SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[Talina]

Unless an interview is live, tv can do the same editing and distorting of facts that printed media can do.

I prefer the person's own written statement or a live interview, otherwise I'm skeptical if I start seeing conflicting videos and written quotes.

Particularly when something sensational is being reported, such as this current inquiry into the alleged jury misconduct.

IMO

 

[LOMom]

Thanks for the article. I am puzzled by her statement here in this article that implies JY's silence was not a factor. Her second television interview said his silence was a factor. Sorry if this is the wrong forum to mention it, but I am curious about that.

She said it did not weigh heavily, not that it wasn't a factor..

Copied from the article:

She said it did not weigh heavily with her that Young waited 1,693 days to provide anyone other than his attorneys with an account of his activities, nor did it bother her that he did not testify in his defense in this trial.

 

[MyBelle]

Unless an interview is live, tv can do the same editing and distorting of facts that printed media can do.

I prefer the person's own written statement or a live interview, otherwise I'm skeptical if I start seeing conflicting videos and written quotes.

Particularly when something sensational is being reported, such as this current inquiry into the alleged jury misconduct.

IMO

The tv interview used her own words while on camera. I can't imagine what they edited out but it couldn't be any worse than what she actually said. Backpeddling days later to a newspaper isn't going to undo what she initially said.

JMO

 

[Talina]

The tv interview used her own words while on camera. I can't imagine what they edited out but it couldn't be any worse than what she actually said. Backpeddling days later to a newspaper isn't going to undo what she initially said.

JMO

Saying she is backpeddling days later is total speculation because we have absolutely no way of knowing what, if anything, was edited out of her interview with the TV.

ETA: nor do we know when this interview was given (i.e. that it was days later after the tv interview)

 

[cody100]

Unless an interview is live, tv can do the same editing and distorting of facts that printed media can do.

I prefer the person's own written statement or a live interview, otherwise I'm skeptical if I start seeing conflicting videos and written quotes.

Particularly when something sensational is being reported, such as this current inquiry into the alleged jury misconduct.

IMO

You are so correct. I just have seen the News and Observer repeatedly distort facts. I am not sure if that is a live interview with her or a taped interview that I saw on television. In light of the more serious allegations of jury misconduct, using silence against JY pales in comparison if indeed she did do that. I don't envy those jury members one bit for what they are having to go through.

If this case ends in a mistrial, I have no idea where they can find 12 individuals who haven't heard or read about this trial......perhaps someone who lives in an isolated area, has no paper, no internet, nor television.

Let's hope this turns out to be not so serious.

 

[Madeleine74]

Their comments certainly have been attacked, and deservedly so. when the judge tells you that you that "the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the pending charge." and you go on TV and say that one of the main reasons you convicted him was because of "the fact that he didn't talk," then those of us who believe in a justice system are going to attack those comments.

Absolutely the fact that the defendant didn't talk to police should not be used against him, but the jury is free to wonder why the defendant's attorney, on his behalf, never inquired how the investigation was proceeding. That's not answering questions, that's asking questions. They were free to wonder why JY never discussed the murder with anyone in his family, wouldn't say a word about it to his friends in 5 years.

The 5th amendment says nothing about discussions with anyone else.

The jury is absolutely free and within their rights to consider the defendant's behaviors. Plus former friends of JY were witnesses in the trial and they testified to how he acted with them afterwards, how he avoided them, and the weird things he did say to them. That's all part of the evidence and a jury can consider that, if they so choose.

You're taking a parsed statement and assigning your own meaning to it. His "not talking" refers to what, exactly? You don't know. You're assuming the juror is referring to the police and his not talking to police.

 

[cody100]

She said it did not weigh heavily, not that it wasn't a factor..

Copied from the article:

She said it did not weigh heavily with her that Young waited 1,693 days to provide anyone other than his attorneys with an account of his activities, nor did it bother her that he did not testify in his defense in this trial.

I just read the article and am well aware of what she said. It contradicts her earlier statements in her own words during a second interview. <modsnip>

 

[karengo]

Thanks for the article. I am puzzled by her statement here in this article that implies JY's silence was not a factor. Her second television interview said his silence was a factor. Sorry if this is the wrong forum to mention it, but I am curious about that.

The way I took it when she mentioned his silence was his silence to law enforcement when they wanted to speak to them right after the murder.

I should go listen to it again probably.

 

[cody100]

The way I took it when she mentioned his silence was his silence to law enforcement when they wanted to speak to them right after the murder.

I should go listen to it again probably.

I think we all should. Where is that link?

 

[cody100]

Here is the link: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10822718/

 

[LOMom]

Absolutely the fact that the defendant didn't talk to police should not be used against him, but the jury is free to wonder why the defendant's attorney, on his behalf, never inquired how the investigation was proceeding. That's not answering questions, that's asking questions. They were free to wonder why JY never discussed the murder with anyone in his family, wouldn't say a word about it to his friends in 5 years.

The 5th amendment says nothing about discussions with anyone else.

The jury is absolutely free and within their rights to consider the defendant's behaviors. Plus former friends of JY were witnesses in the trial and they testified to how he acted with them afterwards, how he avoided them, and the weird things he did say to them. That's all part of the evidence and a jury can consider that, if they so choose.

You're taking a parsed statement and assigning your own meaning to it. His "not talking" refers to what, exactly? You don't know. You're assuming the juror is referring to the police and his not talking to police.

In this case, I believe the fact that he did not talk to police could be used against him (the prosecution asked the jury to do just that) because while he did not talk to police for 1,693 days, he THEN testified in June 2011. His silence can not be used in way such as "he didn't talk to police, so he must be guilty". However, the fact that he didn't talk to police, but then testified can go towards how truthful he was. Basically, did he stay silent all that time, just to wait to see all the evidence so that he could then create a story to fit and present it on the witness stand, basically leaving the prosecution without time to find holes in a story they'd heard for the first time? The prosecution thinks so and asked the jury to think the same.

Read the 2nd paragraph of the 3rd page of the jury instructions here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...oung/2012/03/02/10805059/juryinstructions.pdf

 

[Just the Fax]

Jennifer Russell has a "hairdresser" in Wake County that rcvd texts from a JY juror?

"My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty"

We know this is pure and total BS, proven by the totally wrong side counts.
It is especially comical since her "source" is a hairdresser.
Her FB post was designed to get a laugh.


:woohoo:

 

[kljohnson0458]

Jennifer Russell has a "hairdresser" in Wake County that rcvd texts from a JY juror?

"My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty"

We know this is pure and total BS, proven by the totally wrong side counts.
It is especially comical since her "source" is a hairdresser.
Her FB post was designed to get a laugh.


:woohoo:

I agree 100%. I mean we all know how much gossip goes around in a beauty shop. LOL! I finally believe this to all be total BS.

 

[cody100]

I have to say I did find humor that it was the hairdresser. Of course, we know that is a hot bed of gossip. The sides were wrong, but those numbers were dead on, 7 to 4, and 9 to 3. With the 9 to 3 they did get the 9 guilty but said 3 NG.

We will see when the SBI finishes its results. I am also curious about the juror alleged to have discussed this case before deliberation.

 

[nursebeeme]

I have to say I did find humor that it was the hairdresser. Of course, we know that is a hot bed of gossip. The sides were wrong, but those numbers were dead on, 7 to 4, and 9 to 3. With the 9 to 3 they did get the 9 guilty but said 3 NG.

We will see when the SBI finishes its results. I am also curious about the juror alleged to have discussed this case before deliberation.

it is just my opinion... but I think the post about the juror in the restaurant talking about the case was the one that was dismissed prior to final jury selection. There was a link (I believe in this thread) talking about it.

 

[Talina]

I have to say I did find humor that it was the hairdresser. Of course, we know that is a hot bed of gossip. The sides were wrong, but those numbers were dead on, 7 to 4, and 9 to 3. With the 9 to 3 they did get the 9 guilty but said 3 NG.

We will see when the SBI finishes its results. I am also curious about the juror alleged to have discussed this case before deliberation.

I don't think there is any investigation involving that at all at this point.

I really wonder if that is not being confused with one of the potential jurors being disqualified from the jury during jury selection.

IMO

 

[cody100]

I thought that juror was mentioned also in this same FB posting. I could be wrong, and thanks for point that out. Perhaps we should clarify that by looking back at the posting on the FB.

 

[cody100]

Here is the link to the statements made on FB. I am referring to the first comment made about seeing one of jurors out at a restaurant or somewhere and they talked about it. Another poster talks about the jury count during deliberations. So, do you mean that first comment refers to juror that was dismissed?

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

 

[Talina]

Here is the link to the statements made on FB. I am referring to the first comment made about seeing one of jurors out at a restaurant or somewhere and they talked about it. Another poster talks about the jury count during deliberations. So, do you mean that first comment refers to juror that was dismissed?

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

I've seen several people say that is what they believe it to be talking about. Personally, I was not following the case during the jury selection so I have no first hand knowledge of how all that played out with the 2 juror that were dismissed for their conduct during jury selection.

I recall one had to do with postings on a social forum or a comment section on a local news web site but I don't recall the specifics about the 2nd dismissal that happened after that one. Both, though, were before the jury was sworn in. If this FB post is referring to something that happened after jury selection, then it would be something new and could be part of the investigation. I just don't know at this point and my head is spinning with all of the speculation.

IMO

 

[cody100]

I've seen several people say that is what they believe it to be talking about. Personally, I was not following the case during the jury selection so I have no first hand knowledge of how all that played out with the 2 juror that were dismissed for their conduct during jury selection.

I recall one had to do with postings on a social forum or a comment section on a local news web site but I don't recall the specifics about the 2nd dismissal that happened after that one. Both, though, were before the jury was sworn in. If this FB post is referring to something that happened after jury selection, then it would be something new and could be part of the investigation. I just don't know at this point and my head is spinning with all of the speculation.

IMO

I agree, Talina. It will be investigated by the SBI if it refers to a juror after the jury selection was in place. I guess I assumed it was since it came right before the jury voting alleged leaks. My head is spinning too. LOL I am going to go eat and watch ACC basketball.