quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Does anyone know whether a jury consultant was employed to assist in selection?

Yes, the Rittenhouse defense team didn't hire a jury consultant. They hired ***the*** jury consultant, Jo-Ellan Dimitrius. She is best known for being the jury selection consultant for OJ Simpson's defense team. In addition to the OJ case,

'Dimitrius “has consulted in over 1,000 trials and picked over 600 juries.” Among the defendants whose cases she worked include the following: “Night Stalker (Richard Ramirez), McMartin Preschool, Rodney King, Reginald Denny, John duPont, Francis Ford Coppola [“Pinocchio trial”]... Jayson Williams, Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, Robert Blake, Joseph Nacchio (CEO of Qwest) and criminal and civil cases related to the Enron prosecution.”'

https://lawandcrime.com/live-t...r-o-j-simpson-trial/

This is a good example of why we can't have "dialog" any more

https://www.breitbart.com/clip...ivil-rights-workers/

Representative Karen Bass (D-CA) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the two white men killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest were like white Civil Rights activists killed in the 1960s.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Joseph Rosenbaum - nut case pedophile who chased and attacked Kyle Rittenhouse

Kyle Rittenhouse - chased by a mob and physically attacked by at least 4 people

"Karen" (aptly named) is dead wrong. Those guys were nefarious perps with long rap sheets. They were sexual predators--scum of the Earth.

flashguy

All three had arrest records that had NOTHING to do with civil rights. Unless picking up multiple DUIs is somehow (forgive me, Harry S Truman) "striking a blow for liberty"?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correct. It would be very interesting to know the backgrounds of those on the jury. I assume they are local folks. I would also be interested what measures are being taken to protect their identity. Does anyone know whether a jury consultant was employed to assist in selection?

It's also been observed that 5 of the potential jurors have been wearing masks during the entire trial. Assumptions about this can be divided into 2 camps. I for one, choose the white pill and believe they have potentially made up their minds and are preserving what anonymity they still have. There can certainly be older conservative jurors concerned for their health. It was also mentioned in a podcast the the jury could hear the judge while in the library, especially when he was chewing out the ADA.

Thanks to both of you for the information regarding the jury as well as the consultant.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
This is a good example of why we can't have "dialog" any more

Yup.

Having a "discussion" with a leftist on another forum right now. Ironically, he complains about not being able to debate, I point out why, he goes on to illustrate exactly my point--without recognizing that's what he's doing.

He won't even agree to disagree. Him: "Why won't you discuss this?" Me: "Because it't pointless to do so." And he tries to pursue it, anyway

I have more productive discussions with our cats. Seriously. They at least appear to be trying to understand what I'm saying.

BlackTalon's video above is worth a watch

Robert Barnes' comments certainly aligned w what I watched live of the trial.

BTW, Barnes thought the Defense team screwed up jury selection

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...der-firearms-charge/

George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley believes testimony and Judge Bruce Schroeder’s observations in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial have undercut the firearms charge and that said charge ought not be heard by the jury.

On November 12, 2021, Breitbart News noted that Schroeder expressed skepticism about the state gun law and said he would let the charge go to the jury, but would allow the defense to include an instruction that pointed out the exceptions in the law — a hurdle that would make it more difficult for the prosecution to prove guilt.

Judge Schroeder told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.

Turley also pointed out the prosecution seemed to be “learning” about the gun law during Rittenhouse’s own testimony:

[Prosecutor Thomas Binger] pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.

Turley ultimately suggested the firearms charge ought not go to the jury:

It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries.

He believes the clearest part of the law is a ban on minors possessing short-barreled rifles. But Turley observed, “Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.”

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
This is a good example of why we can't have "dialog" any more

Yup.

Having a "discussion" with a leftist on another forum right now. Ironically, he complains about not being able to debate, I point out why, he goes on to illustrate exactly my point--without recognizing that's what he's doing.

He won't even agree to disagree. Him: "Why won't you discuss this?" Me: "Because it't pointless to do so." And he tries to pursue it, anyway

I have more productive discussions with our cats. Seriously. They at least appear to be trying to understand what I'm saying.

It’s human nature. It goes on frequently here too.

Binger then asked in apparent disbelief: "...on the night you were carrying a large caliber fully-semmi-automatic AR-15, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, yet, you were not wearing your necessary prescription eye glasses, Mr. Rittenhouse?"

Kyle: "I don't wear glasses."

Binger:, "Um.... no further questions..."

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Nit-picky, I know, but still a bit surprised with her reference to a slide on an AR-15.

Did she not know the difference, or was it just a misstatement, i.e., thinking of one thing when speaking about another?

Watch enough YouTube videos by people who should be a lot more familiar with guns and you’ll hear worse that have to be corrected with, “Oh, yeah, that’s what I meant to say.” I have made similar misstatements about parts when teaching classes, so I know it’s easy to do.

^^^ I thought she was just using the terminology currently being used in the court at the time.

I mean after all, would like to think she knows the difference between a bullet and a cartridge. If she started using "cartridge" instead of bullet, lots of corrections would need to be made AND, she might be considered an obstinate "know it all."

The way she spoke made it appear she was/is neutral.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
^^^ I thought she was just using the terminology currently being used in the court at the time.

Okay, thanks. I have not watched the trial testimony myself and was not aware of that.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
^^^ I thought she was just using the terminology currently being used in the court at the time.

Nope.
She walks into the courtroom at 2:33:20 (Defense attorney goes to get her).

At 2:40:45 is when the question was asked to explain what happens when the AR-15 jams.
Slide was not mentioned between when she walked into the court, until she mentioned it.

Are you familiar with AR-15’s?
Yes.
How are you familiar with them?
I’ve owned them, I’ve shot them, I’ve trained with them.
Have you ever had the experience when one has jammed?
Yes.
Can you tell us about that?
You have to clear it, usually to rack the slide back to eject the jam, whatever the round is that is jammed in there, send it forward and then another bullet will go into the chamber.

I don’t think she knows the difference, but you can judge for yourself at 2:40:45.
To me she did come off as portraying more knowledge of guns then she actually possessed.
I did not see her as an “expert witness”, however she was not called in as an expert on firearms.
She was in court to testify as to what unfired rounds, bullets, and shell casings she recovered from the scene.

Comparing the the rioters to civil right workers killed by the Klan in Mississippi. It really irks me when people cannot get the facts straight and use whatever narrative fits their beliefs. She probably had no idea why the civil rights workers were in Philadelpia and any of the details.

Don't get me started, at least one person in a moment of jackassery compared Kyle to Chauvin right here in this thread.

Query: what would be a good simple and direct way of explaining cycling the bolt on an AR15 to 18 people with little or no exposure to AR15s? One that would be shorter and clearer for that particular audience than "pulling the slide back"?

I'm not trying to give anybody flack. I think many of us would find it a challenge if we were suddenly asked to do better on the witness stand. It's just not something people tend to have a reason to think through, and that seems to include weapons examiners in Kenosha's cop shops.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Query: what would be a good simple and direct way of explaining cycling the bolt on an AR15 to 18 people with little or no exposure to AR15s? One that would be shorter and clearer for that particular audience than "pulling the slide back"?

How about “pulling the bolt back”? More technically, “pulling the bolt carrier back,” but the bolt does get pulled back as well. That’s the way I refer to it when describing the action to students.

“But who knows what the bolt (or bolt carrier) is?” Probably about as many as know what the slide refers to. If anyone in the courtroom wanted to know what the bolt is or what pulling it back does it would require a bit of explanation, but at least it would give the BS media pundits something to explain to the masses (after they had it explained to them).

This sounds pompous, but the smartest people are those who can explain difficult (and sometimes not-so-difficult) concepts in terms that the ignorant and less-intelligent can understand. They do that by using common terminology and examples that everyone is familiar with. I firmly believe that the LEOs I teach about their issued firearms should know how they work, and I have never had any problems with explaining their functioning even if the students are total novices (as some are). It’s the less intelligent instructors who have difficulty breaking out of the jargon and obscure terminology that they memorize by rote to translate it into what others can understand.