Posted on 07/06/2011 6:31:34 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said today that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.
"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
The jury's jaw dropping not guilty verdict shocked court observers, but it was also a difficult moment for the panel, Ford said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. No one from the jury was willing to come out and talk to the media in the hours after the verdict.
"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."
Instead of murder, Casey Anthony, 25, was found guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement and could be released from jail as early as Thursday.
Ford praised the jurors.
"They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity. And there was high morale," she said. "We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins."
Casey Anthony Prosecutor: 'All Came Down to Cause of Death'
Earlier today, the prosecutor and an alternate juror agreed on why the jury had refused to convict Anthony: They couldn't prove how little Caylee Anthony died.
"It all came down to the evidence," said Florida state attorney Jeff Ashton on "The View."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
What you said.
Me too...
I saw the Mark Furman interview, and he nailed it (and the alternate juror). That was the best rebuff I’ve seen to date.
Also, Judge Alex Ferrer on Fox also stated that this jury held the state to an impossible standard of “no doubt”; i.e., you’d be a witness if you actually saw the murder take place. They had no concept of what “reasonable doubt” is.
(And even the actual jurors know that they are dirty. I've never seen a TV trial in which NOT ONE jurist was willing to even be seen--much less, interviewed. I blame them.)
This was simply a trial in a regular old courtroom.
The jurors were not supposed to be watching the parade or the talking heads on tv. And, they shouldn't have been engaging in pillow talk either.
Who's Nancy Grace and what's that got to do with anything? You are getting inflamed over people disagreeing with the verdict. Not over something that happened on TV.
"The jury sat in the same room with her, took measure of her, listened to the evidence, and still had doubts."
And one explanation for that is that they were idiots who couldn't tell reasonable doubt from irrational doubt. What's wrong with saying so?
"I’m just looking at the big picture."
You are imagining pictures that aren't there.
An alternate juror was on Greta, and he said he's stunned at the negative reaction from the public...
Based on some of his other comments he may be stunned about many things.
Geraldo, into what was it, 5 wives? He has low expectations.
The fire story is excellent. Several years back, a molestation case was in our local circuit court. The jury acquited the man. When the jury was asked about the little girls testimony, they said that they believed her. But, they would have preferred more evidence.
Modern Conservatives are supposed to be AGAINST STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS.
May I ask where you saw the Furman interview? I’d like to catch that.
Right. Take your cues about the case from the media, not the jury...
That Obama guy is a constitutional scholar I tell ya...
just sayin
It is SO F*NG AMAZING....How liberal they get, when the State walks into a courtroom.
Many closet statists in the Conservative ranks.They just want the right Statists.
I notice your name is bannie. That rhymes with Zanny.
Are you, perhaps, a nanny?
That doesn't seem to relate in any way to what I said.
http://www.wftv.com/news/28466887/detail.html
This site had every minute of the trial in 30-minute bites—every bit—from the jury selection to the angry judge—all stored up and available until today. It was all raw data of every little discussion and pause that occurred. I watched it all. Everything that the jury saw, we saw...well, everything in the courtroom and excluding the jury. We even had split screen to see Casey’s reactions! With the Internet, we can now see as much as the jury sees; so it can no longer be said that we are missing what the jury knows.
It’s not posted yet as far as I can tell. Here’s a good one, but it doesn’t address the alternate juror’s comments, and doesn’t go into the detail he did in another interview.
Well, if you choose to split hairs....
I could not figure out where in the heck Hannity was coming from until I read that Mark Levin “looked over” the case this weekend and deemed it a weak case. In other words, he became slightly interested at the 11th hour and told his good friend Hannity she was not guilty and Sean, who never had an original thought in his life, Hannity now is on the she was innocent bandwagon. Disgusting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.