I just don't know about juries
By snowy
@snowy22315 (186879)
United States
March 26, 2025 2:48pm CST
There was a case I was following on Court TV. A woman was on trial for killing her roommate in 2007. She was just found not guilty, but she told not one but two people she had done this. OK, I wasn't there to hear all the trial, but being as she had a total grudge against her roommate, and talked about killing her, and didn't really have an alibi for the time..made me suspicious. I think the jury may have thought she did it, but the evidence wasn't convincing. I realize since her DNA wasn't at the scene, it was a stretch, and the victim did have other male DNA under her fingernails, that it was hardly a slam dunk, but I expected at least a hung jury. I don't know, I think sloppy police work ruined this case, like they have so many. She did it! Do juries make you wonder sometimes?
9 people like this
7 responses
@MarieCoyle (42180)
•
27 Mar
The one that really got to me was Casey Anthony. She is often referred to as ''the most hated woman in the US'' and I truly think she is guilty, but hey...that's just my opinion.
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (186879)
• United States
27 Mar
Oh yeah! That case was another one guilty as sin and she got off. It seems like juries can't imagine a yiung, attractive person doing something so heinous. She could have easily given that baby up for adoption. I hope she us haunted the rest of her life.
1 person likes this
@MarieCoyle (42180)
•
29 Mar
@snowy22315
I read at some point that she said she would like to have another child. The idea of that makes me shiver!
@AmbiePam (96717)
• United States
26 Mar
The O.J. Simpson trial sure made me wonder. Of course, Mark Fuhrman didn’t help, but I sure as heck thought that case was clear (my mom was sick and home bound and watched the whole thing).
I heard an interview with a D.A. (I think it was), and she said shows like CSI really hurt trying cases because juries want and expect DNA evidence now. Circumstantial cases are now much harder to get convictions (understandably).
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (186879)
• United States
26 Mar
Yeah, that was a real miscarriage of justice!
1 person likes this
@allknowing (143026)
• India
27 Mar
There has to be proof and they did not find it although the world knows she did it Strange.
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (186879)
• United States
27 Mar
Yes, kind of like that.I think if I had been there the jury might have been hung.
1 person likes this
@JudyEv (349380)
• Rockingham, Australia
27 Mar
Sometimes evidence that would help the case is classed as inadmissable. A guy might have murdered two wives before this one, all in exactly the same way, but that is all held back from the jury. I know that's not a good example but hopefully you know what I mean.
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (186879)
• United States
27 Mar
You are right. I have seen criminals get off too when evidence of past acts is not admitted into court
1 person likes this
@dgobucks226 (36345)
•
29 Mar
Evidence connecting the accused to the crime or a confession make it a stronger case for conviction. A smart defense attorney can claim reasonable doubt even with hearsay evidence (telling others). I find that juries can have personal prejudices and bias against a defendant. We have seen this in high profile cases where the defendant was very well known. I remember this happening in the OJ Simpson trial and just recently in political trials.
Juries are human and can be swayed from the facts and influenced by emotion. Perhaps this and not enough incriminating evidence led to their verdict in this case. Appeals and retrying the case sometimes alters the original verdict.
But yes, at times juries do make you wonder what they are seeing and listening to..
