PDA

View Full Version : Letter from Jury Foreman


macd
06-02-2011, 07:44 PM
This letter was sent to various local news outlets today.

To: Marianne Haggerty, Dateline NBC June 1, 2011
Esther Zucker, Dateline NBC
Amanda Lamb, WRAL News
Stacy Davis, WRAL News
Anne Blythe, The News&Observer

Thank you for your patience and understanding following the Bradley Graham Cooper trial. Since the
trial ended, the jurors have been able to reunite and reflect on our time together. After seeing this
group of 16 on a very regular schedule and referring to them now as a “jury family," we’ve learned that
it has since become nearly impossible to get everyone in a room together. And the concept of having a
unanimous decision on a topic such as talking to the media is more complicated than we knew.

Therefore, I am proceeding by letting everyone that has contacted me know my stance, and my stance
only. I want it to be clear that I’m not speaking for the group. The statements in this message are mine.
I know and understand the desire of the media in these matters. I want to thank Amanda Lamb for
taking time to talk with me on Friday, May 27. It helped me put into perspective that when a media
company is in the business of producing television programs, the target outcome is to have jurors on
camera. I understand and respect that position. As for me, I respectfully decline to be questioned in
front of a camera. This does not represent a group decision. If there are members of the jury that would
like to participate in an on-camera interview, I’m confident they will provide thoughtful responses and
represent themselves and our group appropriately in such a situation.

I am willing to share some of my thoughts here -- in writing -- regarding the trial, the deliberation
process, the media, and the verdict:

With a lengthy trial such as this one, the transition from the presentation of evidence into the
deliberation phase felt like being shot from a cannon. The emotional intensity of the last few days of the
trial (deliberation) was an important and necessary component of the jury process in this case. After the
verdict was delivered, the speed at which we were headed back to begin our regular lives felt abrupt.

Before the jury disbanded, all members of the group agreed that we would not talk publicly about the
trial for a while. (This was reported on WRAL after Stacy Davis pulled into my driveway and asked me a
few questions.) We didn’t have time to define what “a while” meant long-term, and we were unaware
of what the future would hold in terms of inquiries.

Since that time, we’ve heard not only from the media, but there is talk that the prosecution team wants
to discuss the case and I'm aware that some of the jurors were contacted by the defense team. (I have
not been contacted by either group.) It is my personal belief that we (the jurors) came into this process
verdict-neutral. Brad Cooper was innocent until proven guilty. For me, the result of the outcome will not
cause me to pick a side. I feel the same for the families. Because of our verdict, I didn’t form an alliance
or fall in favor with one side or the other. I came into this situation neutral and I left it that way. The
evidence was the only factor in determining our verdict. As such, I plan to share information [that is
appropriate to share] equally and in an impartial manner.

Regarding the start of deliberations and the evidence:
• Most of us [the jurors] were undecided when we started deliberations. As noted, the transition
happened quickly and we needed time as a group to focus on the process and the laws we were
instructed to follow. Then with our notes, the evidence presented became clear.
• The evidence presented by Special Agents Johnson and Chappell drove the outcome on this
case. It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible.

I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this
issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 – May 5). She heard a preview of this message. I’ll also send
her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry.

Please know that I will share this message with the members of the jury. I’m not trying to influence
them in any way. We’ve been consistent in sharing these types of communications with each other. I’ve
also been asked questions by some of the jurors, and this is my way of trying to address their questions
and the media's questions collectively.

As I’ve stated before, if I can clarify anything off-camera, let me know. Thank You.
Xxxx Xxxxxxx (Juror #7 / Foreperson)

ncsu95
06-02-2011, 08:00 PM
Thanks. The juror that I talked to did believe Chappelle when he said that the computer wasn't tampered with. I didn't say that in the other thread, but she basically went by what he said. She was surprised to learn he was a Durham police detective.

DogWood
06-02-2011, 08:02 PM
Link to WRAL article.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9677512/

3doglady
06-02-2011, 08:03 PM
Thanks Macd. I would love to hear more but I can understand their hesitation.

lib's mom
06-02-2011, 08:43 PM
Thanks for bringing that over and starting this thread. That letter is very, very interesting. I don't envy the job the jurors were given. They have my respect and thanks.

macd
06-02-2011, 09:44 PM
This is the line I find most interesting.

It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible.

I am interested to hear what other circumstantial evidence they found most compelling.

It looks like the jury members' self imposed quarantine is over. I hope (and expect) we'll hear more from some of them over the next couple of weeks.

Madeleine74
06-02-2011, 10:03 PM
I respect his position and understand his reticence.

