[truth_seeker]

This speaks awfully well to a hard prejudice and bias against the defense, and/or lines of inquiry that would have been, should have been and were made specifically but not limited to those inquiries into the reckless activities of the van Dams that are most reasonably relevant in abduction cases such as this. That is, it goes to suggesting that the Juror, Winkowski, went into the trial not as the Constitutionally mandated "impartial Juror", but one too full of pre-established conceptions about guilt and the illegitimacy of lines of argument.

Your rant is a load of big-word horse manure.

The guy went in impartial. At the end he is pissed that the defense attorney lied to the jury for 4 months. That is all it says, regardless of how hard you squirm and spin and conjur to find 50 words, where only ten words exist.

[bvw]

Went in impartial? Yeah, sure he did. Sure. His impartiality was as thick as cheap silverplate on flatware. One use and it's ruined.

[bvw]

Okie dokie .... "This was not a trial it was a gang bang."

Ten words!

[drlevy88]

At the end he is pissed jumps to the conclusion that the defense attorney lied to the jury for 4 months.