OTR Interviews

Dissecting the Evidence in Casey Anthony's Trial and How Jurors Reached Their Decision

Former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman responds to juror's belief that prosecutors couldn't prove how Caylee died


This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 6, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Russell Huekler was an alternate juror, so he was not one of the 12 votes that found Casey Anthony not guilty. But he agreed with the not guilty verdict because the prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt to him how Caylee died, whether the cause was murder or an accident.

Could the police investigation have been better? Joining us is former LAPD homicide detective Mark Fuhrman. Mark, in listening to that very thoughtful man, you know, how he looked at the evidence, it occurred to me that -- I mean, he said what bothered him is they couldn't determine cause of death. The child disappeared June 16th. The remains were found in December 8th or so. In August, there was a phone call to the police about where the remains had been. And I thought, you know, if the crime scene had been discovered then, not compromised, with all the remains in better tact, not subject to the elements, that this might be a very different case. They probably could have proved whether it was a murder or not. Do you agree?

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE: Possibly. The body had been at that location for up to 50 days, in advanced decomposition before it arrived at that location. So I'd say it would be pretty compromised by that point.

We got to remember that Mr. Kronk saw something white, which turned out to be a skull in December, but he saw something white then. I kind of wonder. So I kind of wonder. But you know, without that argument -- you listen to this alternate juror, half of what I hear him saying came from Mr. Baez's opening or closing. I never saw anything in evidence, anything in evidence about a horrific accident. Did I miss something?

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, no, it's not -- you don't actually -- since the defense...

FUHRMAN: I don't know of any...

VAN SUSTEREN: No, no. Because the defense doesn't have to prove anything, what the defense has to do is poke holes in. And if -- and it -- and the prosecution's own expert said that they could not deny it was an accident. So it's not -- I think you're shifting the burden...

FUHRMAN: Well...

VAN SUSTEREN: ... is that they were poking the holes. And so the prosecution necessarily then couldn't meet its burden of proof.

FUHRMAN: I agree with poking the holes. But this juror also said a couple things, Greta. On your interview last night -- I read the transcript. And when it came down to Mr. Baez showing how the Anthony family got rid of their pets, he made it clear -- you know, a conclusion, in quotes, "I think this is how they got rid of Caylee's body," end quote.

So he's not only speculating, he thinks, absent of any evidence, except for how somebody buries a pet. It goes farther. This man believes that just one hair with a decomposing band on it -- forget the decomposing band. A hair of a child in the trunk is no big deal. I don't care if it's one hair or a million hairs.

VAN SUSTEREN: I actually disagree with you on the speculation. I think it was speculation that -- an assertion of -- asking the jury to speculate on the father molesting the -- molesting Casey. There was no evidence there. What was different about the pet is that you can draw a reasonable inference. The rules of evidence permit you to draw reasonable inferences if evidence is presented. The evidence was presented.

You may not credit it or not, but it was presented so a reasonable person can draw an inference. The Casey molesting thing was simply out of whole cloth. There was nothing to support that. That was speculation, asking for speculation. That was different.

FUHRMAN: That's not only speculation, but he says "they." There was nothing introduced into evidence except for Jose Baez's opening statement about Casey having help getting rid of Caylee's body.

So this juror, if he is indicative of the 12 that actually decided this case, they are intertwining evidence and experts that simply come out and say, This FBI expert doesn't know what he's talking about. Although I don't have as much experience, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So they pick and choose who they like or what evidence cancels out the other? That's ridiculous! This is -- this juror, this alternate also said he doesn't believe that anybody produced any evidence that he thinks that Caylee was ever in Casey Anthony's trunk. I mean, are you serious?

VAN SUSTEREN: I -- you know, I -- I'm very...

FUHRMAN: How did -- how did they...

VAN SUSTEREN: I got to go, Mark. But I just want to note that I don't -- that I don't agree with you. I'm very respectful of jurors, and they do see very different trials often than what we do because we see the times when they're out of the room, we hear the argument. But anyway, we'll -- you and I will argue about this another day, all right?