2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[fifteen89]

What about the cartoon from Ricardo in March, around the same time the computer search was made? Would that not make a reasonable person look up chloroform if they wanted to know what it was?

Not "how+to+make+choloroform".

 

[tiffertots]

As far I can see we DO live in a great country! One that affords us the right to voice our outrage when an incredible injustice has occurred. This system (although it's one of the best in the world) has room for improvement. But it takes moments like this to see where and which improvements could or should be made. Remember it is "WE THE PEOPLE" and we the people at least the majority of us believe this Jury made a hasty and uneducated judgement that left the victim exactly where she was left before..on the side of the road..in a swamp...so "WE THE PEOPLE" have every right to speak for the victim. SPEAK for CAYLEE!!! We have gotten so far away from TRUTH and JUSTICE instead we value TACTICS and MANEUVERS! Say whatever outlandish things you want without proof..without the possibility of retaliation??? I think NOT!! You reap what you sow..and all I've seen sown are seeds of lies, manipulation, and distortion. I for one, am appalled!!

 

[fifteen89]

When I heard they found a bag of garbage in her trunk I thought it was way too obvious that was an attempt to explain the smell. Parking it next to a dumpster was obvious as well. I can remember thinking how stupid she was to try that. Little did I know that carrying around a bag of garbage in your trunk while complaining about the smell was logical in some people's minds. If bags of garbage actually left a stink 2 years later most of us would never be able to go into our garages again.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Yet another obvious question ignored by the interviewers of these jurors.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec:

I hope the foreman and jurors keep TALKING ! The more they talk the more we learn !

I do NOT like it that they are being monetarily compensated for these interviews ... but this might be "too much" to ask but maybe -- just maybe -- one of them will slip up somewhere !

Yep ... keep them talking ...

:talker::talker::talker:

 

[lonetraveler]

Nope. Because the verdict would have been right. The problem is that they are using excuses for their acquittal which they would have realized are WRONG if they had taken time to look at the evidence.

Jennifer Ford claims she doesnt believe the chloroforming because Casey left with Caylee, so where would it have been done? A simple look over the phone records and testimony would have explained it to her: Casey waited for her father to leave for work, and then returned home like she always did. She killed Caylee at home.

The foreman is claiming that Cindy made the chloroform searches. ALmost a whole day was taken proving that this was false, and even if for some reason they werent paying attention, they could have reviewed the testimony and realized that there is NO WAY Cindy made those searches.

Maybe jurors should have to be screened for drug use prior to being seated on a jury. A "Fitness for Duty" screen should be required, IMO.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

Two things:

As to George's "selective memory", there's a lot more reason for George to remember with clarity the last time he saw his grandaughter alive than to remember a THING about the d@mn gas cans, sheesh!

The other thing is something I wondered about all along, but cannot remember where the idea came up. A few of you brought it up in this thread so I know I didn't make this up. I wonder if there were another grandchild that Casey disposed of. She's done this before. A big, nasty Anthony family secret.

I've wondered that also PeteyGirl, especially in light of LA's comment, "Is this like the last time?" to Casey during a jail visit. Who's to say that she wasn't pregnant before and WAS ABLE to successfully hide it OR she didn't even realize she was pregnant until she gave birth and got rid of the baby as soon as it was born. Perhaps in that same area where she disposed of Caylee. And perhaps that's the secret Lee promised "CMA" he will never tell. It also fits into why Casey didn't see a gynocologist/OBGYN - they would have known that she'd had another pregnancy.

JMO~

 

[Clock's Tickin]

I continue to ask one question. Who released the names of the jurors. We the general public do not have the names. Yet family members of juror number 3 were being called during sequestration.

So I continue to ask, who released the names? How are sequestered jurors lined up on the very next day with media? How can a trip to Disney for an extended family arranged so quickly?

Who got the names of these other jurors that are speaking? Something is wrong here. Why is the judge withholding the names from the general public when in fact these jurors are known to the media?

Because jurors such as these reached out on their own. They WANT the spotlight and the $$$ that comes with it, REGARDLESS of what they tell you about being "hounded".

 

[manatee]

And what was the initial reason given for why they didn't want to stay and talk to the media after the verdict? Because they didn't want to add to the circus atmosphere (don't remember the words that were said, but that's the impression I got). Uh, how did the sequestered jurors know there was any atmosphere outside the courthouse?

great point! nothing adds up. they don't make sense. these 12 people are too educated to make such a senseless decision...IMO

 

[Boston]

The jury foreman stated that other People had access to the Casey's car and that there were other Keys.

I would like to know exactly what they were speculating

Are they saying that somebody (George?) used Casey's car to dispose of Caylee to frame her? When did this supposedly happen?

Why did Casey abandon the car...Was that just a coincidence..?

 

[lonetraveler]

What I seriously don’t get is how, HOW, the jury gave credence to the inuendos, etc. about George WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
But there was truly a boatload of evidence AGAINST CASEY, and they didn’t weigh any of it. The discounted it all.
They gave more weight to Cindy’s testimony, George’s testimony and Krystal Holloway’s testimony than they did Dr. Vass, etc.
That just leads me to believe the scientific evidence was WAY WAY WAY over their heads. They glommed on to the soap opera portion of this case. SHAMEFUL.

BBm: I totally agree!

 

[Italy]

:waitasec:

I hope the foreman and jurors keep TALKING ! The more they talk the more we learn !

I do NOT like it that they are being monetarily compensated for these interviews ... but this might be "too much" to ask but maybe -- just maybe -- one of them will slip up somewhere !

Yep ... keep them talking ...

:talker::talker::talker:

Me too.

I so hope that one of them realizes that he/she has been bamboozled by the other jurors into rendering a wrong verdict. I so hope that there is one person who will blow the whistle on our Juror #3 and this seemingly self-satisfied foreman and spill the beans on what happened. As others have said, there is clearly something wrong here.

 

[JSV]

My take on the jurors' interviews and comments is that I truly believe that Casey Anthony did indeed get a "jury of her peers". All that the jurors say is that the State did not prove cause of death or motive...............well, the State did not have to prove either of the two. The jurors were instructed on this and made a conscientious choice to ignore this. The jurors were also given other charges they could consider besides murder in the first and lying to LE. Once again they made a conscientious decision to ignore this fact. An abundance of evidence and testimony was presented to prove the case against Casey Anthony. Once again the jurors made that conscientious choice to totally disregard all of it, except of course the lying. The jurors did not want to appear "stupid" because it was so blatantly clear that she lied......................so they bit the bullet and probably reluctantly found Casey guilty of lying. Wow, what a step on the wild side, jurors! Why do you think she lied? What were the lies covering up? Did you bother to even think this through? This jury appears to have been all "sheep" and no leader who could lead them through the reason and logic. It appears that the young male jurors all thought she was a "normal" hot young woman just partying and didn't even think about where Caylee was while she was partying down. The older jurors just went with the flow, whatever it took to just get the heck home. Juror #3, the first one out the shoot, you know....the one who got sick on her stomach because of the absolute "need" to find a "not guilty verdict" because she daydreamed throught the entire trial until the final few moments of Baez's closing argument. She had to totally discount the State's evidence because it was entirely too difficult for her to understand. She is the one who stated that the State did not prove that there was a crime so they couldn't punish someone for a crime when it had not been proven that a crime occurred. I guess that the fact that a dead little girl bagged and dumped into a swamp in trash bags just doesn't compute that a crime had occurred.................alrighty then. I know for a fact that this jury will try to defend their decision but will never forget what they did and will think about this for the rest of their lives. It will never be erased from their minds. :twocents:

Great Post ... I agree 100% .

 

[annalia]

Apparently this Jury Foreman thinks that George murdered Caylee.

VinniePolitan
Jury Foreman: George was suspicious possible HE murdered Caylee. WOW!!

https://twitter.com/VinniePolitan/status/90799071635308544

So the foreperson is saying there WAS evidence of a murder??? :banghead:

Maybe they should all get together to get their talking points straight.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Apparently this Jury Foreman thinks that George murdered Caylee.

VinniePolitan
Jury Foreman: George was suspicious possible HE murdered Caylee. WOW!!

https://twitter.com/VinniePolitan/status/90799071635308544

WOW is right ! Do you know if Vinnie will be covering this foreman's "opinion" this evening ?

TIA !

:maddening:

 

[Boston]

If the Jury really feels that George might have been the one to dispose of Caylee wouldn't you think that George would do a better Job hiding the Body?

He's a former Homicide detective....

It's just pure chance that the body wasn't found early on..

And if he were really trying to frame Casey wouldn't he have done a better Job..??

Like leaving actual evidence at the scene to connect Casey to the crime..??

I mean c-mon...!!!!!!!! Where is the common sense...!!!

 

[Boytwnmom]

I only saw a small excerpt from his interview but he sounded like he was completely confident in his understanding that they HAD to find her NG because no one told them how Caylee died. That he knew this was an absolutely necessary thing without which she could not be found Guilty. That this is completely wrong escaped him and apparently no interviewer will ever deign to mention it but he was still wrong. Juror #3 was equally adamant and sure of herself in the statement that no one told them where it happened, whether it was in the car, out in public etc and also stated that they needed that for a Guilty finding.

I fear these wrong but confident and vocal people swayed and intimidated the rest of them. There was no need to check the instructions or ask questions about the law "We already TOLD you what it was" and "we'll never change our mind and so you'll just keep us here for nothing". (Juror 2 said the 6 NG's said they would NEVER change their votes). So were the G's badgered because they would keep them there for no reason since the NG's would never change their mind and were they told they were wrong and that there was no way under the law they could find her Guilty of anything becasue that's what it seems like I'm hearing.

Were the G's wrong? Yes, they should have held out, said the law needed clarification etc. But that doesn't make coercion right. A foreman is supposed to make sure everyone has their say and that legal questions are submittedot the judge for clarification. I see no evidence that this type of process happened here.

I would be more interested in hearing from the two jurors who went into deliberations thinking KC was guilty. I would like to know what happened to make them flip so quickly. I would like to know if they felt in anyway intimidated into changing their votes. I would like to know if there was any actual discussion of the evidence involved in the jury's so-called deliberations. I was not the least impressed with Juror #11. He appeared to be someone to whom talking comes quite easily and I am wondering how persuasive he was in changing the opinions of the two jurors who went in thinking KC was guilty.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

see this is what has me scratching my head. these jurors were mostly educated. nurses, teachers...something smells very JBish to me. I smell a rat. nothing that they've said makes any sense. smart people like these jurors appeared to be do not ignore all the evidence and certainly can add 2+2 and not get bamboozled by JB with his opening statement. I don't buy it. we need an investigation.

Considering the fact that these 17 jurors were sequestered at one of the three hotels owned by H. Rosen, out of well over 250 hotels in the Orlando area, and knowing that there is a connection between HR and LA (LA approached HR shortly after Caylee's "disappearance") whereby HR put up $$ for a reward and is rumored to have offered $$ toward Casey's defense, I agree - there needs to be an investigation. JMO~

 

[fifteen89]

My take on the jurors' interviews and comments is that I truly believe that Casey Anthony did indeed get a "jury of her peers". All that the jurors say is that the State did not prove cause of death or motive...............well, the State did not have to prove either of the two. The jurors were instructed on this and made a conscientious choice to ignore this. The jurors were also given other charges they could consider besides murder in the first and lying to LE. Once again they made a conscientious decision to ignore this fact. An abundance of evidence and testimony was presented to prove the case against Casey Anthony. Once again the jurors made that conscientious choice to totally disregard all of it, except of course the lying. The jurors did not want to appear "stupid" because it was so blatantly clear that she lied......................so they bit the bullet and probably reluctantly found Casey guilty of lying. Wow, what a step on the wild side, jurors! Why do you think she lied? What were the lies covering up? Did you bother to even think this through? This jury appears to have been all "sheep" and no leader who could lead them through the reason and logic. It appears that the young male jurors all thought she was a "normal" hot young woman just partying and didn't even think about where Caylee was while she was partying down. The older jurors just went with the flow, whatever it took to just get the heck home. Juror #3, the first one out the shoot, you know....the one who got sick on her stomach because of the absolute "need" to find a "not guilty verdict" because she daydreamed throught the entire trial until the final few moments of Baez's closing argument. She had to totally discount the State's evidence because it was entirely too difficult for her to understand. She is the one who stated that the State did not prove that there was a crime so they couldn't punish someone for a crime when it had not been proven that a crime occurred. I guess that the fact that a dead little girl bagged and dumped into a swamp in trash bags just doesn't compute that a crime had occurred.................alrighty then. I know for a fact that this jury will try to defend their decision but will never forget what they did and will think about this for the rest of their lives. It will never be erased from their minds. :twocents:

^^^BBM^^^

Remember the scene in A Few Good Men where Kaffee and Sam are going over testimony....

Kaffee: Doctor, other than the rope marks, was there any other sign of external damage?

Sam: No.

Kaffee: No scrapes?

Sam: No.

Kaffee: No cuts?

Kaffee: Bruises? Broken bones?

Sam: No.

Kaffee: Doctor, was there any sign of violence?

Sam: (beat) You mean other than the dead body?

Kaffee: ******!! I walk into that every godd*** time!

Sam: Don't ask the last question.

 

[maur33]

Good grief, who would have thought that this crazy story could any crazier. If I didn't know any better I would swear this jury was made up of 17 stealth jurors. Something just isn't right with their explanations.

 

[fifteen89]

If they said they based it on the state's opening statement yes they could get a mistrial opening statements are not evidence

Opening Statements

In both criminal and civil cases, the trial begins with opening statements from the attorneys representing each side of the case. Opening statements are an overview of the case from each side’s perspective. Jurors should not consider these statements as evidence.

That couldn't have happened in this case (at least imo) because the State presented evidence to prove each and every element of the case they spoke of in their Opening Statement. I can't say the same for the 'other side'. jmo