• With: Casey Anthony Jury Foreman, Juror No. 11

    This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 12, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight: Outrage is sweeping America! Here in Washington, it is the debt ceiling. And across America, it is the Casey Anthony verdict. First Casey Anthony. Seconds after 12 jurors said not guilty, protesters hit the street, demanding justice for Caylee. Protesters are enraged that in five days, Casey will walk out of jail and breathe the fresh air of freedom.

    How did this happen? Well, you're about to go inside the jury room. You get the inside story from the jury person -- jury foreperson. And you'll also hear about the jury's suspicion of Casey's father, George. Do they think George covered up an accident or covered up a crime? Or is he even a killer himself? Right now, for the first time, you go inside the deliberation room. Here's part two of our interview with Juror Number 11.


    VAN SUSTEREN: How many people do you think at least -- and maybe it changed during the course of deliberations, but how many initially thought that George was responsible for a murder?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George? Well, you know, there is no -- the problem is with the gray area, there's no way that we can tell the responsibility. What was in question a lot of times dealt with, you know, Caylee was with Cindy the night before. When she came back the next night, they looked at the pictures of them at the retirement community. Then, you know, they went to bed.

    You know, guardianship, when it started, who was looking out for her that next day? You know, George and Cindy and Casey all took hand in raising Caylee. We know that, you know, Cindy went to work. And then the gray area comes in.

    VAN SUSTEREN: But at that gray area, I'm thinking, you know, the -- I realize that George isn't charged in this case.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And he's not charged with (INAUDIBLE) Casey, but what I find interesting is that some jurors thought that he might be responsible not just for an accident or cover-up but for a murder.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was just -- it was just one of those things where we -- because he was there and there was a gray area there, he was in question for -- you know, for -- for us just being -- having -- having some character issues when he was on that stand. And he was there. He was there at the time, on that day that all the gray area is happening with us. And that puts him in that mix. It put him in the mix for us.

    VAN SUSTEREN: If this were a murder, in terms of the discussion and deliberations -- and obviously, that was something that wasn't proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.


    VAN SUSTEREN: If the -- was there ever some sort of discussion of motive? They don't have to prove motive, but...


    VAN SUSTEREN: ... was there every any discussion about, like, why anybody would do that?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just -- we -- and again, motive was not something that we have to prove or anything. It's not -- we felt that the motive that the state provided was -- in our eyes was just kind of weak, you know, that a mother would want to do something like that to her child just so that she can go out and party. That's what they presented to us. And -- but aside from that, no, there was no other talk on motive.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Between June 16th and the time that -- mid-July, her behavior -- she's out partying. You saw the pictures, obviously. There's the tattoo. What was the discussion? And what did you think about that period?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it disgusted us. We were all very disgusted with that between June 16th, when it happened, to the time that it -- and that's what makes this hard. That's what makes this -- is what made it very hard for us. It's something that, you know, I wish -- because of that and seeing that, it'd be -- we wished there was something else we could look at that'd be more -- that'd be a felony, something where, you know -- and we don't have the power to do this.

    We don't have the ability to put the laws in place for this, but something where if you do not report a child missing, then it's going to be a felony, and for every hour, day, whatever goes on that it gets worse and worse because her actions were disgusting.

    VAN SUSTEREN: I'm trying to -- I've had this discussion with others about whether or not you can prove a cause of death by someone's horrible behavior, which is the situation.


    VAN SUSTEREN: I don't think -- I don't think you can. I think it's a scientific issue...


    VAN SUSTEREN: ... which is what I think the jury also concluded. But the whole discussion outside of the trial, for us, on our show, was, like, you know, How in the world could someone act like that with a missing child? I mean, that was the thing that was just inexplicable to us.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And it was to us, too. It was to us, too. But you know, we were asked to indict on cause of death...

    VAN SUSTEREN: Convict, you mean.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, I'm sorry, convict on cause of death. And much of the time we were in that trial, a lot of it dealt with her actions afterwards. And that's something that although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the -- with the coming down with the verdict on the indictments.

    VAN SUSTEREN: What do you think of Lee, her brother?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought Lee was very genuine. I thought Lee...

    VAN SUSTEREN: Tough -- tough for him, wasn't it?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was very tough for him. He had a very hard time with it. I thought Lee in the videos of how he handled things, the videos of the conversations that he had with Casey in prison, he handled himself with -- he took on a tremendous amount of responsibility, and he handled it very well, I thought. I -- it was very hard on him, and I thought he handled this situation just in a tremendous manner.

    VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think of the judge?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The judge was excellent.

    VAN SUSTEREN: How about the prosecutors first?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The prosecutor?

    VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. How -- did they do a good job?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I thought, you know, for what they -- you know, I -- really, in prosecution, when it was over and done with, when they rested, I wanted more. I wanted more. I really thought the prosecution -- I don't know if there was more for them to give. I wanted more, though, because I thought it really put us at that point in a situation where this is going to be -- this is going to be difficult.

    So as far as how they presented things, I thought they did a very good job. I thought Ashton was -- you could tell they put a lot of work in the presentations. And I thought you could tell they knew what they were doing. They -- you know, they were, you know, very professional. And in some regards, at some times, I thought they made light of things that I didn't take -- I didn't consider was in good taste.