| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Surprise, surprise: jurors who were inclined to vote to convict the Islamic charity of funding Hamas terror were intimidated into changing their votes. Watch for CAIR to issue a statement decrying this miscarriage of justice!
Seriously, this shows just how high the stakes are for the HLF and those implicated along with it -- and whoever arranged this juror bullying is well aware of those stakes.
"Exclusive IPT Investigation Uncovers HLF Jury Room Bullying," by Michael Fechter for IPT News Service (thanks to B.):
DALLAS – She felt the men were guilty and tried to explain why to the 11 other jurors. When she finished, one juror spoke up in an angry tone."If you're going by the evidence in this room," she recalls him snapping, "then you need to go home."
The terrorism-support trial of five Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) officials, which began July 24, already had been stressful for 49-year-old Kristina Williams. She had lost her job two weeks into it. Now during deliberations, she felt bullied and intimidated virtually every time she voiced an opinion.
"When I'd get off the jury I'd come home every night and basically cry because I felt like every time I spoke I would get knocked down, criticized, one way or the other for something pertaining to the way I voted," Williams said in an exclusive interview.
While several jurors favored acquittals, just one out of the 12 did most of the knocking down. In fact, interviews with three HLF jurors - speaking publicly for the first time - suggest that juror William Neal's stridency may have changed the trial's outcome. Neal even claimed credit for steering jurors away from convictions in a recent radio interview. Until now, he has been the sole source for public perception of the deliberations and the government's case.
The three jurors interviewed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) showed the Neal-created perception as skewed. All three jurors say they disagree with his views of the evidence and the prosecution's case. To them, it seems clear that Neal made up his mind going into the jury room and refused to consider any argument in favor of guilt. He preferred to read the court's instructions rather than look at exhibits in evidence, they said. And his often snide manner intimidated and bullied those who disagreed with him.
The effect this had on the case is clear. When a juror walked out in frustration after just four days of deliberations, it followed a confrontation with Neal. When another juror briefly refused to cast a vote, it was after a confrontation with Neal. Williams broke down several times during the 19 days jurors spent locked in debate. Each incident followed what she felt was an attack by Neal.
[...]
Williams describes a factionalized jury room, with those favoring guilty verdicts trying to explain their reasoning only to have those favoring acquittals shoot them down. Many times, jurors could not agree whether evidence was useful to them. Williams pointed to some that she thought was. When she did, she said Neal snapped back: "Go back to sleep, you're not important."
Another time, Williams and other jurors thought it would help to view photographs copied onto a videotape in evidence to see who had attended a pivotal meeting on scuttling Middle East peace hopes. Neal argued it was a waste of time and talked the group out of it.
That's because videotapes sometimes covered hours, Neal said, and jurors had no way to pinpoint the 30-second segment they were shown during the trial.
A second juror corroborates Williams' account. That juror spoke to the IPT only on the condition that the juror's name is not used. The juror didn't care if the defendants knew it. Neal, however, was someone the juror did not want to deal with again.
A third juror, Sylvester Holmes, also spoke publicly for the first time in an IPT interview. He and his two colleagues agreed that their arguments for conviction were dismissed out of hand. Sometimes they were told "that's not evidence." Other times, the argument didn't meet Neal's interpretation of the court's instructions. Or, he simply repeated arguments offered by defense attorneys.
The three jurors interviewed were far from agreement on the verdicts. Holmes believed in guilt on all counts. Williams could not convict on charges involving some specific transactions but felt all five defendants were guilty of conspiracy to support Hamas. The unnamed juror who spoke with IPT was convinced only HLF executive director Shukri Abu Baker and Chairman Ghassan Elashi were guilty of conspiracy. But all three say that Neal bullied and intimidated those who disagreed with him, stifling true discussion of the case.
"He took control of that jury room," Holmes said. "You just look at the case. The jury room was a mess."
There is much more. Read it all.
Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 7:38 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Sniff...sniff. What's that odor? Is it the stink of arab oil money? Perhaps an investigation into this 'william neal's' finances is in order. And don't spare the safe deposit boxes and numbered accounts, if such can be found.
