Discussions with a juror

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm glad they followed the written instructions for rendering their verdict. Reasonable doubt is confusing for many. A lot of people think you have to have ZERO doubt about everything to convict and that is not the standard. And neither is a jury to consider each item of evidence separate/apart from the totality of all the evidence put together.

No one in a circumstantial case would ever be convicted if all juries did was debate each item or behavior and decide whether an explanation for it (and it alone) could be explained away as something normal or mere coincidence. It's only when putting everything together that a picture can emerge.
 
Madeleine74 said:
I knew the 'bothered' comment wasn't related to the juror misconduct incident. I am curious about the juror's opinion on the various witnesses and since you mentioned JA specifically, I wanted to know what was bothersome to this juror.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I asked her specifically if she thought BC spoofed a call. She didn't really have an answer, but she did say that the "techie" guy explained that all he would need is a fax machine to do it. Or there is some way to do it with AOL (I didn't get specifics). But that allowed them to get beyond the lack of proof for the phone call.

Some others....she didn't believe he disposed of the shoes between HT trips. She said they saw tons of shoes in the pictures and assumed he simply changed shoes when leaving for the 2nd trip (which is what the defense said in opening). She also said she didn't believe the police ever asked him for him and knows the search warrant for them wasn't until October.

She thinks the CPD did a horrible job. She couldn't believe some of the things the detectives did (like sitting in the bed). She was told later (after the trial) that Daniels is a good detective, but doesn't take good notes...he just remembers a lot of things. But she wasn't at all happy with either Daniels or Young. She doesn't have an opinion as to why the phone was erased. But she was very bothered that they didn't investigate that phone on the 12th when she was still a missing person. I think we can all agree on that...they should have gotten BCs permission to check the phone on the 12th.
 
Madeleine74 said:
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

RZ was straight out of central casting for the "R Z" character. No other actress is ever needed to play her in the movie version. She was hilarious. Oh I'm sure she believed she saw NC running that morning, but she did not since NC was already dead and discarded by 7am. She had the tall female runner wearing an iPod, which was not accurate.
Click to expand...

I think most people believe RZ. I believe completely that she thinks she saw NC that morning. I'm not convinced she didn't...but I understand why her testimony was basically dismissed.
 
Another thing...she was very upset at the cross examination of Carrie Dittner. She didn't say this, but I get the opinion that he was found guilty in spite of the prosecution team, not because of it. I guess that is how it should be...your like/dislike of an attorney shouldn't factor into guilt or innocence. But she specifically talked about that cross examination as well as the cross of Jay Ward. They (or at least she) couldn't believe that Boz went the whole facebook route. She also talked about the whole tennis grip thing and found Cummings reaction to be ridiculous. I told her we called him Gangsta Howard after that.
 
ncsu95 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
JAs call to the police that morning
Click to expand...

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.
 
^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.
 
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.
 
Madeleine74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 shared with her the offer of proof testimony as well as the additional information from Chris Frye that wasn't presented.
 
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.
 
Madeleine74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
oenophile said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
turn into a "primary influencer and the one that pushed hardest for a guilty verdict?"

SmileyScratchhead.jpg
 
Madeleine74 said:
How the heck does the one statement,

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

SmileyScratchhead.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
oenophile said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 3,772 (members: 68, guests: 3,704)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,704
Total visitors
3,772
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,110
Messages
17,963,372
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top