ONTD Political

The Teardrop Tattoo Will Be His Undoing tw:racism:emotional abuse

11:16 pm - 11/24/2012
The Teardrop Tattoo Will Be His Undoing

Simone Jacobson

I'm reporting for my first jury duty summons at 500 Indiana Avenue. Though I have lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for over a decade, I have never been called to court for my civic duty to "serve."
Some are lawyers and plaintiffs, but most of them are prey to an intricate web of systems—poverty, drugs, laws, codes, slavery, a deliberate erasure of histories and forced migrations, dehumanization, colonialism, patriarchy—all meant to entrap generations upon generations from birth. This is what I tell myself as I scan the inscape of the place. This is what hip-hop taught me.
There are Black teenagers frantically thumbing through torn envelopes to find the proper permits, documents, and proofs for their weapons. There are Black women swearing they haven't ever darkened that woman's doorstep, their own public defenders discrediting them in whispers.

In a mad dash out the main entrance and back down Indiana Avenue, a Black man set to appear in court slams into three strangers in front of me and grazes my arm. Minutes later, he returns with humble apologies for the guards on duty.

"My bad," he says to the officers. "I thought you was just tryna be nasty with me." Like most of the Black men funneling through security today, this guy has been here before.

With an indifferent wave of hand, the guard signals him through.

"You do realize that the metal detector didn't even go off, don't you?" huffs the white woman in front of me, incredulous at the brief inconvenience of being patted down.

My eye twitches.

During the second of what will be my sixth or seventh lining up of the day, a chorus of I-hope-they-don't-pick-me abounds in loud timbres and in whispers.

The Black woman in front of me with glassy eyes speaks in my direction without looking at me. "I hope they send me home," she sighs. "I just got off work at 5:00 a.m. If they pick me, I'll just have to go right back to work after this."

"I feel you," I say. "That's terrible."

When my jury's panel is finally called, about four hours after my sleepy arrival, I try not to nod off when the loud, artificial ocean-sounding "husher" is switched on. The husher is a constant, static noise that permeates the courtroom so no one can hear what is being said at the bench. The judge has just given a shockingly passionate speech about jury service as both duty and privilege.

I wonder what he would think if he knew that in response to the murder of Trayvon Marton, I'd written these lines: "When I go outside/ I don't ever/ have to worry someone/ will one day march in an/ impotent mob wearing/ a t-shirt with my name on it."

Eventually, I stand in line with my juror's survey crumpled in half, waiting to be called forward to the bench. I am reading a book called Letters from Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion of the democracy movement in my mother's home country. Suu Kyi was held under house arrest for thirteen years until her release in 2010, confined during both the death of her husband in the U.K. (he was not allowed to re-enter Burma and Suu Kyi would have risked being banned from the country permanently had she chosen to go to his bedside) and her sons' formative adolescent years. Time and again, this woman bravely put her country's needs before her family.

As I wait for the judge to beckon me, I make eye contact with the defendant, another young Black male. He is dressed in an ironed button down shirt, sleek wire frame glasses, and slacks. There's a small but noticeable teardrop inked permanently on his skin, just below his right eye.

The teardrop tattoo will be his undoing.

The system will not forgive him that. This is just one of the things I want to tell him. I want to hold both his hands in mine and kneel in front of him. Instead, I make a mistake and tell the judge the truth.

"You've marked here that you would not count the testimony of a police officer to be the same as any other person," the judge begins, following up with a seemingly rhetorical question, "Is that correct?"

"Yes," I reply.

"Why is that?"

"Well, I do not believe that police officers act lawfully or appropriately the majority of the time. In my personal experience, they are not truthful, especially in a court of law." I do not mention Vincent Chin or Fong Lee. There is no space on the questionnaire for that.

The judge is taken aback by my response, but composes himself and un-scrunches his brow to continue his line of questioning.

"So you're saying if a police officer came in here to testify, you would automatically assume he or she was lying?"

"No," I say, pausing, then pronouncing each word assuredly as I attempt to clarify my statement, "I would not necessarily assume that. But I do have a strong bias."

Now, I can see the judge wants to know everything, but not for the purpose of this case. If he could, I think he would put on the husher and take me into a low-ceilinged, fluorescently lit room where judges gather. He would ask more questions, "off the record". He would want to find out why my eyes slant under these black mascara strokes. He would probe me about my experiences with the police, which have been-as I checked the appropriate box in the juror's questionnaire—exceptionally negative.

