- Oct 15, 2008
- Reaction score
I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.
In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.
This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.
Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:
It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.
I can't forgive Judge Perry for allowing some of them - and allowing the nonsense they testified to to be presented in court.