2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Italy]

An inmate that probably saw the Nancy Grace show regarding chloroform is not a very credible witness. If she was, why did the state not put her on the stand?

You are right - she probably had some baggage (she was in jail for something). It does, however, add to the belief that Casey used chloroform.

 

[magnolia]

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?

BBM Who does not know what chloroform is and what it does?

 

[goldenlover]

Right after the jury was released to deliberate, the cameraman scanned the room & the camera stopped on the 12 empty seats where the jurors were sitting.....and I the only one who saw all their NOTEBOOKS left sitting right there in the chairs...as if they weren't needed? When I saw that, I had a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach, somehow I knew it wasn't gonna be good for Caylee!:sick:

The jurors had to leave their notebooks in the courtroom at all times. When they left for breaks and when they went home for the night. After the trial, the judge said they would be destroyed. I am sure they were told to leave them there when they were released to deliberate and that an officer of the court would bring them to the deliberation room. They had their notes to use in deliberation, and that and their collective memory are what what they are supposed to rely on most for deliberation. If they want testimony read back to them, they have to ask and its up to the discretion of the judge. They are not given a trial transcript to read at their leisure. They could not read over the entire trial again.... They jury instructions are to rely on notes and collective memory. That is what they did.

 

[~n/t~]

Not sure where to ask this but figured I'd try this thread.

Do any of you know what is contained in the 'media packets' and when these were given to the jurors? TIA

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:cow::cow::cow:

I TRULY BELIEVE SOMETHING MUST HAVE HAPPENED WITH THIS JURY ... SOMETHING !

THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INVESTIGATION IMMEDIATELY INTO THIS POSSIBILITY !

The more the jury foreman and jurors TALK ... the LESS IT MAKES SENSE and the more SUSPICIOUS they sound !

Listen to the jurors' statements : they have a lot of the facts wrong ... their dates are wrong -- June 15 ? I thought JB said in OS June 16 ? ... they thought George was on trial ? -- what "trial" were they watching ? ... they did not know that Cindy committed "perjury" -- they even brought in Cindy's former employer to prove Cindy was at work and NOT doing computer searches for chloroform ... they did NOT understand the meaning of "reasonable doubt" ... they did NOT understand the jury instructions -- then GO ASK THE COURT FOR AN INTERPREATION ! ... did NOT ASK TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE ... I could go on and on ...

The Jury Foreman is doing some SERIOUS DAMAGE CONTROL right now !

And the Jury Foreman CANNOT EVEN SHOW HIS FACE !

WHAT WHAT WHAT IS HE HIDING ?

I would love to know how much $$ MONEY $$ he was paid by Fox for this interview ...

AGAIN, there needs to be -- AT A MINIMUM -- AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT WENT WRONG and IF THERE WAS ANY TAMPERING ... and they need to START WITH THE FOREMAN !

I am sorry for the RANT ... but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ... the MORE WE HEAR, the LESS SENSE IT MAKES ! IT SMELLS ... AND IT SMELLS REAL BAD !

:cow::cow::cow:

 

[goldenlover]

You are right - she probably had some baggage (she was in jail for something). It does, however, add to the belief that Casey used chloroform.

Yes, it does, but the jury was not presented with this information. So it could add it to our belief, but not the jurys.

 

[Mysteeri]

BBM Who does not know what chloroform is and what it does?

I`m certain that movie watching Casey knew about chloroform and that murderers and kidnappers use it to knock people out. And she searched "how to make chloroform"

 

[denjet]

You know he (juror#11) acted so proud of himself that he'd taken 400 pages of notes but not ONCE I'll be willing to bet did he refer to them in deliberations. As reported by several tv stations, most of the jurors had left their notebooks and/or papers on their seats FGS!

This "people reading" comment set me off big time !! ... not that the rest of the interview didn't make my blood boil ...
This guy sounds like he took charge and had a lot of sway with the jury ... but come on ... was he judging the case by "people reading" ??? Did he "read" KC and decide she couldn't have done it early on in the trial ...
"People reading" is NOT a part of evidence to be considered or anything that should have entered into deliberations ...
Obviously this guy (and other jurors) didn't try to assess a witnesses testimony based on facts already proven, or other rebuttal testimony AT ALL ...

Oh, IMO ... the 400 pages had nothing to do with notes he would need in deliberation ... sounds more like he was writing a book ... I know they don't get to keep their notes, but wonder if writing down his observations helped his memory of the trial ... I know it always helps me to write things down ... just sayin he sure had an answer for everything Greta threw at him :banghead:

 

[Sustained]

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?

I actually think the cartoon is what started ICA in thinking that she could hloroform Caylee and go out and party. IMO, ICA did a little research, found out how to make chloroform, went out and bought acetone, possibly experimented on the dogs, and then started on Caylee.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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?

Let's see what would a reasonable person think when faced with the evidence that someone typed "how to make chloroform".:waitasec:

A. They wanted to know "how to make chloroform?"

B. They wanted to know "what chloroform was"?

I say A. Do you say B?

 

[sappysoul]

So has Greta actually come and denied ANY form of payment was made to this guy? If not then why are people watching her show?

 

[lonetraveler]

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:

 

[rbrnmw2]

She would not have gotten a mis-trial. Deliberations can be simply a vote. There is no set time for a jury to deliberate. There is no rule that they must go over any evidence again. 12 educated, intelligent people came to the same unanimous verdict..that is all they needed to do. That is due process. They can disregard any part of any evidence they deem not credible. It is up to them what they choose to consider and what they do not. The defense rebutted much of the states evidence using experts from the FBI crime lab and the sherrifs office experts. evidence the state chose not to present becaue it did not fit their "theory" of the events....does that not tell you anything about the states evidence?

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.

 

[MissJames]

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.

She didn't even use the garbage as an excuse for the smell in her texts to Amy.She said she thought her dad had hit a squirrel. :maddening:

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I would LOVE to see Kathi Belich interview these jurors -- Kathi would ask all the most important questions. All the other interviewers haven't yet asked the meaningful ones.

 

[Italy]

Yes, it does, but the jury was not presented with this information. So it could add it to our belief, but not the jurys.

That is correct Goldenlover, however most of us believe that if one looks up "How to make chloroform" and subsequently chloroform is found in the trunk of this person's car (I think it is well established who looked up how to make chloroform), which many described as having an overpowering stench of human decomposition, and all of this is associated with a dead baby, I think most would reasonably conclude that this is quite incriminating. I submit that this is NOT something most of us would shrug off as this jury admittedly did.

 

[Poodleluver]

She didn't even use the garbage as an excuse for the smell in her texts to Amy.She said she thought her dad had hit a squirrel. :maddening:

I always wondered why she said "her dad" must have hit a squirrel when it was the car SHE drove! I'm sure Amy knew KC always drove the car. Why would George be driving it? Just something I always thought about. Maybe she was already setting George up (?) Even way back when I had a feeling she would try to pin it on him.

 

[erinleigh]

And this is why I'm so glad I did not watch. Did greta try to school him in any way that some of their conclusions did not go with the evidence or for that matter the DTs story?

 

[Murphismo]

OMG Please tell me the foreperson did NOT say that.
Did they have earphones in and were listening to music when the state was putting on their case?

he did, he really did :loser:

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

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.

Jennifer Ford was the first juror to "jump out there" with the media. What happened to looking at the evidence presented to you when making a decision....if ms ford had the question of how did she make it, where did she make it, she could have found her answers to that IF she'd taken the time to LOOK through the evidence! You don't just give a hurried verdict, get on TV saying you had these questions when the entire world knows you HAD the answers to them if you'd taken the time to LOOK! I don't feel sorry for them, they made their beds & they have to lye in them, imo.

Didn't watch "the foreman" but again, if he thought CA made those searches he must've been sleeping during the Gentiva guy's testimony...I wonder if he even knew why he was on the stand? The ones that didn't take notes in this long case had no interest & had their minds made up from the OS, the ones who did take notes, left the notebooks sitting in the chair when the jury was sent to deliberate.

They apparently couldn't tell the difference between someone who was lying & someone who was embarassed/ashamed when being accused of molesting their own daughter, being a sordid part in the cover up of their own grandaughter (I'm sure the mere thought of him "throwing" his precious grandbaby away like trash was unbearable") in front of the entire world. Then the mistress, I don't know if GA had an affair or not, don't care,but at this point GA had had enough of JB & his smart comments, don't blame him at all....yes, he was combative, so would I, so would you, so would the foreman....if JB had been painting you to be some horrible person from day 1. I didn't find KH's fake azz crying to be credible, i noticed that when GA was asked if he knew her, the tone in his voice when he said something about another name then, "River Cruz", the tone was to me that he had been taken in by this woman & then found her out to be something she's not....I could be wrong but it was a feeling.

George wasn't hiding anything, he's the type person that has to have people like him, has to have that approval, all of this mess embarassed him to no end and he was furious that JB/ICA was blaming him & the only way they had to prove he lies is with a mistress. GA, imo, was the only one of the bunch telling the truth....just look at the picture of his face when he found out she was getting out!