2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[imagirlgeek]

2.) Do you think if Casey's DNA had been found at the crime scene that they would have come back with a conviction? I would say, maybe, but it would probably be only count#3, the involuntary manslaughter charge. They were gonna do anything to protect Casey and prosecute George!

I don't think they would have convicted with anything short of a video tape, eye witnesses also shown in the video tape actually witnessing it, and ICA getting up on the stand and saying, "Yes. I did it." Anything less and they would justify some sort of doubt.

 

[sparkysmom]

IMO, what we have here is very simple....a narcissistic, sociopathic personality was the foreperson of the jury who stood in judgment of a narcissistic, sociopathic person murderer. There are narcissistic sociopaths all over the place, it is just that most of them don't kill. The stars aligned for ICA and she was blessed with a juror of the same mindset. The other jurors drank the #11's Kool-aid just like all of ICA's team drank hers.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Wasn't juror #11 the one who has a relative that works for the FBI or something? I think that this jury may have been intimidated by him. He was a PE teacher, and I had several PE teachers in my day who were very, very arrogant, and often mean. They think that their gym classes rise up above everything and everyone. And this juror had been "teaching" for about 15 years.

The way that he talked to Greta was very authoritarian. "I decided this. I did that. If you want to know more about what happened in the jury room, I can tell you. I was involved with organizing everything."

This juror was also believed to be organized and good looking, so maybe the others saw a leader here. A bad leader in the eyes of the public who saw the trial with the not guilty verdict to be despicable. However, I think he came across as "I know all the answers." I sense that of the ten hours of deliberations, nine of those hours were spent trying to get the two jurors who initially polled for first degree murder, on to his side.

Unconfirmed reports that juror #2 said there were six jurors who were looking at the alternative manslaughter and child abuse charges from count 2 and 3. Do we know that for sure about juror #2? When did juror #2 speak? All I heard was Juror #3 (Ms. Ford) and the unidentified Foreperson (Juror #11.) At any rate, Juror #2 said that there were six jurors who would not change their not guilty votes.

With regard to the posts above, I could see Juror #11 with his good looks, and organizational skills, playing to the rest of the panel. He probably made up analogies to SUIT HIS DISTORTED VIEWS OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUIT HIS OWN AGENDA! And because he had good speaking skills and acted articulately, he was not questioned about his authority. I wonder if there was name-calling or anger from the Foreperson for the two that initially thought guilty? Were those jurors crying also crying, not just because of the acquittal, but because Juror #11, the Foreperson intimidated them?

Maybe we had a foreperson who was such an arrogant SOB, that it was more important for the jurors to reach a decision, thinking "screw the public." rather than take the time to hear the individual thoughts and feelings of each juror, and reach some kind of a fair decision. What I want to know is:

1.) Why did they put George "on trial" for no reason at all? I still cannot figure this out! They probably would have come back with a death penalty for George if he had been on trial! This is just SICK!

2.) Do you think if Casey's DNA had been found at the crime scene that they would have come back with a conviction? I would say, maybe, but it would probably be only count#3, the involuntary manslaughter charge. They were gonna do anything to protect Casey and prosecute George!

Satch

Yes, #2 spoke a couple of days after the travesty.:innocent:

Here's the article...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece

 

[2goldfish]

It seems as though the jury did not consider any of the evidence or testimony.

that is the most horrifying this about all of this - they literally were like "this is too haaarrddd. I didnt get to swim in the poooool. I wanna go hoooooommmeee. caylee whoooooo?"

 

[mitzi]

u know.......I said i was gonna stay away but i was talking to my hubby about all of this, and he didnt really follow it. I mentioned to him the lady that retired early and left florida, and do u know what he said to me. Wow, she took her money and ran didnt she. This coming from a person who didnt really follow the case but has now seen the aftermath and listened to some of the juror explanations. SOmething is really fishy and I dont like how they are all using the same catch phrases and sounding exactly like the dt. Somethings not right and the juror furor seems justified to me.

Another thing that sounded kinda weird to me in the article about Juror #12 leaving for fear of her co-workers at Publix...her husband didn't go with her, and he said in the article that as soon as the names of the jurors came out he would leave then....what was that all about? Why didn't he go too? And if he couldn't go because of a job, why didn't she just quit her job and stay home since no one knew who she was yet? This whole jury thing is just so fishy!

 

[lowens1975]

The orchestrate bothers me. I almost fear he was paid off. Something is just off. 99% of what he says is false.

I also wonder how the 6 who thought she was Guilty of Agg Man feel about his comments. I wonder if they feel they were played by ICA and the Foreman.

I thought it curious that CM was asking PJ's during jury selection if they were a fan of John Grisham. I like to read John Grisham and several of his books deal with the jury tampering and manipulation in one form or another. I think CM knows more about manipulating the outcome of a trial than he's willing to share. Why else would he get picked to second chair some of the most high profile cases in central Florida?

The DT had several legal professionals drop out due to 'strategy' differences or with no explanation at all. The most telling of these was the jury consultant three days before jury selection.

 

[Nenato5]

Supposedly everyone has their price. Sooner of later someone will get paid off enough to spill what REALLY happened in that jury room.

I still have questions about the juror who left Florida, was she afraid of the backlash from the public or upset over what went on in that jury room?

IMHO, the foreman and ICA have a lot in common, psychologically speaking.

 

[robmom]

He said "good morning" and "good afternoon" every single day! They developed an ever lasting bond! Those evil ASA's didn't. It seems that a lot of this stuff was really just that simple.

The jurors and I are very different people.

Every time Jose said good morning to them, all I could think of was Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver. "Good morning, Mrs. Cleaver. You look lovely today."

But they ate it up.:waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

This is going to sound completely off-topic, but just stick with me....it'll come around to my point.

Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").

After listening to the Foreman's interviews, he completely reminds me of that guy. The way he talks, how he obviously has issue with GA, but seems to defend CA and ICA.

I don't pretend to understand this personality type, but just wanted to share. I kept watching the interviews and kept feeling like, I know that guy!! Of course I don't.

That would completely explain why Juror #3 and this Juror sound like they are on the same page together. jmo

 

[back2back19]

The jurors and I are very different people.

Every time Jose said good morning to them, all I could think of was Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver. "Good morning, Mrs. Cleaver. You look lovely today."

But they ate it up.:waitasec:

I don't get it. :/ I found it so smarmy. And I thought he was so insulting but I guess not doing your homework, not knowing rules of evidence, having to be helped out by everyone, etc was just easier to relate to than JA and LDB who just knew so much. lol

 

[LambChop]

I thought it curious that CM was asking PJ's during jury selection if they were a fan of John Grisham. I like to read John Grisham and several of his books deal with the jury tampering and manipulation in one form or another. I think CM knows more about manipulating the outcome of a trial than he's willing to share. Why else would he get picked to second chair some of the most high profile cases in central Florida?

The DT had several legal professionals drop out due to 'strategy' differences or with no explanation at all. The most telling of these was the jury consultant three days before jury selection.

I always thought that there was a time when the attorneys who dropped out wanted to distance themselves from JB and what he was doing at the time so that it would appear they were not involved. CM comes in but it would have happened before he joined the team so it would not affect him. jmo

 

[cityslick]

The character assassination for this guy that's going on in this thread is incredibly shocking and I'm honestly surprised it's seems to be ok with the TOS. He's gone from jury foreperson to being on the same level as Casey Anthony (narcissist). Disagreeing is one thing, but some of these posts go so far beyond that. Anyway, IMO.

 

[cluciano63]

I think people would be surprised to hear in detail how many juries arrived at their verdicts and how often their reasoning has nothing to do with the law or the evidence...we just don't get to hear it, unless it is a trial the media shows an interest in. Also if the public is satisfied with a verdict, the need to know the thinking of the jury is not there, only when people are not satisfied.

I wish the jurors had not spoken out, personally, but if they all refused, there would still be accusations of "jury misconduct" or "tampering" or as we've seen, people accusing them of actually accepting bribes...sure, maybe they are not coming off as super intelligent under this microscope, but look around, go run a few errands, count your change, check your receipts...average folks, IMO...

 

[strawberry]

I still have questions about the juror who left Florida, was she afraid of the backlash from the public or upset over what went on in that jury room?

IMHO, the foreman and ICA have a lot in common, psychologically speaking.

IMO I think her "leaving Florida" is a load of bull-hockey. Isn't that the lady who was up in Maine on vacation with her daughter when all this went down? If so, I'm thinking she's on vacation in Maine with her daughter. It's the same time of year!

 

[lowens1975]

Snip
1.) Why did they put George "on trial" for no reason at all? I still cannot figure this out! They probably would have come back with a death penalty for George if he had been on trial! This is just SICK!

2.) Do you think if Casey's DNA had been found at the crime scene that they would have come back with a conviction? I would say, maybe, but it would probably be only count#3, the involuntary manslaughter charge. They were gonna do anything to protect Casey and prosecute George!

Satch

BBM

In OS, JB gave them a 'reason' to hate, distrust and be suspicious of GA. Everything about the defense was aimed at placing the blame somewhere other than on poor innocent KC and make her look like a victim in all this.

IMO, the jury was sucked into believing what they did, whether they wanted to or not. JB is as big of a convincing liar as KC, if not worse.

Paraphrased, "If you keep on making the same statements over and over again, it must be the truth" JB during the trial.

 

[Steve4Justice]

I don't think they'll care. It won't be their problem. They'll blame the state. Afterall, the state didn't make it clear enough for them. They shouldn't have to connect dots and think things out. The proof should be right there for them. It'll be all LDB, JA and FG';s fault. Although FG will probably get a pass since I doubt the jurors even knew who he was.

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

 

[Nefriahaia]

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

Someone will have to help them get into the shirts. :floorlaugh:

 

[LancelotLink]

Another thing that sounded kinda weird to me in the article about Juror #12 leaving for fear of her co-workers at Publix...her husband didn't go with her, and he said in the article that as soon as the names of the jurors came out he would leave then....what was that all about? Why didn't he go too? And if he couldn't go because of a job, why didn't she just quit her job and stay home since no one knew who she was yet? This whole jury thing is just so fishy!

That whole article seemed fishy to me. Sounded (to me anyway) that Juror #12 was trying to create a demand for her story, up her numbers. Hubs is stitting with two NBC producers, has an envelope of offers..hinky.

 

[logicalgirl]

I sat myself down last night and really tried to listen to the third and final interview with the guy who was the Jury Foreman - I really tried. But I just could not comprehend that this guy actually went so far afield from the jury instructions and the evidence.

I didn't - couldn't watch the whole thing, but for the last three questions I did watch, instead of focusing on the speaker, I watched Greta's face as she listened to him and asked the questions. That pretty much said it all for me.

She looked like it took everything she had to sit there and listen to him.

 

[PrintGal]

The whole DNA argument just boils my blood. I would EXPECT ICA's DNA to be all over Caylee as she should have been her primary caretaker. The only place I would not have expected it was on the duct tape, and due to the exposure to the elements it may well have been....

Those 12 people should hang their heads in shame and quit talking now. Every time one of them attempts to justify what they have done they just reveal the depth of their ennui, ignorance and complacency even further.