What do you want to personally say to the jurors?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only in America do you get more time for shooting a prosecutor the bird than murdering a 2 year child. Oh and by the way hello everybody!
 
what i WANT to say, i wont, id get banned for sure. but i will say SHAME SHAME SHAME on you! you dropped the ball and HORRIBLY>> id used to feel sorry for you, seeing the graphic image of caylees remains... NOW i hope that vison haunts you guys..for rest of your days... you helped a killer, a child killer go free, on to party it up, sleep around and god forbid, get pregnant again!! living her bella vita,getting her way...thanks again, i lost hope in the justice system. god forgive me, i just hope and pray that the inmates in general pop( since she is aquitted, she cant get protective custody anymore, hence fair game!) i have more faith in THEM than i do YOU>...
 
Jurors - my 3 questions:

1. Have you just turned a baby-killer, by Caylee's own mommy no less ... into America's latest Reality Star?
2. When faced with Casey's timeline ... her neglect of this baby and her own selfish ambition coupled with her absolute, terrible, terrible lies and despicable actions ... please tell us WHAT happened to common sense & logic?
3. America's "baby", Caylee ... has just been ... dumped ... all over again. How do you feel about that?

Lord, I'm pinched, punctured and totally gutted on this piercing verdict.

We *have* to hold on to Karma ... we must believe the truth will win out. Watch this one...
 
After 31 days of complete avoidance, what part of "it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car" did you not understand? That is unreasonable. What a travesty.
 
Oh and you didn't believe George but you did believe Cindy when she said she made those chloroform searches huh? Nice going!!!!
 
uklaw said:
Criticism, threads and insults are quite simply unacceptable. We can disagree with the verdict. However, the right to trial by jury is one of the fundamental guarantees afforded by the US constitution. In fact that the right to trial by jury is provided for in an entrenched constitution is one of the tenets of the US justice system that I most highly rate and wish were present in the UK Justice System. If your going to have a jury system you must respect the verdict and the jury who render it no matter how much you may disagree with it and them.
Click to expand...

No. If by the word "threads" you meant to write threats, yes, that is true. Threats are not acceptable. However, criticism, insults, disrespect for the verdict, disgust at the jurors and the expression of that disgust - those are all things that are just as fundamental Constitutional rights of all Americans as is the right to a trial by jury.

As I read somewhere this morning, "we have a system of law, not a system of justice." We are required to respect the process and accept the verdict. But we are not required to in any way agree with it or to agree that it represents a just conclusion. Nor are we required to suppress our outrage. The jury had the right to vote their consciences, God help them, but we have the right to find their verdict wrong, contemptible, disgusting, lacking in even a minimum of intellect, common sense and as some put, brain dust. And most important of all, we have, in our country, the right to express our opinion as often and as loudly as we choose.
 
Paradigm92 said:
No. If by the word "threads" you meant to write threats, yes, that is true. Threats are not acceptable. However, criticism, insults, disrespect for the verdict, disgust at the jurors and the expression of that disgust - those are all things that are just as fundamental Constitutional rights of all Americans as is the right to a trial by jury.

As I read somewhere this morning, "we have a system of law, not a system of justice." We are required to respect the process and accept the verdict. But we are not required to in any way agree with it or to agree that it represents a just conclusion. Nor are we required to suppress our outrage. The jury had the right to vote their consciences, God help them, but we have the right to find their verdict wrong, contemptible, disgusting, lacking in even a minimum of intellect, common sense and as some put, brain dust. And most important of all, we have, in our country, the right to express our opinion as often and as loudly as we choose.
Click to expand...

Thanks is not enough. I applaud this post.
 
I would use ICA's line .... Are you F*ing kidding me?
 
Where you tampered with by the defense team?, Did the maids/or keeping at the hotel
approach you, and pursuade your decision in anyway, shape or form?
 
Chili Fries said:
I think the pertinent question is...what lessons can prosecutors learn from this, what could the prosecution have done to put on a more effective case? I definitely don't think the defense was stellar so the failure here seems to be on the prosecution's side. When you have a verdict returned in less than 11 hours, that 13 jurors (so far) agree on, it shows a significant problem with the state's case.
Click to expand...

Ill give u that one. But i think that when the laws bend over backward to protect the rights of the accuse so as to not be overly prejudicial t the accused that it ties the prosecutors hands. That in and of itself is hiding the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Could it have made a difference if they were allowed to shoe her reaction to the remains being found, or her selling her childs photos to fund her defense, or never mentioning caylee while out on bond or not being able to put into evidence all of her previous stealing and comments that she was a psychopath and that cindy wanted to take custody. None of that was allowed cuz it was prejudicial or hearsay. But the defendant, thats a different story. She can say or do pretty much anything to aid in her defense whether it be true or not. U tell me who the sytem protects.
 
belle3 said:
Ill give u that one. But i think that when the laws bend over backward to protect the rights of the accuse so as to not be overly prejudicial t the accused that it ties the prosecutors hands. That in and of itself is hiding the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Could it have made a difference if they were allowed to shoe her reaction to the remains being found, or her selling her childs photos to fund her defense, or never mentioning caylee while out on bond or not being able to put into evidence all of her previous stealing and comments that she was a psychopath and that cindy wanted to take custody. None of that was allowed cuz it was prejudicial or hearsay. But the defendant, thats a different story. She can say or do pretty much anything to aid in her defense whether it be true or not. U tell me who the sytem protects.
Click to expand...

I am so SICK of talking about learning lessons from this! I hope everytime they close their eyes, they see Caylee's skull with duct tape over it. I hope one day they actually smell real decomp so they know what they did. I hope that God never lets them forget what they did. and I hope one day that Caylee has her vengeance on them and that thing that gave birth to her.
 
1. Would you hire Casey as the Nanny for your children/grandchildren?

2. Did you all decide there was more money to be made by a Not Guilty verdict than a fair, just, and reasonable verdict - is that what you guys were doing for almost 12 hours?
 
I hope today as you all settle back into the routine of your real lives, that you are reminded that you FAILED in the duty you had to Caylee....everyday...by those around you. I hope for the sake of your loved ones, you find your common sense on your doorstep or where ever you all left it before you walked into that courthouse.

I also hope you never have another peaceful nights sleep. You don't deserve it.

I hope when you look into the eyes of your own children, grandchildren, neices and nephews you are reminded of your complete failure to reach a JUST verdict for Caylee.
 
Paradigm92 said:
No. If by the word "threads" you meant to write threats, yes, that is true. Threats are not acceptable. However, criticism, insults, disrespect for the verdict, disgust at the jurors and the expression of that disgust - those are all things that are just as fundamental Constitutional rights of all Americans as is the right to a trial by jury.

As I read somewhere this morning, "we have a system of law, not a system of justice." We are required to respect the process and accept the verdict. But we are not required to in any way agree with it or to agree that it represents a just conclusion. Nor are we required to suppress our outrage. The jury had the right to vote their consciences, God help them, but we have the right to find their verdict wrong, contemptible, disgusting, lacking in even a minimum of intellect, common sense and as some put, brain dust. And most important of all, we have, in our country, the right to express our opinion as often and as loudly as we choose.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear! Thank you for this!
 
I would ask them, if they looked into their hearts at all during this trial, instead of heeding to the law. Did they feel any emotion at seeing that poor childs remains and if they ever thought...well if she didnt do it...who the hell did?
 
I suppose they completely threw out Dr G's testimony that 100% of accidents are reported!

I guess they thought she was a liar or her sources were false.
 
Thank you for taking on this horrendous burden and sacrificing weeks away from loved ones. I hope you can sleep soundly at night knowing that you did what you could with the evidence you were presented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 2,036 (members: 175, guests: 1,861)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
1,861
Total visitors
2,036
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,976
Messages
18,132,679
Members
231,196
Latest member
SluethinAway
Back
Top