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

[KathrynL]

". . . Yes, we all believe, and I'm pretty sure I can say this for all 17 [jurors], there was some sort of horrific accident. The family knows a lot more than what came out at the trial," Hueckler believes, "but [the prosecution] didn't prove that there was a murder."

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/199880/8/Juror-Prosecution-failed-to-prove-murder

IMO, a person who had not spoken one single word to any of the other 16 people wouldn't frame a statement this way. He would have had no idea how they came to their decision nor whether or not they thought it was an accident.

Either the trial was discussed in his presence, against all orders, or else he is guilty of magical thinking. :cow:

Thanks for the link, even tho the article it made me :sick:

 

[Rapunzel]

JP asked them everyday, after every break, if they followed his "previous admonitions"-- did they not know wth an admonition was?

This RH fellow is horribly deficient, imo.

Would you have felt the same way if the verdict had been guilty? Just wondering...

Of course not...:crazy:...LOL...just being honest.

 

[LambChop]

If their intial vote showed they all felt "not guilty" was proven, are they expected to stay in there for days and try to convince each other of guilt?

You are absolutely right. But for the sake of the victum they should have just taken a little more time and gone through some of the state's evidence. I for one said if I had been on the jury and questioned the stain on the carpet I would want to see it first hand. The alternate admits doubting there was a stain which brought to doubt there was ever a body in the car. Leaving the open question as to how Caylee's body was transported down the street. The state had the evidence the jury did not want to be bothered to look at it in greater detail.

I think they collectively agreed it was an accident that was made to look like a murder (stated by the alternate). Who would do that? Why when KC was given numerous chances to tell the truth (if it were actually an accident) would she lie about it? Three or four police officers at the home that night did not notice the smell of the car and did the jury base their decision on this discounting an expert on decomposition who smelled numerous dead bodies, 2 dogs, the dog's handler (an expert on the smell), all the officers assigned to the garage bay, CA, GA, the tow yard manager, etc.

If there had been a quick decision on KC being found guilty it would be understandable because it would have been clear they paid attention to the State's case. Instead the alternate juror communicated they were more fixated on the level of this family's dysfunction and washed their hands of the whole matter. They were clearly distracted from what should have been their main focus. It is what it is. jmo

 

[KathrynL]

I also want to add that if they had come to a fast 1st degree verdict, there are any number of remedies for the defendant. 1-the judge finds their verdict is not supported by facts in evidence and overturns their verdict. 2. grants a mistrial request before publishing the verdict. 3. the appeals process.

And I want to take a moment to thank all of you. Being here to hash it out is helping me tremendously. Last night I wanted to crawl under the covers and not come out for a very long time.

 

[kathyn2]

After reading and listening to that Heukler fellow it seems they bought the defense opening statement from the get go. They took that as evidence when they shouldn't have.

They also noticed the great family dysfunction and think the whole family was in on it and that it was an accident the family was hiding. Now that I have seen that I have a greater understanding of how they came to this point of view. They do not know this family like we do. They only could see for themselves Cindy lying and George also looked like he was lying about the affair and seemed too defensive about other things. They figure they were in on the accident.

The truth is, they were dysfunctional. And I believe Cindy knew KC killed Caylee from the get go. I think Cindy is as sick as Casey and that Casey gets her dysfunction from her mother. Cindy knew KC did this. She smelled the dead body and she cleaned up all the evidence inside and out to protect KC. Thats where the jury got it wrong. They don't realize that Cindy always got KC out of her jams and thats what she did here.

Unfortunately the prosecution did not explain this family and portrayed them as a happy family except for this weird KC. That was not the case. Altho perhaps if the prosecution has shown the families great dysfunction that would have made the jury think they were all involved too.

I hope the prosecution does bring Cindy up on perjury charges. She really did a disservice to this case and I wish she could also be arrested for the coverup she did. Jeff Ashton said their department was thinking of bringing charges. I don't know how she lives with herself. She didn't deserve Caylee in her life.

 

[Maia]

I have always believed that some if not most of the jurors knew way more about this case before they were picked. I mean did these 12 people live in a cave? I think not. I can not believe for one nano second that all 12 went into that room and there was not one holdout.

BBM:

I'm sorry sunsetbeach, but I have to respectfully dissagree with your statement bolded above. IMO, if any of the jurors had known more about this case, even just a small fragment of what we know, before they were picked there would have either been a different verdict, a hung jury, or they would still be deliberating. I truly believe they were speaking about the case amongst themselves before deliberations and had already made up their minds. If there were any holdouts, the others knew who to work on. They simply wanted to go home.

All JMO of course.

 

[Brattigirle]

I don't know what happened, but I think they did talk to each other. A few things really bothered me about what this alternate said. Aside from the we's instead of I's, he quoted RC about the "snowballed out of control", the jury was told they were not supposed to consider that testimony as any proof of how Caylee died. It also sounds like they did use the opening statement as evidence, the only other reason was because GA "acted weird". Did they never consider why he would act weird with JB after the accusations that JB was throwing out? Who wouldn't be mad and defensive after being accused of something like that.

I know we have all put so much more thought into this case than the jury did and it is so sad. Maybe they shouldn't have been going out to "special events" baseball games, bowling, special dinners every night. They should have had to sit around and reflect on what they heard in court each day.
I bet none of them will be reading about the case or researching it on their own tonight, tomorrow, or ever. They didn't care enough to look at all the evidence when it was right there in front of them, why would they want to know more about it now. I always had a bad feeling when I heard them always asking for a "special" break and laughing. I think they made their mind up VERY early on in the case.

I also think it went back to jury selection.... they pick people who don't care about what is going on in the world. People who don't care about or ever watch any news. People who sound like they have no kind of person belief or convictions at all. How do you feel about the death penalty? "oh i dont know never thought about it"..... So you want people on a jury who don't think about pretty much anything. People who are gullible enough to believe that people do cover up accidents to look like murder.

Oh one more thing about what this juror said.... something along the lines of "if this ex cop found the car and smelled death he would have surely called the cops". But in the next breath he thinks it IS reasonable that this ex-cop found his grand daughter who accidently drowned in the pool and put duct tape on her and threw her body in a swamp?!?!?!?!?!? I do not understand how this is REASONABLE doubt.

I Pray that this case haunts them for years to come.:maddening:

 

[Maia]

Would you have felt the same way if the verdict had been guilty? Just wondering...

I believe if the verdict had been "guilty", we would know that justice had been served for Caylee...not sitting here with heavy hearts trying to figure out why it was not.

JMO

 

[celticthyme]

So every time the jury returned to court, and JBP asked if they had "heeded his admonition to not discuss the case etc" they lied. I guess as upside down everything else has been with this case, we shouldn't be surprised.

Things are much easier to evaluate in hindsight, but rushing to get a jury, get the trial over with quickly,work through w/e's & holidays was all for nothing. From the start they paid little or no attention to the evidence and expert witnesses. JP's efforts to save $$, at every turn backfired. So I agree with many others, that this case was lost before it started, with the chosen jury members.

 

[MaryAnn]

I also think that with this Jury they were looking for an excuse to not convict ICA. They had their doubts about GA and then River/Crystal hammered the last nail in this coffin by demanding that GA said it was a accident that went out of control. The statement was taken out of context, but I don't think the Jury cared. Because none of them knew what we know, I also think they thought GA was being defiant and they didn't like it and probably thought he was showing signs of guilt. Since they didn't look at the evidence this is all I can figure as to not go out of my mind. I've been so sad since yesterday. It's worse because ICA thinks she is above everyone, (JA saying how smart she is) so now she's thinking hehe I have fooled everyone! ICA is probably so proud. She sure is one good liar isn't she??

 

[debbie0604]

I think they did. The alternate juror was not involved in deliberations. He said he was in agreement with the verdict. He kept talking as if "we" could not see any evidence of a body in the car. JP removed the alternates when the jury began deliberations. Something stinky in this picture IMO.

 

[GreenTeam]

I find it so hard to believe that the 12+ of them independently bought JB's pack of lies. And that not one of them asked any questions or reviewed evidence. And that not one of them encouraged the others to think more carefully about the verdict. It seems very suspicious to me!!!!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

It has just occurred to me that all of the THs on TV are taking this alternate juror's words and running with them as though they are factual. Don't the THs realize that the alternate juror has not spoken to a single person who deliberated (at least not when he released his statement), so how could his words possibly be the basis for their comments on the jury's reactions? Or the alternate juror did talk to them all before deliberation ~ and the THs are purposefully ignoring the implications of jury misconduct. In either case, their discussions on their programs are meaningless and/or biased. It's another disappointment to me.

 

[TexanMom]

I think the only deliberating this jury did had to do with media packets!

 

[KMouse]

As someone said today, "Well, we can always wait ten years and bust her for stealing memorabilia."

That may just happen and we won't have to wait ten years.

There's "memorabilia" galore over on Hopespring Drive. There are two people who are going to probably fight tooth and nail over it. Cindy and Casey.
If you think the fight on June 15, 2008 was a good one.....

 

[KMouse]

I think they did. The alternate juror was not involved in deliberations. He said he was in agreement with the verdict. He kept talking as if "we" could not see any evidence of a body in the car. JP removed the alternates when the jury began deliberations. Something stinky in this picture IMO.

it stinks more than a can of trunk liner.

 

[SarahEcho]

It has just occurred to me that all of the THs on TV are taking this alternate juror's words and running with them as though they are factual. Don't the THs realize that the alternate juror has not spoken to a single person who deliberated (at least not when he released his statement), so how could his words possibly be the basis for their comments on the jury's reactions? Or the alternate juror did talk to them all before deliberation ~ and the THs are purposefully ignoring the implications of jury misconduct. In either case, their discussions on their programs are meaningless and/or biased. It's another disappointment to me.

Is anyone aware that the jurors were free to speak when released from duty? They were all bunking at the same hotel as well as sharing transportation and probably had more than a few minutes to say goodbye, decompress and finally feel relief to share some thoughts with each other.

Oh wait, that doesn't fit the ignorant/biased/greedy/lazy jurors theories.

Not directed at you personally, ExpectingUnicorns.

 

[4Jacy]

There were 7 women on the jury, of course they talked about it. :banghead:

 

[Quiche]

If their intial vote showed they all felt "not guilty" was proven, are they expected to stay in there for days and try to convince each other of guilt?

They have a duty to reevaluate the evidence, that's for sure. mo

 

[cluciano63]

They have a duty to reevaluate the evidence, that's for sure. mo

If they are all in agreement? They were all in the courtroom for over a month, they all heard the same things, and if they all came out with the same conclusion, why would they need to go over the evidence?