K&B Ask for custody order to be sealed

[jumpstreet]

jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thanks Star. Just to hopefully clarify: my primary hope would be for anyone charged (especially with murder) to receive a fair trial. It seems me that the more objective a jury, the more likely to achieve this goal. [ I'm cool with the description someone posted: "an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions..." ]

FWIW, I was also opining that (to me) ncsu95 seems to be among those who exhibit the above characteristics, just based on the posts I've read. [ Wasn't saying there aren't a ton of others also with a similar approach and/or way-of-thinking ] Hopefully at least one such similar person will end up on the jury.

For those who chose to somehow be insulted by (and/or simply didn't understand) my post.... well, I'm speechless on that one...

 

[jmflu]

I think that it just points towards someone with (what appeared to be) an argument for BC's innocence. Perhaps you were thinking that since it is "innocent until proven guilty" then it's better to go with someone who continues to argue for BC's innocence rather than someone who has followed the trail and come up with the "he's probably guilty" scenario.

 

[ncsu95]

I think that it just points towards someone with (what appeared to be) an argument for BC's innocence. Perhaps you were thinking that since it is "innocent until proven guilty" then it's better to go with someone who continues to argue for BC's innocence rather than someone who has followed the trail and come up with the "he's probably guilty" scenario.

I have never once argued that Brad is innocent. If I have, please show me the post.

 

[Anderson]

Thanks Star. Just to hopefully clarify: my primary hope would be for anyone charged (especially with murder) to receive a fair trial. It seems me that the more objective a jury, the better to achieve this goal. [ I'm cool with the description someone posted: "an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere" ]

FWIW, I was also opining that (to me) ncsu95 seems to be among those who exhibit the above characteristics, just based on the posts I've read. [ Wasn't saying there aren't a ton of others also with a similar approach and/or way-of-thinking ] Hopefully at least one such similar person will end up on the jury.

For those who chose to somehow be insulted by (and/or simply didn't understand) my post.... well, I'm speechless on that one...

With all due respect JS, I don't think that anyone on this board would qualify for the jury. I say this not JUST because we all know about the case, although that is one reason. I also think that many posters are biased in some way. Some may be open to the view that BC may be guilty, but no more than other posters that are open to the view that he may be innocent. This may be related to whatever interested us in the case to begin with.

However, I do see some posters that would ultimately base their opinion on the full range of evidence which may emerge and they also take the time to review it. I think that individuals of this mindset (but not acquainted with the case to the same degree as WS posters) may make the best jurors. IMO, the contributors to the board that fit this description currently seem to be leaning toward the guilty verdict, which I find significant. I am sure that they would shift given a reason to do so.

JMO

 

[jmflu]

I have never once argued that Brad is innocent. If I have, please show me the post.

Mexico sun must have baked my brain. Must have you confused with someone else.

Sorry!

 

[ncsu95]

Mexico sun must have baked my brain. Must have you confused with someone else.

Sorry!

I have argued a different point of view on much of the "evidence" we've seen so far....but I've never said or claimed he was innocent. In fact, I've maintained all along that he is probably guilty.

 

[sunflowers]

Since Sandlin/K & B are basing much of their motion on the Sheppard case, I went in search of old news articles to compare how this case was approached by the press in 1954 - 1956 versus how the press has approached the Cooper case in 2008. The following link reveals some of the press articles written concerning the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Very interesting indeed:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sheppard/sheppardnewspaper.html


For comparison purposes since WRAL seems to be high on the list:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3359064/

wow. i just finished reading through all of this. thanks for the links. very interesting that attorneys are citing this case....

 

[Roy23]

With all due respect JS, I don't think that anyone on this board would qualify for the jury. I say this not JUST because we all know about the case, although that is one reason. I also think that many posters are biased in some way. Some may be open to the view that BC may be guilty, but no more than other posters that are open to the view that he may be innocent. This may be related to whatever interested us in the case to begin with.

However, I do see some posters that would ultimately base their opinion on the full range of evidence which may emerge and they also take the time to review it. I think that individuals of this mindset (but not acquainted with the case to the same degree as WS posters) may make the best jurors. IMO, the contributors to the board that fit this description currently seem to be leaning toward the guilty verdict, which I find significant. I am sure that they would shift given a reason to do so.

JMO

I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistant statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it. I believe that ultimately when the case is proven, he would vote guilty and the process worked. Kudos to you NCSU. Brad is going to be a guilty man but you gave him every benefit of the doubt and still do. I believe the evidence would change that.

 

[jumpstreet]

I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistent statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it

Agreed Roy...
Is pretty much the opinion I was "trying" to relay at my original post on the matter. One or two folks here seemed to take it the wrong way - not sure why (shrugs).

In any case, we can get back to the regularly scheduled discussion now... [ if anyone here gets called for jury-duty in this case {yes, I know that's not gonna happen... } - I'm sure we'll all get a full post-mortem ]

 

[RaleighNC]

In any case, we can get back to the regularly scheduled discussion now... [ if anyone here gets called for jury-duty in this case {yes, I know that's not gonna happen... } - I'm sure we'll all get a full post-mortem ]

Oh someone might get called - but I can pretty much guaran-damn-tee they won't get seated! :yes::yes::yes:

 

[Anderson]

I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistant statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it. I believe that ultimately when the case is proven, he would vote guilty and the process worked. Kudos to you NCSU. Brad is going to be a guilty man but you gave him every benefit of the doubt and still do. I believe the evidence would change that.

Okay, since we must give names: I think that, for example, RC or SG (and there are certainly several others) would make perfect jurors. This would be the case, if they were not posters on websleuths. They both begin by looking at the evidence and take the time to review it. They would both certainly respond to new evidence.

 

[Anderson]

Oh someone might get called - but I can pretty much guaran-damn-tee they won't get seated! :yes::yes::yes:

:clap:

 

[ncsu95]

Okay, since we must give names: I think that, for example, RC or SG (and there are certainly several others) would make perfect jurors. This would be the case, if they were not posters on websleuths. They both begin by looking at the evidence and take the time to review it. They would both certainly respond to new evidence.

I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

 

[Anderson]

I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

Is that not the equivalent of disregarding all of the affidavits from Nancy's friends ?

I do disregard the witness that claimed to have seen Nancy (just as I disregard the hearsay presented by Nancy's friends as "facts"). She went from "knowing" it was Nancy in an affidavit to "thinking" it was Nancy when put on the stand. She also was not consistent in her claims of when events occured, could not describe what Nancy was wearing with any clarity and so on. Apparently LE also disregarded her claim. Because one disregards this person simply does not equate to believing in 100% guilt, it simply means one thinks the credibility of what the individual thought they saw is lacking. It's similar to Mr. Hiller claiming LE was trying to coerce him in an affidavit and proclaiming it to the the press and then getting on the stand and saying he just was naive about investigations and deciding not to reiterate that statement under oath. His perception was obviously very different depending on where and under what conditions he was stating his "facts".

 

[ncsu95]

Is that not the equivalent of disregarding all of the affidavits from Nancy's friends ?

I do disregard the witness that claimed to have seen Nancy (just as I disregard the hearsay presented by Nancy's friends as "facts"). She went from "knowing" it was Nancy in an affidavit to "thinking" it was Nancy when put on the stand. She also was not consistent in her claims of when events occured, could not describe what Nancy was wearing with any clarity and so on. Apparently LE also disregarded her claim. Because one disregards this person simply does not equate to believing in 100% guilt, it simply means one thinks the credibility of what the individual thought they saw is lacking. It's similar to Mr. Hiller claiming LE was trying to coerce him in an affidavit and proclaiming it to the the press and then getting on the stand and saying he just was naive about investigations and deciding not to reiterate that statement under oath. His perception was obviously very different depending on where and under what conditions he was stating his "facts".

Personally, I haven't disregarded anything. I believe all of NCs friends were telling the truth from their perspective. I just believe that most of that information came from NC and can't be rebutted (obviously). Given they were going through a divorce, I wouldn't expect NC to speak highly of BC, and I could see her exaggerating as well.

 

[ncsu95]

And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

Exactly. We don't have enough information to determine if she is credible or not.

 

[raisincharlie]

Personally, I haven't disregarded anything. I believe all of NCs friends were telling the truth from their perspective. I just believe that most of that information came from NC and can't be rebutted (obviously). Given they were going through a divorce, I wouldn't expect NC to speak highly of BC, and I could see her exaggerating as well.

From a criminal trial perspective, the hearsay of the friends will not be admissable. It can therefore be disregarded. I don't believe I said you disregarded anything, only stated what I have disregarded and why so lets move past this pith party.

 

[ncsu95]

And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

I also think LE (not necessarily CPD) sometimes disregard things that don't fit into their theory of what happened.

 

[Anderson]

From a criminal trial perspective, the hearsay of the friends will not be admissable. It can therefore be disregarded. I don't believe I said you disregarded anything, only stated what I have disregarded and why so lets move past this pith party.

You are quite right. Lets move on.