2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Boytwnmom]

here http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-039it-disgusted-us039-casey-anthony-foreman-reveals-what-happened-inside-delibe?page=1
I just skimmed it but wanted to pick a section and determine how many things were wrong with what he said:

Well, I wanted to know -- I wanted to take a pre- vote. I wanted to see where we stand, where people stood. So we voted right away.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the two who in the 10-2, in the initial round on the murder, what was hanging up the two? Or what did -- what were they focusing on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The focus was on, really, the chloroform and the duct tape and that -- the chloroform, the duct tape, all of the circumstances that -- or all of evidence that was provided in that regard could -- could have emotion played into it. I didn't ask.

VAN SUSTEREN: Bad behavior of her play into it at all?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bad behavior, her (INAUDIBLE) yes. That's -- that was, you know, something that could have had something to do with it. But I didn't ask about that because that was not something that was in -- it was -- it's not something that we could talk about in the -- for the mid- June -- you know, for June 16th. And so it wasn't really discussed.

But I think emotion could have played into it, kind of gut response that they let out. And that's why I wanted to see where we stood with the pre-vote, with the -- you know, with my occupation, I give pre-tests for that exact same reason. And so I wanted to know where we stood.

What does this tell you?

It tells me that this guy had an agenda, that he knew his vote going in and wanted to "out" anyone who didn't agree. He denigrates those who disagreed even though their focus was on the actual evidence, chloroform and duct tape. He says that was their focus but then suggests emotion may have played into it...into the duct tape and chloroform? No, <expletive deleted> that was what you were supposed to focus on instead of speculating about george and ignorng casey's behavior during the 31 days for some reason only you apparently understand. her behavior was an essential element of this case and yet you said it had to be ignored. A teacher gives a pre-test so they know what they still need ot teach. This guy took a pre-vote so he would know who he had to "teach" i.e. strong arm into agreeing. There is something very strange and disturbing about all this...

Thanks for posting the link. After hearing it again, in my opinion this juror, from the onset, had an agenda and that many conversation took place between the jurors PRIOR to deliberations. This is my own opinion.

 

[manatee]

thetans!! :floorlaugh:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h186/xian-o/f55dc4c8b9a90ff15225bc02798c4f14.gif

cool! i enjoyed that. amazing what people can believe. yeap, this would change the way you look at the world. I wonder how many of the jurors are scientologist.

 

[dvdman]

What an excellent post....thank you.
If you could have only been on the Jury.
Then we wouldn't be in the sad state we are now.
A murderer will be released back into society
in just a few days thanks to incompetent Jury.

Any one of us would do a much better interview without the softball questions. Why isn't he being asked about why they didn't consider all the evidence that points to ICA's responsibility for her daughter's death.

Who didn't report her daughter's disappearance?
Who lied to her parents about Caylee's whereabouts for 31 days?
Who asked for one more day?
Who was nonchalant with the 911 operator re: Caylee's "kidnapping"?
Who searched for "how to make chloroform"?
Who went on a date to Blockbuster w/ Tony the very night her daughter "drowned"?
Who partied the 31 days away including the hot body contest?
Whose car trunk had chloroform?
Whose car trunk smelled of decomp?
Whose car trunk had a hair with a death band?
Who abandoned the car?
Whose car was hit on by cadaver dogs?
Who borrowed a shovel after Caylee "drowned"?
Who lied to poilice about a kidnapping?
Who changed the story from the Sawgrass apts. to the park?
Who led police to the Sawgrass apartments?
Who lied about receiving a call from Caylee on July 15, 2008.
Who took police to Universal insisting she had a job there?
Who showed no concern for Caylee when she called home from jail?
Whose only interest was talking to Tony?
Who got upset when questioned about Caylee's whereabouts on the jailhouse videos?
Who led her parents on re: Caylee's whereabouts on the jailhouse videos?
Who sat in jail for years because of an "accident"?
Who refused to see her parents since 2008?


I could go on & on, but I know I am preaching to the choir.

These jurors are prime targets for that Nigerian email scam.

MOO

 

[Sharai]

What boggles my mind is that these jurors didn't anticipate the public's scrutiny of how they came to a NG verdict. The comments they have been making fly in the face of both the evidence and the jury instructions. Did 12 people collectively not understand the evidence and the instructions?
Was someone within the jury giving them the incorrect information and they just took his or her word for it?I'm not suggesting it was intentional (though it could have been).

Juror #2 said several things that really has me scratching my head.It's like someone or several someones convinced the holdouts that they had to vote NG. He said there were initially 6 guilty votes (we've heard another juror say 2,but that was for Felony 1).By the following day "it was clear our side was losing votes." He was the last holdout,but still clearly believes she is guilty.He said looking at those pictures ,he "just can't understand how someone could do that to a child".Do what? Supposedly they bought the accident theory.If the picture was evidence to him,of what someone did to Caylee,why didn't he hold out and it would have been a mistrial? Why did the jurors who voted guilty the first time ,give in?

I am befuddled as well, MissJames, I seriously question the problem solving ability of the jurors and due to their inablity and/or unwillingness to provide logical reasons for the decision they made I will continue to question the adequacy of their deliberation process and the legitimacy of their verdict.

I don't know what took place in their individual and collective mind(s) but a decision of this magnitude requires considerable thought, individually and collectively, as well as detailed group discussion. I watched one juror interview and have read several reports about other juror interviews. What I hear these jurors stating, in my opinion, indicates a strong bias for the defense story with little regard for the state's evidence and expert witnesses. Additionally, when speaking about the deliberation process I hear considerable defensiveness regarding their decision as well as emotionally charged reasons for their conclusion.

I wonder if some jurors entered the court process with a bias against authority, particularily law enforcement and filtered the whole trial through this presupposition. Add to that a good deal of dramatic theatrics performed by Jose Baez, a huge amount of proverberial persuasion performed by the Anthony family as well as the defense team, endless sidebars, confusing defense presentations, individual juror's inablilty or unwillingness to listen to and/or comprehend evidence, and sheer boredom being brought into the deliberation process resulting in a very misguided verdict.

I cannot comprehend how the jury rationalized their guilty verdict for four counts of lying to law enforcement with their not guilty verdict for murder or manslaughter. There is not logic here.

 

[Boytwnmom]

2:15 and 2:45 the first day. I didn't follow the deliberation time as closely as soem of you so maybe someone can fill in what that means in terms of time overall.

11 hours of deliberating??? That is the HLN line. Sure not reality. There on the TV, HLN started their "deliberation clock" the moment the judge cleared the jurors to go fourth with deliberations while they were in the court room. The next 2 hours at least were taken up with setting them up. Deliberations could not start until the judge got to talk to them in the deliberation room. While Judge Perry was in the court room for 1 hour and 50 minutes from the time the talking heads TV clock started.

Now add in lunch time. The jurors had not eaten that day yet. So after the judge explained the rules again to the jury, they had lunch brought in. No deliberations are allowed during lunch periods. So make it about 3 hours plus before any deliberations could have possibly begun. And that is just the start of the sick tale here. I strongly doubt the jury spent a minute over 6 hours in real deliberations in reality over all.

Now here is the strange part to me here. The TV clock. That is taken as the deliberation period time by the media and the people. But that is such a lie. A piece of TV sensationalism and nothing more. Yet the people have gone with it full bore. Same as JB lies were eaten up by the jury. People do not even believe their own senses and judgment any more in our society. Only what is told to them. And that is a scary reality of our times.IMO

 

[NavySubMom]

11 hours of deliberating??? That is the HLN line. Sure not reality. There on the TV, HLN started their "deliberation clock" the moment the judge cleared the jurors to go fourth with deliberations while they were in the court room. The next 2 hours at least were taken up with setting them up. Deliberations could not start until the judge got to talk to them in the deliberation room. While Judge Perry was in the court room for 1 hour and 50 minutes from the time the talking heads TV clock started.

Now add in lunch time. The jurors had not eaten that day yet. So after the judge explained the rules again to the jury, they had lunch brought in. No deliberations are allowed during lunch periods. So make it about 3 hours plus before any deliberations could have possibly begun. And that is just the start of the sick tale here. I strongly doubt the jury spent a minute over 6 hours in real deliberations in reality over all.

Now here is the strange part to me here. The TV clock. That is taken as the deliberation period time by the media and the people. But that is such a lie. A piece of TV sensationalism and nothing more. Yet the people have gone with it full bore. Same as JB lies were eaten up by the jury. People do not even believe their own senses and judgment any more in our society. Only what is told to them. And that is a scary reality of our times.IMO

....and don't forget to add in all of the "SPECIAL BREAKS!!" they would have needed during these "intense" deliberations!! IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I didn't know there was a set time for how long juries were allowed to deliberate.

I am pretty sure that if the verdict was GUILTY that people would not care less if it only took the jury 10 minutes. The constant scutiny of every little detail of the jury members and their activity is understandable, I guess, since many people are so unhappy with the outcome.

I find it absolutely fascinating though that people seemed miffed about how the jury may have been "reading" the lawyers over their 6 weeks of time on the jury, yet seem okay reading jurors based on 10 minutes interviews, what their jobs are or who their relatives are. Amazing.

 

[MustlyLurking]

What an excellent post....thank you.
If you could have only been on the Jury.
Then we wouldn't be in the sad state we are now.
A murderer will be released back into society
in just a few days thanks to incompetent Jury.

BBM

And... If ICA has no problem killing her own daughter, who will be safe around her?

 

[mikeysmommom]

I didn't know there was a set time for how long juries were allowed to deliberate.

I am pretty sure that if the verdict was GUILTY that people would not care less if it only took the jury 10 minutes. The constant scutiny of every little detail of the jury members and their activity is understandable, I guess, since many people are so unhappy with the outcome.

I find it absolutely fascinating though that people seemed miffed about how the jury may have been "reading" the lawyers over their 6 weeks of time on the jury, yet seem okay reading jurors based on 10 minutes interviews, what their jobs are or who their relatives are. Amazing.

What is truly amazing is a Murderer Monster will be set free and how many more children will be left to rot because they are unwanted by Party minded mothers.Hey if Casey Anthony got away with Murder maybe I can too!Just make sure to lie and hide the body till animals and decomp rots them to just bones.Oh and keep them underwater so DNA is lost.What about Caylee she is the only victim ,she was Murdered once by her own mother and a second time by the jury!

 

[robmom]

I didn't know there was a set time for how long juries were allowed to deliberate.

I am pretty sure that if the verdict was GUILTY that people would not care less if it only took the jury 10 minutes.

I think some of us have said repeatedly that while we would have agreed with the verdict, we still would have been uncomfortable they were out such a short time. I would have thought 'what the he99?? They went over everything again in that short time?' If they'd gone for death in that short of a time I would have been going sideways. So frankly, I'm a bit tired of being accused of just hating this jury or making up theories because they didn't come to the decision I wanted. I would have agreed with their verdict. It doesn't mean I would not have been uncomfortable they were out such a short time on something so important.

The constant scutiny of every little detail of the jury members and their activity is understandable, I guess, since many people are so unhappy with the outcome.

And because the more they talk, the more confused we get. Ford changes her story by the day. The foreman basically told some holdouts not to consider important evidence (the 31 days) because they were being "emotional." Ford beat a path to Disney for a free trip within hours of the verdict and has hit almost every major network. If she doesn't want to be scrutinized, I suggest she quit plastering her face on TV.

I would be fine with the ones who want to remain anonymous remaining anonymous, although I think the law says they have to do otherwise. If they want to remain anonymous, I totally understand. They should never be threatened.

I find it absolutely fascinating though that people seemed miffed about how the jury may have been "reading" the lawyers over their 6 weeks of time on the jury, yet seem okay reading jurors based on 10 minutes interviews, what their jobs are or who their relatives are. Amazing.

I don't give a rip what their occupations are.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

What is truly amazing is a Murderer Monster will be set free and how many more children will be left to rot because they are unwanted by Party minded mothers.Hey if Casey Anthony got away with Murder maybe I can too!Just make sure to lie and hide the body till animals and decomp rots them to just bones.Oh and keep them underwater so DNA is lost.What about Caylee she is the only victim ,she was Murdered once by her own mother and a second time by the jury!

I truly believe it is irresponsible to call any of those jurors murderers.

 

[mikeysmommom]

Inside edition just said that woman who says her son is Caylee's dad,hired John Q kelly to sue ICA or wrongful death. I hope she is Caylee's paternal grandmother.

 

[dvdman]

If it would have taken 10 minutes to find her guilty then that would have been just right based on the 31 days and the videos in jail alone. Heck the phone call to her mother looking for "Tony's" for phone number and NOT asking for Caylee is probably more then enough to convict her in my mind. The rest of the evidence was just icing on the cake. Anyway I bet that defense team would have been "appealing" everything they could had it been any "Guilty" verdict of the serious charges. In reference to the Jurors just remember there is NO LAW that requires them to speak to the media or grant interviews. They are NOT doing it out of the kindless of their heart or to clear their souls. JMHO

I didn't know there was a set time for how long juries were allowed to deliberate.

I am pretty sure that if the verdict was GUILTY that people would not care less if it only took the jury 10 minutes. The constant scutiny of every little detail of the jury members and their activity is understandable, I guess, since many people are so unhappy with the outcome.

I find it absolutely fascinating though that people seemed miffed about how the jury may have been "reading" the lawyers over their 6 weeks of time on the jury, yet seem okay reading jurors based on 10 minutes interviews, what their jobs are or who their relatives are. Amazing.

 

[katydid23]

I didn't know there was a set time for how long juries were allowed to deliberate.

I am pretty sure that if the verdict was GUILTY that people would not care less if it only took the jury 10 minutes. The constant scutiny of every little detail of the jury members and their activity is understandable, I guess, since many people are so unhappy with the outcome.

I find it absolutely fascinating though that people seemed miffed about how the jury may have been "reading" the lawyers over their 6 weeks of time on the jury, yet seem okay reading jurors based on 10 minutes interviews, what their jobs are or who their relatives are. Amazing.

It is written in the jury instructions that they are NOT to take their like or dislike for any of the attorneys into account.

And most of us have no problem with their attempt at 'reading' people---but they did nothing to try and comprehend the forensic evidence or the witness testimony. They wrote it all off as 'confusing.' They even said the pool story was simpler to understand.

IMO, if something is 'confusing' then you research it further. Did they look deeper into what was confusing? NO, they shrugged their shoulders and decided GEORGE DID IT.

I would have no problem with the short amount of time if they hadn't said how confusing the states case was. That just tells me they shirked their duties. If something confuses you then ASK QUESTIONS.
Geeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[dvdman]

I'm not sure I read where anyone on this board called any of the Jurors "murderers". We all know they are not.

I truly believe it is irresponsible to call any of those jurors murderers.

 

[mikeysmommom]

BBM

And... If ICA has no problem killing her own daughter, who will be safe around her?

No one will be safe...........IMO She is a cold blooded Murderer. I pray she NEVER has another child or some dimwitted single father does not hook up with her.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I'm not sure I read where anyone on this board called any of the Jurors "murderers". We all know they are not.

You must have missed the post that said Caylee was murdered first by her mother and a second time by the Jury.

 

[katydid23]

I truly believe it is irresponsible to call any of those jurors murderers.

The foreman of the jury publicly called George a possible murderer. And did he say that because of any evidence, any witness testimony?

NO, he based that accusation on his 'ability to read people.' One of the other jurors said he could 'read body language' and he decided that Casey was SINCERE. He watched hours of videos where she lied her arse off- yet he deems her 'SINCERE.'

So if anyone is irresponsible for labeling someone as a murderer I would say it was the jurors. They did so publicly. And inaccurately. imoo

 

[Nenato5]

You must have missed the post that said Caylee was murdered first by her mother and a second time by the Jury.

Now that is a stretch......are you by chance a member of the defense team or a juror?

 

[SATA]

The foreman of the jury publicly called George a possible murderer. And did he say that because of any evidence, any witness testimony?

NO, he based that accusation on his 'ability to read people.' One of the other jurors said he could 'read body language' and he decided that Casey was SINCERE. He watched hours of videos where she lied her arse off- yet he deems her 'SINCERE.'

So if anyone is irresponsible for labeling someone as a murderer I would say it was the jurors. They did so publicly. And inaccurately. imoo

Mind boggling, really. It just is. :waitasec: