2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
KarmicLaw said:
Kelian,

I was so pre-occupied with so many things that I didn't even realize the trial was underway. It wasn't until one of my staff had asked another one of my staff about the case, who responded that she should ask me because I knew everything about it. I chastised them this week for getting me sucked back into this nightmare that I abandoned when I became a grandmother a few years ago.

I ended up viewing most of the trial on YouTube (Thank you 1947Sierra), and then watched the closings and verdict live.

I'm not going to lie. I thought that Baez was more powerful in that he brought passion and charisma that the State did not possess. I immediately feared that the jury would be "enchanted" by him. Likewise, it is always very uncomfortable to watch a witness who has been counseled that certain testimony can not be spoken. It gives the impression that the testimony is not candid, fluid, and forthright. There were so many issues that could not be talked about that several witnesses appeared (to non-professionals) to be calculated in their testimony vs. natural and credible. I also thought the prosecution missed some great opportunities to ask some quesions on cross that would have vaporized a defense witness. Perhaps, attorneys should now use Twitter feeds and walk back to the table to check for genius public questions that an attorney can ask before they excuse the witness.
But, as my UserName implies, I do believe in the law of karma. So, I will continue to focus my energy on preventing kids from growing up into adults who can destroy people and...even a planet. ::::heavy sigh:::::
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are focusing your energy on the right things. Sadly, this case has consumed me for the past few months. I am trying to work through my feelings of injustice being awarded to a murdered child. BUT, I too believe in karma. One day, some how Casey will get what's coming to her.
 
LCoastMom said:
There is no pool theory, there is only a pool lie - JB himself said 'We don't know how Caylee died' in closing. Too bad he didn't say something similar during the opening...
Click to expand...


I personally agree that:

[] There was no pool accident, and

[] ICA lied about this. And, accordingly,

[] ICA lied to conceal her felony against Caylee.

My earlier mention of a "pool theory" simply means that the defense proposed the pool accident scenario for the jury's consideration.

So in that sense, there was both a pool theory and a pool lie. The theory was asserted by ICA, and it was a lie.

The pool story being a lie means that ICA was guilty of felony charge One or Two. The jury should have agreed.

:innocent::crazy::innocent::crazy:
 
kelian36 said:
Sounds to me like you are focusing your energy on the right things. Sadly, this case has consumed me for the past few months. I am trying to work through my feelings of injustice being awarded to a murdered child. BUT, I too believe in karma. One day, some how Casey will get what's coming to her.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your obsession with this case. I was unexpectedly unemployed during the OJ investigation and was glued to the television during the indictment proceedings. Even though I also felt that OJ was going to get away with murder, I didn't feel as sick to my stomach as I do about this case. I expected the OJ jury to find him NG for other reasons.

This case...this case just sickens me because it challenges my faith in humanity and the system unlike any other case. I can't believe that 2/3 of Americans finally agree on something!! I guess that can be seen as a positive. I'm r-e-a-c-h-i-n-g...... I want to refuse to believe that we are breeding common sense out of humanity. Yet there is so much evidence to the contrary.
 
Nefriahaia said:
I just watched a very interesting news show on Dateline about the Venus Stewart murder.
Her estranged husband was convicted WITHOUT A BODY in a largely circumstantial case. Took them all of 3 hours.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43769804#43769804
Click to expand...

The circumstantial evidence is this case was far different than what was presented in Casey's trial. Not only did they have his accomplice on the stand, they had a receipt and video of him purchasing the items he would use to kill or get rid of her body, they had the tarp wrapper with his fingerprint found outside her home where she was last seen and they had a history of domestic abuse. I don’t think you can compare the two cases.

By the way, thanks for sharing the link. It was a very interesting story. :)
 
Does anyone have a quick link for the Ashley interview with Foreperson? I want to torture myself and it sounds like that will do it.
 
cluciano63 said:
If the jury did not think that the state showed Casey killed Caylee, then the lesser charges they had to choose from would not apply.

If there was a charge of negligence, she probably would have been charged with that, and improper disposal of a body.

