Horrors! Kolb jury foreman apparently holds liberal views
The Quad City Times today saw fit to re-print letters to the editor which it had received from hold-out Sarah Kolb murder trial jury foreman Mark Hurty.
They reveal that Hurty opposes the relentless right-wing attack on dissent, that he felt Bush owed the public to reveal ALL of his service records to clear up his having gone AWOL during his guard service, felt it was bad of Bush to be attending dozens of fundraisers yet not one funeral of a dead soldier returning from the war he'd sent them to, and favors people living in peace and harmony, among other things.
The QC Times has jumped into blog mode by now allowing comments on their stories online. Comments left on today's story noting that a new Kolb trial will likely be somewhere other than the Quad Cities, resemble a torch carrying mob screaming for blood. It's pretty ugly and of course, many are calling for Mr.Hurty's head. I'd say it's only a matter of time before they start ranting against "damn liberals".
Was re-publishing these letters to the editor relevant to the story or justified? Is Hurty's political views relevant to his service on the Kolb jury? Has the Times now invited people to politicize even jury duty? Is this an invitation to erroneously blame the result of the trial on all liberals or those holding liberal views, rather than the decision of one particular person which led to a mistrial?
What do you think?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/18/2005
25 comments
25 Comments:
I do not think the fact that he was a liberal has anything to do with it. His wife volunteered how he spent hours looking up on the internet about the case and that is a no no from the word one.the word Intent was such an easy word. It was like in the Journal on Jan 21 2005 I intend on killing
Sarah Kolb that is what intent is and that seems so easy to understand. Free spirit or no free spirit. thanks for listening
"Liberal" has nothing to do with it. The point is he's a guy with an agenda (liberal or conservative) that led him to nullify the trial. It's too bad the prosecution didn't see him coming: a bleeding heart (again, he could've been a born-again conservative bleeding heart) who marches to a different drummer and is out to right the injustices of the world, a crusader who sees Truthes that other people don't seem to notice, and who isn't shy about being odd-man out. In brief, the prosecution's worst nightmare in a legal system where all you need is one loose cannon to upset an air-tight case. Kolb said she was going to kill Reynolds. She wrote she was going to kill her. She attacked her in school, and she admitted starting the attack that killed the girl. She recruited, or helped recruit, a kid with metal problems to dismember the charred. She told a fellow jailbird she killed Reynolds. Truely, stupidity should be a crime and Hurty should be arrested. As it is, the most we can hope for is the judge hauls him back into court and tries to see if he lied in voir dire.
I'd agree that it's not necessarily a righty-lefty thing.
Is it me, or do you get a hint deep down that he kind of likes the attention?
I, too, am afraid that he will be run out of town. The comments left on the Times' site are troubling.
However, the fact he is accusing the other jurors of having prejudged Kolb before the trial, when it can be argued he brought his own preconcieved views into deliberations, gives me pause.
Digging into his family, job, life, etc is the beginning of a very slippery slope. He did not ask to be on jury duty but did his civic duty when called. The reasons why he felt the way he did are his. Did the media skewer the 12 OJ jurors? The Rodney King jurors? We involved with the law ask jurors to stand their ground in the jury room even in the face of majority opposition. Why would anyone in the future do this if they thought for one second that their name, family, and anything they do or have done is going to become fair game for the press. This is one of the reasons why otherwise qualified people don't run for public office. The QC Times gets closer to the National Inquirer everyday.
Not that I agree with the decision made by the jury foreman, but honestly, did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe that some of the jurors did not understand their roles and that they could have entered a guilty verdict on the charge of concealing a homicide. I also think that this was part of the defense's case. Sarah Kolb will blame Cory Gregory & when Cory Gregory goes to trial he will blame Sarah Kolb. This defense provides doubt because no one really knows who played what part. Did anyone in the Quad Cities really believe that Sarah Kolb could receive a fair trial anyway with all of the media coverage from the beginning of this tragedy?
HeadUsher,
Yeah, fervent support, that's it.
Don't you have to go get your picture taken with the family?
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest guy on the planet.
I agree with anonymous' 11:54 and 12:28 above (this is why choosing anonymous as a name is confusing... click on "other" and type in a name please)
I think it's a bit iffy for the Times to feel that this guy's opinions on national politics bears any relevance to this case, and it does invite even further, ignorant, in my opinion, scorn on him and his family.
He was just doing his duty as a juror as he saw fit, and doing what they are supposed to do, namely, hearing all the evidence, giving it careful consideration, and deciding if, according to the specific instructions given to them by the court, they felt the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
He didn't, and he didn't hear anything in the jury room evidently that changed his mind. But he apparently did fulfill his duty as a concientious juror.
In this circumstance, he's not to be condemned for not changing his mind simply to arrive at an emotionally satisfying verdict.
I need to read more reporting on the guy, as Mediaburn's final thought in his comment gives me pause as well.
I think in the end, the foreman would have been well advised to not speak to the press at all, or very briefly, and then just try to disappear. If he starts trying to explain himself, he'll only get further entangled in all the somewhat mindless animosity directed towards him.
It's pretty telling, as has been alluded to, that they seemed to be so mixed up by the jury instructions, that they didn't bother finding her guilty for a charge which they all AGREED she was guilty of, the covering up of the crime.
And it's pretty bad that the court and the prosecution didn't even catch this and make any effort to correct it.
I find it curious and a bit annoying that the public is inflamed and vilifying the rougue juror, yet they seem to be giving the prosecution a pass. Though juries are a notorious wild card in the equation, the bottom line is that the prosecution failed to get a conviction and at best, it's fair to question whether they might have done things differently and gotten the desired result.
Juries used to be anonymous and it should have stayed that way. No jurist should be allowed to talk to the press, and no media people should be able to approach them. That would eliminate both fear of repercussion and showboating on the jurors' parts. I don't know if Mr. Hurty sees himself as a shining light in a world of ignorance or if he just wants to be on Oprah. I just know that his name should have never been in the papers or on the 6 o'clock news.
I'm a liberal and think Hurty's an idiot that gives us liberals a bad name. He started blabbing to the press as soon as the trial was over, making it look like he wants attention.
How can anyone think Kolb is innocent when 30-some people testified against her (including her own relatives) and her defense was "they're all mistaken". In order to acquit, the doubt must be REASONABLE. Hurty comes across like a close-minded ass with an agenda.
The prosecution screwed up by letting him onto the jury. But keep in mind Hurty's an actor.
I believe in many views of this Hurty fellow but one thing I know for sure is Kolb is guilty. And Kolb's mother inparticular is in major denial. Someone get this lady some help ASAP. >:)
I read he will be posting his thoughts in the "Theater of my mind" section of his blog.
I picture it as a large, empty space filled with half eaten popcorn kernels, empty candy wrappers and flavorless, half- chewed bubble gum stuck under all the seats.
qclib ... you are a wise and honorable person who GETS IT.
Kolb said she was going to kill Reynolds; she wrote she was going to kill her; she started the attack that killed Reynolds; she told another jailbird she killed Reynolds.
Don't tell me can't criticise Hurty for "doing his civic duty." We can, when he does it like this. The man has proven himself to be a fool.
The South of Locust blog has posted an archive link to his web resume as a soap opera actor. Advance training in San Francisco. His talents include ballet.
As Dave Barry says, I'm not making this up.
Who needs Rush when we have people like this running around flapping their lips?
Well, apparently no one that rates too low on the manly-man scale in your eyes deserves to be taken seriously?
Believe it or not, juries are selected from the general population. That's where the term "jury of your peers" comes from. They're supposed to be representitive of the general population, you know, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, gays, straights, just like America.
But I guess actors or ballet dancers somehow don't have what it takes to be a juror?
That's a pretty dumb suggestion.
As far as being sufficiently macho for you, I'd wager that any professional ballet dancer could pound most guys into a mud puddle. Ballet danceing is not for sissys or the weak.
But that's beside the point.
You can disagree all day and night until you're blue in the face with what conclusion he reached, but the fact remains that you can NOT criticize this guy for doing what he was asked to do in the way he saw fit.
We don't know his motives, and no one can say with any honesty that he hung the jury simply to get publicity.
While criticism is centered on this guy, the others who failed are getting a complete pass. I guess it's easier to pile on someone you perceive as different or not macho or conservative enough?
What about the errors of the prosecution? What about the fact that the instructions were so misunderstood that the jury didn't even realize that they could find Kolb guilty of one charge and not another? What about the fact that simply lining up a bunch of kids to testify that Kolb had said she'd like to kill Reynolds doesn't prove in any way, shape, or form that she indeed did?
All this anger and venom directed at the foreman only troubles me.
Juries should be independent and free from influence, but if all future jurors have to worry about being attacked and vilified if they don't find the way the public wants, then something's gone seriously wrong.
Liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between, Hurty's political views are not, or at least shouldn't be, a factor in any of this.
He's one person who heard all the evidence and drew a conclusion. You don't have to agree with it, but he still has a perfect right to it. To try to broaden the attack to include his personal interests or political views is irresponsible and wrong. Are you trying to argue that every liberal or actor or person who takes ballet would let a murderer go free for the heck of it?
bullshit, i bet mr hurdy wouldn't have any problem convicting her if she was black.
Figures, you win the most ridiculous comment of the month award for being both ignorant AND racist. (but that's redundant) Congratulations. Watch your mailbox for your prize.
A juror can only return one of two verdicts, and I guess if you pick the one that people who haven't sat through the trial think you should have, you're a "fool".
Something about that way of thinking isn't too appealing.
Our country is being looted, people are dying needlessly in Iraq, the environment is being destroyed, the middle class is being sucked dry while the those who can most easily afford it are fixing things so they have to pay less and less back to the country who gave them the opportunity, while the bill of rights is under attack by our own government, the administration feels that it has a right to operate in complete secrecy, all attempts to find out what went on with 9-11, Bush's being A.W.O.L., the response to Katrina, who attended Cheney's secret energy task force meetings, and nearly every other important question is met with stalling and stonewalling, while the safety net for the poor is being shredded, corporations are given billions in subsidies, oil companies are raking in so much profit that they don't know what to do with it all while gas prices soar, Bush foreign policy is making the US a pariah around the world and making us decidedly LESS safe from terror, clandestine CIA operatives are being blown for political revenge, the media is turning into a swamp of trivia and misinformation, the Bush administration sticks it's head in the sand and denies scientific facts and panders to the know-nothing fundimentalists, and Republicans vilify anyone who questions any of this as being traitorous and un-American,
THIS guy, this juror, gets people to speak up and complain.
THIS is what's important to people. As for the rest of it, it's as if they're in a coma.
That's what's really scary.
Sarah Kolb's relatives were subpeonaed to testify. They did NOT testify against Sarah Kolb. They testified and that's it. Sarah Kolb's relatives (ALL of Sarah Kolb's relatives) believe in Sarah Kolb. They believe that Sarah Kolb DID NOT kill Adrianne Reynolds. I know, I'm close to the family.
Unless you actually sat in that courtroom every day like I did, you do not know what actually was said. The press has consistently taken words out of context and has consistently failed to report EVERYTHING that went on in that courtroom. Channel Four even reported that Sarah Kolb's brother was there. Wrong! That was a young gentleman from Ohio that Sarah has cared about for the last 3 or 4 years. Kathryn Klauer does not have any sons.
There was THREE different versions coming from the witnesses. It was not one consistent version. Two witnesses even went so far as to say that Sarah Kolb told them that Sarah knocked out four of Adrianne's teeth. Yet, the pathologist stated that ALL of Adrianne's teeth were intact and in good condition.... not chipped, not broken, not cracked.
But these two witnesses are to be believed? Come on! Someone could state "Hey guess what. The dope told me that he wears women's panties! Pink, lacy panties!" But would that necessarily be true? Just because someone says that someone told them something, that doesn't make it true. Adrianne's teeth were NOT missing and that is a fact and that is true.
Judge Teros did NOT instruct the jurors to refrain from using the internet. Judge Teros told the jurors to stay away from accounts concerning Sarah Kolb and Adrianne Reynolds. It might have helped if some of the other jurors had researched what "presumption of innocence" means.
I agree with all you said, particlarly the part about it not necessarily being true that I wear pink panties. After all, I hate pink.
But your comment illustrates a very important point. Those who weren't there to hear the evidence are basing their opinion on hearsay and what sort of person they perceive Mr. Hurty to be. This is both unfair and unwise in my opinion.
Being that you're close to the family, you can hardly claim that your opinion is objective. Hurty discounted thirty-plus witnesses, Sarah's own diary entry, the tapes of her blatantly lying to the cops, and her own testimony in which she admitted, among other things, that she started a fight with Adrianne. He's apparently not smart enough to understand that Sarah's own testimony was the most damaging of all.
IMO, people like Hurty are why liberalism has become synonymous with idiocy.
Thank you dope.
I also believe that it has been unfair and unwise for the public to base their perception of Sarah Kolb and Sarah Kolb's family on the hearsay, false rumors, and outright lies that the media has put forth.
qclib,
All I can say is that you better pray you don't have someone like yourself in the jury if YOU'RE ever on trial for your life.
First of all, again, I emphasize that I'm not arguing that Kolb is innocent. I personally believe she was guilty. But that's beside the point I'd like to make.
How can you possibly think that,
A. Somehow, the number of witnesses equals guilt. If you have two, does that mean you're not guilty? If you have 100, does that mean your extra guilty? That's hardly a basis for assuming guilt.
B. Sarah's own diary entry means what? That some twisted girl wrote that she'd like to kill a rival. Again, something that probably happens a hundred times a day or more. Again, absolutely NO proof of guilt whatsoever.
C. The tapes of her blatantly lying to the cops. OK. And now lying to the cops is proof of guilt? You've got to be joking.
D.Her own testimony in which she admitted, among other things, that she started a fight with Adrianne.
Well there ya got me. If she admitted starting a fight with Adrianne, then she MUST be guilty. That's just laughable.
You say he's apparently not smart enough to understand that Sarah's own testimony was the most damaging of all. Well, since he was there for every minute of the testimony and also had a transcript to study in the jury room, and you only had partial accounts in the press, I guess it must suck that he's not as smart as you are. Again, dumb argument.
If you're going to crucify this guy, at least try to be honest or have some better evidence that he did something wrong for a bad motive. Otherwise, it just sounds lame.
so now inside dope deletes my response noting that the quad cities doesn't have a problem convicting blacks? i smell coverup.
I'm sorry figures, but I never received anything from you along those lines. I've only received one previous comment from you and it's posted above.
Sorry to burst your cover-up bubble.
I took your comment to mean that Hurty somehow let Kolb off the hook because she was white. I felt injecting race into the story was un-called for. Hurty's politics would hardly suggest that he'd be prone to racism.
If you meant to point out that the conviction rate for blacks is disproportionatly higher that that for whites, then that is another issue.
Figures, I owe you an apology. I just found a comment of yours that I'd overlooked and neglected to post. Sorry for that error.
I can moderate comments from either one of two different places, and your comment had slipped by. I just noticed it at the second location. I didn't post it as it would now be out of order and confusing, but I regret not having seen it.
I also found a couple other comments which had gotten lost in the shuffle and I've posted those.
Sorry to all and I'll certainly be more diligent from now on.
To the anonymous person who said they were "close to the family" : Sorry, but the family did testify against Sarah. Their testamony was not in favor of Sarah - it was against her. Also, you cannot state what EVERY person in her family believes or feels if you are only "close to the family" and not part of the family.
Also, the "versions" the witnesses stated about Sarah telling them she knocked out Adrianne's teeth - they did not say her teeth were actually knocked out. They said that Sarah told them she knocked her teeth out. As the prosecution said, Sarah could have been bragging - adding to the story.
Also, Judge Teros did state that the jury members were to judge the case based only on what they heard during the trial. They were not to have any outside influences when they judged the case - and that would include looking up information on the internet until 4 am.
Post a Comment
<< Home