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.
Hey folks,
Tucker Carlson shouted out 10X Votes in Michigan this weekend. The website is still getting a new user every few seconds.
This is how you humiliate the polls. Best thing about it, there's no consultant money in 10X Votes. Only results to be had.
P.S. The right has a real grifter and consultant problem. Despite it NOT being in my financial interests, I turned down working with probably a half dozen projects because I didn't believe in them. I did work with 10X because 1) the people involved aren't out to make money and 2) it's approach is based on a wealth of behavioral research regarding right vs. leftwing voters.
Ya know, Benny Johnson just reminded me about how Kamala Harris repeatedly said, "I'm speaking" or "Can I finish" during the debate with Mike Pence in 2020.
And then, that in turn, reminded me of this. Tell me it's not legit what she did.
Someone should absolutely make a meme out of this and replace Kamala with the Canadian Minister. If I had time, I would use an AI tool to change the voices and the photoshop her and Trump into the video.
Hell, she's even Canadian AND pretends to be offended by racist remarks that actually aren't racist.
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/
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.