This is an indication of how strong an influence the internet and forums like this really do have. But the prosecution could have gotten lots of ideas from here as well, and maybe they did. At least, their theory echoed what many believed about the "Bella Vita" motive. The question is, why was it not believed?
according to the jurors interviewed so far:
1)the prosecution lawyers weren't as fun to watch as JB Inconsistent with instructions
2)George behaved badly on the stand Not evidence
3)they didn't want to be responsible for anybody's death without knowing "manner of death" of the victim HHJP told them not to consider this in the G/NG phase, IIRC
Ohhhhh the insanity!!!!
Another quote:
"I preferred to have people on the jury who didn't have children. All the bloggers kept saying, 'I'm a grandparent and if my grandkid went missing for three minutes I would know,' or, 'I'm a mother and I wouldn't be out partying if my daughter was missing.'
No one here should feel responsible AT ALL. Discussions were done here in good faith.
But here's my issue: every person that testifies... swears to tell the truth in that courtroom. But the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez team is not concerned with "truth." They are actually concocting stories as they go along...that Internet research tells them might just float. There's nothing about "truth" in that.
They realized George was vulnerable. BINGO! They made the man a child rapist. Didn't matter that it was a lie. George and Lee, no matter how anyone feels about them, will have to live the rest of their lives burdened by the lies of slick, saavy lawyers who came here and elsewhere to choose their Targets-to-Smear.
This is the Cheney Mason/Jose Baez approach to their jobs. Trial by trumped-up character assassination.
If the Internet was the origin for choosing Targets...then it would seem...everything they said was created by the jury consultant, not Casey.
Guess the bloggers weren't that idiotic.
But I've never understood this idea that the childless would be OK with the murder.
But doesn't this show that they were not presenting Casey's story? Is it legal for attorneys to make up the story as they go along...depending on vulnerabilities that their consultants feed them?
I think any good attorney adjusts his or her case as a trial proceeds, and not necessarily just because of clues they're getting to how their case is being received by outsiders. As evidence comes in and witnesses testify, things come up that give them an opportunity to focus on or even capitalize on certain elements of the case.
If anything, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of any attorney, especially in a complicated case, who has a specific outline and plan before the trial starts and never changes it.