Casey Anthony Prosecutors Missed Bombshell: Report

Prosecutors overlooked a bombshell piece of evidence in the Casey Anthony case, Orlando's WKMG claims. On the day of daughter Caylee's death, someone did a computer search for "fool-proof suffication [sic]" and accessed an article that recommended using poison. Anthony lawyer Jose Baez was aware of the computer activity, and planned to say Casey's father, George, was responsible for the searches because he was thinking of killing himself after Caylee accidentally drowned. But the Orange County Sheriff's Office failed to give prosecutors the evidence, and WKMG's investigation reveals Casey was most likely the one searching.

link

Don't tell me to 'get over' this case - because I'm not going to. I know, she was just one little girl... But if I give up on caring - what the hell left is there to care for in the world.

Do I think her 'mother' is guilty? You bet.

Do I think the 'Prosecutor' should lose their position and be prosecuted for failing to perform their job? You bet.

Who was it that said 'No child should die with duct tape across their mouth?'

The searches were done while cellphone records show Casey was likely home. They were done on Firefox, a browser primarily used by Casey, and MySpace was accessed a minute after the "suffication" search—that's a site Casey, not George, used often.

WKMG blames "woefully incomplete information" from the sheriff's office for the fact that prosecutors never even saw the evidence; it apparently only turned over Internet Explorer browser history from that day. "It's just a shame we didn't have it. This certainly would have put the accidental death claim in serious question," the trial prosecutor says. A sheriff's captain calls the lapse "an oversight" and says it's been "a learning experience."

Think about it.

peace

Accessed by the mother's PASSWORD PROTECTED account.

peace

Case is done, nothing's going to change the outcome now. So yes, I think it would be completely reasonable to tell you to get over it, since legally there's nothing that can be done now. It's only speculation and conjecture.

I still believe the parents had more to do with her death than Casey. Casey was a party girl who didn't care about responsibility. Partying was first on her list. Not her kid, (parents watched the kid while she partied), not the parents, not school. But, booze and drugs were more important Doesn't scream murder to me, screams more negligence if anything.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Case is done, nothing's going to change the outcome now. So yes, I think it would be completely reasonable to tell you to get over it, since legally there's nothing that can be done now. It's only speculation and conjecture.

So, we just let it go? Quit talking about this atrocity? No, I'm with the OP. This is apparently new information. If it's true, then the attorney in question shouldn't be allowed to continue practicing. And, while no new criminal proceedings can really be held for Casey, we, as a society owe it to this poor little murdered girl not to look away.

Case is done, nothing's going to change the outcome now. So yes, I think it would be completely reasonable to tell you to get over it, since legally there's nothing that can be done now. It's only speculation and conjecture.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Ok - so the "justice" system has spoken. that's it? Well...let's stop seeking the truth. Case closed!

In fact, let's stop looking into 9/11, Kennedy, Benghazi..let's close ATS!

OP - thanks for keeping this alive, for the girl's sake.

I agree, if it was an accident why all the fuzz, lies and behaviour that nothing was wrong. Pulling innocent people into her story, Nanny who didn´t even know her. I think that tells a lot about person.

What bothers me about this case, and the reply's to this thread so far, is what I saw one woman say on TV who was protesting the verdict at the time. "SOMEONE" has to pay for this little girl's death. She did not care WHO payed, she did not care if they were GUILTY. She just wanted someone to pay. Mob mentality. I did not notice her saying "Ok, you can sacrifice ME so someone pays."

There was a lot that was unusual about this case. I noticed when it occurred that the INVESTIGATING officer had been partying with Casey, they had pictures of them together, and then all that went away. As to removing the prosecutor, sorry, it is not going to happen. If a prosecutor INTENTIONALLY FALSIFY'S EVIDENCE TO PUT SOMEONE AWAY, AND CONFESSES TO IT AND PROVES IT, he still can not be held responsible. He has IMMUNITY. Let alone be held responsible for incompetence.

Having dealt with police, watching them threaten a TV station to remove a story, having the reporter who covered the story worried about me and my wife staying alive, and then watching him and his whole crew quit their jobs out of fear of what the police will do to them for covering the story, I have no doubt we will never get the truth of what happened. So to me anybody who just wants to hang anyone, even Casey Anthony who was not convicted, is nothing more then a mob crying for blood, anybody's blood. The same goes for OJ.

There is only one reason you or anyone else knows about this case:

ADVERTISING REVENUE

It was the sheriff's office that didn't give it to the prosecutor, not the prosecuter failing to present it.

reply to post by silo13
[color=8A8A8A]For clarity:
Do I think she's guilty? I don't know. I was not there.

Originally posted by silo13

The searches were done while cellphone records show Casey was likely home. They were done on Firefox, a browser primarily used by Casey, and [color=BCCCA5]MySpace was accessed a minute after the "suffication" search—that's a site Casey, not George, used often.

Think about it.

That just seems so odd.......

Originally posted by no one at all

[color=BCCCA5]hmmmm. I wonder how I could get away with killing a young child.......
immediately followed by:
[color=BCCCA5]hmmmm. I wonder what my Myspace friends are doing today.........

P.S.

Originally posted by silo13

Who was it that said 'No child should die with duct tape across their mouth?'

Is this↑ rhetoric?
Either way, rhetorical or not, I'm curious: Who said it?

Originally posted by nixie_nox

It was the sheriff's office that didn't give it to the prosecutor, not the prosecuter failing to present it.

I am neither a prosecutor, nor a sheriff, so I don't know. I'm just asking......

Isn't it the prosecutors responsibility to ensure that they get ALL of the evidence from the sheriff?

reply to post by BrokenCircles

Either way, rhetorical or not, I'm curious: Who said it?

Said during the case by 'someone official'. Sorry but that's the best I'm going to do at the moment.

No wait, it isn't...

Casey Anthony Trial: Dr. G. testifies, says 'No child should have duct tape on its face'

link

I'll bring back more on this in a minute -

peace

reply to post by BrokenCircles

Does the prosecutor have the AUTHORITY to get all the evidence from the Sheriff's Department. Yes.
Does the prosecutor have the RESPONSIBILITY? Responsibility implies you can be held to account for your actions. The prosecutor has IMMUNITY for any actions the prosecutor takes or does not take. Therefore the prosecutor has no responsibility for anything. He can not be held to account for his actions as a prosecutor.

reply to post by silo13



Yeah, So What?

You say the orange county's sheriffs office failed to give up this information - I find that hard to believe after all the publicity this case has gotten along with all the other controversy. It would have been to prosecutors job to make sure they had all the info from the detectives.

If this is even remotely true then this is the reason why this was not considered as evidence - it's unprovable and amounts to no more than hear say. You would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury that she made those searches and that she made them with intent of malice. Since there was no evidence she made these searches it would not be admissible in court.

She walks even if she did make those searches. She can't be tried again for the same crime so it's a non issue.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

Does the prosecutor have the AUTHORITY to get all the evidence from the Sheriff's Department. Yes.
Does the prosecutor have the RESPONSIBILITY? Responsibility implies you can be held to account for your actions. The prosecutor has IMMUNITY for any actions the prosecutor takes or does not take. Therefore the prosecutor has no responsibility for anything. He can not be held to account for his actions as a prosecutor.

Are you a Prosecutor? or a Lawyer?

It just seems like it, due to the manner in which you did give relevant information, but did so while kinda tip-toeing around an actual answer.

Since you are going precisely 'by the book', then is it the Sheriff Department's legal responsibility to ensure that the Prosecutor did in fact collect every piece of available evidence and information? Should the Sheriff's Department be brought up on charges of obstructing justice?

The Prosecutor should be smart enough to double-check, and make sure that nothing was overlooked.



Apparently, her defense lawyers knew about this information.

"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."

www.cbsnews.com...