Mythbusters Exonerate Cameron Todd Willingham

While the Texas Forensic Science Commission fiddled, after having first been neutered by Governor Rick Perry, Mythbusters unintentionally demonstrated how fire spreads rapidly through a room, even in the absence of accelerants.

Imagine that! It's as if Dr. Gerald Hurst (our nation's foremost fire investigator) knew of what he spoke when he advised Perry to stay the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.

For the geekly disadvantaged among you, Mythbusters is a cable television show in which Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman apply the scientific method (loosely) to test the validity of rumors, myths, movie scenes, and adages. (I borrowed that description from Wikipedia. That's why it was so tantalizing.)

One of my favorite shows was their testing of claims that water heaters can explode so violently that they launch themselves through the roof. As it turns out, that can happen, and in spectacular fashion. To demonstrate, they constructed a small house, subverted the safety devices on the heater, and encouraged it to overheat. The results were astounding. Play the short link below to get just a nibble of what the Mythbusters are all about.

For those of you unwilling to part with 32 seconds to watch the video, I provide the money shot below.

Another favorite was when they tested a claim that two tractor trailers completely flattened a compact car unfortunately caught between them when the two trucks had a head-on collision. According to the claim, the compact car was not just flattened, it was fused to the trucks. This claim was busted, proven to be not possible. The car was certainly damaged during the recreation, but there was no fusing of metal.

However, and there is frequently a "however" on Mythbusters, Adam and Jamie decided to see if it would be possible to fuse a compact car between two trucks travelling at 700 miles per hour rather than a mere 50 miles per hour. To do that ... well, you should watch and behold.

For those of you unwilling to part with 4 minutes and 9 seconds to watch the video, I provide below a less impressive composite image of the car being flattened.

Though the car was clearly flattened, the 1 inch thick metal plate moving at 700 mph did not fuse with the metal on the car. They declared the myth busted.

Now, as much as I like many of the Mythbusters' segments, the show is starting to deteriorate. It's becoming too formulaic, the spontaneous banter is now scripted and poorly delivered, and the lure of product placement has caused them to show some real stinkers. The show dedicated to The Green Lantern movie was painful to behold, as I suspect was the movie itself.

Last week, Adam and Jamie investigated a scene from The Bourne Supremacy. It was during their recreation of a scene from that movie where they unintentionally and unknowingly showed how the Willingham fire spread rapidly and left behind evidence misinterpreted as use of accelerants.

In the movie, Jason Bourne gets out of yet another tight spot (imagine that) by creating a MacGyver-like explosion in a room. He turned on the gas, put a magazine (the kind you read) into the toaster, and left. The magazine caught fire within 25 seconds and ignited the gas just as Bourne's pursuers were about to enter the room. The pursuers were thrown head over heels backwards by a giant fireball, and Jason Bourne escaped.

Adam and Jamie began their investigation by placing a magazine in a toaster and recording how long it took too ignite. It took 12 minutes and 2 seconds to ignite. (They reveal online that they had to defeat a safety mechanism on the toaster to keep it from automatically tuning off due to overheating.)

They next tested a series of magazines and newspapers to determine if any such printed material would ignite within 25 seconds. None of them did. The newspaper ignited most quickly, in 1 minute and 40 seconds.

They then constructed a small plexiglass enclosure to determine the range of fuel-air mixtures in which natural gas (mostly methane) will ignite. They knew the answer beforehand (around 9% gas for optimum explosion) but they wanted to demonstrate. The point is that if there is only a little gas in the room, the room will not explode. Similarly, if there is only a little oxygen in the room (because there is too much gas), the room will not explode.

Having completed their preparatory work, they built a full size room, and pumped methane into it as a magazine belatedly caught fire in a toaster. Nothing happened.

During the second test, they decided to pump more gas into the room, mix it better, and subject it to a more reliable ignition source. The removed the toaster from the table, covered the table with bricks, and placed an artificial fireplace log on the bricks. The bricks were there, obviously, to keep the table from being ignited by the fireplace log. Adam and Jamie obviously did not know what awaited them.

Hang on. After all this writing (or in your case, reading), here we go.

Scene 1:

Adam Savage lights the artificial fireplace log on the brick covered table, then makes a quick exit.

Scene 2:

The fireplace logs performs pretty much as expected.

Scene 3:

Since there is no chimney for the heat to escape, the heat accumulates above the table. Within four minutes of lighting the log, the ceiling catches fire.

Scene 4:

Some burning material drops from the ceiling and sets one of the chairs on fire.

Scene 5:

 The fire begins to spread across the ceiling.

Scene 6:

The couch begins to smoke. It's near ignition, not because anything is falling on it, but because of all the radiant heat from the ceiling. When it ignites, it will not ignite in any particular region. It will ignite all at once.

Scene 7:

The magazines ignite just before the couch. Nothing fell on them to make them ignite. The heat radiating from the ceiling is sufficiently intense to ignite the magazines from afar. A human would catch fire just as easily. Those who say Willingham must be guilty because he did not go back and save his children have no idea what they are talking about. A human could not bear the heat. Even if he magically could, he would simply combust and ignite.

Scene 8:

The couch and the bookshelf ignite simultaneously. You are looking at the onset of flashover. The fire radiates so much heat that most everything in the room ignites at once. It happens so fast, it seems as if the room explodes.

Scene 9:

Just moments later the floor ignites. Look at the pattern being burned into the floor. Texas would confuse those patterns with evidence of accelerant being poured on the floor. Because of their confusion, yet another innocent man was given the needle.

Scene 10:

The fire races across the ceiling and floor, leaving more faux evidence of accelerants.

Scene 11:

The rapid increase in heat and gas generation causes the walls to fail and the fire to vent. The Mythbusters' demonstration room was built nowhere near code, and quickly failed at a corner. More typically, the framing withstands the forces better than the windows. More typically, the windows blow out.

Also, the ceiling is beginning to burn through. The Mythbusters used plywood, not wallboard, for the walls and ceiling. Though the paper on the wallboard is flammable, the gypsum inside the wallboard provides a good fire barrier. In an actual house, the ceiling would not have burned through so quickly.

Scene 12:

Back inside, the room is growing darker. Left unchecked, it will soon become impossible to see in the room. Had there been a larger fuel load in the room, the smoke generation would have been more rapid. In the Willingham fire, which took place in the children's room, the fire thrived on a bed, two cribs, a dresser, curtains, a rug, a Little Tykes Oven, and a child's large plastic slide.

The fire consumes the floor. In the Willingham trial, the experts said that couldn't happen unless an accelerant was first poured on the floor. Their logic, the logic that the Texas Forensic Science Commission refuses to fault, was that "fire burns upwards."

The images show how a fire can spread so quickly. They help you to understand how people in one room can be killed while people in another might escape, and why rescue efforts by untrained, unequipped loved ones are bound to fail. They do not help explain how the Willingham fire started. It clearly did not start by someone placing an artificial fireplace log on a brick covered table.

If you are interested in learning more about the actual cause of the Willingham, there is only one book available. It is my work Inferno, available at Smashwords for a mere $0.99. I present below the introduction to that august work.

Amber was once again drawn to the heater, to its bright flickering flame, to its warmth, to its forbidden mysteries and charms. Both Mommy and Daddy had caught her before, putting things too close to it. Daddy had even given her whuppings, but he was asleep in the other room, and Mommy was not even home. 

Perhaps she wanted to move some of the fire from the heater to her Little Tykes oven sitting nearby. Perhaps she simply wanted to put something inside the heater and watch it disappear. 

Maybe a piece of drawing paper. Maybe one of her socks, the one she wasn't wearing when she was pulled barely alive from the house. Maybe it was the sock that was never found. 

Whatever it was, when it burned it was scarier than the fire in the heater. It burned closer and closer to her finger and her thumb as she held it at arm's length. But it was so hot. It was the hottest, scariest thing she felt, ever, so she flung it away, and then the curtain was on fire. The curtain between the heater and her little oven was on fire. She was going to get in trouble again. She was going to get another whupping. 

Fear of anger and whuppings, though, were quickly overcome by horror. The fire was growing larger and larger and scarier and scarier. She retreated as the fire climbed the wall to the ceiling. The smoke got inside her and made her cough. She could feel the heat on her skin, on her face and neck and shoulders. She had to get away, but the gate was there, blocking the doorway, keeping her from the safety of her Daddy's arms. 

Her sisters too were scared. They were crawling away as fast as they could, crawling towards the far corner of the room. One of them made it underneath the crib. 

