Page 11 of 67 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202161 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 1665

Thread: 2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by SATA View Post
    "But that was the only -- placed on there before the body was placed where it was. I don't like using the word dumped."

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the...#ixzz1RujpZLzI


    Why not, juror 11? Looks to me like she was dumped like a piece of garbage.
    He might not want to say dumped but that's exactly what ICA did to her. Dumped her like trash in a swamp.

  2. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to Nova24 For This Useful Post:


  3. #252
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenlover View Post
    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?
    No, it doesn't tell me anything about the state's evidence. The state isn't obligated to present evidence that doesn't fit their theory. That's the defense's job.

    Just because the defense puts up evidence that disagrees with what the state said, doesn't necessarily mean that their evidence is better or that it cancels out the state's evidence. I don't think this jury understood that.

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to beeshie For This Useful Post:


  5. #253
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    where no man has boldy gone
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen89 View Post
    I've also posted suggesting having an unbiased lawyer sitting in on deliberations. To answer juror questions, make sure the jurors stay on track and follow the jury instructions (like reminding COD is not required etc).
    That is what the judge is there for. They can ask the judge any questions they want if they are having a problem understanding the instructions or evidence. These jurors were not uneducated there were 12 of them. For 12 people to all come to the same decision has to be accepted. At one time they were 10 and 2, 10 for just lying and 2 for murder then it was 6 and 6 but somehow they ended up 12-0.
    It's almost been a year since we did our last show.Jay Bush my partner has been auditioning for the show Shark Tank and so this has put the show on hold. If he gets on Shark Tank, we will be terribly delayed. Good luck Jay. Either way we will one day continue the show and have the coolest global independent radio station out there. This is just a small video we did with one of our artists.Waiting for One and their tune 35 years. Check it out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Go80y20fA
    We hope to be doing a radio show with all our artists real soon. Hope you can join in the fun. Please bare with us while we improve the show especially the sound.
    Laserdog Enterprises would like to bring you our version of a Tribute to the Angels of Newtown. Another school shooting in Georgia thankfully no children were hurt.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axOGOBT77Xs

    Please take a few moments and visit the missing children site. We really need you.
    Click on the link to find a missing child,teen or adult.

    http://www.missingkids.com/missingki...eCountry=en_US

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to legalmania For This Useful Post:

    JSV

  7. #254
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,072
    They drank the Casey Kool-Aid. They knew she lied and lied and lied some more but instead of thinking the c/u was just another one along with the lame drowning theory they bought into it. They saw her a nice person and a great mother even with all the evidence to the contrary.

    I do wonder if part of it was due to her being young and attractive. It would be easier for them to think it was an accident versus an evil monster who killed her baby and then went partying. Sad thing is seemingly loving mothers do this all the time.

    I do wish one of them would have stood their ground and hung the jury. #2 seems to be the one who wishes he had done that. I think the ones who dug their heels in got their way because others wanted their gourmet lunch, Disney, and to get out of there.

    My biggest regret is they didn't ask for clarification regarding jury instructions. They really didn't understand their role or RD at all. That will forever make me sad.


  8. #255
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb0124 View Post
    Actually, you are wrong. Seems to be just another inaccurate claim masquarading as fact in order to criticize the jury....that and the myth of the 84 chloroform searches (which was debunked).

    Morales told detectives he posted the chloroform picture on his MySpace page around the beginning of 2008. It was sometime after that when someone did a search for the word "chloroform" on the home computer of George and Cindy Anthony, where Casey Anthony lived with Caylee.

    LINK
    It was testified in court that the searches were deleted. Where was this debunked? As far as the 84 searches, it wasnt a myth, it was a bug in the software. Even if it was just one time searching How to make chloroform, why would Morales's myspace cartoon cause someone to know how to make chloroform? And its a coincidence that chloroform was in her car trunk? Do you realize that the levels in the trunk were found first, and afterward they searched her hard drive to see if there were searches?

    And speaking of inaccurate claims masquerading as fact, here are a couple for you to address:

    - that the state attorney alleges that Casey chloroformed Casey in a public place (when cell records clearly show she did what she always did, sneak back home after her father went to work, and likely killed Caylee there)

    - you need a cause of death to convict because it's the "letter of the law"

    - Cindy was the one who did the chloroform searches (despite the hours of testimony proving otherwise)
    These claims were made by the jurors. Do you agree these are "inaccurate claims masquerading as fact?"

  9. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Solange82200 For This Useful Post:


  10. #256
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by manatee View Post
    I'm starting to feel the same way! I went back and reviewed JB statements and the video outside the courtroom where he shoots at the camera before the verdict. somehow, some way<mod snip> it matches the way JB has behaved through this trial. it is the only thing that makes sense now. This is why the jury is not talking. this is why that juror left town and retired from her job? where did she get the money to run? makes no sense. WAKE UP FOLKS! 1+1=2. We need to push for an investigation.
    I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.

  11. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Steve4Justice For This Useful Post:


  12. #257
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iliinois
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by SATA View Post

    To me it sounds like the jury had been talking "among each other" about the case early on and prior to deliberations, contrary to the judge´s continuous admonissions.
    Oooops.
    Quote Originally Posted by rosepetal1065 View Post
    I feel the same way.. for me, it started... when I heard the alternate juror using, "we thought" and "for us" when he was not part of, the decision making process.
    I thought they were discussing things when they asked to see the heart shaped sticker. It was obvious then.

    "She's Going Places," A Tribute Song For Caylee Anthony
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLudQC0MBJU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZ79InLGRY
    White Lion - When The Children Cry

  13. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to *~Aimee~* For This Useful Post:


  14. #258
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by rosepetal1065 View Post
    I feel the same way.. for me, it started... when I heard the alternate juror using, "we thought" and "for us" when he was not part of, the decision making process.
    Here is another Oooops moment - this juror seems very stupid. He again gives away that the jury have been yapping away about the case all along:
    "UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a suspicion of him. That as -- that was a part of our conversation that we had of the -- well, what I'd call the round robin topics that we had when we were doing deliberation. That was brought up."

    CONVERSATION?? Would you use that term about deliberations in a capital case?

    This probably happens all the time with jurys - but is that acceptable? This jury has disregarded most of the rules of the court, as I see it.

  15. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to SATA For This Useful Post:


  16. #259
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iliinois
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve4Justice View Post
    I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.

    I agree but I also heard nothing can be done now but for future cases would help. If it was proven before a verdict then could do something with this jury.

    "She's Going Places," A Tribute Song For Caylee Anthony
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLudQC0MBJU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZ79InLGRY
    White Lion - When The Children Cry

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to *~Aimee~* For This Useful Post:


  18. #260
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,152
    I just wish that a judge could look over everything these jurors have been saying..see what the did and do something about it. When people don't follow the judge's instructions isn't there anything that can be done. They say that "the state couldn't prove how Caylee died"...well they didn't have to. Didn't any of them watch Scott Peterson and see that he ended up on death row but there was no cause of death. It amazes me that 12 people could all ignore the evidence...disregard the judge's instructions and it is ok! I hope they are all shaking in their shoes with fear that someone is going to get them. I hope everyone that they know is disgusted with them for such a terrible outcome. I hope they see little Caylee in their nightmares every night and she is saying "you were wrong..my mama killed me."

  19. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bobbisangel For This Useful Post:


  20. #261
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve4Justice View Post
    That's because he was measuring levels in the carpet fabric NOT in the AIR of the trunk. Different kinds of measurements, apples and oranges.
    Ashton made this clear in closing rebuttal.

    But reading the jurors thoughts and some comments it looks as though the defense was able to confuse people and have them believe prosecutors fabricated evidence.

  21. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mysteeri For This Useful Post:


  22. #262
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by beeshie View Post
    No, it doesn't tell me anything about the state's evidence. The state isn't obligated to present evidence that doesn't fit their theory. That's the defense's job.

    Just because the defense puts up evidence that disagrees with what the state said, doesn't necessarily mean that their evidence is better or that it cancels out the state's evidence. I don't think this jury understood that.
    I disagree. The two who have spoken seemed to have understood that very well. They obviously dissected the evidence and decided how to weigh or not weigh the evidence based on the very obvious conflicts in testimony.

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by Chablis View Post
    And they keep yelling, what went wrong? Oh, I don't know, lets start with NG who heard the word chloroform and went nuts. She cant even understand or try or want to admit that the State used samples from a trunk that had been cleaned and left out to air for hours. They tried to say a cleaned trunk was the accurate conditons of the car when Casey had it, and the levels found were proof she chloroformed her child. Something is very, very wrong with that. But no one asks the media about this,no one asks Nancy, its been terrible.
    If it were really cleaning products, you dont think that someone on trial for their LIFE would take the time to have their lawyer show the cleaning products used, when they were used, and the ingredients proving it caused choloroform? And the search "how to make chloroform" is just a coincidence? I just don't get these absolutely ridiculous excuses, especially where people argue things that the defendant herself never alleged! If cleaning products had caused the chloroform, we would have heard about the products in trial, make no mistake.

  24. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Solange82200 For This Useful Post:


  25. #264
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve4Justice View Post
    I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.
    Even if the jury was investigated, it seems that all they have to do is keep quiet. And that is the end of for investigation. What is wrong here is on a far higher and more fundamental level than the jurors.IMO The new cyber based media vs the old court system had to be addressed.IMHO
    Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Schu7 For This Useful Post:


  27. #265
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova24 View Post
    They drank the Casey Kool-Aid. They knew she lied and lied and lied some more but instead of thinking the c/u was just another one along with the lame drowning theory they bought into it. They saw her a nice person and a great mother even with all the evidence to the contrary.

    I do wonder if part of it was due to her being young and attractive. It would be easier for them to think it was an accident versus an evil monster who killed her baby and then went partying. Sad thing is seemingly loving mothers do this all the time.

    I do wish one of them would have stood their ground and hung the jury. #2 seems to be the one who wishes he had done that. I think the ones who dug their heels in got their way because others wanted their gourmet lunch, Disney, and to get out of there.

    My biggest regret is they didn't ask for clarification regarding jury instructions. They really didn't understand their role or RD at all. That will forever make me sad.


    Exactly, they based it in feelings and emotions, not the evidence. That's probably one of the reasons it was so easy for them to dismiss all of her lies etc, because according to them she seemed like a good mom and a good mom wouldn't harm their child.

    George on the other hand has a smarmy look to him so they easily bought unfounded and unproven accusations against him.

    JMHO.

  28. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to annalia For This Useful Post:


  29. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    261
    It baffles me completely that the juror said Casey's body language was 'sincere' and that kind of garbage. Did they not see the sullen pouty face she was making through most of the trial?? Incredible.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  30. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to PrintGal For This Useful Post:


  31. #267
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen89 View Post
    ^^^BBM^^^
    I believe the computer forensics expert witness said it, not LDB.
    The forensic expert said it was typed in. Some people here do not understand computers if they think the suggested searches in google are the same as typed ones. WHen you do a search in google, what you type even shows up in the url itself, just as was explained in trial. It shows how +to+make+chloroform. Suggested searches do not show up like that exactly, unless you select to search that suggestion. There may have been a bug in the software used, but to imply that all computer forensics are called into question is ridiculous. It everyone thought like the jurors and some on this board, no one would ever be prosecuted. They would explain away EVERYTHING. Whatever they couldnt explain would turn into a conspiracy by the police and those evil computer forensic people. Unbelievable

  32. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Solange82200 For This Useful Post:


  33. #268
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,740
    Quote Originally Posted by *~Aimee~* View Post


    I agree but I also heard nothing can be done now but for future cases would help. If it was proven before a verdict then could do something with this jury.
    if the defense tampered with jury the results of "not guilty" could be null. Retrial is possible. i googled it!
    TEAM CAYLEE
    "Caylee IS the VICTIM!"

  34. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to manatee For This Useful Post:


  35. #269
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Solange82200 View Post
    It was testified in court that the searches were deleted. Where was this debunked? As far as the 84 searches, it wasnt a myth, it was a bug in the software. Even if it was just one time searching How to make chloroform, why would Morales's myspace cartoon cause someone to know how to make chloroform? And its a coincidence that chloroform was in her car trunk? Do you realize that the levels in the trunk were found first, and afterward they searched her hard drive to see if there were searches?

    And speaking of inaccurate claims masquerading as fact, here are a couple for you to address:

    - that the state attorney alleges that Casey chloroformed Casey in a public place (when cell records clearly show she did what she always did, sneak back home after her father went to work, and likely killed Caylee there)

    - you need a cause of death to convict because it's the "letter of the law"

    - Cindy was the one who did the chloroform searches (despite the hours of testimony proving otherwise)
    These claims were made by the jurors. Do you agree these are "inaccurate claims masquerading as fact?"
    The original post claimed RM posted the image to his myspace after the chloroform search at the Anthony home - that is what I said was wrong, and that part was removed from the original post after I replied (guess it also removes it from any replies that quote it?).

    As to your questions:

    -any allegation that Casey chloroformed Caylee was not substantiated by testimony or evidence. (conflicting testimony from expert witnesses on both tests of the carpet and air sample testing).

    -you don't need a cause of death but you do in fact have to prove manner of death - that it was a homicide, and that the defendent was the one who committed it (jury instructions).

    -That Cindy did the searches...well she says she did (and she lies), her company said both that someone using her login (presumably her) was at work, but that sharing login info "happens" despite their policy against it. I was actually surprised to hear him volunteer this without being asked. Her time card? though her supervisor said she would never approve false hours documentation....it happens...at every company. Personally, I think Casey did the search, but its not beyond reasonable doubt that it was due to the RM myspace pic. If I were a juror in the deliberation room, I would go along with the thinking that there was too much reasonable doubt re: chloroform and the computer to give the evidence any weight - but not because I believed Cindy did the searches.

  36. #270
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by gladiatorqueen View Post
    I disagree. The two who have spoken seemed to have understood that very well. They obviously dissected the evidence and decided how to weigh or not weigh the evidence based on the very obvious conflicts in testimony.
    Can you be specific? I pointed out some of the errors in their statements. Can you specifically defend those?

    Also, I left out Ms. Ford saying that finding Casey guilty would make her a murderer, since it was a DP trial, even though the instructions are clear that you should only deliberate guilt or innocence at that stage.

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Solange82200 For This Useful Post:


  38. #271
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbisangel View Post
    I just wish that a judge could look over everything these jurors have been saying..see what the did and do something about it. When people don't follow the judge's instructions isn't there anything that can be done. They say that "the state couldn't prove how Caylee died"...well they didn't have to. Didn't any of them watch Scott Peterson and see that he ended up on death row but there was no cause of death. It amazes me that 12 people could all ignore the evidence...disregard the judge's instructions and it is ok! I hope they are all shaking in their shoes with fear that someone is going to get them. I hope everyone that they know is disgusted with them for such a terrible outcome. I hope they see little Caylee in their nightmares every night and she is saying "you were wrong..my mama killed me."
    This isn't intended to offend, but I believe that this is what is causing a lot of the issues with respect to those who are criticizing the jury. In this case, IMO, the "cause of death" was the crux of the states argument for murder. The chloroform and duct tape were the glue holding the state's argument together. And the glue pretty much fell apart based on the conflicting evidence surrounding those two key elements. Even the decomposition theories for the trunk had holes, but even if they considered that to be true it doesn't point to murder. They couldn't even say for sure who put Caylee in the trunk. I think they were very astute to consider things like why didn't George call the police when he went to pick up the car if he thought it smelled like decomp? Why was he so dodgy about some details but had perfectly clarity with others. The more I read about this jury the more confident I am that they came to the correct verdict. MOO

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gladiatorqueen For This Useful Post:


  40. #272
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    158
    I don't know if its already been brought up but during the Greta interview the 11th juror said " I orchestrated the whole situation". His exact words. He said this around the last 10 min of the first interview with her.

  41. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Overuled For This Useful Post:


  42. #273
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by manatee View Post
    if the defense tampered with jury the results of "not guilty" could be null. Retrial is possible. i googled it!
    Jury tampering, witness tampering, jury discussing case before deliberations...all issues that have to be addressed during the trial in order to have an effect on trial itself. In some cases they are - a juror is removed/replaced for discussing, mistrial called for tampering etc.. BEFORE the verdict.

    After the verdict, as I understand it - the only way there could possibly be a retrial is if the defendent (not her attorney or other witnesses) directly tampered with witnesses or jurors during the trial, or directly instructed someone to do so. That would be difficult to prove even if it happened, as any party involved would be less than cooperative.

    If there was misconduct on the part of the jury without the direct/indirect involvement of the defendent, it has no effect whatsoever on the not-guilty verdict. Still double jeopardy.

  43. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jrb0124 For This Useful Post:


  44. #274
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Solange82200 View Post
    Also, I left out Ms. Ford saying that finding Casey guilty would make her a murderer, since it was a DP trial, even though the instructions are clear that you should only deliberate guilt or innocence at that stage.
    If that is the case then how come so many attorney's have been quoted as saying that DP juries have a much higher standard for evidence than those cases which are not DP?

  45. #275
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen89 View Post
    Having a second key to Casey's car wouldn't have given anyone access to her car.......

    BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE HE11 CASEY AND/OR HER CAR WAS.

    She was telling them she was in Miami, Jacksonville, not at Universal........right up until that 31st freakin day.

    Hard to put your grand-daughters body in the trunk of a car you can't freakin find.

    And when they DID find the car? Voila. It ALREADY smelled like a dead body had been in the damn car. Just like magic.
    Juror #11 was pulling this out of the sky... There was no testimony or evidence regarding the number of keys or access to the deathmobile. And, his says the prosecution was nothing but speculation? What a <selfsnip>!

  46. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to MustlyLurking For This Useful Post:


Page 11 of 67 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202161 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Greta Van Sustern "On The Record" 1/27/09
    By DAWN TREADER in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 09:27 AM
  2. Greta Van Sustern "On The Record" 1-22-09
    By DAWN TREADER in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 01-23-2009, 01:44 AM
  3. 9/01/08 Greta Van Sustern
    By DAWN TREADER in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 11:05 PM
  4. 8/29/08 Greta Van Sustern
    By DAWN TREADER in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 09:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •