Casey Jury Foreman: 'Everything Was Speculation'
Juror No. 11 discusses the chloroform evidence and theories on how Caylee Anthony died
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 15, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: The anger over the verdict is at a fever pitch and a heavy burden was placed on the jury. Now, the jury was not satisfied that the prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder. Why? Where did the state's evidence fail? The interview you all want to see, the foreman of the jury.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: Nice to have you join us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Greta. It's an honor to be here.
VAN SUSTEREN: You are Number 11, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Number 11.
VAN SUSTEREN: And the foreperson?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was the foreperson.
VAN SUSTEREN: You've asked us not to use your name.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I greatly appreciate that.
VAN SUSTEREN: So you get to the first day of the trial and opening statements. After you heard the opening statement of the prosecution, before the defense opening statement, what did you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll tell you what, it really threw me for -- it was shocking. It was very shocking. Because again, I really didn't follow much of the case after the first couple of weeks. And with what the state was presenting, I thought that was pretty standard. You know, in the opening remarks, they did show some pictures that were -- you know, that will stay with you for life. And we realized just how intense and how serious this case is.
When -- you know, when the defense got up, then that's when they started throwing out things that we did not know. And that's where it really kind of hit us. It was something that we had to kind of sit back and let soak in and just see where he went with from there. So it was shocking. It was very eye-opening. You know, it's a situation -- that's a time I will never forget.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, the people who watched it on television, or even in the courtroom, we can divert our eyes from the pictures of the remains, or whatever it is, I mean, the really horrible -- you're the fact- finder. You can't. So you actually -- you all had to actually look at the really...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had to look at it.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... the worst pictures.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, we did. We had to look at it. It was right there in front of us. And we had to, you know, make sure that we take -- you know, take the notes that we needed to take on those pictures. And it was tough, you know?
VAN SUSTEREN: How -- how do you -- or what did you believe to be or conclude was how the remains or the body got from wherever the child died to the -- where the remains were found, a couple blocks away?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean, we know that it was -- I mean, obviously, the body was -- it was dumped there. It was left there. As far as -- there's a lot of gray area, a lot of gray area that goes from on that June 15th to when the body was discovered.
And there's a lot of that, you know -- there's just a lot of speculation as to how it got there. Who took it there? And just a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. So I can't really comment on that. I don't know how it got there, how Caylee got there. I don't -- I can't tell you how or who, but ultimately, the body ended up there.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you -- were you ever convinced how she died?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Never.
VAN SUSTEREN: So what's your most likely, which is -- which is -- apart from -- beyond a reasonable doubt is a very different standard than what's most likely or what you think or what you guess or anything. Where do you fall in the spectrum?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, as far as -- again, this is all -- this is all speculation. There's a number of ways that Caylee could have died. You know, there is the possibility, there was the evidence of chloroform, which we can touch on later. There was a pool right there just a -- feet away, you know, a couple feet away from the doors that, you know, has had pictures of her being able to open, ladders that she potentially could really have climbed up herself.
And I know that that is a major way that a lot of children die down here in Florida. But we don't know if that's the cause or if that was the cause of death. We don't know the cause of death, and that was one of the major issues that we had and one of the major issues that we had to address. We don't know the cause of death. Everything was speculation.
VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the chloroform. How did that figure into this and into your thinking?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the chloroform -- it really -- as far as the development of the chloroform, the Internet search on the chloroform, you know, really, there was the MySpace or FaceBook posting of the "Win her over with chloroform" picture. And then there was the actual Google search the next day that was done from the computer, not the laptop, but from the actual desktop computer in the Anthony home.
You can speculate, you know, hey, here it is, the boyfriend posts this, "Win her over with chloroform." The next day, I want to know what chloroform is. You can speculate into that. There was no documentation on buying anything to make chloroform. The one Internet search that she made from Google was a three-minute Internet search. And then it subsided from there.
And you know, if there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.
We were told, and they did, you know, as far as how -- and what chloroform is detected in other products at the levels -- you know, chloroform is detectable in other products, as well. But there just was not enough, there really was not enough for us to bring chloroform into the mix.
We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car. And even if there was, there still is a question of who and where.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done those searches for chloroform?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.
But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.
VAN SUSTEREN: If this were a murder, in terms of the discussion and the deliberations, and obviously, that was something that wasn't proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... too, as well -- if the -- was there ever some sort of discussion of motive? They don't have to prove motive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: But was there ever any discussion about, like, why anybody would do that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just -- we -- and again, motive was not something that we had 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 a tattoo. What was the discussion? And what do 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 -- it's 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.
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 prosecutors?
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.
VAN SUSTEREN: You mean the -- there's one reference, I think, in closing argument, where Jeff Ashton, the prosecutor, got slapped around a little bit by the judge for smirking.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For smirking, yes. I thought that was very distasteful. You know, the pigs in the blanket thing that he made towards reference to the one guy who put a pig in back of a car and studied decomp of the pig in the car, just -- at times -- and you're there for a long time, and I understand that many things that pop up that could be humorous, but you always have to keep in the back of your mind that there's a -- you know, there's young girl who's died. And you know, we need to maintain our focus.
VAN SUSTEREN: How about the defense team?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the defense team -- you know, I really thought the defense team -- they were always -- again, they were very professional. I thought they did a good job. You know, they brought up -- they pushed the reasonable doubt, and the reasonable doubt was there. So they -- you know, they did a good job of defending, you know, when the prosecution rested, defending. And then I thought they did a good job in their closing remarks of, you know, sticking to their guns in that regard.
VAN SUSTEREN: When was the first vote, then, on it, besides the foreperson issue? When was the first...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I wanted to know -- I wanted to take a pre- vote. I wanted to see where we stand, where people stood. So we voted right away.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, you raise your hand or...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... or in secret? Raise your hand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You raise your hand.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what was the split the first vote?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, for which indictment? When...
VAN SUSTEREN: Murder.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, for murder, it was 10 to 2, 10 saying -- it was 10 innocent, 2 guilty.
VAN SUSTEREN: And about -- if you went in about 2:15, when do you think that was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't remember exactly when that was.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hour, two hours, three hours, next day?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably about -- well, it wasn't the next day, but we went in on the first day. It was within the first hour.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there was not a lot of persuading or anything that had to be done. I mean, the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for the pre-vote.
VAN SUSTEREN: Not for the pre-vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there were two that -- were they adamant on guilty or just uncertain, or how do you measure their level of...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe with one, there was an uncertainty, one that was pretty adamant about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Adamant that it was guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what later changed that to not guilty, do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never -- I never really -- with that person, I didn't get into that. It changed through our deliberations...
VAN SUSTEREN: Sooner or later? Or much later?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was much later. The next day, was -- when we did our post-votes is when that came out. And we realized -- you know, the indictments 4 through 7, I wanted to get that out of the -- that -- there was direct evidence on that.
VAN SUSTEREN: That's the lying.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was the lying.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so we -- you know, there was no -- that was a no-brainer. That was 12 to nothing guilty. And we -- so we knocked those out right away because the evidence was there. We get into 1 through 3, then that's where the issue is raised.
As far as the first one with murder in the first, you know, with the 10-2 voting, after going the process that I explained earlier, where we dissected the word or the verbiage that was on the indictment and looked at our notes and looked at the evidence, you know, the killing we couldn't -- was not something that we could get.
VAN SUSTEREN: She didn't testify. She has an absolute constitutional right not to testify. But everyone always wonders whether the jury thinks, like, Why didn't she testify if she didn't do anything? Did you -- was there any discussion about her not testifying?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, never. That was never brought up.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you want to hear from her?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean, you want to hear from the person who is -- that they're talking about for the six to eight weeks. But that's not -- she has a right not to testify. So it would have been very just unproductive to me to dwell on that, for any of us to dwell on that. There was -- there would be no reason for us to do that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you see her cry?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think about that, genuine or -- what'd you think about that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know. I think there were times, you know, when she was crying because -- you know, I did think it was genuine when Lee was crying. That was a very heart-wrenched emotional point for Lee. And I thought that was -- that was genuine for her.
