GUILTY FL - Calyx, 16, & Beau Schenecker, 13, shot to death, Tampa, 27 Jan 2011 #7

I just recalled the term for most of her speech and mention of the kids being in such a wonderful place "RATIONALIZING"....very common tool used by everyone everyday but often used by criminals and mentally ill people to allow them to look in the mirror and live with themselves. Was was doing this in open court big time.

To me rationalizing is when I admit what I did but then I go into some length justifying what and why I did it.

Minimizing is not fully admitting what I did and then try to further lessen it's severity by saying the result was better, they no longer suffer, in a better place, get everything they want. Ya know the old 'the end justifies the means'?
 
After hearing her statement before sentencing I don't think she should have been prosecuted; since her arrest she's been under better managed medical care (no ability to miss her meds, pick and choose them or mix them with alcohol, etc) and she still had a hard time stringing together two coherent sentences. Even the judge seemed to get it, no tongue lashing before handing down the sentence, he actually seemed a little choked up. The prosecutors and her family (including Parker) should have insisted on a lifetime commitment to a mental institution instead of a trial, I suppose the DA didn't think she deserved a hospital over a prison infirmary but in my opinion it would have been the right thing to do.

I do hope the judge looks into the statements made by the alternate juror, and turaj, yes, he dismissed all of the alternates, not just the one who spoke right away.

Does anybody know if it Would it have been up to her to plead guilty to avoid prosecution? And who determines what prison she goes to? TIA
 
After hearing her statement before sentencing I don't think she should have been prosecuted; since her arrest she's been under better managed medical care (no ability to miss her meds, pick and choose them or mix them with alcohol, etc) and she still had a hard time stringing together two coherent sentences. Even the judge seemed to get it, no tongue lashing before handing down the sentence, he actually seemed a little choked up. The prosecutors and her family (including Parker) should have insisted on a lifetime commitment to a mental institution instead of a trial, I suppose the DA didn't think she deserved a hospital over a prison infirmary but in my opinion it would have been the right thing to do.

I do hope the judge looks into the statements made by the alternate juror, and turaj, yes, he dismissed all of the alternates, not just the one who spoke right away.

You would only dismiss all the alternates if you knew you had a verdict...they sat through the whole trial and if one of those people could not longer serve they would then have to start over...so I would like to know at what time did he dismiss them? It seems like "James" the alternate and the judge all knew they were in agreement. Something is not connecting up for me...can anyone explain...you just don't dismiss all of them...is that for sure that they were all dismissed?
 
I agree too. Her speech to the Court was rather rambling and there appeared to be a disconnect with her between killing her children, no blatant remorse and somehow justifying it by saying they are in Heaven and in no pain.

Yes and as far as I know insanity doesn't seek to justify, rationalize or minimize it's actions. IMO only sane people do.
 
Does anybody know if it Would it have been up to her to plead guilty to avoid prosecution? And who determines what prison she goes to? TIA

I believe she had that option but choose to enter a not guilty...

I think the State decides which prison the inmate will be housed in.
 
Yes and as far as I know insanity doesn't seek to justify, rationalize or minimize it's actions. IMO only sane people do.

okay maybe minimize in a more correct term but in any event my point is it is a strategy (so guess that implies some sanity) to make a wrong a right because gee now they are so happy...I think that is my point...sorry if I did not use the right term. I don't think most of us really think the kids are happier now than living normal lives as kids should and having their lives stopped so violently so young.
 
You would only dismiss all the alternates if you knew you had a verdict...they sat through the whole trial and if one of those people could not longer serve they would then have to start over...so I would like to know at what time did he dismiss them? It seems like "James" the alternate and the judge all knew they were in agreement. Something is not connecting up for me...can anyone explain...you just don't dismiss all of them...is that for sure that they were all dismissed?

After reading the alternate juror numbers he had them wait while the other jurors went back to the jury room to begin deliberations and then thanked the alternates and dismissed all 4 of them.
 
After reading the alternate juror numbers he had them wait while the other jurors went back to the jury room to begin deliberations and then thanked the alternates and dismissed all 4 of them.

does anyone else think that is odd? could they continue with deliberations with 11 if one had an emergency and had to leave? I have never seen it done this way...last trial I watched...I think maybe Dunn there was much discussion about holding them vs letting say 2 go and alot of care taken to be cautious. And I would think while they are dismissed they may be asked not to discuss until the verdict is in?
 
Well just watched the interview with "James" an alternate juror. In response to whether it was an emotional experience he quickly answered"no"....it "is what it is"!! Further on he said point blank that minds were made up one or two days ago...he said minds were made up. Frankly that really makes me question their communication prior to the deliberations..remember he never went to the deliberation room to get the initial vote and comments...so how did he know this????????? And I watched this on a laptop computer and I thought it was very emotional...very.

I served jury duty week of May 5th. Criminal court, 3 day trial. When we started deliberations, first thing we did a hand raise poll of guilty or not guilty. Everyone was united on the first hand raise of not guilty, but we still went around the room and had our say on why. Several people stated that on the first day, they had pretty well decided not guilty.
I hope he's just speaking for himself and assuming others felt the same way.
 
I served jury duty week of May 5th. Criminal court, 3 day trial. When we started deliberations, first thing we did a hand raise poll of guilty or not guilty. Everyone was united on the first hand raise of not guilty, but we still went around the room and had our say on why. Several people stated that on the first day, they had pretty well decided not guilty.
I hope he's just speaking for himself and assuming others felt the same way.

If you listen to "James" he clearly said "Minds were made up" and then later when asked about the possible verdict he said He was for guilty. I think the judge needs to speak with this juror. When the defense tried to talk to the judge about it he really did not want to deal with it and the mike was "hot" at the time and some overheard him say he was going on vacation next week. They were often careless with these types of conferences...we should not have heard this but this judge did want the case done by Friday for sure...and yes of course he should go on vacation, I doubt we will hear more on this but bet the defense will follow it...does not seem right.
 
okay maybe minimize in a more correct term but in any event my point is it is a strategy (so guess that implies some sanity) to make a wrong a right because gee now they are so happy...I think that is my point...sorry if I did not use the right term. I don't think most of us really think the kids are happier now than living normal lives as kids should and having their lives stopped so violently so young.

Sorry I didn't mean to sound like I was nitpicking but I was trying to explain how far away I think JS is from fully acknowledging what she did.

The steps-

Denial
Minimizing
Rationalizing
Acceptance

JMO
 
I thought the discussion at the bench was about allocation and wanting more time. My hearing isn't so great anymore either as that wouldn't have done any good according to the law. Maybe they wanted more time to have JS write out her speech? jmo
 
I thought the discussion at the bench was about allocation and wanting more time. My hearing isn't so great anymore either as that wouldn't have done any good according to the law. Maybe they wanted more time to have JS write out her speech? jmo

I couldn't hear what was being said at the bench, just low murmuring, the defense attny seemed awfully concerned but I couldn't get the context of her words.
 
Im glad this was quick and guilty. I did not watch this case. I could not think of someone murdering their children in such a manner.
 
Gloria Gomez, FOX 13 ‏@ggome13 5m
Foreman in #JulieSchenecker trial says first vote was 11- 1 guilty. One juror voting for insanity.

Gloria Gomez, FOX 13 ‏@ggome13 5m
Foreman juror in #JulieSchenecker trial says jurors had verdict decided in 30 minutes into deliberations
 
I couldn't hear what was being said at the bench, just low murmuring, the defense attny seemed awfully concerned but I couldn't get the context of her words.

I re-listened to it and although I still had trouble hearing. It could have been about the juror's statement. I guess maybe we will find out when she files her paper's.
 
I know I am very late to this discussion, I had to leave even before the end of closing arguments yesterday.

But, that said, isn't it possible that this juror was just posturing for the cameras, getting his 15 minutes of fame? Do we think for sure there will be an appeal based on that? It does seem likely, but just because he said that was the case (minds were previously made up) it doesn't make it true.

Does that make sense?
 
I know I am very late to this discussion, I had to leave even before the end of closing arguments yesterday.

But, that said, isn't it possible that this juror was just posturing for the cameras, getting his 15 minutes of fame? Do we think for sure there will be an appeal based on that? It does seem likely, but just because he said that was the case (minds were previously made up) it doesn't make it true.

Does that make sense?

yes it makes perfect sense to me and I don't think if you tried this case 50 times in the state of florida the outcome would be any different...but he should have kept his mouth shut at least until the deliberating jurors had announced their verdict.
 
This all started over an email that PS sent out to her family members. In one email dated Jan. 21,2011 her sister wrote to PS that JS had asked her, her bother and parents to forward the email that PS sent the family. She also said that she thinks the uncertainty of NOT KNOWING what he wrote is probably more distressing to her than what was actually written. JS assumed it said PS was divorcing her, (which it didn't)

Last night I heard an interview with the gun shop owner. Julie came in on a Friday, so she actually had to wait 5 days (weekends aren't business days.) She picked the gun up on Thursday, and you all know the rest. My heart breaks that Beau knew what his mother was doing to him. I'm hoping that JS came up behind Caylix, and she never saw it coming.
This is just so heartbreaking.

One thing is for sure, she is extremely mentally ill and has been for most of her adult life. If only she would have just killed herself.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,719
Total visitors
2,858

Forum statistics

Threads
590,018
Messages
17,929,073
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top