We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.

Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents. :rolleyes:

The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.

I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.

ncsu95
06-02-2011, 10:08 PM
I respect his position and understand his reticence.

We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.

Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents. :rolleyes:

The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.

I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.


My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.

Madeleine74
06-02-2011, 10:12 PM
I personally wouldn't do a TV interview either unless my identity was completely masked (face and voice and no name used).

Of course the selfish part of me wants to hear from them and hear about the case from their (unique) perspective, but I do understand their concerns, and those concerns are valid.

macd
06-02-2011, 10:41 PM
My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.

Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.

3doglady
06-02-2011, 11:28 PM
Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.

It reminded me of the Natalee Holloway case. All of a sudden media sites were taken over by Holloway "haters". The majority of them had no knowledge of the case and I tend to think a small amount of people posted under multiple names to try and make it look like a large number. The Cooper case did not get anywhere near the media attention of Natalee Holloway or Casey Anthony, but a lot of those negative posts came from all over the nation. :waitasec:

ncsu95
06-03-2011, 12:32 AM
Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.

In the couple of other forums I participate in (non trial type sites), the overwhelming thought was not-guilty in the threads following the trial.

BrownRice
06-03-2011, 07:56 AM
"I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 May 5). She heard a preview of this message. Ill also send her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry."

What does this mean? Were they instructed to stay off FB and MySpace and Twitter? That's my understanding of social media..

Madeleine74
06-03-2011, 08:23 AM
People don't realize the defense team specifically went for jurors who did NOT have tech backgrounds or computer experience. They wanted a jury that would be utterly confused by computer evidence because they knew they were going to try and dance around the Google search and they wanted the jury to buy their song & dance of evidence tampering.

They asked about tech background & experience as part of their voir dire & got potential jurors kicked off who did have computer experience, though there was one techie guy who did get on the jury in the end. They did that by design, as a strategy. They were hoping a non-tech jury would believe a conspiracy had taken place.

PolkSaladAnnie
06-03-2011, 08:24 AM
My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.

Hi ncsu95

:waitasec: ... why would your neighbor consider she may even be on Dateline? Thought it was a friend of your neighbour ... (at her evening poolside) ... that was the juror?

As for the large number of people that don't agree with the verdict - in the true universal sample - that NG group is in fact, a minority. Of course, in some (non trial type) forums, you get a lot of prisoners, or ex-cons, who will vehemently decry the verdict. Of course they would.

Wouldn't pay too much attention to those types, IMOO ... Just sayin ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi macd!

Thanks for sharing that letter! It's most reassuring to get word back and thereby have a glimpse as to the integrity of the jury. Knowing their verdict was based on the compelling evidence as presented quells any false rumors - that of course are bound to fly ...

That he has decided to maintain his silence speaks volumes, IMO. I'm equally sure the entire jury of 16, as he wrote, discussed this with one another and pledged full respect in not disturbing nor denting their obligations.

A great read! Thank you, again ...

ncsu95
06-03-2011, 08:56 AM
No, it's a woman I know that lives in in my neighborhood (hence, my neighbor...and by "know", means I knew her name and would say hi when I saw her) that was on the jury.

gracielee
06-03-2011, 07:02 PM
Hi ncsu95

:waitasec: ... why would your neighbor consider she may even be on Dateline? Thought it was a friend of your neighbour ... (at her evening poolside) ... that was the juror?

As for the large number of people that don't agree with the verdict - in the true universal sample - that NG group is in fact, a minority. Of course, in some (non trial type) forums, you get a lot of prisoners, or ex-cons, who will vehemently decry the verdict. Of course they would.

Wouldn't pay too much attention to those types, IMOO ... Just sayin ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi macd!

Thanks for sharing that letter! It's most reassuring to get word back and thereby have a glimpse as to the integrity of the jury. Knowing their verdict was based on the compelling evidence as presented quells any false rumors - that of course are bound to fly ...

That he has decided to maintain his silence speaks volumes, IMO. I'm equally sure the entire jury of 16, as he wrote, discussed this with one another and pledged full respect in not disturbing nor denting their obligations.

A great read! Thank you, again ...

For those of us who follow crime/trials for years, I don't recall ever seeing jury members incognito on programs such as Dateline. That jurors should feel at risk or threatened is just horrible IMO. Brad Cooper was guilty, as found. It sounds like this jury did it's duty with diligence, unlike perhaps the O.J. jury. I personally find it reprehensible that renegade groups such as golo incite violence and hatred towards those doing their duty as good citizens. MOO. Brad cooper killed his wife, he knows he's guilty. Jurors, please, feel good about your decision, it was right and proper.

Just the Fax
06-03-2011, 09:03 PM
In the couple of other forums I participate in (non trial type sites), the overwhelming thought was not-guilty in the threads following the trial.

Unlike Golo and other random board comments from casual observers, WS has a good track record for attracting intelligent posters that have followed more than a few trials.

Remember the poll here?
126 votes and 57% said guilty as charged
Not overwhelming like your other sites, but clearly guilty nonetheless.

ncsu95
06-04-2011, 01:01 PM
I would have expected this site to have a much higher percentage than 57%. This is very different from most forums. The people that participate on here generally follow lots of trials and are overwhelmingly on here in support of the victims. Not saying that is wrong, but is what it is. The fact that only 57% voted guilty on here says a whole lot.

LadyL
06-04-2011, 01:44 PM
I don't think they should talk about their verdict and I don't think the media should be hounding them. It only exposes them to the crazies of the world. They've sacrificed enough in their lives and done their civic duty ... now leave them in peace.

PolkSaladAnnie
06-05-2011, 12:32 PM
I would have expected this site to have a much higher percentage than 57%. This is very different from most forums. The people that participate on here generally follow lots of trials and are overwhelmingly on here in support of the victims. Not saying that is wrong, but is what it is. The fact that only 57% voted guilty on here says a whole lot.

BBM

nscu95. We would not be wrong to state 57% does not include the total universe of W/S posters. If every member posted, the % would be higher. We may all assume that safely enough. Fact is, they didn't all vote - so it actually says nothing to me; it's a "spoiled" sample.

But, to usurp your own words ... we all know that ... 100% of the jury voted that Bradley Cooper is guilty - basis exacting evidence and testimony - and that, IMHO says a whole lot more.

cody100
06-05-2011, 03:43 PM
I have to agree with NCSU that I would have expected a larger percentage of WS posters to have voted guilty, and calling this a "spoiled" sample by anyone is like calling an election with few voters a spoiled election. It only becomes useful to say that if you feel defensive over the outcome in WS or you want to continue to debate. Personally all of us know that none of this matters for BC. It is how the jury voted that matters and on what they based their opinions. Now we know that it was not 100 percent in the beginning but a slow movement to unanimously guilty. I would expect some jurors were upset over not hearing all of the computer evidence. It might not have mattered, but some probably won't like it. I, for one, am proud that they have done the best that they could with the evidence presented to them. I suspect we will hear from others. I would never want to answer questions to the media. They so frequently distort it or take everything out of context.

LadyL
06-05-2011, 06:52 PM
where is that poll? (I looked & can't find it)

am I remembering correctly that there were three options?
guilty/not guilty/unsure

if I'm remembering the right poll, I think I voted unsure b/c I didn't have enough info at the time

ncsu95
06-05-2011, 09:18 PM
where is that poll? (I looked & can't find it)

am I remembering correctly that there were three options?
guilty/not guilty/unsure

if I'm remembering the right poll, I think I voted unsure b/c I didn't have enough info at the time

They are 6 or 7 threads below this one.

Bradley Cooper-Guilty or Not Guilty NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Did the State prove their case? LIST ONLY - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

gracielee
06-05-2011, 09:45 PM
They are 6 or 7 threads below this one.

Bradley Cooper-Guilty or Not Guilty NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134981)

Did the State prove their case? LIST ONLY - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135083)

So 70% of voters believed Brad Cooper to be guilty. I'm basically new here, not sure how many of the people who joined during the Cooper case, if any, had/have agenda's. Is it common for there to be numerous posters with strong opinions to join and make first posts on cases such as this one? Me personally, I never doubted Coopers guilt. Far FAR too many coincidences, circumstantial evidence, for anything else. The Cooper case was/is a text-book case for spousal murder. Much like the Ann Miller case. Once her numerous boyfriends were exposed, it followed the predictable course IMO.

PolkSaladAnnie
06-06-2011, 02:17 AM
I would have expected this site to have a much higher percentage than 57%. This is very different from most forums. The people that participate on here generally follow lots of trials and are overwhelmingly on here in support of the victims. Not saying that is wrong, but is what it is. The fact that only 57% voted guilty on here says a whole lot.

cody & ncsu95

Oh deary, deary me! The bold above is mine and *that's* where ncsu95 skewed the template. ncsu's post clearly stated THIS SITE whereas, in actual fact, this site has well over 4000 members. A fraction of that sample voted. The full W/S universe was most definitely not involved. So, it is .... a spoiled or untrue or unrecognized ... sample.

Had ncsu stated the posters on "this thread" ... aha! ... that's very different story. However, it appears ncsu swept the 57% across Websleuths site.

I agree, that if we're desperate - we may prefer to believe this "site" offered 57% guilty, despite the 100% guilty as proved beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law. Justice was served. Cooper is where he belongs (and that sentence wasn't fast enough for some of us).

Just sayin ... if one wishes to shred a point ... all salient and distinguishing factors ought to be considered. My take, and I may be wrong, is that the message conveyed was a simple "57% was a mild win by Websleuths...".

That's incorrect.

ncsu95
06-06-2011, 10:54 AM
I didn't skew anything. I said this site referring to websleuths versus other forums. Of course all 4000 ws members didn't vote. And I was specifically talking about the people that participated in the Nancy Cooper forum on websleuths. I would have expected a much higher guilty percentage in this forum (the Nancy Cooper forum on websleuths) than what we actually got.

cody100
06-06-2011, 11:47 AM
I do believe NCSU has you on this one, my dear PSA. I do believe that 72 voters voted GUILTY out of 126. I believe that is 57 or so per cent. That represented the results out of the forum here. I have no idea why the others did not vote, but the results are correct and his statement is correct IMO. There is no way you can add in other votes not knowing their outcome. And if we put the 72 voters and compare that to the 4000, well, you don't want to do that either. NCSU skewed nothing IMO.

ncsu95
06-06-2011, 11:59 AM
I do believe NCSU has you on this one, my dear PSA. I do believe that 72 voters voted GUILTY out of 126. I believe that is 57 or so per cent. That represented the results out of the forum here. I have no idea why the others did not vote, but the results are correct and his statement is correct IMO. There is no way you can add in other votes not knowing their outcome. And if we put the 72 voters and compare that to the 4000, well, you don't want to do that either. NCSU skewed nothing IMO.

Not only that, but I didn't bring up the 57% in the first place. I simply said I would have thought it would have been much higher than 57%. So if you want to accuse someone of "skewing" something, how about accusing the person that posted it in the first place.

Here's a recap:

Me: In a couple other forums I participate in, the overwhelming majority feel he is not guilty.

JTF: Remember the poll here...57% say guilty as charged

Me: I would have expected a lot higher percentage in this forum

You: NCSU95 is skewing numbers/data

Me: :waitasec:

Just the Fax
06-06-2011, 12:42 PM
Guess the point is 100% of the jury voted guilty as charged. The judge told them not to second guess after reading blogs and boards with another opinion. I hope they took that advise.

gracielee
06-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Not only that, but I didn't bring up the 57% in the first place. I simply said I would have thought it would have been much higher than 57%. So if you want to accuse someone of "skewing" something, how about accusing the person that posted it in the first place.

Here's a recap:

Me: In a couple other forums I participate in, the overwhelming majority feel he is not guilty.

JTF: Remember the poll here...57% say guilty as charged

Me: I would have expected a lot higher percentage in this forum

You: NCSU95 is skewing numbers/data

Me: :waitasec:


Hopefully that will give dear brad *comfort* over there in the *big house* while he's enjoying fine cuisine and participating in their version of *ironman*.

:floorlaugh:

:great:

:behindbar:

:laughcry:

:party:

gracielee
06-06-2011, 12:46 PM
In a 'fair world', Brad Cooper and Jason Young will eventually become *roomies* one day.

cody100
06-06-2011, 01:47 PM
That is right NCSU. I forgot it was not you but JTF that brought up the 57 percent which is of course correct. That is hilarious. Guess PSA needs to take her complaint up with JTF. You were falsely accused.

ncsu95
06-06-2011, 02:05 PM
Guess the point is 100% of the jury voted guilty as charged. The judge told them not to second guess after reading blogs and boards with another opinion. I hope they took that advise.

Oh I agree with this. That's why I told my neighbor not to second guess her vote.

cody100
06-06-2011, 02:14 PM
You can never second guess your vote. However, I understand why it would be human nature to do just that, particularly when you read what things were not presented.

otto
06-06-2011, 02:15 PM
I respect his position and understand his reticence.

We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.

Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents. :rolleyes:

The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.

I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.

Madeleine, I have to say ... I really enjoy some of your comments ... such as "We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it." That is such a refreshing perspective, particularly when discussing cases where people firmly believe that a conviction is the result of a huge conspiracy.

My understanding of the case was limited to what I was able to read and view through online media and, given the blackouts, I was of the opinion that Cooper would be found not guilty. I tend to trust a jury that heard all the evidence and whose sole objective it was to evaluate that evidence. Much as I believe that computer rebuttal witnesses should have been heard, unless there is a reversal of verdict on appeal I am adjusting my thinking to understand that Cooper is guilty of murder.

Madeleine74
06-06-2011, 02:48 PM
I don't believe in huge conspiracies in general, and in this particular case, I didn't see any conspiracy. I did see mistakes made and those should never happen again, but most of the mistakes ended up in the defendant's favor. The cell phone data deletion didn't appear to favor either side since whatever evidence may have been on that phone was gone and no one could use anything. The state couldn't use it either. It was a terrible mistake and it must never happen again, but a conspiracy? I don't see that.

What I found interesting is how some people went from thinking BC's guilt wasn't proved by the state, which is certainly a valid and fair interpretation, to full tilt conspiracy involving just about everyone, which makes one wonder what drug they've taken, or haven't taken but should have, what voices they may be hearing, and hoping no one is bent towards violence.

I can't help but think of my favorite quote, "When you see crazy coming, cross the street!"

Madeleine74
06-06-2011, 02:56 PM
I don't know if any of you are watching the Casey Anthony murder trial (I am catching bits here and there), but the judge in that case (who everyone seems to like a lot), has been denying the defense from presenting lots of things they want. Most of what the defense asks for is denied. Objections by the state are often sustained.

Further, the judge allowed very incriminating video to come in from the state simply because the defense did not get their motion to suppress in on time. This is a huge problem for the defendant, and it could have been prevented! The defense tried at the last minute to keep it out, but the judge said 'too late--you had a deadline and you missed it!'

And to my knowledge, no one is screaming "UNFAIR JUDGE...that judge is biased towards the state of FL!" But that judge is making some very similar calls as Gessner, all based on rules of evidence and rules of the court.

otto
06-06-2011, 03:11 PM
I don't believe in huge conspiracies in general, and in this particular case, I didn't see any conspiracy. I did see mistakes made and those should never happen again, but most of the mistakes ended up in the defendant's favor. The cell phone data deletion didn't appear to favor either side since whatever evidence may have been on that phone was gone and no one could use anything. The state couldn't use it either. It was a terrible mistake and it must never happen again, but a conspiracy? I don't see that.

What I found interesting is how some people went from thinking BC's guilt wasn't proved by the state, which is certainly a valid and fair interpretation, to full tilt conspiracy involving just about everyone, which makes one wonder what drug they've taken, or haven't taken but should have, what voices they may be hearing, and hoping no one is bent towards violence.

I can't help but think of my favorite quote, "When you see crazy coming, cross the street!"

The "full tilt" conspiracy thinking seems to happen when people are unable to accept a verdict - for whatever reason (eg: the convict is too pretty to murder). It's happened in a few cases over the years. I'm not a full tilt conspiracy thinker, but in this particular case I found that I had to rethink some things - realizing that perhaps I misunderstood what I heard and believed. There were several blackout days of information critical to the jury's decision and, as trial by media observers, we absolutely don't have all the facts.

gracielee
06-06-2011, 03:47 PM
I don't know if any of you are watching the Casey Anthony murder trial (I am catching bits here and there), but the judge in that case (who everyone seems to like a lot), has been denying the defense from presenting lots of things they want. Most of what the defense asks for is denied. Objections by the state are often sustained.

Further, the judge allowed very incriminating video to come in from the state simply because the defense did not get their motion to suppress in on time. This is a huge problem for the defendant, and it could have been prevented! The defense tried at the last minute to keep it out, but the judge said 'too late--you had a deadline and you missed it!'

And to my knowledge, no one is screaming "UNFAIR JUDGE...that judge is biased towards the state of FL!" But that judge is making some very similar calls as Gessner, all based on rules of evidence and rules of the court.

No kidding, Jose Baez appears to be a true example of an ineffective defense counsel. Perhaps the BC is innocent crew should invade the Anthony camp. I think she is guilty, but her defense is quite inexperienced IMO.

Madeleine74
06-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Incompetent defense attorney, yep. He is inexperienced and it shows. Judge Perry clearly dislikes him, and I saw the judge almost laughing at one of his objections/reasons last week. But Judge Perry is universally beloved by those watching this trial, even though he has smacked down the defense on several occasions and ruled against them a good 95%+ of the time. Perhaps it's because most people believe the defendant is guilty of murder and their feelings toward the judge are more amendable, I don't know.

I see his rulings and wonder what the people who watched the BC trial and thought of Gessner think of Perry (nearly always) ruling against this defense team. He's actually embarrassed Jose Baez on more than one occasion, having to instruct him on how to do a valid cross exam. :-O