Thursday, July 07, 2011

Casey Anthony Juror Speaks

One of the alternate jurors in the Casey Anthony trial spoke the other day, but when Jennifer Ford spoke to ABC news, she was the first of the actual jurors who decided Casey Anthony's fate to come forward with the reasoning and some of the answers to the questions everyone wants answered.

In coming forward first, she also becomes the face of the jurors and the most likely to get money from a book should she choose to write one or have someone write one for her. Yeah, jurors will make money off this too.

Jennifer says that she did not think Casey Anthony was innocent, just that there was not enough evidence presented to show she killed Caylee. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." She also said all the jurors were crying about the verdict and were too fragile emotionally to talk to the media that day.

37 comments:

blondegossip said...

"If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

This statement proves that for at least this juror, she did not understand her role. Her role was NEVER to determine punishment (at this stage in the trial), she was to decide if Casey committed any of the crimes.

UGH!

Suhyphen said...

Thank you blonde, you are absolutely right.
I read where the only way this can be retried is if there is evidence of juror fraud. I'm not sure what that consists of. However if it could be retried on juror ignorance, she would not be leaving jail next Wed.

Pookie said...

i just can't w/ this case anymore. i am disheartened and disgusted at the thought of all the $$$ the parties involved are going to make off the life of that precious baby girl. may she RIP and be perfect and happy and free riding on the wings of an angel.

bluebonnetmom said...

Won't watch or buy ANYTHING from these jackass clowns involved with the case. I hope they can live with themselves.

Audrey said...

If the media hadn't been so gung ho on covering this murder, then NOBODY would be making any money. Also, all those people that sat around watching Nancy Grace were basically condoning this media circus. If anyone makes money, blame the media and society (and perhaps yourself)...

timebob said...

My blood was boiling watching this last night. So far the chef wanting 5 figures to talk hasn't gotten any offers I have heard of.

Jennifer and her family got a trip to Disney World that was her payment.

She is backpeddling to save face. her comment to blame the prosecution and not the jurors was laughable.

Carrie L. said...

I'm with you, Pookie. I can't listen or read about this anymore. I have enough horrible stuff happening around me - to good people who aren't liars and killers - and to see all the people who are going to profit from this, who have health, fortune...ugh. I'm done!

Sadie said...

Look...when you convict someone of a crime via a court case you have to be convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. What this juror is basically saying is the prosecution did not offer up enough evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

While I not only believe Casey played a hand in her daughters death, I also firmly believe that the jurors did what they could with the evidence that was presented to them.

ALSO, something else to keep in mind. Not one of these jurors when being questioned about becoming a juror, had any clue as to what trial they would become jurors for. As luck would have it they got the Casey Anthony Trial. It's unfortunate, but someone had to do it.

As a general public, we have the responsibility to accept what has happened. Ultimately Caylee will only have her justice when Casey is gone from this world. There is nothing we can do about it. Nothing at all.

0 said...

What Pookie said. There are no winners in this case at all, and everyone trying to make money off of it should be ashamed and disgusted with themselves.

Ida Blankenship said...

What Audrey and Pookie each said.

Danielle said...

I would just like to point out.. Scott Peterson is sitting on death row because of the EXACT SAME evidence that was presented in this case.. circumstantial.. and if that was enough in that case it should have been enough in this case.

Reese said...

Good point, Danielle.

shakey said...

I think Caylee's mother, family, and society has failed her. A little girl's skeleton is found in plastic with duct tape around her mouth and no one is convicted.

I don't get the argument that Casey's dad covered it up - he's a cop! Retired or not, he's a cop. And he knows little kids accidentally drown in pools too often.

Best thing Casey can do is get herself sterilized so she never gets pregnant again.

Desiree said...

Yep! I'm with you Danielle. I think blondegossip got it right when she said they misunderstood their roles in this. NOT to punish her, but to determine if they felt she was guilty of the crimes. I also feel that they rushed their decision because they were ready to get the hell home. IF there was any doubt to her innocence then there should NOT have been an NOT GUILTY verdict. They should have taken their time and maybe requested some help determining all the evidence.

__-__=__ said...

There were LOTS of counts on that sheet that she could have been convicted of. LOTS. These jurors were idiots. If you're in FLA and your kid goes missing, and you don't report it - no problem! It's not illegal at all, according to these jurors.

Mooshki said...

Actually, that isn't illegal. People are trying to get that fact changed now because of this case. I still think they proved manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, but not murder.

Superwife said...

What I don't understand and no juror has explained thus far is why they did not find Casey guilty of manslaughter or child abuse. Both options were available. Casey was the last person to see Caylee alive. Did not report her missing for 30+ days. Her actions (negligence) resulted directly or indirectly to Caylee's death which is MANSLAUGHTER! WTF? This is driving me nuts. Everyone is focusing on the murder 1 charge but not the other two charges which the state did prove. I can understand the decision on murder 1. There was no smoking gun, no DNA, no concrete proof putting. I really believe this jury was too inept to consider the other charges and did not consider them because they rushed to make their decision. Had they really analyzed the other charges they could have found her guilty and Casey would be doing the time she should be doing.

Lacey said...

Superwoman, I couldn't agree with you more. This is straight from the jury instructions (from http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony):

"...culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights."

It then continues: "If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver."

I just do not understand how the jury saw reasonable doubt with respect to the manslaughter charge, having been given these definitions and instructions. I'd love to be enlightened!

Lacey said...

oops--sorry! I meant "Superwife"!! LOL Anyhow, I couldn't agree with you more.

Smasherstein said...

Superwife - hear hear! One of the jurors fell asleep during the trial, that pretty much tells me everything I need to know.

I don't know if it will ever happen, but I sincerely hope we get rid of trial by jury one day.

ChasingHeaven said...

Here's what I don't understand...Let's say we ignore the prosecution entirely. Casey's defense for us to believe is that she was home with George and Caylee and Caylee walked outside, climbed in the pool and drown. Then Casey willingly went along with an elaborate cover-up hoax ending with tossing her daughter in the woods to be eaten by animals. How is this not enough to be child neglect resulting in death = murder in 1st? This is what she is ADMITTING to. This is not even beginning to consider what the prosecution has to say.

ChasingHeaven said...

Oops sorry Sperwife and Lacey, didn't catch your posts before mine.

Superwife said...

Exactly! Look at those instructions. "...showing reckless disregard of human life..." Let's say Caylee drowned in the pool. The fear of culpability must be that she was found at a time when it was clear she was dead. That would be hours, maybe days. Otherwise why wouldn't they try to revive her and call 911? This means she was not being watched for quite some time. That's neglect. Which is child abuse. The next logical step is not to bound your daughter in duct tape and double bag her like trash and then go party like a rock star. Once can only reasonably assume Casey's actions (or in-actions) led to the death of her daughter. This jury had no idea what these instructions meant and the sad thing is they never asked for the judge's guidance. That's what he's there for! They were too stupid and impatient and they rushed to make a decision.

Snakeoiler said...

It's just too bad that these people weren't black. Then, the mother would have pled, gotten at least 20 years, and there wouldn't have been more than three minutes of coverage on the local news, let alone national news. White baby missing! Call out the National Guard!

Dulcinea said...

I think I understand what that juror was trying to say - they prosecution couldn't prove HOW Caylee died. They had proof of where she ended up, tossed in a field with duct tape on her skull and inside a garbage bag. Those are awful circumstances but do not prove the manner of death. It sucks but it is seriously that literal.

I read where the jury didn't believe much of what George said. To me, that really sucks and they judged him more harshly than Caylee. It seems like he had an affair. My knowledge of grieving is limited, but I understand the need to reach out to someone...I also know that the death of a child (or grandchild who is practically your child) can pull a couple apart rather than bring them together. Therefore, while I think George probably did have an affair, it's immaterial to Caylee's death.

If Casey and George were complicit in hiding Caylee's accidental drowning, then they are both consummate actors. Just observing their taped conversations with *each other* at the jailhouse, where Casey says she just wants Caylee home no matter what; then George allowing hundreds of volunteers to search for his granddaughter - it all seems so veyr improbable. But the jury couldn't get a definite answer on the question of, did Casey cause Caylee's death. With no proof of the cause, I don't see how they could come to another verdict. I feel for them; they all obviously felt in their gut that she was guilty, but by the letter of the law could not convict her. What an awful position for them to be in.

I heard a judge say one time that he had never met a man or woman as wise as a jury of 12. We do have the greatest system of justice in the world, and as always, better one guilty person go free than to convict an innocent. There shall be flames, I am sure, but I feel for these jurors. I do think they did the best they could with what they had and the instructions they were given. I think if they had had more charges to choose from that they would have been able to find her guilty of a lesser charge. Alas, it is too late now.

Dulcinea said...

Oops - I mean, they (the jury) judged George more harshly than Casey.

Anna Geletka said...

Smasherstein, no trial by jury? I think that's a TERRIBLE idea. What would you propose to take the place of a jury?

Wil said...

Let me put it this way .. how did Caylee die?

Leaving out emotion .. you cannot - nor can I - say. We assume it had something to do with duct tape across the mouth and chloroform, but we just do not actually know. This gives you, me and everyone who could be a juror what is called "reasonable doubt." There was not enough evidence to say, idiotic comment about "punishment" by Ms. Ford notwithstanding.

It sucks and I think Casey is guilty as hell and totally responsible for the death of Caylee .. but we just do not know. Therefore, she goes free.

This is the way our system works. It has flaws, but at this point I don't want any legal precedents set that will make it easier for innocent people to be sent to jail. Or do you want the entire nations judicial system to function the way Texas does?

Wil said...

Anna .. they happen all the time and are called trial by Judge. It is an option available to a defendant to have a jury .. it is not the only way the judicial system works.

Wil said...

Here is something everyone should read and take to heart .. Blackstone's Formulation

And now I will retreat away from my "Post Hog" status. Sorry guys .. I am just passionate about the law. [Which is not to say I am not passionate about what happened to Caylee .. I am .. I just see a larger picture as far as the legal system goes.]

erin z. said...

@danielle: scott peterson shouldn't be on death row precisely for the same reason that casey anthony isn't on death row.

and it wasn't the "EXACT SAME evidence" presumably because nothing was the same.

oh wait, there are some similarities:

1. no cause of death in either case.
2. no proof that a murder actually occurred.
3. no physical evidence connecting scott or casey to their respective cases.

suggesting that because one jury was stupid enough to convict because scott peterson was a cheater does not mean that all juries should now start unconstitutionally convicting people based on their opinions of their behavior (before or after the alleged crime).

Serena Skye said...

What did people do before DNA evidence was the norm?? They based it on the evidence that is there...nobody reported her missing for 31 days & her own mother couldn't be bothered to look for her which common sense says she knew there was no point plain & simple. The jurors also said based on Cindy's testimony of computer searches that Casey had no premeditation & they chose not to believe George so they picked & chose who to believe & not to. It is incredible that over a 6 week trial the jurors didn't ask to review any testimony or ask any questions. They just wanted to get the hell outta there & shame on them for saying they felt she was guilty but they just couldn't convict. Thats a cop out.

erin z. said...

before there was DNA evidence there were loads of wrongful convictions based on everything from eyewitness testimony to circumstantial cases to fingerprints, the former proving to be the least concrete of all types of evidence (i.e. eyewitnesses proving to be consistency wrong).

also, before DNA they were able to collect and analyze fibre evidence, hair evidence, blood and semen evidence, etc.

the issue isn't DNA evidence, the issue is ANY physical evidence. show me a fingerprint on the duct tape, or on the garbage bag. show me anything physical connecting casey to the crime. they couldn't; it was circumstantial, which relies largely on motive, which they were unable to prove. if she didn't want caylee, she could have given her to her mother (and she knew this). that isn't a concrete explanation. there was reasonable doubt.

MAC said...

They did know what trial they were being questioned for. Casey was right in the room helping her defense pick them out. The read the charges to the jurors and they questioned them about all kinds of things.

FS said...

There was clear evidence of child neglect and this jury failed to convict her on that count. I agree, it was stupid to charge her with murder one without a cause of death, but this jury failed to hold Casey accountable in any way when they had other options available to them. So yeah, they failed.

__-__=__ said...

Really, who cares how Caylee died. She is dead. They found her bones. Momma wasn't taking care of her. Child neglect. The End.

linnea said...

In my country, we never have jurys - just people whose job it is to know the law and listen to all the evidence. It works just fine and you dont get the problems associated with jurors who don't know what they are supposed to be looking for, or what evidence is important. Which these guys clearly did not (re:manslaughter and child abuse)