The Stomper goes on trial

Maybe I'm reading these comments wrong, but it sounds as if some of you are making light of a clerk threatened by a box cutter.

I can laugh at the daily idiocy committed in this city as well as anyone. And I generally agree with Swrrlygirl's comments. But I have to say that I don't find much humorous about this incident.

I testified before a grand jury about this guy just about one year ago. Two weeks before Christmas, he stomped a homeless man to death as the guy slept in a downtown doorway. He kicked the man's head so hard with his boot that he fractured the guy's skull in several places. He escaped prosecution because one witness had mental illness that prevented him from making a decent appearance on the stand, and another witness was too terified to appear.

Now, it seems, this same maniac has gone into a store and threatened a clerk with a razor-sharp knife. Is there something funny about this? Imagine yourself in the position of the clerk--unarmed and alone, facing an angry man waving a razor blade at you. This man has proven that he will not hestitate before killing.

So, again I have to ask: Is there anything funny about this?

I was on the jury for this case. He was found not guilty of witness intimidation because the police could not get their stories straight about what happened once Connolly was booked. We heard from 3 cops and heard 3 different stories. One cop seemed like he barely had a pulse and could not even understand simple questions from the Assistant DA. There was reasonable doubt about what happened between these cops and Connolly. However, as far as the assault is concerned, there is no question in my mind that he is guilty. Someone asked why we didn't hold out for the guilty verdict. We deliberated for 2 and a half days over a trial that lasted one day. In those 2 and a half days, we did not make any progress. By the 3rd day, two jurors (1 undecided and 1 not guilty) refused to continue to deliberate. They refused to listen to anyone or speak. One of those jurors (not guilty) has alcoholism in her family and was clearly biased. There was no way to convince her, and when we asked her to convince us of Connolly's innocence, she didn't have anything to offer. Another juror clung to the testimony of a researcher from MIT who said that someone with a history of alcoholism like Dennis cannot form intent. Bear in mind that while this researcher reviewed Dennis' medical records, he has never actually met Dennis, and as a fellow juror pointed out, an ER doctor who actually examined Dennis noted in his record that he had normal judgement. Another juror felt that Connolly didn't INTEND to commit assault because if he had intended to, he would have actually cut the clerk's throat. Apparently, according to some of my fellow jurors, waving a weapon around in someone's face and verbalizing a threat is not illegal as long as you don't cut skin or draw blood. Anyway, the deliberations became hostile to the point where we almost had to call in a court officer. If there was any hope of reaching agreement, we would have held out. But, there was no hope. For those of you who would like to criticize, I ask you to consider how long you would have held out in a hopeless and hostile situation when you have jobs, families, and your own lives to attend to.