2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[gladiatorqueen]

So to clarify, the jury did not believe the suspects story of what happened. And they did not believe the states story. So what did they think really happened?
Could it have been something 'innocent' if the suspect did not bother to put forth the story?

The story she did put forward put her there, at the time and at the place of the child's death. So at the very least, that part is true. So the jury had to accept that was true--Casey was there when 'it' happened.

So given that she was there when her child died, yet they do not believe her story 0f what happened, do they believe she was more or less involved than she admits?

In my opinion, they didn't have enough credible evidence to show what actually did happen (the why, the where, the when and the who) was involved--but just theories. The accident was shown to be plausible, which along with the all conflicting evidence against the state's theory, left them confused about what actually took place and who the culprit (or culprits) actually was. I also think that GAs weird behaviour and their suspicions about him created even more reasonable doubt. JMOO.

 

[Controversialist]

So to clarify, the jury did not believe the suspects story of what happened. And they did not believe the states story. So what did they think really happened?
Could it have been something 'innocent' if the suspect did not bother to put forth the story?

The story she did put forward put her there, at the time and at the place of the child's death. So at the very least, that part is true. So the jury had to accept that was true--Casey was there when 'it' happened.

So given that she was there when her child died, yet they do not believe her story 0f what happened, do they believe she was more or less involved than she admits?

IMO you have very good questions about the jurys' posture. They took an agnostic stance on the pool story, as if they were questioning the string theory in astrophysics (i.e., "we don't know either way.")

The jury's "neutral" stance on the pool resulted in a flawed verdict. The jury should have taken one of the following two options:

(1) --- The pool story is definitely true. Thus we should acquit ICA on Charges One and Two, but also convict ICA on Charge Three.

(2) --- The pool story is definitely false. Thus we should acquit ICA on Charge Three, but also convict ICA on Charge One or Charge Two.

But the jurors' non-decision on the pool story allowed them to have it both ways---to act as though the pool story was both true and false at the same time.

Please note: In (1) above, the jury could convict ICA of Charge Three due to no 911 call after a pool accident.

Charge Three would not require ICA to mistreat Caylee before the pool incident. ICA would be culpably negligent because, by failing to call 911, she did not exercise the normal, prudent care expected of a reasonable person, to insure Caylee's well being after the pool event.

IIRC, the jury would have to affirm that ICA's 911 call would have helped Caylee, and that ICA was aware of this.

:guitar::guitar:

 

[Sustained]

In my opinion, they didn't have enough credible evidence to show what actually did happen (the why, the where, the when and the who) was involved--but just theories. The accident was shown to be plausible, which along with the all conflicting evidence against the state's theory, left them confused about what actually took place and who the culprit (or culprits) actually was. I also think that GAs weird behaviour and their suspicions about him created even more reasonable doubt. JMOO.

With all due respect, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict. Why & where are not required to be proven by the prosecution and the State amply proved the when and the who. The accident theory proposed by the defense is ludicrous as it assumed both FCA and GA DID NOT call 911 as 100% of normal people would. The accident theory then assumes FCA/GA made the 'accident' look like murder. And what was weird about GA's behavior ? I can only think about one questionable thing and that is he did not call 911 from the tow yard. But remember ... CA was at the tow yard as well most likely chirping in GA's ear.

All of the things you mention create 'unreasonable doubt' and those things should not have factored into the jury's decision. This was obviously a jury that rendered its' verdict on emotion, rather than making the correct inferences based on the mountain of circumstantial evidence.

 

[SewingDeb]

Charge 3 would work regardless. Casey, as the mother, was responsible for her child's safety no matter what the scenario that caused Caylee's death. I don't understand why that was not clear to the jury other than maybe they cannot understand legalese and failed to ask the judge to clarify it for them.

They took the easy way out, imo.

Not calling 911 is a glaring red flag.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

You know what they say about opinions.........

 

[gladiatorqueen]

You know what they say about opinions.........

Yup, I do.

 

[Controversialist]

I think they didn't know what to believe. A lot of folks who have a big problem with the verdict are going off of the presumption that the jury bought one story versus the other and I don't think that's the case. I think the jury doesn't buy any story. They didn't buy the drowning (because there is no evidence of it) and they don't buy the states version of the story because they didn't think the evidence supported that theory.

They probably firmly believe that she is an incredible liar, which means you don't buy anything she says, even things that potentially implicate her. We already know they didn't find GA credible, so you call into question his testimony, including the part when he says he saw Caylee last.

I respect your well-expressed position, but IMO:

[] A juror who says "I don't believe the pool story," should have convicted ICA of a felony against Caylee.

[] ICA would only tell a false pool story to conceal her own felony toward Caylee. There is no other reason for ICA to make up the pool story.

[] A juror who says, "I don't believe either story," should explain a logical third option for Caylee's death. She wasn't a suicide, had no terminal illness, and wasn't abducted by Martians. She died either from the pool accident or by felony assault from ICA.

[] The jury's job was to decide which of these two options was most probable. Otherwise, this should have been a hung jury. Let a new jury decide between the only two plausible options.

[] And when the jury acquitted ICA of all felonies, the jury actually acted as though it believed the pool story.. The actual verdict contradicts the jury's claim to neutrality.

[] If the jury truly rejected the pool story, it had no grounds for a full felony acquittal. Hung jury? Yes. Full felony acquittal? No.


:websleuther: :websleuther:










cthe only the jury should have decided that there are only so many plausible ways that Caylee died.

 

[cityslick]

I respect your well-expressed position, but IMO:

[] A juror who says "I don't believe the pool story," should have convicted ICA of a felony against Caylee.

[] ICA would only tell a false pool story to conceal her own felony toward Caylee. There is no other reason for ICA to make up the pool story.

[] A juror who says, "I don't believe either story," should explain a logical third option for Caylee's death. She wasn't a suicide, had no terminal illness, and wasn't abducted by Martians. She died either from the pool accident or by felony assault from ICA.

[] The jury's job was to decide which of these two options was most probable. Otherwise, this should have been a hung jury. Let a new jury decide between the only two plausible options.

[] And when the jury acquitted ICA of all felonies, the jury actually acted as though it believed the pool story.. The actual verdict contradicts the jury's claim to neutrality.

[] If the jury truly rejected the pool story, it had no grounds for a full felony acquittal. Hung jury? Yes. Full felony acquittal? No.


:websleuther: :websleuther:









cthe only the jury should have decided that there are only so many plausible ways that Caylee died.

I should clarify, I don't think they thought the pool story was 100% false, just that it wasn't proven, meaning they don't know if it happened or not.

Same thing with the states case, they may not think the state's theory is 100%, but to them, it was not proven.

So here you have two plausible scenarios (in the juries mind) and they cannot determine which of the two are the truth. And thus, if you don't know which version of events really happened, so don't know how Caylee died and if she died at ICA's hands. They only way you are going to hang is jury is if you have true disagreement in that deliberation room (some really believe the pool story and some really believe the states story). But that doesn't sound like what happened here. All 12 of them (right or wrong is everyones opinion) couldn't decide if either story was the truth. There is no third option, they probably believe either of the two events happened, they just can't come to the conclusion which it is.

Hope that made sense.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Seems to me that if the jury decided they didn't believe Jose's OS, which one would think originated from his client, they would next have to rely on the defendant's original statement regarding the nanny. Knowing the Zanny excuse was completely blown out of the water, they would have to be left with nothing other than consciousness of guilt.

"Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/

It is as though, since the jury decided her statement was a lie, they gave it no further thought or consideration. The fact, though, that it was a lie should have been a weighty piece of evidence for them, rather than something to be ignored. They should only have disregarded it if it fell within the lengthy parameters spelled out here in the jury instructions:

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS

A statement claimed to have been made by the defendant outside of court has been placed before you. Such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made.

Therefore, you must determine from the evidence that the defendant's alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily and freely made.

In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to:
1. Whether, when the defendant made the statement, she had been threatened in order to get her to make it, and
2. Whether anyone had promised her anything in order to get her to make it.
If you conclude the defendant's out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it.


For me, this was another huge error the jury made by not following the instructions.

 

[GhostCrab]

There was reasonable everywhere in this case. I felt such relief when the NG verdict was announced because I followed this story for three years and never thought the state had put together a very good case.

 

[Sustained]

There was reasonable everywhere in this case. I felt such relief when the NG verdict was announced because I followed this story for three years and never thought the state had put together a very good case.

I live in Orlando not too far from the A's, followed the case very closely for 3 years, and thought the State had a great case.

 

[GhostCrab]

I live in Orlando not too far from the A's, followed the case very closely for 3 years, and thought the State had a great case.

People certainly can differ on their opinions in this case. Nothing new about that.

 

[fifteen89]

In all the sound bites of this jury foreman's interview, I'm still struck by one of the first things he said......that the Prosecution's opening statement was 'pretty much standard'. Standard? They went through all of Casey's lies day by day for those 31 days. How on earth could that ever be referred to as "standard"? (unless of course you're living in Casey-world)

And then the Defense got up and 'told us things we didn't know'. Seriously???

Investigators and lawyers involved with this case and even those covering this case have said they've never seen anyone like Casey. And yet this foreman says it was pretty much standard stuff.

 

[Controversialist]

I should clarify, I don't think they thought the pool story was 100% false, just that it wasn't proven, meaning they don't know if it happened or not.

Same thing with the states case, they may not think the state's theory is 100%, but to them, it was not proven.

So here you have two plausible scenarios (in the juries mind) and they cannot determine which of the two are the truth. And thus, if you don't know which version of events really happened, so don't know how Caylee died and if she died at ICA's hands. They only way you are going to hang is jury is if you have true disagreement in that deliberation room (some really believe the pool story and some really believe the states story). But that doesn't sound like what happened here. All 12 of them (right or wrong is everyones opinion) couldn't decide if either story was the truth. There is no third option, they probably believe either of the two events happened, they just can't come to the conclusion which it is.

Hope that made sense.

IMO you make excellent sense of what happened. But IMO this outcome reflects a serious flaw in the current jury system.

We assume the jurors all had no conviction either way (defense or state), but then this "neutral" jury rendered a ruling for ICA that was not neutral.

ICA's felony acquittal is not a neutral jury ruling. This acquittal is valid only if the pool story was in fact true.

The jury said in effect, "we don't know enough to decide on a verdict, but what the heck, we'll just acquit her anyway."

IMO this method of acquittal is no more valid than flipping a coin and saying "heads, she's innocent, tails, she's guilty."

A truly neutral jury stance on the evidence should result in a neutral verdict, not an acquittal.

It would be different if the jury said, "The state did not prove ICA's guilt, so we affirm her innocence. Being innocent, she deserves an acquittal."

But instead, the jury said "We don't believe in ICA's guilt or her innocence." The jury at that point should not give ICA the outcome of an innocent person. That verdict goes beyond the jury's stated neutrality.


:bananapowerslide::bananapowerslide:

 

[GhostCrab]

IMO you make excellent sense of what happened. But IMO this outcome reflects a serious flaw in the current jury system.

We assume the jurors all had no conviction either way (defense or state), but then this "neutral" jury rendered a ruling for ICA that was not neutral.

ICA's felony acquittal is not a neutral jury ruling. This acquittal is valid only if the pool story was in fact true.

The jury said in effect, "we don't know enough to decide on a verdict, but what the heck, we'll just acquit her anyway."

IMO this method of acquittal is no more valid than flipping a coin and saying "heads, she's innocent, tails, she's guilty."

A truly neutral jury stance on the evidence should result in a neutral verdict, not an acquittal.

It would be different if the jury said, "The state did not prove ICA's guilt, so we affirm her innocence. Being innocent, she deserves an acquittal."

But instead, the jury said "We don't believe in ICA's guilt or her innocence." The jury at that point should not give ICA the outcome of an innocent person. That verdict goes beyond the jury's stated neutrality.


:bananapowerslide::bananapowerslide:

Your reasoning is incorrect.

 

[Controversialist]

Seems to me that if the jury decided they didn't believe Jose's OS, which one would think originated from his client, they would next have to rely on the defendant's original statement regarding the nanny. Knowing the Zanny excuse was completely blown out of the water, they would have to be left with nothing other than consciousness of guilt.

"Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/

It is as though, since the jury decided her statement was a lie, they gave it no further thought or consideration. The fact, though, that it was a lie should have been a weighty piece of evidence for them, rather than something to be ignored. They should only have disregarded it if it fell within the lengthy parameters spelled out here in the jury instructions:

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS

A statement claimed to have been made by the defendant outside of court has been placed before you. Such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made.

Therefore, you must determine from the evidence that the defendant's alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily and freely made.

In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to:
1. Whether, when the defendant made the statement, she had been threatened in order to get her to make it, and
2. Whether anyone had promised her anything in order to get her to make it.
If you conclude the defendant's out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it.


For me, this was another huge error the jury made by not following the instructions.

Thanks for this helpful research.

 

[Controversialist]

Your reasoning is incorrect.

I appreciate your input, but could you please elaborate on this conclusion?

 

[GhostCrab]

I appreciate your input, but could you please elaborate on this conclusion?

The state has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Legally, it makes no difference what the defense said at any point in the trial. The burden was entirely on the state. If the jury found reasonable doubt because of a point made by the defense or whether they simply thought the state's case did not meet the standard on its own merits, makes no difference. And an acquittal in no way means they believe that the child drowned. That is part of the faulty logic that is being used to slander this jury.

Another way to look at it: to find her guilty, they must believe, with 99% certainty, that she is guilty. Flipping a coin, as you refer to in your comment, has a probability of 50/50, which is not a true and correct metaphor for ANY jury's decision if it is done according to the law.

 

[Controversialist]

The jurors believed the state did not prove its case. Period. They don't have to come up with what they think happened!

I agree that the jury had the legal right to render ICA's felony acquittal.

But this only tells us what the jury in fact did. It doesn't logically justify this outcome.

The jury could have said "we believe the Easter Bunny did it," and their verdict would still stand legally.

But it's proper to examine a jury verdict, to see if the verdict reflected coherent thought on the evidence.

As a juror, I would put this case in a nutshell:

--- "ICA's pool story cannot reasonably be true."
--- "ICA thus is lying about the pool story."
--- "ICA is lying about the pool story to cover her felony against Caylee."
--- "No other evidence contradicts the above chain of thought."
--- "ICA is therefore guilty of felony behavior."

For the jury, a discredited pool story did not exist in a vacuum. It entailed that Caylee died from foul play. The jury had no third option on Caylee's death.

But that's just me. Obviously, the actual jury had the legal right to take a different road. Sadly, their verdict leaves Caylee's death utterly unexplained.

:coffeews::violin:

 

[GhostCrab]

I agree that the jury had the legal right to render ICA's felony acquittal.

But this only tells us what the jury in fact did. It doesn't logically justify this outcome.

The jury could have said "we believe the Easter Bunny did it," and their verdict would still stand legally.

But it's proper to examine a jury verdict, to see if the verdict reflected coherent thought on the evidence.

As a juror, I would put this case in a nutshell:

--- "ICA's pool story cannot reasonably be true."
--- "ICA thus is lying about the pool story."
--- "ICA is lying about the pool story to cover her felony against Caylee."
--- "No other evidence contradicts the above chain of thought."
--- "ICA is therefore guilty of felony behavior."

For the jury, a discredited pool story did not exist in a vacuum. It entailed that Caylee died from foul play. The jury had no third option on Caylee's death.

But that's just me. Obviously, the actual jury had the legal right to take a different road. Sadly, their verdict leaves Caylee's death utterly unexplained.

:coffeews::violin:

This sounds great, especially if you are angry about the verdict, but this is NOT how a jury is instructed to deliberate and reach a verdict.