From Nescow 4/23/08

Professor: 87 percent think Thurber is guilty
By Shane Farley

S23246G wrote:
My question is: So What?  All the public knows at this point is that a beautiful young girl was murdered, and that Police arrested someone for it.  (And that the suspect/defendant tried to get people to lie for him in court by giving him a false alibi.)  Don't most people want to believe that the police arrested the right person, and that the murderer isn't still at large in our community?  I think you would find that with nearly any well known crime you wanted to get poll numbers on.

This section of your post points out the exact reason why a change of venue should be granted.

1) You've identified her as a beautiful girl that was murdered, revealing a personal connection with her which I can guarantee that about everybody in Ark City will feel. We like to believe in a persons ability to be impartial, but more often then not emotions cloud judgement.

2) You state most people want to believe the police arressted the right guy and the killer isn't still on the loose. I'll agree with that, another reason why a change of venue should occur. People want to believe that Thurber did it because they've a) been told so long that he has and b) are afraid of the implications if the evidence said he didn't

S23246G wrote:
We, at this point, don't have all the facts that will be available to jurors during the course of the trial.  Just because the majority of our citizens think that he is guilty right now, before they hear all of the evidence, doesn't mean that they will feel the same way when all the evidence is known, and in my opinion there is no reason to move the trial.  People around here are honest enough that if clear evidence were to be shown that contradicts the state's case, it would not be ignored by the jury.

It should be the job of the attorneys, through jury selection, to choose people that they feel can be impartial. 

Once again your post here seems to back up a change of venue. If they believe that he's guilty before hearing any of the facts, then he don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting an impartial jury. It has nothing to do with honesty, but it has everything to do with perception. For over a year 84% of the people believe that he is guilty, I hardly call that fair odds when the defendant has to try and undue a years worth of damage to his clients case in just a couple of days.

If the jury only a few impartial people on it, then the attorneys are screwed either way. Plus they can only strike so many people before they have to end up taking someone.

S23246G wrote:
Besides, I don't think you will find a community anywhere in Kansas that will feel any different.  And in the age we live in, as soon as any other community learns that the trial will be held there, they will just get online and learn all the same details that we have.  It's a waste of money and time, and an inconvenience to the family and friends of the victim to move the trial.  Let's just have it here and get it over with.

You're right that the can look up online and have all the same details that we have. What they won't have though is the same emotional connection that tends to cloud the judgment of a person.

You say it would inconvenience the family and friends of the victim which is true, but if they're attending the trial then they're already going to have to miss work. It would just mean that they have to drive somewhere and stay in a hotel possibly.

As for a waste of money in time, granting a change of venue would actually be the exact opposite. If you don't grant a change of venue and he is found guilty, then guess what the attorneys might just appeal? The venue. This appeal makes it way through many courts, most of which are already clogged up so it probably won't be addressed very quickly, it could be years before that appeal is dead. It would cost the government a heck of a lot more money to deal with the appeal then it would to grant a change of venue.

Judgements are very rarely overturned because change of venue was denied. A jury of peers is just that.

I give the people of Ark City more credit than either of you, since I feel that they can judge things fairly, given all of the evidence.

And it's obvious that you didn't understand what I was saying in the first post. I was saying that it doesn't matter if people in town feel that he is guilty RIGHT NOW, all that matters is whether they would still feel the same after all the evidence was presented.

I would not be allowed on the jury myself, given my prior law enforcement, but I would hope that people are smart enough not to jeapordize a trial by lying during jury selection just to get on the jury.

I can see why everyone feels this blog has become so negative... you only want to see the worst in people and in our community.

Blah said: "1) You've identified her as a beautiful girl that was murdered, revealing a personal connection with her which I can guarantee that about everybody in Ark City will feel. We like to believe in a persons ability to be impartial, but more often then not emotions cloud judgement."

I have no personal connection, other than the community feeling of loss that such a thing could happen in our town. I said she was a beautiful girl only because I have eyes, and I have heard what a wonderful soul she was. (I happen to think Scarlet Johansen is pretty hot... wanna connect me to her?) I also have no connection to the Defendant, and if evidence came out to support him being somewhere else when the crime occurred, I would not ignore that just because he has been the prime suspect up till now.

My point is simply this: No one, besides the police or the attorneys, know all the evidence that will be presented, and any poll questions that were answered were answered out of ignorance.

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE.... WHY DOES IT TAKE SO DAMN LONG FOR THESE POSTS TO APPEAR! I GROW TIRED OF IT.

Webmaster,

Thank you for the answer. Why not let the posts go up as they are, without having to be approved? We learned that curse words are censored by the software (even when they aren't curse words... **** a doodle doo!) so why not let them go? You would still be able to censor posts as you see fit, although not many have had to be censored up to this point.

I think it would bring more people here, and result in much more dicussion and in depth debate if we didn't have to wait 1 or 2 (or 8!) days to see our posts.

Please consider this.

I didn't say you have to know someone to develop a personal connection with them, I was more reffering to the whole community bonding feel that happened during the time.

I really don't see any other reasons that you give for not wanting a change of venue other then just wanting it to be in Ark City. Whats so wrong with a change of venue? If the evidence is good, then it should stick up anywhere. You fail to negate the fact that in the long run a small inconvinece (granting a change of venue now) would prove more than beneficial when you add all of the appeals that can take place due to not granting a change of venue. At the very least it would probably take 2 years for that single appeal to run it's course assuming it's the only appeal which would be made (and of course it would not). Plus, you run the risk of a retrial, which would delay it even longer.

It's not that I don't trust the people of Cowley to pass fair judgment when evidence is presented in a neutral situation. However, I feel that the emotional connection that many people have with this case would cloud peoples judgment, because empricially emotions do just that.

You kind of try and warp this by saying loganda and I are bad people for not trusting "the people of Ark City" and only seeing "the worst in everybody" and somehow we've single handly made the entire blog negative (which also implies we have a lot of power over the rest of you, pretty cool if you think about it!). All I'm trying to do is look at it realisticly with the best possible course of action in the long run, which I believe would be a change of venue. We've both implcitly stated that people could make up their minds with all the evidence presented, however we think it would be in the best interest of everyone to do it somewhere else. However, I'm beginning to think otherwise based on your most recent response.

mom wrote:

---

I'm curious as to how objective the survey was.  I know of several families that are connected on someway to Jodi and her dance that was contacted to take the survey.  Was this a completely random survey????   Wouldn't it be interesting to see the list of people they called.  Seems kinda odd to me that out of all the people in this county that people associated with Jodi's dance was contacted out of 400.  Remember too statistics can be scewed to how you want them. 

---

That is very curious.  I'm guessing this survey might not have been as impartial as they (the defense) would have us believe.  How can we find out the truth about how this survey was conducted, and how they located the people they chose to survey?

I'm sure the prosecution will question the legitimacy of the survey, but other than contacting the people who actually conducted the survey, I don't know of another way to tell.