2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Seriously? What is the big deal? So what if she washed his laundry. Everyone is acting as if a crime was commited.

No crime; sorry if you thought that I was implying it was. I just find it odd that, out of all the things that could have been discussed about the trial, both he and AB thought this was noteworthy. It also seems to bolster many peoples' impression that he felt superior. If one wanted to comment upon another's selflessness, and make it complimentary, there are much better actions to portray than washing one's underwear. That is quite a demeaning task. . .

I thought it gave more insight into the inner workings and make up of the jury. It was, in no way, meant to criticize Juror #12.

 

[Who_What_When]

No crime; sorry if you thought that I was implying it was. I just find it odd that, out of all the things that could have been discussed about the trial, both he and AB thought this was noteworthy. It also seems to bolster many peoples' impression that he felt superior. If one wanted to comment upon another's selflessness, and make it complimentary, there are much better actions to portray than washing one's underwear. That is quite a demeaning task. . .

I thought it gave more insight into the inner workings and make up of the jury. It was, in no way, meant to criticize Juror #12.

I apologize; I shouldn’t have commented on your post and should have just posted it in general. I was just surprise that there were several posts about this guy's laundry. It just seemed petty to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with what he said. She asked him about Juror #12 and he said she was like the den mother to all of them and lightheartedly said she even did his laundry. Who knows, he might have said something in addition to that but it wasn't selected to be put into the interview. Either way, I don't see what the big deal is, in fact I saw it as an endearing remark, expressing how they became more of a family instead of 16 strangers stuck together for weeks.

 

[3doglady]

Seriously? What is the big deal? So what if she washed his laundry. Everyone is acting as if a crime was commited.

Why would he tell that on national tv? If you add it in with the other things he has said, it indicates to me he was saying "Look how in charge I was. I even had a woman washing my underwear."

George Clooney my butt. Who ever said that needs glasses.

 

[Prof]

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.

Exactly. I thought the raising hands strange. They all seemed very serious about it being a death penalty case, but then they all just raise their hands for a vote first thing? I understand that they got to know each other during the trial, so they may have been comfortable with each other, but raising hands in the first vote seems a bit casual to me. Familiarity gained through sequestration is even more of a reason for a silent ballot. That way they can all know what the vote would be without anyone influencing anyone else. I imagine there were some who were closer to each other than others. Did they not want to take the time to write down a vote or what?

 

[Who_What_When]

Why would he tell that on national tv? If you add it in with the other things he has said, it indicates to me he was saying "Look how in charge I was. I even had a woman washing my underwear."

George Clooney my butt. Who ever said that needs glasses.

As I stated in my post above, who knows what else he said during the interview and what was/wasn't aired. I guess we see it differently, as I saw it as a lighthearted comment. I definitely didn't see it like some did as I didn't feel like puking when I heard it. Honestly at this point I think anything any of the jurors say will be criticized and dissected to no end. Funny when you think about it, because if the same jury came back with a guilty verdict everyone would be talking about how intelligent and selfless they were.

 

[IfIMay]

Okay...this is just odd on so many levels. I can't fathom giving a stranger my underwear to wash. Beyond that I can't imagine relating it as an amusing ancedote on national television. This guy is so smug and every time I see or hear him...I can't help it, his demeanor and attitude reminds me of Scott Peterson. He really needs to just go away.

OMGosh! I watched long enough to see the side shot and that was my first thought! Carries himself just like Scott Peterson in those media interviews! VERY CREEPY.

 

[imagirlgeek]

Honestly at this point I think anything any of the jurors say will be criticized and dissected to no end. Funny when you think about it, because if the same jury came back with a guilty verdict everyone would be talking about how intelligent and selfless they were.

True and True.

Everything the jurors say will definitely be dissected. Because we all want to understand how they could possibly have come to the conclusion they did. And at this point, none of it makes sense to the majority of the nation.

And if they had come back with a guilty verdict, yes, everyone would be talking about how they made the right call because they would have come to the same conclusion as a majority of the nation. It wouldn't be difficult for most to understand.

 

[suzihawk]

But he did not show his face, not really. He did back of the head, and side shots only. They will need to buck up some more cash to get the frontal view. If we want to see the Clooney wannabe in all his glory someone needs to pony up some more cash. Yuk

You're right about the money, of course. Still, from what I saw Mr. ICanReadPeople is no George Clooney by a long shot. I've met what seems like a million arrogant, know-it-all men like him in my lifetime and I have no use or tolerance for them. He walked out of that jury room with the verdict thinking he was going to be the Big Man on Campus like he's probably been all his life only to find everyone thinks he's a putz.

 

[kidz110]

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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we hear that his interview with Greta was going to be his one and only interview to set the record straight? I thought it was said he really didn't want to give an interview, but wanted to answer some of the questions--just once--and that's why he didn't want to show his face????????????

 

[Prof]

12 jurors are meant to provide a "cross-section" of the public.

According to the Court, the real test of the constitutionality of jury size is whether jury size affects the essential function of the jury.

That essential function, according to the court, is to ensure that cases are resolved using the common sense judgment of the community through community participation. This means that the jury must be large enough to do the following: (1) Promote deliberation free from outside attempts of intimidation, and (2) Provide a fair possibility for obtaining a representative cross section of the community.

http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=245&z=23

Juries should be from different backgrounds with different viewpoints to review the evidence in a fair and balanced way. When a jury becomes "a family" or a fraternity with a den mother, then we must worry about just how much influence they do have on each other.

Knowing whether a colleague wears boxers or briefs shows one type of closeness. Like it or not, certain actions define certain hierarchies in relationships, too. Doing one's laundry implies one level, carrying another's books implies yet another.

Some of the wording from the alternates/jurors who have been interviewed has even lead some of us to question if they had not discussed this case before deliberation. While I will give them that they may not have discussed the case ahead of time, I do feel that having a "raise your hand" vote after a 7 week juror camp is telling...

 

[jenniek]

I understood this differently.
I took the caregiver instructions to mean that the juror had to believe that KC was the person present and responsible for taking care of Caylee at the time of her death. If they believed that GA may have been present at the time too, the juror could not check it off. We know that #11 emphasized to Greta that GA was there. (He said GA was there, he was there during all time of the grey area) I think #11 stressed that to #2 so that he would not check it off. Why did they not know GA was at work that day?

because they were too lazy to look at any evidence!

 

[Velouria]

Yep! Whoda thunk money could remove his trembling fear? DISGUSTING!!!!

I still can't bring myself to watch the video, but I was reading through comments other places, it's being said that at the end of the report, Ashleigh Banfield thinks it's amazing that he continued his online studies every day during sequestration from the hotel.

Did any of you brave souls who watched this, hear that part?

Yep, I heard it. Funny, because I find it amazing that Ashleigh Banfield still has a job.

She was annoying as all get out back when she was a commentator on the Phil Spector trial, and she's still annoying, IMO.

 

[miss plum]

As I stated in my post above, who knows what else he said during the interview and what was/wasn't aired. I guess we see it differently, as I saw it as a lighthearted comment. I definitely didn't see it like some did as I didn't feel like puking when I heard it. Honestly at this point I think anything any of the jurors say will be criticized and dissected to no end. Funny when you think about it, because if the same jury came back with a guilty verdict everyone would be talking about how intelligent and selfless they were.

To be fair to their baffled and dismayed critics, if the same jury had come back with a guilty verdict they presumably wouldn't also have made all the unintelligent and self-serving comments they have made to justfy their verdict which are attracting the criticisms and dissections.

