|
[Note: I appreciate the comments that continue to come from many of you in response to my articles. Many are enlightened, insightful and even funny. I know habits are difficult to break, but others are missing out on your wit and wisdom. So if you'd like to comment, please do not simply reply to this newsletter as in times past, but click the designated link at the end of the article and let everyone benefit. Thanks!]
Rod Blagojevich is most likely going to jail. The former Illinois governor was found guilty on 17 of 20 federal counts of corruption, including charges that he tried to sell President Barack Obama's former senate seat.
Here's what is fascinating to me...
In his first trial last summer, a jury was unable to come to a verdict on his guilt or innocence. This year, the jury found the same evidence against him "overwhelming."
What was the difference?
As pointed out in an article in the Chicago Sun-Times by Natasha Korecki, Jon Sedel, Lark Turner and Lauren Fitzpatrick, there was only one difference between the two trials: last summer, Blago didn't take the stand...this time he did.
He's a talker, Blago is, and the jury heard seven days of him.
In a situation where two people don't know each other very well, it is correct rapport building strategy to learn something you have in common with that person and build your conversation around that.
But this strategy practiced insincerely and with ill motives backfires. It becomes pandering and patronizing and quickly undermines the speaker's credibility. Once his or her credibility is in question, the listener tends to write off everything else he or she has to say. One lie assumes many.
According to the Sun-Times article, jury forewoman Connie Wilson said she recognized what Blagojevich was up to when he started referring to personal history details of each of the jurors during his testimony-information that had come out when the judge questioned the jury pool before testimony began.
The politician was alive and well on the stand and the jury didn't like it.
They discussed this during deliberations. There was a clear pattern-Blagojevich brought up some tidbit that pertained to almost everyone on the jury at one time or another.
This pandering theme became painfully obvious and disgusted them.
Blago mentioned books, targeting a librarian on the jury; pointed out an interest in music, directing the comments toward Wilson, who was a former choral director; and discussed the importance of education to connect with a teacher.
"He even brought out at one point something about Boston, and of course our gentleman (the only male juror) was a huge Boston fan," she said with a laugh.
His strategy made juror Karen Wojcieszak angry. "We heard seven days of his blah, blah, blah," she said.
The more he tried to endear himself to the jury, the deeper he got.
Suddenly all of the excuse making and explanations Blagojevich made for his behavior sounded lame. These same arguments that were made last summer by someone else hung a jury; this time made personally, they hung Blago.
Principles practiced mean little if they are not wed to sincerity. Insincerity results in a quick divorce from you and your listeners.
And if you are a phony, I ask you to lend your ear closely and you will hear, borne by the feint wisps of mistrust wafting from your audience (whether one or one hundred), the unmistakable sound of retching.
| 
