Special K Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Ok, that is all pretty good evidence then. I didn't follow this trial that closely at all, but when the verdict came out I was someone who would have said I had reasonable doubt, based on what I heard at that time. I'm pretty sure that in this thread I said the same if you go back. IF this evidence had been presented to me then, I would have said she was guilty. Yeah, I'm about in the same boat as you. The chloroform searches on internet explorer were largely discounted because prosecutors couldn't PROVE who did the searches. Additionally, Cindy Anthony perjured herself on the stand by saying that she was the person who accidently conducted those searches when researching chlorophyll (even though she was still clocked in at work and wouldn't have been home at the time). If they had presented this evidence pretty much nailing Casey as the person who ran the searches (evidenced by logging into her myspace page immediately after the suffocation search), I think it would have been much easier to prove premeditation and a lot more difficult for the jury to find reasonable doubt (as it was, initial jury polling had 2 jurors voting guilty when they only had evidence of the chloroform searches to consider). I really need to just forget about the case and move on, but it was definitely a very emotional case that drew a lot of people in (me included). It's just very sad to hear about these new developmens now and knowing that they could have possibly changed the outcome of the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Maybe it's just me, but searching for something on the internet seems like pathetically circumstantial evidence for convicting someone of murder. Needing that to be the crux of your case means you have a weak case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm not sure how much of a difference this evidence would have made. Searches were done on the computer in the Casey household for "How to make chloroform", "making weapons out of household objects", "neck breaking" and "shovel" and the jury didn't convict her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 So now that this new **** has come to light, is there any going back?It looks like they pulled searches from IE, but IE wasn't the browser that she mainly used. Whoever did the investigation didn't look at Firefox. I dunno if anything in the IE searches was anything like this...but it'd be unbelievable that a jury couldn't connect the dots on a woman who killed her kid and a search like this. I mean if someone had searched how to set off a pipe bomb and then was on trial for setting off a pipe bomb... Well, considering that the computer was a shared computer, this "bombshell" isn't nearly as striking as it appears. They couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the one searching. As an aside, in the present, if you are searching for something that could damage your reputation/freedom at some point, wouldn't the average computer user just use private browsing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny555 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It's a MUTE point!! :ols: This drives me crazy, BUT..... (I'm a Believer). Whoever did it, will have serious consequences!! In Matthew 18:6 Jesus warns anyone that causes a child to lose their faith, it would be better to have a rock tied to their neck and be thrown into the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It's a MUTE point!!. Moot point!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Moot point!!!!!! :rotflmao: I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets annoyed by that. But as for the topic, I think this'll take an OJ turn. She got away with murder, she'll try to profit off of it somehow because she knows she can't be tried again, then she'll get busted for something completely unrelated and end up in jail anyway. Not what I would have preferred, but justice is a fickle mistress sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 In Matthew 18:6 Jesus warns anyone that causes a child to lose their faith, it would be better to have a rock tied to their neck and be thrown into the sea. Yeah, but what if you were thrown in too close to shore and the tide went out and you made it back to land? Then it's not so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yeah, but what if you were thrown in too close to shore and the tide went out and you made it back to land? Then it's not so bad. Time shall reveal that the preponderance of evidence will support this contention. Of that you can be sure. Or if you're thrown out to drown, and Moses happens to come along just in time to part the sea - then you're just out there taking your rock for a leisurely stroll.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny555 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Moot point!!!!!! Guess you didnt get the sarcasm and the :ols:?!? But who cares, it's a mute point again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I had completely forgotten that this person existed. Does this mean that we get to see Nancy Grace's nipple again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I had completely forgotten that this person existed.Does this mean that we get to see Nancy Grace's nipple again? Never saw it but I imagine it's the size of a dessert plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Guess you didnt get the sarcasm and the :ols:?!? But who cares, it's a mute point again! Oh sorry, I didn't see that you used the sarcasm font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.