Well, here we are.
Another hugely public trial.
Robert Pickton is on trial for the first six of twenty six murders of prostitutes on the Vancouver DTES (Downtown East-side). This one has been a long time coming. Five years since he was charged.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/pickton/
In that time I have had a few brushes up against the case.
Firstly - as things were heating up towards the conviction, I was involved in a one night performance of a short-play called 'Missing Women.' It was singled out as one of the highlights of 'Theatre Under the Gun' that year. I had participated the previous year and had fun, but this particular year the group I was in was made up entirely of men. The previous year there had been two groups which had proudly declared themselves theatre groups comprised only of women. And while I certainly have no issue with women taking a position of advocacy for themselves, we did feel it was somewhat important that therefore it ought to be perfectly acceptable for men to do the same with impunity. For the most part, our move was seen as what it was. Not many people were upset. Though it was clear that the expectation was that we were going to do something that fell into the category of 'collegiate humour.' I suppose large fraternal groups only have one possible trajectory in the minds of the many.
In any case, we didn't go down that road. We created a multi-levelled piece which acknowledged the absence of women amongst us as a group, explored the many possible iterations of what it could mean to be 'missing women' on a personal level, and on top of that, we hid gold when the day we went on, the dual headlines in the paper was the capture of the Green River Killer and a huge step forward in the DTES case that became the Pickton trial. This was particular gold for us in that we already had a format where the entire piece was framed with the eight of us, marching up and down the stage to a primal drum beat with our heads in newspapers. The timing - for us to be able to carry newspapers from the same day with headlines that perfectly fit the theme - put it right over the top.
Secondly - I also got to do a show (The Woman in Black) at the Terry Fox theatre, which is right around the corner from the Pickton farm. We were performing while the farm was being sifted for evidence. I believe the school that the theatre is a part of is even built on land purchased from the Picktons, and it's definitely new enough that there could be some disturbing artifacts buried beneath the foundation. Though presumably no-one would be that stupid - too easy for a body to be uncovered during the excavation process prior to laying the foundation, no?
In any case, the trial will be starting as I write this. The judge is probably setting the stage for the jurors and the media right now.
Should be curious. And as we have no death penalty, you know that after these six charges of murder, unlike Saddam, he will stand trial for the remaining twenty. Oh, the lawyers must have creamed their jeans when the trial got split - all the more money for them!
I kind of feel that few people are in doubt of his guilt right now. The simple fact that for five years they've been gearing up to this without being derailed by some sort of evidence is going to sway people. The real question is - just how badly is he going to be penalized? Which is probably moot beyond this trial. The chances of him getting a sentence that is anything less than the equivalent, if not actual, life without parole is slim to none.
Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial. Show all posts
Monday, January 22, 2007
Saturday, June 04, 2005
FREE JACKO
Yeah that's right.
I'm flipping.
Michael Jackson should not be found guilty of molestation.
Not because he didn't - I am not totally convinced he is innocent. But that is just it, I'm not convinced he did either. In a system where reasonable doubt is the benchmark by which justice is measured against, he cannot be found guilty of molestation charges.
Of course I say this without knowledge of any number of details that did not come to light due to the partial publication ban. But from the news reports this is the feeling I have.
Enough doubt has been placed upon the Arvizo family's intentions to undermine my confidence in Jackson's alleged actions against young Gavin.
The entire trial has become a war of integrity. Jackson would not be in this position if he had fostered a better image in the first place, and if after the first time he was accused of wrong doings he had done the wise thing and KEPT HIS FUCKING DISTANCE from young boys. He is certainly guilty of severe foolhardiness on that count. Guilty or innocent, his naivete with regards to how the world views him is an issue he has GOT to address. He has got to get some 'no' men in his camp.
On the other side of the table, Gavin's Mother is practically without a doubt a charlatan of some degree. If her son has actually been abused, then it is her fault if justice is not served. It's a classic case of wolf calling.
But barring some significant un-revealed detail that tips the balance, the jury cannot convict Michael. Certainly not on the molestation account. Perhaps on the conspiracy charges - the specific details of that have been ignored to some degree or another (let's face it, in a 'bleeds it leads' news environment, molestation wins over flying someone to Brazil) - he could be found guilty. It's hard to judge that one. If anything, the misdemeanor of giving alcohol to a minor sounds like a liklihood. Not only does it allow the jury to do something, but of all of the charges it sounds like the one which he is at the least guilty of by negligence, if not complicity or even direct action.
What surpises me the most is that the jury did not return practically immediately. I would have expected that the process would have involved a straw vote off the top wherein a 'not guilty' would have been levelled on virtually all charges. Perhaps they are deliberating on whether he deserves a slap on the wrist for the Jesus Juice.
The unfortunate thing is that if found innocent that Michael will be free to do as he pleases. What he needs is a good shake. He may not be deserving of jail time, but he needs disciplining. He needs someone to sit him down and explain to him that no matter how many records he has sold, no matter how many Beatles songs he buys, no matter how elitely famous his is, he is just another dude on the big blue marble, no less fallible than the rest of us. And no matter how hard he proclaims that 'people just don't understand' the sad fact is that it is he who just doesn't understand.
