2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Mendara]

This foreman actually said he was ASKED to convict on cause of death!! Who asked himt o convict on cause of death? Jose Baez??

See this is what gets people so angry - the jury keeps confirming their ignorance and confirming what the public knew before they spoke, that they made a mistake and did not understand what they should be looking for.

You do not need cause of death - the body was BONES. It is not like Caylee was found in her crib with no cause of death - she was bones dumped in the woods with duct tape over her mouth!!!! What else do you need.

I am sooo angry.

 

[truemystery]

Shortly after the devastating verdict, in the back of my mind I hoped the jury would have something to say that would make me feel a little better. Something to show how hard they diliberated. Maybe, just maybe I WAS influenced by Nancy Grace and the talking heads. I was willing to see that I was somehow wrong, although I doubted it, but even after three years of intently following this case, I was open.

But the more they speak the worse I feel. Some of the things they say are just down right ignorant and incorrect. It makes me think they were not even listening to the trial.

I never had much of an opinion about our jury system before but now.. well, it scares me to death!!

 

[rbrnmw2]

I agree with the posters who said if they had actually deliberated it would have been much easier to accept this verdict. It seems like this foreman didn't really keep them focused on what exactly they were there to decide....did ICA cause the death of Caylee.

Saying GA could have done it just proves how little thought and deliberation there was and it really saddens me and makes me cynical about our system.

I get where they might have thought GA was lying about an affair. Come on, though, what did you expect? He's already lost Casey and Caylee, he wants to lose Cindy too? I thought it was obvious though his love for Caylee and his grief over losing her. Yes, I noticed his selective memory. Sure he was combative with a person who accused him of being a child molester. Is that impossible to grasp?

When asked about the missing child, who was it that replied at one point "Maybe I'm a spiteful B*tch?" That's right, it was ICA. Not George. Kind of a weird comment to make about an accidental drowning, no?

Even if you deny all of GA's testimony based on credibility issues, where does it leave you? Caylee is still dead. ICA still lied for 31 days while she partied and stole. Caylee was still placed in a trash bag and left in the woods like garbage. It is inconceivable that a loving parent would dispose of her child that way or allow another person to dispose of her child that way if this was an accident. No matter how dysfunctional her family is. And if someone else hurt your child, you wouldn't take the fall. You would want them to face justice.

The only way you could find not guilty IMHO is if you believe:

it's a reasonable story that a loving mother loses her child to a common house hold accident, doesn't call 911, discards her like trash, goes out and parties, and lies to everyone she knows and eventually LE. OR

It's a resonable story that a loving mother loses her child to a common household accident, doesn't call 911 and lets someone else discard her like trash while she goes out and parties.... OR

That the relative of a loving mother either kills the child or fails to supervise the child leading to an accident and the loving mother decides to help this person cover up the death of her child and to let her child end up in a garbage bag in a swamp while she goes out and parties.

So which is it, jurors? Which one of these scenarios was "reasonable" doubt that ICA killed Caylee? Caylee died somehow and she didn't get into the woods by herself. So which of these scenarios was so plausible and reasonable in your minds that you could discard all the other evidence of guilt and render the verdict you did?

Wonder how combative he would be if one his kids or students told a lie like that on him?

 

[AdoraBlue]

I haven't watched anything for about five or six days now. My hubby doesn't like me to scream at the TV (and he's right, it's not healthy for me and he actually likes to hear what is being said without rewinding). I am now attempting to watch GVS' interview --in small increments-- with this juror-person.

I am almost three minutes in and I DON"T LIKE this guy. The jury didn't vote to select a foreperson, he was "honored" to be "selected."????

Something's not right here folks. Maybe I can finish this, I am not sure. Probably will, just for Caylee's sake.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

A theme with the jurors appears to be they didn't know who did it so they had to acquit--duh, that was the question they were supposed to answer--the whole purpose of the evidence and trial.

 

[IfIMay]

Probably end up being her boyfriend!

Then he'll really need to get his life "in order". I hope it works out for him.

 

[rosepetal1065]

I would be surprised if they came forward. It is obvious to me that they couldn't stand the heat of being the only one and caved in under pressure so everyone could go home. mio

Now see..... that wouldn't have been a problem ..we would STILL be there if it was me.
All aganist me, if need be.... I would have fought. period.

 

[3doglady]

I'm still amazed by the foreman's interview. Not just what he did, but the fact that he tells what he did. I got the impression in the first interview that he thought he was a detective and he was in charge of determining who the real murderer was. Did he think this was a game of Clue? Exerts of last night's interview are below. My thoughts are in red.

I just realized there is another part tonight. I may have to borrow those needles another poster was talking about sticking in their eyes.

Foreman- everyone wanted me (Greta asked "was anyone else interested") One other person wanted it but everyone said "No, we'll go with him." So She assisted me. (Not we worked together, he was in charge)

He thought JA was very distasteful but JB was professional and did a good job- Did not mention LDB. (Intimidated by intelligent men and strong intelligent women?)

10-2 immediate "prevote". raising hands-no secret vote. One was adamant (This tells me he wanted to know right away who he was up against.)

As far as the 1st degree vote-where we dissected the verbage that was on the indictment and looked at our notes and the evidence, the killing was not something that we could get. (What killing is he referring to? The DP or murder of Caylee?) (How did they look at evidence? They did not review any evidence and they left their notes in their seats. What verbage on the indictment is he talking about? Reasonable doubt? What verbage determined no 1st degree?)


All of us thought, when PT rested "I was stunned" (Obviously two jurors weren't stunned. What did he want? A video of the murder?) The grey area was not filled in. (I won't say anything about grey matter here)

The two that voted guilty- the focus was on the chloroform and the duct tape. All of the circumstances that played into that, could have emotion played into it, her bad behavior, it's not something we could talk about for June 16. I think emotion could have played into it- kinda gut response(Huh? they couldn't factor in her behavior? I'm stunned at this guy's ignorance. He did not realize her behavior was part of the circumstantial evidence?) That's why I wanted to see where we stood with the prevote, with my education I give pretest.(He wanted to know immediately who he had to educate before they swayed other jurors. He wanted to inform them that they were using emotion and could not do that. He gives a pretest in school before he gives the real test? God help our children) He says they did not consider the punishment in deliberations.( JF said the opposite.)

The punishment is written on the paper, the verdict. (So when they mark the verdict during the guilt phase it has the DP written on it?) The extent of the outcome of what could happen (DP) weighed on you-it hit you at times.

 

[Mendara]

I think they couldn't get the image that Jose implanted in their heads about her father's peen in her mouth. It seems these jurors were more impressed by conspiracy theories rather than the actual murder of a child by her mother. The simplest explanation of all. The mere fact that Casey changed her story 3 times is proof enough that they should not have believed her latest claim of peens in her mouth. MO

 

[ohiogirl]

..it absolutely amazes me that LE can work so hard ( and professionally ) gathering the evidence, interviewing numerous witnesses, the forensics, etc etc-------the SAO working ( professionally ) putting the case together----( and GRRRRRRRRRRRR---missing out on time with their OWN kids for 3 years to see justice served )..

..present their case in court ( let's assume here even-- that both the state and defense are knowledgeable professionals ) putting forth their case/defense as the law allows.

..and then-------after all of that (professional) work-------the "final answer" is handed off to 12 ( possibly clueless!!! ) individuals------who don't understand what they're doing !!!!?????

..we KNOW they didn't "get" the jury instructions.

..jeffA (interview with kathiB) was "very surprised" that they didn't have ANY questions on the law-( UN--usual)--OR ask to see any of the evidence not in the room with them-----like the jail audios/transcripts/etc etc.

..judgeS says that they did NOT understand that circumstantial evidence IS evidence--- that MOST murder cases ARE circumstantial-----and they didn't understand that reasonable doubt does not mean all doubt.

..as a judge, he also goes back TO talk to the jurors on questions on the law ------( and yet these brainiacs didn't feel the need to ask EVER??? b/c the gym/health teacher had it covered??)

..juror#2 wasn't backing down off of kc committing count 3--aggravated manslaughter----until he had to check off the "special finding" that went with it.

..defense special finding:
kc was a caregiver of caylee when she died.
kc was NOT a caregiver of caylee when she died.

( i guess he was forced to admit that murdering someone wouldn't be giving them nice care.)

..just unbelievable.

This :innocent:sums up all of my feelings on this decision. Thank you.

 

[tiffertots]

Hard to fathom that not one of these jokers gave any credence to Dr G. She was clear, concise and spoke in very simple terms. I guess all those facts just confused them.

The medical examiner said manner of death was homicide. Even she wasn't credible to this motley crew.

They did NOT take evidence into consideration. Even the dogs! Not 1 but 2 seperate dogs with seperate handlers trained in the field of decomp..I guess they were lying too!

 

[back2back19]

They did NOT take evidence into consideration. Even the dogs! Not 1 but 2 seperate dogs with seperate handlers trained in the field of decomp..I guess they were lying too!

But the defense was credible, even without any evidence to back it up. Guess the prosecution should have thrown out any and all allegations without any proof and they might have gotten somewhere.

 

[3doglady]

I agree and I'm still waiting to hear what he has to say after he talks to his FBI brother.....

And how many of the parents of the kids he "teaches" agree with him - should be interesting when he gets back to school in the fall.

But, but the kids like him. He gives "pretest" before he gives the real test.

 

[AdoraBlue]

Now he's blathering about the "pre-vote," where two jurors voted guilty and the ten voted "innocent."

This guy thinks he is a legal professional, I guess. I am quite sure innocent isn't a choice on any verdict form.

 

[Mendara]

So he basically put enormous pressure on the jury immediately entering the deliberations? He made them raise their hand to the charges? I bet he also embarrassed the 2 who thought guilty by making them plead their case to the team and then ripped them a part until they just agreed. Not cool. A real foreman would have gone over the evidence in cronological order from both sides and the case as a whole then had a vote.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

So he basically put enormous pressure on the jury immediately entering the deliberations? He made them raise their hand to the charges? I bet he also embarrassed the 2 who thought guilty by making them plead their case to the team and then ripped them a part until they just agreed. Not cool. A real foreman would have gone over the evidence in cronological order from both sides and the case as a whole then had a vote.

Not to mention he made them show their hands, as opposed to voting by paper which is the norm, I believe.

 

[back2back19]

So he basically put enormous pressure on the jury immediately entering the deliberations? He made them raise their hand to the charges? I bet he also embarrassed the 2 who thought guilty by making them plead their case to the team and then ripped them a part until they just agreed. Not cool. A real foreman would have gone over the evidence in cronological order from both sides and the case as a whole then had a vote.

That's exactly what he did IMO. And JF, #3, said the 6 who wanted manslaughter had to justify their reasonings to the group and because they couldn't give a good enough explaination, they gave up.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Did anyone see JG father on JVM? Was asked if he saw any similarity with CA lies on the stand and ICA. He said they both added more detail than necessary when answering. ITA. CA drove me crazy on the stand, long drawn out details that didn't add anything to the case. Even when she asked HHBP about taking down the pic of Caylee, on and on about trying not to cry. I think she loves the attention that this trial brought. Like my Granny use to say she wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral

BBM: :great::great: Love it ! And it fits CA so well !


:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: :great::great: :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[sparkysmom]

I heard tonight they plan on changing her name and appearance. The features she has are distinct and are planted in so many of our minds that it WILL leak where she is as someone will recognize her and do her no favors. There is nowhere to hide and social justice will take its course. She's in for more hell. And she deserves every bit of it.

I agree. They can change the outward appearance all they want to, but what is on the inside cannot be changed. She will still be the same lying, spoiled, narcissistic, lazy, foul-mouthed, sociopath that she was in 2008. God help the unsuspecting fool that falls for her.

 

[3doglady]

..it absolutely amazes me that LE can work so hard ( and professionally ) gathering the evidence, interviewing numerous witnesses, the forensics, etc etc-------the SAO working ( professionally ) putting the case together----( and GRRRRRRRRRRRR---missing out on time with their OWN kids for 3 years to see justice served )..


..juror#2 wasn't backing down off of kc committing count 3--aggravated manslaughter----until he had to check off the "special finding" that went with it.

..defense special finding:
kc was a caregiver of caylee when she died.
kc was NOT a caregiver of caylee when she died.

( i guess he was forced to admit that murdering someone wouldn't be giving them nice care.)

..just unbelievable.

Respectfully snipped and BBM. Maybe #2 couldn't check it off because the foreman repeatedly said that GA was there all day on the 16th. He kept saying GA was with Caylee all day so GA had opportunity, so he must have stressed that in deliberations as a way to get out of the guilty vote. Why didn't they ask to see GA's testimony, he clearly stated that he went to work that day? The ignorance and arrogance of that foreman galls me.