Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

On Saturday 29 September 2001 10:21 am, jt wrote:

> >> There is no mathematical possibility that they discussed much of the
> evidence presented, in four hours.  IMHO, the jury goofed, *not so much
> because of the verdict*, but because *they obviously never discussed any of
> the mountains of evidence in their deliberations*.  They whittled it down to
> one or two over-simplified points (I don't recall what they were) and CALLED
> themselves deliberating a verdict.

You don't think it was possible that pretty much every point had been
discussed in the marathon courtroom part of the trial? Then they get in the
jury room and say, "Okay, does anyone have any confusion they need to be
cleared up?" and the answer is, "No."

The lawyers did spend a lot of time covering all the bases, didn't they?

> >> So they all had their minds more-or-less made up, when they left the jury
> box.  And every last one of them just happened to believe OJ was
> innocent...!?!  Either that, or the ones that had some doubts about his
> innocence realized that there was no way they were ever going to reason with
> the remainder, and decided to go along with the decision.

How could they have realized that "there was no way they were going to reason
with the remainder" without discussion in the jury room? In my opinion the
short stay in the jury room simply tends to indicate they were that much more
convinced by the activity in the court room.

> >> Given the difference of opinion throughout the country, it is my best
> guess that this wasn't the open-and-shut case that most 4-hour deliberations
> are.  And regardless of whether there was verbal communication of guilt or
> innocence prior to the deliberations (which I understand is against the law)
> you wouldn't have to be any wizard of non-verbals to be able to tell if one
> of your fellow jurists, who for whatever reason had decided OJ was innocent,
> was NEVER going to listen to any evidence to the contrary.  If one juror has
> let it be known, one way or the other, that they are unwilling to budge on
> their position...  Well...  If you were a jurist in that situation, where
> you really DID have doubts about OJ's innocence, you're facing a decision:
> innocent, or hung jury.  Not good choices.

Quite a bit of assumption here. As you portray it, the juror(s) who decided
that OJ was innocent were close minded and used psychic powers to make sure
others knew this, and the jurors who questioned his innocence were weak
willed and so were herded along.

> >> Just as I've seen eyewitness testimony, that convicted a man, and later
> DNA evidenced proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyewitness
> testimony was confused.

Eyewitness testimony is often weak. That has to do with the way people
remember things. All of our memories are associative, that means they rely on
other things. Well, if other factors are involved, we can remember things
wrong.

> >> So it IS possible that the jurists made their best determination, from
> the evidence, and all 12 found reasonable doubt.  Given that the rest of the
> country didn't see it in anything close to that same proportion (unanimous)
> I find that doubtful, but possible.

But it was the jurors who saw all of the evidence that was allowed to be
presented in the case. I believe that this didn't include the DNA evidence
which was allowed to be excluded since the judge couldn't be convinced it
wasn't tainted.

> >> Point is still, the high-priced team of defense lawyers may also have
> somehow swayed them from seeing the facts clearly.

They may have. Or, it may have taken a high priced team of lawyers to sway
them to see the facts clearly. The bottom line is that any other person
without the money to hire that team would have gone to prison regardless of
their guilt.

> >> James Jay Toran (jt)

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31