2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[gladiatorqueen]

Mere hyperbole used to express the poster's disappointment/disdain. Assigning a literal translation to hyperbole causes people to draw irresponsible conclusions.

Justify it however you like.

 

[denjet]

I guess JB big wrinkled pad and his markers was easier to understand then the forensic's.IMO Someone tampered with this jury nothing else makes sense to me.

:clap: I think you've figured out what went wrong !! I guess the state's case was just too straightforward and used too much of courtroom 23's technology ... so confusing ...
ITA ... something's fishy ... :waitasec:

 

[tennisgirlsc]

I guess JB big wrinkled pad and his markers was easier to understand then the forensic's.IMO Someone tampered with this jury nothing else makes sense to me.

HAHAHAHA that just made my afternoon :takeabow:

 

[denjet]

He bumbled what time she supposedly drowned FGS In the morning,afternoon,no wait it was morning!!!!Then in closing he says we will never know when,how Caylee died WTH This is who they believed? JB said the truth stops here!only truthful thing he said during the trial, and that my client is a big fat liar!!!!!

Glad you pointed this out !!
OK but this didn't confuse the jury at all ????? Unbelievable ... did she drown in the pool or not ???

Yes, the truth DID stop there ... :banghead:

 

[cuppy199]

Looks like she's out ! She's not showing at Orange County Jail anymore !

So much for the public being told. Funny how they ignore the laws for some and not for others:twocents:

 

[tennisgirlsc]

So much for the public being told. Funny how they ignore the laws for some and not for others:twocents:

She is still showing up for me?

 

[cuppy199]

She is still showing up for me?

Thanks I never looked went off the person who did but I still wouldn't be surprised if they did at some point.

 

[Boytwnmom]

were describing your "feelings" which are perfectly valid-you felt like she had been murdered again because of the lack of care of the jury. I get it and agree.

This is very different, completely different, from the irresponsible and defamatory statemnets of Mr. PE Foreman who is basically publicly suggesting that George is ACTUALLY a murderer. I will save my outrage for that and allow you and anyone and everyone else their "feelings" which are harmful to no one.

That is how I feel, maybe I should have said it was as if she was murdered a second time to me.When I heard the verdict I was upset,since hearing from the jurors I am devastated.There was more then enough evidence if they would have understood the judges instructions.IMO Caylee was tossed away like garbage a second time.We all have a right to have an opinion. I hope the money they make, trips and their 15 minutes of fame is worth it to them in the long run.

 

[SAgal]

He didn't get paid for the interview.

Can I ask:

How do you know if the Juror Foreman was paid or not paid for his interview with Greta?
How do you know this?

Thanks.

 

[Steve4Justice]

This foreman actually said he was ASKED to convict on cause of death!! Who asked himt o convict on cause of death? Jose Baez??

See this is what gets people so angry - the jury keeps confirming their ignorance and confirming what the public knew before they spoke, that they made a mistake and did not understand what they should be looking for.

You do not need cause of death - the body was BONES. It is not like Caylee was found in her crib with no cause of death - she was bones dumped in the woods with duct tape over her mouth!!!! What else do you need.

I am sooo angry.

He didn't convict because there was "no cause of death". Scott Peterson wants a do over with this jury.

 

[Boytwnmom]

his "dialect" isn't one I recognize, or perhaps it's just his thought process. Whatever it is, I want to stay far away from it in case it's contagious.

The foreman keeps talking about the "gray areas" - mercy, they are supposed to use their brains to deduce or infer from the evidence! Did they need black and white? Could they even recognize it? He said "we were asked to indict (convict) on cause of death." HUH? I am gobsmacked. And he thought the "defense team was professional." ???

I guess they don't have enough "gray matter" to be able to do that.

What is his dialect? Philadelphia? Baltimore?

 

[cuppy199]

Can I ask:

How do you know if the Juror Foreman was paid or not paid for his interview with Greta?
How do you know this?

Thanks.

Because Greta said so I believe. But I take it with a grain of salt because I have seen how the media doesnt pay. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Justify it however you like.

How about the foreman labeling George as a killer? Was that justified?"

Was there ANY evidence or testimony pointing to that conclusion?

 

[ijam]

:clap: I think you've figured out what went wrong !! I guess the state's case was just too straightforward and used too much of courtroom 23's technology ... so confusing ...
ITA ... something's fishy ... :waitasec:

well, he is a teacher, and from my experience most teachers don't like technology...and don't use it...example they have smart boards here, but teachers can't learn how to use them..they prefer writing on white boards.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

How about the foreman labeling George as a killer? Was that justified?"

Was there ANY evidence or testimony pointing to that conclusion?

Again, justify it any way you like.

 

[STEADFAST]

This foreman actually said he was ASKED to convict on cause of death!! Who asked himt o convict on cause of death? Jose Baez??

See this is what gets people so angry - the jury keeps confirming their ignorance and confirming what the public knew before they spoke, that they made a mistake and did not understand what they should be looking for.

You do not need cause of death - the body was BONES. It is not like Caylee was found in her crib with no cause of death - she was bones dumped in the woods with duct tape over her mouth!!!! What else do you need.

I am sooo angry.

Here's the quote:

Juror 11: . . . But you know, we were asked to indict on cause of death...

VAN SUSTEREN: Convict, you mean.

Juror 11: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...y-foreman-reveals-what-happened-inside-delibe

That last part reminds me of Professor Frink.

 

[NavySubMom]

It is written in the jury instructions that they are NOT to take their like or dislike for any of the attorneys into account.

And most of us have no problem with their attempt at 'reading' people---but they did nothing to try and comprehend the forensic evidence or the witness testimony. They wrote it all off as 'confusing.' They even said the pool story was simpler to understand.

IMO, if something is 'confusing' then you research it further. Did they look deeper into what was confusing? NO, they shrugged their shoulders and decided GEORGE DID IT.

I would have no problem with the short amount of time if they hadn't said how confusing the states case was. That just tells me they shirked their duties. If something confuses you then ASK QUESTIONS.
Geeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

I agree with you 100%. I was not happy with the verdict, but I accepted it. My seething anger with the verdict did not start until these first few jurors started talking about what they considered and why the considered it and exactly what went into their decision in their NG verdict on the 1st 3 charges. It is exactly what they are saying now on their TV "interviews" that has my ire up. They did not follow the law, they considered things they were not supposed to, and they did not consider things they should have. Personally, I would myself have not considered any of the A's testimony because IMO they ALL spoke "mis-truths". Also, I can see how the jury would have had a problem with the 84 vs. 1 hit on the "chloroform" website. But when I looked at that computer report, the actual "terms" themselves that were looked up I would have believed, regardless of the # of times the sites were searched or "hit". I do not think they understood in any way how a circumstantial case can work. IMO. and now I am hearing one of the jurors said they were "confused" by the evidence!! THEN ASK SOME QUESTIONS, don't just say, "we were confused, so I am not going to try to figure any of this out, I'll just say not guilty and go home." I think the forensics were over their heads so they just gave up. IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[cuppy199]

How about the foreman labeling George as a killer? Was that justified?"

Was there ANY evidence or testimony pointing to that conclusion?

He is contradicting himself. ICA and the DT would of been yelling that from the top of their lungs. They clearly didnt have a problem saying he sexually abused her. Nothing about this makes any sense.

 

[katydid23]

Again, justify it any way you like.

I am asking if you can justify the jury foreman PUBLICLY stating that the jury thought that George might have killed his granddaughter.

Do you think he was justified in doing so?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

Does anyone think the "jury foreman" is going to write a book ? I do !

I bet for the past week, he has been "shopping around" for an "agent" ... getting everything lined up including his big "pay-off" ... :banghead:

And you can "bet" that the Jury Foreman got "something" for these interviews with Greta and Fox -- whether it be directly -- or through his "new agent".

But his "payday" for the "interviews" would be "peanuts" next to what a book would bring in !

Yep ... the "jury foreman" has been "holding out" for the most "profitable deal" he could get !

It took the "jury foreman" one week before he did an interview with Fox News ... and NEVER bothered to explain the 'NG Verdict" IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE READING OF THE VERDICT ...

Yep ... it's all about the $$$$$

:banghead::banghead::maddening::maddening: