Names of Jurors just Released

[NavySubMom]

Sure like the cases that are presented on Dateline I think it is. They sit in a group and are able to speak in a protected environment by answering questions and speaking their mind. I'd like to see that!

My first thought was that since they agreed right after the verdict to NOT speak as a group, that now they might agree TO speak as a group.

Since my impression is that the foreman and JF were the "leaders" and had some kind of power of persuation over the others, and since they both already spoke right after the verdict,

I would like to see the remainder of the jurors in a Dateline-like setting, BUT WITHOUT the Foreman and JF. If their possible "group-think" feelings that some have speculated on during the sequestration have abated some since the 3 months that have passed since the verdict, I would not like that feeling to come back now, and I would not like them to feel pressured by the foreman and JF being in the group interview, if that were to happen. I think they might feel freer to really discuss what happened without those two hogging the interview and simply repeating what they already said. JF already got her Disneyland trip, who knows what the foreman got, I would really like to hear some of the others, but I imagine they might say the same things. I doubt all would show up, but maybe a majority might be willing.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[RR0004]

I totally agree with what HHBP said about the media in this article.
He condemned the media saying the broadcast of Anthony trial, "devolved into cheap, soap-opera like entertainment." Also saying Florida Public record laws have, "become simply a tool to sell a story."

As for the jurors names being released, I am hoping the cooling down period was long enough for the kooks (as SC a jury consultant in this article called them) to have found something else to be kooky about. For the majority of people who have followed the case, and have been unhappy with the verdict, I doubt there is anything that can be said by these jurors that will appease the majority.

I think most, if not all the jurors will talk, at least briefly to the media, since their names are now out there. They have had three months to figure out how they will defend the verdict, and I think they will defend the verdict. I think they will all claim the prosecution did not present the evidence necessary to come to a verdict of guilty. They will claim there was a lot of circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution failed to tie this evidence together in a way that eliminated reasonable doubt.

Regardless of what they say, the majority will always believe that KC is guilty, and that these 12 arrived at the wrong verdict. The media used the Sunshine Law as a tool to sell the public a story, and the story they sold to the public was that KC is guilty. It will be interesting to see what type of picture the media will try to paint about these jurors.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I'm sorry, but I came to my decision of Casey's guilt all on my own. And yes, I was pretty much here from day 31 trying to locate the mystery nanny....trying to help locate Caylee. The media had NOTHING to do with my opinion.

 

[JSR]

I wish the jurors who didn't agree at the beginning had been strong enough to hold their ground. A deadlocked jury would have called for a mistrial which would have been easier for me to understand than this result.

At this point though, it's not worth much to hear from any of them about how they viewed the evidence and came to their decision. It can't be undone now.

Correct and a hung jury could have allowed for Casey to be tried again and a normal jury could have been selected at a second trial. As someone above posted, for whatever reason, the cosmos aligned to have the worst jury seated. And as such, America has a child killer out on the loose. And worst yet one who doesn't think she did anything at all wrong.

I would hope Casey could be introspective enough to realize she got away with murder (literally) and that most don't get the second chances [or third or fourth or fifth as many believe she's been given already].

Because still months later the only people in the country who believe Casey is innocent are the pineallas 12. I don't even really think JB believes she's innocent. Not after watching the released jail video and the way JB reacted to Casey's reaction to Caylee being found.

 

[RR0004]

I have NO interest what so ever of the names of the 12 that let Caylee down. So blah, go on with your lives. You mean nothing to me, but you will have to face Caylee someday....

Amen to that!

 

[Coldpizza]

Well I read all the documents in the document dumps and I watched every minute of the trial live and saw all the evidence presented and found it totally shocking they found her not guilty. There were no two sides to the story as far as evidence went.

That's just it, we saw every piece of evidence. We have followed the case every single day. We saw in the Courtroom what the jurors did not see. We saw pictures they did not see. We followed the behavior of each and everyone involved in this case. We have cried and demanded Justice and it was not given.

The Juror's saw just a little window IMO of what we know.
I certainly could care less about their names. But what I would like is for them to come here and read EVERYTHING. See the complete Trial as we did and then come out and give us their opinion on the Verdict.

Part of me though want's no more publicity on this tragic case. More publicity = more money.

 

[RR0004]

The jurors in this case decided their verdict upon what was presented in court. What my opinions on what was inculpatory or exculpatory are irrelevant. I do agree with the verdict rendered, as I would have rendered the same verdict. My opinions on the evidence has been expressed numerous times in many threads, and have often been challenged.

When I give the opinion that I agree with the verdict, and then give examples of why I think they voted the way they did, that is all I am doing, stating an opinion. Most people cannot believe or understand why the jurors rendered the verdict they did.

I am fully aware that my opinion about the verdict is not popular. I could simply say "the jury got it right" and leave it at that, but I have been asked many times over the last couple of years as to how I came to the conclusions I have, and I have tried to explain how I came to the conclusion the the prosecution did not prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

My opinions have earned me the same reactions that the jury earned when they rendered the verdict of not guilty. I really enjoy posting here at WS, and I truly like the posters here. Just because the majority here disagrees with my opinions, doesn't mean I am a bad person, it just means I have a different opinion about the verdict in this case than most on this site do.

By the same token, the jurors are not bad people either. They were given a job to do, and even though the verdict they delivered was not one that was popular, it was simply the verdict they determined unanimously as the correct verdict to give in this case. Hopefully they will not be treated by the general public with any more dissatisfaction over the verdict, than I have been treated by WS'ers with their dissatisfaction over my opinion of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I understand that, but to say that the media withheld exculpatory evidence from the public begs the question, "What exulpatory evidence?"
JMO

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I'm sorry, but I came to my decision of Casey's guilt all on my own. And yes, I was pretty much here from day 31 trying to locate the mystery nanny....trying to help locate Caylee. The media had NOTHING to do with my opinion.

Yes, you did come to the decision of Caylee's guilt on your own, and yes, you were here from the get go. I have always respected your opinion

I would like to hear from these jurors, preferably several at once, and on a live show, where editing would be minimal or non existant. I think it would be interesting to hear what they had to say.

Who knows, they might all say, we know that witch was guilty as sin, but we only had a strong belief that she was guilty as sin, and when CM put up the reasonable doubt chart, the chart said strong belief did not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither JA nor HHBP objected to CM's chart, so it must have been legally accurate. So even though we had a strong belief she was guilty, the prosecution did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we had to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

It is the same old story here though. We can speculate about what they may say, what they may not say, and what the media might speculate about what it means if they do or don't talk now that their names have been revealed. But, unless they choose to speak, all we can do is speculate.

Now........ if they speak, after they speak, then we can speculate on what they meant when they said what they said LOL

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[deelytful1]

I'm going to be totally honest... they've brought all this animosity on themselves and deserve ALL the negativity. I don't care if the random Casey hater sends them nasty e-mails or spits on the ground as they walk by. They deserve it.
They took our justice system and made a mockery of it because they were tired of being sequestered from their families and their lives. They put their OWN selfish needs in front of the greatest judicial system in the world.. a fact our forefathers were probably NEVER predicting when they invented the jury system. They thought people would be PROUD to have such a system in place and respect it... not rush through it to make a planned vacation or because they didn't like being escorted to the pool!
They didn't review a speck of evidence and actually thought since they didn't have a cause of death, she could not be found guilty. They followed NO directions they were given.
They deserve everything the public gives them at this point (I'm not advocating violence in ANY way of course)
I dislike them, I would confront them if given the chance for matters MUCH larger than just this one trial. Because of the precedent they set, their laziness and dishonoring their roles of "a jury of our peers". Even the few that tried to defend themselves after the fact sounded like a bunch of babbling idiots...
Again, they deserve what they get...
MOO of course.

 

[Cherry Ames]

Sorry, their vocations don't impress me .....I don't think any of 'em were top-heavy in the brain department. What frustrates me is that they let a murderer go free...how can this be? How is this allowed? Mr. "PE COACH" Foreman....be glad I'm not on your faculty, buster. I'd be raking you over the coals everyday.... "So, Perry Mason, how's the dribbling practice going today?" "Hey, Barnaby Jones! Solve the mystery of the missing tennis shoes yet?"

 

[MarthaM]

If I felt like I had done my job and did it to the best of my ability I would be speaking up for myself. With their names published there is no reason not to speak unless they are ashamed of their actions. I don't need to know these jurors names, but if it will make them feel responsible for their actions, or inaction, so be it.

Speaking in public may be what you or even a lot of people say you would do, but that's not what plenty of people would choose--myself included--regardless of what my verdict was in this or any other case. And there are plenty of reasons for that, none of which come remotely close to meaning that any of these jurors are 'ashamed' of anything they did during this trial.

Not everybody likes to be in front of a camera, especially when they know that their image will be splattered endlessly all over tv screens and the internet and subject to the scrutiny and, perhaps, mockery of huge numbers of people. And not everybody wants to be a public persona; some guard their privacy (and that of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers) closely. For them, it's bad enough that their names are out there so that anybody with a computer can pry into their past and present; they're not about to invite more of the same by putting themselves front and center by doing interviews.

Of course, some jurors may choose to come forward at this late date, and that's fine. It's entirely their choice. But none of us can assume we know what someone's reason for staying silent is. There's no logical reason to think that any juror regrets or is ashamed of their verdict just because they don't want to jump on Anthony Media Circus Train.

I think there are a lot of people who are just dying for a juror to say that they were wrong about their verdict. That juror would become everybody's darling, right? They'd be loved and adored for all eternity (or at least as long as people remain fixated on this case, which could be a very long time). And who knows? That wish may come true. But even if it does, that means nothing as far as the rest of the jurors are concerned.

The intelligence of these jurors has been questioned from the day the verdicts came in, but if you ask me... they're a smart bunch of people. And they're certainly not weaklings or sheep.

 

[Cherry Ames]

The intelligence of these jurors has been questioned from the day the verdicts came in, but if you ask me... they're a smart bunch of people. And they're certainly not weaklings or sheep.

Why do you think that?

 

[Hope4More]

Personally, I don't want any of these jurors to be harassed in any way, nor hunted down by the media. I don't see any purpose in that, only harm. Juries are far too vital to our judicial system and to our basic civil rights to be tainted by any one case or wrong verdict, no matter how egregious.

Taking three steps back, I'd be FAR more upset thinking that a guilty verdict was visited upon an innocent person, especially in a death penalty case.

That said, I have zero doubt about FCA's guilt and so I obviously believe that the jury got it very, very wrong.

I formed my opinion only after reading and viewing the identical materials the jury was presented with. I did not follow media coverage of the trial until the trial was almost over. I had in fact never heard of Caylee Marie Anthony until the trial was almost over. So, for a fact, I was not a bit swayed by either the media coverage or by a deep personal investment that can follow from following a "missing child" case from day one. I honestly had not made up my mind when I starting tuning in to the trial.

Like many other peeps, it was most easy for me to think that Caylee's death must have been an accident. It's impossible for me, a mother who would literally stand in front of a speeding bullet to save my child, to understand how a mother could kill her own child. Even when I came to understand the factual reasons intellectually in this case, it is still impossible for me to wrap my brain around such an act. It is just too alien. I suspect that most jurors would have the same inherent difficulty, so I can sympathize with them up to that point.

IMO, best case, the jury lost sight of the forest for the trees. Putting aside bug experts and the like, and even putting aside OCA's behavior during the 31 days, some irreducible facts and unavoidable logical conclusions remain:

1. Every piece of evidence pointed to someone in the Anthony family being responsible for Caylee's death.

2. There is NO common sense reason why anyone in the Anthony family would make an accident look like a more sinister act. One of the Anthonys, therefore, must have been responsible for Caylee's death.

3. Not a single fact or shred of evidence pointed to the involvement of either George or Cindy. The DT's threw up shameful, unsupported, vague and MaCarthyish accusations against George, but even if they were believable, they were not evidence of his involvement of any sort.

4. Caylee was duct taped. Period. What possible common sense reason could there ever possibly be for duct taping a child??? Therefore, not accident, but murder.

5. From the evidence presented to the jury -- NOT media or online commentary, there is no way a reasonable person could believe that OCA was a "good mother," or even that she was especially attached to her daughter.

One slice of direct evidence of OCA's feelings about her daughter comes from weighing the total amount of time OCA threw Caylee at anyone at all who would watch her while OCA did what she wanted against the time OCA chose to be with Caylee. I couldn't find in the evidence ANY time when OCA chose to be with Caylee. Not once.

6. Who benefited from Caylee's death? If the jury had followed the bouncing ball, they could find only one Anthony who benefited, and it wasn't CA or GA.

All of that IMO is simply seeing the forest logic, and given the verdict, nobody can ever convince me that the jury was capable and or willing to do what was asked of them.

 

[logicalgirl]

Plus I think whenever you make a public decision in a public forum which our Law Courts are, and are supported by Taxpayer monies, those tax payers are owed an explanation on whether or not due diligence was done or if that time and money was used wisely - and whether or not the processes in a court of law were carried out with respect or if the laws were made a mockery of.

I see no reason why any juror should feel offended by a request to know what led them to make a specific decision. It is their civic duty to serve on a jury - and I believe it is the public's civic duty to inspect whether or not this jury actually did that civic duty.

That's how laws and the basics of freedoms run amok - by not being continually scrutinized....

 

[logicalgirl]

Speaking in public may be what you or even a lot of people say you would do, but that's not what plenty of people would choose--myself included--regardless of what my verdict was in this or any other case. And there are plenty of reasons for that, none of which come remotely close to meaning that any of these jurors are 'ashamed' of anything they did during this trial.

Not everybody likes to be in front of a camera, especially when they know that their image will be splattered endlessly all over tv screens and the internet and subject to the scrutiny and, perhaps, mockery of huge numbers of people. And not everybody wants to be a public persona; some guard their privacy (and that of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers) closely. For them, it's bad enough that their names are out there so that anybody with a computer can pry into their past and present; they're not about to invite more of the same by putting themselves front and center by doing interviews.

Of course, some jurors may choose to come forward at this late date, and that's fine. It's entirely their choice. But none of us can assume we know what someone's reason for staying silent is. There's no logical reason to think that any juror regrets or is ashamed of their verdict just because they don't want to jump on Anthony Media Circus Train.

I think there are a lot of people who are just dying for a juror to say that they were wrong about their verdict. That juror would become everybody's darling, right? They'd be loved and adored for all eternity (or at least as long as people remain fixated on this case, which could be a very long time). And who knows? That wish may come true. But even if it does, that means nothing as far as the rest of the jurors are concerned.

The intelligence of these jurors has been questioned from the day the verdicts came in, but if you ask me... they're a smart bunch of people. And they're certainly not weaklings or sheep.

Each person who signed on for jury duty was made aware during the jury selection process that this case was being watched by the world. And if they have the intelligence and ability to do a critical analysis - the lack of anonymity should have been very apparent.

This group was performing their civic duty in a public court of law. The time to play "private person" ended the day they were sworn in. And what responsible person refuses to justify a decision they made that had such deep consequences? Just part of the job - time they "manned up". IMO

How they "feel" about it has nothing to do with their responsibilities at all. This isn't the "grief expert" they are answering to. You've heard that saying - if you can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen? There you have it.

IMO as usual.

 

[MarthaM]

Each person who signed on for jury duty was made aware during the jury selection process that this case was being watched by the world. And if they have the intelligence and ability to do a critical analysis - the lack of anonymity should have been very apparent.

This group was performing their civic duty in a public court of law. The time to play "private person" ended the day they were sworn in. And what responsible person refuses to justify a decision they made that had such deep consequences? Just part of the job - time they "manned up". IMO (snip)

No, their 'juror' jobs ended when the judge excused them. The time to play 'public person' ended then.

They no longer owe the public anything.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well there you are then. You stand there and I'll stand here and I've had my say which I've given a lot of thought to.

And won't be changing it. But thanks for your comments. It's all about perception.

 

[zippitydoda]

I hope that none of them talk after the name release, and that they take whatever reasoning they had to their graves. There is nothing they could say that will explain this for me, and it still escapes me to this day that their 12 NG verdicts happened.

 

[JSR]

No, their 'juror' jobs ended when the judge excused them. The time to play 'public person' ended then.

They no longer owe the public anything.

But they certainly will owe someone something when they leave this life onto the next. Someday (sooner rather than later for some of them) they will have to face Caylee and she's the only one that they owe anything to.

And if Casey will someday feel embolden enough to kill again the jurors will owe an explanation to that victims family. And sadly I think there might come a day when Casey does kill again (should the mood so strike her).

Frankly I don't care about the Pineallas 12. They made their bed, and they can now lay in it. I don't however feel even a tiny bit bad for them.

I'm concerned however based off the Pineallas 12's occupations that these jurors do hold some large responsibilities for the care of others, minors and the unwell. And frankly I don't think these particular jurors should hold such large responsibilities. If your main thought for being ok with setting a murderer out on the street was to keep your vacation on a cruise or to go swimming in pretty swimming pools then I don't think you have the appropriate judgment to hold large responsibilities for the most vulnerable of our society, but that's just me.

I guess I'm just shocked that these jurors clearly didn't have the ability to sift through (nor have any desire to sift through it) all of the evidence and digest it or fully and appropriately comprehend it and they have jobs that require a lot of quick thinking.

walks away shaking head .....

 

[JSR]

Yes, you did come to the decision of Caylee's guilt on your own, and yes, you were here from the get go. I have always respected your opinion

I would like to hear from these jurors, preferably several at once, and on a live show, where editing would be minimal or non existant. I think it would be interesting to hear what they had to say.

