2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[TexanMom]

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.

ITA! My husband received his summons for jury duty today. He told me that if he is chosen he will do a heck of a better job than the Casey Anthony jurors.

 

[okiedokietoo]

: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

bbm & ubbm
I can't even come up with anything to say to this - I am dumbfounded

 

[LambChop]

GA did not report the smell to LE from the tow yard because CA would have told him she had been texting KC. Who knows what GA was thinking only that he thought it smelled like a dead body had been in the car and wanted to know, from KC, what was going on. We can all see CA saying, "George, let me handle it." So GA went to work.

So the jurors say GA did not call the police but they know the A's are lying on the stand to protect their daughter. If KC had been telling CA Caylee was with the Nanny why would any of the family immediately think it was Caylee. When GA smelled the trunk his thoughts went right to hoping it was not KC or Caylee. When the trunk was opened he was relieved and thinking what has KC gotten herself into now. Once he meets up with CA out front with the car their concern is to get it home and find KC for an explanation as to why the car smells. This is why I think GA did not call police. He really never believed it was ever Caylee at that point but more of who is KC hanging with now and what are they into. jmo

 

[amysmom]

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

I'm sure it was..I remember seeing it..Someone posted a copy of the instructions..I wish I knew where to find it now but I don't

 

[Tricia]

OK Websleuths Members,

We need your help with a case of a missing woman that is going ON NOW.

Michelle Le has vanished. Searchers from KlaasKids are going in today and tomorrow (Friday and Saturday) to search.

WE NEED LUNCH FOR TODAY (FRIDAY) FOR THE SEARCHERS. Please click on this thread for more details.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144508"]SPOTLIGHT CASE CA - We Really Need Your Help !!!!!Michelle Le Search July 15th and 16th. !!! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HARD TO GET INTEREST IN THE SEARCH FOR MICHELLE THIS TIME. I THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF THE ANTHONY CASE. PEOPLE ARE BURNED OUT ON THE MISSING AND MURDERED

ALL THE INFO ABOUT THE SEARCH AND THE FOOD DONATIONS ARE AT THE LINK.

THANK YOU SO VERY VERY MUCH,
Tricia

 

[amysmom]

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

How could I overlook motive? DUH! :loser:

JP had to be talking about GA's breakdown on the stand too..Even those ppl who didn't like or trust him had to feel at least something for a grandfather who just wanted to be with the dead 'apple of his eye'?.I sincerely believe that much (he loved that little girl with all his heart) to be true about GA.

That raw display on the stand had to be damn hard to fake. imho His daughter, OTH, is a master at faking all her emotions..Only an 'abnormal' person could attempt that & even at times get away with it.

 

[lauriej]

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 haven't read the whole thread so this may have been answered------it was eikelenboom.

..also, back to what you were saying about the penalty phase --that , at least J3 WAS factoring into her decision-----("they were asking to me to take someone's life, that would make me a murderer too".)------when they were ONLY at the guilt phase, and were NOT to be factoring in the DP one way or another.

..in one of jeffA's interviews he mentions that he's seen/heard some of the juror comments---and if it's true that they were factoring in the penalty phase--while deliberating the guilt phase--then "they didn't follow the law". ( with a crushed, yet diplomatic, look on his face..)

..i DO think, that the more we've all heard from these jurors, that the prosecution can sleep well------knowing that they didn't in fact "lose"------it was the jury that did not understand the law as it applied at all ( and didn't bother even once! to ask for clarification )--------( another thing jeffA was "very surprised" at as he told kathiB).

..leaving the defense to "win" due to their ignorance and arrogance.

..or as they say it----they were FORCED---by the law----to acquit.

 

[lauriej]

I'm sure it was..I remember seeing it..Someone posted a copy of the instructions..I wish I knew where to find it now but I don't

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

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/
------------JURY INSTRUCTIONS----

..as to count 3, the defense "special finding" was:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#
--------------Verdict Forms-----

--count 3 --manslaughter---page 4. special finding.

--we find that kc was a caregiver for caylee at the time of the offense
--we find that kc was not a caregiver for caylee at the time of the offense

--juror #2 , the last hold out for manslaughter---BY KC---changed his vote when he couldn't decide if ( the mother of the child ) WAS or WASN'T a caregiver at the time of the offense.

..apparently he concluded, either alone or with help from the other 11, that she wasn't a very nice caregiver----to be committing manslaughter---so had to check off "No, she was not a caregiver".

..which "made him by default" have to also check off "NG" on page 3----the manslaughter charge.

..which then resulted in--------"we have a 12-0 verdict!!".

..save us.

 

[imagirlgeek]

Here's one of my favorites. And by favorite, I mean, makes my head explode.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's interesting, because something you didn't hear and had nothing to do with the trial, but there were letters she wrote while in jail, talked about having another child, which horrified people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right. That's...we didn't know anything about those.

VAN SUSTEREN: And your thought about it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh. I don't have much thought to it. I haven't given it much thought so you know, her writing in prison to, uh, to other people, you know, I don't know what else much what else you can do in prison. Um...as far as the, you know, alleged pregnancy, I just...that... Again, that's something that really, uh -- you know, it's j-- it just disgusts, disgusts me.


I had to rewind and listen to it again because I was like, 'What? Wait...what was the question again?' This really seemed to make him uncomfortable. I wonder if he didn't know about the letters, which is understandable since it wasn't part of the trial, but why not just say, "I don't know about the letters." He has to have an answer for everything, and that grates on me a little. I know I'm getting nit-picky, but dang...alleged pregnancy? There was no alleged pregnancy. Greta even said that the letters were about her wanting to have another baby, not that she was currently with child.

OR...maybe he was just nervous because he could see, by the look on her face, that Greta was starting to see through him...

 

[ziggy]

-----i haven't read the whole thread so this may have been answered------it was eikelenboom.

..also, back to what you were saying about the penalty phase --that , at least J3 WAS factoring into her decision-----("they were asking to me to take someone's life, that would make me a murderer too".)------when they were ONLY at the guilt phase, and were NOT to be factoring in the DP one way or another.

..in one of jeffA's interviews he mentions that he's seen/heard some of the juror comments---and if it's true that they were factoring in the penalty phase--while deliberating the guilt phase--then "they didn't follow the law". ( with a crushed, yet diplomatic, look on his face..)

..i DO think, that the more we've all heard from these jurors, that the prosecution can sleep well------knowing that they didn't in fact "lose"------it was the jury that did not understand the law as it applied at all ( and didn't bother even once! to ask for clarification )--------( another thing jeffA was "very surprised" at as he told kathiB).

..leaving the defense to "win" due to their ignorance and arrogance.

..or as they say it----they were FORCED---by the law----to acquit.

Well I do think JP spent a little too much time being real super sugary sweet to the jury and worrying about where they were going to eat than making sure they understood his instructions. Especially given the defense's OS...and the wild allegations about George and Lee.

If they didn't understand or follow the law, that's on him.

 

[txsvicki]

Why the heck didn't the jury go by the law when considering the caregiver of Caylee. Cindy supported everyone financially, but Casey had legal custody and was Caylee's parent. Casey lived in that home and had her child everyday that her parents were both at work. Evidence proved that Casey was in the area all night and all that day until she left for Tony's. Jesse could have proven that Casey was at home and that she told someone or something to get off the table. Tony spoke to her the night before and knew that she was at home. They should also know that if Cindy called the cops during those 31 days and asked them to find Caylee they would have laughed at her once they found out that Caylee was with her mother who had legal custody of her own child.

 

[lauriej]

Well I do think JP spent a little too much time being real super sugary sweet to the jury and worrying about where they were going to eat than making sure they understood his instructions. Especially given the defense's OS...and the wild allegations about George and Lee.

If they didn't understand or follow the law, that's on him.

BBM

..i disagree.

..at ANY time the jury can buzz the deputy to have the judge explain the law TO them...

..jeffA was very surprised that they never had a single question ( most juries do, he said-------and in a 6 week DP case ???----they didn't ??? )

..judgeS, AS a judge was surprised also-----he is frequently called down to explain the law to his juries.

..what went on in deliberation has nothing to do with how well judgeP treated his jury-------if they didn't understand something clearly ( and as 12 NON legal types , it was fine if they didn't )

-----the arrogance of whoever in that jury room just decided that "this is what that means"------and the stupidity of who went along WITH that person, or persons-----is the whole crux of why they ("had to vote NG" !! --based on "the law" !--says the jury--) even though ( sob!!!) they ( more tears!) wanted to find her guilty.

..the FACT that they didn't ask for any legal clarification on the law------that's on THEM.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/
------------JURY INSTRUCTIONS----

..as to count 3, the defense "special finding" was:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#
--------------Verdict Forms-----

--count 3 --manslaughter---page 4. special finding.

--we find that kc was a caregiver for caylee at the time of the offense
--we find that kc was not a caregiver for caylee at the time of the offense

--juror #2 , the last hold out for manslaughter---BY KC---changed his vote when he couldn't decide if ( the mother of the child ) WAS or WASN'T a caregiver at the time of the offense.

..apparently he concluded, either alone or with help from the other 11, that she wasn't a very nice caregiver----to be committing manslaughter---so had to check off "No, she was not a caregiver".

..which "made him by default" have to also check off "NG" on page 3----the manslaughter charge.

..which then resulted in--------"we have a 12-0 verdict!!".

..save us.

But, but, "the mother" (and I use that term loosely) was always a caregiver, according to the jury instructions which clearly defined "caregiver" as:

“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

So, was KC a parent for Caylee at the time of the offense? YES!!! Either way you slice it...KC was ALWAYS a caregiver for Caylee.

All they had to do was fill in the blank for "caregiver" as provided in the instructions; as I didn't see anything in the instructions indicating they had to determine if KC was the ONLY caregiver of Caylee at the time of the offense?

I just don't see how they can dispute that...am I crazy? Please tell me as it's quite possible after this mess.


http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

 

[lauriej]

Here's one of my favorites. And by favorite, I mean, makes my head explode.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's interesting, because something you didn't hear and had nothing to do with the trial, but there were letters she wrote while in jail, talked about having another child, which horrified people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right. That's...we didn't know anything about those.

VAN SUSTEREN: And your thought about it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh. I don't have much thought to it. I haven't given it much thought so you know, her writing in prison to, uh, to other people, you know, I don't know what else much what else you can do in prison. Um...as far as the, you know, alleged pregnancy, I just...that... Again, that's something that really, uh -- you know, it's j-- it just disgusts, disgusts me.


I had to rewind and listen to it again because I was like, 'What? Wait...what was the question again?' This really seemed to make him uncomfortable. I wonder if he didn't know about the letters, which is understandable since it wasn't part of the trial, but why not just say, "I don't know about the letters." He has to have an answer for everything, and that grates on me a little. I know I'm getting nit-picky, but dang...alleged pregnancy? There was no alleged pregnancy. Greta even said that the letters were about her wanting to have another baby, not that she was currently with child.

OR...maybe he was just nervous because he could see, by the look on her face, that Greta was starting to see through him...

---------oh wow-------i didn't catch it that he said the "alleged pregnancy".

..there was no mention of that in jail letters--------is he referring to the recent "Casey is Pregnant" by the national enquirer!?

 

[MsFacetious]

Here's one of my favorites. And by favorite, I mean, makes my head explode.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's interesting, because something you didn't hear and had nothing to do with the trial, but there were letters she wrote while in jail, talked about having another child, which horrified people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right. That's...we didn't know anything about those.

VAN SUSTEREN: And your thought about it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh. I don't have much thought to it. I haven't given it much thought so you know, her writing in prison to, uh, to other people, you know, I don't know what else much what else you can do in prison. Um...as far as the, you know, alleged pregnancy, I just...that... Again, that's something that really, uh -- you know, it's j-- it just disgusts, disgusts me.


I had to rewind and listen to it again because I was like, 'What? Wait...what was the question again?' This really seemed to make him uncomfortable. I wonder if he didn't know about the letters, which is understandable since it wasn't part of the trial, but why not just say, "I don't know about the letters." He has to have an answer for everything, and that grates on me a little. I know I'm getting nit-picky, but dang...alleged pregnancy? There was no alleged pregnancy. Greta even said that the letters were about her wanting to have another baby, not that she was currently with child.

OR...maybe he was just nervous because he could see, by the look on her face, that Greta was starting to see through him...

Yeah there was an "alleged pregnancy." The guy just can't keep his facts straight... and thinks Greta is referring to the very recent alleged pregnancy that was supposed to save her from the death penalty when the jury convicted her... not referring to having or adopting another child when she got out, which was written a long time ago.

He didn't realize Greta wasn't talking about 2011, obviously. Or maybe he didn't know about either and just came up with an alleged pregnancy in his own mind.

Either way, there WAS an alleged pregnancy (in 2011, like now) and if he knew about that it should disgust him. Perhaps he reads the Enquirer.

 

[miss plum]

I think if he read about it he wasn't being sequestered properly.

 

[katydid23]

He just reminds me so much of a boss I used to have. Like her, this guy answers INSTANTLY, with no clarification, no time to reflect, or check his facts. Greta gives him info on something he did not know about, yet he instantly begins to comment upon the 'alleged' pregnancy. He answers her AS IF he had a clue to what she was saying.

And that is exactly what he did as the ORCHESTRATOR of this debacle. He led them all down a primrose path. Ignore the 31 days of Yay, that is heinous, but LEGALLY, we are NOT ALLOWED to take it into account. Oh, and that Chloroform and duct tape stuff--too confusing and emotional. We will let that go too. As for the body in the trunk, we can all agree it is a possibility. But as to WHO or HOW or WHAT happened before the baby was placed into the trunk, too much grey area. Until we find out the caretaker of the child on the 15th, we will never know for sure what happened. And since we can see the clients body language seems sincere, and she seems nice and everyone testified she was a very good mom, but her father is very combative, and lied about the gas cans and River Cruz, so let's just call it a day and get outta here...

 

[robmom]

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.

And that's one reason I am totally fine talking about this guy and saying he didn't know his job. That 31 days was absolutely evidence and he told people not to consider it. He's either not all that bright and didn't know the job or he misled them on purpose.

 

[Italy]

He just reminds me so much of a boss I used to have. Like her, this guy answers INSTANTLY, with no clarification, no time to reflect, or check his facts. Greta gives him info on something he did not know about, yet he instantly begins to comment upon the 'alleged' pregnancy. He answers her AS IF he had a clue to what she was saying.

And that is exactly what he did as the ORCHESTRATOR of this debacle. He led them all down a primrose path. Ignore the 31 days of Yay, that is heinous, but LEGALLY, we are NOT ALLOWED to take it into account. Oh, and that Chloroform and duct tape stuff--too confusing and emotional. We will let that go too. As for the body in the trunk, we can all agree it is a possibility. But as to WHO or HOW or WHAT happened before the baby was placed into the trunk, too much grey area. Until we find out the caretaker of the child on the 15th, we will never know for sure what happened. And since we can see the clients body language seems sincere, and she seems nice and everyone testified she was a very good mom, but her father is very combative, and lied about the gas cans and River Cruz, so let's just call it a day and get outta here...

I sincerely hope that the other jurors, armed now with more information, are questioning and regretting their verdict.

This foreperson will never, ever see what people are so wigged out about. He has all the answers -- just ask him. I wouldn't be surprised if he bullied the others into his version of the law and that a few others, now removed from his influence, regret and recognize what I believe was a gross miscarriage of justice. I hope so anyway.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

RBBM. Excellent point, wallflower! Also, if the jury had not taken the drowning into consideration, there would have been no reason to believe anyone other than Casey had been her caregiver at the time. Did they not take into consideration her first lies? When she originally realized she had to shift the care taking responsibility away from herself, the only thing she could think of was Zanny. I just cannot follow this jury's logic at all.