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
The death penalty is not a Christian idea at all... Eye for an eye was a Babylonian ideology, there was dozens of things that you could be put to death for.
The death penalty is a dumb response to a useless crime. Having the person be a slave the rest of their lives with maybe one of their hands cut off and a big M tattooed on their head might be a better punishment. Killing someone because they killed someone doesn't progress or enlighten the state of the human race.
Casey Anthony may have gotten away with murdering her daughter here on Earth. BUT she'll have to answer to God for what she did. I hurt more for Caylee; she was beautiful and had her entire life ahead of her; she didn't deserve to die, no child does. (No adult does either) The only thing that gives me comfort is God took her to be a companion for a little girl or little boy in Heaven or to a mother. I have a son, and when I heard Casey was found innocent, I held him and didn't want to let go. Remember: Caylee is alive in Heaven and her spirit here on Earth. And I hope her spirit 'visits' her mother until the day she dies.
you realize, you are assuming a few things for that outcome to happen.
Don't be silly Marilyn. The invisible man in the sky is not going to punish her.
heres a question I havent seen..Who in their RIGHT MIND would kill their beautiful innocent 2 yr old daughter then go out partying?
With a touch of luck she could be sold into slavery and be forced to sell her body.
Anyone wanting to get away with murder: casey anthony is your role model – deny, lie and mislead until the body rots so there isn't any dna.
The jury totally misunderstood the concept of "reasonable" doubt: " A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."
By the definition of reasonable doubt, she should've been found Guilty.
Amen!
If this had been for any member of the jury, "their own affairs," they would have acted because Casey Anthony's actions were "of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation." The 31 days of Casey Anthony's behavior DID convince her parents & the police that she had disposed of the child, as proven by them convicting her of all the lying. Therefore the evidence against Casey Anthony was indeed "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the jury failed.
Right. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean total absence of doubt.
Except that you have it backwards about what had to be proven. Here in the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was GUILTY, not innocent. As stated in the article – the prosecution failed to prove the basics – who, why, when, how. If you can't prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't win.
You seem to think that the fact that the authorities think you guilty enough to arrest is proof itself of something. I think this was the hubris of the prosecution as well.
Congratulations Citizen! You have correct thinking, you may go freely........(for now)
I am glad that so many people are able to sit behind their computers and bash the jury, that is one of the great parts of living in Ameriica. You know what another part is, that is our legal system. Yes, I also believe that she is guilty of murdering her child and dumping the body in the woods. The problem is that none of us had to sit in that room and listen to the evidence the way the jurors did. We could sit in our houses and watch it on TV or the internet and hear legal analysts talk about it and see what went on outside of the jury presence. They were given specific instructions that they have to follow and can not go by feelings. If they all say the same thing, that there just wasn;t enough evidence to connect the dots then I would be inclined to believe that they didn't get to hear some of the things that swayed us. I think the two areas that are concerning to me are that there was tape laying over her face, and the car obviously smelled of decomp. I think that if the body had been discovered in August when Roy Kronk first saw her then we may have had more evidence. We will never know, but I can't condem the jury since I was not in there shoes.
I totally agree!
Instructions? Yeah, they are called advice. The jurors collapsed to one or two strong willed people in their group. If she was an accomplice to a coverup of an accidental death, that in itself is reason to be charged with manslaughter. Drivers who accidentally kill another person, often when it is not even their fault, routinely get convicted of manslaughter, even when it was completely unintentional.
Well said Greg!!!! I have to add one thing. I suggest all the people bashing our legal system, the jurors, and the judge move to China.
What is said is that people talk bout legal this and no evidence that. How many People r in jail because some person said I saw Him do it. She lied to the cops about her daughter missing after not telling them for 30 days. She partied after putting Duct tape on her daughter. Dead or alive she killed that child just because of that. If her child drowned in the pool on her watch she is negligent at minimum. Laws. What would happen to her if she was a minority?
She would move in with Al Sharpton and Jessie "DA MAN" Jackson
I would have given her aggravated child abuse, felony murder which carries the same penalty as premeditated first degree murder but doesn't include the premeditation factor – the verdict was a travesty of justice
Oh no you woodent. Those were not the charges Dawg!
The jurors did their best job possible. Thank you, jurors. It is time to move on, and let the Anthony's get on with their lives.
Listen to the jury comments! They are asking for answers to questions that the prosecution DOES NOT have to provide. One example is the "why". These people lacked common sense and the understanding that reasonable doubt means doubt within reason – not doubt for any reason!
Howard Kurtz, why did you identify the race of juror #2 and not #3. His race was relavent to the matter at hand. You should have identified him as a male, married and a father of two young children. Are you saying his had a impact on the way he voted? By the way, no I'm not black.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
This conviction was made without cause of death...It's erie that this case is so similiar other than the verdict....
Shame on you jurors...
I imagine that Casey will be watching where she goes for a while for fear that someone pops out from behind a corner and bashes her head in. Given how people have reacted to the verdict, I can't say I blame her. Given how she has conducted herself throughout this trial and throughout her life, I can't say I blame the folks behind the corner either.
The jury can whine all they want BUT if they had LISTENED to their choices they did have options. Carrying your child's body in your trunck and throwing it in a swamp with trash--child abuse, improper disposal of a corpse, etc. I also think it is very telling that a juror is selling his story. This country has to find a way to have better qualified juries, and there should be a stipulation that they can't sell their stories. They failed Caylee and now want to make money off of it-shameful!!
Wrong. Try again. She was charged with Murder I with Aggravated Manslaughter as a potential lower charge. That's it. The end. A jury cannot charge anyone with anything, such as all the things you mentioned, only find guilty or not guilty. Person is charged with A, B, C. The jury says guilty, not guilty, not guilty, or any other combo, and that's it. Period. If the prosecution would like to charge her with everything else you listed, then they would have choices.
I love that you assume every one of them ignored the instructions, not that perhaps they knew more from actually being there than you know from reading the media.
This is the CSI effect.
The prosecution proved her mom was at work when searches for chloroform were made on the home computer. So 2-1 =1 that leaves Casey. Nobody ever said anybody else might have made the searches. So, that is the weaon. The motive- sadly, so many sociaopaths kill for reasons inconceivable to the rest of us. Didn't she tatoo herself with the motive: seeking the "good life" also that she was angry at her mother. Usually its the boyfriends getting revenge by killing the children but there are always exceptions. So, who, and why seemed to have been answered for the rest of us.