2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

Dodie, their reaction does not surprise me. Jose sexed up the trial with blatant sexual statements and then put in a bunch of suspicious almost sexual statements that instantly gets in a persons mind and rattle around looking for an explanation.


He shouts out in the beginning that George molested a little girl named Casey and there were lots of sick secrets in the home.

Then you have Cindy, alone playing with a little girl in the pool and the mother of the child comes home and Cindy says no, no you can't get in the pool. Then hands the naked child to the mother because she took the childs swimming suit off in the pool? Why?

Then you have the creepy, weird, laughing brother standing outside the bathroom door trying to get in it while his sister is taking a shower and as she walks by him in the "doorway" he notices her belly is big? Did she not have anything on covering her belly? Was she naked? What could she have on that would show her belly that would be different then anything else she wears.

I am sure there are other things Jose and the Anthonys did to sex up and make themselves look like perverts.

 

[JSR]

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.

The problem logic is that the jury disregarded the science because IMO they didn't understood it. And I don't think they had the critical thinking skills to understand that the science proves how and when Caylee died. Although it can't be said with 100% but a REASONABLE intelligent person could follow along with the evidence and see who was solely responsible. Couple that with plain common sense and you have a VERY strong case, albeit a circumstantial case.

That's another thing that bothered me, Jennifer Ford complained that this was a circumstantial case. I've got news for her most cases are circumstantial and very rarely do you have a crime that is caught on videotape with witnesses who observed the crime. So does that mean that all murders with only circumstantial evidence should not be prosecuted? Does that mean murderers who are savy enough to only leave behind circumstantial evidence get to go scott free? No, IMO, it doesn't. It just requires a jury that has enough critical thinking and common sense (WITH AN OPEN MIND) to piece together the evidence and look at the big picture. Jennifer Ford said she wanted one really BIG piece of direct evidence to point to Casey, and she fails to realize that doesn't always happen. It's important for juries to look at not just one single piece of evidence but the totality of the evidence. This jury didn't want to take the time to look at anything in totality. They just wanted to be done and get this over with.

Jennifer Ford also said she already had her mind made up when she went into deliberations and that she didn't think it was the juries place to "connect the dots". Are you KIDDING ME??? My jaw hit the floor when I heard her say that. I think if Jennifer Ford had an open mind when hearing the State's opening and rebuttal case she would have seen that the state DID connect the dots for her. But if you're mind is closed off then you're not really allowing yourself to take in any information.

 

[shgrbkr]

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

Agreed. Additionally, the judge ordered the jury not to consider some of her testimony didn't he? He also made clear that OS are not evidence but the jury certainly seemed to look at it that way.

 

[erinleigh]

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

i would be nervous with 12 professional jurors but i would happrily accept just one per jury to keep deliberations following the right track per the law.

 

[logicalgirl]

The more the foreman goes on it is apparent he didn't look at the evidence, he was making up his own! Everything he says he thought about and considered goes back to the defense opening statement. Unless I missed something there was no evidence GA was involved but thats all he can talk about. The more these jurors talk they prove they didn't follow the law. The last thing the jurors should do is talk to media and lie. Do they not realize we are listening to every word!

The one thing I wish would happen to the foreman who clearly took a dislike to JA is that someone prints out JA's educational qualifications, Bar history, and trial history and accomplishments throughout his career, and then prints out the same for Jose Baez, places them side by side and insists the foreman read them.

No discussion necessary after that. The facts speak for themselves - just like the facts in this case did.

 

[kaki]

The problem logic is that the jury disregarded the science because IMO they didn't understood it. And I don't think they had the critical thinking skills to understand that the science proves how and when Caylee died. Although it can't be said with 100% but a REASONABLE intelligent person could follow along with the evidence and see who was solely responsible. Couple that with plain common sense and you have a VERY strong case, albeit a circumstantial case.

That's another thing that bothered me, Jennifer Ford complained that this was a circumstantial case. I've got news for her most cases are circumstantial and very rarely do you have a crime that is caught on videotape with witnesses who observed the crime. So does that mean that all murders with only circumstantial evidence should not be prosecuted? Does that mean murderers who are savy enough to only leave behind circumstantial evidence get to go scott free? No, IMO, it doesn't. It just requires a jury that has enough critical thinking and common sense (WITH AN OPEN MIND) to piece together the evidence and look at the big picture. Jennifer Ford said she wanted one really BIG piece of direct evidence to point to Casey, and she fails to realize that doesn't always happen. It's important for juries to look at not just one single piece of evidence but the totality of the evidence. This jury didn't want to take the time to look at anything in totality. They just wanted to be done and get this over with.

Jennifer Ford also said she already had her mind made up when she went into deliberations and that she didn't think it was the juries place to "connect the dots". Are you KIDDING ME??? My jaw hit the floor when I heard her say that. I think if Jennifer Ford had an open mind when hearing the State's opening and rebuttal case she would have seen that the state DID connect the dots for her. But if you're mind is closed off then you're not really allowing yourself to take in any information.

The problem is that these jurors seemed to not listen at all to the states case.. I'm not sure why .. but that is the impression i get when listening to their interviews. Every argument seemed to come from the defense.... and some made up completely on their own.. such as thinking George possibly murdered Caylee. Poor George, if he were on trial.. he would most likely gotten murder 1 from this group of jurors.

 

[magnolia]

i would be nervous with 12 professional jurors but i would happrily accept just one per jury to keep deliberations following the right track per the law.

BBM That is a solution my hubby proposed when we were discussing the subject. I think it is an excellent solution to the problem.

 

[katydid23]

The jurors have said they were shocked when the state rested their case. They said they felt they needed more. Did they even recognize that the state was really NOT DONE presenting their case yet? They had their rebuttal and cross examination of the DT's case and their closing statements left to fill in any holes and tie up loose ends. Or did the jury just zone out and ignore that because it was too late? Most of what the jurors parroted was straight from the DT opening statement anyway. To me, it looks like they listened to Jose telling them ' things they did not know yet' and checked out.

 

[Solange82200]

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 ...

Yes, I agree, and I have given them grief for that too. But I hate the fact that those actions are being used as some kind of proof that Casey is innocent... All it shows is that they are enabling parents of a sociopathic daughter...

As far as George going to work, it was his first day at a new job, we know there was a lot of tension with Cindy and George about the fact that Cindy was the main breadwinner, so Cindy told him to go on to work. I cant blame him for that, if you needed a job, finally got a good one, would you really call on the first day you are supposed to work? They didnt know yet anyone was dead, and calling out on your first day of a new job.. I can pretty much guarantee you that probably wont look good.

 

[erinleigh]

Its just a fact, ask any trial lawyer, it plays into their decision. People like to be acknowledged. The verdict was in the hands of the jurors, why not acknowledge them? It doesn't take much to pause and say a friendly good morning. They do not like to see little old ladys being laughed and being told there are not coyotes in Florida, when there are. They don't like to see an arrogant SA snickering at the other side during closing arguments. The jurors do not deserve being called uneducated and worse.

if i remeber correctly the state did acknowlegde the jury but kept it simple so that they could do their jobs. they were there to prove a case. remember for every snicker from JA there was an eye roll from JB. the state isnt about theatrics. they are there to present their evidence. JA's intelligence may have been seen as ego when he was cross examining witnesses but it was his job to discredit their testimony . especially hard when trying to make the point that most of these experts didnt even see actual evidence. mainly photos
how is JB the king of polite now? he had no issue badgering Dr Vass and GA on the stand or Dr haskell even. the worst coments made about his own client came from his own lips. CM was downrigt rude as well. and if we want to play the poilte game Frank George wins hands down. :0)

 

[dodie20]

Dodie, their reaction does not surprise me. Jose sexed up the trial with blatant sexual statements and then put in a bunch of suspicious almost sexual statements that instantly gets in a persons mind and rattle around looking for an explanation.


He shouts out in the beginning that George molested a little girl named Casey and there were lots of sick secrets in the home.

Then you have Cindy, alone playing with a little girl in the pool and the mother of the child comes home and Cindy says no, no you can't get in the pool. Then hands the naked child to the mother because she took the childs swimming suit off in the pool? Why?

Then you have the creepy, weird, laughing brother standing outside the bathroom door trying to get in it while his sister is taking a shower and as she walks by him in the "doorway" he notices her belly is big? Did she not have anything on covering her belly? Was she naked? What could she have on that would show her belly that would be different then anything else she wears.

I am sure there are other things Jose and the Anthonys did to sex up and make themselves look like perverts.

My mother calls GA 'that dirty old man' and holds his police experience against him and thinks he used it to protect himself and frame his daughter. I'll admit that I've never really warmed up to GA, but I just can't connect these dots. MOO.

 

[JSR]

The problem is that these jurors seemed to not listen at all to the states case.. I'm not sure why .. but that is the impression i get when listening to their interviews. Every argument seemed to come from the defense.... and some made up completely on their own.. such as thinking George possibly murdered Caylee. Poor George, if he were on trial.. he would most likely gotten murder 1 from this group of jurors.

You know that's interesting. They claimed they couldn't make a leap to murder without a cause of death. But they can make a LEAP and PURE speculation that George was the one who killed Caylee even though there wasn't ONE single iota of evidence to indicate he did. Hell even the Defense conceded that George did not kill Caylee.

I wish the interviewer had asked if George was the defendant would he have convicted George. If he answered yes, then you know this juror has some serious issues. And then in all likelihood he didn't want to convict Casey because she was young and pretty.

And ITA agree it seems the jury paid absolutely NO attention to the States case. Like none. And it concerns me how they are regurgitating the defenses own words, which IMO could not be proven and made ABSOLUTE no sense. I realize that the defense doesn't have to prove anything but if they make claims and then offer no evidence to support it then they have lost credibly with me. But it seems the jury had no problem with being lied to by the defense. The defense talked about phantom science but it was more like the Defense's phantom and fantasy theory. If the jury took the defense hook line and sinker then they might be as disturbed as Casey and her imaginary life filled with lies.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

if i remeber correctly the state did acknowlegde the jury but kept it simple so that they could do their jobs. they were there to prove a case. remember for every snicker from JA there was an eye roll from JB. the state isnt about theatrics. they are there to present their evidence. JA's intelligence may have been seen as ego when he was cross examining witnesses but it was his job to discredit their testimony . especially hard when trying to make the point that most of these experts didnt even see actual evidence. mainly photos
how is JB the king of polite now? he had no issue badgering Dr Vass and GA on the stand or Dr haskell even. the worst coments made about his own client came from his own lips. CM was downrigt rude as well. and if we want to play the poilte game Frank George wins hands down. :0)

I agree and IIRC, Jose even made some comment about not liking the state's witness looking at the jurors when they were answering his questions. Apparently Jose wanted everyone's attention at all times. Yano, it was smarmy not polite ~ but defense won the game anyway.

 

[lauraoh]

i would be nervous with 12 professional jurors but i would happrily accept just one per jury to keep deliberations following the right track per the law.

I like the idea of a "jury liaison" who could escort the jury to the deliberation room and suggest to them the best way to start - the selection of a foreman and an initial anonymous vote on each count to see the range of opinions.

The liaison shouldn't be part of either the foreman election or the initial vote, but should help set them up and make the jury understand that their responsibilty is just beginning.

Then the liaison can sit outside the deliberation room and relay their food requests or questions to the appropriate people until the verdict has been reached.

But, most of all, I think jury sequestration should be done away with. Because most people who are willing and/or able to spend months in a hotel don't make for a good jury.

 

[Sustained]

I dont know how you guys know all these people in real life who believe this stuff lol. I have talked to at least 10 people at work and all of them are disgusted she got off, men and women. I think I told the story before, but some of these people I didnt even ask or talk about it. I was just sitting waiting for my computer to get updated and a coworker I dont know very well was waiting next to me, and he showed me a picture on his phone of KC with OJ and started telling me how stupid the jury is. Everyone in my family is disgusted. On my facebook page, all my friends, most of whom are local and I know in real life, were posting outrage. I have yet to meet one person in real life who doesn't feel like I do.

Agreed, I live in Orlando and have yet to meet anyone that thinks FCA should have been acquitted. Of course I don't know any of the DT ...but I do have some attorney friends and all of them are astounded at the verdict.

 

[suzihawk]

That a vast majority of people who are informed on the case believe she is guilty...and they're probably upset that 12 uninformed people who broke the rules during the trial set her free?

Oh, but those people are of 'subpar intelligence'. Or so I've been told.

 

[Italy]

I see. So, everyone on this forum who agrees with the verdict is also misinformed? Thank you and have a splendid day.

Sincerely,

An informed individual who agrees with the verdict.

Gladiatorqueen

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and while most strongly disagree with the verdict, it is certainly true that there are individuals like yourself who think differently.

Unfortunately for people with your viewpoint, the foreman is confirming an unflattering opinion many have of the jurors and their verdict. It is unfortunate that he took it upon himself to speak for all of the jurors. I suspect the remaining jurors wish he would shut up.

Jennifer Ford has spoken rather eloquently of her decision - the same is not true of this foreman.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

It seems like the jury didn't know what to make of the lying by ICA. What it seems like this foreman is saying is that she has issues beyond his understanding, that the mind is above his pay grade, and thus this lying thing is probably some disorder with no intent behind the lies, that its just some mental illness.

That she was hiding the truth to avoid the legal consequences seems out of his grasp.

Perhaps that is how a psycho will get away with murder sometimes. Make it seem incredible.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[dodie20]

I see. So, everyone on this forum who agrees with the verdict is also misinformed? Thank you and have a splendid day.

Sincerely,

An informed individual who agrees with the verdict.

Some of us, myself included, might agree with the verdict, (especially the murder charge), but for different reasons. I couldn't imagine, with this evidence, giving somebody the death penalty...but by the same token, I can't imagine somebody finding KC not guilty because he thinks GA is guilty. So I'm a little ambivalent with my feelings on this. It's not one or the other for me. It's too much of a stretch for me to think KC sat on the truth for 3 years-a truth that could have freed her. Personally, I wish the state hadn't gone for the death penalty...but with this jury, I doubt it would have made a difference. MOO.

 

[manatee]

ok...just heard juror 11 again! There is something very strange! What has to be done to investigate for jury tampering? this guy (IMO) was "bought." I'm 99% sure of it!