The Skeptical Juror Blog

99 Cent Experiment Bites The Dust

2011-04-15T19:44:00.000-07:00

Sales were up, yes. But not enough to sustain the experiment.

Numbers, you say? Previously, sales were about 1 per day, 30 per month, of all three Skeptical Juror books combined. We cleared about $2 per book, because $2.99 qualifies for a 70% royalty on Amazon.

With a price of 99 cents, Amazon only allows a 35% royalty, or 35 cents per copy. So we have to sell around 7 times as many copies to break even.

We only sold about 60 copies in the month of the experiment.

So, we have to try harder to publicize the book, because frankly, if you're going to buy at 99 cents, shouldn't you be interested enough to buy at $2.99?

A new E-Tome from the Skeptical Juror Guy

2011-04-10T12:50:00.000-07:00

We've taken the Smashwords plunge to publish a book that is not intended to see the light of day as a print work. Inferno: An Inquiry Into the Willingham Fire will be an ebook first, and most likely, always.

Smashwords converts an uploaded book into a number of different formats, for reading on all the different ebook platforms out there. Kindle, Sony, Nook, and Apple, the major players, all have their platforms. We've priced the book at 99 cents, continuing our 99 cent experiment in other markets.

The SJ's book about Cameron Todd Willingham is selling, slowly, at Amazon. Mostly in Kindle format. This book is an extension of that one, an investigation of the possible actual causes of the fire. While people mostly debate as to whether or not it was arson, there's nothing else written about the question of if it's not arson, what could have caused it?

One of the advantages of ebooks is that publishing color graphics is so much easier than in print. So there are plenty of pictures and graphs to illustrate points made in the text.

We're also treating this as a learning experience for our upcoming publication of The Rate of Wrongful Conviction (thrilling title, isn't it? We have to come up with a better one), coming soon. Ish.

The 99 cent Experiment

2011-03-14T09:27:00.000-07:00

Given the results obtained by Joe Konrath and other writers (though they are fiction writers and TSJ most emphatically is not), we're trying a little experiment, starting today.

We're dropping the Kindle pricing on the books about Byron Case, Cory Maye, and Cameron Todd Willingham to 99 cents each. Amazon will only transfer 35 cents of that to us...however, we're currently making less than $2 a day on all three titles. Not a lot of risk, there.

99 cents may get us all the way to #1 in the categories the books are listed in. Once that happens, we may get some attention in various venues. Certainly, we expect to sell more copies, in an absolute sense.

And there's other publishing news coming. Interesting times are ahead.

The Kindle Edition of Book #3 is Available

2010-10-23T14:55:00.000-07:00

The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cameron Todd Willingham is now available on Amazon.

This whirlwind effort was written in just about 4 weeks, then edited and submitted to both our digital print house and Kindle in less than a week! Kudos to TSJ for marathon days, nights and weekends in the Chair of Writing. Talk about your buns of steel!

In just a few days (we hope by next Tuesday) the print version will be available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well. We'll update the links when that happens.

Cameron Todd Willingham is a case getting national notoriety right now. No sooner had the Kindle version become available than we sold a copy, with zero marketing efforts! No telling what might happen with a bit of marketing on our parts.

Here's hoping that this is the big break the entire series needs. Watch this space!

Marketing Efforts and Future Directions

2010-08-30T09:23:00.000-07:00

Cory Maye, as noted, is on Amazon now, so the next big effort is marketing. We're mailing books with a cover letter to a bunch of Mississippi newspapers, and we've submitted to a listing that goes to 35,000 librarians. Hey, if we could get one book in each library.....

And, watch this space! Last weekend we noticed a new bookstore had opened just two blocks from our house. It's been open since the first of August, so perhaps we're a little slow on the uptake. We walked down to Gatsby Books to meet and talk to the owner, Sean Moor. He's a nice young man who has been making a living selling books online and on Amazon. He took it to brick & mortar to have the experience of running a bookstore. His collection of used books is of extremely high quality, and he also carries new books.

He's enthusiastic about local authors. You can get much more local than two blocks away! After some discussion we took him up on his offer to use his store space for a book signing, tentatively scheduled for 7pm October 20, 2010. We'll be working on some flyers, and other ways of publicizing the event.

We also left a copy each of Cory Maye and Byron Case with Sean. We're in a bookstore!! Yay. First one anywhere.

So we'll be planning and working for the talk TSJ will give at the signing. Maybe we'll draw people in by talking about self-publishing. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Print Edition now on Amazon

2010-08-18T15:18:00.000-07:00

As you see, the link to Amazon now leads directly to the print edition of The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye. This is the first (and as of this date) the only book about the case.

We are working at present at marketing this book, and Byron Case as well. Two in a series...what will be the third??

Cory Maye To the Printers!

2010-08-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

We've finished editing the proof copy of Cory Maye, and have released it for production, which means that quietly, in the night, without notice to anyone, it will appear on Amazon. When we discover it, we'll let you all know.

Which means we go back to compulsively checking Amazon. Frequently. Because who knows when it will appear? It's like mushrooms sprouting after rain. Well. In rainy places. Not in Southern California, because it'll probably be November before we get rain again. Gosh, I've gone all Bulwer-Lytton, here.

But you know what I mean.

The incidence of errors in the proof wasn't too bad. Either that or our editing got really crummy. You'll let us know, I'm sure. We've ordered a case of publisher's copies for publicity purposes, we'll be mailing them out to interested parties, including every crime reporter in Mississippi whose address we can dig up.

More updates as news happens!

Late Update

2010-07-27T22:36:00.000-07:00

Today, we uploaded the cover and text of Cory Maye to our digital print house.

We await the proof copy, the better to find most of the mistakes the last editing process missed.

So, probably 3 weeks out on the availability of print copies! With almost all the misteaks corrected. You never catch them all.

In other news, even without publicity, 3 copies of the Kindle version have sold! How exciting.

Now, it's time for bed on the Left Coast.

Cory Maye Kindle Edition Now Available!

2010-07-23T14:12:00.000-07:00

The second book in the Skeptical Juror series, The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye, is now available for Kindle.

The print edition will be to the digital print house in a day or so, and after checking the proof, we'll release it for publication. So look for that version in about 2 weeks.

Cory Maye is the story of a young man in Mississippi who shot and killed a police officer who entered his home. The circumstances are tragic, and there is no denying that Maye shot the officer. Maye was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

But did he know the intruder he was shooting at was a police officer? Or did he think it was a burglar or other criminal? He says he was protecting his young daughter, who was asleep in the house.

Now, The Skeptical Juror has uncovered facts in the court and police documents that throw some doubt onto the conclusions of the prosecution. Cory has gotten a new trial, but is still incarcerated.

This new book in the series tells a dramatic story, and raises some shocking questions.

A Flying Update for Our Blog Readers

2010-07-15T13:35:00.000-07:00

All three of you.

TSJ has finished the writing of The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye. And I, in turn, have finished the first copy and style edit of the manuscript, and returned it to the author with a few brief suggestions for some relatively minor additions.

I think we must be getting the hang of this author/publisher stuff. For the first time, a substantive review has not resulted in suggestions that result in major rewrites.

The book is turning out well. It's a national story, with a subject who is coming up before the Mississippi Supreme Court this fall. And it's told, this time, in a more entertaining and readable, and yet scientifically compelling way, than the Byron Case book.

We'll be publishing, I hope early next week, on Kindle, then on to paper publishing soon thereafter.

Good Things Come To Those With Buns of Steel

2010-06-28T14:35:00.000-07:00

For sitting on while waiting, of course. The buns of steel, that is.

Today, we got our first teeny-tiny reimbursement check from Amazon for the sales of our Kindle edition of The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Byron Case. It's a beginning.

In furtherance of our purposes, nefarious and otherwise, we also signed up today for the Reporter Connection, and HARO (Help A Reporter Out, out of what they don't say). Both of these are connection sites that work by putting together reporters in search of expert sources, and sources in search of publicity.

So, who knows. We may come up with interviews or newspaper stories where The Skeptical Juror is the perfect expert. We'll be watching our email!

In that vein, on July 20th, TSJ will be interviewed at 3pm, Pacific Daylight Time, on BlogTalkRadio, on the Women Behind the Wall show. It will be his first interview about the book. He'll be talking about Byron Case, and wrongful convictions in general. The host of the show, Gloria Killian, was herself wrongfully convicted and exonerated and released after 17 years in prison. The questions ought to be interesting!

Flying Times

2010-06-22T17:49:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year. Happy Solstice to those who celebrate.

It doesn't seem possible that half a year has passed since we published The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Byron Case. Already! Holy cow. We just got our first publisher's compensation from the digital print house. Somewhere in the vicinity of 200 books are out there in the world, what with publicity copies we've ordered, and given to various and sundry folks. Byron Case's mother is busy working to place them in book stores and libraries in Kansas City.

We should do that too, I know. Maybe when we have the second book available.

The other day I was wondering, if we donated copies of the book to a library, who assigns Dewey Decimal numbers to it? Is each library responsible for their own classifications or is there some giant master list somewhere. Seems like there has to be a master list, doesn't it? Otherwise how could interlibrary loans work?

I know, I could look it up. But instead I'm going to work on editing the next section of Cory Maye. We really want to get this puppy up and out by the end of July. That way we may have a fair chance of getting Susan B. Anthony published this year as well. Or #3 in the series. Not both, probably. Turns out that writing and publishing books is a slower process than one would imagine, when one is a naive young (relatively speaking) author.

Most people think they can write a book. Nearly all of them think writing is an easy way to make a living. Until they try it. Then only the real writers stick it out and finish a book.

Before we turn around, it'll be Christmas and New Years. I'll try to post again before then. Really.

We're RICH!!

2010-06-05T20:39:00.000-07:00

Okay, not so much.

But we now have gotten to the other side of the whole process, the part where we actually have some publisher's compensation for The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Byron Case returned to us from the digital print house. It came in the mail today.

These are the returns for February, the first full month of publication. Wait, you say, it's friggin' June! Yep. They keep track of sales monthly, then delay sending a check until 90 days after the end of the month. I presume that's to accommodate those publishers that may have returns. Or they're just playing the float as long as they can. So this check wasn't cut until June 1.

These are not all the books printed, of course. There must be 150 or so other copies floating about out there. We sent copies to friends, family, early readers, and some folks we wanted to review it. We sent cases to people who said they would be willing to publicize it.

And we've been selling at cost to Evelyn Case, allowing her to keep the profits and apply them to Byron's defense fund. Seems like the least we can do, at the moment.

Bottom line is we are doing a poor job marketing the book, and that is reflected in the sales. Nonetheless, we now have the excitement of receiving the first revenue for our hard work on this new venture. We have something to look back upon and say "Remember back when ..."

On the upside, the Cory Maye edits are going well. I like the way the deliberations are shaping up. Jury dynamics promise a lot of interesting byplay and tension.

And once Cory Maye is published, we will do a better job of publicizing both that work and Byron Case.

So we're not rich, except in experience. We'll get there. Still not quitting the day jobs, though.

There, In the Distance, a Light!

2010-05-31T10:35:00.000-07:00

The Skeptical Juror reports that he's finished writing the trial and the deliberation portions of The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye.

A modest celebration took place at Pei Wei, one of our favorite chain restaurants. It's the only place we know where you can get good, healthy, fresh food nearly instantanously. Don't know how they do it, but you order, find your seat, put your number in the number stand on the table, and almost before you can fetch the drink and the silverware, the first plates are on the table. And the food is consistently yummy.

The structure of this second book in the series is a bit different. It begins with the deliberation, and the trial portions are interspersed with that, as support of the drama in the jury room. We think it will deliver more of the writing that got the best reviews in Byron Case.

We are more realistic now about the work and the time it takes to get a book to the printer and online with Amazon, Kindle, and all. Roughly in this order, we'll be editing the first part while TSJ writes the Aftermath section, then we'll have to lay the whole book interior out, provide copy to our designer for the cover, approve the cover, create the print and Kindle PDFs, upload it hither and yon.....taking time out for a breath.... get the proof copy, re-edit and resubmit, and then go live.

Then I get to wrassle Amazon through the process of linking print & Kindle editions, and try to market both books.

June 30? July 15? No later than that, certainly.

We'll also have some updates on what's going on with Byron Case, the person, not the book.

Connections, Connections

2010-05-15T19:31:00.000-07:00

We had a note today from Evelyn Case, the mother of Byron Case.

She met and exchanged books with Dennis Fritz, who was the subject of The Innocent Man by John Grisham. The book has been made into a movie to be released sometime in the future.

So perhaps we'll get some feedback from Dennis Fritz, who was wrongfully convicted, exonerated, and released from prison.

Sloooooowly, I Turned.....

2010-05-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

Updates might be slow here, as we ramp up to getting The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye published.

A sincere publisher/author discussion yesterday clarified the direction of the narrative. The story itself is interesting, but confusing in the testimony part. The jury itself is proving fractious, thus adding drama. Which is good, as that's the part most readers said they enjoyed in the first book. Just like actors say it's more fun to play bad characters, it may be more fun to write about them than goody two-shoes characters.

I'll be giving more attention to my bead blog, and will continue efforts to try to promote the main Skeptical Juror site.

But I'm giving myself permission not to feel guilty over not posting here daily. I'll write when a milestone happens.

I Was Told There Would Be No Math

2010-04-30T19:26:00.000-07:00

Then I married an Engineer. The capital "E" is because he's really an Engineer for Life, though that's not how he makes his living anymore.

Now, math and I have a nodding acquaintance, as long as my husband, The Skeptical Juror, also known to our clients as Algorithm Guy, takes the trouble to explain things in plain English, in small words. Slowly.

The concepts I can generally understand. Don't ask me to solve equations. Often these concepts have to do with aerodynamics, or other aspects of physics, explored by TSJ in his guise as Geek in Residence. (have I mentioned that I really like geeks?)

Right now, TSJ is working with a very scholarly paper by a statistician (another species of mathematician) to translate the concepts into words we can all understand. The paper is about how to derive the numbers of factually guilty people who have been convicted in this country. Or so I understand. TSJ will correct me if I'm wrong. TSJ read me part of one sentence. After the first 15 words contained both "Sigma" and "covariant" I tuned out. This is why we need translators!

This paper has direct application to the project he's working on over at TSJ main site. He's very enthusiastic about the progress he's making, which is lovely to see. Enthusiasm that is.

In other news, the first segment of the Cory Maye book, second in the series, has now been through initial edits. I think the new format is going to be a winner!

Time For An Update, Sportsfans

2010-04-13T08:56:00.000-07:00

So what does a Skeptical Juror do in the aftermath of a whirlwind release of a fabulously overlooked first book?

He buckles down and keeps working on the next in the series. Because so far, not dime one has trickled in from the sales of the book. Don't get me wrong, some books have sold. But publisher compensation is slow (30-90 days) to arrive. The Amazon Associates program hasn't made enough for them to cut us a check this quarter. We need to sell at least an order of magnitude more books. Maybe two orders of magnitude. That is to be devoutly hoped for.

We've been accused in various venues of profiting from murderers, or our recounting of their situations, with implications we're getting rich off the misfortunes of the victims.

Well, not so much. We believe sales will grow with time, and with the expansion of the series. We've gotten some really great reviews on Amazon, from people we do not know at all. This is extremely encouraging.

A big part of the feedback is that the fictionalized jury deliberations is either readers' favorite part, or one of their favorites. In the spirit of giving the readers more of what they want, the second book, "The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Cory Maye" is going to be restructured to be almost entirely from the perspective of the jury deliberations. The trial portions will be incorporated as part of the deliberation process, as flashbacks to justify the arguments being made in the jury room.

We've also got some jury room fireworks planned with difficult personalities and a bit of...well, you'll have to read it.

TSJ himself has committed to working at least an hour a day on the manuscript, but it's nearly a total rewrite. We thought the format of the first book would hold throughout the series, but like most battle plans, it didn't survive first contact with the enemy....er....the readers.

So don't hold us to publication before the end of April. That's not going to happen. Progress is being made, we promise.

Later, more on our perspective on victims, perpetrators, justice and profits.

A Precious Gift

2010-03-27T11:33:00.000-07:00

Every time we touch someone, talk to someone, email them, contact them in any way, they grant us the precious gift of their time.

For most of us, that's a tiny fraction of the time we have to spend in our lives. The value of 1/1,000,000 of someone's remaining time is small, but not negligible. We thank people for spending their time with us frequently. We resent it when telemarketers or door-to-door salespeople steal our time.

What does it become when it's a large and measurable fraction of someone's remaining time? Perhaps people know this from spending time with terminally ill loved ones. Fortunately, this situation has not come into our lives yet.

But last week, we got an incomparable gift, from a man who knew exactly when he was going to die. Read about Hank Skinner here. Last Tuesday, we got a package from Hank's wife, Sandrine. It contained a printed copy of the ten part series linked above, each paragraph numbered.

It also contained a 24 page letter, in Hank's handwriting. It was dated the 11th of March, so at the time he started, he had 13 days left to live. How long did it take him? No way of knowing. But it was not only hand-written, it was a thoughtful commentary on the article, paragraph by paragraph, referring to the numbers on each. Some he agreed with. For others he offered corrections of fact, and in some places, personal information that would help us understand him better. So hours at the very least. Perhaps days.

If it was only one day, that was something like 1/13 of all Hank's remaining days, at the time. That is an immense gift. Holding something like that in your hands is humbling. We never expected any sort of contact with Hank personally. We didn't expect he would ever know of our efforts on his behalf. We did all of this, the graphic, the mailing campaign, the website, etc, because it was the right thing to do, once we knew the facts of the case.

TSJ has committed to compose The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Hank Skinner as another book in the series. He hopes (wants, needs) to have it done before the election date in early November where Rick Perry will be up for re-election. Ideally, it might be done before the Supreme Court gets around to considering Hank's case before it. All of that is designed to pressure the State of Texas to release the DNA for testing.

We speculate that in giving us this gift of his time, Hank wanted to have his story told as only he could tell it. He was, in fact, the only living person present at the murder scene that day. No other witnesses survive. Someone who is a suspect as the real murderer has since died.

We thought that our book might be published after Hank's execution. Thanks to the Supreme Court stepping in, and no thanks to Perry or the DA's office, we now have an opportunity to get it out while Hank still has a chance for exoneration, and life.

TSJ is working on it. The rest of the team is supporting him. This blog will tell the story.

Not today, Hank

2010-03-24T15:32:00.000-07:00

Well, as you can see on the main site, Hank Skinner isn't going to die today.

There will be more later on how this has affected all of us here. Wow.

Publisher, Publisher, Wherefore Art Thou Publisher?

2010-03-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

My superhero alter-ego is that of a publisher, though I wouldn't dare take off my glasses to fool my friends and colleagues, being blind as a bat without my specs.

But right about now, I'm feeling bat-blind in the publishing persona too. We did everything right. We wrote and designed a quality product, and edited it until our fingers bled. (figuratively) We wrangled our way through the Publish-on-Demand morass to get the book onto Amazon, the Kindle version up, the two versions connected. We've networked and talked to people about the book. We've purchased crates and crates of the darn things, and given them to various people to sell for us, or to use for publicity purposes.

TSJ has been all over the internet, posting comments on appropriate blogs, trying to drive traffic to the site. We've asked people to review the book on Amazon or B&N, but not many have done so. In fact, our only unrelated review on Amazon is from a hostile friend of....well, I'll let you read it, along with the following comments. We've sent out one copy for review, clearly we need to send out more.

Now my dad tells me that on Barnes & Noble they only promise delivery within 6 weeks. I'm not sure what that's about, for me it says "ships in 24 hours." But then, I didn't go through with the order. I've got enough copies hanging about. Perhaps that comes later in the order process.

Finally, and not insignificantly, TSJ has been distracted for the past six weeks or so by his effort to spare Hank Skinner the Texas needle. Any difficulty we may have pales in comparison the ultimate injustice being heaped upon that man.

With respect to our marketing effort, the bottom line is that the book is not selling well. We need some big darn impetus to get people to view, buy, enthuse, tell all their friends, woohoo! Perhaps we need to take books in hand and visit some local bookstores.

I suspect that this is the point at which most self-published authors fail. Marketing, it's not for the faint of heart.

TSJ is working right now on his first Skeptical Juror Brief, which is The Trial of Susan B. Anthony. He's uncovered some political chicanery about her trial for (gasp!) actually voting while being a woman that will curl your hair. Or maybe it just proves that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Those politicians back then would be right at home in Washington DC today.

Perhaps two or three books will become a critical mass of literary merit and they'll all start selling. We can only hope! And in the meantime, persist.

Common But Unconscious Attitudes, Number The Fourth

2010-03-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

Okay, time to dive into the eyewitness issue, #4 on the list of unconscious but common attitudes one deals with in a jury trial.

Let's start with a bald assertion. Most of the people who have been exonerated in this country were convicted by eyewitness testimony. We're just dealing with the exonerated because it's too hard to prove that people still in jail were wrongfully convicted.

The national Innocence Project has a lot of information on reforms that have been made and more that should be made in order to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, which are a primary source of convictions. In various studies and documents cited, you'll find figures of anywhere between 60% and 90% of proven wrongful convictions were based on eyewitness testimony or identification.

There are so many factors here that we can't deal with all of them. Just a few include human perception problems, human memory issues, and a jury member's belief that he or she can determine honesty. Elizabeth Loftus is an acknowledged expert in the area of eyewitness testimony, memory, and the effects of first-person testimony at trial. Reading just a few of her works and the studies that have come from them will open your eyes to the vast swamp that is the human mind and memory. I got a lot of these references from a work about the witness perceptions of the JFK assassination, most of them to studies performed by Loftus.

People believe they can identify faces at distances far greater than objectively possible. They believe they can reliably identify individuals of other races, though studies have shown that this is far more difficult than distinguishing among similar appearing faces of the same race as the witness. Memory is notoriously unreliable, open to bias from the moment it is formed. Memory can be influenced by past experiences of the witness, by discussion with other people, by the wording of questions asked by interviewers, even evolving over time as subsequent memories are formed.

People tend to trust their own memories, so they trust the memories of other people, that those memories are reliably formed and truly related. This is one reason why eyewitness testimony is so crucial. More weight for truthfulness is given by juries to witnesses who display great confidence and who provide small but seemingly critical details with their testimony. The problem with that is that believability and actual truth have no relationship whatsoever. A person who testifies may be absolutely telling the truth as they remember it, but that truth may bear no resemblance to reality.

Juries trust eyewitness testimony because they don't understand the myriad ways in which perception, memory and retelling can be manipulated. It doesn't even have to be deliberate manipulation on the part of the prosecution or the witness themselves. Most witnesses do not commit perjury. They genuinely try to get it right. And the juries help by believing them when they point at the defendant and say, "He did it." But a jury's interpretation gets no closer to the truth than before.

But think of this. In nearly every one of those exonerations list on the Skeptical Juror site, some eyewitness sincerely testified that, "He did it." And they were wrong.

Do a little googling about "eyewitness testimony accuracy" and you'll never trust anyone's testimony again. Not to paraphrase Jerry Macguire, or anything, but SHOW ME THE PROOF.

And I mean hard, objective, covered with DNA, photographic, not relying on eyewitnesses, proof.

Inside, Outside, All About The Town, Hank Skinner Down to 19 Days To Live Again

2010-03-06T19:21:00.000-08:00

Okay, that's a strange subject for a blog.

It's been a few days since the last post, and I've found myself putting off working on Part 4 of the Attitude posts, because talking about the reliability of eyewitness testimony actually takes some research, and that's The Skeptical Juror's gig, not mine. I'll get there.

Inside, it's warm, dry, well lit and cozy. The refrigerator is right over there <--- and well stocked with yummy food. Outside, it's a bit coolish (53F) and raining gently. Earlier today, TSJ and I attended a lovely orchid show and sale in Torrance. We splurged more than we should have on some gorgeous orchids, which now grace our living space. Then we went out for a nice dinch (what we call that meal that falls between lunch and dinner). The waitress was sweet and she brought us exactly what we ordered.

So what does this have to do with Hank Skinner? Often as we go through our days, I think of Hank and his fellow Death Row inmates. We take our freedom to move, to choose, to associate, to possess, and to live so much for granted. Hank, originally scheduled to die on February 24, was granted a one-month stay because the state of Texas got some paperwork screwed up. Never mind that pesky "is probably innocent, test the DNA" thing. He was re-scheduled to die on March 24. He got screwed out of three days because February is a short month.

TSJ and I went through some frantic times early in February, preparing the graphic that we mailed to all and sundry, including incumbent and probably next Texas Governor Rick Perry. We're hoping that simple human decency and perhaps a sense of shame will prod Perry into delaying the execution until all the DNA in the State's possession is actually tested. We're hoping that during an election year, someone in Texas will have the balls to stand up and say "This is wrong!!" Whether it's Perry, his opponent(s), the news media or anyone with a voice, we don't care. Someone ought to.

Otherwise Hank Skinner will die.

We haven't forgotten that. Even while we enjoy our freedom, TSJ is planning and working a continuing campaign. You can read about it, and we'd love to know about anyplace we could send the missives that TSJ is now distributing. We're calling for innocence projects, the news media, politicians, political activists to stand up and say that Hank has been factually exonerated, and it's time to step back and test the DNA before he's dead.

We can't work at the frantic pace of February, but we haven't given up. Inside, outside, anywhere.

Common But Unconscious Attitudes, The Next Generation

2010-03-01T20:13:00.000-08:00

Our last post on attitudes was #2, that bad things like accusations, arrest, and trial don't happen to good people. Or at least well-behaved, law-abiding people. I think we're over that one, now. Next up, #3.

"If by some awful coincidence, an innocent person is accused, all they have to do is tell the truth, and the truth will set them free."

Just tell 'em! They'll believe you. Starting with the police.

The police are lied to, bald-faced, over the top, unremittingly and egregiously, by nearly everyone they deal with who is accused of any crime. Why should they believe anyone, ever? Going by experience, the odds aren't good that any given person is telling the truth. This extends as well to DAs, judges, and, by and large, defense attorneys. It's just a given.

So why should the innocent person stand out? They don't. Even a person with no criminal background can go bad. Or they just haven't been caught yet. It's a cynical, jaded view, but it's one shared by nearly everyone in law enforcement. They don't see enough innocent people in a week to count on one foot. In that regard, the system is actually doing its job.

But the rare innocent bird is a clog in the system. That's where it tends to break down.

Anyone who is innocent is starting from the bottom of deep, dark hole, in getting anyone to believe them. It's nearly a black hole, in that no rays of innocence can escape. Police are supposed to be gathering and analyzing evidence, and if that evidence shows the person is innocent, they're supposed to release that person, or the DA is supposed to instruct them to. But as Hank Skinner's case shows, both the police and the DA can, either consciously or by assumption of guilt, slant the evidence to show exactly what they want it to. Don't collect or test probative evidence. Don't release evidence to the defense for their own testing. In Byron Case's trial, evidence was tampered with, but still allowed at trial. It was kept from Byron as he languished in jail awaiting trial, so he couldn't identify those facts that might have acquitted him.

As The Skeptical One and myself have seen in real life, an attorney with an actually innocent client has a whole different case than they likely are experienced with. In the case I'm thinking about, we asked the attorney why he defended people he himself knew were guilty, 99% of the time. His response was that almost always, the people he defended were over-charged by the DA, relative to their actual infractions, and he felt it was his job to get them an appropriate sentence, rather than to get them off or to allow them to be sentenced for an infraction far more serious than had actually taken place.

This same attorney, when faced with an innocent client, had no clue how to defend him properly. He was no longer aiming for appropriate sentencing...he wanted acquittal. But his strategies weren't designed that way. In a situation with a guilty client, managing the information that's shown to the jury very carefully is one way to "win." In limiting the evidence presented, the DA nearly always cooperates. They want to slant the evidence their own way, so between prosecution and defense they are very careful what is revealed. In fact, many times the defense simply does not ask for certain evidence, does not ask certain questions on the stand, and hopes like hell that neither his client nor his witnesses will reveal areas he doesn't want explored.

For an innocent client, however, it turns out that the revelation and analysis of all evidence is much more in the interest of the defendant. Getting complete discovery from the prosecution becomes crucial. It is also incredibly difficult. Often, particularly for indigent clients, the only investigators are the ones the DA uses. They may have exonerating evidence. Whether or not they give it to the defense is another issue.

"But if I'm innocent and the DA has evidence that shows that, why wouldn't they just drop all the charges?"

Often, there's an agenda in the DA's office to keep those conviction rates up and investigatory costs down. If they feel they have a case (not even a good case, just any kind of a case) they'll stick with the defendant in custody, rather than releasing him and going after Door Number Two. This is not an episode of Law & Order, they don't routinely get it wrong 3 times before they get it right. They figure that any kind of eyewitness, lineup identification, bad record or minimal physical evidence, plus a good dose of dramatic courtroom table-pounding, and they can most likely get a conviction.

"So my last chance is the jury. I'll tell them the truth, and they'll set me free."

Twelve of your fellow citizens, a few of whom regard jury duty as a responsibility of citizenship. The rest just couldn't figure out how to get out of it. At least one or two don't understand the jury trial process. They don't understand the issues being discussed. Others have their own impressions of you, going in. All of them are under varying influences of these same unconscious attitudes we've been talking about. Remember, most of them are sitting there thinking, "Well, he must have done something to be in that spot! He can't be a good person like us or he wouldn't be here!"

Then the DA stands up, speaking first in opening, and last in closing, and he or she tells them flat out, "The Defendant will lie, because he doesn't want to go to jail. He has every motive to lie, and every motive not to tell the truth." Isn't that just a lovely assumption of guilt, all hidden under a nice coating of advice from someone who surely has the jury's best interests at heart? The DA will rarely if ever, mention the presumption of innocence. That's the defense's job, and if you have a lazy or incompetent counsel, the jury will never hear about that.

But they will, most of them, watch you like a hawk, as you sit there under the testimony of everyone else. If you take the stand yourself, you'll be examined under a microscope. Every flinch, every small smile, every eye contact or avoidance, every sigh and every body posture will be watched. Every intonation will mean something different to each juror. Some will think you arrogant, others stand-offish, others will think you guilt-ridden. Not one of them, unless they truly are a Skeptical Juror, will listen to you with the attitude that you must be speaking from innocence.

So tell the truth. Go ahead. But never assume that the truth is obvious to anyone who hears it. And immediately, you'll perceive what may be the most frustrating thing about a trial. You can determine ahead of time what you want to say, but actually, you can only answer the questions that are asked, by either prosecution or defense. Sure, your defense attorney will ask, "Did you do it?" and you'll look straight at the jury and proclaim, "No, I did NOT!" That carries almost no weight at all.

But the fourth or fifth time the DA asks "So when you went there you were intending to hurt her, right?" and your attorney leaps to his feet and objects, so you never get to answer it, the jury remembers not the answer, but the question. You can tell the truth, but the questions can mutate and obscure the truth into something unrecognizable.

Then your lawyer gets to close. He lays everything out as best he can. He hopes the jury will remember some of it, because....the DA gets to go last. In every court, the DA is the last to speak to the jury, other than the judge who finishes up with some really boring instructions. The DA will put on a performance designed to completely obliterate every bit of defense argument. They will introduce in their closing statement things that were not even testified to, and they know the jury will consider that as evidence, and that the defense now has no opportunity to refute. They will scoff at your "truth" and demean your character and your motives. They will interpret every bit of evidence they have introduced as rock-solid damning proof.

And then the jury retreats to consider all this, the DA's words ringing in their ears. Consider if you were on that jury. In some courts, note-taking during trials is not allowed. Think about sitting somewhere, listening to strange people whose names you didn't quite catch talking for two or more solid days about events that took place months ago, broken up by bathroom breaks, lunches, and a night or two at home, not talking about it or processing it in any way. Now, you get into a room with 11 strangers, and you have to negotiate a new power structure by electing a foreperson and coming to a unanimous decision. And you can't get out until you do.

In a trial that last more than a few hours, it can be very difficult for the jury members to remember anything that was said, let alone those tiny telling details that you think should shout "NOT GUILTY!" Truth gets trampled by the sheer volume of evidence, and non-evidence presented to clutter things up.

Most juries come to a verdict far more quickly than they should, if they were to actually consider all the evidence. An hour or two in a murder case is almost criminal in itself. There is not a lot of room for deliberation, let alone the identification of truth in that kind of time frame. Verdicts are rendered out of unconscious attitudes, misapprehensions, prejudice, and a sincere desire to GO HOME.

"All you have to do is tell the truth, and the truth will set you free."

No. You have to tell the truth. You have to show the truth, with evidence. You have to bring the truth before them, in a process not designed around seeking the truth. You have to make cynical people, clueless people, self-interested people believe the truth, counter to their own agendas, bigotry, assumptions or attitudes. There is no "all you have to do" about it.

And if you can't do that, you have to go to jail. Innocent. And hope for exoneration somewhere down the line. Far too many people are now in this position. TSJ is hoping that advocating for better police and DA procedures, and educating better jury members will help reduce those numbers.

There is at least one more attitude I want to talk about. It leads to far too many convictions, even though it has been proved time and time again not to be true. And that is...

#4. "The best witness is an eyewitness, particularly if they identify the criminal in a lineup. An eyewitness is better than physical evidence."

The Trial of Byron Case, a Review by Byron Case

2010-02-28T10:38:00.000-08:00

Yep. Byron himself has blogged a review of the book. We're grateful that it was so well received by the subject himself.

Remember that when choosing Byron as the subject, we went solely on the availability of trial transcripts and other documents online. We had no idea that there was evidence of actual innocence to be found in those very documents, nor did we have any intention of contacting Byron or his family at the time. It was actually an entirely random choice at the time for the first book in the Series.

It's funny how life works out, isn't it? Because we found that evidence of innocence, we felt we had to contact Byron's defense counsel. When that didn't work out, we contacted Byron's mom, and then, through letters and now, regular phone calls, we're working with Byron himself in seeking out pro bono counsel for his last, best appeal.

And at last, Byron can hold an actual copy of the book we've been working on for so long in his hands. At first, he was a bit skeptical (ironic, isn't it?) of our motives. Now we have committed to help as much as we can, believing in the evidence.

Byron has a tough time posting to his blog. He has to hand-type (no computer, just old-fashioned IBM Selectric) the posts, and mails them to an assistant to post them. Just to illustrate our relative place in the universe, the review post of the book has been superseded by a hilarious entry on toilet-paper in the prison system of Missouri.

Read a bit. It lets you get to know Byron a little bit better. It makes me certain that we have to continue our efforts to improve the quality of jury verdicts in the justice system, so that people like Byron, innocent people, don't waste their lives in prison.

Son of Common But Unconscious Attitudes

2010-02-26T17:41:00.000-08:00

Wow, I did go on in the last post, didn't I? Let's see if I can do it again. Nothing up my sleeve...

Except that I've been thinking about this issue of attitudes that affect our perceptions and interaction with crime, accused persons, and the jury system. I started with two to talk about, now I'm up to four. So let's get to #2 and see where that takes us.

Attitude #2: "Being accused of a crime, arrested, or brought to trial can't happen to good people. It only happens to people who have done something to bring it on themselves. I haven't done any of those things, and so it could never happen to me."

This is a corollary of #1. Or maybe a consequence, I'm not sure. It's similar to the urge to ask what a person did to cause their own illness that we often see. "Oh, she had lung cancer? She must have smoked. Never? Oh, she must have been exposed to asbestos or something." As if by understanding what that person did or didn't do, we can assure ourselves whatever happened to them will never happen to us. "Oh, he got mugged? He must have walked down the wrong street at the wrong time." It's the modern equivalent of making the horns to avert the Evil Eye. At least in the old days, people knew the Evil Eye (or bad luck) could hit them at anytime, no matter whether they did everything right or not.

In this case, the Evil Eye we're talking about is being accused (by the police and the prosecutors) of a crime. Being brought to trial, if it comes to that point. A significant number of people who are arrested are innocent. Let's start with that. We know this because so many, even of the convicted, have been exonerated. Go look at the list of exonerees on The Skeptical Juror. 373 names, 139 of whom were on Death Row!

Many of those exonerees were just normal, everyday people, before they were arrested. Many of them had never had a run-in with the law. They didn't do drugs, associate with criminals, or scoff at parking tickets. They were, in fact, just like you and me. They did do something wrong, of course. Some of them made enemies...like the teacher who flunked a vindictive teenager and got falsely accused of terrible things. Some of them had the wrong face, and were identified as a criminal by an eyewitness. Large numbers of them either hired or were appointed crappy lawyers.

So keep telling yourself it couldn't happen to you. Have you ever made an enemy? Do you share a face with some bad guy? Can you spot a bad lawyer at 50 paces, when you're in jail, out of money and having the worst day of your life?

The fact is, by the time someone gets to trial, it's already too late to salvage their formerly normal life. That's all gone. They've been arrested, and if the crime is public enough, their good name is gone. They may have lost their job immediately, and they certainly will if they don't show up for several days. We talked about the burden of bail in the last post, and how it can impoverish entire families, and still not keep you out of jail in the end.

Say you can't make bail. By the time your trial comes around, you will have probably seen three or four continuances, when either prosecution or defense asks for more time to prepare or the judge has another trial or whatever. Now you've served time. It isn't hard time, but your neighbors are not nice people, and you've gotten that nice institutional pallor, and you don't look good in orange. If you had a career, that's gone. "What's this gap in your resume here?" Yeah. Tell the prospective employer that 18 months was spent in jail waiting to be acquitted. See how that works. Your family has lost your income, whatever that might mean. You'll never get that time with your kids back.

Depending on the crime, your employers and your neighbors and family may have been questioned. They'll love you for that. Your financial information or cell phone records are no secret, your computer may be searched, and oh, while you're in jail awaiting trial your very sphincters are no longer your own private property. Bend over and smile, innocent guy!

And this is all happening based solely on accusations, charges, and a preliminary hearing, where all anyone has to prove is that a crime took place, and there is some minimal amount of evidence that you MIGHT have done it. That's all. You haven't even been able to legally argue your innocence.

So what's our defense against this happening to good people? The same thing that protects us from the bad people. The police doing their job, and doing it to the highest standard. The prosecution doing their job properly, and removing the agenda from their daily routine. The judiciary living up to their duty as impartial judges. And finally, the jury serving properly, honoring their oath and not rendering a verdict influenced by unconscious attitudes.

The police operate under several burdens. One is resources. There is never enough time or money, never enough personnel, and never few enough crimes that they can investigate 100% without error. However, by setting some standard procedures and funding those same requirements, we as a society could improve the quality of police investigation, and thus the cases they bring to the prosecutors, many fold.

One process TSJ and I would like to see as standard is to record, video, audio or both, every single police interview. Shockingly, this is not standard procedure in many jurisdictions, in many crimes, including capital ones. Hours and hours of interrogation go unrecorded. Eyewitness identifications pass into history. We regard this as tantamount to destroying evidence. Funding is necessary to make the taking and storage of all this evidence possible, but we think worthwhile.

Another key would be to make sure that all evidence is provided to the defense. Now, the prosecution gets to pick and choose. They make take 1,000 crime-scene photos, yet provide only 3 to the defense. The police officer's notes, which often differ dramatically from their subsequent written reports, are rarely divulged. The prosecution is not supposed to hold back probative or exonerating evidence, but they do. Sometimes they hold it back until it's too late before trial for the defense to make use of it. Sometimes they just "lose" it or "forget" it. Fingerprints, DNA (in the case of Hank Skinner) or other physical evidence is not collected, not tested or destroyed in storage. This is a combined police/DA issue, and will probably take a legislative change to enforce it, and funding to make it possible. Extra tests that are now not done will have to be, and should be, performed.

Judges need to stop telling the defense what evidence they can and cannot present at trial, within the bounds of the law. TSJ and I have personal knowledge of at least one trial where the evidence of police collusion and malfeasance was not allowed. Defense arguments are cut short, or simply denied. Longer trials do cause more problems and cost more money, but I'd rather see longer trials than so many innocent people convicted.

Last, but certainly not least, juries need to be helped, not hindered in the performance of their duty. Many jurisdictions do not allow the jury to take notes during trial. This is completely unacceptable. It used to be that note-taking was denied because some jurors were illiterate, and the theory was that literate, note-taking jurors could dominate and sway juries if notes were allowed. Clearly this isn't an issue now, but some courts still insist that taking notes means that no one will pay attention to the testimony. Our opinion is that of 8 to 12 people, someone will be paying attention to everything said, and that by pooling their notes, they will carry a much more accurate representation of the testimony into the jury room.

One alternative to notes, of course, is the provision of daily transcripts to the jury. All arguments against this just seem like so much guff to me. Court reporters can provide daily transcripts to attorneys, if they pay enough. I suspect there are computer programs that can produce rough transcription of testimony in real time...heck, Dragon Naturally Speaking can do a decent job! Transcribing court reporter code can't be that hard. Why is it so hard for jurors to get accurate information about what they just heard? In a trial of more than a day or so, with any number of witnesses, memories fade and judgements are made on the most emotional basis...which explains the lawyer's penchant for pounding on the table!

In helping the jury, it might not be a bad idea to add jury method education in our civics curriculum in high school. Do they still have civics or government classes? A little bit on how to evaluate testimony, on what constitutes actual evidence, and on what constitutes the presumption of innocence might go a way toward more reasoned jury verdicts.

This is by no means a complete set of improvements we'd like to see made in the whole process. I may have some cleanup, 'oh yeah!' posts on that. But enough on #2.

Yes, it can and does happen to good people. Regular people. People just like you. Are you prepared?

Next up, #3. "An innocent person just has to tell the truth and everything will be okay."

Common But Unconscious Attitudes

2010-02-25T18:39:00.000-08:00

In talking to and reading about many people, some of whom are accused of crimes, some of whom serve as jurors, and just your normal run of regular people, The Skeptical Team has come across recurring themes. We have come to realize that these themes are common attitudes, and for most people they are so socially ingrained, so seemingly natural, they become as imperceptible as the air we breathe. Well, except for bad air days in LA.

Those socially ingrained attitudes have incredible impact on the quality of jury deliberations, jury decisions, and, we think, the lack of real urgency people feel about the dramatic numbers of factually innocent people now incarcerated. Let's see if I can count the ways...

1. "If someone is accused of a crime, they must have done something wrong!" Think about that for a moment. Our entire system of jurisprudence is built on the presumption of innocence. Most likely our Founders realized this unconscious attitude was prevalent even back then. They were smart people. Several European justice systems were built on the opposite premise, that an accused was guilty until proven innocent, and so the entire burden of proof fell on the defendant.

While most people are suspicious of government motives when it comes to taxes and spending the public's money, that suspicion suddenly devolves into a nearly childlike faith in the probity of the police, the prosecutors, and the judiciary, when it comes to trial and conviction. All those people are seemingly there to protect us, the good people, from crime. The job of the police is to arrest bad people, and to stop bad things from happening to good people. The job of the prosecution is to seek the truth in every case. And the job of the judge is be impartial.

Now let's examine the reality. Police, prosecutors, and judges all have their own agendas. Police are on the front lines of protecting and serving us. They are heroes, by and large, brave and conscientious. But they spend their days dealing with dirtbags, the scum of humanity. They divide all of us into dirtbags and citizens, except that they aren't quite as polite about the dirtbag label.

Once a citizen crosses over that line, by being accused, or by being guilty at first appearance, there's very little that's going to convince a police officer to reassess their opinion. They know that many times, a genuinely guilty person is going to go free for reasons beyond their control. And so...evidence that might exonerate someone is lost, or not investigated, or held from the defense. Alternative criminals are not looked at. What counts is that they think they can make a case about the person in custody, or the person they like for the crime. Or the person they've been told by their higher-ups is the one to pursue.

And let's not kid ourselves. While there are a lot of innocent people in jail, most of the people there, most of the people arrested, are guilty. But even while knowing that, accepting the attitude that someone who is accused must have done something wrong is directly opposed to the philosophy of the presumption of innocence. And why is that presumption so important?

Our government, even on the local level, is huge. It is powerful. It has deep pockets. It can keep coming long past the point where even the richest single person in the world can pay lawyers to defend themselves. Police and prosecutors have powers that are awesome to behold, even when they are not directed at oneself. For instance, accusations and arrest lead to the setting of a bond, in most cases. A bond is money given to the government to allow one to get out of jail, pending trial. The bond ensures the person will appear, otherwise they will lose the money.

Most people cannot afford to post the entire bond set at their preliminary hearing. Depending on the number of charges and the severity of the crime, as well as the likelihood of the accused fleeing, bonds can range from $200 to millions of dollars. When a person cannot afford the bond, they can go to a bond agent. The agent takes 10% of the bond, often in the form of collateral such as a mortgage on a home, or a car, or just cash, and puts up the entire amount to the government for you. Unlike depositing the whole bond yourself, when you show up in court, you never get that 10% back. The bond agent essentially bets you will show up, for a 1 to 10 payoff.

If an accused defendant cannot post even a 10% bond, they sit in jail until the trial starts. This can be 18 months or two years or more. Even if you're acquitted at trial, you've lost months of your life. In prison, you may have been raped, or assaulted. You certainly will not be able to fully participate in preparing your defense, as your access to your attorney, records, witnesses and trial preparation are severely limited. In one case TSJ has examined, that of Byron Case, there's a good argument to be made that remaining in jail and not having access to all the evidence against him until he was actually in the courtroom led directly to his conviction.

There are no firm guidelines in setting bonds. They have very little to do with the crime committed, and absolutely nothing to do with what a person can afford. So by piling on multiple counts and asking the judge to increase the bond for each count, the police and prosecutors themselves can determine whether or not a person will be able to post bond. And even posting 10% has financially ruined entire families, as they mortgage everything they own, and then lose the money after the person is either acquitted or convicted. Oh, and a little known fact is that those bonds expire, sometimes after a year or other period of time, and have to be re-posted. That's right, if the trial is delayed more than a year, hand over 10% more, or back you go to jail!

So now you're in the hands of the prosecutors. Their agendas have a lot to do with their conviction rates. Many District Attorneys are elected. They have to look tough on crime to get elected and stay elected, so they encourage their Assistant DAs to pursue convictions zealously. This isn't a bad thing, in and of itself, until you observe what can happen when convictions become more important than truth. Much of the Skeptical Juror site is devoted to the malfeasance that happens when prosecutors lose sight of the real mission. The activity of Theresa Crayon, ADA in the Byron Case murder trial, is instructive. Evidence withheld or tampered with. A jury misled by courtroom dramatics and manipulation. A defendant crippled by rules, regulations and sleight of hand in preparing his own defense. Read about it and wonder what you would do in Byron's place.

Judges are perceived as being above it all, impartial and, well, judicial. Ask a trial lawyer, though, particularly a defense lawyer, and they'll tell you that almost all judges have a bias. They can be a Prosecutor-in-a-Robe. We've seen trials, or transcripts, where exonerating evidence has been banned from being presented by the judge for the thinnest of reasons. Some judges are undoubtedly biased toward the defense, but unfortunately, most are not, and any bias is going to lead to bad decisions. There's a lot more that I could say about judges, but this post is already unexpectedly long, so I'll move on.

The last element in the courtroom is the jury, and they are the ones most likely to be influenced by the attitude we're discussing. They hear the phrase "presumption of innocence" but they don't really feel it. Most members of the jury feel that the presumption only applies to good people like them, not people who have actually been arrested and brought to trial. If a jury really felt the accused was innocent as they went into deliberations, there would be no 1 hour capital murder verdicts. It would take much, much longer for any group of people, starting from a presumption of innocence, to weigh the evidence and render a guilty verdict.

Juries tend to discriminate as well against defendants who don't take the stand in their own behalf. There's a feeling out there that an innocent person would want to explain themselves. Of course, then they're almost always urged by the DA not to believe the defendant's protests of innocence, because after all, he doesn't want to go to jail, so how could he not be lying? Nice trap, huh? If you don't testify, you're looking guilty. If you do testify, you must be lying, and thus, guilty. Juries believe they can determine by looking at someone if they are telling the truth or not, but they cannot. Studies have shown that every charateristic that one juror counts as "truthful" means a lie to a different juror. Eye contact, no eye contact. Tears, no tears. Smiling, not smiling. Stoic, trembling, or calm. A defendant on the stand literally cannot win, yet every jury expects that they should take the stand.

A presumption of innocence, though, means that a defendant does not have to offer any defense at all. The entire burden of proof of guilt lies with the state, for all those reasons listed above. The power and majesty of the state, the number of state servants and the bottomless pockets all ranged against an individual defendant make it a very unfair contest. If the defendant had to positively prove their innocence, we'd have system like Japan's where 99+% of all those accused and arrested are convicted. The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the state are the great leveling influence in our system of justice. They are the bastions of the innocent.

And we should not let our unconscious assumptions about people who are accused and brought to trial destroy those bastions. Defend them, they belong to all of us. Examine your own attitudes when confronted with someone accused of even a heinous crime. Where does your presumption of innocence live?

Tomorrow, Unconscious Attitude #2. "Bad things only happen to bad people, and it could never happen to me, or my family."

What's In It For Us?

2010-02-23T19:10:00.001-08:00

We've been getting some subtle or not so subtle indications that people think The Skeptical Juror and the Skeptical Team are working for Hank Skinner as some kind of promotion of our book series, and that's our major motivation.

We realize that it might look that way from the outside. We do mention the series. We're most likely going to do a Hank Skinner book and try to sell it, no matter the outcome of the current effort to Release the DNA and keep Skinner from being executed unless he's actually proven guilty.

TSJ has posted comments with Radley Balko and Instapundit, bringing attention to our site and Hank's cause, and those comments have garnered a very few click-throughs. Very few.

And the mailing of the graphic and open letter to Texas Governer Rick Perry, his election opponents, and various other interested parties did contain a link to our website.

This mailing has pretty much vanished without a trace, with no responses from any recipient. Here's how it looks from the inside: We've been spending money like drunken sailors, and time like we've got plenty. The cost of the graphic design was considerable. Only through a very fortunate circumstance did a kind client help with the printing, otherwise that would have been our cost too. The cost for postage and mailing materials was entirely borne by TSJ and I. And we did the envelope-stuffing too, our clerical staff consisting of, um, the two of us. Further TSJ writing projects have been pretty much put on hold due to the continuing work on Skinner's cause.

Am I complaining about this? No. We decided to do this work for Hank in the knowledge that it might be entirely ineffective, and that it would be costly in money and time. His one month stay of execution was obtained only through the efforts of his attorneys, we had nothing to do with it.

Do we want some kind of acknowledgement from Hank or his family? No. Absolutely not. They have far larger issues in front of them and we shouldn't even be on their radar. We did get a kind thank you note from Hank's wife.

So what do we want? Perhaps just that people not suspect us of the worst motives for what we do. Yes, we wrote and published the first book, and will publish the series in hopes of making money. But the work we do for Hank Skinner is not for mercenary gain.

It's for mercy.

Marketing for Beginners, in One Swell Foop

2010-02-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

On the main Skeptical Juror site, I made a little joke about "Learn how to be a publisher in 9 million easy steps." Cracked The Skeptical Niece right up.

It wasn't all that far from the truth. We did the "find an agent" thing, with no success. That was a few thousand steps there. The process of registering with a digital print house, writing, editing, printing galleys, identifying and getting early readers in line, rewriting, re-editing, designing and laying out copy, designing the cover, and then generating the digital content and uploading it must have taken at least 6 million more steps. Whew. At least I got a ton of blog posts out of the whole thing. And then...

