2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[kgeaux]

IMO, people should have to pass a test to be eligible for jury duty. That way they'd still be our peers but also be knowledgeable of the law. I never thought about it much before but really? Sending random people in and crossing our fingers that they understand their duty and the law? Too much of a crapshoot. :twocents:

People DO have to prove they are eligible to serve on a jury. The bar is mighty low, however. Basically, you have to be able to read and understand English, can't be a felon.....basic stuff. No IQ test required!

i would be nervous with 12 professional jurors but i would happrily accept just one per jury to keep deliberations following the right track per the law.

Even one per jury would be unconstitutional, IMO.

I dont know how you guys know all these people in real life who believe this stuff lol. I have talked to at least 10 people at work and all of them are disgusted she got off, men and women. I think I told the story before, but some of these people I didnt even ask or talk about it. I was just sitting waiting for my computer to get updated and a coworker I dont know very well was waiting next to me, and he showed me a picture on his phone of KC with OJ and started telling me how stupid the jury is. Everyone in my family is disgusted. On my facebook page, all my friends, most of whom are local and I know in real life, were posting outrage. I have yet to meet one person in real life who doesn't feel like I do.

Honestly, I haven't met anyone who believes 100% that Casey is innocent. But I do know people who believe, like me, that the state did not prove its case.

 

[Salem]

Please DO NOT BICKER! It is okay to have differing opinions. It is NOT okay to call others out because they don't think like you do. It is okay to IGNORE any post that differs from what you think. If you can't respond respectfully, than DON'T respond. Ignore it and move on. Find a post you agree with and respond to it. Or just post YOUR views without using another post to jump off of.

Please. Disagree respectfully with the post, without attacking the poster.

Respectful debate is welcome at WS, as it fosters an often-helpful exchange of ideas. Bickering is not welcome, as it fosters a spirit of divisiveness and discord.

Salem

 

[dodie20]

It seems like the jury didn't know what to make of the lying by ICA. What it seems like this foreman is saying is that she has issues beyond his understanding, that the mind is above his pay grade, and thus this lying thing is probably some disorder with no intent behind the lies, that its just some mental illness.

That she was hiding the truth to avoid the legal consequences seems out of his grasp.

Perhaps that is how a psycho will get away with murder sometimes. Make it seem incredible.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

The jury seemed to judge GA much more harshly for his supposed lies than they did KC. I wonder why they didn't blame his supposed lies on dysfunction or mental illness. KC's lies were documented and gone through with a fine tooth comb. GA wasn't even proved to lie. The jury could just tell? Personally, I think the jury took way too many liberties in judging character. KC, (this documented liar), called him a molestor, and that's all it took, IMO. The words had been put out there. It's a shame that somebody can throw out incest accusations in COURT, of all places, and not be required to prove it.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm puzzled that people think the only choice the jury had was the death penalty after all of the discussion here and on other News sites.

A trial has two phases, that are quite separate. The first, which we all saw, was the guilt phase. They were there to debate guilt or innocence only on three charges.
The jury had three charges to choose from. If they weren't satisfied ICA killed Caylee with premeditation, they had two other lessor charges to find her guilty with.
The second part of the trial is called the penalty phase. Here the penalty would have been discussed for the charge guilt was found on. Even if the jury found ICA guilty of the most severe charge, it still did not automatically mean the death penalty. They could just have easily chosen Life without Parole - it was an EITHER OR penalty.
So to hear jurors say they couldn't give her the death penalty as part of their decision making process is just ludicrous - that wasn't even one of their considerations in this part of the trial.
Even if the jury had chose the most severe form of guilt, only a handful of posters believed she would actually get the death penalty. The majority of people felt she would be given life without parole.

So why is the death penalty even being discussed by the jurors? I don't get it.:waitasec: Well, actually I do - they clearly didn't understand these or any other of their instructions from the Judge.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Never said that. Only said the jury was uninformed. No need to jump to conclusions you know?

 

[logicalgirl]

The jury was most definitely instructed NOT to consider any allegations of abuse of any form against George to ICA. Yet another instruction they ignored. Anything said in the OS was NOT to be considered as evidence.

 

[fifteen89]

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)

^^^BBM^^^
Wonder if that "one other person" was one of the G voters.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Oh, but those people are of 'subpar intelligence'. Or so I've been told.

The jurors? Certainly they are.

 

[back2back19]

and if we want to play the poilte game Frank George wins hands down. :0)

So true but I doubt the jurors even knew who he was or were even aware of him. lol

 

[suzihawk]

The jurors? Certainly they are.

Most definitely!

But I was talking about the opinion of some that think those who believe ICA is guilty (and that there was more than enough evidence to prove it) are of 'subpar intelligence'.

 

[logicalgirl]

I understood why Jeff Ashton was making faces but at the same time I was kind of fearful of repercussions as I watched him. But even saying that - what a mind that man has and I have so much respect for him!
Was it Huntington who was so in awe that he was being cross examined by the man who brought DNA evidence into acceptance in the court system? Or was it the DNA guy Eikenbloom? It wasn't important enough to register in the middle of the trial but I am curious to know if anyone knows for sure.

 

[back2back19]

I understood why Jeff Ashton was making faces but at the same time I was kind of fearful of repercussions as I watched him. But even saying that - what a mind that man has and I have so much respect for him!
Was it Huntington who was so in awe that he was being cross examined by the man who brought DNA evidence into acceptance in the court system? Or was it the DNA guy Eikenbloom? It wasn't important enough to register in the middle of the trial but I am curious to know if anyone knows for sure.

I thought about it too but Baez was making as many, so I figured they evened out. Guess not.

Anyways, it was Eikenbloom. JA said he was surprised and honored in one of the interviews he did.

 

[3doglady]

He better hire a ghost writer. The way he speaks in circles and cannot complete sentences or answer simple questions makes me think he could not possibly write a book worth reading.

I would suggest the title, "If I Was Stupid"

I think the title should be "I'm Stupid, Are we in Agreeance?"

 

[LambChop]

in their minds no one had any idea who "done it" so the people reading foreman had to deduce with his superior skills just who, who, who could it be? They had no clue as LE had done no investigation, there was no overwhelming evidence against one person, there wasn't a truckload of circumstantial evidence that had been carefully assembled over three years and which all pointed to only one person. No, this poor foreman was left on his own to "figure it out"....thank God we had him or we might never know that, "Aha! it was the grieving grandfather with the gas cans".

Truly, you could not make up a stupider scenario than what happened here. The more I think and hear about it the more I can't believe it actually happened.

What I could not believe is that one of the jurors said they could not determine who the caretaker was. Was it the grandmother, was it the grandfather, was it the mother??? The grandmother worked and at times long hours which was established by her testimony. The grandfather worked which was established by his own testimony. The mother did not work, had no job, which she did not testify to but other's did. And they were stumped on that one. Please tell me the foreman was not aware of the answer to that question.

Clearly they only spent a few hours on this. The foreman said they discussed the news conference after the verdict for hours before deciding to not say anything for awhile. This had to be the morning of the verdict. That means their decision was between lunchtime on Monday until recess for the evening so what, 4 to 5 hours max. They left it with a lot of open questions that could have been answered if they looked at the evidence.

Once those books start to roll out, the ones written by professionals who have investigated the facts of this case, these jurors will want to know the truth. They too will feel they were victums. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I thought about it too but Baez was making as many, so I figured they evened out. Guess not.

Anyways, it was Eikenbloom. JA said he was surprised and honored in one of the interviews he did.

Thanks for that - when I thought about it I wasn't sure. I do think HHJP held JA up to a higher standard of professionalism than Baez during the trial - because let's face it - JA is the professional of the two of them.

I think the scale was actually much higher if we counted Baez's numbers.

 

[Nova24]

Please tell me there is no Part 4 with #11. I can't take it. lol

 

[TexanMom]

Please tell me there is no Part 4 with #11. I can't take it. lol

I hope there isn't! I have lost enough brain cells listening to this guy!:banghead:

 

[back2back19]

Thanks for that - when I thought about it I wasn't sure. I do think HHJP held JA up to a higher standard of professionalism than Baez during the trial - because let's face it - JA is the professional of the two of them.

I think the scale was actually much higher if we counted Baez's numbers.

Oh, I think JP definitely held JA to a much higher standard and was definitely irritated with JA that he seemed to fall into so many traps by JB but I also think JP's history with JA played a role in why he came down so hard on JA too. But no matter what I didn't think JA came close to JB in terms of unprofessional behaviour. I just don't understand how the jury could see JB roll his eyes, smirk, laugh, shake his head and mutter to himself as in anyway show that Jb was professional. It's the same with how anyone could think Casey seemed "sincere". How? She was constantly faking breakdowns. Her emotions were rarely real. She constantly rolled her eyes, muttered, snarled, etc. And all the ASA's did was act, for the most part, coolly professional. Again, maybe it's just easier to relate to JB/Casey?

 

[txsvicki]

I've never heard a peson contradict themselves as much as this juror. He says that the family was suspicious, especially Cindy for not contacting people trying to find Casey, then immediately says that Cindy had no part in the death or what happened. He doesn't even seem to notice that Cindy was in contact by phone and text with Casey and thought she was out of town for much of that 31 days with people that Cindy had never met. How can he ignore the elaborate lies that Casey told the cops and her own family. If he can believe lies from a young woman he's never even spoken with does he really think she couldn't fool her family! Also it's obvious in the jail tapes that George is thinking that dope dealers or criminals took Caylee.

 

[kimmera]

What I could not believe is that one of the jurors said they could not determine who the caretaker was. Was it the grandmother, was it the grandfather, was it the mother??? The grandmother worked and at times long hours which was established by her testimony. The grandfather worked which was established by his own testimony. The mother did not work, had no job, which she did not testify to but other's did. And they were stumped on that one. Please tell me the foreman was not aware of the answer to that question.

Clearly they only spent a few hours on this. The foreman said they discussed the news conference after the verdict for hours before deciding to not say anything for awhile. This had to be the morning of the verdict. That means their decision was between lunchtime on Monday until recess for the evening so what, 4 to 5 hours max. They left it with a lot of open questions that could have been answered if they looked at the evidence.

Once those books start to roll out, the ones written by professionals who have investigated the facts of this case, these jurors will want to know the truth. They too will feel they were victums. jmo

The whole deliberation/verdict is still so insane to me. I read on another site that someone was watching #3 on TV again yesterday and someone asked about the 31 days of YAY, and #3 said that they 'weren't allowed' to discuss that...WTH? Did anyone else see that? I think it was on Fox last night. Why in the hell-o would that 31 days NOT be relevant to this case? And who would have told them not to discuss it?

I am still shocked and disgusted by this verdict, and even more so as more details about the 'deliberation' process come forth. I know that what's done is done, but I just can't shake the feeling that there is something very hinky about this jury, and this so-called deliberation. JMO. :twocents: