The first egregious example of this was when Bruce Whisnant was charged with the murder of two year old Jodice Peeler. The young daughter of his girlfriend. My first print issue of Citizens For Good Government carried this story on the front page. DSS was involved with the Mother and Child and a child murdered under their watch looked very bad for the DSS. And it was. I attended the trial and had previously obtained certain documents that I took with me to the trial. One document being the Autopsy Report that described previous abuse, that included the sexual penetration of a grown man into the two year old female child. (Later I received information that even the Autopsy Report had been “doctored” to not report recent un-set bone fractures from recent abuse. I publicly called for Jodice’s body to be exhumed for a second autopsy, but the “system” refused to do anything.)
During Whisnant’s trial the defense attorney, with DSS connections, presented Whisnant as “a good daddy, not her real daddy, but a good daddy.” Even opining that the little girl had ruptured her heart straining over a bowel movement. All this went unchallenged by the ADA as well as the Autopsy Report that was never entered into evidence.
So, the jury, knowing only what they had been told in court that day, found Whisnant Not Guilty of all charges. As I was walking to the parking lot after the trial, I ran into the jury foreman and showed him the Autopsy Report without adding anything extra. The jury foreman told me directly that if the jury had seen this evidence the verdict “would have been different.” In my writing about the case I described Bruce Whisnant “an un-convicted child murderer” in the article.. Which is exactly what he was. Those that read my articles already know I tell it like it is.
The second egregious manipulation of the jury in a trial I attended occurred in the felony trial of James Wallace “Buck” Carr for shooting into the occupied vehicle of Tommy Pruett as Tommy and his son were driving down a dirt road near where they and Buck Carr lived.
The Pruetts were driving down this dirt road when they came across Carr as he was stopped alongside the road. As they passed, Carr produced an SKS military style assault rifle of Russian origin and began firing at the Pruetts as they were driving away from Carr. One bullet pierced the tailgate, traveled along the bed of the pickup, passing through several article on the bed of the truck and finally struck the steel rim of the spare tire. Fortunately this steel rim stopped the powerful bullet just shy of where Tommy Pratt’s son was sitting in the passenger compartment just inches away.
When the shooting began Tommy Pruett had floor-boarded the truck to get away from Carr as quickly as possible. Pruett travels on down the road and stopped at a house to call the Sheriff’s Department. Carr, apparently hearing the noise of his shot that entered the truck, becomes afraid that he had actually shot and killed one of the Pruetts. Carr rushes home to himself call the Sheriff’s Department saying that he “might have killed someone.” The Sheriff’s Department rushes out to Carr’s home in the Newhouse section of Cleveland County and Carr admits everything to the deputies who write it all up in an Incident Report. Carr also turns over the weapon to the Deputies.
At Carr’s trial, the ADA never questions the deputies or the Pruetts in such a way that the facts were properly presented to the jury. The ADA never introduces the written Incident Report as evidence, leaving the jury totally confused as to what actually happened. From the Jury Room the jury asks to see the Incident Report and the judge denies the juries request to see the Incident Report because the Incident Report had never been introduced as evidence. The jury did what they had to do based on the circumstances–they found Buck Carr not guilty. The judge orders Carr’s weapon returned to him.
A third egregious example of serious jury manipulation that I witnessed occurred more recently during the trial of Shelby Middle School Teacher Mindy Morrow who was charged (falsely I came to believe from testimony the jury was not allowed to hear) with stealing school supplies and selling them on E-Bay. This will be the subject of a very detailed article in a series of articles I plan to publish regarding the “weaponization” of the justice system by various Cleveland County governmental agencies and certain favored persons. This description in this article will just hit the high spots.
The sham trial of Mindy Morrow is very relevant to this Wrongful Death-Medical Malpractice Lawsuit jury selection because Ms. Morrow was represented by Shelby Attorney David Teddy; cousin to Mr. Jim Teddy whose cause of death is the subject of this major lawsuit. During the jury selection process for this developing trial, myself and others identified ourselves as knowing David Teddy in some way. Four of the six jurors that were removed with me were challenged “for cause, ” (different than my preemptory challenge), because they stated they would or might have a bias in favor of David Teddy in this case. In my answers to questions I stated that I would be able to be totally fair to both sides even though I knew David Teddy. I also included statements about the Mindy Morrow trial (without mentioning her name) that involved David Teddy that I began Morrow’s trial thinking she was guilty, but during the testimony and evidence of the case (some of which the jury was not allowed to hear) I came to fully believe that she was absolutely not guilty of what she was charged with.
One other person in the Jim Teddy case was removed with me because of her concerns about a colonoscopic examination she is about to experience through the Veterans Administration.
Another part of the reason I mentioned the Morrow case during my answering questions in the Jim Teddy case at hand was because I had witnessed the entire Morrow case while the jury was sequestered during parts of the testimony. What I heard, that the Morrow jury did not hear, was testimony from a witness that Morrow had discussed a situation she was concerned about, the sexual relationship her Shelby Middle High School Principal was allegedly having with another school employee that affected Morrow’s position at the school. The witness confirmed that not only had Morrow told him about the sexual relation the Principal was having, but others had also confided in him about exactly the same thing. I immediately concluded that the Principal, who also testified earlier in the Trial (but David Teddy had wisely insisted that every witness be questioned with every other witness out of the court room so they could not conspire to coordinate their testimony) seemed so overly fixated on finding something to get back at Morrow for complaining about him and his alleged in house mistress.
This testimony totally demolished the credibility of the Principal and later destroyed the credibility of the CCS HR Director when she denied knowing anything about the alleged affair. And other going on at the school.
The judge in the Morrow case, at the ADA’s insistence, never allowed the jury to hear any of this credibility destroying testimony. And, in the end, the judge allowed three jury requests to see the written notes of the HR Director those three separate times; each time telling the jury that the HR director’s notes were NOT evidence, but were only related to the HR Director’s credibility.
As I had heard all the testimony and the HR Director’s credibility was already factually destroyed I sat there in disbelief that not only had the judge, at the ADA’s urging, ruled the notes were not evidence, he gave them to the jury three separate times during their deliberations. I was also flabbergasted that the jury was stupid enough, especially after hearing the judge tell them three separate times that the notes were NOT evidence, that they even considered the notes in the first place. But they foolishly did and found Morrow guilty of a crime that I am convinced she did not commit. I am also convinced the jury would have also been convinced of Morrow’s innocence had they have heard the full testimony in the case.