text:
Water Towers 1 of 17
Water Towers 2 of 17
Water Towers 3 of 17
Water Towers 4 of 17
Water Towers 5 of 17
Water Towers 6 of 17
Water Towers 7 of 17
Water Towers 8 of 17
Water Towers 9 of 17
Water Towers 10 of 17
Water Towers 11 of 17
Water Towers 12 of 17
Water Towers 13 of 17
Water Towers 14 of 17
Water Towers 15 of 17
Water Towers 16 of 17
Water Towers 17 of 17
This series of water towers was photographed in Sardinia during the summer of 2009. It derives from my personal interest in these peculiar mushroom shaped concrete structures. The towers are used here as a helpful tool to bring to focus one of the most burning world issues: Climate Change.
Sardinia is, amongst other European regions, a place where the catastrophic consequences of Climate Change have started to manifest. The process of desertification has begun to affect the land. The term 'desertification' is not intended as the expansion of natural deserts, such as sand dunes expanding into agricultural land, but as a gradual weakening of the soil until the complete loss of fertility. Desertification is caused by overgrazing, deforestation and arable-farming: all manmade environmental alterations.
For the past 15 years in the South of Europe, the average temperature has been rising constantly.
The temperature record shows that last summer's average values reached those of intertropical zones. The number of wet days has decreased and so has the volume of precipitations. Much like in tropical countries, there seems to be periods of dryness/drought alternated with periods of concentrated rainfall/floods. The results are catastrophic.
The water towers symbolise water itself. Its worth and value will soon be comparable to that of oil. Water is at the centre of bloody wars, famine and is often a reason for mass migration.
The tower always at the exact centre of the image, surrounded by arid land appears in a symbolic way almost as a mirage in the desert.


text:
Curly or straight, up or down, we've found some of the dreamiest wedding hairstyles for any destination "I do."
Unfussy yet elegant, this retro-inspired wedding hairstyle is a must-try for brides with a romantic side. Here, a six-part guide to recreating the look.
A favorite on the ready-to-wear circuit, star stylist Peter Gray made his bridal debut at Badgley Mischka's spring 2013 show. Here, a guide to re-creating his fresh wedding look.
When Emma Stone, Jessica Biel, Marion Cotillard and Mila Kunis walk the read carpet, heads turn. Take a cue from their red carpet style with an equally awe-inspiring wedding hairstyle.
See hairstyles that dazzled on the runway—from coronet braids at Pucci to a slick high pony at Jason Wu.
Browse our favorite wedding-hairstyle ideas from the awards shows.
The New York Fashion Week Spring 2012 shows delivered a handful of wearable hairstyle trends that we think would look just lovely on brides.
Hairstyles for a summer wedding
Hairstylists and makeup artists discuss the celebrity styles that brides are requesting for their wedding day, and how they tweak those (sometimes insanely over-the-top) looks for a "real world" wedding.
Our favorite hair and makeup looks from the Spring 2012 bridal market shows.
Our favorite wedding-ready celebrity hair.
Top hairstylists tell you how to have star quality hair on your wedding day.
These five DIY hairstyles turn ponytails into elegant 'dos.
Hair expert Charley Montgomery dishes on the hottest summer looks.
Sleek hairstyles showcase a modern take on classic looks.
Great hairstyles to inspire your wedding day look.
The best headbands of the season—and summer's prettiest hair ideas.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Incident and Accident Investigation Support
It is essential to investigate accidents, near-misses, and incidents soon after they occur and it is important to learn from them. We offer a health and safety incident and accident investigation support service.
Too many organisations fail to learn from the non-injury events, such as near misses. This is a shame as these are effectively free opportunities for learning valuable lessons, and for making changes before people are harmed.
Essential information and learning points from a health and safety incident or accident include:
- Identifying the factors that led to the incident
- Determining what changes need to be implemented to stop the issue arising again
- With some accidents, it is important to understand who is to blame in order to protect you, and your business
At LRB Consulting Health and Safety, we have experience of carrying out incident and accident investigation support on a whole range of incidents – both big and small.
The investigation process with health and safety incidents and accidents includes:
- Interviews conducted with appropriate persons
- Inspections of the area where the accident took place
- Forming an opinion of the sequence of events
- Forming an opinion of contributory factors leading to the accident
- Recommendations on how to avoid similar accidents in future.
Why investigate an accident?
Incident and accident investigations are a necessary, part of health and safety management and an essential element of the monitoring process that you are required to carry out. Incidents, including near misses, can tell you a lot about how things are in reality:
- Investigating your accidents and reported cases of occupational ill health would help you uncover and correct any breaches in legal compliance you may have been unaware of
- It gives you the opportunity to learn and to change things before people are harmed
- The fact that you thoroughly investigated an incident and took remedial action to prevent further occurrences will help demonstrate to a court that your company has a positive attitude to health and safety
- Your investigation findings will also provide essential information for your insurers in the event of a claim
An investigation can help you identify why the existing risk control measures failed and what improvements or additional measures are needed. It can:
- Provide a real snapshot of what happens and how work is done (workers may find shortcuts to make things easier or quicker and may ignore rules – you need to be aware of this)
- Improve the management of risk in the future
- Help other parts of your organisation learn
- Demonstrate your commitment to effective health and safety
- Improve employee morale and thinking towards health and safety
Incident and Accident Investigation Support
It's never too late for us to provide you with the incident and accident investigation support that you need, although the earlier we are involved, the bigger effect we can have. Ideally, contact us soon after the event and we can help you prepare for any enforcement visits, insurers reports, and other consequences to help put your organisation in the best light.


text:
Report NEP-BAN-2011-01-23This is the archive for NEP-BAN, a report on new working papers in the area of Banking. Christian Calmes issued this report. It is usually issued weekly.
Subscribe to this report: email, RSS or Twitter.
Other reports in NEP-BAN
The following items were announced in this report:
- Marcella Lucchetta, 2010. "Bank Market Structure, Systemic Risk, and Interbank Market Breakdowns," RSCAS Working Papers 2010/76, European University Institute.
- Focarelli, Dario & Marqués-Ibáñez, David & Pozzolo, Alberto Franco, 2011. "Are universal banks better underwriters? Evidence from the last days of the Glass-Steagall Act," Working Paper Series 1287, European Central Bank.
- Michael McAleer & Juan-Ángel Jiménez-Martín & Teodosio Pérez-Amaral, 2011. "International Evidence on GFC-robust Forecasts for Risk Management under the Basel Accord," KIER Working Papers 757, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
- Pierre L. Siklos, 2011. "Communication for Multi-Taskers: Perspectives on Dealing with Both Monetary Policy and Financial Stability," Working Paper series 04_11, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
- Kjell Bjørn Nordal & Randi Næs, 2010. "The relationship between bankruptcy risk and growth for non-listed firms," Working Paper 2010/31, Norges Bank.
- Onour, Ibrahim, 2011. "Does credit for equity investments feedback on stock market volatility? Evidence from an emerging stock market," MPRA Paper 28001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Alberto Martin, 2010. "Adverse selection, credit and efficiency: The case of the missing market," Economics Working Papers 1257, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Luigi Cannari (editor) & Marcello Pagnini (editor) & Paola Rossi (editor), 2010. "Banks, local credit markets and credit supply," Workshop and Conferences 5, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
- Esposito, Francesco Paolo, 2010. "Credit risk tools: an overview," MPRA Paper 28045, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Subhash C. Ray, 2011. "Nonparametric Measurement of Cost Efficiency of a Demand Constrained Branch Network: An Application to Indian Banking," Working papers 2011-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- Ignazio Angeloni & Ester Faia & Roland Winkler, 2011. "Exit Strategies," Kiel Working Papers 1676, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.


text:
***Crew Review***
We took the family out to Stonycreek Farm in Noblesville on a warm Saturday afternoon. The "Pumpkin Harvest Festival" was in full swing as we arrived. They say the weekends are much more crowded, and because of that, they charge $5 per car for parking, but on the weekends only.
Entering the festival, you'll find so many great things to do! However, we must say, that this visit is not cheap! Tickets are required for nearly every event offered. Tickets are $1 each and can be purchased at the ticket booths throughout the festival. Booths may take 1-3 tickets each, depending on what it is. Bring your cash, they don't take credit cards for the pumpkin purchases.
The grounds are gorgeous and if you're looking for lots of events to tackle such as a hay pile, petting farm, pony rides, a hayride, the pumpkin patch, tasty treats, and inflatables….then this is the place for you. They say the weekdays bring fewer crowds, but also come with fewer activities for the kids.
We had a great time, but warn you this stop can really add up fast if you plan to eat and buy lots of tickets for all the events! It truly has a festival theme, which is much more than your average pumpkin patch and hayride location! We enjoyed it, but sometimes less is more!
So save your bucks and bring your cash! Our crew cost $5 to park, $6 to ride the hayride, and $20 for 4 pumpkins. We didn't do the extra activities or buy a treat…..but you can see how it adds up fast!
The hay pile kept the kids busy as we waited in the hayride line.
Climb high and jump if you dare!
No tickets needed for this unique thrill!
The hayride is gorgeous! Pile in, sit tight, and enjoy the ride. Your pumpkin awaits!
This was new to us! The pumpkin patch sits amongst the Christmas trees!
We thought that maybe while we were out there, we should have tagged our tree that will be ready for us in about six weeks!
There were tons of pumpkins to shop! The smaller pumpkins seemed to have been taken, so our crew went for the larger ones! Our pumpkin rule: if you can carry it, you can get it! I'm thinking this one's just a little too big for him!! Yep, Mama carried this back to the van….so much for the "rule"!
Our selections have been made! We ride back to the festival and prepare to pay by the diameter for each pumpkin. They say tall and skinny is the way to save some bucks! Our crew loved their pumpkin picks!
Pumpkins are paid for and now it's time to play! We chose to play on the "grounded" tractor, play set, and hay bale maze. No tickets needed for those fun events!
The farm's setting is spectacular!
Whether you come for little or much, the setting is worth the trip!
The ponies welcome and wave you goodbye as your farm trip comes to an end. Barns, pastures, fences, and grazing animals….it's all part of the experience!
We really enjoyed this festival trip! As we mentioned, if you want simple and basic, this may not be the best fit for you. If treats, rides, and activities are on your pumpkin patch list, make sure to make this stop!!


