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.
With the way in which some people vigorously defend Casey, Baez, the jury, etc. etc..... Ive often wondered this very thing lol. It wouldn't even surprise me if Casey Anthony herself were on here. Hmmm..... what say you everyone? Is Casey Anthony in our midst?
Not beyond the realm of possibility.
Quote:
They proved that sequestered juries need to be vetted, as criminal defense atty Beth Karas suggested. An intelligence test would have helped also, and maybe getting people on the jury who didnt drop out of high school.
You will find that the best jury candidates for either side of any trial are more often than not, the least educated ones.
He likes to control and end the Casey Anthony threads by his useless and dumb arguments.
I think he works for Baez or Mason or dates Fryer or is kin to the family.
The people spoke with Casey being the Most Hated Person In America. Yes the jury did what they felt was their job. But American Justice suffered that day. Justice was not served for the victim Caylee Marie Anthony.
I think the weaker members of the jury did cave. "Whatever" says it all.
Actually, he's one of the very few on threads of this topic who makes any sense at all. He does not speak from emotion and get all riled up and out of control, he deals with the facts.
Now, you may not like the facts but that doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
What I hear mostly on these threads is opinion and complete hatchet jobs on the facts.
The basis for his decision had nothing to do with the actual case or evidence presented.
It had to do with the other jurors and what he felt they believed, not with anything he personally decided about the case itself. Do you consider that a valid basis for his decision?
How do you know this for a fact? Were you inside his head? You know his every thought? You are making an opinion based on a few words spoken by another juror. Would never hold up in court.
Now that I think about what I've written, I can say that I was speaking with my emotions (some people on here will be glad to see me write it LOL) and people in FL probably don't GET AWAY WITH more crime. There just seems to be a lot of crime going on there that is unusual in some way which attracts more national and international news coverage. Like in FL you may get as many home invasions as anywhere else, yet in FL (Pensacola) you will get one where the victims slaughtered (Billings couple who adopted 13 special needs kids) are practically saints who are the last people to deserve such a fate. Or you will get a twist on the typical "parent kills kids" with boys who kill their own father (King brothers). Or you will get deadly transients like Bundy.
Maybe not the way you think. Am I glad to see you write that? Yes, but not as a "neener neener" type way, just glad that you a) are thinking clearly and not with emotions and b) were strong enough to admit that.
I don't agree with much of what you say here but I'm giving you rep points just for that admission.
"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."
Basically, does not say it was verbatim, he "basically" said...so we don't know his exact words and his exact demeanor.
"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.' "
And finally:
"But when we were sequestered, we could only go by what the prosecution and defense gave us. If I had to vote now, I'd probably vote for manslaughter. But we didn't get the evidence to support it before. I know people are mad at us, but we did our jobs, and I think we did them to the very best of our abilities"
"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."
Basically, does not say it was verbatim, he "basically" said...so we don't know his exact words and his exact demeanor.
"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.' "
And finally:
"But when we were sequestered, we could only go by what the prosecution and defense gave us. If I had to vote now, I'd probably vote for manslaughter. But we didn't get the evidence to support it before. I know people are mad at us, but we did our jobs, and I think we did them to the very best of our abilities"
Please, leave the jurors alone.
Oh please, the jurors will survive anything a few people say about them on this message board.
Nobody is going to court over what the interview said, so your quibbling over what 'basically' means is a stretch. I take it to mean, bottom line, for the most par, essentially. All we have to go by is the interview.
Seems to me you're a little emotional and riled up.
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88;20583108
You seem to fail to realise that some of [I
us[/i] sat through the trial as well. And as far as the evidence not being there to convict, well, it would seem that 2/3's of 300,000,000 people would disagree.
I imagine at least some of the 300,000,000 in this country would have enough of a life to not know what you are talking about.
You will find that the best jury candidates for either side of any trial are more often than not, the least educated ones.
When my Facebook blew up with the verdicts there was a definite educational divide in the opinions expressed. It wasn't the uneducated ones who came down on the side of the jury.
How do you know this for a fact? Were you inside his head? You know his every thought? You are making an opinion based on a few words spoken by another juror. Would never hold up in court.
Well, as of now we dont know it for a fact because they insist on hiding behind a curtain of anonymity. Now you can argue that the jury doesn't "owe" us an explanation, and you would be right, although there is a price for not giving one and that is the harsh rule of the court of public opinion. However, if they refuse to set the story straight about what really went on, then we have no choice but to base our conclusions on what we do know. Deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowMotionApocalypse
I imagine at least some of the 300,000,000 in this country would have enough of a life to not know what you are talking about.
I take it your not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowMotionApocalypse
When my Facebook blew up with the verdicts there was a definite educational divide in the opinions expressed. It wasn't the uneducated ones who came down on the side of the jury.
You have obviously misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Just ask any truthful trial atty. They will tell you that the less education a person has, the better when it comes to jury selection
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-26-2011 at 01:08 PM..
Oh please, the jurors will survive anything a few people say about them on this message board.
Nobody is going to court over what the interview said, so your quibbling over what 'basically' means is a stretch. I take it to mean, bottom line, for the most par, essentially. All we have to go by is the interview.
Seems to me you're a little emotional and riled up.
Well your response is awfully emotional with "oh please"...unlike myself who is pointing out facts. The fact that you got all riled up and shot off a response like yours tells me I hit a nerve...too close to the truth for comfort?
The POINT was, he didn't SAY those words, exactly as people on here are quoting and then attacking for post after post about it saying he didn't do his job and the tired old line, "the jury was stupid".
The POINT was, some of you need to stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with your brains.
If that upsets you, oh well. I find it hilarious how you responded to me...now go calm down, have some cookies and a glass of milk, everything will be ok.
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.
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.
