Support Thread: Jurors
- Thread starter Anais
- Start date
New Posts
-
AMBER ALERT WI - Elijah Vue, 3 year old Elijah Vue, Two Rivers, 20 Feb 2024
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
Jess1985
Chayse's Mommy
I believe that they at least deserve this, seeing as the other one has been taken over with rude comments towards them. At least here, can we play nice? They did what they could with the evidence that was presented to them. We are a victim friendly forum, are we not? Well, these jurors are victims of having to deal with this case, IMO. Please keep in mind, we are judging these BY THE EVIDENCE that was PRESENTED to them, NOT what we knew, know, or saw that they did not. The jury did what they were asked to do, and in the end, it may have been a different outcome than what many were looking for, but in the end, what is done, has been done.
Mendara
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,035
- Reaction score
- 303
I think the evidence was clear and I think they went with feelings of distrust of George and their very wrong idea of what evidence should say. I disagree that they are victims. I think they were utterly wrong. A killer is free. They made a huge mistake and I wonder how many other lives will be ruined because Casey is free to destroy.
The one and only victim was Caylee Marie Anthony who was forgotten in their decision. I will never read, watch or support their stories. Ever.
The one and only victim was Caylee Marie Anthony who was forgotten in their decision. I will never read, watch or support their stories. Ever.
Well I will step up and support the jury. they were given a difficult task and they came up with an unpopular verdict. I disagree with some of it, but I have disagreed with plenty of verdicts and I am sure I will disagree with more.
I would not have wanted their job for anything in the world and I hope they keep their identities private.
I support our justice sytem and think it is the best thing going on even though we don't get it "right" 100% of the time.
I would not have wanted their job for anything in the world and I hope they keep their identities private.
I support our justice sytem and think it is the best thing going on even though we don't get it "right" 100% of the time.
Well, well said!:rocker:
CN2Souls
A MEMBER FROM LONG AGO
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,861
- Reaction score
- 8
:cry:
I pray that you every day of the trial you had an open heart and a clear focused mind that was looking at the evidence each piece long and hard and listening closely to the testimony’s given.
I pray that none of you spoke with each other about the case during the whole time you were sequestered.
That on every day you listened very carefully and took notes and took your position as a juror very seriously.
That if something during your deliberation confused you or you did not understand that you asked questions of the court.
Also that during the whole trial you kept ever vigilant to find Justice for Caylee.
I pray that none of you made a snap decision early on and dug your heels in on that and stopped listening to common sense.
That none of you were just eager to end the trial and go home, so you could “get on” with your lives.
My personal feeling there will never be justice for Caylee…..
I pray that you every day of the trial you had an open heart and a clear focused mind that was looking at the evidence each piece long and hard and listening closely to the testimony’s given.
I pray that none of you spoke with each other about the case during the whole time you were sequestered.
That on every day you listened very carefully and took notes and took your position as a juror very seriously.
That if something during your deliberation confused you or you did not understand that you asked questions of the court.
Also that during the whole trial you kept ever vigilant to find Justice for Caylee.
I pray that none of you made a snap decision early on and dug your heels in on that and stopped listening to common sense.
That none of you were just eager to end the trial and go home, so you could “get on” with your lives.
My personal feeling there will never be justice for Caylee…..
justanother
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 969
- Reaction score
- 130
Gosh, i'm pretty sure this is a support thread. If this is support, remind me not to ask for support here lol
I support the decision made, thank you for your service Jurors!
P.S- we really shouldn't take the alternate jurors word on what the real 12 were thinking ;-)
I support the decision made, thank you for your service Jurors!
P.S- we really shouldn't take the alternate jurors word on what the real 12 were thinking ;-)
french75
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 0
I will support the jury. I had the experience of serving on a jury for a murder trial a few years ago so I was thinking about them a lot from the beginning. My experience was stressful and upsetting and I wasn't even sequestered. These people were pulled into a very stressful and difficult situation and had to deal with it the best they could. Based on everything I know, I don't agree with the verdict but it has to be respected. I don't think they deserve our hate and scorn or to be called idiots.
Kimberlyd125
Softball is for everyone. Fast pitch is for athlet
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 16,167
- Reaction score
- 44
I agree in a way, but I would think they could have taken more than 10 or so hours to decide ICA's fate.
Nefriahaia
Inactive
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- -6
You have a point there.
HEY!!!!
This is a support thread! If you don't have something positive to say - then DON'T say it - go to a different thread, it doesn't belong here.
Everyone's opinion is valued here (as long as it is within TOS)! If you disagree with the topic of this thread, don't read or post here. That's okay. But WS has always allowed support threads and this one is no different. So please be respectful of the topic!
You opinion is valued also, but if it is negative, it doesn't belong in this thread - there are other threads, go find the appropriate one.
Salem
This is a support thread! If you don't have something positive to say - then DON'T say it - go to a different thread, it doesn't belong here.
Everyone's opinion is valued here (as long as it is within TOS)! If you disagree with the topic of this thread, don't read or post here. That's okay. But WS has always allowed support threads and this one is no different. So please be respectful of the topic!
You opinion is valued also, but if it is negative, it doesn't belong in this thread - there are other threads, go find the appropriate one.
Salem
STOP
Can everyone read? If you have nothing supportive to say, that is fine. MOVE ON, LEAVE THIS THREAD AND DO NOT POST HERE.
Salem
ETA: if you want to discuss how the jury got it wrong, please do so here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143263"]Did the jury get it wrong, or... - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Can everyone read? If you have nothing supportive to say, that is fine. MOVE ON, LEAVE THIS THREAD AND DO NOT POST HERE.
Salem
ETA: if you want to discuss how the jury got it wrong, please do so here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143263"]Did the jury get it wrong, or... - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
MarthaM
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 8
I have respect for any jury that takes their role seriously, looks at the evidence presented on the record in court, follows the judge's instructions to them, and returns a verdict based on all of that.
So yes, I respect this jury.
<modsnip>.
So yes, I respect this jury.
<modsnip>.
RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing
to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.
.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let's apply this test to the testimony and evidence:
State asserts that someday in mid-June of 2008, Casey Anthony intentionally chloroformed her daughter and duct taped her mouth and nose to kill her.
Stop there for a second...because if this assertion cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need for the jury to deliberate further.
What is the proof that she chloroformed her daughter? there was scientific testimony both to the presence and lack of presence of cholorform. There was testimony to 84 searches, and only 1 search. conflict in the evidence = reasonable doubt according to the jury instructions.
What is the proof that Caylee's mouth and nose were duct-taped pre-mortem and that this caused or contributed to her death? none, aside from the statement that "there is no reason to duct tape a child's mouth and nose alive or dead". Is this evidence though? read above: lack of evidence = reasonable doubt per jury instruction.
Even if a juror were to get by that one, what is the proof that Casey duct taped Caylee's mouth and nose and someone else did not? none.
There is really no need for the jury to beyond this. If you cannot overcome "the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime." as a juror...that's it - not guilty.
I think these jurors approached their job responsibly and professionally, without emotion or consideration of anything not presented in evidence or testified to.
If they could not get past the hurdle I mentioned, there is no need to review testimony, or look at evidence - what's the point?
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing
to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.
.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let's apply this test to the testimony and evidence:
State asserts that someday in mid-June of 2008, Casey Anthony intentionally chloroformed her daughter and duct taped her mouth and nose to kill her.
Stop there for a second...because if this assertion cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need for the jury to deliberate further.
What is the proof that she chloroformed her daughter? there was scientific testimony both to the presence and lack of presence of cholorform. There was testimony to 84 searches, and only 1 search. conflict in the evidence = reasonable doubt according to the jury instructions.
What is the proof that Caylee's mouth and nose were duct-taped pre-mortem and that this caused or contributed to her death? none, aside from the statement that "there is no reason to duct tape a child's mouth and nose alive or dead". Is this evidence though? read above: lack of evidence = reasonable doubt per jury instruction.
Even if a juror were to get by that one, what is the proof that Casey duct taped Caylee's mouth and nose and someone else did not? none.
There is really no need for the jury to beyond this. If you cannot overcome "the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime." as a juror...that's it - not guilty.
I think these jurors approached their job responsibly and professionally, without emotion or consideration of anything not presented in evidence or testified to.
If they could not get past the hurdle I mentioned, there is no need to review testimony, or look at evidence - what's the point?
Sil von Slapschtick
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urors-felt-sick-stomachs-accused-cleared.html
I thought you may be interested to read this from tomorrows edition of The Daily Mail...
I thought you may be interested to read this from tomorrows edition of The Daily Mail...
i'm from south wales too...wow small world!!