SWC Re New Defense Motion In Chauvin Trial

I'm a bit bummed right now. First I lost a long post--probably something stupid that I did. I've done that before. Then the warning about being a "deceptive site".

So I'll just offer this link. Shipwreckedcrew gives a good explanation:

It Was Really Just A Matter Of Time

There are multiple articles out today about an interview given by a Chauvin alternate juror. This was always just a matter of time, and we can now probably expect more jurors to speak out in self-justification--but, who knows, possibly in self-doubt. The fact is, however, that due to the dynamics of this show trial their stance won't matter. They participated in a show trial and nothing said after the fact will change that perception.

Now, understand that the alternates were only informed of their status at the end of the trial. However, that means, in effect, that since the experience of the alternates was essentially the same as the experience of the jurors who voted, their reactions are likely a proxy for the attitudes of the jurors who voted. 

At Zerohedge--Alternate Juror On Chauvin Trial Says She Feared Riots, People Turning Up At Her Home. No sh*t? How unique do you think her attitude was, among the jurors? Duh! But the judge could have changed the venue and/or sequestered the jury. He didn't. And so ...

UPDATED: Bonfire Of Democracy?

Stay with me here. It take a bit to get this point across.

Larry Elder has a thoughtful article out, which you can read without the extraneous ads, here: Derek Chauvin: The Great White Defendant. As you can probably tell from the title, what Elder does is try to place the Floyd/Chauvin/Police event in the context of Tom Wolfe's novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Here's how Elder does that:

A review of "Bonfire" explains: 

"The overarching theme of the book is the search for the great white defendant. The vast majority of defendants in New York City are minorities, arrested for killing another minority. The vast majority of the cops and prosecutors are all about the press and their careers. One drug dealer killing another drug dealer is not going to get you any attention; it's a dog-bites-man story -- no story. What you want is a man-bites-dog story. Therefore, subliminally, the police, prosecutors and press are always looking for a great white defendant who will make their careers."

Nobody, Wolfe writes, gets upset about massive media coverage of The Great White Defendant. Blacks enjoy watching media coverage of well-off white men, in this case a Wall Street trader, accused of serious wrongdoing, in this case murder. Guilty whites are used to perpetuate the systemic racism media narrative. And the media feel noble when pushing it. Win, win, win.

This brings us to the trial of Derek Chauvin, the white ex-Minneapolis cop convicted of murdering George Floyd, a Black man who initially resisted arrest.

What's a bit different now is that the Dems have latched onto this phenomenon in, yes, a systematic way. Whereas the earlier narrative leveraged publicity for the career purposes of prosecutors--which still goes on in the usual ad hoc way--this technique is currently being deployed for ideological movement oriented purposes. That's not entirely different, of course, from past efforts to incite public outrage and unrest, although the single minded determination of the MSM (broadly speaking) to drum the desired ideological narrative into the public mind over a period decades, utilizing mass rioting and show trials, is quite impressive. 

Tucker And Turley Weigh In On Chauvin Trial

Tucker Carlson, in his own inimitable way, expressed what took place at the Chauvin trial (via RedState):

The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict Tuesday afternoon: “Please don’t hurt us.” The jurors spoke for many in this country; everyone understood perfectly well the consequences of an acquittal in this case.

After nearly a year of burning, looting, and murder by BLM, that was never in doubt. Last night, 2,000 miles from Minneapolis, police in Los Angeles preemptively blocked roads. Why? They knew what would happen if Derek Chauvin got off.

…

But here’s what we can’t debate: no mob has the right to destroy our cities. Not under any circumstances, not for any reason. No politician or media figure has the right to intimidate a jury, and no political party has the right to impose a different standard of justice on its own supporters.

Those things are unacceptable in America, but all of them are happening now. If they continue to happen, decent, productive people will leave. The country as we knew it will be over. So we must stop this current insanity. It’s an attack on civilization.

Here's the full segment:

The Upcoming Show Trial

Yes, I'm referring to the Derek Chauvin trial. I've linked to articles by George Parry in the past, for his sound analysis of legal matters:

George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor who practices law in Philadelphia and blogs at knowledgeisgood.net.

Today he has a major article on the upcoming Chauvin trial, and it's well worth your attention. If this trial goes down as planned by the Left it may mark a turning point in America--the Left certainly hopes so:

Derek Chauvin’s Trial: Countdown to a Kangaroo Court

The idea of an “impartial jury” is laughable.

Here, I'll simply draw attention to Parry's points regarding the prosecution's case, without too much of the detail that Parry provides about the prejudicial actions surrounding the preparations for the trial. Parry's major point in the article, which is not my focus, is that the trial venue should be moved far away from Minneapolis because--for the reasons he explains regarding the prejudiced environment in MP--a fair trial is impossible. Thus he prefaces his article with a quote from Justice Holmes:

Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury.

– Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissent in the appeal of Leo Frank, April 19, 1915.

We'll begin at the point that Parry draws attention to the manifest weakness of the prosecution case--which draws the whole process into question. Just by the way, the fact that Chauvin was willing accept a plea deal that would have landed him ten years in prison--before all the evidence came out and was made available to the defense team--speaks volumes about the criminal justice system in America. On the other hand, the lengthy quote from an FBI 302 of the Bureau's interview of the medical examiner serves as a reminder of the thorough, unbiased work and spirit of integrity that can still characterize investigations by FBI field agents.