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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2011, 04:59 AM
 
3,173 posts, read 3,075,534 times
Reputation: 3699

Advertisements

So now we hear about how this guy WOULD HAVE convicted of manslaughter.
A day late and a dollar short.
Maybe if they had heard the truth instead of a bunch of liars?
If I had been on this jury and knew nothing about this case beforehand, I would be very angry that I was lied to and was left to base my very important decision on these lies that everybody got away with. Now the jurors have to live in fear because of these liars.
I do think they were lazy and wanted to get out of there but they believed the liars.
Oh well, live and learn.
Next case, let the next liar take the stand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,146,190 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Nope. It's our business alright. The jurors made a decision on behalf of the people in this country and FL. in particular. They atleast owe us a full explanation as to why they came to the decision they did.
You're not owed anything, especially an explanation. If you were owed that, they'd be required to explain their reasons and they're not. The choice to speak is their's and their's alone. If they choose not to, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

Quote:
I certainly hope you don't broach the topic of politics and elected officials with the same attitiude.
Nice non sequitor, but you'll have to try better than that with me as these situations are not even closely related.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 12:23 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,738,397 times
Reputation: 16599
Yes, I agree with David. I don't see why anyone would think they are owed anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
17,032 posts, read 26,870,341 times
Reputation: 16189
I thought juror had to maintain quiet on what happened in the deliberation room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,781,939 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
You're not owed anything, especially an explanation. If you were owed that, they'd be required to explain their reasons and they're not. The choice to speak is their's and their's alone. If they choose not to, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.



Nice non sequitor, but you'll have to try better than that with me as these situations are not even closely related.
OK, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY IT BY THE BOOK, YOU SHOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE AGREEING WITH ME WHEN i SAY THAT THE NAMES OF THE JURORS SHOULD BE RELEASED. This was a public proceeding, and in public trials, the names of the jurors are almost always released. They should not be allowed to hide behind the curtain of anonymity when no other jurors are afforded the same luxury, this isn't a mafia trial after all. Should there be a longer "cooling-off" period than the scheduled october release date, I think I could go along weith that yes. But they should not be afforded special treatment simply because this was a high-profile case. If they still refuse to speak after the release, fine. That's on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,781,939 times
Reputation: 7242
Something that disturbs me even more is the fact that, as I said before, these jurors didn't do their jobs. Just read what this juror had to say about another,
Quote:

"We did our first vote and it came out half to acquit, half to convict," says the juror. "And we talked about it for a while, going through the evidence. I'd say that some people got intense, but there were no personal attacks, no real yelling. And we talked for a while, then it was 11-1 to acquit. And the guy who didn't want to acquit basically looked at us and said, 'O.K., whatever you all want.' He knew he wasn't going to convince us."
You call that doing your civic duty? No way! If this guy felt she was guilty, he should have stuck to his convictions and hung the jury. Atleast then, a competent jury may have gotten the case on re-trial. This highly bothers me. Honestly, I think there should be some sort of law enacted so that deliberations are taped or at the very least supervised as to prevent jury misconduct because that is just what this is, misconduct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,146,190 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
OK, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY IT BY THE BOOK, YOU SHOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE AGREEING WITH ME WHEN i SAY THAT THE NAMES OF THE JURORS SHOULD BE RELEASED. This was a public proceeding, and in public trials, the names of the jurors are almost always released. They should not be allowed to hide behind the curtain of anonymity when no other jurors are afforded the same luxury, this isn't a mafia trial after all. Should there be a longer "cooling-off" period than the scheduled october release date, I think I could go along weith that yes. But they should not be afforded special treatment simply because this was a high-profile case. If they still refuse to speak after the release, fine. That's on them.
If you would have spent less time getting emotional and more time reading (hint: post #15) you wouldn't have had to ask if I agree. And thanks for your subtle admission that they actually don't owe you anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,929 posts, read 19,146,190 times
Reputation: 9155
Wow, you're really batting zero today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Something that disturbs me even more is the fact that, as I said before, these jurors didn't do their jobs. Just read what this juror had to say about another,

You call that doing your civic duty? No way! If this guy felt she was guilty, he should have stuck to his convictions and hung the jury. Atleast then, a competent jury may have gotten the case on re-trial. This highly bothers me.
Just so we're clear here, you're upset that they went into deliberation and...deliberated? This should be interesting.

Quote:
that is just what this is, misconduct.
Prove it. Cite the law or instruction that backs up this claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,781,939 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Wow, you're really batting zero today.



Just so we're clear here, you're upset that they went into deliberation and...deliberated? This should be interesting.

Prove it. Cite the law or instruction that backs up this claim.


No problem. If you listen to the jury instruction, and then listen to the questions asked while they are poleing the jury, you will see and understand that a juror is supposed to come to their decision of their own free will and that a verdict is supposed to be a true and accurate account of EVERY juror's decision. If there was a juror that said
'O.K., whatever you all want." Because He knew he wasn't going to convince us." does that sound as if he came to a "not guilty" verdict of his own free will? Or at the very least, does it sound like this verdict was a true and accurate account of what HE felt about this case? I think not. He was lazy and didn't feel like arguing the point so he just went along with everyone else because he wanted to get the hell outa there.

Your rebuttal?

{oh man, ive been watching too much court tv lol }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 02:04 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 9,301,860 times
Reputation: 8048
Judge Perry issued a formal order regarding the release of the jurors names. Page 12 of the order:

Clerk of Court, Ken Burke, upon request, may release the names of the jurors on or after October 25, 2011.

WESH PDF Viewer (http://www.wesh.com/pdf/28673326/detail.html - broken link)

I don't think it's fear for their lives or a media stampede. I personally think they are ashamed of the sorry job they did on this case. They allowed Casey Anthony to become the victim. Caylee Marie Anthony did not commit suicide. Caylee was the innocent victim here. Jennifer Ford Juror #3 couldn't even call Caylee's name when she was interviewed ... say her name jurors Caylee Marie Anthony. Poor baby has been murdered and forgotten by Lady Justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
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