Thanks to the Times Leader, we know what happened in court today, kinda....

-----------------------------------------------------------

TIMES LEADER BREAKING NEWS Friday 4/27/07
Judge to mull testimony in Selenski/Weakley case
By DAVID WEISS

WILKES-BARRE – Attorneys for homicide suspects Hugo Selenski and Paul Weakley said they have a host of new inquiries they need to pose on a key witness.

But because that witness, the father of slain pharmacist Michael Kerkowski, has died, the attorneys have no way of getting answers to those questions.

That, they said, is enough reason to stop prosecutors from using the elder Kerkowski’s testimony from a past hearing at the upcoming homicide trial for the duo.

But prosecutors said that past hearing gave the attorneys the necessary opportunity to ask those questions. It’s the attorneys’ faults for not asking them, First Assistant District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll said Friday.

“If they sit there and they don’t open their mouth, it doesn’t matter,” she said. “(They) were given the opportunity.”

And because they had that opportunity, it means the past testimony can be used at the suspects’ homicide trial, she said.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski said on Friday he could decide within two weeks whether prosecutors can present a transcript of that testimony to the jury selected to hear the case.

For more details read tomorrow’s Times Leader.
------------------------------------------------------

And this class-act dumbass left a comment that fries a couple of your brain cells every time you are subjected to reading it, so read at your own risk! I warned you!!

"Joe Bagodonuts's Comment on Article (from 4/2707, 1:46PM)

You should have asked when you had the chance. they can't help that the guy died. I guess that is Lupas's fault as well. I like this selenski case alot better thatn the other one. Why are these guys dying soo bad to escape? They are guilty. If they robbed that old man they could have robbed the pharmacist and killed him"

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!! Damn, I hope his choice of name doesn't mean he's a cop... Apparently there's a reading comprehension problem with the poor guy- NEW questions, buddy!!! Yup, meaning, ya know, they weren't questions they would've or did ask before. And yet again, oooooooooof course, he's another judge and jury! Polly want a cracker? Can you say, get a life?????

As for Jackie-O's attitude, she's one to talk! She and her bossy are the ones who were "given the opportunity" to debate their opponents in their respective political races and seem to have chickened out. So did her little "about me" article matter?- I think not!! Man, ouch, gonna need some salve for that self-butt-bite, hahahahaha..