Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[LambChop]

The fact that they bought into JB's "friends" act is quite disturbing ,IMO. Couldn't they see that he was doing it to sway their vote?

I do hope JA discusses the courtroom demeanor between the jurors and all the lawyers. Just recalling the smarmy way JB talked to the female potential jurors,and even some of the men :sick: " May I call you juror # 19324? "
makes my skin crawl. I really never expected them to like him.

I hope the book reveals if or when the SA's knew the jurors were falling for the DT.
I don't like to wish away time, but I can't wait until this book comes out . I bought the hardcover,but I think I may have to buy it for my Kindle ,also ,so I get to read it right away.:woohoo:

It must have been pretty early on because I remember seeing LDB sitting there with her arms crossed and a frown on her face and I wondered what is going on, what did I miss? Hope that is in his book, too. Did SA know they were losing the jury because of the opening statement? This was definitely a "lead me by the hand" jury and I think that is what he will say. jmo

 

[2goldfish]

It must have been pretty early on because I remember seeing LDB sitting there with her arms crossed and a frown on her face and I wondered what is going on, what did I miss? Hope that is in his book, too. Did SA know they were losing the jury because of the opening statement? This was definitely a "lead me by the hand" jury and I think that is what he will say. jmo

I think LDB suspected what kind of jury she had when I think back to her CS about common sense.

I hope very much that when she retires that she also writes a book. I would love, absolutely love, to know what things she would have asked OCA if OCA took the stand.

I just got a kindle and I am hoping the UK amazon sells JA's book on kindle, it's got the hardcover up now but nothing else. I simply dont think I can wait til it arrives as I suspect it's coming from the states

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I think this foreman DID NOT LIKE Ashton and he did as much as he could to influence others.

Respectfully snipped for space :

I totally agree ! And this is WHY I cannot wait to see what Mr. Ashton has to say about this Jury ...

I hope Mr. Ashton "does NOT hold back" when it comes to his "commentaries" on the Jury's decision ...

The release of his book canNOT come fast enough for me ...

MOO ...

 

[JennaB]

I think LDB suspected what kind of jury she had when I think back to her CS about common sense.

I hope very much that when she retires that she also writes a book. I would love, absolutely love, to know what things she would have asked OCA if OCA took the stand.

I just got a kindle and I am hoping the UK amazon sells JA's book on kindle, it's got the hardcover up now but nothing else. I simply dont think I can wait til it arrives as I suspect it's coming from the states

I also think LDB knew about the jury early on. I also hope she writes a book later on or maybe does some interviews. I would also like to hear from Frank about the case.

 

[yolorado]

I also think LDB knew about the jury early on. I also hope she writes a book later on or maybe does some interviews. I would also like to hear from Frank about the case.

It was probably the day that the jury went out to begin deliberations or a day or two, give or take, before or after, that Jean Cassarass voiced her opinion that the jury liked Baez. I remember being completely shocked. How on earth could twelve people possibly like this man with his obvious dissembling and his throwing witnesses under the bus, saying they did things he never provided one ounce of evidence to support?! How could they not be put off by his constant smirking and disrespect to the judge, prosecutors and witnesses? How could they not see he was feeding them fantasies?! I thought JC was wrong. Then, she explained with her comment about the jury's response to Baez's good morning and I was a little worried. Still, it was inconceivable to me that 12 people couldn't see through Baez's hocus pocus and falsehoods. Well, I was wrong. I will never get it, will never understand how these people let KC get away with killing her child or how they let Baez get away with facilitating her getting away with it. To me, the prosecution was nearly perfect. They had the best lawyers and all the evidence in the world. I will never get where this jury came from, or accept their verdict. They were wrong, just plain wrong. Like others, I really hope that JA gives us his insights and opinions as to what was or might have been going on with the PC 12.

 

[zippitydoda]

I thought I'd bump this thread with some good news, rather than the latest baloney about seizures and Dr. Phil...here is a present that Amazon just sent me:

The item(s) listed below will actually ship sooner than we originally expected based on the new release date:

Jeff Ashton "Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony"
Previous estimated arrival date: December 05 2011 - December 07 2011
New estimated arrival date: December 02 2011 - December 06 2011

Please excuse me while I get back to my happy dance.

p.s. I just hit 400 posts - whoopie!!!!

 

[JSR]

To Believe 09:

If it were, as you say, Baez' expertise that got KC off, I would agree. I don't always see eye to eye with the posters here. But that is not the reason KC got off. There was an genuine dislike for the prosecution and we know that because the first second juror interviewed said so by telling us they did not like that he did not say good morning to them.

This case was clear cut and there was a plethora of circumstantial evidence to convict to have an abiding conviction (which one juror basically says she had) but that they had no DNA.

You need a swine to show you where the truffles are!

Baez stumbled and fumbled up to the end and he opened with an egregious lie which he knew was a lie because we never heard about it again.

IMO I've always thought this jury's huge dislike for JA was because they resented the fact they couldn't keep up with JA's line of thinking, questioning, and brilliance. This jury couldn't possibly have any ability of understanding the evidence presented in Court, not even if little stick figures were being drawn for them all along. JB and his simple and dumbed down approach is what got Casey off on murder. I say all the above because based on hearing Jennifer Ford's interview and the Jury foreman's interview neither one of them were very articulate and it's apparent they would rather side with a absolutely ludicrous theory the DT presented than a theory that would require them to use critical thinking and reasoning.

I just hope this jury is not an indication of the critical thinking of our society as a whole and that it was just some fluke that these people combined to make the "Pinellas 12".

There is literally so much that this jury did wrong and how they came to their verdict. I wonder what they would think if HHJP schooled them on just how wrong they evaluated evidence and how wrong they were to not consider the 31 days among all the other mountain of evidence.

But what I really want to know is how any of the Pinellas 12 can sleep at night?

It makes me so furious how they didn't listen to a word HHJP said when he was reading the jury instructions.

And I truly hope JA discusses this jury and his impressions of them. The only thing JA and the rest of the SA's could have done to change the outcome of this case is if an entirely new trial was set and we got a normal jury seated. It's clear this jury didn't listen to HHJP or his instructions and discussed this case early on during the trial.

And if it's true as speculated in this thread that the jury foreman strong armed this jury to vote NG because he wanted to be spiteful towards JA, then I hope Karma gives a quick visit to him as well.

 

[MarthaM]

I sat on a jury about 10 years ago, and we didn't care for the defense attorney in that case. So yes, juries do form opinions of the attorneys and witnesses. I think it's very common. I don't think that a jury is going to just acquit a defendant because they don't like the prosecutor, but an attorney's behavior does a lot to either bolster or weaken his credibility with a jury.

 

[Cherry Ames]

Still waiting for October and those jury names. We HAVEN'T forgotten!

 

[LambChop]

I would hope these jurors did come forward even just to understand what went wrong. One thing is obvious. The jury foreman did not understand some of the materials presented by JA but complained JA did not say good morning to him so this was his reasoning for not liking him. Mr. Jury Foreman did, however, like JB because he did say good morning to him. Translation: Could the foreman have been intiminated by the fact that even though he was pursuing his masters he realized this man, JA, is far superior in intelligence than he is and that JB who he liked because he was able to understand since JB was talking at a lower level anyone could understand.

When JA was asking questions during the Frye hearings I had to come here to get explanations as to what he was saying because he was so far over my head. So I could see an ego problem growing as the days went by with the trial if the foreman had issues. lol

 

[MarthaM]

I would hope these jurors did come forward even just to understand what went wrong. One thing is obvious. The jury foreman did not understand some of the materials presented by JA but complained JA did not say good morning to him so this was his reasoning for not liking him. Mr. Jury Foreman did, however, like JB because he did say good morning to him. Translation: Could the foreman have been intiminated by the fact that even though he was pursuing his masters he realized this man, JA, is far superior in intelligence than he is and that JB who he liked because he was able to understand since JB was talking at a lower level anyone could understand.

When JA was asking questions during the Frye hearings I had to come here to get explanations as to what he was saying because he was so far over my head. So I could see an ego problem growing as the days went by with the trial if the foreman had issues. lol

I doubt the foreman or any other juror spent any time wondering if a prosecutor or defense attorney was more or less intelligent than themselves. I think the jurors are all smart enough to realize that the courtroom was judge's and lawyers' domain, and wasted no time rating anyone's intelligence against anyone else's.

I think the foreman didn't like the way Ashton came across. He rubbed him the wrong way. Had the prosecution presented a strong enough case, though, I really don't see a jury just flippantly deciding to acquit because of that.

Perhaps Ashton will discuss when (if at all) during the trial he sensed that he was losing the jury.

 

[MarthaM]

Still waiting for October and those jury names. We HAVEN'T forgotten!

I've always wondered, not just with this case, why anybody needs to know any juror's names. What would be the purpose of that?

I hope Ashton doesn't use any of their names in his book, that's for sure. I can't imagine that he would.

 

[LambChop]

I doubt the foreman or any other juror spent any time wondering if a prosecutor or defense attorney was more or less intelligent than themselves. I think the jurors are all smart enough to realize that the courtroom was judge's and lawyers' domain, and wasted no time rating anyone's intelligence against anyone else's.

I think the foreman didn't like the way Ashton came across. He rubbed him the wrong way. Had the prosecution presented a strong enough case, though, I really don't see a jury just flippantly deciding to acquit because of that.

Perhaps Ashton will discuss when (if at all) during the trial he sensed that he was losing the jury.

I just thought it was very odd for someone with a degree and studying for their masters would say something childish like....JA didn't say good morning. Also the judges instructions were very, very clear. Do not judge this case by the attorneys, judge on the evidence and yet that very comment was made. Apparently it was flippant because they had already made up their minds about the charges against her before they deliberated.

When the jury asked for 12 jurors to be named there was a problem. That's when the pecking order started. Let's hope the other jurors shed some light on what really happened in there. jmo

 

[margE]

I've always wondered, not just with this case, why anybody needs to know any juror's names. What would be the purpose of that?

I hope Ashton doesn't use any of their names in his book, that's for sure. I can't imagine that he would.

I really wouldn't expect that he would use their names. That information hasn't been released from the court yet, so I'm sure he wouldn't be allowed..

As far as wanting the jurors names, I really don't care myself. But I think the main reason they want to know would be to check basic background information . I'm sure it wouldn't be for the purpose to hunt them down to harm them.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I've always wondered, not just with this case, why anybody needs to know any juror's names. What would be the purpose of that?

I hope Ashton doesn't use any of their names in his book, that's for sure. I can't imagine that he would.

BBM
Well, while I believe there may be concerns, ultimately we in the US live in a country that supports disclosure of this information. There are no star chambers - so what supported the rights of FICA also supports the rights of the rest of the population. I actually would be quite disturbed if our system of jurisprudence were conducted behind closed doors. I actually find calls for anonymity regarding this information to be a bit disturbing. Even in a modified environment picking and choosing of the dissemination of this information would be left up to whom? The prevailing wisdom of the political designees in power? I find that quite, no, extremely disturbing.

 

[MarthaM]

I really wouldn't expect that he would use their names. That information hasn't been released from the court yet, so I'm sure he wouldn't be allowed..

Yes. I should have phrased that 'once they're released' (if they are). If they're not released, then I'm sure he wouldn't use them.

As far as wanting the jurors names, I really don't care myself. But I think the main reason they want to know would be to check basic background information . I'm sure it wouldn't be for the purpose to hunt them down to harm them.

I'm not so sure about that. But leaving the notion of physical harm aside, I can picture tons of people wearing out Google and other search engines if the names are released. And I think that's every bit as harmful.

 

[margE]

Yes. I should have phrased that 'once they're released' (if they are). If they're not released, then I'm sure he wouldn't use them.

If the names are released beforehand, what would it matter if he did include them in the book?

 

[MarthaM]

If the names are released beforehand, what would it matter if he did include them in the book?

I think that would be incredibly tacky. And vindictive. I would hope he's above participating in the circus that would result from their names being made public. He can refer to 'the jury foreman' or 'one juror said'.

I also think the internet has changed the rules of the game when it comes to releasing jurors' names. Serving on a jury in a high-profile trial nowadays is very different than it was even a decade or two ago.

 

[Well Done 99]

Although I can't see any harm in it, I don't believe he would waste space in his book just for the sake of listing the names. Maybe he'd use a name if it pertained to something specific that happened.

 

[margE]

Although I can't see any harm in it, I don't believe he would waste space in his book just for the sake of listing the names. Maybe he'd use a name if it pertained to something specific that happened.

Thanks. You took the words out of my mouth.