How technology will convict Casey Anthony
July 1st 2011
Casey Anthony: guilty or innocent? If guilty, 1st or 2nd degree murder; manslaughter; or aggravated child abuse? Life in prison or death row?
The above text is my current Facebook status. I posted it yesterday when the defense of Tot Mom Casey Anthony decided she would not take the stand and rested their case. I never expected anyone to defend Casey, but the vitriol of some of the comments surprised me.
- “So guilty, fry the bitch!”
- “Beheading in a public square with no hood”
I have not watched the trial in its entirety, but I have seen enough to know there is zero direct evidence to connect Casey to the killing of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Anthony. Like many criminal cases, the one against Casey is entirely circumstantial. The only thing the prosecution has proved is that she lied, and this conclusion was evident prior to the trial. Casey was previously charged with thirteen separate felonies for check fraud; she was convicted of six counts. Currently, the official charges against Casey are:
- First-degree murder
- Aggravated child abuse
- Aggravated manslaughter of a child
- 4 counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer
Given her history of dishonesty, she was guilty of lying to the police before she walked into the courtroom. Indeed, every analyst on television from psychologists to lawyers has called Casey a pathological liar. The word sociopath is tossed around as well. Despite her history of lying, despite her inappropriate behavior, despite her demeanor in the courtroom, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt for two reasons: I never want to believe a mother could kill her child; and I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. Isn’t that the tenet of our justice system?
Although I suspect Casey is guilty, I have tried to keep an open mind though I never believed defense attorney Jose Baez’s opening statement, “She [Caylee] drowned in her family’s swimming pool.” Baez also alleged that Casey’s father George helped her cover it up and that she didn’t tell anyone because she learned to keep secrets as a child as a result of her father molesting her. Providing an alternate theory of the crime is not an unusual defensive strategy; however, Baez’s theory shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. The only people who could testify to the events described by Baez were George, who denied them and Casey, who didn’t testify. Either Baez is an incompetent buffoon or a brilliant genius who has laid the grounds for an appeal due to ineffective counsel.
Putting aside Baez’s bizarre story, the most troubling piece of circumstantial evidence is the Internet search history on the Anthonys’ home computer. Words can reveal so much about someone’s thoughts. For example, my recent search history shows me Googling: “Zulu Mastiff TPLO Blog”; “How long does it take to heal from a TPLO surgery”; and “Family Reunion Award ideas.” You can clear your history and remove the cookies, but your computer still remembers your activity such as searching for the word chloroform 84 times as someone did on the Anthonys’ computer. Since no one saw Casey doing the searches, her mother Cindy chose to perjure herself on the stand. She stated when she searched for “chlorophyll” the word “chloroform” popped up. I don’t blame Cindy for lying; she is only trying to save her daughter’s life, but seriously … it popped up? 84 times? The prosecution wasted no time in calling rebuttal witnesses to prove that Cindy was at work during the time of the searches and that “pop-ups” could not have occurred the way she described them.
The only time I search for one word or phrase repeatedly is when I want in-depth knowledge on the subject or when I am looking for a website that I forgot to bookmark from a previous time. Out of curiosity, I Googled the word “chloroform” and the first entry was Wikipedia. Under the “As an Anesthetic” paragraph is this line, “Chloroform has been used by criminals to knock-out, daze, or even murder their victims.” So here’s my question … why 83 more searches? And why did someone—allegedly Casey—search the words “neck breaking”? The only logical explanation is that the person looking up that information is a mystery writer or a future killer. To date, no one in the Anthony home has claimed to be writing a novel.
Without the family computer’s Internet search history, I think there might be reasonable doubt. After all, the cause of Caylee’s death is undetermined. The timeline regarding Casey’s possession of her car is confusing and her parents have given conflicting statements regarding the odor they smelled in it. Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered Caylee’s remains, is just one of the several unreliable witnesses who testified. However, no one can deny those Internet searches. They exist. They cannot be disputed. They are real evidence … of someone’s thoughts, motivation, and plan of premeditated murder.
Casey Anthony killed her daughter Caylee. Technology has practically proved it, but without physical evidence connecting Casey to the crime, the jury should not sentence her to death. Instead, they should give Casey life in prison, which is a more appropriate and far worse punishment. Think about it.
- No more parties.
- No more drinking.
- No more boyfriends.
- No more fun.
Can you imagine Casey living among the general population? I’ve heard child killers are at the bottom of the prison totem pole.
If you want Casey to suffer for her crime, force her to live with it … every day … for the rest of her life.
AWW — XoXo
