Right. Okay. ITA re: what Jeff Ashton is saying. I was commenting about the linked show was making a show about what happens when the media gets over involved with a case. One comment about Jeff Ashton's comment: I do agree the jury pool was polluted but the P12 were educated people, on paper, and said at Jury selection that they did not have an opinion about her guilt or innocence and had not followed the case, just seen it a few times on the news and I remember at least one said they didn't watch the news or at least only watched it rarely.
So if all of that is true, that
12 educated sequestered people with no set opinions about fca's guilt or innocence sat through 6 weeks of a trial and then sat in a room for only a day or so deliberating - how were these 12 influenced by the media?
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&slreturn=1
The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
My favorite very long article about this case written by Adam H. Kurland, a professor of law at Howard University School of Law in Washington and of counsel to Coburn & Greenbaum in Washington.
The whole article is fantastic. He mentions a law cartoon from the The New Yorker.
And this article made me realize that there are three (3) opinions: the court, the media and the public. The media and public are two different entities.
Regardless, if the Jurors were tainted by the media and there was Nancy Grace saying night after night she was guilty, where did the verdict come from? IMO the
media, news, Nancy did not influence
this jury. It was the permitted OS, the permitted lowered chair etc etc blah blah blah omg I have given myself a headache, nothing to do with you or your posts, I love your posts - I just now really realized that I will never get past that fiasco of a trial