Support Thread: Jurors
- Thread starter Anais
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
jeepgirlva
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
TMZ reporting one of the jurors wants a five figure amount to speak..
rossva
George Zimmerman: Innocent until proven guilty.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 10
I agree with you 100%. I thoroughly support the jury and thank them for their time and courage in bringing forth an obviously unpopular verdict.
Some people don't remember the old adage "if you can't say something nice...." and must go to extreme lengths to say something not nice. But I guess they are just following in the footsteps they claim the jurors walked: not reading or following instructions. They don't bother reading this is a support thread for the jurors.
Some people don't remember the old adage "if you can't say something nice...." and must go to extreme lengths to say something not nice. But I guess they are just following in the footsteps they claim the jurors walked: not reading or following instructions. They don't bother reading this is a support thread for the jurors.
Okay, now I'm confused...Roy "I gotta eat" Kronk made five figures off of this case for his 1, 2 (?) hours invested, yet to many in this forum he was a "hero". :Banane41:
Many here have also indicated they would buy JA or LDB's books once they come out.
Where is the line drawn?
I support them 100%... do not blame them for hauling butt after the trial either. lynch mob mentality being that it is. they had to come to their verdict under strict guidelines and law. emotion was not allowed. I think the "attacks" these people are getting behind their backs is disgusting
You are ignoring the fact that the defense contested all of these issues with circumstantial evidence of their own:
*touch DNA on duct tape not a match to Caylee or Casey
*insignificant levels of chloroform in the trunk
*witnesses (including LE) who smelled nothing or not decomp from the trunk
*grief expert (31 days)
Read the jury instructions...when evidence conflicts: reasonable doubt.
I am not stating my opinion, just pointing out that the jury could have followed the instructions and arrived at NG.
The problem is that, in this jury's minds, it was not enough to meet the charge of first degree murder. While I agree that they should have deliberated harder/longer and at least tried for a lesser charge, none of us can arm chair quarterback their decision.
How they behave now that they are out of court is a different matter. <modsnip>
askfornina
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,876
- Reaction score
- 33
<modsnip>. If someone else has made this argument before me I apologize <modsnip>. They did their job, they followed the law. I do not believe I will be convinced otherwise, but feel free to try.
A baby is dead. That is horrible, undeniable. However, with the evidence this jury was presented, combined with the charges Casey was charged with, THERE IS NO WAY, UNDER THE LAW, she should have been found guilty on those charges. There was just not enough evidence. They do not know beyond a reasonable doubt how that baby died. So they COULD NOT charge her with any of the charges presented. I thought after juror number 3 spoke today their reasoning would be cleared up but obviously i was wrong. Not guilty does NOT MEAN innocent. Not guilty, in this case, means not enough evidence. They know Casey did SOMETHING, they do not know what that something was.
<modsnip>. Casey should have be charged differently. She should not have been on trial for her life. The prosecution was overconfident and that is clear in the smiles on their faces right before the verdict was read. They should have charged her with things they could prove beyond.a.reasonable.doubt. and should have NOT sought the ultimate sanction. Period.
I hope this jury is able to articulate this in their daily lives and are not bashed for the rest of eternity.
A baby is dead. That is horrible, undeniable. However, with the evidence this jury was presented, combined with the charges Casey was charged with, THERE IS NO WAY, UNDER THE LAW, she should have been found guilty on those charges. There was just not enough evidence. They do not know beyond a reasonable doubt how that baby died. So they COULD NOT charge her with any of the charges presented. I thought after juror number 3 spoke today their reasoning would be cleared up but obviously i was wrong. Not guilty does NOT MEAN innocent. Not guilty, in this case, means not enough evidence. They know Casey did SOMETHING, they do not know what that something was.
<modsnip>. Casey should have be charged differently. She should not have been on trial for her life. The prosecution was overconfident and that is clear in the smiles on their faces right before the verdict was read. They should have charged her with things they could prove beyond.a.reasonable.doubt. and should have NOT sought the ultimate sanction. Period.
I hope this jury is able to articulate this in their daily lives and are not bashed for the rest of eternity.
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 796
It must be nice to feel that one has evidence that allows one, like a little god, to soar above and feel superior to things as inconvenient as jury verdicts, to be able to mock their decisions, to cast doubt about a judicial system rooted in Magna Carta and in place for almost a thousand years.
Hooray for this brave jury. They knew their decision would be unpopular, but
stayed true to themselves and thus kept faith with our system of jurisprudence.
Hooray for this brave jury. They knew their decision would be unpopular, but
stayed true to themselves and thus kept faith with our system of jurisprudence.
Flossie JMO
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,557
- Reaction score
- 7
Okay you guys - I have had it. I have unapproved more posts in this thread than any other thread I've read and this one is only 3 pages long.
I have explained this over and over - this is the LAST TIME!
ANYONE ELSE THAT POSTS NEGATIVE COMMENTARY IN THIS THREAD WILL BE RECOMMENDED FOR A 48 HOUR TIME OUT - NO EXCUSES, NO APOLOGIES.
Enough is enough. STOP. Think before you post. This is a support thread.
I have explained this over and over - this is the LAST TIME!
ANYONE ELSE THAT POSTS NEGATIVE COMMENTARY IN THIS THREAD WILL BE RECOMMENDED FOR A 48 HOUR TIME OUT - NO EXCUSES, NO APOLOGIES.
Enough is enough. STOP. Think before you post. This is a support thread.
IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT - THEN DON'T POST IN THIS THREAD
gladiatorqueen
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 3
Just wanting to post my support of the jury. They had a difficult task and I commend them for doing their duty. I know their decision isn't a popular one, but I know I came to the same conclusion. You really shouldn't convict someone just because you think they are guilty but don't have the evidence to support it beyond a reasonable doubt.
this always happens after I post...*sigh*... I have just posted my opinions.
um, even the state atty says they had a tough sell! "dry bones" evidence I think he said? I have said it for 3 yrs, there was not enough hard evidence to convict her if you kept an open mind about the case. Jury felt the same way. I feel badly for them, they did what was asked of them and people want to hang them over it.
on a good note though? karma is a... well...you know...so, if you think CA got off easy, it'll come back in some way
greycoupon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 184
Thank you all for serving. This was a very hard case. No one here knows what you were thinking. I KNOW the one alternate juror doesn't speak for all of you all. Nor does #3. Each of you speak for yourselves and I understand the tenuous position you are in.
I can't imagine being on a case like this. It's a horrible case and everyone wants justice for Caylee. I understand you voted not guilty- not that you believe Casey is innocent.
Anyone would have the knee jerk reaction to vote guilty because look at what she did but that;s not how the system works. I DON'T agree with all of the verdicts but understand how a group of 12 could decide this based on the evidence and case.
i hope we will eventually hear from everyone in a manor that doesn't forward potential financial motivation.
People are angry right now. People have a right to be angry. Words are just words and hopefully that is all there will be.
I can't imagine being on a case like this. It's a horrible case and everyone wants justice for Caylee. I understand you voted not guilty- not that you believe Casey is innocent.
Anyone would have the knee jerk reaction to vote guilty because look at what she did but that;s not how the system works. I DON'T agree with all of the verdicts but understand how a group of 12 could decide this based on the evidence and case.
i hope we will eventually hear from everyone in a manor that doesn't forward potential financial motivation.
People are angry right now. People have a right to be angry. Words are just words and hopefully that is all there will be.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 5
I salute them for the time they spent.
french75
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 0
I paused at the request for the highest bidder but I will still support them. They must feel even more sick to their stomachs now that they are hearing more about this.
I don't think they should be treated like this at all. Being a juror on a murder trial is a terrible experience.
I don't think they should be treated like this at all. Being a juror on a murder trial is a terrible experience.
TxLady2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,099
- Reaction score
- 1,632
It's hard being on a jury even if it's a minor case, especially where I live, it's so darned inconvenient. I can't imagine being sequestered for that long and not be able to be at home with my husband. Every time I get a jury summons, I pray that I won't be picked for some big murder case.
I commend these juries, they had a very tough job to do. They sure don't deserve the anger that's been displayed towards them, and I'm talking about some of the media, too. I have wanted to reach through the t.v. and slap Vinnie, he was just yelling at some of the commentators yesterday and today when they didn't agree with him.
I have to say that the charges were confusing, with the subtexts under each charge of what had to be proved to come to that verdict. And did I hear Beth say 24 pages of instructions?? Wow!
Anyway, while I might disagree with the verdict, I think they deserve support and respect, and I am appalled at the media for trying to second-guess their decision.
I commend these juries, they had a very tough job to do. They sure don't deserve the anger that's been displayed towards them, and I'm talking about some of the media, too. I have wanted to reach through the t.v. and slap Vinnie, he was just yelling at some of the commentators yesterday and today when they didn't agree with him.
I have to say that the charges were confusing, with the subtexts under each charge of what had to be proved to come to that verdict. And did I hear Beth say 24 pages of instructions?? Wow!
Anyway, while I might disagree with the verdict, I think they deserve support and respect, and I am appalled at the media for trying to second-guess their decision.
I'd like to thank the jurors for their service and offer them my condolences on the negative feedback they are getting here and elsewhere. I understand people are upset about the verdict, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The jurors are not supposed to render an emotional verdict or a verdict based on what they think might have happened, rather they must rely on the presented evidence or lack thereof.
I wrote and posted something similar in another thread but it seems appropriate here as well... people need to understand that there is a huge difference between what is speculated to be true, what seems to make sense, and what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I served as a juror on a murder trial (gang related). We, the members of the jury, came to believe the person was likely guilty; however, the defense raised reasonable doubt. Even though we thought the person was most likely guilty, we abided by the law and returned a not guilty verdict.
The prosecutor asked to speak to the jury after the trial and most of us agreed to meet with her. She asked what had raised reasonable doubt. Unfortunately (we learned then), she could have refuted what were issues for us but she did not do so during the trial. At the end, she thanked us for our service and told us we had done what we were supposed to do. She also pointed out that people who commit crimes don't usually stop and the person would likely end up in court again.
It was an eye opening process. I'd encourage people not to judge the jury. They did their job even if you don't like the result. I'd also wager that if you ever find yourself facing a court, you will be glad that our system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
I wrote and posted something similar in another thread but it seems appropriate here as well... people need to understand that there is a huge difference between what is speculated to be true, what seems to make sense, and what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I served as a juror on a murder trial (gang related). We, the members of the jury, came to believe the person was likely guilty; however, the defense raised reasonable doubt. Even though we thought the person was most likely guilty, we abided by the law and returned a not guilty verdict.
The prosecutor asked to speak to the jury after the trial and most of us agreed to meet with her. She asked what had raised reasonable doubt. Unfortunately (we learned then), she could have refuted what were issues for us but she did not do so during the trial. At the end, she thanked us for our service and told us we had done what we were supposed to do. She also pointed out that people who commit crimes don't usually stop and the person would likely end up in court again.
It was an eye opening process. I'd encourage people not to judge the jury. They did their job even if you don't like the result. I'd also wager that if you ever find yourself facing a court, you will be glad that our system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Snoopster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 9,596
- Reaction score
- 31,259
I have to confess that I have stayed pretty far away from the Casey Anthony case. It seemed to be whipped up into a frenzy.
Of course anyone would be horrified that poor Caylee is dead.
But, I would never suppose to second guess the jury's verdict. It would have been so much 'easier' for them to simply come out with a guilty verdict. That's what the public was salivating for. So why didn't they? I am going to suppose that they followed the rule of law.
Does it look from the sidelines that Casey probably killed her child. Yes, it does. Does the thought of that turn my stomach, as a parent myself? Of course. BUT, let's not throw out the legal system and presume we armchair spectators can decide the verdict based on what the media feeds us. Let's not decide guilt without proper trials. Otherwise, we should simply go back to the basic vigilante system.
(See, I was only brave, or should I say tolerant enough, to post here on a 'friendly' forum. And even here, poor Salem had to YELL and THREATEN before anyone other than the frenzied masses was allowed to offer a different opinion. Just plain scary.)
I'll be going to spend my time in other forums now. Sorry if I've intruded.
Of course anyone would be horrified that poor Caylee is dead.
But, I would never suppose to second guess the jury's verdict. It would have been so much 'easier' for them to simply come out with a guilty verdict. That's what the public was salivating for. So why didn't they? I am going to suppose that they followed the rule of law.
Does it look from the sidelines that Casey probably killed her child. Yes, it does. Does the thought of that turn my stomach, as a parent myself? Of course. BUT, let's not throw out the legal system and presume we armchair spectators can decide the verdict based on what the media feeds us. Let's not decide guilt without proper trials. Otherwise, we should simply go back to the basic vigilante system.
(See, I was only brave, or should I say tolerant enough, to post here on a 'friendly' forum. And even here, poor Salem had to YELL and THREATEN before anyone other than the frenzied masses was allowed to offer a different opinion. Just plain scary.)
I'll be going to spend my time in other forums now. Sorry if I've intruded.