man is well like and respected as an upstanding member of society...and is considered somewhat of a local icon, from what I can gather. One need only take a drive down Moultenboro Neck Road to learn this....his support oozes forth from every front yard.
1000s of people can't be wrong.
And, it has been asked, why, with local knowledge, was this not put to bed right away...squashed, I guess.
I believe what may have happened was this (just a guess, mind you)
A prosecutor (lawyer) looked at this, and said, "Christ, this woman is just not going to let this go away." And, upon reviewing the facts (absent any emotional attachment...just the facts and his/her knowledge of what may indeed take place in a court room) thought, wow...this guy may have a problem here...because, the way the law reads...blah blah blah...and worse, it comes with a mandatory 3 years. So, possibly, upon investigation, the prosecutor learns that Ward is well respected, an all round good guy...whatever...word it the way you want.
So, they sit him down in a room, and say...."hey, here is your way out"....no jail time, plead this, say that...and everybody goes home, and we get this nut job (Harris) off our back. Furthermore, they say "Ward, understand...unfurtunately, we have to tell you...this looks bad for you. There is evidence that suggests you did blah blah blah...and if the jury thinks so...the judge has no discretion...3 years in the bin".
So you see...locally, I think he was offered his way out because of who he is.
But he is old school (I would guess...from what I've read)...very stronged willed, hard headed (no negative...just set in his ways) and says..."She came on to MY property. I ain't pleadin' to nothing!" Or something to that effect.
Rolled the dice..and crapped out. Now everyone, who does not know what may have gone on behind closed doors, cries foul.
Is it possible what I type here is dead on. Or dead wrong.
Who knows...
I do know this Pineedles...the next dinner tab is mine...pretty sure you got the last two.

Rusty · 01-18-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Ok...I really did not want to get "sucked in" to this thread, but for anyone who cares...and mostly Pineedles...please read and consider what I am writing now...put aside personal feelings for two minutes, and think about this...if I am wrong please tell me so, and why.
First of all, Pineedles, I would think you might want to consider the wording of your last post...while you may be right, the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room. If he gets the "benefit of the doubt", in court, so does she...
Anyway...
Here is what I think...
Clearly, this man is well like and respected as an upstanding member of society...and is considered somewhat of a local icon, from what I can gather. One need only take a drive down Moultenboro Neck Road to learn this....his support oozes forth from every front yard.
1000s of people can't be wrong.
And, it has been asked, why, with local knowledge, was this not put to bed right away...squashed, I guess.
I believe what may have happened was this (just a guess, mind you)
A prosecutor (lawyer) looked at this, and said, "Christ, this woman is just not going to let this go away." And, upon reviewing the facts (absent any emotional attachment...just the facts and his/her knowledge of what may indeed take place in a court room) thought, wow...this guy may have a problem here...because, the way the law reads...blah blah blah...and worse, it comes with a mandatory 3 years. So, possibly, upon investigation, the prosecutor learns that Ward is well respected, an all round good guy...whatever...word it the way you want.
So, they sit him down in a room, and say...."hey, here is your way out"....no jail time, plead this, say that...and everybody goes home, and we get this nut job (Harris) off our back. Furthermore, they say "Ward, understand...unfurtunately, we have to tell you...this looks bad for you. There is evidence that suggests you did blah blah blah...and if the jury thinks so...the judge has no discretion...3 years in the bin".
So you see...locally, I think he was offered his way out because of who he is.
But he is old school (I would guess...from what I've read)...very stronged willed, hard headed (no negative...just set in his ways) and says..."She came on to MY property. I ain't pleadin' to nothing!" Or something to that effect.
Rolled the dice..and crapped out. Now everyone, who does not know what may have gone on behind closed doors, cries foul.
Is it possible what I type here is dead on. Or dead wrong.
Who knows...
I do know this Pineedles...the next dinner tab is mine...pretty sure you got the last two.

On post #538 you state the following: “See???? "...ridiculous blathering...." Now you're getting the hang of this thread.”

Well sa meredith, you sure got the hang of it now with that post! IMHO your emotions are getting the best of you!

sa meredith · 01-18-2011, 10:46 AM

Did you read it thru Rusty? Seriously, if my theory is wrong, I accept it...tell me where the holes are.
I would accept you as an authority on the subject...you've been a memebr here for three months, and 24 or your 55 posts are in this thread. So clearly, you follow it closely.

Emotions not getting best of me at all...they did yesterday, though.
What I posted today, is what I think, a clear opinion of what may have happened before the trial. Read it.

wuwu · 01-18-2011, 11:11 AM

Please read the following, it has clearly stated facts. Statements written by persons who have had dealings with Ms. Harris.
http://freewardbird.org/

Rusty · 01-18-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwu

Please read the following, it has clearly stated facts. Statements written by persons who have had dealings with Ms. Harris.
http://freewardbird.org/

I went there and found this:

On the freewardbird website there is a section called “The Facts” of Ward Bird and they state the following:

“The jury never learned that Ward Bird had major
abdominal surgery and had been released from Maine
Medical Center shortly before his encounter with
Ms. Harris. This would have been critical information
considering her testimony that he “jumped off the
porch” and was “running back and forth,” which
would have been extremely unlikely, if not impossible,
given his stage of recuperation.”

However the jury did know about Ward Bird’s physical problems. His niece Laura Heald-Keyser told the jury about his injury on page 85 of Trial-Transcript-Vol-2-212_06-S-154_20080626_StvWardBird.pdf

This is what she said:

LAURA HEALD-KEYSER, WITNESS FOR THE STATE

Q. Okay. Let me ask you. March 27th, 2006, were you aware
of what Ward's physical condition was at the time?
A. I was.
Q. And can you describe for the jury what his physical
condition was?
A. I personally hadn't seen him since he had gotten out of
the hospital. But I mean, he had been airlifted. He had
thousands of stitches in his stomach. You know, and I'm sure he
was on medicine because he could barely move.
Q. So you knew that he had just recently sustained a very
significant injury.
A. Yes, life-threatening.
Q. Was it a kind of injury from what you recall was one
where he in fact had to be recuperating for quite a while?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury --
A. I think he was out of work for a long time after that,
I'm guessing like six weeks.
Q. About six weeks out of work. And prior to the 27th of
March do you know how close in time that was to the point in time
he had that injury?
A. A couple days --
Q. So it was --
A. -- from when he had gotten out of the hospital.
Q. It was just a matter of days when he got out of the
hospital?
A. Yeah.
Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Ward was home
recuperating?
A. Yes.
Q. Unable to go to work.
A. Yes.
Q. Unable to run around and jump around and that sort of
thing.
A. Couldn't do anything.
Q. Thank you.

sa meredith · 01-18-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwu

Please read the following, it has clearly stated facts. Statements written by persons who have had dealings with Ms. Harris.
http://freewardbird.org/

wuwu...
There is no debate...everyone knows Harris' elevator stops about half way up. It's been discussed and accepted as fact...the arguement has been properly suported. I know her a bit...she live in my town, and was in the paper regularly for several months. Every neighbor of hers, says..."coo coo for coco puffs".
And Rusty...seriously, I'm not looking for an arguement...I just want to know why noone focuses on the fact that he was given a chance to plead this out.
I think my theory might hold water.

Argie's Wife · 01-18-2011, 12:17 PM

Executive Council To Consider Pardon Hearing For Ward Bird

Bird Is Serving Mandatory Minimum Three-Year Sentence.

Quote:

CONCORD, N.H. -- New Hampshire's Executive Council could decide Wednesday whether to hold a hearing on farmer Ward Bird's request for a pardon for brandishing a firearm at a woman who trespassed on his property.

Christine Harris, who opposes the pardon, said she was looking for a piece of property that was for sale before arriving at Bird's remote property. She said Bird waved his handgun at her and screamed for her to leave.

Bird maintains he kept the gun in the back waistband of his pants and took it out only when he was about to re-enter the house to remove the ammunition.
He was convicted of criminal threatening with a firearm, which carries a mandatory minimum three-year sentence.

Source: http://www.wmur.com/news/26519751/detail.html

Heaven · 01-18-2011, 08:26 PM

I am unclear on this point maybe someone with some legal sense can speak to this -- in this "he said she said" case, there WAS another person on the property and very likely in a position to make a statement about what happened, and that is Ward Bird's wife. Testimony has her on the porch when the woman first drives into the dooryard, then apparently she disappears from this whole case. What's up with that?

KPW · 01-19-2011, 12:39 AM

sa meredith " the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room." I thought beyond reasonable doubt was a major factor in a trial. Why would someone who knew they were innocent, plead guilty?

fatlazyless · 01-19-2011, 08:58 AM

Say hey.....there's some people locked up in prison across the U.S. for years and years who got convicted by a prosecutor determined to prosecute who has a very supporting witness to question before a jury when all along the imprisoned person was not guilty. Believe it is called the DNA Project or something, where old DNA evidence gets brought forward as new evidence.

With about 80 different state representatives, mostly all Republicans, supporting a pardon, who knows, maybe Gov Lynch will not use his veto power? On the other hand, Gov Lynch has a law degree from Georgetown Law School in Washington D.C., so he may be reluctant to overturn the decision of a twelve person jury.

All things considered, Gov Lynch should do something like let a pardon go though for time served plus a two year probation sentence similar to what was originally offered in the plea bargain. Even if Ward did wave a gun around, he never fired any shots, so the sentence does not fit the crime. People get annoyed and wave guns around all the time and it usually never goes anywhere in the legal system.

............

Hey....yesterday's Union Leader had a big, 4" x 6" color close-up photo of Ward on the upper half of the front page along with a big article on his story. The background prison furnishings did not look like they came from Ippolito's Furniture store in Meredith.

sa meredith · 01-19-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPW

sa meredith " the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room." I thought beyond reasonable doubt was a major factor in a trial. Why would someone who knew they were innocent, plead guilty?

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

NoRegrets · 01-19-2011, 09:51 AM

The symantics of words are interesting in this thread. We were a nation that used to work based on the intent of the law and rarely used the courtroom. Now we only look at the technicality of the the. We read threads like lawyers and tear apart every sentance for meaning and legally binding opinions.

Oh for the good old days - Ward would have never gone to trial. There would have been enough evidence to have settled this on the side of the street or the back of a car.

In today's world if you do not report everything anything and something goes wrong you can be implicated by society, loose your livelyhood, and become the subject of an Internet Thread. I feel bad for teachers, doctors, and anyone responsible for groups that share common assets.

Best of luck to the apeal or pardon process!

MarkinNH · 01-19-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

Dogg · 01-19-2011, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

Ward would not be the first person to claim he was not guilty even though he was. Our jails are filled with THOUSANDS of these people and our courtrooms are filled everyday with them!

The facts are, Ward was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. There seems to be a thin line between people being upset that he was found guilty and upset over what the punishment was (3-6 years.)

If the judge was able to impose what he thought was fair ("The bottom line is that, but for RSA 651:II-g I, would be sentencing Mr. Bird to twelve months in the House of Corrections, with immediate work release, with the balance after
six months to be served on home confinement with electronic monitoring at Mr. Bird's expense to be followed by two years of probation as a fair") would everyone be up in arms?

It is the LAW you need should be fighting to change. Is it fair that he needs to spend more time in jail than someone (Blizzard) who killed another human, NO; however he should have to do his time for the crime he was found GUILTY of and again, it is unfortunate that time is 3-6 years per the State of New Hampshire.

I believe he will not get a pardon, but will have the ears of the legislature and their mouths and he will be out @ 12:01am of whatever day he is eligible to be released to home confinement.

KPW · 01-19-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

It does not matter what you or I believe. It matters what he believes. He did not take the plea because he was not going to admit guilt to something he felt he did not do.

sa meredith · 01-19-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

MarkNH...I'll try hard to not go back and forth again.
But really...if what I am about to say is irrational, you tell me.
I had no opinion about this case until I found this thread. I started reading it, and truth be told, as I researched it thru this method and google, my opinion changed two or three times. At first I thought, why did this guy over react to a stranger...but that was probably wrong.
Then I thought, wow this woman is a whack job, he should be free...but that was wrong. Then I found out he has a history of doing battle over the sale of property...but really, that should not matter.
The FACT is this, MarkNH. YOU...WERE...NOT...THERE! So, you're opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.
THE FACT is, if he had pleaded, he would not be in jail. End!
You say only an idiot would plea...I say, only an idiot would have taken a shot at a trial with a mandatory 3 year sentence, when he was offered a way out. By the way, idiot is not the right word...but you used it, so I stayed consistent. I in no way can say he is an idiot...you see, I don't know him, and I WAS NOT THERE.
If I state, he could have pleaded it out, and not be in jail now...that is a fact, not open to discussion.
I honestly feel, with no ill will toward you, that you are just to close to this to look at it from both sides. He is a friend...so I'm sure this causes you pain, and I am sorry for that. But please, don't state what is your opinion, as fact.
Remember, the jury found him guilty...and as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) a judge has the power to overturn a verdict he thinks the jury blatantly got it wrong. But he did not over turn it. So, I guess, if I assume you have this right...quite a few people were hoodwinked? Maybe that is the case...but I don't know. I can only say what I think might be the case.

One more thing...almost forgot, as it is the most important part.
To all those who say...."why would he plead guilty to something he didn't do".. really...have you not thought it thru??!! The sentence is MANDATORY. So, if he plead guilty, he would still be in jail. When you plead something out, you agree to plead guilty, and the state agrees to charge a lesser charge. Possibly something he did indeed do (poor behavior...whatever...being mean). So, the guilty adimission would not have been the same charge he went to trial with. He would have been pleading guilty to something he probably did do. Come on people...think it thru a bit.
We should all be attacking the law. Attack that. Scream about that...I believe, for anything else, the states hands are tied.

Heaven · 01-19-2011, 12:19 PM

This thread bounces back and forth between discussion of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bird and the mandatory sentencing law.

After reading through the trial transcripts, I have lots and lots of questions about the event which I am sure the jury also had, and brought up and discussed. I can see how they would have come to their verdict.

I believe there is a solid reason for mandatory sentencing that works in 98% of all cases but there should be some board review for those other 2%.

songkrai · 01-19-2011, 12:37 PM

Either you are FOR mandatory sentencing or AGAINST mandatory sentencing.

You cannot have it both ways.

Creating another layer of big government is not the solution.

MarkinNH · 01-19-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

I'll try hard to not go back and forth again.

The FACT is this, MarkNH. YOU...WERE...NOT...THERE! So, you're opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him.
Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers.
That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Shreddy · 01-19-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

Kind of ironic don't you think? He refuses to plead guilty in this case because he believes he did no wrong. However, in the past, he supposedly "took the blame" for something he didn't do (the wreckless shooting in 2002)?

sa meredith · 01-19-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him.
Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers.
That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Fine then OK....so I take it you are of the mind set that he did not do this thing. I can deal with that.
I have a huge issue with the crowd that is screaming, "free Ward Bird" because they think...aw, shucks...give him a break. He's a good guy, and the punishment is too harsh. That group should be screaming "Change the law"...
They should have no issue with the state and it's officials...they were simply carrying out the madatory sentence. Freeing him, if he did it, is not an option.
Now MarkNH... I would ask...how did the jury, judge (who could have stepped in and say, "no, the jury got it wrong) and defense attorney fail Ward. How can it be they (prosecution) proved something that did not happen?
Even Blizzard's lawyer got her off of what everyone with half a brain knows was an OUI. The evidence was overwhelming...yet he proved it to be circumstancial.
Myself...I believe this man should not be in jail. Punishment too severe for crime. So, I guess my issue is with the law. I can't blame a referee for simply enforcing a rule...I can indeed blame the rule though.

Heaven · 01-19-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him. Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers. That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.
We will just have to agree to disagree.

Sometimes good people, people of character, make a slip in action or judgement. It isn't hard to understand how one might not realize how they are coming across especially in an emotional moment. It could easily be NOT a matter of the truth verses a lie, but of perceptions of oneself that don't match well with what someone else sees or feels.
Happens all the time, and that takes nothing away from someone's character. (And, I read the court documents, not only the newspaper. Did you?)

MarkinNH · 01-19-2011, 04:50 PM

I believe that if anybody interested in putting forth the effort to do the reading, they will find that the efforts to change the law are already underway.

Sal · 01-20-2011, 07:55 AM

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...698/-1/CITIZEN

ishoot308 · 01-20-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...698/-1/CITIZEN

So in a 'he said she said" case, they took the word of a convicted felon?! Unbelievable!

sa meredith · 01-20-2011, 12:55 PM

So what happens at the hearing? I mean, I read the article, and while there is an endless supply of character witnesses, and he is well like in the community...none that matters, does it? I would think the council would only pardon if new evidence is introduced...or do I have this wrong? It has already been ruled on that Harris' past is irrelavent...the judge made that decision already...so her past won't matter, I think. Wouldn't they need new evidence? Or maybe her past is the new evidence.
Anyway...a farmer all his life, living out in the sticks, working hard all day every day....prison has got to literally be killing this guy.

Happy Gourmand · 01-20-2011, 01:33 PM

I wonder what criteria will be used to come to a conclusion of whether or not to pardon him...and what the level of the pardon will be. Keep in mind that whatever they decide, that the Governor can VETO their recommendation and keep him in for the term of his sentence. Can they pardon his sentence AND his felony conviction? Can they "modify" his sentence and impose some other restrictions? Would a pardon lead to a flood of requests? There are way more questions than answers.
It seems like there would have to be some really compelling reason for this appeal to be successful.

jrc · 01-20-2011, 01:37 PM

Below is text of the NH Constitution relating to the Governor's power to pardon people. He can pardon for any reason. It's not like an appeal which has strict guidelines. Presidents and Governors can issue full or partial pardons for any reason.

If you look GWB used his pardoning power to reduce Scooter Libby's punishment and set him free but didn't pardon the actual crime. He is still a convicted criminal. WJC gave a full pardon to Susan McDougal, she is not.

The Governor has wide discretion about reasons and remedies.

NH Constitution

[Art.] 52. [Pardoning Power.] The power of pardoning offenses, except such as persons may be convicted of before the senate, by impeachment of the house, shall be in the governor, by and with the advice of council: But no charter of pardon, granted by the governor, with advice of the council, before conviction, shall avail the party pleading the same, notwithstanding any general or particular expressions contained therein, descriptive of the offense or offenses intended to be pardoned.

sa meredith · 01-20-2011, 02:19 PM

I guess what I'm saying is...the appeal is not based on the "Come on now. He's really a well liked guy, and all around good, solid citizen" defense. I would think the council could care less about how many people wear "Free Ward Bird" shirts, or put "Free Bird" signs on their front lawn.
I would think they need new evidence. The fact that the crime carries a mandatory 3 year sentence isn't their fault.
If they say he is guitly, but reduce the jail time (can they even do that?), they are going to set a precedent, and everyone in jail in NH for the same thing is going to get in line to point to it.

jrc · 01-20-2011, 03:03 PM

Well GWB did just that, he reduced Libby's sentence. So I'm assuming the that our Governor has the same discretion. If you can issue full pardons, it seems like partials pardons would be OK.

Pardons don't set a legal precedent. Obviously someone else convicted of the same crime can apply for a pardon. But they can't go to a judge and say he got pardoned so you have to set me free. Thousands of people have been pardoned, it doesn't effect the law that convicted them. This is totally seperate from the normal appeals process. Appeals usually need some reason, a mistake in law, new evidence, a mistake at trial or something.

Pardons are outside of all that. It's another check and balance. An executive check on the judicial system.

The pardon is a safety valve for special cases. Even if everything is correct, the law, the trial, the evidence, there can still be a pardon. The only requirement is to convince the Governor that the pardon is a good idea. It applies only to that person and that crime.

I don't know enough about this case to render an opinion, I'm really addressing pardons in general.

sa meredith · 01-20-2011, 03:12 PM

Yeah...I get it....perhaps if someone had a terminal illness, and only months to live. That might be a reason.
Or if they somehow became unable to care for themselves, and needed 24 hour care. That might be a reason.
Or it turned out the judge was "on the take". That might be a reason.
But the, "Awww shucks...come on now...everyone loves this guy. Haven't you seen all the signs on Mou Neck road? And all the Tshirts?" Is that a reason?
I'm just curious what info they are going to bring to the table at the hearing.

Resident 2B · 01-20-2011, 03:48 PM

The remark made by Christine Harris' parole officer keeps going around and around in my mind ..."wouldn't know the truth if it ran over her with a truck" ...

I would guess it is somewhat possible that she misrepresented Ward's actions to the court under oath. After all, it was medically unlikely that Ward was in any condition to have run and jumped off the porch as she stated.

When you take these individual pieces, the statement by Christine's parole officer, Ward's medical situation and Christine's testimony, and place them together, it now sounds to me like this is the Lakes' Region version of the Salem Witch Trials.

Hopefully, the process will correct this unbelievable situation very soon.

R2B

sa meredith · 01-20-2011, 04:08 PM

I know I am over posting...sorry...last one today...
but, R2B....what "unbelievable situation" are you referring to?
I have stated I think the puishment is WAY off base...too strong. So I have an issue with the law.
But how do you know he didn't pull his weapon, in a painful, medicated, rage??? He indeed may have...in fact a jury believed he did.
You see, to me, the fact that Harris is only half way there mentally, adds to the possiblity. She probably said or did something very irrational, and instantly put Ward on the defensive.
And him being in pain, and probably medicated...does not that add to the possibility, instead of subtract from it?
"Unbelievable situation" "witch trials" "process will correct things"
How can you be certain something is wrong. You can't.
Yeah, I believe she has a history of being untruthful. Does that mean that Ward didn't pull his gun? Who knows...he might have.
Is there new evidence??? Maybe.
Is the council going to recmmend he be released, because everyone yelled real loud and asked for it? Most likely not.

Resident 2B · 01-20-2011, 04:46 PM

The unbelievable situation is, in my opinion, the fact that two people have differing sides to a story. One person is in or near his home, on his property, confronts a trespasser, tells her to leave his property and she refuses to leave. The other person, the trespasser, who has a parole officer that feels she ..."wouldn't know the truth if it ran over her with a truck" ... tells a story that the homeowner jumped off his porch and ran after her with a gun at a time when the homeowner was recovering from surgery and medically incapable of running or jumping.

The case goes to court and the jury believes the trespasser, convicts the homeowner and the judge has no choice but to send the home owner to jail for at least 3 years.

This clearly fits my definition of an unbelievable situation.

I have zero intention of getting into a long debate with anyone on this. I have my opinion, which I have stated. I recognize there might be other opinions that are not completely aligned with my opinion. I respect the rights of others to have their opinions, but that does not and will not change my opinion.

R2B

ishoot308 · 01-20-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

The unbelievable situation is, in my opinion, the fact that two people have differing sides to a story. One person is in or near his home, on his property, confronts a trespasser, tells her to leave his property and she refuses to leave. The other person, the trespasser, who has a parole officer that feels she ..."wouldn't know the truth if it ran over her with a truck" ... tells a story that the homeowner jumped off his porch and ran after her with a gun at a time when the homeowner was recovering from surgery and medically incapable of running or jumping.

The case goes to court and the jury believes the trespasser, convicts the homeowner and the judge has no choice but to send the home owner to jail for at least 3 years.

This clearly fits my definition of an unbelievable situation.

I have zero intention of getting into a long debate with anyone on this. I have my opinion, which I have stated. I recognize there might be other opinions that are not completely aligned with my opinion. I respect the rights of others to have their opinions, but that does not and will not change my opinion.

R2B

How about changing the word "trespasser" to convicted felon!! That makes it even worse in my book!

In my opinion this case should have never made it into the prosecutors hands... Harris goes to police station to file a complaint against Bird, police tell the convicted felon to buzz off and go home!! (they do it all the time so don't kid yourself!) A lot of taxpayers money spent for no reason and a good man ends up in jail. That's the travesty in this case.

Dan

VitaBene · 01-20-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

The unbelievable situation is, in my opinion, the fact that two people have differing sides to a story. One person is in or near his home, on his property, confronts a trespasser, tells her to leave his property and she refuses to leave. The other person, the trespasser, who has a parole officer that feels she ..."wouldn't know the truth if it ran over her with a truck" ... tells a story that the homeowner jumped off his porch and ran after her with a gun at a time when the homeowner was recovering from surgery and medically incapable of running or jumping.

The case goes to court and the jury believes the trespasser, convicts the homeowner and the judge has no choice but to send the home owner to jail for at least 3 years.

This clearly fits my definition of an unbelievable situation.

I have zero intention of getting into a long debate with anyone on this. I have my opinion, which I have stated. I recognize there might be other opinions that are not completely aligned with my opinion. I respect the rights of others to have their opinions, but that does not and will not change my opinion.

R2B

I will preface my statement by saying that I am a huge Ward Bird and law enforcement supporter.

Ward's mistake was making a statement to the police without counsel. This entire incident would have been avoided.

Never make a statement to the police or any other LE agency without your attorney present.

Heaven · 01-20-2011, 05:47 PM

There are many very interesting things in the testimony. Any chance we can go over them without people taking an emotional "nutty"? A couple of questions in my mind (please don't respond if you haven't read the transcripts of the trial).

If she didn't see the gun, it seems unlikely that she would have ever come up with a story like this.

If he had the gun behind his back the whole time she was there except when he was reentering the house, how did she see it?

Why would he have "made it safe" before she had been well on her way of leaving the property (and hence unable to see the gun being "made safe")?

Why would she, if he waved the gun while she was standing by her car, have gotten in and mouthed a word at him? If someone was waving a gun at you, would you do that? (ok, she's crazy, I get it))

Why hasn't/didn't his wife who had to have observed this, make some kind of statement in his support on record during the investigation?

Why did Ward call the cops? What was it he wanted them to do?

Misty Blue · 01-21-2011, 05:07 AM

Why did he check his pistol safe before entering the house?

I had the same question and then I noticed that I do the same thing.

When I carry in the woods, etc. before I go into the house or car I "clear the weapon". This is how it works:

You remove the pistol from it's holster and while holding it in a safe direction (usually up) you operate the mechenisim that drops the magazine out into your free hand. Once the magazine is stored you point the pistol in a safe direction (usually up) and with your free hand you pull back on the slide to inspect the chamber to make sure that there is not a round in the gun. The pistol is now empty, but cocked. You then "de cock" the pistol and put it away.

This is avery standard porceedure that good shooters do before leaving the range, entering a building, vehicle, etc.

To a novice I can appriciate that this may look like "brandishing". To someone who is affraid of any gun it is likley.

I don't know if that is what went down, but it does make sence.

Misty Blue.

Heaven · 01-21-2011, 07:09 AM

That is not the question I asked.
I asked about the timing of him making safe his weapon. Picture Ward admonishing the woman to leave the property, why would he get prepared to enter his house before she was at least on her way down the driveway? And if she was on her way down the driveway, , if you read the testimony, , , is it reasonable to believe that is when she saw the gun? Did Ward turn to go into the house before he was assured that she was leaving?

VitaBene · 01-21-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattle Isle Windy Side

This "clearing of a weapon" nonsense is not a standard procedure anyone uses.

If you carry a pistol for self defense it should be loaded, and be expected to be loaded at all times while secure in a holster. Its now 100% safe. It should also be concealed, if not required by law, just a good practice. A good holster is required. One does not carry a firearm in their waistband...gangsters and NBA ball players are the only people I know who do this - and usually with poor results such as dropped guns and blown off testicles.

When's the last time you saw armed people (LEOs, etc?) removing their weapons from holsters etc and doing this dance prior to entering a building?

Please note - exercise whatever kind of weapon handling you want, its America....just be prepared for what it may be interpreted as...then consider how unbelievable it may sound afterwards and what the consequences may be.

LEOs do not clear their weapons everytime they enter a building but they do when they enter many parts of their stations. Every station I have worked at has a clearing barrel.

Everyone carries a bit differently or follows a different procedure. I carry loaded without a round chambered and with the safety on (S&W MP 40). Others keep a round chambered. Many semi auto pistols do not have safeties. Whatever your choice, be consistent.

Irish mist · 01-21-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I will preface my statement by saying that I am a huge Ward Bird and law enforcement supporter.

Ward's mistake was making a statement to the police without counsel. This entire incident would have been avoided.

Never make a statement to the police or any other LE agency without your attorney present.

I agree with you 100% on this point. It can't be stated enough....keep your mouth shut until you get legal counsel. If Ward had followed this simple advice there would have never been a case.

fatlazyless · 01-21-2011, 10:07 AM

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights, as they have been read to you?"

The Miranda warning applies in all 50 states and it is probably smarter to refer to it as a WARNING than as a right. To call it a warning as opposed to calling it a right would probably be more accurate and helpful to someone who finds themself in a Miranda warning situation.

Just stop and imagine what a printed 3" x 5" Miranda Warning card that was prepared by a local defense lawyer looking to find new business would probably look like, as opposed to how the police deliver their Miranda rights spoken message. The wheels of lawyerly creative thinking on that are unlimited, as opposed to a fast and understated spoken delivery from a police officer.

sa meredith · 01-21-2011, 11:40 AM

Maybe he should have just opened fire...and then there would have been no debate here.
I mean, she's been convicted of crimes in the past, right?
To hear it told in this thread, she basically has no rights. So, Ward should have emptied a clip.
I hate to be put in a position of somehow defending this woman...who I despise, simply because of her animal abuse issues.
But the fact remains, he may have indeed done this thing.
Here's a question folks...to stoke the fire, on this snowy Friday..and a pretty darn good one, if I do say so.
Ward gets a call at home, from a family member, saying...hey, in a few minutes, there may be a woman up your way, she is looking for some property...blah blah blah..so, in case you see someone, you'll know who it is.
A short while later, he sees a woman...no element of surprise, he is not startled, doesn't think "who could this be way out here". He indeed knows who it is, and what she wants (remember the phone call.) Yet, he freakin' arms himself before going out there? WHY???!!!! He's not surprised or spooked to see someone. It's a woman, and she's alone. He knows what she wants. Why the gun???
Please don't tell me he wears it around the house.

MarkinNH · 01-21-2011, 01:27 PM

Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend and accept the fact that normal citizen carry firearms! Some normal citizen carry guns everyday, while driving their vehicles, while walking the streets, in the stores and Yes, even while in their own yards.
If one had read all the available information on this situation they would have read that Ward had a permit to CCW. That is ( for those who don't know) is a permit to "carry a concealed weapon"
He carried everyday, even while in his yard. That may seem like bazaar behavior for somebody who lives in say, downtown Meredith, but If you lived up on the side of a mountain where Ward and his family live even I would carry while out in my yard.
Hell, I live on flat normal populated ground and I carry every day.
If you have ever walked around the corner and surprised a black bear and have him stand up on his rear legs and growl or if you have ever been chased out of the area by a pack of coy-dogs, ( yes I have personally experienced both, but not at my home) you just might consider arming yourself for protection from not only the 4 legged animals running free but also from the 2 legged variety that runs free.
I don't find it at all unusual for Ward to be armed while out in his yard or even while in his house for that fact. Anybody who has carried a firearm on their person, on a regular basis, over time it becomes a habit no different then carrying your wallet or making sure you have your watch on. Having it on you or with you becomes routine.

sa meredith · 01-21-2011, 02:01 PM

Nope...no way...you're skirtting the issue.
Sorry marknh...can't spin it that way.
Yep, I know many poeple carry all the time. Lots and lots. No problem with it all. Have at it...gotta pack heat.
However, that was not my question. Answer what was asked.
He is in his house. He sees the woman that he was told would be coming. He decides he wants to talk to her. He says, "wait, let me grab my gun"??? Again marknh, I know you are friendly with Ward. But really...just be a normal, clear thinking third party for a second. This does not at least smell like he went out there to scare her off?
It just seems like you will not accept for even a second that he may have threatened her. I mean, clearly, he may have. It's possible. But you come across like, "no, no way, impossible, never happened"
Where I fall is, I think the punishment should not be mandatory, and he should have been given simple probation for a year or whatever.
Your example of gun carrying is normal for some people, like grabbing your watch or wallet, simply holds no water.
An hour ago I walked to mail box, to grab my mail. It was a quick trip outside. I grabbed neither my watch or wallet, which I carry everyday.
So I ask again...why did he need his gun to interact with this woman for such a brief time?

brk-lnt · 01-21-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

He is in his house. He sees the woman that he was told would be coming. He decides he wants to talk to her. He says, "wait, let me grab my gun"??? Again marknh, I know you are friendly with Ward. But really...just be a normal, clear thinking third party for a second. This does not at least smell like he went out there to scare her off?

"Scare" may be the wrong word here for the connotations it carries. I do believe that he went out with the intention of making it clear that she was trespassing and needed to leave his property. If he is in the habit of carrying a gun with him, it would be reasonable to assume that he also kept it handy and grabbing it on the way to the door would be as natural as putting on a pair of shoes or a jacket.

Based on what I've built up as a mental model of Ward from the posts here, I think that, for him, carrying a concealed firearm was one of his rights and privileges that he exercised daily. I don't think he distinguished "this scenario requires a firearm", "this scenario does not" any more so than someone else would distinguish "this scenario requires me to wear underwear", "this scenario does not" in the same circumstances. The gun was an essential component in his everyday actions.

You could argue (ad infinitum) if this practice of his was his own undoing, or if it was "normal" (for however you define normal), but at least up until the time of the incident he was doing something that he had every legal right to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Your example of gun carrying is normal for some people, like grabbing your watch or wallet, simply holds no water.
An hour ago I walked to mail box, to grab my mail. It was a quick trip outside. I grabbed neither my watch or wallet, which I carry everyday.
So I ask again...why did he need his gun to interact with this woman for such a brief time?

Because that's how HE did things. It is clearly a procedure that is foreign to you, but that does not mean people are required to explain it to you until you "get it". I am sure that there are things you do in your daily life that you consider "normal", that someone else, especially someone in a different regional setting, would consider very abnormal.

BTW, when I go to the mailbox I always grab my wallet (actually, money clip). My mailbox is about 400' down my driveway and the neighborhood kids are regularly selling cookies and raffle tickets and whatnot. I'll usually buy $5 or $20 of whatever they're raising money for, so I like to keep some cash handy even if I'm just out in the yard. Abnormal for you, normal for me. Both well within our rights.

sa meredith · 01-21-2011, 04:12 PM

brk-int...I am trying to decide if your response is comicical on purpose, or not. Please. Seriously, please.
Do not tell me, or anyone else, evertime you walk to your mailbox, you're careful to care your money clip in case the neighborhood kids are selling something. You typed that, and decided it made sense. Really? Give it another shot.
Again...holds no water.
Every time I leave the house, like most people, I am sure to grab my phone, wallet, and keys...if I carried a heater, I'd grab that too. Probably just about everyone has their routine when they leave the house.
However running to the mail box, running out to the car to grab something I forgot, or running out for a second to tell my neighbor something...do you think I stop and gather my things? Or my money, in case the kids are selling something (Still not past that one...if you gather your mail, say 4 times a week...that's 200 times per year. How often could they possibly hit you up? Even once a week, which is just not believeable, you would need no money 150 times per year).
If Ward was going out to work in the yard, yep, I would guess he would carry. Taking a walk in the woods, yep. Quick trip to the store, yep.
To run out and grab a couple pieces of firewood, probably not.
To greet a family member coming to visit...maybe help them with their bags. Probably not.
But to confront someone he wanted to leave...better grab the piece...need her to understand I mean business.
Wait a minute...maybe she was selling cookies....Yeah you're right...my bad.

RailroadJoe · 01-21-2011, 04:56 PM

sa meredith question, are you related to FLL by any chance?

sa meredith · 01-21-2011, 05:16 PM

Why would you say that...look...you are welcome to attack any part of my argument. Show me the holes in my theroy. I welcome it.
I just think people are too close to this, and can't see the forest for the trees. Read some of my posts as to what I think about this, and tell me were I am wrong.
As I stated...I have no respect for this woman (Harris), and think she is way off.
Also, I think Ward got way more than he deserved.
But seriously...who in a clear thinking, honest way, can say there is not way he is guilty????
Of course the possibiltiy exists.
Also...when someone types something that I believe to be "inaccurate" just to support their theory...I call them on.
And someone saying that they don't go to the mail box without being sure they have secured their money clip???sorry, not buyin' it.
Related to FLL..sorry pal...
Anytime I take a stand on something in this forum, I state my side as clearly as possible, and support as best I can.
Have an issue with me...send me a PM, and I'll debate you on the matter privately.
I'm sorry I am not wearing a "Free Bird" Tshirt, and jumping up an down waiving my pompoms. It's not the popular view, but I'm OK with that.
Show me the where the things I think about this case are wrong, and tell me why.
Don't just post a one sentence entry, be condescending to me, and stop. Disagree with me? Great. Show me where I am wrong.

MarkinNH · 01-21-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Nope...no way...you're skirtting the issue.

I'm not skirting any issues !
I provided a fully justifiable reason as to why Ward or any person who owns and carry's a firearm would have it on their person. You just don't want to accept it because you have your mind clearly set, as do I.
How about this for a reason why he happened to have his firearm on him at the time Cristine Harris trespassed on his property and it doesn't get any simpler then this.
His house, His property, His constitutional right to have the firearm on him / with him for any damn reason he choose's.

brk-lnt · 01-21-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

brk-int...I am trying to decide if your response is comicical on purpose, or not. Please. Seriously, please.

Nope, dead serious.

You seem to have a major deficiency in considering that anyone could lead their lives or have particular habits in any manner that is not 100% inline with your own personal perception of "normal".

There is no way to explain any of this to you because you seem unable to consider alternate viewpoints, no matter how they are presented. People, myself included, give you real examples but you dismiss them as made up because they appear to be beyond your grasp of possibility.

You are correct, there aren't that many times per year that I actually *need* my cash to check the mail. However, I don't have kids of my own, so I'm usually at best vaguely aware of the normal cycles of raising money for football teams, basketball teams, girlscout cookies, cheerleader raffles or whatever. But, for how my house is setup and for how my daily routine is structured, it's pretty easy to grab my money clip on the way out the door.

Heaven · 01-21-2011, 05:48 PM

So the woman had spoken to Ward on the phone in the previous day or two and he had told her he was not interested in selling his land. Then she comes to town to look at an adjoining parcel (which Ward is unhappy is being sold out of the family) and Ward's niece gives her directions up the road and also calls Ward to tell him the woman is around (she must traverse Ward's land to get to the parcel). The woman gets lost and ends up at Ward's house. He (or his wife, who was on the porch but then disappears) sees her coming, loads his gun and steps out of his house onto the porch, where he proceeds to yell and swear at the woman (by admission) while holding the gun behind his back (per his statement) until she understands she is in the wrong place and isn't going to be getting any directions from Ward. Then presumably he "makes his gun safe" in order to go back into the house, in view of her before she has even started to leave his dooryard (???) . . . it sure sounds like he was jonesing for her before she even said "hello". Maybe not, , maybe not,, but the jury said "yes"

NoBozo · 01-21-2011, 05:50 PM

MEN carry a Wallet ALL the time. It's in their hip pocket. In the house.. outside the house....but NOT in their pajamas. Some also carry a "Money Clip" in their front pocket. Women carry a purse. They don't have pockets.. I have always wondered Why Not. Pockets certainly make more sense than a big bag of STUFF. .

I have noticed this practice over my 70 years as a Male. My wife of 44 years carry's a purse...she carry's it everywhere "OFF The Property"...but not in the yard, or out to the mailbox.

NB

PS: This is my final comment on Wallets.

NoBozo · 01-21-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattle Isle Windy Side

Only auto I own without one is a KelTec, and like every other carry gun I own it resides chambered and safe in a quality holster and remains concealed at ALL times.

I'm just an observer (A Totally Innocent Bystander) as I don't know anything about guns. I DO like the NAVY Phalanx "Close In Weapons System"..C-WIZ..?? .

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/35986988

I would think having the weapon Visible on your person would be a Big Deterent...NO..??? I'm curious about "Concealed" Vs "Out in the OPEN".....

NB

Pineedles · 01-21-2011, 07:56 PM

sameredith, I was amazed with traffic that has occurred on this thread, but I think I have an answer to a nagging question that you have posed.

"He sees the woman that he was told would be coming. Why arm yourself?"

1. You don't know the hidden intent of whose coming.
2. You always arm yourself when you go outside.
3. You feel less able to defend yourself than normal because of your injuries.
4. You don't know if the women is alone. Typical setup, fools alot of males.
5. You have the right to arm yourself.
6. Who else is coming that you haven't been told about?

BTW, I can't even walk tonight. Major infection in foot, and can't even consider coming up Saturday. Sorry, really wanted to have you pay for dinner at The Woodshed. Catch you at a later date. All my best.

MarkinNH · 01-21-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I'm just an observer here as I don't know anything about guns. I DO like the NAVY Phalanx "Close In Weapons System"..C-WIZ..?? .

I would think having the weapon Visible on your person would be a Big Deterent...NO..??? I'm curious about "Concealed" Vs "Out in the OPEN".....

NB

I believe that most all responsible citizens who choose to carry a concealed self defense weapon aren't looking to advertise the fact that they are carrying.
There is no "hey look at me and see what I have" mentality in the mind of a responsible gun owner.

wifi · 01-21-2011, 08:09 PM

Some people carry.... its no big deal

Some people clear their weapon upon entering their residence .... its no big deal

Unless those that don't carry or don't understand spin it into something it isn't

MarkinNH · 01-21-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattle Isle Windy Side

Oh no!...not a deterrent at all...in fact with that type of mentality you shouldn't carry a gun IMO. I'm not for open carry - even if it was legal in my state (its not) I would not chose to do so. YMMV.

To me, its a tool to save your life in the most dire situations, not an intimidation item or a penis extension. This leads to nothing but trouble. Its only for use when you can't escape, run, or call 911. Its not to substitute a fist fight or you taking a black eye. Its not to settle road rage, not to prove something is YOUR property...etc etc...it's to (again) save your life and allow escape to a safe place. Nothing more.

I know that carrying a gun concealed becomes a real non-event to 99% of us legal gun owners. Nobody I know advertises that they do...no gun hats, no gun stickers on your car, etc etc. Most with a brain really dont want the attention or want to advertise that theres a gun in the car/person etc.

Unfortunately the uneducated public gets a skewed view of gun ownership and personal protection/concealed carry by cases like this thread.

Very Well Said !!

sa meredith · 01-21-2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Nope, dead serious.

You seem to have a major deficiency in considering that anyone could lead their lives or have particular habits in any manner that is not 100% inline with your own personal perception of "normal".

There is no way to explain any of this to you because you seem unable to consider alternate viewpoints, no matter how they are presented. People, myself included, give you real examples but you dismiss them as made up because they appear to be beyond your grasp of possibility.

You are correct, there aren't that many times per year that I actually *need* my cash to check the mail. However, I don't have kids of my own, so I'm usually at best vaguely aware of the normal cycles of raising money for football teams, basketball teams, girlscout cookies, cheerleader raffles or whatever. But, for how my house is setup and for how my daily routine is structured, it's pretty easy to grab my money clip on the way out the door.

OK then...tell me this. Why does the rabbit have a pancake on his head?

And Pineedles...you actually made my piont...I agree completely. He took the gun with with him because he thought he might need it. Which he did. Not to fire, but to let an unwelcomed person get a look at it.
And what a shame...a crack pot like Harris steals 3 years of his life. A freakin' outright sin. Deplorable. My heart goes out to him...a guy who busts his hump all day farming, and probably lives out there because he loves his privacy, and doing his own thing...not the type of guy who would easily adjust to being in jail.
Maybe some new evidence will come out at the hearing and they will send him home.
I still say though, that he won't be sent home, because everyone likes him, and his support is overwhelming. Those issues play no role, I believe.

Heaven · 01-21-2011, 10:04 PM

I still say though, that he won't be sent home, because everyone likes him, and his support is overwhelming. Those issues play no role, I believe.

Never underestimate the necessity of politics.

Heaven · 01-21-2011, 10:51 PM

I think I've got the reason for the additional charge.
Sometime after the original trial the prosecutor learned that this was the third incident Ward Bird had been involved in that showed (at the very least) poor judgement when armed.
She believed he should be disarmed for life, and this was the charge that would do it.

TOAD · 01-23-2011, 07:25 AM

I agree with this quote:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

secondcurve · 01-23-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOAD

I agree with this quote:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

I'm not sure the Iraqi people would agree with you, TOAD.

Pineedles · 01-24-2011, 07:04 PM

I hope and pray that Ward is released.

jniff101 · 01-25-2011, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heaven

I think I've got the reason for the additional charge.
Sometime after the original trial the prosecutor learned that this was the third incident Ward Bird had been involved in that showed (at the very least) poor judgement when armed.
She believed he should be disarmed for life, and this was the charge that would do it.

If they took past incidents with Ward into account then why did they dismiss all the past incidents with the women. That is just ridiculous! Free Ward Bird and give his kids their father back!

Heaven · 01-25-2011, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jniff101

If they took past incidents with Ward into account then why did they dismiss all the past incidents with the women. That is just ridiculous! Free Ward Bird and give his kids their father back!

You missed my point, and apparently you didn't read the testimony either.

Rusty · 01-25-2011, 12:42 PM

In the Thursday, January 20, 2011 edition of "THE LACONIA DAILY SUN", there is an article about Ward Bird having 22 firearms taken away from him.

This is what it said: “Because it’s a felony conviction, Bird, 49, would not be allowed to possess guns in the future. Moultonborough police took 22 handguns and long guns from Bird’s home after his arrest.”

I wonder if this is true and when did they take the firearms away from him. It states “after his arrest”, so I am wondering what that means. I wouldn’t think that they could take them away from him until he was convicted on the felony charge. Maybe they arrested him after the trial and then took the firearms? Did they give the firearms to his wife so that she can protect herself if needed? It is a little confusing to me as to just what transpired.

Sal · 01-26-2011, 07:43 AM

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story...ns-hard-come-0

tis · 02-01-2011, 05:40 PM

I just heard he was granted a pardon hearing and the Governor will not stand in the way. Does anyone know more?

Jonas Pilot · 02-01-2011, 06:37 PM

Wmur reported there is a planned one hour meeting tomorrow to make the final decision.

Pineedles · 02-01-2011, 07:54 PM

OMG, this man may be with his family soon. Thank you.

MarkinNH · 02-01-2011, 08:47 PM

Here are some comments taken from one of Wards Facebook pages on todays pardon hearing.

"Pardon hearing went well. Good questions asked, good responses heard. Harris didn't show. No surprise. Beyond the current county prosecutor and the advocate, there were no voices in opposition to those in support".

"Felt bad for new County Atty getting grilled up there since he wasn't in office at the time this all occurred and he has to protect the reputation of that office as best he can. I even felt for the witness advocate, it was very clear that the Exec Council was not happy that the only witness to the event chose not to testify".

"Ward's wrap up was powerful. Asked for and was granted permission to stand before the Governor, Exec Council and gallery. He stood slowly, and in a voice full of emotion that grew stronger as he went: "As God is my witness, and on the honor of my family, and my friends, in this room today, I did not point or wave a firearm at Christine Harris. And that's all I have to say."

"Four of the five councilors wouldn't comment after Tuesday's hearing. But Councilor David Wheeler says Bird deserves a full pardon because there's evidence of "a gross miscarriage of justice."

fatlazyless · 02-02-2011, 08:18 AM

Last night's 6-pm WMUR tv news had a 60 second video-audio with Councilor Ray Worciek, Governor John Lynch, Prisoner Ward Bird, all speaking, and a Christine Harris written statement read aloud at the hearing. In the statement it said that she was too intimidated by all of Ward's supporter's to be there in person plus some other comments. Ward was seated at one end of a large old wood table with a uniformed state trooper seated on either side of him, and as I recall, Ward was wearing prison gray clothes as opposed to prison orange, but maybe I'm wrong on that and they were regular non-prison clothes.

Today's Feb 2 www.unionleader.com has a front page photo of Ward seated at the table along with the backs of some others, and the two state troopers cannot be seen in the photo even if you know they are present.

Suggest you read today's Feb 2 www.citizen.com report by Bea Lewis which is about 100 times better written and more informative than the Union Leader article.

Gov Lynch asked Ward at the close: "How long would it take you to replace the clip back into the gun as you were entering your house." Ward thought on it for a couple seconds and said "about five seconds."

Where this whole Ward Bird saga is going is anyone's guess? What do the London bookies have to say for their betting odds?

Any chance someone can post a link to the WMUR video?

If you were on a jury trying to make a serious and intelligent decision based on all the input you received over the length of a trial, and the defense attorney making the closing statement to the jury was a bald guy with a pony tail would that pony tail make any difference to your thinking about his presentation?

MarkinNH · 02-02-2011, 09:16 AM

Since when does prison attire of Any color include a White shirt, Suit coat and Tie ?
You can easily tell from the WMUR footage that he is wearing normal civilian clothing

Here is the link to the WMUR footage.
http://www.wmur.com/newsarchive/26690254/detail.html

My opinion of Harris's statement is. If she were telling the truth, then should would be able to walk into that room with here head held high and not feel intimidated by anyone !

I keep wondering what the Governor was trying to ascertain with the question he asked.

Sal · 02-02-2011, 09:35 AM

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story...makes-his-case

Sal · 02-02-2011, 09:43 AM

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-54ad3179138e

sa meredith · 02-02-2011, 12:20 PM

Just watched the video from the link provided.
Not for nothing, but if I hired Sisti, I'd ask him to lose the pony tail before going to court.
Pony tail ????? Really?
Regarding the Gov's question about "how long would it take to have loaded the gun?"...cleary, what he was a saying was, the fact that there was not a round in the chamber makes no difference. The clip was loaded, and in the gun, so in a matter of seconds, it could have been ready to fire.

Two dobys · 02-02-2011, 12:45 PM

Hopefully we will have a answer soon, good luck to Ward Bird

MarkinNH · 02-02-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Just watched the video from the link provided.
Not for nothing, but if I hired Sisti, I'd ask him to lose the pony tail before going to court.
Pony tail ????? Really?
Regarding the Gov's question about "how long would it take to have loaded the gun?"...cleary, what he was a saying was, the fact that there was not a round in the chamber makes no difference. The clip was loaded, and in the gun, so in a matter of seconds, it could have been ready to fire.

Yah the pony tail doesn't do much for me either.
Your take on the governors question is pretty much what I was thinking, although I still don't see what relevent point it makes as to how quickly he could have made the gun ready to fire.

wifi · 02-02-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Yah the pony tail doesn't do much for me either.
Your take on the governors question is pretty much what I was thinking, although I still don't see what relevent point it makes as to how quickly he could have made the gun ready to fire.

Hope not, but could be posturing for an already made up mind

sa meredith · 02-02-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wifi

Hope not, but could be posturing for an already made up mind

Maybe not a made up mind...he should take time to consider everything he heard.
But I think it was to discredit the statement that the gun was not loaded.
I always thought that if the clip had bullets in it, the gun was loaded. But ( being someone who does not knows a lick about guns) I guess that may not be the case. A bullet has to be in the firing chamber, for it to be considered loaded, is the way I now understand it.

MarkinNH · 02-02-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wifi

Hope not, but could be posturing for an already made up mind

I hadn't considered that and I sure hope not as well.
The governor has never granted a pardon and I have my fingers crossed that this will be his first.

MarkinNH · 02-02-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Maybe not a made up mind...he should take time to consider everything he heard.
But I think it was to discredit the statement that the gun was not loaded.
I always thought that if the clip had bullets in it, the gun was loaded. But ( being someone who does not knows a lick about guns) I guess that may not be the case. A bullet has to be in the firing chamber, for it to be considered loaded, is the way I now understand it.

I believe that many people when they hear the word "loaded" in referance to a gun, takes it to mean that the gun is 100% ready to fire a round. To me and I am sure many others a "loaded" weapon merely means that it has bullets in it, they maybe in a clip for a semi automatic handgun or rifle or the magazine for a rifle or shotgun with bolt action or lever action or pump action. Unless an action is taken to actually place a round in the chamber, the gun Is Not ready to fire.
A revolver is a differant story. If all chambers in the cylinder are loaded then there is always a round ready to be fired. No action needs to be made to place a round in a firing position.
To me and I expect most anybody who owns and carry's a firearm an unloaded gun is as useful as a rock.

01-17-2011, 05:23 PM	#502
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	ok Marknh...you don't even know who played yesterday...nuff said. Buy a newspaper. You've known him for 20 plus years? Really???? Who would have guessed you had a relationship with him? Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I think a friendship would keep you from being able to form an unbias opinion...but again...who knows. It...just...doesn't...matter. The case is over and done with. Post away if you would like... Rusty...I too have learned some things...and indeed I was the first one, many moons ago, to post the articles from the Lawrence Eagle Tribune about this woman's brush with the law. Anyway...you might think this thread warrented 600++++ posts, but I beg to differ. Look back...it seems only 4 or 5 members are still following along. There is nothing new to add...no debates will be settled...Ward is going nowhere...Live Free or die...I'm having chicken for dinner tonight...and Gillette Stadium will be empty next Sunday. Oh, yeah...couple other things....Crazy Gringos makes a great Marg, and I love breakfast at the Village Kitchen. Looking forward to the new stuff at Funspot this year, and The Loony Bin across the street can be a fun place to have a beer. Is the ice out yet????

01-17-2011, 06:06 PM	#508
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,738 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,007 Times in 735 Posts	It all just shows to go that using a broom for self defense gives you an opportunity to clean up after using it for self-defense......plus there's much less chance of running afoul of the laws on self-defense and needing to hiring an expensive lawyer to clean up your legal mess. There was a story in the national news very recently about a women who did just that.....she scared off a burglar with a broom. If SigSauer were smart, they would make a 45 caliber broom....combination .45 w/ a mega handle clip of 32 bullets on one end....and a heavy duty corn broom on the other....sort of like a Swiss army knife for cleaning up the neighborhood......kaboomba-boom-boom-sweep-sweep-sweep! And, let's all hope that Glock makes a broom-gun available in hot pink! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

01-17-2011, 07:58 PM	#515
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	understood Pineedles...I get it...I think you know I'm not a cold hearted person, although enjoy stiring things up. I guess my point is this...whenever I see a new post, I read it, because I think there might be news...as in, something new. Something not yet spoken about. An update on new evidence/retrial/whatever. But after 560 posts...there has not been one darn new thing here in over 100 posts. Yes, every once in a while, someone says..."hey, guess what I found out..." only the fact is, the info is old and was discussed over and over 250 posts ago. Seriously...show me something new. I stay with the thread, because I am curious about the whole mess. But nothing new ever comes up. As I stated earlier today, I believe the original intent of the thread was to spread awarness about the fact that there was a web site, and a group organizing support for Ward...but it went off in at least 5 directions. Gun control...court procedure...property lines...whatever. Look, do I think the punishment fit the crime? Of coures not. Do I think Ward is totally with out fault here? Again, of coures not. The bottom line is he was given the chance to plead it out...and decided to take the gamble. You don't get to call, "do over".

01-18-2011, 10:23 AM	#518
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	back in Ok...I really did not want to get "sucked in" to this thread, but for anyone who cares...and mostly Pineedles...please read and consider what I am writing now...put aside personal feelings for two minutes, and think about this...if I am wrong please tell me so, and why. First of all, Pineedles, I would think you might want to consider the wording of your last post...while you may be right, the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room. If he gets the "benefit of the doubt", in court, so does she... Anyway... Here is what I think... Clearly, this man is well like and respected as an upstanding member of society...and is considered somewhat of a local icon, from what I can gather. One need only take a drive down Moultenboro Neck Road to learn this....his support oozes forth from every front yard. 1000s of people can't be wrong. And, it has been asked, why, with local knowledge, was this not put to bed right away...squashed, I guess. I believe what may have happened was this (just a guess, mind you) A prosecutor (lawyer) looked at this, and said, "Christ, this woman is just not going to let this go away." And, upon reviewing the facts (absent any emotional attachment...just the facts and his/her knowledge of what may indeed take place in a court room) thought, wow...this guy may have a problem here...because, the way the law reads...blah blah blah...and worse, it comes with a mandatory 3 years. So, possibly, upon investigation, the prosecutor learns that Ward is well respected, an all round good guy...whatever...word it the way you want. So, they sit him down in a room, and say...."hey, here is your way out"....no jail time, plead this, say that...and everybody goes home, and we get this nut job (Harris) off our back. Furthermore, they say "Ward, understand...unfurtunately, we have to tell you...this looks bad for you. There is evidence that suggests you did blah blah blah...and if the jury thinks so...the judge has no discretion...3 years in the bin". So you see...locally, I think he was offered his way out because of who he is. But he is old school (I would guess...from what I've read)...very stronged willed, hard headed (no negative...just set in his ways) and says..."She came on to MY property. I ain't pleadin' to nothing!" Or something to that effect. Rolled the dice..and crapped out. Now everyone, who does not know what may have gone on behind closed doors, cries foul. Is it possible what I type here is dead on. Or dead wrong. Who knows... I do know this Pineedles...the next dinner tab is mine...pretty sure you got the last two.

01-18-2011, 10:46 AM	#520
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	did you read it Did you read it thru Rusty? Seriously, if my theory is wrong, I accept it...tell me where the holes are. I would accept you as an authority on the subject...you've been a memebr here for three months, and 24 or your 55 posts are in this thread. So clearly, you follow it closely. Emotions not getting best of me at all...they did yesterday, though. What I posted today, is what I think, a clear opinion of what may have happened before the trial. Read it.

01-17-2011, 05:31 PM	#503
ronc4424 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Danvers,Ma & Ashland,Nh Posts: 71 Thanks: 151 Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts	I haven't read every post on the subject, and am curious as to if it was a she said he said, why did she prevail? Does anybody have the answer?

01-17-2011, 05:32 PM	#504
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	An life goes on!

The Following User Says Thank You to MarkinNH For This Useful Post:
RailroadJoe (01-17-2011)

The Following User Says Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (01-17-2011)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sky's For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (01-17-2011), Rattle Isle Windy Side (01-17-2011)

01-17-2011, 07:29 PM	#514
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,542 Thanks: 1,071 Thanked 667 Times in 366 Posts	ENOUGH! Those that want to help Ward Bird will continue to post on this thread. Those that think he deserved what he got, I guess because we have freedom of speech, will also post. I have my opinion, and even some of my "friends" have opposite opinions. We all obviously have our own axe to grind, and that is what this thread is all about. I'm sorry the Patriots lost, so did the Giants, get over it! Spring training starts next month.

The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (01-17-2011)

The Following User Says Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (01-17-2011)

01-17-2011, 08:38 PM	#516
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,542 Thanks: 1,071 Thanked 667 Times in 366 Posts	sa, you and I are friends and always will be. You don't need to explain anything to me or anybody else. As far as the "new" stuff. Sometimes there isn't anything new, just a continuing effort to keep Ward's name in the press, and that means posts here on Winni.com. It keeps people aware that the issue is not dead and there are those that want Ward out of jail and with his family. I have very strong convictions about the 2nd ammendment and therefore I am continuing the fight for Ward Bird. I don't know him personally but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The longer we keep Ward Bird in the news, the more chance there is of his release in my opinion. The more people that read this thread, the more people of a like kind of mind we have attracting. So, I will continue to keep this thread alive with the hope that others will feel the outrage of his imprisonment and want to add to our voice of, FREE WARD BIRD!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
Argie's Wife (01-17-2011), Resident 2B (01-18-2011)

01-18-2011, 11:11 AM	#521
wuwu Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 35 Thanks: 27 Thanked 26 Times in 10 Posts	Free ward bird! Please read the following, it has clearly stated facts. Statements written by persons who have had dealings with Ms. Harris. http://freewardbird.org/

The Following User Says Thank You to Argie's Wife For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (01-18-2011)

01-18-2011, 08:26 PM	#525
Heaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 523 Thanks: 128 Thanked 95 Times in 67 Posts	I am unclear on this point maybe someone with some legal sense can speak to this -- in this "he said she said" case, there WAS another person on the property and very likely in a position to make a statement about what happened, and that is Ward Bird's wife. Testimony has her on the porch when the woman first drives into the dooryard, then apparently she disappears from this whole case. What's up with that?

01-19-2011, 12:39 AM	#526
KPW Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 397 Thanks: 732 Thanked 118 Times in 59 Posts	sa meredith " the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room." I thought beyond reasonable doubt was a major factor in a trial. Why would someone who knew they were innocent, plead guilty?

01-19-2011, 08:58 AM	#527
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,738 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,007 Times in 735 Posts	Say hey.....there's some people locked up in prison across the U.S. for years and years who got convicted by a prosecutor determined to prosecute who has a very supporting witness to question before a jury when all along the imprisoned person was not guilty. Believe it is called the DNA Project or something, where old DNA evidence gets brought forward as new evidence. With about 80 different state representatives, mostly all Republicans, supporting a pardon, who knows, maybe Gov Lynch will not use his veto power? On the other hand, Gov Lynch has a law degree from Georgetown Law School in Washington D.C., so he may be reluctant to overturn the decision of a twelve person jury. All things considered, Gov Lynch should do something like let a pardon go though for time served plus a two year probation sentence similar to what was originally offered in the plea bargain. Even if Ward did wave a gun around, he never fired any shots, so the sentence does not fit the crime. People get annoyed and wave guns around all the time and it usually never goes anywhere in the legal system. ............ Hey....yesterday's Union Leader had a big, 4" x 6" color close-up photo of Ward on the upper half of the front page along with a big article on his story. The background prison furnishings did not look like they came from Ippolito's Furniture store in Meredith. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

01-19-2011, 09:51 AM	#529
NoRegrets Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hudson - NH Posts: 408 Thanks: 233 Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts	The symantics of words are interesting in this thread. We were a nation that used to work based on the intent of the law and rarely used the courtroom. Now we only look at the technicality of the the. We read threads like lawyers and tear apart every sentance for meaning and legally binding opinions. Oh for the good old days - Ward would have never gone to trial. There would have been enough evidence to have settled this on the side of the street or the back of a car. In today's world if you do not report everything anything and something goes wrong you can be implicated by society, loose your livelyhood, and become the subject of an Internet Thread. I feel bad for teachers, doctors, and anyone responsible for groups that share common assets. Best of luck to the apeal or pardon process!

The Following User Says Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
Natt (01-19-2011)

01-19-2011, 12:19 PM	#534
Heaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 523 Thanks: 128 Thanked 95 Times in 67 Posts	This thread bounces back and forth between discussion of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bird and the mandatory sentencing law. After reading through the trial transcripts, I have lots and lots of questions about the event which I am sure the jury also had, and brought up and discussed. I can see how they would have come to their verdict. I believe there is a solid reason for mandatory sentencing that works in 98% of all cases but there should be some board review for those other 2%.

01-19-2011, 12:37 PM	#535
songkrai Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 732 Thanks: 35 Thanked 146 Times in 99 Posts	Either you are FOR mandatory sentencing or AGAINST mandatory sentencing. You cannot have it both ways. Creating another layer of big government is not the solution.

The Following User Says Thank You to Shreddy For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (01-19-2011)

01-19-2011, 04:50 PM	#540
MarkinNH Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 392 Thanks: 177 Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts	I believe that if anybody interested in putting forth the effort to do the reading, they will find that the efforts to change the law are already underway.

01-20-2011, 07:55 AM	#541
Sal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 311 Thanks: 103 Thanked 169 Times in 53 Posts	..."wouldn't know the truth if it ranover her with a truck" ... http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...698/-1/CITIZEN

01-20-2011, 12:55 PM	#543
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	so what now... So what happens at the hearing? I mean, I read the article, and while there is an endless supply of character witnesses, and he is well like in the community...none that matters, does it? I would think the council would only pardon if new evidence is introduced...or do I have this wrong? It has already been ruled on that Harris' past is irrelavent...the judge made that decision already...so her past won't matter, I think. Wouldn't they need new evidence? Or maybe her past is the new evidence. Anyway...a farmer all his life, living out in the sticks, working hard all day every day....prison has got to literally be killing this guy.

01-20-2011, 01:33 PM	#544
Happy Gourmand Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ruskin FL Posts: 1,027 Thanks: 188 Thanked 322 Times in 179 Posts	good question I wonder what criteria will be used to come to a conclusion of whether or not to pardon him...and what the level of the pardon will be. Keep in mind that whatever they decide, that the Governor can VETO their recommendation and keep him in for the term of his sentence. Can they pardon his sentence AND his felony conviction? Can they "modify" his sentence and impose some other restrictions? Would a pardon lead to a flood of requests? There are way more questions than answers. It seems like there would have to be some really compelling reason for this appeal to be successful.

01-20-2011, 01:37 PM	#545
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Below is text of the NH Constitution relating to the Governor's power to pardon people. He can pardon for any reason. It's not like an appeal which has strict guidelines. Presidents and Governors can issue full or partial pardons for any reason. If you look GWB used his pardoning power to reduce Scooter Libby's punishment and set him free but didn't pardon the actual crime. He is still a convicted criminal. WJC gave a full pardon to Susan McDougal, she is not. The Governor has wide discretion about reasons and remedies. NH Constitution [Art.] 52. [Pardoning Power.] The power of pardoning offenses, except such as persons may be convicted of before the senate, by impeachment of the house, shall be in the governor, by and with the advice of council: But no charter of pardon, granted by the governor, with advice of the council, before conviction, shall avail the party pleading the same, notwithstanding any general or particular expressions contained therein, descriptive of the offense or offenses intended to be pardoned.

01-20-2011, 02:19 PM	#546
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	ok I guess what I'm saying is...the appeal is not based on the "Come on now. He's really a well liked guy, and all around good, solid citizen" defense. I would think the council could care less about how many people wear "Free Ward Bird" shirts, or put "Free Bird" signs on their front lawn. I would think they need new evidence. The fact that the crime carries a mandatory 3 year sentence isn't their fault. If they say he is guitly, but reduce the jail time (can they even do that?), they are going to set a precedent, and everyone in jail in NH for the same thing is going to get in line to point to it.

01-20-2011, 03:03 PM	#547
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Well GWB did just that, he reduced Libby's sentence. So I'm assuming the that our Governor has the same discretion. If you can issue full pardons, it seems like partials pardons would be OK. Pardons don't set a legal precedent. Obviously someone else convicted of the same crime can apply for a pardon. But they can't go to a judge and say he got pardoned so you have to set me free. Thousands of people have been pardoned, it doesn't effect the law that convicted them. This is totally seperate from the normal appeals process. Appeals usually need some reason, a mistake in law, new evidence, a mistake at trial or something. Pardons are outside of all that. It's another check and balance. An executive check on the judicial system. The pardon is a safety valve for special cases. Even if everything is correct, the law, the trial, the evidence, there can still be a pardon. The only requirement is to convince the Governor that the pardon is a good idea. It applies only to that person and that crime. I don't know enough about this case to render an opinion, I'm really addressing pardons in general.

01-20-2011, 03:12 PM	#548
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	yep Yeah...I get it....perhaps if someone had a terminal illness, and only months to live. That might be a reason. Or if they somehow became unable to care for themselves, and needed 24 hour care. That might be a reason. Or it turned out the judge was "on the take". That might be a reason. But the, "Awww shucks...come on now...everyone loves this guy. Haven't you seen all the signs on Mou Neck road? And all the Tshirts?" Is that a reason? I'm just curious what info they are going to bring to the table at the hearing.

01-20-2011, 03:48 PM	#549
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,357 Thanks: 994 Thanked 313 Times in 163 Posts	The remark made by Christine Harris' parole officer keeps going around and around in my mind ..."wouldn't know the truth if it ran over her with a truck" ... I would guess it is somewhat possible that she misrepresented Ward's actions to the court under oath. After all, it was medically unlikely that Ward was in any condition to have run and jumped off the porch as she stated. When you take these individual pieces, the statement by Christine's parole officer, Ward's medical situation and Christine's testimony, and place them together, it now sounds to me like this is the Lakes' Region version of the Salem Witch Trials. Hopefully, the process will correct this unbelievable situation very soon. R2B

01-20-2011, 04:08 PM	#550
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	??? I know I am over posting...sorry...last one today... but, R2B....what "unbelievable situation" are you referring to? I have stated I think the puishment is WAY off base...too strong. So I have an issue with the law. But how do you know he didn't pull his weapon, in a painful, medicated, rage??? He indeed may have...in fact a jury believed he did. You see, to me, the fact that Harris is only half way there mentally, adds to the possiblity. She probably said or did something very irrational, and instantly put Ward on the defensive. And him being in pain, and probably medicated...does not that add to the possibility, instead of subtract from it? "Unbelievable situation" "witch trials" "process will correct things" How can you be certain something is wrong. You can't. Yeah, I believe she has a history of being untruthful. Does that mean that Ward didn't pull his gun? Who knows...he might have. Is there new evidence??? Maybe. Is the council going to recmmend he be released, because everyone yelled real loud and asked for it? Most likely not.