Sidebar Discussion

[logicalgirl]

I am not looking forward to the day we do not discuss and argue against less than satisfactory performance in anything in our legal system. Having an "oh well, not my business or oh well, the courts know better, or oh well, not my business does not move change.

Change happens when people band together to discuss their issues, and move beyond that to legitimate forums to change laws or opinions. Silence or resignation does not keep us a free society.

 

[bayouland]

I am not looking forward to the day we do not discuss and argue against less than satisfactory performance in anything in our legal system. Having an "oh well, not my business or oh well, the courts know better, or oh well, not my business does not move change.

Change happens when people band together to discuss their issues, and move beyond that to legitimate forums to change laws or opinions. Silence or resignation does not keep us a free society.

BBM . Bravo, I proclaim this post of the day.

 

[bonniez451]

BBM . Bravo, I proclaim this post of the day.

Here, Here and this is what bothers me how ok people are with the jury and the oh well it's done.

 

[LambChop]

I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that during the trial, the TH's, JC, and others were claiming the jurors were riveted to their seats every time JA was examining witnesses, and slumped back and not paying attention when the defense was examining witnesses. They were also saying the jurors were taking lots of notes when JA was speaking except for juror #4 who only took notes when JB was talking. I read tweets from roughly 20 different tweeters who saw the skull photos/duct tape unblurred, and the tweets did not agree with each other as far as what they thought they were seeing. In other words, we can look at the same thing, and still see it entirely different than the person sitting right next to us. JC is just going to say what she thinks will garner her the most praise from her adoring public. It is very popular to criticize anything KC, KC's dt, or KC's jury, so, I would expect all juries in the near future, who come to a guilty verdict, did what KC's jury did not, and all juries who come to a not guilty verdict, must have relatives in Pinellas county.


As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

BBM: I don't think it's a case of being popular. I truly believe it's a case of most people believe common sense should have ruled the day. When a person lies nothing they say prior to, or after the fact, should considered as proof. That being said the State's evidence should have borne more weight than anything DT tried to pull from their hat. If the jury chose to eliminate part of what DT presented because they thought it was based on a lie, they should have discarded it all. They were looking for a shred of truth from the DT and pretty much ignored the State's case. This jury was "dazzled by BS." jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM: I don't think it's a case of being popular. I truly believe it's a case of most people believe common sense should have ruled the day. When a person lies nothing they say prior to, or after the fact, should considered as proof. That being said the State's evidence should have borne more weight than anything DT tried to pull from their hat. If the jury chose to eliminate part of what DT presented because they thought it was based on a lie, they should have discarded it all. They were looking for a shred of truth from the DT and pretty much ignored the State's case. This jury was "dazzled by BS." jmo

Great post Lambchop, but your last sentence truly disturbs me. I watched that trial as did most everyone who posts here - so WTH is with the dazzling? He behaved like a boorish oaf throughout the whole trial - this is the thing that I just haven't come to any kind of peace in my mind about.

Now if he'd been Ashton's equal - or even close to it - but the whole Defense presentation was so juvenile and just plain carp - I'm still giving myself whiplash shaking my head when I give it some thought.

 

[Aedrys]

Great post Lambchop, but your last sentence truly disturbs me. I watched that trial as did most everyone who posts here - so WTH is with the dazzling? He behaved like a boorish oaf throughout the whole trial - this is the thing that I just haven't come to any kind of peace in my mind about.

Now if he'd been Ashton's equal - or even close to it - but the whole Defense presentation was so juvenile and just plain carp - I'm still giving myself whiplash shaking my head when I give it some thought.

I think it's like how the class clown becomes popular. It's not because the class clown is talented or smart, but because the class clown entertains people. I seriously think this jury was in grade school, and the class clown won out over the smartest kid in the class. That is exactly how it feels to me, and that is just so, so, SO wrong for a jury in a trial to do! But that's what they did. He wasn't smarter, he wasn't better, but gosh darnit, he made them laugh and kept them entertained. Remember, they only saw a small fraction of his carp at trial. Most of us had watched him for three years and were already sick and tired of him. He was bad enough that the trial should have seen through him, though. I still don't get it, and I never will.

 

[rose222]

The jury and defense team deserve each other. Being so similar in so many ways how could they not get dazzled by each other? Birds of a feather and all...

 

[rose222]

Oh and the majority of jurors must have been intimidated by Linda, Jeff and Frank. These prosecutors were so full of intelligence, wit and grace. Their brilliance must have been too much for the jurors. Really, it's like complete opposites. Darkness and light.

 

[MsMacGyver]

]I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that during the trial, the TH's, JC, and others were claiming the jurors were riveted to their seats every time JA was examining witnesses, and slumped back and not paying attention when the defense was examining witnesses. They were also saying the jurors were taking lots of notes when JA was speaking except for juror #4 who only took notes when JB was talking.[/B] I read tweets from roughly 20 different tweeters who saw the skull photos/duct tape unblurred, and the tweets did not agree with each other as far as what they thought they were seeing. In other words, we can look at the same thing, and still see it entirely different than the person sitting right next to us. JC is just going to say what she thinks will garner her the most praise from her adoring public. It is very popular to criticize anything KC, KC's dt, or KC's jury, so, I would expect all juries in the near future, who come to a guilty verdict, did what KC's jury did not, and all juries who come to a not guilty verdict, must have relatives in Pinellas county.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

BBM

THANK YOU!..I have been thinking this and wondered if I was crazy. I swore TH made mention during the A trial ,the jurors were taking notes. Attentive when JA talked.
It's easy to say the 12 were stupid but that isn't an answer! These were 12 American citizens from different walks of life, different ages. The ones that had children and grandchildren had to have cared about Caylee, even the ones that had no children had brothers and sisters. To say they were just stupid isn't fair and it's not an answer to why they didn't convict. Everyone, even the DT was shocked at the verdict...
What I have noted watching the CM trial is how prepared both the prosecution and defense are, how questioning the witnesses so far seems much quicker. How fast the judge talks..LOL

The issue of sequestration came up during the CM jury selection refering to the mistake made by the A jurors. Who was responsible for this decision?

The unorganized and very confusing, unethical and obvious lack of experience concerning the defense side.

Who was responsible for allowing the defense to "get away with" all their unethical tactics..DS mothering FCA, table facing the jurors, Judge P basically doing JB's job at times...Who was responsible for the courtroom behavior?

Was their enough options of charges given, too many...too little or just right.

Did the state, knowing this type of crime, mothers who are accused of killing their children, overcharge this case?

Who was responsible for choosing the jurors?

Who was responsible for giving the jurors their instructions? Who was the author of these instructions?

Who put 12 people, uneducated in the law in that courtroom?

Who were the 12 people that came to the verdict and why didn't they ask questions, look at evidence?

Honestly...sit down with a pen and paper and list all the mistakes that were made in this trial and tell me that the only thing you can come up with is
12 Stupid People!

I visit JA's FB page and what I see are a bunch of "sheep" following their hero, their putting JA on a pedestal...everyone showering him with admiration...what I posted on there isn't a popular opinion...I told him he was crazy to come out of retirement..he's worked for how many years? I told him to take this time to enjoy his life with his family and the ONLY reason I didn't get slammed is because he has rules on his page.

Some speak so highly of Judge P but where was he when JB was pulling his stunts? Can you imagine how frustrated JA was to have to sit back and watch this show...No wonder he was giggling, he probably wanted to ring JB's neck maybe along with the Judge...
You can see the differences in Judge P and the CM judge..CM judge keeps things moving..doesn't allow DT games...no sequestration for jury...
Sequestration isn't a new idea, been around for a long time.

I like Judge P..I like JA..but their not infallible ...thats why it's not popular for the TH's to point out their mistakes..people would be PO and go to another station..so add them to the list.

I'm sayin..it's not fair to blame one thing or one person..or a group of 12 people alone for the failure of "Justice for Caylee". It's because those 12 people were the last word. Who's idea was that?....JMO

 

[LambChop]

Great post Lambchop, but your last sentence truly disturbs me. I watched that trial as did most everyone who posts here - so WTH is with the dazzling? He behaved like a boorish oaf throughout the whole trial - this is the thing that I just haven't come to any kind of peace in my mind about.

Now if he'd been Ashton's equal - or even close to it - but the whole Defense presentation was so juvenile and just plain carp - I'm still giving myself whiplash shaking my head when I give it some thought.

LOL. Dazzling was the attention getter. Even though we knew it was BS, JB put on a very theatrical show during OS. You know, I know, as do other's on WS's know that it was just BS but the juror members who spoke up admitted they considered it, maybe didn't believe it, but considered it just the same. It came up in their deliberations when it never should have even been a consideration. It caught their attention and in the back of some of these juror's minds may have left some doubt if GA actually was involved.

