Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+respectfully snipped and bbm+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.
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 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.
+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?"
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 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.
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.
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............
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.