2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Nefriahaia]

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:

ITA :tears: ullhair: :anguish:

 

[amysmom]

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.

TY!! So, it was on the VERDICT FORM! I searched & found the JURY INSTRUCTIONS that JP had given to them & it wasn't on there..I thought maybe I was :crazy: cos I was sure I had seen it & that it was something put in there by the DT.

It was so obvious why they wanted that included=GA! And some or all (with some help from their 'friends') fell for it just like the DT knew they would..The DT didn't miss a TRICK did they? :banghead:

IIRC, JP asked both sides just prior to giving the case to the jury if they had any problems re: any of the special findings they were allowed to ask for but still don't recall the state arguing against this one..If they really didn't=they def dropped the ball! <sigh>

eta..the 'caregiver' is also mentioned in the JURY INSTRUCTIONS but not in the same context as the special findings .

 

[imagirlgeek]

After reading a few of the posts this morning about how JA, among others, had said they were very surprised that the jury didn't ask a single question, coupled with how the foreman responded to interview questions he clearly didn't understand, I'm convinced he answered all questions that came up from the other jurors. IMO, he should have taken questions to the professionals. I think if the questions had gotten outside of that room, there would have been a different outcome. Just my opinion based on how I'm connecting the dots.

 

[Boytwnmom]

the 31 days etc-that was his rule based on his superior knowledge of the "law" you know. So, was this guy an overbearing ____ or were the rest of them just pathetic sheeple?

This jury seemed to veer recklessly between the stupid and absurd. Can't discuss the actual evidence or the behavior and actions of the defendant but CAN discuss whether someone cleared by police had committed the murder they weren't sure happened.

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:

 

[LambChop]

To me this was just an overly sophisticated defense team with an unsophisticated jury who had no idea of how the system is suppose to work. They were out of their league in terms of understanding the tricks of the trade when it was presented to them. If this had taken place in NYC she would have been found guilty of murder.

There were college educated professional people on that jury and yet no one considered the most important evidence, the 31 days. I really would like the other jurors to come forward and tell exactly what happened during their deliberations and were any of them pressured to change their verdict. Someone can convince you to change your mind but they can't force you to change it if those are your feelings. What we are getting from all the jurors who have come forward is that they believe she responsible for the death of her child, just don't know why. Any mother on that jury knew full well who the caregiver was. KC didn't have a job. Even if they considered the drowning as a possibility, Mommy sleeping in does not make her any less responsible. jmo

 

[Velouria]

I noticed Mr. Foreman said he took a show-of-hands poll right off the bat, so HE could know where everyone stood. As though it was HIS jury. Why not start off with a ballot so that jurors felt more comfortable expressing which way they were leaning? The way he seems to have run things lent itself to bullying and intimidation from the get go, IMO.

 

[Velouria]

To me this was just an overly sophisticated defense team with an unsophisticated jury who had no idea of how the system is suppose to work.

Respectfully snipped


Well, I don't know that I'd describe the ENTIRE DT as sophisticated, however...

what they may have lacked in sophistication, they made up for in willingness to engage in unethical or questionable behavior and tactics, IMO.

 

[Nenato5]

If the other jurors were smart, they would talk NOW.

 

[marlame]

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.

BBM

I read a great article this morning that has helped me understand "evidence". You bet the 31 days were evidence! BUT...that would be considered "circumstancial evidence" as it related to ICA guilt.
Here is a link to the article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case by Judge H. Lee Sarokin

"The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was not instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight and consideration as direct evidence. Indeed, the words "circumstantial evidence" do not appear anywhere in the court's charge to the jury. ...Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. ***Assume that it is a December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct evidence. That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn."

After hearing from the Jury it appears they could not convict because of "lack of direct evidence of guilt". Absent the instruction on "circumstantial evidence", the Jury was not instructed to give it the same weight as "direct" evidence". :waitasec:

 

[dvdman]

So does this mean Judge Perry dropped the ball by not instructing the Jury properly in reference to 'Circumstancial evidence"?

BBM

I read a great article this morning that has helped me understand "evidence". You bet the 31 days were evidence! BUT...that would be considered "circumstancial evidence" as it related to ICA guilt.
Here is a link to the article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case by Judge H. Lee Sarokin

"The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was not instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight and consideration as direct evidence. Indeed, the words "circumstantial evidence" do not appear anywhere in the court's charge to the jury. ...Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. ***Assume that it is a December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct evidence. That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn."

After hearing from the Jury it appears they could not convict because of "lack of direct evidence of guilt". Absent the instruction on "circumstantial evidence", the Jury was not instructed to give it the same weight as "direct" evidence". :waitasec:

 

[Americka]

So does this mean Judge Perry dropped the ball by not instructing the Jury properly in reference to 'Circumstancial evidence"?

IMO, no.

Obviously I cannot be certain that such an instruction would have made a difference. However, the few tidbits received from jurors seem to suggest that the lack of direct evidence of guilt was the prime factor in their verdict. Although many, if not most disagree with the verdict (myself included), neither the jury nor the court can be faulted. The jury followed the law as given, and the judge instructed the jury as required. Nor can I find any fault with the prosecution team, which in my opinion, performed with great competence and integrity. I cannot lavish such praise upon defense counsel, but I suppose their victory for their client moots any criticism of their tactics -- a subject possibly for another day. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

You got it, Judge Alex Ferrer:

"Many commentators have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system. It is far better than carrying out lynchings in banana republics. But as demonstrated when juries convict people who are later exonerated by DNA evidence, juries are far from perfect. We have no obligation to pretend that they are by saying we respect their verdict however mindless it may be.

In the Casey Anthony case, the jury failed at its job, and a murderer went free."

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503

 

[Nefriahaia]

If the other jurors were smart, they would talk NOW.

Well, it doesn't look like they are...smart. :shakehead: :sigh:

 

[LambChop]

Respectfully snipped


Well, I don't know that I'd describe the ENTIRE DT as sophisticated, however...

what they may have lacked in sophistication, they made up for in willingness to engage in unethical or questionable behavior and tactics, IMO.

LOL. I agree. The definition of sophistication is being complexed and confusing. So I would have to say having listened to the defense's side they are highly sophisticated. Unsophisticated means: simple and naive. Given the jury's ability to follow instructions it fits this jury perfectly. jmo

 

[lauriej]

-----------excellent read
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503
--snipped

Alex Ferrer, a former criminal judge in Miami, said on Fox News that when jurors deliberate, they sometimes leave behind their common sense.
They said the prosecution had not shown exactly how Caylee Anthony died, where she died, or when she died. That was not their obligation. Their obligation was to determine if Casey Anthony had killed her daughter.

As for who did it, Casey Anthony’s failure to report the death of her daughter for 31 days, her lying to investigators trying to find her, and her obvious jubilation after the death of her daughter are as compelling as any DNA evidence.

Many commentators have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system.

 

[Mandy113]

I noticed Mr. Foreman said he took a show-of-hands poll right off the bat, so HE could know where everyone stood. As though it was HIS jury. Why not start off with a ballot so that jurors felt more comfortable expressing which way they were leaning? The way he seems to have run things lent itself to bullying and intimidation from the get go, IMO.

I agree with your observation. There is so much about this foreman I find disturbing. However, this is where I fault the other jurors. If they felt bullied or intimidated, couldn't they have sent a note to the judge via the bailiff? They all seemed to go along with him easily enough though based on the short deliberation time. Apparently they weren't nearly as disturbed with their foreman as we are.

JMO

 

[lauriej]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anth...supports-caylees-law/story?id=14080086&page=2
--snipped---


Casey Anthony jurors continue to struggle with their verdict of acquittal.

The jury foreman, a 38-year-old high school football coach, told "Good Morning America" today that he felt an "overwhelming sense that we may have let people down."

The foreman also said that he could not look at Anthony when reading the verdict because he did not want to see her happiness. He calls reports that she is being offered huge sums of money to tell her story "mortifying."

When asked if he thinks Anthony is innocent, he said, "I think she played a hand in something. We just don't know what."

The foreman's final thought: "I don't want to ever see Casey Anthony again."

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Here is our foreperson in all his glory, on Good Morning America. Ashley Banfield interviews him. Folks, it just keeps getting better and better. :sigh:

(It starts about 20 seconds into the video, after the commercial.)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...s-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196

Juror #12 was washing all his clothes?

 

[2goldfish]

Here is our foreperson in all his glory, on Good Morning America. Ashley Banfield interviews him. Folks, it just keeps getting better and better. :sigh:

(It starts about 20 seconds into the video, after the commercial.)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...s-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196

Juror #12 was washing all his clothes?

can yall give a summary? pretty please? it wont let me watch cause I am in the UK :snooty:

 

[SATA]

Here is our foreperson in all his glory, on Good Morning America. Ashley Banfield interviews him. Folks, it just keeps getting better and better. :sigh:

(It starts about 20 seconds into the video, after the commercial.)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...s-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196

Juror #12 was washing all his clothes?

What I don´t get is that they aquitted her on all three major counts. The WERE given lesser charges, as Jeff Ashton said.

Another thing that puzzles me is that all the jury members we have heard from, all have the same problem with George´s testimonies: that he wasn´t believable. That doesn´t correspond with the majority of the public and the many commentators on this case, who for the most part found George believable.
That tells me that there MUST have been one strong individual in the group of jurors who influenced the other members. I guess it can easily happen, especially under the circumstancer where the jury members are so isolated and removed from their normal lives for quite a long time.
I think it must have been the jury foreman, who claims that he is so good at "reading" people. Deep down, he thinks that George is mainly responsible and planted that opinion in the other jurors.

I feel bad for the jury members, I do, none of us know how much this will affect their future lives. I think that anyone who comes into close contact with the Vortex spinning around the entity, Casey Anthony, will have their lives destroyed to some degree. She is dangerous, and now free to go out and destroy even more lives before she finally destroys her own life, because that she will do. Those types are their own worst enemy.