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.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
ya...we do know who murdered Caylee JUROR #2. That you DONT is your problem
If only the prosecution had had your expert testimony and your evidence. Oh, wait...
I HATE that she wasn't convicted, but you actually HAVE to have real evidence to prove it.
The jurors ask where was the evidence? The ducktape found over her mouth and nose, the chloroform in the trunk, the hair with a death band on it found in the trunk, the smell of death in the trunk, her lies so noone would find baby Caylee. It doesn't take being a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Casey will face the devil for her actions.
No Michael...You SPECULATE that you know. You do not know unless you were there and saw it with your own eyes
and, once she is released safely into society, the justice system has done their job. She is on her own , good luck with that one.
guess some of you have forgotten "beyond resonable" doubt. Linda Burdick was EXACTLY correct in her closing on her biggest fear...that there would be a lack of common sense. And evidence? OJ literally dragged the entire freaking crime scene back to his bedroom and that jury acquitted him as well. So I dont buy the excuse about so called lack of evidence. This jury decided to not like Jeff Ashton and George Anthony more then they were interested in truth.
So if I am ever on a jury for you, do you want me to judge you on what I know, or what has been proven to me?
and thats another thing...WE WERE ALL THERE...we ALL saw and heard the exact same thing the jury saw and heard. So saying "we" werent there is a ridiculous comment
Steve..I would expect you to use both your intelligence and the evidence to make your decision. Some of you seem to require a video tape of the actual murder in order to find her guilty.
No, Michael; you weren't THERE. You were out here, listening to who knows what that the jury never heard – thank God. You didn't SEE the evidence pictures presented to the jury.
You heard side bar discussions the jury wasn't privy to.
You weren't THERE.
Not guilty does not mean innocent?!?!?! Is this how they are rationalizing letting a baby killer walk without punishment? What b.s.!
Any juror asking for money should be ignored by the media. Jurors were paid (not much but paid) for their service on the jury. This should not be a money making industry.
If $15.00 per day counts as 'pay' in your world, you must be from China.
You're saying that the news industry is not a money making industry? Puhleez. Why should those directly involved not get a piece of the pie? Or should only the vultures profit?
I'm tired of hearing about these jurors and the lack of evidence. Did they expect a direct confession to the killing by Casey? I agree with a previous article saying people are dumbed down by TV law shows, like CSI, Monk etc. It's your job as a jury to connect the dots. Of course the defense is going to say you will have doubts about the evidence, how could you not unless you had an obvious direct connection of evidence. I guess it's ok to kill someone if nobody sees it. I hope this jury feels sick for a long time.
What infuriates me the most about some of the comments coming from these gutless jurors is their statement the State did not prove why or how she killed Caylee. The STATE does NOT have to prove motivation and they did NOT have to prove HOW. The indictment and charges were very specific and the STATE proved everyone of them. Now, the jurors say they could not understand motive. You have got be kidding me.
No, it is not your job to connect the dots as a juror. Your job is to decide on a verdict based on the evidence presented. Everyone had their minds made up by Nancy Grace years ago.
The lesson in this sad case is that intelligent, logical, educated citizens need to step forward and serve on juries, rather than to conveniently opt out and leave "justice" to be served by the ignorant, uneducated, illogical, as happened in this case.
Thank You Stan!!
The Elements of a crime: Who, What, When, Where, How, and (hopefully) Why.
The Prosecution missed on 4 and resorted to Psycho Babble for Why.
If the police charge a man with theft, but cannot tell you What he stole, When he stole, Where he stole, How he stole, but he did it because he MIGHT have an (unproven) drug habit, what's YOUR verdict?
It seems they need pictures to convicted someone.
Ok where is the evidence of this accidental drowning? They say the prosecution had no evidence but where is the evidence for the ideas put forth by the defense? Because they saw a picture of Caylee in the pool with cindy? How did Caylee end up duct taped and triple bagged in the swamp? Why did Casey Anthony do computer searches in March of 2008 for Chloroform and neck breaking? Why did she lie to investigators trying to find her daughter? Why was she partying in the 31 days after Caylee's death and looking very very happy? I do not understand this jury's decision.
The jury is idiotic they will believe an accidental drowning with no proof what so ever. But they won't belive Duck tape on the mandible. Really? I would have convicted her I would have hung that jury causing her to spend more time in prison. So now she can get out have another kid and claim another accident. I hate her, But God is a mericful God and all involved will be punished.
they're dumb as a box of rocks, it's that simple. They were given MORE than enough evidence to conclude that this evil hag killed her child, then bagged her up and tossed her away. They chose to believe the stupid stories from the defense. I hope none of them ever have a good night's sleep again.
I really hope neither of you are ever on a jury. Faced with zero evidence, you rely upon emotion to convict a woman in a capital offense? Murder requires 1. pre-meditation, 2. motive, and 3. time and method death. The prosecution could not prove any of these three basic things! The defense did not have to prove that she drowned. They merely had to support the possibility that the prosecution's story has doubt. And they did. Where was the proof that Casey, not George, did this? Where was the proof that Caylee died by intentional means?
Their verdict does not say that they believe that Casey accidentally drowned, it means they could not convict of her murder.
Neither was there evidence of Murder. IF you listened to the ME's testimony, she could not determine the cause or manner of Death. She INFERRED Homicide due to the finding of the remains and their condition.
The Defense doesn't even have to put on a case. The fact they stated it was from an accidental drowning still doesn't require them to prove their statement.
Only the State is REQUIRED to prove their case BARD. The State failed.
Dr. Spitz testified that the duct tape was applied post-decomp. The ME has been shown to have performed a poor autopsy, not only by Spitz but also by Kathy Reichs.
Most of these jurors are looser in life before the trial and after....what evidence?....I think they meant what airhead.
3-year-old child disappears. Child's own mother lies to police searching for missing child in order to lead them astray. Mother lies to grandparents about her and child's whereabouts. Smell of decomposing body in mother's car trunk. Chloroform detected. Child's body found stuffed in a sack with duct tape over mouth and nose. Duct tape brand is rare but same kind as in mother's home. Mother found to have google-searched chloroform. But wait! There's no evidence!
They (defense) proved a higher standard of truth than probable cause given there was physical evidence in her trunk her dead child was there? This is far from justice unfortunately and even the retarded jurors knew that.
"Probable Cause" is sufficient evidence to give a reasonable person cause to believe that a person committed a crime. It is the standard needed to give a police officer grounds to make an arrest.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard needed to 'convict' a person of a crime. It is a higher standard.
The reason for the gap is that it requires a higher standard of proof to PROVE that someone committed a crime than just to accuse them of it.
I would just like to thank the jury for being objective in this case and keeping an open mind. It is difficult not to have preconcieved ideas about whata happened in this case, especially with the media attacks. It i snice to know there are still people in this world who can put away their biases and look only at the evidence that is presented to them.
When I was 10 years old, a friend of mine shot a neighbor's cat with a pellet gun several times until it couldn't move. He then threw it in a creek. I watched everything take place. The next day, me and another friend went to the creek, got the cat, and buried it because we felt bad. A few days later, a sign went up for the missing cat. My sister asked if I had seen it lately and I lied and said no. I did not shoot the cat or move it until the next day at which time I did touch it and bury it. I lied to my sister and I never told anyone what happened to the cat. If this had been a murder investigation, you would have found some connection to me and the cat (by my moving it) and you would have found out I lied about it. But according to some of you–a jury should have convicted me of murdering the cat because "common sense" says I much have killed the cat as my DNA linked me to the cat AND I lied about it. Lying, as much as we find it morally wrong–does not make you a murderer. I
It's amazing to me that people here use the term "common sense" when referring to the jury but don't seem to use any in their arguments. Facts are facts–facts don't change because we "feel" or "think" they should be different. We can make opinions all day long regarding "dots" that should be "connected." How many people use the phrase: "I'll kill you" in our everyday jargon, joking or otherwise? "If you touch my beer, I'll kill you" Does that mean if the person winds up dead, then you must be the murderer? After all, connecting the dots, you did say you'd kill him!
I believe Casey did it or was involved–but my belief and my "evidence" doesn't mean she actually did it. Foxnews does a really good job of presenting evidence that Obama is screwing the country up (and I believe it!)–are all of you going to convict Obama of screwing up the country because Foxnews presented evidence for you to "connect the dots"?
In the end–the jury did what it was supposed to do. The prosecution did it.
Well said
That makes you an accomplice after the fact. You go to jail moron.
Jurors: The evidence WAS there. You have all watched too many CSI and NCIS episodes. Reality check!!!! This is REAL life and not a "entertainment". Scott Peterson was convicted on similar evidence in regards to Lacey and Conner. There was no definitive cause of death. You all should be ashamed. Letting a killer go free. Disgraceful!!!!
Juror # 2 (or any of the other jurors who knew in their hearts that this girl is guilty) should have stuck to their convictions and forced a locked jury instead of finding her not guilty. The prosecution could have then retried her. To find her not guilty was the worst thing they could have done.
Hey Folks, let me revisit an old principle that is hammered home ad nauseum in law school, arbitration and other venues of legal procedure: "WHAT HAPPENED IS VERY IMPORTANT BUT WHAT YOU CAN PROVE HAPPENED IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT!"
That's all Folks!
The fact that she lied during the trial and did not report her child missing for over 30 days and was out partying is enough for a conviction for me and all the so called ignorant public suggested by her defense team.
If this little girl and her family were African American or Hispanic this case would have never made it to the news. Sad, but true.
I feel for the jury – but they really only diliverated for 10 hours. If they were so conflicted they could have spent more time examining the facts or evidence as it were. They had more than reasonable evidence to convict for manslaughter. Casey was the mother, Caylee was her responsibility. The fact that the denfense was able to debunk the cutting edge scientific evidence is difficult to swallow. I understand the defense is not required to prove anything. But in my opinion I do not see any other reasonable conclusion than Casey was somehow involved. If Caylee drowned in the pool normal people would call 911 even if they thought the child was already dead. There was obvious obstruction on Casey's part by lying to the investigators. All she had to do was just once tell the truth. The jury could have returned a hung verdict. It would have been better than this immediate media frenzy by jurors, defense lawyers and ultimately Casey to "cash in" $$ on Caylee's death. I hope Casey knows that no one has to prove anything to God and in the final judgement she will have to face the consequences of her actions.
First of all you better realize that no sin is greater than another. So don't go thinking that you are any better off than Casey, or Adolph Hitler for that matter.
Second, of course she was involved. Everyone knows that. The prosecution says she was killed, the defense said it was an accident. With no actual proof to convict her the said not guilty. She was afforded the same protection under law as all the rest of us would want and expect.
The fact that one of the jurors asked "don't they have to prove motive" (paraphrasing) says it all. It was too complicated a case for these people. They couldn't incorporate the law into their deliberations. You don't have to prove it was Casey, the prosecutors just need to present evidence that demonstrates it was beyond reason that anyone else did it (or there was any other cause). By proving, for example, that only Casey had access to every item involved in the death (by showing that no one else did) you have proved she was guilty.
Evidence doesn't change. If you can't convict someone in 10 hours of deliberation and don't find the evidence... then there is only one conclusion to come to. Reasonable doubt and an aquittal.
Many people commenting are not familiar with the different charges and potential conclusions the jury had available to them. There was an option for those that thought that Caylee was killed by Casey but thought the death to be accidental, i.e. that Casey chloroformed Caylee but that she didn't mean to kill her by doing so. That would have been manslaughter, which was one of the jury's options, which they also found her not guilty of. So it wasn't that it simply was not premeditated, so the jury had to acquit her-there were other options. By their outcome they essentially said that no one killed Caylee-accidentally, intentionally or otherwise. That was, legally, what their decision amounted to.