text:
Everyone Lies, Everyone Cries…..
Posted by thedarwinexception on June 29, 2011
Today the judge comes out ready to go. The defense's first witness will be Cindy Anthony – but they need 3 more minutes to mark exhibits. The judge tells them that this is why he wants them there are 8:30 – and Baez says they were. They still need three more minutes. So the court waits for Baez and his team to mark exhibits.
And what is Cindy going to claim as her own this time?
Baez talks to her about the shorts that were found with Caylee's remains. These shorts no longer fit her. The picture that has been entered into evidence of Caylee wearing the shorts was taken in early 2007. And Caylee, like all other children, would have grown quite a bit between 2007 and 2008.
Baez asks the witness if Cindy had also taken a video at the same time that the photo was taken. She says she did. Baez wants to enter that video into evidence. The state objects and there is a side bar.
Baez is allowed to enter the video. Cindy cries as the video plays. The video shows Casey and Caylee playing on the floor together with Casey bouncing Caylee on her legs. Baez asks how she knows the date of this video. Cindy says she knows it was taken early in 2007 because of the skirt is she is seen wearing in the video. She didn't wear that skirt after this time. It was a Hawaiian print, and even though she still had the skirt, she didn't wear it after early 2007.
Baez then asks Cindy again about the photo taken at her brother's wedding where Casey is obviously pregnant to everyone except her immediate family. Again, there is a sidebar. Baez must have lost this one – when they come back he starts showing Cindy pictures of their pool.
Cindy identifies a picture of the ladder leaning against the pool and explains how the ladder attaches to the pool. She then identifies a picture of the ladder lying on the ground, up against the pool and says this is how it would look with the ladder off the pool.
Baez then shows Cindy another picture and Cindy starts crying. He asks if she would like to take a break and she says that she is OK. This picture is a picture of Caylee walking up the ladder, with Cindy walking up the ladder behind her. There's another sidebar. Baez must have won this one, as well, because he continues with the photo of Caylee and Cindy in the pool.
The photo was taken in the summer of 2007. Caylee is walking up the ladder with Cindy's hands just lightly on her back. Cindy says that she certainly got better at this – that she could walk up the ladder by herself and get into the pool. Cindy would just be behind her as a safety net. Baez shows more photos showing Caylee on the ladder and she and Cindy getting into the pool.
Cindy says in 2008 that Caylee probably swam in the pool 3 or 4 times a week. And the week that Cindy was on vacation and home with Caylee, they swam in the pool every day. But always with a life vest.
Cindy says that they took numerous precautions with Caylee around the pool. They made sure that once Caylee started walking, that they moved their pool box to up against the house so that Caylee couldn't climb on it and get into the pool. They took extra precautions every day to take the ladder off from the pool and take it off when they were done. They also taught Caylee that she had to be with a grown up to go into the pool, and why, that she could get hurt. They kept the life vest on the back patio.
Baez then shows Cindy another photo – this one of Caylee at the sliding glass door that goes fro the living room to the patio. She is reaching up to open the door. Cindy says that in this photo Caylee is approximately the same height as the last time she saw her.
Cindy also testifies that Caylee always had shoes on when she left the house.
On June 16th, 2008 Cindy came home and found the ladder attached to the pool. This was highly unusual. So much that she called George at work to see if he left the ladder up – because she also saw the gate open. When she went to work again, she told her co-workers about the ladder being on the pool.
Baez then asks the witness if at this time, she was also having marital problems. There's an objection and another sidebar. The judge calls for a break.
When they return from break the judge says that he has reviewed the case law concerning theory of defense. The judge recaps the defense's theory in this case, that the death was an accidental drowning and that his client's subsequent behavior was caused by long term sexual abuse of Miss Anthony at the hands of her father and brother. He asks Baez if this is correct. Baez says"among other things…." And the judge wants to know "what other things?" Because that's all Baez has offered in his opening statement. The judge says he has reviewed case law and as long as the proposed exhibits are relevant and admissible, they can come in under "theory of defense", but that Baez can't use this as a blanket for entering just any testimony he would like – it has to be relevant and admissible. So the judge asks Baez "What is your theory of defense?"
The judge goes on that he is basing his assumptions about the defense theory on Baez's opening statement. And that this assumption of defense is the only reason he allowed the photos of Caylee climbing the steps to the swimming pool. The judge says if the theory of defense is ever changing, well, somebody try to explain it to him.
And they go to sidebar.
They come back and Cindy gets back on the stand.
Baez asks Cindy if she advised Yuri Melich about the ladder being up against the pool on July 16th 2008. Cindy says yes, she advised him of this within 24 hours of calling law enforcement.
Baez is done. Burdick cross examines.
Burdick asks about the clothes – specifically the shorts. Even after Caylee went missing form her home, Cindy maintained Caylee's bedroom, and all of her clothes were still in her room. Cindy even kept her birthday presents – because after she went missing and before her remains were found, she had a birthday. IN the past, when Caylee would outgrow clothes, Cindy would have a garage sale and sell some of them. She also would store outgrown clothes in plastic containers.
When Caylee went missing she was"pretty much" potty trained. They would still carry pull ups when they went out or would be driving distances where they couldn't get to a potty right away. When she was home, she would wear underwear. Burdick asks when Caylee made the switch from full fledged diapers to pull ups. Cindy says early in 2008.
Burdick shows Cindy the photograph that shows Caylee wearing the shorts that were found with her remains. It is obvious in that picture that she was wearing either a pull up or a diaper. There is plastic from a diaper visible above the top of the shorts.
Burdick shows Cindy a series of photographs showing Caylee's clothing. Cindy says that she or George were generally the ones who washed the clothing. And she and Casey bought a lot of Caylee's clothing – plus what she got from friends and family. Cindy recognizes the "Circo" brand as a Target brand. Lots of Caylee's clothes were from Target.
Cindy says she recognizes all the photos as tops and shorts that belonged to Caylee. These are items that were in Caylee's room as of June 2008. There are a mixture of size 2 and 3 clothes.
Burdick asks the witness if, like all children, was a little stockier when she was less mobile, and as she learned to walk she thinned out while growing taller. Cindy says this is true. (And when a kid is wearing diapers – the same shorts might fit once they are wearing underwear.)
Cindy says the particular shorts that were found with Caylee's remains, she hadn't seen those in a while. Burdick points out that this could have been because they were packed in a backpack and kept in Casey's car – or George's car, or even her own car. The witness says this could have been possible. But these particular shorts weren't one of her favorite outfits. She wouldn't have dressed Caylee in these. Casey might have, but she wouldn't have. Cindy doesn't recall seeing these shorts after 2007.
Burdick then asks Cindy how heavy the ladder was. Cindy doesn't know, but she couldn't have lifted it with one hand. Caylee couldn't have lifted it.
The door is heavy, as well; you have to have a pretty good force to open it.
Caylee was a very compliant child – she would follow instructions. And if you gave her directions she would listen. And it was Cindy's testimony that she was very careful to give Caylee instructions about putting on the life vest or climbing the ladder to the pool.
The pool was approximately 4 feet deep. If you stood outside the pool, an adult could not retrieve objects that were in the pool unless those objects were at the edge.
Caylee was never left home alone.
Burdick then asks about the "incident" when the ladder was found on the pool and the gate being open. Burdick asks if it's true that Caylee couldn't open that gate. Cindy agrees she couldn't. Burdick also asks if Cindy has testified previously that this incident was before the gas can incident. And then once she said it was previous to that, and once she said it was the month before.
And she said she called George, she doesn't know if it was from the house phone or the cell phone. And it would have had to have been a call to his cell phone – or his work phone. And she remembers speaking to him – she didn't leave a message.
Burdick asks if the witness would acknowledge that she's already been pretty unreliable with regards to other dates and events that happened in June 2008. She even got the date wrong that she last saw Caylee.
Burdick then has Cindy go over her time card for the time period of June 16th. Her time card accurately reflects that she was at work that day – and it also accurately reflects her vacation from the week before.
Burdick asks Cindy if Casey ever told Cindy that there had been an accident involving the pool. Cindy says no,. Burdick asks if Casey continued to assert that the child was kidnapped. Cindy says that is correct.
Burdick is done. Baez re-directs.
Baez asks if the photos shown to Cindy by Burdick are all just photos of tags. Cindy says all but one. And all but one are also knit material garments. Stretchy. Cindy says they have kept a lot of Caylee's stuff. Caylee's clothing that she had outgrown would have been kept throughout the house. And no, Cindy hadn't seen her wearing those shorts she had been found in for several months.
Cindy says that there were several times a year she would go through Caylee's drawers and pull out old clothes – mostly holidays and seasonally. And unless she was washing the clothes, she probably wouldn't see Caylee's clothes.
Cindy says that she wasn't overly strict with Caylee – she ran around and played. Baez asks if she was an average toddler – Cindy says she thought she was above average.
Baez is through.
Burdick asks exactly what material the shorts were that were found with Caylee. Cindy says a sturdy cotton that has less give than a denim fabric.
The witness is excused. The defense calls Lee Anthony.
Baez asks Lee if he once owned the Sunfire. Lee says yes – he owned it from 2000 to 2005. Lee identifies photos of the trunk of the car. Lee says there were a few stains in the car when he owned it. They were all outside the spare tire cover.
Baez then asks Lee when was the first time he noticed that his sister was pregnant. Lee says that he noticed in early to mid pregnancy. This is when he was living at home with Casey and his parents. He was waiting for her to come out of the bathroom one night, and when she came out of the bathroom, he could see her mid-section, and to him she was obviously pregnant. At that time it struck him as odd, because he hadn't noticed it before that time. Lee says he made a comment towards Casey – something like" What the hell is that?" pointing to her stomach. And she just kind of waved him off. The next time he saw his mother he asked her "Is Casey pregnant because it looks that way to me."
Lee says that he and his mother never talked about Casey's pregnancy. Casey had picked Lee up at the airport – and she was very obviously pregnant then. This was several months after Lee had asked his mother about Casey's pregnancy. No one ever talked to him about Casey's pregnancy until a few days before Caylee was born. That was the only time it was acknowledged to Lee that Casey was even pregnant. Baez asks Lee if he went to eh hospital to see Casey when Caylee was born. Lee says "Regrettably, no I did not." Baez asks Lee why he didn't go, and Lee says that he was hurt. He just didn't want to be there.
Baez then asks him who he was angry with – there's a sustained objection. Baez tries four different questions in a row asking why Lee was hurt, why he didn't go to the hospital, who he was made at, why he did what he did – all sustained objections. Baez asks for a sidebar so he an explain relevancy, and the judge allows that. In the meantime, while the parties are at the sidebar, Lee starts breaking down on the stand. He is getting clearly emotional, starting to cry and rub his eyes.
Baez has the objection overruled once they come back form sidebar, and he again asks Lee "Can you tell us why you were angry and who you were angry with and why you didn't go see Caylee and Casey at the hospital?" And now, a much more emotional Lee answers Baez with "I was very angry with my mom and with my sister. And I was just angry with everyone in general that they didn't want to include me and that they didn't find it important enough to tell me. Especially after I had already asked. So I was very hurt. And I didn't want to – I don't think I wanted to believe it."
Baez asks if there were other reasons why he was angry. Lee says no.
Ashton crosses the witness. He asks about the photograph of the trunk of the car –t he one in which Lee pointed out the three stains that he said had been present back when he was driving the vehicle. Ashton circles the stain on the spare tire cover and asks Lee if this stain was present when he was driving the vehicle. Lee says that this is not a stain he had seen previously. Ashton asks the witness if the car had a stench or a stink when he owned the car. Lee laughs and says "no, no it didn't".
Ashton asks the witness if, in preparation for the trial, Lee was asked to meet with the prosecutors or a member of the team to go over his testimony and prepare him for what questions he would be asked on direct examination. Lee says he believes so, yes. Ashton asks if Lee refused to do that. And Lee says yes, he did refuse.
Ashton then asks if Lee met with Mr. Baez this week to go over the testimony Lee would give on direct with him. Lee says that it was not to go over his testimony, and that Lee had previously refused to meet with Baez, as well. Lee says that he had reached out to Baez prior to this week, and they followed up with that with a meeting earlier this week.
Ashton asks "You reached out to Mr. Baez?" And Lee says yes, last week he had. Ashton asks for what purpose – and Baez objects. The objection is overruled. Ashton says "My question is why would you, after refusing to meet with anyone from the prosecution team reach out to Mr. Baez?"
Lee says that while he was in court the last time, prior to being called to the stand, during a break, he sat in with his parents, and there was a discussion, or he sat in on a discussion, where information came out that he thought would be important for Jose to be made aware of, so he took it upon himself a few days later, because it didn't seem like Jose was going to be made aware of it, to make Jose aware of that.
Ashton asks if this was on the subjects that he has testified to today during his direct examination. And Lee says no, he hasn't discussed them on the stand today.
Ashton then asks Lee about his discovery of his sister's pregnancy. Ashton wants to know if he had a conversation with Casey when he discovered her "bump". Lee is not quite sure he said "bump" – but he does say he just made a reference to it without really expecting a response from Casey. He just said something like 'What the hell is that?" to Casey in passing.
Ashton asks Lee if Lee remembers having his deposition taken on July 30th 2009. Lee says he remembers. Lee acknowledges that he was under oath at the time, and that he was questioned by Mr. George. Baez was present at this deposition.
Ashton shows Lee a series of questions and answers from the deposition – about Lee seeing Casey's belly for the first time. The deposition asks if Lee "called her out on it". And Lee said that he didn't think it was his place – that if he questioned anyone it wasn't directly to her.
Lee says that he doesn't think his testimony today contradicted that – that he didn't "call her out" on being pregnant when she picked him up at the airport, either, and he doesn't know which encounter this deposition is talking about.
Ashton allows the witness to read the entire page of the deposition. Lee says he still can't tell which encounter this was- it could have been either.
Ashton then asks Lee if, when his parents found out about Casey's pregnancy, they were really excited. And Lee says he couldn't tell him, because no one admitted it to him.
Ashton asks Lee if it is his testimony that from the time he learned of Casey's pregnancy until the time the child was born, that there was no activity in the house that was indicative of preparing for the birth of a child.
Lee says he isn't saying that at all – actually, that was one of the reasons he was so angry and decided not to go to the hospital when Casey had the baby. Because he wasn't included in it, and when he did ask about it, it was denied to him and he was told to let it go. So that's what he did, he let it go.
Ashton asks if it's true that his parents were"over the top" about the baby. Lee says especially afterwards, absolutely. And Ashton says "no- even before! They were over the top – you even described them as over the top." Lee says "My parents are very over the top – prior to Casey ever having Caylee, to be honest with you, I never really paid a lot of attention. It was something that I was told to let go and not address, and I was frankly quite angry that I wasn't included in it, so it was easier to block it out at that time."
Ashton shows Lee another part of his deposition. This is the part where Lee discusses the period before Caylee was born. In this passage Lee says that his role was to be in the background just to support, but not go over the top, because his parents wanted to be the ones that went over the top.
Ashton asks if this is the accurate description of his parent's emotions about the impending arrival of their granddaughter – that they were over the top. Their excitement – that is what Lee meant to convey in that answer.
Lee says that was the impression he was under – that he wasn't asked to be involved with things, so all he could do was sit back and be non judgmental, sit in the background and let them take care of it, they would do whatever was necessary and their nature was to be over the top.
Ashton asks Lee what preparations his parents made in the house for Caylee's arrival. Lee says that he thinks they bought a crib. Ashton asks "Didn't they re-decorate an entire room for her?' Lee says he wasn't involved in it, but he believes that they did. And Cindy doesn't do anything halfway – it was decorated to the nines – and that was in preparation for Caylee.
Lee says that he lived in the room right next door – and Ashton says "Wasn't there Winnie the Pooh everywhere>" Lee says he knows there was – but he never went in the room until after Caylee was born. Ashton asks if his mother and sister went shopping and bought all kinds of stuff – and had parties.
Lee says he doesn't know if they had a baby shower – he wasn't invited. Lee says he thinks the baby shower was in June. Ashton asks if Mallory was invited – Lee says he doesn't believe so.
Ashton asks where Lee was – the shower was at his house. Lee says he doesn't know – all of this was something that was either hidden from him or something he wasn't made a part of. So he didn't go out of his way to find out what was going on or invited himself.
Ashton points out that his parents weren't hiding this from their friends and loved ones – they invited them to a party.
Ashton says to Lee that during his deposition, they discussed this period of time leading up to Caylee's birth and whether or not he was present when Caylee was born. Ashton asks if Lee cried during this portion of the deposition. Lee says he doesn't think so. Ashton asks what was different 2 hours ago in the courtroom that caused such raw emotion that wasn't present during his deposition.
Lee says that two years ago he didn't hold the belief that Caylee was dead. Lee says that during the last two years, and two hours ago he has come to the place where he believes that she is. He says his emotions come from the fact that he has regrets. He wishes he could have been there a lot more than he was.
Ashton says that Lee attended and spoke at a memorial service for Caylee in January of 2009 – six months before this deposition was taken. Lee says yes he did.
Ashton is done. Baez re-directs. Baez asks about the stain again. The one that Ashton described as "the size of a basketball." Baez asks if this stain is visible in the picture. Lee says he sees a few stains, but nothing the size of a basketball. There is some white powder – but that's not the stains Lee was referring to.
Baez asks if Lee saw his mother use an entire bottle of Febreeze in the car. And he didn't see the crime scene technicians use "Blue Star" in the trunk.
Lee testifies that he did not meet with the defense team prior to his testimony for the state. And he did not advise the defense of any testimony he was going to give for the state.
Lee testifies that his mother is one who told him to"let it go" when he asked about Casey's pregnancy. He also said in his deposition that his mother had some "mixed feelings" about Casey being pregnant – she wasn't happy that Casey was having a baby out of wedlock.
Lee doesn't know exactly when Casey's shower was – and if it was after Caylee was born.
Baez also goes further with Ashton's line of questioning about why Lee cried this morning on the stand – yet didn't cry in his deposition while discussing the same issues. Baez asks if it's different being in the courtroom than it was in a conference room during the depositions, and Lee says yes, and he's also in a much different place emotionally than he was a couple of years ago, and this is very emotionally draining.
Lee also says that he still didn't believe Caylee was dead at the time of the memorial service. Lee says that he doesn't know when he actually came to the belief that Caylee was dead – he thinks that even to this day if he saw someone that looked like her that he might look twice or event here times. He says that last year, particularly, was a hard time for him around his and Caylee's birthday.
Baez is done. Re-cross by Ashton. Ashton asks if he remembers testifying for the state a few weeks ago. He says he does. Ashton asks how many times Mr. George had to step up to him and "refresh his recollection" during that testimony. Lee says probably as many times as he's been shown something here today by Ashton or Baez. Ashton says "During your direct by Baez did he have to refresh your recollection at all?" Lee says he thinks a couple of times. Ashton sets him straight – Baez didn't' have to refresh his recollection at all. Lee's memory seemed to be just fine when he testifying for Baez. But when Mr. George asked him questions on direct – Lee's memory was more "troublesome". Lee says it is hard to remember stuff you did two years ago.
Ashton again shows him his deposition. He said that he only said something "probably" to his mother – that if she wasn't making it a big deal, he wasn't going to, either. That he only said something to her "in passing".
Ashton then shows him a question and answer from the deposition that "refreshes his recollection" that the baby shower was in the months preceding the birth.
Lee is excused. Baez calls Cindy Anthony (again). Baez asks her when Casey's baby shower was. Cindy says it was postponed – it was around the 27th of August, Caylee was supposed to be born in September, and they had the baby shower slated for August 13th, Caylee was born on August 9th, so she had to switch the invitations, and contact everyone and change the date of the baby shower.
So the shower was held after Caylee was born, because Caylee came a month early. And this is bullshit, and more of Cindy believing Casey's lies. Caylee wasn't a month early, it's just that Casey had to keep the conception in line with the time she was with Jesse Grund so she could bullshit him into believing it was his kid. "Early" my ass. The kid was right on time.
Baez then shows Cindy the picture of Casey at Cindy's brothers wedding (again). He asks her if, at this time, she thought Casey was pregnant. She says no. (Which I still find shocking – you know, if my mother had been as stupid and gullible as this woman, my teenage years would have been a lot more fun.)
Baez asks Cindy who attended the baby shower. Cindy says Casey's friends, her friends, Casey's grandmothers and aunts, Jesse Grund's mother (Caylee's other grandmother – ooops maybe not – she was "early".), neighbors. Lee wasn't there – none of the guys were.
The state has no questions for Cindy – she is excused.
The defense calls Ryan Eberlin – a member of the Orange County Sheriff's Department. On July 15th 2008, he was dispatched to the Anthony home,. He had never had any contact with them before. When he arrived he participated in asking questions and evaluating the situation. He noticed the Sunfire automobile, but did not notice any particular odor from the vehicle.
At one point during the time he was there he placed handcuffs on Casey Anthony. He was subsequently ordered to remove them by Sgt. Hosey.
The defense has no further questions.
Cross by Burdick. This witness was the junior officer on the scene. The handcuffs were only on Casey for 2 or 3 minutes. After that, she was released, she went back into her house and she was free to go about her business.
Burdick asks why Casey was handcuffed, and the witness says that while Casey was in the house her mother had approached him and informed him that Casey had stolen her……
At this point Mason objects and Burdick says that the defense opened the door. This causes a sidebar. Then a legal matter that forces the jury back into the holding area.
The state then questions the witness outside the presence of the jury. She asks why the witness put handcuffs on Casey. He says that Cindy Anthony approached him with receipts saying that Casey had stolen her credit card and made fraudulent purchases and that she wanted to press charges. The officer then went into the house, got Casey, handcuffed her and brought her to his squad car to continue the investigation of the fraudulent use of credit cards. That's when his Sgt. Said that they weren't going to worry about these alleged crimes right then, that the kidnapping took precedence. He ordered the witness to take the cuffs off of Casey, and he did.
This happened after Casey did her written statement at 1 am. And before Melich arrived at 4 am.
The defense pleads to the court that the defendant isn't on trial for these charges and they are not relevant.
The judge says that the defense elicited the testimony that the defendant was in handcuffs, and wants that information to be put to the jury with absolutely no explanation as to why. Which opens the door for this particular testimony. The court will fashion a jury instruction that deals with this, and he writes up a curative instruction.
"The evidence which you are about to hear concerning the reasons for the handcuffing of Miss Casey Anfony, is solely to explain why the deputy took those actions and is not to be considered for any other purpose. The defendant is not on trial for those acts and you should not consider this evidence for any other purpose than to explain why the deputy handcuffed the defendant."
Burdick then continues to question the deputy. She has him explain that Cindy wanted Casey arrested for the fraudulent use of her credit cards, and that his sergeant later ordered him to take the handcuffs off.
Yuri Melich showed up after this. He was not present during any of this.
The deputy is excused.
The defense's next witness is Corporal Eric Edwards. He is a Corporal with the Orange County Sheriff's department. He was one of the lead detectives in this case – or, as he says, he "assisted a great deal." Masons asks if he knows a "Linda Tinelli" – which causes a side bar, and then causes the jury to be sent out yet again for a "legal matter".
When the jury has left, Mason proffers the witness. He again asks if the Detective knows a "Linda Tinelli" The detective says he met her through the investigation. Tinelli was brought to the witness's attention by a woman named Lori Cree, who was a volunteer from Texas EquuSearch. He doesn't remember the date – but it was about December when they visited Texas EquuSearch and he got a call from Lori Cree, bringing Linda Tinelli to his attention. Tinelli was a volunteer at the KidsFinder tent. Tinelli spent a great deal of time at the tent with the Anthony's. The witness thinks that her role was to keep the sheets with the list of volunteers.
Lori Cree told the witness that Linda Tinelli had mentioned George Anthony brought duct tape to the KidsFinder tent. This is one reason that the OCSD deposed Miss Tinelli.
The witness says that he showed either a video or a still picture form the video to Miss Tinelli. He showed her the missing photo that depicted Caylee that had duct tape on it to fasten it to the tent pole. She didn't specifically identify the tape as the tape that George had.
The witness doesn't remember when he drove out to meet with her again, but he does remember driving out with Det Allen to talk to her about some correspondence or communication she had had with the Anthony's. Mason asks the witness if this was in March 2009. The Detective says it was.
During this visit the detectives wanted to place a bug/listening device in her lamp in her living room, with the intention of having her invite George and/or Cindy to her house to speak with her and try to capture their conversation.
The detective says that this is so, that the Anthony's had been contacting her. They wanted to meet with her and talk to her. Miss Tinelli had visited the Anthony home previously and mentioned to the Anthony's that the police had spoken to her. After this, the Anthony's were persistent in talking with her and repeatedly asking to meet with Miss Tinelli. The OCSD had concerns with what the Anthony's might ask her to say.
Miss Tinelli was uncomfortable with the whole "listening device" thing, because she would have to get her husband's permission to do that. She felt it was a little intrusive into her personal life – so they never did it. They did talk about the possibility of her wearing a wire when she spoke to the Anthony's. But she never did that, either.
The state has no questions on the proffer
Mr. Mason has a few more questions – regarding a phone message that Cindy left on Miss Tinelli's phone. Or maybe it was George that left the message – but he thinks it was Cindy.
Mason is through.
The judge asks Mason what material fact this evidence tends to prove or disprove – or what relevancy it has to the defense theory. Mason asks how much time he has.
Mason says that it shows that the prosecution was focused not just at the defendant on trial, but also at others, because of the processes of the law enforcement investigators.
The judge asks part two of the questions: what does this have to do with the theory of the defense? Mason says that the defense theory, as laid out to the judge earlier – the dysfunctionality and the circumstances involving what happened after the accidental drowning and who did what in an effort to conceal or to cover that up. The investigation carried on in that regard and the detectives in the case were so involved in going down that road that they asked a woman on two occasions to wear a wire and record the conversations with the Anthony's to try and get incriminating statements from the parents.
The judge asks Mason if the detectives were successful in getting incriminating statements from the parents.
Mason says no, they weren't. Because after being asked twice to record conversations with the Anthony's, she refused to do it. Otherwise, all she'd be able to testify to is what is already in evidence about the duct tape.
The judge asks for comments form the state on the proffer. Burdick says that it is obvious from the proffer, as well as what was argued at sidebar, that this line of questioning is offered only for the purpose of inviting the jury to speculate on the motives of law enforcement, without ever asking what their motivation was to do something, because their motivation would be irrelevant, since their motivation does not relate to any material facts regarding Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.
Mason says that it's interesting that the objection is speculation – since we are expected to speculate about the murder weapon being duct tape.
The judge rules that the evidence is not relative – either to the theory of the defense's case or to any material facto of the case. The state's objection is sustained.
The judge asks about the next witness – he doesn't' know who the next witness is and what she is going to testify about. If there are going to be "issues" he'd much rather take them up now then have the jury going in and out of the courtroom or sit through endless sidebars.
Burdick gets up and says to the judge that the State objects to the next witness's testimony on the basis of relevancy. This witness was at a command center at some unknown date and time and saw George Anthony with duct tape that cannot be further identified. This testimony is of no material value. If she could say it was a particular brand of duct tape, the state would not object, but that's not what she is going to say.
The judge says "but she can say it's duct tape."
Burdick says "…but that doesn't establish any relevance."
"You're saying it's not relevant because she can't say what brand it is?"
"Or identify when shown a specific brand to say that's what was used."
The judge says "So, are you saying to whenever the state of Florida sees someone with a gun or a knife and can't say for certain what type of gun or knife it was, and a victim in a murder case was killed with a gun or knife, that evidence is not admissible."
"Not unless we can tie it in to some relevant time frame that would establish materiality. The fact that someone possessed a gun or a knife would never be admissible unless it could be tied in to a relevant time frame."
"Well, isn't she going to testify it was at a volunteer tent?" The defense says yes, this is what she will testify to.
The judge rules then that it would only go to whatever weight the jury will assign it. The judge says he thinks that the defense would like it very much if this is the position the state would hold – since most witnesses can't identify a serial number of a gun, or even distinguish between a rifle and a semi-automatic. All they can tell you is that somebody stuck a gun in their face and robbed them at gunpoint. But that's a debate for another time….
The judge says the testimony is admissible.
The defense calls Linda Tinelli. She says that she knows George and Cindy Anthony. When Caylee went missing, the Anthony's had a command center. She went down there to offer her help as a volunteer. She coordinated the table where they took donations and handed out t-shirts, pins and bracelets. She worked the table with George Anthony. This was towards the end of July until December. The last day was December 8th. She says that there was duct tape at the table. It was used to tape down the tablecloths when it was windy and put up posters of missing children.
Mason is done direct. And the witness is excused.
The defense calls Yuri Melich. Again. Melich testifies that in his role as lead detective – he had a supervisor, but was in charge of the case. He was called to the Anthony home it was the early morning hours of July 16th. At some point someone pointed out the smell in the car. George Anthony was the one who pointed it out,. At that time Melich didn't do anything with that information. He had the car towed to the central operations center later in the day.
He was at the home in the early morning hours, spent an hour or so there taking the original taped statement, left with Casey to show him the locations of the babysitters homes, came back and dropped Casey off and left again. As he was leaving, he had contact with George Anthony, who approached Melich while he was in his car getting ready to leave. Melich left at around 7 in the morning. Then he met with Casey at around noon at Universal Studios. He thinks there were two or three uniformed officers at the Anthony home while he was there.
Melich did not confiscate the car until after Casey was arrested. He made arrangements with Mr. Anthony to pick up the car and items that were in the car or had been in the car.
Baez points out that it wasn't until Casey was under arrest that they decided to go and gather evidence from the car.
Baez asks if the reason Melich arrested Casey was because he thought she might harm herself. Melich says he arrested her because she met the elements of the crime that she was arrested for. And yes, based on another case that was in the media at the time, He thought that she might harm herself.
Baez says – "So based on media coverage of another case, you arrested her?"
Melich says again, that she fulfilled the elements of the crime that she was arrested for, but he did have this in his mind and that helped him to decide to actually make a physical arrest.
Baez asks if, after Casey was arrested, the focus went to the car. Melich says that the focus was always on the missing or kidnapped child, but yes, they did focus their attention on the car, but it wasn't the sole point at that time.
Baez asks if the detective wanted to do a thorough job and look at every possible scenario – Melich of course, says yes, but, keeping in mind that they were going off of what they were told had happened. And this included that the child was kidnapped by a known individual, and they had all these other names to go with it.
Baez asks if they were also told by everyone in the house that the child went missing on June 9th. Melich agrees that they all said that initially, even George Anthony. Within a few days they found this not to be correct, and that the correct date was June 16th.
Baez asks if they had in their possession at that time all the information on Zanny the Nanny. Melich says he doesn't know if they had all the information – they had what Casey and the rest of the family told them about this person the nanny – the kidnapper. But they had yet to talk to friends and other people that she was associated with – these outcry witnesses to tell the detectives who this Zanny person was.
Baez asks if shortly after the investigation began they were able to determine that this Zanny person didn't exist. Melich says that he wouldn't say "shortly after" – it took a while because Casey never changed her story about the nanny being the kidnapper. In communications that Melich monitored between her and her family at the jail, she was still talking about the nanny. So he wouldn't say "shortly". Ultimately they came to believe that this nanny didn't exist, but he can't pinpoint a day that he came to believe this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Melich testifies that he had no contact with the Anthony family before this date. And in July of 2008, he subpoenaed Casey Anthony's cell phone records. Baez asks if he could have also subpoenaed George Anthony's cell phone records. Melich says that he ultimately did subpoena George's cell phone records. Baez asks for what time period he subpoenaed George's cell phone records. He doesn't recall exactly for what period. He says he subpoenaed the records for multiple periods – including June and July.
Baez acts surprised. He asks if Melich gave those records to prosecutors. Melich says yes – but then he thinks and says maybe he's thinking of home phone records. He's not sure what periods of cell phone records were actually subpoenaed.
Baez tries to clarify – so the detective subpoenaed the home phone records for June and July – but not George's cell phone records? The detective doesn't recall.
Melich testifies that cell phone records can tell someone the calls placed, received, the duration of those calls and the tower which carried that call – which is useful in pinpointing the location of a person.
Baez asks if he used Casey's cell phone records to track her location. And Melich says yes, he used her cell phone records to track her movements. Melich says yes, at the beginning of the investigation when they first received the cell phone records, they charted her tower locations. They did not do that for George, Cindy or Lee.
Baez asks if the only person they focused in on with the cell records was Casey. Melich says no – he's actually pulled cell records and tracked locations for at least one other person he can think of – the person who called in the finding of the remains.
Baez seizes on the "person who found the remains" and says "Ahhh…yes…that would be Roy Kronk, right?" Melich says yes.
Melich testifies that yes, Roy Kronk found the remains on December 11th, 2008. He called his communications office, and they called 911. Upon this call, Melich went to the scene at Suburban Drive and, ultimately, interviewed Roy Kronk. This call was tape recorded to preserve the integrity of the conversation.
Baez asks when Melich first became aware that Kronk had made prior 911 calls about this site – which gets a sidebar.
When the sidebar is complete, Baez asks Melich if, during the month of August, Melich was approached by Officer Gerald White about a tip on Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. Melich says the tip was very general. They had already sent a cadaver dog in that general area, so Melich told the officer that the area had been searched. So that tip was not followed up on.
Melich subpoenaed Roy Kronk's phone records – he cannot remember exactly for what time periods. He thinks he got those records for June through December. He didn't create a report or turn these records over to MBI to create a report the way he did with Casey Anthony's cell phone records. He used the cell tower information only to answer some questions that he had regarding where the cell phone was at a particular time.
Baez asks the detective about the duct tape found near the remains of Caylee. Melich remembers the fact that several months later there was a video television report that made note of the fact that there was duct tape found at the command center that George Anthony was running. Melich noted from that TV report that the duct tape at the command center appeared to have the same markings as the duct tape found near the remains of the body.
Baez asks the detective when and where he went back to George Anthony to ask him where he got this duct tape. Melich says he didn't.
After this TV report, Melich was also made aware that the gas can had the same duct tape on it.
Baez points out that the detective had evidence that duct tape was found near the remains of Caylee – Melich adds "and on the remains as well" – and he knew that he had duct tape on the can – and he knew that there was no other duct tape in the house. Melich says that yes, at the time of their search warrant there was none. Baez says "and the only other time you ever saw this duct tape was on this video?" Melich says yes.
Baez points out that there are three different locations, three different pieces of this same duct tape.
Baez asks if Melich interviewed George Anthony on July 30th, 2008. Melich says yes. Baez tries to get the witness to say that George reported the gas cans as stolen at that time and that Melich went to retrieve them the next day – but he doesn't know how to elicit that information through proper questioning and the state keeps getting their objections sustained.
Baez asks Melich if, in addition to the cell phone records from June through December, he also confiscated Roy Kronk's computer. Melich says no. Baez asks why not – doesn't that generally yield all kinds of information? Melich says sure.
Baez asks what other investigation he did on Roy Kronk. Melich says he interviewed his co-workers and took his statement.
Baez is done.
Burdick crosses. She asks about the tip that was received in August. Melich had testified that the tip was "general in nature". Burdick asks if it mentioned Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. The tip said "swampy area crossing a 6 foot fence." Melich knew at that time that Suburban Drive was very close to the Anthony home, but most of the police focus was at the far East side of Suburban Drive where it dead ends into the school and a wooded area. The area where Caylee was ultimately found was much closer to the Anthony home than to the school area.
So when Melich was brought this tip by Gerald White, he believed that it was referring to the end of Suburban Drive – the wooded area – that had been completely searched. And that cadaver dogs had been sent to this area.
Melich is excused.
The judge excuses the jury for the day.
After the jury is excused, the Judge asks Baez if there is any information on when he will be winding up his presentation. Baez says he believes that will be Wednesday and Thursday. The state estimates they will need two days for rebuttal.
The judge asks how long they will be requesting for closing arguments – and Baez says that brings up an interesting issue. The state had requested in a pretrial motion to split up the argument between lawyers. This would give the state the opportunity to have 4 chances at arguing closing arguments. The defense would object to this structure. Baez wants to know if this is going to be allowed so that the defense knows how to proceed.
The judge wants to know how Baez gets "4 closing arguments" out of splitting up the argument between attorneys
Baez says that they essentially get 4 – one lawyer gets up and talks, then another lawyer gets up and talks….that's two. Then the defense argues…then the state sends up two more lawyers again – that's 4.
The judge says he wouldn't allow two lawyers to split the rebuttal state argument. He can understand 2 lawyers splitting the initial closing argument, but there's no need for two lawyers on the rebuttal argument.
Ashton offers that the defense could split their argument, as well, so essentially they could have 2 closings.
The state says they will need one day for closings. Baez gets up and says "I was expecting less…." The judge says "How much time, Mr. Baez? Half a day, or until the jury goes to sleep…whichever occurs first."
The judge says he will give the parties an order on Monday dealing with closing arguments with some basic parameters.
Baez then has some discovery violations he would like to talk about. He says that Melich just testified that he subpoenaed six months worth of Roy Kronk's cell phone records. The defense had only received 2 weeks worth. If Melich was testifying truthfully, this is a major violation. Melich also testified that he had George Anthony's cell phone records for the same period – the defense doesn't have those, either.
(I'm betting Melich was simply mistaken – he said several times "I'm not sure, I don't know without looking at the subpoena…")
Burdick says she will inquire of Mr. Melich if there are items in his possession that were not turned over to the state.
Burdick says that Mr. Baez is the one that turned over the Anthony family cell phone records to the state, but if he thinks that Mr. Melich has something that the defense doesn't have, she will inquire of Melich. And she is willing to work with Baez to compare what they have, but there was certainly no intentional discovery violations.
They then take up the matter of the curative instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez.
The defense has proposed an instruction that states that Dr. Rodriguez cannot resume his testimony because his employer, the Department of Defense, will not allow him to. The state says that this is not entirely accurate. Ashton says that the accurate fact is that his testimony is prohibited due to the rules and regulations of the department of the defense, therefore he was testifying in violation of those rules, and would not be permitted to do so.
Ashton says he doesn't think the defense would necessarily want that before the jury in that form, so they should come up with some new instruction, since the defense could have subpoenaed him, since he was here, and they chose not to do that. Ashton says he applauds the defense for not choosing to ruin this mans life over it, but they didn't subpoena him.
Ashton says that a more appropriate instruction would be that he simply is withdrawn as a witness, and that the jury should disregard any testimony he gave.
Mason says that it was Ashton who got a call from the department of defense saying that the witness would be terminated if he testified. Yeah, we could have forced him to stay, we could have identified him as a material witness and had your honor put him in jail (the judge says "that's true!") but we weren't going to do that. I don't want this instruction to read like he just withdrew – because that's not the case, the judge was there, and understands the situation.
The judge asks if it is not true that he did not get his employers permission to testify. Mason and Baez both say that they don't know that. All we know for sure is that he started his testimony, we had a break, Mr. Ashton took his deposition, and then the next thing we know Mr. Ashton gets a call from the department of defense on a Saturday that has the witness shaking in his boots that he's going to be fired.
Ashton gets up and says let me clarify this implication that the defense is making. Ashton says he got a call from this guy's employer – a Captain Malick. Ashton says he did not solicit contact with this person. He said that they had learned of Dr. Rodriguez's testimony by seeing it on television, and that it was in violation of department of defense regulations. That he did not seek their permission and that he was ordered to return home. If he testified, he would be fired. Ashton says he informed the court and defense counsel of this in a private conversation so that the witness would not lose his job over this. Any implication in defense's comments that I contacted them is 100% false.
Baez says that there is more to this story, since Ashton requested an additional 24 hours to review a deposition that he just took, knowing full well that Mr. Rodriguez was in the hot seat. Baez says they are going to have a motion with regards to that forthcoming, but that their proposed instruction is the most accurate with regards to what transpired.
Ashton says that he is the most accurate with the regards to what transpired, and that all of this is facts that are not in front of the court and that the court simply needs to say that he witness is withdrawn which is factually and legally accurate, and leave it at that. If counsel wants to file something under oath – bring it on. Baez says "we will."
The judge says that in order for him to craft something that includes facts not before him, they are going to need to have the witnesses' captain testify. He doesn't have to do it in person, they can do it over a break, or before or after court hours. And we can find out if that is a regulation by the Department of Defense and whether or not the doctor sought permission to do this. The judge offered to have Mr. Rodriquez held over until Monday, since he was within the jurisdiction of the court. And the judge had also said that if anyone felt that the witness would have fled the jurisdiction despite the court's verbal order, that he would have had him held at the Orange County Jail until such time that he could testify. The defense then said that they would allow the witness to leave, that they had another expert who could testify to basically the same thing. The judge says that if they are going to tell the story that they are going to tell the complete story. Or, they can tell the benign, that his testimony is stricken and they are to disregard it. And that will be end of story.
The judge says he will have proposed jury instructions for the parties on Tuesday. Since the defense may end on Wednesday, the judge wants the state to have proposed witnesses on hand ready to testify. The judge doesn't know if he wants to have the jury begin deliberations on a Friday evening. He may want them to start Saturday morning. He may have them deliberating until 6:30-7:00, but he has to keep them separated from that point on. Instructions will probably be 45 minutes.
Just from memory – the judge believes that at this point he is instructing the jury on several lesser, included charges. (Depending on renewed motions for DV – directed verdict) On count one – he is instructing on First Degree Murder, Felony Murder, Second Degree murder, Manslaughter, Count 2 – Aggravated Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Battery (he thinks), Under aggravated manslaughter, no lesser, because there will be an instruction on interlocking verdicts. And there are no lesser for providing false information to law enforcement.
The judge tells the attorney's to think about any other lesser they may want to ask for.
One Response to "Everyone Lies, Everyone Cries….."
June 29, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Kim, you do a marvelous job of reporting the court proceedings. Enjoy you being back.


text:
A month after surrendering 73 points to the Nebraska Danger in its only loss of the season, the Colorado Ice showed off its vastly improved defense in a rematch between the two teams Saturday night.
Limiting the Indoor Football League's highest-scoring offense to its lowest point total of the season, Colorado grabbed control atop the Intense Conference with a 32-12 victory at the Budweiser Events Center. The Ice ran their win streak to four games to improve to 5-1, breaking a tie in the division with the Danger as they fell to 4-2.
Aside from the second quarter — when Nebraska scored all of its points — the Colorado defense was in total control. They kept the visitors out of the end zone on all but one drive, coming up with a pair of turnovers as part of a second-half shutout.
"When you go up against the league's best offense and hold them to one touchdown and two field goals, the players on the field deserve all the credit," Ice coach Heron O'Neal said. "They came out with a chip on their shoulder and they showed it. They executed the game plan exactly how we wanted to."
Ice quarterback Willie Copeland threw for 133 yards and two touchdowns, outplaying his counterpart Jameel Sewell, who came in touted as the league's top MVP candidate. Sewell finished with 93 yards on 10-of-28 passing and was responsible for both of his team's turnovers.
Colorado defensive back Jovan Jackson intercepted Sewell near the goal line to begin the second half, just the second time the Danger quarterback has been picked off this season. But the Ice couldn't capitalize on the opportunity that resulted in a second straight missed field goal by Aric Goodman.
But on the very next Danger possession, the Ice came up with another turnover. And this time, the Colorado defense made sure the Danger paid for their mistake, as Greg Jackson stripped Sewell and returned it 35 yards the other way for a score to put the hosts up 19-12 entering the fourth quarter.
"We needed something to happen," Greg Jackson said. "Everybody was just working together. The ball popped out, and we're always taught if you touch it, you score with it. That's what we did."
The 12 points allowed by the Ice were seven fewer than they allowed to the Danger in just the first quarter of the teams' first matchup, a 73-50 Nebraska win.
"That struck a nerve with us," Greg Jackson said. "We had a good bye week, a great practice and coaches put together a great game plan. Everything just fell into order for us."
Ice tailback Kyle Kaiser, who fumbled in the second quarter, made up for the giveaway early in the fourth by hauling in a 32-yard touchdown pass from Copeland to put the Ice up 25-12. Copeland then added another scoring toss later from 11 yards out to Matthew Roark to give the Ice a comfortable 32-12 lead with 6 minutes to go.
The Ice started and ended the night strong, jumping out to a 9-0 first-quarter lead. Copeland led a 6-minute scoring drive on the game's opening possession, punctuated by a 1-yard run by Cordera Eason, who finished as the game's leading rusher with 49 yards on 13 carries.
The Danger offense, which entered the night averaging an IFL-best 49.8 points a game, was held in check on its first two drives. The unit was forced to attempt a pair of long field goals by Joe Houston, who missed from 50 yards and was good from 21 to get the visitors on the board.
"The chemistry is starting to come together," Javon Jackson said. "Guys are starting to believe. We're getting better every day."
Nebraska continued that momentum and found the end zone on its third drive, as Sewell ran in a draw from 4 yards out to cut the deficit to 12-9.
After Kaiser committed the game's first turnover in the final minutes of the first half deep inside Danger territory, Colorado defensive lineman Michael Stover appeared to quell any chance of a last-minute score to end the half when he sacked Sewell inside the 5 with under a minute to go. But two straight first downs by Sewell — one through the air and one on the ground — allowed Nebraska to tie it a 12-all just before halftime on a 24-yard field goal by Houston.
The Ice had a chance to grab the lead back before the break thanks to a 32-yard return by Patrick Walker on the ensuing kickoff, but Goodman's attempt from 29 yards out missed at the second-quarter buzzer. But in the end, such a missed opportunity didn't make any difference — not with the Ice outscoring the Danger 20-0 in the second half.
O'Neal's team now heads out on the road for two straight away from the BEC, starting with Saturday's game at the Sioux Falls Storm.
"We've got a long way to go to get to where we're trying to get to," O'Neal said. "I'm going to cherish this win tonight, gonna look at some film tomorrow and start getting ready for Sioux Falls."
Sean Star can be reached at 669-5050, ext. 512, email@example.com or on Twitter @seanvstar
At Budweiser Events Center
Nebraska (4-1) 0 12 0 0 — 12
Colorado (4-1) 9 3 7 13 — 32
First Quarter
C — Eason 1 run (kick failed), 8:20.
C — Goodman 47 field goal, 1:09.
Second Quarter
N — Houston 21 field goal, 7:50.
C — Goodman 19 field goal, 3:19.
N — Sewell 4 run (kick blocked), 2:05.
N — Houston 24 field goal, :09.
Third Quarter
C — Jackson 35 fumble return (Goodman kick), 3:52.
Fourth Quarter
C — Kaiser 32 pass from Copeland (Goodman kick), 12:37.
C — Roark pass from Copeland (Goodman kick), 6:14.


text:
This week's prime properties
Exclusive address
Belgravia, SW1
What you get Part of a grade II listed white stucco townhouse, this 1,277 sq ft third-floor apartment has two years left on its lease, with an option to renew for an additional 20 years, subject to negotiation. It has views over Eaton Square Garden from its reception room and one of its two bedrooms. It also has two en suite bathrooms and a kitchen.
Where is it? On Eaton Square in Belgravia, London. It is a short walk from Hyde Park, and Victoria Tube and railway station is close by.
Upside Eaton Square is a world-renowned address.
Downside The cost of renewing the lease is about £1.2 million.
Price £390,000
Contact Tedworth Property, 020 7352 0535, tedworth.co.uk
Stone castle
Gronant, Flintshire
What you get A…


text:
Flag Suckers Beware! " Your time is gonna come..."
It has come to my attention in the last few months that there are certain groups and individuals who are once again celebrating their annual Mission to Undermine the Constitution and limit the rights of free speech for the rest of us proposing, once again, an amendment to the Constitution Of The United States of America to ban the desecration of the U.S. Flag. Some of these people are random crazies who saw Saving Private Ryan and thought they saw Nazis everywhere they turned. They're the same ones who think that Osama Bin Laden is lurking in the corner of their favorite bars in all places at all times waiting to blow them to smithereens for loving freedom. I'm not endorsing Osama Bin Laden by the way, I'm just saying that him wanting to kill us because of our freedom is a very simplified and deceptive sound bite that is more for newsreels than intellectual debate. It's cheap and the men and women in our government and media who peddle it should be slapped in the head until they promise to be more honest in the future.
Anyway, before I get much further into that I need to get back to my original point. Senators Orrin Hatch and Rick Santorum, both up are reelection in 2006, have endorsed an amendment to the constitution to that effect and in the House an amendment proposal was sponsored by Rep. Duke Cunningham, who recently announced that he would not run again in 2006 after he was immersed in scandal(his immersion, by the way took place after the proposal). Do you see a pattern here? I know not all of the people favoring this thing are up fpr reelection next year, but at least a pile of them is. Silly me I just don't know where I get off questioning the integrity of politicians.
The point of the whole thing is to amend the constitution so that the Congress can pass a law banning the desecration of the flag. Desecration for those of you that don't know is like violating the sanctity of something or treating it disrespectfully. The whole point of the thing is to be able to finally get a ban on flag burning passed. There have been people trying to do it for years. Flag burning has been a major issue since 1969. One side claims that the flag should be safe-guarded as a symbol of our democracy and America and our troops and the noble efforts of all the above to protect and defend the freedoms we have here in America. The other side claims, and I believe rightly so, that flag burning is protected under the first amendment and that an amendment banning it would be a violation of our right to free speech.
Maybe I am looking at this all backwards. They want to ban flag burning, a powerful statement of disillusionment with our government, and an even more powerful form of expression, because it violates the sanctity of all that which we hold beautiful and dear and near to our hearts as red-blooded Americans, but they don't want to anything about shorts designed with a pattern cut from material with the flag printed on it. Let me get this straight. They don't want to do anything about people running around with their ass stuck to the stars and stripes, dirtying it up on park benches and public bus seats and the floors of public toilets. I supposed that Free enterprise, consumerism and Tommy Freaking Hilfiger are more patriotic than the first amendment. Go figure. For that matter what about all the napkins and paper plates and table cloths and God knows what else out there with the flag printed on it that comes out every year on the Fourth Of July? What about all that sh*t? Is it not desecration of the flag for someone to slap a half pound of potato salad on Old Glory and then use a napkin with the Stars and Stripes on it to wipe their mouth off? Is it not desecration to drop a piece of chicken slathered in barbecue sauce on the flag which has been printed on a plastic table cloth? What the hell? Is it still not desecration when all of those things covered in the leavings of a picnic are then thrown into a trash can in a public park paid for by the government instead of them being burned, which is the honorable way to dispose of old and weathered flags? Which is more disrespectful? Burning the flag to protest the government, which is constitutionally obligated to protect your right to do just that, or to wipe your mouth with the flag and then throw it away? Don't forget covering your ass with the flag just because it is fashionable! I am not saying that we should ban these other things, though I am against them. I am particularly against those tacky ass ribbon shaped magnets with the flag and the American Eagle on them. Damn those things are stupid.
My point is that burning the flag and wiping your mouth on it and sitting on it or making a fashion statement with it is protected under the first amendment and it should stay that way. Popular moral order should not be the law of the day, the law should. In addition to that the law should not be the moral order of the day. The law should never be used as a tool to get reelected and the constitution should not ever be used to stifle the expression of free speech. It's there for just the opposite.
Call your Senators and Representatives and make sure they know that. You can find contact information for all of them at thomas.loc.gov under their appropriate menus.
You can also get a better perspective than mine from this site.


text:
order by popularity | order by alphabet
No Mean MonsterBlack BettyWe Are AnimalsEnough LoveDay At The BeachRoad TripRadioWhen The Lights Come DownWalk By YourselfBig Dog's Gonna HowlMean StreetsGoin' LocoKeep On Travellin'Loggin' OnTelegram (Live)LovermanTime And TideWhen Jesus Comes To Save The World AgainClaimed
Related Information for Nazareth they contributed the song "Crazy (A Suitable Case for Treatment)" to the soundtrack to the film, Heavy Metal.Various Nazareth line-ups continued to make studio albums and tour throughout the 1980s and 1990s, although their popularity had declined such that some albums no longer received either a UK or a U.S. release. They remained popular in Europe, particularly Germany, where "Dream On" became a hit single. Billy Rankin returned for a second spell in the ranks in 1991.. read more


text:
Saturday, April 6 - Sunday, April 7, 2019 - 5:30pm
Taos Chamber Music Group presents Celebrating Chilton *Both Sat and Sun are SOLD OUT
Arthur Bell Auditorium
TCMG celebrates the contributions of Chilton Anderson, founder of the Taos School of Music, who would have turned 90 this March. TSM Artistic Director and pianist Robert McDonald returns to play with TCMG for this tribute in Shostakovich's Cello Sonata, Eugene Bozza's Soirs dans les Montaignes for flute and piano, a Trio Sonata for flute, violin, cello and piano by Carl Stamitz (from Chilton's personal collection), and Beethoven's Piano Trio in Eb Major, Op. 70, No.2.
Robert McDonald, piano, Elizabeth Baker, violin, Sally Guenther, cello, Nancy Laupheimer, flute.
Tickets - Admission is $25/adults, $20/Museum members, $12/students
Visit www.taoschambermusicgroup.org for more information.


text:
First Hemkund Sahib Gurudwara building was completed in Nov 1936 with a ten by ten foot stone gurudwara sahib with a three foot verandah facing the lake. Sri Guru Granth Sahib, which had been presented by Bhai Vir Singh, was formally installed inside during the first week of September, 1937 making Hemkund Sahib the highest gurudwara in the world.
sikh tourism offers travel to golden temple, hazur sahib, hemkund sahib, Sikh Pilgrimage, India Gurudwara Tours, Pakistan Gurudwaraa, Punjab Tours, Amritsar Tours, nankana sahib, panja sahib, paonta sahib, patna sahib, anandpur sahib, chandigarh package, amritsar hotels, chandigarh hotels, delhi hotels along with pilgrimage, holiday, study, business, incentive tours of Punjab and India
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Hemkund Sahib - First Gurudwara Building
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
The Graze snack delivery service is offering new members your 1st and 5th Graze boxes for free through their referral program.
Plus, new members can cancel the service online after the first free box is delivered with no commitments or further requirements.
That means you can get 1 free box of snacks without ever paying a cent, or you can continue your subscription to get your 5th box of snacks for free as well.
How Graze Works
Graze sends you a fresh nibblebox in the mail every 2 weeks, and your mail carrier will deliver your first box within 14 days.
You'll get your 1st box free and your 5th box free when you join through a current member's referral.
Your other snack boxes will cost $6.49 each, which includes shipping and handling.
You only pay per box, so there's no commitment.
Free Snack Boxes for New Graze Members
Just use this Graze Referral Link that was provided by a reader or use Graze friendcode TOBIAS7YB when you join to get your 1st and 5th snack boxes for free.
You can cancel at anytime (including after your first box) in order to avoid ever paying charges, so you can basically just get 1 box of snacks for free if you want.
You'll get your 1st and 5th Graze boxes completely free, and you can cancel anytime you want with online cancellation available to make things even easier.
You do need to enter your payment card when you join to verify your details for your first free box.
After that, they charge per box, so you can cancel anytime online.
If you just want your first free box, you must make sure to cancel by the scheduled deadline before your second box is prepared to be shipped.
You can make changes or cancel your boxes up to 11 PM EST every other Monday.
Graze Referral Program
Once you join Graze, you can participate in their referral program.
Just share your friendcode, and you'll get $1 off your next box for each friend that signs up.
Plus, your friends will get their 1st and 5th boxes for free, so everybody wins.
You can share your friendcode online, by email, and via Facebook and Twitter.
The only rules are that your friendcode can't be used in conjunction with other offers, and you can only use 1 reward per box ($1 discount per box).
Once you've claimed your discounts, they'll apply them automatically to your orders when they get sent.
Graze Video Review
Check out this review of my Graze snack boxes.
Sign up for Graze snacks today to get your 1st and 5th boxes free.
You may also be interested in the Seamless Online Restaurant Delivery Service to get special discounts through their referral program.


text:
Am I the only one guilty of putting a few Halloween decorations away before today? Well, as horrible as it sounds, that's exactly what I did. Two reasons. Superstorm Sandy had me huddled in this home feeling like it's been raining forever & I was unusually late bringing our potted plants indoors this year. Finding them knocked over first thing in the morning gave me no choice. It was now or never. After an hour of repotting plants and giving everyone of them a new home next to a window, our home began to look like a greenhouse. Vines, succulents, & even a large mango tree have been relocated indoors. No question, there needed to be some decluttering. So... the window clings, gourds, skeletons, & a few witches made their way out. Ouch..... I know, I felt a little terrible but in hindsight it might have been the half a pot of coffee & a half a dozen pixie sticks that were the culprit;) Even our super funky Amy Butler black & green curtains in the family room were replaced with solid white cotton drapes. I gotta admit, for a woman who loves patterns I surprised myself. Plain white curtains? But as soon as my eight year old said, "Wow mom, this looks soo serene" ~ I thought... mission accomplished.
Wishing everyone a Happy Halloween! May you stay safe & warm on your trails to trick or treating!
As for me, I guess you can say I'm ready for November:)


text:
Text Size
Share »
May is National Stroke Awareness Month
Jeffrey David S.
Friday, January 21, 2011
By: Tammy S.
Jeffrey is an amazing young man. He has been through a traumatic event, but kept a positive outlook. He does not meet a stranger and has really overcome some major obstacles.
Display of the Faces of Stroke stories does not imply National Stroke Association's endorsement of any product, treatment, service or entity. National Stroke Association strongly recommends that people ask a healthcare professional about diagnosis and treatment questions before using any product, treatment or service. The views expressed through the stories reflect those of the authors and do not reflect the opinion of National Stroke Association.
Printer Friendly Version
1-800-STROKES1-800-787-65379707 E. Easter Lane, Suite BCentennial, CO email@example.com
© Copyright 2019
National Stroke Association, All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Use is Prohibited.
About Us · Board · Press · Contact · Privacy Policy


text:
Bathroom designs pictures that help in construction
When remodeling an existing bathroom or constructing a brand one, the bathroom designs pictures come in handy. This is because the pictures give you a fair idea of how bathrooms are built in general, what you can place in your bathroom, how you can beautify it and so on. Thus looking at these pictures proves to be very helpful. You can find these pictures on the internet, in magazines, catalogues and can also find them with professional interior designers. Once you have the pictures with you, you can decide to either replicate them or draw some sort of inspiration from them. Read on to know how exactly you can benefit from these images.
How to benefit from bathroom designs pictures
First and foremost you need to get your hands on these pictures. It is very important to find the right pictures. If you have a small bathroom, looking at the design of a large bathroom won't help you much. Similarly, if you have a large bathroom, you cannot benefit much from looking at the pictures of small bathrooms. So pick the pictures properly. The internet has a huge number of photos from which you can draw your inspiration. There is however just one problem in looking at photos from the web – you may not find ideas that are very unique. Since most of bathroom design images are free and open to all, a lot of people copy them and the element of uniqueness is lost. If you want something more unique and special, you can look at the exclusive pictures available in the designer magazines and product catalogues. You can also hire a professional interior designer and ask her to provide you with some great bathroom designs pictures.
Once you have the pictures with you, analyze them as well as analyze the space you have for building the bathroom. If you can accommodate all the fixtures and cabinets, go right ahead. If you cannot, then accommodate as many as you can. Always remember that a bathroom that is too crammed will never look nice. So place as many things as needed, not more. If you have a spacious bathroom, you would surely have the liberty to place many more accessories. Then, you need to study the pictures to get an idea about the lighting scheme of the bathroom. The bathroom has to be lighted well or else neither will it look nice nor will it be usable. Without proper lights, the bathroom is even deemed unsafe. So study the pictures of the bathroom design to see what the lighting scheme must be like.
So go ahead and draw inspiration from the bathroom design images. They are extremely useful tools and help you immensely when you look to renovate or construct your bathroom. From ideas about accessories, fixtures to information about lights and wall colors, the pictures help in many ways. So go and get yourself some bathroom designs pictures and get set to have a gorgeous bathroom in your house.


text:
BARD CONSERVATORY CHAMBER ORCHESTRA, CONDUCTED BY NEW YORK PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATE CONDUCTOR XIAN ZHANG, IN CONCERT AT BARD'S FISHER CENTER ON OCTOBER 4ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON, NY—On Wednesday, October 4, The Bard College Conservatory of Music presents the Conservatory Chamber Orchestra, conducted by Xian Zhang, associate conductor of New York Philharmonic, and featuring guest artist Melvin Chen. Free and open to the public, the program begins at 8:00 p.m. in the Sosnoff Theater of the Fisher Center, and includes Aaron Jay Kernis's Too Hot Toccata; Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 3, Op. 37, in C minor, with pianist Melvin Chen; and W. A. Mozart's Symphony No. 40, K.550, in G minor. Xian Zhang was appointed associate conductor of the New York Philharmonic in July 2005 by music director Lorin Maazel. Zhang, a cowinner of the Maazel-Vilar Conductors' Competition, studied with Maestro Maazel, and made her debut with the Philharmonic in 2004 leading a Young People's Concert. Last season she made her debut with the London Symphony Orchestra, which resulted in an immediate invitation to return in 2006. She has appeared as a guest conductor with New Zealand's Auckland Philharmonia, Cincinnati Opera, Cincinnati Symphony, Colorado Symphony, and Minnesota Opera, among others. Zhang recently completed a four-year tenure as music director of the Concert Orchestra at the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music. Born in Dandong, China, she received both bachelor's and master's degrees in music from the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing. She served as conductor-in-residence of the China Opera House in Beijing and conductor of the JinFan Symphony Orchestra. Melvin Chen, assistant director of the Conservatory and assistant professor of music and interdisciplinary studies at Bard, has performed at major venues in the United States, including Carnegie Hall, Alice Tully Hall, Merkin Concert Hall, Weill Recital Hall, the Frick Collection, and the Kennedy Center, in addition to other appearances throughout the country, Canada, and Asia. He has collaborated with Ida Kavafian, Steven Tenenbom, David Shifrin, Robert White, Pamela Frank, Peter Wiley, and members of the St. Lawrence, Mendelssohn, Miami, Orion, Borromeo, and Arditti Quartets. He was selected to be a member of Lincoln Center's Chamber Music Society Two, and has performed at Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival, Chautauqua, Music from Angel Fire, and Bard Music Festival, among others. He can be heard on Discover, Nices, and KBS label compact discs with violinist Juliette Kang. The Conservatory Concerts and Lectures continue on Thursday, October 12, at 2:00 p.m. in Olin Hall, with pianist Richard Goode, who presents a master class. A special "Meet the Artist" presentation featuring Dawn Upshaw and Osvaldo Golijov, moderated by Ara Guzelimian, takes place on Thursday, November 9, at 7:00 p.m. in the Sosnoff Theater at the Fisher Center. On Sunday, November 12, at 3:00 p.m., and Wednesday, November 15, at 8:00 p.m., the Conservatory presents two chamber music concerts in Olin Hall. The fall series concludes with the Da Capo Chamber Players, featured in a concert on Thursday, November 30, at 7:30 p.m. in Bard Hall. On Saturday, December 9, the Conservatory presents the second annual Concerto Competition in Olin Hall, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. All programs are open to the public without charge. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. For further information, call 845-758-7900 or e-mail email@example.com. # Building on its distinguished history of innovation in the arts and education, Bard College has launched The Bard College Conservatory of Music. This innovative, five-year, double-degree program is guided by the principle that musicians should be broadly educated in the liberal arts and sciences to achieve their greatest potential. While training and studying for the bachelor of music degree with world-class musicians and teachers and performing in state-of-the-art facilities, such as the Frank Gehry–designed Richard B. Fisher Center for the Performing Arts, Bard Conservatory students also pursue a bachelor of arts degree at Bard, one of the nation's leading liberal arts colleges. The Bard College Conservatory of Music's instrumental and composition faculty includes renowned musicians and composers, including violinists Ani Kavafian, Ida Kavafian, Weigang Li, Laurie Smukler, and Arnold Steinhardt; violists Steven Tenenbom, Michael Tree, and Ira Weller; cellists Sophie Shao and Peter Wiley; double bassist Marji Danilow; pianists Melvin Chen, Jeremy Denk, Peter Serkin, and piano master classes with Richard Goode; oboists Laura Ahlbeck and Richard Dallessio; flutist Tara Helen O'Connor; clarinetists Laura Flax and David Krakauer; bassoonist Marc Goldberg; hornists Julie Landsman and Jeffrey Lang; trombonist John Rojak; and trumpeter Mark Gould. The Colorado Quartet and Da Capo Chamber Players are in residence. Members and principals of the American Symphony Orchestra are also available for instruction, coaching, and leading of sectional rehearsals in the Conservatory Orchestra. This year the Conservatory introduces three additional programs: the Vocal Arts Graduate Program, directed by Dawn Upshaw; The Conductors Institute and its graduate program in conducting, directed by Harold Farberman; and the Composition Program, directed by Joan Tower and George Tsontakis. For more information about the Bard College Conservatory of Music, call 845-758-7196, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com, or log onto the program's website, www.bard.edu/conservatory. # # # (09.12.06)
Bard Press Contact:Emily M. Darrow
Recent Press Releases:
Bard Prision Intiative Students and First Full Class of Bard Microcollege Students Earn Degrees in Ceremonies this May
- Author and Journalist Meline Toumani to Teach Course at Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program in New York City
- New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell Delivered Commencement Address at Bard College's One Hundred Fifty-Ninth Commencement on Saturday, May 25, 2019
Tony Award Nominee Daniel Fish Directs Acquanetta, A Visual and Musical Tour-de-Force by Michael Gordon and Deborah Artman, at Bard SummerScape (July 11–21)


text:
The city of Columbus is continuing its fight against the theft of scrap metal by giving police electronic access to pawn shops and other businesses that deal in second-hand goods.
The city of Columbus is continuing its fight against the theft of scrap metal by giving police electronic access to pawn shops and other businesses that deal in second-hand goods.
City council on March 26 approved spending $64,400 to extend its contract with Leads-Online, an electronic reporting system for all pawn shops and scrap-metal dealers in Columbus. The program also provides nationwide access to transaction information, reports and searches.
The contract extension is good news for residents of German Village, where thefts of two wrought-iron gates were reported last week, said resident Jerry Glick, who is involved in various neighborhood safety issues.
It's not the first time the gates, some of which lift right off the hinges, have been the target of thieves, Glick said.
After a rash of air-conditioning unit thefts last year, the city, with the cooperation of local scrap yards, declared a one-month moratorium on the sale of air-conditioning units and parts, which resulted in a drastic decline in thefts, said George Speaks, assistant director of public safety for the city.
In 2007, the city was the first to have an ordinance that regulated the sales of scrap metal. The legislation was later used as a template for the Ohio Revised Code regulation. However, Columbus law mandates electronic reporting on all sales of scrap metal in the city.
"And this has proved vital in solving scrap-metal thefts," Speaks said.
Speaks said he represents Columbus on a consortium composed of law-enforcement groups and private industries looking to develop a statewide database for all scrap-metal facilities.
"If everyone was doing that, folks wouldn't have that ability" to sell stolen material, he said.
City attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. agreed with Speaks' assessment.
"Until we see an effective and uniform statewide law similar to what Columbus has, there will be avenues of escape for thieves who work their evil in our city, yet sell the wares of that evil in another jurisdiction," he said.


text:
'2 in 1' Sieve - Green
Product Code:
S Code:
Highly practical, deep sieve supplied complete with two interchangeable screens - 6mm and 12mm hole size. Each screen is made from tough, galvanised woven wire
Length (cm): 35
Width (cm): 35
Height (cm): 12.5
Not all products are available instore, please use our online order service if available or call us before travelling
To check available options on this product, select delivery area & enter postcode
No options currently selected *
* You will be prompted to confirm your choice of delivery during the checkout process.
Please note that purchasing multiple items may either reduce or increase your total carrage charge.
No specifications / features available.
Write a reviewYour Name:
Your Review: Note: HTML is not translated!
Rating: Bad Good
Enter the code in the box below:


text:
This user has been permanently banned.
Latest Activity: Played SAS: Zombie Assault 3 (Jan 17, 2014 4:29pm)
Points needed for next level: 453 Level
UPDATE:21 April 2010~A new beginning
UPDATE: 21 April 2089~ I…I don't, I…lost for words!
UPDATE: 26 April 2089~ assdfffsdfg…
UPDATE: 2nd May 2089~ And it was good…
UPDATE: 9th May 2089~ You cannot fightit donttryto fightit
=Last recorded entry. Datadisc terminated=
Thanks doge.
Activity Feed