U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:51 PM
 
Location: California
1,028 posts, read 1,145,800 times
Reputation: 828

Advertisements

Juror 3 says "I did not say she was innocent, I said there was not enough evidence to convict her of the crime. You cannot determine the punishment if you cannot prove what the crime was." Something like that, not an exact quote but very close.

 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:53 PM
 
672 posts, read 1,814,444 times
Reputation: 1176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
When the jury has questions about jury instructions, the Judge cannot explain any further than RE-READING the instructions. What happens is that the jury would be brought back into the courtroom, after sending a written communication to the Court, and then the Court will Re-Read the instructions.

So if the jury has a hard copy of the jury instructions in the jury room with them, they can simply re-read the instructions for themselves. I believe it is the practice in most courtrooms in Florida now to provide a copy of the jury instructions to the jury when they go out to deliberate.
I'd have to check but I think I remember the judge saying he was keeping all copies.

And caps aren't nice so hold off on caps, thanks!
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:53 PM
 
9,917 posts, read 9,317,770 times
Reputation: 8058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
Wait. The first sentence. It's a bit confusing. If she retained a publicist while she was still a juror... Isn't that illegal? (It's implied if he put something in the media packets.) If this had been known before the verdict she'd have been bounced. That is a violation of the judge's instructions. Isn't it? Legal experts?


Personally, I think profiting like this is blood money. You don't make money because of the death of a little kid. Disgusting to me.
Nothing confusing at all Juror # 6

THE SALESMAN
The 33-year-old married white man has two children, ages 6 and 22 months. He has a business degree and sells restaurant equipment. Throughout the proceedings, he has had trouble staying awake during the dry scientific testimony.

Each juror received a packet when the trial was over (that was announced in the courtroom news conference) with media info in it. So Juror #6 gets home yesterday and hires Rick French ... gave him the info and said "go get it Mr. French, get me all the money you can and I will talk."

This morning (probably started last night) Rick French sends letters or emails whatever out to the media outlets ... for a price Juror #6 will tell all.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:53 PM
 
Location: N Atlanta
4,586 posts, read 3,400,609 times
Reputation: 2311
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt30 View Post
That's the strange thing. George testified twice that it smelled like death because he was an ex-cop and familiar with the smell. Yet he didn't call the police or report it. It wasn't until Cindy found out the smell could have been from death that she called and reported it - I suppose George told her. A number of defense witness who smelled it also said that it was indistinguishable from a garbage-like smell.

Not to mention that the tow truck guy actually pulled out a bag of maggot infested trash - which had to at least contribute to the smell.
I can't explain why George didn't call the police - that part defies logic unless
Cindy was chirping in his ear at the tow yard.

You think the trash contributed to the smell ? Then why did the car smell 2 years later after the trash was removed ? Cindy is a nurse and knows what a decomposing body smells like.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:54 PM
 
32,532 posts, read 30,720,662 times
Reputation: 32350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
And I think HLN is protifing from "blood money." They shouldn't be making money because of the death of a little girl and from whipping people up into a frenzy by the constant sensationalizing of this case. It is certainly unethical.
I'm not exactly thrilled with it myself.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:55 PM
 
59 posts, read 35,551 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix lady View Post
Okay, child's remains "decomposed" in yard. Too hard to dig grave there. If accident, why take the remains anywhere? Why not call the authorities--"An accident just happened with the child here in the yard." Why relocate the body elsewhere? Why? What motivation to hide the body? Why? No, even without any evidence of her throwing body in woods, case ( would be a slam dunk then). You do not need to see an obvious activity to come to a logical conclusion if you can think things through.
Are you saying there is only one explanation for that kind of behavior? I would think that a person would hide a body to prevent people from finding out that person is dead. If that's the goal why in the world would anyone call the police?

Can I imagine that's what happened? Of course. But it's certainly not the only explanation.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:56 PM
 
530 posts, read 2,594,139 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
I'll make you a deal. You stop blaming the justice system and calling the jury "morons" because they didn't go against their legal duty to settle your emotional vendetta, and I'll stop reminding you why your side lost.

Deal?
Deal.

For me, if I were on that jury (and I'm not calling anyone a moron in saying this), there's no way on earth I would have voted not guilty. Even if by the strictest definition of the term as instructed by the judge that was the right verdict, I still wouldn't have voted not guilty. I honestly don't see how these people (not morons!) can sleep at night. Yes, they did what they were "supposed" to do. But for me, I couldn't do it, even if it resulted in some type of "punishment". This girl was guilty of a lot, we know that for sure. And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Last edited by usedtobeanyer; 07-06-2011 at 04:05 PM.. Reason: Further clarification.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,408 posts, read 28,935,352 times
Reputation: 7273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
And I think HLN is protifing from "blood money." They shouldn't be making money because of the death of a little girl and from whipping people up into a frenzy by the constant sensationalizing of this case. It is certainly unethical.
You have a point here. I will confess that if I hear the term "TOT MOM" screeched by Nancy Grace one more time I will feel like puking ...
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:58 PM
 
Location: FL
454 posts, read 528,468 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgain View Post
Caylee is dead. She doesn't "need" justice. It's the human beings left behind who seem to need the "justice" you are talking about.
agreed
 
Old 07-06-2011, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,408 posts, read 28,935,352 times
Reputation: 7273
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman View Post
Nothing confusing at all Juror # 6

THE SALESMAN
The 33-year-old married white man has two children, ages 6 and 22 months. He has a business degree and sells restaurant equipment. Throughout the proceedings, he has had trouble staying awake during the dry scientific testimony.

Each juror received a packet when the trial was over (that was announced in the courtroom news conference) with media info in it. So Juror #6 gets home yesterday and hires Rick French ... gave him the info and said "go get it Mr. French, get me all the money you can and I will talk."

This morning (probably started last night) Rick French sends letters or emails whatever out to the media outlets ... for a price Juror #6 will tell all.
WHAT did they need that for? Was there a booklet entitled, "How to Get Rich Quick or At Least Become a Thousandaire" enclosed also?

AFAI am concerned, they should all have been given instructions that being chosen for the jury means NO PAID INTERVIEWS, no books, etc., after the trial is over. Is that not allowed in this country or something? Is there an inalienable right to make a fast buck off being a juror deciding on a tragedy somewhere in the Bill of Rights I missed? Odious, just odious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top