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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (31-40):
by Gold Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM
1 mom liked this

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

I followed the case from the first moment to the last.   I watched every bit of it, I read all the public documents, and I read the case (the entire case, every word).  I was disabled and could not work at the time so I had all the time in the world.   I went over every single bit of it.

It came down to the same thing -

1.) where did she die.

2.) when did she die.

3.) how did she die.

No evidence.

FURTHER.   Once you prove when and where she died, then you have to place the defendant there at that place and that time.


This was a bare bones case.   There was NO WAY the prosecution could win and that was totally obvious from the very beginning.   They made a case of it because they had to - the public demanded it.  

And I'll tell you something else.   I'll bet all the tea in Kerala that the prosecution did all they could to get the other family members to turn on each other.   All they did was muddy the waters.   Normally they would turn on each other and break the case wide open.   No dice here.

So what could the prosecution do?   NOTHING.   Except bring up a lot of maybes and what ifs.  And hope to get the jury on their side by huffing and puffing.   I feel sorry for them.  

This case was lost from the moment it was filed.

And YOU ALL have jerks like Amy Grace to thank for why you're so shocked when they prosecution loses the case.

by on Nov. 22, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Exactly. The prosecution overcharged. Had they charged her with non-capital murder, they MIGHT have been able to get her for manslaughter or even aggravated child abuse. By charging her with capital murder, they screwed themselves because the jury was not allowed to consider lesser charges. 

Not to mention since there was no cause of death, the prosecution screwed themselves in the very beginning by going public with the theory that Casey killed her accidentally by overdosing her with chloroform. They inserted their own reasonable doubt into their case 

And people forget that Casey admitted that she killed her. According to her testimony on the stand, she drowned in the swimming pool. Since the prosecutor had no cause of death and had already inserted reasonable doubt. This case was a classic case of the prosecution not doing their job properly.

Quoting Sisteract:

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.


by on Nov. 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM
2 moms liked this

I was going to say this. I believe 100% she killed her. She had absolutely NO REMORSE at all. She lied to everyone saying Caylee was with the babysitter. She parties while her child is dead and acts like everything is normal. Then of course she makes up the kidnapping story. Gets pissed off when her mom asks her where Caylee is, she only wants to talk about getting her boyfriends phone number. Sadly the justice system failed that beautiful little girl but hopefully Karma will not.

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

by Bronze Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM

No it doesn't because how can they prove 100% that she looked it up.  And if she did so what.  What if she (pretend with me) she could have said yes, I looked it up, but I was watching a movie/tv show on tv that showed that method of murder was done and I wanted more information.  I watch a lot of crime shows on reruns (bones, Ncis. 48 hours hard evidence) and I wonder about some of the ways folks are killed and I sometimes look up the show information, but it doesn't mean that just because I look it up that I want to do the same.

and folks the reason why she got out of it was because there was no evidence, Casey's fingerprints, and all of the real evidence disappeared when she decided to tell her mother that the child missing (after 30 days), then they couldn't find the body until they did.  Also the stupid prosecution made her out to be a good mother. 

by Gold Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Anthony never said anything on the witness stand about drowning her child.

by Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM

 It wouldn't have mattered with that jury.  Geez!!!!  RIP Caylee. 

by Bronze Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I would like to add a few things to this:

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  NancyGrace 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.  I have found that Nancy Grace is incredible stupid and dangerous.  She goes off way before the facts are available.  I will admit she has gotten a bit better since she had the twins, but she along with others tend to blame the wrong people.  I really hate it when a child goes missing (especially female).  The first thing out of her mouth and I hate to say it Mark Klaas is that they know for a fact a sex predator did the crime, even after they are cleared.  Why is it that the last two cases (NJ and Colorado) it was folks that knew the victims.  I say check everybody out, not jut the usual suspects.  To me when the police focuses on one group, it creates problems and takes up way too much time..

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.  I was upset that folks blamed the jury and I have a friend who said they shouldn't have juries.  But then again, he believes that if you are accused, you are automatically guilty . He is an idiot.

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.  I bet most people who were upset by the jury are the ones who would avoid jury duty like the plague. 

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.  I think people think everything is like NCIS, Bones, etc. 

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:




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.  If anybody looked up the stuff I look up on the computer, I would be in jail.  One day I was watching one of those shows on Bio, or H2 about a serial killer in Houston, Texas in the 70's by the name of Dean Corll.  I had never heard of this guy, only John Wayne Gacy.  The difference is Dean had help finding his victims. 



by Gold Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Sorry I almost always write Amy Grace when I mean Nancy Grace.   There was a too-too precious Amy Grace at my high school who was so pretentious and so full of BS that the two of them are inexorably connected in my mind.,

Nancy Grace is such an idiot, she caters to the lowest impulses of humanity.

The BAD thing about people like her is some day she is going to get a judge or a juror of an innocent defendant SHOT because o the stupid inflammatory things she says.

NO ONE would have been expecting the jury to convict Anthony if Grace hadn't stomped around for months shooing off her mouth.

The thing to say would have been the TRUTH - NOT the jury's fault, NOT the judge's fault.   Those jurors were CRYING but they had to follow the law.

The evidence they had was weak as water.   They did everything they could to try to get some decent evidence, and they could not.   

We don't convict people of murder based on popularity contests.   But on nuts-and-bolts evidence - where was tthe murder, when was the murder, how was it done, then PUT the defendant at the place, at that time, and prove the means.

by AllieCat on Nov. 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM

The person who wrote this article needs to go back to school.

That was painful.

As for the piece of evidence.................I haven't a clue if it would have made a difference. 

by Ruby Member on Nov. 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Quoting FromAtoZ:

The person who wrote this article needs to go back to school.

That was painful.

As for the piece of evidence.................I haven't a clue if it would have made a difference. 


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)