Her behavior was a huge part of the circumstantial evidence but Mr Foreman, in all his brilliance, wouldn't allow the other jurors to consider it. Can you imagine? So being elected foreman suddenly gave him the authority to tell them what they could and couldn't consider as evidence? He :what: gained an indepth knowledge of the law? Why didn't any of those sheep challenge him? I would have asked to see the jury instruction or law book he referenced, and if he didn't bend on his views, a question would have been issued to the judge regarding circumstantial evidence.
No wonder they couldn't connect the dots because half of the dots were the circmstantial evidence which they weren't ALLOWED to consider.
Ugggghhh .... Don't even get me started on those 12. :furious:
Agree, agree, agree!!! It's still so fresh and raw for me, and once I get started on those jurors, esp. JF and DA, I get so upset and frustrated all over again. It still infuriates me today as much as it did on July, 5, 2011, perhaps even more... And unreal, the arrogance of JF and DA... I will never forget how p'sed I was when I watched their post-trial interviews, and hearing how they came to the verdict. Talk about sick... I'd say my number one frustration was when they said that they couldn't convict without a COD, which is also why they didn't bother deliberating, or even consider the mountains of evidence... They were obviously so smart they didn't need to read the instructions or ask any questions. They just completely dismissed it all and threw away years of investigations. And, yes, their duty was to go through the evidence and put the pieces together. Of course, we know what would've been found in their instructions... that COD was not necessary for a conviction. It would've been so simple to verify, because that's a pretty big wrong if you're not right... JF said if there's no cause of death, how do you know if a crime has been committed? Other than the duct tape, stinky car, the 31 days, lies, lies, lies, and the whole swamp thing... It sounds to me like the only instructions these jurors followed were from the mouths of a couple of arrogant dimwits... Who, btw, created their very own elements for the State to prove/disprove... And why no one else in that group verified whether or not COD had to be proven, I will never know. My money's on them being lazy, bullied, and pressured by DA and JF, with all her fancy legal lingo. The only thing I know for sure is that they got it wrong, big-time..So, here's where I think their over inflated egos, combined with their lack of common sense, caused them all to miss the obvious... If the COD was necessary then why did this go to trial? Would JA, LDB, FG, JP, etc., all let this go on if COD was needed for a conviction, knowing they didn't have it? Would they have put all that time and money into prosecuting her, if she couldn't be convicted without a cause? How could that have made any sense to the jurors? It makes zero sense to me...
I'm quite thankful no juror has hit it big financially... I do believe there were some jurors with an agenda, a financial motive... An easy way to the money. We know fca and fam are willing and eager to sell Caylee out, and will be more than happy to accept blood money, without a second thought... Which I believe is exactly why she filed for bankruptcy... to pave the way for her big interview, so that no one else but her will be able to get their hands on "her" money...
All jmo