Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MyBelle said:
ETA: WRAL interview with Jury Foreperson said the fact Jason didn't talk or even say he was not guilty was a factor in the jury's decision.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/10822938/#/vid10822938
Click to expand...

I apologize because I can't watch the video at work but were they saying that it was a factor that he never spoke to police or that he didn't testify the second time? They can't consider him not testifying against him but I thought they were able to use the fact that he never spoke to police, never followed up with them to give a list of missing items from this "alleged robbery".. even BH used it in one of her closing arguments if not both - something like 1,693 days since he spoke after his wife was killed...if all that is in evidence, how could they be told to not consider that? :confused:
 
Yes, Luna, that is the same interview that she said his silence was held against JY. I believe MyBelle referenced that interview above.
 
Luna24 said:
I apologize because I can't watch the video at work but were they saying that it was a factor that he never spoke to police or that he didn't testify the second time? They can't consider him not testifying against him but I thought they were able to use the fact that he never spoke to police, never followed up with them to give a list of missing items from this "alleged robbery".. even BH used it in one of her closing arguments if not both - something like 1,693 days since he spoke after his wife was killed...if all that is in evidence, how could they be told to not consider that? :confused:
Click to expand...

I just listened to the interview and she says (during a list of reasons) that the fact that he didn't even speak up and say "I'm not guilty" added to everything else. She does not make a distinction between whether she means to police, media, taking the stand, friends, family etc., just that he didn't speak up on his own behalf. Heck she could have been referring to the fact that none of his friends testified that he had even said to them that he was innocent. Who knows what she was referring to when she said what she said.

And you are right. The jury instructions do say that they can hold against him in certain aspects that he did not speak to law enforcement since he later decided to take the stand. That they can consider the truthfulness of that testimony since he invoked his right to silence, then later took the stand. It was all spelled out in the jury instructions.

IMO
 
Talina said:
I just listened to the interview and she says (during a list of reasons) that the fact that he didn't even speak up and say "I'm not guilty" added to everything else. She does not make a distinction between whether she means to police, media, taking the stand, friends, family etc., just that he didn't speak up on his own behalf. Heck she could have been referring to the fact that none of his friends testified that he had even said to them that he was innocent. Who knows what she was referring to when she said what she said.

And you are right. The jury instructions do say that they can hold against him in certain aspects that he did not speak to law enforcement since he later decided to take the stand. That they can consider the truthfulness of that testimony since he invoked his right to silence, then later took the stand. It was all spelled out in the jury instructions.

IMO
Click to expand...

thanks Talina - that part of the interview is coming back now - and like you said, she could have been talking about a number of things.

thanks for clearing that up - I don't know that much about the law so I wanted to just be clear. so, no mistrial for that. :)
 
eileenhawkeye said:
In the JonBenet forum at WS, most people believe the Ramseys were involved. However, I have read people's opinions about the case all over the Internet, and I would say it's about 50/50 now. Both sides are very passionate, have plenty of information to back up their claims, etc.

It does seem in most cases, the majority of people believe that the main suspect is guilty. And when someone pops up screaming that Casey Anthony or whoever is innocent, you get the feeling that they are just doing that to be controversial or special.

In the Danielle Van Dam case, there was an entire forum with people who believed that David Westerfield was innocent. Due to the circumstances of the case, I think that was pretty unusual. You normally don't see people who commit those "abducted from the bedroom" type of crimes being defended like that.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're kidding! I thought Westerfield was a slam dunk. Especially with her hair in his headboard in his bedroom, in his camper, and her fingerprint above the headboard in his camper. When it was discovered he was in negotiations to give up her body location just before the search party found her, was icing on the cake for me. I can't believe there were actually people defending him. Plus he had the kiddie *advertiser censored* and child rape videos on his computer.
 
Luna24 said:
I apologize because I can't watch the video at work but were they saying that it was a factor that he never spoke to police or that he didn't testify the second time? They can't consider him not testifying against him but I thought they were able to use the fact that he never spoke to police, never followed up with them to give a list of missing items from this "alleged robbery".. even BH used it in one of her closing arguments if not both - something like 1,693 days since he spoke after his wife was killed...if all that is in evidence, how could they be told to not consider that? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't have the jury instructions handy but it did spell out very clearly how they were to consider different pieces of evidence such as his silence, the doll play, the wrongful death lawsuit, etc. The jury did whatever they wanted it seems.

They also leaped to a conclusion that Jason had an accomplice even though there is no evidence he did nor is there an open investigation into who that person is. I guess that mystery person gets a free pass on a brutal murder of a mother and her baby.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
I don't have the jury instructions handy but it did spell out very clearly how they were to consider different pieces of evidence such as his silence, the doll play, the wrongful death lawsuit, etc. The jury did whatever they wanted it seems.

They also leaped to a conclusion that Jason had an accomplice even though there is no evidence he did nor is there an open investigation into who that person is. I guess that mystery person gets a free pass on a brutal murder of a mother and her baby.

JMO
Click to expand...

The jury was told they could consider that he acted in concert with other(s) in their deliberations. They did nothing wrong in doing so.

IMO
 
Talina said:
The jury was told they could consider that he acted in concert with other(s) in their deliberations. They did nothing wrong in doing so.

IMO
Click to expand...

And as far as we know "acting in concert" could mean after the fact. Maybe someone helped him get rid of evidence. Maybe that's what he needed help with in Brevard. Help does not mean someone was in the house with him that night.
 
Talina said:
The jury was told they could consider that he acted in concert with other(s) in their deliberations. They did nothing wrong in doing so.

IMO
Click to expand...

The Judge didn't arrive at that same conclusion.
 
Mama-cita said:
And as far as we know "acting in concert" could mean after the fact. Maybe someone helped him get rid of evidence. Maybe that's what he needed help with in Brevard. Help does not mean someone was in the house with him that night.
Click to expand...

That's very true. However, even if someone else was actually in the house that night, that doesn't make JY any less guilty.

(I don't believe anyone was in the house)
 
MyBelle said:
The Judge didn't arrive at that same conclusion.
Click to expand...

No idea what you mean by that. The judge is who told them they could consider the acting in concert part. I also don't think anything like this is part of what is being investigated.
 
Talina said:
That's very true. However, even if someone else was actually in the house that night, that doesn't make JY any less guilty.

(I don't believe anyone was in the house)
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, someone else's presence would not lessen his guilt in the least. But I agree with you, I think he was alone in the house. I am willing to consider he had help disposing of evidence though. And I wouldn't be surprised if people on the jury thought the same thing
 
LOL, interesting look on his face.

Kinda like, "Damn, shucks...thought I'd try and get away with it."

Jerk.
 
Wolfpack said:
Surprisingly, that's not the worst picture he's taken. He looks oddly happier than the others I've seen of him.
Click to expand...

I don't notice the bulging vein in his forehead anymore. :fence: I'd have to say, he looks much better than his wife and unborn son, the way he left them. :moo::maddening:
 
Wolfpack said:
Surprisingly, that's not the worst picture he's taken. He looks oddly happier than the others I've seen of him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, noticed he is in regular population...they don't like wife/baby killers. I don't think he will do well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 164 more.
Total: 3,354 (members: 165, guests: 3,189)

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
3,189
Total visitors
3,354
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,164
Messages
17,964,527
Members
228,712
Latest member
T-Dog
Back
Top