SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[johnfear]

It sounds like partially accurate information and partially poop.

I want it to be investigated, but I hate when crap like this happens.

 

[Boodles]

This case seems to have been so very divisive. There is a hard core group of people who are zealous in defending JY. I have tried, but I can't figure it out. But I see posts the likes of "better hope YOU never get accused of something you didn't do!" on GOLO and elsewhere. It's a definite minority, but a hardcore set of folks.

I have tried every which-way from Sunday to understand that point of view and I just can't understand it.

I don't remember anyone supporting Scott P. this way (maybe I wasn't paying attention).

Anyway, regardless of what this investigation shows, I think with today's technology and our addiction to devices, it's not reasonable to expect a jury to not communicate with anyone. (e.g., How do you prevent incoming texts? I don't know of a way to block them.) The only way to ensure no communication would be to sequester and take away communication devices. Even then, how do you turn on the TV in your hotel room without getting a blast of this case from the media?

I am NOT saying anyone on the jury did anything wrong (I assume they did not unless an investigation proves otherwise), but I do believe we're too 'wired' these days to preclude any of the communication that the court wishes jurors to be kept from. And I don't have a solution to this issue, but I think it's naive and expecting too much of jurors given the way technology and media are these days.

 

[dgfred]

Still doesn't exonerate the accused in any way IMO... or disprove any of the evidence used against him.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

For any of you who would want to learn a little more about "hiding your IP address", just google that phrase. Or google "proxy server". Actually, several of these "services" are offered FREE. By reading the following you will see why.....


"Proxy Server Risks

In using a proxy server (for example, anonymizing HTTP proxy), all data sent to the service being used (for example, HTTP server in a website) must pass through the proxy server before being sent to the service, mostly in unencrypted form. It is therefore possible, and has been demonstrated, for a malicious proxy server to record everything sent to the proxy: including unencrypted logins and passwords.

By chaining proxies which do not reveal data about the original requester, it is possible to obfuscate activities from the eyes of the user's destination. However, more traces will be left on the intermediate hops, which could be used or offered up to trace the user's activities. If the policies and administrators of these other proxies are unknown, the user may fall victim to a false sense of security just because those details are out of sight and mind.

The bottom line of this is to be wary when using proxy servers, and only use proxy servers of known integrity (e.g., the owner is known and trusted, has a clear privacy policy, etc.), and never use proxy servers of unknown integrity. If there is no choice but to use unknown proxy servers, do not pass any private information (unless it is properly encrypted) through the proxy."


So, what this article is telling us is that 1.) Use of a proxy network can be traced and 2.) the user "may fall victim of.......".

Oh, and I just love that caution to "only use proxy servers of known integrity". Unless YOU have set up the proxy server network yourself, there is no such thing.

I am not saying here that certain branches of the U.S. government and/or others do not/cannot have secure proxy networks. But I would be willing to bet that the average internet surfer/golo poster does not have access to such networks.

Thus, I think the SBI will not have a problem in resolving this situation.

 

[~n/t~]

I apologize for asking ......so in the Cooper trial, a similar incident happened? What was the outcome? Was it a hoax? Thanks to anyone who knows.

 

[IlliniFan]

If a juror did do this, then it is jury misconduct. However, all juror misconduct is not grounds for a mistrial. At least that is my understanding from reading posts by lawyers about this subject. It also sounds like the bar is set even higher once the verdict is read. Unless the misconduct influenced the outcome, a retrial being ordered at this point doesn't seem very likely at all.

If a juror was texting someone letting them know the verdict counts as they transpired throughout the deliberations - is this misconduct? Absolutely. Did it influence the outcome? I don't see how it could have.
IMO

BBM. Great post and I think the bottom line is: Did this change or influence the verdict?

It shouldn't have happened (if it did)...but again did it influence the verdict?

Doubtful

 

[Wolfpack]

I apologize for asking ......so in the Cooper trial, a similar incident happened? What was the outcome? Was it a hoax? Thanks to anyone who knows.

Yes, as I posted yesterday (if you want the links). A prosecution witness (Jessica Adam) brought a potential rumor of juror misconduct to the attention of the prosecution, who alerted the court. It was investigated by WCSO and found to be without merit.

 

[~n/t~]

For any of you who would want to learn a little more about "hiding your IP address", just google that phrase. Or google "proxy server". Actually, several of these "services" are offered FREE. By reading the following you will see why.....


"Proxy Server Risks

In using a proxy server (for example, anonymizing HTTP proxy), all data sent to the service being used (for example, HTTP server in a website) must pass through the proxy server before being sent to the service, mostly in unencrypted form. It is therefore possible, and has been demonstrated, for a malicious proxy server to record everything sent to the proxy: including unencrypted logins and passwords.

By chaining proxies which do not reveal data about the original requester, it is possible to obfuscate activities from the eyes of the user's destination. However, more traces will be left on the intermediate hops, which could be used or offered up to trace the user's activities. If the policies and administrators of these other proxies are unknown, the user may fall victim to a false sense of security just because those details are out of sight and mind.

The bottom line of this is to be wary when using proxy servers, and only use proxy servers of known integrity (e.g., the owner is known and trusted, has a clear privacy policy, etc.), and never use proxy servers of unknown integrity. If there is no choice but to use unknown proxy servers, do not pass any private information (unless it is properly encrypted) through the proxy."


So, what this article is telling us is that 1.) Use of a proxy network can be traced and 2.) the user "may fall victim of.......".

Oh, and I just love that caution to "only use proxy servers of known integrity". Unless YOU have set up the proxy server network yourself, there is no such thing.

I am not saying here that certain branches of the U.S. government and/or others do not/cannot have secure proxy networks. But I would be willing to bet that the average internet surfer/golo poster does not have access to such networks.

Thus, I think the SBI will not have a problem in resolving this situation.

You lost me. Who was using a proxy server? Does this have to do with it being a hoax?. The person who posted has an alleged real name so she could be tracked down and questioned, right? What does a proxy server network have to do with this?

I'm so confused. :floorlaugh:

 

[Madeleine74]

In the cooper case during the state's case in chief allegedly one of the jurors was talking to one of their friends about the case. And that friend allegedly then talked to her hairdresser about what she was hearing from the juror. One of the hairdresser's other clients happened to be a witness in the cooper case and supposedly the hairdresser passed along that someone on the jury was talking about the case to a friend.

And the witness with the hairdresser in common then let JA know and then JA emailed the DA's office and gave them the info in case there was something to it.

WCSO sent a deputy out to investigate that was as far as it went.

Theme: hairdressers!

 

[~n/t~]

Yes, as I posted yesterday (if you want the links). A prosecution witness (Jessica Adam) brought a potential rumor of juror misconduct to the attention of the prosecution, who alerted the court. It was investigated by WCSO and found to be without merit.

So a rumour? Not a hoax? To me, there is a huge difference between a rumour and a hoax. A hoax sounds intentional but that's :moo:

 

[MyBelle]

This case seems to have been so very divisive. There is a hard core group of people who are zealous in defending JY. I have tried, but I can't figure it out. But I see posts the likes of "better hope YOU never get accused of something you didn't do!" on GOLO and elsewhere. It's a definite minority, but a hardcore set of folks.

I have tried every which-way from Sunday to understand that point of view and I just can't understand it.

I don't remember anyone supporting Scott P. this way (maybe I wasn't paying attention).

Anyway, regardless of what this investigation shows, I think with today's technology and our addiction to devices, it's not reasonable to expect a jury to not communicate with anyone. (e.g., How do you prevent incoming texts? I don't know of a way to block them.) The only way to ensure no communication would be to sequester and take away communication devices. Even then, how do you turn on the TV in your hotel room without getting a blast of this case from the media?

I am NOT saying anyone on the jury did anything wrong (I assume they did not unless an investigation proves otherwise), but I do believe we're too 'wired' these days to preclude any of the communication that the court wishes jurors to be kept from. And I don't have a solution to this issue, but I think it's naive and expecting too much of jurors given the way technology and media are these days.

BBM. The jury wasn't prohibited from communicating with anyone, they were prohibited from discussing the case or reading about it. That's not asking a lot of them. These rules of behavior have been around forever. If this investigation uncovers misconduct, I'm betting the Judge will prosecute.


JMO

 

[KaraKitty]

Dear Lord, noooooooo.

I have been crazy busy but followed the case up to 'deliberations' and only watched the verdict reading on Tuesday afternoon. I did stop by here. BUT I was so absolutely THRILLED with the verdict. Last night, in the middle of the night I could not sleep and decided to read here … CRAP what the HECK am I reading … "possible juror misconduct" … Noooooooo. :banghead:



I would just like to add, Judge Stephens statement to JY (and his attys) prior to sentencing were absolutely riveting to listen to. Does anyone know if I can find it somewhere on the internet? I would just like to read it again. TY

 

[fran]

Yes, as I posted yesterday (if you want the links). A prosecution witness (Jessica Adam) brought a potential rumor of juror misconduct to the attention of the prosecution, who alerted the court. It was investigated by WCSO and found to be without merit.

Oh, thanks Wolfpack! I didn't see that yesterday, or maybe just over looked it. I was working on multiple forums at the time.

I have a suspicion this alleged situation will most likely resolve itself the same as in the previous trial.

fran

 

[MyBelle]

BBM. Great post and I think the bottom line is: Did this change or influence the verdict?

It shouldn't have happened (if it did)...but again did it influence the verdict?

Doubtful

No way to determine with certainty whether juror misconduct influenced the outcome. The jurors who followed the rules have nothing to worry about. Those that did not should be sweating bullets.

JMO

 

[fran]

Dear Lord, noooooooo.

I have been crazy busy but followed the case up to 'deliberations' and only watched the verdict reading on Tuesday afternoon. I did stop by here. BUT I was so absolutely THRILLED with the verdict. Last night, in the middle of the night I could not sleep and decided to read here … CRAP what the HECK am I reading … "possible juror misconduct" … Noooooooo. :banghead:



I would just like to add, Judge Stephens statement to JY (and his attys) prior to sentencing were absolutely riveting to listen to. Does anyone know if I can find it somewhere on the internet? I would just like to read it again. TY

There is video of his actual statement in the media only thread, if you're interested.

hth
fran

 

[fran]

In the cooper case during the state's case in chief allegedly one of the jurors was talking to one of their friends about the case. And that friend allegedly then talked to her hairdresser about what she was hearing from the juror. One of the hairdresser's other clients happened to be a witness in the cooper case and supposedly the hairdresser passed along that someone on the jury was talking about the case to a friend.

And the witness with the hairdresser in common then let JA know and then JA emailed the DA's office and gave them the info in case there was something to it.

WCSO sent a deputy out to investigate that was as far as it went.

Theme: hairdressers!

Interesting......my bet is IF the same person/people are involved with this situation on the Young case, they are NOT going to just get a slap on the hand.

IF it's the same people/persons, they may consider getting themselves an attorney.

JMHO
fran

 

[kljohnson0458]

If memory serves me right, didn't a witness for the prosecution in the Cooper case post right here on WS. I believe he was their computer expert by the name of Jay maybe. Anyone else rememember that?????????? I realize a witness and a juror are no comparison but he posted the very night he testified and was defending himself. I believe he was confronted.

 

[Wolfpack]

If memory serves me right, didn't a witness for the prosecution in the Cooper case post right here on WS. I believe he was their computer expert by the name of Jay maybe. Anyone else rememember that?????????? I realize a witness and a juror are no comparison but he posted the very night he testified and was defending himself. I believe he was confronted.

That was a defense witness.

 

[cody100]

Curious what the locals there with knowledge of how SBI works on this sort of investigation, how long should we expect them to come to a conclusion? Is this something that will get priority or just get to it when they can sort of thing?

I am quite sure the SBI will give this high priority to get a resolve quickly. I think you can go to the bank on that. MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

Interesting......my bet is IF the same person/people are involved with this situation on the Young case, they are NOT going to just get a slap on the hand.

IF it's the same people/persons, they may consider getting themselves an attorney.

JMHO
fran

Highly doubt it is the same people. This Young one involves posting on Facebook and no one involved had contacted the court. The Cooper one involved a verbal discussion that had been passed along, but not posted publicly, and reported to the court for followup.