2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[gladiatorqueen]

Why would a juror quit their job and leave their state? Why hide from what you felt was a just verdict. Why not stand up for what you believe in, thats what most people would do if they had nothing to hide. I think the "been threatened" copout is just an excuse to avoid the eventual questions coming down the pike.

My gosh. She is a 60 year old woman apparently not in great health and a year away from retiring. FEAR. She did her civic duty and she was being persecuted by the public before she even stepped out of the courtroom. I can definitely understand that kind of reaction. I expect the trial itself was traumatizing enough that maybe she simply doesn't have the psychological fortitude to withstand the onslaught of threats, nasty remarks and signs referring to her as a murderer.

 

[Etilema]

If you can't see it then it would appear there is no point in us debating it?



Possibly understood but there are many things that made George not very credible to Juror 11.

The 31 days is definitely suspicious, but that is sometimes how people react to something traumatic. For example, there were recently two cases in Canada of women giving birth at home (pregnancy denial) and one was born stillborn and the other with its umbilical cord apparently wrapped around its neck. In both cases the women dumped the dead babies in the garbage. Although it's rare, I do think that type of reaction is possible and given Casey's history of lying (and all the pattern of lying within the family) makes it a possibility.

There are, sadly, countless cases of women dumping unwanted newborns in the garbage. As horrific as that is, it is really not the same thing as ignoring the death of a two-year-old child who is known and loved by family and others.

 

[Mohabi]

I am one that would have tried my best to respect a verdict of not guilty if I knew that they actually followed the jury instructions, actually reviewed the evidence and applied the law. They clearly DID NOT.
First, in 11 hours, they assembled, elected a foreman, read the voluminous stack of papers in the instructions, had lunch twice, which was probably two hours, and then actively and with great care, deliberated? Nope. The math doesn't add up.
They focused on the sexual abuse comments which by law were NOT evidence and should have NEVER been allowed to be part of the deliberations. They focused on the sexual abuse. That was in opening arguments and NOT allowed as evidence. JP dropped the ball there. He assumed that they understood that and he trusted them to NOT include it in deliberations. They never asked for one clarification, not one read back. They never asked to see the video or listen to the audio. Now come on, how much did they deliberate or really review the evidence. Just to read the instructions and understand them would have taken several hours. I would have tried to respect the verdict had they come to it in a legal, honest way. That is not the case. Also, I kept waiting for JP to start telling them to disregard any questions to which he ruled "sustained" during the trial. I had a feeling that they didn't understand and JB dirty tricks were working by getting the question out there in the air JP only said it a very few times. This jury needed much more teaching and more babysitting than the Judge realized. They blew it by not following the law. Juror #11 made it clear in his interview when he focused on George and said that they couldn't convict because the State never proved how Caylee died. If that was a requisite of a guilty verdict then someone needs to hurry up and let Scott Peterson go! No one ever proved how Laci died either. This bunch coming together in a trial hijacked by the likes of JB formed the perfect sick and incompetent storm.

Please let's not forget that the time they "deliberated" was even shorter than you stated. They didn't just have lunch twice! They SLEPT a few hours between day 1 and day 2, which was the day of the verdict. Let's say they slept for 6 hours. So how many of those 11+ hours did they deliberate, if they were not to deliberate during dinner and breakfast either? 4? 3? 2? Sounds like they elected the foreman and decided on the verdict without considering ANYTHING BUT THE OPENING STATEMENT.

P.S. I've been on a self-imposed timeout. I haven't read WS in days, haven't watched TV in days, haven't posted in days. But I did the math. 11 hours my *advertiser censored**!

 

[kolokolo]

I just find it hard to swallow that 12+5 could all think alike. Even if several believed that ica was guilty they would have held to their beliefs and it would have taken longer than 11 hours for everyone to reach the same conclusion. Someone on that jury took control. It seems quite strange that all that came forward are saying all of Baez talking points. imo

Was she threatened? I dont know but I sure hope she reported it to LE if it is true.

She probably off to some SPA or off somewhere getting coached on how to answer media questions when it is her turn to come forward. JMHO

 

[jrb0124]

I know, I did see that, but you seem to think it's reasonable to think that she didn't. I don't even see that as reasonable, which I guess is where we disagree.

I am suggesting someone (a juror) could rationalize it that way. Its not reasonable to me (or you) but in my case I would doubt the computer/chloroform issue for other reasons so in a jury room (hypothetically) with another juror who beleived Cindy did the searches its a wash.

 

[6stringer]

I did not watch the interview as it is common knowledge that people like this are compensated for their appearences, (ABC 'news' rewarded one juror with an all expense paid vacation to Disney). I DID email the show, Fox News & the fox parent company to voice my opinion & ask for disclosure regarding compensation.

However - I read an article concerning the interview. He whined that it was the prosecution's fault.

Seems these **** 12 learned a valuable lesson from the killer; accept NO responsibility for your actions and point the finger at somebody ELSE.

How ironic is it that this iresponsible 12, in their overwhelming haste to return to their homes, rather than make the effort to do their job, find that 'returning home' as fast as possible has made it impossible for their lives to return to normal.

I myself have zero sympathy for these **** 12.
Blaming everybody else, JUST LIKE THE KILLER, makes sympathy impossible.

really?

 

[jrb0124]

nope! because technically she was not in "jeopardy" since the jury was tampered with in her favor. just google it and research it. I did!

Find a case where a defendent was retried for the same crime after being acquitted due to jury tampering, jury misconduct, or witness tampering - in a case where the defendent him/her self was not the one doing the tampering.

 

[Solange82200]

I think you meant to say "could not from anything other than a decomposing body".

So if the amounts were so shockingly high, why didn't the UCF professor chemist concur or at least not say that his findings re: air samples, were consistent with gasoline? He say it could be decomp, but that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt from that witness. he admitted his equipment was not like the triple trap Dr. Vass used, but then the defense went after the Oak Ridge folks re: protocal, custody etc... See how this all devolves? After all the witnesses on chloroform, nothing is readily apparent. Reasonable doubt then moves into that vacuum.

I think Jennifer Ford is trying to articulate that without knowing how Caylee died, they could not move on to determine it was a homicide.

The argument re: conviction without a body usually involves more circumstantial evidence, overwhelming evidence of motive, and a distinct lack of anyone else who could be responsible.

Im not sure what you think I meant, or where I meant to say that? I didnt mean that Dr. Vass said it could not be from anything but a decomposing body. Dr. Vass said that the amount was so high it was too high to be a result of decomposition, meaning it had to be from actual chloroform.

I explained already why the other chemist didn't concur. Maybe someone else can explain better, but the chemist studies different things. Vass studies only decomposing bodies, so the only amounts he is used to seeing are the tiny amounts that come from decomp. The other chemist studies all kinds of chemical situations, and has seen chloroform from other sources (not decomp), which is usually in higher amounts. I dont know how else to explain it to get across what I am trying to say. Also, we are talking about the fact that the amounts found is quite significant considering that its a volatile chemical. Meaning that in order for it to still be detectable after time passing, the trunk being aired out, and the fact that it was sent to him in a cardboard box (not a sealed container), it means there was a hell of a lot of chloroform in the trunk.

I agree cases without a body you need a lot of other evidence, but I am using to show that the juror is absolutely wrong if he is saying the "letter of the law requires a proven cause of death for a conviction". That is what he said, and maybe he meant something different, but based on what I heard from that, it is wrong

 

[Overuled]

Someone on that jury convinced everyone that the state didn't prove their case. A good talker can do that. If i'm not mistaken, didn't this number 11 say he took a lot of notes?
Innocent.. lets get the heck out of here.

I respect our court system and believe that 'most' trials result in a fair outcome but this one was questionable from the start. This wasn't just your average defense team. It was crooked coming out of the gate with accusations that were baseless and which are now damaging to innocent people who have to go on. Pure desperation and lies at any cost to who or what they may effect. All for a ica... boy she fooled them good with her lies and charm. imo

 

[Solange82200]

Find a case where a defendent was retried for the same crime after being acquitted due to jury tampering, jury misconduct, or witness tampering - in a case where the defendent him/her self was not the one doing the tampering.

I agree, she wont be retried. I dont expect it. I would however like to see if there is any way to improve the system, because if this continues to happen, I think we will start having fewer and fewer convictions when there should be a conviction

 

[lowens1975]

Please let's not forget that the time they "deliberated" was even shorter than you stated. They didn't just have lunch twice! They SLEPT a few hours between day 1 and day 2, which was the day of the verdict. Let's say they slept for 6 hours. So how many of those 11+ hours did they deliberate, if they were not to deliberate during dinner and breakfast either? 4? 3? 2? Sounds like they elected the foreman and decided on the verdict without considering ANYTHING BUT THE OPENING STATEMENT.

P.S. I've been on a self-imposed timeout. I haven't read WS in days, haven't watched TV in days, haven't posted in days. But I did the math. 11 hours my *advertiser censored**!

And three were reported via Twitter to have come into the courtroom the morning of the second day dressed as if they were going somewhere. I think they made up their minds sooner than the 11 hour mark. 11 hours and no questions, not even on the law.

 

[Solange82200]

Someone on that jury convinced everyone that the state didn't prove their case. A good talker can do that. If i'm not mistaken, didn't this number 11 say he took a lot of notes?
Innocent.. lets get the heck out of here.

I respect our court system and believe that 'most' trials result in a fair outcome but this one was questionable from the start. This wasn't just your average defense team. It was crooked coming out of the gate with accusations that were baseless and which are now damaging to innocent people who have to go on. Pure desperation and lies at any cost to who or what they may effect. All for a ica... boy she fooled them good with her lies and charm. imo

I may be in the minority, but I dont believe for an instant that anyone on the defense believes Casey is innocent. These people deal with criminals and liars all the time, they know what she is. The fact is, they dont care, she is their meal ticket (especially Jose). I mean, what are they supposed to say to the media? We dont believe her, she is guilty? You never see defense attorneys say that ,even after an acquittal. Jose knew the truth from the beginning and adjusts the lie just like Casey, only when the previous one is disproved.

 

[costalpilot]

i'm not watching ANY of the post trial coverage

too sickening.

i just wonder of the foreman was the person ICA was winking at the last day of trial.

i'd really like to know that.

 

[jrb0124]

But I think you are agreeing with part of what I said, that even if the search is suggested, it would not appear in the url UNLESS the person clicked on search and basically accepted the suggestion.

Why would she search the suggested suggestion, How to Make Chloroform? Even if it was suggested, you agree she searched it right?

Yes I agree that someone had to search for something first to yield a suggested search. I'd have to go back and watch JB questioning Osborn(?) or Stinger(?) about that 5 minutes period...but even so I think he may have skipped a few things. The State never ran through a concentrated history for that day/hour.

 

[MarthaM]

There are a couple of talking points I've seen brought up repeatedly here and elsewhere that just don't make any sense to me. The first is that the jury only listened to and accepted the defense's Opening Statement. I think that any jury listens to both Openings and everything else during a trial, as they should. Those statements are part of a trial for a reason, as are the Closings. People are acting as if nothing in the defense Opening came in as evidence later in the trial. That's simply not the case.

The second is this notion of the volumes of jury instructions that the jury couldn't possibly have spent hours reading to do their jobs correctly. The jury instructions consisted of 26 pieces of paper, most of which were not filled from top to bottom and side to side with text. Some pages only had a few lines and were mostly white space. Many were less than half a page, especially when you consider all of the indenting and formatting. It took me about 10 minutes to read them. And the judge had read them to the jury before they left to start deliberating. Who would need massive amounts of time to read them? My guess is that the page they probably read and reread was the one with the definitions of the specific crimes, to see how the evidence fit those. And that doesn't take days and days.

I saw early in this thread that some were criticizing this juror for not showing his face. Why on earth would he? Seems like a good decision to me, given what has been said against him and his fellow jurors.

 

[costalpilot]

really? well maybe that was the person ICAS was winking at the last day of trial..she contorted her face and bent it down to the table to hide it, but it was clear:

she was winking at somebody in court.

Someone on that jury convinced everyone that the state didn't prove their case. A good talker can do that. If i'm not mistaken, didn't this number 11 say he took a lot of notes?
Innocent.. lets get the heck out of here.

I respect our court system and believe that 'most' trials result in a fair outcome but this one was questionable from the start. This wasn't just your average defense team. It was crooked coming out of the gate with accusations that were baseless and which are now damaging to innocent people who have to go on. Pure desperation and lies at any cost to who or what they may effect. All for a ica... boy she fooled them good with her lies and charm. imo

 

[JMCDAD]

I am one that would have tried my best to respect a verdict of not guilty if I knew that they actually followed the jury instructions, actually reviewed the evidence and applied the law. They clearly DID NOT.
First, in 11 hours, they assembled, elected a foreman, read the voluminous stack of papers in the instructions, had lunch twice, which was probably two hours, and then actively and with great care, deliberated? Nope. The math doesn't add up.
They focused on the sexual abuse comments which by law were NOT evidence and should have NEVER been allowed to be part of the deliberations. They focused on the sexual abuse. That was in opening arguments and NOT allowed as evidence. JP dropped the ball there. He assumed that they understood that and he trusted them to NOT include it in deliberations. They never asked for one clarification, not one read back. They never asked to see the video or listen to the audio. Now come on, how much did they deliberate or really review the evidence. Just to read the instructions and understand them would have taken several hours. I would have tried to respect the verdict had they come to it in a legal, honest way. That is not the case. Also, I kept waiting for JP to start telling them to disregard any questions to which he ruled "sustained" during the trial. I had a feeling that they didn't understand and JB dirty tricks were working by getting the question out there in the air JP only said it a very few times. This jury needed much more teaching and more babysitting than the Judge realized. They blew it by not following the law. Juror #11 made it clear in his interview when he focused on George and said that they couldn't convict because the State never proved how Caylee died. If that was a requisite of a guilty verdict then someone needs to hurry up and let Scott Peterson go! No one ever proved how Laci died either. This bunch coming together in a trial hijacked by the likes of JB formed the perfect sick and incompetent storm.

:clap::clap:

 

[jrb0124]

Vass studies only decomposing bodies, so the only amounts he is used to seeing are the tiny amounts that come from decomp. The other chemist studies all kinds of chemical situations, and has seen chloroform from other sources (not decomp), which is usually in higher amounts.

I'm with you there - this is also why JB kept mentioning the "not a chemist", and why the defense witnesses list included 3 chemists. Also the reason he knocked the protocal/custody issues with Oak Ridge....and Vass' royalty (however small) on the Labrador. Jury instructions mention that when considering credibility of a witness you should consider if that witness has any financial interest in the outcome of the case.

I'm not suggesting its my opinion that this influenced Vass' testimony, but JB knew this would be in the jury instructions. They went hard after Vass because they knew if they could at least blunt Vass they stood a good chance at undermining the entire State theory.

 

[JMCDAD]

I want to mention something that I am pretty sure I heard in the trail and I wish the prosecution would have emphasized more.
In regards to the searches I think that one of the experts testified that there was hardly anything that was deleted as far as history went on the home computer. Years of stuff on there, however except what was deleted was a couple month time frame that included the chloroform searches. Why ?

It doesn;t matter though I guess
Just another thing that points to Casey's guilt that the jury would have found a reason to ignore

:banghead:

 

[Etilema]

Actually, he let the spawn get off......I don't want any of the jurors to be harmed, as does none of the other WS'ers here BUT, I also believe that IF they felt they made the right decision they should be able to stand up for that decision! It makes NO sense to me how it could have gone from 10-2 guilty, then 6-6 to an aquittal in 11 hours unless there was bullying & the weaker ones gave up just to escape it all. That is NOT what our justice system is about! I would have felt so much better if the ones who felt they were being pushed into a verdict they didn't agree with had immediately contacted the judge or held out for their belief. When I was younger there was a saying, "If you're scared, say you're scared"......you just can't make a decision of this magnitude & then HIDE!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I missed that part about 10-2 guilty! I did see that the initial vote on manslaughter was 6-6. But where was the 10-2 mentioned?