2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[KarmicLaw]

Good luck! lol

The only good thing about it is we finally get to SEE his face a bit..I guess he decided he didn't want to go unrecognized any longer? :loser:

Ugh..where do I begin??

The fact that he didn't even know that underwear could be folded speaks to his inability for critical or analytic thinking. ::::shaking head::::

What struck me the most about the interview, aside from the complete inappropriateness of talking about the "den mother" and underwear, was his choice of words. It seems as though many members of the jury believed that if there was the "possibility" of any other scenerio, that in and of itself equated to a "reasonable doubt". Everything...or anything is possible. But is it "probable"? Once one starts searching for probabilities, then the analytic mind kicks in, because "possibilities" are simply lazy. Probabilities make one have to think...with reason and deduction while ruling out absurdities.

Nope, this jury didn't do that. But I still feel it was the prosecution's job to anticipate this "possibility" and focus a large part of the closing to prevent this from happening.

BTW, I wish I didn't have to revisit the monster Levi Aron to see that clip. If there is one saving grace of any murder, it's not knowing exactly how the physical death occurred. Natalie, Laci, Caylee...at least their family does not have to be haunted by known gruesome physical acts of torture.

Oh, DID YOU HEAR THAT JURY??? We don't have to know how a person died to know it's murder!!

 

[MissJames]

Right after watching the jury foreman's interview with Greta, I received two text messages from Orlando Sentinel and WFTV, plus a phone call from Vinelink, all saying CFCMA has been released. I hope the jurors are proud of themselves.

The more these jurors talk, the less intelligent they sound. The "foreman" talked about the duct tape, described the duct tape, said how rare it is, but yet...he couldn't decide how the duct tape got on Caylee's face and hair! Even without the chloroform, he couldn't see that putting duct tape on a child wasn't a very bad thing???

Then he spoke of the decomp in the car, and all the people who said they smelled it, and a few rookie deputies who said they didn't smell it, and he chose to believe the rookies?

He sounded like the leader of the pack. If it wasn't his way, it wasn't going to work. Sounds like HE was the one who read the jury instructions again and told the other jurors incorrect information. "No, we can't convict her because THEY didn't connect the dots. Forget what the judge said, this is what I'm understanding from the instructions..."

He also said he believed Baez's outrageous opening statement. Yet he claims the prosecution's case was "speculation"! Jose told ridiculous lies but yet he faults the prosecutors and their "speculation". :shakehead:

Now that Convicted Felon Casey Marie Anthony is now free to roam the streets, I hope the jurors and the defense team can find a few moments' sleep at night, knowing they've let her run free to do more harm.

I completely agree with your post,but I think some of them DID connect the dots. The foreman shot them down,IMO.
I have two questions,though; 1) Why was he so intent on a NG ,instead of a hung jury ? And 2) Why didn't the jurors who felt there was reason to convict,hold out longer? Eleven hours isn't really that long to be coerced if you thought she was guilty of Felony 1. What happened in there?
ETA: I think he had help in the coersion.#3

 

[Rallihanna]

I wonder if they've heard about the fact that an inmate next to her had this happen- kid died, grandpa found the baby. And now they know the FCA made it all up... and they bought it...

 

[MissJames]

I mean really?? The state of Florida spends all this money putting these jurors up in a hotel, etc trying to keep them sequestered from talking about the case with their families, friends etc. yet they create a family like environment around themselves , Hell, they even do each others laundry. They have access to the internet, hotel staff, restaurant staffs etc. And.... if there is a bully in the group, now we really have a big problem! Jurors should be allowed to go home and recharge, maybe they would have done a better job.
Heck, let them even form an opinion based on info that is out there. Why is that a bad thing??? why do we want an uneducated jury? I dont see the value of a sequestered jury, What is wrong with them reading everything we do to form an opinion. There is pro and cons out there to be found. If it wasnt for public info many many cases would never be solved.

I am also wondering why was this case televised. Who picks the cases to air on tv and who pays for it?

Hindsight being 20/20 ,I agree about them going home.They needed the support of their loved ones . Instead they only had each other.At the very least I think it would have ended up with a hung jury.
I bet part of the big sell was that ,unless they came to an agreement ,deliberations could be dragged out for weeks.They wanted to go home.
I'm still waiting for one of them to forward and explain what happened.

