2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[Mysteeri]

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]

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]

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]

I agree, an investigation into this jury is needed.:websleuther:

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]

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]

^^^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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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>!

 

[sappysoul]

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.

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.

 

[Solange82200]

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.

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? You didnt answer my question about why someone would search how to make chloroform based on the picture.

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.

 

[manatee]

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.

nope! because technically she was not in "jeopardy" since the jury was tampered with in her favor. just google it and research it. I did!

 

[MustlyLurking]

Exactly but that would require putting two and two together.

Which proved to be way too much for this jury!

 

[Overuled]

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