Tearful Anthony jurors ask prosecutors, where was the evidence?
Prosecutors did not offer enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony, two jurors have said in media reports.
July 7th, 2011
09:19 AM ET

Tearful Anthony jurors ask prosecutors, where was the evidence?

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.

Post by:
Filed under: Casey Anthony • Crime
soundoff (2,889 Responses)
  1. Dj


    This conviction was made without cause of death...It's erie that this case is so similiar other than the verdict....

    July 7, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Don

    Jurors, "Where were your brains?"

    July 7, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • toodledoodle

      Those 12 jurors are much, much smarter than you.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joefrombuffalo

      The jurors were paying attention to the trial, not to nancy Grace's skewed reality. I hope you are never on a jury, because you don't get it.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Mark B.

    Rotting and being eaten by animals after it was discarded like so much trash.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
  4. megamulliny

    Motive? She clearly did not want to be a mother – the partying in the MONTH her daughter was missing and she did not give a crap reeked of motive, loud and clear. Who were these jurors? Paid off? Knew they'd make more money to "tell their story" afterward? Something is wrong here and not just the fact that a woman who killed her daughter got away with it.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • toodledoodle

      They didn't even prove that there WAS a murder! Glad the jurors that got the case were there, and not you. However, judgment is easy from the comfort of your sofa, I bet if you were up in that court room you would have voted with the rest of them.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • megamulliny

      It is known for a fact that CA did not report her daughter missing for an entire month while she went about with life as usual. NO normal parent would do that, none. Armchair detective me all you want, but this is fact and this fact is wrong. The jurors even know she is guilty, that's the sad thing.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Your Superior

      of course there was murder. loving parents (or grandparents) who "dispose" of children they love who were accidentally killed do not wrap them in a trash bag, like they're garbage, and hurl them in the open so the animals get to them and got knows what else.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Senila

    If they thought she was not innocent but didn't think the evidence was there shouldn't it have ended in a hung jury. Wouldn't it have been better to retry her than let someone you think is not innocent go free.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • toodledoodle

      A hung jury is when people believe her to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't just hang a jury for the fun of it. The consensus (and within such a short period) shows that there was absolutely no evidence against her.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • deathpenaltyimmoral

      thats not how it works. if u listened to the jury instructions u would know that

      July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joefrombuffalo

      If the evidence does not support a conviction, the jury should vote to acquit. it's not a hung jury just because some of the jurors wanted there to be enough evidence to convict. I applaud them for honestly following the judge's instructions.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Dana

    The most damning concrete evidence was the duct tape. However, with no DNA, especially not Casey's, on the tape, there was no concrete link between Mom and the child's murderer. It is possible–though not probable in a very warped way–an accidental drowning happened and was "covered up" by Casey or George making the death look like a kidnapping and murder. Witlhout any real evidence to say otherwise, the understandably torn jury was legally foreced to acquit.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • C. Miller

      Why would 2 people make an accident where no one gets in trouble into a fake murder scene where they could all go to jail? Simple logic that the jury didn't possess.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
  7. robcon

    Let's see–there was enough evidence to convince the jury she was guilty. But not enough to convict her! What's with these people?

    July 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • toodledoodle

      They didn't say she was guilty, they said she wasn't innocent. The burden of proof in the court of law is VERY high, and the prosecution didn't even prove that their actually WAS a murder!

      July 7, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • le

      excellent rhetorical question

      July 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Stoopid Iz Az Stoopid Duz

      I don't see anywhere where they said there was enough evidence to convince but not convict. What I read implied they had strong feelings that she was guilty but didn't have ANY evidence to prove it.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob

      Because the burden is "proof beyond reasonable doubt". I think she did it , but I do not think the evidence met that burden. The jury did the right thing given the weakness of the evidence.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
  8. nononsense

    I'll tell you what I think – in listening to what the jurors are saying, I think it shows that they did NOT follow the restriction of not discussing the case before sent for deliberations. If there was any doubt of that, how else would the ALTERNATE juror know how the others supposedly felt? It doesn't make any sense. All arguments aside about whether or not their decision was right – I think that the obvious explanation behind how they made such a quick and no-questions-asked decision is that they had already talked together and knew that they were all at least open to the reasonable doubt position. Finally, what baffles me the most is, if at least one of the jurors was holding out for a while (and others seemed to hold similar views), and are now feeling that justice wasn't quite done, why didn't they hold out, create a hung jury and let the prosecution try it again? That would make sense if they really did believe it was just a lack of evidence.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
  9. le

    The prosecution also had famous expert Dr. G medical examiner testify in her experience that 100% of the time in an accidental drowning someone calls 911 immediately JUST IN CASE the person can still be revived. Nobody ever throws and accidental drowning victim into the woods! Ugh. And they jury believed that both CIndy AND her father decided to throw their beloved into the woods! Ugh!

    July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Fenris

    She learned from the Natalee Holloway case. Get rid of the body and you'll go free. With the body only bones, she's in the clear. The things I wonder about & perhaps gave credence to the drowned-in-the-pool theory are 1) the grandfather's suicide attempt – VERY weird and according to the people who study these things, extremely rare for an innocent grandfather to kill himself over the lost of a 2yo grandchild, 2) both search dogs alerting to the same spot in the backyard, and 3) why the meter reader didn't INSIST on authorities retrieving the body in August. If I found a human skull, reported it, and nothing was done, I'd have gone back and photographed it or yes, moved it and taken it to the police myself, instead of just saying, "oh, well, I found a child's skull but nobody cares, too bad" and done nothing for 4 months.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
  11. sabarbaract

    She drowned in a pool and Casey panicked? it is at least a neglect charge then..she was so panicked that she bagged and taped her daughters mouth shut and threw her in the back of the car..then she was sooo panicked that she went to her boyfriend's, showered, picked out a hot outfit and drank and partied all night...so panicked that she strategically placed her auto near a dumpster, had to borrow her neighbor's shovel etc..really, does this sound reasonable?? it is called sociopathic behavior.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  12. LJ

    She should have gotten, at a minimum, aggravated child abuse/felony murder which equals first degree murder without the premeditation.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Horrorfan

    I'm finding the jurors statements incredible. So I guess if you are able to mislead the police and the victim isn't found until there's no evidence left (such as DNA or an exact cause of death), you're pretty much guarenteed a not guilty verdict unless you're caught on tape (no pun intended).

    July 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  14. LinnyK

    Uneducated Jurors and technologically challenged or deficient...that's what you get on a jury when the rest of us who work or have small children, etc. and don't want to serve on a jury because we're too busy or whatever. You shouldn't be surprised at the results.

    Here's a definition of reasonable doubt explained in a way most should be able to understand it.

    "The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

    If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

    The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

    Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy."

    July 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Stoopid Iz Az Stoopid Duz

      Umm....you don't have the option NOT to serve on a jury if you are called for jury duty. Your employer HAS to make accomodations to allow you to serve.

      July 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Stoopid Iz Az Stoopid Duz

      And sorry, but the verdict has to be based on the evidence, not heresay or gut feelings or disliking how she acted after her child went missing. She may smell guilty, but they had no evidence to present. The DA should have held off on the charges until hard evidence was produced if they wanted a slam dunk. A hung jury would mean the jury was not unanimous. If they didn't present evidence pointing to her as the murderer, they have the obligation NOT to convict her.

      July 7, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Jake

    As to your statement referring to 'the thousands of innocent people who have been put in jail.', They ARE NOT 'innocent BECAUSE they have been CONVICTED and are IN JAIL. Until they can PROVE they were unjustly convicted. As everyone ELSE here keeps saying , accept it and get over it. As for THIS case, they jury COULD have come back as a hung jury, allowing this to be pursued further. With all the questionable actions, there is NO WAY they should have came back with acquittal. I'm fairly sure a MISTRIAL ending would have been FAR more acceptable an outcome.

    July 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78