Posted on 07/11/2011 6:04:29 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
The woman, known only as juror number 12 left her job and went into hiding fearing co-workers would 'want her head on a platter'.
Her husband said before leaving she told him: 'I’d rather go to jail than sit on a jury like this again.'
He told NBC News he was worried for her health and had his bags packed ready to leave if his 60-year-old wife's name gets released.
The woman, who moved to Florida from Michigan fled the area, retiring from her job working at Publix Grocery over the phone because she didn't feel safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
LOL. I am repeatedly asking the same question you cannot or will not answer, Big Shot.
it takes more than that to put someone to death in this country, despite your personal beliefs. With the evidence presented, she would not have been convicted of first degree murder by practically any jury.
I never once said anything about the death penalty, but did say the jurors were too lazy and stupid to deliberate all of the charges, including manslaughter. Go back and see for yourself. Oh, wait -- I'm sure you don't care what I ACTUALLY said, and you're far too busy, LOL. You'd rather manufacture my personal beliefs.
Beyond that, I am not interested in satisfying your apparently insatiable need to keep arguing the case over and over.
Good. Then let's hope you shall stop responding, since you will not answer my initial question. Bye.
No, you are with the crowd of hanging the jury because you know the evidence better than they. You are convinced the jury system is broken and the defendant must prove they are innocent.
So what other parts of the Constitution do you wish to abolish?
“It is like still trying to convince someone that astronauts really landed on the moon”
says it all
I didn’t realize you could read.
I have a quaetion for you. If we accept that the Casey Anthony jury did the right thing, then do we ridicule the Scott Peterson jury for convicting on about the same or even less evidence? I know you will probably try to deflect and say something on the order of, “apples and oranges,” but which jury was right? Is Scott Peterson going to die for something where no one proved a cause of death or when or where the victim died? Or, do we numbly accept all jury decisions like you seem to do?
Oops! question
But you are still repeating yourself.
Since I have maintained a consistent policy of not communicating with posters that go to the Ad Hominem or get personal, I will decline to respond to your further posts.
He sucked. He lost the jury right away. Bungled. I would of voted Not Guilty. He looked to me like a nervous Defense Lawyer with a bad case.
I think the problem is, some of these folks have no rational arguments left, so they just toss out random insults. Any insult will do, even if it doesn’t relate to the discussion.
Let me try Boss. You accept what the Jury does because you have no other recourse. Go to Law School and become a State Attorney. Maybe you could put a case up that makes sense under the Law. Ashton sure did not.
Long after the lengthy trial finally ended, one of the two white jurors came forward and admitted that he felt that both the cops were innocent but due to the bullying pressure put on him by his fellow black jurors, he finally gave in to the guilty verdict.........
I saw the trial on our local cable news channel. They covered the trial without the HLN extravaganza of the Mob slant. They did a great job of showing the trial unfiltered by the Nancy Grace Reptiles.
What about the 9th and the 5th? The more I see of this the more I realize the genius of the Founders. Seems we as a whole are unworthy of what they left behind.
Did you see the Judge at sentencing ask Mason if he still wanted a Mistrial? I fell over.
That’s the prosecution’s photo shown to the jury with the deteriorated duct tape placed over the baby’s nose and mouth. Three pieces of duct tape.
Now why would anyone duct tape the nose and mouth of a drowned child (defense case)?
Did those twelve jurors even discuss this picture and its implications?
In your scenario if the defense asserts the mothers father sexually abused her and was also present at the building then provides no evidence for these claims and in fact admits in their closing there is no evidence against him the verdict is obvious; not guilty, right?
Then again, if aliens came down, grabbed the child, took her into the building to perform experiments on her it would be more probable than the non-evidence Baez threw-up at the jury.
(I don’t need a sarcasm tag for this post, I hope!)
No I vote we run around in circles until the bonfire is nice and warm and then roast em!!!!
agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.