Who knows, they might all say, we know that witch was guilty as sin, but we only had a strong belief that she was guilty as sin, and when CM put up the reasonable doubt chart, the chart said strong belief did not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither JA nor HHBP objected to CM's chart, so it must have been legally accurate. So even though we had a strong belief she was guilty, the prosecution did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we had to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

It is the same old story here though. We can speculate about what they may say, what they may not say, and what the media might speculate about what it means if they do or don't talk now that their names have been revealed. But, unless they choose to speak, all we can do is speculate.

Now........ if they speak, after they speak, then we can speculate on what they meant when they said what they said LOL

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I respect your opinion and I too would at least like to hear them speak. But I'm not sure that this jury would be able to articulate how they came to their verdict. I could barely follow the jury foreman when he gave his interview. There were so many ums and you knows it was hard to follow.

But the bolded part above is the important part. What some believe is reasonable is not what others would consider reasonable. 99% of the country don't believe that there is any other reasonable explanation for how Caylee was murdered or by whom other than what the prosecution presented. The jury believed the ridiculous story/theory/straight up lie the defense put forth and at least seemed to believe it was reasonable. But to 99% of the country it certainly wasn't.

So CM's chart was accurate, but if normal reasonable people were on the jury they would have found nothing reasonable about other suggestions to how Caylee was murdered.

 

[Purple Iris]

Given JBP's rush to seat a jury and deference to the DT in light of the death penalty, I don't know if I'd call it picking a jury as much as having it handed to them on a silver platter and tied with a big red bow.

Nailed it!!!!!!!!!!

2 jurors that vacations scheduled that they were worried about, one of those being a cruise.
Another one that "didn't want to judge" ~
They entire process was rushed.
I'm not saying that we needed to sit though a 4-5 hour questioning like the defense did with that first guy, but come on, the time that this jury was picked in was crazy, IMO.

As other's have pointed out, the coddling of the defense team straight from the get-go.
There is an old saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime", could very well apply to the Head Attorney in the case. He was not experienced enough to even have had his little finger in this case to begin with.
They tried this case in the media, and that's what they wanted and loved. They used the social media for their questioning of the witness's in open court for crying out loud!

I have sat and not commented on this jury, but, I hope that once they got home, that they spent every waking hour scouring the internet and reading and seeing what we have been privy to from the start as well.
I hope that it leaves them with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomachs for a very long time.

I don't believe for one minute that all of them were honest about their prior knowledge of this case, either.

Hinky, yes, all of it.
And, yes, Mrs. MacG, I know and remember exactly what you are talking about in regards to that little smug smirk that Baez tossed to the jurors out of the corner of his eye, real fast. I saw that, and I remember it clearly without having to go back and take another look at it.
Same with him giving the "6 shooter" pose in the hallway to the media when the defense rested it's case.
Who Does That???? Yeah, he's cocky and all that, but seriously???

It doesn't matter what any of the jurors have to say at this point, IMO. I'm sure that by now they have had ample time to hone any statements that they want out there.

One or two saying they felt pressured, another one or two on the fence, as we've already heard.
And, of course, the stand by, "the state didn't prove their case".

I felt halfway this trial that this would be outcome. I also remember joking with my son the day the defense rested, and saying, wouldn't it be something if they came back in a couple of hours with a verdict. Then, taking it back and saying, "well, no, they have to have a few hours to at least read the instructions and ask for one or two items to make it look legit".
Imagine my surprise when the next dang day...well.........history and here we are today. The day that the defense rested their case, it was reported that they had all shown up wearing their Sunday best. I can overlook that, but the second day, the same type of attire? I knew it then, they had their clothes packed. All they did was give consideration to the "lunch lady", and, ate her meal and then called it a day.

IMO, it would be in their best interest to just keep their mouths shut, cause there isn't anything that any one of them can say that will please, or, probably make sense to anyone, ever.

I "feel" that they were talking to each other when they shouldn't have been doing so, with all those side bars and being excused from the courtroom, not one of them at some point said, in anger, jest, or being tired, "OMG, you've got to be kidding, here we go again"??? Seriously. I know that I wouldn't have been able to not smart off about it at some point in time, "wasting my time" with all those sidebars and just plain stupidity???
Even with being told not to, at some point, everyone has that breaking point, or, most do; and in that tight, restricted envirement??

Oh well..........now that I've got that off my chest, I'll leave the rest to our esteemed members that always make much more sense than I do!
Thanks for everyone's input so far.