Well, let me just say, that having the book in hand, and having it available for sale on Amazonand on Barnes & Noble does not magically make the books sell. The Marketing Fairy doesn't visit at night with easy hints on how to become a best-seller overnight with little effort. There was an initial flurry of interest as family and friends and people who had heard of it went, looked, and some of them purchased it. Hooray to all of you! We heart you, really we do.

Now, we need to find ways to tell the rest of the world that we exist. Get them interested. Sell that puppy.

What to do? I post on a Usenet mystery newsgroup called rec.arts.mystery, or RAM. Nice bunch of folks, lots of mystery discussion, and enough off-topic faffing about (many of our regulars are British) to let us all get to know each other. Authors even post there. One of our former regulars who has gone on to stardom is Sarah Weinman, now making name for herself in the world of mystery and crime writing, with her blog, and as a reviewer for the LA Times, Barnes & Noble.com and other well-known publications.

I emailed Sarah, and holy cow, she remembered me from RAM! (Did I mention Sarah is a really nice person?) I offered to send her a copy for review and she said yes! Now, I have no idea if she'll actually read the book, or write a review if she does, or if the review will be good, bad or indifferent. It doesn't matter, really. Honesty is best. If the Byron Case book isn't as good as it could be, we won't get better unless people tell us what they really think. So of course Sarah's book in In The Mail, as we speak. Thank you, Sarah, no matter what.

I regularly read a blog by a long-time online friend named Sailor Jim Johnston. SJ (wait a minute. SJ? Sailor Jim? The same initials as Skeptical Juror? It's kismet, I tell ya!) I left a comment for him after he monetized his blog, telling him about our efforts and asking him to keep us posted on his success. He kindly offered to put up a link to our book on his blog. I accepted, of course. And as a result of that, you may notice a new link to Recommended Reading to the left of this post. And there's a link to Sailor Jim's book!

Now, Sailor Jim is one of the best pure storytellers I've come across, ever. You can never quite trust the reality of the weirdness he seems to attract, but reading about it all is one of the most entertaining times you can spend. Long ago in the dawn of self-publication, a group of us who enjoyed reading his online posts got together and helped fund the publication of Naked Through The Snow and Other Bits of Silliness, a collection of his best work from years of posts in alt.callahans, another newsgroup. I have a signed copy, and anyone with a sense of humor should have one of their very own. Us SJ's have to stick together.

The past few days have been a whirl of signing up for new accounts (Amazon has about a zillion different places to plug in your email and password) to upload a Kindle version. Which is done. Not simple, and it took a fair amount of reformatting and playing with the naked HTML to get it right. I have now purchased a version for my own Kindle, so I know it works. Even the graphics came out well.

Then, I signed up for and uploaded the required digital content for the Amazon "Search Inside This Book" feature. That's oddly connected to the Vendors area, instead of the Publishers area where you submit things like book descriptions. Book descriptions are coming, as well as linking the Kindle to the print version.

The Skeptical Juror himself has been writing emails to the bloggers he reads that are interested in the same issues. The Agitator and Radley Balko are interested in Cory Maye (our second book, nearly through first drafts), Hank Skinner, and wrongful convictions. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit posts a zillion times a day and is often linking to the Agitator. Between them, these guys get about half a million hits a day. No response to the emails, but then they may be overwhelmed with people trying to reach out and touch them. TSJ has also left comments on their blogs, hoping to get link-through from that, and we did get a small bump in traffic, but not a sustained one.

We know we have to let word grow. We also have to keep pushing in every way we can. Pay for press releases? Call everyone in America personally? Billboards in Hollywood? We don't know. But we will keep at it and keep posting about it. If we can make it, anyone with a lot of persistence and an indelible memory for internet passwords can too.

What we can say is if you've read the book, and liked it, or found it worthwhile, please post a review on Amazon or on BN .com. Tell your friends. Buttonhole strangers on the street. If reviewers want a copy, email us.

And the Power of the Intertubes be with us.

Hank Skinner Has 36 days To Live

2010-02-17T17:22:00.000-08:00

Since time doesn't go backward in this universe, this means good news for Hank Skinner. He's been granted a 30 day stay because the state didn't dot all their T's and cross all their I's in filing his death warrant.

Read about it. It's only fair, in that some of Hank's own appeals have been denied for being 1 day late, after the state made sure to delay them. As noted in the article, though, the state of Texas, in the person of the judge of the convicting court, is only granting a stay until March 24. Why the big-time hurry, Texas? Is Hank going somewhere?

Our efforts are not ended, only extended. The Skeptical Juror cannot take any credit for this delay, but we'll certainly be in there pitching with the other folks who want the DNA tested.

Hank Skinner Has 8 Days to Live

2010-02-17T11:59:00.001-08:00

We hadn't even heard of Hank Skinner 2 weeks ago, and then The Skeptical Niece, in her perusing the Internet in search of another case for The Skeptical Juror series, came across his impending execution. She brought it to the attention of The Skeptical Juror himself, with her usual enthusiasm.

At first, TSJ said "No way, no how" because due to the short time-line, he felt that if we did take it on as a book subject, and on further examination did find something exonerating Skinner, he and all of us would feel terrible. Too little, too late, too bad, except this wasn't just a missed bus, it would be a dead person. A dead innocent person.

But thoughts of Hank wouldn't go away. And before I knew it, TSJ and TSN had swung into action. They designed a powerful graphic presentation of the issues in the case and got Ed, our graphic designer, to contribute his considerable talents to polishing the document. They worked back and forth for several days finalizing that, and our clients helped out by printing it for us. Then we mailed it out to Texas officials, politicians and other interested parties to try to agitate for some action to hold up the execution until and unless that DNA is tested.

Is Hank Skinner innocent? We don't know. We actually don't care. Evidence exists that has not been tested. Evidence that has been tested has not proved to identify Hank as guilty. The DA (Lynn Switzer) and the governor (Rick Perry) who appointed her are going to have massive egg on their faces if they go through with this and Hank turns out to be innocent after they've pushed through his execution.

Since the mailing TSN and TSJ have been sending emails to everyone they can identify to try to spread the word. The holiday weekend and the snow in the East haven't helped, but finally, checking the website stats and our return emails, we're getting some response.

8 days. It's forever if you're four years old and waiting for Santa. I fear it's a fleeting moment when your execution date has been set.

Click through. Read about it. Follow the links to Hank Skinner's site and help, if you can.

Available? What Do You Mean, Available?

2010-02-16T19:19:00.000-08:00

So, all three of you who have purchased the book (early readers will be getting their free copies later this week) actually take delivery, you may notice that on the 2nd inner page is a list of "Titles Available from Allen & Allen." Most of them have "(forthcoming)" after the title.

Except that several of those titles are not listed as "(forthcoming)" and they really aren't available anywhere. We didn't deliberately fib, nor did we exaggerate. Much.

This Hank Skinner thing derailed a lot of plans, not least of them projects in the pipeline. We meant to have these books available, and will soon. In fact, they're close enough we can talk about them.

Skeptical Juror Briefs (I love that) are intended to be a series about trials from a historical perspective. The first one, about Susan B. Anthony, is a rip-snorter. TSJ has uncovered a lot of 19th century hanky-panky, political and otherwise, that took place during her trial for the heinous crime of (gasp!) voting! Yes, she was prosecuted for entering a polling place and casting her vote. Some of the story is scandalous, some of it hilarious, other parts are revealing of the foibles of the authors of some of our better Constitutional Amendments. As only he can, TSJ has discovered some fascinating facts that still influence jury trials today.

These Briefs will be shorter than TSJ books, and will be available in Kindle editions before the print editions come out.

"We the People: A Constitutional Autograph Book" sounds a bit odd, doesn't it? I think it's a nifty idea, though it won't be appearing on Kindle for obvious reasons. A lot of people these days are wondering why large segments of our government doesn't seem particularly familiar with the Constitution. So we thought we'd combine a need to learn about the Great Document, with the time-honored and popular stalkin...er... hobby of collecting autographs. Have your local pols, celebrities, friends and enemies identify their favorite clause, phrase or Amendment, and affix their John Hancock right in the book!

Oh wait, John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. I knew that. But a bunch of other people signed the Constitution, and it's not a bad idea to get folks these days to sign up for it. Though you might run into people like Rev. Al Sharpton, who, when asked to sign a copy of the Constitution, replied "I don't sign anything I haven't read."

So we'll publish a small booklet, with a copy of the Constitution and the significant Amendments, with plenty of blank space for signatures. We're also considering a place on the website where those who score significant autographs can post them and share them with all of us. That sounds like fun (for certain very geeky values of "fun"), doesn't it?

Anyway, both these projects are well underway, and we'll blog our way to completion on them as well as keeping you updated on Hank Skinner, Byron Case, and irrelevant musings as they occur.

More on marketing and the obsession with Amazon ratings soon.

Heaving Crab On The Table

2010-02-14T17:32:00.000-08:00

This may seem an odd little aside, but The Skeptical Juror and I were searching for a replacement celebration venue for when we actually made some money on the book. (and keep trying if Amazon isn't cooperating, we have reports it was working this morning)

Auggie's House of Crab in Leucadia has apparently decided to take a hiatus due to the economy, which saddens me. What a great place and great people. Rosario's salsa will remain a fond memory until they reopen. Along with that, the tenderest, sweetest crab imaginable, seasoned and heaved onto the paper-covered table from a huge bowl. Oh my!

So instead, we found The Boiling Crab in Garden Grove. Two locations, limited menu, and though we thought Auggie's definitely has the edge in the quality of the king crab, the BC is closer to us and easier to get to. If you go, go early. I mean it. By 3pm on a weekend, or 5 on a weekday, you might as well forget it, the wait is loooooonnnng. We're going to go back for a lobster, or perhaps more crab. Also, they have the greatest fries. Who knew?

So we got our crab heaved onto the table, and watched other folks shelling shrimp and crawfish out of huge bags, and piling up the shells. Everyone seemed to be enjoying the heck out themselves. We certainly did.

And no, we didn't do the actual celebrating. This was a pre-celebration. A scouting mission. Really. No celebrating was done. I promise.

Direct to Amazon = Error?

2010-02-13T23:02:00.000-08:00

We've been getting reports that those who go directly to Amazon and try to buy our book are getting Server 500 errors. We don't know why this should be, so we recommend that you try the Amazonlinks here or on The Skeptical Juror main site, or use barnesandnoble.com.

More tomorrow on our exploration of alternative celebration sites. We found a nifty place in Westminister that does indeed heave the crab onto the table ala Auggie's. Yay!

Tomorrow, the World!

2010-02-12T21:55:00.000-08:00

And now, The Skeptical Juror and the Trial of Byron Case can be found on barnesandnoble.com. What an amazing state of affairs.

Many emails have gone out about Hank Skinner, but no responses, yet. We'll keep you posted.

Tomorrow, we go to scout out an alternate Crab Celebration location.

THE BOOK IS ON AMAZON!!!

2010-02-11T12:54:00.000-08:00

Holy cow, man.

The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Byron Case is now on Amazon, available for sale. We are ->||<- this close to actually making some money. Whoo Hooooo!

There is dancing in the streets. As soon as we actually sell some books, we'll be off for a celebratory dinner. Somewhere. It was going to be Auggie's House of Crab in Leucadia, but they seem to have closed down temporarily. Oh well. It's Southern California. There's probably some seafood somewhere.

Anyway, happiness is.

I'm about 95% of the way to a Kindle edition, too. Keep an eye out, SJ fans!

Watch Your Mailbox, Texas

2010-02-11T11:56:00.000-08:00

Okay, the first mailing to 50+ people has gone out on the matter of the upcoming murder of Hank Skinner. This consists of a copy of the graphic on the Skeptical Juror site, and an eloquent cover letter composed by TSJ and TheSkepticalNiece.

Hank Skinner has 13 days left to live. Keep that in mind as life's little hassles, or even big fat problems, hit you.

We sent this mailing to, among others, President Obama, the Governor of Texas, various candidates for the next Governor of Texas, the prosecutor who refuses to test or release the DNA evidence, and a whole list of Texas senators, congresspeople and legislators. I'll let TSJ tell you all about it, and I know he plans to post a copy of the cover letter when he gets back from the Post Office.

TheSkepticalNiece has been emailing hither and yon trying to get publicity for our effort. So stay tuned, we'll see what fallout occurs.

Hank Skinner Has 15 Days to Live

2010-02-09T20:22:00.001-08:00

The Skeptical Juror and I have had an...interesting...week. He tells all about what we've been doing and why on the main Skeptical Juror site.

What TSJ doesn't describe is the fallout in the rest of our lives. We're trying mightily not to let this interfere with our day jobs, as database designers. Our clients deserve better than that. Thank goodness for unlimited phone calls, because otherwise we'd be hip deep in phone charges. (remember those days? $400 of long distance charges?) Our phones must have rung (or weebled) at least 200 times in the last couple of days alone, not to mention the outgoing calls.

We've had a considerable outlay for the design of the graphics, which is our contribution to the cause. Luckily a wonderful client of mine said they would print the hard-copies we need for distribution. I can't say enough good things about this client, who does non-profit work and supports schools through fundraisers using the kid's own artwork. They happened to have the color printing facilities that made at least that part of our push for Hank Skinner easy. And the staff took time out of their busy day and production schedule to help us.

And now, we've had contact with a reporter named Brandi Grissom, from the Texas Tribune, an online periodical. She's in receipt of a copy of the poster, and hopefully will publish it to help get it widely distributed. I urge you to follow her ongoing reports on Hank Skinner, as she'll have up-to-the-minute updates.

This is good news, for Hank and his cause. It's good news for us, in that it will generate traffic and awareness of us, The Trial of Byron Case, and our efforts to educate juries.

Just one thing. We Are Not Ready. The link on Amazon isn't there yet. The e-book version isn't ready. Nobody can buy the book yet! Oh, so close. It should be up on Amazon in two weeks or less. Gee...why does that time span seem familiar? Be patient. If you really want the book ASAP, email us at skepticaljuror@gmail.com and we will arrange to notify you when it becomes available. If you are a reviewer, email us and we'll arrange to get you a copy.

And, no matter how bad things have gotten this week, at least we aren't on Texas' Death Row, looking at two weeks of life. Remember that when you're peeved about something.

Moving forward on Byron Case...oh Look! A Squirrel!

2010-02-07T12:56:00.000-08:00

Okay, not quite a squirrel. A momentary realignment of focus, in the case of a man about to be executed in Texas. February 24 doesn't give us much time to work.

In the meantime, while we wait for The Trial Of Byron Case to appear on Amazon....the good news is that sales are brisk. The bad news is that we're the ones making all the purchases. Distribution for marketing is all in a good cause.

So go read about Hank Skinner. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, it's better for everyone if we know someone is actually guilty before they are executed.

We'll keep you updated.

The Book, She is Done! and Other Dramatic Developments

2010-02-03T12:15:00.001-08:00

We have revised and accepted the final proof. We have placed our first order for 28 books, a full case. Nearly all of them have already been promised to good homes, to friends, family and early readers, as thanks for putting up with our nattering on about this project endlessly.

A second case of books will soon be on their way to Davy Rothbart, of Found Magazine. Why him, you ask?

Because we met with Davy yesterday at a nice mid-Wilshire restaurant. Up 'til now, we haven't discussed Byron Case, the actual subject of the Book, very much. We've attempted to mask the outcome of the trial that forms the core of the story. This was so readers would participate in the drama of the trial without anticipating the actual outcome. However, life gets in the way of ideals, doesn't it?

This blog has been focused primarily on the process of becoming a publisher and producing the book. That's done now, and we'll be writing (probably at length) about marketing the whole effort. And it is a whole effort, not just the book. In a synergistic process, the marketing of the book interacts with our efforts to work with Byron and his defense. That's right, we're giving the ending away. (Not that any reader couldn't just turn to that section of the book. It says right there in the table of contents: "Judicial Outcome.")

Byron Case was convicted of murder in Missouri eight years ago, and has been serving life without parole since then. When The Skeptical Juror selected Byron's trial to use for the book, it was strictly on the basis of the trial transcripts, evidence and other court documents being made available online. We found other evidence at a website devoted to the opposition.

TSJ worked diligently on the structure of book, doing his forensic data analysis magic on all the available documentation. After a couple of months, he came to me and said, "I think Byron may be innocent." He was stunned. This is the second legal case he's done this kind of analysis on. This is the second time he's found undiscovered facts in the legal documents that show that conviction or the simple bringing of charges is totally unjustified. He didn't expect this outcome at all.

And the discovery prompted an ethical dilemma. We were planning on bringing this book out without any contact at all with the defendant, his family or the victim's family. We were going to remain absolutely objective, committed only to the jury-educational aspects of the book. However, using the facts of the case for our own admittedly commercial interests while withholding crucial facts from the person involved, and his defense counsel, was simply wrong. This is where real life slams into ideals.

So TSJ contacted Byron's (then) defense counsel, who was at the time preparing his habeas corpus appeal. Unsatisfactory response from this attorney prompted TSJ to contact Byron's mother, Evelyn. Shortly thereafter the habeas appeal failed, and Byron and his attorney parted ways. Byron is left with only one appeal now, one based on actual innocence revealed by new evidence. He and his family have exhausted their finances and so have to look for help where they can find it.

Between those first contacts and now we have opened communications with Byron himself, with correspondence and frequent phone calls. We have been granted access to much more of the discovery documentation and personal records of Byron and his family. Knowing what we do, TSJ and I feel that it's only right to use the release of the book and the accompanying marketing effort to help Byron in the only way left, by helping him obtain competent legal counsel to prepare his final appeal, and by providing that counsel with all the exculpatory evidence that TSJ has uncovered.

Nearly all of this information is, of course, in the book. We have a couple of leads, currently, on really wonderful law firms that may want to take Byron on. However, all help in this area will be appreciated.

But what about Davy Rothbart, you wonder, plaintively? I can hear you out there. The Skeptical Niece, who is charismatic and energetic, tracked Davy down online and charmed him with her emails. He agreed to meet with us when he was in town because of our mutual interest in Byron.

Davy runs an offbeat website and publishes Found Magazine, full of the fascinating detritus of our civilization, found and turned in by his friends & fans. He's gotten to know Byron Case through correspondence, and he's read widely in the court documents. He's firmly convinced of Byron's innocence and wants to help the cause. So during our meeting yesterday, we got to know each other a little bit, discussed the book and Byron, picked Davy's brains regarding marketing strategies, and all got mutually energized over, well. Hope. It's tough to say because the situation is somewhat grim. But there is hope that is pushing us all forward.

Davy will be distributing copies of the book among his contacts in publishing and media, and will be a resource for us as we explore yet another aspect of publishing. I hope he'll remain a friend as well.

There will be more about Byron as we go on. Enjoy the new links at the left, they're going to play a part in subsequent posts.

The Proof is in the Pudding

2010-01-31T18:39:00.000-08:00

Wow, that would be messy.

Nope, the proof is actually through the final edits. We have resubmitted the inner content of the book and are waiting for it to process through the digital printer. Once that's done, we'll approve it (electronically) and be able to order our own copies to distribute to friends, family and others.

We joke that we're probably going to give it away to anyone who would reasonably be expected to buy one.

Another oddity of the whole process is that it has taken place without us actually speaking to a single human being. A few emails, mostly looking like form-emails that are sent out to all their clients at particular stages of their publishing process, but not even a phone call, let alone a face-to-face meeting.

And yet, they're going to make money out of this, and so (hopefully) are we.

The acceptance of the proof is going to start the clock ticking for the book's appearance on Amazon. Over the next week we'll be starting with that final proof and readying a e-book format for the Kindle, and for other markets.

And then...and then...I'll have lots to write about with publicity, new projects, and some fascinating facts about Byron Case, the subject of the book. Stay tuned.

Really Real Book, We Got One

2010-01-26T20:01:00.000-08:00

Massive noises of celebration!! The proof copy arrived today from our digital print house. They turned it around very fast, much faster than we expected.

And, and. It's a real book!!! Wow. The cover looks absolutely wonderful. The colors came out exactly as we wanted. The inside design is very professional appearing, and the graphics, the hand-drawn notes from the testimony portion, and the audio graphs in the deliberation portion are clear and legible. It's a miracle in print!

I'm going to be absolutely shameless here. It looks as good or better than books from big publishers. Really, just looking at it, there's nothing that says "self-publishing" about it. If you saw it on a shelf next to other books, you wouldn't pick it out as any different from publishing-house books. So there, all you "not right for us" folks. Neener neener and other very mature exclamations.

So TSJ and I will be proofing it yet again. No major changes at this point, just typos and a few "push this down a few lines" changes to the copy. Once we revise the copy and accept the proof, it will, inevitably, appear on Amazon. With a final proof, we'll produce the Kindle edition. And begin the marketing push.

Stay tuned. Once we make our first real sale, we'll really be celebrating!

A Verdict is Forever

2010-01-22T09:57:00.000-08:00

The Skeptical Juror has been called to jury duty ten or more times, and served on four juries. I've only been called twice, and seated once.

That trial was more than 25 years ago, and the experience lingers in my mind, and my heart.

I was living in Michigan, in the northern suburbs of Detroit, married to my first husband, The Lawyer. It was during a brief period of my life when I wasn't either working or in school so I had no problem serving on a jury. Called to the Oakland County Courthouse, we in the jury pool found out during voir dire that the defendant was being tried on a felony robbery charge, that is, theft of over $500 in value. We were told it would be a short trial, probably less than a day.

The defendant, as far as I can remember, was a young man about 25 or so. He was slender and not dressed particularly well. He sat slumped in his chair, only sitting straight when reminded by his attorney. I do remember looking into the audience seats, and seeing two people who must have been his parents, close together and holding hands. They looked, even to my much younger self, like life had run them over repeatedly and left them for dead. There was a look of hopelessness and desperation in their eyes I didn't understand at the time, though I suspected it wasn't the first time they'd sat in a courtroom staring at the back of their son's head.

The jury of 12 was seated without much ado. Because it promised to be a short trial, no one had a particular problem serving, since they were already off work for the call to jury duty. I can't remember now if we started the trial that day or came back the next morning.

The prosecution's opening statement informed us the crime in question was the theft of four fancy wheel covers off a Cadillac. I don't remember much from the defense attorney, although I do remember later mocking the awful tie he was wearing. The significant prosecution witnesses were two police officers. They each told, in over-precise and redundantly redundant police-speak, of sitting in an unmarked vehicle and staking out a business parking lot where such thefts were taking place on a regular basis.

They testified that they watched the defendant (though he was "the suspect" for purposes of the testimony) drive his car into the lot, park on one side of the Cadillac in question, get out, crouch down between the vehicles for a bit, and place something in his back seat. He got in his car again, parked on the other side of the same Caddy, and repeated the process. Then he left the parking lot, trailed by the police. They noted in passing the Cadillac was now missing its wheel-covers.

Down the road, having trailed the defendant far enough to establish that he really was leaving, they hit their lights and siren, and the defendant tried to run. In his attempt to lose them, the police told how he turned down a road they knew to be a dead end. There was a certain smirk on the witness's face when he described this. Once cornered, the defendant gave up, with no violence offered. In the back seat of his car, they found the purloined Cadillac wheel covers, which were later identified by their owner.

I seem to recall some kind of presentation of the retail price of the wheel covers, which seemed insanely expensive to me, given that $500 went a lot farther back then. I'd driven cars worth less than those wheel covers.

We went back to the jury room on a mid-morning break. Since we couldn't talk about the case, I wondered aloud if we could mock the attorney's attire. That tie was really getting to me. I think I was the youngest person on the jury. Nobody else really seemed up for mockery, so we just milled around until the break was over.

Once the defense attorney got up, the only defense he seemed to offer was that the wheel covers, although admittedly stolen by his client, were not in fact worth more than $500. I was astonished and a bit confused at this. He was admitting the crime? What kind of defense was this? He brought in a witness or two who tried to prove you could get the wheel covers cheaper, but they were fairly feeble witnesses. Nobody was buying it. This is Detroit, after all. People here know cars and they know what aftermarket parts cost.

And that was it. The entire defense. The defendant did not take the stand, but I don't think anyone really wanted him to. What else could he add? "I didn't do it"? Well, his attorney already admitted he did. "I didn't mean to"? The testimony of the police pretty much scotched that, there was no way that series of actions wasn't deliberate.

Closing statements were brief, and anticlimactic. The prosecutor knew he had a slam-dunk. Everyone in the courtroom knew it. The judge gave us jury instructions, and sent us to deliberate. It was only about 11am, the whole trial only lasted the morning.

And here starts the part that still haunts me. What I should have known, should have been able to deduce, and didn't.

Once we were seated around the table in the jury room, and all the rustling, arranging and squirming was done, there was a long and somewhat awkward pause. Nobody was talking. As often happens, I spoke up first, and that made me a target. I swear I didn't do it deliberately, I had no idea. I said, "I guess we should elect a foreman," and the universal response from the other 11 people was, "You do it." Since I was the youngest in the room, that astonished me. Really? I had absolutely no clue what to do next. Jury instructions have nothing to do with how a jury operates. No rules on who can talk, how decisions are made, how much deliberation on evidence or testimony is appropriate, anything. Only that the verdict has to be unanimous.

So I said, "Okay, I guess we should talk about the testimony." We went around the table and almost everyone said something to the effect of, "what can I say? It all seems pretty clear." I dug and dug and tried to get someone to make a comment toward acquitting the guy. Nope. Wasn't happening. Honestly, I couldn't think of anything mitigating either. Did anyone think the "less than $500 in value" defense was valid? We heard a few stories that just tended to confirm the cost of the wheel covers.

So we took a vote. 12 for guilty. Wow. Slightly less than an hour, and we're done. So I sent out the form saying we'd reached a verdict to the bailiff, and we sat and twitched until we heard from the judge. His response was that it was almost lunchtime, so let's hold the verdict until 1:30, when all parties would reconvene. Wear your "JUROR" badges, don't be late coming back. So we got to explore how bad the cafeteria food in the basement of the courthouse was, while everyone we passed fell silent as soon as they spotted those badges. Might as well have read "PARIAH."

After lunch we gathered back in the jury room, and shortly after time, were called back to the courtroom and filed into the jury box. The judge asked which of us was the foreperson, and I stood up. He asked if we'd reached a unanimous verdict and I said we had. He asked what the verdict was. You know how on the TV shows the jury foreman has a nice paper to read from and they say "In the matter of So-and-so vs. The State, we find the defendant...?" Well, in real life all they want you to say is "Guilty" or "Not guilty." Don't fancy it up.

So I said, "Guilty." I wasn't watching the defendant, when I said it. I couldn't. I looked out into the audience. There, I saw the police officers who had testified get a satisfied cat-licking-cream look on their faces and high-five each other. I saw the people I thought were the defendant's parents wilt even further, the despair on their faces cruel and complete. The prosecutor stood up straight and happy, and the judge immediately started shuffling papers.

The judge thanked us for serving, and said that if we didn't object, he wondered if we might re-gather in the jury room to discuss the case with the attorneys for their own information. If we didn't want to, it was entirely optional.

Most of us did go back to the jury room, curiosity being rampant. Several left, but eight or ten of us stayed. The judge, now out of his robe, came in with the prosecutor and the defense attorney. I sat at the end of the table closest to them, so most of my fellow jurors were sitting behind me. I think we were all feeling we'd had a job to do and we'd done it well.

The judge thanked us again, and the defense attorney asked us, "What could I have done better in defense of my client?" I was a smartass then (then? are you kidding?) and said, "Get a better client!" I asked him why he staged that particular defense, and no other. And then he explained what I should have known all along. He said, "It was all we had. This is his third felony, and it means he's going to prison for life."

I heard gasps from behind me. My feeling of a job well done vanished, never to return. The attorney explained further that his client had been convicted of similar non-violent thefts before, and proving that this one didn't rise to the level of a $500 felony was the only way he could think of to keep him out of prison. Michigan had, and may still have, a Three Strikes law that sends people with three felony convictions to jail for life without parole. The judge has no discretion in sentencing. Sounds good on paper, doesn't it?

Someone behind me asked "why weren't we told this in trial?" The judge explained that that sort of information was withheld precisely because it might influence juries not to convict. I though to myself, "Damn right! I just sent a guy to jail for life for stealing HUBCAPS!" I suspect my fellow jurors were feeling the same, as I heard muttered comments about "If I'd known....I wish I'd known..."

The rest of the discussion is a blur. I was upset then and I'm upset now. How could I have known, if the information was withheld, though? I could have deduced it if I'd thought for one minute about why such a relatively petty crime was actually coming to trial before a jury. Why didn't this guy plead out? In retrospect it's obvious that being a third strike, the DA wasn't offering a plea bargain to a lesser charge, and going to trial was the defendant's only hope. I could have figured it out if I'd been more aware of how courts, the prosecutors, and juries operated.

Jury nullification has been a big controversy in many cases, where juries refuse to convict obviously guilty defendants for many reasons, including that a mandatory sentence is too severe for the crime that has been committed. I felt then and feel now that a life sentence for a series of non-violent crimes against property, even if they were over a limit imposed when $500 was a year's salary, is too damn much. Especially without parole. Holy cow. I can't remember the guy's name, but if he isn't dead, he's still in Jackson prison. A lifetime in hell, for hubcaps.

Perhaps it takes the kind of low cunning that only comes with long experience, but I wish every juror would consider these kinds of motivations when it comes to sitting on a jury. Why is the trial happening? The simple easy answer is that a crime was committed and the defendant looks good for it. But the office of the DA has its own reasons for going to trial. The defendant and his counsel have their own differing motivations. None of them may have anything to do with the crime or the evidence.

Juries are always kept in the dark, much like mushrooms. They are presented with a very limited subset of the evidence, and asked to make a decision that will affect persons in and out of the courtroom for a long time, for life in many cases. Juries exist to be manipulated, and only by knowing this before we are called, can we be aware of what is going on right in front of our eyes.

Deciding on the law is fairly easy. Rendering justice is extremely difficult. Finding out that the inevitable jury manipulation has resulted in a verdict that full information would have altered, after the fact, can stick with you.

Verdicts are forever, for the jury, as well as the judged.

Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch

2010-01-21T10:34:00.000-08:00

After only a single request to modify the cover graphic, our digital print house has accepted both the book contents and the cover to produce a proof copy. According to the email, it will be shipped UPS and we should have it by early next week, or sooner. An actual, physical book we can hold in our hands, and read, and everything!

After some modest celebration and perhaps a little internal wrangling, we'll all be reading it over with pen in hand, making notes for final modifications. Then a resubmit of the contents, and Bob's yer uncle.

I never understood that Bob thing. Perhaps because I actually had an Uncle Bob. Bob was always my uncle. For other people, not so much, apparently. I guess everyone wanted an Uncle Bob, though. Thus the saying.

In this case, resubmission and approval of the proof means that the print house will start the process of registering the book on Amazon, and allow us to order copies for our own distribution. Appearance on Amazon takes about a month. Then anyone can order one. Everyone can order one. Order two, they're small!

In the meantime, TSJ has been urging me to share my own long-ago experience of jury duty, which still bothers me at times. So watch this space. Interesting times (and posts, I hope) ahead.

Let the Celebration BEGIN!!!

2010-01-17T14:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, we have just submitted to our digital print house the complete, revised, edited, revised again, formatted and finished manuscript!!! Also the final cover design, which only took 27 million tweaks, but is beautiful. The SkepticalJuror himself sat beside me and helped.

So, dancing in the streets, horns blowing, wild cavorting all about. In a metaphorical sense.

Right now I have to remember to go wash my hands thoroughly, as I made salsa an hour ago and will inevitably touch my eye to great pain and teeth-gnashing. Owie!

Since the last post, we have enjoyed an empirical demonstration that "the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% takes 90% of the time." This is why every project runs over schedule. Everyone did everything they were supposed to do, it just ended up that the last picky details were so darn picky. Every page is correctly de-widowed and de-orphaned, then we realize we have some legal issues to address before we can put 'er to bed, and so changing a few sentences here and there suddenly requires us to re-paginate everything, and search again for those pesky leftovers. Oh, darn. Somehow the block-quote style was altered when I wasn't looking. Gah! That made the whole thing expand again! Once more, through the weeds. I'm getting so I recognize certain pages by their look. "Oh yes, that's 219. Make sure the last paragraph doesn't wander."

I hope that the next project will benefit from our learning curve on this one. Fewer iterations in writing & editing. Much faster to format and submit. Yeah! Looking forward to it, actually.

Now we wait for the print house to send us an actual, hold it in your hands, read it again proof copy so we can search once again for errors. It's a wonder most authors aren't so sick of their own words they never write again.

Although it seems to us we should be almost there, we still have these final hurdles. Proof, acceptance of proof, and the printing. Next, we start with our marketing efforts, and getting our distribution channels in place for orders we take off the website.

Note to self: Build website.

Oh yeah. And Brett Favre is still 40. Arrrgh!

It's So Close We Can Taste It

2010-01-07T12:11:00.000-08:00

Printer's ink, that is.

We're in the home stretch of submission to the digital print house. We're generating the PDFs in their very demanding format, we've gotten the pagination down to the point where we can actually compose the Table Of Contents! Final edits on the cover design are to the designer.

That means our deadline of Monday Next to submit to the printer is on target. Then we wait, until they return to us an actual hard copy proof of the book. They require this for first submissions so we can see the whole thing for real before we authorize the go-ahead. We'll read that once or twice more, tweak the original document as necessary (hopefully not too many typos will remain!) and resubmit a final PDF.

THEN we'll be publishers. For real. With a listing on Amazon and readying our Kindle edition, and thundering ahead on the marketing and publicity. Exciting times are coming.

This Week in Publishing

2010-01-04T08:40:00.000-08:00

We're expecting the arrival of the page-layout document from The Skeptical Niece any time now. Then we'll be full-tilt toward production of a final PDF for submission to our digital print house by next Monday. Holy deadlines, Batman!

There are plenty of other projects we're working on at the same time, most of them in a stage where we shouldn't talk about them. Soon, though, all will be revealed.

Not a big bang out of the first post of the new year. A blog is a harsh mistress, y'know?

Sometimes, genius just isn't on tap. Or even back under the eaves of the attic, underneath a moldy tarp.

Goodbye, 2009, Don't Let the Door Hit You In the Ass On Your Way Out

2009-12-31T13:27:00.000-08:00

Not that I'm ungrateful for any year I end up exiting alive. But 2009, generally, has not been unrelievedly pleasant. Our business sucks. Everyone's business sucks, pretty much. Economic downturns are not known as Fun Times.

On the other hand, no catastrophic health occurrences this year. The house is in decent shape, we can pay our bills this month, and the new cat is a hoot. That's better than a lot of people are doing, and we do know our blessings.

We're looking forward to 2010 as a year of renewal and change. New careers, new interests, new sources of income. Especially the last. All you people who aren't reading my blog? You're expected to buy books from Allen & Allen Semiotics, publishers.

Start with the Series. There are at least two smaller projects now in the works, one of them a series of it's own. We'll announce details as we get closer.

And I hope, that for everyone, that the year of 2010 will end up being a truly worthwhile year.

Breaking News! Brett Favre Still 40!!!

2009-12-29T10:19:00.000-08:00

TSJ likes to watch NFL football. This is not a problem as it's his only sports addiction (other than the Indy 500) and I kinda like to watch too. Especially since I get to make fun of the cliche-ridden pontifications of the announcers.

But they've gone too far lately. None of them can say Brett Favre's name without adding (you can hear the italics and the caps) "He's Forty!!!" Even when he's the quarterback of the game we're watching, every other mention is "that's a great throw for such an old guy! Did I mention he's 40?" As if we've forgotten since the last mention 1.2 nanoseconds ago.

Get over it, dudes. He's gonna be 40 until he's 41, and I bet he doesn't retire then either. Genetically blessed and totally in shape, he's out there heaving passes and he will be for a while yet. I don't need constant reminders.

It is, to coin a phrase, getting a little old.

Two Steps Forward, Then Another One

2009-12-27T11:19:00.000-08:00

We had a lovely holiday with TSJ's family, and a quiet Boxing Day just doing nothing at home. This is a huge change for TSJ, he's lost the skill of just doing nothing. Today, back to work.

The Trial of Byron Case now exists in its final form. This is the one we're sending to the digital print house. A few edits may take place for legal reasons or after final fact-checking, but no more major rewriting will occur.

Whew. What an amazing thing. TSJ has written entire books before, but never has one gotten so far in the publishing process. The first draft is only the tip of the iceberg. What happens after that probably never enters the minds of readers. Suddenly I have a lot more respect for all those authors out there who have filled my life with endless hours of edification and entertainment.

This week between Christmas & New Years Day is filled with working on the images that will be included in the book. They have to be clean and sharp for inclusion in the book, and in a particular format. TSJ is learning new skills. Page layout will be completed soon, and then we'll be poring through the MS several more times searching for widows, orphans and other assorted infelicities.

We'll be finalizing the cover design, including real blurb comments from real people who have actually read the book. Albert Einstein called and said we couldn't quote him. (Awkward, huh?)

So the work doesn't end, and we're all putting as much time as we can into it. It feels like it's this -->||<-- close and we can't wait!!

'Twas The Early Afternoon Before Christmas

2009-12-24T12:17:00.000-08:00

And our friends in New Zealand and Tasmania are already opening their presents. Sure, live on that side of the International Date Line! Stinkers!

But they live in tomorrow. Here in today, we're trying to get those last few presents wrapped. But even better, series-wise....

We've wrapped the rewrite on Book 1, The Trial of Byron Case! TSJ has been typing like the wind. Go, TSJ!

So that means after the final edits are returned to him and incorporated into the manuscript, it all gets sent for page-layout. We're closing in on a print-ready PDF, people. We could be in publication by early February.

Next year promises to be exciting.

This is Why You Don't Talk To Strangers

2009-12-23T18:47:00.000-08:00

Your mother told you, but you didn't listen, did you? Noooo. You figure that if you don't talk to strangers, you'll never meet anyone new.

You have a point. But. (which is different from having a pointed butt)

TSJ and I live in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood. Tree-lined streets, nice single-family homes, shopping on the major streets, etc. It's a safe place, as long as you're not foolish and leave your garage door open all night or the keys in the front door. Ahem.

As a reasonably well-maintained area, we're a target for all sorts of solicitors. Those "No Solicitors" signs don't work. They bang on the door anyway. Or hit the doorbell and bang on the door. What's with that? They're so friggin' important now that they get to do the two-fer?

And someone did that, Monday evening. TSJ answered the door, as he does, but he usually just opens it, says "No thank you" in increasingly loud tones until the person gives up, and closes the door. For some reason, on Monday last, the young man on the porch caught his attention and TSJ started questioning him about his alleged "scholarship" and his chances for the "trip to Key West" that he was selling those (overpriced almost certainly never-to-be-delivered) magazines for. He and the young man spoke for approximately five minutes.

And then TSJ had the effrontery not to purchase anything from the young man. Nor did he make a free gift of money to someone clearly able to work, but who would rather beg at our front door. So the guy left. We thought.

Tuesday morning, TSJ left the house for an errand, turned around, and came right back in. I looked up questioningly and he told me that our car had been vandalized, and it had most certainly been done by the young man from the night before. Asked how he knew this, he quoted the words written in black marker all over the side of our silver car. I won't quote the entire thing here, because most of it is obscene, but part of it said "Mag crew 651." Another section said "This is for wasting my time."

Of course we have no way of identifying or locating this person again. What we did was call the police and report it. A very nice young officer came out, took the report, called a police photographer to document the vandalism, and gave us some good advice. "If anyone comes to your door selling things, call the police and report them as a suspicious person." He went on to explain that these people are often in the area to commit crimes or case the area for future crimes, and that frequently whatever they are selling is a scam in and of itself. He said the police wanted us to do this, to be informed of such people in the city.

Y'know, it never would have occurred to me to do this, previously. I figured that the price of having a front door was that sometimes people would knock on it and try to sell me something. Now, though, I'm going to be much more cautious and call the police, as requested. I may give the Girl Scouts a pass. The bible-thumpers I'm not so sure about.

As for wasting that young man's time, he had his revenge, many fold. We gave over our morning to talking to the police and cleaning off the marker. His five minutes cost us both about 2 hours. And as a result, no door-knocking solicitor is going to leave here unreported to the police. I hope he's perfectly happy now.

New Year, New Decade, New Projects

2009-12-22T09:32:00.001-08:00

Okay, so TSJ is a man of great creativity. And energy. And ambition.

Get his butt neurons wet (more on this later) and his mind ranges far afield. And so he's come up with an idea for a next project. I won't reveal it yet. Tease!

What I can't get my head around is that in less than 2 weeks it's going to be 2010. Wait! I'm not even ready for the 90s. We haven't even decided what to call the decade between 2000 and 2010 yet. I've heard "The Two-Thousands" which is just awkward & ugly, the "Ohs" (Oh what? I want to ask), and my personal favorite, "The Noughties." Of course that only works for people who know that "nought" is a word for zero. I like the pun with "naughty."

Mostly people just avoid naming the decade altogether. This isn't going to serve us well in the next few years, though. After all if you mention that currently all the fashions seem to hearken back to the 80s (what are they thinking? they were ugly the first time around!) we all know what decade is referred to. What are we going to say about the current decade? "The cell phone exploded in society in the Ohs"? Ick.

I think I need to start the Campaign for The Noughties. Name that decade!!

Anyway, I can't believe it's nearly gone. And don't start that business with "the decade isn't over until 2011." The numbering will stop at 2010. 2011 clearly belongs to the Teens.

Butt neurons, you ask? It's a joke that TSJ comes out of the bath with all sorts of ideas, every time his butt gets wet. So we figure he must have neurons in that location. Get 'em wet, they work.

Reality TV, A Rationale. Discuss.

2009-12-20T09:34:00.000-08:00

Okay, so on a lovely December Saturday in Southern California, under sunny skies, temps in the low 70s (winter is hell, here), we were driving to Temecula. Why, you ask? Because Old Town Temecula is very cool, particularly on a Saturday morning. Big Farmer's Market jammed with local produce, flowers, arts, crafts, and yummy stuff to eat. Also jammed with some of the best people-watching around.

The Old Town is also chock-full of unique, friendly shops and great restaurants, including Mad Madeleine's, where you can get the best burger we've run across recently. Well worth the 70+ mile drive. Parking is fun, in the sense of "wait, there's a spot up there GRAB IT QUICK!!!" fun. But not too bad, particularly if you've ever driven in Boston. Once you're parked, the entire downtown is easily walkable, and it's so much fun to explore.

TSJ and I were musing, as we do, about various things as we drove. We were laughing about the last episode of The Soup, which we watch weekly. We don't watch most reality TV, we just watch a show about reality TV. Is that self-referential or just second-hand pathetic? Some of the shows that Joel McHale makes fun of, particularly the new ones, are unbelievably bad. We're not talking about shows where people compete to be excellent. That's one area that actually has some entertainment value for us.

We're talking about the shows aimed at finding skanky love, friendship (really?), or just parading various people's lives in front of a camera. Pathetic people enacting humiliating scenarios, posturing for the cameras and each other, and yet, they seem so sincerely involved. Like they believe this is what real life is like, lacking a comparison.

So, we asked each other, what possible rationale is there for these shows? Who would become a fan, and actually invest part of their life watching them? I thought they would only be tolerable if you were, say, texting the entire time it was on, so you didn't actually perceive what was on the screen. But that didn't fly. And then it came to us. People watch those shows to reassure themselves that there are people in the world who have worse lives, more feeble intellects and fewer coping skills than they do.

And then, as happens, the viewing public begins to model their own behavior after what they see on TV. And so, in a vicious cycle, the shows and their participants must become worse and worse in order to present the desired "see, you really are better than they are!" confirmation. Gah. This way lies madness.

Or perhaps we should just stop thinking about reality TV. It will go away when human beings are able to not watch a train wreck in progress. Yeah, that'll happen.

Back to the book!

Auditioning Jurors for Book Two

2009-12-18T13:35:00.000-08:00

We've got some real characters going in "The Trial of Byron Case" let me tell you. That Terry guy, I think he's out to get TSJ. Others are modeled sorta, kinda, well some characteristics were stolen, er, cribbed from real life jurors we have known. It makes the interaction in the jury deliberations as tense as they can become on a real jury.

This first jury is pretty much set. But we are auditioning characters for the second book and later books in the series. And for that, we're going to have to reach beyond our own personal experience.

So we'd love to hear some stories from your jury duty experiences, particularly if there were funny, odd, or dramatic interactions with your fellow jurors involved. Post them here or email them to us, we'd love to have them as a source for Jury The Next. Who knows, you might make it into the acknowledgments!

Change the names to protect identities, of course, but give us all the juicy details!!

Posting to the Universe

2009-12-17T19:08:00.000-08:00

Helloooooooo! Anybody out there? Buehler? Is this thing on? I gotta get one of those view-counter thingies on the blog. Or perhaps not. Maybe it would just be depressing.

Oh well. I tell myself that I'm building up a body of work so that when the book is published, there'll be some meat in the sauce when people hit this blog Big Time.

The Universe, in the meantime, isn't much for comments.

Or maybe I just need to make more comment-worthy posts. Yeah, that's the ticket!

In the meantime, we're on schedule to get the book to the publisher for the first round of publisher dog & pony show (gotta get a galley to proof on our first digital version, just to make sure we're not total pikers) by the beginning of January. Yes, 2010. An entire decade has passed while I napped, apparently.

Amazing.

What's the Opposite of Horror?

2009-12-16T12:06:00.001-08:00

So if you stumble across this post in your search for "jury duty horror stories" my question is are you looking to find one or tell one? I was searching for sites where jury experiences were archived and this search term came up in Google's suggestions. I got some results out of searching for "stories from the jury room" and "jury room stories" but the horror story term was the biggie.

Wait. What? Why is jury duty such a horror? Yeah, it's a disruption in an otherwise planned life (for those of us who plan). It's a day or week of having to show up and be chivvied around not entirely at your will. In that way it's eerily reminiscent of elementary school, without the mystery meat and lunch ladies. But it's not an invitation to slavery, nor is it a violation of the god-given right to have a cellphone welded to your ear or to check Facebook every 5 minutes. Get over yourself.

Some people have very good reasons for not serving, or not serving right this moment. But for most, the reasons they think they have come down to....inconvenience. Rearranging schedules. Alternative day care. A short week in the paycheck. Not disaster, remember, just inconvenience. Think about sitting in that defendant's place, and listening to why his fellow citizens just can't be there for him. Remember that defendant is, by definition, innocent. Like you.

I think some of the arrogance I see out there on the Intertubes comes from the (mistaken) assumption that the whiners will never ever be in the position where a jury of their peers might sit in judgment over them. They would never make those decisions, live that life, get caught by circumstances, be so unlucky. Yeah. Right. And we're all temporarily able-bodied, too. Life happens, people.

Who would you want to be on a jury in your trial? A bunch of rubes who couldn't get out of jury duty? Or a group of citizens fully aware of their duty, and yes, privilege to participate in our system of government. Ones who know about the presumption of innocence, and believe in it?

Most of us are not elected officials. Most of us, for one reason or another, do not vote. If you do vote, you're aware of the rarity of the occasion where one vote makes a difference. Except for paying taxes, that's as close as most of us get to government. But on a jury, you are one of a very small, select group who make all the difference in the world to a fellow citizen, and perhaps many more than one. A civil suit can take down a major corporation. A class action can mean millions of dollars in awards. A criminal trial can mean many innocent lives saved by the conviction of the guilty, and a decision in a landmark case can set precedent.

Jury duty is the last bastion of individual influence on society. It's an inconvenience for everyone who shows up, the occasional retiree or post office employee aside. If more people would realize this, and step up when that summons arrives, and with the proper attitude toward the whole undertaking, fewer horror stories about not being able to get out of duty for a good cause would arise.

If you want the jury system to be there when you need it, you need to support it every time it calls you. Not just when it's convenient, because it never is.

Oh, and you need to be a Skeptical Juror when you show up.

An Odd Concatenation of Writing and Current Events

2009-12-15T10:00:00.000-08:00

Just as we were editing our way through the section on the closing arguments in the book, and deciding to remove same, TSJ ran across this post from an attorney who decided to forgo his own closing argument in an actual trial. His reasons for doing so were interesting to say the least. Since in many jurisdictions, the prosecution gets two shots at closing, he cut them off at the knees by not closing himself. They had staged a weak 'preliminary' closing in anticipation of a big finish after the defense closing, and he denied them their final slam-dunk-introduce-new-theories emotional rantfest. Hmm.

As it happens, this trial did not have a happy outcome for the defendant. It was a child-molestation case based on recovered memories, and anyone who follows the statistics on this type of crime realizes that simple accusation of molestation pretty much guarantees a ruined life and near-certain conviction, should the defendant be so foolish as to not capitulate, cooperate in the ruination, and plead guilty.

We can't say whether or not the attorney's decision on the closing was a wise one. He thinks, and The Skeptical Team pretty much agrees, it was probably a lost cause from the start. The email and comment responses to the two posts above show very clearly what one deals with when accusations of molestation start to fly. Irrational hatred and vehement crazyness isn't very far below the surface in such matters. And for the jury, they too have to deal with the attitude among their members that every accusation of molestation springs from truth, and that the presumption of innocence is completely obviated in such cases.

Try getting a reasonable deliberation under such circumstances. It's not shocking that deliberations are short and almost always end in conviction. The jury isn't starting from the same place as in any other trial, whether it be for robbery, battery or murder.

Jury behavior is the ultimate source of The Skeptical Juror series. We want to bring forth more rational evaluation of the evidence presented at trial, and ensure that for all defendents, accused of any crime, the presumption of innocence is preserved until the moment of conviction.

Editors and Writers, It Never Changes

2009-12-13T13:11:00.000-08:00

In a scene in the wonderful HBO series about John Adams, he and Ben Franklin "help" Thomas Jefferson edit the Declaration of Independence. The good bit starts about 1:45 into the clip. As we edit the manuscript, yet another time, we have a tendency now to look at each other, nod and say "so, self-evident, then." Then we burst out laughing.

Writers and editors live in interdependence and synergy. Anyone knows that a writer who has gotten beyond his or her editors is cruising for a fall, whether for reasons of best-sellerdom or ego. Patricia Cornwall is a great example of this. Her early work is great, once she disposed of her editor(s), supposedly because as a runaway best-selling author she didn't need no steenkeeng editors anymore, her work became unreadable.

Good editors will make a writer better, both in the immediate moment by trimming, suggesting, altering and checking, and in the long run by educating a writer in their own persistent errors. Good writers give editors a reason for being. But the process of working together can be a bit touchy.

Luckily, over the years, TSJ and the Skeptical Spouse have developed a real sense that working over any writing together always ends by making it better than either one can do alone. Now The Skeptical Niece participates in the whole process as well. And our Dear Early Readers gave us numerous other eyes through which to view the many missteps which we are earnestly endeavoring to correct.

Editing and page layout proceed apace. The Skeptical Niece is showing unexpected but very welcome talent at marketing. She seems to be able to get groups of random strangers very excited about a book they've never seen!

Amid all this, holiday preparations must be shoehorned.

BTW, the HBO Series mentioned above is well worth viewing in its entirety. The writing and acting is superb, and gives one an appreciation for the genesis of our freedoms, and what they cost those who established our country. Netflix has it. We recommend it heartily!

Post-T'giving Update

2009-12-04T10:31:00.000-08:00

Okay, our early readers have to be the best ever. The responses we have gotten are so useful and encouraging, even when they weren't totally positive.

So this is what is going on. We've discussed every single comment that's come in in depth. In many cases we've embraced the changes suggested and are working as a team to incorporate them into the structure of the book.

So, sweeping changes. We're eliminating a lot of the boring crap of sitting in a trial. It's just like Real Life, only Better! Editing makes life fun. Or funner, anyway. Trying to preserve the sense of being there, of course, without the dreadful ennui of just waiting for these people to get to the point!!!

Which happens frequently in a trial, trust me. For those who have never sat in a courtroom, even as a spectator, I recommend it. The process of justice is much like that of sausage-making...you don't really want to watch it being done. It's an integral part of our society, incredibly important to our way of life, but mostly it's banal and repetitive.

Our schedule is pretty well determined now. We're working through the entire book again, revising as we go. 12 or so pages per day, run through all three of the Skeptical Team, before the final is fed into a page-design template. So by the end of the month, we should have the book in its finished form.

The narrative is livelier now, with more of the meaty bits that garnered approval. The good stuff arrives sooner and stays longer. We've made a lot of the witnesses seem a LOT more grammatical than they've ever been in reality, for the comfort of readers. Turns out there are a lot of people viscerally disturbed by reading the bad grammar that comes out of every one's mouth as they speak. That's an interesting phenomenon in itself. Pity the poor court reporters!

And, there will be more info in the Deliberation and Aftermath sections. We're hoping to clarify in every case where people suggested they had gotten confused or couldn't quite follow the story. It's so great to have all these sets of eyes and the articulate voices to tell us where we're letting the readers down.

So in the midst of Holiday preparations, we're authoring and publishing like little beavers. If beavers published. That's an odd mental image. I think I'll just drop it for now.

Anyway, eternal thanks to all who have commented!

Pre-Holiday Note

2009-11-24T12:20:00.000-08:00

As everyone else braces for Black Friday, we're looking at this as our Second Week with the Early Readers. No, we're not self-centered, why do you ask?

Our timing could have been better getting the book to the early readers. People are busy, dammit! They have family and friends coming for the holiday, and they have to cook, clean or otherwise prepare, or they're going someplace. But three of our readers have turned around the reading and commenting (in depth!) already. Boy oh boy are we grateful.

Please don't worry about our feelings. We need honesty far more than we need ego-strokes.

The comments in already have helped us plan for changes we recognize will be major improvements in the readability of the book. And we're deep in planning Book 2 of the series. Holy cow is the Skeptical Juror going to have a tough row to hoe in this one...big time drama in the jury room!

The book design of the interior is well under way. Who knew that designing every fiddling little bit of a book was So Much Work!?

And since this is a holiday week, we're thinking we ought to give our early readers until the middle of next week to get comments back to us. Because we really appreciate you guys. (see if I was from NJ, that would be "youse guys" but I'm not)

Happy Holiday, all!

The Cover, Still in Progress

2009-11-17T10:53:00.001-08:00

Skeptical Juror Cover

We promised a peek at the cover design, done by our wonderful designer Ed Lewis. There will be more tweaks to come, but this is close to what we think will be the final.

The early readers also got a color copy of this with their hard copies, so now it's time to let everyone else see where we're going.

I particularly like the "First in a series" part. Promises great things, doesn't it?

In other news, interior book design is going on this week. Book 2 is in progress (more on this later) and we're currently auditioning other trials for further books.

Comments on the cover are welcome!

Technical Difficulties

2009-11-11T19:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, the early reader copies did not go out today.

Someone scheduled Veteran's Day without consulting us. No mail. Packages too heavy to drop in mailboxes.

So tomorrow. Really. Unless a meteor hits Long Beach.

How Hard Can It Be, I Ask You?

2009-11-11T09:44:00.001-08:00

I mean really, how hard can it be to get 10 copies of a document printed? Let's see...5 trips to Staples, a trip to Kinko's (sorry, FedEx Kinkos with that little trademark thingie) and various trips back home to reformat, reformat again, and ARRRGH!!!

Turns out that if you format a document with 5.5 x 8 page size, then ask Staples to print it two up on a page, they can't get there from here. The type comes out about 4pts, totally unreadable. Likewise with two columns on a single page. Like a boiling pot, it's particularly bad if you try to watch them do it. It's way better to go away and come back later, much like making sausage. You don't want to know what goes into it.

The Skeptical Juror (yesterday he was The Cranky Juror, and not without considerable justification) finally resorted to the low-tech solution of printing out all 214 pages on his teeny little printer, then having Staples simply copy it double-sided. Even that wasn't without drama, as they managed to mangle the original at one point. Sheesh!

But the good news is, all the edits are done, and the copies are going into the mail to the early readers TODAY!! Noises of celebration all around! Thanks to those who have volunteered their help, we couldn't do this without your input. Well, we could, but the end product wouldn't be nearly as good.

Copying and mailing costs are surprisingly high. $24 per copy, it turns out, including return envelopes for those sharp-eyed readers who contribute copy edits and find more typos.

Progress is being made! Confidence is high, and with timely returns of reviews and suggestions, we really hope we can make our current publication date of early January, 2010.

2010. Wow. The Naughties are almost over, already. But that's a post for another decade.

So What's the Holdup, Huh?

2009-11-02T10:13:00.000-08:00

Time and past time for an update, don't you think?

This publisher business isn't as simple as it looks. Doing everything for the first time adds to the learning curve.

So, where the heck are we? Still in editing. This part is really hard, if you want to do a good job. And we do. The full rewrite is done (thank you O Hardworking Skeptical Juror) and TheSkepticalNiece and I are both editing our little fingers to the bone, while trying to live semi-normal lives.

The plan and the goal after yesterday's SkepticalTeam meeting, is to have the book in the hands of the early readers within two weeks. Final edits will take place after that, but we hope to have quelled all the easily findable typos, spellos and grammaros we can find. (is that a word? It is now!)

But the upshot is that we're not going to turn out a product that isn't as professional as we can make it, consonant with the goal of getting it out while interest in the subject of wrongful convictions is still high.

So hold on tight, early readers still waiting for your chance. It's a-coming! Really.

Publishers, Publishers Everywhere, Not A Book To Read

2009-10-11T19:14:00.001-07:00

Wait, do I hear trumpets, playing a triumphant march in the background?

YES! We are publishers, now officially having an account with our digital print house. We were politely and professionally welcomed by our Sales rep, our Credit rep, our POD (Print on Demand) Client Services rep, and for all I know, our Take The Dog Out and Wash the Car rep. Boy, that last one would be nice, wouldn't it? I'd even get a dog.

The application process was neither short nor easy, but it was straightforward and each step was nicely explained. It's not a weekend project, you have to want to do this.

Rewrites are proceeding on schedule, due to be finished tonight. More copy-editing will be taking place, hopefully finished in less than two weeks, and then we'll be getting the copies out to our early readers. Their reactions will guide (hopefully minimal) further rewriting, (to proceed in parallel with book design) and then we start working with Lightning Source and Amazon to get paper and Kindle editions into reader's hands.

The book cover is 90% there, we'll post a pic when it's finalized. It's beautiful, thanks mostly to our designer, Ed Lewis.

It's kind of getting exciting around here. They're predicting rain for Tuesday & Wednesday. For late November, perhaps December, we're predicting Cloudy, with a Chance of Books!

We're Waiting...We're Waiting....

2009-10-06T11:26:00.000-07:00

Picture us tapping our foot. 'Cause that's what we're doing, waiting for our digital print house to get back to us with the latest word on what our 14 zillion step application process to become a publisher with them is lacking now.

For some reason, the last stage has to take place by actual snail mail. You can fill it all out online, sign the contract online, but then they make you download several forms, sign them in blood, and return them courtesy of USPS. Did that last week. Still waiting for word back.

In other news, we got a copy of the "in progress" book cover, designed by Ed Lewis, printed in color at Kinkos. For a surprisingly small cost, we can see sort-of what it looks like. Fonts will change, tweaks on text will happen, but we're very happy with the result so far. Ed is a terrific designer and it looks wonderful.

We had it printed for a birthday gift for TheSkepticalJuror's mom. She hasn't gotten it yet, but we're hoping it will please her. We'll let you know how many kleenexes it uses up (Mom is a notorious cryer-at-sentimental-stuff).

We got the copy made Friday night (yeah, we don't go out much on weekends) when Kinkos was mostly empty. So in the middle of the job, the clerk set the laminated, poster mounted board on the counter to show us, and a guy who was also there to get some copying done read it and started asking questions. "Are you the author? Wow, that's cool..." and then he launched off into his own jury stories, and his wife's jury stories, and his philosophy of the American jury system. Not neglecting to tell us that he'd been a school psychologist for 40 years...I suspect he's recently retired and not entirely reconciled to the fact.

But Wow. We were impressed by how little it took to get this guy engaged with the cover, the subject, or whatever. It gave us great hope that when the book is ready, people will be willing to fork over to read it. And be enthusiastic about the message, too.

We have two definite confirmations on the group of early readers we've identified. Others need to be contacted, or in some cases, located. TSJ is working diligently on re-writing the last part. We're getting there.

None of it is as easy as anyone makes it out to be, but it is getting done!

Got the ISBNs, Now We Just Need the "B"

2009-09-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

Okay, that didn't take as long as we thought it might. The mighty dispenser of ISBNs came through, we've got ten numbers to burn. Total cost is about $350.

Now we just need the B. The Team got together last Sunday and compiled a list of early readers we'll be sending the book to. Some of them need to be contacted for permission to send.

Next on The Skeptical Spouse's list of to-dos is finishing the Publisher app with LightningSource. That stalled because they wanted some ISBNs. Kind of a circular thing they've got going there.

The whole thing reminds me of a joke:

A guy comes home from playing golf, and his wife asks him how it went. He says, "It was kind of a bummer." (you know it's an old joke when it contains the word "bummer") The wife asks why, and he tells her, "Well, George had a heart attack on the third tee, and after that, the entire day was 'hit the ball and drag George.'"

We're draggin' George here, but determined to get to the clubhouse after all.

It's a Thursday, we've got ISBNs, sunglasses, and a full tank of gas. Hit it!!

Completely Off-Topic Rant: Car Alarms, What Are They Good For?

2009-09-20T10:53:00.000-07:00

Okay, this may be my debut as an elderly curmudgeon, but what the heck is with car alarms?? Remember when they were supposed to thwart car thieves? What is their purpose now? Can anyone tell me?

People younger than 25 may not remember this, but people used to actually call the police when they heard a car alarm go off. No kidding. The concept was that thieves would run in panic when the shrieking began, but might still be in the area and might be nabbed. Or something.

Who has called the police upon hearing an alarm?? Show of hands? Anyone...anyone? Buehler?

I didn't think so. Most people don't even look anymore. I know I don't, except perhaps to check and make sure I haven't sat on the key fob and set off my own car accidentally. Once that's confirmed I just steam a little and wait impatiently for whatever fool out there has set his car awailing. That's what car alarms are today...an annoying embarrassment waiting to happen and drop a little more frustration and noise pollution into everyone's lives.

TheSkepticalJuror and I live fairly near several large retail center parking lots, so car alarms are no rare thing. Especially around 1:30am, when the local bars heave out the last drunks. So I have plenty of opportunity to ponder the meaninglessness of current car alarm technology. 99% of the time an alarm is owner-error. The remainder is something like an earthquake, a local explosion, or given our location, the occasional overflight of the Space Shuttle landing. The double sonic boom of the shuttle invariably sets off dozens of alarms. Thanks, NASA.

Actual car thieves, of course, know how to circumvent alarms with consummate professionalism, and even if they don't, they know that people will just hunker down and wait for silence. Phone the police? You'd just get laughed at.

So why don't we invest our time and energy into some kind of effective technology such as knowing who is driving the car, an identikey kind of thing so the car would know an unauthorized driver is inside and call the police itself? After all, if OnStar(tm) can locate any one of its cars, all cars are theoretically locatable. Currently, a car alarm is included in nearly every car built, but it's false security, certainly not fulfilling its intended function. So what the heck is it for, other than to plump up the bottom line of the invoice?

Get smart, car people. Less noise pollution, more intelligent use of technology! On my next car, I want no stupid alarm that just ticks me off, I want real anti-theft protection!

End rant.... for now.

In the Future, We'll All Be Publishers

2009-09-16T11:53:00.001-07:00

It used to be that not just any Tom, Dick or Harriet could become the author of an honest-to-goodness, bound and everything, just like in the bookstore, book. Now, thanks to the wonders of technology, anyone with an ax to grind (when did axe start being spelled without an "e?" she asked parenthetically, easily distracted from her thesis) or a soapbox from which to proclaim is now able to get a book to the public. Or at least those parts of the public connected to the Internet.

Sure, there used to be vanity publishers who would (and still do) print anything you were willing to pay for and buy 1000 copies up front. Whereupon your foyer would become a warehouse and all your relatives would run when they saw you coming on Christmas.

Well, our relatives still run, but up until now, it wasn't because we were carrying copies of our new book. But we're almost there. The new book, I mean, not scaring our relatives with them. That comes later. Along about December 25, I'd guess.

To work with our digital print house, one must be a "publisher." What this means is that one alleges one is a publisher. In a circular fashion, it comes true. We're almost through the application process by which one earns the right to give the print house a big fat cut for their services, including but not limited to accepting our manuscript in a format which they approve, publishing it on demand, shipping it to anyone who wants it (from Amazon or other retailers), and keeping it on file.

There's still a big lot of work to be done before that, though. Rewriting and editing proceeds apace. (Apace. There's another word not used much in actual speech. Boy I am totally easily distracted today.) There will be several more rounds of copyediting, as we're probably not going to hire professionals. We figure we're close enough with all the college grads littering the ground around here.

We have to purchase ISBNs for every format we're going to use, including digital and voice, if we decide to do that. We have to get the Kindle format working, and time that to the release of the printed book. Distributers and an e-store for direct-from-website sales. A cover needs to be designed (we will hire a designer for this) Then marketing! !!!

You know, it's not as easy as it looks. There's a reason publishers take such a huge chunk of the earnings for published books. Doing it yourself lets you keep a bigger cut, but you'll pay in time and effort not spent writing.

But don't let that stop you. If you believe in something fiercely enough, go for it. "Not right for us" agents (you know who you are) and aloof publishers be damned!

No More One Job At a Time

2009-08-24T12:40:00.000-07:00

So I was wondering, why do we still focus so much on having one job/career? It seems more and more like outmoded thinking.

I've had about 6 "careers" so far. The Skeptical Juror has had three or four, depending on how you count. One job at a time, both of us.

Looks like that's all over. We're going to end up more like people out in Alaska and other frontiers. They do a bunch of things seasonally, whenever the money(or food)-making is good. Dog-sledding, fishing, hunting, farming, whatever gets it done.

In Skeptical-Land, that's going to end up more like databasing, writing, editing, publishing, marketing, beading (yes, beading, more on that later), whatever gets us closer to paying our bills.

So we've been in evaluation mode regarding self-publishing for a bit. There are arguments for and against. The big one for is that we can't find an agent, and that the search for one is darn expensive. We've found some discussions online that we find informative. This one is pro and this one is con. The guy who wrote the latter article seems to think it's simple (and he doesn't mention the expense) to find an agent. Those who can't aren't "smart," or they're lazy. Hmph.

Another factor pro self-publishing is the publication cycle. If we found an agent today, we'd be looking at a year or more to get this first book to market. Sorry, the iron is hot, what with all the current shows and movies focusing on the wrongfully convicted and the DNA exonerations. If we want to ride the wave, we've got to get the series launched within a few months.

TSJ believes, and I trust him on this, math guy that he is, that DNA exonerations are going to fall off to nothing, in the future. The argument is that all the past convictions in which there is existing viable DNA evidence will eventually be reviewed, and those convicted will be exonerated or have their conviction upheld. New convictions where DNA is involved will be less susceptible to review, as new evidence doesn't generally arise. So DNA exonerations are a transient phenomenon. What they do, though, is bring irrefutable proof that people are wrongfully convicted and/or acquited. And that's the hook for the Series.

The numbers are another argument for self-publishing, depending on how many books we can sell. As previously noted, author royalties are a pittance for most books, most of the money is made in advances. Small advances, though, make for a poor cash-flow. Per-book earnings on self-published books can be as much as $10 each, and those sales can continue far past the usual time a publisher will support a mass-market book.

The downside(s) of self-publishing include doing, or hiring done, all sorts of work, such as copy-editing, book design, cover design, market research, marketing, and distribution systems. And that takes time. So we have to push through and Just Do It, to quote some sneaker company. Otherwise The Skeptical Team is just going to become Book-Teasers. And that's not right.

Following posts will explain more about how beading figures in all this, and how our self-publishing research and decision-making are proceeding.

Damn the Agents, Full Speed Ahead!!

2009-08-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

Everybody needs a change of career now and then, particularly if one isn't working at the grand passion of one's life.

TheSkepticalJuror has spent many years as an engineer (though an engineer is forever, even if you heave the job), has been a database developer for another 8 or so, and is now actively seeking his next career.

That's one thing this Series is about. But career change isn't the whole of it. TSJ gets passionate about things like truth and justice, and an experience as a juror truly did change his life a couple of years ago. It led him to assist the defense at the second trial of the accused, performing a role we haven't quite been able to describe. He immersed himself in the legal documents coming from the police, the depositions, the previous trial transcript, all of the paper that comes with a major case.

He performed an in-depth analysis of all the hundreds of thousands of words, organizing the data in specific ways such as time-lines (critical to almost any case), and cross-referenced every fact he could find. He did no additional investigation, though he did talk to the defendant and his family. He spent many hours planning strategy with the defense team, and during the trial, was able to identify changed testimony on the spot. All this contributed to the defendant not being convicted in the second trial either. The attorney made quite a name for himself off the verdict. TSJ remained in the background.

No defense attorney can possibly have the time to do the kind of analysis this took. Public defenders have, on average, about 4 hours per defendant they are assigned. Total, including the trial time. No wonder so many cases get pled out. Private attorneys must generally work only the hours they can get paid for, though of course many dedicated attorneys exceed this, they too have to make a living and cannot afford the hundreds of hours this kind of analysis may take.

TSJ found facts, correlations, and proof to allow the defense to refute the state's case in all that data. This is not easy in a second trial where each side has seen the cards the other will play. So what do we call this role? Forensic data analyst is taken by the computer community. Legal data analyst means something else. Expert witness doesn't quite get it, because he works behind the scenes. Data miner? Data whisperer? If there's a real name for it, let us know.

Anyway, this job, if you can call it that, plays to TSJ's strengths. He researches like the wind, and organizes data into patterns that reveal new meaning and new directions for defense. He lives with the data until the real motivations of the people involved become clear, and then he provides proof to back it up.

Now he just has to figure out how to make this a paying proposition. If he could he'd finally be working at his passion.

So how does this connect with the Series and the rejections we've been getting? We both see the Series as an adjunct to his as-yet unnamed career, and an advertisement for it. As such, we have to treat writing not as an end to itself, but as a business proposition.

Over the past weekend, TheSkepticalTeam, which consists of TSJ, TheSkepticalSpouse and TheSkepticalNiece (who keeps promising to post a blog entry, hint hint) had a meeting. We laid out a rough business plan regarding what we could expect to earn from book sales if we ever found an agent.

The numbers weren't good. In fact, they were dismal. You saw some of them in the post about rejection letters. Average earnings for a book sold through an agent/publisher are about $3,600 for the author. This is not going to keep our cat in Friskies, even taken over a 10 book series.

Then we ran numbers, some of which were admittedly pulled out of thin air, or spots lower down, on self-publishing. TSJ, using his research skills for his own good, has been looking into that. (Editor's amendment, TSJ says there weren't any actual guesses, but this is the best joke in the post, so leave it. Thanks, TSJ. A bunch.)

It's possible, following various self-publishing paths, to clear as much as $10 for a $20 sales price on a book. With aggressive marketing, this starts to look more realistic as a business proposition.

We're continuing to gather data and refine our plan. We're also editing, rewriting and planning our attack on the world of readers. Are you ready?

We'll keep you posted.

The White House Blinks

2009-08-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

Under withering fire from The Skeptical Juror (and others), the White House has shut down its flag@whitehouse.gov email address. As you may recall, that is where citizens were supposed to report other citizens for "fishy" behavior, including casual conversation. Naturally, I reported myself as a miscreant.

Having been tipped off that the email address had been shut down, I attempted to rat out National Geographic as a source of fishy information. I included a link to this image as proof.

To: Flag@WhiteHouse.gov
I Found Something Fishy
Check out this site. Lots of fishy stuff.
Thought you should know.
-tsj

This time, I received a response:

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
Flag@whitehouse.gov
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error.

Si, se puede.

-tsj

There's a Reason They're Called Rejection Letters...

2009-08-16T19:27:00.001-07:00

Because no matter how many times you tell yourself it's just a business decision, you feel rejected. Because no matter how many times you tell yourself that if you're not failing, you're not trying, being rejected does not feel good.

As previously blogged, The SkepticalJuror himself has put together a book proposal about The Series with a snappy cover letter and a representative sample of the book, as recommended by many How-To books. We've printed up 40 copies, customized them as appropriate, packed them properly with an SASE, and mailed them off to the mostly likely-seeming agents we could dig up.

Results haven't been good. About 14 snail-mail rejections, ranging from a form letter apologizing for being a form letter (do we have some self-esteem issues, here?) to one-third-sheet inserts (don't have to be folded to fit in the envelope). Some got an actual signature scrawled on, some were signed by assistants, some were unsigned. One rejection came by email. I think they hijacked our stamp on the SASE. The remainder have not bothered to reply at all. It's been nearly a month, the TSJ and I don't expect a sudden shock of good news after this amount of time.

But they all said the same thing. Some variation of "not the right book for us." Some of the agents insisted they'd given the book a "careful reading," others skipped that sop to the author's ego. Pardon my skepticism, which is after all, the family business, but I doubt any single agent read more than the first page.

Okay, it wasn't the right book for them. In my day job, I, The Skeptical Spouse, build databases. When I get a prospective customer whose project isn't right for my company, I do my best to refer the prospect to another developer who has a skill set that's a better fit. I do this by knowing the local developer community, and having colleagues I trust to do a good job for customers I refer to them. Those colleagues then reap thousands of dollars on the projects I refer to them. On occasion, they return the favor.

Is it too much to ask that agents (1 out of 40, at least) do something similar? "Oh, your book is about X. I know an agent who handles a lot of X. Here's their address." Oh, but wait. Then they'd actually have to read the submission to know what it's actually about.

In running the numbers for a business plan regarding what this series could mean to our family, we discovered some interesting things.

The average book sells about 2,000 copies. That's it. Some sell millions, so really, the median is far less. But take the average sales. If the book sells for $20, and the author royalty is 10%, then the total author cut is $4,000. Agents generally take 15%, so they get $600 of that $4,000.

Seems like agents must have to scratch very hard to make a living with figures like those. They cannot possibly take a chance on any author whose book promises to only sell the average. In my previous post, I likened searching for an agent to a bird flipping dead leaves on the forest floor. Now picture thousands of agents doing the same thing looking for the Next Great Author Who Will Sell a Ton. I'm guessing we pass each other with our heads in the leaves all the time.

Why don't we send out more and more and more proposal packages, I can hear you asking. Well there's the opportunity cost, and there's the cost cost. Our cost for each packages runs about $8 total. So every 100 submissions would cost $800.

Opportunity cost is a term for what you can't do while you're doing something else. Getting copies, collating, stamping, packaging, and hunting up legitimate agents (not as simple as copying from a list, as each one must be researched to show if they accept mail submissions, non-fiction, and are at least a loose fit for our project) takes hours and can involve the whole family. During that time we're not researching cases, writing, editing, blogging, or making money at the day job.

These numbers are leading us toward a conclusion. More on that later.

Agent, O Agent, Where the Heck Art Thou?

2009-08-14T11:40:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen one of those birds that flings dead leaves about on the forest floor? He heaves leaves aside with his beak, then examines the forest floor in the manner of a man who has just done something unspeakable into his handkerchief and cannot resist looking.

The bird is hoping for a feast of pillbugs or a startled snail making a break for it. Many times all he finds are more leaves, or bare dirt, but flinging leaves is how he makes his living.

This is what it feels like looking for an agent to publish a book. You're in a twisty maze of passages, all alike, and the floor is covered with dead leaves. Under one of those leaves is an agent who will like what you've written and work hard to sell it to a publisher. Under all the other leaves are rejection letters, or in many cases, a complete lack of response.

Why is this process so hard? We know the book isn't trash. Every single early reader has been enthusiastic with praise, even those not related to us. They're enthused about the subject matter and unreasonably kind about the writing. So why are we finding it so difficult to identify even one agent who has an interest in this kind of book?

There is no great central directory of agents or agencies where we could look for those who specialize in "true crime meets courtroom procedural meets a bit of civics class." Okay, I admit it's not a straightforward non-fiction match. There's no self-help, straight-to-Oprah path here. But it seems unreasonably difficult to get to any specialist agents who might give it a look.

And by hard, I mean expensive. We've bought enough "Guides to Getting Published/ Writing a Book Proposal" to stock a library shelf. We've heeded the advice not to submit directly to publishers; the path to them is through an agent.

We (I mean TSJ) have prepared a 50 page book proposal in line with those guides. It's a darn snappy proposal, too. But this is not a cheap proposition. Copying at Kinkos costs about 11 cents a page. Postage is another $2.48, plus the SASE inside, and other incidental supplies. Costs for each package run about $8, and we've only covered 50 of the possible thousands of agents out there so far. No amount of research has enabled us to ensure we're sending to the right agents.

In fact, the letters we've gotten in response seem unanimous in agreement that whoever we've sent it to, they aren't the right agent.

Sure, some agents are now accepting or insisting on email submissions. For some reason the requirements for these are so eccentric that each submission practically has to be completely customized, and that costs something worse than money, it costs time. So that limits the number of email submissions we can get out.

It would be great if there were some place to look for the Perfect Agent. Any advice from readers of the blog will be welcome.

TSJ is hard at work refining the first book and researching the second. But in the meantime, we need some sign that we're not working in vain.

Next: The Philosophy of Rejection Letters, and Considering Self Publishing..

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to Getting Published, and Other Random Thoughts

2009-08-07T10:53:00.000-07:00

We're supposed to be posting about our submissions of the Series to agents, and some of the funny, charming and not so charming rejections we've been getting. But we keep getting sidetracked. We'll get to the rejections, we promise.

TSJ found time to get outraged by official government requests to report "fishy" behavior regarding people who think there might be something not quite kosher about the new health care reform bill to the White House. Even, astonishingly, if it comes up in "casual conversation"!!! This came about in the official White House blog on Tuesday.

Checking carefully, it does seem we're still living in the United States of America. When it became government policy to snitch on one's neighbors and acquaintances when they question or have concerns with government actions, I guess I missed that part in Civics class. The Obama government seems to be compiling an enemies list...and now TSJ has decided that's a club he'd like to join.

After all, we have some reservations about health care reform, and they're not all that casual. This is what TSJ self-reported to the email listed in the post:

"I hereby report myself for believing there is something fishy about a government who keeps lists of its dissident citizenry.

My sin is not just in my thoughts, though I am sure nothing is more dangerous than my thoughts.

I am actively developing, and will soon be promoting a website that points out occasional abuse of government power. You can review my site at www.skepticaljuror.com

Though I hide behind the mask of a pseudonym, I have no doubt you will be able to locate me. To ease your effort however, I will send a copy of this email from my personal account as well.

A concerned citizen"

So, any readers who feel that this kind of government action might not be quite as American as we might wish it, consider reporting yourselves. Because, y'know, that's Fishy. Officially Fishy.

Why I Self Reported

2009-08-07T10:52:00.000-07:00

The Skeptical Spouse just posted about how I reported myself to the executive branch of our federal government for "fishy" thoughts and behavior. I'm glad she wrote that post since she writes in a more pleasing style than I do. She coaches me that I'm too pedantic. She would suggest, for example, that I not use the word "pedantic."

The issue is relevant to this site and what we are trying to accomplish. As a skeptical juror, you must be willing to challenge the government. Jurors must be willing to tell their government "NO!" Jurors must be willing to say, "This far and no more."

The alternative makes a mockery of the jury system. If jurors simply do as the prosecution, the state, wishes them to do, jurors would serve no function. We could save the time, expense, and embarrassment of jury trials, and simply allow the authorities to convict whomever they think might be guilty. We can always hope they will exercise their unchecked power with wisdom and restraint.

Skeptical jurors are the last line of protection for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our most basic freedoms. In a system of checks and balances, skeptical jurors are the final check in a process unbalanced against people charged with a crime.

If you are unwilling to challenge the government, if you are unwilling to limit its power, I suggest that you are ill-prepared for jury duty.

I will report myself again for publishing this post.

tsj

Followup: I have reported myself as a repeat offender, as promised. The text of the email follows.

Hello. It's me again, The Skeptical Juror. I continue my "fishy" behavior, as evidenced by this recent post.

I suspect I will be unable to control my behavior.

Thought you should know.

tsj

The Web's Most Dangerous Search Terms

2009-07-28T11:12:00.000-07:00

Hello, readers. I'm TheSkepticalSpouse, partner and helpmate to TheSkepticalJuror. TSJ has asked me to post about an incident that has greatly affected his quest to write and publish The Series.

What's this got to do with the web's most dangerous search terms? He was searching for song lyrics for music for the website, and clicked into a site loaded with malware. I'm not going to give you a link because it will kill your machine, if you happen to use Windows. And yes, our old machine was protected by PCDoctor at all times.

We couldn't revive the old machine, and just barely managed to get the files containing the manuscript of the first book off the hard drive. The only reason we did was that it was a Macbook Pro, formatted to run Windows XP natively. We booted into the Mac side and were able to drag the files across from the Win partition.

Then we purchased an entirely new machine, and installed Webroot as the first application. We'll also be installing a highly recommended malware remover from Malwarebytes.

However, even though the files were dragged Windows>Mac>Windows, they still must have been infected, because the new machine detects and fights off attacks from the Bad Lyrics Site several times per day.

So beware, readers. TSJ and I paid for an innocent websearch with a weekend of inconvenience, annoyance and a nice big bill for purchasing a new computer. We risked losing all the most vital files for our projects. Update your virus and malware applications constantly! (or browse lyrics sites with Macs, they haven't been targeted, yet!) And most important, back up your files on separate media, frequently!

We'll be recycling the Macbook into completely Mac again, it'll never run Windows again.

Kangaroo Court

2009-07-21T16:57:00.001-07:00

As a source of arcane knowledge, there can be few more dependable than Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope. We will be checking in with him on occasion. Here I include his answer to a reader's question about the origin of the term "kangaroo court." I include the harshest portion of his erudite response below.

"Those arguing for the expression's Down Under origins say it sprang up in the Australian outback, where the homesteaders periodically used to convene "hopper's court." This usage derived from the supposed fact that when kangaroos see a man for the first time they typically stop dead and eyeball him for five minutes, then suddenly turn and scoot. The practice of staring idiotically into space for long periods followed by a rash and inexplicable jump to conclusions was thought to closely resemble the behavior of a jury or judicial panel, hence kangaroo court."

For a better sense of The Straight Dope phenomenon, read his complete answer.

Why This Blog?

2009-07-21T16:20:00.001-07:00

My life changed several years ago when I was a juror on a serious felony trial. An innocent man almost went to prison, effectively for life, for a crime he did not commit.

For several years, I have been playing around with ideas which might reduce the number of such injustices. Earlier this year, I settled on one approach that might work.

I am writing a series of books, each dealing with a single, actual trial, each placing the reader in the position of a juror in that trial. My hope is that by allowing the reading public to experience jury duty before they are summoned, future juries will become ever-so-slightly less likely to convict an innocent person.

I have completed one book in the series and I am working on a second. I have created a separate web site (using the Blogger engine) to promote the series. Please visit The Skeptical Juror site for more details on how I hope to accomplish my task.

That leads us finally to the purpose of this blog. It will be a journal of my efforts to see The Skeptical Juror Series through its creation and publication. While the content on The Skeptical Juror web site will be relatively static, the content on The Skeptical Juror Blog will change nearly every day.

I want to give you reason to return frequently. To accomplish that, I will have to inform, motivate, and entertain. Some posts will be deadly serious, some will be light-hearted, and some will just keep you au courant regarding my effort to launch a book series is going. Most, but not all posts, will be related to jury performance in some fashion. But other than that poorly-enforced rule, the sky's the limit.

Hope to see you tomorrow.

Dude, Where's My Flying Car?

2009-07-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

I'm one day late for the 40th anniversary of the man's first landing on the moon. I have no excuse other than I've just started this blog, this is my first post, and I'm already off topic. It's not my fault. The sun was in my eyes. My dog ate my notes. I'm a victim too.

J. Storrs Hall of the Foresight Institute posted an essay yesterday entitled Space Travel: utter bilge? In it, he bemoaned the lack of colonies on the moon, and threw in the absence of flying cars to boot. I say "Buck up, J. Storrs."

I'm growing a wee bit weary of the Where's My Moonbase / Where's My Flying Car crowd. Simply because you were told it was going to happen back in the 60's doesn't mean that you were guaranteed a stay at the Holiday Inn Tranquility Base. It doesn't mean the TV airways should now be filled with ads for the '09 Boeing/GM StratoMalibu. (The lyrics Like a Rock would no longer work, would they?)

But you got something better, way better. Something no one saw coming. You got this. This right here! You're looking at it.

Not my blog, dimbulb. You have the internet, and cellphones, word processors, email, and high definition television with video recording. The futurists missed it big time, as they always will. You didn't get big things made of molecules. You got small things that play with electrons. You got YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, texting. You got CAT-scans and ultrasounds. You have your ATM card and automated billing. You have Google, Blogger, Amazon, and eBay. You have Apple, Intel, Microsoft, and Kindle. You, sir or ma'am, got one hell of a good deal.

Before you ever set foot in the lobby of the Man in the Moon Marriott, innovations based on robotics, and genetic engineering will change our lives more than any of us can predict.

So don't worry. Be happy.