everyoneneedsavoice
Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting, given that Eckstadt already gave an interview!
Hinky indeed......
Hinky indeed......
I don't think anyone wishes any harm to the jurors, but I think they should have to complete a homework assignment ...
Read this article (already posted in a couple of other WS forums):
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Then, stand up in front of the media and admit you made a mistake in this case by finding FCA not guilty of the major charges ....
That I would admire and it might lead to a little forgiveness on everyone's part ...
The more the jurors talk — and make tragically incorrect, dare I say uninformed, statements such as that the case lacked "hard" evidence, that the time of death and manner of death was not shown and that the jury largely ignored all of Casey's lies as having nothing to do with the case because it shed no light on the specific day that Caylee died — the less their verdict and decision-making deserves to be respected. The more they make public comments, whether or not for compensation, the more they set themselves up for constructive criticism in the cacophony of public debate http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticl...n=1&hbxlogin=1
I completely understand, just wish he would hold off longer for their safety
I noted this as well. It seems to me that they might have made this group pact after the others started talking and getting serious backlash in credible media articles.
IMO they got too close and did not bring to deliberation 12 individual thinkers. Sequestered, they likened themselves as a "family" and some critics suggested that could be why they arrived at such a quick verdict.
OC stated that FCA had no credible threats, and I doubt there are credible threats to anyone involved in this case.
There aren't imo. Defense talking points becoming valid in some peoples' mind - even though there's nothing to base them on.
I imagine some might do just that. I do fear for their safety
I wish that "reasonable doubt" vs. "shadow of a doubt" had been explained to the jurors a bit more clearly.
I watched the closing argument and also wonder if Caylee got lost in the arguments of defense vs. state.
Was it better to close with a picture of FCA's tattoo of "bella vita" or would it have been better to close with photos of Caylee, the haunting sound of her singing "You Are My Sunshine" and reminders of this little girl whose life was lost, way too soon, in search of "Bella Vita."
These and other questions haunt me as, in my opinion a killer is living in our midst. The jury did their job based on what they heard. They should not be penalized for doing what they thought was the right thing even though I don't agree.
That is going to have to be good enough for me.
All of this is my own opinion and thank goodness you do not have to agree with me.
Hugs to all.
I fear for their safety, too!
Thanks to their decision, another felon is loose on the streets!
I noted this as well. It seems to me that they might have made this group pact after the others started talking and getting serious backlash in credible media articles.
IMO they got too close and did not bring to deliberation 12 individual thinkers. Sequestered, they likened themselves as a "family" and some critics suggested that could be why they arrived at such a quick verdict.
OC stated that FCA had no credible threats, and I doubt there are credible threats to anyone involved in this case.
seems like most of their deliberations was on if they should or shouldn't talk to the media and probably got their story together.I posted the following in another thread but it should go here as well...
One thing that stood out to me in the article about HHJP not releasing the names until October...
"Eckstadt said fellow jurors have said they don't want each other talking to the media."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5310429.story
I can't help but wonder why they would feel the need to make this decision or agreement as a group. Why the need to discuss it at all, actually? Why not leave that up to each individual? Then, of course, there were those that apparently broke ranks and talked anyway. Makes me feel very suspicious.
Well that's a very odd statement (BBM). They don't want each other talking to the media? Why? Something to hide?
Well, we now know they must have discussed the media during deliberations, as what other time could they have done that? They should have been discussing the evidence and deliberating - not what they were going to say to the media.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
MOO
Mel
Based on what? No one has been attacked. Seems like people are parroting the defense talking points.