2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by dvdman, Jul 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My gosh. She is a 60 year old woman apparently not in great health and a year away from retiring. FEAR. She did her civic duty and she was being persecuted by the public before she even stepped out of the courtroom. I can definitely understand that kind of reaction. I expect the trial itself was traumatizing enough that maybe she simply doesn't have the psychological fortitude to withstand the onslaught of threats, nasty remarks and signs referring to her as a murderer.
     


  2. Etilema

    Etilema Kind to the cruel = Cruel to the kind

    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There are, sadly, countless cases of women dumping unwanted newborns in the garbage. As horrific as that is, it is really not the same thing as ignoring the death of a two-year-old child who is known and loved by family and others.
     
  3. Mohabi

    Mohabi Confuto pridem

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Please let's not forget that the time they "deliberated" was even shorter than you stated. They didn't just have lunch twice! They SLEPT a few hours between day 1 and day 2, which was the day of the verdict. Let's say they slept for 6 hours. So how many of those 11+ hours did they deliberate, if they were not to deliberate during dinner and breakfast either? 4? 3? 2? Sounds like they elected the foreman and decided on the verdict without considering ANYTHING BUT THE OPENING STATEMENT.

    P.S. I've been on a self-imposed timeout. I haven't read WS in days, haven't watched TV in days, haven't posted in days. But I did the math. 11 hours my a**!
     
  4. kolokolo

    kolokolo Active Member

    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Was she threatened? I dont know but I sure hope she reported it to LE if it is true.

    She probably off to some SPA or off somewhere getting coached on how to answer media questions when it is her turn to come forward. JMHO
     
  5. jrb0124

    jrb0124 New Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am suggesting someone (a juror) could rationalize it that way. Its not reasonable to me (or you) but in my case I would doubt the computer/chloroform issue for other reasons so in a jury room (hypothetically) with another juror who beleived Cindy did the searches its a wash.
     
  6. 6stringer

    6stringer New Member

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    really?
     
  7. jrb0124

    jrb0124 New Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Find a case where a defendent was retried for the same crime after being acquitted due to jury tampering, jury misconduct, or witness tampering - in a case where the defendent him/her self was not the one doing the tampering.
     
  8. Solange82200

    Solange82200 New Member

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Im not sure what you think I meant, or where I meant to say that? I didnt mean that Dr. Vass said it could not be from anything but a decomposing body. Dr. Vass said that the amount was so high it was too high to be a result of decomposition, meaning it had to be from actual chloroform.

    I explained already why the other chemist didn't concur. Maybe someone else can explain better, but the chemist studies different things. Vass studies only decomposing bodies, so the only amounts he is used to seeing are the tiny amounts that come from decomp. The other chemist studies all kinds of chemical situations, and has seen chloroform from other sources (not decomp), which is usually in higher amounts. I dont know how else to explain it to get across what I am trying to say. Also, we are talking about the fact that the amounts found is quite significant considering that its a volatile chemical. Meaning that in order for it to still be detectable after time passing, the trunk being aired out, and the fact that it was sent to him in a cardboard box (not a sealed container), it means there was a hell of a lot of chloroform in the trunk.

    I agree cases without a body you need a lot of other evidence, but I am using to show that the juror is absolutely wrong if he is saying the "letter of the law requires a proven cause of death for a conviction". That is what he said, and maybe he meant something different, but based on what I heard from that, it is wrong
     
  9. Overuled

    Overuled New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Someone on that jury convinced everyone that the state didn't prove their case. A good talker can do that. If i'm not mistaken, didn't this number 11 say he took a lot of notes?
    Innocent.. lets get the heck out of here.

    I respect our court system and believe that 'most' trials result in a fair outcome but this one was questionable from the start. This wasn't just your average defense team. It was crooked coming out of the gate with accusations that were baseless and which are now damaging to innocent people who have to go on. Pure desperation and lies at any cost to who or what they may effect. All for a ica... boy she fooled them good with her lies and charm. imo
     
  10. Solange82200

    Solange82200 New Member

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, she wont be retried. I dont expect it. I would however like to see if there is any way to improve the system, because if this continues to happen, I think we will start having fewer and fewer convictions when there should be a conviction
     
  11. lowens1975

    lowens1975 New Member

    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And three were reported via Twitter to have come into the courtroom the morning of the second day dressed as if they were going somewhere. I think they made up their minds sooner than the 11 hour mark. 11 hours and no questions, not even on the law.
     
  12. Solange82200

    Solange82200 New Member

    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I may be in the minority, but I dont believe for an instant that anyone on the defense believes Casey is innocent. These people deal with criminals and liars all the time, they know what she is. The fact is, they dont care, she is their meal ticket (especially Jose). I mean, what are they supposed to say to the media? We dont believe her, she is guilty? You never see defense attorneys say that ,even after an acquittal. Jose knew the truth from the beginning and adjusts the lie just like Casey, only when the previous one is disproved.
     
  13. costalpilot

    costalpilot Active Member

    Messages:
    1,824
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  14. jrb0124

    jrb0124 New Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I agree that someone had to search for something first to yield a suggested search. I'd have to go back and watch JB questioning Osborn(?) or Stinger(?) about that 5 minutes period...but even so I think he may have skipped a few things. The State never ran through a concentrated history for that day/hour.
     
  15. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    The second is this notion of the volumes of jury instructions that the jury couldn't possibly have spent hours reading to do their jobs correctly. The jury instructions consisted of 26 pieces of paper, most of which were not filled from top to bottom and side to side with text. Some pages only had a few lines and were mostly white space. Many were less than half a page, especially when you consider all of the indenting and formatting. It took me about 10 minutes to read them. And the judge had read them to the jury before they left to start deliberating. Who would need massive amounts of time to read them? My guess is that the page they probably read and reread was the one with the definitions of the specific crimes, to see how the evidence fit those. And that doesn't take days and days.

    I saw early in this thread that some were criticizing this juror for not showing his face. Why on earth would he? Seems like a good decision to me, given what has been said against him and his fellow jurors.
     
  16. costalpilot

    costalpilot Active Member

    Messages:
    1,824
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    really? well maybe that was the person ICAS was winking at the last day of trial..she contorted her face and bent it down to the table to hide it, but it was clear:

    she was winking at somebody in court.



     
  17. JMCDAD

    JMCDAD New Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :clap::clap:
     
  18. jrb0124

    jrb0124 New Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm with you there - this is also why JB kept mentioning the "not a chemist", and why the defense witnesses list included 3 chemists. Also the reason he knocked the protocal/custody issues with Oak Ridge....and Vass' royalty (however small) on the Labrador. Jury instructions mention that when considering credibility of a witness you should consider if that witness has any financial interest in the outcome of the case.

    I'm not suggesting its my opinion that this influenced Vass' testimony, but JB knew this would be in the jury instructions. They went hard after Vass because they knew if they could at least blunt Vass they stood a good chance at undermining the entire State theory.
     
  19. JMCDAD

    JMCDAD New Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I want to mention something that I am pretty sure I heard in the trail and I wish the prosecution would have emphasized more.
    In regards to the searches I think that one of the experts testified that there was hardly anything that was deleted as far as history went on the home computer. Years of stuff on there, however except what was deleted was a couple month time frame that included the chloroform searches. Why ?

    It doesn;t matter though I guess
    Just another thing that points to Casey's guilt that the jury would have found a reason to ignore

    :banghead:
     
  20. Etilema

    Etilema Kind to the cruel = Cruel to the kind

    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice