2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[JMCDAD]

my gosh...do you REALLY think these people went into deliberations and said...."you know what? Im over this, lets just say not guilty so we can all go home" ...really? do you REALLY think this??? IMO these people all found their reasonable doubt throughout the trial. they ALL had reasonable doubt before they were sent off...there was tons of it . CA herself could have represented herself and poked holes in the states case.

I too followed this case here on WS and anywhere else I could get info. followed every doc dump, and news clipping out there. read tons of letters, reports, pictures, cell phone pings and records ,,,to be honest, realistically I new from early on that she would probably walk. not that I wanted her to, but knew pretty much that she would. IMO the state did an AWESOME job at painting the picture, and did an amazing job with what they had to work with. but from the beginning all the way up to the end it was ALL circumstancial...ALL OF IT!!!

of course this person hid their face!!! are you serious???? look at how this person is viewed here on this website for crying out loud! and it isnt any better out in the real world (vrs cyber world) . now these jurors are getting slammed for getting paid for interviews? um, how long could you go without a paycheck??? I would take any and every interview I could! and I would do NONE for free!

on the subject of this jury, I think it horrible what they are dealing with. they took 2 months out of their lives, and sat through some traumitic *****.

few people are happy with this verdict, but we put our trust in them (the jury). dont be a sore loser and leave these people alone

doubt maybe, REASONABLE DOUBT, nope, nada

I guess you think that its possible that Laci Peterson just drowned then too.....

 

[6stringer]

i'm not watching ANY of the post trial coverage

too sickening.

i just wonder of the foreman was the person ICA was winking at the last day of trial.

i'd really like to know that.

BBM...OMG!!!! really?????

 

[MarthaM]

I missed that part about 10-2 guilty! I did see that the initial vote on manslaughter was 6-6. But where was the 10-2 mentioned?

It wasn't.

Juror #3 (I think) was the one who referenced a 10-2 vote, but it was 10-2 in favor of Not Guilty on 1st Degree Murder.

 

[6stringer]

doubt maybe, REASONABLE DOUBT, nope, nada

I guess you think that its possible that Laci Peterson just drowned then too.....

cant comment on that case...didnt follow it, know nothing about it. I must not have been too far off with my opionions, was right for 3 years.

my own added disclaimer...."ICA" is def guilty IMO, not sure of what, but guilty of her childs murder. thought that for 3 years. but realistically, I have known for 3 years that there was nothing concrete enough to convict her

 

[Serjen]

I missed that part about 10-2 guilty! I did see that the initial vote on manslaughter was 6-6. But where was the 10-2 mentioned?

I believe it was the same juror (2) and maybe J. Ford who both mentioned the 10-2. Juror 2 said at first vote for Murder 1 it was 10-2 and those 2 were convinced that there wasn't enough evidence to get her for Murder 1 pretty quickly. It was the Manslaughter charge that took more time since it was a split.

 

[sappysoul]

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



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.

Can you name another case where a child went missing or died accidentally and the mother lied and partied? Please don't compare this to denial which can involve delusions. Casey did not have delusions. She made up lies to fit the situation and changed them depending on who she was talking to. That is NOT symptomatic of denial.

 

[Friday]

Re getting at the real truth about whether this juror (or anyone else) is being paid for their interviews.

After my 3 years at CBS, I can assure you that when the media wants to hide something--like paying jurors for appearances--there's only one way to get the whole truth from them: You must phrase your question in a way that shuts off all their escape routes.

For example: "Greta, did this juror, or his family, or a designee receive compensation in any form, for any reason, from FOX or anyone associated with your program?"

Now that ABC et al have been outed for their "licensing fee" evasion technique, you can bet these organizations have already come up with new ones to avoid telling the public (and their competition) that they are paying for interviews.

 

[costalpilot]

BBM...OMG!!!! really?????

yes REALLY.. i caught it on the NG tape of 7/4 at the 12 minute mark, when Nancy says the jury "will elect a foreman, foreperson"

ICA bends her head to the right and down towards the table (to hide it), then gives a distinctive, communicative wink at someone in her 12 oclock position.

i wish i could find the tape on the net. i have it on my dtv tape.

i'd really like others to see it.


i dont know who she was winking at, but the jury may have bee3n in the room and I think they were at her 12 oclock position.

 

[sappysoul]

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.

BBM

IIRC his samples were taken 2 years later and were contained in open air. If the jury couldn't see this and recognize how this (not Vass being incorrect) accounted for the differences then I just don't know what to say to that.

 

[JMCDAD]

cant comment on that case...didnt follow it, know nothing about it. I must not have been too far off with my opionions, was right for 3 years.

my own added disclaimer...."ICA" is def guilty IMO, not sure of what, but guilty of her childs murder. thought that for 3 years. but realistically, I have known for 3 years that there was nothing concrete enough to convict her

circumstantial evidence is still evidence under the law
although I would have disagreed with an acquittal, at least I would have felt a better if they at least deliberated, they didn't.
You think they would have wanted to go back and review and analyze to make sure they were doing the right thing. They didn't
For example a number of the defense's arguments didn;t make sense or conflicted with another argument they made, not reasonable
So of course I don;t agree with any threats or anything like that towards the jury, but criticism, yeah I think they deserve to be criticized not only for the verdict that they came to, but also for their lack of deliberation.
Caylee deserved more

 

[sappysoul]

Re getting at the real truth about whether this juror (or anyone else) is being paid for their interviews.

After my 3 years at CBS, I can assure you that when the media wants to hide something--like paying jurors for appearances--there's only one way to get the whole truth from them: You must phrase your question in a way that shuts off all their escape routes.

For example: "Greta, did this juror, or his family, or a designee receive compensation in any form, for any reason, from FOX or anyone associated with your program?"

Now that ABC et al have been outed for their "licensing fee" evasion technique, you can bet these organizations have already come up with new ones to avoid telling the public (and their competition) that they are paying for interviews.

Sounds like the only way to be sure is to not watch and/or boycott their sponsors.

 

[STEADFAST]

There are a couple of talking points I've seen brought up repeatedly here and elsewhere that just don't make any sense to me. The first is that the jury only listened to and accepted the defense's Opening Statement. I think that any jury listens to both Openings and everything else during a trial, as they should. Those statements are part of a trial for a reason, as are the Closings. People are acting as if nothing in the defense Opening came in as evidence later in the trial. That's simply not the case.
(Respectfully snipped and bolded to indicate what part I'm referring to.)

What in the defense's opening statement came in as evidence? No evidence of drowning. No evidence Caylee could open the back door to get outside. No evidence George was present when Caylee died. No evidence George ever molested Casey. No evidence Casey suffers from a specific mental disorder that would cause her to go on happily when her baby died. No evidence that George would be likely to treat his granddaughter's body with such disrespect. No evidence that George ever touched Caylee's dead body. No evidence George ever had access to Casey's car June 16 - July 15. No evidence Kronk is a "morally bankrupt person." No evidence Kronk moved the body from the woods, hid it, or put duct tape on her skull. I just can't think of anything in the opening statement that the defense was able to provide evidence for.

 

[fifteen89]

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.

Unless the Judge is in the deliberation room, he can't help keep jurors on track and make sure they're follow the jurying instructions (like reminding COD is not required etc). The Judge can't answer what he ain't asked. The Judge can't step in and say 'that's not the law' or 'there's no requirement that anyone prove this or that' unless he's aware of what's beinig said during deliberations.

 

[fifteen89]

What in the defense's opening statement came in as evidence? No evidence of drowning. No evidence Caylee could open the back door to get outside. No evidence George was present when Caylee died. No evidence George ever molested Casey. No evidence Casey suffers from a specific mental disorder that would cause her to go on happily when her baby died. No evidence that George would be likely to treat his granddaughter's body with such disrespect. No evidence that George ever touched Caylee's dead body. No evidence George ever had access to Casey's car June 16 - July 15. No evidence Kronk is a "morally bankrupt person." No evidence Kronk moved the body from the woods, hid it, or put duct tape on her skull. I just can't think of anything in the opening statement that the defense was able to provide evidence for.

And what else was said about this 'morally bankrupt' human being? Didn't JB say that Kronk "obviously had control over the body for months"? Or something like that?

 

[jrb0124]

BBM

IIRC his samples were taken 2 years later and were contained in open air. If the jury couldn't see this and recognize how this (not Vass being incorrect) accounted for the differences then I just don't know what to say to that.

No, Dr. Sigman collected both the sample he analyzed (National Crime lab at UCF) and the sample sent to Dr. Vass on the same day (7/21). He used the same method to collect both samples (gas tight syringe). He collected more samples 2 days later using the other method, again keeping one to analyze and having the other sent to Vass.

Just like "if the jury can't see 84 chloroform searches and figure it out...", and "the RM myspace pic went up after the chloroform search so how could they think that..." (also both stated as facts in this thread) the misinformation here seems to mostly slant in one direction.

 

[tiffertots]

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.

So how do you feel about the dogs?? Were they wrong too??

 

[fifteen89]

Anyone have a link to what juror #2 said? TIA.

Anyone?

 

[jrb0124]

So how do you feel about the dogs?? Were they wrong too??

I'm not arguing all of the evidence, just pointing out where people are posting inaccurate information as fact or asserting that the State was never challenged on evidence and then in the next breath questioning why the jury didn't consider it.

 

[katydid23]

THANK YOU VINNIE !

He is doing a great job replaying the foreperson's interview and looking at it point by point. I appreciate Vinnie for doing this. he is trying to stay objective but obviously weird things are presenting themselves. Like, for example , his calling everything the state put forward as "ONLY SPECULATION" ---and yet he seems to take AS FACT, the things they "LEARNED" from the DT's OS. He accepted AS FACT that Caylee could open the sliding glass door, yet he could not accept there was ever a body in the trunk or even that Casey was the one who took the body to the swamp.

 

[Sabrina2011]

I would just like to hear ONE juror say they made a mistake. That will begin to restore my faith in these people. Mistakes happen, this is a biggie, but man up and say you probably made a mistake if you really feel you did.