2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[sassygirl]

Was he the one she was making goo-goo eyes at during trial? Yeah, go ahead and hit that. You'll be waking up with a choloroform headache and duct tape stuck in your hair.

:floorlaugh:

Also remember Scott Peterson (FDM, CA). After the first juror was dismissed the jury deliberated just over a day, taking Veterans' day off, before returning a verdict. The deliberations before that are irrelevant since a jury is supposed start deliberations afresh after one of their number has been excused/dismissed.

One of the Scott Peterson Jurors was on NG and said he could not believe they came up with that verdict in 10-11 hours. He said you have to review the testimony and there is no way they could have done that with the length of this trial. Which NG and others agreed. He said it took them a week to reach the verdict.
He didn't say anything about starting fresh with new juror, but they may have started with everyone putting their vote out with the charges and the new juror was in line with them.

 

[NORCALGRL]

As pi$$ed as I am at the jury, I realized the other day that this family still confuses the hell out of me and I have been following the case for 3 years. I guess I can see where the jury would not get it. Maybe I am much more cynical and can just call a spade a spade, but there is nooo way that I would have an acquittal happen. You know I also wonder when a jury is sequestered and they start forming a bond with each other, if it doesn't make it more difficult to stand up to one another in deliberations. If you truly aren't talking about the case before hand and you are buddy-buddy with some one for 6 weeks and then go into deliberate and realize that they have basically have the IQ of a tree stump, it might be hard for some to go toe to toe with that person. MOO. Regardless, I'm just sick about this and at this point I'm just trying to have faith in Karma.

 

[Whisperer]

:clap:

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

:clap: Great Post

 

[uklaw]

:floorlaugh:

One of the Scott Peterson Jurors was on NG and said he could not believe they came up with that verdict in 10-11 hours. He said you have to review the testimony and there is no way they could have done that with the length of this trial. Which NG and others agreed. He said it took them a week to reach the verdict.
He didn't say anything about starting fresh with new juror, but they may have started with everyone putting their vote out with the charges and the new juror was in line with them.

Well none of that rebuts the main premise of my post. Regardless of what an individual juror from one case says (no matter how high profile of the case), the simple fact is juries return verdicts in similar timeframes to this jury.

The Sarah Johnson case was almost identical to this in terms of timescales: 6 week trial, 10 hours deliberation. Scott Peterson's jury deliberated for just over a day (after the first juror was dismissed) after a 3 month trial. This was a six week trial. You neglect to deal with this but simply re-state the opinion of one juror in the Scott Peterson case which is neither here nor there,

 

[Amster]

ICA knew what the verdict was before it was read.....MOO

 

[uklaw]

Ditto to everything you said. He definitely seemed interested in Casey.

TBH with you this is what I thought the Defense's tactic was going to be prior to jury selection. However, when the jury make-up became clear this clearly wasn't going to work.

The fact that this juror was infatuated with KC doesn't matter since he wasn't on the panel and there was no male juror on the panel under 30. I thought she might tried to have appealed to the older male jurors as a type of grand-daughter figure. But I don't think that's what actually happened in this case.

 

[summerthyme]

Have any of these stupid jurors tried to get a bandaid on a 3 year old much less duct tape! Unbelievable!

 

[laurafairlie]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

ITA. What he had to say really irked me.

 

[Talina]

Well none of that rebuts the main premise of my post. Regardless of what an individual juror from one case says (no matter how high profile of the case), the simple fact is juries return verdicts in similar timeframes to this jury.

The Sarah Johnson case was almost identical to this in terms of timescales: 6 week trial, 10 hours deliberation. Scott Peterson's jury deliberated for just over a day (after the first juror was dismissed) after a 3 month trial. This was a six week trial. You neglect to deal with this but simply re-state the opinion of one juror in the Scott Peterson case which is neither here nor there,

BBM

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are of the opinion that even though the jury deliberated for a week prior to one juror being replaced that they started over from square one and are counting the deliberations from that point on in reaching a verdict.

Yes, I realize that a jury is supposed to start deliberations from the beginning if a juror is replaced. Frankly, I think it is impossible for 11 people to completely wipe the slate clean and start over as though nothing has been discussed for a week. Starting over would be - okay, new juror with us, let's take a vote. If that new juror has the same vote the majority of the original 11 that have been deliberating for one week already, then it is just reasonable that a final verdict would be shortly thereafter.

That does not erase the week they have already been deliberating. If that were the case, then case history on that particular trial would say jury deliberations were 1 day or 10 hrs (whatever the count was from the time the new juror came onto the panel). It does not, it says 8 days.

IMO

 

[Nana46]

Was he the one she was making goo-goo eyes at during trial? Yeah, go ahead and hit that. You'll be waking up with a choloroform headache and duct tape stuck in your hair.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Lynni]

Please update with anything interesting. I can't watch anything related to Casey anymore

Me either. I'm so done. Disappointed and done. I don't care what happens now. Justice was NOT served. I feel so badly for Caylee. I guess the up side may be that he doesn't have to grow up in such a dysfunctional family, but still....

 

[krt]

oops! lol I didnt know how else to describe the hairdo!

I alled her hair style the other day the pole dancer look s Im now going to apologise to the Pole dancer ladies out there too:innocent:

How about "Norman Bates' mom" :floorlaugh:

 

[uklaw]

BBM

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are of the opinion that even though the jury deliberated for a week prior to one juror being replaced that they started over from square one and are counting the deliberations from that point on in reaching a verdict.

Yes, I realize that a jury is supposed to start deliberations from the beginning if a juror is replace. Frankly, I think it is impossible for 11 people to completely wipe the slate clean and start over as though nothing has been discussed for a week. Starting over would be - okay, new juror with us, let's take a vote. If that new juror has the same vote the majority of the original 11 that have been deliberating for one week already, then it is just reasonable that a final verdict would be shortly thereafter.

That does not erase the week they have already been deliberating. If that were the case, then case history on that particular trial would say jury deliberations were 1 day or 10 hrs (whatever the count was from the time the new juror came onto the panel). It does not, it says 8 days.

IMO

Yes Juries are meant to deliberate afresh. It's interesting that a few days ago people on this board were wanting to overturn the juries verdict based upon a hunch that they were deliberating whilst the trial was ongoing but now, when trying to interpret a jury's behaviour in a pro-prosecution manner people, are quite happy to ignore what a jury is "suppose" to do.

I don't know what you mean by "case history" but press reports are not an official record of proceedings.

But you completely ignore the whole point. Just because the jury deliberated for a certain length of time in the Peterson case doesn't mean they have to do so in the Anthony case. There are endless examples (two of which I have quoted to you) where juries deliberate either the same or less time (sometimes far less) then they did in this case.

The length of jury deliberations was unremarkable. Had the jury convicted you would be happy. Your just annoyed because they didn't come back with the verdict you wanted so people seek to attack the verdict based upon the length of deliberations which to be honest are unremarkable.

 

[Whisperer]

Just saw the newest outcomer....sounds like his grey matter traveled South and settled in.

 

[katydid23]

" I am a young guy. Girls her age like to hang out with their friends...doesn't make her a PARTY girl."

"Yes, that 31 days of lying was really wrong, but the law says we cannot go on emotion, that is not right. "
"There was NO blood, no evidence of decomp, no decomp stain inside that trunk, just the smell. "

" I couldn't see it, why use chloroform or duct tape. I just couldn't see it. "
" I mean who was involved, where did it happen?"

Alternate juror #4 : I think he is just too young and naive top understand that MOTHERS DO KILL THEIR KIDS.
I mean, he wrote off her 31 days of lying as just 'bad character.' He did not put that towards 'consciousness of guilt' at all. He said it could not be looked at in the deliberations.
Apparently neither could the chloroform OR the duct tape because he said there was no evidence of a cause of death.

 

[Whisperer]

All the jury needed to know is that the mother never reported her child missing. Partied for 31 days and didn't want to stop but was forced, backed her car into the garage, borrowed a shovel and spilled decomp in the trunk.

Where does reasonable doubt fit into this?

 

[Leila]

I'm just getting back online after a two-day computer crash. I saw this topic and immediately turned the tv in my office on and this program looks interesting, but I missed the first 20 minutes.

 

[katydid23]

Alt Juror: "SHE SEEMED SINCERE."

OMG are you freakin kidding me? SHE seemed SINCERE?
'Did he even listen to how much of a liar she is? Did he watch those jail tapes?

 

[Whisperer]

He observed her body language and it told him she didnt do it...:floorlaugh:

 

[Talina]

Yes Juries are meant to deliberate afresh. It's interesting that a few days ago people on this board were wanting to overturn the juries verdict based upon a hunch that they were deliberating whilst the trial was ongoing but now, when trying to interpret a jury's behaviour in a pro-prosecution manner people, are quite happy to ignore what a jury is "suppose" to do.

I don't know what you mean by "case history" but press reports are not an official record of proceedings.

But you completely ignore the whole point. Just because the jury deliberated for a certain length of time in the Peterson case doesn't mean they have to do so in the Anthony case. There are endless examples (two of which I have quoted to you) where juries deliberate either the same or less time (sometimes far less) then they did in this case.

The length of jury deliberations was unremarkable. Had the jury convicted you would be happy. Your just annoyed because they didn't come back with the verdict you wanted so people seek to attack the verdict based upon the length of deliberations which to be honest are unremarkable.

Where in my post did I say anything at all criticizing the time or outcome of this verdict on Casey Anthony? I don't believe I did.

I merely pointed out what I understood your opinion to be solely as it relates to the Scott Peterson deliberations and how I had a different opinion. I said nothing whatsoever about the Casey Anthony jury or their deliberation time.

Please refrain from misquoting me or putting words in my mouth. TIA