BLOG

Listen to the above audio clip of Juror 54. As you're listening, come to
your own conclusion if they discussed the case prior to Monday when they
were handed the case. The jurors say they did not., and that is why it was fine
for them to be drinking after court. Yet, we hear this juror plainly state that
they had pretty much decided going into it Monday morning. Also, that they
were all bothered at first by having no physical evidence ( how would he know
this?) The law says that a person tried for a crime is innocent until proven
guilty, yet this juror states that he tried to find something that stuck out that
would prove John's innocence. We were not there to prove innocence.
Grandma's testimony was hearsay, yet he (the juror) felt bad for her.. and
thought that her having to tell about her grandson made up for no physical
evidence? Why did Grandma never tell us what they were talking about when
he made this supposed comment? Carly never was able to say where John
took her exactly.
The fact of evidence pointing to Jill's pregnancy was plain. This was first
mentioned to the police investigating by Jill's family, as was the mention of the
"older man". The medicine in the container found in her room was identified by
state police lab as "day after pills". That is how the defense learned of any
question of pregnancy. I also find it interesting that, Apparently according to
this juror, they did not even need time to elect a foreman. They went in, took a
vote...case closed, no discussion at all. Yet these other things had been
discussed, when? The case outcome was not supposed to be discussed prior
to going into deliberations, according to the jury when interviewed, so was it or
not? Why can no juror tell us what they used to convict him on, what evidence
What I hear in this clip, is they based it on two comments from people, but no
evidence linking him to anything. ?Go to our Blog and post your thoughts.