'I'M the one who Googled chloroform': Casey Anthony's mother drops a bombshell as she testifies

reply to post by adeclerk


no it was a day of injustice!! A little girl was killed at the hands of this monster. I hope stick a detective on her 24-7 and constantly tail her and charge her for every little thing and send her away for life. This was not justice

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Yeah your personal opinion based on other people's opinion's is probably right over a jury of 12 people that heard all the testimony and had all the evidence in a room with them and deliberated on it for 12 hours.

Justice was served.I can't believe you are on this site and can't see any other possibility outside of her murdering her daughter. I thought people here could think outside the box.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


It is not personal opinion. The evidence proved that she was guilty. The jurors voting were voting on opinion as well, not fact. No justice was served.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


No the evidence didn't point to anything. There was barely any evidence.

Yeah it was opinion, but the jury's was an informed opinion. They are right.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The evidence proved that she was guilty.

What piece or pieces of evidence proved she killed her child?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It is called circumstantial evidence. The Chloroform, the duct tape, the kid near the house. If I grab a orange from a box, one can deduce that the box had oranges in it and not just materialize. One does not need proof of the orange being placed inside the box for that.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


There wasn't really any amount of chloroform that could be considered. Either way none of those three things indicate murder over accidental death.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


How much chloroform was there? Chloroform does not spontaneously form, it is placed there.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Chloroform is actually found in lots of cleaning supplies. Those were the amounts they found it in.
I don't think she ever possessed, used, or made chloroform.

my daughter had been following the TV case from the start...

she was astounded by the 'Not Guilty' verdicts to the murder and intentional manslaughter? charges
and the 'Guilty' verdicts on all the 6 or more charges of lying to Police and Investigators...


unpulsed... i said that a quick decision usually finds the defendant 'Not Guilty'
all one has to do is recall the OJ Simpson drama


in any event.... i'm glad there was no death penalty assigned

reply to post by St Udio


I thought a quick decision usually means guilty, but it wasn't really quick it was 12 hours that's about average for murder. Either way I think she was innocent of murder so I'm glad we don't have her going to death or life for something she didnt do.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So who was cleaning the dead body with chloroform after they killed her? Also why would someone search chloroform 80 some odd times unless you were a chemistry nerd.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Just because we don't have the answer to a question does not mean we can convict her of murder. It's important to realize how the jury and legal system work.

Didn't she have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt? So if there was any doubt, she would receive the verdict she did.

I didn't follow the case at all. SOMEONE killed the little girl. I know if my kid came up missing for even 10 minutes I would be freaking out. 30 some odd days and shes partying? I dunno.. the whole family is screwed up and I'm sure the mom and dad knew full well what happened. Frankly I think they are all guilty. But now she will walk free (after her time on the other 4 charges).

They can only now go after her on involuntary manslaughter or whatever the other charge is (unlawful death?).

I think the prosecution really screwed the pooch on this one. And I think the defense threw every single thing they could at the jury. From the dad molesting her to the brother molesting her.

The saddest part is now she will probably get stinking filthy rich over book deals and movies.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So who was cleaning the dead body with chloroform after they killed her? Also why would someone search chloroform 80 some odd times unless you were a chemistry nerd.

Who said they were cleaning the dead body? Could be cleaning something near it.

I'm not that familiar with the evidence the jury heard, but Headline News made some reference to the possibility that jurors believed that the evidence about the 80 searches may have been fabricated by the prosecution. They didn't get much more specific than that so I don't know any details, but that was an interesting comment I hadn't heard before.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Who said they were cleaning the dead body? Could be cleaning something near it.

Was chloroform found anywhere else near the body? No, only on the body, meaning that it was used to subdue the baby and then murder her and toss the baby like a bag of trash.

Caylee Anthony did not die from old age. And certainly not from natural causes.

The medical examiner concluded death was by homicide. That result seems to not have been considered.

Someone has gotten away with murdering a two year old child. It's certainly nothing to celebrate.

This is OJ Simpson all over again.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Didn't she have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt? So if there was any doubt, she would receive the verdict she did.

That's the bottom line. There was a reasonable doubt perceived by the jury.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Someone has gotten away with murdering a two year old child.

That may indeed be true. But the legal system will never make 100% perfect decisions in every case. So it's setup such that when an error occurs, it's more likely that a guilty person will go free, than an innocent person will be put in jail. As much as we don't like to see guilty people go free, I hope we can agree that sending innocent people to jail or death is a worse outcome. I'm not saying she was innocent, just that her guilt wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think the legal system worked. They couldn't prove her guilt. That means she's innocent in the eyes of the law. She may still have done it, but they couldn't prove it.

I'd much rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person convicted.

from what little I know of the trial, I think it worked the way it's supposed to work. Of course we don't want guilty people to go free, but we will make errors and when we do, we absolutely must err in this manner. The alternative of sentencing innocent people to death is much worse, and yes, we have done that, at least 17 times! Are we bad?

www.innocenceproject.org...

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

Originally posted by DerekJR321


They can only now go after her on involuntary manslaughter or whatever the other charge is (unlawful death?).

I'll answer that... NO

They can not charge her or anyone
else in this case.

To do so would be double jeopardy

It is over... The circus is over @@

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


It was never searched 80 sum times. It was searched fact. Don't convict without all the evidence which apparently you don't have. The 80 sum search results was the product of misleading and false info introduced by the prosecution. Jose Baez called them out in his closing statements and called them liars for it. There was one search for chloroform. Just one.