Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 500
  1. #286
    deanna82437's Avatar
    deanna82437 is offline The dead can't cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by IfIMay View Post
    Do we know how Steve hooked up with Anon guy? TIA! Did Anon guy call People?
    He has not said that I've seen. I assume the juror contacted him via the packets they were given from the media. Maybe the magazine article will explain more .. dunno. JMO

    "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." - Adam Smith


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to deanna82437 For This Useful Post:


  3. #287
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4,868
    If the lying was not an important issue for the jurors, why did they convict Casey on all the lying counts? Did the jury just assume Casey's lies had nothing at all to do with the investigation? It is far more common for a guilty person to lie to LE than an innocent one. Somehow, by some convoluted method of deduction, this jury could not judge Casey guilty of any crimes against Caylee, in spite of the fact they were all convinced that she lied to LE during the investigation.

    So...what exactly did the jury think Casey lied about?



  4. #288
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Yep, they went through nothing, took informal polls, and everyone just went with the majority. My God, they should be so ashamed. So VERY ashamed. I just cannot believe this jury. It is the worst jury I have EVER heard of. Seriously.



  5. #289
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by krkrjx View Post
    If the lying was not an important issue for the jurors, why did they convict Casey on all the lying counts? Did the jury just assume Casey's lies had nothing at all to do with the investigation? It is far more common for a guilty person to lie to LE than an innocent one. Somehow, by some convoluted method of deduction, this jury could not judge Casey guilty of any crimes against Caylee, in spite of the fact they were all convinced that she lied to LE during the investigation.

    So...what exactly did the jury think Casey lied about?
    That's what I want to know. I just don't understand why they even bothered convicting her of lying. Maybe it was because Baez gave them permission to do it? But it doesn't make sense to convict her of lying when the lying meant nothing in their minds.


  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to back2back19 For This Useful Post:


  7. #290
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Italy View Post
    If some of the jurors are regretting their verdict and are now wishing they had reached a different verdict, I hope they will speak up. And don't dish us the "We were just following the law" whine. CLEARLY, they got it wrong.

    When the defense attorney is surprised at the verdict, it is correct to say that there was sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict. In this case, there was overwhelming evidence for a guilty verdict. It was not a failure of sufficient evidence, nor presentation by prosecution team - the failure was this jury.

    It is recognized that sequestered juries fall into "group think" with one or two stronger jurors unduly influencing the others. I believe that is what happened here (among other things).

    I would like the following changes to our jury system:

    If your name is called for jury service, you serve. No excuses (except compelling -- related to defendant, attorney, etc). We need to rid ourselves of a jury is nothing more than 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty.

    No professional jury selection consultants
    No sequestration
    Higher per diem
    No change of venue (I don't buy the Pinellas county people knew less about case)
    1 or 2 day class (in capital cases) which instructs juries - what is evidence, what is speculation, what you may/may not consider, etc
    Tighten up courtroom procedure (what Baez did in opening statement is tantamount to Casey testifying without being on the stand)
    You make some excellent points. I would like to suggest another change to the system:

    The penalty for any crime should be taken out of the jury's hands. The court and only the court should impose penalty. The jurors need not even be aware of what the possible penalty could be for a conviction on any charge.

    This would help in several major ways: 1) Jurors would not have to feel any responsibility for the penalty since they are not imposing it. 2) Jurors could consider all charges based on the evidence or lack of, rather than being under the influence of others on the panel who are simply hellbent on avoiding a penalty phase. 3) Jury selection would be more efficient and more fair since juries would not need to be death penalty qualified.
    Last edited by krkrjx; 08-24-2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason: fix error


  8. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to krkrjx For This Useful Post:


  9. #291
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by krkrjx View Post
    You make some excellent points. I would like to suggest another change to the system:

    The penalty for any crime should be taken out of the jury's hands. The court and only the court should impose penalty. The jurors need not even be aware of what the possible penalty could be for a conviction on any charge.

    This would help in several major ways: 1) Jurors would not have to feel any responsibility for the penalty since they are not imposing it. 2) Jurors could consider all charges based on the evidence or lack of, rather than being under the influence of others on the panel who are simply hellbent on avoiding a penalty phase. 3) Jury selection would be more efficient and more fair since juries would not need to be death penalty qualified.
    Isn't this pretty much already the case outside of death penalty cases? The jury doesn't actually decide the penalty on non-DP cases, do they?


  10. #292
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    Isn't this pretty much already the case outside of death penalty cases? The jury doesn't actually decide the penalty on non-DP cases, do they?
    As far as I know it is only in DP cases. But it should apply in all trials. IMO.


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to krkrjx For This Useful Post:


  12. #293
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,399
    Quote Originally Posted by everyoneneedsavoice View Post
    July 26, 2011

    Reached by telephone Tuesday evening, alternate juror Dean Edward Eckstadt wouldn't comment.

    "I'd really rather not say anything on the phone," he said. "There's a lot of headaches when we all talk to you guys."

    Eckstadt said fellow jurors have said they don't want each other talking to the media.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5310429.story
    Yeal I wish I coulda heard that conversation. Who is telling who what? At first I thought, if true, that Juror or Jurors might be concerned about what the other Jurors would say about deliberations but that's not it, is it? If only a few Jurors talk, then those few reap the rewards. I am starting to believe that "those few" are the ones that made the decision for the "Jury" not to talk with the media immediately after the verdict.
    ...the humble opinion of Jo Schmo...0 number of Days Jury Deliberated for Caylee


  13. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to okiedokietoo For This Useful Post:


  14. #294
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Flor-eee-duh
    Posts
    1,685

    Attn: Jury...Remember this sweet face



    It's a pity the jury didn't focus on the VICTIM in this crime.

    After following this case for three years and watching every second of the trial, I still believe only FCA had the motive to plan the murder and then kill and dispose of Caylee Marie. No other theory makes the least bit of sense to me. Yes, George came across as a creep. Yes, Cindy was controlling and obnoxious. But they weren't out partying like it was 1999, while a little girl was rotting in the woods . Why the jury couldn't - or wouldn't - connect the dots remains a mystery to me. (Don't even get me started on Cindy and her can of Febreeze!!)

    SO....I give the Pinellas 12 a -10, and that's being generous.

    As an aside: I wonder what The Dessert Lady thought about the verdict?.

    Caylee Marie Anthony Travis Alexander: Never forgotten


  15. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to jane the dood For This Useful Post:


  16. #295
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    943
    'Course not. They make each other look worse and worse. I hope they all break ranks eventually. For no $$$$.

    I'm more interested in Steve the reporter's impressions than what Anon juror actually said. He sat in Court nearly every day.


  17. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to IfIMay For This Useful Post:


  18. #296
    deanna82437's Avatar
    deanna82437 is offline The dead can't cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by IfIMay View Post
    'Course not. They make each other look worse and worse. I hope they all break ranks eventually. For no $$$$.

    I'm more interested in Steve the reporter's impressions than what Anon juror actually said. He sat in Court nearly every day.
    This was his response when someone asked his opinion on the verdict ..

    @stevehelling Steve Helling
    Wish I had the freedom to have a "take." But I don't.
    15 hours ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply

    "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." - Adam Smith


  19. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to deanna82437 For This Useful Post:


  20. #297
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,384
    [QUOTE=deanna82437;7059992]More questions for juror interviewer ..

    @stevehelling wish interviewers wd challenge & ask jurors re what evidence they looked at. did they go over phone/ping reports, ME rpt etc
    41 minutes ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
    replies ↓

    Steve Helling
    stevehelling Steve Helling
    @
    I did ask that. It is not in the teaser story that you have read, but it will be coming out soon.
    30 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    Posted in another thread he also stated juror was not paid .. nada, nothing.[/QUOTE]

    I did see where Helling repeated this juror was paid absolutely nothing, no compensation, etc. I for one do not believe that, otherwise, what would be this particular's juror's purpose for the interview? any thoughts? he remained anonymous, so I just don't understand why he would, at this time, have contacted People to give the story he gave. I know there is a Part 2, but from what this juror stated in Part 1, I agree as others have said, every time a juror talks, they just dig themselves deeper and deeper into the absolutely irresponsible job they did as jurors. But, if no compensation, why did this juror, who remained anon, even come forward to this interview?


  21. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to NavySubMom For This Useful Post:


  22. #298
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    19,937
    [quote=NavySubMom;7061662]
    Quote Originally Posted by deanna82437 View Post
    More questions for juror interviewer ..

    @stevehelling wish interviewers wd challenge & ask jurors re what evidence they looked at. did they go over phone/ping reports, ME rpt etc
    41 minutes ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
    replies ↓

    Steve Helling
    stevehelling Steve Helling
    @
    I did ask that. It is not in the teaser story that you have read, but it will be coming out soon.
    30 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    Posted in another thread he also stated juror was not paid .. nada, nothing.[/QUOTE]

    I did see where Helling repeated this juror was paid absolutely nothing, no compensation, etc. I for one do not believe that, otherwise, what would be this particular's juror's purpose for the interview? any thoughts? he remained anonymous, so I just don't understand why he would, at this time, have contacted People to give the story he gave. I know there is a Part 2, but from what this juror stated in Part 1, I agree as others have said, every time a juror talks, they just dig themselves deeper and deeper into the absolutely irresponsible job they did as jurors. But, if no compensation, why did this juror, who remained anon, even come forward to this interview?
    My thoughts exactly!


  23. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RR0004 For This Useful Post:


  24. #299
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    [quote=NavySubMom;7061662]
    Quote Originally Posted by deanna82437 View Post
    More questions for juror interviewer ..

    @stevehelling wish interviewers wd challenge & ask jurors re what evidence they looked at. did they go over phone/ping reports, ME rpt etc
    41 minutes ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
    replies ↓

    Steve Helling
    stevehelling Steve Helling
    @
    I did ask that. It is not in the teaser story that you have read, but it will be coming out soon.
    30 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    Posted in another thread he also stated juror was not paid .. nada, nothing.[/QUOTE]

    I did see where Helling repeated this juror was paid absolutely nothing, no compensation, etc. I for one do not believe that, otherwise, what would be this particular's juror's purpose for the interview? any thoughts? he remained anonymous, so I just don't understand why he would, at this time, have contacted People to give the story he gave. I know there is a Part 2, but from what this juror stated in Part 1, I agree as others have said, every time a juror talks, they just dig themselves deeper and deeper into the absolutely irresponsible job they did as jurors. But, if no compensation, why did this juror, who remained anon, even come forward to this interview?
    I try to imagine myself on this jury and for the life of me cannot figure out how I would have come to the conclusion they did.

    But let's just for the sake of it - let's say I did go along with the rest of the jurors, and voted Not Guilty. Okay, so now I am out of the safety bubble of sequestration, and I am facing my family, my co-workers, my community, and I'm reading articles, listening to commentators, watching shows, and I'm beginning to panic - realizing just what I and the others have done. We've set a killer free. My family hates me, my co-workers shun me - members of my community are just plain rude and hateful to me even when I go to the supermarket, never mind when I try to have a life.

    How to I get over this shame? Do I feel shame and guilt? Or am I still stuck in being self righteous - clinging to the group decision as right and what we had to do? What can I do to make my life "right" again and get back to being who I was before?

    I guess I'd try talking to a sympathetic interviewer - and hope to "make it better" by explaining the reasons why, except when I do - it makes it worse. Now what?

    I think my thought process might be going through something like what I wrote above - except for the "why's" and "stupid legal system and why me" etc., self pity stuff, which I left out.
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.


  25. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  26. #300
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Italy View Post
    It is my belief that they wanted to reach a controversial verdict. They expected that it would result in an avalanche of requests for interviews, etc. They (according to one of the jurors) discussed at length, the media opportunities for them. I believe they also believed they were in for a big payday.

    I do believe they are shocked that the public is so outraged. They thought they could successfully peddle the constant whine of "...We were just following the law...".

    What has happened instead is that the public correctly identified them as collectively ignorant, lazy and self-interested - none of which are admirable characteristics. They enhance and strengthen this with every word they utter.

    What they are "sick" about is the inability to cash in.
    I have thought this all along. I firmly believe that the foreman, infamous narcissist Juror #11, was working the entire group while they were sequestered. He wanted to be foreman, he thought that would get him the big bucks and book deal, he would be set for life. He gave them his own version of the rules, manipulated them to get his results.

    Happily, it didn't work the way he thought. Sadly, the babykiller went free in the process.


  27. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to BiancaS For This Useful Post:


Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How does the jury feel about being "OJ #2"?
    By CharlestonGal in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-05-2011, 09:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •