I have watched both nights of the interview with the jury foreman. Here's my take.
1. George was combative with Baez.
2. George had selective memory.
3. George wasn't credible.
4. George had something to hide.
5. George probably had an affair with River Cruz
6. George might have covered up an accident.
7. George might have even been the murderer.
8. Scrutinized George at every turn.
CONCLUSION: Hmm. I thought Casey was the defendant. My bad.
1. The jury foreman is very intelligent.
2. Therefore, he was picked immediately to be the foreman.
3. One other juror expressed an interest in being the foreman, but everybody else wanted HIM (I suspicion this was Juror #3).
4. He knows how to read people. That's his job (as a high school coach).
5. There were several jurors that were instrumental in helping him organize things (though, from the sound of him, he could have gone it alone).
CONCLUSION:
Pompous know-it-all.
1. After "dissecting" the jury instructions (which must have taken AT LEAST 5 minutes), they had an initial vote on first degree before they got down to business.
2. Two jurors voted guilty. 10 innocent.
3. Of the two, one was strongly convinced it was first degree and the other was wavering.
4. They went ahead and voted on the lying to law enforcement charges because there was no doubt on those, so they could get those out of the way.
5. They voted on manslaughter charges and it was 6 to 6.
6. All of the above took AT LEAST an HOUR.
7. After having paid such close attention during the trial, they then scrutinized the evidence.
8. Even though it took them less than 11 hours, you must understand that they took few breaks.
9. Somehow, the juror who was strongly convinced it was murder one, and then the six who thought manslaughter, all came together and TA DA....agreed there wasn't enough evidence.
10. Even though one might say that they came to this decision quickly,
you must understand quantity vs. quality (is that something like quantitative analysis vs. qualitative analysis?)
Because once again, he's an expert when it comes to differentiating between quantity vs. quality because he "has to go to a lot of meetings in his profession" 
... and he must have been watching tv prior to his interview because one of the legal eagles used the same statement of "quantity vs. quality" on HLN ...
CONCLUSION:
B.S.
Totally ...
1. No one testified that they'd ever seen Casey mistreat Caylee.
2. Saw pictures of Caylee climbing pool ladder.
3. Saw picture of Caylee standing by the sliding glass door.
4. Disturbing that Casey partied for 31 days, but that's it---disturbing. They didn't take that into account in deliberations.
5. Could have been a bag of trash in the trunk instead of "decomp".
6. Cindy might have lied, but they didn't believe chloroform involved anyway, so no big deal.
7. No duct tape attached to bones; only to hair.
8. George, George, George.
9. When prosecution rested, jury foreman was STUNNED!!! He thought: IS THAT IT? IS THAT ALL THEY'VE GOT? I NEED MORE!!!! He (and the rest of his jury minions) needed a lot more evidence than THAT.
10. They took it all VERY SERIOUSLY.
and he thought that John Ashton's "smirks" were distasteful ... well Mr. know-it-all-Foreman, I find your verdict to be distasteful ...
CONCLUSION:
MORONS
To say the least ...
and if he said "decomp" or "aaaaand" one more time, I think I was going to 
...
And, just shut up about it now. Talking to the media more is only going to make it worse. What an idiot ... further proof that these jurors weren't the brightest bulbs ...
