Nikki 01
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,232
- Reaction score
- 1
No they never knew what was going on. I always wondered if they would think all of the delays during the defense case because the prosecution was trying to hide something.
Did Jurors Talk About Case during Trial Against Judge's Orders?
- Thread starter kathyn2
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
-
TN TN - Nashville, Sulphur Creek Rd, Blk/Hisp Fem 20-40, UP52531, Vandy clothes, Sep'18- Latest: BindingBloodline
grandmaj
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 43,414
- Reaction score
- 16
When Karen Levy the court coordinator met with the media this morning she mentioned that a few days ago all TV was taken away from the jurors because they found out some channels were picking up news from parent companies. So why didn't they declare a mistrial? What if these jurors were listening to JVM or Geraldo?
ladylurker
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 0
i don't even begin to understand... so even if there was misconduct, it's just... okay? how is this justice? i am so confused and disappointed and upset.
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???
uklaw
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 0
Not read post. But this is really neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things in this case.
A jury system does not require that jurors discuss case whilst ongoing to be fair. Indeed there were suggestions in Florida (I think includinf from OH Eaton) that jurors be allowed to do so.
A jury system does not require that jurors discuss case whilst ongoing to be fair. Indeed there were suggestions in Florida (I think includinf from OH Eaton) that jurors be allowed to do so.
Wholehearted
New Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 721
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm pretty sure they did discuss things amongst themselves. I think they went into that jury room decided, and decided to wait until today to announce it to make it look like they had put the time in to deliberate. They came in this morning dressed up. They knew they were going to announce their verdict. I think it's extremely possible that sequestration had the effect of bonding everyone to the extent that it would be really difficult to go against the grain. I think they made up their minds early on, and filtered everything they heard through that lens.
Obviously, this is all speculation and my opinion.
Obviously, this is all speculation and my opinion.
Mandy113
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2010
- Messages
- 838
- Reaction score
- -1
Why should I use common sense? The jury didn't.
(Sorry Olive ... no offense meant to you at all .... I'm just venting! )
kathyn2
Active Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,031
- Reaction score
- 26
I heard that from Karen Levy also that the jurors had seen things on TV that were 'crossed' or something from tv stations so they shut off all the tvs. But I still believe these jurors have been talking to each other thru this whole trial in each other's rooms. Do the guards keep them from each other's rooms? Do they each have their own room during the trial?
I voted yes....don't know for sure of course...but something happened...someone got to them or somehow they listened to the media who kept portraying KC as innocent or they listened to LKB...someone, somewhere, somehow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hornswoggled
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes I do think they ended up talking to each other. I say this because of the huge amount of "down time" while the attorneys battled out other issues in court. After hearing so much testimony, I do believe they started using their down time talking about what they had already heard. How else can such a quick verdict be reached when there was so much evidence to review. It feels like they didn't really review much evidence at all.
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,312
I think Judge Perry tried TOO hard not to have a mistrial...I don't think he ever considered there would be an acquittal...
So much for thinking so highly of JP ...IMO He seemed more concerned with moving it along instead of a truly unbiased judgment...IMO
rotterdam
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,998
- Reaction score
- 1
Yep, and I bet the tax payers cost issue weighted heavy on his mind.
Sure they talked beforehand. After hearing the alternate juror and his "we" comments, it is basic common sense.
Er..wait a minute... perhaps a LE officer forced him to say "we" not "I".
No wait- I know what it is, the juror was raised wrong and thinks "we" means "I". His parents did it.
Oh how silly of me, the person that was filming the original tape hid it and altered it. He said "I" but they dubbed in "we".
Nah, the juror is as pure as the driven snow.
Er..wait a minute... perhaps a LE officer forced him to say "we" not "I".
No wait- I know what it is, the juror was raised wrong and thinks "we" means "I". His parents did it.
Oh how silly of me, the person that was filming the original tape hid it and altered it. He said "I" but they dubbed in "we".
Nah, the juror is as pure as the driven snow.
newbeginnings
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe they discussed it. There's a reason they didn't to see a single piece of evidence while they deliberated - they had already decided among themselves.
Nikki 01
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,232
- Reaction score
- 1
I have to say I agree. In hindsight I think he was too worried about moving it along in jury selection and never got a properly death qualified jury.
I absolutely agree. When you have polls where 86% of people say she is guilty it makes no sense that 100% of the jury would disagree.