[AppyPappy]

“Although the chloroform searches and the neck breaking searches look really bad.”

My understanding is that the jury was not shown conclusive evidence that Casey was doing the searches in order to kill the child. I believe the family said a pet was chloroformed.

[South40]

My understanding is that the jury was not shown conclusive evidence that Casey was doing the searches in order to kill the child. I believe the family said a pet was chloroformed.

You apparently missed the testimony that proved no one in the family could have done the searches; it was proved that no family member was home at the time of the searches. Casey was the only one home and not at work.

[Marie]

My understanding is that the jury was not shown conclusive evidence that Casey was doing the searches in order to kill the child. I believe the family said a pet was chloroformed.NO. The mother (Cindy) said that *she* was the one who did the search and that she was trying to type in 'chlorophyll' and accidentally got 'chloroform' in the automatic google suggestions. She said that she was searching 'chlorophyll' because she was concerned that eating grass was making her dogs sick.

The prosecution proved that she was lying and that she was, in fact, at work and using her work computer that day.

Casey was searching chloroform.

[mockingbyrd]

I believe the family said a pet was chloroformed. Cindy said that she was searching for chlorophyl due to the dogs acting odd, and chloroform came up (84 times?) Problem was, Cindy was proven to be at work at the time the searches occurred and Casey's texting activity indicated that she was at the home where the searches were occurring at the time they were occurring.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

No Appy, there was no chloroformed pet. Casey looked up how to make chloroform and neck breaking

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

No Appy, there was no chloroformed pet. Casey looked up how to make chloroform and neck breaking