I also don't think it is fair to assume or allege wrong-doing on the part of the jury, JMO. I don't like some of the comments those who are speaking out have made, but this jury was being called "stupid" and worse before anyone spoke out. Also I remember that one person had asked about permission to use a computer to do some work and was told it would be arranged. JMO
Click to expand...

You noted:

"if the jury did not think that the state showed Casey killed Caylee, then the lesser charges they had to choose from would not apply."

I understand you to mean that if felony charges One and Two did not apply to ICA, then charge Three would not apply.

If so, I've been rather loudly singing the opposite tune, that when the jury acquitted ICA of charges One and Two, they should then have nailed her on charge Three for culpable negligence.

I respect your opinion but I'm not clear on why charge Three would depend on Casey killing Caylee. :treadmill::treadmill::treadmill:
 
Controversialist said:
I personally agree that:

[] There was no pool accident, and

[] ICA lied about this. And, accordingly,

[] ICA lied to conceal her felony against Caylee.

My earlier mention of a "pool theory" simply means that the defense proposed the pool accident scenario for the jury's consideration.

So in that sense, there was both a pool theory and a pool lie. The theory was asserted by ICA, and it was a lie.

The pool story being a lie means that ICA was guilty of felony charge One or Two. The jury should have agreed.

:innocent::crazy::innocent::crazy:
Click to expand...

I know you "get it", I know I am somewhat preaching to the choir. I have not been able to post much since this "verdict" and am still venting. Three years of knowing Caylee wasn't with "the Nanny" but had been murdered and now (I believe) her murderer is about to go free.

I am beyond disgusted with this jury's findings. They had options, all they took was the easy way out to get home...
 
cluciano63 said:
If the jury did not think that the state showed Casey killed Caylee, then the lesser charges they had to choose from would not apply.

If there was a charge of negligence, she probably would have been charged with that, and improper disposal of a body.

I also don't think it is fair to assume or allege wrong-doing on the part of the jury, JMO. I don't like some of the comments those who are speaking out have made, but this jury was being called "stupid" and worse before anyone spoke out. Also I remember that one person had asked about permission to use a computer to do some work and was told it would be arranged. JMO
Click to expand...

Juror #3 and the juror foreperson have lead us to believe, from their voluntary interviews, that they did not understand that circumstantial evidence carried any weight. They thought they had to convict on the cause of death. They did not do their due diligence to reconcile their "gray areas." It is no wonder, imo, they didn't think the state showed that Casey killed Caylee.

The computer stuff doesn't bother me. AB, when she revealed this little factoid, gave the impression that his computer usage was well supervised by the guard. I think it is a non-issue.

You're familiar with the old saying that success breeds success? Well, just the opposite has happened to this jury. Instead of viewing all of their actions with support, the public ~ bowled over with their unpopular verdict, will examine every detail they review with critical eyes.

That includes me. When I heard the verdict, I thought it was stupid. I held my breath, waiting for some new revelation from the jury as to why they decided Casey was not guilty. I never saw it.

While I have never outright called them stupid (before or after), I can understand why those who were emotionally invested at the time might have done so. But I don't think we need to examine them for posting their emotions. I think we need to keep our focus on examining the validity of the jurors' conclusions.

We are on the eve of releasing a child killer back into society and it breaks my heart. The defense team was without a moral conscience, the judge may have been overly concerned with appellate issues and scheduling, the prosecutors may have underestimated the intelligence of the jury and the witnesses were afraid of testifying with truthfulness because they would purger themselves. I, out of my own ignorance apparently, thought the jury would be smart enough to get it. They had the legal tools. But they didn't get it and didn't even know what tools they had available, as is apparent from the few interviews we have seen.

I and many other posters in this thread have given many examples of how they failed. I think it is fair to "look for wrong-doing on the part of the jury," judging with an eye critical to every component. The jury is not sacrosanct nor a minority group who should be protected because of their huge sacrifices for our country. It is but small, compared to many. If we do not look for what is wrong it is a fact that no corrections will ever be made.
 
KarmicLaw said:
Kelian,

I was so pre-occupied with so many things that I didn't even realize the trial was underway. It wasn't until one of my staff had asked another one of my staff about the case, who responded that she should ask me because I knew everything about it. I chastised them this week for getting me sucked back into this nightmare that I abandoned when I became a grandmother a few years ago.

I ended up viewing most of the trial on YouTube (Thank you 1947Sierra), and then watched the closings and verdict live.

I'm not going to lie. I thought that Baez was more powerful in that he brought passion and charisma that the State did not possess. I immediately feared that the jury would be "enchanted" by him. Likewise, it is always very uncomfortable to watch a witness who has been counseled that certain testimony can not be spoken. It gives the impression that the testimony is not candid, fluid, and forthright. There were so many issues that could not be talked about that several witnesses appeared (to non-professionals) to be calculated in their testimony vs. natural and credible. I also thought the prosecution missed some great opportunities to ask some quesions on cross that would have vaporized a defense witness. Perhaps, attorneys should now use Twitter feeds and walk back to the table to check for genius public questions that an attorney can ask before they excuse the witness.
But, as my UserName implies, I do believe in the law of karma. So, I will continue to focus my energy on preventing kids from growing up into adults who can destroy people and...even a planet. ::::heavy sigh:::::
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your educated impressions I really believe if this "jury" wasn't able to see what I see with the evidence presented, I don't think anything else would have helped...

Funny how those of us who have witnessed 3 years of his shenanigans thought JB was a joke most of the time, but I can see where others who haven't seen it all see it differently (or see it through more educated eyes).

AZ warned us all along that this was not a slam dunk by a long shot - I just don't see how anyone could let MCA off on all charges having to do with the death of a two year old baby IN HER CARE! It just feels wrong, it feels off.
 
LCoastMom,
I empathize with you. I do. Yet, it is very difficult for individuals who have total access to all facts in a case, to imagine what the jurors might be thinking with the limited amount of information that they are presented. It's exactly that mentality that the DT was relying on and exploited in the trial. The prosecution thought that this was a slam dunk and that the facts alone speak for themselves....those facts as presented. That is a fatal prosecution error, especially in a capital murder case. The stakes and the burden are so much higher. There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that Casey caused the death of Caylee. I don't think it was only so that she could party. I think there were a lot of reasons that converged together that resulted in Caylee's death. It sickens me that she will be released tomorrow. Yet, I firmly believe that Casey will self-destruct. Sure, it won't happen immediately and we will have to stomach the thought that she may be enjoying her freedom. However, I think the party won't last very long....
 
LCoastMom said:
I know you "get it", I know I am somewhat preaching to the choir. I have not been able to post much since this "verdict" and am still venting. Three years of knowing Caylee wasn't with "the Nanny" but had been murdered and now (I believe) her murderer is about to go free.

I am beyond disgusted with this jury's findings. They had options, all they took was the easy way out to get home...
Click to expand...

I believe you speak, and speak well, for how multitudes now feel after riding this dizzying roller coaster.

For years in my church nursery I encountered children ages 15 months to 6 years, many of them Caylee's age. This helped bring Caylee to life for me, almost as though I had met her in person.

I can easily visualize Caylee being among our other little 2-3 year old toddlers. In June of 2008, she would have graduated from our "Bee" division (15-23 months) and "Bunny" division (24-30 months), and would be in our "Bear" division (31-36 months).

I can see her sitting at a little craft table, earnestly coloring a picture, pausing only to enjoy her apple juice and "goldfish" snack, her eyes lighting up when handed a balloon to take home.

For anyone, much less a mother, to assault one of these lovable and defenseless ones, would seem to be almost a metaphysical impossibility, were it not for the sad proof we have to the contrary.

And in Caylee's case, the balance of the evidence leads me to that reluctant conclusion.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:
 
Controversialist said:
You noted:

"if the jury did not think that the state showed Casey killed Caylee, then the lesser charges they had to choose from would not apply."

I understand you to mean that if felony charges One and Two did not apply to ICA, then charge Three would not apply.

If so, I've been rather loudly singing the opposite tune, that when the jury acquitted ICA of charges One and Two, they should then have nailed her on charge Three for culpable negligence.

I respect your opinion but I'm not clear on why charge Three would depend on Casey killing Caylee. :treadmill::treadmill::treadmill:
Click to expand...

I did think there was a charge for "culpable negligence"-I thought it was "Aggravated Child Abuse" and no child abuse had been proven, if the jury did not believe she killed her.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Juror #3 and the juror foreperson have lead us to believe, from their voluntary interviews, that they did not understand that circumstantial evidence carried any weight. They thought they had to convict on the cause of death. They did not do their due diligence to reconcile their "gray areas." It is no wonder, imo, they didn't think the state showed that Casey killed Caylee.

The computer stuff doesn't bother me. AB, when she revealed this little factoid, gave the impression that his computer usage was well supervised by the guard. I think it is a non-issue.

You're familiar with the old saying that success breeds success? Well, just the opposite has happened to this jury. Instead of viewing all of their actions with support, the public ~ bowled over with their unpopular verdict, will examine every detail they review with critical eyes.

That includes me. When I heard the verdict, I thought it was stupid. I held my breath, waiting for some new revelation from the jury as to why they decided Casey was not guilty. I never saw it.

While I have never outright called them stupid (before or after), I can understand why those who were emotionally invested at the time might have done so. But I don't think we need to examine them for posting their emotions. I think we need to keep our focus on examining the validity of the jurors' conclusions.

We are on the eve of releasing a child killer back into society and it breaks my heart. The defense team was without a moral conscience, the judge may have been overly concerned with appellate issues and scheduling, the prosecutors may have underestimated the intelligence of the jury and the witnesses were afraid of testifying with truthfulness because they would purger themselves. I, out of my own ignorance apparently, thought the jury would be smart enough to get it. They had the legal tools. But they didn't get it and didn't even know what tools they had available, as is apparent from the few interviews we have seen.

I and many other posters in this thread have given many examples of how they failed. I think it is fair to "look for wrong-doing on the part of the jury," judging with an eye critical to every component. The jury is not sacrosanct nor a minority group who should be protected because of their huge sacrifices for our country. It is but small, compared to many. If we do not look for what is wrong it is a fact that no corrections will ever be made.
Click to expand...

Well stated. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

JA was shocked that the jury had no questions, after a trial he called the most complex in his 30 years of practice. I, and many others, would probably have had questions for three days.

As you suggested, there is no constitutional law against critiquing a jury verdict, as long as this is done lawfully. In a murder trial, a wrong verdict potentially places a homicidal person on the streets to potentially prey on other, vulnerable victims.

Jurors are rigorously screened during jury selection. They should be just as rigorously examined after the trial.

:peace: :peace: :peace:
 
Right after watching the jury foreman's interview with Greta, I received two text messages from Orlando Sentinel and WFTV, plus a phone call from Vinelink, all saying CFCMA has been released. I hope the jurors are proud of themselves.

The more these jurors talk, the less intelligent they sound. The "foreman" talked about the duct tape, described the duct tape, said how rare it is, but yet...he couldn't decide how the duct tape got on Caylee's face and hair! Even without the chloroform, he couldn't see that putting duct tape on a child wasn't a very bad thing???

Then he spoke of the decomp in the car, and all the people who said they smelled it, and a few rookie deputies who said they didn't smell it, and he chose to believe the rookies?

He sounded like the leader of the pack. If it wasn't his way, it wasn't going to work. Sounds like HE was the one who read the jury instructions again and told the other jurors incorrect information. "No, we can't convict her because THEY didn't connect the dots. Forget what the judge said, this is what I'm understanding from the instructions..."

He also said he believed Baez's outrageous opening statement. Yet he claims the prosecution's case was "speculation"! Jose told ridiculous lies but yet he faults the prosecutors and their "speculation". :shakehead:

Now that Convicted Felon Casey Marie Anthony is now free to roam the streets, I hope the jurors and the defense team can find a few moments' sleep at night, knowing they've let her run free to do more harm. :eek:
 
Zoe Bogart said:
Right after watching the jury foreman's interview with Greta, I received two text messages from Orlando Sentinel and WFTV, plus a phone call from Vinelink, all saying CFCMA has been released. I hope the jurors are proud of themselves.

The more these jurors talk, the less intelligent they sound. The "foreman" talked about the duct tape, described the duct tape, said how rare it is, but yet...he couldn't decide how the duct tape got on Caylee's face and hair! Even without the chloroform, he couldn't see that putting duct tape on a child wasn't a very bad thing???

Then he spoke of the decomp in the car, and all the people who said they smelled it, and a few rookie deputies who said they didn't smell it, and he chose to believe the rookies?

He sounded like the leader of the pack. If it wasn't his way, it wasn't going to work. Sounds like HE was the one who read the jury instructions again and told the other jurors incorrect information. "No, we can't convict her because THEY didn't connect the dots. Forget what the judge said, this is what I'm understanding from the instructions..."

He also said he believed Baez's outrageous opening statement. Yet he claims the prosecution's case was "speculation"! Jose told ridiculous lies but yet he faults the prosecutors and their "speculation". :shakehead:

Now that Convicted Felon Casey Marie Anthony is now free to roam the streets, I hope the jurors and the defense team can find a few moments' sleep at night, knowing they've let her run free to do more harm. :eek:
Click to expand...

:clap:

ITA I really wish that there had been someone on that jury who had been strong willed enough to demand that the foreman go thru the evidence. And then having done that, had that person voted against the NG on counts 1-3, I would have loved that person to be strong willed enough to stick with their convictions and not be steam rollered. I posted about this before, but the jury I was on had a foreman completely ill suited for the role, who wanted to blow thru everything. If not for me and another woman, he'd have got his way. I wonder how many (if any) of the jury think now that they should have held their ground.
 
I mean really?? The state of Florida spends all this money putting these jurors up in a hotel, etc trying to keep them sequestered from talking about the case with their families, friends etc. yet they create a family like environment around themselves , Hell, they even do each others laundry. They have access to the internet, hotel staff, restaurant staffs etc. And.... if there is a bully in the group, now we really have a big problem! Jurors should be allowed to go home and recharge, maybe they would have done a better job.
Heck, let them even form an opinion based on info that is out there. Why is that a bad thing??? why do we want an uneducated jury? I dont see the value of a sequestered jury, What is wrong with them reading everything we do to form an opinion. There is pro and cons out there to be found. If it wasnt for public info many many cases would never be solved.

I am also wondering why was this case televised. Who picks the cases to air on tv and who pays for it?
 
The Eunice Burns said:
:clap:

ITA I really wish that there had been someone on that jury who had been strong willed enough to demand that the foreman go thru the evidence. And then having done that, had that person voted against the NG on counts 1-3, I would have loved that person to be strong willed enough to stick with their convictions and not be steam rollered. I posted about this before, but the jury I was on had a foreman completely ill suited for the role, who wanted to blow thru everything. If not for me and another woman, he'd have got his way. I wonder how many (if any) of the jury think now that they should have held their ground.
Click to expand...

I would venture to guess that most of the initial 6 hold outs on the aggravated charge are having doubts. Especially if they have done any research and have been reading up on the commentary. I suspect that many of them will remain silent out of fear that they will sound as ridiculous as the ones that have spoke. I can't imagine it would feel good to reveal how weak you were in a case of this magnitude. On the other hand, they may simply justify it with one simple phrase "Reasonable doubt" without explanation.

I think the verdict profoundly added insult to injury with those of us who followed this case since the beginning. I almost wish we weren't able to have had access to all the information that we did. Maybe we could have been blind and ignorant...and then it wouldn't hurt our heart so much.
 
OMG, thank you!! For the record, I am thanking you in advance because I may regret this request. :seeya:

Here I goooooooooo......
Click to expand...

Good luck! lol

The only good thing about it is we finally get to SEE his face a bit..I guess he decided he didn't want to go unrecognized any longer? :loser:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 3,679 (members: 80, guests: 3,599)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
3,599
Total visitors
3,679
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,399
Messages
17,968,382
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top