Names of Jurors just Released

[MsMacGyver]

MsMacG, if you're gonna go posting pictures of JB then I'm gonna preemptively post this:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:......Good One!

I still have to figure out how to do it....It will give everyone time to prepare...Hide your kids...Cover your eyes...:floorlaugh:

TH's warning....May not be suitable for small children!....:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

Some reports I've read so far gives examples. One juror had time to warn his neighbors. It said his neighbors were "looking out for him"
I can see how Judge P's decision for the delay gave the jurors time to prepare for the worst. I can see the benefit to ripping off that band aid but I can see his logic behind the decision for the delay. Forewarned is forearmed...jmo

Yes, indeed we did get that report from "that" juror - and in case you don't already know - "that" juror is the Jury Foreman....and I think I have already heard enough from him..

 

[SailorMoon]

They should hang their heads in shame for eternity. They had a job to do, screwed it up royally, and that's that. Now we have no justice and a murderer walking around free. Thanks pinellas 12. Hope you are happy with what you did.

 

[sumbunny]

From before the trial startedI posted," I hope HHBP is not another Judge Ito." Guess i had a hinky feeling. I can't blame the 12 entirely. I do believe the judge had a little bit to do with how the jury was picked in haste, and the instructions to them, not overly clear. But I do agree, the judge, and the jury were rushed in their decision to get this long awaited trial over with. That IMO is/was the issue. Patience is a virtue

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Wow, that's quite the hyperbolic statement. Any specific examples of the media's deliberate omissions you could share with us?

While I don't disagree that the media played up the salacious nature of this trial, I think it's inaccurate to say that they intentionally chose to report only that which would confirm KC's guilt.

I will make a slight concession to my original statement that they chose not to report anything the slightest bit exculpatory from the documents, and will say instead, that the media downplayed the importance of anything that was the slightest bit exculpatory in the documents.

The jurors were presented with what the prosecution believed to be most relevant to the case, and what they believed would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The big difference between HHBP's courtroom and the court of public opinion is that, for 3 years the media pushed guilty with little weight given to what the defense had to say, but in the courtroom, the jury gave equal weight to both the prosecution and the defense.

Was the discovery that was turned over by the defense to the prosecution unavailable to the public via the Sunshine Law? I know the defense strategy was kept under wraps until trial, but did the media not have access to the dt's experts depositions and/or the experts findings, just as they had access to Dr. Vass, Dr. Haskell, and the ME's findings prior to trial? If they didn't, why wasn't it available? Isn't that what the Sunshine Law is all about? And if these things were available, then that proves my point that the media downplayed anything exculpatory doesn't it?

As far as what all this means to the release of the jurors names, I think the media is still trying to justify why they were right and the jury was wrong. I think the jurors came to the correct verdict based on what was presented at trial. I do hope if the jurors speak, it will only be in a live format, because, quite frankly, I am leery of anything released by the media that has been edited.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[theBritster]

I hope they're embarrassed. I still can't get over that, no matter what verdict they were going to choose, that they only thought it over for like 10 hours - minus special breaks and meals. That seems like nothing considering there is a possibility of either a) letting a guilty person go free or b) letting an innocent person go to jail. Makes me shudder!

 

[2goldfish]

The media took what they wanted from the Sunshine Law, and chose not to report anything the slightest bit exculpatory from the documents.



As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

my bolding/snip


I've read all the docs...where did you find exculpatory evidence? I've never seen any...

this is why I feel that saying the media was responsible for public opinion is not accurate: I dont know if it can be so for the average person who truly didnt pay attn (like the jurors who said they did not), compared to those of us who pored of every doc and watched through every hearing.

 

[belle3]

I will make a slight concession to my original statement that they chose not to report anything the slightest bit exculpatory from the documents, and will say instead, that the media downplayed the importance of anything that was the slightest bit exculpatory in the documents.

The jurors were presented with what the prosecution believed to be most relevant to the case, and what they believed would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The big difference between HHBP's courtroom and the court of public opinion is that, for 3 years the media pushed guilty with little weight given to what the defense had to say, but in the courtroom, the jury gave equal weight to both the prosecution and the defense.

Was the discovery that was turned over by the defense to the prosecution unavailable to the public via the Sunshine Law? I know the defense strategy was kept under wraps until trial, but did the media not have access to the dt's experts depositions and/or the experts findings, just as they had access to Dr. Vass, Dr. Haskell, and the ME's findings prior to trial? If they didn't, why wasn't it available? Isn't that what the Sunshine Law is all about? And if these things were available, then that proves my point that the media downplayed anything exculpatory doesn't it?

As far as what all this means to the release of the jurors names, I think the media is still trying to justify why they were right and the jury was wrong. I think the jurors came to the correct verdict based on what was presented at trial. I do hope if the jurors speak, it will only be in a live format, because, quite frankly, I am leery of anything released by the media that has been edited.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

iirc.... I dont think mr. baez handed anything over and what he did hand over was late. He also violated discovery laws and is the basis of one of his bar complaints.The jury wasnt privy to these things because they were in and out like poptarts and I am beginning to believe that maybe these jurors thought that to be about the bad prosecutors keeping things from them, when in reality, it was the defenses own lack of following the rules that got them there. This is all my opinion.

 

[esiobhan1128]

I have to agree to a point with thedevilsadvocate as to why the jury found NG.

I followed this case from the beginning, but I only read the doc dumps, I did not watch all of the interviews with JB, etc regarding the case. I was aware that the sentiment on here was that he was totally full of it and sleazy, but I had not seen much of him at all until the trial.

During the trial, I felt that JB did a good job of covering up his sleaze and seeming friendly and genuine and not like a complete moron like he seems to appear in his media appearances. The jury had no reason not to trust him, like we did.

Also I feel that the state made a HUGE deal about the lying and the defense said, "Yeah, she lied, so what, she lies about everything." I think it helped their credibility with the jury. In reality, we had months and months and MONTHS of the defense saying "no, she's not lying, it's the truth, it happened just like she said...er, no, it happened THIS way, like she said the next time." IMO, this was one of the keys to the defense winning this case, because the jury didn't see all of the interviews that went on and on and on of the As and the defense lying.

That and the fact the defense made GA look like a total liar on the stand. The arguing over the gas cans was so nerve wracking! I was sitting there thinking "Just answer the question George!" It made him completely unlikeable, and seem completely unreasonable.

 

[justbeachy]

Someone in the comment section of the article already took care of that.

I'm surprised the newspaper hasn't deleted it. Unbelievable.

Wow. They are still on there! I thought they would have been deleted by now as well!

 

[Tulessa]

I have NO interest what so ever of the names of the 12 that let Caylee down. So blah, go on with your lives. You mean nothing to me, but you will have to face Caylee someday....

 

[2goldfish]

God No Salem...I would never intrude on someones personal space in that way. I should have been more specific...Sorry!

The picture is of JB during the verdict video. Is this not permitted? I've seen it done on other threads. It pertains to the connection between JB and the jury to support my theory...JB -possible jury tampering. The focus is on JB...NOT the jurors. If you think this is still inappropriate, let me know. Would it fit better in another thread? I will not post until I know it's OK.

I agree..I don't think we need any pictures of the jurors posted...Thanks!

honey, here is how you take a screenshot:

1. go to the youtube or whatever and pause the video at the part you want.
2. press the pause-break key on your keyboard (I think if you type shirt + pausebreak it only captures the window you're active on but dont quote me, try it or crop later, I crop later cause I've always done so) (the pause-break key is prolly on the upper right of your keyb)
3. open any image editor (I use photoshop so I can only tell you for photoshop)
4. type control - n for new doc in photoshop or file>new I think in all of em
5. type control -v to paste the image
6. crop the pic to the relevant size (like around the youtube vid to take out everything else)
7. save it as a jpeg quality 8
8.upload it to a webhost, there's tons free
9. paste the url into a reply using img tags (it's an icon at the top that looks like a mountain and sun)
10. we all cheer cause you didnt try to make us watch the verdict again :crazy:

excuse typos, it's insomnia week

 

[2goldfish]

Yes, indeed we did get that report from "that" juror - and in case you don't already know - "that" juror is the Jury Foreman....and I think I have already heard enough from him..

I know, right?? is this guy made out of opium or something? leading reasonable people into moronic choices, women washing and folding his skivvies, neighbours got his back, school kids dont judge him? crazy.

methinks OCA got a jury of her peers, for sure.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

The media took what they wanted from the Sunshine Law, and chose not to report anything the slightest bit exculpatory from the documents. Instead they chose to report, and highlight everything inculpatory from the documents. This bolstered the story the media was telling to the public, which in turn made the media the most money they could make.

This jury did not have the luxury of ignoring the exculpatory facts in this case. This jury reached a verdict of not guilty, because, in the eyes of these jurors, after listening to both the PT and the DT, and seeing all the evidence presented at trial, they felt the prosecution had not proven KC was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the court of public opinion, the media sold its story, and convinced the public the story was the truth. In a court of law, however, the jurors verdict of not guilty, shows that what the media portrayed as the truth, did not hold up in court and meet the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who is to blame for the way the media reported this story for 3 years, if not the media? The jurors were only involved in this case for a couple of months, and they were told everything the prosecution had to tell them, and then they were told everything the defense had to tell them. This was totally different than what the media had been doing for three years, so it should not have been a shocking surprise, that after hearing both sides of the story, that the jury did not find KC guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If any of these jurors decide to speak, I hope it will be on a live show, with no editing. Otherwise, the media will just edit out what they think puts the media in a bad light. If its live, then we get to hear what the jurors really have to say, not the media edited version.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Well I read all the documents in the document dumps and I watched every minute of the trial live and saw all the evidence presented and found it totally shocking they found her not guilty. There were no two sides to the story as far as evidence went.

 

[Melanie]

It still bothers me that JBP rushed to get this jury seated cuz he had a vacation to tend to. I'm not saying it mattered here nor there, as I can't say if there would have been a different outcome. However, when you have a death penalty case to try vs. a vacation, the case should have been placed at a higher priority

MOOOO

Mel

 

[LambChop]

I have to agree to a point with thedevilsadvocate as to why the jury found NG.

I followed this case from the beginning, but I only read the doc dumps, I did not watch all of the interviews with JB, etc regarding the case. I was aware that the sentiment on here was that he was totally full of it and sleazy, but I had not seen much of him at all until the trial.

During the trial, I felt that JB did a good job of covering up his sleaze and seeming friendly and genuine and not like a complete moron like he seems to appear in his media appearances. The jury had no reason not to trust him, like we did.

Also I feel that the state made a HUGE deal about the lying and the defense said, "Yeah, she lied, so what, she lies about everything." I think it helped their credibility with the jury. In reality, we had months and months and MONTHS of the defense saying "no, she's not lying, it's the truth, it happened just like she said...er, no, it happened THIS way, like she said the next time." IMO, this was one of the keys to the defense winning this case, because the jury didn't see all of the interviews that went on and on and on of the As and the defense lying.

That and the fact the defense made GA look like a total liar on the stand. The arguing over the gas cans was so nerve wracking! I was sitting there thinking "Just answer the question George!" It made him completely unlikeable, and seem completely unreasonable.

When you lie you have no credibility. Someone had to bear the responsibility for a dead child. The jury could not decide if she was a caretaker or not. Moms, educators, nurses, grown adults could not decide that the mother of a child who did not work, who lived with her parents who did work but the jury could not decide if she was responsible for the care of her child.

GA was not on trial. They were not suppose to judge him only consider his testimony or not in terms of what the defense was presenting. They let JB bring their focus on the family's dysfunction instead of focusing on who was last with the child and what was KC doing, her reactions and what did she seem to gain by the death of her child. It was all right there. They only needed to use their common sense. jmo

 

[LambChop]

It still bothers me that JBP rushed to get this jury seated cuz he had a vacation to tend to. I'm not saying it mattered here nor there, as I can't say if there would have been a different outcome. However, when you have a death penalty case to try vs. a vacation, the case should have been placed at a higher priority

MOOOO

Mel

I don't think it was his vacation. One of the jurors, I know, had vacation plans in the middle of July. I think they had planned a cruise. jmo

 

[believe09]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...juror-names-released-20111025,0,6186508.story

You may discuss this topic here; however, you may NOT sleuth the jurors and post your findings on this website. Please keep the topic of discussion limited to the makeup of the jury, gender, occupation, etc., and how that may have affected the outcome of the trial.

Any sleuthing of the juror's personal lives, addresses or public records will not be tolerated.

Thank you in advance for posting responsibly.

Bumpity Bump so we stay on topic. :innocent:

 

[nursebeeme]

You may discuss this topic here; however, you may NOT sleuth the jurors and post your findings on this website. Please keep the topic of discussion limited to the makeup of the jury, gender, occupation, etc., and how that may have affected the outcome of the trial.

Any sleuthing of the juror's personal lives, addresses or public records will not be tolerated.

Thank you in advance for posting responsibly.

bumping up...

a g a i n...

no sleuthing of the jurors... thanks

this is randomly bumped and lands randomly... :seeya:

 

[wonders]

I am amazed that the released inmate gets the protection from media, her location is not disclosed, she can wear a disguise during a deposition and yet the names of these jurors are released to the public who can very easily find out where they live and what they do.
Something is not right here.

You got that right. It's disgusting!