Apparently Casey Anthony jury misunderstood, believed George Anthony was on trial

Jury thought George Antony may have killed Caylee, so Casey Athony is therefore 'innocent'. Screenshot via WFTV.

The Casey Anthony foreman did little to gain support for the infamous Casey Anthony verdict after he gave an interview to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. The foreman tried to explain away one of the most memorable acquittals in history which found the accused Casey Anthony to be guilty of what her defense team called being a “slut and liar”, but not a killer. This is the “mother” who failed to report her toddler missing for 31 days while she partied like it was 1999.  If anything, the interview juror #11 gave to On The Record, raised more questions than it answered. The foreman said that 2 of the jurors were wanting to vote for murder one against Casey, while 10 did not.

We all know how that turned out. It obviously didn’t take much arm twisting for the opposing two to flip. Although juror #2  came out anonymously last week and said that the vote was 6-6 for manslaughter. Again, not much arm twisting there either. So, the Anthony case goes the way of OJ and now the foreman is speaking to what ultimately lead to their acquittal.

During the taped interview on Fox News, juror #11 spoke with Van Susteren with his back to the camera so to not reveal his identity. He explained that there was too much distrust and suspicion of George Anthony to exclude him as the killer. In the end, they didn’t believe his testimony to be believable.

Juror #11 went onto say, “I really thought that George had very selective memory in the whole regard. I thought that George, at times, could remember some things as vividly as if things happened the day before.”

He felt his inconsistent memory was tantamount to selective memory.

He said the manner of death was all based on speculation and if Casey Anthony did have Caylee’s decomposing body in her trunk, they couldn’t rule out the possibility of it being anyone who put her there, including George Anthony.

While this is all fine and good, I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask if the foreman and the rest of the 12 jurors were aware that it was Casey Anthony on trial and not George Anthony and that Casey was the one that was with-holding the truth? Did they bother to ask themselves — if George Anthony killed Caylee, why on earth would Casey Anthony serve 3 years to protect her father?

How the hell does a woman lie to everyone about her toddler’s whereabouts, make things up to cover her own ass, go partying and having a grand ol’ time while her daughter was missing and ultimately found dead, turn into a saint in the jurors’ eyes? Because that is what she would have to be in order for her to go along with taking the fall for a potential murder conviction.

Call me crazy, but I’m sure there were other things that Casey Anthony would have rather had been doing than sleeping behind bars for the last 3 years. She could have easily implicated her father and told the truth, but her lies would have made her at very least an accessory, but given the overwhelming amount of evidence against Casey, albeit circumstantial,  I have a hard time believing the hailing of Casey as a glorified soul and martyr, willing to sacrifice her own life to protect her father who supposedly molested her. To top off the failed logic, juror #11 said that nobody on the jury panel believed that George molested Casey, so they can’t even use that to say that Casey fell on the sword, ‘Mother Theresa-she-is’, because she was so damaged from being raped by her father.

Riddle me this — how does any of that make any sense whatsoever?