Sidebar Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say I've learned alot from every post today. It WILL be very interesting to see if anymore jurors decide to speak openly about the deliberations and verdict. If not, it may very well be their silence that also tells us something. Watching the CM trial, I am really taken back that JB was allowed his courtroom antics. Hopefully they will not let this slide and he will be punished. IMO..If they don't disbar him they will be sending a dangerous message to others who think they might be able to bring these unethical tactics into a court of law again. Mostly his OS accusing GA and then never backing it up with evidence.
Judge S sealed the FCA tape because of the trial, but it's over. It could be true the jurors might have viewed it as a mother upset at a childs body found, fearing it is her missing daughter. Maybe then he suspected it was an act by FCA and he wasn't going to give her any ammunition to get off. He didn't know JB's plan for his OS at that time.
I remember JA saying it could be viewed two different ways. Alot depends on perception.
I'm glad to have found out that sequestration isn't so common event during the whole trials but I still think Judge P should have decided on deliberating only. I understand why it was done but I think it put undue stress on a trial that had enough problems already.
As far as brainwashing, we see detectives use forms of manipulation to gain information. Theres all kinds of information on Google. The good morning to establish a connection, the underdog that some root for, the constant reminding the jurors to come to a verdict considering beyond any and all possible doubt. I can't remember the exact words JB used, but I know it stood out to me, he constantly repeated it and stressed to the point of being an issue. I believe they did have an actual chart...hows that for slamming your point home.
Some evidence not given enough attention..the gatorade bottle and syringe. I still feel I missed some crucial evidence there.
The media, if you didn't sit through the whole trial and relied on media reports, you were given incorrect information. I sat and listened to NG last night harp on the fact that MJ died in his bed of urine. He didn't..he had a urine condom on when he died. Maybe it was taken off in a hurry but he didn't pee the bed and then die! And talk about brainwashing, their in a perfect position to fuel a hangin party. They complain about peoples anger against the A's and the next minute are fueling it! Some like JVM & NG love to embellish the truth, overly reporting the facts. Maybe they think this is the way to get ratings and sometimes it works. I must be a glutton for punishment because sometimes I do watch them, I just get tired of all their yelling. If I wanted to hear that, I would have stayed married!...LOL
 
I have to say I've learned alot from every post today. It WILL be very interesting to see if anymore jurors decide to speak openly about the deliberations and verdict. If not, it may very well be their silence that also tells us something. Watching the CM trial, I am really taken back that JB was allowed his courtroom antics. Hopefully they will not let this slide and he will be punished.

Resepctfully snipped. Of course the fireworks happened while I was in the car but I saw some tweets to the effect that if this judge had been FCA's that JB would have been out on his ear the first time he was in contempt. Something about kicking someone out who had a cell phone. Do you know the details? Was it an attorney or spectator? Made me think of JB being allowed to stand at the podium with his cell phone getting help from his twitter watching jury experts. And JA getting yelled at for calling him on it. :banghead:
 
[/B]


Well here's where logic starts and then I suppose you will ask for a definition of logic. Let's take two juries - one that deliberated for 10 hours, less three meal breaks and at least two coffee breaks - so deliberated for five hours,asked no questions, asked for no testimony to be read back and looked at no evidence, and then another jury that deliberated for seven days, asked for testimony readbacks, many pieces of evidence and had several questions for the Judge regarding the various charges. One jury came back with a verdict and several members who testified made statements that their verdict didn't mean she wasn't guilty of something, and they considered the death penalty, among other statements, and the other jury came back and said they had many heated discussions, a number of votes, and all members were satisfied with their decision.

Which jury deliberated? Which jury had their decisions made without any discussions? Which jury do you want deciding your fate?

Don't forget the smokers on this jury. If they wanted a break, everything stopped until they returned. jmo
 
Resepctfully snipped. Of course the fireworks happened while I was in the car but I saw some tweets to the effect that if this judge had been FCA's that JB would have been out on his ear the first time he was in contempt. Something about kicking someone out who had a cell phone. Do you know the details? Was it an attorney or spectator? Made me think of JB being allowed to stand at the podium with his cell phone getting help from his twitter watching jury experts. And JA getting yelled at for calling him on it. :banghead:

BBM

I actually posted on the CM forum today that I'd love to have had this judge on the FCA trial. He is great.

He stopped testimony today, directed court deputy to "take that away, it is against court rules, it is disruptive and it is now ours" then he said, you can now escort them out of the court room. The court room camera did not span over to who it was but it was someone in the gallery. He then apologized to the attorney and witness for the interruption and told them to continue. He looked very irritated by the person that was escorted out.

He immediately stops a witness if they go beyond answering the question directly, strikes from the record what went beyond the direct answer, instructs the jury to disregard the extra part of the answer and tells the witness to stick to answering the question and nothing else. I've seen him do this numerous times in just 3 days of testimony. Imagine CA or GA or some of the other witnesses in the FCA trial. He'd have nipped that nonsense in the bud with all the long story telling instead of just answering the question asked. He also stopped the defense team from writing down their version of the witness's testimony on a flip chart (think Baez and his drawing). All in all, he is handling very well, so far, what could be a circus of a trial.
 
I thought the writing on the flip chart by witnesses was uncalled for. You could clearly see some of the witnesses just did not want to get up there and write things out. For the most part it took up a lot of time, boring time. Making GA write down things JB could have done easier and faster himself. Crazy. Should have been stopped because it served no purpose. jmo
 
BBM

I actually posted on the CM forum today that I'd love to have had this judge on the FCA trial. He is great.

He stopped testimony today, directed court deputy to "take that away, it is against court rules, it is disruptive and it is now ours" then he said, you can now escort them out of the court room. The court room camera did not span over to who it was but it was someone in the gallery. He then apologized to the attorney and witness for the interruption and told them to continue. He looked very irritated by the person that was escorted out.

He immediately stops a witness if they go beyond answering the question directly, strikes from the record what went beyond the direct answer, instructs the jury to disregard the extra part of the answer and tells the witness to stick to answering the question and nothing else. I've seen him do this numerous times in just 3 days of testimony. Imagine CA or GA or some of the other witnesses in the FCA trial. He'd have nipped that nonsense in the bud with all the long story telling instead of just answering the question asked. He also stopped the defense team from writing down their version of the witness's testimony on a flip chart (think Baez and his drawing). All in all, he is handling very well, so far, what could be a circus of a trial.

See I miss all the good stuff! I did hear him cut the chef lady off a few times when she tried to expound. I did like the way he emphasized the first day that OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. I didn't know he took away the J-pad though! I saw the Jpad earlier.

ETA: When I see CM I thing it's you know who..
 
Since this is sidebar, some good news you might have missed.

On July 5, 2011 Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

On July 6, 2011 Antoniette Davis was charged with first degree murder of Shaniya. She had been free on bail since November 2009.

On July 6, 2011 Mario McNeil was also charged with first degree murder of Shaniya.

This gives me hope.

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/07/06/1106653?sac=Home
 
So they felt sorry for Casey's lawyer and that trumped the disturbing death of a two year old? I'm sorry, but that is just lame. That is not a good reason to ever acquit anyone. If they made their decision based on that, they are a worse jury than I ever imagined. It is reprehensible if they made a decision because they felt sorry for Casey for having a bad lawyer!

Aedrys, I'm sorry I upset you. I'm just saying what if that was one of the reason they let her get away with Caylee's murder as lame as it is. I shall crawl back under my rock now.
 
My impression from what little we've heard from this jury is that they did understand the evidence itself; they just didn't see that it led from Point A to Point B.

And if there was something about the evidence that one or more jurors didn't understand, that's the prosecution's problem/fault as well. No judge is going to explain evidence to a jury. They can't. If the jury had come in with a question about evidence, the judge would have simply told them that he can't guide their deliberations in any way or offer that kind of assistance.

I think there's some confusion about that.

Well, Jennifer Ford said that the chloroform evidence was a maze she couldn't find her way out of, so she gave up on it . Even if she didn't believe the prosecution's take on that evidence, she should have been able to understand it and be able to verbalize why or why not it factored into the acquittal. No reading back of any testimony to clarify any of that for her. Of course, a person must be savvy enough to know what questions should be asked. If you don't ask the proper questions, you will never get to a proper conclusion. This applies to life in general, not just trials. JF also made statements which seemed to imply she thought FCA would be eligible for the death penalty on any conviction except the lying charges. She was not supposed to consider the penalty for any charges. She either didn't understand the instructions or simply disregarded them. If more notes had been taken by the jurors-and most left their notepads in the courtroom-they may have known what to ask.

And I do not think there is any confusion here at Websleuths about what the judge is able to provide when a jury asks for testimony to be read back.
 
I had my opportunity today at my local CVS to turn around all the People magazines at the cash register with ICA on the cover! Felt good to do!
 
Well, Jennifer Ford said that the chloroform evidence was a maze she couldn't find her way out of, so she gave up on it . Even if she didn't believe the prosecution's take on that evidence, she should have been able to understand it and be able to verbalize why or why not it factored into the acquittal. No reading back of any testimony to clarify any of that for her. Of course, a person must be savvy enough to know what questions should be asked. If you don't ask the proper questions, you will never get to a proper conclusion. This applies to life in general, not just trials. JF also made statements which seemed to imply she thought FCA would be eligible for the death penalty on any conviction except the lying charges. She was not supposed to consider the penalty for any charges. She either didn't understand the instructions or simply disregarded them. If more notes had been taken by the jurors-and most left their notepads in the courtroom-they may have known what to ask.

And I do not think there is any confusion here at Websleuths about what the judge is able to provide when a jury asks for testimony to be read back.

Oh boy am I ever happy I have not seen these interviews. And Ms. Ford is a nurse? Does not bode well for critical thinking skills or asking questions where necessary.

There were 11 other people there to share questions and comments with and a full Court staff to provide all necessary materials. These peeps just wanted to go home and probably thought they were all going to get handsome payments for interviews and appear to be "brilliant." Lol. Maybe they should take the money they have so far and just run away from any further interviews. :crazy:
 
BBM

I actually posted on the CM forum today that I'd love to have had this judge on the FCA trial. He is great.

He stopped testimony today, directed court deputy to "take that away, it is against court rules, it is disruptive and it is now ours" then he said, you can now escort them out of the court room. The court room camera did not span over to who it was but it was someone in the gallery. He then apologized to the attorney and witness for the interruption and told them to continue. He looked very irritated by the person that was escorted out.

He immediately stops a witness if they go beyond answering the question directly, strikes from the record what went beyond the direct answer, instructs the jury to disregard the extra part of the answer and tells the witness to stick to answering the question and nothing else. I've seen him do this numerous times in just 3 days of testimony. Imagine CA or GA or some of the other witnesses in the FCA trial. He'd have nipped that nonsense in the bud with all the long story telling instead of just answering the question asked. He also stopped the defense team from writing down their version of the witness's testimony on a flip chart (think Baez and his drawing). All in all, he is handling very well, so far, what could be a circus of a trial.

I saw that part as well...he took away someones cellphone and had the person escorted out....yes he did look very irritated..even Dr Murray looked back to the gallery.
I agree the Judge is handling this trial very well thus far...I like the way he explains things to the witness before their testimony begins...
 
I am wondering if the fact that JA might run for State Attorney will in any way affect how candid he'll be able to be in his book. As a private citizen it seems he might have more "room" than as a candidate for public office. I hope not - I was counting on this book to finally give me the skinny on what went on with all these players behind the scenes.

What do you all think?
 
I had my opportunity today at my local CVS to turn around all the People magazines at the cash register with ICA on the cover! Felt good to do!

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the only people you are frustrating when you do that are the employees of CVS, not ICA or People magazine.

In fact, you are probably bringing more attention to the magazine because the average shopper is probably going to turn it over to see what's on the cover.
 
I saw that part as well...he took away someones cellphone and had the person escorted out....yes he did look very irritated..even Dr Murray looked back to the gallery.
I agree the Judge is handling this trial very well thus far...I like the way he explains things to the witness before their testimony begins...

I am a fan of HHJP......but honest to gosh.....this MJ Judge is like a machine. No misunderstanding what he means and certainly no question about who's in charge. I'd have loved to see him on our case!
 
I am wondering if the fact that JA might run for State Attorney will in any way affect how candid he'll be able to be in his book. As a private citizen it seems he might have more "room" than as a candidate for public office. I hope not - I was counting on this book to finally give me the skinny on what went on with all these players behind the scenes.

What do you all think?

If I had to guess, the book will probably be specifically from his point of view about the case and how the state prosecuted the case. I would think he wouldn't go out of his way to slam the DT out of 'professionalism'.

It may be less about the other side then you think.
 
I am wondering if the fact that JA might run for State Attorney will in any way affect how candid he'll be able to be in his book. As a private citizen it seems he might have more "room" than as a candidate for public office. I hope not - I was counting on this book to finally give me the skinny on what went on with all these players behind the scenes.

What do you all think?

I just received word from Amazon that the book has a new release date and is expected to ship mid-November, so it has to be finished or close to finished by now.

The book may affect his candidacy if he does run...but I do not think his potential candidacy will change the story he has to tell about the trial.
 
I am a fan of HHJP......but honest to gosh.....this MJ Judge is like a machine. No misunderstanding what he means and certainly no question about who's in charge. I'd have loved to see him on our case!

This is exactly what I had heard about HHJP--that he was no-nonsense and ran an organized court and was known for being in charge an on top of everything. That's why I was so stunned to see some of the things that went on in court that he either missed or deliberatly ignored. This trial was anything but no-nonsense and there were many times Judge Perry should have intervened when he didn't.

I believe that in all trials, action or inaction of the judge has an affect on the jury. The KC jury didn't consider anything the judge did or didn't do as an attempt to avoid appeal issues. IMO, the jury saw favoritism whether it was there or not.
 
YES! http://kendrickbrixblog.files.wordp...en-of-proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg?w=432&h=480

i have said before that i think this is the exact moment the case was won. i am VERY surprised the prosecution did not object to this chart or make a counterchart. the outcome of the trial could have been very different imo.

That chart just solidified my opinion that KC was not guilty BARD on the first 3 charges.

Prior to the trial, I wavered often back and forth between she was probably guilty to she was possibly guilty. Occasionally, I even felt like she was likely guilty.

Even when I was leaning towards she was likely guilty, I could not have in good conscience have convicted her of any of the first 3 counts, especially count 1 with the DP.

When CM pulled out the chart, and stated that even a strong belief that she was guilty did not meet the burden of proof needed, and no objection was voiced by the PT nor the judge, well, it made me realize that BARD is a very high standard of proof, and the state simply did not supply that proof. The majority disagrees with my opinion that the state did not supply the proof necessary, however, 12 strangers from Pinellas county do agree with me.

If you apply Occam's Razor to the verdict, the simplest answer as to how they reached the not guilty on the first 3 counts is that the state failed to convince the jury BARD with the evidence presented.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
900
Total visitors
1,058

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,844
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top