Juror #2 tells newspaper “the evidence wasn’t there” to convict for murder.
By Art Harris, The Bald Truth, (c) www.artharris.com, all rights reserved
Juror Number 2 in the Casey Anthony murder case says “the evidence wasn’t there” to find her guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Without revealing his name, he tells The St. Petersburg Times jurors believed Anthony killed her two year old daughter, Caylee, but prosecutors failed to make a case with enough concrete evidence to persuade them beyond a reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, Judge Belvin Perry sent Casey Anthony back to jail–until next Wednesday, when she will be released despite his four year sentence for lying to police since she’s amassed enough jail time to receive credit for time served. She also faces possible fines.
The judge is also considering releasing names of jurors, but told media lawyers arguing for the material that he’s weighing their right to privacy versus the public’s right to know. Their personal safety and the cost of protecting them is a big concern, he says, and will at least enforce a cooling off period before the names go out.
OJ prosecutor Marcia Clark said she’s outraged that jurors can be paid for stories in a verdict and could be moved to alter a verdict based on how much such they figure verdict would be worth in terms of media interviews. Look for possible legislation beefing up “son of sam” laws barring those convicted of violent crimes from profiting from them to include jurors serving on big criminal cases.
Flabergasted by the not guilty verdict, Nancy Grace asked a favorite legal expert about an alternate juror speaking out and expressing a view that she said sounded like he was in a “completely different courtroom.”
Atlanta criminal lawyer Ray Giudice takes issue. “I thought if any mistakes were made, prosecutors got unfocused on major evidence and spent (too much) time running down rabbit holes” dug by the defense.
A veteran criminal lawyer, Giudice said trying to debunk wild theories Jose Baez was using to blast reasonable doubt, prosecutors may have unwittingly given defense red herrings credibility by trying to fight them.
But he drew the line in attacking jurors.
“I won’t insult those jurors who were in that courtroom for 30 days (who) heard what was missing, like hard linkages between this young lady and that child’s death. I’m not going to sit here, insult and second guess them.”
Another legal expert said prosecutors didn’t investigate enough to be able to deflate Baez theories in opening statements, like the unproven allegatiions of sexual abuse Casey leveled at her father, George.
“They should have sent their own investigators to interview neighbors, friends, school officials and others to see if anything like that was ever noted at the time,” he said. “Then he could have been called as a witness to testify he investigated but found no evidence of this wild claim.”
In fact, the prosecution never used a so called jailhouse letter to impeach the claims that Casey reportedly wrote from jail suggesting her brother fondled her growing up and that her father “may have,” but never went into the kind of conclusive abuse Baez claimed happened.
One problem might have been that the letter was written to a convicted felon whose credibility could have been questioned in cross examination, but it might have given prosecutors enough to wake up jurors that they were hearing a convenient fantasy spun into a fairytale that may have gotten Casey off.
Go to http://www.artharris.com for more