|
Post by Panther on Aug 9, 2011 20:18:12 GMT -5
The most bizarre case of a 60's-dude reversing his stance had to be Eldridge Cleaver! He was a black rapist, sentenced to many years in prison, when he wrote Soul On Ice (wonderful if disturbing book), which became a bestseller. Before being released, he met Huey Newton (I think) and joined the Black Panther Party, becoming its secretary or something because he was a gifted writer. Around this time, Ronald Reagan had a statement about him, the gist of which was: "If we raise our children to support people like Eldridge Cleaver, they'll come and knife us to death in our beds." Cleaver was harrassed by the police, run out of the US, and took refuge in Cuba.
Several years later, he returned to the US, became a born-again Christian and joined the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 10, 2011 0:25:05 GMT -5
Yeah, free the prisoners, jail the judges, that is what the song says . . . I will not address, for now, the argument that there are some people in prison due to inequities in the law enforcement and legal system which would cause some people to say "free the prisoners." But, I will say this. For others, I don't think they literally mean free prisoners because they did no wrong. I think what the bigger picture is is that if one sees prisons as "correctional" institutions where one pays their debt to society and learns skills required to function in society and the prison either can't or won't serve that function, then release the prisoners for the prisons are failing their duty. Or, if one sees prisons as places solely as places of punishment, but cannot do so in a humane manner, then release the prisoners, for the prisons are immoral institutions themselves and do not deserve to be in existence. And, I don't think Yoko thinks John David Chapman should go free, but I bet she does think he should be housed humanely for his entire stay and she would get no pleasure to know that he was being tortured every day. If she did, then, yes, that would be hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 10, 2011 0:27:35 GMT -5
. . . Eldridge Cleaver . . . Several years later, he returned to the US, became a born-again Christian and joined the Republican party. Did you ever see those pants he designed that, well, er, uh, "housed" ones member rather openly?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 10, 2011 0:31:46 GMT -5
. . . extreme social engineering . . . My goodness. You're a teabagger, aren't you? This simple three word phrase gives you away.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 10, 2011 12:41:29 GMT -5
. . . extreme social engineering . . . My goodness. You're a teabagger, aren't you? This simple three word phrase gives you away. Nah, I don't know hardly anything about the Tea Party, aside from that they seem pretty boring. I am a registered Republican. A Pat Buchanan Republican. An oddity for a homeless Berkeley person. And my own politics have been pretty much all across the map. I actually went door-to-door campaigning for Tom "Mr Jane Fonda" Hayden in 1976 and jokingly referred to myself as Young Zealots for Hayden. In presidential elections and primaries I've voted for Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy (still regret that one), Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Leonard Peltier, and Barak Obama. So I don't know how I'd characterize my politics, aside from possibly insane.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 10, 2011 12:49:11 GMT -5
The most bizarre case of a 60's-dude reversing his stance had to be Eldridge Cleaver! He was a black rapist, sentenced to many years in prison, when he wrote Soul On Ice (wonderful if disturbing book), which became a bestseller. Before being released, he met Huey Newton Huey Newton's big transformation was he went from a '60s revolutionary leader to an '80s crack dealing thug before he was gunned down on the mean streets of Oakland. Oh wait a second. That wasn't much of a reversal. Of course Collier & Horrowitz went from publishers of Ramparts to Reagan Republicans. Abbie Hoffman went from rabble-rousing Yippie to a guy who was working on a self-help book along the lines of "How To Successfully Deal With Manic Depression." Which I'm sure would've been another bestseller from ole' Ab filled with his priceless wisdom and advice, except he committed suicide half-way through writing it. (I helpfully suggested they could still salvage the manuscript simply by changing the title to "How NOT to Successfully Deal With Manic Depression.")
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 10, 2011 14:13:45 GMT -5
Jerry Rubin's ex-wife described him as "the schlemiel of all time." Thanks to the healing power of EST therapy in the '70s, Rubin realized that his whole big-man-on-campus act in the '60s was just his way of trying to "over-compensate for having a small penis" (and thanks for the keen insights, Jer). Finally, after leading a life of almost mind-boggling stupidity, the great '60s leader Jerry Rubin died tragically when he was hit by a car while jaywalking on a street in Los Angeles. And hopefully nobody else was following the leader at that point.
And keep in mind, these are the men that Lennon turned to to help transform the political landscape of America. Well, he also turned to Magic Alex to build a state-of-the-art 64 track recording studio. So what the hell.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 10, 2011 15:17:11 GMT -5
. . . Jerry Rubin died tragically when he was hit by a car while jaywalking on a street in Los Angeles . . . There's always another Jerry around the corner www.jerrypeaceactivistrubin.com/
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 12, 2011 14:23:25 GMT -5
It just struck me how weird it was that just 6 years earlier Lennon had been touring to an audience of millions of screaming prepubescent girls. And then just 6 years later he's planning a tour playing in front of an audience of rabble-rousing revolutionaries, yippies and freaks. Truly that has to be one of the strangest transformations in the history of show biz.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 12, 2011 16:38:15 GMT -5
However, I don't consider that a bad thing! The "preachiness" is not debatable, though. You're right about that. And how "dated" it is... hmm, because all the songs were topical, the album was already dated by the time it was released! However, this "datedness" is actually part of its appeal now. Angela Davis was a Communist as well as a terrorist. She was tried for her involvement in the Soledad brothers' August 1970 abduction and murder of Judge Harold Haley in Marin County, California. A 17-year old high school student gained control over a courtroom in Marin County, California, armed the black defendants and took Judge Harold Haley, the prosecutor, and three female jurors as hostages. As the 17-year old transported the hostages and two black convicts away from the courtroom, the judge, one of the jurors, the prosecutor, and the three other men were killed. Davis had purchased the firearms used in the attack, including the shotgun used to kill Haley, which had been purchased two days prior and sawed-off. She had also written numerous love letters found in the prison cell of one of the murderers that proved she know about the plot. She was acquitted by a very left leaning jury even though California considered all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense principals in any crime so committed. San Marin County Superior Judge Peter Allen Smith charged Davis with “aggravated kidnapping and first degree murder" in the death of Judge Harold Haley. I can't even stand listening to a song about such a person. I consider that a bad thing. Picking some nits here. I live in Marin County and remember this incident very well. The prosecutor was not killed. He grabbed a gun while he, the judge and the hostages were in the getaway van and killed one of the perpetrators. He was, however, left paralyzed by the gunshot he sustained. The jury was not "left-leaning." She was tried in1972 in San Jose, which was then still largely rural, agricultural and decidedly not a liberal bastion. Finding 7 left-leaning jurors at that time would have been next to impossible. She was acquitted because the prosecution had a weak case.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 12, 2011 17:54:36 GMT -5
Angela Davis was a Communist as well as a terrorist. She was tried for her involvement in the Soledad brothers' August 1970 abduction and murder of Judge Harold Haley in Marin County, California. A 17-year old high school student gained control over a courtroom in Marin County, California, armed the black defendants and took Judge Harold Haley, the prosecutor, and three female jurors as hostages. As the 17-year old transported the hostages and two black convicts away from the courtroom, the judge, one of the jurors, the prosecutor, and the three other men were killed. Davis had purchased the firearms used in the attack, including the shotgun used to kill Haley, which had been purchased two days prior and sawed-off. She had also written numerous love letters found in the prison cell of one of the murderers that proved she know about the plot. She was acquitted by a very left leaning jury even though California considered all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense principals in any crime so committed. San Marin County Superior Judge Peter Allen Smith charged Davis with “aggravated kidnapping and first degree murder" in the death of Judge Harold Haley. I can't even stand listening to a song about such a person. I consider that a bad thing. Picking some nits here. I live in Marin County and remember this incident very well. The prosecutor was not killed. He grabbed a gun while he, the judge and the hostages were in the getaway van and killed one of the perpetrators. He was, however, left paralyzed by the gunshot he sustained. The jury was not "left-leaning." She was tried in1972 in San Jose, which was then still largely rural, agricultural and decidedly not a liberal bastion. Finding 7 left-leaning jurors at that time would have been next to impossible. She was acquitted because the prosecution had a weak case. But I will add, just because Angela Davis was aquitted because the prosecution had a weak case, doesn't neccessarily mean that Angela Davis wasn't deeply, deeply involved in the whole plot to spring her lover George Jackson out of jail. I mean, come on. Angela Davis buys all these firearms. And then within two days they end up in the hands of a Jackson cohort who uses them to murder people. Connect the dots, fellas.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 12, 2011 18:06:34 GMT -5
Picking some nits here. I live in Marin County and remember this incident very well. The prosecutor was not killed. He grabbed a gun while he, the judge and the hostages were in the getaway van and killed one of the perpetrators. He was, however, left paralyzed by the gunshot he sustained. The jury was not "left-leaning." She was tried in1972 in San Jose, which was then still largely rural, agricultural and decidedly not a liberal bastion. Finding 7 left-leaning jurors at that time would have been next to impossible. She was acquitted because the prosecution had a weak case. But I will add, just because Angela Davis was aquitted because the prosecution had a weak case, doesn't neccessarily mean that Angela Davis wasn't deeply, deeply involved in the whole plot to spring her lover George Jackson out of jail. I mean, come on. Angela Davis buys all these firearms. And then within two days they end up in the hands of a Jackson cohort who uses them to murder people. Connect the dots, fellas. I wasn't saying anything about whether she was involved or not -- just refuting RTP's contention that the jury was stacked with leftist/liberal folks.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 13, 2011 0:06:11 GMT -5
I mean, come on. Angela Davis buys all these firearms. And then within two days they end up in the hands of a Jackson cohort who uses them to murder people. Connect the dots, fellas. My understanding is that she purchased ONE firearm. As I mentioned, she described this herself in her autobiography and explains the reasons for it. It's not hard to see how it would, possibly without her knowledge, end up in the hands of Jackson-junior. She was often visiting George Jackson's mother and talking to the family. I'm not arguing that she was entirely innocent of knowledge -- for all I know, she planned the whole thing (although, as I said, this seems entirely discreditable on the basis of her being an intelligent person). However, the fact that she was the legal owner of a weapon that ended up in the hands of Jonathan Jackson does NOT mean that she knew what was going to happen. Please don't become a lawyer if you consider that a logical jump.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Aug 13, 2011 18:38:39 GMT -5
I learned a lot on this tread, thanks to almost everyone for setting out this information so well.
What I object to is a certain poster presenting nonfactual information and prejudices as fact. I might have accepted those as fact, except (a) one needs to consider the source and (b) there were well educated posters responding to the inaccuracies.
I have to go back to listen to this song now. I found STINYC to be musically disappointing, regardless of the fact that I am not a wing nut nor do I particularly care that the music is dated. The lyrics tend to run out of meter, and some of them are a little over the top (Free the prisoners...), the tunes aren't as melodic as I expect from John Lennon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 7:50:04 GMT -5
I don't know if you guys know the story of how Lennon's radical political period came to an end, but thats a fascinating story (as most of Lennon's life is, in my opinion). After performing at a John Sinclair benefit concert (with Sinclair being released from prison virtually the next day!) Lennon was filled with revolutionary fervor. He started making big plans to go on a national barnstorming tour with Elephant's Memory and Jerry Rubin, as well as giving platforms on the show to all the local radical leaders in all the towns where they performed. The plan was to keep it as low-rent as possible, with no big light shows or anything like that, real spontaneous where they could randomly hit towns guerilla-style, rent halls and do it up. With all the profits going back to the radical communities in the different cities. And the tour would peak with a big concert/demonstration at the Republican convention in 1972 in Florida. Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman and all them Yippies had big plans to disrupt the convention, just as they had previously disrupted the Democratic convention in 1968 in Chicago, which sparked massive rioting all over town. But when the Nixon Whitehouse got wind of Lennon's plans they were naturally alarmed. Nixon (who was one of the most odious Blue Meanies of that period) sicced the FBI on Lennon, and they did everything they could to deny him his Green Card and get him deported back to England. Lennon was convinced that his phone was bugged and that FBI agents were following him. And I don't doubt him. Lennon could be extremely bold and confident, but he was also an extemely scared and paranoid person (one of the many strange contradictions in the Lennon character). So he caved in and canceled the Elephant's Memory tour. The whole period culminated on the eve of the Nixon vs McGovern presidential election in 1972. They all convened at Rubin's hip New York pad to watch the election returns, which Nixon won by a landslide, of course. This inspired Lennon to go berzerk on yet another one of his alcohol and cocaine-fueled rampages (Lennon was not going to get his revolution after all -- darn darn darn). According to Rubin's girlfriend, Lennon denounced the whole lot of them as "uptight middle-class Jews." Then he totally humiliated Yoko by fucking some chick in Rubin's bedroom practically right in front of Yoko. Shortly afterwards, Yoko kicked him out of the Dakota, set him up with May Pang, and sent him off to Los Angeles, mostly to get him out of her hair. And that was pretty much the end of Lennon's career as a radical political leader. The John and Yoko Love story movie had a scene where they were watching the election,John going off about the result and then taking some chick into the bedroom and giving her one and Yoko had to sit there and listen to this woman getting Johned... ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 8:50:34 GMT -5
And, I don't think Yoko thinks John David Chapman should go free, but I bet she does think he should be housed humanely for his entire stay and she would get no pleasure to know that he was being tortured every day. If she did, then, yes, that would be hypocritical. John David Chapman.....whats he in for ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 14, 2011 10:17:03 GMT -5
And, I don't think Yoko thinks John David Chapman should go free, but I bet she does think he should be housed humanely for his entire stay and she would get no pleasure to know that he was being tortured every day. If she did, then, yes, that would be hypocritical. John David Chapman.....whats he in for ;D ;D ;D ;D Oops. I guess I was paying respect to those on the board who refuse to even say or write the name of Chapman. One sign of disrespect is getting a person's name wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's what I was trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Aug 14, 2011 21:43:20 GMT -5
I'm listening to "Angela" right now. The opening is OK. Kind of melodic and Yoko keeps her voice under control and John harmonizes well. The middle part is kind of weak. Some of the lyrics sound pretty forced. It definitely goes on too long. It is at best an average song from a pretty weak album.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 7:26:39 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D Oops. I guess I was paying respect to those on the board who refuse to even say or write the name of Chapman. One sign of disrespect is getting a person's name wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's what I was trying to do. All kidding aside -- why can't you (and others) get that the killer murdered John to be famous? Don't you realize that any time you write his full name, you're doing just that tiny bit more to make him known and to have his name around? You are playing right into his hands. Now, I realize that NOT writing his name isn't going to change the sad history, and of course he is already known forever whether we mention him here or not. But just like a group of people not eating meat will not change the fact that billions of others DO eat meat .... at least those vegetarians and activists are doing their part in their effort. Same thing here --- just write "killer" or "John's killer" instead and do not feed right into his evil plan. We know who you mean, and there's all that less of fame for the creep. Just like your choosing not to eat a slice of veal isn't going to stop little calfs from being caged for my own pallet, at least it does a tiny bit more for your own effort. And besides, it's a lot simpler and quicker on the keyboard to write "killer" or "nut" than to spell out the guy's entire name (especially if you give him even more elegance when you use his middle name). Lunatic murderers seeking fame just LOVE seeing their names everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 15, 2011 12:30:01 GMT -5
I'm not arguing that she was entirely innocent of knowledge -- for all I know, she planned the whole thing (although, as I said, this seems entirely discreditable on the basis of her being an intelligent person). However, the fact that she was the legal owner of a weapon that ended up in the hands of Jonathan Jackson does NOT mean that she knew what was going to happen. Please don't become a lawyer if you consider that a logical jump. I'm sure I'd make a piss-poor lawyer. I guess I would call it "a logical jump." Though I'd characterize it more as "a highly likely scenerio." That Angela Davis had a damn good understanding of what those weapons (yes she only admitted to buying one of them) were being bought for. As well as how they miraculously ended up in the hands of a Jackson cohort only days later. But again, she was aquitted of any involvement. You might be a little too young to fully understand the violent revolutionary rhetoric that was bandied around by those people (including Angela Davis) back in those days here in the San Francisco/Berkeley/Oakland Bay Area. And you can hate me for playing the old geezer card ("You kids just have no understanding of the way it was back in dem good old days!"). But I'm greatly impressed by your general knowledge of that period considering you come from another generation. Thanks again for a great thread.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 15, 2011 14:48:57 GMT -5
All kidding aside -- why can't you (and others) get that the killer murdered John to be famous? Don't you realize that any time you write his full name, you're doing just that tiny bit more to make him known and to have his name around? You are playing right into his hands. Now, I realize that NOT writing his name isn't going to change the sad history, and of course he is already known forever whether we mention him here or not. But just like a group of people not eating meat will not change the fact that billions of others DO eat meat .... at least those vegetarians and activists are doing their part in their effort. Same thing here --- just write "killer" or "John's killer" instead and do not feed right into his evil plan. We know who you mean, and there's all that less of fame for the creep. Just like your choosing not to eat a slice of veal isn't going to stop little calfs from being caged for my own pallet, at least it does a tiny bit more for your own effort. And besides, it's a lot simpler and quicker on the keyboard to write "killer" or "nut" than to spell out the guy's entire name (especially if you give him even more elegance when you use his middle name). Lunatic murderers seeking fame just LOVE seeing their names everywhere. Mark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmangoveggieMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanvealsucksMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanmeatismurderMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanMark David ChapmanvegetariansarecoolMark David ChapmanMark David Chapman . . . . . . nampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMvegetetarianismishealthiernampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMmeatiscruelnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraMnampahCdivaDkraM
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 15:33:31 GMT -5
Well, sayne, I think I can sense whose side you're on in the Lennon/Lennon's Killer thing.
What's even more pathetic, if possible, is that you value animal's lives over people's. And you probably have more disrespect for the ones who slaughter animals for our food than the ones who murder actual human beings to acquire fame.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 15, 2011 20:31:24 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the killer's name was John Pusssuckin' Assface.
This thread turned out to be more entertaining than it appeared it would be. I like Panther's take on the story. Although it's unfortunate, he doesn't like the song. Ouch!
I like the up-dates too. Nixon went on to be forced out of the presidency for trying to illegallly affect the outcome of a presidential election. (I think that has the death penalty during times of war.) Ronald Reagan went on to illegally divert money from the illegal sell of arms to illegally fund a foreign militia. The director of the FBI who was illegally tapping Lennon's calls went on to be more known for ...(well, that's not illegal, it's really kind of funny).
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 16, 2011 18:55:22 GMT -5
I learned a lot on this tread, thanks to almost everyone for setting out this information so well. What I object to is a certain poster presenting nonfactual information and prejudices as fact. I might have accepted those as fact, except (a) one needs to consider the source and (b) there were well educated posters responding to the inaccuracies. I have to go back to listen to this song now. I found STINYC to be musically disappointing, regardless of the fact that I am not a wing nut nor do I particularly care that the music is dated. The lyrics tend to run out of meter, and some of them are a little over the top (Free the prisoners...), the tunes aren't as melodic as I expect from John Lennon. Well educated posters should know this about the jury: That they did their work well was illustrated by the fact that the jury was said to be divided 10-to-2 for acquittal from the outset and that the majority attended a rock festival victory celebration for Angela afterwards. After the acquittal, some jurors were so swept up in the enthusiasm for Miss Davis that they responded to cheers outside the courtroom by giving the revolutionary's clenched-fist salute, then explained to reporters: "We did it because we wanted to show we felt an identity with the oppressed people in the crowd. All through the trial, they thought we were just a white, middle-class jury. We wanted to express sympathy with their struggle." Does that sound like a conservative jury? I think some of you need to do more research. It was another of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" situations that freed OJ and Ms. Anthony recently. You get a bogus witness who comes in and plants false doubt in the jury's mind. That is exactly what happened. It was no accident that the firearms she bought ended up in the possession of her lover as he planned his crime. How convenient. To the person that said she had a good reason to buy the firearms... you didn't give that good reason. If it was to support some other radical group, why didn't she give the guns to that group?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 16, 2011 19:59:14 GMT -5
RTP, please name your source for your quote about the jury. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 16, 2011 21:14:15 GMT -5
She explains in her book that she felt her life was being threatened by the State of California, as she was under constant threat and 24-hour surveillance -- despite having no criminal record or ever having done anything remotely illegal. Hence, she bought a firearm to protect herself -- you know, the very act that every single right-winger in the US demands the right to do? Oh, except when it's for black leftists...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 16, 2011 22:46:59 GMT -5
panther, did you have Angela Davis as a Professor or attend a lecture/seminar by her? Here and elsewhere you have expressed some admiration of her as an educator so I wondered if you have worked with her in some academic sense.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 17, 2011 0:46:50 GMT -5
RTP, please name your source for your quote about the jury. Thank you. San Rafael Shootout The Facts Behind the Angela Davis Case By LAWRENCE V. COTJ This is a newspaper article written in 1972.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 17, 2011 2:05:04 GMT -5
So, who is "LAWRENCE V. COTJ" and why would he be some sort of objective authority? If you ask me, this is probably a bogus name for some wacko right-winger.
In answer to John S. Damm's question -- No, I've not personally encountered Angela Davis (though I think she's spoken at my university before). I prepared a Ph.D project on the literature of the more militant end the Black Liberation movement some years ago, and at that time I became familiar with Davis a lot, reading her autobiography and 'If They Come in the Morning', a prisoners' collection of notes, "ghost-written" by Davis (I think).
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 17, 2011 11:15:19 GMT -5
RTP, please name your source for your quote about the jury. Thank you. San Rafael Shootout The Facts Behind the Angela Davis Case By LAWRENCE V. COTJ This is a newspaper article written in 1972. I just read the article. Nowhere does the writer say anything about the jury being conservative or liberal. He mentions the fact that the defense used psychologists and other consultants to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors and based on their responses to questions, determined personality traits (not political biases) that would make them more inclined to vote for acquittal. An example mentioned of such a trait was someone who leaned pro-prosecution, but was a "follower" instead of a "leader." There is still no "fact" presented by the writer that the jury was left-leaning, or even liberal. Thanks RTP for posting the info so I could Google the article. It refreshed my memory about the incident. The writer, "Mr. Colt, a former Editor of the newsletter Combat, a subsidiary of National Review, has been news editor of radio and TV stations in California and Hawaii," has his own conservative bias but I still found the article informative.
|
|