This is from WFTV. Statement Analysis in bold type added. Bold type, underlining and italics are added for emphasis and not part of WFTV's original news report.
Analysis Question:
Is the Jury Foreman being truthful?
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- The leader of the jurors who found Casey Anthony not guilty is finally speaking about the surprising decision.
Juror number 11 was the foreman, and didn't want to reveal his identity during an interview with Fox News. He spoke out on national TV about what drove the group of 12 jurors to acquit Casey on the most serious charges.
Casey was acquitted on charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. However, she was only convicted of four counts of lying to law enforcement.
Juror number 11 said a lot of their decision had to do with George Anthony’s testimony. The foreman believes George Anthony was lying, or hiding something.
In fact, the jury seems to have believed both parents were lying at times.
“With George, with the can, with the selective memory the way that he handled the tow yard incident, River Cruz. It raised questions," he said.
Note that the perjury in the testimony of George Anthony regarding River Cruz impacted the jury foreman, according to this claim, however:
"it raised questions" is passive. Passivity seeks to withhold or conceal, in particular, identity. Who was impacted? Why the passivity?
The foreman said the worst feeling was when George described picking up Casey’s car at the tow lot, smelling the trunk and not calling police.
“People were not going in the front door, they were going in and out of the garage and the car was right there. There was nobody who detected the sign of decomposition? If it was something that obvious with law enforcement going in and out. The father said he smelled it, but didn't say anything at that point,” he said. “Him not calling Casey at that point in time to see if she's alright, it raises a lot of questions. It really does.”
Note "people" are not identified.
Note the form of the question (? used) yet the words "there was nobody" is stated.
Note the additional word "sign". He did not say that "people" or "nobody" didn't smell decomposition, but that they did not "detect the sign."
Note that "it" raises questions is followed by the sensitive, "it really does"
The foreman is a gym teacher in his 30s who said there just wasn't enough evidence to support the chloroform claims by the state.
“How it could be concocted, how it could be purchased, it just wasn't there,” he said.
Note "it just wasn't there" although the computer searches showed it, and the evidence of science showed its presence. "It wasn't there" is said "it just wasn't there" with "just" (reduction) added for emphasis.
Jurors believed the computer searches were not conclusively linked to Caylee's death, but not because Cindy Anthony claimed she was the one who searched chloroform.
“As far as her lying, that was not something we really considered much when going into deliberation,” he said. “With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me. She was in a lot of pain a lot of stress. Allegedly she was on a lot of medication.”
Note that he has used passivity (concealing responsibility) and here speaks of "we", which is weak. He is not using First Person singular.
Note that we "really" considered "much", which shows repeated sensitivity.
Note that "to me" Cindy's lies were not obvious, which, in just these two additional words, shows us that the likely reason for sensitivity. Here, he uses first person, recognizing that others saw that when Cindy said she was home, but evidence showed otherwise, he wishes to avoid the obvious.
He explained how much of the evidence was just not conclusive, like the photos of Caylee's skull, pictures that have still not been seen outside the courtroom.
“The duct tape, where and what part of the head and where it was attached to would have been hard to see because of all of the hair being there on the ground,” he said.
Note that "because" is sensitive. Here, it was hard to "see" because of the hair on the ground, which avoids any reasoning about the necessity of putting duct tape on a child. This sensitivity is similar to withholding an answer to a question.
The foreman said even though the jury might have thought there was a decomposing body in the trunk of Casey’s car; it wasn't enough to convict her.
“You don't know who put the body in the trunk or how it ended up there,” he said.
Note that this is a claim. He does not say "I don't know" therefore "I voted not guilty" but only that "you" don't know. This is weak and when taken in correlation with his other sensitivity indicators, including passivity and avoidance, the likely conclusion is that the Jury Foreman is being deceptive about his vote of not guilty.
It is likely that jury foreman has a motive for his deception which will eventually surface.
Casey is expected to be released from jail on Sunday, July 17. With time-served and credit for good behavior, Casey will be released on her 1,007th day in jail.
The Jury Foreman is deceptive in his answers and does not take ownership.
Is this because the shock of "not guilty" is something that has a tangible asset in modern media and can be turned into profit?
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment