1131 users online (162 members and 969 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 507
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by mck16 View Post
    What was the reasoning for WRAL even reporting it? And why would they wait until after the verdict was read if that is when in fact it happened. jmo
    They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Letter to SBI:
    http://www.wral.com/asset/specialrep...6170659598.pdf

    Wow... the posts seem to match up with what the juror said today, to a certain extent, though not entirely.

    It also appears as if the last letter of the pdf I linked to may be to one of the jurors on the case. I hope not, and if it is, I hope they edit out her name as soon as possible.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.
    No, she's saying why did WRAL report the posts that were on their FB to begin with.

    I need to know WHEN the comments were made about the split on the jury being 7-5 or whatever. It could have came after the verdict was read and jurors allowed to talk about it. IDK we'll see.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    7,472
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.
    I thought they WRAL were the ones that reported it to the judge. Maybe I misunderstood. jmo
    My prayers are for the innocent.

    Dallas Cowboys!!!!
    Texas Rangers!!!!

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfpack View Post
    Letter to SBI:
    http://www.wral.com/asset/specialrep...6170659598.pdf

    Wow... the posts seem to match up with what the juror said today.
    There were never more than ONE NG and that was on Friday and that didn't last long according to the two jurors who spoke today.
    The split on Monday was between the G and the Undecided. This person is saying it was split G vs NG.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Hmmmmm..........

    On second thought, I don't believe it for a minute!

    This jury was too articulate. There is no way. Besides, the judge had them turn off their cell phones when they began deliberating. I too think it's just a troll spreading rumors. I hope they're proud of themselves. Now they can smile for the camera when they see the SBI at their door.

    I'll wait for them to finish their probe. JY can only hope that's what happened and he's given a third go-round.

    I was very close friends and carpooled with someone on a jury long ago. She was gone 4 days a week and just worked on Fridays for about a month or so. She never ONCE said what the trial was, nothing! We didn't ask either......She told us when it was all over. She was an alternate, btw, but agreed with the verdict reached, which turned out to be HIGHLY controversial at the time.

    Murder of an under-cover officer in a drug deal. That jury was brought out and raked over the coals everywhere for the not guilty verdict. Seems according to the rules, the guy THOUGHT the under-cover guy was trying to rip him off and the accused claimed the LE drew first. Nothing to dispute it and from all evidence, it COULD have been that way. But COULD have wasn't good enough. So the slime walked and the jury hated themselves for giving that verdict too.

    The short is, these jurors most likely didn't break the rules. It's probably someone who WISHES someone did so they could reverse the verdict.

    Win/win for whoever thought of this, UNLESS they get caught. But if he'd walked and this was found out or investigated, wouldn't have made any difference, I do not THINK as double jeoprady would apply. IF it could have ANY merit at all, JY could at the least, get a new trial.

    I pray it's not true!

    JMHO
    and all that
    fran

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by evelyn24 View Post
    There were never more than ONE NG and that was on Friday and that didn't last long according to the two jurors who spoke today.
    The split on Monday was between the G and the Undecided. This person is saying it was split G vs NG.
    It was my understanding that on Friday, there were 5 G's, 7 who had not decided guilty? I think that matches up enough to investigate further.

    However, there's still a good chance this woman was just blowing smoke.

    And I'm not sure there was ever a "deadlock" either.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    I just went and had a quick look. Someone said they knew a hairdresser of a juror, and reported what the vote was at the time. Then the comment disappeared. 1. Just the mere fact that it originated with GOLO makes it suspect, read more than 3 comments there and your IQ will take an immediate nosedive. 2. A hairdresser? Really? Husband maybe, wife or best friend, but a hairdresser? Nahhhh. The way rumor runs rampant in Raleigh and esp on that board with all its misstatement of fact, if I were the judge I'd squash it too. Ignoring it would let it grow.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102
    For those who followed the CA trial...remember that we all wanted to go back and change something but there was nothing that could be done to over-turn the NG verdict. We filed petitions, complained, etc..... Now, comeon.. there HAD to be some sort of mis-conduct there, yet nothing could be done. So, I'm not worried. And as someone stated in the other thread, it was probably one of the Jason supporters stirring up trouble.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfpack View Post
    Letter to SBI:
    http://www.wral.com/asset/specialrep...6170659598.pdf

    Wow... the posts seem to match up with what the juror said today, to a certain extent, though not entirely.

    It also appears as if the last letter of the pdf I linked to may be to one of the jurors on the case. I hope not, and if it is, I hope they edit out her name as soon as possible.
    Yes, I believe that is the foreperson's name. She was interviewed by phone on In Session this morning.
    "You came here for THAT?" - Jason Young, 2009
    Yes, Jason, we came here for THAT! -- Guilty, Murder One, LWOP 3/5/2012
    Justice at last for Michelle Fisher Young


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfpack View Post
    It was my understanding that on Friday, there were 5 G's, 7 who had not decided guilty? I think that matches up enough to investigate further.

    However, there's still a good chance this woman was just blowing smoke.
    The jurors today said there was only ONE NG on the initial vote Friday but they moved over to Undecided fairly quickly. There was never 3 or 5 guilty hold outs. Monday it was mostly guilty with a few undecided. Maybe in this FB poster's world she took the undecided as being Not Guilty jurors. IDK.
    Still don't buy it.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by happy2binNC View Post
    Yes, I believe that is the foreperson's name. She was interviewed by phone on In Session this morning.
    Then perhaps they are contacting her, not because of suspected misconduct, but to have her go into more detail about her comments on the air this morning regarding voting? I hope so!

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In my treehouse, empty nesting.
    Posts
    12,854
    Quote Originally Posted by evelyn24 View Post
    There were never more than ONE NG and that was on Friday and that didn't last long according to the two jurors who spoke today.
    The split on Monday was between the G and the Undecided. This person is saying it was split G vs NG.
    Ding ding ding it's FLUFF!
    TY!!!
    ~ my opinion only

  14. #59
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    sipping coffee at the Purple Rose Theatre
    Posts
    53,157
    Quote Originally Posted by gngr~snap View Post
    Ding ding ding it's FLUFF!
    TY!!!
    I wish I could share your glass half full gngr~snap.. I usually am that type

    If it does turn out to be fluff I hope it scares the "fluff" out of the person that posted that on a FACEBOOK page...

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,800
    Oh noooooooooooooo!

    You know if it comes out he talked about the case the entire time the DT is going to use that on appeal.

    I am sickened to hear this and if the Judge ordered the SBI to investigate it must be pretty serious and he must have a good faith basis for doing so. (GROAN!)

    IMO
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Police Misconduct??
    By Liz in forum Stacy Peterson
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 08:43 PM
  2. Prosecutorial Misconduct
    By golfmom in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 08:38 PM
  3. TX - A 4 year old is accused of sexual misconduct??
    By kidzndogznme in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-26-2006, 06:37 AM