What, just because he was chosen for jury duty makes him above embellishment and we should simply take everything he says at face value? Why?
If he had 400 pages of notes he would have given that really important thing called deliberation a bit more time. Heck how long would it take to review 400 pages? It doesn't add up. He seemed uninformed for a guy with 400 pages of notes. If he were that diligent, he would have understood the judge's instructions.
It's deductive reasoning...something the jury was incapable of apparently.
I agree, why take 400 pages of notes, then? my understanding is that they had to turn in their notebooks to a "guard-type" court personnel at the end of each day of the trial, so he could not have reviewed them any time during the 6-week trial period, until the day deliberations began. Why take 400 pages of notes, and then not take the time necessary to actually "review" them?? Unless he was taking them for another reason, like to write a book or something possibly?? Also, IMO from "lots" of people who where in the courtroom (I understand they are THs, but they were consistent in this), NOT MANY JURORS WERE TAKING NOTES. Did he say to the other jurors "I am the foreman, I got this, I'll take all the notes, you all just listen" ?? I never understood why people kept mentioning this jury was not taking many notes. Granted, often taking notes can cause you to miss some evidence, and there are times when taking notes might not be appropriate, especially while watching, say, all the videotaped phone calls because you can always ask to see them again during deliberations. But there is NO WAY any juror could remember 6 weeks of testimony, without asking for any read-backs of evidence, without asking to look at any evidence again, etc. I pretty much watched this whole trial streaming on the internet, and there was a lot of evidence I forgot about, even with being able myself to read about it here in the evenings, or watch TV to see what was presented during that day, to re-inforce my memory. And I must say I do have an excellent memory (it is better now that I am taking new meds than it was 3 years ago :floorlaugh: mind you) but there is no way I could remember what was presented by both sides during 6 weeks of testimony without some type of review. Did he overrun the other jurors since he was the "foreman" and tell them all how this would be?? Did he totally overpower these others jurors? and then in deliberations, did he tell them all how their deliberations would go? Was any juror allowed to voice their own opinions without feeling intimidated by him? Did he just give them all his "interpretation" of the Juror Instructions?? Seriously. 400 pages of notes, for what, is my question?? I do not see any real way he could have reviewed or used these many notes during their deliberations.
I would really like to hear from some of the other jurors as to how their deliberations were really run.
Also, why were some considering the DP during the guilty/not guity verdict? Isn't that a 'Juror Instruction" that they are NOT to consider the ultimate punishment during the initial deliberations? I realize it would be in the back of your mind, but technically it is just not allowed. The same as the Judge's Instruction about River's testimony, how they were to use that. This jury really did not follow the instructions, IMO, that is where my anger comes in. And now to hear the few that are talking, it just furthers in my mind that they did not understand exactly what they were there to do. I got more angry about the verdict once these jurors started talking, once I see what appears to have gone on in there using my own Common Sense. IMO, MOO, etc.
