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 (21-30):
Paperfishies
by Silver Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM
1 mom liked this
I hope some nutjobs tracks her down and murders her. She is such a narcissistic piece of shit.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AMBG825
by on Nov. 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM
1 mom liked this

But personal and gut feelings shouldn't be the level at which people convict someone of murder. There has to be evidence. The prosecution didn't have enough evidence. 

Quoting romalove:

 

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.

 







 

survivorinohio
by René on Nov. 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

This is one subject I absolutely agree with you on.

Quoting AMBG825:

But personal and gut feelings shouldn't be the level at which people convict someone of murder. There has to be evidence. The prosecution didn't have enough evidence. 

Quoting romalove:

 

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.

 



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


Stephanie329
by Platinum Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM
They didn't have to do what?

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?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
hopealways4019
by Silver Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:42 PM
They letted this child murderer get off. Let it rest now so caylee can rest. This monster cant be tried again.@
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
MeAndTommyLee
by Platinum Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Your unpopular post gels with my unpopular opinion on this case.  The  jury was not "full of morons," and they delivered the correct verdict in light of the facts that the State had no cause of death, nor could the DA prove a homicide occurred -- this IS a classic case of acquitted by reasonable doubt. 

Quoting AMBG825:


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. 


MeAndTommyLee
by Platinum Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I agree with your line of thinking, but disagree with you on the notion that the DA could have ever gotten a solid case.  They had enough time to build a case and could not due to the fact that they could not find a cause of death or prove that a homicide occurred -- as another poster pointed out. 

Quoting MorganTho:

It may have affected it before but it's too late now. The prosecutors should have waited until they had a solid case!


MeAndTommyLee
by Platinum Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

BUMP

MeAndTommyLee
by Platinum Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Time to have our Thanksgiving dinner ladies, but still wish to discuss this post later!

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Nov. 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM

They overcharged Anthony.

I do not understand how the jury found her not guilty of child endangerment- How is waiting 30 days to report your child missing appropriate behavior? That is endangerment/neglect.

Unless an autopsy could link the death to suffocation, this evidence would have changed nothing.

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)