What cracks me up, and would make me laugh if it weren't so pathetic, is the way people suppose they know whether someone is guilty or innocent because of the media coverage of a high profile trial. Consider the Martha Stewart trial, for instance.
She was found guilty of all four counts given to the jury. The jury saw all the evidence in court and unanimously found her guilty even though each juror had passed the veto of the defense during jury selection. Yet a CNN poll on the website showed that only about 60 percent of the website visitors thought she should have been convicted. Another 40 percent thought she should have been acquitted.


On what basis? They weren't on the jury. They didn't see the evidence or hear the witnesses. All they have to go on is media coverage. What is the point of having a trial if guilt or innocence can be determined without one, without hearing the evidence or both sides of the story?

The mob mentality, driven by the media, would be laughable if it weren't so sad.


John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=============================================
The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know
that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah.
-- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004.
=============================================
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------




Reply via email to