The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[cityslick]

BBM - If that were so, this thread wouldn't exist and there would be no posts in it, however, as you can see, we're on round #4. Apparantly, it hasn't run its' course....if ever. The OJ verdict never settled in my mind and neither will this one. I can tell you precisely where I was when they read the OJ verdict in the criminal trial and I'll be able to do the same with this one.

These are branded people IMO and as long as there is breath in me, I will always be compelled to think about and verbalize as to how much I disagree with this verdict and why. I've had a few conversations with family members and they don't get very far into the conversation before I realize they don't half of what they think they know about it and I take over. Misinformation and hypotheticals don't fly on argument with me. Either you know your subject material or you don't. Same with this jury and no amount of pro-verdict "justification" will ever make any sense compared to what the State prosecutors set before this jury and asked them to use as tools to do the right thing. HHJP himself asked them to follow the law and at the same time use "common sense". They left that part out so now they get to live with it. All involved in the injustice of the crime toward Caylee know who they are and their "just" due is now to.........own it.

I noticed a few have jumped off my post about this discussion 'running it's course' to mean 'acceptance'. I can assure you, I meant nothing of the sort. My point was that each side (both for and against) are so very committed and determined to believe their opinion that in most cases cannot even hear the argument for the other side, much less try to debate it.

I have no problem debating things with posters. My issue comes when people post opinion as fact and then will not hear discussion that refutes what they think of as 'fact'. At that point the discussion is moot, everyone is talking in circles.

 

[RR0004]

Personally if you want to discuss it, discuss it...if you don't, well then don't. Attacking people is against TOS. Making generalizations about what is or isn't happening here on this thread (or on this website for this matter) just doesn't cut it...IMO.
We all have free choice.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

It's not a moot point for me. I have listened to what the jurors said, and what the not guilty supporters said, and considered their comments carefully.

Just because I did not get the Guilty verdict I wanted, does not mean I will ever change my mind. My decisions don't get homogenized because I didn't get a "win". This is not a hostile takeover of my employer we are talking about here, this was a ridiculous decision from a lazy uninformed jury. Period. And it always will be.

No way I am I rewriting history with an Oh Well - let's let it go. History is History, even more so with the losses.

I totally agree with the verdict.

I strongly disagree with the opinion that this was a ridiculous decision from a lazy uninformed jury.

From my point of view, the one thing I have accepted, is that the majority who believe this jury was wrong will not change their opinion that the jury was wrong and vice versa.

Prior to the trial, most debates about the evidence had become circular. The majority felt the states evidence was strong, and was more than enough to gain a conviction for KC. The minority believed the states evidence fell short of proving KC's guilt BARD.

The trial, and the eventual verdict did nothing to change the opinions from either side. Is there one person on this site who believed KC was guilty prior to the trial, that now has changed their opinion and believes she is not guilty? If there is, what was it that changed your opinion?

Rehashing the evidence will not change anyone's opinions. The majority has valid, intelligent, well thought out reasons for believing this verdict was wrong. The minority has valid, intelligent, well thought out reasons for believing this verdict was right.

When Dr. Bass, and Dr. Haskell were on opposite sides during a trial, both had opinions that were based on valid, intelligent, well thought out, reasoning. When the verdict was given, did that make the Dr. on the losing side, unintelligent, unreasonable, and used invalid thoughtless reasoning? Of course not. The same holds true here in this case where the majority is in total disagreement with the minority. Dr. Bass was on the losing side when he went up against Dr. Haskell. If being on the side opposite of the eventual verdict makes one unintelligent, unreasonable and thoughtless, then would that not make Dr. Vass, and Dr. Haskell unintelligent, unreasonble and thoughtless, since the verdict in this case was not guilty? Of course not. Nor does it make the majority who disagrees with the verdict unintelligent, unreasonable and thoughtless.

The jurors rendered their verdict. In the opinion of the majority, the verdict they rendered will forever be wrong, and I accept that no amount of debate will ever change that.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[MissJames]

I noticed a few have jumped off my post about this discussion 'running it's course' to mean 'acceptance'. I can assure you, I meant nothing of the sort. My point was that each side (both for and against) are so very committed and determined to believe their opinion that in most cases cannot even hear the argument for the other side, much less try to debate it.

I have no problem debating things with posters. My issue comes when people post opinion as fact and then will not hear discussion that refutes what they think of as 'fact'. At that point the discussion is moot, everyone is talking in circles.

Luckily we are well trained here at WS to use IMO and to provide a link of fact when necessary.
The jurors continue to give interviews and make statements,so the debate continues with each eye popping admission .............. JMO

 

[wonders]

My Thoughts Only:

Opening Statements
I have to admit that I fell asleep during LDB's. At the same time I realize that opening statements aren't evidence.
Baez's opening statement was disgusting to me.

George's Testimony
I believed him when he said that he never touch Casey in a sexual way.
I believed him when he said "that had I known something had happened to Caylee we wouldn't be here today".
Why he acted the way he did over River Cruz or whatever her real name may be, or the gas cans is beyond me. I can totally see why the jury would not like him one bit. But had he been the one to find Caylee in the pool why would he have bothered to place her in the trunk of the car when the swamp was just 15 houses away, that dosen't make sense.

Cindy's Testimony
I did almost feel sorry for her during her grief performance, but knew that that was what I would have like to have seen through out the last 3 years, instead of her being so nasty to everyone and anyone who just wanted to help find Caylee because she was supposed to be "missing". When sworn in she said "so help me God, yes" and then get on the stand and lie, just plain lie. Poor little Caylee. I can't but help wonder if her performance is the reason Casey walks among us today.

Lee Anthony's Testimony
I don't even know what to say about him other than I think he is plain weird.

Amy Huzingia's (<spl) Testimony
I felt she was really mad and wanted to say much more than she was allowed to say. I can't help but wonder if the jury felt it too. I wish I could hear her true feelings regarding her friendship with Casey and if she thinks Casey did kill Caylee.

The Death Smell Of The Car
I believe 7 people testified to the stench in that car. Again why would George place Caylee in the trunk when just 15 houses away is the swamp where Caylee was found.

The First Phone Call Home
How did the jury just skip over that call?

The Jail Visit Videos
Could the jury not see that the Anthony's were walking on egg shells with Casey?
Could they not see that Casey was hiding the truth about Caylee even to her parents?

I just don't get it. Why did the jury let her go free? I still don't see why they thought she was so scared of her father. She was a free roaming person. Had George been the sexual monster the defense painted him to be Casey would have been confined to her house most of the time. she wouldn't have had a chance of sleeping around like she did much less have a beautiful baby girl that she never wanted in the first place. AND I still ask this question so much. Why Spend Three Years In Jail Because Of An Accidental Drowning? The defense is protecting her now, so why not for the 3 years she spent in jail KWIM?

It just seems like to me common sense wasn't used during "diliberation".
If I think of more later I will add to this post.

ETA:
I also felt that the one hair with the so called death banding on it was a mistake to present to the jury. I would have been asking myself why the hair from the duct tape (skull) didn't have the same banding.
I didn't like JA's pigs in a blanket statement even though people thought it was funny, I just didn't. I felt like he was pulling a Baez. I also didn't like him laughing during Baez's closing. I thought he was showing his Baez side once again. I feel like the jury didn't like JA.

 

[cyberborg]

I totally agree with the verdict.

I strongly disagree with the opinion that this was a ridiculous decision from a lazy uninformed jury.

From my point of view, the one thing I have accepted, is that the majority who believe this jury was wrong will not change their opinion that the jury was wrong and vice versa.

Prior to the trial, most debates about the evidence had become circular. The majority felt the states evidence was strong, and was more than enough to gain a conviction for KC. The minority believed the states evidence fell short of proving KC's guilt BARD.

The trial, and the eventual verdict did nothing to change the opinions from either side. Is there one person on this site who believed KC was guilty prior to the trial, that now has changed their opinion and believes she is not guilty? If there is, what was it that changed your opinion?

Rehashing the evidence will not change anyone's opinions. The majority has valid, intelligent, well thought out reasons for believing this verdict was wrong. The minority has valid, intelligent, well thought out reasons for believing this verdict was right.

When Dr. Bass, and Dr. Haskell were on opposite sides during a trial, both had opinions that were based on valid, intelligent, well thought out, reasoning. When the verdict was given, did that make the Dr. on the losing side, unintelligent, unreasonable, and used invalid thoughtless reasoning? Of course not. The same holds true here in this case where the majority is in total disagreement with the minority. Dr. Bass was on the losing side when he went up against Dr. Haskell. If being on the side opposite of the eventual verdict makes one unintelligent, unreasonable and thoughtless, then would that not make Dr. Vass, and Dr. Haskell unintelligent, unreasonble and thoughtless, since the verdict in this case was not guilty? Of course not. Nor does it make the majority who disagrees with the verdict unintelligent, unreasonable and thoughtless.

The jurors rendered their verdict. In the opinion of the majority, the verdict they rendered will forever be wrong, and I accept that no amount of debate will ever change that.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I respect your opinion because IIRC you followed a thorough process to analyze, debate, deliberate, and process the evidence and ... you reached a conclusion.

I respect that. If there were others like you on the Jury and you reached a NG verdict ... I can respect that.

However ... just because the Jury reached a verdict that is consistent with those who agree with a NG verdict does not imply they did the right thing.

The pushback is not just about the verdict but because of the 'process', or lack of that was followed to get there. It isn't about the time spent either.

To me, it is all about years, months, days, hours were invested in putting together this trial, presenting it and, closing it and ... the Jury did not follow a reasonable process as we all did to reach our conclusions -- even with the limited view that they got.

There was a rush to verdict and they basically did a few straw polls, did not review weeks of evidence to refresh their minds, did not even read their notes (if they took any) -- they batted it around in a chit-chat, took the pulse and, everyone went with the majority so they could be done and go home.

There was not due-diligence observed in performing their civic duty ... no matter what the result ... that's what most posters are objecting to.

They don't get a pass in my book and warrant respect just because they supported my opinion ... or not. :twocents:

 

[cityslick]

I respect your opinion because IIRC you followed a thorough process to analyze, debate, deliberate, and process the evidence and ... you reached a conclusion.

I respect that. If there were others like you on the Jury and you reached a NG verdict ... I can respect that.

However ... just because the Jury reached a verdict that is consistent with those who agree with a NG verdict does not imply they did the right thing.

The pushback is not just about the verdict but because of the 'process', or lack of that was followed to get there. It isn't about the time spent either.

To me, it is all about years, months, days, hours were invested in putting together this trial, presenting it and, closing it and ... the Jury did not follow a reasonable process as we all did to reach our conclusions -- even with the limited view that they got.

There was a rush to verdict and they basically did a few straw polls, did not review weeks of evidence to refresh their minds, did not even read their notes (if they took any) -- they batted it around in a chit-chat, took the pulse and, everyone went with the majority so they could be done and go home.

There was not due-diligence observed in performing their civic duty ... no matter what the result ... that's what most posters are objecting to.

They don't get a pass in my book and warrant respect just because they supported my opinion ... or not. :twocents:

BBM

I can understand this point of view and I actually agree, the 'process' that they followed doesn't seem to lend itself to giving everything the proper due diligence to reach a verdict in a case like this. I still believe that a majority of folks would still have a 'problem' with the jury no matter how long they deliberated if the verdict was NG. The only difference is the focus wouldn't be on so much the 'process' as it would be something else (example: how can they spend a week looking at evidence and come up with NG).

 

[Sustained]

BBM

I can understand this point of view and I actually agree, the 'process' that they followed doesn't seem to lend itself to giving everything the proper due diligence to reach a verdict in a case like this. I still believe that a majority of folks would still have a 'problem' with the jury no matter how long they deliberated if the verdict was NG. The only difference is the focus wouldn't be on so much the 'process' as it would be something else (example: how can they spend a week looking at evidence and come up with NG).

The push back to me is also about their post-verdict behavior. Why couldn't they stand up as a group and answer questions about why or why not certain evidence was considered ? Or how they interpreted the jury instructions ? Or how they arrived at a set of verdicts that most of us find to be unreasonable given what they had to work with ? In a high-profile case like this, they chose to be silent as a group, leaving us to speculate and formulate negative opinions about the deliberation time, the consideration of punishment in the verdict, their apparent lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence, etc, etc.

A cohesive, confident group would have stood up and faced the music.

The fact they haven't speaks volumes to me ...

 

[cyberborg]

The push back to me is also about their post-verdict behavior. Why couldn't they stand up as a group and answer questions about why or why not certain evidence was considered ? Or how they interpreted the jury instructions ? Or how they arrived at a set of verdicts that most of us find to be unreasonable given what they had to work with ? In a high-profile case like this, they chose to be silent as a group, leaving us to speculate and formulate negative opinions about the deliberation time, the consideration of punishment in the verdict, their apparent lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence, etc, etc.

A cohesive, confident group would have stood up and faced the music.

The fact they haven't speaks volumes to me ...

I agree. I personally think that it was precisely because they 'punted the ball' so to speak and could not answer those questions because they did not go through that review process once all of the data and developments was in.

Given that, IMO, they shirked their duty was the reason they opted more easily to go with the least path of resistance, i.e., NG versus Guilty -- which deserved more deliberation given the penalty, either LIFE or DP.

In fairness to the Jury I do think that this was all too much for them, too much data, too high profile, too great a penalty. It was overwhelming and they did not have the focus, persistence or, accountability to dig through it.

It was easier to 'opt out' than to tackle an overwhelming task and, if you risk getting it wrong then ... defer to NG.

I also ponder the DT claims about Jury selection in the Internet age ... WTH? IIRC given the Jury had to be death qualified there were very FEW to choose from and/or eliminate. I don't get how the DT can imply they won due to Jury selection ... they did but it was fate NOT tactics IMO.

 

[LinasK]

You're right about society moving on to something else eventually. As we have seen time and time again, our society has a way of forgiving or forgetting even those that are despised the most as time goes on. Best example is someone like OJ, who over time became more of a punchline to a bad joke then actually 'hated'. Another example is MJ. Most people think he was some kind of pedophile but when he died, the guy was celebrated like you can't imagine.

I don't know if I believe in such an intangible thing as 'karma'. Usually it's one's actions that cause them issues down the road. IMO it wasn't 'karma' that got OJ back in jail, it was him being an idiot. Usually people who make mistakes in the past are prone to make mistakes in the future one way or the other. And I'm sure if and when that happens to her, society will laugh at it and move on, similar to what happened with OJ in Vegas.

Of course, we move on.....who would bother stopping their own life for someone like OJ or FCA?....and yes, they become the punchline to a bad joke, but the resentment doesn't leave IMO. It was "karma" that got OJ back in jail because he was an idiot and it's probably the same for FCA going forward. Your comment: Usually people who make mistakes in the past are prone to make mistakes in the future one way or the other. is so true. You are who you are and can be your own worst enemy. Eventually, it will catch up with them........both, i.e., "karma".

yep.....I chuckled when OJ tripped up and thought "it's about time" and I moved on but, to this day I take a alot of solace knowing he is exactly where he never wanted to be.

And to add to your post Baz, I still KNOW that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and I didn't celebrate him, only the fact that he no longer walks this earth!!! I change the channel if his music is on the radio, I continue to boycott it!

 

[PeteyGirl]

The jury has given us insight into the reasoning process they used to reach their verdict. Their verdict shocked me and disappointed me very much. I entertained doubts, on my part, that I/we had been unduly influenced by the media coverage.

Then the individual jurists began speaking out. And it was clear that they failed as has been outlined ad nauseum.

If they'd come out with a Guilty verdict via the same improper reasoning, it would have been alarming for all the same reasons. I know there would not be the backlash, and likely the jurors would be celebrated in spite of how improperly they executed their duty.

Regardless of the verdict, this jury's behavior scares me and makes me leery about the effectiveness of using conscripted jurists, the jury selection process as it is practised today, and sad that no one of these 12 was willing to proceed with courage in spite of pressure.

 

[2goldfish]

The push back to me is also about their post-verdict behavior. Why couldn't they stand up as a group and answer questions about why or why not certain evidence was considered ? Or how they interpreted the jury instructions ? Or how they arrived at a set of verdicts that most of us find to be unreasonable given what they had to work with ? In a high-profile case like this, they chose to be silent as a group, leaving us to speculate and formulate negative opinions about the deliberation time, the consideration of punishment in the verdict, their apparent lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence, etc, etc.

A cohesive, confident group would have stood up and faced the music.

The fact they haven't speaks volumes to me ...

as time has passed and I have gained some of my reasoning skills back (at least I had them in the first place unlike others I wont mention *cough*pinellas12*cough*) ....I have realised why they didnt speak out as a group right away.

they told the truth when they said they were sick to their stomachs over the verdict.

my opinion is that instinct told them it was the WRONG VERDICT but they THOUGHT they were following the law. they did not understand the instructions, they did not understand cirsumstantial evidence (for the love of ALL THAT IS GOOD the foreman told them they couldnt consider her behaviour during the 31 days! as ONE huge example!!) they did not understand that the sick feeling they had was reasonable doubt ABOUT THE VERDICT THEY WERE HANDING DOWN.

we have posters here, right in this very thread on this very page who for YEARS on this forum have said they thought the state had a poor case, and WHY they thought the state had a poor case, and none of these posters ever said such things as these jurors who HAVE spoken out, and this is because our posters, whatever they think, have combed through and debated the evidence for a LONG TIME in order to REASON OUT their opinions.

this si why I respect the opinions of those who respect the verdict - but I do NOT respect the verdict, and I do not respect the jurors, and I do not respect their reasoning skills - or lack thereof.

 

[runsdeep]

baez kept saying that the prosecution was calling her a *advertiser censored*. the only person i heard refer to her as a *advertiser censored* was baez. the jurors seemed to only pay attention to words such as *advertiser censored* and P___s.

 

[Aedrys]

I respect your opinion because IIRC you followed a thorough process to analyze, debate, deliberate, and process the evidence and ... you reached a conclusion.

I respect that. If there were others like you on the Jury and you reached a NG verdict ... I can respect that.

However ... just because the Jury reached a verdict that is consistent with those who agree with a NG verdict does not imply they did the right thing.

The pushback is not just about the verdict but because of the 'process', or lack of that was followed to get there. It isn't about the time spent either.

To me, it is all about years, months, days, hours were invested in putting together this trial, presenting it and, closing it and ... the Jury did not follow a reasonable process as we all did to reach our conclusions -- even with the limited view that they got.

There was a rush to verdict and they basically did a few straw polls, did not review weeks of evidence to refresh their minds, did not even read their notes (if they took any) -- they batted it around in a chit-chat, took the pulse and, everyone went with the majority so they could be done and go home.

There was not due-diligence observed in performing their civic duty ... no matter what the result ... that's what most posters are objecting to.

They don't get a pass in my book and warrant respect just because they supported my opinion ... or not. :twocents:

I totally, completely agree with you. That has been my problem. The more they speak out, the more it's obvious they went with quick polls, a raise of hands, and no one had any guts to stand up to the majority. That is not a good jury. That wouldn't even be a good jury for a guilty verdict either. That is the problem here, not what they came up with, but how they reached it. It's an abomination, and our legal system is in serious trouble if this is how juries keep making decisions in the future. That is what concerns the heck out of me.

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

I can understand this point of view and I actually agree, the 'process' that they followed doesn't seem to lend itself to giving everything the proper due diligence to reach a verdict in a case like this. I still believe that a majority of folks would still have a 'problem' with the jury no matter how long they deliberated if the verdict was NG. The only difference is the focus wouldn't be on so much the 'process' as it would be something else (example: how can they spend a week looking at evidence and come up with NG).

If the jury deliberated for a long time I know what I would have done which was the same thing I did in this instance - which was to listen to the jurors explanations such as they were, listen and read the legal experts comments both for and against and try to figure out just where I went to wrong in my own personal deductions about what the result should be.

The only problem with this jury is that the few explanations they have given fall very short of explaining their actions and no one has given me any other explanations or evidence that tells me otherwise. We ran a very "heavy duty" not guilty verdict thread right after the trial and there were many heated "discussions" but again, from my perspective those individuals had missed evidence, did not absorb the evidence or discounted it based on whatever. Certainly most had no idea of how high the standards are for evidence to even be admitted into evidence at a trial. It was pathetic - IMO.

 

[cyberborg]

If the jury deliberated for a long time I know what I would have done which was the same thing I did in this instance - which was to listen to the jurors explanations such as they were, listen and read the legal experts comments both for and against and try to figure out just where I went to wrong in my own personal deductions about what the result should be.

The only problem with this jury is that the few explanations they have given fall very short of explaining their actions and no one has given me any other explanations or evidence that tells me otherwise. We ran a very "heavy duty" not guilty verdict thread right after the trial and there were many heated "discussions" but again, from my perspective those individuals had missed evidence, did not absorb the evidence or discounted it based on whatever. Certainly most had no idea of how high the standards are for evidence to even be admitted into evidence at a trial. It was pathetic - IMO.

I agree.

What is most telling to me is that ... everyone in the media (TH experts) during trial closing was basically applauding the SA and that this was an expected Guilty verdict. All of the 'experts'. There was a tipping point, a seachange towards Guilty as charged. Even LKB, a former Defense team member was backpeddling and laying some groundwork towards the inevitable Guilty verdict. If the truth be known, even the DT was expecting Guilty but was seeking LIFE not DP.

When the verdict was announced everyone was likewise 'shocked' and reacted with shock -- even the DT.

When the dust started to settle experts came out, like current and former Judges and proclaimed that the SA had met its burden of proof and they saw Guilty BARD based on strong circumstantial evidence.

We started to hear from a growing pool of folks (not WS) who either believed FCA was NG, wanted to believe, wanted to jump on the 'winning' side and/or -- wanted to criticize the SA after the fact.

How did so many get it so wrong if the Jury did indeed get it right and do the right thing, by the Law?

To me, you have to take the pulse of a cross section of the community both at closing pre-verdict, at verdict and, in the post-verdict analysis. To me, it is clear that the Jury did not understand, did not perform their civic duty and, did not serve justice.

They are not unique, they did not see or not see what others did ... we all saw the same trial. They just did not have the courage to follow-through.

 

[Aedrys]

I agree.

What is most telling to me is that ... everyone in the media (TH experts) during trial closing was basically applauding the SA and that this was an expected Guilty verdict. All of the 'experts'. There was a tipping point, a seachange towards Guilty as charged. Even LKB, a former Defense team member was backpeddling and laying some groundwork towards the inevitable Guilty verdict. If the truth be known, even the DT was expecting Guilty but was seeking LIFE not DP.

When the verdict was announced everyone was likewise 'shocked' and reacted with shock -- even the DT.

When the dust started to settle experts came out, like current and former Judges and proclaimed that the SA had met its burden of proof and they saw Guilty BARD based on strong circumstantial evidence.

We started to hear from a growing pool of folks (not WS) who either believed FCA was NG, wanted to believe, wanted to jump on the 'winning' side and/or -- wanted to criticize the SA after the fact.

How did so many get it so wrong if the Jury did indeed get it right and do the right thing, by the Law?

To me, you have to take the pulse of a cross section of the community both at closing pre-verdict, at verdict and, in the post-verdict analysis. To me, it is clear that the Jury did not understand, did not perform their civic duty and, did not serve justice.

They are not unique, they did not see or not see what others did ... we all saw the same trial. They just did not have the courage to follow-through.

ITA. I am so saddened by their lack of courage. Is this what society has come to? What happened to standing up for what is right despite all odds? We're so spoiled and comfortable today that no one wants to leave their comfort zones to make a tough decision. That whole jury was so weak willed and spineless. It's just pathetic how little thought and action went into this verdict. They just wanted to run away back home and get on with their lives instead of standing up for a little, helpless girl that was brutally murdered by her mother and tossed into a swamp like the rest of the garbage already there. I miss the days when having courage was a badge of honor and highly respected, not worthless and just something to run from.

 

[lauriej]

The push back to me is also about their post-verdict behavior. Why couldn't they stand up as a group and answer questions about why or why not certain evidence was considered ? Or how they interpreted the jury instructions ? Or how they arrived at a set of verdicts that most of us find to be unreasonable given what they had to work with ? In a high-profile case like this, they chose to be silent as a group, leaving us to speculate and formulate negative opinions about the deliberation time, the consideration of punishment in the verdict, their apparent lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence, etc, etc.

A cohesive, confident group would have stood up and faced the music.

The fact they haven't speaks volumes to me ...

..of course they didn't want to do the media sit-down post verdict-----b/c that would have been a "freebie" , they wanted to dive into those media packet$$$$$--- and check them out...

..or, as jennifer ford says--they wanted to do it "with integrity".

Ford told ABC: "Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."

...also, jennifer ford had a room she had to be checking into over @ disneyworld..

JF&#8217;s mother told St. Petersburg Times writer Leonora LaPeter Anton that her daughter and others would have free access to Disney Worldbut ABC Rep saidJF is just staying at a Disney hotel in Orlando to appear on Good Morning America Thursday morning, but she "absolutely does not" have free access to the theme parks.

 

[Baznme]

I noticed a few have jumped off my post about this discussion 'running it's course' to mean 'acceptance'. I can assure you, I meant nothing of the sort. My point was that each side (both for and against) are so very committed and determined to believe their opinion that in most cases cannot even hear the argument for the other side, much less try to debate it.

I have no problem debating things with posters. My issue comes when people post opinion as fact and then will not hear discussion that refutes what they think of as 'fact'. At that point the discussion is moot, everyone is talking in circles.

BBM - Exactly!

 

[NavySubMom]

baez kept saying that the prosecution was calling her a *advertiser censored*. the only person i heard refer to her as a *advertiser censored* was baez. the jurors seemed to only pay attention to words such as *advertiser censored* and P___s.

JB called the felon a "lying" *advertiser censored*, so therefore, the jury felt able to convict the felon of the 4 counts of lying because JB confirmed for them that they could! this recent juror who spoke in People said they immediately dealt with those 4 counts, and they all quickly agreed FCA was guilty, because JB told them so.... anything that was not directly told to them, they did not have time to deal with.

IMO, MOO, etc.