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

[gramcracker]

I also remember a post linking an article re how courtroom clothing is provided to indigent defendants. there's a room downstairs in the courthouse where they go to browse thru the donated clothing prior to court appearances

doncha know the DT had tons o' fun w/ that. (and we thought mommy dearest was bringing the sad/ill-fitting clothing to disguise the <unusual> creature)

 

[MsMacGyver]

BBM: I like your idea, and it is worth a try ... even though it will be extremely difficut, if not impossible, to keep "emotions" out of "trying" to "analyze" the "mindset" of the Pinellas 12 ...

It took me almost a week before I could even "listen to", as well as read, the "transcript" of the interviews with Juror #3 and the Jury Foreman when their interview was first aired ... and after I listened and read the transcripts, I was so disgusted and :sick:!

I have re-read some of the juror's transcripts recently, and I noticed much more "HINK" in their statements NOW than when I originally listened to their interviews when my emotions were high !

MOO ... In my opinion, the Jury Foreman's comments from his interview with Greta says it ALL ... I believe he was the "strong-arm" of the group -- BOTH PRIOR TO and DURING deliberations ...

MOO ...

I know what you mean..I can't watch the video when they were reading the verdict. Everytime they show it I shut my eyes.
I think it would be fair to say that the jury foreman was the strong-arm/leader. Why did he end up being the foreman. People do things for alot of reasons, sometimes more than just one. What was it in his personality that caused him to float to the top? He said he was good at reading people which we know is not true.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If there was a 'strong-arm' in the group, I wish one or more of the jurors would come out and say so. Sigh.

I wish one of them would come out and tell the TRUTH ... but they won't because they say they are "scared" ... but it really is their SHAME they are hiding :couch: !

But they can't hide forever ... :couch:

MOO ...

 

[Aedrys]

I wish one of them would come out and tell the TRUTH ... but they won't because they say they are "scared" ... but it really is their SHAME they are hiding :couch: !

But they can't hide forever ... :couch:

MOO ...

I think their names will be released soon, right? This month or next month?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I think their names will be released soon, right? This month or next month?

Yes ... I "think" it is in late October (please correct if this wrong ...TIA).

Oh ... and I bet they will be "furious"

Got Bags, jurors ?

 

[MsMacGyver]

I'm sure everyone has been in a group setting and noticed that one person will step forward to take charge. IMO..We can see who it was out of the jurors that stepped forward to talk. What was their reason behind this act? What they said when they did speak is important and what has not been said. Someone told me a long time ago that people will tell you the truth if you listen hard enough and actions speak louder than words. The felon is a prime example. She took pieces of the truth and combined them in her lies, thats how she came up with her stories. There were 3 jurors who spoke after the verdict. IMO..These were the 3 people in charge of the jury as a whole. One was an alternate and only agreed to a phone interview so we can eliminate him. So that leaves us with the high school coach and the nursing student. Am I correct hearing that the nursing student while being interviewed for jury duty actually changed some of her answers to get accepted?
Some people like to be in a position of power/authority to appear smarter than the rest, in control. Some will step forward when no one else will. What would be the reason these 2 chose to speak out. Consider their professions. Myself, when I heard these two speak, I didn't like either one of them. My impression was neither was as smart as they thought they were and what came out of their mouths when they did speak told a very important story about what went wrong in this case at least concerning the jury.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

It is really sad that our jurisprudence.....(A JURY OF OUR PEERS) could not find anyone who was concerned about a helpless 2 yr& 9 month old child who isn't allowed to live her God given life. I still am overwhelmed by the non-caring, the cold heartedness of that jury. They just did not care about the enormity of the crime. Me! Me! Me! I just want to go home ! I want to write a book ! Gimme the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::sick::sick::sick:

 

[MsMacGyver]

There is alot of information about this case. Alot of information released by the state due to the sunshine law and alot of information released/made up by the DT. If you were not listening then there was alot of information you didn't know walking into the court as a juror. Why was it so important for the nuring student to be accepted for this trial? Why, after the verdict was read, were some of the jurors so emotional? It was reported that maybe because they felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict but what other reason could there have been? The claim was the state didn't offer enough evidence to convict but most of us even disregarding what we knew, felt there was. So what other reason could there be to conjure up so much emotion from the jurors? What other reason besides stupidity would cause this response?

 

[jon_burrows]

He didn't come across as very bright to me. When he talks he's barely coherent and the whole "reading people" thing is just absurd.moo

He didn't appear very bright to me either. As for the Master's degree, it depends on where you get the degree. Some of the 'on line' degrees are a total joke.

The foreman could not answer a simple question. For example, did Cindy lie about the chloroform search? His answer: :banghead:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done the searches for chloroform?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.
But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.


IMO

​

 

[MsMacGyver]

When the trial started I wasn't sure if Caylee had been murdered or if there wasn't some terrible accident and because the felon was so afraid of her mothers reaction she made up this kidnapping story to cover things up so she wouldn't have to take responsibility for her daughters death. After I heard Dr. G's testimony I knew that the felon had killed her child intentionally. Now I'm not highly educated but I do have some common sense. If I could draw a line from the felon to Caylee from the evidence provided why couldn't 12 other people do this. Everyone keeps saying hinky. Listen, so many peoples little voice..inner voice, whatever you want to call it keep saying theres something wrong here. There is no way all 12 people could be that stupid. The odds tell me there had to be at least 1 person who had a mind of their own in that room so what happened? Is there a conspiracy that hasn't been found out yet or is it the fact that there were just 12 people that didn't understand the evidence and directions they were given?

 

[LambChop]

He didn't appear very bright to me either. As for the Master's degree, it depends on where you get the degree. Some of the 'on line' degrees are a total joke.

The foreman could not answer a simple question. For example, did Cindy lie about the chloroform search? His answer: :banghead:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done the searches for chloroform?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.
But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.


IMO

​

Okay, was that a yes, or a no?

 

[MsMacGyver]

He didn't appear very bright to me either. As for the Master's degree, it depends on where you get the degree. Some of the 'on line' degrees are a total joke.

The foreman could not answer a simple question. For example, did Cindy lie about the chloroform search? His answer: :banghead:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done the searches for chloroform?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.
But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.


IMO

​

Great point..This guy was the Foreman! CA testified several times. I remember the media commented that this was unusual for someone to be called up so many times. Was this part of the DT strategy, to confuse? I remember CA had testified many times before always looking spent, emotional but that day she stuck out like a sore thumb. She sat straight, looked present and the only time she smiled/smirked at Linda. I knew she was lying. Besides it was proven by the state...No speculation required!
That was not something we really considered much when deliberating..Are you kidding me!..It was evidence

 

[Well Done 99]

There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying.

+respectfully snipped and bbm+

If it wasn't obvious, why call it "the lying"? In other words, it had gone over his own head but one or more of the others caught on .... and it was still ignored?

 

[jon_burrows]

Okay, was that a yes, or a no?

Exactly.

Cindy said she could not put 10 hours on her timesheet (I think it had something to do with overtime) but her timesheet clearly showed she worked 10 hours almost every day. LIE

Cindy said her supervisor filled in her timesheet on the day of the chloroform search because she was at home however, her supervisor testified she did not falsify her timesheet. Another CA LIE.

A representative from Gentiva explained their computer system. Cindy logged on to the company's intranet system. It's a system/application that is only accessible from the office. Employees could not remotely log in from home. The system was also set up to automatically log out if there was no activity for a certain period of time. Cindy was at work during those searches. Another CA LIE.

Cindy committed purgery several times on the stand and the SAs proved it beyond ALL DOUBT. I'm typing this post from memory so it's unbelievable the jury foreman could not answer 'yes' directly after trial.


IMO

 

[krkrjx]

I do not think all 12 jurors did not understand the evidence. I believe some did understand it, and those were the ones who initially voted guilty.

I do, however, believe all 12 had problems understanding the directions they were given--the jury instructions given to them in written form. With that, it might not have been difficult at all to sway those who wanted to vote guilty into believing that the "directions they were given" would not allow it.

When you have a weaker personality up against a stronger personality, who usually wins? The weaker personality is the one who will give in, even if they know their instincts are correct and that they are just giving in to avoid some kind of unpleasantry.

If none of the 12 fully understood the law as it pertains to reasonable doubt, or the actual definition of reasonable doubt, all 12 will follow an erroneous interpretation of the law. Add to that a strong personality or two who want things to go a certain way and you can have a recipe for disaster, as we had in this case.

I do not care if the juror's names are released or not. I am not holding one juror more responsible than another. It was, in the end, a group decision in spite of the fact that there were jurors who simply went along with the group to avoid confrontration. Let's never forget the juror who spoke to People Magazine talking about the last holdout for guilty who gave up his stance with the statement, "OK, whatever you all want."

Those jurors who could have made a difference but didn't know who they are, and I think by now they know they have made an enormous mistake. I think they know that their failure to act appropriately resulted in a horrible wrong that can never be righted. Some day one or more might openly admit it. Beyond that, I do not want to hear anything any of the jurors have to say.

 

[Concerned Papa]

He didn't appear very bright to me either. As for the Master's degree, it depends on where you get the degree. Some of the 'on line' degrees are a total joke.

The foreman could not answer a simple question. For example, did Cindy lie about the chloroform search? His answer: :banghead:

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done the searches for chloroform?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.
But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.


IMO

​

If the quote you've referenced doesn't convince you of his mental prowess, perhaps this one will from the same interview:

Jury Foreman: Well, I thought, you know, for what they -you know, I -- really, in prosecution, when it was over and done with, when they rested, I wanted more. I wanted more. I really thought the prosecution -- I don't know if there was more for them to give. I wanted more, though, because I thought it really put us at that point in a situation where this is going to be -- this is going to be difficult.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[krkrjx]

If the quote you've referenced doesn't convince you of his mental prowess, perhaps this one will from the same interview:



:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

For a guy who says "you know" at every turn, it's amazing how much he doesn't know.

 

[PeteyGirl]

<<snipped>> It was reported that maybe because they felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict but what other reason could there have been? The claim was the state didn't offer enough evidence to convict but most of us even disregarding what we knew, felt there was. So what other reason could there be to conjure up so much emotion from the jurors? What other reason besides stupidity would cause this response?

<<snipped some more >>There is no way all 12 people could be that stupid. The odds tell me there had to be at least 1 person who had a mind of their own in that room so what happened? Is there a conspiracy that hasn't been found out yet or is it the fact that there were just 12 people that didn't understand the evidence and directions they were given?

I think there could be a lot of reasons besides stupidity, though the result of the errors in judgment appear "stupid".

The odds were HEAVILY against a jury acquitting FCA of the felony charges. Yet, it happened. Thus the odds of one person amongst that 12 having a mind of their own were apparently high too.

Just considering how the public "split" about 80/20 in favor of a murder/manslaughter conviction, you'd *think* perhaps a jury, being representative, would be split in a similar way.

There was a jurist who, according to a recent interview (sorry, no link ) "held out" against acquitting of manslaughter, but when he realized they all had to agree for there to be a conviction, he said (paraphrased) "OK, whatever you guys want". He basically admitted to caving in, and seemed unaware that a jurist has the perfect right to hang the jury.

This is only one example of how the jury misunderstood basic jury protocol. Jennifer Ford admitted to considering the penalty phase during the guilt phase. I'm pretty sure there were other examples.

 

[jaleigh]

If the quote you've referenced doesn't convince you of his mental prowess, perhaps this one will from the same interview:



:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

O M G

I'm convinced. Sick but convinced.

mo

 

[Sustained]

Don't know of any of you are following the Bob Ward murder trial in Orlando, but the jury has already been out about 7 hours and asked to see two pieces of evidence. Makes my blood boil all over again when I think about the Pinellas 12 as the Ward jury heard only about 2 weeks of testimony and has already spent 7 hours considering Ward's fate. Guess verdicts like the Anthony farce you just never get over ....