Sun, Nov 23, 2003 11:50pm

Black and White, and Red…I mean Read all over.

In reference to the couple of posts I’ve made about the outrageously ridiculous case of the murdering millionaire: I may not have been in the courtroom. I may not have scooped the bags of person-bits out of Galveston Bay, but I know a gross perversion of the justice system when I see one. I’ve said my piece.

Surprisingly, the other day I got an email from one of the jurors on the case. I would first like to point out that this is not a widely known or read blog. I’m not quoted on CNN.com or debated over at Reuters. The only way this person could have found me was through Googling her own name. And she was digging deep, too. I tried it and this link turned up 5 pages from the front at the time. Interesting. Uh...but beside the point.

What she wrote was this: “Durst never admitted to killing Black. He admitted to the dismemberment but claimed accident/self-defense.” Oops, I did it again! How does one accidentally dismember a dead body? Or for that matter, how does it happen in self defense? Okay… I know I’m being nitpikcky here. But for crying out loud—if dismembering a body is not an admission of guilt, I don’t know what is. The man’s own brother is horrified the jury didn’t put him away. From what I understand, the defense convinced the jury to completely overlook the dismemberment. Gawd. Quotes from the jury indicate that they were punishing the prosecution for not having one set story as to what happened. (Note to self: if you happen to commit murder, fabricate one implausible self defense story and stick to it. The jury will reward you for not confusing their little heads.) God forbid the prosecution present more than one possibility for what happened. More stellar quotes from the same astounding member of the astute jury: “We cannot convict him based on our thoughts and beliefs.” Then what the hell does one use to convict someone? A Magic 8 Ball?? Or consider this quote, gleaned from an article by John Springer—

“Though it is generally considered risky to put a defendant on the stand, Durst had no choice but to testify if he was going to convince the jury of self-defense. And he testified without apparent emotion, often claiming he could not remember the events following Black's death. Interestingly, jurors said they largely discounted his testimony because of inconsistencies and past lies. Regarding Durst's claim that he never cleaned the gun, for example, juror Lovell said, "We know Morris Black didn't wipe those fingerprints off that gun."”

The jury doesn’t believe the testimony of the man they found innocent.

I was civil in my reply to Ms. Gorgonga, though I find her participation in that particular decision loathsome. I wrote that there was always a possibility that I was wrong, but that I was curious as to what convinced her of Durst’s innocence. If she would like to respond (with something more intelligible), I would humbly post her reply and my apology. No reply yet.

Blatantly basing my decision on my “thoughts and beliefs,” I find Ms. G. guilty of not having a clue of what was originally intended to be right and good about our justice system.