September 11Sep 11 Lay the groundwork to intimidate anyone serving on a future jury. Vote how the media wants or they will destroy your life.
September 11Sep 11 Author 50 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:That's why I said: "And if he's verbally admitting he has doubts to other jurors during deliberations..."Now if instead you meant that you can admit initial doubts and then vote guilty after those doubts were addressed, then that's different. But otherwise the standard is clear, as a juror, you have to weigh the admissable evidence presented in court and assert that there is no doubt in your final conclusion.I'm sure the judge clearly explained that to him and he still fell on guilty. The attacks on him are completely out of line.
September 11Sep 11 1 hour ago, Paul852 said:Sure you are. You absolutely fell for it to the point of thinking the judge claimed he had doubt. No, the judge absolutely did not claim that. The jurors on their media tour are trying to claim that.Sure33 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:Why wouldn't any rational person be after hearing the facts? The only thing people on the other side have is an imaginary command voice that suddenly appeared and a BS Mass law making it difficult to prove otherwise. Oh, and the women are all crazy sisters BS we see rallying around her. That's it....assuming you want to overlook the 3 kids she admits to strangling. No history after multiple doctors, lucid during it, dead kids.But feel free to listen to this witness as wellNo thanks
September 11Sep 11 34 minutes ago, Paul852 said:I'm sure the judge clearly explained that to him and he still fell on guilty. The attacks on him are completely out of line.Well, like you said, we don't really know what was said in deliberations. They might be out of line or they might not be. Unless he comes out and tells his side of the story, it's all just speculation and hearsay.
September 11Sep 11 Author Just now, we_gotta_believe said:Well, like you said, we don't really know what was said in deliberations. They might be out of line or they might not be. Unless he comes out and tells his side of the story, it's all just speculation and hearsay.He should just remain anonymous and move on with his life.
September 11Sep 11 1 minute ago, Paul852 said:He should just remain anonymous and move on with his life.That's exactly what I would do.
September 11Sep 11 34 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:SureNo thanksLike commenting on the game without watching it, huh?
September 11Sep 11 5 hours ago, Paul852 said:Like I said, I refuse to be pigeon-holed into my opinion because you say so. She clearly planned it and I commend this man for seeing through the bullsh**. It's no coincidence he had no connection to project on Lindsay like a lot of people seem to be doing.You can refuse all you want, you're pidgeon-holing yourself by selectively valuing the view of one person out of 12 who, by all available accounts, did not uphold the oath of a juror and did goofy crap like strangle a water bottle instead of engaging with actual facts of the case, because...feels and women. I expect that out of Diehard. Disappointed to see you doing the same.
September 11Sep 11 1 hour ago, Paul852 said:He should just remain anonymous and move on with his life.100%. I'm sure someone is willing to pay him a LOT for an interview. He absolutely shouldn't take it.
September 12Sep 12 Author 9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:You can refuse all you want, you're pidgeon-holing yourself by selectively valuing the view of one person out of 12 who, by all available accounts, did not uphold the oath of a juror and did goofy crap like strangle a water bottle instead of engaging with actual facts of the case, because...feels and women. I expect that out of Diehard. Disappointed to see you doing the same.There's plenty of evidence suggesting this is premeditated. Those juror interviews clearly show they weren't making their decisions in good faith either. Just because you want to ignore that doesn't mean I have to.
September 12Sep 12 25 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:You can refuse all you want, you're pidgeon-holing yourself by selectively valuing the view of one person out of 12 who, by all available accounts, did not uphold the oath of a juror and did goofy crap like strangle a water bottle instead of engaging with actual facts of the case, because...feels and women. I expect that out of Diehard. Disappointed to see you doing the same.Again....listen to the Karens and all you hear is emotions like not being nice or getting her help or hung up on the fact she murdered them. He sided with the doctors who examined her and the FBI expert saying she knew what she was doing. You all have nothing other than the word of a murderer who carefully planned and carried it out that she heard a voice one time. You keep throwing around feels which is ironic because that's all the women went on.
September 12Sep 12 13 minutes ago, Paul852 said:There's plenty of evidence suggesting this is premeditated. Those juror interviews clearly show they weren't making their decisions in good faith either. Just because you want to ignore that doesn't mean I have to.There isn't. But sure 11 out 12 were not making decisions in good faith, but the 1 guy who by multiple accounts blatantly ignored the reasonable doubt requirement did. Because...Feels.Like I said. MAGAian. Enjoy circle jerking with Diehard and greens keeper dude.
September 12Sep 12 47 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:There isn't. But sure 11 out 12 were not making decisions in good faith, but the 1 guy who by multiple accounts blatantly ignored the reasonable doubt requirement did. Because...Feels.Like I said. MAGAian. Enjoy circle jerking with Diehard and greens keeper dude.Once again you ignore them voting because of and talking about nothing but "feels" and psychologically project that BS onto Paul.
September 12Sep 12 Author 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:Like I said. MAGAian. Enjoy circle jerking with Diehard and greens keeper dude.You're being a child. Clearly you would have been easy to control on that jury as well.
September 12Sep 12 I'm sure the media will be equally doing a deep dive into the other 11 jurors past too.🙄They have a process for vetting jurors.
September 12Sep 12 Author 1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:Again....listen to the Karens and all you hear is emotions like not being nice or getting her help or hung up on the fact she murdered them. He sided with the doctors who examined her and the FBI expert saying she knew what she was doing. You all have nothing other than the word of a murderer who carefully planned and carried it out that she heard a voice one time. You keep throwing around feels which is ironic because that's all the women went on.Friendly reminder that she strangled a 5 year old, 3 year old and an 8 month old. Keeps getting lost in translation in all the pearl clutching.
September 12Sep 12 1 hour ago, Paul852 said:You're being a child. Clearly you would have been easy to control on that jury as well.I'm not the one putting feel feels in front on facts buddy. I have forgotten more about the ins and outs of child abuse than you will ever know.One idiot caused a mistrial by disregarding his oath as a juror. There's approximately a 0% chance any future jury finds her guilty. "Cope" as you said.
September 12Sep 12 The guy gets a letter in the mailServes on a jury Voted how he saw fitNow the media and crazy women are trying to destroy his lifeThey are more upset about him than the kids dying.
Create an account or sign in to comment