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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
UGH, I don't know where to put this, not that many very active threads here anymore... FROM OUR NEWS thread:
B]posted by halboedeker on August, 23 2011 9:19 AM

in the news thread.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...uthor-kathy-reichs-blasts-media-coverage.html


VERY interesting to me, are some comments made to this article by an individual with the initials NTS, who used to post here and who at one time we thought was someone with intimate involvement in this case. I saw 3 comments, one is at 9:34, but the MOST INTERESTING comments is at

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 9:58 AM

by NTS, I know I am not allowed to paste that comment here, ***BUT IT APPEARS THE BUS IS NOW DRIVING OVER GA to be sure he is beyond squished. If this is the same NTS, this comment BLEW MY MIND!! it says a few things about GA, and if this NTS is who we thought this person was, Whew!!! IMO, MOO, etc.

Thank you for that link. Extremely enlightening, particularly the comments section. Some of the links are not to be missed. Especially the one pertaining to JB. Thanks again !!
 
Originally Posted by NavySubMom
UGH, I don't know where to put this, not that many very active threads here anymore... FROM OUR NEWS thread:
B]posted by halboedeker on August, 23 2011 9:19 AM

in the news thread.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...-coverage.html


VERY interesting to me, are some comments made to this article by an individual with the initials NTS, who used to post here and who at one time we thought was someone with intimate involvement in this case. I saw 3 comments, one is at 9:34, but the MOST INTERESTING comments is at

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 9:58 AM
by NTS, I know I am not allowed to paste that comment here, ***BUT IT APPEARS THE BUS IS NOW DRIVING OVER GA to be sure he is beyond squished. If this is the same NTS, this comment BLEW MY MIND!! it says a few things about GA, and if this NTS is who we thought this person was, Whew!!! IMO, MOO, etc.


Who did people think Notthatsmart was? Cindy? Notthatsmart bragged on the Orlando Sentinel site that he/she had been banned from WS - 1:45.

I don't know who NTS is, but based on the content of posts, I think it is a descriptive moniker.
 
Originally Posted by NavySubMom
UGH, I don't know where to put this, not that many very active threads here anymore... FROM OUR NEWS thread:
B]posted by halboedeker on August, 23 2011 9:19 AM

in the news thread.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...-coverage.html


VERY interesting to me, are some comments made to this article by an individual with the initials NTS, who used to post here and who at one time we thought was someone with intimate involvement in this case. I saw 3 comments, one is at 9:34, but the MOST INTERESTING comments is at

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 9:58 AM
by NTS, I know I am not allowed to paste that comment here, ***BUT IT APPEARS THE BUS IS NOW DRIVING OVER GA to be sure he is beyond squished. If this is the same NTS, this comment BLEW MY MIND!! it says a few things about GA, and if this NTS is who we thought this person was, Whew!!! IMO, MOO, etc.


Who did people think Notthatsmart was? Cindy? Notthatsmart bragged on the Orlando Sentinel site that he/she had been banned from WS - 1:45.

I don't know who NTS is, but based on the content of posts, I think it is a descriptive moniker.

Am I losing what little was left of my mind or have NTS's posts been edited?

IIRC NTS also had a blog site about the wrongful conviction of Scott Peterson, so I never really believed s/he was a "player" just really not that smart and wanted to stir whichever pot was available. (Talk about a waste!) :crazy:
 
Thank you for that link. Extremely enlightening, particularly the comments section. Some of the links are not to be missed. Especially the one pertaining to JB. Thanks again !!

Yes, article about JB was very interesting.

I know I should ignore certain people, but I was floored by what I read in the comments by a certain one, thinking that if such a person would happen to be sitting next to another person they were just today still implicating in Caylee's death during a lucrative interview, why would that person still be implicating the person they plan to share the $$ with obtained in said possible interview. I guess nothing surprises me about certain people, and people wonder why we have no sympathy when we KNOW SO MUCH more about certain people!!!

IMO, MOO, etc.
 
Am I losing what little was left of my mind or have NTS's posts been edited?

IIRC NTS also had a blog site about the wrongful conviction of Scott Peterson, so I never really believed s/he was a "player" just really not that smart and wanted to stir whichever pot was available. (Talk about a waste!) :crazy:

no, I still saw the post from 9:58 a.m., today also see my post above, I am not sure if I am even allowed to be posting these items here, but I was blown away by that 9:58 a.m. post considering what has transpired re: the verdict, and what is being implicated re: upcoming events. I am cracking myself up trying to be very mysterious here, without saying what I really think! I don't want myself to be banned here...... IMO, MOO. etc.
 
I wasn't gonna read it, but I had to, kinda like you have to look at an accident on the side of the road.


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."

Five words from that juror that changed everything. It's ironic... they were so willing to acquit because they wanted to do what they were supposed to as a jury, but these five words prove that this juror did exactly what a juror is NOT supposed to do.

Now excuse me while I :bath: and :anguish:.
A case of this magnitude deserved more than this kind of consideration. It seems like they only spent time deciding what to decide. They had no clue what they they were supposed to do...and obviously didn't examine the evidence, but went by their sound (???) reasoning??!!! Did they really trust themselves enough to NOT give it any more thought. FGS...there was the death of a child here...who did they think killed her? This person who's been quoted...how the heck did People find him? Why on earth would he want this mindless gibberish repeated?
 
Mods I don't know where to put this. Please move if you feel necessary.


http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...ones-author-kathy-reichs-blasts-media-coverag

Reichs says she found no kind of abuse and no fractures. “It looked like a well-nourished child with no evidence of abuse,” Reichs says.

HEALTHY CHILDREN DO NOT DUCT TAPE THEM SELVES. Is is Ms Reichs scouting out a new episode? I can't figure out how these people think this precious baby landed in a swamp triple bagged. I am so disgusted.
How on earth did she determine that she was well-nourished? Did she look for calcium in the bones...or what? I think the fact that she said that there were no remnants of Caylee left to visibly see that she was well-nourished is very insensitive IMHO.
 
This jury was the very worst of the worst! And jb and cfca had them on a silver platter!


Thinking about the verdict all over again makes me want to:sick: !!!

imho.
 
:maddening:


Snippet from http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521892,00.html

"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."


RBM: WTH ? There HAD to be some "strong-arming" while deliberating ... MOO ...

I mean really -- "WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT" ? WHY OH WHY DIDN'T THIS JUROR STAND UP FOR WHAT HE BELIEVED IN ?

Keep Talking, Jurors ... eventually we WILL know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED during deliberations !

MOO MOO MOO ...



:noooo: Ouch. Just when I thought I was starting to heal. Again. :nevermind:
 
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 ↓
»
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.
 
A case of this magnitude deserved more than this kind of consideration. It seems like they only spent time deciding what to decide. They had no clue what they they were supposed to do...and obviously didn't examine the evidence, but went by their sound (???) reasoning??!!! Did they really trust themselves enough to NOT give it any more thought. FGS...there was the death of a child here...who did they think killed her? This person who's been quoted...how the heck did People find him? Why on earth would he want this mindless gibberish repeated?

If this jury represents sound reasoning then please remind me that I never want any of it.

They were as clueless as a box of rocks.

Oh the anonymous juror:innocent: in People magazine had the audacity to say they all thought she was guilty yet what in the heck to do they do? Let her walk free of course. Since according to them they knew very little about the case beforehand then they had to come to that conclusion of thinking she was guilty from the state's evidence entered.:innocent:

No matter what these particular jurors would have never convicted unless there had been a camera rolling from beginning to end like a CSI show.

They knew right off the bat this was a circumstantial evidence case but what do they do? Dismissed every da*n piece of evidence the state entered.

1. Mother :innocent: never reported child missing. It meant nothing to this jury.
2. Mother :innocent: parties hardy for 31 days as her child decomposes in a swamp. It meant nothing to this jury.
3. Human decomp smell in defendant's car and testified to by 7 witnesses. It meant nothing to this jury.
4. Human root banded hair consistent with Caylee's in trunk of defendant's car. It meant nothing to this jury.
5. Caylee's skull found with duct tape attached and also to her hair. It meant nothing to this jury.
6. Experts testify that when a skull is found the mandible is never found fixed and in place. It meant nothing to this jury.
7. Expert testifies the only time he has ever seen a mandible still attached with a skull is in Bosnia and the victims were bound with duct tape over their mouths before they were murdered. It meant nothing to this jury.

I could go on and on but I get so angry and upset when I think about these jurors and the stupid ignorant demands they placed on the state.

And they whine that their lives are ruined????:banghead: What about the justice they took from Caylee Marie? They abandoned a defenseless innocent child who deserved justice especially when all the circumstantial evidence linked no one other than Casey Anthony.

I hope they see her sweet little face as long as they live. What they did and how they did it is reprehensible and unforgivable.

IMO
 
Mods I don't know where to put this. Please move if you feel necessary.


http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...ones-author-kathy-reichs-blasts-media-coverag

Reichs says she found no kind of abuse and no fractures. “It looked like a well-nourished child with no evidence of abuse,” Reichs says.

HEALTHY CHILDREN DO NOT DUCT TAPE THEM SELVES. Is is Ms Reichs scouting out a new episode? I can't figure out how these people think this precious baby landed in a swamp triple bagged. I am so disgusted.

Well nourished? How would she know? was there food in her belly when caylee was examined? Sheesh
 
Well nourished? How would she know? was there food in her belly when caylee was examined? Sheesh

kreichs: “It looked like a well-nourished child with no evidence of abuse."

..NO kidding!

..don't you need tissue/organs to determine if a dead body has been "well nourished" or not???

..note to dr. reichs------there was a skull in a garbage bag,with duct tape on the face---overlooking the swamp where the "rest of the body-----random bones" were strewn about by animals.

..scattered chewed on bones here, there and everywhere could tell her this??

..as for the abuse----again, ok, there were clearly no broken bones, with evidence of previous fractures------there was also NO tissue to see if there were/weren't bruises/contusions/defensive wounds /scratches...

( all things learned from watching---"her" show! )

..if THIS is how she promotes her new book, throwing caylee's name into the article somewhere...she's seriously pathetic.
 
I read the People.com article after seeing it mentioned on HLN today. The more the jurors speak out, the more astonished I am at these people. And I watched the jury selection too and saw how they were picked. I will never understand how things went so wrong with this case that the jury acquitted Casey of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse.
 
Puhleeze, they weren't following the rules let alone any laws! I really wish someone could explain how this happened in a way that I could understand, these people all function in the world but they could not connect the dots or figure out 1+1=2. :no: :no: :no:

I originally had some sympathy for the final holdout juror, no more. The more I think about it he didn't holdout anywhere near long enough.
Of course, this is my opinion, because who else's would I be posting, but I think this happened because one person (or twoish) made the decision and everyone else thought if he/she thought it or said it, it must be right. I believe the effect of sequestration in this case was to meld twelve individuals into one unified group which followed the leader...it's leader. I think that pleasing the group became more important than rendering justice and I think the leader didn't want to convict KC, for whatever reason, so the group didn't.
 
I give them a 2....
Only because they "thought" Casey may have had a hand in her death...!!!

Here in Toledo,Ohio ....A murderer got off on a hung jury after ONE day of diliberation... WTF...Send them back into diliberations.... I guess you have to be caught on camera doing the crime anymore..!!!
People/jurors just don't seem to want to be bothered with a trial anymore... Probably because they expect "big" evidence like on the TV shows.....!!!
Laws need to change.... No more throwing outright lies in an opening statement for one!!!

I've had it with the system.....
 
..NO kidding!

..don't you need tissue/organs to determine if a dead body has been "well nourished" or not???

..note to dr. reichs------there was a skull in a garbage bag,with duct tape on the face---overlooking the swamp where the "rest of the body-----random bones" were strewn about by animals.

..scattered chewed on bones here, there and everywhere could tell her this??

..as for the abuse----again, ok, there were clearly no broken bones, with evidence of previous fractures------there was also NO tissue to see if there were/weren't bruises/contusions/defensive wounds /scratches...

( all things learned from watching---"her" show! )

..if THIS is how she promotes her new book, throwing caylee's name into the article somewhere...she's seriously pathetic.

Some jurors appraisal of the good mother thingie is really mind boggling. People who saw her occasionally with her child said that. Maybe she was, mostly, but if she was such a good mother, how did her baby end up dead in her trunk and dumped in a swamp? Can someone please explain the jury's reasoning on this one? Ok, maybe she was a good mother...even though someone else was supporting her child, providing housing for her child, food and toys and transportation, and even though the "good mom" wasn't even working one job herself to help, or going to school, or telling the truth about either, and even though she routinely lied about the child's location and welfare and, BEST case scenario, didn't lift a finger to dial 911 to get emergency help for her just drowned child...or give her a proper funeral IF there was an accident. Maybe noone saw abuse. Maybe there was no abuse...until whatever happened. But how could a jury who judged George guilty of abuse with no proof whatever, be so clear that KC wasn't with so much proof she was...at least one time?
 
I read the People.com article after seeing it mentioned on HLN today. The more the jurors speak out, the more astonished I am at these people. And I watched the jury selection too and saw how they were picked. I will never understand how things went so wrong with this case that the jury acquitted Casey of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse.

Everything went wrong..
-Jurors who don't read the paper or watch the news.. not concerned about their surroundings.. (not interested, lame)
-Jurors got buffaloed (sp) into drama..
-Although, Casey was indigent, she had people monitoring the social websites and texting Bozo... Which Ashton caught and brought to Judge Perry's attention.. and nothing done about it!!!
-The immediate family change on the prosecution towards the end of the trial...

Just for starters............
 
Another sensational trial I recall was the Manson trial back in the 70s. During the trial, a defense lawyer went missing and later was found dead. The District Attorney and his family were receiving death threats. Charles Manson held up a newspaper in front of the jury with the headline quoting Pres. Nixon saying Manson was guilty. No one knows how Charlie got hold of that newspaper. And...the Manson jurors were sequestered for 7 months. But they voted guilty of first degree murder for all of the defendants, and DP for all.

Sequestration would not be easy for most people but it is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing. And antics of defendants and/or attorneys in court should not sway Justice.

To the juror who has spoken to PEOPLE Magazine ...you are obviously second-guessing yourself. I wonder how many of the others have done so. I mean, in their own heads and in their hearts...because I doubt any of the Pinellas 12 will be brave enough to come forward with regret for the egregious mistake they made. Even you, the one who is second-guessing, are trying to excuse your poor judgment by blaming some law for making you do it. Well, dude, I read the jury instructions and there is no law listed that could make you do this. In fact, you did not follow the law at all...and ya know what? The instructions weren't even all that difficult to understand! You just couldn't take the time, because others on the panel did not want to take the time, to see that justice was served.

I have no sympathy for you. You know what you did was wrong. Whether you will ever admit it publicly or not...you know it was wrong!!!
 
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 ↓
»
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.

..i am interested in hearing how the (anonymous) juror will explain this one..

..we already KNOW that they had all of the physical evidence (except for the cans w/ carpet samples) in the jury room with them..

..but, we also KNOW that the jury room wasn't equipped to listen to any of the jail calls, 911 calls, view the jail-visit videos, any videos, view pics, slideshows of experts, have portions of transcripts of ANY witness read back to them....ETC.....that was all left out in the courtroom.

( all they had to do was buzz for the bailiff--and they would have had any of the above.)

..we also KNOW that they could have called for judgeP at any time ----if they needed clarification on the law.

( all they had to do was buzz for the bailiff and judgeP would have come immediatley.)

..and we KNOW that they didn't buzz for the bailiff---for ANY of it!

..b/c on 'live' WFTV "verdict watch" bill sheaffer explained that a "buzz"---and we would all be going-- "live to the courtroom" !!-- to see what the jury wanted......testimony? judgeP? a video??.......never happened.

..the 1st and ONLY buzz-----was "we have a verdict".

..wow---for people that say they hadn't heard much at all about the case going in---and they were NOT allowed to discuss it ever----it's amazing!! that they retained ALL of that testimony---experts on the stand for DAYS---HOURS of jail visits----ughhhh....

..minds like steel traps!!!!

..yes----i really want to hear "part 2" of the juror interview with steveH of people mag....( to find out WTF they DID look at..)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
181
Total visitors
269

Forum statistics

Threads
608,901
Messages
18,247,492
Members
234,497
Latest member
SolAndroid
Back
Top