2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[wallflower67]

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.

. jmo

That the jurors said they couldn't figure out who the caregivers were irks me. They ALL were routine caregivers. IF Caylee had drowned at home, like the defense said, and George and Casey were both there, BOTH would be culpible. If I had been on the jury I would have brought that up and pointed out that just because the state had not (yet) charged George with anything doesn't mean that Casey was not guilty of aggrevated child abuse for not calling 911.

Where I live, we have had tragic drowning accidents that HAVE been reported to 911 and both parents (in one case a grandmother and mother) were charged with child neglect.

 

[IfIMay]

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?

Apparently, JB played to the audience he had. I bet they:floorlaugh: at poopy jokes, too.

 

[CrimeAddict]

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:

My guess is mr foreman decided 31 days wasn't relevant. He rules the group.

 

[katydid23]

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:

:seeya::seeya::seeya: I KNOW, raising my hand


THE FOREMAN. He said as much in one of his softball interviews. When he was asked about the 31 days he said [paraphrasing] " it was bad of course..but we could not include that in our deliberations. It was emotion and not evidence of anything happening on june 16th." THAT is paraphrased but I will go look it up and link it.

ETA: been having internet connection problems--will go look now


VAN SUSTEREN: ... which is what I think the jury also concluded. But the whole discussion outside of the trial, for us, on our show, was, like, you know, How in the world could someone act like that with a missing child? I mean, that was the thing that was just inexplicable to us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And it was to us, too. It was to us, too. But you know, we were asked to indict on cause of death...
VAN SUSTEREN: Convict, you mean.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...als-what-happened-inside-delibe#ixzz1S8otVk7V

 

[Schu7]

A personal musing here on juror #11. And the rest of the jurors in this case.

In the long run, they may have very well done us all a service. Yes, they have messed up big time. But they have brought massive public awareness to what it should mean to be a "peer" and do jury duty. #11 has bully his way over others. Well in the future trials at all levels will have far more jurors on the outlook for being bullied. They as a group decided not to truly go over the evidence. Future jurors will do that to a larger degree.IMO They have chosen to be able the read people. Whether they are lying or not. From the witnesses body language, voice tone etc.... Future jurors will do what they are supposed top do more, look at the evidence. In short, the quality of juror's dedication will be raise considerably in future trials.

But you can be sure this lot do not realize this.

 

[Nefriahaia]

A personal musing here on juror #11. And the rest of the jurors in this case.

In the long run, they may have very well done us all a service. Yes, they have messed up big time. But they have brought massive public awareness to what it should mean to be a "peer" and do jury duty. #11 has bully his way over others. Well in the future trials at all levels will have far more jurors on the outlook for being bullied. They as a group decided not to truly go over the evidence. Future jurors will do that to a larger degree.IMO They have chosen to be able the read people. Whether they are lying or not. From the witnesses body language, voice tone etc.... Future jurors will do what they are supposed top do more, look at the evidence. In short, the quality of juror's dedication will be raise considerably in future trials.

But you can be sure this lot do not realize this.

Plus, ICA may very well have a worse punishment being out in society than having all her needs met in a nice, safe prison cell. maybe. We'll just have to see how things unfold.

 

[Solange82200]

We constantly have these talking heads going on and on about not using emotion, and jurors are so afraid of being accused of judging on emotion that they refuse to use even common sense, for fear that that will be perceived as using "emotion". We focus so much on the defendant's rights that we have gone too far to that side, and sacrifice the victims. I know the defendant's rights to a fair trial, etc are important, but I think the balance needs to be shifted a bit back towards the victims.

 

[kelian36]

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?

I said it before and I'll say it again. I've watched a lot of trials on CTV and I've never seen a lawyer as unprofessional and childish as JB.

 

[kelian36]

Plus, ICA may very well have a worse punishment being out in society than having all her needs met in a nice, safe prison cell. maybe. We'll just have to see how things unfold.

I'm afraid she will suffer very little, will wind up a millionaire and will get pregnant and have another child. :banghead:

 

[Schu7]

Plus, ICA may very well have a worse punishment being out in society than having all her needs met in a nice, safe prison cell. maybe. We'll just have to see how things unfold.

Interesting point here. IF Casey was in jail, she would believe in her self religiousness. That the system falsely ruined her life. But by not being able to show her face in public, the point will be with her everyday for ever that the public was not taken in by her lies. And to Casey, that may be the biggest hurt anyone can lay on her short of death.

 

[kimmera]

:seeya::seeya::seeya: I KNOW, rising my hand


THE FOREMAN. He said as much in one of his softball interviews. When he was asked about the 31 days he said [paraphrasing] " it was bad of course..but we could not include that in our deliberations. It was emotion and not evidence of anything happening on june 16th." THAT is paraphrased but I will go look it up and link it.

Thanks KD! And please don't look up a link, I believe you! I kind of figured it was HIM but wasn't sure. WOW. It sure seems to me that this guy totally took the law into his own hands, so to speak. He dictated, in the few MINUTES of deliberations, what was worthy of discussion and what was not. It seems like he and #3 were definitely running the show.

I am aghast at this. I haven't seen any of the IV's with this guy, but have been following it on here and other similar sites. So this guy decides on his own what evidence they will consider and then literally, within minutes, we have a jury that was 6-6 for the manslaughter charge decide to all vote not guilty. Unreal. I believe that this jury should be looked into, JMO, but this just seems so wrong to me...I feel soooo, sooo bad for the PT. They worked their hearts out for Caylee for almost three years and then they get THIS jury and THIS foreman? Saying there was not enough evidence but yet they seemingly ignored ALL of it. Every damning piece of it.

Thanks to all for helping me stay caught up with this. We are currently a one TV household and it seems that every night there is a new episode of Trash Pickers/I Shoulda Died/ Gold Diggers on. LOL. Although in his defense, the old man let me get caught up on the trial at night when it was going on. :seeya:

 

[Whisperer]

I think GA and Cindy both knew that Caylee came to harm on the night of June 15. However, that would not prevent me from blaming FCA 100%. I don't see this juror's point.

I think if cindy wanted to find where Caylee was, she or her husband could have called the car in as stolen. Both failed to do so probably scared to death to face their inner fears.

 

[Whisperer]

I only saw the interview yesterday for a few minutes and this guy hurts my brain. Where did they grow these jurors?

 

[katydid23]

Kimmera,

I went ahead and looked it up because I wanted to read it again myself. One of the weird things about #11 is the odd way he tries to word things. I paraphrased what he said, boiled it down, distilled it. But if you go and look at what he actually said, it is all twisted and wordy and kind of mangled. He throws in extra words and phrases and uses many words incorrectly in the mix. And HE was the leader, or the ORCHESTRATER as he prefers to call it.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And it was to us, too. It was to us, too. But you know, we were asked to indict on cause of death...
VAN SUSTEREN: Convict, you mean.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.

 

[amysmom]

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???

s&bbm

IIRC, that was added to the jury instructions by the DT..It's pretty clear why they wanted them to decide IF it was ICA or not..Again, IIRC, it was put under the 'manslaughter' charge only.

I'm very surprised the state didn't object..Unless they did & I either missed it or it wasn't brought up in open court.

 

[angeleleven]

Kimmera,

I went ahead and looked it up because I wanted to read it again myself. One of the weird things about #11 is the odd way he tries to word things. I paraphrased what he said, boiled it down, distilled it. But if you go and look at what he actually said, it is all twisted and wordy and kind of mangled. He throws in extra words and phrases and uses many words incorrectly in the mix. And HE was the leader, or the ORCHESTRATER as he prefers to call it.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And it was to us, too. It was to us, too. But you know, we were asked to indict on cause of death...
VAN SUSTEREN: Convict, you mean.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.

He sure has a weird way with words, doesn't he?

 

[amysmom]

Kimmera,

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.

s&bbm

It's a fact her actions during those '31 days' played a major role in this case & the state dealt with it for almost a whole week..It was so important they began with it & brought on witness after witness to prove her state of mind during the time Caylee was missing/kidnapped later told dead/drowned..But they weren't able to take that into consideration? What in the world is he talking about? :banghead:

It's also a fact it was those '31 days' that brought so much attention to this case & was the primary reason to suspect she was the suspect! Along with all the LIES she told during that time.

 

[LambChop]

s&bbm

IIRC, that was added to the jury instructions by the DT..It's pretty clear why they wanted them to decide IF it was ICA or not..Again, IIRC, it was put under the 'manslaughter' charge only.

I'm very surprised the state didn't object..Unless they did & I either missed it or it wasn't brought up in open court.

Was it in the jury instructions? I thought the juror was saying they discussed it among themselves and could not decide who the caretaker was. This would only apply to if Caylee drowned and no evidence was presented that Caylee drowned so I don't think it was part of the jury instructions. jmo

 

[LambChop]

s&bbm

It's a fact her actions during those '31 days' played a major role in this case & the state dealt with it for almost a whole week..It was so important they began with it & brought on witness after witness to prove her state of mind during the time Caylee was missing/kidnapped later told dead/drowned..But they weren't able to take that into consideration? What in the world is he talking about? :banghead:

It's also a fact it was those '31 days' that brought so much attention to this case & was the primary reason to suspect she was the suspect! Along with all the LIES she told during that time.

Basically they wanted a motive and pretty much eliminated the 31 days because it showed a motive. They eliminated considering the duct tape, double bagged in plastic and chloroform suggested by the ME because it was too emotional. Boy, I bet Charles Manson wished he had this jury. Obviously when the judge said disregard the emotions of the trial he was talking about a grandmother who is sobbing her heart out. jmo

 

[kimmera]

I think GA and Cindy both knew that Caylee came to harm on the night of June 15. However, that would not prevent me from blaming FCA 100%. I don't see this juror's point.

I think if cindy wanted to find where Caylee was, she or her husband could have called the car in as stolen. Both failed to do so probably scared to death to face their inner fears.

Ga and CA KNEW what was up as soon as they got the car back from the tow yard. Why else would they clean up a crime scene unless they KNEW, instinctively, that KC was in BIG TROUBLE? They may not have known at that point that it was Caylee, but they KNEW KC was involved in a very, VERY bad crime.

The car trunk was cleaned and vacuumed, IMO. LE confiscated the vacuum cleaner from the home, but it wasn't until after Caylee was found, IIRC, which was almost six months later. I really wish they would have done it immediately.

GA and CA have been cleaning up KC's messes for a long, long time, IMO. Going into coverup mode after they found the car was probably a conditioned response, IMO, one they probably thought better of later, but it was too late then. They were IN ON IT at that point and there was no turning back. Accessories after the fact.

GA and CA committed the second murder of Caylee, IMO when they made the decision to cover for FCA, and then proceeded to impede the investigation at every turn. I wish that they could be charged with something, but apparently NO ONE will be charged at this point, so it would appear that the whole A family really is above the law. And will all probably end up rich off of the blood of the baby that they allegedly loved. They all make me physically sick. :banghead: