Top Hamilton headlines this week: Community mourns the shocking death of a young bystander + Get ready to pick your next MP
T
he weekend is here, but plenty happened in the Hamilton area this week. Don't miss these top stories from Spectator reporters.
It's
Paris to Ancaster
race weekend and there are plenty more
family friendly activities
this weekend in the Hamilton area.
There's a chance of showers Saturday but brilliant sun is in the forecast Sunday. Expect temperatures to peak at 11 C Saturday and 17 C Sunday.
Joe and Fran Tingle were inseparable, living through the birth of a son and two daughters, six grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Their love story began as newlyweds in 1959. It ended earlier this month in a room at Juravinski Hospital, their deaths three days apart.
Who is Fame Cartell? Scott Radley explains in this fun read about an athlete-turned-musician-turned-athlete competing to win a senior hockey championship.
Community members gathered Sunday near the site of a tragic shooting to mourn the death of a Mohawk College student killed by a stray bullet while standing at a bus stop. Harsimrat Randhawa, 21, had come from India to study in Canada. Her death has shocked both the city as well as the broader Sikh community.
At a
Mohawk College vigil
later in the week around 100 people — classmates, staff, friends, family — came together to reflect on a life cut short.
Hamilton's building department has issued a stop-work order on the construction of a new house in Lansdale that led to the demolition of a home next door.
Hamilton area voters choose the next members of Parliament Monday as the snap federal election ends. Find everything you need to know about your
candidates
and all the issues that matter in Hamilton on
thespec.com
.
Subscribe to our newsletters for the latest local content
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein jurors beg for coffee ‘for energy' as grueling, dramatic deliberations continue in NYC sex crimes retrial
Jurors weighing Harvey Weinstein's fate pleaded for a dose of caffeine as their grueling deliberations continued Monday — with yet another dramatic revelation about apparent dysfunction in the jury room. The third day of deliberations in Weinstein's Manhattan sex-crimes retrial ended without a verdict, and with a request from jurors for a cup of Joe when they return Tuesday morning. 'We the jury request coffee, tomorrow morning for energy,' read a note sent to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. It came after more drama unfolded in the morning, when the panel sent notes to the court asking to be reminded of the definition of reasonable doubt and how to avoid a hung jury. A separate note accompanied that request, sent by the foreman, Juror No. 1, who said he needed to speak to the judge 'about a situation that isn't very good.' Juror No. 1, who had asked late Friday to speak to the court before changing his mind, expressed concern about 'something going on in the jury room' — later revealing that jurors have discussed Weinstein's general past. 'They are pushing people, talking about his past,' the juror said in a closed-doors meeting with attorneys, according to a transcript of the conversation. It's unclear what exactly from the disgraced Hollywood honcho's checkered past jurors were whispering about — but the disclosure was enough for Weinstein's attorney, Arthur Aidala, to demand an end to deliberations. 'He's coming to us crying for help. We don't send him into the lion's den without taking any action,' Aidala cried out in the meeting, before asking the judge for a mistrial. 'There is a tainted jury, there's jury misconduct.' Aidala charged. 'There's information in the jury room that we now know… People are considering things that were not in this trial as evidence.' Farber ultimately denied Weinstein's latest mistrial bid — the second such request made by Aidala over what appeared to be rising tension between jurors. The attorney also made a failed bid for a mistrial Friday after Juror No. 7, described as a 25-year-old 'computer kid,' asked to be dismissed from the case, saying that 'playground stuff' had broken out among the groups, with some on the jury gossiping about one of their own. 'The experience I've had in the day-and-a-half here, in good conscience, I don't think this is fair and just,' he told the court Friday morning when he was brought to the witness box to explain why he wanted to quit. Aidala, while arguing for the case to be tossed, said the judge should have questioned the juror further to inquire about the drama. But Farber shot down the bid, dismissing the juror's concerns as nothing more than typical 'abnormal tensions during deliberations.' The judge's guidance was confirmed by another juror, Juror No. 10, who provided a positive deliberations update just before noon Monday. 'I just basically wanted to give the temperature. I think that things are going well today,' the woman said. 'The tone is very different today. We're making headway.' The jury sent a flurry of notes to the court Monday — including asking for a re-reading of trial testimony from clinical psychologist Lisa Rocchio, who had explained why sexual assault victims might maintain contact with their attackers. They also asked for a laptop with emails and evidence from the testimony of Jessica Mann, a former actress who cried during her time on the stand as she graphically detailed an alleged 2013 rape by Weinstein. But the panel was notified that their coffee ask would be a 'tough no' — because the state doesn't provide anything but lunch for jurors during trials. 'As much as I would love to give you coffee, I'm powerless,' the judge said, drawing a smile from jurors before he suggested they all chip in to buy a jug of Joe from Dunkin' Donuts. The jury will resume its deliberations on Tuesday morning. Weinstein, 73, was originally found guilty at trial in 2020 of criminal sex act and rape and given a 23-year prison sentence — but New York's highest court tossed the conviction last year. The fallen Miramax founder faces up to 25 years in prison at his retrial on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act, and four years in prison on third-degree rape. He has pleaded not guilty.
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Harvey Weinstein jurors beg for coffee ‘for energy' as grueling, dramatic deliberations continue in NYC sex crimes retrial
Jurors weighing Harvey Weinstein's fate pleaded for a dose of caffeine as their grueling deliberations continued Monday — with yet another dramatic revelation about apparent dysfunction in the jury room. The third day of deliberations in Weinstein's Manhattan sex-crimes retrial ended without a verdict, and with a request from jurors for a cup of Joe when they return Tuesday morning. 'We the jury request coffee, tomorrow morning for energy,' read a note sent to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. Advertisement 7 The third day of deliberations in Weinstein's Manhattan sex-crimes retrial ended without a verdict. Steven Hirsch It came after more drama unfolded in the morning, when the panel sent notes to the court asking to be reminded of the definition of reasonable doubt and how to avoid a hung jury. A separate note accompanied that request, sent by the foreman, Juror No. 1, who said he needed to speak to the judge 'about a situation that isn't very good.' Advertisement Juror No. 1, who had asked late Friday to speak to the court before changing his mind, expressed concern about 'something going on in the jury room' — later revealing that jurors have discussed Weinstein's general past. 7 It came after more drama unfolded in the morning, when the panel sent notes to the court asking to be reminded of the definition of reasonable doubt. AP 'They are pushing people, talking about his past,' the juror said in a closed-doors meeting with attorneys, according to a transcript of the conversation. It's unclear what exactly from the disgraced Hollywood honcho's checkered past jurors were whispering about — but the disclosure was enough for Weinstein's attorney, Arthur Aidala, to demand an end to deliberations. Advertisement 7 'They are pushing people, talking about his past,' the juror said in a closed-doors meeting with attorneys, according to a transcript of the conversation. Getty Images 'He's coming to us crying for help. We don't send him into the lion's den without taking any action,' Aidala cried out in the meeting, before asking the judge for a mistrial. 'There is a tainted jury, there's jury misconduct.' Aidala charged. 'There's information in the jury room that we now know… People are considering things that were not in this trial as evidence.' Farber ultimately denied Weinstein's latest mistrial bid — the second such request made by Aidala over what appeared to be rising tension between jurors. Advertisement 7 It's unclear what exactly from the disgraced Hollywood honcho's checkered past jurors were whispering about. AP The attorney also made a failed bid for a mistrial Friday after Juror No. 7, described as a 25-year-old 'computer kid,' asked to be dismissed from the case, saying that 'playground stuff' had broken out among the groups, with some on the jury gossiping about one of their own. 'The experience I've had in the day-and-a-half here, in good conscience, I don't think this is fair and just,' he told the court Friday morning when he was brought to the witness box to explain why he wanted to quit. 7 Farber ultimately denied Weinstein's latest mistrial bid — the second such request made by Aidala over what appeared to be rising tension between jurors. Steven Hirsch Aidala, while arguing for the case to be tossed, said the judge should have questioned the juror further to inquire about the drama. But Farber shot down the bid, dismissing the juror's concerns as nothing more than typical 'abnormal tensions during deliberations.' The judge's guidance was confirmed by another juror, Juror No. 10, who provided a positive deliberations update just before noon Monday. 'I just basically wanted to give the temperature. I think that things are going well today,' the woman said. 'The tone is very different today. We're making headway.' Advertisement 7 Aidala, while arguing for the case to be tossed, said the judge should have questioned the juror further to inquire about the drama. AP The jury sent a flurry of notes to the court Monday — including asking for a re-reading of trial testimony from clinical psychologist Lisa Rocchio, who had explained why sexual assault victims might maintain contact with their attackers. They also asked for a laptop with emails and evidence from the testimony of Jessica Mann, a former actress who cried during her time on the stand as she graphically detailed an alleged 2013 rape by Weinstein. But the panel was notified that their coffee ask would be a 'tough no' — because the state doesn't provide anything but lunch for jurors during trials. Advertisement 7 The judge's guidance was confirmed by another juror, Juror No. 10, who provided a positive deliberations update just before noon Monday. Steven Hirsch 'As much as I would love to give you coffee, I'm powerless,' the judge said, drawing a smile from jurors before he suggested they all chip in to buy a jug of Joe from Dunkin' Donuts. The jury will resume its deliberations on Tuesday morning. Weinstein, 73, was originally found guilty at trial in 2020 of criminal sex act and rape and given a 23-year prison sentence — but New York's highest court tossed the conviction last year. Advertisement The fallen Miramax founder faces up to 25 years in prison at his retrial on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act, and four years in prison on third-degree rape. He has pleaded not guilty.
New York Post
3 days ago
- New York Post
Prez-pardon problems go far beyond Joe Biden's fishy signatures
Autopen abuse is only the latest wrinkle in the now decades-old problems surrounding the presidential pardon power. The Justice Department is now looking into whether President Joe Biden was sufficiently competent when he issued a handful of pardons in his final days in office; some even suggest that misuse of the infamous autopen allowed for others to slip through clemencies without involving Joe at all. Biden in all 'signed' over 4,000 pardons of some kind, many of them utterly rancid: from hundreds of commutations for vile bribe-takers, con artists and other sleazoids to letting literal child murderers dodge the death penalty. Advertisement What if anything did the president know about what 'he' was doing? No one doubts he chose to pardon son Hunter, and in fact all signs are that he truly signed that one himself; and he likely also intended to hand those get-out-jail-free cards to other family: siblings and in-laws James and his wife, Sara; his sister, Valerie, and her husband, John Owens; and his brother Francis — even if those got the autopen treatment. But did he really opt to issue preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley? Advertisement Indeed, it's not actually clear that the constitutional power extends to such 'blank check' clemencies, rather than the traditional pardons for specific crimes or at least specific actions not yet charged. On the autopen front, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is forcing the 'politboro,' the inner circle of advisers who ran the White House as Joe slipped ever further, to testify under oath about decision-making in the final months, at least. All this is separate from kosher-but-outrageous pardons, such as President Bill Clinton shameless clemencies, with hours left in his presidency, for his former business partner Susan McDougal, who was charged with contempt of court after refusing to testify against him, and for Marc Rich, an international fugitive whose wife had donated handsomely to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Presidential Library. Advertisement That sleeze-fest was so notorious it was labeled 'Pardongate.' And, yes, some of President Donald Trump's pardons are controversial, too, including the blanket forgiveness of all Jan. 6 Capitol Riot offenses. Which points to why probing the Biden pardons really should be bipartisan: Whichever party holds the White House when a power is first abused, the other party will get a chance to catch up — and the rule of law deteriorates that much more. If the Biden crew crossed any constitutional lines, the public needs to know so the practice can be quashed before it becomes a trend.
