Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
I would give them the worst possible rating. They do not deserve to be a part of our society.
2011.05.20 On a Scale of 1 to 10 How do you Feel About this Jury?
- Thread starter Never4GetCaylee
- Start date
- Status
SevenSeas
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 936
- Reaction score
- 89
Well, I thought this was going to be a Poll. I give this jury a FLAT OUT ZERO rating! I can't believe they ignored all the circumstantial evidence, and simply took the fastest, easiest route out of town! May their souls suffer for the miscarriage of justice they CAUSED for the rest of their days. Even THAT wouldn't be good enough for this bunch! :snooty: :twocents:
angeleleven
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,903
- Reaction score
- 0
zero......
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,920
- Reaction score
- 42,009
I supported the jury in the beginning. Yes, there were concerns about one or two on the panel but no more than with any jury, I suppose. A jury is typically a random selection of citizens. In this case, it had to be citizens who could impose the death penalty, and seating such a panel is not easy. Many people will try to get out of jury duty. I gave kudos to those on this panel who did not try to get out of it even though it looked as though some of them would rather they did not have to serve.
My first real concern during the trial was when the jury asked to see the puffy heart. It was not an odd request--the jury asking to see a piece of evidence--but the request came at an odd time. Any and all requests to have a second look at evidence is supposed to happen during deliberations. It should not have come during the trial, but it did. What blew me even further away was the request being honored without the judge questioning it. It was a legitimate request made at an improper time. The judge obviously saw it as harmless, but to me it suggested that the jurors were discussing the case prior to the time they were supposed to be discussing it.
Then, when the verdict came within a few short hours of the start of deliberations, impropriety of the jury was no longer just a suspicion--it was reality. IMO the jury should have been polled regarding whether the case was discussed during trial. They weren't, so that's that.
I blame the jury for not doing their job. I blame them for a killer going free. I blame them for either not reading the jury instructions or for not questioning any portion of the instructions that they did not understand. Because clearly there were portions that they did not understand.
But it was not just the jury at fault, IMO. The whole trial was a mess. I think the jury read some things into the court's treatment of the defense team. The court was trying to ensure the verdict would not be overturned on appeal, but I do not think the jury saw it that way.
The damage is done, damage that cannot be repaired.
My first real concern during the trial was when the jury asked to see the puffy heart. It was not an odd request--the jury asking to see a piece of evidence--but the request came at an odd time. Any and all requests to have a second look at evidence is supposed to happen during deliberations. It should not have come during the trial, but it did. What blew me even further away was the request being honored without the judge questioning it. It was a legitimate request made at an improper time. The judge obviously saw it as harmless, but to me it suggested that the jurors were discussing the case prior to the time they were supposed to be discussing it.
Then, when the verdict came within a few short hours of the start of deliberations, impropriety of the jury was no longer just a suspicion--it was reality. IMO the jury should have been polled regarding whether the case was discussed during trial. They weren't, so that's that.
I blame the jury for not doing their job. I blame them for a killer going free. I blame them for either not reading the jury instructions or for not questioning any portion of the instructions that they did not understand. Because clearly there were portions that they did not understand.
But it was not just the jury at fault, IMO. The whole trial was a mess. I think the jury read some things into the court's treatment of the defense team. The court was trying to ensure the verdict would not be overturned on appeal, but I do not think the jury saw it that way.
The damage is done, damage that cannot be repaired.
it's hard to be inpartial since i knew more about the case than the jury. there was so much i wish had been brought out. that being said, the state still ellicited complelling testimony that casey was last seen with caylee (even JB stated that), to me proved there was decomposition in the car, and my goodness the jailhouse tapes!
i understand the photbucket and my space uploads were listed in evidence (am i wrong?)so im unsure why the jury didnt even look at it.
i think JF made up her mind before closing statements since JC said she never looked at JA. i think they came to a NG verdict on ALL major counts to quicky since there was so much testimony over the 6 weeks. i would think there would be much to discuss.
i would love to know what made #2 the holdout change his mind.
overall i think the jury did a shoddy job considering they put GA on trial in deliberations, didnt follow jury instructions and just tossed out what they didnt understand instead of getting clarification. the DT gave them enough for child abuse since casey supposedly found her child drowned and then somehow "lost" control of the body instead of calling 911
i rate them as low as the scale allows
i understand the photbucket and my space uploads were listed in evidence (am i wrong?)so im unsure why the jury didnt even look at it.
i think JF made up her mind before closing statements since JC said she never looked at JA. i think they came to a NG verdict on ALL major counts to quicky since there was so much testimony over the 6 weeks. i would think there would be much to discuss.
i would love to know what made #2 the holdout change his mind.
overall i think the jury did a shoddy job considering they put GA on trial in deliberations, didnt follow jury instructions and just tossed out what they didnt understand instead of getting clarification. the DT gave them enough for child abuse since casey supposedly found her child drowned and then somehow "lost" control of the body instead of calling 911
i rate them as low as the scale allows
Thinker Belle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,039
- Reaction score
- 4,711
Good article IMO
<snipped>
"When jurors expect forensic evidence to be decisive we find that they become intellectually lazy. Rather than engage the problem for hours by looking at what they have, it is easier for them to say, "We wanted more." In most cases there is enough there, it just has to be worked intellectually. Justice requires that no stone be left unturned, that jurors analyze every fact assiduously. It is intellectual laziness to say there wasn't enough.
<snipped>Getting back to those they don't like. If you are in a job where you are used to doing high-level cognitive tasks, where decisions require intellectual rigor, they don't want you either. They don't want people who are willing to work hard to connect the dots. Also if you are an independent thinker, no need to worry - people who prefer consensus and harmony will more likely be selected. Obviously no defense attorney or jury consultant is going to get exactly what they want, but they will try. And of course, it only takes one juror to derail a conviction.
It is said that in the Casey Anthony case we should not blame the jurors. I agree - we shouldn't. That is like buying lemmings as pets and then being surprised when they act lemming like. Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ot-so-obvious-lessons-the-casey-anthony-trial
All great points, but it is still very hard for me not to blame the jurors! :furious:
<snipped>
"When jurors expect forensic evidence to be decisive we find that they become intellectually lazy. Rather than engage the problem for hours by looking at what they have, it is easier for them to say, "We wanted more." In most cases there is enough there, it just has to be worked intellectually. Justice requires that no stone be left unturned, that jurors analyze every fact assiduously. It is intellectual laziness to say there wasn't enough.
<snipped>Getting back to those they don't like. If you are in a job where you are used to doing high-level cognitive tasks, where decisions require intellectual rigor, they don't want you either. They don't want people who are willing to work hard to connect the dots. Also if you are an independent thinker, no need to worry - people who prefer consensus and harmony will more likely be selected. Obviously no defense attorney or jury consultant is going to get exactly what they want, but they will try. And of course, it only takes one juror to derail a conviction.
It is said that in the Casey Anthony case we should not blame the jurors. I agree - we shouldn't. That is like buying lemmings as pets and then being surprised when they act lemming like. Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ot-so-obvious-lessons-the-casey-anthony-trial
All great points, but it is still very hard for me not to blame the jurors! :furious:
Thinker Belle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,039
- Reaction score
- 4,711
ITA and I also believe that jury sequestration can lead to very negative outcomes in the way deliberations are carried out. The rest of the jury could more easily be swayed by one who has strong opinions and a persuasive personality when they are SEQUESTERED away from family , friends, spouse, and all other people that they typically relate to and only around each other for weeks on end. This makes it even more easy to be persuaded if there is one who's voice is louder than the rest (likely the jury foreman) when it comes time for deliberations IMO.
I have heard quite a few people suggest that maybe jury sequestration is a bad thing and needs to be examined
CarolinaWoman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
:twocents::twocents:
Tuesday morning the vote was 6 to 6 per Juror #2 in the St Pete Times ... by noon the guilty side was losing votes. Juror #2 was the last to cave per his statement in the article. Yes, someone was putting the pressure on for a Not Guilty verdict. I bet they all had their bags packed ready to hit the road ... they had on their glad rags for their final hurrah.
I don't think they are scared or afraid ... I think they are ashamed of their travesty of the American Justice system. :twocents:
The Pinellas 12 doesn't deserve to be graded on a scale of 1-10 ... they failed Caylee Marie Anthony ... that is an 'F' in my book.
:cow::cow:
guardangel
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 3
Great way to sum things up TO. The verdict is one of those things in life I won't ever understand.
Thinker Belle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,039
- Reaction score
- 4,711
Yep me too.. they get a big fat F in my book.:loser: I hope they are haunted by their decision for a long, long time
Thinker Belle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,039
- Reaction score
- 4,711
I wonder if any of them have second guessed their decision now after the fact? Or possibly they just don't care and haven't paid any attention to the news or public reaction since July 5? I guess they weren't huge news watchers anyways since according to them some had never even heard of this case before being selected for the jury.
