• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Casey Anthony: New Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daw840

Member
Did a search, lock if old.

(CBS/WKMG) ORLANDO, Fla. - A new report from CBS affiliate WKMG says prosecutors and investigators in the Casey Anthony trial missed important computer evidence showing the Florida mom may have researched how to kill with poison and suffocation on the day they claim her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, died from those same causes.

Pictures: Casey Anthony personal photos

According to the station, prosecutors were not even aware of a majority of the potentially damning computer browser evidence at the time of the trial.

"We were waiting for the state to bring it up," defense attorney Jose Baez told WKMG. "And when they didn't, we were kind of shocked."

In July 2011, a jury acquitted Anthony of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her toddler.

The afternoon of Caylee's death, June 16, 2008, someone reportedly searched the term "fool-proof suffocation," misspelling the last word as "suffication," on the Anthony family's computer. The user then reportedly clicked on an article that criticizes pro-suicide websites that include advice on "foolproof" ways to die. "Poison yourself and then follow it up with suffocation" by placing "a plastic bag over the head," the writer quotes others as advising.

This is the same method prosecutors argued Anthony used to kill her daughter, but they did not have the evidence at trial.

Baez, who spoke about the evidence in his book, "Presumed Guilty," suggested Casey's father, George Anthony, made the search because he was considering suicide after Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool.

But according to WKMG, evidence shows the search occurred after George said he left for work and while Casey Anthony's cellphone is pinging a tower nearest the home. Shortly after the search, records show browser activity on Myspace, a website Casey Anthony used often and George did not.

The station reports that part of the blame lies with the Orange County Sheriff's Office, which possessed the evidence but failed to extract it and turn it over to prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous......how the hell was this not brought up in court?!?

It's a short piece, not bolding.

Source
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
AzANR.gif
 
W

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
daw840 said:
Really?!? Googling how to kill someone on the day that someone dies whom you're suspected of killing wouldn't have changed the verdict?!?
Click to expand...
i already thought she was guilty so this new evidence does nothing for my opinion. However, if someone thought she was innocent before i doubt very seriously this would change their minds.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Orrichio said:
I could have sworn that this was evidence before... searching how to kill... What the heck? I must've imagined it.
Click to expand...

The search history was definitely brought up, I just don't know if it was this specific entry. I guess it's possible this could have swayed the jury but I really doubt it would. It was badly handled throughout.
 
B

BattleMonkey

Member
TangoAlphaLima said:
The jury watched too much CSI.

Seriously, this is a problem for modern day prosecutors.
Click to expand...

No, they had no actual proof. Looking guilty in many ways is not proof of guilt. Jury made their choice

TangoAlphaLima said:
In most states, if not all, a defendant can be found guilty of even the gravest of offenses with merely circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun needed.
Click to expand...

Yea, and it's up to the jury. None of the evidence that was presented could actually link her to a murder, jury did what they thought was right
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
KHarvey16 said:
The search history was definitely brought up, I just don't know if it was this specific entry. I guess it's possible this could have swayed the jury but I really doubt it would. It was badly handled throughout.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, her search history regarding chloroform was brought into evidence, but not this search history regarding suffocation.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
BattleMonkey said:
No, they had no actual proof. Looking guilty in many ways is not proof of guilt. Jury made their choice
Click to expand...

Let me quote myself here:

TangoAlphaLima said:
In most states, if not all, a defendant can be found guilty of even the gravest of offenses with merely circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun needed.
Click to expand...

Attorney here, btw. I do know what I'm talking about. The jury may have thought there wasn't enough evidence, but legally there was. The jury just wanted a 100% case closed presentation, and that was impossible under the circumstances. Around this country, there are undoubtedly thousands of cases with less evidence that result in a guilty verdict every year. This was just a dumbass jury.
 
C

Camp Lo

Banned
I'm kind of surprised that was withheld. But I made so much money in a pool at work. I knew they wouldn't send her to prison for that shit.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
Jimothy said:
The prosecution blew it.
Click to expand...

They were shoddy, I'll give you that. But Baez, Casey Anthony's defense counsel, was pretty damn poor himself. This wasn't Chris Darden and Marcia Clark versus O.J.'s legal dream team. I blame the jury, especially after hearing some of the juror comments following the verdict. They honestly did not understand what was asked of them.
 
F

faceless007

Member
water_wendi said:
i already thought she was guilty so this new evidence does nothing for my opinion. However, if someone thought she was innocent before i doubt very seriously this would change their minds.
Click to expand...
I didn't follow it that closely, but from what I understand the jurors thought the prosecution didn't sufficiently prove the elements of first-degree and she wasn't charged with anything lesser.

This might have proved first-degree. Oops.
 
B

BassForever

Member
Based upon the evidence shown I would have acquitted her, my gut says she's guilty but the prosecution failed to convince me. I was convinced the women was a terrible mother and was guilty of child neglect and being a terrible person, but none of those things make her a murderer.
 
E

Eiolon

Member
Se can still be prosecuted for the murder again. Just like OJ can. It was the state that filed charges and charged her. The federal government can charge her using the same evidence she was acquitted with if they wanted to. This is why when someone is acquitted of something such as murder, if they did do the deed, they do NOT confess to it. You can still be charged on the federal level.

Source: I work with cops.
 
C

Camp Lo

Banned
BassForever said:
Based upon the evidence shown I would have acquitted her, my gut says she's guilty but the prosecution failed to convince me.
Click to expand...

This. My wife argues that she would have gone with her gut on this, fuck the evidence. That kind of shit freaks me out. Like, fuck evidence? Really??
 
S

sangreal

Member
TangoAlphaLima said:
The jury watched too much CSI.

Seriously, this is a problem for modern day prosecutors.
Click to expand...

That isn't really what happened. There was almost no evidence tying Casey to the murder, and not because we live in the real world -- it was largely thanks to Casey's obstruction by hiding the body (which she was convicted of). IIRC, at least one of the jurors said they voted not guilty because they thought it was equally plausible that her dad was guilty. It wasn't a big stretch when the prosecutor couldn't convince anyone of how she died let alone where/when and people found the dad's behavior suspicious as well.

(for the record, I think she was guilty but I have no trouble seeing how a jury could be less than convinced by the evidence)
 
A

Atrus

Gold Member
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:
While this is somewhat true, the prosecution still had to prove that she killed her daughter beyond a reasonable doubt and they didn't.
Click to expand...

I would say the verdict rests on the interpretation of 'reasonable'. The scenario the defense put together was so improbable, the lack of a guilty verdict ultimately brought the courts into ridicule.
 
L

lexi

Banned
Eiolon said:
Se can still be prosecuted for the murder again. Just like OJ can. It was the state that filed charges and charged her. The federal government can charge her using the same evidence she was acquitted with if they wanted to. This is why when someone is acquitted of something such as murder, if they did do the deed, they do NOT confess to it. You can still be charged on the federal level.

Source: I work with cops.
Click to expand...

While I think she is guilty, I think this is bullshit. This is pretty much double jeopardy.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Holy Crap said:
This. My wife argues that she would have gone with her gut on this, fuck the evidence. That kind of shit freaks me out. Like, fuck evidence? Really??
Click to expand...

If you've ever been on a jury it shouldn't surprise you. After experiencing it, I would never want these people responsible for my fate.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
Eiolon said:
Se can still be prosecuted for the murder again. Just like OJ can. It was the state that filed charges and charged her. The federal government can charge her using the same evidence she was acquitted with if they wanted to. This is why when someone is acquitted of something such as murder, if they did do the deed, they do NOT confess to it. You can still be charged on the federal level.

Source: I work with cops.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no. Although there are some exceptions, murder is generally a state law thing, not federal. And none of the exceptions apply here.

You work with some dumbass cops.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Eiolon said:
Se can still be prosecuted for the murder again. Just like OJ can. It was the state that filed charges and charged her. The federal government can charge her using the same evidence she was acquitted with if they wanted to. This is why when someone is acquitted of something such as murder, if they did do the deed, they do NOT confess to it. You can still be charged on the federal level.

Source: I work with cops.
Click to expand...

Murdering your kid at home is not a federal crime.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
sangreal said:
That isn't really what happened. There was almost no evidence tying Casey to the murder, and not because we live in the real world -- it was largely thanks to Casey's obstruction by hiding the body (which she was convicted of). IIRC, at least one of the jurors said they voted not guilty because they thought it was equally plausible that her dad was guilty. It wasn't a big stretch when the prosecutor couldn't convince anyone of how she died let alone where/when and people found the dad's behavior suspicious as well.

(for the record, I think she was guilty but I have no trouble seeing how a jury could be less than convinced by the evidence)
Click to expand...

You just don't understand what degree of evidence is required for a conviction, it's really not that much. You want the smoking gun. I'm assuming you watch too much CSI as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Former Bills punter Matt Araiza who was accused of gang rape cleared after evidence shows he wasn't present during incident: prosecutors
2
86
7K
Nobody_Important replied
No Job, Loads of Debt: Covid Upends Middle-Class Family Finances - WSJ
Social
17
3K
daveonezero replied
The story about how a Missouri man was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife is such an infuriating miscariage of justice
35
6K
SpoopySpeedster replied
Doris Bither and the Entity Haunting
0
1K
Airbus Jr replied
Suspect in Mall of America attack that hurt 5-year-old was twice ordered to stay away from mall
19
2K
CyberPanda replied
Top Bottom