I'm flipping.
Michael Jackson should not be found guilty of molestation.
Not because he didn't - I am not totally convinced he is innocent. But that is just it, I'm not convinced he did either. In a system where reasonable doubt is the benchmark by which justice is measured against, he cannot be found guilty of molestation charges.
Of course I say this without knowledge of any number of details that did not come to light due to the partial publication ban. But from the news reports this is the feeling I have.
Enough doubt has been placed upon the Arvizo family's intentions to undermine my confidence in Jackson's alleged actions against young Gavin.
The entire trial has become a war of integrity. Jackson would not be in this position if he had fostered a better image in the first place, and if after the first time he was accused of wrong doings he had done the wise thing and KEPT HIS FUCKING DISTANCE from young boys. He is certainly guilty of severe foolhardiness on that count. Guilty or innocent, his naivete with regards to how the world views him is an issue he has GOT to address. He has got to get some 'no' men in his camp.
On the other side of the table, Gavin's Mother is practically without a doubt a charlatan of some degree. If her son has actually been abused, then it is her fault if justice is not served. It's a classic case of wolf calling.
But barring some significant un-revealed detail that tips the balance, the jury cannot convict Michael. Certainly not on the molestation account. Perhaps on the conspiracy charges - the specific details of that have been ignored to some degree or another (let's face it, in a 'bleeds it leads' news environment, molestation wins over flying someone to Brazil) - he could be found guilty. It's hard to judge that one. If anything, the misdemeanor of giving alcohol to a minor sounds like a liklihood. Not only does it allow the jury to do something, but of all of the charges it sounds like the one which he is at the least guilty of by negligence, if not complicity or even direct action.
What surpises me the most is that the jury did not return practically immediately. I would have expected that the process would have involved a straw vote off the top wherein a 'not guilty' would have been levelled on virtually all charges. Perhaps they are deliberating on whether he deserves a slap on the wrist for the Jesus Juice.
The unfortunate thing is that if found innocent that Michael will be free to do as he pleases. What he needs is a good shake. He may not be deserving of jail time, but he needs disciplining. He needs someone to sit him down and explain to him that no matter how many records he has sold, no matter how many Beatles songs he buys, no matter how elitely famous his is, he is just another dude on the big blue marble, no less fallible than the rest of us. And no matter how hard he proclaims that 'people just don't understand' the sad fact is that it is he who just doesn't understand.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Un-fAIR India?
Every newspaper in town has it splashed across the front page in enormous font. I expect every daily across Canada has it so. Probably many newspapaers around the world have it front page.
The Air India Bombing suspects were found NOT GUILTY.
I was watching TV at work yesterday morning (yeah, it's a tough job), when the re-broadcast of the Daily show was interrupted for breaking news... Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri were found not guilty.
My oh my are people upset. Of course they are. They want justice. They've wanted justice for two decades.
The Canadian justice system failed to give it to them.
I have to side with Judge Josephson on this one. The evidence failed to rise to the standard required by Canadian law. Malik and Bagri may well have been involved with the bombings. Who am I to say? The evidence certainly has a strong surface indication of such. But that is not enough. We have standards of reasonable doubt in Canada, and in order to meet them, evidence must be solid and consistent.
The evidence in this case simply wasn't. We cannot fault the judge for that.
I hate the thought that these two men may well be guilty, but I hate the idea that we would compromise our established rules of law and order in order to convict them despite the failures of evidence collection... what would that mean for the future? It's a slippery slope. And while it's never going to satisfy the families of the dead, I would rather live in a country where it's difficult to convict an innocent man than one where justice is served on a whim. Those whims are easily corruptible.
So... how did we fail to succeed in this case? Assuming that these men are guilty?
We need to look to the RCMP and CSIS, the two bodies responsible for collection of evidence in the bombings. I am in no position to say how they may or may not be culpable in this presumed failure, and there is likely no way to turn back the clock in order to effectively collect the information needed to effectively appeal the decision. All we can do is bolster our practices for the future. Without an idea as to where they fell short, I can't begin to fairly postulate upon effective solutions.
Questions I have...
Why, exactly is this case being tried in Canada? Because the flight originated here? Because the defendants live here? Because most of the victims were Canadian?
Why not Ireland? The debris landed off their coast.
Why not England? London was the destination.
Why not India? It was their plane.
(And not to trivialize the disaster by equating the trial to a relatively minor trial...)
But if you REALLY want to convict these men, why not put them to trial in a country where they are more likely to be found guilty? Steve Moore pulled that one in the Bertuzzi civil trial!
A few links...
The Canadian Press article on the verdict
Flight 182.com
Air Disaster.Com
The Air India Bombing suspects were found NOT GUILTY.
I was watching TV at work yesterday morning (yeah, it's a tough job), when the re-broadcast of the Daily show was interrupted for breaking news... Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri were found not guilty.
My oh my are people upset. Of course they are. They want justice. They've wanted justice for two decades.
The Canadian justice system failed to give it to them.
I have to side with Judge Josephson on this one. The evidence failed to rise to the standard required by Canadian law. Malik and Bagri may well have been involved with the bombings. Who am I to say? The evidence certainly has a strong surface indication of such. But that is not enough. We have standards of reasonable doubt in Canada, and in order to meet them, evidence must be solid and consistent.
The evidence in this case simply wasn't. We cannot fault the judge for that.
I hate the thought that these two men may well be guilty, but I hate the idea that we would compromise our established rules of law and order in order to convict them despite the failures of evidence collection... what would that mean for the future? It's a slippery slope. And while it's never going to satisfy the families of the dead, I would rather live in a country where it's difficult to convict an innocent man than one where justice is served on a whim. Those whims are easily corruptible.
So... how did we fail to succeed in this case? Assuming that these men are guilty?
We need to look to the RCMP and CSIS, the two bodies responsible for collection of evidence in the bombings. I am in no position to say how they may or may not be culpable in this presumed failure, and there is likely no way to turn back the clock in order to effectively collect the information needed to effectively appeal the decision. All we can do is bolster our practices for the future. Without an idea as to where they fell short, I can't begin to fairly postulate upon effective solutions.
Questions I have...
Why, exactly is this case being tried in Canada? Because the flight originated here? Because the defendants live here? Because most of the victims were Canadian?
Why not Ireland? The debris landed off their coast.
Why not England? London was the destination.
Why not India? It was their plane.
(And not to trivialize the disaster by equating the trial to a relatively minor trial...)
But if you REALLY want to convict these men, why not put them to trial in a country where they are more likely to be found guilty? Steve Moore pulled that one in the Bertuzzi civil trial!
A few links...
The Canadian Press article on the verdict
Flight 182.com
Air Disaster.Com
Friday, March 04, 2005
Back to Jack
Well, that sure looks bad...
Sister's Testimony
What leaps out is the editing and prompting on the tape of Michael Jackson. The fabrication of a public statement about how wonderful Jackson is to kids... not cool.
I suppose that it's clear that Jackson obviously needed to do some image cleansing after the Bashir tape came out... and it's also clear that the family is not pleased with the nature of the Bashir documentary. Obviously they were willing participants in the making of the tape, but the prompting that was going on from off-screen... bad. No matter how you look at it.
Ugly ugly ugly.
It's a far cry from ultimately damning, but it certainly is not looking good.
Sister's Testimony
What leaps out is the editing and prompting on the tape of Michael Jackson. The fabrication of a public statement about how wonderful Jackson is to kids... not cool.
I suppose that it's clear that Jackson obviously needed to do some image cleansing after the Bashir tape came out... and it's also clear that the family is not pleased with the nature of the Bashir documentary. Obviously they were willing participants in the making of the tape, but the prompting that was going on from off-screen... bad. No matter how you look at it.
Ugly ugly ugly.
It's a far cry from ultimately damning, but it certainly is not looking good.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Bringing Hockey & Court Battles Together Under One Post
Hockey is cancelled (although the news is now saying they may reneg on the cancellation and make a retroactive save of the season - I guess the finally clued in as to how fucking dumb losing a season is) and yet there's still so much to talk about on that front.
Another high-profile court case - at least if you're a hockey fan.
The Bertuzzi trial.
Really I just need to weigh in on the initial incident.
Bertuzzi blew it. Let me be clear about that, 'cause an awful lot of what follows is going to come across in his defense and appear as though I'm blaming the victim. Well, to a degree, I am. Bertuzzi blew it, but Steve Moore was dressed like he was asking for it. Yeah, yeah, blast me for that one.
So, who is right? I don't think anyone involved is. That makes it really hard to say Bertuzzi deserves to be vilified for time immemorial. It makes it hard to penalize the entire team for the playoffs. (The Canucks lost in the first round in game 7 overtime to the Calgary Flames who went 7 games in the final for the Stanley Cup, losing to the Tampa Bay Lightning. It's hard to imagine hockey history not being significantly different if the best power forward in the game had been allowed to play for the Canucks.)
Who is wrong? Bertuzzi.
What did he do wrong? Really, all he did is punch Moore from behind. Bad choice. No two ways about it. It's against the rules.
What has been exaggerated? Bertuzzi riding Moore head first to the ground. Watch the video. Bertuzzi did nothing of the sort. Yes, they fall, Bertuzzi comes down on top of Moore. He fell. Nothing premeditated about that. And watch what happens next - one - two Colorado player dog-pile Bertuzzi and Moore. That's a lot of sweat drenched, fully geared hockey player. No wonder his neck was broken.
Who is wrong? The N.H.L.
What did they do wrong? Once again the NHL is being contradictory. Moore hits Naslund. Naslund knocked unconscious - cannot play. Moore is suspended? No. Penalized? No. It was a 'clean hit.' Well, that's pretty arguable. But 'it was a clean hit' and the NHL does not have a policy of 'penalizing the severity of the injury.'
The Canucks lost their top scorer on a contentious hit that was not penalized - naturally they were pissed off. And it wouldn't be the first time in the League that players got steamed and developed a sense of retribution. That sort of emotion was once a corner-stone of the game. Ask old-timers. Old rivalries were at the heart of the game and those rivalries were fueled by the tit-for-tat of the physicality of the game. Many detractors of the game cite today's lack of passion as one of the failings of the modern NHL. The NHL covered their ass in a legal sense by saying all the right things before the game, but they really fell short of any actual action - 'cause everyone knows that the rough side of the game buoys a lot of it's gladiator appeal.
How are they hypocrites? This is a no-brainer. Moore - no penalty. Bertuzzi - is still suspended (yes, it's currently moot). If they're aren't penalizing the injury, but are penalizing the intent to injure. I can't see how you can differentiate between the two hits. Both were willful, both were intended to injure. The penalty to Bertuzzi is technically a different issue entirely, but the lack-of-penalty to Moore is absolutely a major cause. Had Moore been properly penalized, the players would have had less to avenge, would have felt less like they needed to take matters into their own hands, less need to set things right.
Who is wrong? Steve Moore.
What did he do wrong? He wouldn't face the music. Why did Bertuzzi sucker punch him? Because Bert gave Moore every chance in the world to drop the gloves and take it like a man. It's the unwritten code of hockey. Hit Gretzky, you gotta duke it out with Semenko. Bertuzzi followed Moore around the ice for that entire shift - and previous ones - challenging him to drop his gloves. Moore was obligated by the code of hockey to put up his dukes and defend his own poor-choice. Punters don't go after super-stars without repercussion. It's the way it HAS to be - or else we won't have super-stars. There ya go. I'm blaming the victim.
Who is wrong? Tony Granato - Avs Coach.
What did he do wrong? It was a blow-out. The Avs were up by 6 goals. There were minutes left in the game. It's a classic bad situation. It's exactly when fights break out. Happens all the time - it's practically expected. (Which in certain way's makes Moore's cowardice all the more reprehensible.) But really, considering that there was 'a bounty' on Moore's head. Granato had NO BUSINESS putting him on the ice. None what so ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know hockey - and that includes Granato. The Avs had virtually an entire bench worth of players to put on the ice in lieu of Moore.
Who is wrong? The Canucks.
What did they do wrong? They all blew their sense of vengeance out of proportion. They were all carried away. Practically any of them could have been the one to go too far. It's amazing it wasn't Brad May, who was so fired up that he challenged Avs enforcer Peter Worrell - who seriously outsizes May - to TWO separate fights. May still had the jam to score BOTH of the Canucks goals. He was so charged up that he arguably had the best game of his career on the team's darkest night. Crazy how things go that way sometimes.
Anyhow...
Bertuzzi was in error. He's not denying that, he plead guilty. He's taking the brunt of the blame - which is where the reality of the situation breaks down. The culpability on this one is spread vegemite on a cheese-sandwich down under.
Now, here's what makes no sense to me... where is the civil trial filed and being held? Denver. Where did the game happen? Vancouver. Where is the defendant's home? Vancouver. Steve Moore is from Windsor Ontario for fuck's sake! Moore filed in Denver because it provided the best chance of a big payout - possibly bigger than a role-player like him would ever make in his meager NHL career. I think that playing the system like that is as reprehensible as a sucker punch - possibly more so. In my world, that suit gets thrown out of court faster than an Al MacInnis slapshot. File in Vancouver - Canada even - and it's fair game... regretable, but fair game.
Free Bertuzzi and play Hockey!
- K
Another high-profile court case - at least if you're a hockey fan.
The Bertuzzi trial.
Really I just need to weigh in on the initial incident.
Bertuzzi blew it. Let me be clear about that, 'cause an awful lot of what follows is going to come across in his defense and appear as though I'm blaming the victim. Well, to a degree, I am. Bertuzzi blew it, but Steve Moore was dressed like he was asking for it. Yeah, yeah, blast me for that one.
So, who is right? I don't think anyone involved is. That makes it really hard to say Bertuzzi deserves to be vilified for time immemorial. It makes it hard to penalize the entire team for the playoffs. (The Canucks lost in the first round in game 7 overtime to the Calgary Flames who went 7 games in the final for the Stanley Cup, losing to the Tampa Bay Lightning. It's hard to imagine hockey history not being significantly different if the best power forward in the game had been allowed to play for the Canucks.)
Who is wrong? Bertuzzi.
What did he do wrong? Really, all he did is punch Moore from behind. Bad choice. No two ways about it. It's against the rules.
What has been exaggerated? Bertuzzi riding Moore head first to the ground. Watch the video. Bertuzzi did nothing of the sort. Yes, they fall, Bertuzzi comes down on top of Moore. He fell. Nothing premeditated about that. And watch what happens next - one - two Colorado player dog-pile Bertuzzi and Moore. That's a lot of sweat drenched, fully geared hockey player. No wonder his neck was broken.
Who is wrong? The N.H.L.
What did they do wrong? Once again the NHL is being contradictory. Moore hits Naslund. Naslund knocked unconscious - cannot play. Moore is suspended? No. Penalized? No. It was a 'clean hit.' Well, that's pretty arguable. But 'it was a clean hit' and the NHL does not have a policy of 'penalizing the severity of the injury.'
