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 ...
Child murderers go free all the time. There’s one sitting in the White House....
Relativism at it’s finest. No wonder the moral decline. If then statements are meant for computer logic. Then again you are safely wrapped up in the pixels you create.
Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears..
You do not understand or know the legal system.
1) she was NOT AQUITTED.
2) Juries are NOT infallible...but a dictatorial system is.
Calling people idiots really enhances your argument that is already bereft of correct information about the legal system.
So you believe everything reporters tell you? I guess that means you also think Obama is a genius too huh?
they are only conservatives when they LIKE the outcome, the system can just be thrown out if the “events” don’t suit their “feeeeelings” and anyone who tries to abide by the system...well, they are to be trashed also.
And we put our hope in THESE conservatives? Yeesh.
“An acquittal is a verdict of not guilty from the jury or judge that decided the case. It is a similar end to a trial that terminates the proceeding with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused.”
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1163218
“Not guilty” is the same as “acquittal.”
Let us know when you’ve recovered, ex-hippie. LOL
Jeepers. Not getting enough attention at home? Seriously. What media? Did you follow the case in the media?
Don’t cast your pearls before nitwits. It’s pointless.
The article reads like she left her husband behind....WTH? Did he not like the verdict either?
the prosecutor AFTER the trial now tap dances about EXACTLY where that duct tape allegedly on or near the skill was and admits that “the water, with all that water could have moved it.”
You made a statement that you partially judged the jury on the way they acted during the trial. You said you got your information from “reporters”.
I simply asked if you believed everything a reporter tells you. And then you make a PERSONAL attack on me? The liberals taught you their debating skills well. When you don’t have an answer, attack the person.
What a shame.
I know what they are. Lol.
“If then statements are meant for computer logic.”
You’ll need to make sense if you want a response from me.
Not the conduct of a righteous woman.
There are remedies for attention deficit at home. No good psychologist is going to recommend the Internet. Just sayin. How many threads a day do you require pixelating opposition to whatever is at hand?
Why should we bother with a trial then...Hey, if he knew ‘beyond ALL doubt’ why not just take her out and lynch her...saves the state a lot of money.
You can’t read this thread or others related to this and see what I’m talking about?
FReepers (or so called freepers), sound like a bunch of liberals on this subject. (i.e. ready to strip rights away at the blink of an eye...) Those rights?? Trial by jury! If we allow these jurors to be intimidated, what GOOD has that done for freedom OR our Constitution? NONE... What BAD has it done for them? LOTS...
You two jokers profess to be conservatives?
No, you suggested that I based my opinion on "BS hype", and I'm telling you that I based my opinion on a mother who failed to report her child missing for 31 days, then LIED AND LIED to the police, intentionally sending them on a wild goose chase.
A mother failed to report her child missing for 31 days. How could anyone, even the National Enquirer, make that fact "much more that it was"?
I don't expect that you will answer that.
IF the jury would have convicted her, THIS little stunt by the prosecutors would have gotten a mistrial.
I can’t believe the judged allowed it. It was SIMPLY to play on emotions.
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.