Quoted from joebxr

You continue to make points against the process and question validity.
So that means you have no confidence in the system...well that's your problem.
What else should have been done?  Couldn't bring someone to public trial
without charges and that was what the GJ was about. You question competence of
whomever was called to testify....how is that different from those same experts
testifying in a public trial....just like everything else, if you don't agree with their
testimony you will raise their qualifications. You ask the racing knowledge of police that testified,
why do you think it had anything to do with their testimony. They likely testified to issues
of a Police nature, doubtful they were called to explain anything about dirt races. On and
on and on....and to challenge DVOR AGAIN, you are obsessed....get over it. You already
know you will not hear from him, so why much up EVERY POST with DVOR challenges...
it's a total waste...put your efforts toward something more positive, like bringing all your
cut-n-paste info and claims to the media to expose the corruption you say exists.

Apparently, he/she was AT the track and IN the Grand Jury room.  He/she think he/she knows everything about everything.  

Quoted from Box A Rox

The results are a part of the case.  Just as it would be published if Stewart had drugs in his system.

There was a lot that was part of the case.  What did the toxicology results prove?  That it was Ward's fault?  One has nothing to do with the other.  Unless the grand jury was filled with over 50 something's that are drug crusaders.  Then anyone with a trace of marijuana in their system are pure evil.  What was the result of Stewart's drug test?  I haven't seen that publish, maybe I missed the article since I haven't been following too closely.

Quoted from CICERO

There was a lot that was part of the case.  What did the toxicology results prove?  That it was Ward's fault?  One has nothing to do with the other.  Unless the grand jury was filled with over 50 something's that are drug crusaders.  Then anyone with a trace of marijuana in their system are pure evil.  What was the result of Stewart's drug test?  I haven't seen that publish, maybe I missed the article since I haven't been following too closely.

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Grand Jury report stated that it believed that Mr. Ward was "pure evil" for having traces of marijuana in his system.  It stated the fact that he had it in his system but didn't make any characterizations as to Mr. Ward's goodness or evilness.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Grand Jury report stated that it believed that Mr. Ward was "pure evil" for having traces of marijuana in his system.  It stated the fact that he had it in his system but didn't make any characterizations as to Mr. Ward's goodness or evilness.

You're right, the Grand Jury said nothing about how the toxicology report influenced the jurors or how many of the 23.  But, the result of the report was released by the DA.  As a matter of fact, the grand jury said nothing about the toxicology report at all, the DA did.

Quoted from CICERO

You're right, the Grand Jury said nothing about how the toxicology report influenced the jurors or how many of the 23.  But, the result of the report was released by the DA.  As a matter of fact, the grand jury said nothing about the toxicology report at all, the DA did.

I'd love to read the Grand Jury report you are referring to...can you post a link!

Quoted from joebxr

I'd love to read the Grand Jury report you are referring to...can you post a link!

There isn't one, just the select words from the DA at a press conference.  His opinions.

Quoted from CICERO

There isn't one, just the select words from the DA at a press conference.  His opinions.

So along with your other comments, explain how you know this to be true then???

Quoted from CICERO

As a matter of fact, the grand jury said nothing about the toxicology report at all, the DA did.

Quoted from joebxr

So along with your other comments, explain how you know this to be true then???

Because the Grand Jury said nothing about the toxicology report?  Because they didn't say ANYTHING.  The DA did - through speculation.  What I know to be true is that not one person from the grand jury publicly commented on the toxicology results.

Quoted from CICERO

Because the Grand Jury said nothing about the toxicology report?  Because they didn't say ANYTHING.  The DA did - through speculation.  What I know to be true is that not one person from the grand jury publicly commented on the toxicology results.

So it's ok to make an erroneous statement because the Grand Jury has not spoken
publicly, which they are prohibited from doing. So in other words, you are presuming
that no toxicology report was presented to the Grand Jury, and because of your
presumption, then it must be true...pretty arrogant of you!

Bottom line, you made a false statement and try to justify it....you are just putting
stupid things out there, as usual! You have no idea what was presented and you
won't...read about Grand Jury trials and disclosure of the information. There is a reason
for all that.

So let me clarify for you...when you said
"As a matter of fact, the grand jury said nothing about the toxicology report at all, the DA did.",
it was a lie, because there was nothing presented publicly from the Grand Jury...the DA did is the
only accurate part of your statement! So in other words you have no factual evidence that the tox report was
or was not given in the Grand Jury deliberation!

for once Cicero...you made sense

Quoted from joebxr

So it's ok to make an erroneous statement because the Grand Jury has not spoken
publicly, which they are prohibited from doing. So in other words, you are presuming
that no toxicology report was presented to the Grand Jury, and because of your
presumption, then it must be true...pretty arrogant of you!

Not erroneous at all.  You are making my point exactly.  The Grand Jury has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about why they decided.  They never said it was the evidence of the toxicology report or anything else.  THE DA MADE THOSE STATEMENTS.  IT WAS PURE CONJECTURE BY THE DA .  I NEVER SAID THE TOXICOLOGY REPORT WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY, I SAID NOBODY KNOWS IF THE GRAND JURY MADE THEIR DECISION BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE(THE TOXICOLOGY RESULTS).

My point is...WHY DID THE DA MAKE ANY STATEMENTS OR PUBLICALY RELEASE THE RESULTS OF WARD'S TOXICOLOGY TEST?  It is meaningless.  There is no correlation between the results of the test, and the decision of the Grand Jury.  And the fact the Grand Jury cannot speak, the DA's words go unchallenged in the court of public opinion.  That brings me back to Tony Stewart PR people.  Why the hell would the DA release the toxicology results?  It means absolutely nothing, it is pointless, the Grand Jury decided for reasons nobody will ever know.  The only value it had was to make Ward look as if he was at fault for his own death.  Which isn't what the Grand Jury's results found, it just found there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges against Stewart - PERIOD!

Quoted from CICERO

Not erroneous at all.  You are making my point exactly.  The Grand Jury has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about why they decided.  They never said it was the evidence of the toxicology report or anything else.  THE DA MADE THOSE STATEMENTS.  IT WAS PURE CONJECTURE BY THE DA .  I NEVER SAID THE TOXICOLOGY REPORT WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY, I SAID NOBODY KNOWS IF THE GRAND JURY MADE THEIR DECISION BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE(THE TOXICOLOGY RESULTS).

My point is...WHY DID THE DA MAKE ANY STATEMENTS OR PUBLICALY RELEASE THE RESULTS OF WARD'S TOXICOLOGY TEST?  It is meaningless.  There is no correlation between the results of the test, and the decision of the Grand Jury.  And the fact the Grand Jury cannot speak, the DA's words go unchallenged in the court of public opinion.  That brings me back to Tony Stewart PR people.  Why the hell would the DA release the toxicology results?  It means absolutely nothing, it is pointless, the Grand Jury decided for reasons nobody will ever know.  The only value it had was to make Ward look as if he was at fault for his own death.  Which isn't what the Grand Jury's results found, it just found there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges against Stewart - PERIOD!

You keep spinning it.
(A) Grand Jury testimony and deliberations are not public knowledge so there will be no public announcement about tox or anything else.
(B) NOT conjecture by DA....TOX screen is part of the autopsy when it's done and that total package from the coroner is provided to the legal system,
and likely presented in whole to the grand jury, but that is UNKNOWN.
(C) DA releasing the info...well you have to ask him. Maybe it was a result of Stewarts PR team influence as you have "hinted" at.
(D) Correlation of TOX report and Jury Decision....presumption again on your part. If it was presented to the GJ, then it was part of the
information used during deliberation.

Quoted from joebxr

You keep spinning it.
(A) Grand Jury testimony and deliberations are not public knowledge so there will be no public announcement about tox or anything else.
(B) NOT conjecture by DA....TOX screen is part of the autopsy when it's done and that total package from the coroner is provided to the legal system,
and likely presented in whole to the grand jury, but that is UNKNOWN.
(C) DA releasing the info...well you have to ask him. Maybe it was a result of Stewarts PR team influence as you have "hinted" at.
(D) Correlation of TOX report and Jury Decision....presumption again on your part. If it was presented to the GJ, then it was part of the
information used during deliberation.

Wait-Wait-Wait...You are missing something here...Did you read the DA's public statements.  I'll repost it to refresh your memory.
  
The DA makes a public statement about a jury deliberation that the jurors are forbidden to speak about publicly, and he shares his opinion of what the jurors were thinking and what they would say if they were legally allowed to.  He says that the jurors were not considering whether anybody else was at fault, yet in the second part of that same statement he said the juror discussion was about Ward being observed running down 2/3's of the track, into a "hot track"(whatever that means) in the "middle" of other cars still racing(cars were not racing, it was under caution, no positions can be advanced on the track during caution), and that it played a "big factor" in their decision.  Again, how the fu(k does he know that, and how can he speak on behalf of all the jurors?

I think you are missing the whole point.  The DA is talking out his a** by making public statements that he has no factual evidence to support it.  His opinion about WHY a super majority of the jurors decided not to indict is PURE CONJECTURE.   He would not release the jury tally, which could mean there were people that voted to indict but were not in the super majority.  Where are those peoples statements if it indeed happened that way?  But we will never know...All we will know is DA dumbass' opinions and Ward's toxicology results.

Quoted Text

Tantillo did not reveal the vote tally but said he believed  the grand jury blamed Ward
for the accident.

“The grand jury was never tasked with the responsibility of anything other than to determine
whether there was enough evidence to file charges against Tony Stewart,” Tantillo said in a
news conference.
“They were not considering whether anybody else was at fault. However, I am sure from their
deliberations and discussions that the fact that Kevin Ward was observed running basically
down two-thirds of the track into a hot track in the middle of other cars that were still racing
played a big, big factor in their decision.”

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Apparently, he/she was AT the track and IN the Grand Jury room.  He/she think he/she knows everything about everything.  

Ah, DV must have been in the grand jury room.   The board member who knows NOTHING about racing, wouldn't know a 410 from a 360, wouldn't know a dirt LM from an asphalt LM, but he claims the grand jury got ALL THE INFORMATION.  He knows that ALL the information was presented, just like he knows that county taxes are lower now than in the 1970's    

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Agreed, it was the right thing to do -- having the Grand Jury look at all the information.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Grand Jury report stated that it believed that Mr. Ward was "pure evil" for having traces of marijuana in his system.  It stated the fact that he had it in his system but didn't make any characterizations as to Mr. Ward's goodness or evilness.

Did you read anywhere about just who the people where who reconstructed the incident?   Did you read what the conditions of the dirt were, how much rubber was on it?  Did you read which tire ran over Ward?   Etc