[Today’s guest post is by Chris Shelton.] I first heard from a woman in Los Angeles named Nina in 2019. On Facebook, I was getting questions about Scientology leader David Miscavige’s Sea Org uniform, and Nina pointed out that Tony had, with the help of a reader,
I don't believe for a minute that Nina was cooking up something in 2019 to get this result. I believe it's a coincidence that three years later her dad was picked to be a juror. What I do notice is that in this transcript Earl first states he really didn't know about his son's crime because they were not living together and were (are) estranged. He had no "firsthand" knowledge about it. But later in the interview he says he knew about it -- he knew he had been arrested and he knew he had admitted to it. He knew the details. So how does he know now what he did not know six months ago, when the questionnaires were filled out? When he tells Chris, "You can do the research on it" and then goes on to explain in detail his son's crime, he does so while still having no relationship with him -- but knows exactly what happened. So estrangement does not negate knowledge. He knows of the public record that it occurred. Did he just "do the research on it" himself -- after the trial? I doubt it. (Or he probably would have said so.) Imagine all the people filling out these questionnaires who have adult siblings who have committed a crime. Does a potential juror have to know "firsthand" that a sibling, parent, child committed/was convicted of a crime in order to answer "yes" on the questionnaire? Does "firsthand" mean you have to be told directly by the person that they did it or you have to see the crime being committed with your own eyes? Is that the only way you can answer "yes" on the questionnaire? One thing for sure: this juror's "ommission" (and, yes, it was an ommission) would have been all the DA would have needed in order to get an immediate appeal, had all the other jurors also voted not guilty. One does not have to be a straight-laced former cop to understand what "Have you or any family member" means. Every potential juror should answer every question honestly. It doesn't help to do otherwise. So I guess it's a good thing there was a hung jury after all because can you imagine the clusterphuck that would have come out of this had the jury come up with a unanimous verdict? Those three little questions from one juror's questionnaire would have turned everything upside down.
Thanks very much, Chris. It's great that you were able to go back and verify those particulars with Earl, and I appreciate his willingness to speak to you again. I do think he made a wrong judgement call in thinking those three questions didn't apply to him and his son's situation - they clearly did - but I don't believe for a moment that this was a long, slow Scientology sting. It simply wouldn't have been possible. Thanks also to Nina. What a star she is.
Regardless of one’s opinions about Aaron, was he correct about the foreman’s dishonesty in filling out the form - a) should it have been checked off differently b) in CA legal procedures, does this matter
I had noticed that Smith-Levin seemed to have a grudge against Tony, but I don't know the history there. After hearing him make that offensive speculation about Nina, I have unsubscribed from his channel. It's a shame that people with the same goal of exposing Scientology's abuses aren't capable of maintaining the ethics that Chris and Tony consistently uphold. I will gladly continue to support them both with my views and dollars.
I did a double take when Nina said she was obsessed with not just Scientology but also North Korea and stories of cults. She and I should hang out.
Earl sounds like a by-the-book, just-the-facts-ma'am type. And I think this case, especially with the limitations on how much Scientology could come in, required some people who would encourage each other to think a little more flexibly. It really bugs me that they ignored the testimony of the DA's expert. I really wonder if a younger—or female—jury foreperson would have led them a different way.
I don't believe for a minute that Nina was cooking up something in 2019 to get this result. I believe it's a coincidence that three years later her dad was picked to be a juror. What I do notice is that in this transcript Earl first states he really didn't know about his son's crime because they were not living together and were (are) estranged. He had no "firsthand" knowledge about it. But later in the interview he says he knew about it -- he knew he had been arrested and he knew he had admitted to it. He knew the details. So how does he know now what he did not know six months ago, when the questionnaires were filled out? When he tells Chris, "You can do the research on it" and then goes on to explain in detail his son's crime, he does so while still having no relationship with him -- but knows exactly what happened. So estrangement does not negate knowledge. He knows of the public record that it occurred. Did he just "do the research on it" himself -- after the trial? I doubt it. (Or he probably would have said so.) Imagine all the people filling out these questionnaires who have adult siblings who have committed a crime. Does a potential juror have to know "firsthand" that a sibling, parent, child committed/was convicted of a crime in order to answer "yes" on the questionnaire? Does "firsthand" mean you have to be told directly by the person that they did it or you have to see the crime being committed with your own eyes? Is that the only way you can answer "yes" on the questionnaire? One thing for sure: this juror's "ommission" (and, yes, it was an ommission) would have been all the DA would have needed in order to get an immediate appeal, had all the other jurors also voted not guilty. One does not have to be a straight-laced former cop to understand what "Have you or any family member" means. Every potential juror should answer every question honestly. It doesn't help to do otherwise. So I guess it's a good thing there was a hung jury after all because can you imagine the clusterphuck that would have come out of this had the jury come up with a unanimous verdict? Those three little questions from one juror's questionnaire would have turned everything upside down.
Thanks very much, Chris. It's great that you were able to go back and verify those particulars with Earl, and I appreciate his willingness to speak to you again. I do think he made a wrong judgement call in thinking those three questions didn't apply to him and his son's situation - they clearly did - but I don't believe for a moment that this was a long, slow Scientology sting. It simply wouldn't have been possible. Thanks also to Nina. What a star she is.
Regardless of one’s opinions about Aaron, was he correct about the foreman’s dishonesty in filling out the form - a) should it have been checked off differently b) in CA legal procedures, does this matter
If so, the core of his video was valid
I had noticed that Smith-Levin seemed to have a grudge against Tony, but I don't know the history there. After hearing him make that offensive speculation about Nina, I have unsubscribed from his channel. It's a shame that people with the same goal of exposing Scientology's abuses aren't capable of maintaining the ethics that Chris and Tony consistently uphold. I will gladly continue to support them both with my views and dollars.
I hope none of the JDs have told Aashole Smith-Levin anything in confidence. He’s too much of a loose canon, that one.
Investigative reporting, he is not.
Thank you Tony and Chris for following up on this.
That’s quite a mouthful of hate. My point exactly.
Great reporting Chris. Thank you.
Thanks for clearing this up, Chris. It was uncomfortable to hear so many accusations thrown at a person that agreed to give you an interview.
Nina sounds like a great ally, and Earl’s explanation makes sense to me. I know Aaron has good intentions, but this felt like a step too far.
I did a double take when Nina said she was obsessed with not just Scientology but also North Korea and stories of cults. She and I should hang out.
Earl sounds like a by-the-book, just-the-facts-ma'am type. And I think this case, especially with the limitations on how much Scientology could come in, required some people who would encourage each other to think a little more flexibly. It really bugs me that they ignored the testimony of the DA's expert. I really wonder if a younger—or female—jury foreperson would have led them a different way.