Names of Jurors just Released

[Horace Finklestein]

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

Didn't one of the jurors change their vote by saying "Ok, whatever you want"?

 

[Just Jayla]

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-When polled in August, 2008, when polled somewhere in between (maybe 2009, 2010), and when polled right before the trial, a consistent 84% of the general public believed Casey was guilty of premeditated murder. That's about as clear cut as you're going to get.
While you are correct that no potential juror should fear for their lives, nor should any potential or sitting juror hope to gain a payoff from their time on the panel. However, when they cancelled a not-for-profit press conference which was to occur immediately after the verdict and then began showing their faces in the media within the next few days, it is clear to me that they did expect a payoff. Ms. Ford absolutely did get a payoff. That's just as disgraceful to me as some threat that never came to fruition.

 

[Tugela]

BBM-When polled in August, 2008, when polled somewhere in between (maybe 2009, 2010), and when polled right before the trial, a consistent 84% of the general public believed Casey was guilty of premeditated murder. That's about as clear cut as you're going to get.
While you are correct that no potential juror should fear for their lives, nor should any potential or sitting juror hope to gain a payoff from their time on the panel. However, when they cancelled a not-for-profit press conference which was to occur immediately after the verdict and then began showing their faces in the media within the next few days, it is clear to me that they did expect a payoff. Ms. Ford absolutely did get a payoff. That's just as disgraceful to me as some threat that never came to fruition.

That was before the trial and the evidence was presented. I know quite a few people who followed the trial itself. None of them believed that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They all thought that Kasey was a poor mother and that obviously some law had been broken, but as to what and who, that was not so clear. So, in all probability none of them would have convicted.

The jurors who went looking for publicity, if that is what they want to do then their names will come out. But, those who want their privacy respected should have it respected. If the prosecution or defence wanted to interview them afterwards to see what their reasoning was, I don't see a problem with that, but everyone else, that is none of their business. I don't see why someone who is carrying out a public service they are obligated by law to do should be subjected to general scorn because they reached a decision that others might not agree with.

 

[RANCH]

That was before the trial and the evidence was presented. I know quite a few people who followed the trial itself. None of them believed that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They all thought that Kasey was a poor mother and that obviously some law had been broken, but as to what and who, that was not so clear. So, in all probability none of them would have convicted.

The jurors who went looking for publicity, if that is what they want to do then their names will come out. But, those who want their privacy respected should have it respected. If the prosecution or defence wanted to interview them afterwards to see what their reasoning was, I don't see a problem with that, but everyone else, that is none of their business. I don't see why someone who is carrying out a public service they are obligated by law to do should be subjected to general scorn because they reached a decision that others might not agree with.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The defense and prosecution have no right to interview a jury after they have been discharged. At least no more right to interview them than me or you or the MEDIA. JMO.

 

[LCoastMom]

That was before the trial and the evidence was presented. I know quite a few people who followed the trial itself. None of them believed that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They all thought that Kasey was a poor mother and that obviously some law had been broken, but as to what and who, that was not so clear. So, in all probability none of them would have convicted.

The jurors who went looking for publicity, if that is what they want to do then their names will come out. But, those who want their privacy respected should have it respected. If the prosecution or defence wanted to interview them afterwards to see what their reasoning was, I don't see a problem with that, but everyone else, that is none of their business. I don't see why someone who is carrying out a public service they are obligated by law to do should be subjected to general scorn because they reached a decision that others might not agree with.

Please don't take this personally, you're not the first to say this (BBM), just the latest. What really makes me crazy is the lack of plausible alternatives that the KC shouldn't have been convicted believers bring. Obviously this does not apply to the jury but it sure applies in this (or any) forum and in public.

Caylee did not wrap her own face in duct tape, triple bag herself, walk herself down the street and hide in the trees! FCA is the only one who stood to gain by Caylee's death - (freedom) and lies (power!). I sure wish some of you who believe she was let off rightfully could give ANY possible substitute for FCA, any! As for what law(s) were broken - any form of wrongful death works for me, I personally believe (through discovery) that 1st degree murder was committed, but I have less problem with 2nd degree or manslaughter than I do with NOT GUILTY.

The jury was given A + B + C now connect the dots by the state and an outlandish fabrication (admittedly) by the DT. Instead of even attempting to decide A + B + C = GUILTY they (according to the Forman) went off on a tangent that should never have been considered! (George was not on trial) The trial of the century became the verdict of embarrassment. The jurors were treated like they were on a vacation paid for by the state and somehow that became too tiresome to some of them so they caved rather than to attempt to find justice for the victim, Caylee Marie - the only one who they really should have been concerned with.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

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

I still say the foreman is the one KC was making eye contact with....working that magic! I think JB or CM is the one that told her who the foreman was and what to do. I think the foreman is the one that persuaded the others and possibly could have either gave them wrong information....whether intentional or not, we may never know unless one of the jurors gets brave enough to come out & say it. You can bet, it was something! I just feel it!

 

[DesSands]

I think it was a mistake for HHBP to keep their names secret. IMO they have a responsibility to the public to explain the reasons for their decision. Had they done it immediately after the verdict - they would not have had to live in "fear" for three months and by now it would be well over and done with.


This jury knew after being sequestered for six weeks that this was an unpopular verdict. How did they know until they rejoined the world? Surely they would have known nothing about it until they walked out the door. So why the refusal to speak immediately after the verdict? I'd like to know how that went down - that's what I'd really like to know.

Many had an agenda going in from the get go. My guess is the Big $ sign and payday for being a juror. This is the Social media age and they being from a couple counties over knew alot about this to begin with.
Someone was very persuasive to change the guilty voters minds so quickly.
But I watched every hr. of every day and IMO the L & J did not do a bang up job. They needed to make sure the jurors understood every piece of evidence and they never switched course once they saw JB spewing the lies from opening statement. They paraded tons of her friends on there to say she was a liar, BUT all said she was a good mother. JB took that opportunity to ask each and everyone "Did she ever see her abuse Caylee?" "Nope, Nope, Nope and the parade went on and on.
When the state brought forth any evidence, many times LD asked questions and then put it on the evidence table expecting the jurors would look it all over. The saying NEVER ASSUME.
Key points and I'm not an attorney, but I know what I saw and what I heard, so here goes:
1. Not ruffling anyone's feathers, like CA when she lied on the stand and said she did the searches for chlorophyll. Letting the jury know this wasn't the GA trial, nor was it RC. They let her go quietly.
2. Putting on a specialist in computer forensics who said it was searched 84 times and the defense showed that was a mistake.
3. Another expert witness to say there was chloroform found in the car and looked and talked like Elmer Fudd. Could anyone really take him seriously? I'm not trying to demean him, but you also had a new technique that hasn't been used until this trial. NOT a good time to experiment with NEW Tecnology.
I could go on and on but to keep this shortened, the jurors missed alot of the key points that we all had 3 yrs to digest. Like cell phone pings etc etc
CM took the time to go over a chart as to why they must have reasonable doubt. What did the state counter that with? He spent hrs, they spent minutes and he and JB used many visuals to drive points home.
Lastly it probably rubbed them the wrong way when JA laughed and didn't act professional.
HHJP coddled them, the defense kept the jurors way too long and they didn't know why or what was going on, so IMO the State got the blame.
They were sequestered and I would have been very ticked myself if I got up, all dressed, ready to go to court only to find out the prosecution was resting. That took a whole 15 mins. and the rest of their precious long drawn out days in a hotel rm. loomed in their minds, I know I was angry. Why couldn't they have done that the day before?
HHJP never put an end to lil Tiny tears carrying on in the courtrm.and being consoled by her attorney to the point of gag me please !! State allowed it to go on majority of trial.
They could have finished up before the 4th of July holiday came so these people could maybe go home and enjoy their own families, but the delays were ridiculous.
I think they were so ticked they simply didn't care anymore. I'm not sure this jury ever cared though really. Except for and I said early on $$ in their eyes.
There's more to say, I was ill over their verdict, but these are some of the things I noted when I put myself in their shoes.
The COD accident loomed larger than chloroform and duct tape.
Note the meticulous way the prosecution is running the Murray trial. Now that's good lawyering.
And lastly HHJP allowed too many jurors who didn't belong on there to serve due to his insistence of hurrying justice along.
The end result, NO JUSTICE !!

 

[ZsaZsa]

That was before the trial and the evidence was presented. I know quite a few people who followed the trial itself. None of them believed that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They all thought that Kasey was a poor mother and that obviously some law had been broken, but as to what and who, that was not so clear. So, in all probability none of them would have convicted.

The jurors who went looking for publicity, if that is what they want to do then their names will come out. But, those who want their privacy respected should have it respected. If the prosecution or defence wanted to interview them afterwards to see what their reasoning was, I don't see a problem with that, but everyone else, that is none of their business. I don't see why someone who is carrying out a public service they are obligated by law to do should be subjected to general scorn because they reached a decision that others might not agree with.

They richly deserve any scorn that comes their way for the terrible miscarriage of justice they perpetrated. They should be held to account by public examination of their negligence in not following instructions and the fact they could not have conscientiously examined or understood the evidence in coming to their decision- this is about a helpless little child whose vile murderer has been allowed to get off because of their incompetence.
They should be hanging their heads in shame in public.

 

[DesSands]

"They made their decision," he said, speaking in front of his office in Kissimmee. "Let it go already."

Baez was on his way to Harvard Law School on Tuesday night to speak with students. Before he left, he was asked if he read reports online about his client. He joked, "The only thing I pay attention to online is news about the Seminoles and the Yankees."
Don't get me started on Harvard!!![/QUOTE]

Snipped for length

Who thought it was a good idea for him to talk to Harvard Law students? Ya gotta be kidding. What did he tell them? Lie, throw anything and everything up against the wall and hope for restless greedy jurors? :waitasec:

 

[ZsaZsa]

"They made their decision," he said, speaking in front of his office in Kissimmee. "Let it go already."

Baez was on his way to Harvard Law School on Tuesday night to speak with students. Before he left, he was asked if he read reports online about his client. He joked, "The only thing I pay attention to online is news about the Seminoles and the Yankees."
Don't get me started on Harvard!!!
Snipped for length

Who thought it was a good idea for him to talk to Harvard Law students? Ya gotta be kidding. What did he tell them? Lie, throw anything and everything up against the wall and hope for restless greedy jurors? :waitasec:

Harvard just went down a huge notch in my estimation..

OOPS-somehow the quote didnt show correctly- my comment starts with Harvard just.............

 

[LambChop]

I think the fact that they found her guilty of lying but not for the responsibility of her child's death is hard to believe. Who lies about the death of a child? LDB asked them to use their common sense to come to an agreement about the verdict not to argue over the DP. And that is exactly what they did against the judges orders. Clearly we know of two jurors who were more concerned about letting her go free so she would not get the DP then to even consider there were other choices. jmo

 

[AnaTeresa]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The defense and prosecution have no right to interview a jury after they have been discharged. At least no more right to interview them than me or you or the MEDIA. JMO.

They don't have a right, but it's common for the jury or at least some jury members to stay back and give feedback to the prosecution and defense. I've seen it in all the trials I've sat in on so far with my job. It's quite interesting - they'll say what was convincing and what not, their general impressions, etc. We had one case where the prosecution was told rather bluntly that he came off condescending towards the jury and acting as if he were trying to con them into a guilty verdict. It's valuable feedback and helps you grow as an attorney.

They don't have a right, no, but it's certainly common for jurors to answer a few questions. I can see why it would be expected, particularly with an unpopular verdict.

 

[coco puff]

That was before the trial and the evidence was presented. I know quite a few people who followed the trial itself. None of them believed that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They all thought that Kasey was a poor mother and that obviously some law had been broken, but as to what and who, that was not so clear. So, in all probability none of them would have convicted.

The jurors who went looking for publicity, if that is what they want to do then their names will come out. But, those who want their privacy respected should have it respected. If the prosecution or defence wanted to interview them afterwards to see what their reasoning was, I don't see a problem with that, but everyone else, that is none of their business. I don't see why someone who is carrying out a public service they are obligated by law to do should be subjected to general scorn because they reached a decision that others might not agree with.

Wow, a child is found dead in a swamp, concealed in trash bags while Mom tells everyone she is alive and well but "Obviously some law was broken?". Ya THINK? This verdict will never make sense to me.

ETA: I have yet to meet ONE person, in person, who thought she wouldn't get convicted. Or thought she didn't deserve to. Not one.

 

[LambChop]

Wow, a child is found dead in a swamp, concealed in trash bags while Mom tells everyone she is alive and well but "Obviously some law was broken?". Ya THINK? This verdict will never make sense to me.

ETA: I have yet to meet ONE person, in person, who thought she wouldn't get convicted. Or thought she didn't deserve to. Not one.

Yes, of something. Even DCF said she was negligent. These were grown adults who decided she just needed a slap on the wrist for lying to LE. But, yet everyone else was to blame....her parents for Caylee drowning, her Dad for disposing of the body, she feels she was not responsible for anything. If she were telling the truth and knew she was telling the truth she would have taken the stand. While they can't use that against her it certainly speaks volumes about the drowning theory and the fact that she is a habitual liar.

They are hiding because they know they messed up. jmo

 

[LambChop]

http://www.gabar.org/cornerstones_of_freedom/juror_video/

[How do we jurors arrive at a verdict?

First you choose a foreman or forewoman to preside over the discussions and represent you in communicating with the judge or court staff. Choose someone who seems able to run meetings in a fair and orderly way; if you have relevant experience yourself, let people know]

A jury foreman is usually selected by the group upon deliberations. Unless "someone" takes the lead and acts as if they are in charge there is no guarantee for the defense attorneys to know who is the foreman. Not to say they did not know. Not to say a defendant can't flirt with a jury member who feels strongly enough to make a case against not convicting the defendant of anything.

If I were on a jury, the foreman in this case would have raised my "hinky bar" 100% because it's sounds as if he had a hidden agenda. And the woman who was interviewed struck me as someone who was expressing the feelings of another and was repeating them without much thought about what she was saying. It's as if she were fighting for a cause based on someone else's reasoning. When you have a thought process it makes more sense than when you are repeating the thoughts of others. jmo

 

[watcher9]

There's a link in the daily thread talking about JB giving his thoughts on the Geraldo show Sunday night on releasing the names and no one has even mentioned it this morning. I guess JB's stardom is fading fast. I read the article but didn't even click on the video.

 

[cyberborg]

So ... JB is 'truly disgusted' that the Jurors names were released ... why? If he has nothing to hide why treat FCA any differently than any other case? Follow the Law? You'd think JB would want the Jury to say to the world why they found his girl NG to help rehabilitate her.

It seems that JB prefers to operate in the dark ... in secrecy and sealed. Speaks volumes. Nefarious comes to mind.

 

[sumbunny]

The accompanying video is interesting. At about the 3 minute mark, mark fuhrman pipes in regarding how the jury got it wrong. JB says he's moved on from FCA, and actively involved in other cases. Geraldo and JB are buddy buddy and Geraldo talks about the hateful e-mails he recieves from viewers regarding JB and his relationship.

 

[Azcrabcakes]

Baez was on his way to Harvard Law School on Tuesday night to speak with students.!

Harvard law students are no slouches. Do we know for sure JB was speaking there? He could have given the illusion he was to speak there, and may have gone in simply to hear an other speaker.

If he did speak at Harvard, I'll bet it was at JB's expense, so the law students could have a laugh, or as an example of what NOT to emulate. I can just see those Crimson kids ripping JB apart in later conversations. (My daughter and I once tried to find something good to say about my evil-psycho-ex-son-in-law-from-hell once, and the best we could come up with is he is the epitome of how NOT to be.)

I'm willing to bet few Harvard alumni become criminal defense lawyers - instead I'll bet most go into politics or corporate/medical malpractice/administrative law. I'm just guessing here. JB falls into the category of what I call "billboard" lawyers - those who advertise on billboards and yellow pages back covers. Ambulance chasers. That's how *I* see JB.

 

[logicalgirl]

The accompanying video is interesting. At about the 3 minute mark, mark fuhrman pipes in regarding how the jury got it wrong. JB says he's moved on from FCA, and actively involved in other cases. Geraldo and JB are buddy buddy and Geraldo talks about the hateful e-mails he recieves from viewers regarding JB and his relationship.

Whoops SumBunny - I reposted your News video comments in the sidebar thread also because I thought there was quite a bit to discuss that didn't really have much to do with the jurors and if it did it wasn't even close to being positive.

Much of it was about how much Baez has been affected, shunned in fact, couldn't find an agent and how this case has adversely affected his practise, with Geraldo almost declaring he was his only friend. :floorlaugh: I also liked how startled Baez was by the question of when OCA's interview will be - almost like he has tried everything he could and now he's given up and has no idea what is going on - it was an odd reaction....