**Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am

[fifteen89]

Yes he was. You could tell he was conflicted and only said NG because he didn't think the PT presented enough evidense. Said they had done MY an injustice. I hate that and hope the jury does not feel the same. jmo

It's like Beth Karas says, the PT can only present the evidence they have. I'll add that it's the other side that can throw anything out there without a shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[Just the Fax]

the foreperson is a white female..appears to be late 20's.

 

[ynotdivein]

Hello, this is Ynot posting to you all from several pages ago... please don't post or even speculate about the identity of WSers based on calls to NG!

Looking forward to catching up with you all in real time, and thanks for keeping it civil--just watch the speculation.

:tyou:

Ynot, posting from the Wayback Machine

 

[otto]

the foreperson is a white female..appears to be late 20's.

I heard that ... I'm wondering how that will impact the decision.

 

[otto]

But, if it was going to be a strangulation why the need for different shoes?

Yes, I think the Pros hates this guy so much, especially after the fact he made bail.....and they know it was their fault.

jmo.

I agree that there's something that doesn't fit with the shoes. Strangulation wouldn't require Jason to be wearing size 10 shoes. If the size 10 shoes are more closely connected with the murderer because of having more blood ... it makes no sense that Jason was staging shoes for a strangulation.

The prosecutions case seems to have a number of odd dead-ends like that.

 

[Cammy]

I heard that ... I'm wondering how that will impact the decision.

No idea.........

I am trying to not read anything into anything until they announce what is going on.

Is Jason in the courtroom, do we know?

 

[Boodles]

So you really have an issue with the US Constitution? There are very good reasons it is written the way it is.

I have an issue with not allowing juries to use reality in their decisions. For example, telling them not to consider that Jason didn't speak to police, and not allowing the 911 call audio to be included in evidence in its entirety. It's reality. How can you arrive at the truth if you don't consider reality? Yes, I know, this is legal justice and not necessarily the truth.

I hope this jury is able to broadly construe instructions and evidence and not just acquiesce to a piece of a jury instruction so they don't have to make a hard decision. IMO, that's what happened in the Anthony trial.

Don't get me wrong, I do love America and appreciate it. When living abroad for a few years, I wanted to kiss the ground at Logan airport every time I came back for a visit.

But I take issue when jury ends up saying "yeah, we all think s/he did it, but the {insert legal technicality here}said we couldn't find him/her guilty". Something is wrong when that happens. It's like everyone admiring the emperor's new clothes. Reality is otherwise.

/rant over

 

[JustJax]

It's like Beth Karas says, the PT can only present the evidence they have. I'll add that it's the other side that can throw anything out there without a shred of evidence to back it up.

As Team Casey did.:banghead:

 

[fifteen89]

the foreperson is a white female..appears to be late 20's.

Wow. That's young.

 

[lonetraveler]

And what is your opinion in this case?

Just got back here. I've been on hold with my cell phone support customer service and after ten minutes I got "Peggy from Siberia" on the phone.

Anyway, I just learned that the female foreperson is quite young. That changes my thoughts entirely. I just can't see a twenty-something year old leading or maybe I should say "swaying" a juror to their way of interpreting the verdict to guilty or not guilty. I can say that I'm a bit surprised to find out that the foreperson is this young.

Anyway, this verdict should be "guilty" as I see it. I did follow the first trial and this trial. This case is clearly either "guilty" in the 1st degree or "not guilty". I'm a bit worried that this jury is going to have a very hard time reaching a "not guilty" verdict. To me, 2nd degree isn't applicable. He either planned to drive home and murder her or he just didn't do it.

I would vote for Guilty. I think that there is a very big chance that the jury will not do that.

 

[gritguy]

I have an issue with not allowing juries to use reality in their decisions. For example, telling them not to consider that Jason didn't speak to police, and not allowing the 911 call audio to be included in evidence in its entirety. It's reality. How can you arrive at the truth if you don't consider reality? Yes, I know, this is legal justice and not necessarily the truth.

I hope this jury is able to broadly construe instructions and evidence and not just acquiesce to a piece of a jury instruction so they don't have to make a hard decision. IMO, that's what happened in the Anthony trial.

Don't get me wrong, I do love America and appreciate it. When living abroad for a few years, I wanted to kiss the ground at Logan airport every time I came back for a visit.

But I take issue when jury ends up saying "yeah, we all think s/he did it, but the {insert legal technicality here}said we couldn't find him/her guilty". Something is wrong when that happens. It's like everyone admiring the emperor's new clothes. Reality is otherwise.

/rant over

Don't let that debate get to you. People (usually) don't dump their life experiences at the door when they land on a jury. Their lives frame how they judge things.

Not using the defendant's silence against him is the check we have against too intrusive a police effort, which could itself produce wrongful verdicts, which mean guilty people would be free while someone else served.

However, in this case, JY's decision to testify in the first trial meant they got to roast him for his silence before that, for impeachment purposes. Yes, his decision not to testify at this trial is not to be held against him, but his decision to avoid talking before the last trial (in overall length of time and in the custody/wrongful death suits) and then chat it up at the first trial has certainly been presented to the jury in this case.

:twocents:

 

[MrsWendy]

I agree that there's something that doesn't fit with the shoes. Strangulation wouldn't require Jason to be wearing size 10 shoes. If the size 10 shoes are more closely connected with the murderer because of having more blood ... it makes no sense that Jason was staging shoes for a strangulation.

The prosecutions case seems to have a number of odd dead-ends like that.

I think the shoes may be the biggest problem in the prosecution's case. They didn't really explain where the extra set of shoe prints came from. Although it can be theorized that the size 10's were used to throw off the investigation, there is no strong evidence to back that up. So the prosecution left this mystery hanging out there.

Meanwhile, a witness testified that she saw two people sitting in a car outside of the home. While the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony can be debated, I wonder if some of the jury members might wonder if there's a link between those two people and the two different foot prints.

 

[Rigby]

A couple of ?s...
I've heard a couple of people say we can't trust Gracie's account of things b/c the long-time customer who also witnessed the exchange never came forward. Wasn't it testified that that person died?

Also... was Mr. G outside when MF found MY? TIA. Trying not to obsess. Not succeeding.

 

[Luna24]

the foreperson is a white female..appears to be late 20's.

Thanks for the update JTF!

How are LF and MF holding up? are they in the courtroom? how about JY's family?

 

[otto]

I think the shoes may be the biggest problem in the prosecution's case. They didn't really explain where the extra set of shoe prints came from. Although it can be theorized that the size 10's were used to throw off the investigation, there is no strong evidence to back that up. So the prosecution left this mystery hanging out there.

Meanwhile, a witness testified that she saw two people sitting in a car outside of the home. While the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony can be debated, I wonder if some of the jury members might wonder if there's a link between those two people and the two different foot prints.

It is quite a mystery. Jason had to have preplanned having the size 10 shoes with him to stage a second set of prints. That's doesn't work with the strangulation theory. If he did plan a violent scene and did plan wearing the size 10 shoes at the outset of the attack, where did the hush puppies come into it? It's been speculated that he was wearing them at the hotel so that would mean he was wearing the hush puppies when he arrived at the home - but then we have the size 10 with strong print evidence.

How did the prosecution explain the shoe prints in a linear manner? Is the theory that Jason put on the size 10 shoes, attempted strangulation but wore size 10 shoes in case there was blood, then he went into his closet, put on the hush puppies and then kept those shoes on until the next day when he arrived at Meredith's place ... but he got rid of all the other clothes he wore during the murder ... even though he had other shoes that were not worn at the murder?

 

[Just the Fax]

Thanks for the update JTF!

How are LF and MF holding up? are they in the courtroom? how about JY's family?

all here....very relaxed conversations
20/20 and dateline producers are also here.

 

[NCEast]

Makes perfect sense NCE. Good to see you by the way. I remember posting with you during BC. Women have a passion about these types of crimes and hopefully can bring that person to the forefront along with the evidence and make the men understand why they believe what they do. I agree 100%.

Good to see you too KLJ. I remember your beautiful avatar and have wondered many times if it's you?
Thank you for adding to my thoughts.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

It is quite a mystery. Jason had to have preplanned having the size 10 shoes with him to stage a second set of prints. That's doesn't work with the strangulation theory. If he did plan a violent scene and did plan wearing the size 10 shoes at the outset of the attack, where did the hush puppies come into it? It's been speculated that he was wearing them at the hotel so that would mean he was wearing the hush puppies when he arrived at the home - but then we have the size 10 with strong print evidence.

How did the prosecution explain the shoe prints in a linear manner? Is the theory that Jason put on the size 10 shoes, attempted strangulation but wore size 10 shoes in case there was blood, then he went into his closet, put on the hush puppies and then kept those shoes on until the next day when he arrived at Meredith's place ... but he got rid of all the other clothes he wore during the murder ... even though he had other shoes that were not worn at the murder?

Remember he also wore gloves so he wouldn't get scratch marks on him, but removed them to beat her and left a mark on the wall then put the gloves back on or picked them up with the murder weapon, CY diaper, & any other physical evidence.. He was smart enough to do all that & more, but not smart enough to keep his HP off his feet...

 

[happy2binNC]

Thanks for your posts from inside the courtroom, JTF. I hope the jury comes back with a G verdict this afternoon so you can be there to witness it. You've poured so much effort into this case, it seems only fitting you should be there to see it come to an end.

 

[terminatrixator]

all here....very relaxed conversations
20/20 and dateline producers are also here.

I'm glad you are there and thinking about the Fishers and thank you for all you have done to help seek Justice for Michelle and Rylan. You are appreciated by many of us who believe that Michelle deserves Justice.