Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,653
Do we have to read the minds of jurors now to find out if they glanced at a newspaper and should be disqualified for jury duty ... in case they lie and try to get on the jury even though they've made up their minds? Is that the objection here ... that in case the jury was filled with people lying about their objectivity, then the verdict would be wrong?
The case was international news when it happened because it involved people from England, the Ivory Coast, Italy and the United States ... it was big news not because the something the Italians were doing irresponsibly, but because it involved people from four different countries. This was not about the United States (anti-Americanism remarks) or Knox, it was about four people from four different countries getting together one night ... three of them stoned out of their heads, and the forth cramming for an exam.
To recap this vein of discussion:
Supporters of the verdict (including you) claimed that the jury decision should be given weight because the jury heard all the testimony. You further claimed that the ensuing cheering in the streets was proof that Perugians in general agreed with the verdict and that, too, made it more likely the verdicts were just.
Nobody is saying Italian jurors are specially incompetent. All we said was that jurors don't always base their decision on the evidence alone and public applause for a verdict may be a sign of social pressure, not accuracy.
As for four people "getting together one night," there is no evidence that that happened, except for three statements you refer to as "lies."