People tend to think offenders are messed up because of what has happened to them as a child and they consider it right away without much thought about whether or not this person is just a bad seed. They are always looking for a reason for people to act the way they do and sometimes it's enough for some to say we should forgive them because of their past. It happens all the time. Making excuses for others.......Moms do it alot. jmo

 

[wonders]

I think it's like how the class clown becomes popular. It's not because the class clown is talented or smart, but because the class clown entertains people. I seriously think this jury was in grade school, and the class clown won out over the smartest kid in the class. That is exactly how it feels to me, and that is just so, so, SO wrong for a jury in a trial to do! But that's what they did. He wasn't smarter, he wasn't better, but gosh darnit, he made them laugh and kept them entertained. Remember, they only saw a small fraction of his carp at trial. Most of us had watched him for three years and were already sick and tired of him. He was bad enough that the trial should have seen through him, though. I still don't get it, and I never will.

Okay. I've got to say. What if the jury felt sorry for the bumbling, stumbling JB and that's the reason they let the tiny little girl go to her freedom.

 

[MsMacGyver]

I am not looking forward to the day we do not discuss and argue against less than satisfactory performance in anything in our legal system. Having an "oh well, not my business or oh well, the courts know better, or oh well, not my business does not move change.

Change happens when people band together to discuss their issues, and move beyond that to legitimate forums to change laws or opinions. Silence or resignation does not keep us a free society.

LG is the Queen of the day!

I have posted a suggestion about jury reform to MN..JA..fb page...the responses I received were people going off into slamming FCA...the A's...the jurors..not one person said..Hey, maybe we should look at Jury Reform..
Well, your idea might not work but what about this...

If we... as American Citizens...are not happy about things in our country...then rather than complain..maybe we could change or improve.

A good example is 9-11...There were people that knew things but because of some stupid law, they weren't legally allowed to pass information to other offices of state. Some predicted this would happen but no one listened. One person that put 4 highjackers on one of the planes saw something, he didn't listen to his gut. They were searched by people who probably did this same job everyday. No one ever really thought..because America is so great that some creepy moron would dare think about attacking us let alone fly planes into buildings...but they did!...Remember Pearl Harbor?
Whats changed since then...My question has always been..how did highjackers gain entry into the cockpit but a whole group of people couldn't bust in before the plane was ditched?
Sadly I don't think anything will change, Caylee was one child who stole the hearts of America.
The jury is our last line of defense for justice but no one is asking for improvement nor changes. After all those weeks of trial, it came down to 12 people. What guarantee..what precautions do we have in place to make sure they understand and carry out their obligation?

 

[LambChop]

BBM

THANK YOU!..I have been thinking this and wondered if I was crazy. I swore TH made mention during the A trial ,the jurors were taking notes. Attentive when JA talked.
It's easy to say the 12 were stupid but that isn't an answer! These were 12 American citizens from different walks of life, different ages. The ones that had children and grandchildren had to have cared about Caylee, even the ones that had no children had brothers and sisters. To say they were just stupid isn't fair and it's not an answer to why they didn't convict. Everyone, even the DT was shocked at the verdict...
What I have noted watching the CM trial is how prepared both the prosecution and defense are, how questioning the witnesses so far seems much quicker. How fast the judge talks..LOL

The issue of sequestration came up during the CM jury selection refering to the mistake made by the A jurors. Who was responsible for this decision?

The unorganized and very confusing, unethical and obvious lack of experience concerning the defense side.

Who was responsible for allowing the defense to "get away with" all their unethical tactics..DS mothering FCA, table facing the jurors, Judge P basically doing JB's job at times...Who was responsible for the courtroom behavior?

Was their enough options of charges given, too many...too little or just right.

Did the state, knowing this type of crime, mothers who are accused of killing their children, overcharge this case?

Who was responsible for choosing the jurors?

Who was responsible for giving the jurors their instructions? Who was the author of these instructions?

Who put 12 people, uneducated in the law in that courtroom?

Who were the 12 people that came to the verdict and why didn't they ask questions, look at evidence?

Honestly...sit down with a pen and paper and list all the mistakes that were made in this trial and tell me that the only thing you can come up with is
12 Stupid People!

I visit JA's FB page and what I see are a bunch of "sheep" following their hero, their putting JA on a pedestal...everyone showering him with admiration...what I posted on there isn't a popular opinion...I told him he was crazy to come out of retirement..he's worked for how many years? I told him to take this time to enjoy his life with his family and the ONLY reason I didn't get slammed is because he has rules on his page.

Some speak so highly of Judge P but where was he when JB was pulling his stunts? Can you imagine how frustrated JA was to have to sit back and watch this show...No wonder he was giggling, he probably wanted to ring JB's neck maybe along with the Judge...
You can see the differences in Judge P and the CM judge..CM judge keeps things moving..doesn't allow DT games...no sequestration for jury...
Sequestration isn't a new idea, been around for a long time.

I like Judge P..I like JA..but their not infallible ...thats why it's not popular for the TH's to point out their mistakes..people would be PO and go to another station..so add them to the list.

I'm sayin..it's not fair to blame one thing or one person..or a group of 12 people alone for the failure of "Justice for Caylee". It's because those 12 people were the last word. Who's idea was that?....JMO

The answers to your questions can't be answered unless we were to hear from the other jurors. JP's duty was to protect KC's rights to a fair trial regardless of how bad her attorney was. For a juror to say they had questions and know she's guilty but couldn't figure out what to charge her with is unacceptable when that is what they were suppose to do. If they were unclear about their instructions they should have asked for help. They chose the easy way out, IMO. jmo

 

[MsMacGyver]

LOL. Dazzling was the attention getter. Even though we knew it was BS, JB put on a very theatrical show during OS. You know, I know, as do other's on WS's know that it was just BS but the juror members who spoke up admitted they considered it, maybe didn't believe it, but considered it just the same. It came up in their deliberations when it never should have even been a consideration. It caught their attention and in the back of some of these juror's minds may have left some doubt if GA actually was involved.

People tend to think offenders are messed up because of what has happened to them as a child and they consider it right away without much thought about whether or not this person is just a bad seed. They are always looking for a reason for people to act the way they do and sometimes it's enough for some to say we should forgive them because of their past. It happens all the time. Making excuses for others.......Moms do it alot. jmo

Have you ever heard the saying..."If you can't dazzle them with brillance..baffle them with bu*****t...that's JB!

 

[logicalgirl]

LOL. Dazzling was the attention getter. Even though we knew it was BS, JB put on a very theatrical show during OS. You know, I know, as do other's on WS's know that it was just BS but the juror members who spoke up admitted they considered it, maybe didn't believe it, but considered it just the same. It came up in their deliberations when it never should have even been a consideration. It caught their attention and in the back of some of these juror's minds may have left some doubt if GA actually was involved.

People tend to think offenders are messed up because of what has happened to them as a child and they consider it right away without much thought about whether or not this person is just a bad seed. They are always looking for a reason for people to act the way they do and sometimes it's enough for some to say we should forgive them because of their past. It happens all the time. Making excuses for others.......Moms do it alot. jmo

I've come to the conclusion that it actually boils down to the popular Disneyized concept of cheering for the little guy, the bumbler who -in people's minds represents themselves - against the all powerful corporate machine. And hooray, the little bumbler triumphs over "the big guys". Great polyanna theory to warm our little cockels in a movie, but just carp in real life if you can't have the common sense to sort out truth from fiction and agenda from facts.

 

[MsMacGyver]

The answers to your questions can't be answered unless we were to hear from the other jurors. JP's duty was to protect KC's rights to a fair trial regardless of how bad her attorney was. For a juror to say they had questions and know she's guilty but couldn't figure out what to charge her with is unacceptable when that is what they were suppose to do. If they were unclear about their instructions they should have asked for help. They chose the easy way out, IMO. jmo

I agree in part. JP was also in charge of the lawyers behavior in that courtroom.
The state was responsible for charges put forth.

The state and defense were responsible for choosing jurors.

JP responsible for giving instruction to jurors

Who was responsible for giving jurors the correct and full hand written instructions?

Jurors responsible for reading and understanding instructions, asking questions about instructions. Asking to see evidence again, taking time to deliberate, coming to a verdict based on the evidence.

Did the jurors receive the correct and complete jury instructions?

Because the public and the media have made it well known that the jurors are held responsible for this unpopular verdict, unless one has the courage to come forward and tell what went on in the room, no one will ever know for sure what happened. If something inappropriate happened then no one will talk, fear seems to play a part in them speaking out.
Two came forward, were they brave, stupid, money hungry...

Perception...it all comes down to perception...

 

[NocturnalLady]

I agree up until what I bolded, which is a bit extreme to me. Juries come up with decisions we don't like a good percentage of the time. Some actually do deliberate and come up with not guilty. It doesn't mean that they're idiots like the Pinellas 12. I consider the Pinellas 12 to be an aberration of normal juries. They went beyond any common sense or logic at all and relied only on popularity and selfishness to make their decision. I have never seen that level of it in any other jury, not even in the OJ jury. I would hope in the future, regardless of what verdict a jury comes out with, that they actually deliberate and give a crap about the fate of the person and the victim of the case when making their decision. It is scary to me to have seen such depravity and carelessness in any jury as I saw with the Pinellas 12. I sincerely hope that a jury like that NEVER happens again, or humanity is in serious trouble, not just the justice system. I do not want to live in a world where life and death lose all meaning, and it's just everyone for themselves.

All I can say is that they truly did manage to get Casey a jury of her peers.

 

[MarthaM]

A jury reaching an unpopular verdict is not a good reason to demand 'jury reform'. In fact, it's one of the worst reasons to do so. Reform is called for when something doesn't work, and there's nothing about this verdict that shows that the system didn't work. There are no rules about how long a jury must deliberate, how many (if any) questions they should ask, or how their debate should unfold. That's as it should be, and that's what juries are all about. If this jury didn't reach the verdict that most people wanted it to, that's not because they did a thing wrong and jury reform is needed; it's because the prosecution just didn't prove their case.

Prosecutors should have learned a lot of lessons from this case.

 

[logicalgirl]

LG is the Queen of the day!

I have posted a suggestion about jury reform to MN..JA..fb page...the responses I received were people going off into slamming FCA...the A's...the jurors..not one person said..Hey, maybe we should look at Jury Reform..
Well, your idea might not work but what about this...

If we... as American Citizens...are not happy about things in our country...then rather than complain..maybe we could change or improve.

A good example is 9-11...There were people that knew things but because of some stupid law, they weren't legally allowed to pass information to other offices of state. Some predicted this would happen but no one listened. One person that put 4 highjackers on one of the planes saw something, he didn't listen to his gut. They were searched by people who probably did this same job everyday. No one ever really thought..because America is so great that some creepy moron would dare think about attacking us let alone fly planes into buildings...but they did!...Remember Pearl Harbor?
Whats changed since then...My question has always been..how did highjackers gain entry into the cockpit but a whole group of people couldn't bust in before the plane was ditched?
Sadly I don't think anything will change, Caylee was one child who stole the hearts of America.
The jury is our last line of defense for justice but no one is asking for improvement nor changes. After all those weeks of trial, it came down to 12 people. What guarantee..what precautions do we have in place to make sure they understand and carry out their obligation?

Public opinion about the jury in the Anthony case seems to have had an impact on the Bob Ward case and it's looking like it will have on the MJ case also.
I think it's important to change laws but I also think the foundation of that is for people to freely express how they feel about a result in a constructive manner. That is - it's fine to complain, but what really counts is to examine what did not work in this case with the jury.

I'm wondering if the 13 pages of jury instructions should and could be broken down into simpler language - in a format that leaves no room for jurors to misunderstand. And that each juror sign a document after a discussion to acknowledge that they do understand the depth of participation they are expected to make. Nothing in that frame indicates sitting like a bump on a log for six weeks wondering what's for lunch, dessert or entertainment that evening would fit into the picture then.

 

[logicalgirl]

A jury reaching an unpopular verdict is not a good reason to demand 'jury reform'. In fact, it's one of the worst reasons to do so. Reform is called for when something doesn't work, and there's nothing about this verdict that shows that the system didn't work. There are no rules about how long a jury must deliberate, how many (if any) questions they should ask, or how their debate should unfold. That's as it should be, and that's what juries are all about. If this jury didn't reach the verdict that most people wanted it to, that's not because they did a thing wrong and jury reform is needed; it's because the prosecution just didn't prove their case.

Prosecutors should have learned a lot of lessons from this case.

I believe you are mistaken in your statements. I can see what you are saying but I cannot agree with you. There must be agreements in place that indication the level of participation each individual juror is expected to make or why not just put cardboard cutouts in the chairs. Just think how much would be saved in hotel accommodation, food, drink and entertainment budgets and the small fees that jurors earn during their jury duty.