Did Jurors Talk About Case during Trial Against Judge's Orders?

[Sweet Fox]

What makes me so suspicious of these jurors is, it is all twelve, even some of the alternates (maybe all) not one, not one, with all the evidence presented, could give Caylee a little justice, so that her life would not be in vain. What was it Bill S. said, in 30 years he never seen a stronger circumstantial case, or words to that effect. You will never convince me that the fix was not in. Not with all the evidence. Their motive in my opinion is money. A guilty verdict would not serve their purpose. As always my opinion. I am truly disgusted.

I agree. These jurors took very little notes, if any, because they knew that had to come in with a non-guilty verdict in order to get big $$$ for interviews. And I believe some of them were aware of the bookers. This explains why they contacted HHJP and wanted to know which 12 were selected. They were more interested in knowing who made it and who would serve as an alternate.

I could be wrong but as I understand it, if the State can prove that the jury was contaminated, the State can retry the case and it would not be considered double jeoparty. i.e If the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or scam, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial. MOO

 

[cluciano63]

I agree. These jurors took very little notes, if any, because they knew that had to come in with a non-guilty verdict in order to get big $$$ for interviews. And I believe some of them were aware of the bookers. This explains why they contacted HHJP and wanted to know which 12 were selected. They were more interested in knowing who made it and who would serve as an alternate.

I could be wrong but as I understand it, if the State can prove that the jury was contaminated, the State can retry the case and it would not be considered double jeoparty. i.e If the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or scam, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial. MOO

No they can't retry her, no matter what the jury did or did not do.

 

[MEM2010]

did they release the name and photo of juror 6?? or is that just the site..

 

[Hisimage]

So if they decided to go ahead and talk and still vote NG , how do you think they can go home and face their families, and their co-workers. I'm not doubting you I just know I would be terrified to boldly disregard the judges orders and the law.

So my prayer now will be that one of those jury members caves. I want someone to be so overwhelmed with agony that they spill the beans. I would feel so much better. Why? I am beginning to feel that justice can be served but injustice pays for those who are greedy.

 

[Hisimage]

By the way, which one was juror 6 and what did he/she say.
We have the 3 who is going to disneyland.
We have the alternate who said it wasn't proven.
Now what did 6 do or say?

 

[Lorraining]

Here is another reason I think they talked.

I have been on two juries and the absolute worst part for me was not being able to talk about the cases. It was such a relief when we were finally released to deliberate and allowed to talk.

Yet the LAST thing this jury appeared to want to do was talk about the case. Ten-something hours of "deliberations" after such a long trial with so much evidence? Not a word to the media afterward?

No, they were plenty talked out by the time the "deliberations" began.

They're only talking now because of the public outrage.

MOO of course.

Izzy, excellent points and I agree with you. They were talking the whole time.

 

[Nikki 01]

By the way, which one was juror 6 and what did he/she say.
We have the 3 who is going to disneyland.
We have the alternate who said it wasn't proven.
Now what did 6 do or say?

6 reportedly has a publicist that went to the media and told them he is willing to speak, but only if he is compensated.

TMZ published the letter from the publicist.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0706_casey_letter_TMZ.pdf

 

[Sweet Fox]

No they can't retry her, no matter what the jury did or did not do.

I'm not so sure. What about the Aleman case? Aleman murdered a teamster named Billy Logan in Chicago. The Prosecutors had a very strong case including 2 eye witnesses. Aleman offered a bribe to the Judge and in return the Judge found Aleman not guilty. Sixteen years later, the truth about the bribe was exposed. Aleman was re-indicted for the murder of Logan and found guilty. Aleman's re-trial and subsequent conviction are historic as he was the first American to be retried for murder following a fraudulent first trial.

 

[cluciano63]

I'm not so sure. What about the Aleman case? Aleman murdered a teamster named Billy Logan in Chicago. The Prosecutors had a very strong case including 2 eye witnesses. Aleman offered a bribe to the Judge and in return the Judge found Aleman not guilty. Sixteen years later, the truth about the bribe was exposed. Aleman was re-indicted for the murder of Logan and found guilty. Aleman's re-trial and subsequent conviction are historic as he was the first American to be retried for murder following a fraudulent first trial.

Well maybe if they can prove Casey bribed the jury...but I don't think they will be able to prove she knew any jurors, etc...

 

[Sweet Fox]

I'm not saying KC bribe the jurors and I think you're missing the point. If the earlier trial is proven to be a fraud or scam, regardless as to the cause, double jeopardy will not prohibit a new trial.

 

[askfornina]

why would they purposefully come up with a not guilty verdict if they KNEW they were going to get publicly lynched? i do not think this was about "money" because there would have been money in this no matter WHAT. this jury saw what evidence they saw, decided on their verdict with the jury instructions in mind. listen to what the few of them are saying in their interviews. that is the truth. no conspiracy. no reason to lie.

no wonder so many of them are not speaking. i wouldn't want to speak either if i knew what i was saying would go in and out of so many ears.

 

[sparkysmom]

I just wish one of them would have been brave enough to hold out and end up with a hung jury rather than see a murderer set free. Then the state could have known their mindset and do it again.

 

[jjenny]

I'm not so sure. What about the Aleman case? Aleman murdered a teamster named Billy Logan in Chicago. The Prosecutors had a very strong case including 2 eye witnesses. Aleman offered a bribe to the Judge and in return the Judge found Aleman not guilty. Sixteen years later, the truth about the bribe was exposed. Aleman was re-indicted for the murder of Logan and found guilty. Aleman's re-trial and subsequent conviction are historic as he was the first American to be retried for murder following a fraudulent first trial.

I didn't know that. But absent outright fraud, it doesn't matter what the jury did or didn't do, because double jeopardy will apply.

 

[susan1122]

WOW!!! I have been living this trial and I cannot believe that I didn't hear that. I do not understand how that did not lead to an inquiry at the very least. How did this happen???

And they got newspapers......a week late, but still wrong, IMO. I really have to say WTH?

I hate to think this, but was HHJP so focused on not having a mistrial that he did not realize he needed to declare a mistrial??

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't think all of the jurors are going to be making big bucks off of this, simply because there are too many of them all having the same story to tell. It will come down to whoever contacts the networks/magazines/newspapers first, and is the most willing to "tell all" that will get the interview opportunity. There would be no point in a media outlet interviewing Juror X, who tells them exactly what went on during deliberations, and then paying more money to hear the same thing from every other juror.

The media can get their jury confession without paying them. People love to be on TV, and the media should not underestimate that. If a juror asks for a payment, the media should lie and say, "Well, Juror X agreed to do the interview for free, so we'll just go with him/her". The greedy juror will be, "No wait! I'll do it!" in a heartbeat.

 

[Nova24]

#3 has really made the rounds and #14 isn't far behind her. Another alternate said some were looking for IV, movie and book deals. I know #6 now wants 6 figures but the more the others talk the less interested people will be to pay big bucks. They all say the same thing anyway.

Interesting that TH before trial said they thought #3 and gov teacher really wanted on the jury and they are the 2 out there flapping their gums the most. I do think there are a few we will never hear from.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Movie deals? Are they delusional? A movie company does not have to pay the jury to make a movie about the trial/verdict. They don't own the rights to it. Plus, movies tend to be exaggerated so it doesn't really matter what exactly went on in that room; they'll write whatever makes it the most "Hollywood".

If they want a book deal, they better hurry up and sign that contract, because the market isn't big enough for 12 books by 12 jurors who are all going to be saying the same thing.

 

[Nova24]

I didn't understand the movie comment either but who knows with this debacle. lol

There is only a small window here and while some hold out for 6 figures others are going to swoop in and get the deal. All they really need is 1 or 2 at most from the jury. They will prob want one who stands behind the decision and another who regrets it now. Two of the same book just isn't needed.

 

[nomoresorrow]

How hard can it be to reenact 10 hours of deliberating - lunch & breaks, comes out to somewhere around 6 hours... that's the equivalent of about 10 seconds in a made-for-tv movie. Carp, they can use extras to make that scene!

 

[Paladine]

What makes me so suspicious of these jurors is, it is all twelve, even some of the alternates (maybe all) not one, not one, with all the evidence presented, could give Caylee a little justice, so that her life would not be in vain. What was it Bill S. said, in 30 years he never seen a stronger circumstantial case, or words to that effect. You will never convince me that the fix was not in. Not with all the evidence. Their motive in my opinion is money. A guilty verdict would not serve their purpose. As always my opinion. I am truly disgusted.

I was watching HLN yesterday and saw LKB talking about 'stealth' jurors'. She was not referring specifically to this case, but 'stealth jurors' instead, who go into the jury room to sway the others to their position so the 'stealth juror' can then make money off the GUILTY verdict, she said.

There were reports jurors were contacted by media between jury selection and serving...I have no link, if someone does, please post. (I'll read back for one, too) It just makes me wonder...they were 6-6 for manslaughter per Juror #2:

The next vote was on just that charge, aggravated manslaughter of a child. The vote was 6-6 for manslaughter. The two sides hardened. They started talking over one another. The jury foreman calmed them all down.

“The six that voted guilty said it didn’t matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing,” he said. “She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that’s where the negligence came in.”

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl’s death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...e-evidence-to-put-her-away-anthony-juror?bn=1

I don't believe the situation is simple or black and white. Could we have a few good souls who misinterpreted what their job was, and whose verdict might have been influenced by some bad advice from a couple of 'stealth jurors'? There were no questions asked of the court during deliberations, correct? If they had questions who was answering them? Who was guiding them and were they being guided as per jury instructions or otherwise?

This from May/11:

"There are going to be people who do everything they can to get on this case, because they want to write a book, they want their 15 minutes of fame, or they want to be on television," he said. "I worry about the jurors who are there for the wrong reasons."

"People who want to either set her free or send her to death row," said Politan.

But which side does the "stealth juror" favor? Black said he doesn't see a compelling story coming from the juror who sets Casey free.

Instead, he thinks the " good story" comes from the juror willing to convict.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...ing-for-stealth-jurors-in-Casey-Anthony-trial

But I was thinking, the 'stealth juror' could go either way, what about swaying for a NOT GUILTY verdict? Surely, that would be worth more money to media, a footloose and fancy-free ICA?

I am very happy they are releasing these jurors names, after a cooling off period. Something just smells funny...

ETA: there's even a how-to book:

A stealth juror is an ordinary citizen serving on a jury who understands and is not afraid to exercise his right to judge not only the evidence in a case but the very law upon which the prosecution is based. If the law is bad or unfair, he secretly works to acquit any defendant being persecuted for a nonviolent, victimless crime. He must remain undercover because he represents a direct threat to the power of judges and prosecutors. He is the last champion of justice in the American courtroom. This book will tell you exactly how to become a stealth juror, including how to get yourself seated on a jury where you can do the most good for just causes (from preserving gun rights to opposing the War on Drugs), recognize and avoid the games that lawyers and judges use to manipulate the outcome of a case, secretly win over your fellow jurors in the deliberation room and much more.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Juror-Ultimate-Defense-Government/dp/158160338X"]Amazon.com: Stealth Juror: The Ultimate Defense Against Bad Laws and Government Tyranny (9781581603385): Trent Hammerstein: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61sL1RCVFiL.@@AMEPARAM@@61sL1RCVFiL[/ame]