What makes you think you are "setting the record straight"? And how do you know how many notes the other jurors did or didn't take? Were you taking notes on them instead of paying attention to what was going on in the courtroom? From the prosecution's wild speculations and unreliable witnesses (one of which had been a "witness" in two previous murder trials and a suspect in a third, and the other of which had just one day earlier been put in the "hole" because of attacking the defendant after the defendant verbally confronted him about his 14 counts of rape), I would say you weren't paying attention to what was really going down.
Are you aware that in no bully cases do the bullies generally come forward and announce that they were bullying the people they were intimidating (whether school kids or juries)? That is to say, if another witness says she was bullied, it is hardly your place (especially as someone "anonymous' who may very well be the main culprit) to say she didn't feel or experience what she says she felt and experienced.
Was there in fact even any glitter at all on the defendant's hands, as the Prosecution tried to claim? If so, why was there no evidence of that? Furthermore, if there WAS glitter on the defendant's hands, that glitter should have transferred to the large rock he supposedly grabbed and used, if he had grabbed and used it. That is only one of many unbelievable issues that went down in that courtroom — a courtroom in which the defendant's lawyer had been specifically told that there would be no DNA experts at all (because the defendant was being represented by the state, so the state would have had to pay for 2 DNA witnesses), which is precisely why the defendant's lawyer had not prepared such an expert.
I would suggest that next time you get your facts straight, paying more attention to what is going on in the courtroom instead of to other jurors. Perhaps you, too, will then notice some of the same inconsistencies that they saw.
What makes you think you are "setting the record straight"? And how do you know how many notes the other jurors did or didn't take? Were you taking notes on them instead of paying attention to what was going on in the courtroom? From the prosecution's wild speculations and unreliable witnesses (one of which had been a "witness" in two previous murder trials and a suspect in a third, and the other of which had just one day earlier been put in the "hole" because of attacking the defendant after the defendant verbally confronted him about his 14 counts of rape), I would say you weren't paying attention to what was really going down.
Are you aware that in no bully cases do the bullies generally come forward and announce that they were bullying the people they were intimidating (whether school kids or juries)? That is to say, if another witness says she was bullied, it is hardly your place (especially as someone "anonymous' who may very well be the main culprit) to say she didn't feel or experience what she says she felt and experienced.
Was there in fact even any glitter at all on the defendant's hands, as the Prosecution tried to claim? If so, why was there no evidence of that? Furthermore, if there WAS glitter on the defendant's hands, that glitter should have transferred to the large rock he supposedly grabbed and used, if he had grabbed and used it. That is only one of many unbelievable issues that went down in that courtroom — a courtroom in which the defendant's lawyer had been specifically told that there would be no DNA experts at all (because the defendant was being represented by the state, so the state would have had to pay for 2 DNA witnesses), which is precisely why the defendant's lawyer had not prepared such an expert.
I would suggest that next time you get your facts straight, paying more attention to what is going on in the courtroom instead of to other jurors. Perhaps you, too, will then notice some of the same inconsistencies that they saw.