The judge does not know Asian American women like me. He smirks a bit and concedes, "I am going to excuse you."

I am free to go.

I turn and march directly out the front courthouse entrance, splaying open the glass doors with one forceful push, past smokers clustered in duets, trios and quartets, in search of coffee and food. I'm satisfied and emboldened, but I haven't officially been "released" for the day.

I sit in the juror's lounge again. 30 minutes later, they finally let those of us remaining go with a simple announcement: "Turn your badges into the wire basket on your way out. Thank you for serving."

And it's over.

The first thing I do when I walk out of 500 Indiana is text my partner. He is an artist, a loving father, and a Black man.

I text him, "I told them F the police and they let me leave."

He texts me back immediately: "What? You can't fight the system if you aren't picked. Jury nullification!!!"

"Oh shit," I type back. "I got it wrong."

In a rush to honestly express my profound skepticism about the United States "justice system" and the armed officers upholding these laws, I'd completely neglected the possibility of jury nullification. Criminal law scholar Paul Butler describes jury nullification as "a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don't deserve punishment. When a jury disregards the evidence and acquits an otherwise guilty defendant, it has practiced jury nullification. The jury is saying that the law is unfair, either generally or in this particular case."

While my partner (and so many men like him) has had a lifetime of sink-or-swim interactions with the violent waters of the Prison Industrial Complex, I have only recently been affected in personal ways. I cannot say that I would have issued a "not guilty" verdict—had I been selected—if I felt the man with the teardrop tattoo had, beyond the shadow of a doubt, committed murder.

My partner said that he was disappointed in my actions and reminded me this marked an instance of how I "show my whiteness." My mother is Burmese and my father is a white American. My own whiteness, he argued, allowed me the privilege not to be convinced of the need for jury nullification when it counted. He assumed I had not carefully considered the man before me with deep empathy. He chastised me for not recognizing that this man might serve a life sentence because of my inability to "toughen up," to overcome my own pain, anxiety and fears in order to potentially spare the defendant. He questioned my commitment to eliminating prisons, a topic we've stayed up so many late nights discussing. In my partner's eyes, the man's innocence or guilt was irrelevant. He, like Paul Butler, understands and believes that jury nullification has the power to "help make the United States more safe and free," and that "strategic jury nullification can safely reduce mass incarceration."

Petty theft and other nonviolent crimes, that's one thing, I say to myself, but what about the murder of another Black man? Would I be capable of nullifying a murder charge?

Should I be?

What do I do with the part of me that has absolutely no tolerance for sexual violence, rape, or other incursions into a human being's body? Should the woman in me that fears sexual assault above all else retreat to support the race-conscious potential of jury nullification to reduce incarceration rates?

I decide right then that if I could report again for jury duty, I'd trade my liberating fuck-the-police moment for a meaningful act in true service to my community. I'm still not convinced I could cast a not guilty verdict for someone I thought took another life. But, I do know that my country, my peers needed me in that room deliberating, not texting my lover about a fleeting personal victory.

I want to believe the strength is within me to unlearn all the charmed Paradise Valley teachings of my youth, but I'm not sure. I want to be the kind of Burmese American woman who is savvy and courageous enough to choose her country over her family. Until that day, I can only hope the United States of America radically transforms into a country worth ethically serving and that deliberation rooms across our country are occupied with thoughtful Americans who know that our select, thuggish, unethical enforcement of laws should be on trial just as much as the lines of "guilty" Black men lining the courtrooms of our cities.

It's all too late. Ten months after my failed opportunity at jury nullification, I can still see that young Black man, the ironic permanence of a single tear branded on his skin. The static crackle of the husher confines us both to that painful memory. The truth, though, is that one of us will always be free to go.

I got it wrong.

I know this is long, and there is no bolding but I thought it was an interesting read and I'm curious what the community thinks of this jury nullification thing.
More Gawker
waffled_flambe 26th-Nov-2012 01:40 am (UTC)
I didn't even know jury nullification was a thing, so thanks for posting this; I'll definitely keep it in mind if I'm ever called for jury duty.
romp 26th-Nov-2012 05:50 am (UTC)
it's a growing movement apparently. I only learned of it a few weeks ago.
alryssa 26th-Nov-2012 07:12 am (UTC)
Neither did I, but then, I've never been in a position where I'd be called on for it, really. Good to know. Thanks for posting this, OP.
harumi 26th-Nov-2012 01:50 am (UTC)
My partner said that he was disappointed in my actions and reminded me this marked an instance of how I "show my whiteness." My mother is Burmese and my father is a white American. My own whiteness, he argued, allowed me the privilege not to be convinced of the need for jury nullification when it counted.

You know, I'm wondering if this is a thing. I'm an Asian American woman, and I was recently told by a black man that I, along with my fellow Asian Americans (all of them) have Asian privilege, which was, according to him, the equivalent of White privilege. The statement essentially says that Asian Americans have been succeeding in this country despite the US being a racist system, and the fact that we seem to benefit would indicate that we have privilege. It's something that I've been struggling to work through, and this article has brought it up again.

I'm also extremely uncomfortable that this man has guilted the author into a position where she is either fighting the corrupt prison system or allowing a man who may have violently assaulted a woman to go free. Under what instances should the jury practice nullification? And should all people (who believe that the justice system is corrupt) feel obligated to do so even if they feel unsafe?

This is a whole mess of intersectionality issues, and while I agree in principle with jury nullification, parts of this piece did not sit well with me.
harumi 26th-Nov-2012 02:50 am (UTC)
Who is the "y'all" you are referring to? You do realize that not all Asian Americans are treated the same? A Cambodian American would have a very different experience (with the police even) from a Japanese American. So while I completely agree with you, I would caution you to avoid lumping all Asian Americans as a singular whole, because we're quite diverse, and the Asian label is extremely misleading. Many Pakistanis for instance, consider themselves Asian. And I don't think they would get much luck with the justice system we have now, Islamophobic as it is.

I reread that part, and I think I'm getting your interpretation. At a second read-through she's saying that even if she was on jury she still might not choose to nullify, but at least by being on the jury, she would have been able to play a role. Rather than acting self-righteous and getting out of jury duty, we should bite back our real feelings and actually play a part in the system to ensure that at least one person in there is decent. It's definitely something to consider for the future, should I ever be called upon.
maynardsong 26th-Nov-2012 12:56 pm (UTC)
Really? I'm south Asian and its a pet peeve of mine that no one includes us when they say "Asian"
bestdaywelived 26th-Nov-2012 04:07 am (UTC)
To me, that was her partner showing off his male privilege. He didn't have to worry about getting raped by a rapist, quite frankly, so it wasn't an issue.

moonshaz 26th-Nov-2012 05:28 am (UTC)
Good point!
jenny_jenkins 26th-Nov-2012 02:57 am (UTC)
I will never serve on a jury since my profession make me ineligible - but I like the idea of nullification - I always have. Justice and "the right thing" are not always the same thing.
spyral_path 26th-Nov-2012 03:10 am (UTC)
Jury nullification might be a thing, but good luck convincing all 12 jurors to go along with it.
1trackmind 26th-Nov-2012 04:04 am (UTC)
I assume in most instances those who favor jury nullification would not be unhappy with a hung jury. Criminal cases in the US (at least the state level) require a unanimous verdict. I believe that's true in federal court, too, but I'm not positive.

I'll be honest, the idea of jury nullification makes me uneasy and I have visceral negative reaction to the idea of committing perjury. (Jurors are sworn in before "voir dire" which means if she had lied about how she felt about the police she would have been committing perjury).

I'm not pretending that jury service is perfect. God knows, you only need to be called once to realize that it's hardly "a jury of ones peers."

In my partner's eyes, the man's innocence or guilt was irrelevant.

I don't understand that. At all. So, because there are systemic problems if you kill someone (or presumably rape someone or torture someone or kidnap someone or whatever) but you're a member certain group you shouldn't be punished? Is that true for all crimes? Does the group(s) of the victim matter? Does the reason matter?

Seriously, I don't understand the thinking.
bestdaywelived 26th-Nov-2012 04:09 am (UTC)
Agreed. I wouldn't go along with jury nullification unless it was something that really truly did not deserve punishment (like the case of the woman who fired the "warning shot" against her abusive husband and was convicted of attempted murder). I would fight to make sure that the guilty are punished.
mary_pickforded 26th-Nov-2012 06:23 am (UTC)
ia. this would be great for cases like the one where a father shot and killed his son's rapist.
milleniumrex 26th-Nov-2012 04:11 am (UTC)
Well said. The system may be corrupt, but that's not helped at all by letting a violent criminal go free in some sort of protest.

Conscientious people who are aware of the problems with the system are very useful on juries, because they're able to see through the prosecutor's bullshit a lot of the time and render a fair verdict. But that stops well short of absolute nullification.
jenny_jenkins 27th-Nov-2012 11:04 pm (UTC)
but that's not helped at all by letting a violent criminal go free in some sort of protest.

Jury nullification, when it happens, is usually unconscious and NOT* done as a protest. My father served on a jury and came home after acquitting. He thought the person accused was acting in self-defence and shouldn't have been charged with assault.

When asked why - "because it wasn't fair." Now admittedly, it was not an important case, but the defendant was a prisoner (the assault happened in prison). He wasn't a sympathetic accused. His lawyer made the case very well though. In Canada you can't ask a jury to nullify (that's actually at common law) but you can indirectly suggest it by providing evidence.

But my dad had no idea that what he'd done was jury nullification. He and the jurors just agreed "something's not fair about this..."

I've never heard of it being done as a pure protest.

ETA ***EDITED for NOT

Edited at 2012-11-27 11:05 pm (UTC)
spyral_path 26th-Nov-2012 05:36 am (UTC)
With a hung jury there is still a possibility that the case may be re-tried, whereas if a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict, the accused walks. I don't understand the thinking behind this either. Yes, there are huge problems and biases in the criminal justice system, but some crimes need to be punished, and some people should never be allowed to walk in free society again.
1trackmind 26th-Nov-2012 05:47 am (UTC)
That's a good point.

I don't know what the answer is for systemic bias but it seems like there has to be a better way to deal with it.
mary_pickforded 26th-Nov-2012 06:24 am (UTC)
IA.
milleniumrex 26th-Nov-2012 04:09 am (UTC)
I like the idea of nullification as a protest against a specific unjust law - say, drug laws with draconian sentences, or in the past dealing with draft resistors - but I'm uncomfortable with it as a catch-all.

It's also a very risky proposition. Jurors who are on the wrong end of an 11-1 vote due to believing in jury nullification have been tossed in jail for contempt.
sesmo 26th-Nov-2012 07:32 am (UTC)
I have never heard of a juror being jailed for contempt for being on the wrong end, or any end, of a split jury. The only context in which I heard of jury nullification leading to jail time is when a juror brought in brochures and distributed them to the rest of the jury pool. Given that you're not allowed to bring in external materials, that was not a problem about nullification as such.
bestdaywelived 26th-Nov-2012 04:20 am (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't think that she got it wrong. I think that her partner got it wrong, especially since he carries the belief that ALL criminals should be free if they are African-American. Incarceration for things like petty theft and high school fights/disrespectful behavior is how AA men get in the prison industrial complex, and that needs to be addressed and stopped. Keeping rapists and murderers on the street is fucking stupid and wrong, but he doesn't seem concerned, probably because, as a man, his chances of being raped are almost non-existent.

Whenever there is an article like this, I have to think about my aunt, who is a victim of crime (drunk driving/third degree murder because her killer did it on purpose). I certainly don't want the scum who killed her back on the street or to evade a punishment.
spyral_path 26th-Nov-2012 05:30 am (UTC)
What he did say was "jury nullification!!!" without knowing any of the details of the case, which comes pretty close.
romp 26th-Nov-2012 05:54 am (UTC)
I didn't read it that way. I felt like he was upset by giving up her voice on the jury and possibly being able to use jury nullification.
1trackmind 26th-Nov-2012 05:51 am (UTC)
According to the author: In my partner's eyes, the man's innocence or guilt was irrelevant.


It might be she's putting words in his mouth, I don't know. But if he really believes guilt or innocence is irrelevant then yes, I think the logical extension is that he believes if you are a member of a group that the judicial system discriminates against, you should go free no matter what the crime was. Remember, she's already talking about a murder case and I think once you okay killing someone you probably don't have an issue with other types of crime.
1trackmind 26th-Nov-2012 06:19 am (UTC)
it still isn't made clear that he would absolve all black people of all crimes.

I reiterate that once you decide it doesn't matter if someone took another life, you're highly unlikely to decide that distinction matters in most other crimes. Possibly he would feel differently about rape or kidnapping or something, but then I think you're getting into crime x is worse than crime y. And yes, I realize the judicial system does exactly that (as it should).

I can see an argument for jury nullification in "victimless crimes," like, say, minor pot possession. I also think there are better ways to deal with that, as, for example, Washington and Colorado's recent initiatives. There's room for nuance there. But I don't see a lot of nuance in deciding it doesn't matter if someone committed murder or not. Honestly, once someone decides it doesn't matter if the guy took another life or not I'm inclined to stop listening.

I'm also not sure what the author's partner hopes to accomplish. So say everyone starts practicing jury nullification. Then what? We get rid of juries entirely? I just have a feeling the focus would be on fixing the wrong part of the problem. Using professional juries or eliminating the right to trial by jury and putting everyone before a judge. (Which then gets into the should judges be elected or appointed problem).

1trackmind 27th-Nov-2012 12:05 am (UTC)
The article was trying to tell a story about how self-righteousness got in the way of a possible nullification, not a thesis for letting all (guilty) defendants walking free with everyone else.

I actually did get that. I just didn't think it was the most important part of the article. But then, I also think it's important that she did what she was legally required to do. The fact that she felt self righteous about it is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm troubled by the fact that there's no mention in the article that what her partner is advocating is perjury.

I also still don't understand what jury nullification advocates think will happen. As I said, I think any attempt at correction will focus on the jury aspect not the disproportionate sentencing and conviction.

Perhaps my fundamental problem is I read this as "the system is broken so I'm going to break it more" as opposed to looking for a way to fix the system. What do they see as the fix? If juries cannot be relied upon, then what do they suggest? (See, even I'm doing it, looking at the court problem rather than the pre-court side of it). It seems jury nullification calls at best calls attention to a problem but doesn't offer a solution.
1trackmind 27th-Nov-2012 12:49 am (UTC)
But he's not advocating perjury, lol. He's saying that if you have the opportunity to serve, you should.

Yes, he was. He was saying she should have answered the question about police officers dishonestly so she would not have been dismissed from service. Because she was under oath at the time (you're placed under oath before voir dire) that would be perjury. ETA: Voir Dire is when they call in potential jurors to ask them questions to decide who will sit on the jury.

There is a whole lot of reading you can do about this topic and what activists think it can do. You're more than welcome to disagree with them, but if you don't understand what they're trying to do I think it's silly to dismiss it as something that isn't helpful.


Which is exactly why I'm asking someone to explain it to me. It's also why I found the article not all that helpful because those kinds of questions aren't answered.

Edited at 2012-11-27 12:53 am (UTC)
1trackmind 27th-Nov-2012 08:47 am (UTC)
but I don't understand how you're not seeing that she said that just in order to say "F the Police!" It was about self-righteousness, that's why I brought it up.


That's because I did get it. But I don't have a problem with it because what she did was what she was legally required to do. The fact that she was self righteous about it is neither here nor there. I don't care if people give themselves a pat on the back for following the law. It's much more problematic when they want to give themselves or others a pat on the back for not following the law and don't acknowledge that not following the law is what they're advocating. And I get that she didn't answer the question honestly for the sake of answering the question honestly/following the law, I just don't think it matters because that was the end result.

I will grant you that the article seems to be about whether her self-righteousness got in the way of possibly doing what she considers "the right thing." But the OP asked about jury nullification and I think that's the more interesting subject.

And I'm not sure why you're expecting me to teach you about this, especially when you aren't really interested in hearing what it's about but rather justifying to yourself why you think it's wrong. You can just as easily Google a like-minded opinion.


Wow. That's a lot of assumptions packed in there, especially about me. I asked because you seem to have some familiarity with the subject and generally when you ask someone who knows something about a subject with which you do not have much knowledge they can either explain or say, hey, here's a good resource. I inquired in good faith, I'm sorry you seem to think otherwise.

I honestly do not understand what people who practice jury nullification think will happen. I honestly want to know. I honestly would like to understand why they think this particular tactic will achieve the result they want and why it is better than other tactics. I didn't mean to offend you by asking you to enlighten me.

I think jury service is noble thing. I wish more people viewed it as a civic duty and part of what it means to be a citizen instead of "that thing they desperately want to get out of." I wish juries really were more reflective of "a group of our peers" rather than consisting mostly of the retired and unemployed. I wish more people were aware of the struggle to permit minorities and women to serve on juries in the first place. The definitive case on this for women was decided in 1979. I think that's worth thinking about,too. It's not something I'd expect the author to address but I think it's something to keep in mind in the larger scheme of things.



1trackmind 28th-Nov-2012 01:03 am (UTC)
I have no idea if she would have been dismissed though I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecutor chose her as one of the people s/he wanted to strike.

Thank you for the links, I will check them out. It's helpful to know who the authorities on the subject are.
romp 26th-Nov-2012 05:58 am (UTC)
I was disappointed when she got off the jury because, fuck, I don't want all the progressives to excuse themselves for being progressive.

I decide right then that if I could report again for jury duty, I'd trade my liberating fuck-the-police moment for a meaningful act in true service to my community. I'm still not convinced I could cast a not guilty verdict for someone I thought took another life. But, I do know that my country, my peers needed me in that room deliberating, not texting my lover about a fleeting personal victory.

I don't see her as planning on voting Not Guilty or trying for jury nullification next time. It's just that she won't voluntarily give up the chance. More importantly, she'll be able to talk to the rest of the jury.
mahsox_mahsox 26th-Nov-2012 02:30 pm (UTC)
If I let someone off a serious crime when they were clearly guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I'd spend the rest of my life expecting to be recognized by the victim or the victims family and held to account for depriving them of justice. People know when they've been cheated, when you were never intending to give them justice no matter how strong the proof.
zendequervain 26th-Nov-2012 07:10 pm (UTC)
This really bothers me for reasons I'm not sure I can articulate properly.

Among other things, isn't it illegal to misrepresent your views when you're being selected for jury duty?
terra_tenshi 26th-Nov-2012 07:23 pm (UTC)
Among other things, isn't it illegal to misrepresent your views when you're being selected for jury duty?

Yes, it is. There is some wiggle room in how the questions are worded though. And some people justify lying because they believe that the questions/answers have nothing to do with their ability to render a fair verdict.
1trackmind 27th-Nov-2012 12:08 am (UTC)
Exactly. Or they assume other people will lie so it's okay for them to lie. And yes, you are under oath when answering those questions so lying is perjury.

And as someone above noted, people who have practiced jury nullification have sometimes been sent to jail for contempt. And it really troubles me that none of that is mentioned in the article.
mahsox_mahsox 27th-Nov-2012 05:50 am (UTC)
There's huge amounts of creepy in the piece. For starters, she didn't do what her partner wanted so he accuses her of having a white side. She's half Burmese ffs, there isn't going to anyone mistaking her for a white woman, her reality is that of an Asian woman even when she's not doing what he thinks is best. And the way she acts so chastised, as if she's an awful failure. "fuck da police" may not have been the most strategic response, but it isn't as if it is wrong wrong wrong.

Edited at 2012-11-27 05:54 am (UTC)
zendequervain 27th-Nov-2012 12:06 pm (UTC)
That's definitely what I was thinking. It was so incredibly sexist of him to chastise her like that, just because she didn't make the same decision he thinks she should have.
freezer 27th-Nov-2012 10:30 am (UTC)
Huh - I hadn't even read your comment before I posted mine!
farchivist 26th-Nov-2012 08:09 pm (UTC)
I think jury nullification is a very bad idea. Here in the Deep South, jury nullification has a horrible history wherein it was used to protect white people who terrorized the black community. While jury nullification could be used as a tool for justice, the actual practice of it has been anything but, since nullification is morally neutral.
freezer 27th-Nov-2012 10:28 am (UTC)
Frankly, if you enter into jury duty with "nullification" on your mind from the start, you shouldn't be on a jury. This woman annoys me in ways I can't properly articulate (but the "fuck the police, always" attitude is a good place to start).
This page was loaded Jul 14th 2014, 9:01 am GMT.