SFist: Oh No, Ed Jew!: Juror

thatguywhokeepscorrectingthings

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:35:08 -0800

Hey, cool! A serious issue taken seriously! The cockles of my shriveled, cranky wonkish heart are warmed. Thanks, rita and DJTennessee. I should say, though, that although my impression now is that it's much more likely the account is real than fake, I wish the question of how people know what they claim they know were applied more frequently to newsy posts here.

Shibi

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:00:10 -0800

I totally believed you, anyway, DJTennessee. Thanks for sharing your Jury Duty story! I hate jury duty (and I am called to both courts frequently) but this, damn... this is a GEM!

Why Hello

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:16:30 -0800

DJ Tennessee sounds hot.

rita

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:13:22 -0800

And I should say DJTennessee offered me a phone number for confirmation of the story, but I figured the story wasn't such that we needed to see, like, a certificate of service from the jury commissioner or anything like that. When SFist confirms something we get from a third-party source, we tend to indicate that we've confirmed it -- we didn't confirm the story about 911 from the inbox yesterday either. Guy Who Keeps Pointing Stuff Out makes a good point that you should always read everything on this site as critically and skeptically as you read anything else! We try to be as transparent as possible but are always happy to clarify as needed.

Deborah

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:26 -0800

Chester?

DJTennessee

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:58:42 -0800

Hey, SFist community... I'm the "anonymous" guy who sent this tip in. I'd give you my juror badge number, but then they'd totally know I took weed to court. Regrettably, I actually had to serve on this jury whereas Ed Jew was immediately dismissed. Most prospective jurors were not called on and dismissed Monday afternoon, thereby they could immediately begin reporting information to Matier & Ross, etc. I specifically asked the judge's assistant (not the Recorder, but the individual who does the oath) if as a juror I could mention this to anyone, and he asked that I did not until the trial was over. This pretty much snuffed my ability to provide anything not already reported. Goodbye, book deal. I could provide information on the specific case before the court, because he was assigned to a pool for a specific case. But I think that would be unnecessary and maybe unethical. There is, however, one detail I've provided that I think is unique and has not appeared elsewhere: He was addressed as "Jew, Edmond". Dudes I am totally obsessed with the Ed Jew saga and read everything I can on it, but I have never seen him referred to as "Edmond." I always assumed "It's 'Edwin', because he's Cantonese." Sorry people. But I really thought that. And I would not have known that it was "Edmond" (could be "Edmund" I suppose) if I had not been there. Thanks so much SFist Rita for posting this and to all you guys for looking at it! Let it rip, these comments delight me.

thatguywhokeepscorrectingthings

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:20:40 -0800

Michael, I think you're right that the *feel* of the account is spot on. It is. But that doesn't mean that this particular account is true. It may only mean that the writer had been called to jury duty before. I could write a similar account of Hasselhoff's custody proceedings, but that doesn't mean I was really there. I do cook a mean cheeseburger, though, as the Hoff will attest if he's not too loaded. Deborah, no -- no lie-detector test is needed (it wouldn't be very good evidence in any case). But should it be published if SFist has no clue if it's for real or not? If this account is supposed to be factual reporting, then I as a reader expect either that SFist will present better information to support it, or that they'll hold back from publishing it. If you're going to be skeptical about the stuff you see on "old media" then you've got to be skeptical about stuff published here, too. "How do you know that?" remains a valid question.

Deborah

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:51:19 -0800

This is someone's personal account. Should we force them to undergo a lie detector test? Maybe we should try to get a hold of the court reporter! Sheesh.

Michael

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:14:53 -0800

I see no reason to doubt that this story IS true. If you've ever served on jury down at Superior Court, you'll know there's hundreds of people sitting around waiting in the basement. When called, courtrooms usually pull up at least 50 people at a time.

Anon

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:45:23 -0800

I'm in the pool this week as well, just haven't been called in yet. I flipped out when I found out I was almost in with Ed Jew.

gg

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:44:11 -0800

Now I know why I'm always excused from jury duty....I'm never high enough. Next time I'm called, doobies will be smoked!

thatguywhokeepscorrectingthings

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:42:47 -0800

Wait a minute, how do we (or SFist) know any of this is true? I'm all for more fact-based Ed Jew fun -- and I'm sure the supply is nowhere near drained yet -- but for all I can tell, this is mostly BS constructed around a few previously published facts. If SFist has done anything to verify the story or even the premise that the sender really was on jury duty when he/she says he was, please let us know. Without that information, I've got no reason to pay attention.

ClassyDave

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:27:23 -0800

I love it. This is great. Thanks.......