, ,

If I had been in the “jury pool,” and had answered the questions of the prosecutors and defense attorneys honestly, there’s absolutely no chance that I would have been one of the 12 people chosen to decide Abigail Simon’s fate. But let’s assume that I lied, convincingly and astutely, to deceive the prosecutors, and was one of the 12 jurors.

If so, even if after hearing all the evidence I was 100% certain that Abigail was lying about everything, I would still have voted “not guilty” on all counts as a defiant and rational act of nullification, resulting in a “hung jury,” to protest the insane and odious laws under which she was arrested and prosecuted, convicted at trial, and sentenced to  8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

And to protest the zeitgeist that is culpable for these draconian, irrational, gratuitous, Kafkaesque laws: the unprecedented mass-psychosis and hysteria and “moral panic” and witch-hunt that began in 1997 with the burning and lynching, metaphorically, of Mary Letourneau, transformed by the media into the most hated and notorious distaff sex criminal in American history, and provoked the demonization and witch-burning of Abigail Simon almost two decades later: a corollary of the fantasies and fanaticism of CSA victimologists, their myrmidons and votaries in the mainstream media, and the tens of millions of people they’ve browbeat and indoctrinated, including those with the power to destroy the lives of innocuous and often innocent men and women who’ve never committed a violent or malum in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a ” threat to society” or to anyone: politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, jurors.

First, at the onset of deliberations, I would have shocked and enraged all or most of the other 11 jurors by stating that I would vote “not guilty” on all charges for the reasons above and that I would not change my mind no matter what any of them said since my decision was based on equity and altruism and not the evidence and testimony.

Nevertheless, knowing my efforts would be futile, I would have tried to persuade them to free Abigail by voting “not guilty” on all charges by invoking the presumption of innocence and the standard of “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I would have reminded them, repeatedly and emphatically, that in respect to the “he-said/she-said” testimony, the only certainty was that the “child” was a liar who committed perjury either at trial or when he testified under oath at a pretrial hearing that he was not only the aggressor in their intrigue but also forced himself on Abigail..

And I would have argued that the hundreds of emails and texts messages they exchanged were actually more exculpatory than inculpatory. They made her story more rather than less credible..See my post on why she rejected the plea bargain. Perhaps because she was telling the truth if not as a whole then largely and essentially.

And I would have argued, doggedly and forcefully, that this reality, combined with Abigail’s testimony as to why and how she responded to his fusillade of emails and text messages -and who knows what else I would have heard if a juror at her trial?- should be construed as a “reasonable doubt.”

And I would have stared at each juror, intensely and menacingly, my eyes like lasers, and asked them if a woman like Abigail, even if guilty, deserved to be sentenced to at least 8-25 years in prison and perhaps 25-years to life and enslaved for at least 8-years if not much longer in a hellish prison and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

Almost surely, I would not have succeeded in convincing even one or two of my “fellow jurors” that Abigail should be acquitted on all counts because she was not “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” much less that they should join me in a defiant act of jury nullification.  She would not have been exonerated. But she would not have been convicted, not with me as a juror, and I would have lived the rest of my life knowing that I was not one of 12 jurors who destroyed the life of a harmless and perhaps innocent women. Alas, she would have been tried again, almost surely convicted, and sentenced to at least 8-25 year in prison and all the other extra/post-incarceration punishments. But at least I would have been in no way responsible.

And, surely, I would have been interviewed, by a few or at least one reporter, so I could have explained, in response to their questions, incredulous and acrimonious, why I voted “not guilty.” And, hopefully, they would have quoted me at length, accurately, though I doubt it. I would have been excoriated, subjected to a barrage of hate mail and death threats, possibly even a victim of assault and/or vandalism, if my identity was disclosed. But I would have been proud of myself for having the sanity and courage to resist this lunacy and mass-hysteria, so proud.