2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[katydid23]

I wish they hadn't spoken out at all because I agree with the verdict, but also agree that they are not coming across well at all.

EXACTLY.

I disliked the verdict, but I had respect for them and their decision, although I was concerned with it's swiftness. However, if an intelligent, well spoken foreman had stepped forward and explained cohesively and correctly, their decision, then I think most people would have thanked them and wished them well. Alas, that was not to be.

p.s.

Oh, I always appreciate your kittykat pix.

 

[okiedokietoo]

True, but my conspiratorial mind went somewhere else. How do we know who he may have im-d or e-mailed? He could have made contact with anyone on the DT at anytime. He certainly did a masterful job 'orchestrating' the verdict, all the while using incorrect interpretations of the jury instructions. He miraculously took out the impact of the 31 days by telling his followers it was not allowed to be considered. And that was the one thing that the DT had not been able to have an explanation for because JP wouldn't allow them to discuss the sex abuse charges. But, coincidentally, the did not need it in the end, because the 'foreman', who was NEVER even voted in as foreman, had all the right answers/And he used raising of the hands instead of a secret ballot in the first polling.
What a surprise, nobody had any questions for the court, about any of the 27 pages of jury instructions.

reminds me of the film "Runaway Jury" -where A juror on the inside and a woman on the outside manipulate a court trial. Except they were doing it for a good cause.

 

[katydid23]

reminds me of the film "Runaway Jury" -where A juror on the inside and a woman on the outside manipulate a court trial. Except they were doing it for a good cause.

THe reason I am suspicious is that they had that little witness tampering incident already. Similar kind of behavior, imo. Same with sending the PI's out to try and find the body first, and supposedly being told by Baez NOT to call LE until he calls him first. Hmmmmm...

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

But there were plenty of people calling them names before they spoke out...

Maybe those people had ESP? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[~n/t~]

Well, there ya go...#12 obviously was also under his (foreman's) spell. Ugh!

Is Juror #12 the one who left her husband and went into hiding? I wonder how he feels knowing she was washing this guy's underwear.:floorlaugh:

I swear. You can't make this stuff up. :innocent:

 

[magnolia]

Is Juror #12 the one who left her husband and went into hiding? I wonder how he feels knowing she was washing this guy's underwear.:floorlaugh:

I swear. You can't make this stuff up. :innocent:

BBM Yup, that's her. I can't believe he told the whole world #12 washed his underwear. I woulda kept that one to myself.

 

[The Farm]

BBM Yup, that's her. I can't believe he told the whole world #12 washed his underwear. I woulda kept that one to myself.

That's definately a weird one.

 

[lorann]

reminds me of the film "Runaway Jury" -where A juror on the inside and a woman on the outside manipulate a court trial. Except they were doing it for a good cause.

I see shades of Grisham here myself. Before verdict, I thought even if a few jurors were kind of weak and easily led the stronger would demand to discuss what was presented in court. Throw in sequestered, right before a holiday, mad at being Pop tarts - the majority may have just wanted the whole thing over with. Now, they are trying to justify the verdict to themselves. Had they all agreed to make a statement right away, before they were released to hear the media and public views of their verdict, we may have learned more. I don't think it should be mandatory they speak out but if they do, it should be before they are influenced. I wish I could see what those media packets were.

 

[Nenato5]

reminds me of the film "Runaway Jury" -where A juror on the inside and a woman on the outside manipulate a court trial. Except they were doing it for a good cause.

I have not been able to get that movie out of my mind since the verdict.

 

[~n/t~]

I see shades of Grisham here myself. Before verdict, I thought even if a few jurors were kind of weak and easily led the stronger would demand to discuss what was presented in court. Throw in sequestered, right before a holiday, mad at being Pop tarts - the majority may have just wanted the whole thing over with. Now, they are trying to justify the verdict to themselves. Had they all agreed to make a statement right away, before they were released to hear the media and public views of their verdict, we may have learned more. I don't think it should be mandatory they speak out but if they do, it should be before they are influenced. I wish I could see what those media packets were.

I wish I could see what those media packets contained. I agree with you that if they would've spoken out immediately, many of us would probably have been more receptive of what they had to say. So far, the ones that have spoken out, especially Juror #11 has my hinky meter on over drive. Everytime this guy opens his mouth and says something, I become more and more skeptical about what went on before and after deliberations.

Geeez....and here I was worried about Juror #4. Go figure! :banghead:

 

[~n/t~]

Wonder who the deputy (deputies) was who watched these jurors. Juror #11 was able to go online. I thought computers were not allowed. This really bothers me. What if he stayed up late at night when everyone was asleep "studying" for his Masters? :innocent:

 

[tennisgirlsc]

As the jurors sat there for 6 weeks....they heard about the A's potential book deal, the money Roy Kronk received for a photo of a SNAKE, AND River's payout for her mistress story. NO WAY they didn't hear a cash register chachinging in their heads.

 

[Paladine]

Is this the guy who supposedly looks like 'Johnny Depp'? Ummmmm, NOT! I don't even think he's attractive in the least. And he wanted to 'still maintain his anonymity'? Ummmmmm....I think a profile of him won't help him achieve that.

Lastly, will he have 1 more highly paid interview where he allows us to see his full-frontal face? Geesh, he makes me sick.

ETA: Talk about a softball interview...what has happened to Ashley B. since 9/11? When is someone going to tell this jury that most cases ARE circumstantial? That the 31 days WAS evidence? That the only things the jury was missing in the evidence were a video of the murder or a witness to the murder? Why are all the interviewers soft-peddling this? :maddening:

last line RBBM

Well, perhaps they are working in the best interest of their employers: The MEDIA? And perhaps The Media want to earn money and ratings off of this and if they get us to swallow this whole, we'll soften and then be interested in MANY ICA projects? I was shocked at what was coming out of Ashley B.'s mouth, too, until I saw the network she's working for: ABC. Surprise, surprise. IMO, The Media and so-called 'news' these days do not 'inform' as much as 'direct': Direct us into thinking what they want us to think. Thus, the backlash against the MSM and the ever-growing popularity of social media. We do not need to be TOLD what to think; present the facts and most people, I repeat, MOST people, can decipher it themselves, hence the popularity of live streams here at WS. That gets hard though, when they won't ask the questions, huh?

ALL IMO

 

[Paladine]

Wonder who the deputy (deputies) was who watched these jurors. Juror #11 was able to go online. I thought computers were not allowed. This really bothers me. What if he stayed up late at night when everyone was asleep "studying" for his Masters? :innocent:

If he was allowed online, which is crazy imo, was he allowed to chat or email? And who was ensuring he didn't? I'm assuming it's self-regulated...

My goodness, if he had a Masters to work on maybe he didn't have the focus needed for his other task at hand.

 

[Queenofwands]

IMO, if another little child dies at the hands of FCA, a few drops of the blood will be on this jury's hands.

I agree with you there! Could they be considered "accessories before the fact?" :banghead: JMO

 

[~n/t~]

If he was allowed online, which is crazy imo, was he allowed to chat or email? And who was ensuring he didn't? I'm assuming it's self-regulated...

My goodness, if he had a Masters to work on maybe he didn't have the focus needed for his other task at hand.

I don't know how he was allowed to go online. I thought computers, cellpones, newspapers, tv were not allowed.

We learn something new everyday from Juror #11. I say, let him keep talking. Maybe he will say something that will prove jury fraud or tampering. Hope the pros are listening.:rocker:

 

[Paladine]

I don't know how he was allowed to go online. I thought computers, cellpones, newspapers, tv were not allowed.

We learn something new everyday from Juror #11. I say, let him keep talking. Maybe he will say something that will prove jury fraud or tampering. Hope the pros are listening.:rocker:

I'm right there, with ya...talk, talk, and talk some more.

ETA: an afterthought, ALL MY OPINION: In the medias attempt to prop these jurors up with flattering, softball interviews, so the outcry over the verdict might die down (and then they can line up more interviews and projects), they've actually shown us how little the jurors knew, among other things...emboldening some in our belief: All is not well. Karma?

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Isn't this the same guy that was so appreciative that Greta didn't show his face? I knew he thought way too highly of himself not to come out for more attention. Looks like he is getting comfortable with coming out for more interviews and it appears he has even bought some new hair gel and fluffed and spiked his hair for Banfield interview.....I agree, as long as the interviewers make him comfy and just let him talk ~ There is no telling what he might say next time. I also noticed that he has morphed from a "Gym Teacher" to a "38-year old Pinellas County Football Coach" working on a masters. This tells me that he could just be someone that assists in the weight room for the football players.....We recruit a lot of football players out of Florida, but there are a TON of football schools in Pinellas County. His name will be known very soon.

 

[Prof]

I see shades of Grisham here myself. Before verdict, I thought even if a few jurors were kind of weak and easily led the stronger would demand to discuss what was presented in court. Throw in sequestered, right before a holiday, mad at being Pop tarts - the majority may have just wanted the whole thing over with. Now, they are trying to justify the verdict to themselves. Had they all agreed to make a statement right away, before they were released to hear the media and public views of their verdict, we may have learned more. I don't think it should be mandatory they speak out but if they do, it should be before they are influenced. I wish I could see what those media packets were.

IMO none of them felt secure enough to speak after verdict, and I don't think there was much in the way of true deliberation. JMO. I imagine that those who voted one way were essentially told they were wrong, and were cited misinformation. The jury statements seem slightly changed, redirected as time moves on. I am not convinced that they could articulate their vote. Something struck me when I read the story about juror 12. We have her out of context statement "
"I'd rather go to jail than sit on a jury like this again."


"I'd rather go to jail than sit on a jury like this again."
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...iserable-postscript-for-a-casey-anthony-juror

How do we know what she meant by "a jury" "like this." Why not say that I rather go to jail than sit on a TRIAL like this? Maybe it was the jury that bugged her.


It's been reported that

"She she often looks to the female prosecutor for reaction from the testimony. A fan of legal dramas, she says, 'I have no problem deciding on the death penalty.'"

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20502089,00.html

Yes, and I find it more than weird that she is the one who washed and folded the foreperson's tighty whities.
And stranger that he mentioned that on national news.

JMO

 

[Shelby1]

I don't know how he was allowed to go online. I thought computers, cellpones, newspapers, tv were not allowed.

We learn something new everyday from Juror #11. I say, let him keep talking. Maybe he will say something that will prove jury fraud or tampering. Hope the pros are listening.:rocker:

I don't remember the link....but I read somewhere that they were allowed online to ONLY pay bills.