Follow The Stir

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

by Kiri Blakeley on November 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM

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?


Image via Pinnellas County Jail

Comments

8
  • PRIMA487
    --

    PRIMA487

    November 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM
    Nope. There was other stuff searched for too like you mentioned but that didn't seem to sway the jury. I truly think the jury wanted to see the actual homicide happen in front of them in order to put this piece of filth away.
  • shesl...
    --

    shesliketx

    November 21, 2012 at 5:42 PM
    No I don't think it would have. That case was such a disaster in the first place what with the defense with-holding important information during the discovery process. I have read the book written by the prosecuting attorney and he did a great job of filling the gaps in the evidence as to why Casey was acquitted. The jury legally has to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a lot of confusion on certain things and I guarantee you Jose Baez should be disbarred.
  • lasombrs
    --

    lasombrs

    November 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM

    :( 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
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Andrea

    November 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
    This trial made me sick. I was a stay at home mom during the time it was aired on TV and I watched day n night.... All I'm convinced of is that our legal "blinded" system in this country lets a murdered walk free. Disgusting, those judges, lawyers and jury will pay the price one day of their actions.
  • tuffy...
    --

    tuffymama

    November 21, 2012 at 7:32 PM
    I don't think anything could have swayed that idiot jury. They were unhappy with the prosecutor and taken in by that tool, Baez. Screw them. And I hope Casey burns.
  • DebaLa
    --

    DebaLa

    November 22, 2012 at 12:31 AM

    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. 


  • Readi...
    --

    ReadingIsSexy27

    November 24, 2012 at 8:41 PM

    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
    --

    jrseden

    November 25, 2012 at 6:16 AM
    she did it, jury must of been pooled from lobotomy recovery clinic. her lawyer was no more then creative smoke screener! just enough bs to confuse true for jury. wait in 5 or so yrs she'll write a book called "if i was guilty, this is how i'd have done it" shame for wat she said about father, & for hell whole family went thru. they most likely rescued her over & over while grown up, in numbers only. oh no worries....SHES GOT VIP BURN IN HELL!!
1-8 of 8 comments

To leave a comment, log in as a CafeMom member:

Log In

OR, use our non-member comment form: