Two jurors in the Casey Anthony trial say they wish the outcome had been different but prosecutors did not present enough evidence to convict Anthony of killing her daughter, Caylee, according to news reports Thursday.
"It doesn't feel good. It was a horrible decision to have to make" to find Anthony not guilty, said Jennifer Ford, who identified herself as Juror No. 3, in an interview with ABC News.
"We were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying, and not just the women," Ford said of the 12 jurors in the ABC interview.
The tears were still flowing Wednesday as Juror No. 2 (he did not want to be identified by name) spoke to Florida's St. Petersburg Times.
"I just swear to God … I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do … But it wasn't there," he said in an emotional interview with the Times.
Juror No.2, who the Times reported is a black male, married and a father of two young children, said he was the last holdout on the jury who wanted to convict Anthony on a lesser charge of aggravated manslaughter, which would have carried a prison term of up to 15 years, according to the newspaper.
The prosecution's inability to prove who was Caylee's caretaker at the time of her death, Casey Anthony or the girl's grandparents, doomed the manslaughter charge, Juror No. 2 said.
"We truly don't know what happened. Somebody knows, but we don't know," he said in the Times interview.
Ford told ABC that prosecutors left key questions unanswered.
"If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered," she said in the ABC interview.
An alternate juror, who was present for the trial and sequestered along with the serving jurors, said he would have voted for acquittal, too.
"They didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind," ABC News quotes Russell Huekler as saying.
While those three people have spoken about the case, at least one of the sitting jurors wants money for the behind-the-scenes story.
The man, identified as Juror No. 6, wants $50,000 for his story and has hired a publicist, CNN contributor Howard Kurtz reports for The Daily Beast.
What? so you couldn't use your common sense. Blaming someone else for your decisions is immature.
This case has resulted in a mass criticism of the jury system. Hundreds, if not thousands of commentators, have attacked the jury system as we know it for needing reform. These criticisms have ranged from minimum qualifying standards to demanding total isolation of jurors. However, it's no picnic to be a juror. You listen to the instructions of the judge. You listen to the arguments made by the prosecution and the defense. You're not allowed to talk about the case with anyone. You're supposed to isolate yourself from all media coverage of a matter. Maybe most fundamental in all these challenges is that fact that the judges who are instructing you and the prosecutors and defense attorneys who are trying to persuade you are trained in the legal profession. While some people have called for an abolition of the jury system, what does that do to the national foundation of a trial by one's peers? Another thing to keep in mind is that getting jurors on a trial is a pick of the draw. However, both sides have control... "In the voir dire process, plaintiffs and defendants get the opportunity to question prospective jurors to determine if they would like to have them eliminated from a case." Source: Twelve Qualities of the Successful Plaintiff, by Tamara Kismet. The jury system may not be perfect, but there are many flaws in our justice system. How about the fact that jurors are sometimes forced to interpret mountains of scientific and technical evidence. Most jurors aren't trained in forensic crime scene investigation. There are weaknesses in our jury system, but some are part of other issues, such as the use of experts or the admissibility of evidence.
LOL – nicely put and right on the money.
Christianity does not instruct believers to love evil so your accusation that believers are being hypocritical is based on false pretenses
The death penalty is a Christian concept. It was introduced early on in the Hebrew culture, so, if anyone voted against the DP based on their Christian belief, they are seriously misguided. Giving this murderer the death penalty would have been the Christian thing to do. God is just, this verdict was not.
Amen to that Sandy.
Very well put Sandy.
As my Mom and Dad always told me from a young age
If you run across someone who proclaims and is loud about being devout, religious, catholic and they are talking to you about money whether it be giving it to them to invest, to go into partership etc. That is the last person you ever want to give your money too run for the hills. I have spent my whole life with that philosophy and have run across many of those types and always turned the other way, and guess what I have never been ripped off. Thanks for the great advice mom and dad
Well said Sandy.
Johnny Clueless contradicted himself. "The death penalty is a Christian concept. It was introduced early on in the Hebrew culture"
The "Hebrew" culture is Judaism. So saying that it was introduced "early" in Judaism means it occured thousands of years before Christianity came along. What a moron. Johnny doesn't even know the most basic knowledge of ANY religion. He's probably drunk. Or stoned. Again.
Death penalty for adultery for instance. That would mean a majority of Christians should already be dead.
While I agree with you, Johnny C, and would've been the first in line to volunteer to flip the switch on this baby killer, I believe that the death penalty is in line with the Old Testament, which is pre-Christ / Christianity. I dunno – personally, I think we need to bring back Old Testament law and rule with an "eye for an eye" mentality.
Get your points right before you make a fool of yourself. If you say the death penalty is a christian concept and it was introduced by the hebrews, let me ask you a question. Were the hebrews the only people in the world? what made you think other civilizations that time weren't sentencing people to death for crimes. Death sentence is a christian concept, are all hebrews christians? Death sentences were used in the old testament, in the new testament when Jesus Christ the author of christianity came he condemned it.
Except the new testament outlawed capital punishment. I know you don't follow the old testament, so stop trying to cherry pick from it to support your unchristian viewpoint...
And even if they are against it because of their beliefs, it is the law of the land and "Give unto Rome..."
This blog – This Just In – will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.