But all the others -- I don't know what she's asked to do or told what to do. I don't know if she's the type of person that can cry on the drop of a dime when she needs to. So not something that I really weighed into anything when it became time for us to come to a verdict.
VAN SUSTEREN: Any disgust for anyone in particular?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'll tell you what. When I had to -- when I had to sign off on the -- on the indictments, there was a...
VAN SUSTEREN: You mean the verdict.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The verdict, yes. When I had to sign off on the verdicts, the sheet that was given to me, there was just a feeling of disgust that came across me, knowing that my signature and her signature were going to be there on the same sheet.
I do have a disgust for -- I don't want to name names, but for people in the family. I do. There's issues that go on that I don't -- I can't really discuss. But yes, there is a sense of disgust, by all means.
VAN SUSTEREN: What about the meter reader? What do you think happened? Do you think that he -- that he had anything to do with moving the remains...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, Roy Kronk?
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he see the remains in August really? I mean, what do you make of all that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know what to make of Roy Kronk. I know the defense pushed the issue with him. I just -- there wasn't much time spent on him for us to really generate a strong feeling towards Roy Kronk. I do think -- you know, he did -- you know, he stated that he did remove the remains at a time -- at time. You know, he picked a bag up. At one point, a skull came out.
VAN SUSTEREN: But you don't think he moved it from the house?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, he used the meter reader stick...
VAN SUSTEREN: You don't think he moved it from the house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I don't -- there's nothing that puts him in that house. There's nothing that shows consistently he was involved in the Anthony family. So that was not something that I really -- that I really took in consideration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Here's more of our interview with the jury foreman and what he and other jurors thought about Casey Anthony's father, George.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: Jose Baez's opening statement said that there was child molestation in the family, George on Casey and also Lee.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you believe that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You didn't believe it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was not something -- well, there was no evidence to back that, so I could not really take it into consideration. That was not really much of a -- that was not a discussion of ours when we got into deliberation as far as the sexual abuse. What was, was George Anthony's actions and his demeanor, and you know, the way that he presented some things up there on the stand.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what about his actions and his demeanor? What was the -- what did you think and what did others think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that's a good question because, you know, I was right there. You know, I was 10 feet from him. And you know, I'm used to reading -- because of my profession, I'm used to reading people. And I really thought that George had a very selective memory in the whole regard. I thought that George at times could remember something to be as vivid as it just happened the day before.
The way that he described a number of things that happened on June 15th would be one example. He could tell you everything that happened. He could tell you everything that everybody was wearing. He could tell you the show that he was watching, the topic that they were on.
But then you go and he's questioned on a gas can. He couldn't remember which can or -- and we had to go back and forth. I know him and the defense went back and forth as to which picture he was shown when he was really only shown one. And he went back and forth on that. You know, he had very selective memory for me.
And that in itself was something that I always kept in the back of my mind. But you know, with George, with the can, the selective memory, the way that he handled the tow yard incident, the -- you know, River Cruz, the lady that he could have had an extramarital affair with -- it raised questions. It really did.
VAN SUSTEREN: Raised questions about his character, or whether he had some involvement in the death of his granddaughter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really both for me, character as far as the fact that he could be possibly lying. Also, the fact that his involvement was going to be in question because he was there on the 15th. He was the -- you know, he can tell you exactly when Casey and Caylee left.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did anybody think George was believable or credible, or were others likewise suspicious of him?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a suspicion of him. That was -- that was a part of our conversation that we had of the -- well, what I'd call the round robin topics that we had when we were doing deliberation. That was brought up.
VAN SUSTEREN: Suspicious that he was involved in covering up the death, suspicious he was involved with the -- an accidental death, or suspicious he was a murderer?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All three.
VAN SUSTEREN: Really, that he was a murderer?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All three. We don't know. We don't know. The suspicions were raised.
VAN SUSTEREN: In the deliberation room?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We talked about it in deliberation. Yes, I can go a little more in depth into what we did in the deliberation room since I was the one who had to orchestrate the whole situation.
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 (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.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox