2011.05.20 On a Scale of 1 to 10 How do you Feel About this Jury?

[natsound]

I believe you're right natsound, certainly that they had to have schemed together in some way or other. Those media packets were there waiting and it seemed fairly obvious (to me anyway) that they decided en masse that they weren't taking them. Even if any of them individually had some sort of plan in mind to talk to the media, not one of them poked their head in the door and asked if they could have one.

Are you saying you do think they schemed together, or you don't think they schemed together? I'm just having my morning :coffee:, so....

 

[Well Done 99]

Interesting! I guess my problem with that is it seems conspiratorial in nature... like they all got together and said, "OK, let's take honesty and decency and throw it out the window for the almighty dollar."

I believe they set out with the right intentions, but they were so hung up on the word "proof". That, combined with juror fatigue, became a recipe for the crap on toast we were served on July 5.

I believe you're right natsound, certainly that some sort of group scheming went on.
For example, even if any of them were individually planning to speak to the media (which has now shown to be the case), not one of them poked their head in the door of the nicely set-up press room to speak immediately after the verdict. To me, it seems that decision had been made en masse.

 

[Well Done 99]

Are you saying you do think they schemed together, or you don't think they schemed together? I'm just having my morning :coffee:, so....

I deleted that post, sorry- they were offered the packets ... they didn't 'speak'.
I was saying there seems to have been some sort of scheming, an example being that there appears to have been a decision not to speak to the media as a group. Who knows whether any scheming or anything conspiritorial went on during deliberation. My guess would be yes!

 

[Italy]

I believe you're right natsound, certainly that some sort of group scheming went on.
For example, even if any of them were individually planning to speak to the media (which has now shown to be the case), not one of them poked their head in the door of the nicely set-up press room to speak immediately after the verdict. To me, it seems that decision had been made en masse.

Good point Well Done. Now they are griping about the media hounding them. Had they chosen to speak to the press immediately following the verdict, there would have been no need for the press to seek out individual jurors for their comments.

We have been told that one juror wanted to tell "his story", but only upon receipt of a five figure check.

They can try to justify this verdict, but it will not wash. They forget that we saw the trial and the evidence also.

It is telling that one of the defense attorneys publicly said he was surprised by the verdict. In other words, he believed there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find guilt.

My anger and distaste for this group of 12 has only grown.

I sincerely hope they are haunted by this travesty; but it seems that they are among the small number not bothered by it. (I remember very well Jennifer Ford telling us how well she sleeps at night.)

 

[Prof]

:maddening: WARNING : Brace yourselves for this one :

Another "anonymous juror" has spoken out :


http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521892,00.html


Casey Anthony 'Seems Like a Horrible Person,' Says Juror

By Steve Helling

Monday August 22, 2011 09:00 PM EDT

snippet from above link: "One male juror consented to speak with PEOPLE under the condition of complete anonymity."

Juror does NOT even HAVE THE GUTS to PUT HIS NAME ON THE VERDICT !

MOO MOO MOO ...

Geez. So is this the juror who got the agent right away, asking for more money?

My first reaction to the article is to the sensationalism of the first two sentences. [This was all alleged right after the verdict]

The Casey Anthony jurors have been barred from restaurants, shunned by family members, and vilified online. One even quit her job and moved out of Florida, for fear of the backlash.

Barred? There was one reported restaurant in the media in the jurors' county. That place had to take the sign down. This happened the day after the verdict. I have not heard anything else in close to two months. Has anyone else?

Shunned by family? well, that's their own personal business, and just absurd. This juror stated "My own sister cussed me out. It has ruined my life." [I thought jurors had to be at least 18? ] :waitasec:

Vilified online? Considering that we only have one name of one juror because the one who came forward was also the first to gain material rewards from coming forward, speaks volumes to me.

Aside from getting some form of compensation to come forward, take the consequences! I believe people should stand by their decisions. If the jurors knew the verdict to be controversial, but still go for that decision, they should STAND BY it, not hide behind it because of the amount unexpected backlash.

To wait for the highest paycheck, says to me that jurors might have expected to get something more out of it all, precisely because the verdict was controversial, and now jurors are upset because that bonus did not pan out.

Come on, the retired part-time cook? Allegedly she was planning on quitting anyway.

All an attempt at making this article with relatively no new information relevant, or at least worth the money spent. IMO

 

[okiedokietoo]

Ah I get it - this has been a joke lol See, read below. These aren't the FCA Jurors. FCA Jurors would have heard the testimony from Dr. Vass about the chloroform levels. This is a Juror from a different Jury. lol

If there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.

We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039

 

[Well Done 99]

.

They can try to justify this verdict, but it will not wash.

+respectfully snipped+

Thanks Italy. What amazes me is this latest comment that they "stunned" themselves with their verdict. Doesn't that mean "We got it wrong"?

 

[LCoastMom]

More from the article and I can"t believe what I just read.

"And then we sat there for a few minutes and were like, 'Holy crap, we are letting her go free,' he continues. "Everyone was just stunned at what we were about to do. [One of the women jurors] asked me, 'Are you okay with this?' and I said, 'Hell, no. But what else can we do? We promised to follow the law

Puhleeze, they weren't following the rules let alone any laws! I really wish someone could explain how this happened in a way that I could understand, these people all function in the world but they could not connect the dots or figure out 1+1=2. :no: :no: :no:

I originally had some sympathy for the final holdout juror, no more. The more I think about it he didn't holdout anywhere near long enough.

 

[2goldfish]

I just cannot get over them saying how unhappy they were to reach the verdict?


WTF? why would they be so unhappy with it if they thought it was right?


dont get me wrong, I fullheartedly agree that FCA is a horrible person, but I, from the evidence presented in court, am certain she is a baby killer. they....think she is horrible but are NOT convinced she is a babykiller. so what's to feel bad about?

 

[rosepetal1065]

It is my belief that they wanted to reach a controversial verdict. They expected that it would result in an avalanche of requests for interviews, etc. They (according to one of the jurors) discussed at length, the media opportunities for them. I believe they also believed they were in for a big payday.I do believe they are shocked that the public is so outraged. They thought they could successfully peddle the constant whine of "...We were just following the law...".

What has happened instead is that the public correctly identified them as collectively ignorant, lazy and self-interested - none of which are admirable characteristics. They enhance and strengthen this with every word they utter.

What they are "sick" about is the inability to cash in.

This is what I've been thinking..you put it together so much better than I would have.
It's a very scary thing, watching society decline, right before your eyes.
Who does that? who would be thinking about a possible payday over seeking justice for a murdered child?
My mind will not wrap itself around that....ever.

 

[back2back19]

I just cannot get over them saying how unhappy they were to reach the verdict?


WTF? why would they be so unhappy with it if they thought it was right?


dont get me wrong, I fullheartedly agree that FCA is a horrible person, but I, from the evidence presented in court, am certain she is a baby killer. they....think she is horrible but are NOT convinced she is a babykiller. so what's to feel bad about?

They're unhappy 'cause people are being mean to them. Honestly, if no one had said jack and went along with it, they wouldn't be saying they were unhappy or that Casey was horrible or anything like that. People are being mean to them and they feel the need to tell us how horrible they felt but gosh golly gee, there just wasn't enough and they weren't supposed to connect dots or anything.

 

[Just K]

"on a Scale of 1 to 10"...
They are not even on that scale. They are well below ZERO!

 

[cityslick]

They're unhappy 'cause people are being mean to them. Honestly, if no one had said jack and went along with it, they wouldn't be saying they were unhappy or that Casey was horrible or anything like that. People are being mean to them and they feel the need to tell us how horrible they felt but gosh golly gee, there just wasn't enough and they weren't supposed to connect dots or anything.

It's basically hypocrisy. You say your unhappy/scared/etc but yet you feel the need to talk to the media and enrage the public further with comments like 'you feel bad about the verdict' and 'we know she's a bad person'. Do they expect people to throw flowers at their feet with comments like that?

 

[Well Done 99]

They're unhappy 'cause people are being mean to them. Honestly, if no one had said jack and went along with it, they wouldn't be saying they were unhappy or that Casey was horrible or anything like that. People are being mean to them and they feel the need to tell us how horrible they felt but gosh golly gee, there just wasn't enough and they weren't supposed to connect dots or anything.

ITA back2back. If there had been no public backlash, I wonder whether they would now be feeling such a need to justify the decision to us.
If they didn't know they'd bungled it as they were quietly slinking out of the courthouse, they certainly do now!

 

[Amster]

If the jury had asked to see the evidence of the computer search, "How To Make Chloroform" would that have been allowed? Wouldn't the search show the ingredients and instructions on how to make?

Oh well...too much work, I guess....poor Caylee. She deserved so much more.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

MOO ... I believe this jury did NOT understand the Jury Instructions at all, so I went back to read the "Jury Instructions" to see if there was "anything" in there that MIGHT EXPLAIN these "unbelievable statements" made by the Jurors.

If they did NOT understand the Instructions, why didn't they ask the Court ? These know-it-alls thought THEY were "smarter" than everyone else ! :maddening:

Below are some "snippets" from the Jury Instructions which the jury had ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE !

At a minimum, the jury should have found CFCA GUILTY of Aggravated Child Abuse and Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child -- DUCT TAPE and CHLOROFORM evidence !!!

The SA presented overwhelming evidence ... the DT had NO DEFENSE -- they "threw out there" what would "stick" ...

MOO ...


The link for the full set of Jury Instructions is : http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

R&BBM:

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the jury, I thank you for your attention during this trial. Please pay attention to the instructions I am about to give you. ...


WHEN THERE ARE LESSER INCLUDED CRIMES

In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the main crimes of which she is accused, there may be evidence that she committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime.

Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. The lesser crimes indicated in the definition of First Degree Murder are: Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murder. The lesser crime indicated in the definition of Aggravated Child Abuse is Child Abuse.


PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.


WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?

6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?

7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness' testimony?

8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.


RULES FOR DELIBERATION

These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.

4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.

5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.

6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.

7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.

8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.

Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.


VERDICT

You may find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment or guilty of such lesser included crime as the evidence may justify or not guilty.

If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then, of course, your verdict must be not guilty.

Only one verdict may be returned as to each crime charged. This verdict must be unanimous, that is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. The verdict must be in writing and for your convenience the necessary forms of verdict have been prepared for you. They are as follows:


SUBMITTING CASE TO JURY
...

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have agreed to a constitution and to live by the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[natsound]

I believe you're right natsound, certainly that some sort of group scheming went on.
For example, even if any of them were individually planning to speak to the media (which has now shown to be the case), not one of them poked their head in the door of the nicely set-up press room to speak immediately after the verdict. To me, it seems that decision had been made en masse.

I think they even admitted that decision was made en masse. And what does that tell you? That they knew the verdict would be met with outrage. I'm not buying what this juror is telling People Mag! :snooty:

I'm not usually this harsh, but I think the guy who said "OK, what ever you all want" is the worst juror on the worst jury ever.

 

[back2back19]

ITA back2back. If there had been no public backlash, I wonder whether they would now be feeling such a need to justify the decision to us.
If they didn't know they'd bungled it as they were quietly slinking out of the courthouse, they certainly do now!

I don't think they would. They'd just take it as everyone agreeing with their decision but I tend to think they knew how bad this verdict would go down... why didn't they speak afterwards? Because they knew. Why did they wait so long? I think they wanted a huge pay day. They expected to get something from this case and it turned out that all they got was scorn. Even from their family and friends. Sucks for them but hey, that's what happens when you fail to do your job. I wouldn't be so mad about this verdict if I felt they came to the decision the right way, by going through the evidence, etc.

 

[LCoastMom]

I want to know how this guy was Compensated for his time and how PEOPLE found him. Or maybe he found them...

the perfect murder: no DNA, no cause of death, NO PROBLEM

Ugh...compensation was my first thought too.

No DNA - not even Caylee's! That should have told them something!

No cause of death - yes but a healthy two year old was no longer alive, shouldn't that have counted for something?

NO PROBLEM! - yeah we (most of us) have a problem with their decision or at least how they arrived at their decision.


Broken down in the simplest terms: George was not charged with any crime so he was out of the picture. Caylee didn't wrap THREE PIECES OF DUCT TAPE ACROSS HER OWN FACE (and yes that was how she was found!), nor did she bag herself and take herself to the trashy swamp. FCA was the last person seen with Caylee - Gee, I guess they could have come up with the correct verdict rather quickly. What a farce and now they want sympathy? Just go away, take the DT and the A family with you.

 

[Well Done 99]

These know-it-alls thought THEY were "smarter" than everyone else ! :maddening:

+respectfully snipped+
You might have almost hit the nail on the head dgc. We (myself included) keep saying how dumb and unintelligent they are but what if it's the opposite?