These things are always tricky, especially when we have so little to go on—this case being a few sentences on a note from the jury. But if we want to conduct the exercise, this is what I see.
The jury note indicates this particular juror is most likely a Female Red Authoritarian. That is not the best news for Kyle Rittenhouse.
They place faith in authority to protect self and society, believe in and are focused on control, and extol the virtues of obedience.
The use of the word "Please" when requesting the information is not an argument against a Red, but rather more likely due to deference to and respect for authority. Further, in Question Number 4 (included), the Red in her overwhelms deference when she gets right to the point requesting succinctly (decisiveness/control) the items she requires.
The "control" element is clear in the notice instructing the court to prepare the requested information with a clarification that they will "request when ready", meaning this juror does not want them to interrupt deliberations until they are ready.
The jury was instructed that the court needs time to prepare requested information. However, there's a clear need for control, both of the deliberation and of the flow of information in deliberations.
UPDATE: As was pointed out, her deference is crystal clear by her mimicking of the prosecution's manner of phrasing the fire extinguisher. She is siding with the prosecution on the version of events surrounding the extinguisher, i.e. put down vs. dropped.
In sum, the items requested indicate she's trying to find ill intent in his actions, something to reenforce her belief that Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong by virtue of being there, and is hoping the moments right before and after will sway jurors who are for acquittal. It's a search for something to affirm the version of the story that we all tell ourselves and which is informed by our beliefs, not facts or evidence.
Here it is!
Unfortunately, none of us won it. But you all raised $345 for dancers on the team. Here is my daughter and two of her team members doing the drawing for the winner.
Ofc, we got their parents' permissions to show them.
Thank you all!
Watch Live 3:00 PM EST — Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss in detail bombshell results within the Public Polling Project for Early Spring 2021, and more civil unrest amid the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.
Support the Public Polling Project
https://www.bigdatapoll.com/public-polling-project/
Locals Communities
https://peoplespundit.locals.com/
https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/
Like on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesPunditDaily
Follow on Twitter
https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law
Theme Song: "Highway" By Grammy Considered Bowen Band
https://www.chrisbowenband.com/
Exactly what the title suggests! Laura asked me to post this a few days ago. So, I'm behind.
It's a raffle to pay for entry, convention fees, etc. Not everyone on the team is fortunate enough to cover the fees.
I've seen people win some real money and serious prizes with her competition raffles.
Just have to use Venmo, and make sure to tell Laura your name if the user name isn't specific.
It is a $160 dollars worth of gift cards and $160 dollars of lottery tickets.
For the lottery tickets, Laura will do a live scratch off on Locals, by which I mean Laura will make ME do it, and she will mail any winnings and gift cards to winners!
Got any questions, just ask them below.
The Babylon Bee - ABC To Put Running Ticker On All News Shows Saying 'FOR LEGAL PURPOSES DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING WE SAY':
https://babylonbee.com/news/abc-to-put-running-ticker-on-all-news-shows-saying-for-legal-purposes-do-not-believe-anything-we-say/
Watching people attempt to "unskew" polls conducted by all walks of this industry—ranging from Nate Cohn at The New York Times to Spencer Kimball at Emerson College to Tim Malloy at Quinnipiac—all to deny Donald Trump's gains against Joe Biden with various voting blocs, is more than a little sad.
The slew of recent polls over two weeks—to include no less than four today alone—have simply confirmed prior findings published from other pollsters who have previously been "unskewed". That includes your's truly and our work at BIG DATA POLL, Mark Penn at Harvard University, Patrick Ruffini at Echelon Insights, and many others.
I'm temped to equate this with an Occam's razor-like situation. But this debate is more about likelihood than simplicity.
Here's the Presidential Vote Preference Trend for Biden v. Trump going back to August 2020. The Public Polling Project did not begin asking the Rematch Question for 2024 until September 2021. However, we can still make some pretty important and interesting observations.