Now the top of the room was on fire, and it was getting dark even though it was just morning outside. She couldn't breath and face burned, and her neck and her bare shoulders, and she wasn't even close to the fire. She didn't want to keep it a secret any more. She wanted her Daddy to save her. She screamed and screamed but he didn't come.

So she did what her sisters could not do. She climbed the child gate and ran to her Daddy's room, screaming for him. 

"Daddy, Daddy!" 

She couldn't see him because the smoke was there too, in his room. It was everywhere. She could hear him though. He was yelling at her to run, to go outside. But the fire was there where he wanted her to run, and she wanted him to save her. She climbed into his bed, but he wasn't there. 

Instead of him saving her, she would save him. She would save him with her screams and her pleas, by awakening him, by telling him of the fire, by taking his place in the bed, by breathing in the smoke that would have filled his lungs instead of hers. 

It wasn't heroism that caused Amber to take her Daddy's place. A two-year-old cannot be heroic. She can only be afraid of fire and smoke and dark. She can only be expected to seek the safety of Mommy or Daddy. Amber did everything a two-year-old could and should do. She screamed, she climbed the gate, and she ran for help. In doing so, she bought a reprieve for her father. 

The fire, however, would not be denied. Disguised first as justice and then as a needle, it would eventually consume her father just as surely as it had consumed her sisters, just as surely as it consumed her.

If, instead, you would like to understand how a jury can send an innocent man to death row, consider The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham, on Kindle for only $2.99 or in the old-fashioned print format for $19.17.

The Impending Execution of the Repulsive Clarence Carter

Clarence Carter is waiting on Ohio's death row waiting to be executed on 12 April 2011 for the murder of Johnny Allen (no relation). There is no dispute that Carter beat, kick, and stomped fellow inmate Allen to death. Carter claims self defense.

From the clemency hearing for Clarence Carter, I offer the lurid details with my comments in italics.

In December 1988, Clarence Carter, defendant-appellant, and Johnny Allen were inmates in Range "E" at the Jail Annex to the Hamilton County Courthouse. Allen was being held on a theft offense. Carter had been found guilty of aggravated murder on December 9, 1988, and was awaiting sentencing. On December 28, Carter struck and kicked Allen numerous times over a twenty to twenty-five minute period, necessitating Allen's hospitalization. On January 5, 1989, Carter was sentenced to life imprisonment for the prior aggravated murder. On January 11, 1989, Allen died as a result of Carter's assault.

[So let's see. Nineteen days after being convicted of murder, while still in jail, Carter beats, kicks, and stomps Johnny Allen to death. I presume he had a good reason rather than simply a bad temper.]

Inmate Joseph Carroll testified that he and Allen were watching television on a mid-December evening when Carter came in and switched channels. Allen said to Carter, "Don't we vote on this?" Without saying anything, Carter punched Allen in the eye, then resumed watching television. Allen left to clean up the blood flowing from a cut above his eyebrow. Inmates Calvin Johnson and Phillip Brewer confirm that Allen and Carter exchanged words, and that Carter struck Allen. However, Johnson and Brewer assert that Carter was watching TV, and Allen changed the channel. Allen did not report this incident to jail authorities.

[Okay. It was over a TV incident. Allen's supporters argue with Carter's supporters over who violated the TV rules, but everyone agrees that Carter punch Allen in the eye.]

Carroll further testified that about a week before December 28, Carter found a broken metal spoon handle in a hole in the shower ceiling. After a brief discussion with Brewer, Carter returned the handle to its hiding place.

On December 28, after lunch, Johnson saw Carter retrieve the metal handle from the shower ceiling. Johnson asked Carter what he was going to do. Carter did not reply. About ten minutes later, around 1:10 p.m., the confrontation which led to Allen's death began in "E" range, a common area into which approximately twelve cells open.

According to Carroll, Allen was in his cell when Carter told him it was his tum to sweep the floor. As Allen walked past Carter to get a broom, Carter "jumped on him, punched him, [and] knocked him down." As Allen lay on the floor, Carter "leaned over him, punched him, kicked him and choked him."

[I guess I hadn't mentioned previously that Carter also choked Allen. I suspect though that Carter just reacted to an ugly situation, that there was no premeditation involved. I'll bet as soon as Carter got just a moment to compose himself and think about his actions, he would realize that he should use his words, not his fists and feet.]

Several times during the assault Carter stopped and walked away before returning to the attack.

[Oops.]

Twice he used a mop to wipe blood off his tennis shoes.

[Double oops.]

During the assault Carroll said to Carter, "[d]amn C.C., you don't like him, do you." Carter replied "no," and went "back down to where Johnny Allen was, punched him, kicked him some more, stomped on him."

[He's making it somewhat more difficult to suggest there was no pre-meditation.]

After the second beating, Allen managed to get up and sit on a bench, but Carter came back, knocked him off the bench, and continued to kick and choke Allen. Allen never threw a punch or provoked Carter.

[I'm starting to think that maybe Carter did have time to meditate in between beatings, and stompings, and kickings, and chokings.]

Inmate Calvin Steele described Carter's initial blow to Allen as a "sucker punch," delivered suddenly and without warning. Carter struck Allen ten or fifteen times. Allen never struck or attempted to strike a blow at Carter. At one point, Carter returned to his cell and stuck his own leg with some kind of object; he then came back and stomped on Allen's head with his foot. Carter's assault on Allen lasted twenty or twenty-five minutes. When Steele asked Carter to stop, Carter told Steele to "[g]et my ass back downstairs." (Steele was standing outside the range in the "bull run," the guard's access way.)

Richard Cunningham saw Carter hit Allen four or five times, then choke Allen, who lay on the floor. As he was beating Allen, Carter said, "[t]hat m ..... f.... tried to stab me." Carter seemed to be in a rage, but appeared to know what he was doing.

[I think when they typed "m....f...." they meant "motherfucker." Why do we, as a society, get the vapors when faced with a vulgar quotation, but have no compunction about sticking a needle in someone's arm and pushing lethal drugs?]

Cunningham testified that "Carter started kicking him [Allen] down the range by his head, and by his ribs, and he was pulling his head in my bars and stomping his head like a pop can on the floor. And his head was bouncing up off the floor. Blood was everywhere. Guys was on the range saying: Come on, CC, you are going to kill the man. Quit. Leave him alone. Carter wouldn't let up. He kept on doing it and doing it, he wouldn't quit."

Carter claimed that Allen assaulted him with the shank and that he, Carter, merely defended himself, being carried away with rage. According to inmate Robert Chapman, a defense witness, the fight began when Allen, holding the metal spoon handle, began hitting Carter. However, Chapman acknowledged that he previously told investigators he was asleep. Howard "Tub" Bums, a high school friend of Carter, heard Carter yell, "Tub, get the police."

Brewer said he saw Carter and Allen arguing on December 28, and Allen was holding some kind of metal object in his hand. After a few seconds, Brewer returned to his cell. He explained, "[i]n a place like that you mind your own business, and that's what I was doing."

Around 1:30 p.m., sheriffs deputies heard unusual noises, like an object being banged against steel bars, and went to investigate.

[Nice work on the deputies' part. The fight had been going on for twenty minutes before the guards even heard anything. That object they finally heard being banged against steel bars was apparently Allen's pulpy head. The State incarcerated him for theft. They had a responsibility to protect him. The penalty was supposed to be time behind bars, not oblivion beneath six feet of dirt. That sucks.]

When they arrived at "E" range, they found Allen lying face down on the floor, in a pool of blood. Deputy Raymond J. Loebker saw Carter drop the shank. Loebker described Carter as sweating, breathing heavily, but without any visible signs of injury. Sheriffs Lieutenant John Douglas saw the metal handle on the floor, four feet from Allen, and retrieved it for later examination.

[Several paragraphs from the clemency summary not included here.]

According to Doctor Harry J. Bonnell, Chief Deputy Coroner, Allen's heart and breathing stopped on January 10th, but doctors revived him. A January 11th examination revealed that Allen was brain dead. Doctors then disconnected life support systems.

[After everything I read prior to this, this next bit was the one that hit me hard.]

Dr. Bonnell performed an autopsy on January 12th. Allen was 5' 10", and weighed 122 lbs.

[Way to go, Ohio.]

Clarence Carter

Maybe Ohio should do away with the needle and simply trick death row inmates into changing the TV channel right in front of Clarence Carter.

Now on to my boilerplate.

I oppose the execution of people who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they are to die. I suspect that to prevent the execution of the factually innocent, we might have to ban the death penalty entirely.

I find no evidence that Clarence Carter did not punch, kick, stomp, and choke Johnny Allen to death. I find his claims of self-defense to be absurd. Since I limit my efforts to those people who may be in all respects factually innocent, I stand mute with regard to the execution of Clarence Carter.

Inferno: An Inquiry into the Willingham Fire

With the invaluable assistance of my graphic designer, editor, and publisher (i.e. The Skeptical Spouse), I've completed my first book intended exclusively for e-publishing. It's available from Smashwords. 

Most of you have not previously heard of Smashwords. Smashwords plans on being for e-pubs what Amazon has been to printed books. The difference is that you can get many low-priced (and even free) books for any e-reader, not just Kindle, at Smashwords. You can, for example, purchase the book for a Sony Reader, a Barnes and Noble Nook, a Palm, or a Kindle. You don't even need an e-reader. You can download books in PDF, Javascript, HTML, or Rich Text Format. If you have a computer and an internet connection (which you must have to be reading this) you can download books for free, or you can spring for $0.99 and learn what actually caused the Cameron Todd Willingham fire.

Okay, here's a spoiler: It wasn't arson.

I won't detail the contents of the book any more than that. There's no need to. You can go to Smashwords and read the first 10% of the book for free. Almost all books on Smashwords allow a free preview. Typically, you are allowed to read the first 10% to 25% of the book online to see if you really want to part with your  hard-earned money.

Although the books are copyrighted, they are not DRM protected. You can copy them as you wish for your personal use. You can download a PDF, for example, and then load it into your Kindle. You will have a copy on both your computer and your Kindle, no extra charge. The books are inexpensive enough that we (the authors) hope that individuals will each purchase their own copy.

Now, after that compelling introduction, I'll understand if you decide to leave to browse around instead at Smashwords. You might consider starting here.

Al Gored by the Data

I seldom stray from writing of wrongful convictions and executions. My skepticism, however, is not restricted to the accuracy of our justice system. Given my engineering background, my skeptical klaxon sounds frequently as those who are out to serve us pontificate on issues ranging from financial solvency to alternative energy. I usually withhold comment. This post is therefore unusual.

AccuWeather has posted an article: "Coolest March Since 1994." (How can you not trust something from a source with "Accu" in its name?) Based on satellite temperature readings, March turned out to be relatively cool. The fine folks at AccuWeather even put a chart at the bottom of their article. Unfortunately, they failed to label the axes. I presume we're supposed to notice the trend line is still sloping upward and we're supposed to conclude that we are still doomed to melt, assuming we don't first drown or return to our pre-industrial ways.

The article did, however, link to the data used to construct the plot. I commend the fine folks at AccuWeather for that. (Seriously, I commend them for that.) I refer you to their article if you would like to manipulate the data yourself. I have used the data to create two plots which I present below. Click on either to have the pair appear enlarged in a separate window.

The upper plot is a reproduction of the plot provided in the AccuWeather article. Mine differs only in that I cluttered them by labeling the axes. Oh, yeah. I also colored the data a scary red to indicate things are getting hotter and hotter.

In the lower plot, I split the data roughly in half. It seemed to me that something significant happened near the beginning of 1998. As before, the first half of the data shows the temperature to be increasing, though the increase is not as steep as in the upper plot. I colored it scary red anyway.

The second half of the data represents the global temperature trend for the last twelve years. This may come as a shock to you, but we have not had any global warming for the last twelve years. In fact, according to the U.S. NOAA Climate and Global Change Program, it has been cooling slightly. I therefore colored those data in a comforting, earth-friendly green.

I don't know what the temperature will be next month, next year, next decade, or next century. Some people claim to know, and those people want to make energy more expensive and want to further restrict our liberty.

I thought you would be pleased to know that no longer appears necessary.

You're welcome.

Juror 799

Here's a jury duty quiz for you. Assume you are a judge presiding over a death penalty case. During jury selection you review the questionaire filled out by juror 799, and you are shocked by what you read. The prosecutor asks you to excuse that juror. What do you do?

I provide a real life example below. As you read it, consider how you might respond to the prosecutor's request. There will be a pop quiz after the reading assignment.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent Basciano. ... Asked to name three people she least admired, she wrote on her questionnaire: "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."

When the judge asked why she answered the question that way, she replied, "You always hear about them in the news doing something."

She also declared that cops are all lazy, claiming that they sound their sirens to bypass traffic jams.

[The judge] flipped forward several pages in her questionnaire. He landed on the page where she had said she had a relative who was a member of the Chinese Ghost Shadows gang in the 1980s, convicted of murder and still in prison.

"Why didn't you put 'Asians' down also?" the judge asked sarcastically, referring to her list of least-liked people.

"Maybe I should have," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Taryn Merkl requested that the woman be disqualified from the Vinny Gorgeous case because of her "inappropriate" comments.

If you said you would disqualify the juror, you are correct, but only partially so. If you are Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, you must also tell the woman "This is an outrage and so are you." Then you must sentence her to indefinite jury duty.

At the risk of being forced into indefinite involuntary servitude for my beliefs, or being labeled a racist for beliefs ascribed to me by readers who have no idea what is going on inside my head, I argue the correct answer is "You are excused," and nothing more.

I concede I have no idea what was going inside that woman's head, but 'll consider two possibilities. First, I'll assume she did in fact hold the racist thoughts she expressed on her jury survey.

In that case, I would dismiss her for cause on the assumption that there must be at least one African American, Hispanic, or law enforcement officer involved in the case in some fashion. Her prejudice would therefore keep her from serving as a fair juror. I would recognize that the State had forced her, under the color of law, to serve jury duty. I would recognize that I had required  her to answer, under oath, personal and intrusive questions. I would fool myself that we do not punish people for their beliefs. I would not confront her in open court over what she wrote. I would not denigrate her or thank her for her service. I would simply excuse her from serving on the jury.

Now, I'll assume the juror was simply trying to get out of jury duty. I'll have to also assume she wasn't even clever enough to say she would never vote for the death penalty. (We certainly can't let such people on a death penalty case.) In that case, I would not confront her in open court over what she wrote. I would not denigrate her or thank her for her service. I would simply excuse her from serving on the jury.

I think also that Judge Garaufis now agrees with me. His indefinite jury duty lasted only a single day.

A Federal judge relented Wednesday and commuted the sentence of indefinite jury duty he had slapped on a Brooklyn woman who presented herself as wildly racist and anti-cop. 

"I hope this experience will be an education for you and the next time you're called for jury duty you'll give honest answers," Federal Judge Nicholas Garufis told Juror 799. 

The young Asian woman had written in her jury questionaire on Tuesday that she couldn't stand "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians" - and that all cops were lazy.

Garaufis, who is trying to empanel a jury for the capital case against Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano, told her she was outrageous and vowed to keep her coming back every day for jury duty.

On Wednesday, he made it clear it wasn't her views that angered him but what he said was her obvious attempt to weasel out of jury duty by lying.

"My ruling was not based in any way upon whether or not you held any racist views. It was apparent you did not tell the truth," Garaufis told the woman.

"You were the only juror who indicated that you had every form of bias imaginable. You were lying to the court in order to be excused. ... The purpose of this order was to attempt to create some consequences or disincentive for people who intentionally obstruct the court's ability to empanel a fair and impartial jury.

I claim the judge's justification for his actions doesn't ring true. In other words, I presume to know what's in his head, and I suggest he might be lying.

Judge Garaufis claimed that no one could hold such racist views, that anyone who expresses them must be lying. Yet our same court system increases penalties for many crimes if the defendant allegedly acted in response to racial or other socially unacceptable prejudices.

Note also that Judge Garaufis certainly left the impression that he was outraged by her beliefs on Tuesday. He did not claim until Wednesday that he was outraged only that someone might actually lie to get off jury duty.

I'm sure that must be true. Everyone knows that no one would lie to get off jury duty. It's an "outrage" to finally come across a clear cut case disguised as prejudice. Hahahahahaha.

By the way, none of the other jurors were punished with indefinite involuntary servitude, though it is likely many of them were lying. Only the person who claimed (truthfully or otherwise) that she was prejudiced was held up to ridicule and punishment.

What Judge Garaufis did manage to accomplish, however, was to present a tutorial on how one should lie to get off jury duty. I offer the following paragraph from the article for those of you who can't figure it out by yourself.

Nearly half of the jurors are struck before they even get to court for questioning due to language barriers, fear of the Mafia or their extreme views for and against the death penalty.

And finally, there is a bizarre lesson to be learned here. If you are in fact prejudiced, lie under oath when asked about it. Otherwise, you could be punished without trial for perjury.