 

[katydid23]

So what if he was accessing other websites (about the case)? He wasn't meant too but do you seriously think he stumbled accross pro-KC media coverage? It is far more likely that if he did he would have stumbled accross anti-KC, pro-prosecution media coverage.
Anyway, this all assumes that he was surfing other websites which is pure speculation.
Anyway it's late here so I am off.
Night peeps/

True, but my conspiratorial mind went somewhere else. How do we know who he may have im-d or e-mailed? He could have made contact with anyone on the DT at anytime. He certainly did a masterful job 'orchestrating' the verdict, all the while using incorrect interpretations of the jury instructions. He miraculously took out the impact of the 31 days by telling his followers it was not allowed to be considered. And that was the one thing that the DT had not been able to have an explanation for because JP wouldn't allow them to discuss the sex abuse charges. But, coincidentally, the did not need it in the end, because the 'foreman', who was NEVER even voted in as foreman, had all the right answers/And he used raising of the hands instead of a secret ballot in the first polling.
What a surprise, nobody had any questions for the court, about any of the 27 pages of jury instructions.

 

[jenniek]

ABC scooped up another juror?? I can't watch it anymore, but thank you all for posting what was said. I wonder what his compensation was?

 

[Who_What_When]

To be fair to their baffled and dismayed critics, if the same jury had come back with a guilty verdict they presumably wouldn't also have made all the unintelligent and self-serving comments they have made to justfy their verdict which are attracting the criticisms and dissections.

Well of course those who believe the jury got it wrong are baffled and dismayed because it’s not what they would have done or what they want to hear. The jurors aren’t trying to justify their verdict they are just telling everyone why they voted the way they did. It’s the public that is looking for justification but no matter how much they look they won’t find it because if the public felt she was guilty whatever they say won't matter.

 

[mentalsolstice]

Why would he tell that on national tv? If you add it in with the other things he has said, it indicates to me he was saying "Look how in charge I was. I even had a woman washing my underwear."

George Clooney my butt. Who ever said that needs glasses.

I saw George Clooney and his dad, Nick, up close, in person for 10-15 minutes on Thanksgiving Day, 1997 (it was a chance sighting, my grandmother lives two towns over from his family in KY). Sir, you are no George Clooney.

OT, GC is 10 times more gorgeous in person than on film. My knees were wobbly for 2 hours after the sighting. Because it was a holiday we had a camera. However, we decided to not take pictures, as it was him interacting with his dad in the small town in KY and we did not want to encroach on his privacy. The memory, however, is forever burned into my brain.

eta: no paps around at the time, just merely a father and son tossing a baseball out in their (surprisingly small) yard on Thanksgiving.

 

[kellter]

However, we decided to not take pictures, as it was him interacting with his dad in the small town in KY and we did not want to encroach on his privacy. The memory, however, is forever burned into my brain.

Respectfully snipped,,very Classy!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I understood this differently.
I took the caregiver instructions to mean that the juror had to believe that KC was the person present and responsible for taking care of Caylee at the time of her death. If they believed that GA may have been present at the time too, the juror could not check it off. We know that #11 emphasized to Greta that GA was there. (He said GA was there, he was there during all time of the grey area) I think #11 stressed that to #2 so that he would not check it off. Why did they not know GA was at work that day?

I agree with your interpretation of the caregiver instructions, 3doglady, but George (according to his testimony) was there all that morning. Remember, after much word scrabble, Jose finally settled on the drowning having happened in the morning, early morning as I recall. So that part I can put together. What I really don't understand is what time period he considers "the gray area." If early morning means 3AM then Cindy should have been included equally in their suspicions.

In any case, it sounds like they agreed that Casey was there. If she was there she was also a caregiver. They shouldn't have concerned themselves with George's guilt (or innocence) because if they agreed that Casey was there, even if George did something bad, Casey either participated or should have prevented it. She was responsible, at the very least, for negligence. . . but much, much more to my way of thinking.

 

[azwriter]

JF: "She took care of us. She would, she would actually go and do my laundry and, ya know, she would come back with my . . ."

AB: "She did your laundry?"

JF: "She'd do my laundry, yeah. She'd actually fold my underwear. I didn't even know you could fold underwear. She would. So . . . " laughter

AB: "A den mother." laughter

JF: "Yep, she's our den mother." laughter

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

WEll..I certainly feel better knowing he had such a great time and can laugh and joke about his fellow jurors. Maybe he'll be the one to do a comic book about the trial.

jmo