How the defense team used social media to their advantage

[guardangel]

Man, I can tell you one thing, am not that enraged anymore about the jury.
They were subjected to professional brain waves manipulators.
Some of them by now might feel horrible and realize they have been had.
That ***** is powerful.

:rocker: I love your post rotterdam.

 

[TexanMom]

Man, I can tell you one thing, am not that enraged anymore about the jury.
They were subjected to professional brain waves manipulators.
Some of them by now might feel horrible and realize they have been had.
That ***** is powerful.

Yep! If there was one thing I could say to them it's this, "Ya'll got played!"

 

[TexanMom]

Boy, have I asked that question over and over again. As an American citizen I feel like this jury knew much more about FCA and Caylee than they ever admitted. I feel pretty sure they had a foreman preselected and a verdict reached before deliberations began. IMHOO
I would like to know exactly how much time the DT spent with the jurors.

My gut feeling is that the Defense's PI might have had contact with the jurors right after they were selected. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[PeteyGirl]

http://trialconsultants.com/


Singer said they knew the case would be largely won or lost during jury selection.
"I agree with Nancy Grace that the case was pretty much over after the jury was picked," she said, adding blogger comments confirmed her view.

Common wisdom that attorneys like stupid jurors is just "old wives' tales," said Singer, who said her team was clear that they wanted "bright and intelligent" jurors.

The jury consultants also were happy to have two nurses on the jury, so they could see that the prosecution was reaching by having pathologists testify that all accidents are reported to police, she said. "It was clearly out of their area of expertise as pathologists, and the nurses would see that," Singer said.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-----------oh please------(not even a ) nurse juror #3--------jennifer ford-------we are to believe that SHE could refute dr.G's ! testimony.

..jennifer ford wasn't able to "see" that she wasn't supposed to be factoring in the penalty phase ( or caring that "hey, that would make me a murderer! if we give her the DP )-----while they were supposed to be deliberating the GUILT phase...............ONLY.

..ALL of the guilt phase ( even those additional 'lesser' options ) that JF apparently missed out on, based on her---

--- "not guilty isn't innocent! we cried! if only we'd had other charges to find her guilty of..." ( ummm, they did.)

Further thoughts upon jury selection . . .

From http://trialconsultants.com/singer.html;

Additionally, Singer was the first professional to introduce the concept of the "psychocentric juror," that is, an individual who always personalizes all issues of legal contention negatively against those involved. For example, a psychocentric juror may not be inclined to support a plaintiff who is suing for wrongful termination because, "I lost a job once before too, but I didn't make a federal case about it." A psychocentric juror will almost always find it impossible to identify or sympathize with anyone else, including plaintiffs in civil trials.

The "psychocentric juror" is a powerful tool. Jennifer Ford and the PE teacher are darn good examples of how a psychocentric juror utilizes information to draw conclusions.

They draw the WRONG conclusions because they process information exclusively against their OWN experience. Rather than drawing upon objective information available (as well as their own personal experience), they ignore it . . . because objective information -- to a "psychocentric" person -- does not exist.

It would be a crapshoot, as far as which direction a psychocentric juror would go. You'd have to really pile up the kind of mind-candy that would appeal to the self-centric tendencies, in order to sway the "loyalty" of the psychocentric juror toward your side.

My guesses on what would appeal and sway would be the vague, titillating emotional explosion of sex abuse, "conspiracy theories" (enter thrilling insinuations against George Anthony). Also, manipulate the psychocentric juror by their feelings of powerlessness and victimization by the "system".

Point out that all the forensic fantasy mumbo-jumbo really exists to insult your already impugned intelligence. Encourage self-pity for having to sit and listen to it for six weeks, not to mention watch a good, honest man (ack) do his best to defend a tiny little girl-woman from the Big Bad System.

There, that ought to weigh the scales enough. You have the psychocentric juror eating out of your hand -- not because of the quality of any EVIDENCE you offer -- but because you have them by the emotional shorthairs.

All my own interp/opinion, of course.

 

[Little Black Dress]

If made aware, I wonder if the general population would be as incensed about this egregious manipulation as many of us are. I wonder if there's any merit to making a clear and solid 'case' about this (including its consequences to our justice system) and presenting it to an organization such as Change.org. Look at what's happened with the idea of "Caylee's Law", also presented to Change.org. Just wonder if change could be effected on this situation in a similar way. Just a thought.

 

[LambChop]

If made aware, I wonder if the general population would be as incensed about this egregious manipulation as many of us are. I wonder if there's any merit to making a clear and solid 'case' about this (including its consequences to our justice system) and presenting it to an organization such as Change.org. Look at what's happened with the idea of "Caylee's Law", also presented to Change.org. Just wonder if change could be effected on this situation in a similar way. Just a thought.

You know what really bothers me, because there does not seem to be an answer, is how did ABC get ahold of JF so fast. She claims they were calling her house before she arrived home and offered an expense free trip to Disney. The judge never released the names so how did ABC find out so fast and know exactly what the woman wanted in payment for her interview. Not only that the two people who seemed to have the most influence on the decision are the ones that were contacted, of course we don't know about the others but these two seemed ready to talk immediately. So here we are. We still don't know the names of the others because they supposedly agreed not to talk but ABC seemed to know the names of the ones who came forward. Where interviews done by other networks, or just ABC? To me there just is something that is not right. jmo

 

[deanna82437]

You know what really bothers me, because there does not seem to be an answer, is how did ABC get ahold of JF so fast. She claims they were calling her house before she arrived home and offered an expense free trip to Disney. The judge never released the names so how did ABC find out so fast and know exactly what the woman wanted in payment for her interview. Not only that the two people who seemed to have the most influence on the decision are the ones that were contacted, of course we don't know about the others but these two seemed ready to talk immediately. So here we are. We still don't know the names of the others because they supposedly agreed not to talk but ABC seemed to know the names of the ones who came forward. Where interviews done by other networks, or just ABC? To me there just is something that is not right. jmo

Interesting observation. IIRC CNN did an interview with JF, but after the ABC one. Is there a link/date for the ABC interview? Was it the one with Terry M on Nightline?

 

[deanna82437]

Interesting observation. IIRC CNN did an interview with JF, but after the ABC one. Is there a link/date for the ABC interview? Was it the one with Terry M on Nightline?

Quoting myself again. Nightline on 7/06 - CNN on 7/13 (I think)

 

[rotterdam]

You know what really bothers me, because there does not seem to be an answer, is how did ABC get ahold of JF so fast. She claims they were calling her house before she arrived home and offered an expense free trip to Disney. The judge never released the names so how did ABC find out so fast and know exactly what the woman wanted in payment for her interview. Not only that the two people who seemed to have the most influence on the decision are the ones that were contacted, of course we don't know about the others but these two seemed ready to talk immediately. So here we are. We still don't know the names of the others because they supposedly agreed not to talk but ABC seemed to know the names of the ones who came forward. Where interviews done by other networks, or just ABC? To me there just is something that is not right. jmo

After the verdict , the jury was given a media packet if I recall. It probably had all the necessary contact info and perhaps some offers in that packet. JF could have called them from Orlando even before getting home.
May be the Disney trip was an early bird special.:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Further thoughts upon jury selection . . .

From http://trialconsultants.com/singer.html;



The "psychocentric juror" is a powerful tool. Jennifer Ford and the PE teacher are darn good examples of how a psychocentric juror utilizes information to draw conclusions.

They draw the WRONG conclusions because they process information exclusively against their OWN experience. Rather than drawing upon objective information available (as well as their own personal experience), they ignore it . . . because objective information -- to a "psychocentric" person -- does not exist.

It would be a crapshoot, as far as which direction a psychocentric juror would go. You'd have to really pile up the kind of mind-candy that would appeal to the self-centric tendencies, in order to sway the "loyalty" of the psychocentric juror toward your side.

My guesses on what would appeal and sway would be the vague, titillating emotional explosion of sex abuse, "conspiracy theories" (enter thrilling insinuations against George Anthony). Also, manipulate the psychocentric juror by their feelings of powerlessness and victimization by the "system".

Point out that all the forensic fantasy mumbo-jumbo really exists to insult your already impugned intelligence. Encourage self-pity for having to sit and listen to it for six weeks, not to mention watch a good, honest man (ack) do his best to defend a tiny little girl-woman from the Big Bad System.

There, that ought to weigh the scales enough. You have the psychocentric juror eating out of your hand -- not because of the quality of any EVIDENCE you offer -- but because you have them by the emotional shorthairs.

All my own interp/opinion, of course.

Sounds like a combination of inability to reason and a personality disorder. Great combination huh?

 

[Omachka]

You know what really bothers me, because there does not seem to be an answer, is how did ABC get ahold of JF so fast. She claims they were calling her house before she arrived home and offered an expense free trip to Disney. The judge never released the names so how did ABC find out so fast and know exactly what the woman wanted in payment for her interview. Not only that the two people who seemed to have the most influence on the decision are the ones that were contacted, of course we don't know about the others but these two seemed ready to talk immediately. So here we are. We still don't know the names of the others because they supposedly agreed not to talk but ABC seemed to know the names of the ones who came forward. Where interviews done by other networks, or just ABC? To me there just is something that is not right. jmo

That would be the "bookers" that were referenced by the Judge at one point. They leave packets for the jurors in high profile cases on behalf of their network. If a juror is interested they call a number. JF obviously got a few packets and called the numbers. There is no other way that ABC or any of the other networks would have known how to reach her since her name wasn't released. That is part of the juror reform package that Mark NeJame was trying to get sent to the FL legislature. That jurors shouldn't be allowed to make a profit from their story for a certain number of months after the conclusion of a trial. That way they won't be tempted to make a decision based on how much money they can make. Of course, to be constitutional, they would be allowed to tell their story for free at any time. To me it is a huge red flag that at least two of these jurors and an alternate took any sort of payment for their immediate interviews. I have no way of knowing if it influenced their decision but the possibility is certainly there.

PS the information about MN came to me via Twitter. I'm not sure if that ended up in the Twitter thread or not. He and rhornsby had quite a discussion on Twitter about whether or not such juror reform would be constitutional. MN was of the opinion that it would be since they could give their story for free if they wished. I sure hope that goes through. Maybe it will help stop these "unusual" verdicts.

 

[Caligram]

What a waste. A huge waste. For the taxpayers, for the prosecution team, for LE, and all the volunteers who gave their time to obtaining justice for Caylee Marie. The DT started out with no clear-cut idea of what their defense strategy was. Thus we can no see why JB deliberately delayed every attempt to get this trial before a jury. He boldly challenged the patience of HHJP, to the audacity of making his snarky comment about having to work for "slave wages". I now am "smartened-up" enough to consider that all these "bumbling boo-boos" were tossed in to try and get a mistrial once they seated a jury. Now I see it, now I understand. No wonder CM didn't raise his finger to stop JB and rein him in. He supposedly had the brains and experience, yet he sprawled out there like a big blob most of the time. There were many attempts to cause a mistrial and all that got them was wasted time, time and more time. I guess no matter how the DT attempted to manipulate this trial, they got far more than they bargained for. I hope that FCA ends up suing JB and CM for any sort of fantasy reason which she can imagine.
I don't want any financial gain for FCA, only loss of prestige, clients, and licenses for her boys. The DT went along with the nanny story while they could waste more time and taxpayer money in a search for "expert witnesses" who would agree with them. Such a farce. Restitution for all of the fraudulently run-up expenses for this trial should be demanded. Perjury by penis, anyone?

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

You know what really bothers me, because there does not seem to be an answer, is how did ABC get ahold of JF so fast. She claims they were calling her house before she arrived home and offered an expense free trip to Disney. The judge never released the names so how did ABC find out so fast and know exactly what the woman wanted in payment for her interview. Not only that the two people who seemed to have the most influence on the decision are the ones that were contacted, of course we don't know about the others but these two seemed ready to talk immediately. So here we are. We still don't know the names of the others because they supposedly agreed not to talk but ABC seemed to know the names of the ones who came forward. Where interviews done by other networks, or just ABC? To me there just is something that is not right. jmo

I posted this on one of the "fast moving" juror threads a few weeks back...posting again for anyone who missed it.

I remember the first time I read this article, my hinky meter went off...it still does!

Article from July 12, 2011

And even though TV producers have been scrambling for days in Pinellas County, working hard to secure interviews with jurors on the widely-covered murder trial whose identities have been kept from the public by the court, Van Susteren said their names were hardly unknown to the army of bookers trying to land the next big exclusive for network morning and cable news shows.

"Everybody in media here knows who they are. Sometimes we're tripping over each other at these people's homes, because everybody knows."

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media...pinellas-county-public-backlash-biggest-obsta

 

[Caligram]

The early worms got the ....... Oh, wait....that was about birds not jurors. The early jurors who "sang" got the nest eggs.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Used social media huh. Well how about picking a jury with at least one control freak.
I wonder which of the Jurors convinced/told the other Jurors not to talk to the media??? I mean it really doesn't seem fair. Maybe the other Jurors sort of wanted to go on national tv too or meet Greta or go to Disney World with Jennifer - Maybe the other Jurors wanted to go to Disney World and take 4 other people with them for free like Jennifer got to do thanks to ABC/Walt Disney Company..

Reached by telephone Tuesday evening, alternate juror Dean Edward Eckstadt wouldn't comment.
"I'd really rather not say anything on the phone," he said. "There's a lot of headaches when we all talk to you guys."
Eckstadt said fellow jurors have said they don't want each other talking to the media.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-26/news/os-casey-anthony-jury-names-released-20110726_1_juror-names-alternate-juror-fellow-jurors
July 26, 2011|By Amy Pavuk and Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel

I wonder if the juror or jurors that don't want the others to talk to the media are afraid of what they might say?

 

[guardangel]

I posted this on one of the "fast moving" juror threads a few weeks back...posting again for anyone who missed it.

I remember the first time I read this article, my hinky meter went off...it still does!

Article from July 12, 2011



http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media...pinellas-county-public-backlash-biggest-obsta

ENAV, huge thanks for reposting the link.

 

[rotterdam]

ENAV, huge thanks for reposting the link.

It was interesting listening to that juror, he who can read people, again.
In most of the interview, he is talking about George. Sadly, it illustrates how effective the George suggestive tactics were by the DT , as advised by Amy Singer.
Reminds of a trick, us gals used to play(not very often) on our boss.
He had the habit of calling boring meetings in the afternoon when we wanted to get some work done.
We had various folks, from other depts too, asking him if he was feeling ok, since he looked kind of off color. By the afternoon , he would generally go home, saying he did not feel too great and even looked a little bit sick by now.. Guess that was a form of the power of suggestion too.

 

[Camille]

If I recall correctly, the DT also requested a location directly across from the jury.

During all the pretrial hearings they kept complaining about the media getting pictures of their laptop screens and the judge offered to let them move to the position that they took during the actual trial. They didn't specifically request it.

 

[strawberry]

During all the pretrial hearings they kept complaining about the media getting pictures of their laptop screens and the judge offered to let them move to the position that they took during the actual trial. They didn't specifically request it.

Now we know why. Their "work product" was actually twitter, WESH, and Websleuths. :maddening:

 

[KarmicLaw]

Now we know why. Their "work product" was actually twitter, WESH, and Websleuths. :maddening:

I personally think it's a smart move for either side of a case to use all resources available. I do not advocate lying one's face off and violating code of ethics, but there are times when someone should stand up to a judge and there are times when one just doesn't have a lightening like response to unexpected testimony.

The fact that counsel can now pause, walk over to the table, and have an exceptional strategic advantage as a result of a very smart person over a smart phone...heck, I'd want that on my team. It's a shame the SA did not exercise this option. I was literally screaming at my T.V. when the grief counselor was on the stand. She could have been put away with a few "to the gut" questions, but she wasn't. There were so many times that I had wished the SA has a direct line to some WS members during the trial. ::::heavy sigh:::::