Posted by: Infidel33![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 10, 2007 7:45 PM
And this took place where? And these are Americans? Must be a different America from what i'm used to!!!!!
Posted by: OLD SARGE at December 10, 2007 7:48 PM
This puts into question not only jury trials involving sensitive terrorism cases, but jury trials in general. There needs to be a system in place for jurors in real time to identify other problem jurors and for some intervention. Perhaps, judges simply need to be allowed to be more involved and also real-time transparency (at least to the judge or some kind of Jury review committee) about what is going on during jury deliberations. This would, of course, add time and cost to any jury trial. It may also smack of jury tampering of a sorts, but it seems that all to often one bellicose and intimidating juror can poison a whole jury.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 10, 2007 8:12 PM
I have posted many times about the special demands made by terrorist cases, and the insufficiencies of both judge and juries -- the latter receiving sentimental support -- in such cases, and the need for special courts, with three-judge panels, and no juries at all, those judges well-versed in the texts and tenets of Islam to fully understand what the members of a jury could not possibly understand.
Here is the most recent example:
"This [the Holy Land Foundation mistrial] shows again the need for special courts, with jurisdiction over all cases about Jihad, for they cannot be understood without a solid grounding in the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and that takes a bit of study, far more study than the average judge will put in, and certainly more than those selected for juries.
These should be based on the Patent and Tax Courts, in which a panel of judges, who have received a solid grounding in Patent Law, aor Tax Law, and have specialized in those matters so that they can understand the issues in order to better decide.
If ordinary judges are not up to the task, juries are even less so. For all it takes, on a jury in a terrorism case, is for one person to have been threatened. Or for one juror to be a Muslim (how could all Muslims be systematically challenged and kept off of such juries, without a Constitutional objection being raised and, alas, likely to be upheld because the real nature of Islam will not be discussed, and not brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in any brief) or a sympathizer with Islam, or someone determined to "settle scores" with (the Bush Administration, Amerikka, "Zionists" you name it).
No, we can't have another of these farces, as with the Holy Land Foundation, where the meticulously gathered evidence was overwhelming, convincing beyond any reasonable doubt to any reasonable person who also understood, grasped the nature of, Jihad and of Islam. And that latter requirement is the Big Problem that our system, and all Infidel systems of justice, will have to learn to deal with.
Special courts, with panels of specially-educated judges, are a part of the answer."
[Posted by: Hugh at November 21, 2007 5:13 PM]
at December 10, 2007 8:17 PM
William Neal appears to be the central, and sinister collaborator here. What are his views? In the voir dire, is there any attempt to ferret out the potential anti-Americanism or antisemitism of jurors, both of which can lead to an attitude that favors, or protects, Islam and Muslims?
One would like to know more about William Neal, graphics artist in Dallas. What are his other views? What has he expressed, on and off the official record? How did he behave in the voir dire? Is there anything in his background to suggest a willingness to be soft on Muslim terrorism?
And the next time, for one assumes with such an outrageous result outrageously arrived at the government will try the defendants again, the voir dire will be conducted much more thoroughly and less naively.
Posted by: Hugh at December 10, 2007 8:21 PM
I've been selected for jury duty in three trials. In each case a large number of potential jurors were sent to the courtroom, and the first twelve plus two alternates were selected. They were questioned by the judge and the defense and prosecution attorneys. A juror could be dismissed for cause: e.g. he or she was a law enforcement officer, or a member of an officer's family; or he or she had been a victim of a similar crime, or other reasons. But both prosecution and defense were allowed a certain number of "no-reason" dismissals, and I was dismissed from duty in one case because the defense attorney didn't like my name (I'm not kidding!). As they were dismissed their places were taken by the next ones in the jury pool until there were 12 plus 2 alternated. So that's the way to keep Moslems off juries. Of course the number of these "no-reason" dismissals was limited, and less than 12, so it might not keep them all off.
In regard to the intimidating juror, in the one case where our deliberations lasted all day, the judge twice called back into the courtroom to ask if we were making progress toward a verdict. That would have been the time for the jury-captain to tell the judge that one member was behaving in a threatening manner.
My experience is limited to one state, and its procedures may be different from other states or from federal procedures.
at December 10, 2007 8:43 PM
"And this took place where? And these are Americans? Must be a different America from what i'm used to!!!!!"
Climb down from that Ivory Tower and don't get excited, jury tampering in the US is as old as the jury system itself. It's what Hoffa was convicted of, and a juror in a Gotti trial sent up the river for accepting a bribe.
I do not have time to read it all but the first part of this article contains all the indicators that a juror was bribed or threatened.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 10, 2007 9:21 PM
Hugh, a careful examination of Mr Neal's bank account and spending history might be more productive.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 10, 2007 9:25 PM
...whoever arranged this juror bullying...
Do we know it was arranged? Is that somehow obvious? Couldn't this guy Neal just be a low-life bully with a political chip on his shoulder?
Posted by: traeh at December 10, 2007 9:26 PM
Re: "Surprise, surprise: jurors who were inclined to vote to convict the Islamic charity of funding Hamas terror were intimidated into changing their votes. Watch for CAIR to issue a statement decrying this miscarriage of justice"!
In the Savage lawsuit, I sure hope he gets private detectives to do background on Fibrahim Hooper and others in CAIR. I'll bet a lot of folks will be shocked at what the detectives find out.
Posted by: Frank at December 10, 2007 9:47 PM
This conflict between world views will not be fought soley in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul. It will be fought in juryrooms, newsrooms, boardrooms, polling places, and livingrooms.
I don't doubt that these jurors were put in a stressful position, but it is their duty to stick to the evidence and to their principles.
Posted by: special_guest at December 10, 2007 10:35 PM
The whole jury system should be tossed out.
Why should honest, law abiding citizens be put through this nasty process? Dragged forcibly into court when they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes for weeks and months at a time. Against their will. They have done nothing wrong and they are punished by this process.
The jury of peers could be a hired jury picked from a large pool of professional jurors. Or three judges. It would be cheaper and more efficient. And this type of intimidation would not likely happen. They would not be afraid and would understand what is happening.
Oh, wait! The lawyers wouldn't want that now would they?
The jury system needs to be changed.
Posted by: Borg at December 10, 2007 10:45 PM
This idea that a group of professional jurists could be created is interesting. The US constitution does not spell out in detail the requirements for a jury, but there are probably too many precedents to allow professional juries.
And, the word peers as in "jury of his peers" is not in the constitution. At least not in this one:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
The way this will happen will be the reaction to a massive attack equal to 1000 9/11s. Congress will be forced by public opinion to enact some serious laws. Until The Big One hits, nothing will change. So far our government is still bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 10, 2007 11:42 PM
This conflict between world views will not be fought soley in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul. It will be fought in juryrooms, newsrooms, boardrooms, polling places, and livingrooms,
Posted by: special_guest at December 10, 2007 10:35 PM
Well said, "special_guest".
at December 10, 2007 11:59 PM
Marisol??
Posted by: awake at December 11, 2007 12:02 AM
An acquaintance is a patent attorney. The big national challenges are now tried along the southern border, where the jury system pretty much always sides against ‘the man’. Same thing with Maritime Law.
The Globalists are brilliant, but they’re going to pay through the nose during the transition.
at December 11, 2007 12:02 AM
More Information on William Neal (that I did not see in the story) that I have found...
His myspace page is:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=14014381
You will need a myspace account to see the full page.
However it appears he also involved (Manager?) in a Soul Funk Music group/band/company called “ill Castle Music” with Joe Castillo.
http://www.myspace.com/illcastlemusic
Here is a video from Dallas news of William Neal. This thus confirms it is the same guy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/video/dallasnews/hp/index.html?nvid=185986
at December 11, 2007 12:27 AM
I can see how some juror like Neil would intimidate other jurors, what I don't see is why they let him get away with it. Many people posting here would put their foot right on Neils neck and make him holler uncle. How cumzit that no one on the jury did that?
You got to get up on a bully like that, get close, look down on him, and quietly ask him the $64 question, as you step on his foot, 'What did you say about my mother'? This forces him to take a fighting stance, even if he perceives it as self protection, and probably get kicked off the jury for fighting and misconduct, if it can be made to look like he was the physical aggressor. Or he has to cave into counter intimidation. No longer the
dominating but the dominated. There is no way he will continue to let you stand on his foot unless he is intimidated. If not intimidated, he will yank his foot out, and push you at the same time, now he has committed assault. If no one but you, and he, know you were standing on his foot, and no one heard the mother question, your in the clear and he's in trouble. This is called, jury jihad infidel style, or how to clear a jury room of an
unbearable bore...
at December 11, 2007 1:36 AM
Great detective work, greatcometof1577.
Clearly, the same man, and obviously a questionable fellow: a musical "free spirit" with domineering leanings. How a loser like this could influence a whole jury just shows how vulnerable the jury system is to the aggressive.
This guy is a kind of caricature: the seemingly liberal fascist. But he is real.
It is a microcosm of the how society itself is vulnerable to the most aggressive, despite their questionable backgrounds. It is a window on how society, in a moral vacuum, can come to be dominated by fascists like Islamists.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 11, 2007 1:40 AM
Often, jurors take their responsibilities quite seriously. On reading this, I did not think that Neal was a plant of some sort, or intimidated; but a child, someone for whom the idea of careful deliberation and hearing all opinions and being disinterested ... was uninteresting, especially compared to the pleasure of hearing himself bray.
at December 11, 2007 9:56 AM
What a mess.
Education and information, - the start of a solution.
Maybe not a case for a jury as juries are presently constituted.
A defeat of this nature is most unfortunate.
Posted by: dgene at December 11, 2007 11:11 AM
As our society collapses (crime more rampant) the (open) jury system will be less and less sustainable for justice.
In the same way that the Mafia can "reach" jurists who are identified, Moslem Maniacs who make Mafia Wiseguys look like choir boys can intimidate jurors.
I hate Islam and think it will probably destroy Western civilization, but I don't think I'd bravely convict some Moslem murderer if I knew his fellow maniacs knew who I was.
I think we're going to have to move toward the Continental system of panels of judges, or military tribunals, to deal with this.
Posted by: Charles Martel at December 11, 2007 11:29 AM
Have you seen his photo? He looks like they got him out of Guantanamo.......DFW has lots of wacky people.....the prosecutor blew it on this one.
Posted by: n.a. palm at December 11, 2007 11:45 AM
The first thought I had back when the mistrial was declared was, who tampered with the jury?
The question I now have is, who is William Neal and what is his connection to the defendents?
I was part of a jury for a trial that lasted a couple of days a few years ago and I can tell you for a fact that if some guy had been telling me to shut the fuck up when I was asked for my vote I would have been on him like a duck on a Junebug. There is a protocal to how one behaves on a jury and the fact that this guy was able to curse at fellow jurors, make condescending and covertly hostile remarks to them and get away with it and then later have the audacity to diss these people as local yokels with only a couple of brain cells between them when he was intereviewed on the radio strikes me as in keeping with the M.O. of our good buddies, the jihadis. This is absolutely ludicrous.
Could there be a money trail from William Neal back to the local CAIR chapter or to the ME? This whole thing just makes no sense at all unless there was something in it for this guy. The next question is, who got to him and who is in the judicial system in Texas that would allow this guy to infiltrate a jury on a case with so much riding on it?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 11, 2007 12:01 PM
Hugh wrote:
"...all it takes, on a jury in a terrorism case, is for one person to have been threatened. Or for one juror to be a Muslim..."Or for one juror to be a liberal --
"So, to [juror] Neal, what is Hamas? “It is marked as a terrorist organization. My personal viewpoint, I didn’t know too much before. I see it as a political struggle. Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a tea party, dude. It was a rebellion against the king’s wrath. They fought back against an oppressive government.”
-- HLF trial juror William Neal
Posted by: Zeno at December 11, 2007 1:24 PM
Borg wrote above, "The jury system needs to be changed."
One of the main elements in understanding any nation is how the jury system works, in a country where juries are drawn from the common people the question of renumeration becomes important. If Jurors are given little or no compensation this tends to make those jurors who rely on working every day to keep up with their obligations want to miss or skip the duty, while those who are wealthy, retired, or independant are less burdened by the obligation.
It was noted in the article that one jurur was dismissed from her job while serving on the jury, a demonstration of the perils for those of the middle class who undertake to do their duty.
Hugh wrote that there should be a specialized court similar to the patents court, I agree but think that the courts should be within the military in order to safeguard the methods and identities of those involved and to not let the travesty that occurred when the first world trade bombers were allowed to discover how they were uncovered.
Posted by: stickman at December 11, 2007 1:39 PM
Hi everyone,
From my understanding, not all is lost in this one. A mistrial was declared, so another trial will happen. Yes, it will cost taxpayers more money, yet Neal won't be on the next jury.
My impression was that nobody told these jurors what to do in case one person was monopolizing the discussions. It seems that the jury was really divided on who was guilty of what.
What I also find really weird is that Neal ONLY read the judge's instructions to the jury and stopped everyone else from examining the videotaped evidence. Would not the judge's instructions have said "Look at ALL the evidence" and then decide? Is that disobeying the judge?
What I also found really telling was that nobody apparently identified Neal as the bully until they were away from that situation, one person under cover of anonymity. I can't help but wonder how intimidated he or she felt by Neal.
I can only hope that the next jury will look at all the evidence and decide accordingly.
Thanks,
at December 11, 2007 2:14 PM
Hi everyone,
From my understanding, not all is lost in this one. A mistrial was declared, so another trial will happen. Yes, it will cost taxpayers more money, yet Neal won't be on the next jury.
My impression was that nobody told these jurors what to do in case one person was monopolizing the discussions. It seems that the jury was really divided on who was guilty of what.
What I also find really weird is that Neal ONLY read the judge's instructions to the jury and stopped everyone else from examining the videotaped evidence. Would not the judge's instructions have said "Look at ALL the evidence" and then decide? Is that disobeying the judge?
What I also found really telling was that nobody apparently identified Neal as the bully until they were away from that situation, one person under cover of anonymity. I can't help but wonder how intimidated he or she felt by Neal.
I can only hope that the next jury will look at all the evidence and decide accordingly.
Thanks,
at December 11, 2007 2:14 PM
If Bin Laden gave himself up, he'd probably get acquitted in a western court.
This is disgraceful.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 11, 2007 2:56 PM
Unfortunately, with the decline of the American education system, most people don't understand what their rights and responsibilities are in the jury system.
Just like they don't know the Bill of Rights or that we are a Democratic Republic rather than a Democracy.
Neal Boortz keeps tabs on this stuff and the Heritage Foundation.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 11, 2007 4:27 PM
PS This is why we MUST NOT let those POW's in Guantanamo out and into the court system.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 11, 2007 4:29 PM
Zeno quoted HLF trial juror William Neal:
Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a tea party, dude.
The men who took part in the Boston Tea Party didn't blow up women and children sitting in a carriage or in a restaurant, "dude".
I can't believe not one of the 11 other jurors stood up to him and his bullying tactics.
Posted by: special_guest at December 11, 2007 5:34 PM
Neal, the bully juror, expressed his real agenda when he called Israel, an ally to the US but not a friend. It's way down the page. And there is more crap that he spews about Israel.
But it explains a lot.
Maybe some questions to the prospective jurors about how they view the Israeli/pali situation might be a thought?
Of course, if this trial were about funding a terrorist organization that routinely attacks Israel it would be allowed in court to ask these questions.
Sarc no longer can be turned off - help - it has taken control of my mind.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 12, 2007 6:34 AM
The sinister Mr. Neal, likely so full of anti-Israel hatred as to become an apologist and defender of supporters of Hamas, and who should never have been permitted on the jury, but once on, apparently threatened, bullied, manipulated jurors, even misstated the evidence to them, which resulted in a mistrial, does not know American history. For as part of his attempted defense of those who think nothing of blowing up schoolbusses, restaurants, and family gatherings, killing as many as they can, he said this:
"Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t a tea party, dude."
This dreamy bit of misinformation, expressed in beavis-and-butthead language, hardly surprises.
There are those who would like to know more about the Boston Tea Party, so that they may judge for themselves whether those who participated in the American War of Independence bore any resemblance to the massacres of 21 little Israeli schoolchildren at Ma'alot, or to the bombs that routinely go off on busses or at cafes or family gatherings, or to the Arab ("Palestinian") terrorist who shot dead four little girls, from a baby to a ten-year-old, then killed the mother, and was hailed as a hero by the "Palestinians" in Gaza, in the "West Bank."
For those interested in Mr. Neal's grasp of history (it is already clear that he has no moral sense, nor any sense of what, as a juror, he must not do), here is an account of the Boston Tea Party:
Boston Tea Party
Eyewitness Account by a Participant
The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin's wharf, and were surrounded by armed ships of war, the commanders of which had publicly declared that if the rebels, as they were pleased to style the Bostonians, should not withdraw their opposition to the landing of the tea before a certain day, the 17th day of December, 1773, they should on that day force it on shore, under the cover of their cannon's mouth.
On the day preceding the seventeenth, there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on what measures might be considered expedient to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty. At that meeting a committee was appointed to wait on Governor Hutchinson, and request him to inform them whether he would take any measures to satisfy the people on the object of the meeting.
To the first application of this committee, the Governor told them he would give them a definite answer by five o'clock in the afternoon. At the hour appointed, the committee again repaired to the Governor's house, and on inquiry found he had gone to his country seat at Milton, a distance of about six miles. When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members, and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, "Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country"; and there was a general huzza for Griffin's wharf.
It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew.
We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.
We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.
In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded bv British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.
During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.
One Captain O'Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke.
Another attempt was made to save a little tea from the ruins of the cargo by a tall, aged man who wore a large cocked hat and white wig, which was fashionable at that time. He had sleightly slipped a little into his pocket, but being detected, they seized him and, taking his hat and wig from his head, threw them, together with the tea, of which they had emptied his pockets, into the water. In consideration of his advanced age, he was permitted to escape, with now and then a slight kick.
The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable.
-- George Hewes
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2007 8:10 AM
from the IPT project:http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/569
"A lot of the jurors couldn't even say words that had four syllables," Neal said on the Ernie and Jay show on KRLD 1080 AM. "They just picked the jury based on socio-economical reasons. A lot of these people are blue collar, you know, working UPS, working food, cafeteria cashier. You had people [from] secluded lifestyles. They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They had no idea about worldly affairs. To get them and you show them bombs and show them kids – that's not our lifestyle so we've got to vote them guilty because of that. That's the whole reason."
The Dallas Morning News noted Neal "also had difficulty calling Hamas a terrorist group. ‘Part of it does terrorist acts, but it's a political movement. It's an uprising.'"
He reinforced that assessment in the IPT interview, saying he read the Hamas charter twice during deliberations. "They haven't always been a bombing kind of group," he said.
Hamas' first actions involved shootings and stabbings. Its preamble to the charter includes this: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
So, to Neal, what is Hamas?
"It is marked as a terrorist organization. My personal viewpoint, I didn't know too much before. I see it as a political struggle. Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a tea party, dude. It was a rebellion against the king's wrath. They fought back against an oppressive government."
His mind was made up before he went into the jury room. It's the whole cultural/oppressive relativistic lefty nonsense that infects this whole world-view. It's all about what he "thinks", what he "perceives". He's not interested in evidence or anything except himself and his world-view. He may even have got himself onto this jury to get these terrorists off the charge. Probably fancied himself a freedom-fighter for these people.
Disgusting, and unfortunately, widespread.
Posted by: carpediadem at December 12, 2007 9:49 AM
Yes, Mr. "Brilliant," who claimed the other jurors "couldn't pronounce four-syllable words," is a 33-year-old Art Director in Dallas.
Well, Wehoo! Way to really stick your neck out for all Western Civilization, you DOPE!
What an ASS.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 12, 2007 4:19 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)