Juror No. 6 Will Talk for $50K
 

Juror Hires Publicist, Waiting for Payday

A publicist for the unidentified juror is sending a letter to media outlets, claiming, "Our client -- a married, college-educated, 33-year-old white male with two young children -- is willing to consider granting one or more media interviews so long as the opportunities are paid."


So, smart enough to get picked for this particular jury duty? :rolleyes:

Isn't it a matter of time before the defendant finds a way to cash in?

Its the American way.

Literary agents are already lining up.
Some men's magazine will pitch a centerfold/pictorial.

Judging from the hate this trial has generated it would be easy to find $50K to get him off'd

^^^

Jury made the right decision. Unless there's virtually airtight evidence, you can't send someone up for life or to the electric chair. The prosecution's case had a lot of holes in it.

Better a guilty person get off free than have something like the Todd Willingham case happen again. Guy wasn't a nice guy, but he was executed in Texas on testimony that was later proven to be incompetent.

She is not a bad looking young lady and I'm sure she is smart enough to capitalize on the situation.

Who among us, being an ex juror on this case, would say no thank you to the filthy lucre of a Tee Vee interview?

Perhaps she can open a daycare center...

Possible in some states, but other will not give a license or certificate if they have a felony (she has multiple felony convictions for check fraud) record.

I think she will soon be appearing on an adult video.....or Jerry Springer,does he even have a show anymore?

yep. He even has a new one now called Baggage. Try to catch one where he is trying to hook the dude up with one of the three babes. Interesting to see how young women think these days.

One way to stop being called for jury duty ever again !! ;)

I heard tonight they are already lining upfor the civil suits. the county wants its investigation money back as well as several private groups who were involved. Along with that and the cost to defend shes going to need a book to even be solvent. not to mention that she acused her parents of all kinds of dispicable things. She used to live with her parents, now even that will not be available. I hope to see her suffer the same fate as OJ, she will be a peria and eventually will try to do something illegal figuring the lawyers will get her out again. it will be interesting to see what happens to her if she ends up in a federal prison, which Im guessing is only a few years away

this case renews my disgust in trial lawyers. you can bet she told all the disgusting details to her team and they are still celebrating the fact that they helped her get away with it.

Emotion and the law don't work together; do they?

she was rewarded by covering it all up for so long, they assuredly do not in this case

they are also working on a new law, "Cayle's Law" that will prosecute with a big penalty for covering up a missing child for an extended time.

Again we AGREE!! ( I think).
I believe it comes down to the prosecution failing to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
For a long time Prosecutors have leaked their side of the case to local media to get it firmly in the minds of potential jurors. Its different when the Defendant actually gets to rebut some of the accusations.
She seems like a thoroughly messed up person from a completely dysfunctional family, but guilt was not proved, in the minds of the jurors.

Guilt was obviously proved in the minds of the media talking heads who cannot believe that she was declared "not guilty"

And remember that----no jury declares a person "innocent"; just "not GUILTY" .

I watched a lot of the testimony and do not base my opinion on some idiot newscasters skew toward sensationalism. I did not say I dont agree in the end that she was found not guilty, I said she is giulty in my opinion and I hope it turns out the same for her as OJ

But that is TX. Everyone knows TX is 'different'. Just look at the issues surrounding the guy TX executed last night.

Odds are she did not tell her lawyers any thing they did not want to hear. A defense attorneys job is to represent you to the best of their ability. Had they not done so they open them selves up for a law suit and possible disbarment. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a difficult task to accomplish and it is done so for a reason.

I guess another potential question for lawyers to ask potential jurors, "Do you have a literary agent?"

Florida isn't much better. (I might support the death penalty in a perfect world, but not in reality because it's damned hard to un-kill someone who've you just killed after new evidence comes out. Plus the participation of doctors in lethal injection is abhorrent and disgusting -- please at least use a method that only requires the use of hired killers, not medical professionals who took an oath to save life.)

It exists for attorneys, but not for jurors. Following the Patty Hearst trial, a new rule for attorneys was put in place, making it a conflict of interest for an attorney to have any financial interest, such as a book contract, publishing rights, etc., during the course of representing a client.

she doesnt seem smart enough to have fooled guys whose occupation demands them to learn how to tell if they are being deceived. a lawyer who says he doesnt know the truth about his client after the time they spend together is either lying to us or to himself. the police knew she was lying and caught her at it many times during the investigation. it takes a lot of intelligence to remember the lies, a lot less to remember the truth.

Unless she did something and then didn't WANT to believe what she did or what happened. How could someone kill their kid and not have any sort of remorse or compunction? Perhaps I haven't been around enough psychopaths to find out.

the cops caught her lying pretty fast. I guess that proves they are much smarter than lawyers

Both are plenty smart. There's a huge difference between "caught in a lie" and "proven to be a murderess without a reasonable doubt." Problem is that if you send her to the chair based on scant evidence, it could happen to someone else less deserving in the future.

If she did it or not I don't know; like all of us but the girl. But what I know is that people in situations like this tell little lies so they don't implement them self and to please the interrogator. Those little lies become bigger lies overtime when they are spoken on by authorities. Lets not forget this is a young women.

You can't sent someone to death because they lied to the police. The prosecutor couldn't make the case, end of story. The system worked.

Defense attorneys, depending on their practice, may not necessarily ask a client if they are guilty or innocent, since that knowledge isn't germane to defending the client against charges by the state. It's actually a risky part of the practice, since a lawyer has an ethical duty not to knowingly allow a client or witness to perpetrate a fraud on the court by commiting perjury.

It is one thing to 'know' something because you have put some pieces together and your supposition makes sense. For something to be known in a court of law you either need to have proof or you need an admission. Lawyers tend not to ask questions that they do not want to know the answer to. It is there job to defend their client to the best of their ability. They did just that.

When a lawyer says he does not know the truth he is being technically correct more than likely. He knows it in his heart but if there was no admission or proof then he does not "know" it.

IOW, the lawyer is in about the same state as the rest of us. We think is might be guilty, but cannot/ will not be able to prove it.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a tough standard. I am glad for it.

I do understand the law and agree she was found not guilty by that standard. Im just saying Im pretty sure she did it, the cops are sure she did it, and I hope she gets whats coming to her. the legal system notwithstanding, a little innocent girl was killed, its not reasonable to believe that a mother would put a drowned child in a plastic bag, duct tape their mouth and toss them in a mud hole, its not coincidence someone researched the effects of ether, or that her car was abandoned for days and days and had a rotten meat smell. that poor little girl.

small lies are one thing, but the basics..... the first thing they ask is where do you live, where do you work, what do you do. to that she lied where she worked, they knew it right away and took her there and she actually wandered around the place for a while until she finally broke down and said she didnt work there, who does that?

Not sure I agree with that way of doing things. Kinda like "We'll play till I win" and the state has deep pockets.

Would you feel the same way about the lawyer that gets his client off and later, the real perp is caught or is it just limited to the ones that get people off you think deserve to be found guilty?

So, a man is 30 yo. You jailed him for 10 years before you found the new "real" perp. He is now 40 yo. Please explain how you can "un-jail" him. Don't start with the "at least he has the rest.....". After all, you did take 10 years away from him and you can never give him that back. His kids are grown up, relatives and loved ones moved on, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, people insist that the perp be killed in a humane way. Otherwise, you can obviously find a few guys who will gladly strangle him for a few packs of cigarettes in prison.

You "un-jail" by restoring their freedom and rights; provide a method or means for potential restitution if laws were violated. Much easier than "un-executing" an innocent.

Dateline abc is doing an article on this story here in about 15 minutes eastern time.

No, what you are saying is "Since I stole your money, I will give it back to you.". Of course the opportunities you could have had with the money are lost but such is life.

OK. Since it is so easy, explain how you would roll back the clock on that 30 yo man who is now 40. Restitution for that one would be interesting. IF you were that said case, tell me, what would be fair restitution for the good years I took away. How would you give that back? A few bucks an an apology? Or put another way, how much would it take for me to make it all right to lock you up at 30 and at some random point in time set you free while the rest of the world goes on, your daughter and son grew up, missed moments, etc, etc. Undo that one.

^^^

It's not right, but at least you can attempt to make restitution, unlike if you had killed him at age 35.

Your concept of restitution is somewhat naive. When you get injured in a car accident, your only legal compensation is monetary. What amount of money will ever compensate you for pain over any given period of time? Your view expects, somewhat unrealistically, that compensation is only valid if it absolutely replaces the loss. I believe you and I live in an imperfect world, where mistakes happen and compromises are made. That's not the kind of environment for capital punishment.

The prosecution had zero evidence in this case. It was all circumstantial BS. No scientific test suceeded in proving that she was in any way involved, there were no witnesses to the crime or surveillance videos. There was nothing. Sure the whole this is very fishy but you can't convict someone on fishy. We are no longer living in the dark ages and therefore should not have to rely on circumstantial evidence cases. Plenty of people have been sentenced to life or have been executed and later, after the fact been found innocent. She was found innocent and deserves to walk a free woman and be left alone.

You cannot make any real restitution. You can toss him a few bucks, give him an apology and sooth yourself by saying "At least he has the REST of his life left.". What you can do is make yourself feel better. As I asked, how much will it take to pay back the lost opportunities? None. Time passes, you cannot bring it back. IF because of the mistake, the man lost his family and career, what is it you can to to make it right? Can you turn back the clock?

Same question. How much, percentage wise can you compensate me for the loss? Can you give me back my good years? No. So how much is it that you can give me? A rough percentage would be interesting. I don't even ask for 100%. How much, percentage wise do you think you can compensate me for when it comes to lost time? 80%? 50% 10%?

Yes, we live in an imperfect world. That means mistakes happen even when we do the best we can. We can improve it but we can never eliminate it. We have to accept that. That said, principle wise, capital punishment is about as certain as incarceration. In capital punishment, you are taking a life you cannot replace. In incarceration, you are taking time and punishing someone and you cannot undo that either. The difference is that in the case of mistaken incarceration, you can sooth yourself whereas in capital punishment, you cannot.

So you are saying given the choice of loss of freedom or loss of life they are the same to you and would chose death?

Porn seems like a, er, uh, perfect fit for her.

If I was a juror, having sat through approx. 30 days or more of that crap, I might be looking for a little compensation above and beyond the pittance the state gives you.

That's why we haven't had an execution in Canada since the early 60's. There have been some fairly high profile mistakes made in the past few years and the State paid for those mistakes.

However, there are those exceptions where a lot of people here might enjoy a neck tie party.....


Paul Bernardo comes to mind. He and his wife Carla raped and killed two young school girls and Paul is believed to have raped many more. Carla testifed for the crown but was later found to be complicit. She got 12 years ( I think ) and he's still behind bars in solitary. He gets one hour outside his cell each day. He will never get out of prison, ever.

It gets better. The police missed video tapes hidden in a light fixture in the couple's house but were turned in by his lawyer of all people. The tapes showed one girl being raped repeatedly for days by both of them and the girl begging for her life. One girl was found naked in a wooded area and the other was found in a lake. She had been cut up and encased in concrete. A fisherman somehow snagged a piece and that's how they found her - cut up by a chain saw and put in cement. Try that one for public outcry.

I saw on the news yesterday that Jerry Springer has offered her $1million for her and her family to be on his show. I suspect she is kinda trashy.

^^ understatement of the year

Nice summary of the Prosecution's case.
You forgot that other people testified that there was no foul odor in the car during the same general time line.

No argument about the poor victim.

Apparently, since being given a future isn't the same as compensation for the past.