I'm not doing any parsing - I am reading that choice as one whole, i.e KC asked for medication and so was taken to the medical area, where cameras are always present. I'm not sure the OP meant this to be an 'either/or' option, but if so, maybe it should be split into two separate questions for clarity.
Your comment that some of those members who chose this option may have factored in reports that KC asked for medication demonstrates the point I was making, since the evidence shows that she did not ask for any medication until after she was placed in front of the TV.
I am most certainly not drinking any Koolaid. I read every piece of evidence - carefully, thoroughly and objectively. I don't own any rose-coloured specs, but neither do I own any blinkers/blinders. The problem with looking at the totality of evidence is that currently that 'totality' includes inconsistencies, errors, misconceptions, misinformation, media spin, speculation, rumour, hype, gossip etc. Strange as it may seem, I'm here at WS to try and learn the truth of this tragic case too, and I certainly do hope that the jury can put aside any of this that they've been privy to and concentrate only on accurate facts and evidence.
ETA. The context of your post suggests that the 'WS community' sees the evidence as it really is, that you will be looking to that 'community' to get to the truth of matters, and that you hope the jury is made up of people like those in the 'community'. Does that mean that I'm not part of the WS 'community' then, since some of my opinions and interpretations of the evidence are clearly different to how you suggest the 'community' does, or should, see things?
You may have read the entire choice but you only posted the part about 'medication' and left out the second half about video surveillance. To me, that's parsing but I suppose reasonable minds may differ.
Your misunderstandings or misrepresentations of my post kind of prove my point. At no time did I state, suggest, or imply that KC requested meds PRIOR to going to the medical facility and how you inferred it is beyond me. Why, on the other hand, well... I suppose playing devil's advocate again, right?
As for my Koolaid comment, I apologize for not being more clear but it didn't occur to me that you would take it personally. When I used the word "you" it was meant to refer to the universal "you" or "one should be careful" without naming anyone in particular. In point of fact, it was meant to imply which 'brand' of koolaid, out of respect for this entire community because I believe they will catch anyone drinking any brand. (I like metaphors!)
Jurors are required to look at the totality of the evidences and are allowed to draw certain inferences therefrom. So, once again, I disagree with you that WS community members, at least the 56% whose vote caused you concern, would be less than stellar jurists. In a WS poll, for example, one usually selects the option closest to what they feel, is my understanding. There are a limited number of options, none of which may accurately represent the exact reasoning of any individual poster. We do the best we can. It's not like we're in a court of law where the first thing we must do is determine KC innocent until the state proves her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for your ETA: Due to the vote of 56% of those who voted, you expressed concern that anyone like them would be on a jury. I disagreed and explained why; that we as a community try very hard to get to the truth of matters and appear to be very successful at it, from my view. Yes, the devil's advocate can and does play an important role in this process, as I have posted many times. (Usually when complaining that someone is taking it a bit too far imo and seem to be heading for an "alien" defense.)
Since you asked for my opinion of you, personally, I'll give my opinion based solely on this last paragraph you wrote and say that it reminds me a great deal of the engineer that voted not guilty in the Specter case. It also reminds me a great deal of another case, don't recall the name, where there were two engineers on a jury and it was a drug case. The accused was clearly guilty, all 12 jurors agreed on that. However, the engineers argued incessantly about the weight of the narcotics, not that the difference would have made a difference in sentencing or anything, they were just that meticulous (anal retentive) and the jury ended up a hung jury. Those two got hung up on one irrelevant detail rather than the totality of the circumstances.
So, I answered you, will you answer me? Would you make a big stink in the jury room over some inconsequential details in the discovery? Or some nit picking inconsistencies between witnesses? And exactly which inconsistencies give you this grave concern?
