Can Neal be charged with a crime? What about obstruction of justice? Perjury? Jury-tampering? All of the above? He should be made to pay. And tbose who conducted the voir dire need to learn about Islam, about the pathologies of those non-Muslims who sympathize, because of those pathologies, with Islam, and about deception as a way of life. A little less innocence, apparently in this case that of supposedly tough-minded hard-bitten Federal prosecutors (just like those supposedly tough-minded hard-bitten American military men who have been played for suckers by Iraqis inveigling money and weapons and all kinds of other things out of them).

Very few members of the Mafia, or the 'ndrangheta or the camorra, or members of a Chinese or Russian crime, or Colombian interns and residents hoping to become full-fledged "medicos de Medellin" can compete, are as adept, at using or abusing the American system of criminal justice, with its touching faith in jurors, and in judges unschooled in the meaning and menace of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2007 5:38 PM

Neal sounds like a real dip. He must've watched that Oprah episode a few years back where she "educated" her audience on how the Palestinians were a native people displaced from their land without compensation by the evil incoming Jews.

Big fat Oprah teared up during that episode. What a ham.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 13, 2007 5:44 PM

What will this mean for his soul funk career?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 13, 2007 5:46 PM

Why didn't the prosecution do its homework and disqualify him when during jury selection. He has a somewhat revealing Internet presence, as others have noted, and proper critical questioning would have made clear his biases.

Hugh is correct, though. Even if the prosecution did not look him over properly during jury selection, at this point he should be prosecuted for lying about his biases in jury selection. There is no doubt he would have been asked some questions designed to reveal prejudices. That he did not state his biases up front means that he lied.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 5:59 PM

"He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case.

Throw the book at 'im. No, wait, shove it up his . . .

He needs to be made an example. Charge him with perjury, sedition, and treason.

I have been unable to find an e-mail address for the Dallas Division of the USDOJ. They should know how everyone feels.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 13, 2007 6:04 PM

He'll get away with it. Jonathan Pollard still in prison for 'stealing secrets' that the U.S. government by agreement was SUPPOSED to share with Israel rots while those who want to destroy us get a free ride.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at December 13, 2007 6:20 PM

Neal violated his oath as a juror to be fair and impartial.If he committed perjury he should have the book thrown at him. I also think it's significant that when two jurors were polled and said they objected to the not guilty verdicts, Neal joined them, not because he objected to the verdicts, but in order to restart deliberations and avoid a mistrial.I believe Neal's conduct goes beyond that of a "useful idiot" in to the realm of someone trying to actively sabotage the trial.I hope government prosecutors are investigating Neal's activities both before and after the HLF.

Posted by: Roxane at December 13, 2007 6:23 PM

"Our country was founded on a terrorist act," he added. "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."

Dude, they were dumping boxes of tea overboard while festooned with feathers in order to protest a tax. How is that a "terrorist act"?

Dude is a worthless traitor, a moronic tool of Hamas, and a serial abuser of logic, the truth, mythology, and the American language.

Posted by: jsla at December 13, 2007 6:38 PM

Mr Neal is most definitally......

A Traitor

A Seditionist

A treasonous citizen and...

A very naughty boy!

The perfect example of a Muslim apologist determined to undermine America and the Constitution. By admitting to lying and deception he has convicted himself, at least in our eyes here at JW/DW and hopefully his uppance will come, and soon. This also shows the problems with the jury system in regards to Islam. His voir dire is in dire need of a truth upgrade. I also wonder wether, if dismissed from the jury because of his views before the trial if he would have started yelling "Wheres CAIR? Wheres the ACLU? I need them to help me be a victim!!!"
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at December 13, 2007 6:42 PM

We have jihadist sympathizing leaders at the very highest level in our government. Why shouldn't this juror be a jihadist sympathizer?

George W. Bush meets and prays with these killers. He celebrates their holy days and opines, their faith is peace.

Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, compares the jihadist murderers to civil rights Black activists in the south and she compares the Jews to White supremacists and the Klan.

Why shouldn't Federal prosecutors be confused?

Posted by: monk at December 13, 2007 6:52 PM

Neal's statements make me wonder where he is getting his info from. Although Oprah et al present the Palestinians as merely a displaced people group, it's seems like Neal has gone many steps beyond that in approving of terror. I wonder how he looks at 9/11--was that just "an uprising" too?

Posted by: Shawn at December 13, 2007 7:05 PM

This is just a small sample of what this country can expect as more and more Muslims are allowed to pour into this country.

This man might not be a Muslim, but he has the heart of a Muslim, so what can we expect when the real McCoys are rountinely called to jury duty, especially if a defendant is a Muslim?

It'll be the rare Muslim juror who will take sides with infidels against a Muslim defendant. And what Jewish defendant can expect a fair trial with a Muslim in the jury box?

Al Qaeda isn't our worst enemy, it's our own leaders.

Posted by: rational at December 13, 2007 7:17 PM

poetcomic1 said:

"He'll get away with it. Jonathan Pollard still in prison for 'stealing secrets' that the U.S. government by agreement was SUPPOSED to share with Israel rots while those who want to destroy us get a free ride."

You are absolutely right. Islamists get a free ride, while non-Muslims get the book thrown at them with charges that stick for much lesser offenses.

Is this fair and impartial justice?

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 7:29 PM

This Neal character is basically an Islamist sympathizer. Our system allows an Islamist sympathizer to poison an entire jury. This is like having foxes judging the fox that enters the hen house and kills all the chickens.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 7:31 PM

This is an uphill battle.

When over half the population is dhimmi, chances are high that any one jury will favor the 'morally equivalent' Muslim jihadists.

Posted by: sounder at December 13, 2007 7:55 PM

Aint this guy a beaut ?

He's gonna cost tax payers millions and us a setback in the war.

And like the socialists, he is morally repugnant, no doubt feeling justified in his arrogance.

Another lesson along the way.

We wont be fooled a second time.

Posted by: dgene at December 13, 2007 8:00 PM

From the article:

"In a recent Dallas radio interview, Neal revealed he actively sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government. He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case."

How could the prosecution be so easily fooled by such a person?

Funny, usually people lie to get out of jury duty. What are the laws on lying to get on a jury?

This does, again, show up how the whole system doesn't work for these kinds of cases. Turn them over to military tribunals.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 8:01 PM

Also from the NewsMax article: "Neal explained that he noted on his pretrial questionnaire that his father works in the military."

If this is a lie, it should get him fifty years in Leavenworth. When the FBI questions him I'll bet he won't be so damned cocky then. He'll back track, claim that he now is lying for the publicity, he might even cry like a baby.

Poetcomic1, Womble,
You guys might have this one wrong. He has cost the Department of Justice a bundle and publicly embarrassed a group of Federal Prosecutors; he made them look like idiots, and he will regret this forever. This is the beginning of the last few days of his freedom. Considering how he treated some of his fellow jurors, they might exert pressure for his arrest and trial. If any juror shows up on Hannity and Colmes, Neal is cooked.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 13, 2007 8:32 PM

Oh, one more thing. Neal is out there bragging about how smart he was. He was on a radio talk show and was quoted in the Dallas Moring News. He will be indicted. This case was too big, and the spoiled brat will pay.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 13, 2007 8:38 PM

I've been on a jury and nobody would dare browbeat me into a faulty verdict.

A famous Buddhist monk once remarked that all Buddhist writings can be boiled down to:

Do good and resist evil.

Posted by: tanstaafl at December 13, 2007 9:07 PM

CAIR and other enemies undoubtedly would like to take some of the comments on this particular thread to falsely proclaim that Jihad Watch endorses random mayhem against all Muslims. Robert S has mentioned that he is frequently on the defensive against this claim but addresses it this way:

To paraphrase, Jihad Watch does not endorse the viewpoint expressed by each comment, but allows a wide range of viewpoints to be expressed. However, comments which explicitly advocate such things as genocide against any group, including Muslims, are considered beyond the pale and, subsequently, deleted by moderators as they are observed. Therefore, claiming that Jihad Watch endorses or supports such things as genocide or other lawlessness directed against any particular group is false.

That is a defensive position, but I would like to suggest to Robert to supplement the position so as to push forward a solution. Namely, when accused of promoting "hate" or "genocide" or whatever, after first referring to the standard disclaimer above, turn it around as follows:

"What my esteemed and honorable opponents may be referring to as being hateful rhetoric emanating from Jihad Watch is actually constructive and rational discourse regarding enforcement of the law. Treason is a capital offense. When anybody commits treason, Muslim or otherwise, they should be punished accordingly. This is compatible with rule of law and, in fact, rule of law cannot survive as an institution otherwise."

I have a personal example of why I believe that this position may help to improve the debate as well as open people's ears. When I was a good "progressive" college student in the late 80's in History 101 or something, the subject of the Kent State shootings came up. I told the professor and the class about fascism, Nixon, republicans, etc., like a good little hippie wannabee. Anyway, the professor remained calm and explained the situation the following way:

First, the Kent State shootings were not a result of a top down order to kill dissidents but a result of itchy trigger finger and loss of control on the part of police and provocation by students. Second, the leaders of the student movement were advocating violent revolution--whether or not they could conceivably pull it off is another matter. In just about every case of recorded history, anybody who advocates violent revolution, regardless of their likelihood of success, has been considered a fair target by the existing authorities. By all historical and even contemporary standards, Kent State protesters and much of the rest of the radical movement of the 60's got off lightly. A "good" regime cannot survive if it allows people to openly plan and implement its demise. So even if, hypothetically, in the unlikeliest possible instance that America was led by a "good" regime (irony), that regime would be within its rights and even duty-bound, to punish and perhaps even to kill people who were acting to destroy it.

That patient explanation from a History professor whose name I've forgotten provided a little dent in the PC armor which had at one time engulfed my feeble little mind.

Now that my feeble little mind is no longer engulfed within PC, I can proclaim that anybody who wants to destroy my country should be killed. If they aren't killed, then they get off lightly. And the process by which they should be brought to justice needs to be done via rule of law. I say this with no hatred in my heart--with no desire to break the law--but only with a desire to urge our authorities in the most strenuous possible fashion that it is their duty to enforce this mandate in the most efficient, fair, and humane way possible.

Robert, Hugh, and so on, please consider supplementing the "standard disclaimer" above with something so that it can be turned back against CAIR. Since CAIR is unspecific about which comments they consider hateful or genocidal, use that lack of specificity to define what they "actually" mean. What they actually must find offense from is rational discourse regarding the consequences of engaging in open war, treason, and sedition, against established, traditional, and legitimate authority. CAIR is a front group for people making war against the United States and our allies and, as such, wants to minimize the just consequences of this behavior, which include banishment, imprisonment, or death, depending on the particular circumstances.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at December 13, 2007 9:37 PM

It's very simple for me.

1. If there is a mistrial, then retry the alleged terrorists.
2. If the juror broke a law and got onto the jury by lying, put him on trial and if convicted, sentence him and punish him.
3. Charge the juror for the cost of the first trail if he is convicted in #2.

Posted by: Sk8rboi99 at December 13, 2007 9:38 PM

Pelayo said:

"Poetcomic1, Womble,
You guys might have this one wrong. He has cost the Department of Justice a bundle and publicly embarrassed a group of Federal Prosecutors; he made them look like idiots, and he will regret this forever. This is the beginning of the last few days of his freedom. Considering how he treated some of his fellow jurors, they might exert pressure for his arrest and trial. If any juror shows up on Hannity and Colmes, Neal is cooked."

I hope you are right. Even if there are laws that would allow for prosecution of this vile creature, I have little faith that he would be prosecuted, given the pathetic state of our legal system. If he violated the law, it wouldn't be perjury laws since he was not on the witness stand under oath himself. Perhaps there is a law that a juror cannot lie about his beliefs and biases to get onto a jury, but any prosecution would have to prove that he lied, instead of just merely omitted.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 10:11 PM

Oh how I wish I'd have been on that jury.

It may be wise to dig even deeper into this Neal guy's activities and associations.

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 13, 2007 10:14 PM

"He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case."

Wimbledon Womble, the fact that Neal boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors is basically the same thing as admitting that he lied. Perjury in a federal case would be punishable, as would obstruction of justice which clearly this was.

I wish you guys wouldn't say that people like Neal will get away with this sort of thing. It makes it look like we are admitting defeat, something I refuse to do in the face of these pathetic neanderthals. Hopefully, the prosecutors involved will go after the jihadists in the retrial with a vengeance. I believe they will, as they certainly went after them in the first trial but were unaware of the rule of taqiyah in spreading Islam. They won't make that mistake again.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 13, 2007 10:25 PM

Prickzilla,

I absolutely agree. It is obvious that there is more to this guy's treachery than we've been lead to believe. Look at him. I'll bet he attends the local mosque. With his looks and his beliefs he would fit in there just fine.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 13, 2007 10:28 PM

Wimbledon Womble, the pretrial questionaire and his verbal answers are provided under oath. Lying on a jury form and lying to a prosecutor is grounds for perjury. This is the first time I ever heard of someone actually wanting to be on a jury.

A woman scorned is nothing compared to a Federal prosecutor who has been made to look the fool. Also, the judge presided over the selection process, and he looks silly too. American prosecutors don't wear those little white gentlemanly wigs and can be pretty nasty sometimes.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 13, 2007 10:51 PM

Pelayo,

Definitely, and these prosecutors are from Texas. They don't take much lying down.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 13, 2007 10:54 PM

Hope this anti-American terd gets locked up for his lying to get on the jury. War is deceit, right Mr. Neal?

Wonder how Neal's art skills would go over with all of those "Palestinian" bomb lobbers he seems to care so much about.

Did I say Palestinian?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22564

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 13, 2007 11:09 PM

I posted on this character before. The way to handle him is to get him thrown off/out for assault and fighting. In the jury room while others are distracted, walk up to Neil or his clone. Look down on him if possible, and whisper, 'What did you say about my mother'? At the same time stand on his foot. This will shake him up quite a bit. He will either cower and lose his bully edge, or he will make a move. If he makes a move, claim assault, and defend yourself. Just make sure he makes the first move, and he is gone...The jury allowed him to bully them, when all along a little whispering and foot standing would have probably stopped him...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 13, 2007 11:22 PM

I wonder if Neal was the Jury foreman? If not, then who was? The Foreman is responsible to keep the deliberations focused on the facts and is in the position to over rule any of the other jury members. The Foreman is in the position to seek the advise of the Ruling Judge in the case for advise with regards to any problems the Jury may have involving coming to a conclusion.

There are always alternates in every Jury hearing a case capable of replacing any sitting member with the consent of the Judge.

Who was the foreman and where was their head stuck?

The Jury can only deliberate the FACTS of the case presented during Trial and any member of the Jury is allowed to review Testimony and Evidence presented. Irrespective of the wishes of any other Jury member

As far as I see it, we should feel fortunate the Jury members were unwilling to be browbeaten to an acquittal.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 13, 2007 11:29 PM

Isabellathecrusader, Pelayo:

It would be great if they could him for perjury or obstruction of justice, but what kind of burden of proof would the prosecution have to provide. It says in the article they considered going after him because he was not "honest on his voir dire examination." But why have they not done so already? Perhaps his recent statements to the media will help bolster their case, if they wish to pursue it. I just don't have much faith in the legal system. That they didn't flag this guy to begin with is surprising. He must either be very clever, in which case he has covered his tracks (but his blabbing to the media do not seem to suggest that) or the prosecution must have been really sloppy in conducting its "voir dire" vetting.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 11:35 PM

Isabellathecrusader, Pelayo:

It would be great if they could get him for perjury or obstruction of justice, but what kind of burden of proof would the prosecution have to provide. It says in the article they considered going after him because he was not "honest on his voir dire examination." But why have they not done so already? Perhaps his recent statements to the media will help bolster their case, if they wish to pursue it. I just don't have much faith in the legal system. That they didn't flag this guy to begin with is surprising. He must either be very clever (not consistent with his blabbing to the media) or the prosecution must have been really sloppy in conducting its "voir dire" vetting.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 11:40 PM

In a recent Dallas radio interview, Neal revealed he actively sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government. He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case.

Islam may sanction dishonesty, but our legal system should not.

It cannot, if it is to maintain any semblance of authority. A juror who lies to get on a jury and intentionally force it to some predecided outcome strikes at the very heart of our jury-based system. I don't see how the prosecutors could not prosecute him, after his public boasting.

Posted by: special_guest at December 13, 2007 11:46 PM

Sorry for double post.

What's more important than this guy is what happens in the retrial. The HLF terrorist funders need to prosecuted. This guy is just another liberal useful idiot. I hope he can be dealt with, but what is more important is the retrial. Are those who clearly work to fund terrorists going to serve time in jail, in accordance with laws and sending a message to all the other "soft" jihadi organizations operating in the US, or not?

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 13, 2007 11:49 PM

War is a bitch! We are all in a war - don't bitch.
Just because 75 -85 percent of north americans don't realize a war is on doesn't mean it isn't happening.

How can anyone be surprised about this juror. A war is never won in court!

Wake up America. Bush is not the Republican i thought he was, that is for sure. Get one that isn't a coward, holding hands with that Saudi sack of crap.

You, we, are in a fifty year war and Sharia awaits our daughters if we lose. We must win. period.

Posted by: winston at December 13, 2007 11:50 PM

WW,

I understand your concern and for the most part I agree with you. But it's taken me three years to get my friends and family to see what I see here. They see it now, when two years ago they were teasing me for being so caught up in anti-jihad. It takes time and there is probably some discussion going on in Texas right now about whether to risk the wrath of the drive by media, CAIR and the ACLU. I believe they will go up against the tornado that these jihadis are planning to let loose when the trial comes up again.

When the mistrial was announced the celebrating among the jihadis was a little strange. It felt unnatural to me, like it had been staged or set up, because it was. They know they aren't acquitted but count on lying and cheating to get them off. Pelayo is correct; I think Texas prosecutors don't like beiong made fools of and they aren't above seeking revenge for those who do so. Besides, all the evidence is there to convict them. They won't make the mistake of just letting anybody on the jury this time. And there will probably be instructions to the jury to sound the alarm if something like William Neal's outburst or bullying happen again.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Spoken like a true asshole:

“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.

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 14, 2007 12:03 AM

In 1789, as our Constitution was being ratified, only 12% of American Citizens were entitled to vote and be jurors. There were property and tax requirements that needed to be met in order to have a voice.

Posted by: pez at December 14, 2007 12:11 AM

Isabellathecrusader:

This is why this kind of case should be handled by a military tribunal. We are at war. Since that is not likely to happen in the hear future, I hope the feds do whatever it takes to get HLF and then set a precedent for going after the rest of the gang. We know that this hydra has a head-spinning number of acronyms: CAIR, MSA, MAS, ICNA, ISNA, etc. All these organizations are related in history and in present operations and most can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Obviously, Islamists have diversified in name to make it harder for them to be identified and shut down. They need to be shut down.

HLF was a subversive organization using the freedom of the US to raise funds for terrorists and help seed other pro-sharia/jihadi organizations like CAIR. There is absolutely no logical reason why CAIR is allowed to operate, except our own weakness. CAIR is here for one reason alone, by the admission of its own leadership, to bring sharia to the US. They were obviously threatened by this since they filed an amicus brief to be removed as a co-conspirator. This is why these groups, CAIR the most visible, gloated over the mistrial as they did. They feel very threatened.

Whether this little pissant Neal is prosecuted or not, the most important thing is that this string of pro-sharia Islamist organizations in the US be shut down, one by one. Maybe then we will see some moderate Muslims come out of the woodwork, once the Wahhabis are gone, and forge a non-Saudi-oriented Islam. Maybe, maybe not. But for our own survival, this cancer needs to be removed.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 14, 2007 12:18 AM

"My answers [to the questionnaire] looked like I was a pro-American, you know, flag-waving American." - William Neal

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 14, 2007 12:21 AM

"Juror William Neal, a Dallas graphic artist, has not tried to hide his opinions on the subject since a mistrial was declared Oct. 22.

Since Neal deliberately hid his opinions from his voir dire examination, why should we believe any other information he has provided . . .up to and including his name and occupation. Yes, his financial history should be intensely scrutinized.

Details provided on a myspace page indicates that Neal considers himself not just a graphic artist but a "musician" as well.

Considering his lack of integrity, his annual tax returns are questionable. That MySpace page provides only Neals image standing next to a Joe Castillo, Joe being the only one credited on the poster for a June 2nd event.

The Band website lists both Castillo and Neal as 'producers' (whatever that means) - but no further information.

Further reading of posts placed by "friends" appear to gush over Castillo - not necessarily Neal, with the following exceptions.

A friend named 'alisha', whose image is a dog, misses them both - LOL!

Another 'friend' identified as "MOLICIOU$" states

i love you guys, even though you're not TECHY. :)ha

Also from the WND article:

"A lot of these people are blue collar, you know, working UPS, working food, cafeteria cashier," he said.

Not a TECHY, eh Neil? But at least you're not blue collar or anything - right? (snark)

Hopefully, the FEDS (and perhaps the IRS)decide his illegal shenanigans warrant further investigation and put him on the receiving end by making his life as uncomfortable as he made the jurors.

As for the defendants - squirm. It's apparent by Neal's own admission:

Neal took credit for steering many jurors away from convictions, which led to a hung jury.

"Honestly," he said, "if I hadn't been on that jury this would have been a different case."

I'm going to enjoy following the retrial - immensely.

Posted by: miira at December 14, 2007 1:00 AM

The detective work on Herr Neal presented here is amazing. Why can't the feds do this? Who should really be in charge here? But we have to face facts: whatever the truth about this useful idiot/liberal elitist/joker/trickster, the important thing is what happens in the retrial. I hope they go after this guy, but do they have sufficient "legal" grounds (remember that "legal" in our system is often diametrically opposite to "commonsense")? And if they have sufficient legal grounds, do they have the will? I hope so. But again I care much more about the retrial. If discrediting one of a hundred thousand other liberal morons helps the case, great. If not, who cares? There are plenty of other Neals (they tend to congregate in coastal metropolises), and we can never hope to cure them all. I want to see HLF nailed and then the rest of HLF's co-conspirators, above all.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 14, 2007 1:08 AM

“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."

What an ugly, narcissistic little man.

Someone wondered why the prosecutors didn't do their homework.

If I remember correctly, voir dire is given under oath and taken in good faith. I don't believe it's legal for the prosecutor of a case to single out any jurror(s) for investigation that exceeds information provided to the court, for the case at hand.

Now, however, Mr. Neal is fair game for prosecution, himself. I only wonder; will an attempt be made to prosecute Neal, or will the Feds go after someone who may have "inspired" this "artist", for jury tampering?

This nasty little being sneers at "blue collar" workers, then sings like a proud little canary to the press. How stupid is that? Duh, Dude.

Posted by: Abscedere at December 14, 2007 1:22 AM

Neal might be a bully, he might be biased, but one of the above World Net Daily article's statements about Neal is false, as far as I can tell:

In a recent Dallas radio interview, Neal revealed he actively sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government. He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case.

I listened to podcast of the Dallas interview with Neal, and at no point during that interview did I hear Neal say, or "reveal," that he "sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government." Listen to the podcast and tell me if you hear that.

Posted by: traeh at December 14, 2007 2:59 AM

traeh, maybe he was interviewed on more than one Dallas radio station?

Posted by: special_guest at December 14, 2007 3:26 AM

Surely he can be prosecuted? For someone to infiltrate a jury with the express intention of perverting the course of justice must be illegal in the U.S?

Still, I live in the UK, if that happened here he would probably be employed the next day as a government advisor, or Ken Livingstones' right hand man.

Posted by: DaveMate at December 14, 2007 3:50 AM

Hey, could that bearded 33 year old man be, perhaps, a ...

MUSLIM?

Posted by: bonncaruso at December 14, 2007 3:51 AM

No one who uses the word 'dude' should be allowed to do jury service. Just the use of this lexical item is an indication of a cognitively challenged retard. Looks like the US is heading down the same track as Europe in its myopic incompetence and cluelessness.

Posted by: johndoe at December 14, 2007 4:43 AM

bonncaruso, Isn't wondering if someone might be Muslim an act of Islamophobia? Shouldn't you also be just as worried that he may be...Amish? or Methodist? or a Rotary Club member?

Posted by: Xero G at December 14, 2007 5:08 AM

I wonder if there is a similar action that took place at the Chicago 7 trial. It will be very interesting to check that one out.

Posted by: jdow at December 14, 2007 5:28 AM

I listened to podcast of the Dallas interview with Neal, and at no point during that interview did I hear Neal say, or "reveal," that he "sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government." Listen to the podcast and tell me if you hear that. - Posted by: traeh

From Powerline:

The Dallas Morning News article quotes Neal's interview (audio accessible at the link) with a local Dallas radio station. Donna writes:

The Dallas Morning News article cut out some Neal's most revealing statements -- see comparison excerpts below. If anyone doubts this case should be tried again, they just need to listen to this bully juror's interviews. As Jason Trahan noted in his article, "Mr. Neal admitted he ran roughshod over most other panelists, whose intellectual abilities he has criticized."

Among other things, Neal has gone on record to say that he didn’t even think the defense needed to stand up and present a case; that the prosecution case was “a waste of time;” that the case was only about George Bush. “George Bush shut them down and he's just trying to make sure that he gets that case closed." He said the reason for the loss of the first juror after a week was the juror thought they were guilty and just did not want to argue about it any more. He is taking credit for having turned the jury away from their own opinions that the defendants were guilty.

WHAT THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS PUBLISHED:
Neal: "A lot of the jurors couldn't even say words that had four syllables," Mr. Neal said. "A lot of these people were blue collar. You had people of secluded lifestyles. They have no idea of worldly affairs....What the prosecution was showing us was fear."

WHAT JUROR WILLIAM NEAL ACTUALLY SAID un-CUT EXCERPT FROM RADIO INTERVIEW:

Neal: "A lot of the jurors couldn't even say words that had four syllables," Mr. Neal said. “They just picked a jury based on socio-economical reasons.”

"A lot of these people were blue collar—working UPS, working cafeteria, uh, cashier. You had people of secluded lifestyles."

“They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They have no idea about worldly affairs and to get them and show them bombs and show them the kids, ‘Well, that’s not our lifestyle so we got to vote them guilty because of that.’ That’s the whole reason. Honestly if I had not been on that jury this would have been a different case.”

More illuminating William Neal comments from the radio interview:

KRLD: Do you think [the large number of charges] was by design?

Neal: Oh course it was by design.

KRLD: The reason I ask is that the more confusing it is the harder it is going to be to get a verdict and you have to wonder, “Well is it by design because we realized after we started this thing, we’re Mike Nifong here? We can’t make the case? They didn’t say the stripper is a nappy headed ho? Or is it a case of, we will just throw so much out there they’ll be so confused, they’ll have to go with us because they don’t want to take a chance.

Neal: That’s exactly right.

KRLD: So it’s the latter then?

Neal: "A lot of the jurors couldn't even say words that had four syllables," Mr. Neal said. “They just picked a jury based on socio-economical reasons.” "A lot of these people were blue collar—working UPS, working cafeteria, uh, cashier. You had people of secluded lifestyles. “They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They have no idea about worldly affairs and to get them and show them bombs and show them the kids, ‘Well, that’s not our lifestyle so we got to vote them guilty because of that.’ That’s the whole reason. Honestly if I had not been on that jury this would have been a different case.”

