2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Nova24]

Originally Posted by SATA

"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.

[beeshie]

Originally Posted by goldenlover

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.

[legalmania]

Originally Posted by fifteen89

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.

[Nova24]

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.

[Solange82200]

Originally Posted by jrb0124

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?"

[Steve4Justice]

Originally Posted by manatee

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.

[*~Aimee~*]

Originally Posted by SATA

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.

Originally Posted by rosepetal1065

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.

[SATA]

Originally Posted by rosepetal1065

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.

[*~Aimee~*]

Originally Posted by Steve4Justice

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.

[Bobbisangel]

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."

[Mysteeri]

Originally Posted by Steve4Justice

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.

[gladiatorqueen]

Originally Posted by beeshie

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.

[Solange82200]

Originally Posted by Chablis

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.

[Schu7]

Originally Posted by Steve4Justice

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

[annalia]

Originally Posted by Nova24

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.

[PrintGal]

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.

[Solange82200]

Originally Posted by fifteen89

^^^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

[manatee]

Originally Posted by *~Aimee~*

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!

[jrb0124]

Originally Posted by Solange82200

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.

[Solange82200]

Originally Posted by gladiatorqueen

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.

[gladiatorqueen]

Originally Posted by Bobbisangel

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

[Overuled]

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.

[jrb0124]

Originally Posted by manatee

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.

[gladiatorqueen]

Originally Posted by Solange82200

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?

[MustlyLurking]

Originally Posted by fifteen89

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>!