2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kat said:
:waitasec: how does that profession make him experienced in observing people in regard to if they are telling the truth or not?

Or am I confusing this juror with another one that might have implied that they could do that?
Click to expand...

Nope, that was him. He told Greta he could 'read' people because of his job. And because he was only 10 feet away from George he could 'read him' and see that he was more involved than he let on. Maybe even including MURDERING CAYLEE.

This juror has stated that they discussed the possibility of George being the true killer. NOT CASEY, because the mountains of evidence and witness testimony was too speculative. So they decided she was 'sincere' and even though they thought the baby was dead in Casey's trunk, they could not decide who put it there.

DID THEY EVEN KNOW THAT CASEY HAD THE CAR DURING THE TIME IT STUNK?
 
So....this "juror" said that George murdered Caylee???

So now he's admitting she was murdered?

WHYWHYWHY are any of them jumping to conclusions about GA when there was NO evidence to that effect,

Yet they REFUSED to convict KC when there WAS evidence she was the one and only one who MURDERED Caylee.

This makes no sense whatsoever. I vote this jury as the most pathetic jury ever impaneled anywhere. To quote Cindy Anthony,"There's something wrong..."
 
zeeks said:
The interesting thing about this juror was that on July 5 one of the commentators on In Session stated that they thought juror #11 was a good candidate for foreman. That commentator said that if it was him (Juror 11) 'deliberations will be quicker and pretty efficient.'

Apparently the commentators felt he was engaged, involved, efficient and organized and therefore would bring a quick result. Well he did and now people "can't understand it". Guess he was quick and efficient. Good for him.
Click to expand...

YUP. Quick and Efficient but he made huge errors. He gave the jury incorrect information. They just accepted what he said because he was so commanding and efficient. But he did NOT FOLLOW the jury instructions. Even in his interviews he gives key facts and dates incorrectly. HIS CONCLUSION IS THAT GEORGE MAY HAVE MURDERED CAYLEE.

I had a supervisor just like him once. Her word was the last word. But she was usually WRONG. But she would never admit it. She would say, this is how we are going to handle this, I looked up the regulations. Then she would lead us down the wrong road completely. But she did so quickly and efficiently.
 
Prof said:
Aha! Like his word jumbles throughout the interview, he got his jobs mixed up?
Orchestrate:
Arrange or direct the elements of (a situation) to produce a desired effect, esp. surreptitiously

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/orchestrate?region=us

Foreperson : The jury foreperson's duty is to preside and see that discussion during deliberations is carried on in a free and orderly manner, that the case and issues are fully and freely discussed, and that every juror is given a chance to participate in the discussion. As the deliberations conclude, the foreperson counts the votes and completes and signs the verdict form.

http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/2749813/
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure he got his jobs mixed up. :crazy: I'm convinced he DID 'orchestrate' this verdict. jmo
 
Murder part was right but wrong person. Even the DT said GA didn't murder her. Guess they missed that. And GA would have called 911 and done CPR if there was a drowning. There would be no duct tape or chloro or baby in a trunk for a drowning. The jury screwed up. I would love to know how many of them now know that.
 
shgrbkr said:
So....this "juror" said that George murdered Caylee???

So now he's admitting she was murdered?

WHYWHYWHY are any of them jumping to conclusions about GA when there was NO evidence to that effect,

Yet they REFUSED to convict KC when there WAS evidence she was the one and only one who MURDERED Caylee.

This makes no sense whatsoever. I vote this jury as the most pathetic jury ever impaneled anywhere. To quote Cindy Anthony,"There's something wrong..."
Click to expand...

No. It was a possibility that they discussed. But even that's bad enough!
 
msinformed said:
I'm not so sure he got his jobs mixed up. :crazy: I'm convinced he DID 'orchestrate' this verdict. jmo
Click to expand...

The orchestrate bothers me. I almost fear he was paid off. Something is just off. 99% of what he says is false.

I also wonder how the 6 who thought she was Guilty of Agg Man feel about his comments. I wonder if they feel they were played by ICA and the Foreman.
 
katydid23 said:
YUP. Quick and Efficient but he made huge errors. He gave the jury incorrect information. They just accepted what he said because he was so commanding and efficient. But he did NOT FOLLOW the jury instructions. Even in his interviews he gives key facts and dates incorrectly. HIS CONCLUSION IS THAT GEORGE MAY HAVE MURDERED CAYLEE.

I had a supervisor just like him once. Her word was the last word. But she was usually WRONG. But she would never admit it. She would say, this is how we are going to handle this, I looked up the regulations. Then she would lead us down the wrong road completely. But she did so quickly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

I so wish I had been one of these jurors in that deliberation room. I would have worked endlessly to get them to see she was guilty of murder 1. The circumstantial evidence is what they failed to give enough weight to, as well as failing to grasp what kind of person ICA is.
 
Nova24 said:
The orchestrate bothers me. I almost fear he was paid off. Something is just off. 99% of what he says is false.

I also wonder how the 6 who thought she was Guilty of Agg Man feel about his comments. I wonder if they feel they were played by ICA and the Foreman.
Click to expand...

Supposedly everyone has their price. Sooner of later someone will get paid off enough to spill what REALLY happened in that jury room.
 
HatesSociopaths said:
I so wish I had been one of these jurors in that deliberation room. I would have worked endlessly to get them to see she was guilty of murder 1. The circumstantial evidence is what they failed to give enough weight to, as well as failing to grasp what kind of person ICA is.
Click to expand...

They wanted the CSI ending - wrapped up an the end of the hour, neat and tidy. What they didn't want to do is work. They put in their hours, but they didn't work. All of us probably work with people like that. How sad they managed to pull a whole jury room full during the process.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...ans-verdict-on-the-verdict/?playlist_id=86925
---------------VIDEO with Greta VS---On The Record---

July 13, 2011
Casey Foreman's Verdict on the Verdict

Juror No. 11 reflects on Casey Anthony, 'disgust' over signing the verdict form, mood in the jury room and more

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...ssues-shell-battle-forever/?playlist_id=86925
----------VIDEO with Greta VS-- On The Record---

July 13, 2011
Foreman on Casey: She Has Issues She'll Battle Forever

Juror No. 11 reflects on Casey Anthony, 'disgust' over signing the verdict form, mood in the jury room and more
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Okay. This tells us that they decided that Caylee's death happened in the house. Now, there were only two cars there; George's and Casey's. So why is it such a big debate about which car had a decomposing body in it? The one that stunk, had death-band hair and two dogs hit on ~ or the other one that was pristine?

This is a small example of "connecting the dots." It's not even critical thinking; I know because I'm not good at that. They should have been able to deduce, at the very least, that Caylee's dead body was in Casey's car ~ if they had given it any effort, brainstorming or real exchange of ideas.

The insight of his saying that they (he) concluded it was only a "good possibility" and they only considered it a "suspicion" that Casey's car was used tells me the jury did not do their due diligence.

And this is only one example of which we have knowledge. I am sick.
Click to expand...

Seriously. He says "it was possible the body was put in Casey's trunk, BUT WAS IT TAKEN OUT AND PUT IN ANOTHER CAR? "

Who and when did anyone suggest that she was ever in another car? WHY did they even consider that? The dump site is 2 minutes away by car. Why would anyone 'change' cars?

And then they could not connect the dots as to WHO had the car. That makes no sense. There was no evidence or testimony that anyone else ever had the car but Casey while it was stinking. But for some reason they decided it was too much of a 'grey area.'

I always figured that if the state could prove the body was in Casey's trunk, then the jury could connect the dots that at the very least, Casey dumped the body. Guess not. That was too much 'speculation.' Casey is driving around with her dead child in the trunk, but HEY, that does not prove anything, right?

Just because she was driving around with a dead child in her trunk, and she refused to report her child missing, that does not mean that her Dad wasn't the killer, right?
 
This is going to sound completely off-topic, but just stick with me....it'll come around to my point.

Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").

After listening to the Foreman's interviews, he completely reminds me of that guy. The way he talks, how he obviously has issue with GA, but seems to defend CA and ICA.

I don't pretend to understand this personality type, but just wanted to share. I kept watching the interviews and kept feeling like, I know that guy!! Of course I don't.
 
imagirlgeek said:
This is going to sound completely off-topic, but just stick with me....it'll come around to my point.

Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").

After listening to the Foreman's interviews, he completely reminds me of that guy. The way he talks, how he obviously has issue with GA, but seems to defend CA and ICA.

I don't pretend to understand this personality type, but just wanted to share. I kept watching the interviews and kept feeling like, I know that guy!! Of course I don't.
Click to expand...

LOL, ima, I've never worked in the software industry but I have worked with that guy, too!

Warmest welcome to Websleuths!!! :welcome: Glad you're here.
 
imagirlgeek said:
Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").
Click to expand...


Interest view here. If this it is true, it would be a match to his life. Educated(supposedly) good job, good looks, 30 sometime and not married. Any woman who gets to know him runs away FAST! While we have now got to know him a bit. And we should run away FAST!

Nice post!
 
imagirlgeek said:
This is going to sound completely off-topic, but just stick with me....it'll come around to my point.

Have any of you ever worked with that one guy who thinks he has all the answers? Is for some reason slightly superior to everyone else? Is kind of 'braggy' about stuff no one really cares about? And this guy manages to passive-aggressively put down the other men you all work with? But it's really subtle, he's good at it. This same guy is overly helpful to the women in the department, even when they don't really need it. But he thinks they do because he knows the best way to do everything, and he has to tell everyone that they should do it the same way he does...because it's just better. And he's really pushy about it. He doesn't listen, he just talks.

Well, I do. I work in the software industry and there is always this guy at every company. It's just the nature of the beast. It's always the same. This guy picks out flaws in the other guys in the company to try and tear them down. But, when it comes to the women, he will defend them to the ends of the earth. There can be a really strong employee who is a guy, and he rips him apart (he's a threat). And there can be a really weak employee who is female and he makes excuses and covers for her (out of pity, like "oh...she can't help it...she's a girl...don't hurt her feelings, she's sensitive").

After listening to the Foreman's interviews, he completely reminds me of that guy. The way he talks, how he obviously has issue with GA, but seems to defend CA and ICA.

I don't pretend to understand this personality type, but just wanted to share. I kept watching the interviews and kept feeling like, I know that guy!! Of course I don't.
Click to expand...

The more the foreman goes on it is apparent he didn't look at the evidence, he was making up his own! Everything he says he thought about and considered goes back to the defense opening statement. Unless I missed something there was no evidence GA was involved but thats all he can talk about. The more these jurors talk they prove they didn't follow the law. The last thing the jurors should do is talk to media and lie. Do they not realize we are listening to every word!
 
Dcstew said:
The more the foreman goes on it is apparent he didn't look at the evidence, he was making up his own! Everything he says he thought about and considered goes back to the defense opening statement. Unless I missed something the was no evidence GA was involved but thats all he can talk about. The more these jurors talk they prove they didn't follow the law. The last thing the jurors should do is talk to media and lie. Do they not realize we are listening to every word!
Click to expand...

Exactly! I just get the feeling that he didn't like the prosecution because JA was such a strong figure. IMO, the prosecution really had it together. JA has a presence. Foreman went around and peed in all the corners. I just can't accept that he believes all the stuff that he's saying. I think his compulsion to be the biggest, baddest, best, smartest, yada yada yada, coupled with his pushy ways led to this horrible judgement. Or I should say, lack of judgement. I know there were a lot of factors. There were 12 people involved, but I think his 'leadership' was a huge part of how it all went down.

VAN SUSTEREN: You -- you were still (INAUDIBLE). You go into the room, and how did you get selected? What's the process? Did someone say, Hey, number 11, why don't you do it? Or did you vote on it? How did..?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was -- we really didn't vote on it. I walked in, and they said, We need to find out who the foreperson's going to be. And just about everybody said me. So you know, I was honored.
VAN SUSTEREN: There was no -- no one else said, I'd like to do it, or anything?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was -- there was one other person who did want to do it, and then everyone basically said, no (INAUDIBLE)
 
Wasn't juror #11 the one who has a relative that works for the FBI or something? I think that this jury may have been intimidated by him. He was a PE teacher, and I had several PE teachers in my day who were very, very arrogant, and often mean. They think that their gym classes rise up above everything and everyone. And this juror had been "teaching" for about 15 years.

The way that he talked to Greta was very authoritarian. "I decided this. I did that. If you want to know more about what happened in the jury room, I can tell you. I was involved with organizing everything."

This juror was also believed to be organized and good looking, so maybe the others saw a leader here. A bad leader in the eyes of the public who saw the trial with the not guilty verdict to be despicable. However, I think he came across as "I know all the answers." I sense that of the ten hours of deliberations, nine of those hours were spent trying to get the two jurors who initially polled for first degree murder, on to his side.

Unconfirmed reports that juror #2 said there were six jurors who were looking at the alternative manslaughter and child abuse charges from count 2 and 3. Do we know that for sure about juror #2? When did juror #2 speak? All I heard was Juror #3 (Ms. Ford) and the unidentified Foreperson (Juror #11.) At any rate, Juror #2 said that there were six jurors who would not change their not guilty votes.

With regard to the posts above, I could see Juror #11 with his good looks, and organizational skills, playing to the rest of the panel. He probably made up analogies to SUIT HIS DISTORTED VIEWS OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUIT HIS OWN AGENDA! And because he had good speaking skills and acted articulately, he was not questioned about his authority. I wonder if there was name-calling or anger from the Foreperson for the two that initially thought guilty? Were those jurors crying also crying, not just because of the acquittal, but because Juror #11, the Foreperson intimidated them?

Maybe we had a foreperson who was such an arrogant SOB, that it was more important for the jurors to reach a decision, thinking "screw the public." rather than take the time to hear the individual thoughts and feelings of each juror, and reach some kind of a fair decision. What I want to know is:

1.) Why did they put George "on trial" for no reason at all? I still cannot figure this out! They probably would have come back with a death penalty for George if he had been on trial! This is just SICK!

2.) Do you think if Casey's DNA had been found at the crime scene that they would have come back with a conviction? I would say, maybe, but it would probably be only count#3, the involuntary manslaughter charge. They were gonna do anything to protect Casey and prosecute George!

Satch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 64 more.
Total: 3,758 (members: 65, guests: 3,693)

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
3,693
Total visitors
3,758
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,354
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top