2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jrb0124 said:
Honestly....?

90% of the talking heads I see on the different channels profess outrage (or at least strong disagreement) with the verdict, while admonishing the jury, questioning their intelligence, and positing that they should hide their faces from the public mob. Some are even wondering aloud if this verdict necessitates a change in the legal system. The talking heads I hear who support the jury decision are being shouted down and chastised by their colleagues.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fifteen89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly but that would require putting two and two together.
 
jrb0124 said:
I've always been skeptical of the claim that someone typed that in.

You can Google something and have "suggested searches" tacked on, which when you click on them load another search page.

The URL of the typed in search page (with the serch terms linked with "+") is the same as a URL of the linked page.

For example I did a search for 'What is playdough'? and got this URL:

http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+playdough&hl=en&sa=2

There was a link on the page that said 'make your own playdoh', and that URL is:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=make+your+own+playdoh

How do you tell the difference? There is no key logging utility or file native to Windows. Just because LDB said "someone typed it in" doesn't mean it happened.Remember, the prosecution kept claiming "84 chloroform searches", before the defense got Stringer back up there and made him admit it was most likely 1 chloroform page access and 84 myspace accesses.

If you truly believe after all the testimony that there were 84 chloroform searches and no myspace accessess, that is unreasonable. The fact that the State knew about both reports and chose to ignore the realistic one and run with the tainted one was a big NO-NO, dumb, short-sighted, and called into question the credibility of all the computer forensics.
Click to expand...

^^^BBM^^^
I believe the computer forensics expert witness said it, not LDB.
 
goldenlover said:
The defense did rebutt the chloroform, with the FBI crime lab expert, the one that the state chose not to put on the stand. He said the levels were not excessively high and that what was there could very possibly be from cleaning agents and other things.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dog.gone.cute said:
: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:
Click to expand...

I totally agree. There is something wrong with this jury and it needs to be investigated e.g tampering, bullying, outside influences to name a few. I also think more should be found out about this foreman's background. Something is not right in Denmark or Pinellis County for that matter.:waitasec:
 
Steve4Justice said:
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.
Click to expand...

The defense did put on a air-sample test chemist from UCF (or FIU)?

This was the guy who shipped some of the samples to Vass.

This was the guy who also tested the air samples (twice) and concluded consistency with gasoline.

The defense also put on another university chemist who testified that there is no scientific way to accurately determine decomposition based on air samples.

Yes, JA scored a few points with these witnesses in getting them to admit that their results could be consistent with decomposition, but that does nothing to remove reasonable doubt: they could also be consistent with something else...and in the case of the air sample test they actually were consistent with something else: gasoline.
 
If a number of jurors declare they will never change their votes--regardless of attempts of others to deliberate with them--can't they be thrown off the jury? Failure to deliberate?
What a cruel cosmic joke it was that there were twelve of such (fill in the blank) chosen for this case.
 
Juror 11:
"When -- you know, when the defense got up, then that's when they started throwing out things that we did not know. And that's where it really kind of hit us. It was something that we had to kind of sit back and let soak in and just see where he went with from there."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...e-and-suspicions-george-anthony#ixzz1RuymvoEl

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.
 
denjet said:
That pretty much said it all ... something so obvious regardless of who did the dumping ... he also didn't like being forced to look at he crime scene photos ...
Unbelievable ...
Click to expand...

He also said it was those photos that made them realize how serious this case really was! Huh? :crazy:
 
SATA said:
Juror 11:
"When -- you know, when the defense got up, then that's when they started throwing out things that we did not know. And that's where it really kind of hit us. It was something that we had to kind of sit back and let soak in and just see where he went with from there."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...e-and-suspicions-george-anthony#ixzz1RuymvoEl

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
goldenlover said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
fifteen89 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
jrb0124 said:
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
Click to expand...

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?"
 
manatee said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.:websleuther:
 
SATA said:
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.
Click to expand...

rosepetal1065 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought they were discussing things when they asked to see the heart shaped sticker. It was obvious then.​
 
rosepetal1065 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steve4Justice said:
I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.:websleuther:
Click to expand...

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. ​
 
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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 3,790 (members: 194, guests: 3,596)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
3,596
Total visitors
3,790
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,820
Messages
17,959,599
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top