Names of Jurors just Released

[concentric]

bbm.......me too. I have my own theory about this, but thats all it is, a theory. In the end i have absolutely no idea how the jurors got to their verdict and im not sure their genders or occupations have anything at all to do with it.

Sorry, I haven't read all of the comments made in this thread yet.

I believe the jury was selected to the advantage of the defense.

IMO: When this happens, something is wrong with the "justice" system.

This needs to be reviewed.

 

[LambChop]

All of this talk about CM writing a tell-all book makes me wonder if KC has waived her A/C privilege for a fee? :waitasec: Perhaps this is how she will get money for her "story"? Since she clearly is a liar, she can get someone else to spread her carp for her. For a fee, of course! :furious:

Let's put it this way, he could tell any story he wants about what KC told him and it's probably a lie. I believe his visits to her in jail were very few so any real contact he had with her was within the courtroom. How superficial is that? Of course she appeared to be a nice "kid", she was behaving for the cameras.

I don't believe anything in his book would be deemed by the public as "good work". If CM's main purpose was to ensure JB made no mistakes at those hearings he did not do his job. To know their defense would be drowning and to force the state to pay for an investigation of TES volunteers will not win him any praise. Sounds more like a book similar to "If I Did It." I wonder if the book's name will be "If She Did It"????? jmo

 

[LinTX]

I suspect the book will have little to do with FCA's trial. He just knows his name is familiar because of it and assumes people will now line up, dollars in hand, to read about his brilliant legal career. Or maybe his ego makes him afraid JA's book will be all about him, LOL!

The only thing I'd like to hear from him is what led him to call that mental competency hearing - what could she have done or said at that point that made him think that was necessary? But I won't buy or read it.

 

[LambChop]

I suspect the book will have little to do with FCA's trial. He just knows his name is familiar because of it and assumes people will now line up, dollars in hand, to read about his brilliant legal career. Or maybe his ego makes him afraid JA's book will be all about him, LOL!

The only thing I'd like to hear from him is what led him to call that mental competency hearing - what could she have done or said at that point that made him think that was necessary? But I won't buy or read it.

I believe it was what KC said during her "hissing, rage-filled comments" caught on video when LDB was at the sidebar and said she might have to bring up all those checks KC wrote if JB wanted to open the door. It was directly after that little outburst, that we could not hear, that CM wanted her to have her tested. My guess is her comments were directed at LDB.

I think the article said he was doing the book on the trial but you are probably right he will only touch on it briefly. JA has to know what KC said. LDB was right there and walked right in front of KC directly after the outburst. I'm sure someone here will buy it and fill us in on the details. I'm not interested in anything he has to say since he could not get many of the facts straight at the hearings but am willing to listen if he proclaims something we have not heard in the past. jmo

Sorry to be O/T.

 

[Harmony 2]

Please stay on the topic of the thread which is the release of the juror's names... Thanks!!

 

[LCoastMom]

My :twocents: - haven't looked, don't care, changes nothing.

The jurors fear of reprisal speaks volumes. Go on with your little lives sheeple - you're dismissed.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Almost a full week and the jurors are safe and sound! Guess that bloodthirsty public is still restraining itself!

 

[MissJames]

I wonder if any of them have regrets that they didn't take a few days to review the evidence? What an enormous waste of tax payer's monies. Were they lazy? Narrow minded? Resentful of their duty? WTH? It's not so much that they set her free, they did it without a second thought. Literally.

I believe it was juror #2 who was the final juror to cave. He sounded like he regretted the NG vote.
I got the impression he didn't realize he could hold out for a hung jury.
This is purely my suspicions based on the interviews that have aired,but I think the foreman,and possibly other jurors ,were using misinformation to sway the jurors who wanted to vote guilty.
There's still a lot of information that needs to come out ,IMO. Something happened amongst those jurors ,that resulted in a miscarriage of justice .If we don't find out how this happened ,it will be repeated.
Was there jury tampering? , someone on the jury who was able to manipulate the others? Someone deliberately or innocently using incorrect information?
The truth should come out. Releasing the names of jurors is a start.

 

[jon_burrows]

I believe it was juror #2 who was the final juror to cave. He sounded like he regretted the NG vote.
I got the impression he didn't realize he could hold out for a hung jury.
This is purely my suspicions based on the interviews that have aired,but I think the foreman,and possibly other jurors ,were using misinformation to sway the jurors who wanted to vote guilty.
There's still a lot of information that needs to come out ,IMO. Something happened amongst those jurors ,that resulted in a miscarriage of justice .If we don't find out how this happened ,it will be repeated.
Was there jury tampering? , someone on the jury who was able to manipulate the others? Someone deliberately or innocently using incorrect information?
The truth should come out. Releasing the names of jurors is a start.

I think if they talk we'll see some very eerie similarities between FCA's jury and MJ's molestation jury. Two people wanted to convict him but changed their vote (sound familiar?). The foreman was a retired school counselor who believed he was a 'go between' between the jury and judge.

It's obvious to me that juries need some type of training before serving on a case that could land someone in prison for life or receive the DP. How could someone not know they could hang a jury?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/88806...-they-regret-jacksons-acquittal/#.Tq1drHK2SRI

I'm not saying MJ was guilty or innocent, just looking into a high profile case from two juror's perspective.

IMO

 

[2goldfish]

I think if they talk we'll see some very eerie similarities between FCA's jury and MJ's jury. Two people wanted to convict him but changed their vote (sound familiar?). The foreman was a retired school counselor who believed he was a 'go between' between the jury and judge.

It's obvious to me that juries need some type of training before serving on a case that could land someone in prison for life or receive the DP. How could someone not know they could hang a jury?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/88806...-they-regret-jacksons-acquittal/#.Tq1drHK2SRI

I'm not saying MJ was guilty or innocent, just looking into a high profile case from two juror's perspective.

IMO

golly you just gave me a heart failure, I thought you meant dr murray. I was about to scream my head off thinking he got an NG.

I've no opinion either on MJ himself in those trials. I defo have an opinion on dr murray!

interesting factoid: over here in the UK, a judge can accept a majority verdict. it just happened this week in vincent tabak (killer of joanna yeates)'s trial. jury could not decide between murder vs manslaughter and the judge took a vote of 10 deciding guilty - just as well....after they gave the info for sentencing that was not allowed in for trial, it was so obvious it was murder and not manslaughter, that info having been deemed too prejudicial to tabak.

 

[jon_burrows]

golly you just gave me a heart failure, I thought you meant dr murray. I was about to scream my head off thinking he got an NG.

I've no opinion either on MJ himself in those trials. I defo have an opinion on dr murray!

interesting factoid: over here in the UK, a judge can accept a majority verdict. it just happened this week in vincent tabak (killer of joanna yeates)'s trial. jury could not decide between murder vs manslaughter and the judge took a vote of 10 deciding guilty - just as well....after they gave the info for sentencing that was not allowed in for trial, it was so obvious it was murder and not manslaughter, that info having been deemed too prejudicial to tabak.

Sorry about that...I changed my post so there's no confusion.

I have an opinion on the doctor too (Guilty).

Your justice system is very interesting. If FCA had been in the UK she would be sitting in prison right now.

IMO

 

[Tugela]

golly you just gave me a heart failure, I thought you meant dr murray. I was about to scream my head off thinking he got an NG.

I've no opinion either on MJ himself in those trials. I defo have an opinion on dr murray!

interesting factoid: over here in the UK, a judge can accept a majority verdict. it just happened this week in vincent tabak (killer of joanna yeates)'s trial. jury could not decide between murder vs manslaughter and the judge took a vote of 10 deciding guilty - just as well....after they gave the info for sentencing that was not allowed in for trial, it was so obvious it was murder and not manslaughter, that info having been deemed too prejudicial to tabak.

Prejudicial evidence is evidence unrelated to the offence being considered, but serves to provide "context". That would be appropriate when determining punishment, but it has no place in the trial itself since it is not related to the offence and only serves to inflame the jury.

If it is prejudicial it does not point to guilt or innocence.

 

[Tugela]

Almost a full week and the jurors are safe and sound! Guess that bloodthirsty public is still restraining itself!

Retribution doesn't neccessarily take place only in a physical attack. It can take the form of damaged relationships, harrassment, ostracization and many other things, none of which would be reported. You don't know what these people are being subjected too.

IMO if these people have asked to remain anonymous they should be left in peace. They have good reason to be afraid if the sentiments expressed in public on the internet are anything to go by.

How can a fair verdict be reached in any high profile case if the jury has to be concerned about how the verdict might inflame some part of public opinion against them personally? Personal fear should not be one of the considerations to be taken into account when reaching a verdict.

As for hopes of a hung jury, keep in mind that this jury aquitted, which means that even if there were a few who initially thought guilt and later changed their mind (remember, a jury has to try to achieve consensus, a hung jury results when that consensus cannot be reached), most of the jurors would either have voted initially for aquittal and those who initially though guilt were not convinced in that belief.

Also, remember that while most people here were convinced of guilt, the question was far less clear cut among the general population, which is where real jurors come from. I do not believe that it would have been easy for the prosecution to have ever convicted her of those charges for that reason. The evidence they had was simply too weak, not that they didnt have evidence that something happened, just that they didnt have evidence of who exactly that someone might be, or what exactly that something was. That was the real problem they faced and with 12 people in the room the chances of getting all 12 to overlook that was not good.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Retribution doesn't neccessarily take place only in a physical attack. It can take the form of damaged relationships, harrassment, ostracization and many other things, none of which would be reported. You don't know what these people are being subjected too.

IMO if these people have asked to remain anonymous they should be left in peace. They have good reason to be afraid if the sentiments expressed in public on the internet are anything to go by.

How can a fair verdict be reached in any high profile case if the jury has to be concerned about how the verdict might inflame some part of public opinion against them personally? Personal fear should not be one of the considerations to be taken into account when reaching a verdict.

As for hopes of a hung jury, keep in mind that this jury aquitted, which means that even if there were a few who initially thought guilt and later changed their mind (remember, a jury has to try to achieve consensus, a hung jury results when that consensus cannot be reached), most of the jurors would either have voted initially for aquittal and those who initially though guilt were not convinced in that belief.

Also, remember that while most people here were convinced of guilt, the question was far less clear cut among the general population, which is where real jurors come from. I do not believe that it would have been easy for the prosecution to have ever convicted her of those charges for that reason. The evidence they had was simply too weak, not that they didnt have evidence that something happened, just that they didnt have evidence of who exactly that someone might be, or what exactly that something was. That was the real problem they faced and with 12 people in the room the chances of getting all 12 to overlook that was not good.

The first couple of jurors out of the gate weren't too worried- they started negotiating deals for their inside stories, and last I heard one of them was demanding $50K for his. I suspect the others are holding out for the highest bidder to show and may be sorely disappointed when it turns out no one gives a carp about their ridiculous comments.
You did not need to follow this case in minute detail to know who killed Caylee- people with very brief accquaintance with the case but who are blessed with common sense and good judgement were able to discern that fact very quickly.

 

[RANCH]

Retribution doesn't neccessarily take place only in a physical attack. It can take the form of damaged relationships, harrassment, ostracization and many other things, none of which would be reported. You don't know what these people are being subjected too.

IMO if these people have asked to remain anonymous they should be left in peace. They have good reason to be afraid if the sentiments expressed in public on the internet are anything to go by.

How can a fair verdict be reached in any high profile case if the jury has to be concerned about how the verdict might inflame some part of public opinion against them personally? Personal fear should not be one of the considerations to be taken into account when reaching a verdict.

As for hopes of a hung jury, keep in mind that this jury aquitted, which means that even if there were a few who initially thought guilt and later changed their mind (remember, a jury has to try to achieve consensus, a hung jury results when that consensus cannot be reached), most of the jurors would either have voted initially for aquittal and those who initially though guilt were not convinced in that belief.

Also, remember that while most people here were convinced of guilt, the question was far less clear cut among the general population, which is where real jurors come from. I do not believe that it would have been easy for the prosecution to have ever convicted her of those charges for that reason. The evidence they had was simply too weak, not that they didnt have evidence that something happened, just that they didnt have evidence of who exactly that someone might be, or what exactly that something was. That was the real problem they faced and with 12 people in the room the chances of getting all 12 to overlook that was not good.

A jury reaches a fair verdict by following the Judges instructions. If they do this, they shouldn't have to worry about public opinion. In my opinion this jury failed to follow the Judges instructions.

 

[angeldust]

Sorry about that...I changed my post so there's no confusion.

I have an opinion on the doctor too (Guilty).

Your justice system is very interesting. If FCA had been in the UK she would be sitting in prison right now.

IMO

dont count on that JB The justice system here is as much a joke as it is anywhere else.

Some babykillers over here get a few years and are then realased with a new identity so they can live a "normal life" Baby P killers are only one of many

sad to say

 

[okiedokietoo]

Retribution doesn't neccessarily take place only in a physical attack. It can take the form of damaged relationships, harrassment, ostracization and many other things, none of which would be reported. You don't know what these people are being subjected too.

IMO if these people have asked to remain anonymous they should be left in peace. They have good reason to be afraid if the sentiments expressed in public on the internet are anything to go by.

How can a fair verdict be reached in any high profile case if the jury has to be concerned about how the verdict might inflame some part of public opinion against them personally? Personal fear should not be one of the considerations to be taken into account when reaching a verdict.

As for hopes of a hung jury, keep in mind that this jury aquitted, which means that even if there were a few who initially thought guilt and later changed their mind (remember, a jury has to try to achieve consensus, a hung jury results when that consensus cannot be reached), most of the jurors would either have voted initially for aquittal and those who initially though guilt were not convinced in that belief.

Also, remember that while most people here were convinced of guilt, the question was far less clear cut among the general population, which is where real jurors come from. I do not believe that it would have been easy for the prosecution to have ever convicted her of those charges for that reason. The evidence they had was simply too weak, not that they didnt have evidence that something happened, just that they didnt have evidence of who exactly that someone might be, or what exactly that something was. That was the real problem they faced and with 12 people in the room the chances of getting all 12 to overlook that was not good.

BBM
Bolded part - this did not apply to this case and this Jury - If I recall correctly, none of the P12 said that they had closely followed the case (during jury selection) - and wasn't there a few that said they didn't watch the news? - they were a sequestered jury - were not supposed to be watching or listening to or discussing the trial with family & each other prior to deliberations - how & why would they be worried about coming up with a verdict that would inflame a part of the public if they weren't aware of what the public opinion was? Either they didn't understand that there could be a hung jury or the few that believed she was guilty (of something) were convinced/told by the Jury foreman and his sidekicks that there had to be a unanimous decision, period, no other option. Of course Idk what happened in the Jury Room but I am convinced that something was way off and they definitely did not spend any time going over the evidence -

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM
Bolded part - this did not apply to this case and this Jury - If I recall correctly, none of the P12 said that they had closely followed the case (during jury selection) - and wasn't there a few that said they didn't watch the news? - they were a sequestered jury - were not supposed to be watching or listening to or discussing the trial with family & each other prior to deliberations - how & why would they be worried about coming up with a verdict that would inflame a part of the public if they weren't aware of what the public opinion was? Either they didn't understand that there could be a hung jury or the few that believed she was guilty (of something) were convinced/told by the Jury foreman and his sidekicks that there had to be a unanimous decision, period, no other option. Of course Idk what happened in the Jury Room but I am convinced that something was way off and they definitely did not spend any time going over the evidence -

Judge Perry's bedwetting and worry over the safety of everyone but the public is evidence that he made his mind up in the beginning. He never set the tone for a fair trial, he conducted everything as if there were people with torches and pitchforks outside...and there was nothing of the kind.

 

[LambChop]

BBM
Bolded part - this did not apply to this case and this Jury - If I recall correctly, none of the P12 said that they had closely followed the case (during jury selection) - and wasn't there a few that said they didn't watch the news? - they were a sequestered jury - were not supposed to be watching or listening to or discussing the trial with family & each other prior to deliberations - how & why would they be worried about coming up with a verdict that would inflame a part of the public if they weren't aware of what the public opinion was? Either they didn't understand that there could be a hung jury or the few that believed she was guilty (of something) were convinced/told by the Jury foreman and his sidekicks that there had to be a unanimous decision, period, no other option. Of course Idk what happened in the Jury Room but I am convinced that something was way off and they definitely did not spend any time going over the evidence -

And did you ever meet someone who thought they knew it all. Took control of a meeting and no matter how much the other's tried to convince this person it just was not going to fly so everyone just gave up. There were obvious issues within the deliberation room that it became heated because it was admitted by one of the jurors. Unless someone comes forward and tells us we will never know. jmo

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Retribution doesn't neccessarily take place only in a physical attack. It can take the form of damaged relationships, harrassment, ostracization and many other things, none of which would be reported. You don't know what these people are being subjected too.

IMO if these people have asked to remain anonymous they should be left in peace. They have good reason to be afraid if the sentiments expressed in public on the internet are anything to go by.

How can a fair verdict be reached in any high profile case if the jury has to be concerned about how the verdict might inflame some part of public opinion against them personally? Personal fear should not be one of the considerations to be taken into account when reaching a verdict.

As for hopes of a hung jury, keep in mind that this jury aquitted, which means that even if there were a few who initially thought guilt and later changed their mind (remember, a jury has to try to achieve consensus, a hung jury results when that consensus cannot be reached), most of the jurors would either have voted initially for aquittal and those who initially though guilt were not convinced in that belief.

Also, remember that while most people here were convinced of guilt, the question was far less clear cut among the general population, which is where real jurors come from. I do not believe that it would have been easy for the prosecution to have ever convicted her of those charges for that reason. The evidence they had was simply too weak, not that they didnt have evidence that something happened, just that they didnt have evidence of who exactly that someone might be, or what exactly that something was. That was the real problem they faced and with 12 people in the room the chances of getting all 12 to overlook that was not good.

In other words, the jurors have the same "danger" that the rest of us experience each day, aka, "life". Ostracization is NOT danger. Damaged relationships are NOT danger. Defining danger down to inconvenience or not having a perfect life is ludicrous.

We have a public and open system for the most part and Judge Perry has no right to change that unilaterally. If the legislature writes a new law, well, that's fine. Until then, they need to be subject to the rules, not the delusions of a judge. They might have tried to avoid breaking the rules and taking their job seriously if they wanted to justify their actions and choices. Just a thought.