The Canucks lost their top scorer on a contentious hit that was not penalized - naturally they were pissed off. And it wouldn't be the first time in the League that players got steamed and developed a sense of retribution. That sort of emotion was once a corner-stone of the game. Ask old-timers. Old rivalries were at the heart of the game and those rivalries were fueled by the tit-for-tat of the physicality of the game. Many detractors of the game cite today's lack of passion as one of the failings of the modern NHL. The NHL covered their ass in a legal sense by saying all the right things before the game, but they really fell short of any actual action - 'cause everyone knows that the rough side of the game buoys a lot of it's gladiator appeal.
How are they hypocrites? This is a no-brainer. Moore - no penalty. Bertuzzi - is still suspended (yes, it's currently moot). If they're aren't penalizing the injury, but are penalizing the intent to injure. I can't see how you can differentiate between the two hits. Both were willful, both were intended to injure. The penalty to Bertuzzi is technically a different issue entirely, but the lack-of-penalty to Moore is absolutely a major cause. Had Moore been properly penalized, the players would have had less to avenge, would have felt less like they needed to take matters into their own hands, less need to set things right.
Who is wrong? Steve Moore.
What did he do wrong? He wouldn't face the music. Why did Bertuzzi sucker punch him? Because Bert gave Moore every chance in the world to drop the gloves and take it like a man. It's the unwritten code of hockey. Hit Gretzky, you gotta duke it out with Semenko. Bertuzzi followed Moore around the ice for that entire shift - and previous ones - challenging him to drop his gloves. Moore was obligated by the code of hockey to put up his dukes and defend his own poor-choice. Punters don't go after super-stars without repercussion. It's the way it HAS to be - or else we won't have super-stars. There ya go. I'm blaming the victim.
Who is wrong? Tony Granato - Avs Coach.
What did he do wrong? It was a blow-out. The Avs were up by 6 goals. There were minutes left in the game. It's a classic bad situation. It's exactly when fights break out. Happens all the time - it's practically expected. (Which in certain way's makes Moore's cowardice all the more reprehensible.) But really, considering that there was 'a bounty' on Moore's head. Granato had NO BUSINESS putting him on the ice. None what so ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know hockey - and that includes Granato. The Avs had virtually an entire bench worth of players to put on the ice in lieu of Moore.
Who is wrong? The Canucks.
What did they do wrong? They all blew their sense of vengeance out of proportion. They were all carried away. Practically any of them could have been the one to go too far. It's amazing it wasn't Brad May, who was so fired up that he challenged Avs enforcer Peter Worrell - who seriously outsizes May - to TWO separate fights. May still had the jam to score BOTH of the Canucks goals. He was so charged up that he arguably had the best game of his career on the team's darkest night. Crazy how things go that way sometimes.
Anyhow...
Bertuzzi was in error. He's not denying that, he plead guilty. He's taking the brunt of the blame - which is where the reality of the situation breaks down. The culpability on this one is spread vegemite on a cheese-sandwich down under.
Now, here's what makes no sense to me... where is the civil trial filed and being held? Denver. Where did the game happen? Vancouver. Where is the defendant's home? Vancouver. Steve Moore is from Windsor Ontario for fuck's sake! Moore filed in Denver because it provided the best chance of a big payout - possibly bigger than a role-player like him would ever make in his meager NHL career. I think that playing the system like that is as reprehensible as a sucker punch - possibly more so. In my world, that suit gets thrown out of court faster than an Al MacInnis slapshot. File in Vancouver - Canada even - and it's fair game... regretable, but fair game.
Free Bertuzzi and play Hockey!
- K
Jury Suitability
Back to Jack...
I probably would have made a good O.J. juror - apart from being Canadian. I could have cared less about the trial, and knew relative diddly-squat about it when it started. I was a real rarity.
For Jackson, I'm pretty confident I'd be a lousy juror. I know too much already. I didn't like M.J. from the outset. I have largely made up my mind already. About the only thing going in my favour is that I really do think he deserves as unbiased a trial as possible - which is exactly why I don't think I'd be a good juror, kind of a paradox there.
My voracious need for Jackson trial data has temporarily been stalled by his 'sickness' - oh to be in the limo for that. "Oh, Tito, I think I'm feeling a little...*cough* - *cough*... could we turn the car around please? I don't think I can go to court today."
Jesus. Jackson on trial. It'd be easier to play football with a Fabrege egg.
The trickle of news items about his illness are about as exciting as sitting around the castle watching your arrows warp. So in the meantime, I've dug up the pre-trial questionairre for prospective jurors. And just for fun, and in these earliest days of my blog to offer a crash course in getting to know me...
1) Juror Number: 44 (Let's just call it a favourite number of sorts.)
2) Gender: Male
3) Please stat your age: 35
4) Is English your first language? Yes.
5) How long have you lived in Santa Barbra county? (Let's make that the Lower Mainland.) 9 1/2 years. In California? (Make that British Columbia.) 35 years.
6) What is your current area (I.E. city) of residence including your zip code? Vancouver - V5E 1L6
7) How long have you lived at your current residence? 9 months
8) Do you Own, Rent, Neither? Rent.
9) Marital Status (Single - Never married, Married, Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Single - Living with significant other)? Single - Never married
10) If married, how long have you been married? N/A
11) If living with a significant other, how long have you lived with this person? N/A
12) If married of living with a significant other, what is your spouse's or significant other's occupation? N/A
a. If he or she is retired or unemployed, what was his or her occupation before retiring or being unemployed? N/A
b. If married or living with a partner, what is his or her level of education? N/A
c. If previously married, what was your former spouse's occupation? N/A
13) Do you have children, step-children or foster children, and if so do any live at home? No, and by extension, no.
14) Please list the age, sex, occupation or area of study and marital status of each of your children or step-children: N/A
15) What are/were your parent's occupations? Mother: Educator (Teacher & Administrator) & City Councillor Father: Financial Comptroller for an airline.
16) If anyone else is living in your home, what is his or her relationship to you, age and occupation? N/A
17) Where do you fall in terms of age in relation to your siblings? Naturally, oldest. If step-siblings are considered, 2nd youngest of five.
18) What is your highest level of education completed? Bachelor of Fine Arts
19) Have you ever taken any law courses? No
20) Have you ever worked or volunteered for a child advocacy group or for a group dealing with child saftey, child abuse or mistreatment, or children's rights? No.
21) Have you ever had any training, education or jobs or have you ever done any volunteer work in any of the following areas? Banking/Finance; Corrections/Jail/Prison; Drugs/Alcohol; Engineering; Entertainment/Performing Arts; Handwriting Analysis; Forensic sciences; Firearms/guns; Genetics/DNA; Journalism/News; Investigations; Laboratory science; Justice systems/courts; Local/state government; law enforcement; Pathology; medicine nursing; statistics; Mental health; TV/Radio; Police Proceedures; Telecommunications; Science or Biology; Victims of crimes; Security; Women's Rights Organizations: Whew! Well... Corrections/Jail/Prison, Entertainment/Performing Arts, Journalism/News, TV/Radio
22) What is your present employment status? Full-time job plus self-employed activities.
23) What is your present occupation? No simple answer here - the waged job I have is in the horse racing industry - the betting portion of it. That's as far as I'm going at the moment. Not because it's illegal - it's totally legit. But I'm going to play paranoid about all the people getting fired for talking about work in their blogs...
My self-employed work is all in the entertainment industry - variously acting, writing for stage and screen as well as directing, producing and editing film... why I can't make ends meet doing all that is beyond me.
24) Have you, your relatives, or anybody close to you ever been diagnosed with any form of cancer? Yes. (How many people can honestly answer 'no' to this?)
25) Do you think your feelings about or experiences with people from different races might affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? I don't think so. But by the same token I know that I've found that a lot of people who I would classify as racist don't think that they are, so I could be deluding myself. I often find potentially racially offensive jokes funny - but I can say that I find (admittedly rare) Irish jokes as funny as any that are directed at people of races that I am not a member of. The degree to which I am a racist, I am with impunity - everyone's a little bit racist some times, right Avenue Q?
26) Were you or a close family member ever in the military or reserves? No.
If yes, answer the following:
a. Who was in the military? N/A
b. What branch? N/A
c. Date of service? N/A
27) Have you ever served on a jury before? No.
If you have served on a jury before, please answer the following:
a. Please provide the following information for each case in which you served: Year; Civil or Criminal; Verdict Reached. N/A
b. Were you ever the foreperson? N/A
c. Have you ever served on a GRAND JURY before? N/A
If yes, please describe where and when: N/A
28) Have you or a family member ever made any type of claim for money damages? No
If yes, please explain: N/A
29) Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit (other than a divorce proceeding), including giving a deposition? Yes.
If yes, were you the Plaintiff; Defendant; Witness or Other? Witness
Please explain: Two separate occassions. Both car accidents. In the first case the defendant was representing himself and called me in to testify as a witness to the accident. I was the sole witness to the event. There was never any real doubt in my mind as to the fault - I suspect that the forensic evidence would have supported my belief. The defendant was utterly at fault. Yet he was under the misconception that because I ran to his aid that I was 'on his side.' The other driver was ambulatory immediately after the accident, the defendant was not - I ran to help the one who appeared to be in jeopardy. On the court date, the defendant did not show for trial.
In the second case, I was one of several witnesses. Two young-teen girls on a joy-ride narrowly missed the vehicle I was in, side-swiped a parked car and took off around the corner... where they immediately ran into (literally) a police car. Again, there wasn't really much question as to the guilt. On the court date she pleaded guilty and I never had to testify.
30) Have you, any friends or relatives ever been involved in law enforcement (for example, F.B.I., D.E.A., Sheriff's Department, County Prosecutor's Office, California Highway Patrol, Attorney General's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office) or been emploted by any such agency? No... I guess. Not in the U.S. A close friend was in the Canadian Military Police. My Mother's cousin (is that my second cousin?) is in the V.P.D. I haven't seen him in... 7 years.
31) Have you, any relatives, or close friends ever been ARRESTED or ACCUSED of a criminal offense (other than minor traffic violations)? No.
32) Have you or any member of your family, or close friends, ever been the VICTIM of or WITNESS to a serious crime? No.
33) Have you or any relative of close friend ever been ACCUSED OF inappropriate sexual behavior? No.
34) Have you or any relative or close friend ever been THE VICTIM OF inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind? A qualified 'no.' Above and beyond the 'not that I know of' caveat, I did have a teacher in high-school who, the year I graduated was arrested and convicted of sexually abusing his young male students. Naturally I was questioned as to whether I experienced any similar attention. I hadn't. But in the light of the revelation that it had been going on around me, I certainly looked at a few incidents in my time as a student of the person in question a little differently. Perhaps even as 'close calls.' Luckily I was far too goofy back when he was my teacher. I blossomed later.
35) How much have you read or watched about the current Michael Jackson case? Lots. Like, lots and lots, 'lots.'
36) How frequently have you discussed this case with frineds, co-workers, or family members? Lots.
37) Do you know, or have you read, seen, or heard ANYTHING about the publicity regarding the 1993-1994 investigation against Michael Jackson? Yes.
38) Do you or any family members or close friends know Michael Jackson? No.
If yes, please explain: N/A
39) Have you ever known anyone who has met Michael Jackson or spent any time at Neverland? No.
40) Do you have any religious or other beliefs that would make it difficult for you to sit in judgment of another person? Not at all.
If yes, please explain: N/A
41) Do you have specific health, hearing, or vision problems of a serious nature that might make it difficult for you to sit as a juror on this case? I do have aproblem that makes it difficult for me to literally sit for long periods of time. I had a roller-blade accident that caused permanent damge to my sciatic nerve. It's way better now than it has been in the six years since the accident, but still... day after day of sitting only makes it worse again, this is demonstratable.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY SIGNING MY JUROR NUMBER BELOW THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THIS DECLARATION WAS EXECUTED THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005, AT.... MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.
Juror number 44.
I probably would have made a good O.J. juror - apart from being Canadian. I could have cared less about the trial, and knew relative diddly-squat about it when it started. I was a real rarity.
For Jackson, I'm pretty confident I'd be a lousy juror. I know too much already. I didn't like M.J. from the outset. I have largely made up my mind already. About the only thing going in my favour is that I really do think he deserves as unbiased a trial as possible - which is exactly why I don't think I'd be a good juror, kind of a paradox there.
My voracious need for Jackson trial data has temporarily been stalled by his 'sickness' - oh to be in the limo for that. "Oh, Tito, I think I'm feeling a little...*cough* - *cough*... could we turn the car around please? I don't think I can go to court today."
Jesus. Jackson on trial. It'd be easier to play football with a Fabrege egg.
The trickle of news items about his illness are about as exciting as sitting around the castle watching your arrows warp. So in the meantime, I've dug up the pre-trial questionairre for prospective jurors. And just for fun, and in these earliest days of my blog to offer a crash course in getting to know me...
1) Juror Number: 44 (Let's just call it a favourite number of sorts.)
2) Gender: Male
3) Please stat your age: 35
4) Is English your first language? Yes.
5) How long have you lived in Santa Barbra county? (Let's make that the Lower Mainland.) 9 1/2 years. In California? (Make that British Columbia.) 35 years.
6) What is your current area (I.E. city) of residence including your zip code? Vancouver - V5E 1L6
7) How long have you lived at your current residence? 9 months
8) Do you Own, Rent, Neither? Rent.
9) Marital Status (Single - Never married, Married, Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Single - Living with significant other)? Single - Never married
10) If married, how long have you been married? N/A
11) If living with a significant other, how long have you lived with this person? N/A
12) If married of living with a significant other, what is your spouse's or significant other's occupation? N/A
a. If he or she is retired or unemployed, what was his or her occupation before retiring or being unemployed? N/A
b. If married or living with a partner, what is his or her level of education? N/A
c. If previously married, what was your former spouse's occupation? N/A
13) Do you have children, step-children or foster children, and if so do any live at home? No, and by extension, no.
14) Please list the age, sex, occupation or area of study and marital status of each of your children or step-children: N/A
15) What are/were your parent's occupations? Mother: Educator (Teacher & Administrator) & City Councillor Father: Financial Comptroller for an airline.
16) If anyone else is living in your home, what is his or her relationship to you, age and occupation? N/A
17) Where do you fall in terms of age in relation to your siblings? Naturally, oldest. If step-siblings are considered, 2nd youngest of five.
18) What is your highest level of education completed? Bachelor of Fine Arts
19) Have you ever taken any law courses? No
20) Have you ever worked or volunteered for a child advocacy group or for a group dealing with child saftey, child abuse or mistreatment, or children's rights? No.
21) Have you ever had any training, education or jobs or have you ever done any volunteer work in any of the following areas? Banking/Finance; Corrections/Jail/Prison; Drugs/Alcohol; Engineering; Entertainment/Performing Arts; Handwriting Analysis; Forensic sciences; Firearms/guns; Genetics/DNA; Journalism/News; Investigations; Laboratory science; Justice systems/courts; Local/state government; law enforcement; Pathology; medicine nursing; statistics; Mental health; TV/Radio; Police Proceedures; Telecommunications; Science or Biology; Victims of crimes; Security; Women's Rights Organizations: Whew! Well... Corrections/Jail/Prison, Entertainment/Performing Arts, Journalism/News, TV/Radio
22) What is your present employment status? Full-time job plus self-employed activities.
23) What is your present occupation? No simple answer here - the waged job I have is in the horse racing industry - the betting portion of it. That's as far as I'm going at the moment. Not because it's illegal - it's totally legit. But I'm going to play paranoid about all the people getting fired for talking about work in their blogs...
My self-employed work is all in the entertainment industry - variously acting, writing for stage and screen as well as directing, producing and editing film... why I can't make ends meet doing all that is beyond me.
24) Have you, your relatives, or anybody close to you ever been diagnosed with any form of cancer? Yes. (How many people can honestly answer 'no' to this?)
25) Do you think your feelings about or experiences with people from different races might affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? I don't think so. But by the same token I know that I've found that a lot of people who I would classify as racist don't think that they are, so I could be deluding myself. I often find potentially racially offensive jokes funny - but I can say that I find (admittedly rare) Irish jokes as funny as any that are directed at people of races that I am not a member of. The degree to which I am a racist, I am with impunity - everyone's a little bit racist some times, right Avenue Q?
26) Were you or a close family member ever in the military or reserves? No.
If yes, answer the following:
a. Who was in the military? N/A
b. What branch? N/A
c. Date of service? N/A
27) Have you ever served on a jury before? No.
If you have served on a jury before, please answer the following:
a. Please provide the following information for each case in which you served: Year; Civil or Criminal; Verdict Reached. N/A
b. Were you ever the foreperson? N/A
c. Have you ever served on a GRAND JURY before? N/A
If yes, please describe where and when: N/A
28) Have you or a family member ever made any type of claim for money damages? No
If yes, please explain: N/A
29) Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit (other than a divorce proceeding), including giving a deposition? Yes.
If yes, were you the Plaintiff; Defendant; Witness or Other? Witness
Please explain: Two separate occassions. Both car accidents. In the first case the defendant was representing himself and called me in to testify as a witness to the accident. I was the sole witness to the event. There was never any real doubt in my mind as to the fault - I suspect that the forensic evidence would have supported my belief. The defendant was utterly at fault. Yet he was under the misconception that because I ran to his aid that I was 'on his side.' The other driver was ambulatory immediately after the accident, the defendant was not - I ran to help the one who appeared to be in jeopardy. On the court date, the defendant did not show for trial.
In the second case, I was one of several witnesses. Two young-teen girls on a joy-ride narrowly missed the vehicle I was in, side-swiped a parked car and took off around the corner... where they immediately ran into (literally) a police car. Again, there wasn't really much question as to the guilt. On the court date she pleaded guilty and I never had to testify.
30) Have you, any friends or relatives ever been involved in law enforcement (for example, F.B.I., D.E.A., Sheriff's Department, County Prosecutor's Office, California Highway Patrol, Attorney General's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office) or been emploted by any such agency? No... I guess. Not in the U.S. A close friend was in the Canadian Military Police. My Mother's cousin (is that my second cousin?) is in the V.P.D. I haven't seen him in... 7 years.
31) Have you, any relatives, or close friends ever been ARRESTED or ACCUSED of a criminal offense (other than minor traffic violations)? No.
32) Have you or any member of your family, or close friends, ever been the VICTIM of or WITNESS to a serious crime? No.
33) Have you or any relative of close friend ever been ACCUSED OF inappropriate sexual behavior? No.
34) Have you or any relative or close friend ever been THE VICTIM OF inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind? A qualified 'no.' Above and beyond the 'not that I know of' caveat, I did have a teacher in high-school who, the year I graduated was arrested and convicted of sexually abusing his young male students. Naturally I was questioned as to whether I experienced any similar attention. I hadn't. But in the light of the revelation that it had been going on around me, I certainly looked at a few incidents in my time as a student of the person in question a little differently. Perhaps even as 'close calls.' Luckily I was far too goofy back when he was my teacher. I blossomed later.
35) How much have you read or watched about the current Michael Jackson case? Lots. Like, lots and lots, 'lots.'
36) How frequently have you discussed this case with frineds, co-workers, or family members? Lots.
37) Do you know, or have you read, seen, or heard ANYTHING about the publicity regarding the 1993-1994 investigation against Michael Jackson? Yes.
38) Do you or any family members or close friends know Michael Jackson? No.
If yes, please explain: N/A
39) Have you ever known anyone who has met Michael Jackson or spent any time at Neverland? No.
40) Do you have any religious or other beliefs that would make it difficult for you to sit in judgment of another person? Not at all.
If yes, please explain: N/A
41) Do you have specific health, hearing, or vision problems of a serious nature that might make it difficult for you to sit as a juror on this case? I do have aproblem that makes it difficult for me to literally sit for long periods of time. I had a roller-blade accident that caused permanent damge to my sciatic nerve. It's way better now than it has been in the six years since the accident, but still... day after day of sitting only makes it worse again, this is demonstratable.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY SIGNING MY JUROR NUMBER BELOW THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THIS DECLARATION WAS EXECUTED THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005, AT.... MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.
Juror number 44.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)