Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

New Evidence Claims Casey Anthony Searched For "Suffocation" on Day of Caylee's Murder -Would this have mattered?

Posted by   + Show Post

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?

by on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Replies (11-20):
MorganTho
by Bronze Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM
It may have affected it before but it's too late now. The prosecutors should have waited until they had a solid case!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
romalove
by Roma on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting lancet98:

 

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.

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.

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.

 I completely disagree with you. 

The Anthony jury, in all of the interviews I saw, individually believed her to be guilty.  They couldn't surmount that distinction between "reasonable" and what I would term "unreasonable" doubt.

If there was no evidence from the dry bones, there was less evidence of George Anthony's having done anything wrong, yet he was painted as a villian by the defense without having a chance to address what they said, because they didn't introduce it through direct evidence or questioning, but in an opening statement that was then never revisited.  Jurors said they didn't trust him and couldn't tell what his involvement was.

Meanwhile, this woman, the last person known to be with her child, who then lied for months to investigators as to the whereabouts of this child, who had motive and opportunity both, who had the body buried nearby the home, there wasn't enough evidence for the jury.

 

lancet98
by Silver Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM

You're not getting it.   At all.

motha2daDuchess
by Bruja on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM
3 moms liked this
If "how to make chloroform" didn't give them a hint, I doubt suffocation would. This bitch killed her kid and people are still you, "you cant prove it", idk not going to the police when she "disappeared", didnt hint them either. Sad about the Law and Order" effect that people think needs to happen
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
DixieL
by Dixie on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM
1 mom liked this

I'm not surprised about anything she did or would have done to her daughter. I want her to spend the rest of her life in prison.

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM


Quoting survivorinohio:

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.

Then how did the car get that horrid smell?

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM


Quoting romalove:

 

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.

gotcha

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting motha2daDuchess:

If "how to make chloroform" didn't give them a hint, I doubt suffocation would. This bitch killed her kid and people are still you, "you cant prove it", idk not going to the police when she "disappeared", didnt hint them either. Sad about the Law and Order" effect that people think needs to happen

Exactly.  I wonder what people who don't get this think of the made up nanny story?

survivorinohio
by René on Nov. 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM


Quoting futureshock:


Quoting survivorinohio:

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.

Then how did the car get that horrid smell?

the body may have been in the trunk but it wasnt there for any amount of time.  For me its about the lack of pupa cases in the car.  When a maggot turns into a fly  they move away from their food source and go into a cocoon of sorts.  None were found in the car and they would have been there if the prosecutions story had been true.

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


AMBG825
by on Nov. 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM


Quoting futureshock:


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?

Yes I followed it. I do understand the verdict. Casey claimed the child died from an accidental drowning. The prosecution stated she suffocated her. The prosecution helped the defense by also suggesting that it could have been an accidental death. Basically there were 3 very different and each plausible explanations. Knowing the cause of death would have been able to determine the difference between an accidental death or a intentional one. People don't get the death penalty for accidental deaths. 


So yes. Cause of death is crucial to most murder cases. You cannot say someone was murdered if you don't know how they died. 






 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)