Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[sa meredith]

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]

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]

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!

[Yankee]

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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Yankee

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

My keyboard has "gone off" unintentionally!

[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.

[Rusty]

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]

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]

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

[Rusty]

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]

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]

Executive Council To Consider Pardon Hearing For Ward Bird

Bird Is Serving Mandatory Minimum Three-Year Sentence.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[sa meredith]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[sa meredith]

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]

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?)

[Shreddy]

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)?

[KPW]

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.