2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Italy]

You make a good point - there is a dynamic in a courtroom which magnifies behavior albeit positive or negative.

However, the jury has specific instructions to consider the evidence - not speculation, not theory, not personality. To use the affability of Baez as some sort of justification for this universally questioned verdict is offensive.

I submit that there are jurors, who have not spoken out, that are wishing this foreman would not presume to speak for them. The more that is said, the less regard the public has for this group of jurors.


Sorry - meant to quote:
Originally Posted by goldenlover
Obviously the jurors did not think it is "smarmy". I am not saying it was right or wrong, just that it is a fact that the personalities of the attorneys does play a role. EVERYTHING plays a role. Just like the stupid guy that gave JA the finger, the judge said that if the jury had seen it it could have caused a mistrial. That is why it was so serious. That gesture by a spectator should have no role in the jurys decision either, but the judge knew it could, because everything does, not just for this jury, but all jurys.

 

[amysmom]

I sat myself down last night and really tried to listen to the third and final interview with the guy who was the Jury Foreman - I really tried. But I just could not comprehend that this guy actually went so far afield from the jury instructions and the evidence.

I didn't - couldn't watch the whole thing, but for the last three questions I did watch, instead of focusing on the speaker, I watched Greta's face as she listened to him and asked the questions. That pretty much said it all for me.

She looked like it took everything she had to sit there and listen to him.

She was letting him HANG himself..Why I don't know since during the discussion after (with her legal team) she was far more 'pro' then 'con' re: everything he said.

Mark Furman was on last week telling it like it really IS & she was shooting him down so much you could see MF was getting very frustrated with her..Most watching had to feel the same way! :banghead:

 

[amysmom]

Ford: "It was a heartbreaking decision to have to make but I had to do it based on the law …," she told ABC News. "You have to prove what happened, and then I'll give Caylee justice."

But even her mother was surprised by the verdict.

"I was in shock," said Lynn Ford, who is retired and lives in Largo with her daughter, "but I would never ever want her to vote any other way than the right way."


http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece

Pssst! Ford! It's too late to give "Caylee justice"..You had your chance & blew it!

Mom! If she voted the "right" way why were you in "shock"?

It seems the apple doesn't fall from the tree re: double-talk!

 

[affinity]

The first thing that came to me when I discovered the Foreman was the single "good looking" in-his-30's PE teacher was that he "fell in love" with her.....and wanted to "protect her".

I don't know if I can make it through the interviews...but (sorry I have not read the entire thread) is there a way for me to see the interviews in their entirety?

 

[manatee]

In my opinion the amount of disrespect that has been shown in this thread, and others, towards the jury is deplorable.

respect has to be earned. Unfortunately they have yet to earn mine.

 

[KathrynL]

Exactly! I just get the feeling that he didn't like the prosecution because JA was such a strong figure. IMO, the prosecution really had it together. JA has a presence. Foreman went around and peed in all the corners. I just can't accept that he believes all the stuff that he's saying. I think his compulsion to be the biggest, baddest, best, smartest, yada yada yada, coupled with his pushy ways led to this horrible judgement. Or I should say, lack of judgement. I know there were a lot of factors. There were 12 people involved, but I think his 'leadership' was a huge part of how it all went down.

VAN SUSTEREN: You -- you were still (INAUDIBLE). You go into the room, and how did you get selected? What's the process? Did someone say, Hey, number 11, why don't you do it? Or did you vote on it? How did..?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was -- we really didn't vote on it. I walked in, and they said, We need to find out who the foreperson's going to be. And just about everybody said me. So you know, I was honored.
VAN SUSTEREN: There was no -- no one else said, I'd like to do it, or anything?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was -- there was one other person who did want to do it, and then everyone basically said, no (INAUDIBLE)

Wow, what you bolded just really stood out to me even though I've read it before. "I walked in, and they said"...leaves an impression that he made an "entrance". That statement also insinuates that they all just automatically looked to him (like helpless sheep) to guide them. :sick:

MOO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

anic: Hey you all, this is a good thread with lots and lots of good ideas being exchanged. I'd hate to see it get shut down for being snarky or fantasizing about anyone's private lives. I'm going back to see if there is some self editing I should do before the mods have a chance. Wanna join me?

:couch:​

 

[ohiogirl]

The insinuations against the juror because he may teach female phys ed is more than outrageous. You might want to consider deleting those posts if I were some of you.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Before the trial HHJP said he wanted everything out before the trial. No surprises. No trial by ambush. He did not want the jury to be in and out like pop tarts. What did HHJP get from defense. Surprises. Ambush. And a jury that ended up being "pop-tarts".

I find it interesting that the Florida Bar annouced that it is investigating claims they heard from the news about what happened in court and HHJP's threats of contempt of court. It gets HHJP out of a very uncomfortable position of reporting it to the bar himself. Now he just has to answer their questions and let the Florida Bar decide what to do without lifing a finger. jmo

Whaa??? What did I miss?

 

[STEADFAST]

The first thing that came to me when I discovered the Foreman was the single "good looking" in-his-30's PE teacher was that he "fell in love" with her.....and wanted to "protect her".

I don't know if I can make it through the interviews...but (sorry I have not read the entire thread) is there a way for me to see the interviews in their entirety?

Transcripts of part 1 and 2 are here. If part 3 is up, it will be at the same web site.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...rensic-evidence-and-suspicions-george-anthony

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...als-what-happened-inside-delibe#ixzz1S0S2jNOj

 

[tennisgirlsc]

Whaa??? What did I miss?

"The Florida Bar Association also is looking into complaints against Anthony defense attorneys Jose Baez and Cheney Mason, WFTV reported. A former attorney in South Florida complained about Mason’s “flipping the bird” at a celebration of Anthony’s acquittal, anchor Salt said. The Bar is looking at at Chief Judge Belvin Perry’s allegations that Baez intentionally violated court orders."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/07/casey-anthony-shes-not-a-monster-young-attorney-says.html

 

[Nefriahaia]

Who said we have to respect the jurors?? I have zero, zilch, nada, NO respect for them and just because some people think I should respect them doesn't mean it will happen. I will try to avoid attacking them personally, but the verdict they made and the statements they give are fair game JMO :twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

I've been on WS for almost two years and was a lurker for a year before I signed on.

I belonged to another well known but unnamed Caylee website and left because of the immense unkindnesses to fellow posters that was allowed and sometimes even encouraged. I left in complete disgust.

At WS I've always enjoyed the fact that we have open dialogue, even during times when we've obviously had - mmmm- rogue posters who were obviously here to disrupt the conversations. I particularly admire the moderators who keep conversations balanced and within TOS guidelines, especially when we are debating strongly and tempers are raised. :waiting: (mod example)

And I have particularly appreciated the support and positive feedback I've had from my fellow posters even when I've gone out on a limb with comments that were in direct opposition to their own thinking. I was never attacked, ridiculed, asked to accept part truths or mistruths, and was asked open and honest questions so people could attempt to understand my thoughts, and express theirs in return. I was never aggressively confronted or attacked for what I said or thought. illowfight2:

And only on one occasion, on the advice of a mod who knew I was walking very close to the line, have I ever used the ignore button. And it helped.ullhair: ..... :ignore:

But now fellow posters, I have to confess I am about to use it six more times. I refuse to be taunted, baited, or asked to accept partial truths in the face of this "disappointing" verdict. And may I suggest some do also use this feature rather than risk further mind bending? My head and my heart are bruised enough. So I'm taking the high road and only coming to chat about what is currently happening and how I can assist in any change. :therethere:

Why? Cause I saw what I saw, we argued we debated, and I know what I know. All the PR-ing the world won't change what I think about ICA and this trial. It's too late for that. No one will convince me this trial verdict was anything but a miscarriage of justice.

And by the way my friends - have I told you lately how much I love you all?
:skip: :skip: :skip: :loveyou: And let's just share a thwartcake for old times sake and hum a few bars of "Our day will come" :cupcake:

 

[rotterdam]

Before the trial HHJP said he wanted everything out before the trial. No surprises. No trial by ambush. He did not want the jury to be in and out like pop tarts. What did HHJP get from defense. Surprises. Ambush. And a jury that ended up being "pop-tarts".

I find it interesting that the Florida Bar annouced that it is investigating claims they heard from the news about what happened in court and HHJP's threats of contempt of court. It gets HHJP out of a very uncomfortable position of reporting it to the bar himself. Now he just has to answer their questions and let the Florida Bar decide what to do without lifing a finger. jmo

I would not hold my breath. The Florida bar is run by lawyers for lawyers. Just like many other similar self regulating trade org. The fox guarding the hen house applies here.

 

[logicalgirl]

She was letting him HANG himself..Why I don't know since during the discussion after (with her legal team) she was far more 'pro' then 'con' re: everything he said.

Mark Furman was on last week telling it like it really IS & she was shooting him down so much you could see MF was getting very frustrated with her..Most watching had to feel the same way! :banghead:

I apologize amysmom - I did not see that interview and maybe I was projecting my own thoughts of how can she listen to this "stuff" without commenting or asking pertinent questions...or maybe she had just heard her fill of carp....

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I've been on WS for almost two years and was a lurker for a year before I signed on.

I belonged to another well known but unnamed Caylee website and left because of the immense unkindnesses to fellow posters that was allowed and sometimes even encouraged. I left in complete disgust.

At WS I've always enjoyed the fact that we have open dialogue, even during times when we've obviously had - mmmm- rogue posters who were obviously here to disrupt the conversations. I particularly admire the moderators who keep conversations balanced and within TOS guidelines, especially when we are debating strongly and tempers are raised. :waiting: (mod example)

And I have particularly appreciated the support and positive feedback I've had from my fellow posters even when I've gone out on a limb with comments that were in direct opposition to their own thinking. I was never attacked, ridiculed, asked to accept part truths or mistruths, and was asked open and honest questions so people could attempt to understand my thoughts, and express theirs in return. I was never aggressively confronted or attacked for what I said or thought. illowfight2:

And only on one occasion, on the advice of a mod who knew I was walking very close to the line, have I ever used the ignore button. And it helped.ullhair: ..... :ignore:

But now fellow posters, I have to confess I am about to use it six more times. I refuse to be taunted, baited, or asked to accept partial truths in the face of this "disappointing" verdict. And may I suggest some do also use this feature rather than risk further mind bending? My head and my heart are bruised enough. So I'm taking the high road and only coming to chat about what is currently happening and how I can assist in any change. :therethere:

Why? Cause I saw what I saw, we argued we debated, and I know what I know. All the PR-ing the world won't change what I think about ICA and this trial. It's too late for that. No one will convince me this trial verdict was anything but a miscarriage of justice.

And by the way my friends - have I told you lately how much I love you all?
:skip: :skip: :skip: :loveyou: And let's just share a thwartcake for old times sake and hum a few bars of "Our day will come" :cupcake:

HURRAH, HURRAH, HURRAH.

Somehow my emoticons aren't working at this moment. so....

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO.

Great post.

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

 

[logicalgirl]

I would not hold my breath. The Florida bar is run by lawyers for lawyers. Just like many other similar self regulating trade org. The fox guarding the hen house applies here.

I think the majority of the lawyers out there - consider Bill S. who sat on the Bar for a length of time - who very likely agree. Doesn't he also have something sitting waiting for a Bar decision already? I remember Bill S. saying a decision wouldn't be made by the Bar about it until late August - meaning after the trial was completed by I'll be darned if I can remember what the complaint actually was.

Anyone remember?

 

[STEADFAST]

This is going to sound completely off-topic, but just stick with me....it'll come around to my point.

Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").

After listening to the Foreman's interviews, he completely reminds me of that guy. The way he talks, how he obviously has issue with GA, but seems to defend CA and ICA.

I don't pretend to understand this personality type, but just wanted to share. I kept watching the interviews and kept feeling like, I know that guy!! Of course I don't.

Yes! And this is exactly the kind of guy who absolutely hates anyone who is obviously more intelligent than he is -- like JA. I do think that serving JA with a defeat, could possibly be a subconscious motive for his facile dismissal and misunderstanding of much of the State's evidence.

 

[Solange82200]

" I felt sorry that their grand daughter is gone. "

"What bothered me the most was the fact that they, ... nobody made the effort to get ahold of somebody. "

YOU MEAN LIKE CASEY? geeezzzzzzzz

"Good possibility she was put in Casey's trunk. I wish there was something to tell us that. WHO put the body in the car, HOW did they put the body in the car. What happened before the body was put in the car."

WOW

so they thought George put the baby in the dump?

Oh my god.. shoot me.... Who put the body in the car??? The person who owned it and drove it all the time! How?? Pop open the trunk and throw it in!!!!!!!!!!! What happened before?? Casey killed Caylee!!! What the hell, is this the twilight zone??? I am so happy at least some of the talking heads have the courage to point out the insanity in this (JVM, Nancy Grace)... I am just astounded...

Lets see how logical this is... Instead of deducing that the person who had proof of a dead body in her car, the person who knew the child was dead but didnt report it, the person who lied until the body was found... Instead of deducing that SHE put the body in the swamp... Lets just say its George, the one who had NO proof of a body in his car, the one who didnt lie to cops....

 

[TotallyObsessed]

AND

I so agree with you logicalgirl....I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE IGNORE BUTTON. I only wish there was a way to ignore a post when it is quoted....then life would be perfect. Well, not perfect...FCA is still walking on Sunday, but close to perfect!