So where did he get the idea that KC was "likable, intelligent and articulate"? Whether or not he said the actual word makes no difference to me. It all means the same thing.
This is what I'm having the most difficulty with comprehending. They were told that, because this was a circumstantial evidence case, their decision would rely heavily on the credibility of the witnesses, yet they chose to believe only the witnesses who LIED UNDER OATH and as well as the...
EXACTLY!! They supplied JB with everything he needed, even the 'drowning' theory. Cindy never saw that ladder up to the pool or the gate open. The 'someone' who suggested that Caylee might have drowned in the pool (surprise, surprise) was Cindy! She was hoping that would be an "open" for KC if...
I think they could all relate to JB on his level. JA was way over their heads in the intelligence department and I think that intimidated a lot of them. It almost looks like they added a little disclaimer of their own to this trial: "for entertainment purposes only". JB was the best entertainer.
I can't imagine that her life from here on out will be any semblance of "bella". I'm wondering about JB too and whether or not he'll continue with practicing (shady) law or go the route of Howard K. Stern and produce a reality TV show featuring his protegee. I can't imagine that he will cease...
It would be interesting to count how many times JB referred to KC as this "child". I'm still having trouble believing that 12 people could all be that gullible.
And add to that that they lowered her chair and surrounded her with really big people so she would look like the tiny, innocent "child" that everyone was beating up on. Disgusting
Good thing they weren't around when Susan Smith was on trial. They would have had everyone believing she was only taking the boys out for a moonlight swim when the car 'accidentally' rolled into the lake.
I'm at a loss for words! How can this guy get away with saying he thinks KC is "likeable, bright and articulate". How would he know? This sounds like something he's heard someone else say.
The last time I served on jury duty was a year and a half ago. It was a criminal case that was based on circumstantial evidence. Both the judge and the Prosecution said repeatedly "This is a CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE case. There is no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood, etc. etc. Your decision will be...
I don't think anyone on this jury wanted anyone to think they were incapable of understanding the instructions to the "letter". Mr. Foreman talks as if he understood the "letter of the law" perfectly. JF, in "bio" said she likes to be perceived as "intelligent". There you have it!
Was this the guy who said the jury had to "follow the letter of the law"? I wish someone would ask him what letter he thinks that is. I also wish someone would point out to these jurors that a) yes, you were supposed to "connect the dots"; b) the State does NOT have to prove HOW or WHY; c) the...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.