12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men Was A Classic Movie, Fictional But Classic.
I Say Fictional Because It's Not Based On A True Story And
I Doubt That One Juror Could Convince Eleven Other Jurors
Contrary To Their Conclusions Made Before, During The Trial
And During The Deliberations That He's On To The Truth And
They Are Not, Whether Or Not He Was In Actuality On To
The Truth Or Not.
This Is Devoted To Why I Came To My Conclusions, Not Why I Believe The Other
Eleven Were Wrong During A Trial And Jury Deliberation That I Was Participating In.
Do You Know?
1. "To Have A Clear Perception Or Understanding Of; Be Sure Of Or Well Informed
About [To Know The Facts]-New World Dictionary
In The Trial I Was A Part Of, The Jury And Even The Judge Couldn't Or Wouldn't
Define 'Reasonable' Doubt For Us, So We Each Had To Invidually Answer This Question For Ourselves.
After The Fact And After Looking At The Definitions Which I Wasn't
Allowed While In Jury Deliberations I Believe Guilty Without A 'Reasonable' Doubt, Means That You Know Something. I Could Never Say I Knew The Defendant Was Guilty, Given The Incomplete 'Evidence', And
During All The Evidence Being Presented And Being Debated In Deliberations, My 'Presumption Of Innocence' Remained Intact
And The Same Alternative Explanation Was Always Possible When Looking At The Evidence.
My Alternative Explanation Of The Evidence Was That The Defendant Was A Patsy
That Until After The Arrest Didn't Know What Was In The Car She Was Driving And Legally Speaking, Registered To Someone Else,
And The Person That Legally Owned The Vehicle Was Responsible For Hiding The Drugs In The Car, With Only Someone At The Final
Destination Point Knowing What Was In The Car. The Reason The Defendant Didn't Spill The Beans Once Being Used Was That She
Was Either Afraid Of The Repercussions From The Actual Guilty Party Or She Didn't Want The Investigation To Include Her Girlfriend
And Go From State To Federal.
Do I Know All This To Be True?
Of Course Not, But Simply Being Able To Provide
A Reasonable Alternative Explanation Shows That The Evidence Doesn't Just Point In One Direction.
Is Knowing 100%?
I Don't Think So.
I Think All Earthly Knowing Is Based On Probability.
Do I Have To Know She's Innocent?
No, The Presumption Is Innocence
Until Proven Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. -To Know She's Guilty, From The Evidence.
'From The Evidence' Is A Relative Judgment.
Whether She's Guilty In Reality Beyond The Evidence Is An Objective Judgment
Which We Don't Have The Ability To Make, But Her Guilt Is Either Fact Or Not A Fact.
God Knows, But We Can Only Deal With The Presented Evidence.
I Considered What Others Said, And Personally Wanted To Be Done With
The Whole Process, But Since, I Would Want A Jury For Myself That Is Truly Considering The Evidence, If I'm Ever Tried, So
Should I Do This For Any Defendant.
'Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You'
This In Essense Is What All Religions And Even Secular Society Teaches, So
None Can Legitimately Claim I'm Getting Religious In Referring To This Golden Rule.
In The Fictional Movie 12 Angry Men, The Jury Had Much More To Overcome Than
I Did In My Jury Duty. The Movie Showed Reasonable And Alternative Explanations For All The 'Evidence' Presented To Them,
And I Didn't See It A Stretch To Come To Those Alternative Explanations.
Evolutionists And Creationists Argue Over The Same Evidence. One Says Little
Water Lots Of Time, While The Other Says, Lots Of Water And Little Time. Context Is Important, And Over And Over The Context
Was Not Provided For The So Called Evidence In The Trial.
I Couldn't Share Everything I Thought Because I Would Be Labled A Religious
Nut And Then Be Alienated. The Statement Above Got All Kinds Of Resistance From Two Women In The Group.
I Also Believe That 'Knowing' Comes Through The Mind And The Heart.
I Know I'm Saved, Yes I Do.
Little Cindy Sings, Do You Know
I Know It Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, I Don't Know It Beyond Unreasonable
When I'm Being Rebellious, I'm Still Saved But I Don't Feel Saved.
"Those Don't Know They Have Eternal Life Either:
1) Are Presently Acting Like Ones That Don't Know, But Know,
God Is Faithful Though They Are Faithless. (2 Timothy 2:13; Phil. 1:6; Romans 8)"
There Are Also Other Things i.e. Listening To The Wrong People i.e. Those
That Don't Know, That Can Lead To Doubting Ones Salvation.
"4) Are Listening To Those That Don't Know , Who Only Know
That They Don't Know And Want Everyone Else Not To Know Too. (Psalm 1:1; Galatians 2:4,5)"
"Blessed is the man
who DOES NOT WALK IN THE COUNSEL OF THE WICKED or stand in the way of sinners or sit
in the seat of mockers." (Psalm 1:1)
Though I Did, Should I Listen To Folks That Don't Know What 'Knowing' Is?
One's Relation With God Or Lack Of It Affects Ones View Of Everything Else.
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves
and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins
and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim
we have not sinned,
we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place
in our lives." (1 John 1:7)
"Your word is a LAMP to my feet and
a light for my path." (Ps. 119:105)
If One Doesn't Consult The Word When Making Decisions, Then They Stumble
Because They Can't See.
verb (used with object)
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with
certainty: I know the situation fully."
The Most Difficult Evidence To Deal With Was A Phone Call That The Defendant
Made To Someone In California.
She Either Was Stating That She Was Guilty Or That The Police Already Deemed
Her Guilty Or Knowing She Was Being Recorded Accepted Her Fate, So As To Not Get The Investigation To Extend To California.
After Being Told By The One On The Other Side Of The Phone That Everything
Is Being Recorded, She Immediately Said The Investigation Is Staying In State And Not Going Federal And That 'Its All On Me'
And 'They Already Know I Did It.'
We Listened To This Conversation Over And Over, Mainly For My Benefit Because
The Rest Of The Jury ALREADY KNEW She Was Guilty While I Didn't Know That. My Definition Of 'Know' Is Obviously
Different Than Theirs.
'They Already Know' Can Just Mean, They've Already Made Their Mind Up Or That The Defendant
Was Just Accepting Her Fate Or That Because It's Gone State, She Might As Well Take The Blame, Because She Ends The Call With,
All The Rest Of The Evidence Was Incomplete, And Though It Established That
She Had Meth In The Car, It Didn't Establish That She Was Aware Of It. So Called Confessions, Not Signed Or Recorded, No Fingerprints
Taken Of The Panel Or Drugs That Were Confiscated, No Test For Traces Of Drugs On The Cash She Had, No Drug Testing Of The
Defendant, Concluding That Her Shivering Was Because She Was Afraid The Drugs Would Be Discovered, (Though She Gave Permission
To The Police To Inspect), And Not Shivering Because It Was A Cold Day, Which It Was, And It Was Or Not Shivering Because
She Had A Suspended License Which She Had. Also Greatly Slowing Down Greatly When She Saw The Police Meant I Have Drugs, Though
The Cop Had Initially Said She Could Go, And Not Because She Had A Suspended License, Which She Had.
If You Want To Read More Scroll Down, But This Is The Gist Of It.
The Police Are To Be Greatly Commended For Discovering And Confiscating These
Assumptions, Presumptions And Dysfunctions.
We All Have Them Whether We Admit It Or Not.
The Only Question Is Whether We Have To Ability To See Beyond Our Assumptions,
Presumptions And Dysfunctions And Come To 'Reasonable' Conclusions Or Reasonably Deduce That Our 'Presumption Of Innocence'
Still Reasonably Remains Intact Despite The So Called Evidence.
One Of My Assumptions And Presumptions At The Beginning, During The Trial
And Even After Deliberations Was That The Defendant We Were Considering Was 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty.'
I Took It Seriously And Wasn't Just Interested In Getting Home.
Evidence That Demands More Questions:
Personally, The Evidence Provided Left Much To Be Desired, Was Intentionally
Incomplete, Raised More Questions Than It Answered, And Did Not Demand A Guilty Verdict But More Questions As To Why This,
This And This Wasn't Done By The Police And What Did This Statement Mean In Context.
Why It Didn't Raise As Many Questions For Them As It Did For Me Is For Another
Message, But My Questions Seemed Obvious Enough That If The Answers Were Not Provided (And They Weren't) I Couldn't Reasonably,
Contextually And In Good Conscience Declare The Defendant Guilty. Had I Got My Answers Or Adequate Answers I Would Have Been
Able To Determine The Context In Which Things Happened Or Were Said And Could Determine It Means This And Not That.
Regarding Religious Issues, I Don't Believe As Liberals Believe That When
We Read And Study The Bible For Instance That We Can Come To Numerous And Equally Valid Interpretations, Because I Believe
The Evidence In The Bible Is Overwhelming For Any True Seeker To Come To The Right Interpretation Over The Wrong One, But
In This Court Case The Evidence Was Not Sufficient. (2 Timothy 2:15-17)
It's Very Difficult To Express Your Views Completely When Eleven Others Disagree
With You. Interruptions Happened On Both Sides But At Times I Felt I Had To Interrupt And Raise My Voice To Be Heard Over
Eleven Other Voices That Disagreed With Me. This Is Not An Indictment Of The Other Side, Only The Nature Of Being In The Minority.
We All Agreed That The Evidence Proved That There Were Drugs Found In The
Vehicle This Person Was Driving, Because The Original Driver Was Sick.
So The Question Of The Group Was Whether The Driver At The Time Was Aware
That Drugs Were Stashed Out Of View And Inside The Panels Of The Car.
The Primary Officer Stationed In The Median Of The Highway Says That When
She Quickly Slowed Down After She Saw Him That This Told Him That This Meant She Knew She Was Transporting Drugs.
If So, Then Why After This Did He Say She Could Go, Before He Asked Whether
He Could Inspect For Drugs?
Again, Someone Quickly Slowing Down When They See A Cop, Doesn't Necessarily
Mean That They Are Transporting Drugs. It Could Mean That They May Be Speeding Or Driving With A Suspended License, Which
It Was Stated That She Recently Purchased The Car, Though The Car Was
Still Registered To Someone Else In Another State, And Insurance Was Being Provided By Still Another Party.
The Evidence Raised More Questions Than It Answered. For The Others It Might
Or Might Not Have Been Enough But For Myself I Couldn't See How Anyone Could Be Satisfied With The 'Evidence' Provided, Without
Wanting To Know The Context In Which Things Were Said Or Done, Being That The Answer Would Obviously Determine How One Would
Interpret The Evidence.
Evolutionists And Creationists Look At The Same Evidence And Draw Two Different
Conclusions. One Concludes A Little Water And Lots Of Time While The Other Concludes Lots Of Water And Little Time.
Context Is Essential.
Twelve Angry And/Or Frustrated Persons
Whether The Defendant In Question Is Guilty Of The Crime Has A Definite Answer,
Whether The Evidence That Was Presented Proves Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Can Only Be Determined Per Each Individual
And Their Own Understandings And Experiences, So Therefore Is A Relative Not Absolute Determination.
I Applaude And Appreciate Our Law Enforcement Officers Who Intercept Drugs
Coming Into The United States And Into Particular States. They Greatly Deserve Our Eternal Gratitude. The Same Goes For The
Officers Who Intercepted These Drugs Coming Into Our State And The D.A. When He Tries To Find The Real Perpetrators. However,
In Looking At The Evidence Provided I Found No Satisfactory Link Between The One Driving The Vehicle And The Drugs, That Would
Tell Me That She Knowingly Drove This Car Conscious That Drugs Were Hidden Inside This Car. Apparently She Was Driving In
Place Of Her Girlfriend Who Was Sick.
The Law Itself Tells Us That There Is A Difference Between 'Reasonable Doubt'
And 'Shadow Of A Doubt' Between Criminal Law And Civil Law. The Difference Is In Relation To The Stakes. One Involves Money
The Other Ones Guilt And Future. This Is Not What I'm Saying, These Are The Distinctions The Law Already Makes.
I'm In No Way, Shape Or Form An Expert In These Matters, But I Think I Know
What 'Reasonable' And 'Doubt' Is, Which Goes Beyond Legal Boundaries.
I Shared With The Defense And The Prosecution Lawyers And Judge In Front
Of My Peers And In Private, My Experiences With The Police About Twenty Years Ago Which Made Me A More Objective Observer,
Which Understood That There Are Bad And Good People, Hard Workers And Lazy Workers In Every Profession, Including Law Enforcement.
Even After Sharing My Experiences With Bad Cops Twenty Years Ago, Both The Prosecution And Defense Still Chose To Select Me
As A Juror, Which I Gladly Accepted.
I Shared With The Jury After Deliberations Started What Would Lead Me To
Believe That The Defendant Was Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. I Never Even Got To First Base In Being Shown That She Was
Conscious That Drugs Were Hidden In Her Car And She Was More Than Just An Ignorant Patsy, Until After The Drugs Were Discovered
And She Had Three Days In Jail To Think About It.
After The Deliberations And The Declaration Of A Hung Jury, While I Was Talking
To The Primary Officer Involved, He Agreed That There Were More Involved, He Just Thought The Defendant Was Still A Member
Of This Drug Pushing Group. I Differed Thinking That She Was Used But Unaware Until After The Drugs Were Discovered And She
Had Three Days In Jail To Think About To Know Who Dunnit.
Here Were My Questions:
After The Officer Discovers The Drugs:
Why Weren't The Panels Fingerprinted?
The Prosecutions Answer:
Many Surfaces Wouldn't Allow For Successful Fingerprinting And Statistics Say That Only A Small Amount Of The Time Do Fingerprints
The Defense Answers:
There Are Surfaces In That Panel And On The Boxes Of The Drugs Itself That
Could Have Been Successfully Fingerprinted.
Finding The Drivers Fingerprints On The Boxes Of These Drugs Or On These
Panels Would Have Reasonably Shown Me Guilt Of The Defendant And Only Helped The Prosecutions Case.
The Driver Had About 1500 Dollars Cash On Her Person.
I Carry Cash Like This On My Person When I Vacation.
Why Wasn't The
Cash Tested For Traces Of Drugs?
The Prosecutions Answer:
They Didn't Think It Necessary, And It Wouldn't Have Proven Much.
The Police Had Three Hours To Do This Investigation And Decided Not To Do
Many Important Things, At Least Important To Me And Had Traces Of Drugs Been Found On The Cash Or The Defendant Been Tested
Positively For Drugs i.e. Meth, I Would Have Agreed With My Peers And Declared Her Guilty.
The Police Said, That When They Asked Her Whether She Had Particular Drugs
In Her Vehicle Three Different Times Regarding Three Different Kinds Of Drugs She Answered With 'No', Until The Third Time
When Asked About Meth And She Said, 'No, No, No' Which Meant According To This Cop, 'Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes'
Maybe She Was Frustrated At Being Asked Three Times And Responded With, 'No,
"17 He SAID TO HIM THE THIRD TIME, "Simon, son of John, DO YOU
LOVE ME?" Peter was grieved because He said to him
the third time, "Do you
love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord,
You know all things ; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "
Tend My sheep." (John 21)
Another Officer Allegedly Got Her Confession In Writing, That Her Girlfriend
Had Nothing To Do With It.
For Some This Meant My Girlfriend Had Nothing To Do With It So Therefore
This Alleged Statement Was Never Signed By Her And Wasn't Recorded.
Was This Statement An Admission Of Her Own Guilt Or Was She Just Trying To
Get Her Girlfriend Off?
I Have To Say That Even Though I Know Same Sex Relationships To Be Immoral And Wrong (Romans
1), This Trial Wasn't About Her Sexual Choices, It Was About Her Transportation Of Drugs.
If I Was Arrested And My Wife Was There, I Would Try To Get Her Off, Whether
I Was Guilty Or Not.
Next They Say She Was Shiverring As If Frightened.
Elsewhere In The Trial They Said This Was A Cold Day.
They Wanted Us To Believe That She Was Shivering Because She Knew The Drugs
Were In The Vehicle, Not Because It Was Cold And Not Because She Was Driving With A Suspended Licence (Which She Was). I Don't
Believe One Can Derive Only One Interpretation From This Shivering.
Though Not Testifying In Court, The Defendant Declared Not Guilty.
Also During The Incident, The Officer Said She Could Go But Can He Inspect
The Car. She Said He Could. This Tells Me That She Didn't Know The Drugs Were In The Car.
'The Jurors Who Already Knew She Was Guilty Before Even
Deliberating, Said Well, She Only Did That Because She Thought The Officer Wouldn't Find The Drugs.
I Determined That This Action On Her Part Determined That She Didn't Know
Because We Have No Reason To Believe That She Thought He Wouldn't Be Able To Discover Those Drugs Once He Started His Inspection
And He Had Already Told Her She Could Go If She Wanted.
Remember 'Presumption Of Innocence' Not Presumption Of Guilt, So Explaining
Away (Without Evidence) Things That Point To Her Innocence Is Wrong, While Not Accepting Things Done Or Said Out Of Context,
Or Intentionally Incomplete Is The Duty Of Those That Presume Innocence.
The Piece Of Evidence That Sold All The Fence Riders And Got Me Closest To
Declaring Guilt Was A Phone Conversation She Made While In Jail, Three Days After The Drugs Had Been Discovered And After
Previous Conversations On The Phone.
Turns Out That Jails Like This One Actually, Monitor And Record Phone Conversations
Like The One The Defendant Made.
In It She's Answering A Question That Must Have Been Asked By Someone She
Calls 'Mom' In A Previous Phone Conversation Not Submitted By The Prosecution. She Tells The One From California Who Seems
Concerned, From Which She Came, That The Case Is Going State Not Federal, The Defendant Was Told By The One Of The Other Side
That The Conversation Is Being Recorded' She Responds With 'I Know' Then Right After That 'Its On Me', 'They Already Know
It's Me, Whatever.' She Might Have Been Still Interested In Keeping Her Girlfriend Out Of Jail.
This Tells Me That Because It's Gone State, That Its All On The Defendant,
And Won't Extend To California And That For That Reason, It's On Her, And The Police After Only Three Days Somehow Already
'Know It's Me', Which Can Either Mean, She Is Guilty Or That The Police Have Already Made Their Mind Up That It's Her And
That She's Assuring Her Mother, Girlfriend Or Someone Else Over The Phone That They Need Not Worry.
The Defendant Was Already Told The Message Is Being Recorded, So It Seems
Extremely Stupid Or Lost All Hope, If She Is Admitting Guilt In These Statements Rather Than Just Easing The Fears Of
Someone In California.
She Looks Like A Patsy Unaware Of What Was Going On Higher Up, And No One
In Law Enforcement Seems Interested In Biting The Head Off Of The Beast.
The Other Jurors Say This Means She Knows Something. I Say Of Course, After
Drugs Being Discovered In The Car And Three Days To Think About It And Previous Conversations Not Submitted To The Jury, One
Should Know Something About 'It'.
The Jurors When I Asked The Jury, They Said That I Should Stick With My Convictions
And Not Give In Because I Was Outnumbered. I Shouldn't Take A 'Whatever' Attitude And Go With The Herd. I Concurred
And Hope That All Innocent Persons, Jurors And Fellow Earthlings Will Not Lose Hope Accepting What The Majority Are Saying
Or Thinking And Persevere In Their Well Thought Out And Heart Felt Convictions.
During The Trial I Was Looking At The Defendant To See How She Responded
To Different Statements And Questions. She Was Like A Zombie, Never Showing Any Kind Of Emotion. After The Hung Jury At Our
Last Court Gathering She Was Dressed Better, Makeup On And Smiling And With A Look Of Great Hope And Gratefulness. After Nine
Months In Jail And Time To Think She Looked Hopeful. I Believe She Was A Patsy And No Attempt Was Made To Investigate Who
The Car Was Registered To Or Figure Out Who Is On The Other Side. Though, The Officer Ought To Be Greatly Commended For Intercepting
These Drugs And Get Nothing But Our Thanks, The Prosecutor Did A Great Job As Well. I Personally Believe That There Just Should
Have Been An Attempt To Find Out Who Was On The Other Side.
I Didn't Believe Anyone Was Answering My Questions Regarding Why She
Made Statements Right After Being Told She Was Being Recorded On The Phone, And Her 'Whatever' Statement. Also That
The Conversation Was Referring To A Previous Conversation That Wasn't Provided. So In Good Conscience I Couldn't Declare
Sometimes The Only Way You Can Be Heard Is At The Risk Of
Appearing To Be An Ass. Due To Not Getting Questions Answered, That Ended Up Being The Case.
"All the other body parts laughed at the rectum And insulted him, so in a huff, he shut down
tight. Within a few days, the brain had a terrible headache, the stomach was bloated, the legs got wobbly, the eyes got watery,
and the blood Was toxic. They all decided that the rectum should be 'Heard'"
Group Think :
"A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved
in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative
courses of action" (Janis, 1972).
Irving Janis And Group Think:
"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"
"The essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice
that separates the United States from virtually every other civilized nation. Think about the presumption of innocence; the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. These core elements of our system
of criminal justice all flow directly from the premise that the wrongful conviction of a single innocent person is ten times
worse than a guilty person going unpunished.
Many of us are instinctively patriotic; downright "‘jingoistic" about
the protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights: the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure of our person or
effects; the right to remain silent if accused of wrongdoing; the right to be represented by counsel; the right to a trial
Watch The Remake Of 12 Angry Men Here.
More Coming Up