2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[gladiatorqueen]

It seems like both sides are going around in circles, I know you are tired of repeating stuff and so am I. I guess both sides just see things so differently it isn;t something that can come to any conclusion, since we will never agree. I share your frustration, I know you take it personally when people insult the jurors. I kind of know how you feel, I feel the same way when I hear baseless accusations against George, the forensic experts, the prosecutors. Even if you dont agree, can you see how we feel the same way when we hear negative things about those people?

I just want to say, in my opinion, they didnt make a claim and just hope people believed it. They called qualified experts who testified about the chloroform, duct tape, etc. For some reason you choose to not believe the experts, and you're entitled to that. But I think it isnt fair to say that they just made a claim for no reason. I dont want you to stop posting in this thread, but I dont blame you if you dont, Im kind of to a point where I just cant say more than what Ive said, or come to a point where I can change anyone;s mind that doesnt agree. No hard feelings, ok? You are a cool person from what Ive seen so far, youve done a good job holding your own without making it personal.

I appreciated your post. I definitely don't have hard feelings towards you or anyone else here on WS. I think everyone is upset and just finding a way to make sense of everything or simply vent their frustration. It's all cool.

 

[MissJames]

Snipped from the Jury Instructions:

"4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case."

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

Judge Perry must be :banghead:

 

[mikeysmommom]

This reminds me of a Chappelle skit entitled Law and Order....everytime someone mentions the jury would need a video of the crime to convict I think of this skit!

Warning, vulgar and profanity.....in my eyes HILARIOUS!!! Start at 5:48......it is worth watching!!!

http://youtu.be/-XoMVtqYdsA

Cappelles skit was like ICA's trial,too bad ICA did not have that kind of SA and
Judge who gave him Life!(the other guy with his wife) Juror at end must be the foremen!

 

[Thinker Belle]

Baez in opening statement: "Caylee Anthony died on June 16, 2008 when she died in her family's swimming pool"
Baez in closing statement: "We will never know how Caylee died"

It absolutely boggles my mind how the jury was able to give even a shred of credibility to the defense after such a blatant contradiction, but was able to say undoubtedly George was not credible and was likely involved.. maybe even the murderer. I will never get my head around that. Nor how they were able to convict on lying without a second thought, but buy into the lies on all other charges. If she were not guilty of counts 1-3, then why are the lies (counts 4-7) even needed?? Makes no sense whatsoever..

Seems as though Linda Drane Burdick's worst fear as stated in her closing statement was in fact realized in the end.. All of the rhetoric and lies clouded BASIC COMMON SENSE

 

[Steve4Justice]

You are just basing that on emotion.

Circumstantial emotion.

 

[SillyJilly]

Maybe one or more kids in his class will point it out to him.

THis just made me spit soda! I shouldn't be laughing,though. It's sad. REAL sad. My 5yr old son is still asking me why Casey is going home when her "girl baby" died and why would someone say it was an accident to put tape on her mouth(he got in trouble for playing with tape!) I say the next jury should be made up of middle schoolers and high schoolers. We might even get more logical results!

 

[3doglady]

This is what I don't understand .How did they all fall in line so fast!
I really believe at least one of the jurors had the others convinced he/she knew the "rules" and he/she would challenge the ones who wanted to vote guilty.

I bringing forward my post from 7-8-11. I was referencing Marcia Clark's article on sequestration where she said JF was a leader. Strike that intelligent part I wrote this before I heard him speak. LOL

Interesting article but I find it hard to believe JF was a leader. If the others saw her as a leader, they had big problems before they were put on this jury. JF parroted JB's explanations which made no logical sense to the majority of people who followed the trial. None of the jurors have been able to logically explain the verdict. JF shows her complete lack of knowledge every time she's on TV. I don't think she has a clue how clueless she sounds. So someone influenced them to vote in a way even they can't explain. I have a hard time believing that it was all JB. It's much more likely that person was with them every day and got to know them on a personal level.

I tend to think there was one intelligent person on this jury with an agenda. I think that person started immediately persuading people. Maybe he began by using his good looks and charm. (someone who looks like George Clooney?) Some of the jury were probably already leaning his way. The others may have submitted because that person presented himself as an intelligent, know more than anyone else, leader. (someone working on his Masters?) According to #2 they all followed along like sheep even when some of them thought it was wrong. Why?

 

[Velouria]

So he is lying? I see.

I'm not positive he's lying. But IMO, he's suspicious and combative.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

bbm

Really? What are all the conflicting evidence and holes? I can't think of one reasonable explanation for the duct tape being on her face that isn't related to either aggravated child abuse or murder. Help me out.

ITA...I also can't think of 1 reasonable explanation for knowing your child has been "missing" for 31 days; resulting in your mother reporting your child missing; after she refused to give you "one more day"; THEN lying to LE as they attempt to help find your missing child who you claimed was with a non existent person; for whom you have no contact information for but received a call from and even spoke to your missing child via a non existent phone number!!!

That's absurd...I know it and they do too...otherwise, had they believed that ridiculous story, they wouldn't have convicted her on the lying!

If they truly believed her lies were resultant of dysfunction; then they would have acquitted her on the lying charges too...since they claim the family dysfunction prevented them from being able to ascertain ICAs "role" in the drowning and cover up; which too was "imaginary"!!!

I'm actually insulted that they think "the public" wants to hear such ignorance!

 

[3doglady]

Maybe one or more kids in his class will point it out to him.

I liked the part where he said he was good at reading people because he had to do that in his profession. Really, you have to be able to read high school kids in PE?

 

[Velouria]

I liked the part where he said he was good at reading people because he had to do that in his profession. Really, you have to be able to read high school kids in PE?

WTH?

I didn't know the jury was sequestered at a Holiday Inn Express! :giggle:

 

[back2back19]

Seems as though Linda Drane Burdick's worst fear as stated in her closing statement was in fact realized in the end.. All of the rhetoric and lies clouded BASIC COMMON SENSE

It sure did but I think the jurors took her comment as an insult. They seemed to take everything the PT did wrong, so I believe when she said that it was just once again the prosecution thinking they were better than the jury.

 

[mrye4709]

Below is some of juror #3's interview. The link will be the entire interview
http://www.huliq.com/10473/juror-3-casey-anthony-trial-speaks-abcs-nightline-video


“How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?”

Jennifer Ford, juror #3 on the Casey Anthony trial, said important questions were not answered by prosecution in the death of Caylee Anthony

127
Share 3diggs
digg

“How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?”

In an exclusive interview with ABCs Nightline, Jennifer Ford, 32, juror #3 on the Casey Anthony trial, asked this and many other questions regarding the prosecution's case against Anthony. The nursing student said that the initial vote by the jury was 10-2 to acquit on first degree murder. But, some jurors, she said, didn’t believe Anthony had done anything at all.

Cause of death was a major stumbling block for the jury. “I have no idea. They didn’t even paint a picture for me to consider,” she stated in an interview with Terry Moran about the prosecution’s attempt to show the jury how baby Caylee Anthony died. The chloroform evidence presented meant nothing but confusion to Ford. “I can walk from here to there and make it happen,” she said of the defense’s theory of an accidental death by drowning in the family pool. “With the chloroform, I’m all over the place. … I don’t know where I’m at. … A to B to C. … I can’t make it work.”

The duct tape evidence, she said, did not prove murder in her eyes. “It’s someone else’s life and, if I am wrong, and I kill someone else, I can’t live with that.”

The clearly did not understand the directions or the law. Seems they believed it was DP or nothing. Did they really not think about the lesser charges? Because they thought it would be DP? Good grief, why did they not ask questions?

 

[tiffertots]

Did anyone happen to catch the show the other night about attractiveness and gender in regards to crime? It showed how many men tried to "help" this young attractive girl steal a bike that the actress clearly stated she was trying to steal. The guys were eager to help her, even with their wives nearby. But the male actors...not so much. When I saw that I thought of little miss ICA!

 

[3doglady]

What was the DT's jury selection consultant that quit right before the trial? I keep wondering if he was really in Pinellas County. I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist but that foreman is so far from logical and we know how low JB stoops. OK I'll stop there.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I liked the part where he said he was good at reading people because he had to do that in his profession. Really, you have to be able to read high school kids in PE?

PE teachers have to have at least a Bachelor of Science in Education programs with emphasis on physical education. Do you not think that maybe earning a 4-year degree requires quite a bit reading? It's not just about shooting hoops. :crazy:

Hahahah. I mis-READ your statement. Oooops.

So, on that note, he is a teacher. Do teachers not have to learn to "read" their students. I would guess it's a pretty fundamental part of any teaching job. I am not sure why there is a need to make fun of people based on their professions? Please enlighten me. I am trying to understand here what point there is in bashing these jurors. I mean, please go ahead and critique them but making fun of them just doesn't sit very well with me I guess. (Obviously I am not able to stop posting!) Haha.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I liked the part where he said he was good at reading people because he had to do that in his profession. Really, you have to be able to read high school kids in PE?

One magical thinker believes another I guess. "Read people" indeed.

 

[MustlyLurking]

People who want to present themselves as "intelligent" when they are not, often use big words incorrectly or "made up" words they think are right.

They also frequently resent others with true intellect, JA for example?

 

[3doglady]

PE teachers have to have at least a Bachelor of Science in Education programs with emphasis on physical education. Do you not think that maybe earning a 4-year degree requires quite a bit reading? It's not just about shooting hoops. :crazy:

He said he was good at reading people.

 

[dizzychick]

IMO they were just tired and ignorant of the jury instructions plus confused about who was on trial. What a shame. Im sure this wasnt the 1st time this happens but it is a pity it happened in this case.