Salem, the Yankee Cross Always to Bear

The recent trial of the woman who murdered her children in Massachusetts has brought out the usual suspects of the “legal community.” That generic phrase has become the mark of those (and their media comrades) of any group on any topic: “The XYZ community.”


The above mentioned “legal community” is always one to listen to if you want to hear an explanation somewhere between drivel and applied ignorance. And so often those with law degrees (who may be everybody on the planet but me) are rushed to a microphone of some talk-show host or hostess when there has passed in the news a trial, or perhaps a stupid law thrown in the hopper by some congressional mental magic or Judges (most of both sects, who are, by my opinion, of the “fool community”)


I suspect most have received any law degree they have from Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is about as resourceful as Harvard - or even Ole Miss today.
​

My first complaint (aside from the injustice of the non-verdict) about the trial and subsequent babbling is that during any interview or conversation, the participants almost always and eagerly spout the phrase that all defendants have a RIGHT to a trial by a “jury of their peers.” Most, law degree or “television degree,” partakers, gleefully cheer this contradiction - jury of peers - in the Federal Constitution (which in no case is the “law of the land”) as if it is a stated fact by the Pilgrims or some other historically over-bloated bunch of clowns.


The JOP concept has its roots in Section 39 of Magna Carta of 1215. And the terms “peers” and “equals” are used interchangeably.


In any event the Federal Constitution uses the phrase “impartial jury” which was studied for good reason. In discussion by those referred to as The Founding Fathers (today the part about fathers is usually dropped for obviously unfit reasons) they concerned themselves that peers or equals, though making sense in one way, might lead to what we call today, a “good ol’ boy system.” Therefore, any right that God might give along these lines would be an honorable (truth regardless of facts) right - hence the concept of impartial.


This leads to the point, and the resulting hung jury. A single black man made the only effort to stand up and suggest that impartial justice would be a conclusion that there obviously was no reason other than cold-blooded selfishness for a motive for the murder.


Was he the only partial juror? A black bigot. Heavens to Murgatroyd!


Opposing him was a packed jury of mean-minded women, who seem to have a subtle hatred of men, and feminine emotions not suited for the job as jurors; emotions imbedded by God for other reasons than judging cold blooded criminals.


Salem witch trials in reverse, with the same ending.


Women who in the beginning of the American Republic, and its sovereign jurisdictions of states, each of which disallowed women on juries, not due to a lack of intelligence nor because they were not peers (which they weren’t—nor vice versa) but because they would be less than impartial due to emotional overloads for such horrible crimes as that of murdering children.


It is this same cause in the name of our so-called great NATIONAL land that women are fighter pilots, soldiers in foxholes, women boxers and innumerable tattooed feminine freaks who are praised as members of the so-called land of the free and the most powerful country in the world.