Murphy is Boushie's lawyer, what do you think a loser is going to say?Evil Baby wrote: ↑Feb 14th, 2018 10:10 amAlthough I do appreciate this view of events, before we take it as 100% proof lets remember this is an article written from the account of one eye witness and nothing has been verified yet(as per the article).
As I understand it, the final jury selection was not done at random as this article would seem to indicate.
Right there is the peremptory challenges.
I'm not arguing anything was done wrong, the rules of law were followed and the jury came to a conclusion. I have full confidence in our judicial system and 100% accept the results. That doesn't mean things can't be done to make our system even better. I would love a world where someone can't make the claim that they only reason he was acquitted was because it was a jury of 12 white people. Would have been great if the jury was full of all great nationalities we have in Canada.
Really? We're in the middle of civil discussion and this is the crap you decide to reply with? How about instead of throwing mud you actually join the discussion.
Furthermore, he said it was a pool of 45, in which the five indigenous-looking ones were challenged. After that round, they still needed to whittle it down to 12 jurors, in which case it is very likely to have been, as the eye witness account (you choose not to believe), done at random.
The eye witness was in the jury pool, not some random, nor Boushie's lawyer, so more plausible to be objective by comparison. That much is irrefutable. Finally, Murphy's account and the eye withness' account are not necessarily at odds with each other.
The difference is the eye witness is providing insight on conversations he heard as a part of the very same jury pool. The lawyer is merely providing a statement on one person's appearance, which has no relevance on whether that person has or hasn't shown a bias already.