Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[Salem]

You guys are way off topic and there is a lot of name calling going on. If you don't see your post - it is because I just removed it.

Get back to discussing the book and leave name calling out of your posts!

Salem

 

[com n sense]

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

ITA LC & think you are onto something here. The foreman was very childish & insecure. I guess he wanted to show JA who the boss really was & he had the last say.:banghead: Too bad the rest were followers.

 

[Anakerie]

I received an email from Amazon today with an updated release/shipping 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
​

I'm really looking forward to reading this book!

 

[MarthaM]

I bet those who preordered it will get it either on the release date or the next day. Maybe even the day before.

Some of my reading friends order from Amazon, and they always get a 'hot' new release in the mail on the same day it's put out in bookstores. I think Amazon can mail them out a day or two early and not violate the release date.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I've never anticipated any book release more than I do this one. I look forward to what Jeff has to say about the trial, and many of the things that went on behind the scenes. Whatever the cost or wait involved to get the book, I could care less. This one will have a place on my bookshelf forever.

 

[jaleigh]

ITA LC & think you are onto something here. The foreman was very childish & insecure. I guess he wanted to show JA who the boss really was & he had the last say.:banghead: Too bad the rest were followers.

Thank you, com n sense. ditto ditto ditto

 

[jaleigh]

I've never anticipated any book release more than I do this one. I look forward to what Jeff has to say about the trial, and many of the things that went on behind the scenes. Whatever the cost or wait involved to get the book, I could care less. This one will have a place on my bookshelf forever.

I too am looking forward to recieving Jeff's book. I used to participate in a book club so reading Jeff's book and discussing it here with you posters will be interesting and fun.

 

[Whisperer]

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.

<modsnip> Darn case should have never been given the opportunity to go to that county. There was no reason it shouldn't have been held in Orlando. Most of those jurors knew the case very well and I could tell that not ONE of them were in favor of the DP. They were NOT death-qualified. The good-looking guy was like prey to her. He must have been swayed by the narcissist. Looking at her every day, he swooned and led the sheep astray.

There was a special on last week. I wish everyone had seen it. It was about crime. They posed three different types of criminals and had them blatantly stealing a bicycle. The last one was an attractive blond. Not only did the male passer-byes notice her stealing the bike, they helped her steal it. Their wives were calling LE at the time and the husbands were helping her saw the lock off the bike. Men have no common sense around young girls. I don't know what happened to those husbands but in my mind they're good as dead.

 

[Whisperer]

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 guess not reporting your baby missing at all, partying and having sex w/ a new guy you recently met, having the baby's hair and decomp in your trunk and wrapping her in garbage bags and placing her in the swamp to rot isn't enough these days.

 

[Well Done 99]

Darn case should have never been given the opportunity to go to that county. There was no reason it shouldn't have been held in Orlando. Most of those jurors knew the case very well and I could tell that not ONE of them were in favor of the DP. They were NOT death-qualified. The good-looking guy was like prey to her. He must have been swayed by the narcissist. Looking at her every day, he swooned and led the sheep astray.

+respectfully snipped and bbm+

I certainly agree with you there. and this is where I'm hoping JA might venture to, or at least touch on at some point in the book.
The good looker would've been like a sheep to a salivating wolf - dead meat - I wonder if it was him she had in her sights with those oh-so-innocent eyes when she looked over at them from time to time?

 

[TexanMom]

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 want to know the degrees of separation any of these jurors had with the DT. In my mind there was some sort of jury tampering. I will forever be convinced of it!

 

[TexanMom]

I guess not reporting your baby missing at all, partying and having sex w/ a new guy you recently met, having the baby's hair and decomp in your trunk and wrapping her in garbage bags and placing her in the swamp to rot isn't enough these days.

No ****! The evidence was pretty cut and dry for me! FFS, Caylee's skull had duct tape around it? That child didn't just up and duct tape herself! I better zip it now before I get a T/O!

 

[TexanMom]

+respectfully snipped and bbm+

I certainly agree with you there. and this is where I'm hoping JA might venture to, or at least touch on at some point in the book.
The good looker would've been like a sheep to a salivating wolf - dead meat - I wonder if it was him she had in her sights with those oh-so-innocent eyes when she looked over at them from time to time?

I would venture a guess that Mr. Jury Foreman was thinking with the brain, "below his belt?"

 

[Well Done 99]

I would venture a guess that Mr. Jury Foreman was thinking with the brain, "below his belt?"

:floorlaugh: I'd bet she was thinking "below his belt" too

 

[MissJames]

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.

For me it's about shedding a light on the process. As with anything in our judicial system ,there is always the opportunity for fraud ,bribery or abuse . That's why everything remains open and above board ,even the names of jurors.

Suppose a neighbor ,who has always struggled pay check to pay check,suddenly trades in their Kia for a new Mercedes.Then you discover they were a juror in a high profile case with an unexpected outcome. Maybe a call to the DA's office is in order .

When jurors ,in any case , know they will be scrutinized ,there is less chance for abuse.

Just my take............

 

[MissJames]

I guess not reporting your baby missing at all, partying and having sex w/ a new guy you recently met, having the baby's hair and decomp in your trunk and wrapping her in garbage bags and placing her in the swamp to rot isn't enough these days.

You left out 3 strips of duct tape across her face :maddening:. I'll just skip the chloroform,since that seems to be a sticking point for some,although I find it a key piece of evidence.

 

[MissJames]

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.

If the DT can use googling PT jurors names to make a selection in their favor ,the public should be able to google them ,also.

This is not supposed to be a secret process. The courtroom was filled with people who saw the jurors. Trials are open to the public for a reason.

Bottom line,like it or not,they are responsible for their actions and the results . Nothing should be hidden,or the opportunity for jury tampering would be rampant. And let's face it ,that DT isn't exactly ethical .
Even other attorney's have questioned their actions in this case.

 

[logicalgirl]

If the DT can use googling PT jurors names to make a selection in their favor ,the public should be able to google them ,also.

This is not supposed to be a secret process. The courtroom was filled with people who saw the jurors. Trials are open to the public for a reason.

Bottom line,like it or not,they are responsible for their actions and the results . Nothing should be hidden,or the opportunity for jury tampering would be rampant. And let's face it ,that DT isn't exactly ethical .
Even other attorney's have questioned their actions in this case.

I guess what confuses me about these jurors is why not speak out? They sat through the trial and came to a decision. It was their decision and only theirs. Those of us who watched the trial want to know why and how they came to their decision. Surely they made a decision in such an important matter as a child's death, with care and consideration and were aware of the responsibility and weight of their decisions. It was their responsibility to make the best decision they could and it is their responsibility to accept the results of their decision/action. Why hide now? If you believe what you decided, stand up for yourselves and your decision...

While I don't expect Jeff Ashton to name names of jurors in his book, I am hoping he will express an opinion as to why the jury voted the direction they did, and what he believes influenced them the most. I'm looking forward to this book more than most new releases - come on December!

 

[LambChop]

For me it's about shedding a light on the process. As with anything in our judicial system ,there is always the opportunity for fraud ,bribery or abuse . That's why everything remains open and above board ,even the names of jurors.

Suppose a neighbor ,who has always struggled pay check to pay check,suddenly trades in their Kia for a new Mercedes.Then you discover they were a juror in a high profile case with an unexpected outcome. Maybe a call to the DA's office is in order .

When jurors ,in any case , know they will be scrutinized ,there is less chance for abuse.

Just my take............

What bothers me is the free trip to Disney. The jury came back with the verdict late on Tuesday, they returned to their hotels and left on a bus for home. By Thursday morning it was already news that ABC had offered JF a free trip for her and members of her family to Disney. Within that timeframe she describes returning to her boyfriends home and sometime shortly after was asked to leave because of a disagreement, packed her things, left, was in transit somewhere and was still able to negotiated a trip to Disney at the same time. No one was suppose to know the names of the jurors yet ABC was right on it. I just think it is ironic that none of the others came forward and one even left the state because of her fear.

I also can't believe that a person who would volunteer to do someone else's laundry and would take the time and patience to fold everything, including his socks would not have spent the time to go over the evidence carefully to make sure they were making the right decision. Either way, if the jury had found KC guilty, or not guilty, there just was not enough time spent considering the fact that those who did speak up said they had questions. Something is off balance here.

Not sure this would be addressed in his book but JA had to have noticed something about this jury. jmo

 

[rossva]

I wonder how many people would be clamoring for the jurors names had Casey Anthony been found guilty on all charges? I imagine the entire 12 would have already been forgotten had that happened.

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.