2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
lorann said:
I think most everyone could have accepted their verdict even if they didn't agree with it -if they had taken some time to discuss the evidence. If they did discuss it, it must have been before they were suppose to. Some of the technical evidence - bugs, plant growth, etc was boring but necessary. This jury wanted to discuss GA being the guilty person instead of the one on trial. They were given proof that CA lied. They knew that casey was such a big liar, partied like there was no end for all of that time knowing her daughter was dead (no matter how she died, she knew Cayless was dead).
If they had gone over everything and still made the same verdit, I would not have liked it but would have at least thought they did the job the best they could. After receiving instructions on what they were to consider or not consider, they were given printed copies they could refer to. They were not to consider opening statements although they were impressed with JB's (that he did not prove) and just thought Linda's was ok. From the time they left the courtroom to deliberate, they had to select a foreman, have some meals, get their straw vote, talk in general, go over evidence and then reach a decision, and sign all of those papers ... How much time do you think they took?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget smoke breaks lunch etc.
 
Chablis said:
The State, took air samples from a confirmed cleaned/aired out car, and said, hey this proves she killed her child with chloroform, and the state ignored the FBI's analysis that said the levels were consistent with cleaning products, and we know the car was clean. I am glad I live in this GREAT country where all I stated above is not enough to KILL someone.
Click to expand...

If you review the entire FBI report he also said he was surprised to find any chloroform. And that wasn't the only evidence presented so no one has ever said that should be enough to kill anyone have they?
 
rbrnmw2 said:
Yes it's called due process, the right to a fair trial by a jury of her peers, you can bet she would have gotten a mistrial if they came out with well we had a round robin discussion and decided she was guilty because the state in their opening statement said she was a liar. When asked if they reviewed notes or evidence and they said they didn't bother every defense attorney in America would be outraged.
Click to expand...

Yup. Plus, there is no way a case as complex as this one should have only taken 10 hours. It should have taken at least 4 or more days. They should have looked at all the evidence and actually discussed it. It seems like they spent most of the time on George and what he did/didn't do. That seemed to trump everything.
 
This juror must have thought he was law enforcement and figured his "people reading" skills qualified him to investigate George. Forget all the real detective work done in this case, this guy was '10 feet away' listening to George's testimony.
 
Chablis said:
The State, took air samples from a confirmed cleaned/aired out car, and said, hey this proves she killed her child with chloroform, and the state ignored the FBI's analysis that said the levels were consistent with cleaning products, and we know the car was clean. I am glad I live in this GREAT country where all I stated above is not enough to KILL someone.
Click to expand...

There never was any testimony the trunk was cleaned out with any chemicals. In fact the trunk was never cleaned out. There were piles of dirt in it. There was some stuff taken out of the car before LE got it and Febreeze was sprayed in it and dryer sheets put in it but nobody ever said the trunk was cleaned out with a cleaning chemical.
 
rbrnmw2 said:
Yes it's called due process, the right to a fair trial by a jury of her peers, you can bet she would have gotten a mistrial if they came out with well we had a round robin discussion and decided she was guilty because the state in their opening statement said she was a liar. When asked if they reviewed notes or evidence and they said they didn't bother every defense attorney in America would be outraged.
Click to expand...

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?
 
eleni777 said:
Can anyone BLAME him. Geez...People are acting like the jurors are the spawn of Satan and want to physically harm them. I'm just thankful that he had the GUTS to even speak.
Click to expand...
Actually, he let the spawn get off......I don't want any of the jurors to be harmed, as does none of the other WS'ers here BUT, I also believe that IF they felt they made the right decision they should be able to stand up for that decision! It makes NO sense to me how it could have gone from 10-2 guilty, then 6-6 to an aquittal in 11 hours unless there was bullying & the weaker ones gave up just to escape it all. That is NOT what our justice system is about! I would have felt so much better if the ones who felt they were being pushed into a verdict they didn't agree with had immediately contacted the judge or held out for their belief. When I was younger there was a saying, "If you're scared, say you're scared"......you just can't make a decision of this magnitude & then HIDE!:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Dr.Fessel said:
There never was any testimony the trunk was cleaned out with any chemicals. In fact the trunk was never cleaned out. There were piles of dirt in it. There was some stuff taken out of the car before LE got it and Febreeze was sprayed in it and dryer sheets put in it but nobody ever said the trunk was cleaned out with a cleaning chemical.
Click to expand...

True but why bother to look at the actual testimony let's just go with what we think we heard and base our decision on that. The FBI expert said he would have expected the level found in cleaning products to have evaporated by the time the liner was examined...months later folks. That seems to have gone over the head of the jurors and others. That is why it is important to review the testimony to at least a minimal degree.
 
JSV said:
I remember Lee asking casey in a video jail visit ... Is this like the last time .... Has she had a baby before that she murdered and threw away like trash that no one ever knew about .Sounds like it . MOO
Click to expand...

oh! for three years I wonder what Lee was talking about...plus on the stand another secret he was asked about and he didn't answer:waitasec:

I think your right and it will come out....No one talk about Lee writing a book but I got Hinky feeling that he will...maybe not right away but he will.

Just like Scott Petereson sister did!
 
Solange82200 said:
I think you would feel differently if your child or loved one died at the hands of someone, yet the killer was set free by a jury who didnt even bother to look over the evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, by their own statements they decided based on:

"They didn't know the cause of death" Not required
"They didn't know when" Not required
"They suspected George" No evidence
"The family is dysfunctional" So??!
"They didn't know who had Caylee last" The DEFENDANT said she did
The non-reporting of an accident is just dandy with them

I suspect the thinking members of this jury will realize that they made quite a few errors - both in judgement and in how they assessed the case. The others will simply continue to parrot this script that they quite obviously agreed to follow.
 
Solange82200 said:
Yes, but Jose never explained what cleaning agents were used that caused it. If it were cleaning agents causing the chloroform, you really think he wouldnt explain what Casey used, where, for what reason? It was not from cleaning solution, especially considering the fact that it hadnt completely evaporated even months later. Also, the google searches for How to Make Chloroform further cement the fact that it was chloroform. Its unreasonable to think that these are all coincidences.
Click to expand...

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?
 
tfrohning said:
oh! for three years I wonder what Lee was talking about...plus on the stand another secret he was asked about and he didn't answer:waitasec:

I think your right and it will come out....No one talk about Lee writing a book but I got Hinky feeling that he will...maybe not right away but he will.

Just like Scott Petereson sister did!
Click to expand...

I wonder to this day why did that video disappear?
 
NAME CALLING! Everyone here knows that name calling is not allowed. It has to end. Please word your posts without these attacks of name calling. A week has passed and now we need to get back on track and name calling is not going to fly around here.

Stop!
 
goldenlover said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nobody looked up chloroform they looked up "how to make chloroform". They typed that into the google search bar.
 
rbrnmw2 said:
Yes it's called due process, the right to a fair trial by a jury of her peers, you can bet she would have gotten a mistrial if they came out with well we had a round robin discussion and decided she was guilty because the state in their opening statement said she was a liar. When asked if they reviewed notes or evidence and they said they didn't bother every defense attorney in America would be outraged.

ETA: The thing that bothers me the most is the WAY this jury came to their decision and it's not being given any attention at all in MSM. It sets up a dangerous precedent people in America(potential jurors) will think this is the way it's suppose to be done and it's not the way to do it at all~
Click to expand...

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:
 
elfie said:
Thanks for the links. He sounded intelligent but I noted that he mentioned GA being home on the 15th (also quoted in the link). GA was working the evening of the 15th. The 15th was the day of the visit to Mt. Dora and the video of Caylee.

The 16th was the day that GA was home in the morning to the early afternoon. I wonder how this info figured into their deliberations.
Click to expand...

He got the dates wrong more than once :banghead:
 
Italy said:
You are right - however it was testified to that the chemical is volatile and that the levels were 10x that which could be explained by other agents. Defense did NOT refute that.

Records show that an inmate where Casey was held testified that the young mother told her that she would "knock out" Caylee at night with chloroform while she went out partying.

Casey and the inmate would talk through the ventilation system.

The inmate said Casey told her, "It would help [Caylee] sleep." (WTSP.com)

Again - If I look up how to make a cherry pie there is not as a result a high level of cherry juice in my trunk.
Click to expand...

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?
 
manatee said:
these jurors had no common sense at all. or if they have it they gave it up. we know Caylee was dead and found in plastic bags and laundry bag from the home. How in the world do they think she got there? Do they think GA carried her like a sac of potatoes down the street? we have a dead body and the smell of something terrible in the trunk of a car. what does that mean? :banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...


According to the juror's ... Nothing.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 3,997 (members: 121, guests: 3,876)

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
3,876
Total visitors
3,997
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,856
Messages
17,960,086
Members
228,625
Latest member
julandken
Back
Top