2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[3doglady]

Juror # 3 mentioned the DP ,also.

C'mon #'s 1,5,6,7,8,9 . Speak up for yourselves!
I give 12 a pass. Angry co-workers and all. Wouldn't want anything to happen to her. :innocent:

Yes #3 said she could not vote guilty on any of the other charges because KC would get the DP.

 

[3doglady]

Inside edition just said that woman who says her son is Caylee's dad,hired John Q kelly to sue ICA or wrongful death. I hope she is Caylee's paternal grandmother.

WOW If John Q Kelly is representing her, maybe there's some truth to her being the grandmother.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Judge Perry, who is also presiding over the Casey Anthony murder trial, had issued an administrative order last January banning anyone from handing out written material to prospective jurors on the grounds that it represented a form of jury tampering. The order may have been directed at Schmidter, who had spent the previous four months visiting the courthouse to hand out flyers from the Fully Informed Jury Association, or FIJA, which encourages them to engage in jury nullification — or voting to acquit someone of a crime even when the evidence strongly indicates the person is guilty.
FIJA’s goal is to encourage jurors to vote not guilty if they disagree with or disapprove of the law the defendant is being charged with. That result, the organization based in Montana believes, will send a message to state and federal lawmakers that there are too many victimless crimes that people are being prosecuted for.

http://freelinemediaorlando.com/lib...se-for-handing-out-jury-nullification-flyers/

 

[Nova24]

WOW If John Q Kelly is representing her, maybe there's some truth to her being the grandmother.

He's a nice man and a good lawyer. I think she needs help establishing she is related and he can first help facilitate that. If she is I'd love to see her sue and win. I think things could go much differently for ICA in a civil suit ala OJ.

 

[back2back19]

Yes #3 said she could not vote guilty on any of the other charges because KC would get the DP.

But she said she wanted to vote guilty of manslaughter. She needs to stick to one story.

 

[3doglady]

But she said she wanted to vote guilty of manslaughter. She needs to stick to one story.

I know, it changes every time she talks.

 

[KathrynL]

Yes #3 said she could not vote guilty on any of the other charges because KC would get the DP.

Someone please explain to me why she would have that impression. Was it so basic to the lawyers and the judge that only the top counts were the DP that no one spelled it out for these jurors? I just understood that hearing the indictment being read, I knew the meaning of lesser charges and the lesser included charges. Could they be so uninformed that they didn't get it? Or, just disingenuous - which is what I'm thinking. I mean really. :loser:

 

[3doglady]

Someone please explain to me why she would have that impression. Was it so basic to the lawyers and the judge that only the top counts were the DP that no one spelled it out for these jurors? I just understood that hearing the indictment being read, I knew the meaning of lesser charges and the lesser included charges. Could they be so uninformed that they didn't get it? Or, just disingenuous - which is what I'm thinking. I mean really. :loser:

I'm assuming no one told them because they were not supposed to consider punishment during the guilt phase. Just whether she was guilty of each charge. They would have been instructed on LWOP or DP during the punishment phase of the trial had she been found guilty.

 

[Schu7]

Yes #3 said she could not vote guilty on any of the other charges because KC would get the DP.

And there you have it. A "peer" of our society showing their collected wisdom.

Apart from more rage here................

What about some sort of professional juror's pool again???

It could not be any worse these people "peer" doings!!!

 

[lauriej]

..we've already heard from JF #11 that they didn't speak at the press conference following the verdict b/c they needed time , and for ir "to be in our best interests" and "your guys (media) to get the best story that you needed".

..he's brought in -----that greta's question was "snowballing" into the next one..

..and:
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any single juror in that group -- you don't have to name the person -- who didn't take his or her job very seriously in terms of weighing the evidence and voting?
Juror #11: No. No. We weighed the evidence. You know, I know -- there's a difference between quality of time and quantity of time. I've been in many meetings where I can say, you know, we spent a lot of time on this but the quality wasn't there.

--good grief----what's he going to hit us with in Part 3 tonight..

"well, quite frankly Greta....."?

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

I watched this foreman interview. Putting his interview together with the stuff from a couple of other jurors, I don't think anything suspicious was going on. I think they took the elements of the charged crime and decided they couldn't decide that Casey killed her. It might have looked bad, but they couldn't make that definitive call, not enough info for them to feel OK with making that call. That's all I hear.

Others and I may think they were not willing to take the difficult road and make the hard decisions about the circumstantial evidence, but I think they are allowed to decide it as they choose.

I personally think they didn't have the courage to trust their ability to take the judgment leap with the circumstantial evidence available. They easy way out is acquittal, imo, very little personal emotional risk in that.

imo, this group of jurors needed way more proof than many other murder juries have required. They didn't want to work for it, they wanted an easier path. Some juries can do it, some cannot. This one could not.

In other words, i think it is just the way these random 12 people came together. It became their group, their quest, that is the path they chose, end of story.

If I have any criticism of the guy, it was that I thought he tried way too hard to convince listeners of the length and quality of their deliberation and that they reviewed all the evidence. I personally don't think they did enough review with the respect and consideration it deserved.

Many of us have been immersed in this stuff for three years. Many have had time to soak it all in, test all the details and twists, and feel comfortable beyond our own personal level of reasonable doubt. They did not come to that conclusion. I don't think there need be anything suspicious about that behavior.

Peace to all. Life goes on.

 

[Nenato5]

Juror # 3 mentioned the DP ,also.

C'mon #'s 1,5,6,7,8,9 . Speak up for yourselves!
I give 12 a pass. Angry co-workers and all. Wouldn't want anything to happen to her. :innocent:

I agree, but #12 bothers me--is she afraid of fallout from the verdict or is she frightened by what went on in the jury room? Either way, I feel sorry for her.

 

[Nova24]

CM seems to stir the pot every time he is on tv regarding threats. He is the one scaring the jury most. Not one juror has reported an actual threat as of yet. People aren't happy with them but where is all the evidence of these death threats? They were big on proof so let's see them present some here.

 

[3doglady]

..
..juror#2 wasn't backing down off of kc committing count 3--aggravated manslaughter----until he had to check off the "special finding" that went with it.

..defense special finding:
kc was a caregiver of caylee when she died.
kc was NOT a caregiver of caylee when she died.

( i guess he was forced to admit that murdering someone wouldn't be giving them nice care.)

..just unbelievable.

Respectfully Snipped by me. Since I transcribed what the foreman said last night regarding GA being home on the 16th I wanted to bring lauriej's post forward. If the foreman insisted that GA was home, that could explain why #2 could not check off who the caregiver was. This could have changed the outcome of the whole trial. Here's the foreman's answer to Greta again.

"We know that CA went to work, then the grey area came in." "It was just one of those things, because he was there, he was in question for us." "It was just one of those things, because he was there, there was a grey area there, he was in question for us, you know having some character issues you know when he was on that stand. And he was there,(he emphasized there) he was there at the time,on that day that all the grey area is happening with us. And that puts him in that mix. It put him in the mix for us."

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Respectfully Snipped by me. Since I transcribed what the foreman said last night regarding GA being home on the 16th I wanted to bring lauriej's post forward. If the foreman insisted that GA was home, that could explain why #2 could not check off who the caregiver was. This could have changed the outcome of the whole trial. Here's the foreman's answer to Greta again.

"We know that CA went to work, then the grey area came in." "It was just one of those things, because he was there, he was in question for us." "It was just one of those things, because he was there, there was a grey area there, he was in question for us, you know having some character issues you know when he was on that stand. And he was there,(he emphasized there) he was there at the time,on that day that all the grey area is happening with us. And that puts him in that mix. It put him in the mix for us."

And then when you add what Juror 3 said to CNN:

Jennifer says she was one of the jurors who originally voted for the aggravated manslaughter charge, which had been split six-six. She says she was convinced to switch her vote due to a lack of hard evidence. She says, she doesn't think Casey Anthony is innocent, but she felt that there wasn't enough proof to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jennifer also says that she didn't believe the central points of what the defense presented to the jury, but she felt that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convict.

"Like I said, they had good strong circumstantial evidence. But at the end of the day it was circumstantial and there was not one strong piece of evidence that said something definitively. There were many different ways you could have gone with each piece of evidence."

I think the Foreman is indeed the one who was doing the convincing. He is the one that got Casey out of jail. No wonder why he won't show his face. He knows he ran this show. The judge could have given her 30 years for the manslaughter charge, and probably would have.

This is the common sense failure of the century!

:banghead:

 

[erinleigh]

i have a tear rolling dowm my face. i have tried to stay away from jury interviews. hearing what has been said is shocking and deeply depressing. who the heck is the foreman to say publicly that GA could have MURDERED caylee. even the DT did not lead them down that path. how is it ok to just pull an unsubstansiated theory about a persons guilt who isnt on trial and wasnt charged with a crime. although i had a feeling GA wasnt sitting well with the jury during his testimony i never thought they would accuse him of murder. (all three, we didnt know????)
i feel so helpless hearing this and scared for any person accused of a crime if this is how decisions are made. i wish the someone with a voice was truly listening to these statements and would step in and do something unpresidented such as override their verdit based on ignorance of their duties (just a fantasy) i dont support death threats and harassment but i can certaintely see why people would want to shun these people for playing a dangerous game with the nations faith in the system. these 12 people have destroyed my sense of trust and in our system. the fact that no one is stepping in and at the very least challenging their words during the interviews and bring their inconsistancies out for their reflection to comment on is stunning. no one has he right to tell me to respect this verdict. in fact i want to be told publicly that these people made a grave error in how they came to their decision and i want it explained why so that it opens up peoples eyes. its one thing to have darn good reasons for aquitting someone based on the law. its another for jennifer ford and foreman to tell me thry followed they letter of the law while spewing total mistruths from the trial. again..who told them it was their duty to determine if GA was a murderer? did the foreman plant this seed? i thought this was about caseys role in her daughters disappearance. casey had 3 years to work with the SAO or LE to bring GA to justice if she had evidence of a crime or even a story to tell. i dont use the word ignorant lightly but in this case so far it fits. and if by chance the other jury members have a different story to sell about being coerced then i can call them weak for not standing up for Caylee. wow how did you guys get thru the day after hearing that? i can no longer appreciate a jury support thread and that makes me sad (not knocking anyone who supports them) i tried to respect them for giving their time but i no longer feel the ones who have spoke are worthy of my support. shouldnt GA have been innocent until PROVEN guilty in their mock trial delibertions of HIM instead of casey. my goodness the DT never said GA did anything with Caylee's body. the just left it hanging with "we will never know" how did they connect those dots? sorry rant over. its their decision and i understand that but it bothers me what is being used as excuses.

 

[3doglady]

All they had to do is look at the evidence to see that GA was not there. He was at work.

 

[msinformed]

I apologize if these have been posted - haven't "caught up" on thread!

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
Press conference tomorrow my office announcing proposed new law so FL. jurors can't profit from serviceThx Rep. Scott Randolph #caseyanthony


MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
It also makes it a felony to offer to pay for info from jurors or to approach for pay.This will make them responsible as well. #caseyanthony

 

[3doglady]

i apologize if these have been posted - haven't "caught up" on thread!

Marknejame mark nejame
press conference tomorrow my office announcing proposed new law so fl. Jurors can't profit from servicethx rep. Scott randolph #caseyanthony


marknejame mark nejame
it also makes it a felony to offer to pay for info from jurors or to approach for pay.this will make them responsible as well. #caseyanthony

awesome!

 

[jjenny]

WOW If John Q Kelly is representing her, maybe there's some truth to her being the grandmother.

She might believe she is the grandmother. But without a DNA test, how does anyone know?