Letter from Jury Foreman

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

macd

New Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
This letter was sent to various local news outlets today.
To: Marianne Haggerty, Dateline NBC June 1, 2011
Esther Zucker, Dateline NBC
Amanda Lamb, WRAL News
Stacy Davis, WRAL News
Anne Blythe, The News&Observer

Thank you for your patience and understanding following the Bradley Graham Cooper trial. Since the
trial ended, the jurors have been able to reunite and reflect on our time together. After seeing this
group of 16 on a very regular schedule and referring to them now as a “jury family," we’ve learned that
it has since become nearly impossible to get everyone in a room together. And the concept of having a
unanimous decision on a topic such as talking to the media is more complicated than we knew.

Therefore, I am proceeding by letting everyone that has contacted me know my stance, and my stance
only. I want it to be clear that I’m not speaking for the group. The statements in this message are mine.
I know and understand the desire of the media in these matters. I want to thank Amanda Lamb for
taking time to talk with me on Friday, May 27. It helped me put into perspective that when a media
company is in the business of producing television programs, the target outcome is to have jurors on
camera. I understand and respect that position. As for me, I respectfully decline to be questioned in
front of a camera. This does not represent a group decision. If there are members of the jury that would
like to participate in an on-camera interview, I’m confident they will provide thoughtful responses and
represent themselves and our group appropriately in such a situation.

I am willing to share some of my thoughts here -- in writing -- regarding the trial, the deliberation
process, the media, and the verdict:

With a lengthy trial such as this one, the transition from the presentation of evidence into the
deliberation phase felt like being shot from a cannon. The emotional intensity of the last few days of the
trial (deliberation) was an important and necessary component of the jury process in this case. After the
verdict was delivered, the speed at which we were headed back to begin our regular lives felt abrupt.

Before the jury disbanded, all members of the group agreed that we would not talk publicly about the
trial for a while. (This was reported on WRAL after Stacy Davis pulled into my driveway and asked me a
few questions.) We didn’t have time to define what “a while” meant long-term, and we were unaware
of what the future would hold in terms of inquiries.

Since that time, we’ve heard not only from the media, but there is talk that the prosecution team wants
to discuss the case and I'm aware that some of the jurors were contacted by the defense team. (I have
not been contacted by either group.) It is my personal belief that we (the jurors) came into this process
verdict-neutral. Brad Cooper was innocent until proven guilty. For me, the result of the outcome will not
cause me to pick a side. I feel the same for the families. Because of our verdict, I didn’t form an alliance
or fall in favor with one side or the other. I came into this situation neutral and I left it that way. The
evidence was the only factor in determining our verdict. As such, I plan to share information [that is
appropriate to share] equally and in an impartial manner.

Regarding the start of deliberations and the evidence:
• Most of us [the jurors] were undecided when we started deliberations. As noted, the transition
happened quickly and we needed time as a group to focus on the process and the laws we were
instructed to follow. Then with our notes, the evidence presented became clear.
• The evidence presented by Special Agents Johnson and Chappell drove the outcome on this
case. It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible.

I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this
issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 – May 5). She heard a preview of this message. I’ll also send
her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry.

Please know that I will share this message with the members of the jury. I’m not trying to influence
them in any way. We’ve been consistent in sharing these types of communications with each other. I’ve
also been asked questions by some of the jurors, and this is my way of trying to address their questions
and the media's questions collectively.

As I’ve stated before, if I can clarify anything off-camera, let me know. Thank You.
Xxxx Xxxxxxx (Juror #7 / Foreperson)
Click to expand...
 
Thanks. The juror that I talked to did believe Chappelle when he said that the computer wasn't tampered with. I didn't say that in the other thread, but she basically went by what he said. She was surprised to learn he was a Durham police detective.
 
Thanks Macd. I would love to hear more but I can understand their hesitation.
 
Thanks for bringing that over and starting this thread. That letter is very, very interesting. I don't envy the job the jurors were given. They have my respect and thanks.
 
This is the line I find most interesting.
It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible.
Click to expand...
I am interested to hear what other circumstantial evidence they found most compelling.

It looks like the jury members' self imposed quarantine is over. I hope (and expect) we'll hear more from some of them over the next couple of weeks.
 
I respect his position and understand his reticence.

We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.

Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents. :rolleyes:

The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.

I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.
 
Madeleine74 said:
I respect his position and understand his reticence.

We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.

Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents. :rolleyes:

The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.

I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.
Click to expand...


My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.
 
I personally wouldn't do a TV interview either unless my identity was completely masked (face and voice and no name used).

Of course the selfish part of me wants to hear from them and hear about the case from their (unique) perspective, but I do understand their concerns, and those concerns are valid.
 
ncsu95 said:
My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.
Click to expand...

Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.
 
macd said:
Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of the Natalee Holloway case. All of a sudden media sites were taken over by Holloway "haters". The majority of them had no knowledge of the case and I tend to think a small amount of people posted under multiple names to try and make it look like a large number. The Cooper case did not get anywhere near the media attention of Natalee Holloway or Casey Anthony, but a lot of those negative posts came from all over the nation. :waitasec:
 
macd said:
Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.
Click to expand...

In the couple of other forums I participate in (non trial type sites), the overwhelming thought was not-guilty in the threads following the trial.
 
"I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 – May 5). She heard a preview of this message. I’ll also send her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry."

What does this mean? Were they instructed to stay off FB and MySpace and Twitter? That's my understanding of social media..
 
People don't realize the defense team specifically went for jurors who did NOT have tech backgrounds or computer experience. They wanted a jury that would be utterly confused by computer evidence because they knew they were going to try and dance around the Google search and they wanted the jury to buy their song & dance of evidence tampering.

They asked about tech background & experience as part of their voir dire & got potential jurors kicked off who did have computer experience, though there was one techie guy who did get on the jury in the end. They did that by design, as a strategy. They were hoping a non-tech jury would believe a conspiracy had taken place.
 
ncsu95 said:
My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.
Click to expand...

Hi ncsu95

:waitasec: ... why would your neighbor consider she may even be on Dateline? Thought it was a friend of your neighbour ... (at her evening poolside) ... that was the juror?

As for the large number of people that don't agree with the verdict - in the true universal sample - that NG group is in fact, a minority. Of course, in some (non trial type) forums, you get a lot of prisoners, or ex-cons, who will vehemently decry the verdict. Of course they would.

Wouldn't pay too much attention to those types, IMOO ... Just sayin ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi macd!

Thanks for sharing that letter! It's most reassuring to get word back and thereby have a glimpse as to the integrity of the jury. Knowing their verdict was based on the compelling evidence as presented quells any false rumors - that of course are bound to fly ...

That he has decided to maintain his silence speaks volumes, IMO. I'm equally sure the entire jury of 16, as he wrote, discussed this with one another and pledged full respect in not disturbing nor denting their obligations.

A great read! Thank you, again ...
 
No, it's a woman I know that lives in in my neighborhood (hence, my neighbor...and by "know", means I knew her name and would say hi when I saw her) that was on the jury.
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
Hi ncsu95

:waitasec: ... why would your neighbor consider she may even be on Dateline? Thought it was a friend of your neighbour ... (at her evening poolside) ... that was the juror?

As for the large number of people that don't agree with the verdict - in the true universal sample - that NG group is in fact, a minority. Of course, in some (non trial type) forums, you get a lot of prisoners, or ex-cons, who will vehemently decry the verdict. Of course they would.

Wouldn't pay too much attention to those types, IMOO ... Just sayin ...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi macd!

Thanks for sharing that letter! It's most reassuring to get word back and thereby have a glimpse as to the integrity of the jury. Knowing their verdict was based on the compelling evidence as presented quells any false rumors - that of course are bound to fly ...

That he has decided to maintain his silence speaks volumes, IMO. I'm equally sure the entire jury of 16, as he wrote, discussed this with one another and pledged full respect in not disturbing nor denting their obligations.

A great read! Thank you, again ...
Click to expand...

For those of us who follow crime/trials for years, I don't recall ever seeing jury members incognito on programs such as Dateline. That jurors should feel at risk or threatened is just horrible IMO. Brad Cooper was guilty, as found. It sounds like this jury did it's duty with diligence, unlike perhaps the O.J. jury. I personally find it reprehensible that renegade groups such as golo incite violence and hatred towards those doing their duty as good citizens. MOO. Brad cooper killed his wife, he knows he's guilty. Jurors, please, feel good about your decision, it was right and proper.
 
ncsu95 said:
In the couple of other forums I participate in (non trial type sites), the overwhelming thought was not-guilty in the threads following the trial.
Click to expand...

Unlike Golo and other random board comments from casual observers, WS has a good track record for attracting intelligent posters that have followed more than a few trials.

Remember the poll here?
126 votes and 57% said guilty as charged
Not overwhelming like your other sites, but clearly guilty nonetheless.
 
I would have expected this site to have a much higher percentage than 57%. This is very different from most forums. The people that participate on here generally follow lots of trials and are overwhelmingly on here in support of the victims. Not saying that is wrong, but is what it is. The fact that only 57% voted guilty on here says a whole lot.
 
I don't think they should talk about their verdict and I don't think the media should be hounding them. It only exposes them to the crazies of the world. They've sacrificed enough in their lives and done their civic duty ... now leave them in peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 3,801 (members: 80, guests: 3,721)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
3,721
Total visitors
3,801
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,922
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top