Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
Cafe Steph
New Evidence Claims Casey Anthony Searched For "Suffocation" on Day of Caylee's Murder -Would this have mattered?
November 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

New Evidence Claims Casey Anthony Searched For "Suffocation" on Day of Caylee's Murder

Posted by Kiri Blakeley on November 21, 2012 

Casey Anthony

Many people were surely unhappy when Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. Others believed she was innocent. Was there once piece of evidence, somehow left out of the trial, that could have changed everyone's minds? A local Orlando TV station says that for weeks, Casey's defense team waited with dread for the prosecution to bring up a key piece of damning evidence: Casey had reportedly done a search on the family computer for "fool-proof suffication" the same day of Caylee's death. (Yes, she -- provided it really was her -- even misspelled the word.) But the prosecution never brought this up. Why? And if they had, could it have changed the verdict?

Casey's main lawyer, Jose Baez, first brought up the search in his book, Presumed Guilty. However, he blames the search on Casey's father George -- saying he was looking up how to kill himself after Caylee was found drowned.

But the Orlando station, Local 6, says that it was most likely Casey who conducted the search, not her father. Their investigation reportedly shows that Casey's dad was at work at the time of the search, while Casey's cell phone was pinging off a nearby tower, showing that she most likely would have been home at the time.

The user of the computer searched for "fool-proof suffication" and then went to a site that advises people looking to commit suicide to poison themselves and then suffocate themselves with a plastic bag. It was this exact method of death that the state claimed Caylee suffered.

And then, possibly most damning, right after that site, the user then visits MySpace -- a site Casey was known to visit. Not George.

But apparently the prosecution didn't even know about this additional evidence. When Local 6 approached the prosecutor Jeff Ashton with it, he said, "It's just a shame we didn't have it. This certainly would have put the accidental death claim in serious question."

But would it have? I'm not an expert on the trial, but as I recall there were a lot of strange computer searches that were brought into evidence, such as many searches on the word "chloroform," but Baez was always able to explain it away. So I'm not sure this one search term would have made much of a difference. But you never know.

Do you think this new piece of evidence would have mattered?

Replies

  • romalove
    November 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

     I don't think it would have mattered.  Juries don't understand the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt at all".  They mistake the latter for the former.  There was no body, which is convenient for a killer who spent months lying about what happened to her child, leading police and investigators on wild goose chases, allowing the body to decompose and take with it much evidence.

     

  • viv212
    by viv212
    November 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM
    I wonder what Casey is up to today,
  • mama2sqgl
    November 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM
    oh god this whole family is off of reality, the all should be in jail.
  • AMBG825
    by AMBG825
    November 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

    No. I don't think it would have mattered. There was no definite cause of death. If they could say Kaley had been suffocated it might have mattered. But the prosecution couldn't prove how the little girl died. 

  • futureshock
    November 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    First of all, I want to know how the prosecution missed it.  Second of all, I don't think it would have made a difference because the jury was full of morons.

  • futureshock
    November 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM


    Quoting romalove:

     I don't think it would have mattered.  Juries don't understand the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt at all".  They mistake the latter for the former.  There was no body, which is convenient for a killer who spent months lying about what happened to her child, leading police and investigators on wild goose chases, allowing the body to decompose and take with it much evidence.

    But there was a body.


  • futureshock
    November 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM


    Quoting AMBG825:

    No. I don't think it would have mattered. There was no definite cause of death. If they could say Kaley had been suffocated it might have mattered. But the prosecution couldn't prove how the little girl died. 

    OMG they didn't have to.  The little girl was dead and that was obvious.  Were you following this case from the beginning?

  • survivorinohio
    November 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    I think the claim by the prosecution about Caylees body supposedly rotting in the trunk of that car was incredibly damaging to the prosecutions case.  The evidence did not support that theory at all. The pictures of the trunk that a body was left in made it look foolish.

  • romalove
    November 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM

     

    Quoting futureshock:


    Quoting romalove:

     I don't think it would have mattered.  Juries don't understand the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt at all".  They mistake the latter for the former.  There was no body, which is convenient for a killer who spent months lying about what happened to her child, leading police and investigators on wild goose chases, allowing the body to decompose and take with it much evidence.

    But there was a body.


     A body so decomposed that they couldn't get good evidence from it.

  • lancet98
    November 22, 2012 at 12:09 PM

     

    Quoting romalove:

     I don't think it would have mattered.  Juries don't understand the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt at all".  They mistake the latter for the former.  There was no body, which is convenient for a killer who spent months lying about what happened to her child, leading police and investigators on wild goose chases, allowing the body to decompose and take with it much evidence.

     


    You're making a huge, huge, huge wrong statement.

    That 'juries don't know the difference'.   The fact is, that everything the jury does is under very strict instructions from the judge and the jury doesn't mistake ANYTHING for anything else - they are told exactly what each term means and EXACTLY what they can or can't decide and what their reasons need to be.

    You have people like Amy Grace to blame for the public's shock at the outcome of this case.   That woman went to LAW SCHOOL and the cra* that she bubbles up with on her tv show is DISGUSTING.  If she went to law school she is VERY aware of how stupid the stuff she is saying really is and how badly she is misleading the public.

    But what does she give an S?   She's making money hand over fist with her grotesque posturing.

    There was a s***storm of people having hysterics on the internet and blaming the jury - that is NOT how things work.   The jury receives instructions and if they don't follow them the judge can throw the whole thing out.

    WHY?   Because he or she is not following the law?  NO - because the judge is following the law.  That is the judge's sworn duty no matter how his emotions or opinions run.

    This is a country of LAWS, not vigilante justice, not 'I think she done it because she's  a party girl' or 'I think she done it because she's irresponsible and annoying and stupid'.   That is NOT how our country works, and thank GOD it does not work that way.

    The law, court procedure, the jury's job - all far more complicated than you or most people realize.   The jury doesn't just willy nilly 'decide' the things you are stating they decide!

    Juries - and courts - rarely are able to convict on 'dry bones cases' like these - there simply is not enough proof.   The burden of proof for a murder case is set high - intentionally.

    This jury could no more convict Anthony than any other jury.   That she did some internet searches doesnot make ANY difference to the basic facts of the case:

    ONE - WHEN DID THE VICTIM DIE

    TWO-HOW DID THE VICTIM DIE.

    WHERE DID THE VICTIM DIE.

    You have to be able to prove those things beyond doubt AT A MINIMUM to even start to have a HOPE of conviction!!!!!!

    This is the ESSENTIAL problem with the Anthony case.   And a web search doesn't amount to a hill of **** when you have the three insurmountable problems I mentioned, whcih are typical of ALL dry bones cases.

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts