Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[Dogg]

It amazes me (not really) that nobody on the supporting side brought up the fact that he (Ward) has a past issue with handguns. All that is brought up in the first couple pages is how the accusers record has not been allowed on the record; yet those same people don't feel it is important to include Ward's background in the same sentence. How people don't realize why someone's accusations or record (if the were convicted) should not be discussed or an issue when the incidents take place AFTER the aspect of the event is beyond me.

I am not here to say he (Mr. Bird) is guilty or not, I was not there and I don't know; what I do know is that a group of his peers found him guilty and that really is enough for me. If you care to defend the accused, you might as well bring up his past instead of hiding it (unless you didn't know) and stop making the focus of your argument someone else's future (her issues occurred after this event).

After reading this thread I am well aware that many might not see my viewpoint, just understand it was written by an outsider with no interest in this..

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Dogg

It amazes me (not really) that nobody on the supporting side brought up the fact that he (Ward) has a past issue with handguns. All that is brought up in the first couple pages is how the accusers record has not been allowed on the record; yet those same people don't feel it is important to include Ward's background in the same sentence. How people don't realize why someone's accusations or record (if the were convicted) should not be discussed or an issue when the incidents take place AFTER the aspect of the event is beyond me.

I am not here to say he (Mr. Bird) is guilty or not, I was not there and I don't know; what I do know is that a group of his peers found him guilty and that really is enough for me. If you care to defend the accused, you might as well bring up his past instead of hiding it (unless you didn't know) and stop making the focus of your argument someone else's future (her issues occurred after this event).

After reading this thread I am well aware that many might not see my viewpoint, just understand it was written by an outsider with no interest in this..

It amazes me (not really) that people who wish to express the viewpoint can't be bothered to use correct information.
Apparently you do have an interest in this or you would not have bothered to add your .02 cents worth. So given that
Maybe because the "past issue" you are refereeing to has nothing to do with the present situation at hand. Also maybe next time you should take a moment to get your information correct. The "past issue " did not involve a handgun !!!!!!
Your no better then the liberal newspapers that are incapable or unwilling to get their information correct. The article in the Union Leader today stated that the past owner of the property that was for sale, moved out of state to get away from the family feud. That must make one hell of a daily commute, for I understand that she works locally. The Union leader also stated that the so called victim had the "cash assets" to purchase the property. I believe that several newspapers and even the court documents had previously stated that the woman was going to try and get grants to obtain the funds with which to purchase property.

Yes, I am very biased in this situation for I know Ward and I will stand beside him all the way. I also believe his story way more than I can believe the story of the "victim"

[Argie's Wife]

I'd advise anyone interested to read the court documents, especially the sentencing hearing.

The judge had NO CHOICE in how he sentenced Bird and was almost apologetic about it. It's an interesting read and really makes you wonder why/how the law passed that mandated the sentencing for this crime.

[Heaven]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I'd advise anyone interested to read the court documents, especially the sentencing hearing.

The judge had NO CHOICE in how he sentenced Bird and was almost apologetic about it. It's an interesting read and really makes you wonder why/how the law passed that mandated the sentencing for this crime.

I assume the law passed because the discretion was being abused or was seen as being unjust. Even I, who believes the jury made the correct decision, think that "freeing bird" to live at home DISARMED would be satisfactory.

[ITD]

What amazes me is that the prosecutor offered no time in jail plus probation and an agreement that Ward not have a handgun for 2 years in return for an admission of guilt. The Prosecutor obviously thought this was a just offer. Ward Bird maintained innocence and would not plead guilty. So the prosecutor pursued a charge that had a mandatory 3 year sentence, which in my opinion is not just, nor is it in anyway comparable to the plea bargain. I understand that for a guilty person, the incentive of a plea is a lighter sentence, going to trial risks a harsher punishment. But I feel that the prosecutor in this case was not just in pursuing the charge she pursued, that the punishment does not fit the crime, especially in light of the plea deal and the if Governor Lynch has any stones, he will commute the sentence to time served, quickly.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ITD

What amazes me is that the prosecutor offered no time in jail plus probation and an agreement that Ward not have a handgun for 2 years in return for an admission of guilt. The Prosecutor obviously thought this was a just offer. Ward Bird maintained innocence and would not plead guilty. So the prosecutor pursued a charge that had a mandatory 3 year sentence, which in my opinion is not just, nor is it in anyway comparable to the plea bargain. I understand that for a guilty person, the incentive of a plea is a lighter sentence, going to trial risks a harsher punishment. But I feel that the prosecutor in this case was not just in pursuing the charge she pursued, that the punishment does not fit the crime, especially in light of the plea deal and the if Governor Lynch has any stones, he will commute the sentence to time served, quickly.

The prosecutor didn’t convict Bird, a jury of his peers convicted him. Then the NH Supreme Court upheld that conviction.

If the NH Executive Council and Governor Lynch Pardon Bird it will be an assault on The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Rusty

If the NH Executive Council and Governor Lynch Pardon Bird it will be an assault on The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution.

It may not be an assault on the Sixth if the punishment was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Three years incarceration for what went down seems cruel and unusual, especially when compared to other jurisdictions and crimes.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

It may not be an assault on the Sixth if the punishment was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Three years incarceration for what went down seems cruel and unusual, especially when compared to other jurisdictions and crimes.

NH RSA 631:4 (2007) takes care of the 8th amendment. Even the 2011 change/addition that was made to this RSA won’t make any difference as far as the 8th amendment is concerned.

This is the RSA 2011 change/addition: "IV. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act under this section."

IMHO Ward Bird was not in anyway threatened with "serious bodily injury or death" by Harris.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The prosecutor didn’t convict Bird, a jury of his peers convicted him. Then the NH Supreme Court upheld that conviction.

If the NH Executive Council and Governor Lynch Pardon Bird it will be an assault on The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution.

Sometimes juries are a crap shoot, but that's not my point. There's a problem with a prosecutor who on the one hand will allow someone to plead for no jail only probation, then on the other hand pursues a charge with a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence. These are two extremely different punishments for the same crime. There is no rhyme nor reason here. Punishments should fit the crime, not the whim of a prosecutor.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sometimes juries are a crap shoot, but that's not my point. There's a problem with a prosecutor who on the one hand will allow someone to plead for no jail only probation, then on the other hand pursues a charge with a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence. These are two extremely different punishments for the same crime. There is no rhyme nor reason here. Punishments should fit the crime, not the whim of a prosecutor.

Plea bargaining happens all the time. Wards case is not unusual at all and the prosecutor did exactly what falls within the law.


"A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a recommendation of a lighter than the maximum sentence. A plea bargain allows criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on the original more serious charge.

For example, a criminal defendant charged with a felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which may not carry jail time."

[Seeker]

Not to take sides but to further clarify the plea bargain "deal" about not being able to possess a firearm for 2 years which FLL thinks is a no-brainer, the federal law is as follows:
Ineligible Persons:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.

IIRC as an ex LEO taking the plea bargain is PLEADING GUILTY! Therefore, federal law, taking precedence in this case, would prohibit Mr Bird from ever possessing a firearm.

If, and I have no personal knowledge, his story is truthful, I would commend him for not taking the deal.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seeker

Not to take sides but to further clarify the plea bargain "deal" about not being able to possess a firearm for 2 years which FLL thinks is a no-brainer, the federal law is as follows:
Ineligible Persons:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.

IIRC as an ex LEO taking the plea bargain is PLEADING GUILTY! Therefore, federal law, taking precedence in this case, would prohibit Mr Bird from ever possessing a firearm.

If, and I have no personal knowledge, his story is truthful, I would commend him for not taking the deal.

Bird was offered to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge but refused. The Federal law does not apply to a misdemeanor.

Watch this video: http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.a...d=742208752001

[Rusty]

What is wrong with our NH state Rep's who signed the petition to pardon Ward Bird and now wished that they didn’t.

Rep. Accornero said had he known about the Attorney General's report he probably would have given more thought before adding his name to the petition.

Over 100 of our State Rep.’s signed this petition before knowing the full details of Bird’s prosecution. This is really sad and it shows just how politics creates our laws instead of what is best for the people of NH.

HERE is the article that is in today's Citizen of Laconia.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Rusty

What is wrong with our NH state Rep's who signed the petition to pardon Ward Bird and now wished that they didn’t.

Rep. Accornero said had he known about the Attorney General's report he probably would have given more thought before adding his name to the petition.

Over 100 of our State Rep.’s signed this petition before knowing the full details of Bird’s prosecution. This is really sad and it shows just how politics creates our laws instead of what is best for the people of NH.

HERE is the article that is in today's Citizen of Laconia.

Your post speaks in the plural, as in multiple State Rep's are now saying that they wish they hadn't signed the petition. I read the article you linked to and it doesn't say Anywhere that ANY State Rep now wished they hadn't signed the petition. Only that the One state rep wished he had given it more thought.
You must work for a newspaper because you can't get your information right any better then they can, If your going to twist the article around so that it suits your post, don't be so foolish as to post a link to the article so that people can go read it and see what it really said.
I do agree however with your statement about how politics work. Not always are the best interests of the people at the front of a decision or law. The very law that required the judge to give Ward Bird a mandatory 3-6 yr sentance is a perfect example.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Your post speaks in the plural, as in multiple State Rep's are now saying that they wish they hadn't signed the petition. I read the article you linked to and it doesn't say Anywhere that ANY State Rep now wished they hadn't signed the petition. Only that the One state rep wished he had given it more thought.
You must work for a newspaper because you can't get your information right any better then they can, If your going to twist the article around so that it suits your post, don't be so foolish as to post a link to the article so that people can go read it and see what it really said.
I do agree however with your statement about how politics work. Not always are the best interests of the people at the front of a decision or law. The very law that required the judge to give Ward Bird a mandatory 3-6 yr sentance is a perfect example.

You are right "MarkinNH" I should not have used "Rep's" and "they".

Thanks for the correction.

[wuwu]

I believe some are missing the true point here..fact is, it is a he said she said. No witnesses except Mr. Bird and Ms Harris. The fact is SHE couldn't identify him in the first trial! SHE stood and argued when told to leave! SHE was peeking in windows. SHE is a lunatic! SHE said, he said...that is what I see. Someone was trying to make points by bringing charges against him.
I believe the town has come together and realized a terrible injustice has happened, and through our voices we will be heard! FREE WARD BIRD!

[MarkinNH]

People who wish to focus on Wards "past issue" of legal run in's and other people who haven't already, should do Ward the decency to read up on the so called "victims" past history of legal run in's and they might well come to the conclusion that this is not a woman who is is know for being a decent, honest and truthful individual. Could it possibly be that she is lying through her teeth in this situation ?
The recent AG's report to the Governor, nor the words of Christine Harris, do not surprise me one bit. The AG's office is never going to step up to the plate and say they were wrong to pursue this case to the extent that they did, for they have their political A$$'s and an office to protect. Christine Harris has never been a decent upstanding citizen, why would she start now. They will do and say whatever they can in attempt to keep Ward where he is and uphold the sentence.

[Heaven]

Originally Posted by wuwu

I believe some are missing the true point here..fact is, it is a he said she said. No witnesses except Mr. Bird and Ms Harris. The fact is SHE couldn't identify him in the first trial! SHE stood and argued when told to leave! SHE was peeking in windows. SHE is a lunatic! SHE said, he said...that is what I see. Someone was trying to make points by bringing charges against him.
I believe the town has come together and realized a terrible injustice has happened, and through our voices we will be heard! FREE WARD BIRD!

The continued discussion of the trial aspects are moot, as the last sentence in the article says
"The thing that I hope everybody understands is that a pardon [of Bird] only excuses the punishment," said Luther. "The crime stands and it'll be on his record."
And given that, and the permanent loss of his living with guns, I think he should be released to serve out his sentence outside of the jail.
Again, all the discussion about "he said she said" is moot. The jury decision stands no matter how many "free ward bird" signatures or signs there are,

[Pineedles]

I have a problem with the Jury. Or maybe the instructions given to them by the Judge, or once again the Jury itself. Has anyone ever heard of Jury nullification? It means that they ignore the direction of the Judge and vote the way they think is right. Were they so snowed that they didn't think they had that option?

[tis]

IMHO most juries can be easily led. Need I say more?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

IMHO most juries can be easily led. Need I say more?

Jurors are misled if we don’t like the verdict….if the verdict goes the way we want it then the jurors did their homework.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Jurors are misled if we don’t like the verdict….if the verdict goes the way we want it then the jurors did their homework.

Words of wisdom? More like, nea, nea. we won. You didn't! It's not a contest, it's about a good man who stood up for his rights, and unfortunatly got the shaft by our justice system.

I had no problem when they awarded a man over 1 million dollars who was wrongly jailed for over 15 years in Hartford.

Can a civil suit can be persued by Ward Bird against the State? I think a jury of his peers would go for 10 or 20 million dollars.

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by wuwu

I believe some are missing the true point here..fact is, it is a he said she said. No witnesses except Mr. Bird and Ms Harris. The fact is SHE couldn't identify him in the first trial! SHE stood and argued when told to leave! SHE was peeking in windows. SHE is a lunatic! SHE said, he said...that is what I see. Someone was trying to make points by bringing charges against him.
I believe the town has come together and realized a terrible injustice has happened, and through our voices we will be heard! FREE WARD BIRD!

My points all along. Why did this progress so far? Were local police called on scene or did lady go to police station and file a complaint? Why didn't this just stop right in Moultonborough? If it was indeed a he said she said - why didn't our locals believe our local resident over that of an out of towner? I've found very very little as to what happened at the beginning. Were the police called on scene? Or did lady go to station and file a complaint? And what discretion does our uniformed branch have is such situations?

[sa meredith]

I've just about had my fill of this thread...so couple final thoughts, from me.
I continue to be amused at the postings that read something like..."let's get him home, where he belongs"
"why hasn't this been overturned yet" "the Governor should just set him free"
Seriously people...what country do you live in...it doesn't work like that.
He was convicted by a jury, the judge then imposes a sentence in accordance with the law that "we the people" have created. There is NO ROOM OR PLACE for discretion. (Granted, there can be...like if he was terminally ill, and had a month to live, or something like that).
Stop saying/thinking/writing, he should just be set free. Under what law, I ask?
Attack and change the law...not the judge, jury, or governor.
Secondly...
I have sort of come full circle as the backround info surfaced here in this forum.
This woman used to live 2 miles from me, and was well known in town as a bit "off". 50 animals kept in a trailor, disrestpected police and other officials, and was known to be delusional... so,at first, I thought..well, maybe she was looking for trouble when she went to the propery that day. Maybe Ward was indeed frightened and was concerned for his safety.
However, it then comes out, that Ward is no stanger to police, and confrontation...and has a history of wanting to settle issues by brandishing, or even using, a firearm.
Sort of has that old school mentallity that while on his own property, he will set the rules and the law, not society.
It was asked earlier in this thread, why did this go so far???Why not just handled quickly, and locally? Well, my answer would be that, when the police got the call, and heard it was Ward Bird's property, they said "well, here we go again." And, although it may not be fair, because of his gun history, and earlier confrontation related to property issues...the woman had instant credibility with the police.
She said she was there to see some property for sale, and he brandished a firearm. He, in the past, has done battle with family over the selling of property, to the point where the police and guns where involved. So...how could they not believe her? Was he a victim of circumstance? Maybe.
Is she coocoo? Probably. Did Ward break the law, and was it not the first time? You know what...yeah, I think so.

[Newbiesaukee]

With respect to parsing headlines in the Citizen of Laconia to sway opinion on the Forum....

The headline reads "Petitioners reflect on their support of Bird." This is correct. "Reflect" means to think about or analyze past action. It is true that one petitioner reflected and decided he might not have signed if he had more information. But another petitioner, Luther, reflected that he would have signed it even if he knew the "new" information.

The point is..the headline in the paper is, strictly speaking, correct using the plural. The other point is that the headline makes no difference to the issue at hand and some of us (including me) may just have too much time on our hands.

[wuwu]

Posted on January 14, 2011 by John Martin
Hi everyone,

I wish I heard about this case earlier. They have the WRONG person in Jail. I rented a house to the same Christine Harris! She never paid rent, and when I took her to court, she made similar claims that I threatened her life over the phone, but she couldn’t come up with any phone records. Then she worked the court system for FIVE months! When the judge finally made a decision for her to leave, she filed a motion with the State Supreme court for intent to appeal, which was rejected.

My entire home was DESTROYED from Rottweilers she was breeding. The floors, walls were covered in animal feces and urine, and the bathtub had blood stains all over it from a dog that died there giving birth to a litter! I never recovered the damages to the property, nor the back rent. To make matters worse, I later see her name Christine Harris, a woman… “previously convicted and sentenced to six months in prison on animal cruelty charges in Salem District Court”!

CHRISTINE HARRIS should be in Jail!

I did contact the Governor’s office yesterday after hearing it on NPR. I gave them my information and contact number. Then this morning I contacted the Attorney General’s office with the same information.

I’m sorry I didn’t know about this earlier. (submitted by PeterC, [email protected])

Interesting, don't you think?

[sa meredith]

You are very late to the game with this info...it's been dicussed, re-discussed, and discussed over again...somewhere among the 12,478 posts in this never ending thread.
While your info is accurte, if you want to introduce one's history into the case, your power of perception must also be pointed at Ward Bird...who, it turns out...has a history of the police coming to his property, to settle disputes relating to the real estate...has a history of gun "violations"...and has a history of being overly confrontational in such matters.
You see wuwu...What's good for one, has to be good for the other. If one of their histories comes into play...well then, the other has to be afforded the same thing...no?????

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

However, it then comes out, that Ward is no stanger to police, and confrontation...and has a history of wanting to settle issues by brandishing, or even using, a firearm..

You opened up this particular door. So please enlighten all of us interested as to just what "issues" in Ward's history is he known to have settled by the "brandishing, or even using, a firearm" ?
I know that I for one, would love to hear the answer to this question !

[Happy Gourmand]

Maybe Christine and Ward should be cell mates !!! Sounds just about as rediculous as many of the previous postings in this thread.
She seems like a pretty unsavory character..and many posts paint him like that as well. I have not met either of them.
No doubt that this is a bad situation....Ward put himself between a rock and a hard place with no escape route as far as the charges go. But when he opted to turn down the plea that was offered, he decided to gamble as to what the outcome would be. He lost.
I don't believe that anything that has been said in this forum can or will change the outcome.
At the end of the day, there are still only 2 people on this earth who know exactly what happened that day. Speculation, innuendoes, postulations and opinions have no bearing on the outcome.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

You opened up this particular door. So please enlighten all of us interested as to just what "issues" in Ward's history is he known to have settled by the "brandishing, or even using, a firearm" ?
I know that I for one, would love to hear the answer to this question !

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.

[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.

[MarkinNH]

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 years, 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.

WOW, don't get your panties all in a wad ! If your so dissatisfied with the direction of the thread and you feel it is a pile of nonsense, why do you keep coming back to it ? Don't read it anymore.
I have known the man personally for 20+ years and I am not aware of any "issues" that he "settled" in any form with a "firearm" and apparently neither do you.

An apology to to me about yesterdays game is completely unnecessary. I don't know who played, who won or lost and honestly don't care. I don't watch sports. But Thanks anyway.

[Rusty]

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.

[Heaven]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You are right "MarkinNH" I should not have used "Rep's" and "they".

Thanks for the correction.

Interestingly the title of the article does use the plural, although it doesn't seem to be backed up in the article.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Heaven

Interestingly the title of the article does use the plural, although it doesn't seem to be backed up in the article.

Good catch. Even I didn't pick up on that.
One more good example of how the newspapers just want to print something and sell papers. They don't care whether or not they have the information and facts right.

[Rusty]

On page 110 of the “Trial-Transcript-Vol-3-212_06-S-154_20080627_StvWardBird.pdf” the defense was asked where they stood in terms of the defendant’s case. The defense attorney said: “The defense rests, Your Honor”. http://freewardbird.org/wp-content/u...tvWardBird.pdf

The defense Attorney’s for Ward Bird did not bring anyone to the stand including Ward Bird to defend this case. “NO ONE” absolutely “NO ONE”.
What a shame!!

Now here we are in 2011 and we have the following: character witness after character witness, protest marches, fund raisers, trips to the state capital to meet with the Governor, over 100 of our state legislator’s sign a petition to free Ward Bird, and now a pardon for his release.

Where on earth was everybody during Ward Bird’s trial??

I’m all for Ward Bird’s release, he has suffered enough and so has his family. But what I have a problem with is when people say things like: the jurors were misled, the law is wrong, the sentence is wrong, etc., etc., etc.


In the US, defendants have more Constitutional rights afforded to them than in any other country. We have much more favorable due process rights afforded to defendants than any other country. If you look up the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment, and 8th Amendment and you will see why this is.

Also, it is well settled that juries give more favorable outcomes to defendants than judges. And in the US, every criminal defendant facing jail time has the right to a jury trial.


OK, NOW LET’S GET WARD BIRD HOME WHERE HE BELONGS!!!!