Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 71

Thread: Discussions with a juror

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
    Some of the obvious things were JAs call to the police that morning (she thought it was strange that she would jump to that conclusion so quickly...even though it turned out to be right). The other obvious one was MHs testimony about all information to the police had to go through her, as well as the coordinated effort and the affidavits. That is some of where the "bothered" comment comes from. It's very similar to comments made on here. I will say that I am 100% certain she didn't disobey the judges order on discussing the case or reading things. She was very concerned about breaking any rules. She also couldn't believe that she didn't hear about the NC murder when it happened. She said she has a child with a birthday around that time and she guesses she was consumed with planning stuff for that...but she never paid any attention to it back in 2008.
    Ahhh. Interesting. I suppose she believed that witness and especially that bit he threw out there and never considered he wasn't telling the truth. His testimony was a bit, shall we say, creative, and/or his perceptions were strange.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,920
    Thanks for letting us in on your conversation ncsu95. It was very enlightening. I was totally confused by the technical testimony, so I would assume that the jury would be also. You can't blame them too much for listening to a juror who says they know about this stuff. I would have to defer to them also. The defense really needed to make that evidence a lot less confusing to have the lay person understand it, imo. I would have to determine from the fact that they didn't, that they couldn't. If I was on the jury, I would have had to disregard it completely, I guess. just talkin' out loud
    Thanks again.
    "Crack up the music and dance!"

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    JAs call to the police that morning
    That call was in the afternoon, not in the morning, and was made to a non-emergency number asking for advice on what to do. I wonder if some of the facts were missed (or were mistaken). I know from reading comments in lots of places that most people do not have much (or in some cases, any) knowledge of the facts and testimony from this trial, and I've seen a lot of incorrect things posted.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  5. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    ^that's probably my mistake about morning. I will add this...I led most of the conversation with my questions. Obviously I have a different view of things than a lot of people in here. So my perceptions from our conversation last night are based on the questions that I asked. I asked things that were bothering me or were puzzling to me. I'm sure Madeleine or others in here would have asked a completely different set of questions. I just wanted to share our conversation (again, with her permission) because I spent so much time in this forum with all of you.

  6. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  7. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    That makes sense then. Your perspective and feelings were in more one direction than the other and the shared comments seem to reflect back some of that.

    I hope no one tries to mislead any of the jurors with non-facts and outright lies of the case (like evidence planting, conspiracies, etc). Their job was tough enough without all that crap now being thrown in their faces. Had I read those hateful comments after the verdict and I was on the jury, I would no longer read any of it and also never speak about the case. The jury did a job and they did it to the best of their ability.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  9. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    That makes sense then. Your perspective and feelings were in more one direction than the other and the shared comments seem to reflect back some of that.

    I hope no one tries to mislead any of the jurors with non-facts and outright lies of the case (like evidence planting, conspiracies, etc). Their job was tough enough without all that crap now being thrown in their faces. Had I read those hateful comments after the verdict and I was on the jury, I would no longer read any of it and also never speak about the case. The jury did a job and they did it to the best of their ability.
    At least one of the jurors (not her) is having a very hard time because they read all of the juror bashing going on at a different site. She read some of it and had to stop before it got her angry.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  11. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    ^^I shared with her the offer of proof testimony as well as the additional information from Chris Frye that wasn't presented.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    Juror bashing is simply wrong. If a jury does their job, spends time reviewing the evidence, and carefully considers the case, then they have done exactly what they've been asked to do. Just because a bunch of people don't *like* the verdict they reached does not mean the jurors didn't do a good and thorough job. That's all we ask of them--to consider all the evidence presented. This jury did that. And I'm thankful they did.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  15. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Juror bashing is simply wrong. If a jury does their job, spends time reviewing the evidence, and carefully considers the case, then they have done exactly what they've been asked to do. Just because a bunch of people don't *like* the verdict they reached does not mean the jurors didn't do a good and thorough job. That's all we ask of them--to consider all the evidence presented. This jury did that. And I'm thankful they did.
    That's pretty much what I said to her. Don't second guess the decision based on stuff she hears after the trial. They made a decision based on what they were presented and she shouldn't question that decision.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  17. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    NCSU, I actually thought you were NOT very one sided in your opinion of this case. You were open minded, and I appreciated that. A large group in here, to me, were not so open minded, perhaps because they had seen the typical behavior pattern and recognized it. If I had been a juror, I would be very upset that not all of the computer information had been presented. However, this is not their fault and they certainly did the best job possible with the information they had.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to cody100 For This Useful Post:


  19. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    573
    Very interesting.

    One comment and one question.

    Comment: it seems like the primary influencer, and the one that pushed the hardest for the guilty verdict, was the techie. Would you agree?

    Question: What did she think of the autopsy results? To me, this proved BC innocent, specifically the caffeine, lack of alcohol, and lack of stomach contents. How could they dismiss this regardless of the Google search?

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to oenophile For This Useful Post:


  21. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    Very interesting.

    One comment and one question.

    Comment: it seems like the primary influencer, and the one that pushed the hardest for the guilty verdict, was the techie. Would you agree?

    Question: What did she think of the autopsy results? To me, this proved BC innocent, specifically the caffeine, lack of alcohol, and lack of stomach contents. How could they dismiss this regardless of the Google search?
    How the heck does the one statement,

    One of the jurors was a techie and basically dismissed the timestamp stuff (remember they didn't hear all of the "evidence" regarding this).
    turn into a "primary influencer and the one that pushed hardest for a guilty verdict?"


  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  23. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    How the heck does the one statement,

    turn into a "primary influencer and the one that pushed hardest for a guilty verdict?"

    Funny how before the verdict was read, some posters thought the techie was going to save BC. The techie understood about time stamps, hated the SA and was going to convince the jury to vote ng because he could explain away the Google search. Now that the techie didn't go along with the DT's Google conspiracy, he's the villain.


    A proud decedent of The Declaration of Independence signer.

  24. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to 3doglady For This Useful Post:


  25. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    Very interesting.

    One comment and one question.

    Comment: it seems like the primary influencer, and the one that pushed the hardest for the guilty verdict, was the techie. Would you agree?

    Question: What did she think of the autopsy results? To me, this proved BC innocent, specifically the caffeine, lack of alcohol, and lack of stomach contents. How could they dismiss this regardless of the Google search?
    I can't agree or disagree with the comment. We didn't discuss how deliberations went other than the 3 votes.

    We never talked about the autopsy. I should have asked but wasn't really prepared since it happened so unexpectedly.

    I did ask her how gruesome the photos were. She said she didn't have an issue with them. She did talk about the juror that got sick. She said the photos they looked at on Friday were the gruesome ones and that the juror was okay. But she got sick later that night thinking about them. So on Monday, she couldn't handle the thought of looking at more pictures, even though the ones on that Monday were not bad at all.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  27. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Let's please not turn this thread into a fight between the BDI/BII folks. I'm sharing this information because I was floored yet excited to know and have the opportunity to speak to a juror...and people were curious about what the jury thought. If this gets into an argument between people, I will ask the moderators to delete it. Other than that, I'll continue to share what I remember or share if I talk to her again any time soon.

  28. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  29. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    NCSU, thank you again for sharing this with us. I don't understand why some people want to continue to argue over this. What you have done for us is so amazing and extremely helpful. It is a glimpse into the jury room and to the heart of our judicial system. I sincerely hope the BDI and BII folks will stop their fighting and just let everyone be peaceful for a change. Please on our behalf, thank her for letting you talk with her.

  30. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to cody100 For This Useful Post:


  31. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    228
    Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

    The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

    In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

    For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

    I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

    In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.
    Last edited by calgary123; 06-02-2011 at 01:48 AM.

  32. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to calgary123 For This Useful Post:


  33. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by calgary123 View Post
    In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.
    I agree. If I am reading/watching a trial and a defendant who is being tried for a horrible crime (and heavy evidence is pointing towards him being guilty), I will just roll my eyes at the witnesses who say what a great guy he was. HOWEVER, in my opinion, it was very telling BC had none of these.

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


  35. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by calgary123 View Post
    Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

    The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

    In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

    For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

    I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

    In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.
    That's about what I figured as well. Thanks for sharing that.

  36. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    If you do get a chance to talk to her again, please ask what the jury thought about the autopsy evidence. Did the red liquid and onion fragment in the stomach and the extra large blow fly larvae carry any weight? Or was this evidence dismissed as not precise enough?

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:


  38. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,388
    NCSU, if you get a chance to talk to her again, please tell her 'thank you' for sharing her thoughts and also please let her know that there are many people who are interested in hearing their thoughts, no matter what they are, and I (or perhaps we all) hope she and the rest of the jury will consider doing the Dateline interview.

    Hearing the jurors speak in their own voices and in their own words is always the best way for the jurors' words to not be twisted by anyone else into something else (I'm not accusing you of doing this, btw, just making a general and broad statement). The jury were the only people whose opinions mattered in the case. Their verdict was unanimous, and no matter how poorly the state presented, they obviously could not discard the evidence which convinced them of Murder 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. That indicates the evidence they saw was strong and compelling.

  39. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  40. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote Originally Posted by calgary123 View Post
    Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

    The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

    In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

    For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

    I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

    In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.
    Pretty much what I was going to comment about BC. Much like scott peterson being 'a good golfer', I don't think the defense could find anybody to use as a character reference. JMO, but from all I read here, and heard from Canada, it didn't appear Brad 'had a good reputation' in general. It wasn't simply that 'he was a loner' or 'quiet', it appeared he left *negative* impressions with most people he came into contact with.

  41. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to gracielee For This Useful Post:


  42. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    It wasn't simply that 'he was a loner' or 'quiet', it appeared he left *negative* impressions with most people he came into contact with.
    That is accurate, but there's more to the story. From my experience at first he seemed like a good guy. He can actually be very gregarious in some situations. But in a short while I noticed things changed even within my circle of friends and he does things that make people withdraw from him, and him from them. I think this is why he did not have any long term friends -- not even one when I met him. I'm not saying this because I hate him or have an axe to grind, but I think its really sad. I do dislike him though and I'm sure that's come through in my posts since I joined.

    Its not that he was a loner because he was quiet, he is not quiet. Case in point, he goes to France and manages to start a relationship with a pretty French girl he met in a large group. There were people who testified that were part of the large group but whom didn't go out in the evening social events. Brad did, that is his element, a new group of people he doesn't know. That's where he does best. So he's sociable but when things go wrong he broods. If he thinks people don't like him he withdraws. He is generally non-confrontational.
    Last edited by calgary123; 06-04-2011 at 02:50 AM.

  43. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to calgary123 For This Useful Post:


  44. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    273

    I can only speak for myself

    Quote Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
    At least one of the jurors (not her) is having a very hard time because they read all of the juror bashing going on at a different site. She read some of it and had to stop before it got her angry.
    I can only speak for myself, as someone who was completely shocked at the verdict, but I have no negative feelings towards the jury members. My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.

    Ok that's not entirely true - I didn't think too much of the juror who sent the note about wanting his/her life back. I think that was uncalled for, even if I understood the sentiment, but I realize that person did not speak for the entire jury.

    The jury imo did the best they could with what they had. I think you said something about the lady you know not wanting to appear on Dateline and I don't blame her at all - I wouldn't want to either. I'm kind of alarmed at how concerned the jury seems to be at public perception of them, or even concerns for their own safety.

    I think a lot of the people who have reacted negatively to the verdict are extremely frustrated and some of the frustration unfortunately came out in the form of attacks on the jury. I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation. I don't think this is an situation where the "crazies" are going to come out.

    I've got open ears and an open mind for any jurors who are willing to talk about the extremely difficult task they faced.

  45. The Following User Says Thank You to fromageball For This Useful Post:


  46. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,859
    "I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation."

    I live in Raleigh and most people i have spoken with agree with the verdict.
    Perhaps I just run in a different circle?

    Perhaps you missed this explanation:


    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)

  47. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •