1277 users online (220 members and 1057 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 71
  1. #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.

  2. #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.

  3. #33
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,232
    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.

  4. #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.

  5. #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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    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?

  7. #37
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,232
    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?"


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,724
    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.

  9. #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.

  10. #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.


  11. #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.

  12. #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.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,235
    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.

  14. #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.

  15. #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?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast