New Evidence Claims Casey Anthony Searched For "Suffocation" on Day of Caylee's Murder
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?
Image via Pinnellas County Jail
Piping Hot Posts
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
PRIMA487
shesliketx
lasombrs
:( I lived down the street from this psycho and we moved due to all the traffic and helicopters and protesters and what not this trial brought out. I hope that women rots in hell for what she did to that poor child and to her family for throwing them under the bus like that :/
but sadly no, I doubt it would have helped. The whole case was a mess from the start and poor Calyee will never have the justice she deserves.
Andrea
tuffymama
DebaLa
That's one thing that Prosecutors need to learn: effective defense lawyers (I didn't say 'good' ones) know how to work a jury, pandering to them with personal and emotional appeals and diversions. Prosecutors are so sure they'll win the day on the "facts" alone when everyone knows that's not where real life is lived, and decisions are made.
The jury did not do their duty by connecting inferences — actually thinking — and would have rendered a different outcome. But Baez was too successful in building smokescreens, and putting the Prosecution on the defensive. Not to mention realistically she was overcharged based on any theory they could prove, so...
Also the Prosecution lost a little credibility when the 84 internet searches for chloroform turned out to be 1, the rest were internal extrapolations. And Cindy explained the rest away. So, any more computer-related activities wouldn't have carried much weight.
Never have I been an audience to watching people lie their way thru life and to that unjust verdict as I did with this trial. I hope never to witness anything like that again. Beyond sick and sickening. The trial fustercluck of the century.
ReadingIsSexy27
The facts are that the jury DID do their job. They did what they were supposed to do, look at the facts presented at trial. And based on that, and that alone, they did the right thing. They deserve to be applauded, not raked over the coals. The prosecution failed greately in their jobs, they did NOT present a well planned, air tight case. They should have waited until they had everything figured out before they took her to trial. They are who should be blamed for what happened, not the jury.
jrseden