Posted on 11/18/2021 5:34:39 AM PST by Pilgrim's Progress
Links will be provided at they become available.
Hoping to see this thing wrap up soon with a favorable verdict for our nation's hero - Kyle Rittenhouse and some legal jeopardy for ADA Binger and his buddy Krause (aka Fatlock).
The instructions were complex, and the whole video thing was confusing to say the least. There’s probably a lot of stuff going on with them.
If I were on this jury, I’d feel that I had been badly served by both sides and the Judge.
I don’t know much at all about jury nullification, but the phrase comes to mind.
Yes.
Kyle has likely been told his defense shit the bed and he’d be lucky to ‘re-rack’ and get another trial using a better defense team.
I think he’s right at this point.
This is all the evidence someone making the prosecution’s case would ask for.
The ‘professor’ lady is some anti-gun lib and she’s going to school them all and at the worst result in a hung jury.
Because it says “presiding juror” #54
Yes.
Foreperson does the written questions to the judge and that’s a woman’s handwriting.
ALL of the requests are for things the prosecution would want to see to try to convict. The drone, the fake blow up, all of it.
NOT GOOD!
https://peoplespundit.locals.com/post/1315331/what-i-see-in-jury-notes-from-question-numbers-4-5
“Presiding juror” refers to the jury foreman.
The use of the word “Please” when requesting the information is not an argument against a Red, but rather more likely due to deference to and respect for authority. Further, in Question Number 4 (included), the Red in her overwhelms deference when she gets right to the point requesting succinctly (decisiveness/control) the items she requires.
The “control” element is clear in the notice instructing the court to prepare the request
ed information with a clarification that they will “request when ready”, meaning this juror does not want them to interrupt deliberations until they are ready.
The jury was instructed that the court needs time to prepare requested information. However, there’s a clear need for control, both of the deliberation and of the flow of information in deliberations.
UPDATE: As was pointed out, her deference is crystal clear by her mimicking of the prosecution’s manner of phrasing the fire extinguisher. She is siding with the prosecution on the version of events surrounding the extinguisher, i.e. put down vs. dropped.
In sum, the items requested indicate she’s trying to find ill intent in his actions, something to reenforce her belief that Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong by virtue of being there, and is hoping the moments right before and after will sway jurors who are for acquittal. It’s a search for something to affirm the version of the story that we all tell ourselves and which is informed by our beliefs, not facts or evidence.
FROM MY LINK ABOVE
She’s speaking for the whole jury.
Meaning maybe the requests are not ones she would make herself. Anybody has a requet, it runs through her.
Maybe she’s a holdout against self defense, maybe not.
I think it’s fair to prejudge that somebody on the jury is not thinking straight. premature, IMO, to assign that to #54.
Who wrote it?
Barnes thinks it’s a foreperson that’s gone rogue and is the holdout which is why we haven’t gotten a verdict yet.
NO WAY she will change her mind so we have to hope there are some Kyle people on there. Hung jury.
Kyle needs to build a ‘dream team’ lawyer group and destroy these guys in the next trial.
And not bad. Everyone speculates at this point. The worst I believe we could expect is a hung jury. That is, unless there is nobody with a spine on that jury. I saw a LOT of the courtroom drama, I would vote to acquit on all counts. And there is no way I’d change my mind just to “get along” with the other jurors. We’re talking about JUSTICE, here.
#54 wrote it. My point is that she’s stuck being the voice for the whole jury.
I get it that Barnes thinks #54 is the holdout. My point of view is “insufficient evidence” or “evidence is equivocal.” I don;t assume the request is hers personally. She has to write down the requests for 12 people.
I do agree there is a holdout / stalemate. THis person is unreasonable, menaing no amount of logic or reason will work. You’ve no doubt dealt with this sort of person, or watched it in conversations on FR or in the workplace.
That sort of person is immune to dream team lawyers too.
20 hours now
We are in an information vacuum, so people are coming up with all sorts of theories. That’s all this is.
her dragging out her 15 minutes of fame, may cause her to have a lifetime of shame, if shame were even possible for liberals
Re #411:
Ding Ding Ding
We have a winner!
Having been on juries myself, that’s how I see it too. Fortunately, in my case, one of them had two holdouts, but because it was a civil case, we eventually told them to pound sand and reached a verdict without them (didn’t need to ba unanimous).
“I do agree there is a holdout / stalemate.”
The worrisome part is the holdout may be for acquittal.
Whomever they are, I suspect the first vote was heavily toward acquittal and the holdouts are trying to persuade the others to convict. If they could, that would be a profitable book to write about how I got a conviction in the liberal world as well as the author being a hero.
I’m hoping we get Binger and Klauss on the witness stand and have them explain (1) the video compression and how all that happened and (2) the identify of Drop Kick Man and what they knew about that.
Get them under oath and set them up to be guilty of perjury if they lie.
Then an expert in computer forensics can tell us about #1. Then get Jump Kick Man in there (he’s apparently currently in jail) and get him to talk about #2.
Mistrial with prejudice.
Defense team won’t fight for some reason. Maybe they want the 2x paycheck on this doing the do-over.
The forewoman wrote it based on what people wanted to see but she picked the actual wording in the note.
I doubt it. My early speculation was the jury would intiailly split 10 / 2, with 10 for acquittal. This is not a hard case on the law and facts, although the defense made it harder on the law than it should be.
Provocation by proxy ... LOL. Kyle provokes Zeminski, which gives Rosenbaum some sort of retaliation rights? Not that there is provocation at all, but what I described is the prosecution's theory. That theory does not exist in the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.