2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[DairyGirl]

I remember listening to the DTs OS and thinking that only an idiot would believe that garbage. I guess I was right.

 

[maur33]

I do not like this guy at all he has and had an agenda, he IMO is a definite stealth juror. I wonder since he seemed to dislike Ashton so much if by chance this is payback for something Ashton unknowingly did to him.

What a bunch of flowers these others must have been to just roll over so quickly and deliver such an obscene verdict.

The more this guy talks the worse it gets and quite frankly I won't be surprised if someone tries to hurt him.

 

[katydid23]

A few years ago Greta would have had good questions instead of letting him control everything. Maybe he just has a way of taking control. He said he had someone helping him out and said "she" so it was a woman. I would bet that it was juror #3. He didn't really say in what way she was helping but it wouldn't surprise me if it was bullying the other jurors who didn't agree. Why didn't they use paper to put their vote on? That seems less intimidating to me. I have no doubt that this guy is the reason for the verdict. He is a know-it-all and is very persuasive. He can read people by his own words, and he knew just how to get at them to persuade them. The more I hear of these jurors, the sicker I get. They let this man tell them what they were supposed to do and he didn't have a clue.

If he really wanted an honest first vote he would have done an anonymous ballot. I bet there would have been a different count to start with. Maybe 4 or 5 for guilt. I mean, imagine if the first six shot their hands up for not guilty,
would that make a few others pause?

 

[Nikki 01]

K! lol What was the verdict date? :waitasec:

The verdict was Tuesday, July 5th. She got her free trip to Disney the day of the verdict.

 

[3doglady]

I am a little skeptical at these 400 pages of notes. I remember all kinds of tweets saying that not many notes were taken by anyone, except Ms Shall Not Judge, who only took notes when the defense presented.

I remember the same tweets. Vinnie was talking about it too one day and said he didn't know how they could remember all the forensics. Did 11 tell Greta that he took 400 pages? I also remember someone sat on the edge of their seat a lot.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

No, their job was to prove premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't do that, IMO. The jury can't just "give" a guilty verdict because they want to find justice for Caylee. It doesn't work that way.

They did NOT have to prove premeditation to get a 1st degree murder count. They could have found there was sufficient evidence of felony murder to convict. Aggravated child abuse is a felony, and the duct tape and traces of chloroform were evidence of that.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule"]Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Scale_of_justice_2.svg" class="image" title="Scales of justice"><img alt="Scales of justice" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png[/ame]

 

[Steve4Justice]

People's recent accusations about the jury are unfounded. Until there is actual proof that their votes were bought by the DT, that they are subpar in intelligence, didn't follow instructions, only listened to opening and closing statements, and made their decision on who smiled at them the most rather than weighing all the evidence before them, then I don't believe such opinions have a leg to stand on--although, of course, everyone is free to express them.

These accusations about the jury are CIRCUMSTANTIAL and I'm sticking by them!:justice:

 

[mikeysmommom]

For some reason I think it was # 7. She was the only one crying as the vertict was read.

No she wasn't the only one crying when the verdict was being read ......Millions of us were crying a long with her......:tears::anguish:

 

[3doglady]

The verdict was Tuesday, July 5th. She got her free trip to Disney the day of the verdict.

With the entire family. I thought that looked like her brother. So the deal with ABC was made before the verdict. I hope someone investigates that.

 

[Solange82200]

So he is lying? I see.

I dont know, that's why I asked. Apparently it's reasonable to assume Kronk, George, the State, the forensic experts, etc. all lie... That's not a problem?

 

[3doglady]

#3 also said she didn't vote guilty of any charges other than lying because KC would get the DP.

 

[chgokim]

Before this case, I had never heard the term "hinky" before. During this interview, that word creeped into my mind many times. I would love to know everything about him - where does he teach gym, etc. He came across as a paid (by the DT) actor to me.

 

[3doglady]

These accusations about the jury are CIRCUMSTANTIAL and I'm sticking by them!:justice:

You are just basing that on emotion.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

They did NOT have to prove premeditation to get a 1st degree murder count. They could have found there was sufficient evidence of felony murder to convict. Aggravated child abuse is a felony, and the duct tape and traces of chloroform were evidence of that.

I realize that, but they claimed premeditated murder, and carry the burden of proof. They can't just make a claim and hope everyone believes them! And yes, I clearly understand that they can still give 1st degree murder without premeditation, but they couldn't prove murder. I'm tired of posting this actually, and will likely stop posting on the section of the website altogether pretty soon.

If you believe the duct tape and traces of chloroform, sure, but I don't, and it's sounds like the jury didn't either. There was too much conflicting evidence and holes in their theories. MOO

 

[back2back19]

#3 also said she didn't vote guilty of any charges other than lying because KC would get the DP.

Um, wow. She really didn't pay any attention at all. :/

 

[rotterdam]

I truly,honestly think this was part of the problem. JA was a frickin' GENIUS up there....he knew everything about the forensics, it was absolutely amazing to watch. JB was a total goof and unprofessional. The problem when you pick a jury comprised of 'regular' people of average to low education level or intelligence, is that they tend to get intimidated by those they view as 'superior'. JA and LDB simply were in a class of their own. I think people on here at certain points during the trial pointed out that JA's intelligence might be too much for some people. After hearing these jurors speak, and this is not meant to be an insult, but honestly, they are not that smart. They simply related to JB and his dramatic theories (everyone loves a good soap opera story). Sadly, it's what has become of humanity. We love a good CSI or Law and Order episode with fake dramatics and over-the-top storylines. They simply related to child abuse, drowning, controlling parents more than the likes of genius minds like Vass, Haskell, Bloise, etc... IMO

I think you hit the nail on the head. Baez is more like a shock jock that talked in plainer simpler language than the PT. That makes it easier for the average Joe to listen to, capture their full attention and retain more in memory. Most people will stop listening once some of the stuff is getting over their head and/or too boring.
It is like watching Masterpiece theater Hercule Poirot(like PT) on PBS vs Law and Order( like DT). In the first example, you better listen very carefully or you will get lost in the story line. In the latter, story line much simpler and more shocking, if you miss a few sections, you generally can still follow the story.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

#3 also said she didn't vote guilty of any charges other than lying because KC would get the DP.

She also said:

"If you don't know what the crime was, you can't punish someone for that crime."

"We needed something solid to say it couldn't have been an accident."

:banghead:

Something solid? How about a dead baby with duct tape on the skull put in a trash bag and thrown in the swamp?

 

[sappysoul]

Why is everyone assuming these not so sharp people are going to get big book deals? They were only "behind the scenes" during deliberations and who the heck would pay to read anymore about that? Save yourself some money and just repeatedly bang your head against the wall. They didn't even see as much as we did and obviously didn't understand at least half of what they did see. A book by any of these jurors would be completely worthless.

 

[Steve4Justice]

Well, since they had her on tape lying I guess that was enough proof for them. Too bad there wasn't a tape of her killing her child. Maybe, just maybe, they would have believed that, too.

If they saw a tape of her killing etc. they would have said it was a look-alike. If she admitted it to them they would have said she didn't mean it because she was abused and was not in her right mind. It was hopeless with them from the start.

 

[3doglady]

I've given up posting this, I appreciate your tenacity. Maybe after it's posted a couple hundred more times even the jury will be able to understand it.

Maybe not.

Not #11. He already knew everything before he was on the jury.