Convicted Aspiring Whitmer-Nappers Now Sending Private Dicks After Juror
Last month, Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. were found guilty of conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and put her on trial for COVID tyranny; they were also convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction to blow up a bridge in order to keep law enforcement from interrupting that, supposedly as part of a larger plan to foment unrest and incite another Civil War.
Now, their defense attorneys are appealing the ruling, arguing that the the judge was biased against the defense because time limits were imposed on only the defense during cross-examination of a key government witness; the judge "belittled," interrupted and criticized the defense in front of the jury, by telling them they were taking too long; and once referred to defense arguments as "crap" while the jury was on break. As people are entitled to a full and vigorous defense, regardless of how we may feel about them personally, this is actually entirely reasonable (if it's true).
Part of this effort has so far included having a private investigator actually go to the workplace of one of the jurors on the case in hopes of proving that said juror had it out for them from the beginning. The defense had received a tip about the juror in the beginning of the case from a coworker who had heard that they said they wanted to get picked for the jury and "had already decided the case and intended to ensure a particular result at the conclusion of the trial." This was brought to the attention of the court, leading the judge to interview the juror privately in chambers (which the defense objected to as well), ultimately determining that they were fine to serve on the jury.
The private investigator tracked down the initial tipster, who had claimed to have received this information from another coworker, and not from the juror themselves, as well as another informant who said they had heard this information as well — both of whom offered up new information about said juror. The new allegations are that the juror was "far-Left leaning" (which is illegal in the state of Michigan, we assume), had said that they would find the defendants "guilty no matter what," wanted to see them "hang," and had texted a family member who works at the same place to say that the jury had a verdict and would be announcing it soon.
Given the fact that the "far Left" tends not to be too fond of prosecutors and prisons (and even less fond of hanging people), it seems pretty safe to assume that either the tipsters do not actually know what "far Left" means or that they are full of shit in some other capacity. We can certainly say that the first tipster, at least, seems a tad susceptible to pipe dreams.
Via Detroit Free Press:
According to the investigator who interviewed this tipster more than once, this person got quiet over time, "stating that he has a fear of negative employment consequences" if he continued to talk about the verdict.
For example, on the eve of the verdict, the investigator contacted the initial tipster to see if he could provide any further information on statements the juror made prior to the trial.
But the tipster "said that no one was willing to speak with me about (the juror's) statement ... and people are afraid of losing their jobs. He said that people are also being protected against actions by BLM or similar organizations if their names get out."
It's probably not a great idea to trust the word of someone who thinks Black Lives Matter activists are running a literal protection racket, or that they would have anything to do with this case to begin with. It shows a tendency towards exaggeration and a deeply warped view of the Left that could certainly color their view of their coworker's ability to be fair on a jury. Frankly, my guess would be that the juror in question is a regular, non-"far Left" liberal Democrat and that the tipsters simply assumed that they would be a detriment to the aspiring governor-nappers' case.
The person that both tipsters claim initially gave them this information and heard it firsthand said they didn't know anything and refused to speak to the investigator, after said investigator followed them to their car, which I'm certain they found very enjoyable and not at all creepy.
"I attempted to speak with person #3 as they were walking to their vehicle in the parking lot," the investigator said in a declaration filed in federal court. "I called the person’s name, and they acknowledged me. I identified myself and told Person #3 that I wanted to speak with them regarding possible statements that (a juror) had made regarding the Whitmer trial."
The investigator continued: "Person #3 stated that they did not know anything and refused to speak with me and got into their vehicle."
The investigator persisted:
"I offered to speak with them outside of work but they did not want to speak with me. I offered my card in case they changed their mind. They said that they did not want to talk with me later and declined to take my card and drove out of the lot."
As much as the defense ought to be entitled to every bit of information they can get that might help with an appeal, it seems like going to a juror's place of work and interrogating those who work with them is a pretty crappy way to do that.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Robyn Pennacchia is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning angel of a human being, who shrugged off what she is pretty sure would have been a Tony Award-winning career in musical theater in order to write about stuff on the internet. Follow her on Twitter at @RobynElyse