2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[wallflower67]

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.

BBM: Obviously, the levels were high enough that LE had reason to search for a reason as to why they were that high.

 

[manatee]

I just find it hard to swallow that 12+5 could all think alike. Even if several believed that ica was guilty they would have held to their beliefs and it would have taken longer than 11 hours for everyone to reach the same conclusion. Someone on that jury took control. It seems quite strange that all that came forward are saying all of Baez talking points. imo

Very strange! if it walks like JB and talks like JB it must be JB! that is what I smell. MOO

 

[2goldfish]

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

also, this http://antezeta.com/news/google-suggest-history

2008-08-25 Google Suggest enabled on Google’s google.com home page for US-centric searches (but not yet on Google’s search results page)

(my bold, this seems to indicate there were no suggested searches on the anthony computer in march of 2008)

 

[jrb0124]

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.

I understand computers.

There is no difference in the URL cached in index.dat or wherever from the page resulting from a google search vs a page you click on with a suggested search. Clicking on suggested search also produces the word+word+word URL. Go try it yourself like I did.

The forensic report (as discussed in court) consisted of URLs accessed.

There is no key logging recoverable by a forensic report, i.e. someone cannot examine your hard drive and tell which keys you pressed prior to a form entry or post/get event (clicking search, enter etc...) - only in cases where keys or the mouse is directing a page alteration.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

How is it obvious this jury dissected the evidence? Assuming they knew they could review the actual evidence it would seem that would be appropriate for any "dissecting". I know for a fact they didn't even consider any of the evidence the state presented in rebuttal. How was that disputed? It was pretty clear cut and for any juror to come to the conclusion that Cindy performed those searches shows they most certainly were not familiar with the evidence.

It's obvious to me based on juror 11. He discusses the chloroform. He discusses the decomp. He discusses the duct tape. He didn't say Cindy performed those searches (they questioned her saying that and much of her testimony as per her level of stress and that she was on quite a few medications). He did discuss the posted cartoon and the 1 search following. He also stated that the search was on the family computer not the laptop. Following that he then states that there was no evidence that Casey purchased items to make chloroform and that it was made.

 

[MustlyLurking]

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.

There are many things that this jury did not understand! Everything?

 

[Solange82200]

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

The problem is Gladiator (and thank you for always being so kind, you are a good debater and you are much better than me in disagreeing but being polite at the same time lol) is that I don't see the conflicting evidence around the chloroform and duct tape. I think I know what you see as conflicting, but I cant see it. And I dont know how we could think anyone but Casey put Caylee in the trunk, since it was her car, her parents didn't know where she nor the car were, and the jail house conversation between her and George was very clear that he didnt know what was going on. Maybe I missed it, I havent completely caught up, but why do you think George is encouraging Casey to speak to the authorities, and why is he talking as if he knows nothing of what is going on? Is it reasonable to think he and Casey were both acting?

I don't understand how George not calling the police when finding the car is seen as cause for suspicion, but Casey not calling the police when she KNOWS FOR SURE her daughter is dead is somehow not suspicious? Isn't it reasonable to assume that since Cindy had been in constant contact with Casey, and she was saying Caylee was fine, that George would just tell himself the smell was garbage? I think that kind of denial is quite easily understood. Not to mention, Cindy seems to always make all the decisions, Im sure he would have left it up to her, which seems to be what happened.

 

[SATA]

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.

I bet he did.

I have a big problem with this jury. This case is HUGE and has been all over the media for three years. I am in Denmark - I know about this case. Yet the jury mustn't know too much about the case, and I can see why that is necessary to avoid prejudice.
But that leaves you with a jury-pool of people who are not interested in the society and world around them. Some don´t have cable tv, no Internet, no newspapers. In a sense they are unsophisticated people - I am not saying they are STUPID - they are just not used to deal with a lot of new information, being content in their lives without much input except for family, friends and local stuff. I find that problematic - this was a very complicated case. And to hear that the foreman boldly states that he can "read" people and therefore thinks that George is probably guilty (he basically said that at the end of the Fox interview).
I hope you understand what I am saying. I think this is worrying. I don´t trust the jury system, I didn't prior to this case, I do even less now. Juries go by emotion too often, as we can see in this case.
I hate to think of an innocent person on the stand in a capital case, and the jury foreman is convinced he can "read" you, and he influences the rest of the jury to dislike you too - or they do anyway. They´ll not listen to the evidence, just convict you because they can "read" you and don´t like you. I BET that has happened many, many, many times through the years, well, I know it has. SCARY.

 

[jrb0124]

Seriously? You find it more reasonable that someone used Cindy;s login and did her work for her (since it shows all kinds of work entry for her patients)? And that her boss would commit perjury on the stand about changing her hours? You think that is reasonable? .

No I don't and I said as much.

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.

 

[Overuled]

Why would a juror quit their job and leave their state? Why hide from what you felt was a just verdict. Why not stand up for what you believe in, thats what most people would do if they had nothing to hide. I think the "been threatened" copout is just an excuse to avoid the eventual questions coming down the pike.

 

[2goldfish]

also, here are the links to two searches I just performed: first was google suggest, the latter was hand typed, no quote marks

[ame="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1023&bih=661&q=what+is+in+the+water+in+pinellas+county&aq=0j&aqi=g-j1&aql=f&oq=what+is+in+the+water+in+pine"]what is in the water in pinellas county - Google Search[/ame]

[ame="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1023&bih=661&q=what+is+in+the+water+in+pinellas+county&aq=f&aqi=g-j1&aql=f&oq="]what is in the water in pinellas county - Google Search[/ame]

you can clearly see the difference.


eta: forum "fixed" the searches for me, you might have to run them yourself to verify as clicking the "fixed" links might add a referral. the search is "what is in the water in pinellas county" without quote marks

 

[Solange82200]

It's obvious to me based on juror 11. He discusses the chloroform. He discusses the decomp. He discusses the duct tape. He didn't say Cindy performed those searches (they questioned her saying that and much of her testimony as per her level of stress and that she was on quite a few medications). He did discuss the posted cartoon and the 1 search following. He also stated that the search was on the family computer not the laptop. Following that he then states that there was no evidence that Casey purchased items to make chloroform and that it was made.

Is it reasonable to expect to find that evidence after almost a year? Casey didn't have a bank account or her own credit card, whatever she bought was probably with cash. And do we really expect her to leave the chloroform lying around the house 6 months to a year after the fact? I just don;t think that with all the other evidence pointing to murder, that not having those two things really is enough to have reasonable doubt.

 

[JSR]

I just find it hard to swallow that 12+5 could all think alike. Even if several believed that ica was guilty they would have held to their beliefs and it would have taken longer than 11 hours for everyone to reach the same conclusion. Someone on that jury took control. It seems quite strange that all that came forward are saying all of Baez talking points. imo

BBM. And my $$ is that it was Jennifer Ford one of the first jurors to come forward. She seemed completely detached she claims she can sleep like a baby at night even though she witnessed a 2 year old girls remains that were dumped like trash and where eaten by animals!!! How can you sleep well at night knowing that alone??? And she also complained of seeing beautiful pools and not being allowed to swim in them. Who does that??? Who gets upset about not being able to swim when you're sitting on a MURDER case???

Each time I hear the jury talk I'm more convinced that something really hinky went down. JB has been known to not be the most ethical of men, I hope he didn't go so far as to buy Casey's acquittal.

Would I be surprised if he did. Absolutely not.

I just get so much more disappointed in these 12 people each time I hear them talk. They clearly didn't listen or understand the evidence. And these are supposed to be educated people.

 

[Solange82200]

No I don't and I said as much.

I know, I did see that, but you seem to think it's reasonable to think that she didn't. I don't even see that as reasonable, which I guess is where we disagree.

 

[MustlyLurking]

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.

Confusing this jury was a simple task. JB did that on day one and used the balance of the trial to reel them in with their emotions. JA stuck to facts and figures which were, mostly, lost on these jury members. They used their feelings to arrive at a decision, instead of considering the facts.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

The problem is Gladiator (and thank you for always being so kind, you are a good debater and you are much better than me in disagreeing but being polite at the same time lol) is that I don't see the conflicting evidence around the chloroform and duct tape. I think I know what you see as conflicting, but I cant see it.

If you can't see it then it would appear there is no point in us debating it?

I don't understand how George not calling the police when finding the car is seen as cause for suspicion, but Casey not calling the police when she KNOWS FOR SURE her daughter is dead is somehow not suspicious? Isn't it reasonable to assume that since Cindy had been in constant contact with Casey, and she was saying Caylee was fine, that George would just tell himself the smell was garbage? I think that kind of denial is quite easily understood.

Possibly understood but there are many things that made George not very credible to Juror 11.

The 31 days is definitely suspicious, but that is sometimes how people react to something traumatic. For example, there were recently two cases in Canada of women giving birth at home (pregnancy denial) and one was born stillborn and the other with its umbilical cord apparently wrapped around its neck. In both cases the women dumped the dead babies in the garbage. Although it's rare, I do think that type of reaction is possible and given Casey's history of lying (and all the pattern of lying within the family) makes it a possibility.

 

[jojomonkey]

I just find it hard to swallow that 12+5 could all think alike. Even if several believed that ica was guilty they would have held to their beliefs and it would have taken longer than 11 hours for everyone to reach the same conclusion. Someone on that jury took control. It seems quite strange that all that came forward are saying all of Baez talking points. imo

I totally agree, they only had to get to one juror to taint the entire pool. It sounds like they are regurgitating the same things - seems like they took the easy route and just relied on one person to tell them what to do.

 

[Etilema]

I just did a quick search. but the verdict would be overturned.

http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=50546

http://www.hoeyfarina.com/railroadhfnotguiltyoverturned

Thanks for finding those. Fascinating!

 

[jrb0124]

I have already addressed what you call conflicting testimony, I will do it again but it really was explained in court. One expert Dr Vass studies only decomposing bodies. He is used to seeing SMALL amounts of chloroform sometimes, but compared to those amounts, what was in Casey;s car was shockingly high compared to those small amounts, and basically could not be from a decomposing body based on the amount.

The other expert studies all kinds of chemicals and areas, some of which had chloroform or a cleaning product that might have caused it. Compared to what he sees since he studies COMPLETELY different areas than Vass, it wasnt shockingly high. It was still high, but he'd seen it before.

It is possible to have chloroform from cleaning products, but not likely is what I heard. Especially the cleaning products nowadays. If it was the result of a cleaning product, wouldnt the defense have shown us the product and how it caused chloroform? You think on a trial where someone is fighting for her life, they wouldnt have tried to explain that?

Jennifer Ford specifically said that not knowing the cause of death was her problem. She didnt say manner. The evidence seems clear to the majority that it was murder, and that is what you need by law, not cause of death. She was given a cause of death (suffocation by duct tape), but she seemed to think that since the ME couldnt find it scientifically (since Casey led everyone on a wild goosechase long enough for the remains to be only bones), that therefore she couldnt convict of murder. There are many cases where not even a body is found, yet you can convict someone of murder.

I think you meant to say "could not from anything other than a decomposing body".

So if the amounts were so shockingly high, why didn't the UCF professor chemist concur or at least not say that his findings re: air samples, were consistent with gasoline? He say it could be decomp, but that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt from that witness. he admitted his equipment was not like the triple trap Dr. Vass used, but then the defense went after the Oak Ridge folks re: protocal, custody etc... See how this all devolves? After all the witnesses on chloroform, nothing is readily apparent. Reasonable doubt then moves into that vacuum.

I think Jennifer Ford is trying to articulate that without knowing how Caylee died, they could not move on to determine it was a homicide.

The argument re: conviction without a body usually involves more circumstantial evidence, overwhelming evidence of motive, and a distinct lack of anyone else who could be responsible.

 

[Solange82200]

I understand computers.

There is no difference in the URL cached in index.dat or wherever from the page resulting from a google search vs a page you click on with a suggested search. Clicking on suggested search also produces the word+word+word URL. Go try it yourself like I did.

The forensic report (as discussed in court) consisted of URLs accessed.

There is no key logging recoverable by a forensic report, i.e. someone cannot examine your hard drive and tell which keys you pressed prior to a form entry or post/get event (clicking search, enter etc...) - only in cases where keys or the mouse is directing a page alteration.

But I think you are agreeing with part of what I said, that even if the search is suggested, it would not appear in the url UNLESS the person clicked on search and basically accepted the suggestion.

Why would she search the suggested suggestion, How to Make Chloroform? Even if it was suggested, you agree she searched it right?