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,920
- Reaction score
- 42,009
One of these citizens who had stated during jury selection that she could and would give the DP if it came to that, went on after trial to say in an interview that she had to consider that if she voted guilty and it resulted in the death penalty, she would herself be a murderer.
Another reason to give a failing grade: Penalty can be considered only during the penalty phase of a trial.
Another reason to give a failing grade: Penalty can be considered only during the penalty phase of a trial.
ICAM. I posted this before and reading your words made me go back and find my post about the foreman's interview with Greta.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6923722&postcount=1657"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson[/ame]
fifteen89 said:
When the foreman says the defense got up and "started throwing out things that we did not know" -- AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH.
First of all, most of them said they didn't know much if anything about the case or they shouldn't have been let on the jury without alot of questioning, so BOTH SIDES should have been saying things the jurors "did not know".
Second, that's what most defense lawyers do. They "throw things out there" to see what, if anything, sticks.
In my dream world, I would like it if this case is what starts the change to putting limits on what lawyers are allowed to do and say during trials - and in opening statements. Especially since apparently some jurors have trouble following the jury instruction that says opening and closing statements are not evidence. But to me, if there is absolutely no evidence to support what a defense lawyer may want to say in opening statements, why should they be allowed to say any of it?
On the flip side, known facts about the defendant can be kept secret from the jurors because it may be too prejudicial. When I stand back and look at the big picture, I have to ask: what is wrong with this picture?
Maybe opening/closing statements need to be written and reviewed by the Judge before they are given? Mr. Baez certainly gave many reasons for needing some new rules. Judge Perry at least listed some of them in writing in his latest ruling on Casey's probation.
I gotta agree with TotallyObsessed. I go about my day and still catch myself shaking my head when I think about how this case turned out. Thankfully so far the jurors haven't made the $$$ they apparently hoped they'd be able to make after the verdict.
I've wondered too if any of the jurors have seen or heard anything since the trial to make them believe their verdict was wrong. Casey's 'acting' in front of the jurors and how different she was once they were taken out of the court room. Any explanation or discussion of the evidence they've heard that has made them realize they were wrong.....
Of course I know all they have to say is "we had to go on the evidence that was presented....." and anything they've heard since from someone talking on tv was heard after the fact and not in the court room.......but whatever they've heard since was talking about the same evidence. Unlike the defense, the prosecution didn't get to make things up.
Omachka
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- -95
Me too. People shouldn't act like lemmings. It really hurts reading this thread. Even though I didn't post an opinion here, I did agree with about an 8 because I never expected lemmings. I didn't realize that vacations and dollar signs would be strong enough to keep them from actually doing their duty. Heaven forbid that any of them ever have to face being the victim of a crime and the jurors in the case that matters most to them act the way they did. Even after all this time, I still feel shock at this verdict. For me, I can't forget the sweet, innocent eyes on beautiful little Caylee. I hope these jurors will be haunted by that when they think back over their experience. They failed to protect Caylee and justice. There is nothing sadder in society than for people to get away with hurting someone else and most especially a child. I only hope that something good comes from it. Maybe juror reform... I don't know. All I can say is that those 12 people disappointed me so much and really hurt my faith in our system.
cloud9
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- -22
MsMacGyver
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 914
- Reaction score
- 0
IMO...There was something wrong from the beginning. It was just recently stated I believe from Vinnie on HLN that FICA & DT had conceded in court that FICA did in fact neglect to call for help when she knew her child was dead, that she failed to report her child missing or otherwise. Those statements alone would lead you to believe that she would have never been found not guilty. So how did 12 people sitting on the jury cut her loose? It's one of those situations that is so bizarre that I couldn't believe it was happening. I still feel that someone should be looking at this case and trying to find the answer. There is something so not right about this, I think it screams for some reflection and investigation.
martea
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with you wholeheartedly. There is something that just isn't right about what happened. I kind of hate to say this, but I live in the Pacific Northwest, and people here seem to think that strange things happen in Florida that don't happen in other places. The jury, Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, Cindy and George, the acquittal, etc. in this case have added to that perception.
coolbreeze
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 0
Matthew 7-1 Judge not that ye be not judged. Juror #4 the black lady believed these words that Jesus spoke to his disciples. I am not superstitious but I support this lady's right to practice her religion as guaranteed under the Ist amendment. When she stated to the court that she could not judge people because of her faith the court should have dismissed her for cause. This was not a race issue. The court interfered with this women's constitutional right to freely practice her religious beliefs. Having this juror on the panel gave two possible outcomes. 1. Not guilty 2. Hung jury.
- Status