Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

[CaryDad]

Hi everyone. I'm new here after lurking for much of the Jason Young trial. Thanks for having me.

Honest question - has there ever been a trial followed closely by WebSleuths where a majority or even a significant number of users felt the defendant was not guilty? If so, would someone mind pointing me in the direction of that thread? I'm just trying to figure out the "lay of the land" here. Thanks in advance!

[otto]

Originally Posted by CaryDad

Hi everyone. I'm new here after lurking for much of the Jason Young trial. Thanks for having me.

Honest question - has there ever been a trial followed closely by WebSleuths where a majority or even a significant number of users felt the defendant was not guilty? If so, would someone mind pointing me in the direction of that thread? I'm just trying to figure out the "lay of the land" here. Thanks in advance!

The only one I've seen is the murder of Meredith Kercher, British Erasmus student, in Perugia, Italy. The threads here primarily supported Amanda Knox, who was convicted, spent four years in jail, and then released on appeal. That appeal is being appealed.

[Madeleine74]

Hi CaryDad. Welcome!

There were a significant number of WS members who felt Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend were innocent of the Meredith Kercher murder. This is the Perugia Italy case. I was one of those who came to be a firm not guilty. There are those who think she is guilty, so it's not 100%. That thread is on WS somewhere.

I'm sure there are other cases as well, but I've only followed a few here.

[ohiogirl]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Here in NC, we're going to have the Jason Williford case up soon (April) out of Wake County. Judge Gessner is his trial judge. In Durham, Raven Abaroa is coming up soon as well. We may have a trial date for Grant Haze and his wife Amanda Haze this year as well. I believe Boz is on that case. At one point Klink was Grant Haze's attorney, but I know he's been through so many now, I am not sure who his current attorney is.

I don't know if I can watch another trial in NC. If it is online, I will try, but I have a tough time with the laid back style of the attorneys, both sides.
It is tough for a northerner to get with the flow, jmo.

[ohiogirl]

Originally Posted by Prancy

Young Juror says they figured Jason must have had accomplice and the State may reopen to investigate that theory.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=8571108

They didn't say they may reopen the case. That is misleading.

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by Madeleine74

Hi CaryDad. Welcome!

There were a significant number of WS members who felt Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend were innocent of the Meredith Kercher murder. This is the Perugia Italy case. I was one of those who came to be a firm not guilty. There are those who think she is guilty, so it's not 100%. That thread is on WS somewhere.

I'm sure there are other cases as well, but I've only followed a few here.

I wasn't here for it, was elsewhere, I mean, but I think there is quite a dispute on the JonBenet Ramsey case. On that one, I've never believed it was either of the Ramsey's. Don't know if I'm in the majority or minority on that one here.

[octobermoon]

O/T

I got new speakers and cake and new socks for my B-day.



Guess if you bug the sunshine enough he


Thank you my son.

[eileenhawkeye]

Originally Posted by gracielee

I wasn't here for it, was elsewhere, I mean, but I think there is quite a dispute on the JonBenet Ramsey case. On that one, I've never believed it was either of the Ramsey's. Don't know if I'm in the majority or minority on that one here.

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.

[MyBelle]

Originally Posted by ohiogirl

Do you really think this will result in a mistrial? Not likely, jmo.

I think there are several factors in play--including the jurors own statements to the media about using his silence against him--which will result in a mistrial.

JMO

[nursebeeme]

Originally Posted by MyBelle

I think there are several factors in play--including the jurors own statements to the media about using his silence against him--which will result in a mistrial.

JMO

I have not heard any juror say they held it against him

[MyBelle]

Originally Posted by nursebeeme

I have not heard any juror say they held it against him

when I get a chance, I'll find the article. I've been shocked at what a couple of them have said.

[MyBelle]

Originally Posted by MyBelle

when I get a chance, I'll find the article. I've been shocked at what a couple of them have 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.../#/vid10822938

[Luna24]

Originally Posted by MyBelle

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.../#/vid10822938

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?

[cody100]

Yes, Luna, that is the same interview that she said his silence was held against JY. I believe MyBelle referenced that interview above.

[Talina]

Originally Posted by Luna24

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?

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

[Luna24]

Originally Posted by Talina

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

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.

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye

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.

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 porn and child rape videos on his computer.

[MyBelle]

Originally Posted by Luna24

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?

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

[Talina]

Originally Posted by MyBelle

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

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

[Lori59]

Not sure if anyone has posted...but he got another picture made.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/...lts&listpage=1

[Mama-cita]

Originally Posted by Talina

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

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.

[MyBelle]

Originally Posted by Talina

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

The Judge didn't arrive at that same conclusion.

[Talina]

Originally Posted by Mama-cita

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.

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)

[Talina]

Originally Posted by MyBelle

The Judge didn't arrive at that same conclusion.

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.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Lori59

Not sure if anyone has posted...but he got another picture made.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/...lts&listpage=1

Surprisingly, that's not the worst picture he's taken. He looks oddly happier than the others I've seen of him.