2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[cluciano63]

BBM. That still does not make it right or ok.

No but people are human, and why they really judge someone is not always what they admit to, so in most cases, we won't ever know. You can ask them to leave what they know about the case at the door, but not themselves and their own built-in feelings, prejudices, etc...things they don't admit having anyway. I don't mean just this jury, any jury, IMO.

 

[Solange82200]

Im sick of people giving George and Cindy grief about not reporting this soon enough... Yes I think they were naive and maybe negligent to assume their daughter was being honest... But lets not forget, they found the car and the cops got called by them the same day!!!!! Maybe it wasnt in 5 minutes like some would have liked George to do, but they reported the baby missing THAT DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As opposed to KC, who knew for a month and NEVER reported anything!!! She had to be practically forced to get on the phone with the cops by her mom!!!

 

[Solange82200]

No but people are human, and why they really judge someone is not always what they admit to, so in most cases, we won't ever know. You can ask them to leave what they know about the case at the door, but not themselves and their own built-in feelings, prejudices, etc...things they don't admit having anyway. I don't mean just this jury, any jury, IMO.

Part of the problem is that there are no consequences for juries who make decisions based on things they shouldnt. There is no reason for them to even try. Couple with that with a high profile case that may attract jurors who are just in it for the money, and things can go wrong.

I dont know what the answer is. I know professional jurors are a scary thought, closer to a nanny state, but I just dont like things the way they are now.

 

[Solange82200]

Yeah, pretty much. He thinks George killed Caylee, so I think he thinks George put her in the car too. Casey was just the innocent fall person. He bought and then expanded on every bloody thing the defense said. I know he said he didn't believe the abuse claims but I think he did. I think he bought it all and added to it. He wouldn't let anyone convict poorCasey 'cause he knew George did it 'cause he could read him like a book. He even made stuff up about George(being home) to do it.

I just find it hard to believe that they think the same parent who let their daughter and her granddaughter live in their house rent free, bought them clothes and food, let their daughter go wild with their credit cards and never have to pay it, gave her a free car, bought her a daughter a play house and toys galore, etc., would be the same parent who decides to frame his daughter for a murder she didnt commit. Does that make any sense????

 

[Sustained]

Im sick of people giving George and Cindy grief about not reporting this soon enough... Yes I think they were naive and maybe negligent to assume their daughter was being honest... But lets not forget, they found the car and the cops got called by them the same day!!!!! Maybe it wasnt in 5 minutes like some would have liked George to do, but they reported the baby missing THAT DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As opposed to KC, who knew for a month and NEVER reported anything!!! She had to be practically forced to get on the phone with the cops by her mom!!!

I don't have a problem with George/Cindy as to their timing, but I would think George would have called the police from the tow yard. I believe that was CA's doing, just like how CA Febreezed the Sunfire after getting it home. Think of all the evidence that was destroyed with that vacuuming and cleaning. And maybe my facts are not straight, but didn't George go off to work that day ? IMO, also CA's doing ...

 

[Whisperer]

IIRC, LE came ICA and asked her about abuse in the home. She refused to talk to them. She wouldn't talk to LE so they could prosecute but she announcec it to the entire world in an effort to get out of a murder charge. She is a piece of work.

Did any of the jury wonder why anyone, esp. ICA, would sit in jail for three years over an accident?

 

[back2back19]

I just find it hard to believe that they think the same parent who let their daughter and her granddaughter live in their house rent free, bought them clothes and food, let their daughter go wild with their credit cards and never have to pay it, gave her a free car, bought her a daughter a play house and toys galore, etc., would be the same parent who decides to frame his daughter for a murder she didnt commit. Does that make any sense????

He was creepy and he lied and juror 11 can read people and there you go. lol

 

[manatee]

IIRC, LE came ICA and asked her about abuse in the home. She refused to talk to them. She wouldn't talk to LE so they could prosecute but she announcec it to the entire world in an effort to get out of a murder charge. She is a piece of work.

Did any of the jury wonder why anyone, esp. ICA, would sit in jail for three years over an accident?

bolded by me

Of course the fact that she sat in jail shows how "compassionate" and protective she is of her family and not wanting to implicate her father. she is such a victim...poor little casey. she is so small and tiny and everyone abuses her.:banghead:

 

[Whisperer]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...ans-verdict-on-the-verdict/?playlist_id=86925
---------------VIDEO with Greta VS---On The Record---

July 13, 2011
Casey Foreman's Verdict on the Verdict

Juror No. 11 reflects on Casey Anthony, 'disgust' over signing the verdict form, mood in the jury room and more

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...ssues-shell-battle-forever/?playlist_id=86925
----------VIDEO with Greta VS-- On The Record---

July 13, 2011
Foreman on Casey: She Has Issues She'll Battle Forever

Juror No. 11 reflects on Casey Anthony, 'disgust' over signing the verdict form, mood in the jury room and more

I think the "feeling' guy got one of his feelings mixed up again. It wasn't disgust, it was fear he was doing the wrong thing.

 

[kgeaux]

Part of the problem is that there are no consequences for juries who make decisions based on things they shouldnt. There is no reason for them to even try. Couple with that with a high profile case that may attract jurors who are just in it for the money, and things can go wrong.

I dont know what the answer is. I know professional jurors are a scary thought, closer to a nanny state, but I just dont like things the way they are now.

I'm not sure professional jurors would be constitutional. In USA, aren't we guaranteed the right to a jury of our peers?

 

[theBritster]

Part of the problem is that there are no consequences for juries who make decisions based on things they shouldnt. There is no reason for them to even try. Couple with that with a high profile case that may attract jurors who are just in it for the money, and things can go wrong.

I dont know what the answer is. I know professional jurors are a scary thought, closer to a nanny state, but I just dont like things the way they are now.

IMO, people should have to pass a test to be eligible for jury duty. That way they'd still be our peers but also be knowledgeable of the law. I never thought about it much before but really? Sending random people in and crossing our fingers that they understand their duty and the law? Too much of a crapshoot. :twocents:

 

[Boytwnmom]

in their minds no one had any idea who "done it" so the people reading foreman had to deduce with his superior skills just who, who, who could it be? They had no clue as LE had done no investigation, there was no overwhelming evidence against one person, there wasn't a truckload of circumstantial evidence that had been carefully assembled over three years and which all pointed to only one person. No, this poor foreman was left on his own to "figure it out"....thank God we had him or we might never know that, "Aha! it was the grieving grandfather with the gas cans".

Truly, you could not make up a stupider scenario than what happened here. The more I think and hear about it the more I can't believe it actually happened.

IIRC, LE came ICA and asked her about abuse in the home. She refused to talk to them. She wouldn't talk to LE so they could prosecute but she announcec it to the entire world in an effort to get out of a murder charge. She is a piece of work.

Did any of the jury wonder why anyone, esp. ICA, would sit in jail for three years over an accident?

 

[dodie20]

He was creepy and he lied and juror 11 can read people and there you go. lol

The female juror accused him of being in the know and of obviously lying...a benefit she wouldn't pass on to KC. All her lies that didn't fit into the 'not guilty' theory, were blamed on dysfunction. And when she was asked what she thought about GA, she refused to speculate, lol, but then did it anyway. I don't see how the jurors connected the dots of GA maybe lying about an affair, to him being involved...or worse. Was RC THAT credible? As hard as I've tried, I can't connect those same dots. There's just no proof. MOO

 

[CuriousHousewife]

Sorry, but when I read that the jurors asked if they "had to work" on July 4th, that said a lot to me about their priorities. They couldn't go home anyway, and honestly, if it was your child/grandchild, would that even be a question? I dunno. I just remember that striking me as very selfish and it seemed to me they just wanted to go home. I know that it would take more than ten hours to convince me there was enough reasonable doubt in this case.

I'll add that when I was on a jury, a big one, I was the lone holdout for at least two days and it was miserable. No one would talk to me, I was definitely the odd man out. I ended up having to agree with the overall consensus after we asked a few more questions, but I know that it is brutal if you don't go along with "the program".

 

[back2back19]

The female juror accused him of being in the know and of obviously lying...a benefit she wouldn't pass on to KC. All her lies that didn't fit into the 'not guilty' theory, were blamed on dysfunction. And when she was asked what she thought about GA, she refused to speculate, lol, but then did it anyway. I don't see how the jurors connected the dots of GA maybe lying about an affair, to him being involved...or worse. Was RC THAT credible? As hard as I've tried, I can't connect those same dots. There's just no proof. MOO

I can't either but I figure it was the abuse allegations and then the accident coverup but honestly, if Baez hadn't gone there with that nasty opening statement and just stuck with George helping to cover up the accident, I do think the jurors would have maybe given George more benefit of the doubt BUT they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't with that description ringing in their ears, even if they knew they weren't supposed to take it into consideration and the fact that the defense never backed it up. It was always there and George and his credibility was basically done for. He could have owned to the affair and the gas cans, he'd still look bad to the jury.

 

[krt]

IIRC, LE came ICA and asked her about abuse in the home. She refused to talk to them. She wouldn't talk to LE so they could prosecute but she announcec it to the entire world in an effort to get out of a murder charge. She is a piece of work.

Did any of the jury wonder why anyone, esp. ICA, would sit in jail for three years over an accident?[/QUOTE]

I know of 12 that didn't!!! :banghead:

 

[dodie20]

in their minds no one had any idea who "done it" so the people reading foreman had to deduce with his superior skills just who, who, who could it be? They had no clue as LE had done no investigation, there was no overwhelming evidence against one person, there wasn't a truckload of circumstantial evidence that had been carefully assembled over three years and which all pointed to only one person. No, this poor foreman was left on his own to "figure it out"....thank God we had him or we might never know that, "Aha! it was the grieving grandfather with the gas cans".

Truly, you could not make up a stupider scenario than what happened here. The more I think and hear about it the more I can't believe it actually happened.

It is hard to believe. This has me wondering if something like this has happened before...someone declared 'not guilty' because the juror is suspicious of a witness. I talked to my mother about this case the other day. She said that she hadn't kept up with it much, but then went on to tell me that she and a friend had it all figured out. She then laid it all out for me...how GA was a molestor and he was playing with the baby in the pool and he either drowned her while abuse was going on, or she drowned by accident and he refused to call 911, in order to cover up prior abuse. She didn't offer even 1 piece of evidence to back up her story. The friend that my mom had been conversing with on facebook, HAD been keeping up with the case and this is the scenario she came up with. So it seems that a lot of people, once they heard KC's abuse allegations, made the case center around them. Really, I'm shocked. My mom is an RN, (with a lot of extra college), and her friend, (actually, My best high school friend), doesn't have a college degree, but she's one of the sharpest, most logical people I know. I just don't get it. moo.

 

[logicalgirl]

It is hard to believe. This has me wondering if something like this has happened before...someone declared 'not guilty' because the juror is suspicious of a witness. I talked to my mother about this case the other day. She said that she hadn't kept up with it much, but then went on to tell me that she and a friend had it all figured out. She then laid it all out for me...how GA was a molestor and he was playing with the baby in the pool and he either drowned her while abuse was going on, or she drowned by accident and he refused to call 911, in order to cover up prior abuse. She didn't offer even 1 piece of evidence to back up her story. The friend that my mom had been conversing with on facebook, HAD been keeping up with the case and this is the scenario she came up with. So it seems that a lot of people, once they heard KC's abuse allegations, made the case center around them. Really, I'm shocked. My mom is an RN, (with a lot of extra college), and her friend, (actually, My best high school friend), doesn't have a college degree, but she's one of the sharpest, most logical people I know. I just don't get it. moo.

I understand your concern but to me it is clear. The same thing happened as happened on the jury. They did not read or listen to the forensic evidence and paid attention to the salacious details that they were specifically instructed not to consider. No one who listened to each witness could possibly come to the conclusion you described.

 

[LambChop]

Many people just can't believe that a pretty, young, petite white girl who lived in a nice home, with built in babysitters, all the comforts of life would murder her child. They look for something more sinister, something crime programs are made up of. It had to be someone else's fault. Now change the settings to a young, petite average looking mom in the middle city being charged with murdering her child. Of course she's guilty. The child was interferring with her social life. I sometimes think our jurors should wear blindfolds, lol. jmo

 

[JSR]

I'm not sure professional jurors would be constitutional. In USA, aren't we guaranteed the right to a jury of our peers?

They aren't constitutional and would never make it past the Supreme Court. But I sure wish they weren't. I used to argue with my husband about this very same subject. He believes we should have professional juries I adamantly felt otherwise. After hearing this verdict and the colossal failure in the procedures and thinking that went behind the misguided verdict I now believe that professional juries would be a good thing. This jury went so out of line to reaching their verdict it's disgraceful. Truly.

I respect this juries RIGHT to come to whatever verdict they deem fit but I don't have to respect the verdict they rendered. And I don't, and as such I don't respect the members of this jury. Their verdict was NOT applied in the way the law intended. They did SEVERAL things that were not supposed to be applied in their reasoning.

And although I haven't watched the entire interview (I can't stomach it frankly, that's how disgusting it is to me) I've heard that this foreman LIED to the interviewer that the punishment was labeled on the verdict forms. Which I know can't be true. It would never be on the verdict forms for guilt. That is my biggest upset that this jury was swayed not by the evidence but by the fact that the state was seeking the death penalty which under the LAW should not be considered when rendering a verdict for GUILT.