Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Just as I predicted, the mainstream media is reporting the outcome of the Pozner/Fetzer trial without revealing that Pozner sued Jim for $1 million. All the articles (and they are largely the same article) leave it out. And that is very, very manipulative. 

That's because the case was already decided by the judge in "summary judgment" that Jim had defamed Pozner. The only thing at stake at this trial was the amount of damages. And the jury awarded Pozner less than half of what he asked for. Why shouldn't the public be informed of that?

I had an experience that parallels this. I served on a jury concerning a traffic violation, and in our case, we the jurors had to decide his guilt or innocence, and then, if guilty, decide on his financial punishment. 

Well, we were all agreed, from the start, that his speeding citation should stand, that he had presented nothing to credibly challenge what the deputy sheriff claimed. But then, when it came to the amount of the fine, there was a lot of disagreement. I actually favored the highest fine amount that we could assess, which I think was $250. But, there were others who wanted less, as low as $50. We compromised. I think we settled on $150. And that was it.   

But, in this case, the financial amount was all they had to deliberate. They arrived at $450,000, but I suspect that that was a compromise too, that one or more wanted the whole amount, while others sympathized with Jim quite a lot and wanted much less.  They may have been affected by Jim's lawyer's argument that Pozner said he was subjected to harassment and death threats by certain individuals, but no evidence was presented that those individuals ever read or were influenced by Jim's book.  

The fact that the jury arrived at less than half the money the plaintiff sued for demonstrates division within the jury, and it's something the public was entitled to know about. Facts are facts. He sued for a million and he got $450,000. Period. You can lip-flap it however the hell you want, but you need to state the facts. And if you don't, you're not reporting; you're propagandizing.