KRLD: But on a jury don’t you want to go in with no preconceived notions?....Maybe the best thing in this case was to have people who don’t know about the background, so they can hear both sides equally?

Neal: Well, yes and no. I think what the prosecution was showing us was fear. The fear of being blown up, a fear of bombing to sway that ignorance. Okay we’re going to show them the bomb belt and the kids running around with little guns and emulating Hamas heroes—whatever—that was the fear coming into it. That was a huge part of the prosecution’s attempt to get these guys guilty.

***

KRLD: Just looking at this in a legal sense, you have both sides playing on emotion. Here’s needy kids, they need to eat. Here’s that same kid with a bomb belt on, he’s going to blow you up. So you have both sides playing on emotional levels here and in all of that you have to hope and pray that the people in the jury can see beyond all that and see what the real live, touching facts are.

Neal: For the most part a lot of the jury did believe that. Like I said earlier, a lot of people felt that way, they just didn’t vote that way. But the last hold out, she was so wishy washy. If verdicts were closed, we’d be in by nine and out by five. She was that wishy washy. Thursday she’d change her mind and Monday she’d change her mind again. In fact, she even tried to change her mind again when the judge came back to greet us after the case was over.

KRLD: It seems like with someone like that the idea would be to excuse yourself from the jury, and say, I just don’t think I’m qualified to make decisions.

Neal: She was just after the check. She lost her job during this case. She was there for vacation and checks. She was flim flaming all over the place.

Donna refers to another interview with Neal (video at the link) and comments:

In the post trial interview with Rebecca Lopez of WFAA, Neal made mention of “an awkward moment” when the judge came back to greet the jurors after the trial, saying she said, "I don’t understand." Now he is saying she was trying to change her mind again at that time. Really painting the hold out juror as ignorant, devious, lazy, just out for the check. This guy is a complete jerk. That lady may have only be a cafeteria cashier but she at least paid attention during the trial, continually took notes and didn’t fold to his bullying as all the other jurors did.

Donna also cites this Texas Lawyer articleon the jury deliberations and comments:

Was the holdout juror as “ignorant” as HLF juror William Neal has been feeding a too-willing to listen and just accept press?

[Paul D. Stickney, the assigned U.S. magistrate judge on the case] Stickney recalls that earlier on Oct. 18, one juror seemed upset and concerned about the jury's decisions. Stickney says she asked if the individual jurors would be polled.

On Oct. 22, before the 10 a.m. scheduled proceeding, juror No. 7 wrote a note to the judge asking: "1. Are we going to be polled? 2. Does undecided mean (not guilty). If we are not going to be polled I would like to give my statement with the court reporter there on some of charges with the defendants will you please let me know...."

Posted by: miira at December 14, 2007 6:08 AM

Neal was NOT the jury foreman. In the second video link at PL, you hear Neal say the at 2:04 marker

"the foreperson would make that clear, SHE made that clear"

Posted by: miira at December 14, 2007 6:44 AM

"Only a cafeteria cashier"...depends on the cafeteria, where it was, how much business it got, how long she'd been doing it. If she had a lot of experience, she might in fact be quite a good judge of people. She'd have encountered cheaters, liars and bullies - and perhaps she could see the signs in the face and body language of the defendant.

Common sense is a much underrated commodity.

Jacques Ellul, discussing propaganda, emphasised that it is the educated, the intellectuals, who are the most - not the least - susceptible.

Maybe this woman, precisely because she was NOT an intellectual, had missed out on most of the past twenty years' worth of Muslim Arab propaganda, and was therefore going by what she could 'read' of the various witnesses vis a vis the defendant's demeanour, put together with the hard evidence.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 14, 2007 7:03 AM

"In the radio interview, Neal said his fellow jurors were ignorant.

‘A lot of these people are blue collar, you know, working UPS, working food, cafeteria cashier,’ he said. ‘They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.’..."

......it appears he is the ignorant one....this trial had nothing to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but a lot to do with the plotting of American deaths by Individuals in the United States.....

....no should be acquitted at this time...a retrial is needed....with new jurors...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2007 7:04 AM

I don't think Neal is Muslim. However, I suspect he is a typical far-leftist. I've met quite a few like him... idiots whose minds have been warped by reading too much Chomsky.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 14, 2007 9:05 AM

William Neal is a liar, bully, and a traitor to this country. He should be locked up for perjury, obstruction of justice and jury tampering.

This is one reason why I am not positive about our ability to win the "war on terror". (i.e. defense against the war Islam has been executing against the Infidel for centuries).

There are too many liberal traitors in our midst, and even the so-called "right-wing" doesnt understand the problem and is not prepared to deal with it.

Just notice how all the Republican candidates spend so much time kissing Moslem posterior, and refusing to acknowledge what the problem really is.

And then there is Rice's recent embarrassing Kowtowing to the Palestinians.

Where is one to look for hope anymore?

Posted by: StephenDvd at December 14, 2007 9:16 AM

Being a native Texan, I am one of the first to say "Don't Mess with Texas." However, I would not be surprised if the Fed prosecutors were not native Texans, just hope some of Texas has rubbed off on them. Having said that, no one would want a Fed prosecutor crawling up an orifice of their choice. And I hope these prosecutors choice multiple orifices and make camp.

Posted by: Kevin at December 14, 2007 10:43 AM

special_guest, you said,

traeh, maybe he was interviewed on more than one Dallas radio station?

Yes, that's possible, but it seems unlikely, unless the World Net Daily writer is a very poor writer. Here's the quote:

In a recent Dallas radio interview, Neal revealed he actively sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government. He boasted that he fooled federal prosecutors into believing he would be sympathetic to their case.

Neal explained that he noted on his pretrial questionnaire that his father works in the military.

"My answers looked like I was a pro-American, you know, flag-waving American," he said on the Ernie and Jay show. "

From that quote, The Ernie and Jay show seems to be the Dallas radio interview, don't you think, special_guest?

Here again is the radio interview with Ernie and Jay. Nowhere in it does Neal reveal that "he actively sought a seat on the jury to sway the verdict against the government." That is a mistake, I think, in the World Net Daily article.

All that the evidence from the radio interview shows about this guy is that he had political opinions and biases, not that he tried to conceal them. Even when Neal says that the prosecution misinterpreted his questionnaire answers (assuming he would be a flag-waving American), there is no indication from his statements in the radio interview that he tried to mislead anyone on his questionnaire answers. In fact it sounds like he is saying that in looking at the trial after it was over, he could see how the prosecution would assume from certain of his answers to the questionnaire that he would give a guilty verdict without much thought.

All I am saying is that if Neal did any misleading, you can't really get that from the radio interview with Neal, and in that regard the World Net Daily is misleading.

miira: you quote Powerline

Among other things, Neal has gone on record to say that he didn’t even think the defense needed to stand up and present a case; that the prosecution case was “a waste of time;”

That was in the radio interview with Neal. In the radio interview it's pretty clear that when he makes those statements it's as a result of his having listened to the prosecution and defense cases. He thought the prosecution case was so poor, having sat through it, that in the end he felt it was worthless and the defense didn't need to do anything to win. That is totally different from coming into the trial and claiming from the very beginning and that the prosecution shouldn't even bother. Neal nowhere in the radio interview says that he did that, yet some of the media sources that commenters here are relying on are creating that misimpression, either deliberately or by mistake, or probably both.

Neal seems to have been an opinionated bully, and he had his political biases. But as far as the radio interview goes, there is no solid evidence that he was a stooge who went in to the trial as an agent of the defendants or with a prior intent to prejudice the case against the prosecution.

To show that, evidence will have to come from elsewhere, it seems to me. I think World Net Daily and some other sources did a bit of tendentious reporting on this story.

Holy Land Foundation could be guilty and Neal could be utterly wrong in thinking Holy Land Foundation innocent. But the evidence Neal engaged in deliberate corruption of this trial is not there in the radio interview.

Posted by: traeh at December 14, 2007 2:03 PM

Quote from Winston above:

"Wake up America. Bush is not the Republican I thought he was, that is for sure. Get one that isn't a coward, holding hands with that Saudi sack of crap."

Winston, that is exactly how I feel, and that revolting photo of PoSiC holding the hand of the Demon King of Arabia is my favorite example.

Posted by: Charles Martel at December 14, 2007 2:20 PM

After listening to the interview I have a different opinion. Neal did say during the KRLD interview that he thought it was about George Bush, and when Bush is out the case will go away. He does seem to be an arrogant pr-ck. However, in the interview he never said that he tried to get on the jury or that the mislead the government. He spoke in vague generalities, never citing a specific government failure.

For example, in the OJ Simpson trial, I was concerned about Detective Vanatter's carrying OJ's blood sample back to the crime scene, and the crime lab's inability to account for the blood usage. Neal never made a comment similar to that about any specific thing about this trial.

I have to agree with Traeh's 2:03 comments about the World Net Daily (WND) atricle.

As far as his comments in the Dallas Morning News, he does come across as a mush head leftist who has been spoon fed a very vile version of American history. I say that knowing that his quotes came through WND. I consider myself as conservative as any regular JWDW commenter, but WND is my least favorite news source.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 14, 2007 3:25 PM