2011.05.20 On a Scale of 1 to 10 How do you Feel About this Jury?

[cityslick]

Is he implying he does not have the freedom to speak out? If so, who would be denying him the freedom to speak?

And why?

Until he answers those questions I am going to assume he does have the freedom to have a "take" and that his response is just a cop out. (If I pretend I am not at liberty to answer, people will stop asking hard questions.)

He is a reporter, he's not being paid to give his opinion on anything. That's what he means by not having the 'freedom' to speak out. The network doesn't want to hear what he thinks of the verdict, they just want him reporting on the verdict.

Good luck trying to find any reporter who publicly gives opinions. The whole point of the job is impartiality.

 

[lauriej]

As an aside: I wonder what The Dessert Lady thought about the verdict?.
:twocents:

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2011/06/cakey-anthony/


".....following a quick jury recess, Judge Belvin Perry quizzed the jury pool about a certain bunch of packages left for them back in their holding pen. Guess what! The packages were from our favorite entrepreneurial sweets peddler, Patti Schmidt of The Dessert Lady on Church Street!

“I’m doing it because it’s the only small way I can have a part in getting some justice for that poor, beautiful little baby girl,” says Schmidt.
See there? It’s not crass product placement at all. But even if it was, “I don’t know why nobody else thought of it,” says Schmidt, coyly.

“It’s a real somber event,” says Schmidt. “I’ll sort of be pissed if I’m donating all of this dessert and the jury acquits her!”

 

[krkrjx]

He is a reporter, he's not being paid to give his opinion on anything. That's what he means by not having the 'freedom' to speak out. The network doesn't want to hear what he thinks of the verdict, they just want him reporting on the verdict.

Good luck trying to find any reporter who publicly gives opinions. The whole point of the job is impartiality.

Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood who had made the comment. I thought a juror had said that in response to the reporter's question.

 

[Scamperoo]

I think quite simply they just wanted to go home, they didn't want to deliberate, they were not interested in the truth, they just did not want to spend anymore time there and to find her guilty would have required more time more discussion. They just wanted out and this was the quickest way, they deserve what they are getting now and I hope, for them, the karma train keeps on rolling.
Their actions were despicable and now they hang together trying to silence each other so we won't know how little they did to reach this verdict.
I presume they were discussing this case all along, just as they were told not to do, they ignored damning evidence yet considered the defense opening statement to be factual.
These 12 people may have had their minds made up from the get go and I think the deference the judge showed the defense, against the continuous censuring of the prosecution may have given them the impression the judge was on the side of the defense team and this would be acceptable.
No jury I have ever seen was pampered as much as this one was, special trips and food, they turned out to be just moochers on the Florida taxpayer dollar and fell far short of what was required of them.
I am so bitter...

 

[2goldfish]

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2011/06/cakey-anthony/


".....following a quick jury recess, Judge Belvin Perry quizzed the jury pool about a certain bunch of packages left for them back in their holding pen. Guess what! The packages were from our favorite entrepreneurial sweets peddler, Patti Schmidt of The Dessert Lady on Church Street!

“I’m doing it because it’s the only small way I can have a part in getting some justice for that poor, beautiful little baby girl,” says Schmidt.
See there? It’s not crass product placement at all. But even if it was, “I don’t know why nobody else thought of it,” says Schmidt, coyly.

“It’s a real somber event,” says Schmidt. “I’ll sort of be pissed if I’m donating all of this dessert and the jury acquits her!”

wow. I bet she was sick with rage and sorrow. all of us were/are but at least I wasnt personally feeding the <modsnips>

 

[grammaw1023]

I think quite simply they just wanted to go home, they didn't want to deliberate, they were not interested in the truth, they just did not want to spend anymore time there and to find her guilty would have required more time more discussion. They just wanted out and this was the quickest way, they deserve what they are getting now and I hope, for them, the karma train keeps on rolling.
Their actions were despicable and now they hang together trying to silence each other so we won't know how little they did to reach this verdict.
I presume they were discussing this case all along, just as they were told not to do, they ignored damning evidence yet considered the defense opening statement to be factual.
These 12 people may have had their minds made up from the get go and I think the deference the judge showed the defense, against the continuous censuring of the prosecution may have given them the impression the judge was on the side of the defense team and this would be acceptable.
No jury I have ever seen was pampered as much as this one was, special trips and food, they turned out to be just moochers on the Florida taxpayer dollar and fell far short of what was required of them.
I am so bitter...

Gosh,I'm right there with you!This verdict was soo unimaginable ,that sometimes when it comes to my mind,I think I'm dreaming I heard"Not Guilty".These jurors were exactly that,da#n lazy!Bitter is exactly the "right word!"Those jurors don't want to say much,cause NOW,they know how outrageous this verdict was,and their friends or anyone who knows them won't let them forget it(which I like).I just hope people will boycott any financial gains these blood thirsty crew think they may get.I quit getting People because that magazine lies too!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I have thought this all along. I firmly believe that the foreman, infamous narcissist Juror #11, was working the entire group while they were sequestered. He wanted to be foreman, he thought that would get him the big bucks and book deal, he would be set for life. He gave them his own version of the rules, manipulated them to get his results.

Happily, it didn't work the way he thought. Sadly, the babykiller went free in the process.

BBM:

I agree ... but ... I firmly believe that in Jury Foreman's mind, he "thought" that an ACQUITTAL would bring in the BIGGER BUCKS for him because it would be the UNEXPECTED Verdict ... MOO !

I firmly believe that Jury Foreman was the STRONG-ARM with that Jury ... He was "positioning" himself during those six weeks when they were sequestered to be the Foreman ... MOO !


Below are some of the "statements" made by Jury Foreman during two of his interviews with Greta.


snippet from : http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...rensic-evidence-and-suspicions-george-anthony

VAN SUSTEREN: And the foreperson?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was the foreperson.

VAN SUSTEREN: You've asked us not to use your name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I greatly appreciate that.


Jury Foreman does NOT even want to put his own name to a verdict he signed off on ... and he did NOT even show his face :

I guess he will have to walk around like this the rest of his life :


snippet from : http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...y-foreman-reveals-what-happened-inside-delibe

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: How many people do you think at least -- and maybe it changed during the course of deliberations, but how many initially thought that George was responsible for a murder?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George? Well, you know, there is no -- the problem is with the gray area, there's no way that we can tell the responsibility. What was in question a lot of times dealt with, you know, Caylee was with Cindy the night before. When she came back the next night, they looked at the pictures of them at the retirement community. Then, you know, they went to bed.

You know, guardianship, when it started, who was looking out for her that next day? You know, George and Cindy and Casey all took hand in raising Caylee. We know that, you know, Cindy went to work. And then the gray area comes in.

VAN SUSTEREN: But at that gray area, I'm thinking, you know, the -- I realize that George isn't charged in this case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. Right.


Jury Foreman has NO CLUE ... NONE ... ! :banghead:

It was DIFFICULT to go back and read some of the Foreman's statements :sick: ... but the more I went back and re-read, the more the Foreman's IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE showed !


MOO MOO MOO ...

 

[jane the dood]

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2011/06/cakey-anthony/


".....following a quick jury recess, Judge Belvin Perry quizzed the jury pool about a certain bunch of packages left for them back in their holding pen. Guess what! The packages were from our favorite entrepreneurial sweets peddler, Patti Schmidt of The Dessert Lady on Church Street!


“It’s a real somber event,” says Schmidt. “I’ll sort of be pissed if I’m donating all of this dessert and the jury acquits her!”

Thanks for this, lauriej. The Dessert Lady must feel awful. Join the club, m'dear.

 

[Well Done 99]

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2011/06/cakey-anthony/

&#8220;It&#8217;s a real somber event,&#8221; says Schmidt. &#8220;I&#8217;ll sort of be pissed if I&#8217;m donating all of this dessert and the jury acquits her!&#8221;

+respectfully snipped+

I gather we take can it she's p***ed right now then?
Unfortunately, sometimes investment (or should we say a 'gamble') just doesn't pay the return you were expecting.
What a grand old time it was for these jurors. They certainly took her cake and ate it.

 

[fifteen89]

More questions for juror interviewer ..

@stevehelling wish interviewers wd challenge & ask jurors re what evidence they looked at. did they go over phone/ping reports, ME rpt etc
41 minutes ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
replies &#8595;
»
Steve Helling
stevehelling Steve Helling
@
I did ask that. It is not in the teaser story that you have read, but it will be coming out soon.
30 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Posted in another thread he also stated juror was not paid .. nada, nothing.[/QUOTE]

I did see where Helling repeated this juror was paid absolutely nothing, no compensation, etc. I for one do not believe that, otherwise, what would be this particular's juror's purpose for the interview? any thoughts? he remained anonymous, so I just don't understand why he would, at this time, have contacted People to give the story he gave. I know there is a Part 2, but from what this juror stated in Part 1, I agree as others have said, every time a juror talks, they just dig themselves deeper and deeper into the absolutely irresponsible job they did as jurors. But, if no compensation, why did this juror, who remained anon, even come forward to this interview?

Helling himself said on HLN yesterday that he used good old fashioned techniques to find this juror. He was asked if the juror tried to deny who he was and Helling's response was he was in the courtroom looking at the jurors every day - he knew the guy was one of the jurors and the juror knew that. From that, I'd say the juror didn't contact People.

I agree with dog.gone.cute. The jurors thought they'd hit a bigger payout if they voted NG. I don't limit it just to the foreman. There were others looking down the road to interview$ book$ etc. Not too many would bother to interview them if they found her guilty.

Wasn't it Ford who said she had her mind made up before they went into the deliberation room and she knew she wasn't going to change her mind? That doesn't make a good juror for either side. To me that means she didn't deliberate. More like she was deliberate. jmo.


ETA: Being 'cussed out' by his sister? Wow. How horrifying. Imagine being triple-bagged and left in a swamp for months.

 

[fifteen89]

+respectfully snipped+

I gather we take can it she's p***ed right now then?
Unfortunately, sometimes investment (or should we say a 'gamble') just doesn't pay the return you were expecting.
What a grand old time it was for these jurors. They certainly took her cake and ate it.

Well, dessert lady can always hook up with the guy who banned the jurors from his restaurant.

 

[fifteen89]

From the article:

Next up: aggravated manslaughter.

"We did our first vote and it came out half to acquit, half to convict," says the juror. "And we talked about it for a while, going through the evidence. I'd say that some people got intense, but there were no personal attacks, no real yelling. And we talked for a while, then it was 11-1 to acquit. And the guy who didn't want to acquit basically looked at us and said, 'O.K., whatever you all want.' He knew he wasn't going to convince us."

I'd like to hear from the "1" in the 11-1 vote. See if he can shed any light on who of the 12 "wasn't going to change their mind no matter what".

 

[Whisperer]

Now the Michael Jackson case want the jury sequestered....

....why the heck not? It worked for OJ and FCA. I am now formally AGAINST sequestration. It does nothing but bond the jury and by the time they have to go to work, they want to go home. OJ's jury did the exact same thing. They bonded wi/OJ. Pinallas bonded w/FCA....this was accomplished by JB moving the table in front of the jury. This isolated the prosecution and put FCA in their face. After all that time, they didn't want her to fact a harsh punishment.

....This moving of the furniture should never have been tolerated. I hated it from the minute I saw the diagram. It prevented a big screen from being utilized and FCA didn't have to look at her work. Florida is not as tough as I thought. In fact, it's beginning to look as lenient as California.

 

[BuzzieCat]

I watched a lot of the trial but didn't realize Baez had moved the furniture. ?? I guess I just assumed it was the normal arrangement so that the accused could face the jury of his/her peers. But it always bothered me that she could look right out at the jury and try to engage them with her little facial expressions and knotted-up outfits and pretending to be even more petite than she actually is. That furniture arrangement is like saying it is just the jury and the accused, never mind the judge or prosecution. Hint, hint, look how cute FCA is, so short and tiny, couldn't hurt a fly! Would you like a little more pie? Boy, FCA sure would like to watch the big game with you, hint, hint. *Gag*

I do understand that the accused has rights that cannot and should not be denied even if I personally think he/she is guilty as sin. However, it's not easy for me to accept that it's okay for the defense to manipulate things to the extent that IMO they did during FCA's trial.

Oh, and how do I feel about this jury? Bad! Hindsight is 20/20!

 

[lauriej]

From the article:


I'd like to hear from the "1" in the 11-1 vote. See if he can shed any light on who of the 12 "wasn't going to change their mind no matter what".

..he was one of the few that have spoken...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2305907/casey-anthony-juror-says-the-jury.html

The vote on Tuesday was 6-6 for manslaughter. The two sides hardened. They started talking over one another. The jury foreman calmed them all down.

But more importantly to the jurors who opposed the manslaughter charge, no one could say who was Caylee’s caretaker — the mother or the grandparents — when the child actually died.

If it was murder, who did it? If she died accidentally, then who was the child’s caretaker?

But Juror No. 2 didn’t buy that.

.. ( he ends UP buying it---we'll see why in a minute..)

“The six that voted guilty said it didn’t matter at what point in time she came home (ummm, came home???) and found out her daughter was missing,” he said. “She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that’s where the negligence came in.”

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.

Juror No. 2 was the last holdout. Deliberations lasted for 11 hours over two days. They filed into court at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday to hand over their verdict.

( as to the "aggravated manslaughter charge"-----there was a "special finding" put in by the defense-- on the verdict form that went along with it..)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#
--verdict forms---special finding---count 3--agg.manslaughter---

1). kc WAS A caregiver of caylee at the time of the offense.
2). kc WASN'T A caregiver of caylee at the time of the offense.

..juror #2, the hold out---CERTAIN that she was guilty of aggravated manslaughter!----apparently could NOT decide if kc was or wasn't A caregiver of caylee----at the time of the offense.

( he was adamant--holding out!!-- that she was guilty of manslaughter---but hmmmm, was she or wasn't she-- a caregiver of caylee's at the time??? -----( checks off box "wasn't"--and then can't go with his 'Guilty' either.)

..."OK fine---'whatever you all want'-----Not Guilty"..

 

[fifteen89]

..he was one of the few that have spoken...

snipped by me........

Thanks lauriej. Guess I had forgotten he was the "1" wanting guilty.


From that article:
"The jury foreman calmed them all down.

Here the defense’s theory was key: They told the jury that Caylee accidentally drowned and the family tried to cover it up. But the defense also accused George Anthony of sexually abusing his daughter Casey — a charge he denied. The defense said the abuse trained Casey Anthony to lie and live in denial.

The jury didn’t believe anything George Anthony said on the stand, according to Juror No. 2.

But more importantly to the jurors who opposed the manslaughter charge, no one could say who was Caylee’s caretaker — the mother or the grandparents — when the child actually died".



Did the foreman "calm them all down" with visions of $$$?

They "didn't believe anything George Anthony said" and they keep repeating the script they apparently came up with that they "didn't have enough evidence to convict"....yet they relied on the defense's theory, not evidence, just theory. Yeah, it's their right to believe or not believe George, but FPS......they DID convict Casey of lying, right? What was her reason for all the lying during those 31 days if she wasn't covering up Caylee being dead? It's not like she was just lying to investigators because she was scared - they weren't investigating during those 31 days.

And Cindy, George and Lee - none of them were lying during those 31 days. And the INSTANT Cindy, George and Lee heard there was a possibility of Caylee even being kidnapped or taken by Zanny........they all went berserk (the opposite of Casey's behavior during the 31 days) trying to find Caylee. So.......who's responsible for Caylee's death, Mr. Juror?

And saying they didn't know who was Caylee's caretaker when the child actually died???? Uh, well, gee.....who she was last seen alive with would be a good place to start to figure that out. So let's see, Casey left with Caylee, George went to work, Cindy was already at work, then hours later Casey shows up with no Caylee. Hmmmmmm....wonder what happened.

Forget that for the next 31 days she gave everyone who asked a song and dance about her imaginary job and imaginary nanny........

How can anyone listen to the Prosecution's case and follow along with all the lies during those 31 days and say they only presented that to show bad character???? It's beyond me. And the jury bought it. It's still unreal.

 

[strawberry]

@VinniePolitan
Vinnie Politan
NO SEQUESTRATION of jury in Michael Jackson case... Judge denies defense request.

 

[jaleigh]

He is a reporter, he's not being paid to give his opinion on anything. That's what he means by not having the 'freedom' to speak out. The network doesn't want to hear what he thinks of the verdict, they just want him reporting on the verdict.

Good luck trying to find any reporter who publicly gives opinions. The whole point of the job is impartiality.

I disagree. Local Fl. reporters gave their opinions about the trial and in some instances opinions about CA herself.
mo

 

[jaleigh]

@VinniePolitan
Vinnie Politan
NO SEQUESTRATION of jury in Michael Jackson case... Judge denies defense request.

Tell me what that has to do with FCA? :waitasec:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Now the Michael Jackson case want the jury sequestered....

....why the heck not? It worked for OJ and FCA. I am now formally AGAINST sequestration. It does nothing but bond the jury and by the time they have to go to work, they want to go home. OJ's jury did the exact same thing. They bonded wi/OJ. Pinallas bonded w/FCA....this was accomplished by JB moving the table in front of the jury. This isolated the prosecution and put FCA in their face. After all that time, they didn't want her to fact a harsh punishment.

....This moving of the furniture should never have been tolerated. I hated it from the minute I saw the diagram. It prevented a big screen from being utilized and FCA didn't have to look at her work. Florida is not as tough as I thought. In fact, it's beginning to look as lenient as California.

:rocker: I totally agree !

:waitasec: I have an idea that "might" work for "sequestering" juries to keep them from "bonding" with each other, enjoying those "5 star hotels" and all the "perks", and "special treatment and "favors" from the Judge ... :innocent: :innocent:

Put them all :behindbar in their own cells ... because it is obvious these juries on these "high profile cases" are NOT doing their jobs !

As somone (I am so sorry I can't remember who said this -- but thank you !) so eloquently said recently ... the Pinellas 12 are "Accessories After the Fact" !

MOO MOO MOO ...