 

[Nehemiah]

Many many times after JB's opening statement I questioned why JB or ICA never pressed sexual assault charges against George. The answer came in the verdict.

They knew they could not press charges because they had no evidence. ICA sat in jail for 3 years - plenty of time for her or her attorney to press sexual assault charges against GA - but they wanted it the charges to be heard in court - but NOT proven in a situation where GA could defend himself in a timely manner before ICA's trial.

Confirms to me the A's were in on this strategy with ICA/JB and they all committed perjury.

I totally agree. I also predict that the Anthonys know full well where Casey went after leaving jail and that they are in contact.

How much more drama can ensue if she got out and they all reunited? None, absolutely none. Therefore, it's necessary to play this fiddle all the way to the bank. The talking heads will be busy trying to pinpoint if/when they are going to reconcile. After a reasonable amount of time when it all dies down, they will get together and flame up the media again...in time to cash in. They all have a cash cow right now and are playing a script. IMO

 

[Pisces rising]

The jurors should all wear t shirts saying "I Didn't Connect The Dots".

exactly

 

[Controversialist]

I did think there was a charge for "culpable negligence"-I thought it was "Aggravated Child Abuse" and no child abuse had been proven, if the jury did not believe she killed her.

I believe I see where you're coming from here.

On our "legal answers" thread, AZLawyer commented on this general line of thought, noting as follows (in my own paraphrase):

If the jury believed the pool drowning story, then the jury could apply Charge Three to ICA regarding her failure to call 911.

The jury would then have to show:

(1) That a 911 call by ICA would have helped Caylee, and
(2) That ICA would have known to call 911 for that reason.

I'm not sure how a jury would go about proving these two points, but apparently it could have tried.

If the jurors all say they did not believe the pool story (thus they didn't apply Charge Three to ICA), then why did the jury acquit ICA on Charges One and Two? How does the jury explain her innocence apart form the pool scenario?

IMO If the pool story is false, ICA was using the false pool story to conceal a true felony, not to conceal a true accident. Why lie about one accident just to cover up another accident?

Thus the jury IMO should have convicted on Charges One, Two, or Three.

hdear:hdear: :gavel::gavel: :waitasec::waitasec:

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I believe I see where you're coming from here.

On our "legal answers" thread, AZLawyer commented on this general line of thought, noting as follows (in my own paraphrase):

If the jury believed the pool drowning story, then the jury could apply Charge Three to ICA regarding her failure to call 911.

The jury would then have to show:

(1) That a 911 call by ICA would have helped Caylee, and
(2) That ICA would have known to call 911 for that reason.

I'm not sure how a jury would go about proving these two points, but apparently it could have tried.

If the jurors all say they did not believe the pool story (thus they didn't apply Charge Three to ICA), then why did the jury acquit ICA on Charges One and Two? How does the jury explain her innocence apart form the pool scenario?

IMO If the pool story is false, ICA was using the false pool story to conceal a true felony, not to conceal a true accident. Why lie about one accident just to cover up another accident?

Thus the jury IMO should have convicted on Charges One, Two, or Three.

hdear:hdear: :gavel::gavel: :waitasec::waitasec:

Although I hear what you are saying, I think the problem is that the jury didn't seem convinced it was a pool accident either--just that it was a plausible scenario. In the end, they couldn't figure out WHAT the hell happened exactly so it made that charge kind of difficult to stick as well. JMOO.

 

[cluciano63]

Although I hear what you are saying, I think the problem is that the jury didn't seem convinced it was a pool accident either--just that it was a plausible scenario. In the end, they couldn't figure out WHAT the hell happened exactly so it made that charge kind of difficult to stick as well. JMOO.

This is what I think happened as well...they did not really believe either side...and I am not sure myself that either side was at all correct as to what really happened or that we will ever know. But the "Aggravated Child Abuse" charge uses words like "torture" I believe, and they could not find their way to that since no one every said Caylee was ever so much as spoken to harshly. The charges they had did not fit, apparently, with the idea of leaving a child alone long enough to come to harm, which would =negligence, IMO, if they thought there had been some type of accident. And they couldn't see their way to agreeing that Casey had murdered Caylee.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

"This young woman had her day in court," Baez told Fox News. "We need to start respecting jury verdicts and decisions that juries make."

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110718/casey-anthony-released-safety-whereabouts-110718/

No. We only have to legally abide by a jury's decision. We don't have to respect it. Questioning the jury's verdict is not a new and novel idea. The Innocence Project alone has overturned 272 verdicts to date, stunning proof that the jury doesn't always get it right.

I don't know who Jose Baez means by the "we" in his statement; maybe he's talking to Casey and his own self. But not me. No way am I ever going to respect the verdict, the decision or the jury.

 

[cityslick]

"This young woman had her day in court," Baez told Fox News. "We need to start respecting jury verdicts and decisions that juries make."

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110718/casey-anthony-released-safety-whereabouts-110718/

No. We only have to legally abide by a jury's decision. We don't have to respect it. Questioning the jury's verdict is not a new and novel idea. The Innocence Project alone has overturned 272 verdicts to date, stunning proof that the jury doesn't always get it right.

I don't know who Jose Baez means by the "we" in his statement; maybe he's talking to Casey and his own self. But not me. No way am I ever going to respect the verdict, the decision or the jury.

I agree with you that we should legally abide by the decision. The problem comes when people don't accept it and then in turn decide they are not going to legally abide by it. She wouldn't have to go into hiding if everyone was going to 'legally' abide by the verdict and perhaps that's what he means by accepting it.

The media has some blame in this. They continue to talk about it (because really, wth is NG going to talk about now, joran van der sloot again?) and all that does is feed the frenzy. Eventually (if she's smart) she'll disappear from the public and eventually there will be no story. Eventually the media gave up on reporting on OJ because there was nothing to report unless he was acting like an idiot.

 

[cluciano63]

I agree with you that we should legally abide by the decision. The problem comes when people don't accept it and then in turn decide they are not going to legally abide by it. She wouldn't have to go into hiding if everyone was going to 'legally' abide by the verdict and perhaps that's what he means by accepting it.

The media has some blame in this. They continue to talk about it (because really, wth is NG going to talk about now, joran van der sloot again?) and all that does is feed the frenzy. Eventually (if she's smart) she'll disappear from the public and eventually there will be no story. Eventually the media gave up on reporting on OJ because there was nothing to report unless he was acting like an idiot.

If NG is really a crusader for kids and justice, there are plenty of other children who are either missing or dead, trials starting, etc...she will never run out of material, unless she insists on sticking with Casey and Joran. And as far as OJ, you are right, he put himself back in the news with his violent criminal actions, as did Joran, not from "karma" or anything other reason except that they are criminals. If Casey does not commit future crimes, she can manage to fade away, not right away, but eventually. There has to be something to report for the media (except maybe NG) to stay with the story.

 

[littlemisslegal]

i was shocked to see jury foreman on tv in abc video and showed his entire face and body talking! thought he did not want to be known

 

[amysmom]

Ugh..where do I begin??

The fact that he didn't even know that underwear could be folded speaks to his inability for critical or analytic thinking. ::::shaking head::::

What struck me the most about the interview, aside from the complete inappropriateness of talking about the "den mother" and underwear, was his choice of words. It seems as though many members of the jury believed that if there was the "possibility" of any other scenerio, that in and of itself equated to a "reasonable doubt". Everything...or anything is possible. But is it "probable"? Once one starts searching for probabilities, then the analytic mind kicks in, because "possibilities" are simply lazy. Probabilities make one have to think...with reason and deduction while ruling out absurdities.

Nope, this jury didn't do that. But I still feel it was the prosecution's job to anticipate this "possibility" and focus a large part of the closing to prevent this from happening.

BTW, I wish I didn't have to revisit the monster Levi Aron to see that clip. If there is one saving grace of any murder, it's not knowing exactly how the physical death occurred. Natalie, Laci, Caylee...at least their family does not have to be haunted by known gruesome physical acts of torture.

Oh, DID YOU HEAR THAT JURY??? We don't have to know how a person died to know it's murder!!

Any fellow juror that would wash & iron his 'undies' for him would never go against anything he said in the deliberation room..Even if she knew in her mind/gut he was SPINNING the evidence/truth like the inside of that washing machine! :banghead:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Any fellow juror that would wash & iron his 'undies' for him would never go against anything he said in the deliberation room..Even if she knew in her mind/gut he was SPINNING the evidence/truth like the inside of that washing machine! :banghead:

That is just plain nasty. What a personal thing to do for somebody. Seriously...skid marks and all...

 

[cluciano63]

Any fellow juror that would wash & iron his 'undies' for him would never go against anything he said in the deliberation room..Even if she knew in her mind/gut he was SPINNING the evidence/truth like the inside of that washing machine! :banghead:

That's isn't true...I've done it for my husband and I would never take his side on a jury just because...

 

[katydid23]

Although I hear what you are saying, I think the problem is that the jury didn't seem convinced it was a pool accident either--just that it was a plausible scenario. In the end, they couldn't figure out WHAT the hell happened exactly so it made that charge kind of difficult to stick as well. JMOO.

So to clarify, the jury did not believe the suspects story of what happened. And they did not believe the states story. So what did they think really happened?
Could it have been something 'innocent' if the suspect did not bother to put forth the story?

The story she did put forward put her there, at the time and at the place of the child's death. So at the very least, that part is true. So the jury had to accept that was true--Casey was there when 'it' happened.

So given that she was there when her child died, yet they do not believe her story 0f what happened, do they believe she was more or less involved than she admits?

 

[LolaMoon08]

I totally agree. I also predict that the Anthonys know full well where Casey went after leaving jail and that they are in contact.

How much more drama can ensue if she got out and they all reunited? None, absolutely none. Therefore, it's necessary to play this fiddle all the way to the bank. The talking heads will be busy trying to pinpoint if/when they are going to reconcile. After a reasonable amount of time when it all dies down, they will get together and flame up the media again...in time to cash in. They all have a cash cow right now and are playing a script. IMO

I just don't see the cash cow they are sitting on right now? What could they really say that we have not heard? Cindy and George were in the media for two-years straight at one point. We know Cindy lied on the stand. We know why she lied on the stand. Do we really want her to have to explain it to us again....

Cindy Anthony... "People just don't understand unconditional love a mother has." Blah... blah... blah...

No one wants to hear anything any of them has to say. If anyone stands to make any money off this case... real money... it is Jose. Jose has an education to fall back on. He will never have to work for indigent clients again. He has won a case that was, in all respects, unwinable. He will have the richest, sleaziest clients knocking at his door with cold, hard cash.

I know Jose doesn't want to really be a lawyer, but I just don't see where he is going to make a killing off Casey Anthony? No one wants anything to do with her or her family. Sure, there will be one nice little payday, but then what?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

That's isn't true...I've done it for my husband and I would never take his side on a jury just because...

FWIW, I think doing someone's very personal laundry suggests a level of intimacy in a relationship. Not sexual; I'm not implying that. But at the least a level of closeness that would suggest that to disagree during deliberations would be very awkward. *How could you go against me??? I thought we were great friends!* That sort of thing. In any case, whether or not they were affected in such a way by the sequestration, this seemed to be a very odd jury dynamic.

MO

 

[cityslick]

So to clarify, the jury did not believe the suspects story of what happened. And they did not believe the states story. So what did they think really happened?
Could it have been something 'innocent' if the suspect did not bother to put forth the story?

The story she did put forward put her there, at the time and at the place of the child's death. So at the very least, that part is true. So the jury had to accept that was true--Casey was there when 'it' happened.

So given that she was there when her child died, yet they do not believe her story 0f what happened, do they believe she was more or less involved than she admits?

I think they didn't know what to believe. A lot of folks who have a big problem with the verdict are going off of the presumption that the jury bought one story versus the other and I don't think that's the case. I think the jury doesn't buy any story. They didn't buy the drowning (because there is no evidence of it) and they don't buy the states version of the story because they didn't think the evidence supported that theory.

They probably firmly believe that she is an incredible liar, which means you don't buy anything she says, even things that potentially implicate her. We already know they didn't find GA credible, so you call into question his testimony, including the part when he says he saw Caylee last.