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.
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.
So nasty, you emotional people. I actually agree with what you say here but I also do not get all hyper and excited over a misquote or a paraphrase and talk trash for the next three pages over it.
Will people jump to conclusions? Of course, look what they did the ENTIRE trial and/or before the trial even started! And after the trial, they are so convinced about their preconceived notions of what happened, (or whatever Nancy Grace told them to think), that they refuse to actually look at what was presented to the jury.
Now, I have been on a jury, a few times, and we do not have to discuss why or where or how we came to our verdict and frankly, I wouldn't do it. To be honest with you, I really don't understand why any of these jurors would do it if they are that fearful. Just don't say anything and move on with your life.
What we DO know is what that juror said as well as what we saw when we watched every single moment of that trial. What was leaked out to the media and what the jury saw are not the same. You deal with THAT.
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.
What foolishness! The norion that a juror should be allowed to base his/her vote on ANYTHING other than evidence and testimony defeats the entire purpose for unanimity amongst a jury panel. If this were the case, we wouldn't need twelve jurors, just one persistent one that the others couldn't convince. Read the jury instruction { instr. no. 2 I believe } Those ARE the facts, not emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
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?
.
Oh please.......
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-26-2011 at 03:03 PM..
Will people jump to conclusions? Of course, look what they did the ENTIRE trial and/or before the trial even started! And after the trial, they are so convinced about their preconceived notions of what happened,
Maybe because it is so obvious as to what happened? At the very least, she got away with something.
Quote:
(or whatever Nancy Grace told them to think), that they refuse to actually look at what was presented to the jury.
.
First of all, I take EVERYTHING that nancy grace says with a grain of salt. Second, I saw all the evidence presented to the jury as I watched the trial. It didnt change my way of thinking that something criminal happened here.
Quote:
What was leaked out to the media and what the jury saw are not the same. You deal with THAT.
[/quote]
As I said, I watched the trial and I know the difference. I'm telling you, That would have been enough evidence for me to convict of 2nd degree murder.
P.S.
I don't get emotional about this case. I get emotional when people get on internet forums and say silly things
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-26-2011 at 03:39 PM..
Somewhere w/in this thread the answer to my question may be; however, I have not read every single comment[s], and if not, can someone answer me:
If it is found, after a full and appropriate investigation re: the jury/jury members, that there was something wrong, whether it was a juror not following the necessary rules or whatever, can there be a new trial [although I would certainly think the defense would file however motions possible to prevent it] or would it be regardless of what was determined, that double jeopardy would apply and then the process would be completely moot.
There are cases, I believe, that after a verdict of not-guilty comes in, and additional evidence is produced that would completely prove that person's guilt, nothing can be introduced, too bad, verdict done, over.
Somewhere w/in this thread the answer to my question may be; however, I have not read every single comment[s], and if not, can someone answer me:
If it is found, after a full and appropriate investigation re: the jury/jury members, that there was something wrong, whether it was a juror not following the necessary rules or whatever, can there be a new trial [although I would certainly think the defense would file however motions possible to prevent it] or would it be regardless of what was determined, that double jeopardy would apply and then the process would be completely moot.
There are cases, I believe, that after a verdict of not-guilty comes in, and additional evidence is produced that would completely prove that person's guilt, nothing can be introduced, too bad, verdict done, over.
Would this be the same type of situation?
Your answer......
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Very unlikely. It would have to be an EXTREME case of misconduct to warrant a new trial. Probably nothing short of bribing jurors would constitute a new trial. Do you realize the amount of time and expenses put into a trial.? Your talking about years of work and tax dollar amounts up into multi-millions.
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've finished my milk and cookies, I want to give you a very important location ALERT--- we are assembled on a message board using computers, not in a courtroom. Clear ?
To discuss the jurors' verdict and deliberations, we have interviews they've given as a source of information. From that limited information, opinions can be formed. Opinions, not indisputable Facts or courtroom-worthy Proof.
I have no reason to believe the juror was misquoted or misrepresented what was said. For now, my opinion is the juror changed his vote for an inappropriate reason.
Maybe because it is so obvious as to what happened? At the very least, she got away with something.
.
First of all, I take EVERYTHING that nancy grace says with a grain of salt. Second, I saw all the evidence presented to the jury as I watched the trial. It didnt change my way of thinking that something criminal happened here.
As I said, I watched the trial and I know the difference. I'm telling you, That would have been enough evidence for me to convict of 2nd degree murder.
P.S.
I don't get emotional about this case. I get emotional when people get on internet forums and say silly things
I also watched the entire trial. How can you convict of murder if you don't know how the person died?
I don't love nor hate the word but I will call people out when they are thinking with emotions and not with facts.
Of COURSE something criminal happened here, I don't think anyone denies that! The POINT is, AGAIN, we. do. not. know because what was presented at trial was not enough to prosecute.
HAD they allowed other pieces of information, as you say or someone else said, that was not allowed, maybe things would have turned out different. But the jury was not privy to that information.
Facts are not silly. Repeating a talking head on t.v....totally silly.
Now that I've finished my milk and cookies, I want to give you a very important location ALERT--- we are assembled on a message board using computers, not in a courtroom. Clear ?
To discuss the jurors' verdict and deliberations, we have interviews they've given as a source of information. From that limited information, opinions can be formed. Opinions, not indisputable Facts or courtroom-worthy Proof.
I have no reason to believe the juror was misquoted or misrepresented what was said. For now, my opinion is the juror changed his vote for an inappropriate reason.
I hope this overly emotional post didn't make you
LOL! Hope they were good.
I'm quite aware of where we are located but I'm also aware that any of us at any time, if we have registered, can be on a jury and the way that I see some people react, NOT to facts but to emotion, is not something to be taken lightly. I would hope that if I'm ever accused of a crime, I get a jury who deliberates over the evidence presented at trial and not what someone "feels" or if they like my appearance or the way I act.
That's my whole point for this. I don't give a crap about Casey Anthony and frankly, like I said on another thread, I'm about sick of hearing her name. But to hear people go on and on, (I'm not saying you are, personally), that the jury was stupid tells me that some people out there just do not get the whole system.
I also know that the media can take something and RUN with it, twisting everything, embellishing, spinning, and people believe that crap. (I am not saying CA is innocent, I'm so OVER talking about her, I'm saying, people will believe so much because they WANT to believe it, not because there is factual evidence pointing in that direction.)
And finally, I'm sure everyone here has at some point said, "They said something like..." or "Basically, what happened was..." but it's NOT the entire story nor is it the entire statement made by another person. Just want people to think and not be fooled by the media and how they use words to make people think another way and yes, far too many people ARE swayed by media because they don't read between the lines.
I also watched the entire trial. How can you convict of murder if you don't know how the person died?
Easy. Look at the facts surrounding the incident. You have to use a little common sense which is something I realize very few people have. { not a jab at you personaly, just a generalization } When it comes to this case, if you infact watched the entire trial, you should know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Dr. G summed up the point I am trying to make quite well.
Quote:
I don't love nor hate the word but I will call people out when they are thinking with emotions and not with facts.
The FACT is that if this juror changed his vote because he didn't think he would convince the others, he violated the instructions given him. AND, until he comes out and sets the record straight, if ever, Ive no choice but to believe what I read in the article.
Quote:
Of COURSE something criminal happened here, I don't think anyone denies that! The POINT is, AGAIN, we. do. not. know because what was presented at trial was not enough to prosecute.
You don't have to knoe EXACTLY what happened in order to convict. If there is enough evidence to conclude that a crime was commited, than that's enough. This is where "reasonable" doubt comes into play. Jurors are to use their sense of reason and logic based on the known facts.
Quote:
Facts are not silly. Repeating a talking head on t.v....totally silly.
How am I repeating a talking head? Everything I say on here is my own opinion, not that of a disgraced former proseuter. And your right, FACTS aren't silly, making outrageous claims about jury deliberations such as the ones made on this thread is silly.
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.
