Patrick (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} foxbase) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} girlkilledmom,@ 2006-12-01 10:13:00 |
|
What do you think of Rachelle Waterman’s release from prison?
This is old, but I just found it today. A response from one of the jurors, giving us some insight into their view on things.
from: http://juneaublogger.com/voxbox/200
Mindy Says:
March 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
All these points of view are interesting. I am guessing most of you gained your facts through the paper you are reading or media. How do you know it is the truth? How do you know that all the details were truly given in the article? How can you pass judgements on people you never met or got to know? How would you feel if you were ‘Doc’?
I have many times seen how the media will twist and portray and issue in the most lude or lascivious way possible. Why? It sells papers, even at the expense of a person who is innocent until proven guilty.
I sat on that trial for 3.5 weeks with 14 other people I am honored to have come to know. What I learned when it was over and finally saw the media’s impression is that…The devil is in the details! And the details are missing in the media.
It is amazing how one choice can have such a devestating affect on SO many lives. My heart goes out to all affected by this. All I can do is make better choices for myself and hope others can learn by example.
PEACE!
Robert M. Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Mindy,
If you come back to check your post, I just want to say how right you are about details and all media’s failure to convey even the most relevant parts. They seem to just fall into parroted sensationalism instead of presenting anything like intelligent interpretation.
The blogger over at Court-TV actually came far down the path of intelligent summary, but even there, given my own research experience in these matters, it was frustrating to know there was much more unsummarized. It’s still posted so you might want to review it, given that you were otherwise occupied “in experiencing it in real-time”.
And for that, I want to publicly THANK YOU and ALL the other jurors, too. Not for voting as you did, but for the process by which you attended to the information while sitting there, and the process by which you, quite civily it seems, worked through it all over again in your deliberations. From what you’ve said here, and from what I’ve read elsewhere, it appears as if it was an almost transforming experience.
No fellow citizen could have asked for better consideration of his/her situation than what you provided Rachelle Waterman. Nor could the State of Alaska, not if its prosecutors truly believe in the empaneling of fair and impartial jurors.
The vital, strongly beating heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence is the jury trial when the jurors stand-by the centuries-old values of our system and stand-by each other in comity.
Thank you all so very much.
A visitor from the Bay State.
Mindy Says:
March 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Thank you for your kind words Robert. I truly appreciate them. This is an experience I will NEVER forget. And a experience I am still healing from. And yes this was a VERY ‘transforming experience.’
I did review CourtTV. And while I found they listed FAR more than most media, they still did not put it all in there. As jurors we read and reviewed ALL that was presented and more in that room. No stone was left unturned. No thought unsaid. And always we honored the integrity of each juror’s thoughts.
For me, this system worked. And I also cannot tell you enough how we all appreciated the Honorable Patricia Collins who resided over this case. She is a woman of integrity and I am so thankful I was able to serve on this trial with her.
This is old, but I just found it today. A response from one of the jurors, giving us some insight into their view on things.
from: http://juneaublogger.com/voxbox/200
Mindy Says:
March 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
All these points of view are interesting. I am guessing most of you gained your facts through the paper you are reading or media. How do you know it is the truth? How do you know that all the details were truly given in the article? How can you pass judgements on people you never met or got to know? How would you feel if you were ‘Doc’?
I have many times seen how the media will twist and portray and issue in the most lude or lascivious way possible. Why? It sells papers, even at the expense of a person who is innocent until proven guilty.
I sat on that trial for 3.5 weeks with 14 other people I am honored to have come to know. What I learned when it was over and finally saw the media’s impression is that…The devil is in the details! And the details are missing in the media.
It is amazing how one choice can have such a devestating affect on SO many lives. My heart goes out to all affected by this. All I can do is make better choices for myself and hope others can learn by example.
PEACE!
Robert M. Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Mindy,
If you come back to check your post, I just want to say how right you are about details and all media’s failure to convey even the most relevant parts. They seem to just fall into parroted sensationalism instead of presenting anything like intelligent interpretation.
The blogger over at Court-TV actually came far down the path of intelligent summary, but even there, given my own research experience in these matters, it was frustrating to know there was much more unsummarized. It’s still posted so you might want to review it, given that you were otherwise occupied “in experiencing it in real-time”.
And for that, I want to publicly THANK YOU and ALL the other jurors, too. Not for voting as you did, but for the process by which you attended to the information while sitting there, and the process by which you, quite civily it seems, worked through it all over again in your deliberations. From what you’ve said here, and from what I’ve read elsewhere, it appears as if it was an almost transforming experience.
No fellow citizen could have asked for better consideration of his/her situation than what you provided Rachelle Waterman. Nor could the State of Alaska, not if its prosecutors truly believe in the empaneling of fair and impartial jurors.
The vital, strongly beating heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence is the jury trial when the jurors stand-by the centuries-old values of our system and stand-by each other in comity.
Thank you all so very much.
A visitor from the Bay State.
Mindy Says:
March 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Thank you for your kind words Robert. I truly appreciate them. This is an experience I will NEVER forget. And a experience I am still healing from. And yes this was a VERY ‘transforming experience.’
I did review CourtTV. And while I found they listed FAR more than most media, they still did not put it all in there. As jurors we read and reviewed ALL that was presented and more in that room. No stone was left unturned. No thought unsaid. And always we honored the integrity of each juror’s thoughts.
For me, this system worked. And I also cannot tell you enough how we all appreciated the Honorable Patricia Collins who resided over this case. She is a woman of integrity and I am so thankful I was able to serve on this trial with her.
