AP: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors

[Predicto]

Has anything actually happened in the trial that was newsworthy? Has there been any testimony, or are they just spending days and days going through pre-trial motions and jury selection and so forth?

---------- Post added April-15th-2013 at 09:44 AM ----------

interestingly you must be pro-choice or even more to fairly weigh testimony in a murder trial

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6-jurors-chosen-philly-abortion-clinic-case

Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart treaded lightly, but directly, as he questioned potential jurors about their views this week. Those who expressed religious, ethical or moral qualms about abortion or the death penalty were promptly dismissed.

That left lawyers on both sides to question the surviving panel members individually, and to dig a little deeper. Prosecutors asked if they were sure they could return a death penalty verdict against the aging doctor if the facts warrant it. Defense lawyers wanted to know if jurors could be fair to Gosnell and co-defendant Eileen O'Neill, given the age of the infants.

And both sides asked if the jurors would be biased against trial witnesses who said they had had abortions.

"I think a woman has the right to choose, really. Whatever they decide," a female postal worker said.

Despite that answer, she was ultimately dismissed.

This happens in every trial.

Here's the thing twa... in this case it is is the prosecution, not the defense, that has the incentive to make sure that there are no hardcore pro-life people on the jury. They know that they are going to get a conviction, and they want to make sure that this scumbag doesn't have grounds for an appeal based on the claim that the jury was inherently biased against the defendant because of their views on abortion in general.

[NavyDave]

This would be newsworthy only if the abortionist was a white racist and a republican and admitted to an agenda to kill as many minority unborn babies as possible.

The lame stream media has to steer away from this because of the horrific nature of the story as well as the fact that the issue of killing babies after the abortion failed was brought up when Obama represented Illinois and he did not support the legislation to stop the killings.

[DCSaints_fan]

one relates to whether one can deliver a possible verdict....the other?

perhaps it is just the way it was written that offends me .....any qualms is a interesting choice

If it makes you feel any better, the libtard bleeding hearts who wouldn't deliver the death penalty were getting kicked off alongside their whacko fundie pro-lifer counterparts :pfft:

[twa]

I'LL REPEAT AGAIN:pfft:.....any qualms

I certainly understand eliminating the hardcore or biased

and I'll expect the next shooter to only get pro castle doctrine jurors:evilg:

and yes the trial is in the 5th week and testimony has been going on for weeks

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/national_world&id=9065114

you would know that with competent media :beatdeadhorse:

[DjTj]

I'LL REPEAT AGAIN:pfft:.....any qualms

I don't think that the judge said "any qualms." The phrase "any qualms" does not appear in the AP article you posted. And the word "qualms" is not in quotes in that AP story, so I think it was just a word used by the reporter who wrote the article. I found that phrase in quotes in some other news sources, but it seems like they are quoting the AP story, not the judge.

I can't find any other primary source articles discussing jury selection that use the word "qualms:"

Three women were selected Monday as jurors in the murder trial of West Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell.

The three - a mix of ages, from Roxborough, Southwest Philadelphia, and Rhawnhurst - were drawn from 15 prospects questioned individually by Common Pleas Court Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart and prosecution and defense lawyers.

That group of 15 was culled from a first panel of 125 prospective jurors and screened on several issues, including religiosity, attitudes about abortion and the death penalty, and exposure to news coverage of the Gosnell case.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-05/news/37440850_1_gosnell-case-karnamaya-mongar-kermit-gosnell

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Jury selection is underway in the capital murder case against West Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who allegedly routinely performed illegal, late-term abortions at his Women’s Medical Society on Lancaster avenue.

The first day of jury selection began with a panel of about 180 people, but most were quickly excused for a variety of factors, including opposition to the death penalty in this potential capital case, personal hardship caused by serving in a trial expected to last 6 to 8 weeks, and having a fixed opinion on the case. At the end of the first day, three female jurors had been selected.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/03/04/trial-set-to-begin-for-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-charged-with-mass-murder/

Jury selection is expected to take a week, given the sensitivity of the abortion issue and the death penalty.

The three jurors chosen Monday said they support abortion rights and could judge the case fairly.

Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart was quick to dismiss scores of potential jurors who said their religious or moral beliefs might color their view of the case.

http://news.msn.com/us/3-jurors-picked-in-pa-abortion-doctors-murder-trial

Questions like this are usually phrased something like this: "Do you have strong views on abortion that would prevent you from making an impartial decision?" Any juror too far on the pro- or anti-abortion spectrum would likely be dismissed.

[twa]

I don't think that the judge said "any qualms." The phrase "any qualms" does not appear in the AP article you posted.

the phrase was

Those who expressed religious, ethical or moral qualms

which pretty well sums up any qualms don't it?

[DjTj]

the phrase was

Those who expressed religious, ethical or moral qualms

which pretty well sums up any qualms don't it?

If that's an accurate report. I don't think the judge said the word "qualms" either.

[twa]

If that's an accurate report. I don't think the judge said the word "qualms" either.

well I already noted it might just be the way it was worded.

Durn reporters either don't cover it, or make things up.

[DjTj]

well I already noted it might just be the way it was worded.

Durn reporters either don't cover it, or make things up.

The reporter didn't put it in quotes, so I wouldn't say that she made things up. I think it's accurate for the reporter to say that "[t]hose who expressed religious, ethical or moral qualms about abortion or the death penalty were promptly dismissed." That's probably what she saw in the courtroom: jurors expressed concerns about abortion or the death penalty, and they were dismissed. Whether the legal standard for dismissing jurors was "any qualms" or "unable render an impartial decision" is something that was agreed upon in precise language by the lawyers and the judge.

Reporters in almost all trials fail to use the same rigorous language that lawyers do, but they play two different roles. Reporters are trying to tell a story, while lawyers and judges are trying to abide by strict rules. Parsing the words of reporters to criticize the work of lawyers and judges is likely to lead you down the wrong path.

[Predicto]

I'LL REPEAT AGAIN:pfft:.....any qualms

I certainly understand eliminating the hardcore or biased

and I'll expect the next shooter to only get pro castle doctrine jurors:evilg:

and yes the trial is in the 5th week and testimony has been going on for weeks

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/national_world&id=9065114

you would know that with competent media :beatdeadhorse:

Fair enough. I was confused by all your posts about jury selection, which you thought was biased and clearly did not understand. :whoknows:

[Larry]

I'LL REPEAT AGAIN:pfft:.....any qualms

I'LL REPEAT AGAIN . . . "about abortion or the death penalty".

But you come running in here to try to imply that the trial's being rigged because of only one of those two criteria. Screening for the other criteria, you defend.

----------

Personal anecdote, but the two times I've been called for jury duty, one of the questions they were disqualifying people for was something along the line of "Do you tend to assume that testimony from a police officer is inherently more credible than testimony from non police officers?"

(And my personal belief is that every single person who didn't answer "yes", was lying.)

[twa]

Fair enough. I was confused by all your posts about jury selection, which you thought was biased and clearly did not understand. :whoknows:

Would any qualms render a juror biased?

Would Hillary wanting it to be rare qualify as a qualm?

Jury selection is almost always biased, hell we even got experts to try to ensure it.

[Predicto]

Would any qualms render a juror biased?

Would Hillary wanting it to be rare qualify as a qualm?

Jury selection is almost always biased, hell we even got experts to try to ensure it.

You can keep trying to make this discussion revolve about the word "qualms" (as stated by one reporter) if you want. I'm not playing.

[twa]

Would Hillary wanting it rare make her biased?

Would Obama's position on partial birth abortion render him unfit?

I can work w/o qualms :evilg:

[DjTj]

Would Hillary wanting it rare make her biased?

Would Obama's position on partial birth abortion render him unfit?

It depends on what the lawyers agreed to. Every case is different, and the prosecution and defense come to agreement on the standards used for voir dire. What may be disqualifying in one case can be perfectly fine in another. It's impossible to come up with preconceived rules for every possible crime and every possible defendant.

In this case, I think it's likely that a juror would not be disqualified with views similar to those of Hillary or Obama, which are in the mainstream of American opinion about abortion. The lawyers would have realized that excluding middle-of-the-road opinions like that would make it very difficult to empanel a jury, and judges hate it when the lawyers are so inflexible in their requirements that they end up excluding too much of the jury pool.

[twa]

you are aware of what little difference there is between partial birth abortion and what this Dr did?

Obamas is not mainstream

[twa]

Lawyer, judge erupt in anger in Gosnell trial

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130416_Doctor_says_47_frozen_fetuses_unprecedented.html

McMahon has argued that none of the infants were killed, that they were in death throes from the abortion drug, Digoxin, that Gosnell administered earlier.

the old I killed em while it was legal defense, snipping their spine just ins

[Larry]

That's why they have trials.

The jury will get to see all the evidence. (Whether they want to or not.)

[twa]

That's why they have trials.

The jury will get to see all the evidence. (Whether they want to or not.)

except the evidence destroyed

I almost feel sorry for him and them..... when you try to make the creative distinctions we do it gets messy.

odd for Snopes to do a page on it

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/gosnell.asp

[Larry Brown #43]

Has anything actually happened in the trial that was newsworthy? Has there been any testimony, or are they just spending days and days going through pre-trial motions and jury selection and so forth?.

Testimony from workers at the clinic and other eyewitnesses over the last several days has been chilling. A baby trying to swim its way out of a toilet, babies screaming before having their spines cut, a live baby being stuffed into a shoebox, etc.

This was going on for 17 years without a single inspection, and it was discovered purely by accident and not as a result of any inspection. The implications of this case are enormous.

[twa]

Prosecution rests (for the uninformed)

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/20/gosnell-worker-testifies-to-seeing-baby-make-swimming-motion-in-toilet/

While she worked for Gosnell, Cross testified that at least twice a day, six days a week, at least two babies would “precipitate” or be birthed before Gosnell ever arrived. She said “Dr. Steve,” Steven Massof, an unlicensed medical school graduate with a ghoulish curiosity about abortions, would be there to snip the babies’ necks. She saw him do it around 50 times. When babies “precipitated” in Gosnell’s presence, he would do the dirty deed himself.

Cross sometimes worked from 8:00 am until 3:00 the next morning helping with procedures. She routinely saw babies born alive, moving, breathing, and moaning.

Once in Gosnell’s absence, Cross saw a large baby delivered into the toilet. She saw his little arms and legs moving in a swimming motion as he struggled to get out of the toilet bowl. Cross held her hands 12-16 inches apart to demonstrate to the jury how big the baby was. Adrienne Moton, who was the first worker to testify for the prosecution, snipped the baby’s neck in front of the mother while she sat bleeding into the toilet. Moton then took the body away and put it into a container.

In 2009, Cross testified that another co-worker, Linda Williams, called Cross over to see a baby that had just been born. Cross saw the baby’s chest heaving up and down in steady breathing motions. Linda reached down and lifted the baby’s hand up, but the newborn pulled it away on its own strength. Cross said she saw the baby breathing for about 20 minutes before Williams murdered the child by severing its spinal cord with scissors. Cross demonstrated again with her hands that the baby was about a foot long.

[Larry Brown #43]

WP: Problems at Pa. abortion clinic point to lack of facilities oversight

“Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that. But we think this was something more,” the grand jury wrote. “We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/problems-at-pa-abortion-clinic-point-to-lack-of-facilities-oversight/2013/04/20/1743fca0-a90c-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html

[twa]

1715

Share

The judge in the trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell has acquitted him of three of the eight murder charges the abortion business owner faces in his murder trial.

Gosnell faces eight total murder counts — one for killing a woman in a botched abortion and seven for killing babies in abortion-infanticides that involved live-birth abortions and snipping their necks after birth.

Gosnell’s defense attorney asked the judge to drop three of the charges for killing the babies and the judge agreed with the contention there was not enough evidence to convict Gosnell on those charges. He still faces the other charges the prosecution has brought and the murder trial will continue on them.

Common pleas court Judge Jeffrey Minehart also dropped five counts of corpse abuse at the request of his defense attorney Jack McMahon and did not explain his ruling dropping any of the charges.

The defense has argued that there were no live births at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Center abortion clinic and contends the babies died during abortions and their necks were snipped afterwards. But former Gosnell staffers testified they saw signs of life even after the abortion had been completed — saying the babies “jumped” and “screamed” and tried to escape.

But, according to AP, McMahon told the judge “there is not one piece …. of objective, scientific evidence that anyone was born alive”

“We still have a long to go,” McMahon told the press about the rest of his Gosnell defense.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/23/kermit-gosnell-judge-drops-three-abortion-infanticide-charges/

[Larry]

Well, that's why we have trials.

[twa]

Well, that's why we have trials.

and tribulations?